Old Bailey Proceedings.
25th June 1906
Reference Number: t19060625

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
25th June 1906
Reference Numberf19060625

Related Material

1906, JUNE.

Vol. CXLV.] [Part 861.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]







On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, June 25th, 1906, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Bart., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BIGHAM , Knight, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOHN POUND , Bart., Sir DAVID EVANS , K.C.M.G., Sir HORATIO D. DAVIES , K.C.M.G., Sir WILLIAM P. TRELOAR , Sir JOHN KNILL , Bart., D. BURNETT , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON , Knight, K.C., Recorder 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.G., 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.

Sir HENRY GEORGE SMALLMAN , Knight, Alderman










OLD COURT; Monday, June 25.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

FRY, Henry Oliver (43), pleaded guilty at April (2) Sessions to unlawfully obtaining credit under false pretences. Prisoner having been in custody since May 3, he was now sentenced to eight weeks' imprisonment as from that date and was accordingly released.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-2
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

PHILLIPS, Harry, otherwise Alexander Cohen, otherwise Harry Davit (26, bookmaker), pleaded guilty to stealing a purse and other articles and the sum of £11 11s. 3d., the goods and moneys of Charles H. Williamson, from his person; also to having been convicted of felony, on October 11, 1899, at Newington Sessions, in the name of Alexander Cohen, and having been convicted of larceny, on March 18, 1902, at Otley, in the name of Harry Davis. Police spoke badly of prisoner, and stated that he was wanted by the Leeds police under a warrant dated January, 1904. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-3
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MATTHEWS, George (33, clerk), pleaded guilty to stealing six bathing dresses, value 14s., the goods of Samuel Hope Morley and others, and feloniously receiving same; also to a conviction at Clerkenwell Sessions on September 6, 1904, in the name of Arthur Sinclair, for obtaining property by false pretences. Police proved other convictions, and gave prisoner a very bad character. Sentence, Twenty months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-4
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

WILTSHIRE, Ernest James (22) , indicted for indecently assaulting Lily Sones, pleaded guilty to a common assault. Mr. J. P. Grain accepted this plea, and prisoner was released, in his own recognisances in £100, and his father's recognisances in £250, to come up for judgment if called upon.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-5
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

MOORE, John Henry David (17, shoemaker), pleaded guilty to stealing a watch, the property of his mother, Florence Helen Moore; also to a conviction at the Mansion House Justice Room, on February 16, 1906, of felony. Sentence, Six months' imprisonment.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-6
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ELLIS, Harry (36, clerk), pleaded guilty to obtaining by false pretences from William J. Dalley £10, from Albert Gibbons £10, and from Henry J. C. Hazell £10, with intent defraud; also to having been convicted on February 6, 1905, at this court, in the name of George Brodie, of felony. Several other convictions proved. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

TUFFERY, Alfred (56, picture-frame maker), pleaded guilty at May Sessions to maliciously publishing a defamatory libel, and to maliciously publishing a defamatory libel knowing the same to be false. Dr. Scott said he had had the prisoner under careful observation in Brixton Gaol; he was sane, but had a weak mind; he was quiet, and conducted himself well. Released on personal recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-8
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LANG, Ludwig Robert,(31, postman), pleaded guilty to stealing a post letter containing a postal order for 5a., 24 penny postage stamps, and 5s. in money, the goods and moneys of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office. (This was a first offence.) Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-9
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

HANCOCK, Avis (28, laundress), pleaded guilty to endeavouring, by a secret disposition of the dead body of her male child, to conceal the birth thereof. Sentence, One day's imprisonment.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-10
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SULLIVAN, Thomas (60, printer) , indicted for robbery with violence on Wilhelm Liesen, and t stealing from him a gold chain, pleaded guilty to the robbery, denying the violence; the plea was accepted by the prosecution. Many convictions proved against prisoner, dating back to 1674. Sentence, Five-years' penal servitude.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-11
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MEAGER, Frank (38, ship's steward), pleaded guilty to stealing on board the British ship "German," on the high seas, 1,031 bottles of beer, two jars of whisky, and other the goods of the Union-Castle Mail Steamship Company, Limited, his masters, and receiving same. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-12
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

COLLIER, Edward (25, painter) , stealing nine boots, property of the Midland Railway Company, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Bodkin prosecuted.

FREDERICK JAMES WALKHAM , a Midland Railway van-guard. On June 14 I was acting as van-guard to a driver named Grounds; I was standing on the tail-board, in Cannon-street; some parcels were lying near the tail-board. I heard a rustling behind me on the tail-board, and on turning round saw prisoner running along Cannon Street with a parcel in his hand. I called to Grounds to pull up, jumped down, and ran after prisoner. Before I got to the corner of Distaff Lane he came walking out behind a Carter Paterson's van, and I called out to Grounds to stop him. A stranger came up with the parcel, which he said he had found in the street; it was the parcel that had been on the van. Prisoner said, "It's all right, mate, you have got your parcel."

Cross-examined by prisoner. I saw you go into Distaff Lane with the parcel, and you came out of the lane without it. I do not know who the stranger is who gave me the parcel.

FREDERICK WALTER GROUNDS . I was driving the van. When Walkham called out I stopped, and saw him run down Distaff Lane. After an interval I saw-prisoner coming out of Distaff Lane, and running up Old Change. I ran after him and caught him in Watling Street. Then a man came up and gave us a parcel. The parcel produced is the one that was on my van. I called a policeman.

Cross-examined by Prisoner. You were running, not walking; we ran into each other just as you got into Watling Street. You did not say to me, "I know nothing about this parcel, I will come back to a policeman with you "; all you said was, "You have got your parcel."

WILLIAM FAREBROTHER , City Police, 147. Prisoner was given into my custody by last witness. Prisoner said to Walkham, "You have made a mistake this time, boy." Walkham said, "No, I saw you take the parcel from the van." I tasked prisoner if that was right; he said, "No, he did not see me take the parcel." In reply to the charge at the station, prisoner said, "If is all a mistake."

ALBERT HALL , salesman, London Shoe Company, identified parcel as one entrusted to the Midland Railway Company for delivery by his firm; value of the goods, £5 14s.

WALKHAM, recalled. To the Jury. I saw the face of the man who was running away with the parcel; he was the prisoner.

To Prisoner. I was looking into the van. I saw you take the parcel from the tail-board. I saw you as I turned round after the rustling.

PRISONER. It is all a mistake.

Verdict, Not guilty.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-13
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

BETTS, Frederick, pleaded guilty to maliciously writing and publishing certain false and defamatory libels of and concerning Alexander Betts. Released on personal recognisances in £100 to come up for judgment when called upon.

NEW COURT; Monday, June 25.

(Before the Common Serjeant)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-14
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

HARRIS, George (38, labourer), and GIBBS, William (28, labourer) ; feloniously making counterfeit coin and possessing with intent to utter same.

HENRY HOLFORD , sergeant, P Division. On May 20, at 10 a.m., I saw the two prisoners in High Street, Peckham, together. Harris handed something to Gibbs, and they went to 62, Tilson Road, Peckham. I watched the house till 12.30, when they left together and went down High Street and some other streets. I lost sight of them and returned to Tilson Road, where they returned at 3.30, entered the house, and went cut I then stopped them and said to Harris, "What have you got about you!"He said, "I have only got a few 'snide'"—that means counterfeit coin. He handed me three counterfeit shillings and said, "I am not going to walk about and starve" He was taken to the police-station and Gibbs was taken there by Detective Rowbottom. Two coins were found on Gibbs. Harris said, "I gave them to Gibbs." I then went to 62, Tilson Road and found in the first floor front room a jar of acid standing on the hob, the fire being alight, and in the acid a counterfeit shilling; a basin containing silver sand in liquid and a counterfeit shilling; under the grate some pieces of metal and on the sideboard copper wire, three pieces of zinc, two pieces of tin solder, part of a metal spoon, and a ladle [produced]. I showed these things to Harris, and he said they were a rough lot of tools to make dud stuff with (counterfeit coin). Gibbs said he occupied the room. Harris gave the address of 22, High Street, a common lodging-house. I handed the coins, metals, and liquid to Mr. John Phelps, assistant assayer at the Royal Mint.

Cross-examined by Harris. You gave your right address and I found nothing there.

JOHN ROWBOTTOM , detective, P Division. On May 28 I kept observation on 62, Tilson Road with the last witness. I arrested Gibbs and found the two counterfeit shillings produced. He pointed to Harris and said, "I got them from him."

ANNIE KEMP , 62, Tilson Road, Peckham. Gibbs lived with me at 62, Tilson Road. I hired the room and paid the rent of 3s. 6d. a week. I do not know Harris. He came once to the

house on the day of the arrest, May 28, at about half past two. He waited at the door. Gibbs went out with him, and they did not return. Gibbs brought in on that day some sand in a handkerchief as produced, and put it into a basin. I am out working a good deal, but on that day I was at home. When the constables came to search the room I was talking to the landlady. There was no fire that day. We had a fire the day before, Sunday, to do the cooking. The spoon, jar, and basin produced belong to me.

JOHN PHELPS , assistant assayer, Royal Mint. On June 1 I received seven shilling coins, metals, and liquid produced from Sergeant Holford. The seven shillings are counterfeit, made of the same materials and from the same mould, and are made of the metals produced, tin and antimony. The pieces of zinc are covered with a deposit of silver indicating that they have been dipped in silver-plating solution. They have been doubled for the purpose of suspending coins in the solution. Liquid produced is a silver-plating solution.

WILLIAM GIBBS , prisoner, on oath. On May 24 I met Harris at the "Bun House" beer-house, in High Street, Peckham. I afterwards met him in Commercial Road, and he asked me to do him a turn by minding some tools for him till Monday, and he would see me all right. He gave me the ladle, metals, zinc, and a bottle of spirits produced. He said they were plumbers' tools, and that he was a plumber, and to be careful with the spirits as it was rank poison. He said he was going to plate the handle-bar of a bicycle. I took them to 62, Tilson Road. I saw him in Hill Street on Monday, and he gave me the sand which I took home and put in the basin. He came to the house at about 2.30, and said he would call later in the day for the things. We had a drink at the "Sunny View" public-house, and he gave me 2s. I walked to the corner of the street and the detectives arrested us.

Cross-examined. The poison was in a wine bottle. I put it in the white jar produced. I do not know who put the shilling into it. It must have been in the bottle—it was all thick in the bottle. The other coin in the basin must have been in the sand. Harris told me to put the acid in a jar, and put it on the hob, as it gets stronger if the heat gets to it. I put the other things on the bird cage. The bits of metal had got swept into the ashes.

HARRIS, prisoner, not on oath. I met a man in Shoreditch two days before I was arrested, who gave me seven counterfeit shillings, and the things I gave Gibbs to mind, as I had nowhere to put them. I live in a lodging house.

Verdict, Guilty. Convictions against Harris, five years for coining and other convictions; Gibbs, 12 months for house-breaking; known about 10 years, never doing any work. Sentence,

Harris, seven years' penal servitude; Gibbs, three years' penal servitude.

OLD COURT; Tuesday, June 26.

(Before Mr. Justice Bigham.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-15
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

PARKER, Frederick (41, carman), pleaded guilty to feloniously throwing upon Harriet Parker a certain corrosive fluid, to wit, vitriol, with intent to burn and disfigure her and to do her some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Fordham prosecuted.

Prisoner having thrown the vitriol at prosecutrix, who is his sister, immediately went to the station and gave himself up. According to the statement of Detective-sergeant Tonbridge, prosecutrix had kept house for her brother for four years. Prisoner alleged that he had thrown the vitriol because she was in the habit of having disreputable persons in the house, but he could find no evidence of the truth of the statement. A young barman named Flood used to visit her occasionally, but he had been acquainted with prisoner for twelve years. Prisoner was licensed as an omnibus conductor from 1886 to 1888. From 1888 to 1905 he was licensed as a hackney carriage driver, and during that time 31 convictions had been recorded against him for misbehaviour, drunkenness, loitering, abuse, and so on, but has never been convicted on indictment. Since 1905 he has done little or no work, and invariably lost his employment through drunkenness. Prisoner alleged that the injured woman was the cause of his losing his license, but so far from that being the fact she had written two letters to the Commissioner pleading that he should be reinstated.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-16
VerdictGuilty > insane
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

DEVLIN, John (57, hawker) , murder of Agnes Hankers.

Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. Kershaw prosecuted; Mr. Fordham defended.

ALICE BALHAM , wife of Henry Balham, 20A, County Terrace Street, New Kent Road. At the beginning of June I rented a back room from prisoner, who occupied three rooms, a sitting-room, kitchen, and bedroom, with the deceased, who was known as Mrs. Devlin. I am a half-sister of prisoner, our mother being the same. On Friday, June 1, prisoner and deceased remained in bed all day, as was their habit when they were drinking. I saw them in bed at seven in the morning, when they appeared to be sober. I went out about eight o'clock. In the afternoon between three and four they were still in bed.

At five o'clock I made them some tea and cooked some eggs. Between seven and eight o'clock I got them a pint of ale, and I stayed with them till about 11.30., when I went to bed. They, then seemed on very good terms, and were not the worse for drink. My bedroom adjoins theirs, and there is a partition between the two. During the night I did not hear anything; at all. In the early morning I heard someone go out, I think, twice. I was used to them doing that. I did not get up till nine, and the going out might have been three hours earlier. When I got up I went into my brother's room, which was very dark, the blind being over the window. I said to my brother, "Do not you think it is time you were Up?" but did not get any answer. I looked at the bottom of the bed, and did not see my sister-in-law. I then went to the window, and having; pulled the blind aside I saw her lying down at the foot of the bed. I tried to rouse her, but could not. 'My brother was lying at the head of the bed. I called to him again, but he did not answer. I noticed that Mrs. Devlin was covered with a quantity of blood. I then ran out of the room and saw a neighbour, a Mrs. Tappitt. I next heard my brother calling "Alice," and went back into the room. My brother had got out of bed and had his shirt on. I said to him, "Get your clothes on. Let us bring somebody into the house and see what we can do." I asked him about it, and he made no answer then. He seemed very ill. I then went out accompanied by my brother, and saw a Mrs. Hines, who lives about four or five doors oil, and we all went back to the bedroom. The blind was taken down, and prisoner told Mrs. Hines he had murdered his wife with a chopper. He then asked Mrs. Hines to give him a penny to get half a pint of beer. She gave him a penny, and he went out. He said he had left upon the table the following note: "I have tried all ways to get an honest living, but I can't. She is a bad woman. I have give her all I can, but it done no good, and she has ruined (or marred) my life." I had never seen my brother's writing before. I did not know he could write. The chopper has been about for some time. Prisoner recently put a new handle to it. It was not kept in any particular place, but was in any one of the rooms.

Cross-examined. My name was Feneron before I. married. I had not seen my brother till about two years ago for the last twenty years and could not say whether his has been an unfortunate life. When I went to live with him he told me he had been in an asylum.

Mr. Fordham: Did you ever hear from, him or anybody that that was because he was using a chopper and attempting to injure himself and that he was mad at the time he did that?

Mr. Justice Bigham: That is scarcely satisfactory evidence; Certainly it would not be evidence in any Civil Court.

Mr. Fordham: My lord, in this case I am in considerable difficulty because I cannot call the person who took the charge at that time. The only way I can get it is by cross-examination as to what witnesses have heard, because I am not in a position to call the officials. Mr. Muir says he will let me have a police "occurrence" book, and no doubt the officer who produces that will be the better witness to cross-examine.

Witness. I had myself some trouble of the kind about three years ago and was sent away to the asylum at Hanwell, where I remained three months. I was Buffering from white leg and was very depressed. My age is 42. Prisoner's son William has been in an asylum nine yean. His age is 32. I think I have heard my brother say he would not take care of himself and used to neglect himself. I have not heard my brother spoken of as "Mad Jack," but I know he is nicknamed "Jack we Devil ". I had been living with my brother about nine months. When in drink he was very passionate. Both he and deceased used to drink very heavily. I think she was about 45. They were very fond of each other and he was jealous of her seeing other people. She occasionally upset him by saying she would leave him and used to nag him a lot. She did leave him three or four times and stayed away three weeks or a month. What she did at such times I do not know. When she threatened to leave him it appeared to upset his mind very much. So far as I know, there is no man of whom he had cause to be jealous. Prisoner and deceased often used to be in bed. When he was at work he was a licensed pedlar. I have a brother, James Feneron, who has been in an asylum at Salisbury many years. He was born with water on the brain. When I last saw prisoner and deceased there was no sign of there being any ill-feeling or quarrel between them; they seemed on the best of terms. I was sleeping on the other aide of the wall, but heard nothing during the night When I went into the room on the Saturday morning prisoner was lying on the bed with his face to the wall. I thought he was ill, because his face was very white and his eyes looked strange. It was after he had asked Mrs. Hines for a penny and had gone out to get some beer that he said, "I have left a note." I did not know he could write. Deceased could write and was "a good scholar." Prisoner has an adopted son, William Axford. of whom he is very fond, about 16 years old. My brother had kept him since he was about eight years of age. He ran away about eight or nine days previous to this occurrence. On Derby night my brother brought him home, but he ran away again next morning, leaving a note that he was going for a sailor.

Re-examined. The home was kept by the boy and my brother. The boy used to help my brother as a pedlar, and on Saturday deceased used to stand in the road with a stall. My brother

brought in most of the money for the home. Sometimes he would go out only three days a week. He sold fancy combs, brushes, and brooches from house to house. Sometimes he went away for miles. He always appeared to be right in his mind except when he was drinking. If he had any extra drink he used to lose his temper. He did not keep me as well. My husband supports) me. It is about 11 weeks since I had any money from my husband. For a month I went into St. George's Workhouse, and during the rest of the time my brother kept me. He was earning enough money to keep me as well. He never threatened to do me any harm. As to whether be ever threatened to do deceased any harm when they were quarrelling, he need to say he would smack her face, but I never took it seriously. So far as I could see, he went about like any ordinary sane person. My mother has been dead about 18 years. She was perfectly sane and was never in an asylum.

MRS. EMILY HINES gave corroborative evidence. Prisoner, she also said, was known in the neighbourhood as "Mad Jack." She could not give any reason for that. He always treated the woman well and was affectionate to her.

PHILIP GUTTRIDON , police-constable 47, M Reserve. On the morning of June 2, at quarter past, ten, I went to 20A, County Terrace Street and saw the deceased woman in a back bedroom. I sent for a doctor. I found the letter [produced] written in, pencil on a sheet of blue foolscap on the table in the front room. Prisoner was taken, to the station, and when charged said, "God Almighty, help me. I have had some trouble with that woman I have been and killed. Well, I suppose it is what I was born, for." The chopper was at the head of the bed. To Mr. Fordham. I was informed prisoner had gone out Some time after he came back of his own accord.

ALFRED NICHOLS , inspector, M Division. I went to the house about half-past ten and saw the dead body of the woman. I found the chopper produced. There was wet blood upon it and what appeared to be human hair. I afterwards, saw prisoner coming towards the house. I told him he would be charged with the murder of the woman. He said, "I was just going to show friends of mine what I had done and was then going to give myself up. I have had a terrible life for the last three months. I will go quiet." Whilst he was being searched at the station he said, "You do not know what a life I have had during the past three months with her."

Cross-examined. There is an entry in the "occurrence" book of April 3 1903, when prisoner was sent to the Horton Asylum. The "occurrence" book is a book kept at the station in which all occurrences are entered by the officer on duty. Prisoner was brought to the station, and, being deemed a lunatic, he was

taken to the workhouse, whence, at the end of three days, he was tent to the asylum by the justices. Complaint was made at the station by the lad Axford that his uncle, John Devlin, of 20A, County Terrace Street, New Kent Road, had been behaving in a violent manner and had threatened to cut his throat with a razor. The constable who went to the address found Devlin acting in a strange manner. He stated that his head was on fire and made several attempts to get at a chopper. He remained in the asylum, I believe, seven weeks. His son William was sent to Cane Hill Asylum at the age of 22, and is still an inmate. Prisoner's half-brother has been in the Fisherton Asylum at) Salisbury for seven years. A report handed to me concerning another brother shows that he is a very violent man, suffering from delusions. The report also shows that Mrs. Balham was at Hanwell in 1901 for a period of 10 months and she was there again in 1902 and 1903. Prisoner is known in the neighbourhood as "Mad Jack" and "Jack the Devil" in Tower Bridge Road and West Maldon Road, where the markets are held. I was present at the inquest. Prisoner was very cool and collected. After the inquest he asked the coroner as a favour to allow him to see the body. The coroner granted that wish, and when he saw the body he kissed it several times.

Re-examined by Mr. Muir. At the time he was brought to the station he was sober. He appeared to understand what was said to him and was very cool and the answers he gave were rational.

DR. JACQUET, medical officer, M Division. On June 2, at half-past ten a.m., I saw the deceased. She had been dead under two hours. Rigor mortis had not commenced. There were at least twelve wounds in the head-some incised, some contused, some inflicted by the sharp edge and some by the Back of the chopper. There were also wounds across the knuckles and on the right forearm, sustained probably in protecting her head. The bone of the skull was literally smashed into little pieces. I made a post-mortem examination and found all the organs healthy.

Cross-examined. Probably the first blow caused death; one of them would be fatal as she had an unusually thin skull. I have not before been called to cases where murders have been committed by lunatics.

DR. SCOTT, medical officer, Brixton Prison. At Brixton, and formerly at Holloway, I have had great experience of questions of the sanity or insanity of prisoners accused of crime. I have had prisoner under close observation since the evening of June 2 and have seen reports of his personal history. When received he was suffering from the effects of excessive drinking, but showed no signs of delirium tremens. I have not discovered

any insane delusions or other evidence of insanity. I say that while under my observation he was sane, nervous, and depressed, but not insane. As to his state of mind on June 2, I think he was then suffering from drinking, but I see no evidence of delirium tremens or that he was actually insane.

Cross-examined. Prisoner's family history is certainly bad as regards insanity. One meets with as bad or worse sometimes. As to whether in the case of a man in whose family history there is insanity mental depression acting upon him might cause delusion or insanity of short duration, I do not think it has been proved that his previous attack was more than a short attack of alcoholic insanity, or delirium tremens, possibly followed by depression. I admit that delirium tremens is insanity. It is sometimes the case with a man who has lost control of his actions and knowledge of the distinction between right and wrong that the commission of a crime brings him back to his senses, and an unnatural calm supervenes, and that might account for the fact of a man committing a crime under those conditions lying down to sleep beside the woman he had murdered.

Re-examined. That sort of condition occurs in acute manias and melancholia. Sometimes after the committal of a crime such persons immediately felt relief. Prisoner showed no signs of mania. He was depressed, but not to the extent of insane melancholia. As to the family history, there are not sufficient details to say exactly. I should say the son is probably de mented and the brother has delusional insanity and is violent at times. The insanity of the half-brother might result in acts of violence and then calmness, but so far as I can judge the son is less dangerous.

To Mr. Fordham. In the case of murders committed by lunatics, or men not in their senses at the time, it is frequently the case that a great deal more violence is used upon the body than is necessary to accomplish the actual death. Murder is not usually cold-blooded in these cases.

The jury found prisoner Guilty, but not in law responsible for his acts.

Sentence, Detention during His Majesty's pleasure.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-17
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

COOK, James . Manslaughter of Dorothy May Cook and Hilda Cook; the same on Coroner's inquisition.

Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. Kershaw prosecuted.

JOHN TROUTBECK , Coroner for the City of Westminster. I held an inquest on the body of Bertha May Cook, aged six years and nine months, as Coroner for the South-West District in Lambeth. Prisoner was present, and I produce my notes of his evidence which he signed as correct. The jury in that case returned a verdict of manslaughter. I warned prisoner as to

his duties to his children, and the consequences of neglect, as is shown by what he says in his answer. That was on May 7. On May 16 I held an inquest upon the body of Hilda Cook, the younger daughter, and produce my notes of his evidence on that occasion.

JAMES WALEY , baker, 12, Stannary Street, Kennington. I am a member of the Peculiar People and an elder.

To Prisoner. I think you did your duty to your children as a father to the very letter. In my opinion you are one of the kindest of men and your wife is one of the kindest of women.

DR. LUDWIG FREYBERGER , registered medical practitioner, 41, Regent's Park Road. Examined by Mr. Kershaw. By direction of the coroner on May 16 I made a post-mortem examination of the body of Hilda Cook, aged about 18 months. I found that the lower lobes of both lungs were solid from pneumonia, and that the bronchial tubes of both lungs were full of mucous and the upper lobes of the lung showed numerous airless patches in consequence of the collapse of the lung substance. The lymph glands in the chest and the neck were swollen and the mouth and throat were covered by a greyish stinking, smeary secretion. I came to the conclusion that the cause of death was pneumonia and bronchitis. I am of opinion that the pneumonia could have been relieved by medical attendance and life prolonged, and that there was a reasonable prospect of the child's recovery.

Prisoner. What was the foundation of your belief that the child would be restored?

Witness. Because the condition of the long I found is one which is generally present when people begin to recover from inflammation of the lungs.

Prisoner. There are hundreds die of this complaint, sometimes two or three in a family.

(Evidence for the defence.)

Mrs. GRACE COOK . Examined by prisoner. You have looked after me and my children, and have not neglected us in any shape or form. We have been treated in accordance with the Book, which is the Bible, which is our rule and guide according to our knowledge. Our children have been with you on the Lord's day to chapel when they have been well.

JAKES COOK , prisoner, on oath. That is the foundation of my Faith, my lord, and by that I stand or fall. I have proved God for myself. I was afflicted for five months with muscular rheumatism, so that I could not move hand or foot, but I and my brethren pleaded earnestly with the Lord according to His Book, and God has answered our prayers, and that to-day is the foundation of my Faith, and I am glad to say to-day that I am

a believer in the Book that you now ask me to kiss. That is my Rule and Guide, and I feel it a great honour, my lord, to attend and stand before you to declare such a truth. I have a clear conscience before God and man that I have really done my best to do my duty to my wife and to my children. For 20 years I have belonged to these people, and God has done some wonderful things on their behalf through the prayers of his people. He has told us to lay on hands in the name of the Lord. He has told us to call elders, and that I have done, and had He told me to call a doctor I should have called one, for I to-day am obedient to that Word, and it is on that, Word Istand. If I have broken the law I hope you will be merciful, as God is merciful. He is merciful, else I should not have been here; and that is all I have to say.

The jury found the prisoner guilty, and expressed a hope that he would be treated as mercifully as possible, as he had committed this crime owing to his religious belief, and they would like that to bear a certain amount of weight if it was allowable by law.

Prisoner. If I am wrong the Book is wrong. Mr. Justice Bigham, in passing sentence, said he found that prisoner was tried before him on November 5, 1898, in this Court, when both he and his wife were together indicted for the manslaughter of Ethel Grace Cook. The nature of the charge was the same as that which was laid against the prisoner to-day, which the jury by their verdict had found to be true. Prisoner on that occasion put forward exactly the same justification which he had attempted to put forward on this occasion. He was found guilty, but taking into consideration the circumstances of the case he discharged prisoner and his wife on their recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon. On that occasion, therefore, prisoner received no punishment at all, but received a warning which he no doubt hoped at that time he would take into consideration and amend his way by availing himself of the assistance which science has put reach in order to prevent misfortunes such as that which overtook his children in the case now before him. Prisoner had not taken that warning, but had obstinately persisted in the course which he mistakenly thought was the right course. He could not, therefore, now, notwithstanding the recommendation of the jury, again allow the prisoner to escape the punishment which in his opinion he merited, but he must go to prison for nine calendar months.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-18
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ROWLINGS, Rosa (54, married woman) ; feloniously wounding James Rowlings, her husband, with intent to kill and murder him and to do him some grievous bodily harm; Attempt ing to kill and murder herelf.

Mr. Fordham prosecuted.

ELIZA CHECKLEY , 79, Prince's Road, Notting Hill. My husband and I rent the house, and prisoner and her husband have been lodgers there for eight months. On June 17 I heard them jangling. I saw prisoner at 20 minutes to 11 outside her bed-room door. I think she was going out for liquor. She was not sober; she had had drink. When she returned she had a jug in her hand and went upstairs. At 20 minutes past 12 her husband came downstairs and asked me for a match. I went back with him and saw Mrs. Rowlings silting up in the bed with a razor in her hand and her throat cut. Blood was also running from her husband's throat. When I entered the room prisoner said, "Mrs. Checkley, come inside. You do not want to call no assistance." I said, "I will have assistance here and witnesses to prove it." She told me I was making too much fuss of the case. She said she had intended to end both their lives that night. In answer to that Rowlings never said a word. After that the police came.

JAMES ROWLINGS , husband of prisoner. We have been married thirty-six years. On June 17 we went to bed just before 11. We had had a few words. After I had gone to bed I found a little blood coming from my throat—that is all, and found my throat was cut It was both our faults. I do not blame her any more than myself. I went downstairs and spoke to the landlady.

Police-constable GARWOOD, 322 X. On the night of June 17, or morning of June 18, I was called to 79, Prince's Road. I found prisoner lying on the bed bleeding from the throat. The husband was standing in the room also bleeding from the throat. I sent for a doctor. Prisoner said, "We meant ending our lives to-night. I cut my throat and then cut my husband's, but he got frightened and ran downstairs." The man said, "I laid in bed, bat I do not know who done it." The woman handed me a razor with bloodstains on it. The woman had been drinking, but the man was sober.

Inspector WILLIAM STOCK , X Division. I went to the house on the morning of June 18, and in the front room saw both prisoner and her husband. Both were bleeding from wounds in the throat The man said his wife had done it while he was asleep. He said, "I felt my throat had been cat and tried to get a light but could not get one. The old woman done it with a razor while I was lying down asleep. I then went downstairs, called the landlady, Mrs. Checkley, and asked for a light." I then told Mrs. Rowlings I should arrest her for attempting to murder her husband by cutting his throat. She stated, "They call me dirty, but they do not know all. We scraped up all we could to pay this week's rent I had the razor in my hand; there is no use denying it. I shall not say any more at present only that we agreed to die together." At the station when the

charge was read, prisoner replied, "Yes" Blood was running down the man's chest out of his boots on to the floor. There was a lot of blood on the sheet and pillow, and I found a bloodstained razor.

DR. HERBERT H. WARREN , registered medical practitioner. On examining James Rowlings I found a wound in his neck about three inches long and nearly one inch deep over the jugular vein, which it had just missed. It was not serious, as no artery was severed. It had been caused by a razor. The woman had a scratch on her neck, nothing more than a scratch.

Prisoner, not on oath. I done it because I thought it would frighten him, because he had been calling me rather nasty names. I did not mean to hurt him.

JAMES ROWLINGS , recalled. To the judge. We have children. They are all out in the world. As to whether I had been calling my wife names that night, I could not answer for what I said. I was aggravated. I may have called her some names. I will not say nothing about that. I could not say that I did not call her names.

Mr. Justice Bigham. She says you aggravated her, and she wanted to frighten you.

Witness. That is all I believe it was. I know she had no intention of doing it. We never had any quarrel before.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawfully wounding.

Inspector STOCK, recalled. These people have been living in various houses in Nottingdale for the past 20 years, and in nearly every case they have had to leave through prisoner's intemperate habits. The husband 'some years ago was a teetotaller, but on account of his wife breaking out he also took to drink, and they have led a rather intemperate life for the last ten years, but have never been charged with any offence at far as I can find out. The man sometimes works for the Kensington Borough Council as scavenger, and the Church Army Organisation has helped him when he has been out of work. Prisoner, I am informed, drinks a lot of spirits at home; but does not go out into the street very much. The room was in a most deplorable condition with bugs 'and vermin. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

NEW COURT; Tuesday, June 26, (Before Mr. Recorder.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-20
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

RICKMAN, Frank (42, fishmonger), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Jane Cronk, his wife being then alive. Sentence, One month's hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-21
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

RUST, Emma, pleaded guilty to endeavouring by secret disposition of the dead body of her male child to conceal the birth thereof. Sentence, Two days' imprisonment.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-22
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ROULANTE, Maurice Augustin (22, waiter), and DE CROIX, Edward (25, painter) ; both breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Abel Bret, and stealing therein a purse and the sum of £16, a cigarette case, and other articles, his goods, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. H. F. Cornes prosecuted. Mr. Hardy defended De Croix. Roulante pleaded guilty.

ANNA BRET , wife of Abel Bret, 50. Burton Crescent. I know the prisoner De Croix through his sister. On June 8, 1906, he came to my house at 12 and stayed till 2.30 p.m. He called to see if a letter had come for him, as he told his mother to send letters to my address. He was in the kitchen. The goods stolen were in my bedroom close to the kitchen.

ELLIN KING , I, Crescent Place, Burton Crescent. At four p.m., on Jane 8, I was coming out of 50, Burton Crescent and prisoner asked me for Madame Bret and he walked upstairs. Roulante was walking up and down outside. As I returned at 4.15, De Croix walked past me. Mr. Bret was running after Roulante.

HENRY GARRARD , detective, E Division. At 10 a.m. on Sunday, June 10, I saw the prisoner in Beacon Street and told him I was a police-officer and should arrest him for being concerned with Roulante in breaking and entering the rooms of Abel Bret and robbing there from. He said, "Not me; it is a mistake. I have not been to Burton Crescent." I said, "The other man is in custody and he says you had £8 of the money." He said, "Not me." I said, "A young woman opened the street door and let you in and saw the other man inside. If she identifies you you will be charged." He said, "I went there at 12 o'clock, not after." He seemed to understand English fairly well.

THOMAS ALLEN , police-constable, 89 E. On June 8 I was in Burton Crescent and saw Roulante running away and a man running after him. I caught Roulante and he was charged and taken to the station.

ABEL BRET , 50, Burton Crescent, cook. On June 8 Roulante was in my room. He told me he had come to fetch a shirt. He was on his knees at a box open in the room. He pushed me on one side and ran away. I followed and had him arrested. I have seen De Croix on one occasion.

EDWARD DE CROIX (prisoner, on oath). I went to 50. Burton Crescent on June 8 to see if Madame Bret had a letter addressed to me. She asked me to come upstairs and I stayed with her in the kitchen till about quarter-past two. I went again a about

quarter-past three. On the omnibus I saw Roulante and asked him for a light.

Cross-examined. On the second occasion I simply went up stairs and knocked at the door; as Madame Bret was not in I walked away immediately.

MAURICE A. ROULANTE , prisoner, on oath. I have pleaded guilty to this charge. I was with another person, not De Croix. I met him on an omnibus; by a coincidence he was going to the house where I was going to steal I do not know the other man who stole with me. I met him one evening, in Tottenham Court Road. He spoke French. He told me he had had nothing to eat all day, and as I had several shillings with me I paid for some food for him in a cafe close by.

Cross-examined. De Croix asked me for a match on the omnibus, that is how I made his acquaintance.

Verdict, De Croix Not guilty.

SERGEANT ROBERTS, detective, Swansea Borough Police. Roulante was on November 21, 1905, at Cardiff Assizes, sentenced, under the name of Rumbolt, to three months' hard labour for stealing and receiving a bicycle, running consecutively with two former sentences of three months each. I gave evidence at, the trial, and identify the prisoner. He was in custody altogether nine months. I travelled from London to Swansea with him. I received him into custody.

Cross-examined. I have not made a mistake.

HENRY GARRAD , recalled. I produce papers and photograph relating to Rumbolt. According to the finger prints he is the prisoner. At the Cardiff Assizes I produced those papers, and he then admitted he was the man. I also produced them at the police court on his arrest for the present charge. He first denied he was the man. I then told him I should apply to the officer who had him in custody at Swansea, and he then said, "I will not give you any trouble. I admit being the man." Prisoner was then examined for personal marks.

ALBERT EDWARD PELLY , principal warder at Brixton Prison Prisoner admitted previous convictions to me on being brought to Brixton. I have now examined him for marks, and find they correspond. He also admitted to me downstairs that the photograph produced is himself.

Prisoner. I told him it was not me. I was not convicted at Swansea.

The Jury. We find the prisoner was the man Rumbolt. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour. Certified, for expulsion under Aliens Act.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-23
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FREDERICKSON, Maud (41, dressmaker), pleaded guilty to stealing the sum of £1, the moneys of John Wennen, her master; also to feloniously marrying Herbert Edward Ferry, her husband being then alive Sentence, Three months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-24
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WILLIAMS, John (35, bootmaker), and HENNESBERG Hyman (20, tailor), pleaded guilty to robbery on Henry Ham, and, stealing from him a watch and chain, two medals, a brooch, and the sum of 7s. 5 1/2 d. The following previous convictions were proved: William, June 21, 1900, at Central Criminal Court, robbery with violence, five years' penal servitude; 12 months at Winchester Assizes; and three convictions of three, 12, and 18 months. Hennesberg, 21 days' hard labour; six weeks at Worship Street. Sentence, Williams, 18 months' hard labour; Hennesberg, 10 months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-25
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LING, John (28, labourer), and JONES, William Robert, pleaded guilty to committing an act of gross indecency. Sentence, Ling, 12 months' hard labour; Jones, Three months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-26
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WEBB, Charles (28, no occupation), pleaded guilty to obtaining by false pretences from Oscar Mannheimer an order for the payment of £30, and from Watkin Valentine Wright an order for the payment of £35, with intent to defraud; in incurring a certain debt and liability to the amount of £55 to William Francis Rothon, did unlawfully obtain credit by means of fraud. Sentence, Eight months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-27
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BROMLEY, Sydney (26, coachman), pleaded guilty to stealing three postal orders for 4s., 5s., and 5s. respectively, the goods of Thomas Pewtriss, his master; and to forging and uttering an order for the payment of money, with intent to defraud; also to being convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on August 7, 1901. Sentence, Ten months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-28
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

ADES, Fanny Louise (20, servant), pleaded guilty to endeavouring, by a secret disposition of the dead body of her child, to conceal the birth thereof. Sentence, Two days' imprisonment.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-29
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

MUSGROVE, Isaac (29, labourer), and COLE, George (21, traveller), pleaded guilty to burglary in the dwelling-house of Fred Hiam and stealing therein the sum of 19s. 9d. and a quantity of knives and other articles, his moneys and goods, and feloniously receiving same. Musgrove pleaded guilty to a conviction of felony at Westminster on January 8; 1899 Cole pleaded guilty to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell on June 21, 1899. Sentence: Musgrove. Three years' penal servitude; Cole, four years' penal servitude.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-30
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SMITH, Charles (36, labourer), BEAL, Fred (34, scaffolder), GUEST, Edward (27, labourer), and FLOWERS, Joshua (28, stoker) ; robbery with violence on Charles Stephen Baker and stealing from him the sum of £2 8s.

Mr. D. W. Carr prosecuted.

Mr. Frampton defended Guest.

CHARLES STEPHEN BAKER , 7, Poplar Grove, New Maiden, engineer's assistant. On Tuesday, May 15, 1906, at ten minutes to 9, I was going to catch the 9.5 train from Twickenham and took the bypath across the fields. I met the four prisoners with two lurcher dogs. Prisoners came round me and Beal asked me for a drink. I said I had not any money for a drink. I had a bunch of keys and a penny—they could have that. Beal said, "Oh, that won't do." I said, "Has it gone nine o'clock?" Beal said, "Come, how about the, drink?" I said, "Will, I have only got my fare and half a crown." Beal put his arm round my neck so as not to let me pass. I said, "If you want a drink you must come to the next public and have one." With that the 2s. 6d. was snatched out of my hand. I tried to make a bolt. Beal put his arm round my neck again, his foot behind me, and tripped me up. I put my hand in my trousers pocket and rattled some silver. They pulled my arm up and my pocket was emptied. In the scrimmage for the money I made a bolt and got clear away. I had a large quantity of silver in my trousers' pocket, which I had collected, and they got £2 8s. from me in silver. I got into the Nursery Road, ran into a grocer's shop, and told a man what had happened. We walked towards Sunbury Police Station, met two police-officers on bicycles, and made a complaint. The police-officers went away. One of them returned and took me to a public-house, where I identified the four prisoners with the same two dogs. Beal was wearing a different hat.

Cross-examined by Smith. I first identified Beal and Guest, and I said to Smith, "I believe you are the other man." I Was in doubt about Flowers for a moment, but directly he stood up I identified him.

Cross-examined by Beal. I did not say I could not recognise three of the four men. Nothing was said about the dogs. I said I was robbed of between £2 and £3—I could not say till I had gone through my accounts. You were wearing a cap when I first met you, and had afterwards a bowler on. It seemed to me you had changed hats.

Cross-examined by Flowers. For the moment I did not recognise you in the public-house. I identified you in the public-house end at the station. I am absolutely certain you were one of the men.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. On May 15 it was not dark at 8.50 p.m. The dogs were about 20 yards in front of the men they went bounding away past me. I was very excited, but I took special note of the men while they were talking. There was a good deal of pushing about and hustling. I was not hurt. Beal could have killed me. I was in fear. I was expecting my throat to be cut. I was lying on Beal's arm I did not say that at the police-court. I put my hand in my trousers pocket and rattled the silver with the idea of saving £7 in gold I had in my waistcoat pocket. I was tipped over, and my arm naturally came out, and the money with it. It was about 20 minutes before I saw the men in the public-house.

Re-examined. I am absolutely certain prisoners are the four men.

WILLIAM GRAHAM . 2. Nursery Road. Sunbury, grocer's assistant. On May 15, at 8.25 p.m., I saw Smith, Beal, and Guest and another man in the public-house. Beal came to my shop with two dogs when prosecutor was in the shop. Prosecutor left and returned in about a quarter of an hour. He had a red mark on his neck. I do not identify Flowers.

Cross-examined by Beal. Prosecutor went towards the public-house when he left my shop. I did not know him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. My shop is three-quarters of a mile from Sunbury Railway Station. Prosecutor left to go to Halliford across the fields, which is about a mile. The spot where the outrage took place is 250 yards from my shop. It is a district where you frequently meet men roughly dressed like the prisoners. Beal could see prosecutor in my shop.

CHARLES HALE , Sunbury, farmer and nurseryman. On June 15, returning from Halliford, I met the four prisoners with two lurcher dogs. As I got to them I heard one say," That is a sovereign." Beal stopped me and asked me for a match. The others stepped towards me, looked in my face, and said, "Good night." Before that I met prosecutor outside the "Half Way House." He said, "Good night" and went towards Sunbury Station. The four prisoners went the same way. I knew all the prisoners before and they knew me.

Cross-examined by Flowers. I know you. Three years ago you married Mrs. Mullins, and I have seen you at various-places.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. Prosecutor is known in the district Flowers and Beal are known. Guest is well known. He is a flower-seller, and is about in the market everyday—an industrious man. I saw the prisoners about 8.45 going towards Halliford. I had seen prosecutor at about 20 to nine I met no one else. It is a very quiet district, and that thoroughfare is not used very much.

ALBERT KIDD , police-sergeant, 67 T. At 9.15 I received complaint from prosecutor, and, with another officer, I went towards Walton and found the prisoners with two dogs in the "Half Way House." Prosecutor arrived and identified Smith, Beal, and Quest immediately. Flowers he was in some doubt about, but afterwards identified him. He charged the four prisoners and I took them in custody to Sunbury. He said to Beal. "You have changed your cap." Beal was wearing a bowler, and I found cap produced in his pocket. I found nothing on Smith, on Beal 10s. in gold, 13s. in silver, and 2d. in bronze, some silver on Guest, and on Flowers some copper coins. They did not account for the money.

Cross-examined by Smith. You said you had been with your mate at Halliford Square and had only just come to this house.

Cross-examined by Beal. I came into the public-house with prosecutor and another officer. Smith was there. When we got to the station prosecutor went into the office with me and another officer.

Cross-examined by Flowers. I do not know how long you had been at the public-house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. The dogs were on the floor lying down in the bar of the public-house. I did not ask the prisoners where they got the money. A reservoir is being built near Sunbury, and a large number of men like prisoners are employed. It is not uncommon for men of that class to have lurcher dogs.

(Evidence for defence.)

JOSH. FLOWERS (prisoner, on oath). On May 14 I left Richmond looking for work, went to Eton, came to Windsor, and applied at the Great Western goods yard. I there saw Beal driving the engine. I had seen him the Christmas before and had paid 1s. for him. He borrowed 1s. off one of his males and paid it to me. He then paid for a drink and said, "You had better come and have some dinner with me." I went home with him and had some dinner. He went upstairs and fetched a sovereign out of his box. We went to the "Noah's Ark," where he changed his sovereign, paid for a quart of beer, and gave me 1st out of it I went home with him, had some tea, and slept there. Next morning we went to Staines by train and walked to Hampton Water Works, where Smith was working. We could not find Smith there and we went to Sunbury to find him, went to the "Jolly Gardeners," where we met Guest, and he pointed out Smith's sister and found Smith. We had a drink in the "Jolly Gardeners," where there was a row between Guest and a woman, and she hit Guest on the head with a quart. pot. and the landlord suggested we should go. This was about

25 past eight. We then crossed the footpath. We had the lurcher dogs with us. which belonged to Beal. On the footpath Guest and Beal were in from, I and Smith following 12 or 14 yards behind. Prosecutor came along. Guest knocked prosecutor down. Beal was the man that took the money away. I never had any of the money. When I got up to Beal I said, "What have you done?" He said. "I have only got a few shillings. I said, "I am going." He said, "If you go I will serve you as I was going to serve Mr. Baker if I had not found any money." I am innocent of this charge.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. I was represented before the magistrate by Mr. Williams, solicitor. I made no suggestion of this story at the police court. I did not tell the police-officer I was not there. Prosecutor is not saying the truth in saying I squeezed round him. I was 12 yards away. I made up my mind three weeks ago I would give evidence. I wrote and told Sergeant White I should make a confession. I have known Beal on and off for 12 or 13 years. I have not seen much of him. I do not know much about Smith. I have known Guest about two years by sight. I have been in his company at work. He was a navy at one time.

(Wednesday, June 27.)

Mr. Frampton. Having regard to what happened yesterday, Guest will withdraw his plea of Not guilty, and plead Guilty to robbery. I am told Beal desires to take a similar course. Beal and Guest were then found Guilty of robbery. Smith and Flowers were acquitted.

Beal pleaded guilty to being convicted of felony at Epsom Quarter Sessions on April 12, 1901, in the name of Frederick Saunders, and sentenced to three years' penal servitude. At that Sessions a number of other convictions were admitted, including three months, nine months, and 15 months for larceny and robbery with violence. Sentence. Beal, Three years' penal servitude; Guest, Twelve months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT; Tuesday, June 26.

(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-31
VerdictsGuilty > unknown

Related Material

MYERS, Joseph (38, no occupation) , within four months of bankruptcy disposing of goods; also transferring his premises, 34 High Street, Clapham, with intent to defraud creditors.

Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Arthur Gill and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Abel Thomas, K.C., and Mr. David defended.

FREDERICK CHARLES MACKRELL , office clerk to the Wandsworth County Court. I produce the file in the bankruptcy of Joseph Myers. The petition was filed on August 23, 1905, by the creditor, Mr. O'Neil. Receiving order on October 3, and on October 10 he was adjudged bankrupt. Statement of, affairs shows liabilities £6,576 19s. 8d., and assets 8s. The trustee was appointed on October 23, and public examination held on November 2. Adjourned to November 16. There is on the file an order of the Court dated December 19, directing the prosecution of the defendant for bankruptcy offences.

WILLIAM GEORGE STAPLETON . I am. a shorthand writer, and took down the public examination of the bankrupt on November 2, and I produce the transcript.

MR. REUEN THOMAS O'NEILL . I trade as William O'Neill, carpet merchant, Fell Street, City. I am a creditor of the bankrupt for the sum of £729, and I am the petitioning creditor. I produce the agreement of August 17, 1905, between Joseph Myers and Abel Myers. It it provided that the vendor agrees to sell and the purchaser to buy, No. 34, High Street, Clapham, fittings, utensils, stock-intrade, household furniture, and book debts of the business. The price fixed for lease and goodwill is £150, for fittings and fixtures £50, and book debts at 30 per cent, under their nominal value. I also produce an office copy of a bill of sale and affidavit attesting it. It purports to be signed by Joseph Myers. I first knew defendant about April, 1904, and at that time he was carrying on business as the Camden Town Furnishing Company in High Street, Camden Town. Between then and October, 1904, I supplied him with goods for which I have been paid. Between December, 1904, and May, 1905, I supplied him with goods at Camden Town for which I have not been paid, but I got bills. There was a bill for £41 5s. 6d. due in August, 1905; one for £8 6s. 1d., due September 13; one for £17 4s. 1d., due October 13, 1905; and none of those bills were paid. They were all in respect of Camden Town. In September, 1904, I saw him at Camden Town, and he said he was not doing very well at Camden Town and was looking out for another business. In March, 1905, I received a telephone message, and he called to see me with his brother David. They said they had come to select goods for the new shop they were opening at Clapham, and they selected goods to the value of £400, and those goods were delivered, and I received further orders from him down to July 24. On July 14 I received an order for carpets, a little over £100, but they were not to be delivered till August because he said just then trade was rather quiet, but they had good orders to deliver at the beginning of August. I produce a bundle of invoices of goods supplied at Clapham from March 30 to August 1, 1905. £600 worth of

goods were delivered at Clapham, for which I got bills. The balance up to £729 was for goods supplied at Camden Town None of the bills that he gave with regard to the goods supplied at Clapham were met. I received nothing at all in respect of the goods supplied at Clapham. When the bill for goods supplied to Camden Town was falling due on August 13 I wrote to defendant on August 8, reminding him of that bill. The defendant said he had no trace of the bill in his bill-book, and he told me on the telephone that he could not pay it unless he saw the bill. I wrote to him on the 12th enclosing the bill and he promised to send a cheque. I received a letter on August 14 and the cheque for £41 5s. 6d., post-dated to the 19th. drawn on the London and County Bank, Clapham. I paid it in, and it came back marked, "Refer to drawer." I went with my solicitor to see the defendant at Clapham, but did not succeed in seeing him. In consequence of what I heard I went to the office of Mr. Lewis, the solicitor, in Chancery Lane. I did not know that the Camden Town business had been disposed of, and he never told me it had. I did not become aware that the business at Clapham was disposed of until I called at the solicitor's office. I did not become aware that the Camden Town business was disposed of until some time after March, and, indeed, I have never received any official information from defendant to that effect. I did not know till some date considerably after August. I attended a meeting of the principal creditors on August 22, and the next day, in consequence of a resolution, I filed the petition. I recognise the samples of linoleum produced supplied to the defendant at Clapham. They are Nos. 116 and 228 in the invoice of March 30. The price of the linoleum was 1s. 7 1/2 d. square yard, both the same, which works out at £4 14s. 3d. for 58 square yards. The defendant never made any complaint to me in regard to any of the linoleum I supplied to him, and he never asked me to take it back, and he never informed me that he had sold it at an auction sale at a low value. If any customer finds his goods are not saleable we are always willing to take them back and exchange them for other goods, but no such request was made to me in regard to the goods supplied. On July 4, 1905, the defendant was buying linoleum of me. On February 16 I went with Sergeant Macpherson to 34, High Street, Clapham, and I found a quantity of linoleum which I could identify as goods supplied by us. I identified £64 worth. I had not time to make a full examination of the whole. On the 22nd I went and examined carpets. and I made a list of the carpets which I identified to the value of £133 13s. 7d. Those are carpets which I supplied and were no paid for. A lot of these carpets which I identified had been supplied by me on July 14. They were the same sort of carpets. as he had asked me to supply on July 14.

Cross-examined. All the defendant's payments were by bill When he first began to trade with me he gave me bills, and he met them for a few transactions, about £250 worth. That had been going on for nearly a year. I was very glad to do business with him, and I knew he was going to take this other business at Clapham. Our traveller solicited orders from him in the ordinary way of business. My brother was our traveller, and he told me that defendant was coming to buy goods from me The pattern of linoleum to which I have referred is very saleable—in fact, we cannot get enough of it; it conies from Germany. Other firms also get the same pattern from Germany, with the, same number on it. Mr. Roche deals in this at 1s. 3d., but it is of a lower quality and a similar pattern. Mine is what is known as second gauge, and the quality of the 1s. 3d. is third gauge. I sell both, but the 1s. 3d. was not on the market when I supplied this linoleum to the defendant. There are other sellers of linoleum who have the same pattern. The present price is 1s. 6d. There was a very strong belief, in the trade in the autumn of last year that there was going to be a heavy rise in price, and it has been realised. I told that to the defendant and we pointed out that it would be to his advantage to stock carpets largely. Those are the instructions we give to our travellers when prices are going up. As a fact, my brother did bring the defendant down to our business premises to buy that large lot of carpets. I cannot admit that my brother or I suggested the defendant taking much more than he did; we simply showed him the stuff, and left it to his discretion. We simply showed him the stuff, and told him the prices were going up, and left it to him to order what he wanted. If he had ordered £200 worth instead of £100 we should have been very pleased at that time.

Re-examined. We opened the account with the defendant from Camden Town in April, 1904, and from that time until April, 1905, the total amount was £250 but of that sum £130 and the rest of I was never paid. To that £130 is to be added the £600 worth of goods supplied between the end of March and August, 1905.

HARRY E. HADFIELD , carman to Charles Garwood. On March 30 I delivered nine rolls of the linoleum to defendant's premises in Clapham Road from O'Neill's warehouse in Watling Street.

TIMOTHY GEORGE PEARCE , manager to Messrs. R. Howland, chair manufacturers, 17, Denmark Street, High Wycombe. In April, 1905. my firm had a stand at the Furniture Exhibition at the Agricultural Hall, and the defendant came and bought practically the whole of the stand; he only omitted eight chairs. There was sent with the things when they were forwarded

an invoice showing the total value of the articles purchased to, be £258 15s. 6d. and all the articles were delivered at 34, High Street. Clapham. In the invoice there is an oak suite covered in moquette, comprising four small chairs, two arm chairs and settee, and then there was an additional couch. The seven pieces were priced at £7, and the couch at £2 12s. 6d. The catalogue of Mr. Elsdon's sale on July 14, Lot 66. is seven pieces of ditto, in moquette. There is another suite on the Second page of the invoice, one dark crimson stamped leverine, nine pieces, £7 10s., No. 75. In the catalogue there was a description which tallies with that No. 75 suite—seven pieces, oak: ditto set of six small and two armchairs in red leathers; Lot 65. In the invoice there are four music stools, oak, at 18s., carried out at £3 12s. In the catalogue there is No. 75, two oak music stools, and the description is the same as the goods supplied under the invoice, except that there are two instead of four. Music stools made in oak are uncommon. With regard to the payment of these goods, they were to be paid for by the defendant by means of bills, splitting the payment into three. The firs is dated April 27. 1905, at six months, the second dated June 28, 1905, at six months, and there was a third bill for the balance. None of them were paid at maturity, and I have not had any money for the goods which are mentioned in the invoice.

Cross-examined. I may have sold some of the things in the exhibit half a dozen times in the exhibition. We had known the defendant some four or five years before and we have had many transactions with him. We have sold him a great many hundreds of pounds worth of goods. He has been a customer ever since 1898. Dozens of other manfacturers manufacture moquette suites. There are a great many suites in London which would fill the description of Lot 66 in the catalogue; seven pieces of oak, six small, and two arm chairs in moquette.

HAROLD TALBOT ELSDON , auctioneer. 171, Railway Approach, Shepherds Bush. It was in July, 1905, that I first saw the defendant. He came to my premises and said he had taken over Hawkey's business at Clapham, and there was surplus furniture he wished me to sell by auction which he had not been able to sell at his sale. I said that at the present time I was so full of stuff it would be better if he had a sale on his own premises. He told me that he had had a sale, and that this was the surplus he had over which was unsaleable. I said if I took them in he would have to sell them without reserve, to which he agreed. I received a letter from him and a list. The list opens with one eight piece dining-room suite in fumed oak. Later on there is a seven piece dining-room suite in moquette, and lower down two music stools in oak, and lower down five rolls of linoleum of various patterns. I sent a van for the purpose of receiving

the goods from his premises. I produce the catalogue of sale on July 14. Lots 77 to 81 are the linoleum. Lots 82 to 91 did not come. Mr. Myers was present at the sale, and did his own buying in; he bought in goods amounting to £13 12s. 6d. The goods which he forwarded to me for sale realised £63 12s. 6d., gross, of which £57 5s. was sent to Mr. Myers after deducting expenses of sale and the £13 12s. 6d. That brings it down to about £44. The things were sold at fair prices. Lot 65 was sold for £4; six small chairs and two arm chairs in red leather. Lot 66, seven pieces sold for £3 15s. Lot 75, two oak music stools, sold at 138. for the two. Oak music stools are very common. Lot 81, 50 yards of linoleum, realised £2 15s. Lots 77 to 80 Mr. Myers bought in, and they were left on the premises, but they were afterwards sold. He instructed me by letter to sell the unsold lots in the next Friay's sale, and they were sold on July 21. Mr. Myers, did not attend on that day, and nothing was brought in. They realised gross £10 17s. and £9 6s. net. after expenses were deducted. The proceeds of the two sales were remitted to Mr. Myers by my own cheques. The majority of the goods were new goods, but they certainly gave me the impression of being old stock, shop soiled; and some of them were second-hand; but I have no remembrance of any particular lot.

Cross-examined. I have had 20 years' experience, and it is a very common occurrence with furniture dealers to sell old stock like that, and the same thing applies even with new stock which is unsaleable. These were not spring-stuffed goods; they were only pin-cushion seats, thin padded seats, not thick upholstering. This sale was in July, not the busiest time of the year. You may safely say that many thousands of suites would be described in the same way. Music stools in oak are very common. I saw nothing at all unusual in what was taking place. On July 14 defendant had a cheque on account for £40, and on July 17 the balance £2, and on July 26 a cheque £9 6s.

Re-examined. I should not have sold if I had thought they had been got rid of fraudulently. If a man brought stuff to me and told me that he had acquired it within a week of his bringing it to me, and had not paid for it, I certainly would not sell it. I would refuse to sell.

JACOB PIEROTTA , baker, 52. St Ann's Road, Notting Hill I attended Mr. Elsdon's auction rooms on July 14 and bought a roll of linoleum. Exhibit No. 20 is the green sample of the linoleum I bought, for which I paid £2 15s. The other sample produced is the red sample, which I identify as being put up for sale. I did not buy it, but I saw it there.

Cross-examined. I did not see the red linoleum for many minutes. I examined it before the sale for two or three minutes. I know it was something similar to that. I have got

the thing at home now. I gave the pattern to the detective yesterday. I have got some odd pieces that I had left over after laying it in the room. I have got it in the shop and parlour and passage. I bought it for 50 yards, but I have not measured it. I have not used it all. I have 10 or 12 yards over.

HENRY JOHN SWIFT , bedding manufacturer, trading at 7 to 16, Henson Street, Old Street. In March, 1905, I called at 34, High Street. Clapham, in consequence of a request from Joseph Myers, and I saw him there, when he gave me an order for bedding, which I supplied to the amount of £67, but for which I did not receive any payment. I called at his premises in July, and be said. "Call in August." It was August 15 that I called, and I asked him for a cheque, and he said he was a bit short and he gave me a post-dated cheque for the next Monday, the 21st, for £41 4s. I kept it till the following Monday and paid it into the bank, but it was dishonoured. In March of this year I went to 34, High Street, Clapham, with Police-sergeant Macpberson, and I recognised on the premises some goods which I had manufactured and sent in. The exhibit produced is the invoice relating to the supply of those articles on that day.

Cross-examined. I have known the defendant for some years and have had many transactions with him, and up to this one he has always paid me. In previous transactions he has given me post-dated cheques which were met. The last lot of goods was sent on July 27, value £8 19s. 9d. My call in July was to get a cheque. I could not say whether I offered him goods at that interview. I have dealt with him since he first came to London and always found him a respectable man. (To Mr. Mathews.) The total amount owing to my firm is £67 7s. 3d.

(Wednesday, June 27, 1906.)

WILLIAM SANBROWN . traveller, in the employ of Messrs. Howland, furniture manufacturers, High Wycombe. I took the order for the goods at the stand at the Agricultural Hall exhibition given by Joseph Myers. After his bankruptcy I saw at Elsdon's retail shop, at about the end of August, two suites which I recognised as being on the stand at the Agricultural Hall in April. In the invoice of the goods sold, for which I took the order, there was a seven-piece suite in moquette sold for £7. I saw that suite at Elsdon's retail shop, and I questioned the manager about it.

Cross-examined. Howland's are large manufacturers, and they keep two or three travellers. That is the very suite of that kind that I sold personally. It is an unusual make. Tens of dozens of these suites have not been made by us. It was a

brand new pattern, the first one made. I was in court while Pearse gave evidence yesterday, and I mentioned the matter. I was interested in the case, and I thought would come and hear it. I cannot give you the exact date when I saw the suite at Elsdon's, but it was the end of August or the beginning of September, and I wondered where he got it from. I could recognise the stuff.

To Mr. Gill. The photo produced (108) is the suite that I saw. I recognised it by the character of the back, the three splats and the inlaying of the pewter and the black. I recognise the stuff, it was manufactured by Leicester's. I have not seen an imitation of that suite made. It is a medium-priced suite, not a cheap suite. I was interested in the case, as I introduced the order, and I thought I would like to hear how it was going on, and I made a statement.

ROSE MAT SIMMONS , clerk to G. Butler, hardware manufacturer, 34 Arch, Great Suffolk Street, Southwark. The letter produced was written by Mr. Butler to Joseph Myers on August 10, and I posted it. It asks for a cheque. The account was enclosed for £56 8s. 6d. The goods referred to have never been paid for. On August 11 Butler wrote another letter to defendant. We received a post-dated cheque dated August 21 drawn by defendant for £50. It was returned, "Refer to drawer."

JOHN J. BOSSON , assistant to Mr. G. Butler, 34, Suffolk Street, Southwark. It is part of my business to send in goods and invoice for delivery. Exhibit 58A is an invoice sent in by me to defendant April 14, 1905, for fenders £7 6s. I produce another invoice of July 26, 1905, for £26 9s. 9d., and an invoice of July 28 for £28 8s. 9d. The goods were all consigned to the Clapham business. On March 16, 1906, I went to 34, High Street, Clapham, and I recognised £30 worth of fenders by private marks and numbers and patterns. I identified the lenders in invoice of April 14 to the value of £1 16s., and some other articles in the invoice of July 26, and nearly all the articles in that of July 28.

WILLIAM JACOB DIAMOND , over-mantel manufacturer, 10, New Inn Yard. Examined. I am a creditor for £230 in defendant's bankruptcy. I met him at the Furniture Exhibition in April of last year, and received an order from him for over-mantels, sideboards, hall-stands, and dinner-wagons. I produced three invoices for goods supplied to Myers at 34, High Street. The total value of the goods supplied between April and August at Clapham was about £230. I have not been paid one penny for the goods sent to Clapham, and went to 34, High Street, on February 21 in this year, and identified some of the goods in these invoices which I marked on the invoices: four-feet dinnerwagon, dining-room over-mantel, fumed over-mantel, cupboard,

fumed over-mantel, walnut over-mantel, four plain tables, three ditto, five ditto, six moulded tables, five ditto, two ditto, two ditto, and various other articles.

Cross-examined. I had known defendant for years, and had many transactions with him. On July 26 I received a cheque from him for £62 12s. dated August 10, which was met—that was for Camden Town. I would not credit a man unless I thought well of him and until I had made thorough inquiries about him.

WILLIAM HENRY GEORGE . clerk to Messrs. Brash, Wheeler, and Chambers, 16, Paternoster Row. I produce original of writ of August 18, 1905, against Joseph Myers at the suit of Mr. Hawkins, trading as Poole and Co. for £75 2s. 7d. for advertising work. The total is £168. and credit is given for two sums and balance, £75 2s. 7d. I served the writ on August 18. 1905.

Cross-examined. On May 1, 1905, there was a payment of £43 13s. and payment on June 13 of £50.

JOHN STANLEY , clerk to Brash and Co. I produce a letter typed by me and signed by a member of the firm, sent to defendant on August 16 demanding payment of account on behalf of Poole and Co.

GEORGE PERRY , office boy, Brash and Co. I posted the letter written by Stanley.

ALFRED WILLIAMS , managing clerk to Ridley, Whitby, and Co., floor-cloth manufacturers, 46, Newgate Street. We are creditors in the bankruptcy for £210. In August, 1905, there was a balance due to us, and on the 15th we wrote demanding payment. The balance was not paid, and we issued a writ on August 23, 1905, against defendant for £45 11s. 9d.

Cross-examined. We had heard on August 23 that there was a bill of sale registered, and immediately issued the writ. We have dealt with defendant for four years, and up to 1905 we had been paid everything. We thought fairly well of him. Our terms of credit are monthly. Goods up to the 19th of one month are payable on the 10th of the month following, with the exception of some items in which he was entitled to three months' credit.

ARNOLD KING . clerk in National Provincial Bank. Defendant had an account with our bank. I produce certified copy of the account between July 1, 1905. and August 14. The account was closed on August 14. On August 4 there was a debit balance of £3 10s. 6d. It was overdrawn. On August 12 there was a payment fn of £3 15s. 6d. On August 14 there was a credit balance of 5s. I produce a list of cheques dishonoured between August and January, 1906. There is a bill returned on August 25, and a series of 15 other bills returned, either marked "Account closed" or "Refer to acceptor."

EDWARD DOCKRER , London and County Bank, Clapham Road, examined. Defendant had an account with our bank. I produce a copy from July 1, 1905. On August 16 the credit was £33 8s. On August 21 £33 was drawn out, leaving 8s., which the trustee took. We have a book showing unpaid cheques and bills. I produce a copy of an extract from that book. It shows a cheque to O'Neill on August 21 unpaid, £41 5s. 6d.; ditto cheque 19th, cheque to Butler 21st, £50, dishonoured on 21st; Hurd, £17 4s. 3d., dated 21st, but received 19th.

JOHN BAKER , of Baker, Sutton, and Co., 2 and 3, Eldon Street, chartered accountants. In March, 1905, I was trustee in bankruptcy of G. C. Hawkey, upholsterer, 34, High Street, Clapham, and I sold the business to defendant on March 23, 1905. for £1,800. The value of the stock at cost price was £1,600. I was appointed trustee in defendant's bankruptcy on October 23. In the statement of affairs signed by defendant the liabilities are £6,570 19s. 8d., distributed among 99 creditors unsecured. The assets are: Cash 8s. and a debt of £1,400 due to defendant by his father, but irrecoverable. The deficiency is £6,570 11s. 8d. Of the liabilities, £935 4s. 11d. was in regard to the Camden Town business, and £5,635 14s. 9d. was the Clapham business. Of the latter sum £3,803 8s. 4d. was for goods supplied on credit In the deficiency account there is £1,000 for personal expenses—by loss on bills accepted £700, estimated loss on purchase of Clapham business £1,000, on trading at Clapham £500, on sale of business £700, on racing speculations £1,770 11s. 8d., on money borrowed £200, on goods sold by auction £200, on purchase of unsaleable goods £500—total, £6,570 11s. 8d. The sales for credit amounted to £813; there were no bad debts.

SAMUEL EASTMAN SHEMBRIDGE , outdoor officer to the Official Receiver in Bankruptcy. On October 41 served defendant with notice to attend the Official Receiver's office. On the next day he brought his pass-book and journal, and on the 10th he brought letters and invoices, and on the 15th he brought the memorandum both with regard to bills and more pass-books. The above were handed to Mr. Parker.

JOHN BAKER , recalled. Since my appointment as trustee no payment has been made to me or any other property disclosed by defendant. Among the letters I received from the Official Receiver were letters to defendant from Suidjah and Co., of April 7, 1905; from H. Myer and Co., of June 2; from Clark and Co., July 3; H. Chapman and Co., July 5; W. A. Hudson, August 3; "Kentish District Times" August 4; Brooksbank, August 15, all pressing defendant for payment.

Cross-examined. The first writ served on defendant was June 18. The deficiency account is the defendant's account, not mine. I cannot say whether it is put in as true or untrue.

I believe Hawkey had been there for several years, and he probably lost money continually there. The receiving order in his bankruptcy was February 17, 1905, and I was appointed trustee on March 15. I carried it on till completion of purchase, which I think was March 28. The shop was open while the Official Receiver and myself were in possession, but we did not buy new goods, and I do not think the best goods had gone when the sale to defendant was made. The goodwill and the stock were not separated in the sale to defendant, it was an "all-at," price £1,800. It was estimated by committee and myself that there was £800 of stock. The balance was for lease and goodwill. The business was sold under the order of Court for £1,300, but we did not separately value it. There were £1,900 worth of goods at invoice price left in March of this year, and the whole thing sold for £1,300. I do not think the goodwill was worth very much. When the sale to defendant took place the committee of inspection and myself sat in one room and he was outside. We told him that we had a better price than his offer from Mr. Porter. We told him we had other bids. I cannot say whether Porter's name was mentioned and I cannot remember the best bid. We were sellers at that time and naturally anxious to obtain the best price for Hawkey and I think we got a very good price. The defendant saw the business for himself. There was a stocktaking in March, 1906. by Arber, Rutter, Waghorn, and Brown, but I have not the inventory here. They brought it out £1,990 stock only. I do not personally believe he lost the money at the races. I should not be surprised if he did not go there. In fact, I do not think the money was lost there. According to his employers, he was about the house all the time. We did call witnesses to show that he was about the house on August 25 and 26 and September 1 and 2 and was not at the races at all. The suggestion about the sale by auction was that he sold goods for less than cost price of the goods. (The paying-in slip of Elsdon's cheque produced.)

Re-examined. Hawkey had been carrying on business for 17 years on these premises. At that time the lease was treated as of value, and there was an advance on it which I had to pay oft. At that time the business was regarded as one with a goodwill of value. The suggestion that misrepresentations were made to defendant has no foundation. I got the best price I could for the business, and defendant had been acquainted with the business. I was merely the trustee, getting the best I could for Hawkeys creditors. Defendant had an opportunity of seeing the stock and of judging of the value of the business. I should say the fact of two bankruptcies would affect the goodwill Defendant failed in very exceptional circumstances, which were well known in the locality. He was publicly examined

in November, and the shop had a bad name. Arber and Co.'s stocktaking of £1,990 was on the invoice prices; the value was considerably less. I have had nothing to do with the conduct of these proceedings; they are in the hands of the Treasury.

To the Jury. When the sale to defendant took place the way we looked at it was that there was stock on the premises worth £800, and we thought the lease and goodwill worth about £1,600. It was a valuable lease, Hawkey got £400 on it.

(Evidence for the defence.)

JOHN THOMAS LEWIS , solicitor, 54, Chancery Lane. In August last I had known defendant for about nine months or a year. I also knew Abel Meyers. He is a pawnbroker, carrying on business at Abersychan, Monmouthshire. I knew him for 12 or 15 months. I had acted for a firm in Glamorgan in an action which Abel was defending on the part of his father. Abel and Joseph came to consult me in Chancery Lane in August last. I had acted for Joseph in the sale of the Camden Town business to David. They came together on August 11 and one of them said Joseph was going to sell the business at Clapham to Abel, and Abel explained to me that he had already guaranteed some bills of Joseph to the trustee of Hawkey, from whom he had purchased the business, and he said his liability amounted to £750. He explained that that £750 would be deducted out of the purchase money and wanted to know if that transaction would be right I saw Abel on August 17. I took the opinion of counsel on the 12th. They came to an arrangement which was embodied in an agreement of August 17, 1905. It was arranged between the brothers that a valuation should be made, and payment on the basis of it and a provision for bills to meet sums beyond those agreed to be paid in cash. That payment was made in my office on the 17th. I believe £500 was paid in gold and £250 by cheque. It is endorsed on my draft. The cheque produced purports to be drawn by Abel Meyers in favour of Joseph. The body of the cheque is filled in by me. The next night I left for my vacation. I gave instructions for the bill of sale. I instructed them to get the valuation, as it was impossible for the bill of sale to be drawn till the valuation was obtained. As I was going away, I instructed my clerk to prepare an absolute bill of sale, and I explained that it was necessary, as it was intended that Joseph should remain on the premises. The valuation was brought back and the bill of sale signed. I examined critically all the circumstances and made every inquiry. I considered the possibility of bankruptcy, and I explained that any bargain between two persons could never be set aside except in bankruptcy.

When they asked if it would be all right, I said the only person who could say it was not right was a possible trustee in bankruptcy.

Cross-examined. I was informed that Abel had guaranteed the bills for £750 in payment of Hawkey's business in preceding March. I was not told that Abel received consideration for incurring the risk. I knew nothing about giving a bill for £100, of which £50 had been paid. It would be an important question whether defendant was solvent at that time if £750 was taken as part of the purchase money. If Joseph was insolvent Abel would have to pay the bill and prove in bankruptcy. I put the question to defendant whether he was solvent, and he said that his credit was perfectly good. He said if the deed was registered his creditors would know it, and if they pressed him together he was afraid he would not be able to meet them. He did not tell me he was liable for £7,320, and that all he had got was this business and £33 in the bank. I first knew what the valuation was in September. I told them that the only question that could arise was whether this was a fraudulent preference or an act of bankruptcy and I took counsel's opinion.

JOSEPH MYERS (prisoner, on oath). I am a house furnisher. Up to five or six years ago I was a pawnbroker for 10 years at Newport, Mon. My father and family have lived there for many years. I came to London in 1900 or 1901 and opened business in Camden Town. I had £400 or £500 in ready money. It was a hire-purchase trade, and I continued with that business till April, 1905. when I sold that business to my brother David. I heard of the Clapham business from various sources, and they all advised me to buy it. I did not go to look at it; I knew it. The premises had a good, fine commanding appearance. Mr. Howland took me to Mr. Baker, trustee in Hawkey's bankruptcy. On March 23 I went for final negotiations. Mr. Baker and the Committee of Inspection were in a room and I was outside. I made an offer, and they said someone else was offering more for it, so I offered more still, and that happened about half a dozen times. Different creditors of mine were advising me all the time. I offered £1.800. of which £800 was to be paid down and £1,000 by four bills of £250 at 3, 4, 9, and 12 months. The £800 was paid, and four bills amounting to £1,000 guaranteed by my father and by brother Abel were given. I paid my brother £100. To get the £800 I borrowed some, and I got one or two bills discounted and I increased my overdraft at the bank. I gave some bills to Duboff to get discounted for me, and I got the proceeds of those, but later on I gave him other bills for which I did not. I had nothing to do with the Camden Town business after I sold it to my brother and I gave all my attention to the other one, but

I found it a business that I knew nothing about. It was very old stock, and I sent two lots to the auction-room. I was present at Elsdon's sale and bought in some. I received a cheque from Elsdon and banked it. I had sent a miscellaneous lot of all soiled stuff there. The new stuff was unsaleable goods picked out by Swayne. The rolls of linoleum were four or five months in stock and unsaleable patterns. The seven-piece dining-room suite was old stock, so were the two music-stools, Swayne had been 15 years with Hawkey and myself, and in the main he selected the things. I found a difficulty in selling some of the rolls of linoleum. Swayne was always grumbling at the unsaleable patterns. He complained once to Robert Howland that he had sold me unsaleable patterns. There was no concealment about these things going to the auction-room and it was known to everybody. At the time these things were sent to the auction I was in good credit, and up to the time of the sale of the business to my brother Abel. The applications for payment of accounts during July and August were the usual reminders. I had not been served with any writ or summons at the instance of my creditors. Towards August I became dissatisfied with the business that I had bought. I became dissatisfied with it when I found that the representations made by firms and travellers was not being fulfilled—that was about June or July, and I then resolved to sell the business. The contract was signed on August 17. On August 10 or 11 my brother asked me how I was getting on, and I told him I was being pressed with a lot of applications and that I was very much dissatisfied with the business. He said in that case that it would be better if he would purchase it. And then he asked me to come down to Mr. Lewis and consult Mr. Lewis about it. I went to Mr. Lewis, but I left him undecided whether I would sell the business or not. I said I would not sell it unless I consulted my wife. On the 16th I agreed to sell, and the agreement was reduced to writing on the 17th. There was to be a valuation made on the basis of which I was to be paid. Part of it was to be cash down and part of it was to be paid by bills. When it was entered into I expected a considerably larger sum than the valuation came out at The agreement was signed at Mr. Lewis's office, and I received £750, £500 in notes and gold and a cheque for £250. I cashed the check at Pontypool on August 19. I happened to hear that my mother was not well, and I went down and cashed it. My mother was at Abersychan, a few miles north of Pontypool. I caught the 5.30 train from Paddington on the 19th, and got to Pontypool about tone o'clock. I walked to Abersychan, and stayed with my mother for two or three hours, and got back to Paddington at 10 o'clock at night. I told Mr. Swayne to give a straightforward, honest valuation. He was appointed to Value

in my interest, and Mr. Frank was to value in my brothers interest. They commenced on the 18th. I saw them on the 18th about the work. On the 19th I was not there. They finished on the Monday. At the end of the valuation there is a memorandum, "Stock-taking Friday, August 18, to August 20, 1905," signed "Alfred Swayne, agreed Lewis Frank"—that is Swayne'a valuation. Each valuer signed the book of the other. There is a very close resemblance between the figures in the one and in the other, particularly in relation to linoleums and carpets. In Swayne's the linoleums come to £270, and in Frank's to £273. I became acquainted with the results of these valuations on the 21st. The balance that was to come to me was about £120, and that was paid in cash. When I discovered the smallneas of the valuation I was completely surprised. I executed the bill of sale on the 23rd, and my brother brought my sister at once to manage the business, and she continued there till she was driven out and insulted by Mr. Baker's men. On August 26 I went to Hurst Park races. I went there between 11 and 12 and remained to half-past four. I made some wagers and lost. I was in Tattersall's Ring. There might be 100 to 150 bookmakers there. This is the entrance ticket for Tattersall's; it is a ticket I bought for entrance on that occasion. I produce the ticket for Tattersall's for the following day also. I also produce the race card on those two days. On the first day I lost about £200, and on the second about £160 or £170. On September 1 I went to Gatwick races, and I produce the entrance ticket for Tattersall's ring. On the card at Hurst Park there is a memorandum, "Hall, jockey, Jevington, Sussex" It is written by Hall himself. I asked him for his name and address. At Gatwick I lost the rest of the money. At that time I had become desperate.

(Thursday, June 28.)

JOSEPH MYER , recalled, and further examined. At the time I was arrested these race-cards were at Clapham. On the first day at Hurst Park I do not think that I won anything. On the first race I lost £40, and on the second £50, on the third £60, and on the fourth £55; total, £205. On the second day at Hurst Park on the first race I lost £100, on the second £10, on the third £20, on the fourth I won £40, on the next I lost £70. There was a net loss on that day of £170. At Gatwick on the first day on the first race I lost £60, on the second £100, on the third £75, on the fourth £110, on the fifth £100; total, £445. I have gone into the figures and estimated the amount of goods bought in respect of the Clapham business £3,800, and I paid to creditors during the time I was at Clapham about £3,200, according to the bank pass-books. The £3,800 did not

include the goods purchased of Hawkey. It is the goods I purchased of different firms, and about £800 I purchased of Mr. Baker. When I gave up the Clapham business I thought of opening another place.

Cross-examined. I intend to suggest that there has been no fraud on my part, but a fraud on me as far as buying that business was concerned. Amongst my creditors the people that recommended me to purchase the business were Fraser, Duboff, Howland, and Brilliant. I traded at that place for four and a half months, and I lost over £5,000 and then went bankrupt. I certainly came to the conclusion the goodwill was worth very little afterwards. I cannot say whether I paid £400 to my creditors who supplied the goods at Camden Town during the months I was trading there. Possibly I paid £380 for goods, supplied at Clapham, so that the goods I did not pay for were £3,800, and the goods I did pay for were £380. As between March 31 and August 17 I had £1,250 in cash for the Camden Town business, £600 from Duboff, £800 Hawkey's stock. Goods which I did not pay for £3,800, goods which I did pay for £380; total, £6,800. From off that comes £800 on the Clap ham business, £250 the first bill, £380 paid, and £400 paid to creditors at Camden Town. The only two auction sales during the 12 months before the receiving order were at Elsdon's and at Finsbury Park. I lost £200 by the auction sales. At Finsbury Park I realised £60 and at Elsdon's £60. The cost price was £320. I gave Swayne (who picked oat the goods) instructions that no new goods should be sent, and I saw some of them sent out, but was not there all the time. I attended the sale, but did not stay in the room all the time. I don't believe the moquette suite could have been the one supplied by Howland. I had an interview with Abel on August 11. When he guaranteed the bills he had a £100 bill in consideration of the risk he ran of being called on to pay. I paid £50 of that before August 11, and on August 11 I gave him a post-dated cheque for the balance of £50. which was dishonoured on August 16. I did not tell him there was not money to meet it; nor did I tell him that bankruptcy was impending. I told him I should like to pay my creditors if I could. One day he asked me how I was getting on. I told him I was disappointed with the business, it was not as represented to me. I said I had a lot of monthly statements in, and I should like to pay them. I was not pressed; there were no writs out against me. While the people were asking for money, their travellers would come and ask for orders. I did not know that at that time I was liable for £7,320. I believed I was solvent. I have never taken stock, and I did not know my position. On August 23 I knew it. It dawned on me that I was not solvent. Notwithstanding that at the time of the public examination I could not give any informs

tion about the horses I backed at Hurst Park, to-day I am prepared to state their names. They were Minnikin, Queen's Own, Warrelloo, Adula, Scotch Demon. At Gatwick, Ida, Victor May, March Flower, Hegemony, Satory. When I was cross-examined by the Official Receiver I knew that I had at home the race-cards with the names of the horses I backed and the bets I made. He had the "Racing Guide," and I asked him to let me see it, and he refused. You can get these cards anywhere on the race day. I don't know what becomes of the unsold stock.

Re-examined. Mr. Baker has had all my invoices for the past six months. The Clapham business was a different business altogether to the Camden Town. I found I had no knowledge of the business, but Swayne had a long experience, and when I took over the business I did rely on him. There was stuff in the shop which I could not sell, and in consequence of that I sold some by auction, and Swayne picked them out. One of the conditions of the sale was that my brother was to pay the balance in bills, as I thought I should have £1,000 over. It was when I saw the valuation when I saw there was only £1,800 coming to you in cash that I came to the conclusion that I was insolvent. I believed I could pay everybody if I could realise the stock. I could have got practically unlimited credit.

ABEL MYERS , pawnbroker, High Street, Abersychan. I have been in business at Abersychan for many years, and my father had been in business there before me. I cannot recall the date when my brother told me he intended to purchase the business at Clapham. I became guarantee for £1.000 with my father. My father had carried on the business on the premises where I was, and I was his manager for a great many years, when he left the business and came to London to reside. At the time of this transaction he was in very indifferent circumstances, but at the time he was with me he was in a good position. He lost a very large sum of money, I should say, £40,000. I frequented my mother's house in London, and one of my sisters came to me and told me my brother was gambling, to which I had a great objection. I called on my brother, and asked him how he was getting on in his business? He told me the business was not what he expected it to be, and I suggested to him, Would he care to sell the business? He did not appear willing to do so, and he went to see Mr. Lewis on the matter in Chancery Lane. Mr. Lewis agreed that I could buy the business, but my brother did not seem inclined. Several days later he agreed to sell the business, on the terms of the agreement of August 17. I paid him a cheque for £250 and the rest in cash. It was paid at Mr. Lewis's office, and there was an arrangement that Mr. Swayne should value for him and Mr. Franks for me. By the

agreement the balance of the money (after my £750 guarantee had been met, and £750 in cash and the cheque) was to be paid by bills, and my brother expected there would be a big balance. The account was made up on August 21, when there was found to be due from me to him £171. On August 19 I was at my place of business at Aberyschan. I went down on the 18th with my mother. When she knew that I had purchased the business from my brother she was seriously ill. My brother called there to see my mother. After the sale I instructed Swayne to have the name altered over the door, and I instructed my sister to take charge.

Cross-examined. When I became liable on these bills, I had £100 for the risk I ran. Of that £50 was paid, and the other £60 I deducted at the completion of the purchase. I was paid of the £100, and given a post-dated cheque for the £50, dated August 11. This cheque was in fact dishonoured. On August 11 he might have told me he had received demand notes, but I don't remember that he told me anything about it at a matter of fact. He never told me anything about the state of his affairs to lead me to believe that they were not satisfactory, I don't remember that he said anything about his creditors, or about pressure. What my brother said was that the business did not turn out as represented, but he thought he was getting a business with a weekly sale of £400 or £500 cash. It was not because I was anxious about those bills that I bought the business, it was through the fact my brother was gambling. I did not know he was insolvent at that time. I went to Mr. Lewis for the purpose of knowing whether I was justified in purchasing the business and deducting my liability, and I learnt that if he was insolvent it could be set aside in bankruptcy. My brother did not tell me he was liable for some £7,000, and I have not any reason to know what his liabilities were. As a matter of fact, we are not too friendly—I have a repugnance to gambling, and my brother was naturally fond of it. The word gambling is enough to make me run a mile from it. The £250 was paid by cheque and part of the balance I borrowed from my mother. I had £200 from her which my mother had in the house. The rest of the cash which was paid over on the 17th came from my place at Abersychan. Mr. Lewis advised me I ought to pay as much money on the purchase as possible, and, acting on that advice, I got the money together which I had on the premises. My sister is 17 years of age, and I placed her in the desk.

Re-examined. The checks show that during the year preceding this date, I had sent my mother £700. In my business I have to keep a good deal of money in cash.

JOHN REYNOLDS JONES , cashier of Lloyds Bank, Pontypool.

I produce cheque for £250, which was cashed on August 19 by Joseph Myers. I gave him the money in gold.

ALEXANDER RIDDLE STOWERS . I am a dentist, and I know the defendant by sight. I remember meeting him at a race meeting. He asked me if I knew of anything, and, of course, I did not. I thought he looked rather despondent.

WILLIAM HENRY GODOLPHIN , managing clerk to Messrs. Warmington, solicitors, 30, Budge Row. I produce the race cards which I received from Mr. Osborn a fortnight before the commencement of the last Sessions here—it would be about June 7. Messrs. Osborn were subpoenaed to produce them before the magistrates.

Cross-examined. I cannot tell of my own knowledge where they were between November 2 and December 31.

Miss ESTHER MYERS . I live with my mother and father, and am 18. I remember my brother Abraham purchasing my brother Joseph's (prisoner) premises and furniture. A few days after the purchase I went to the Clapham shop. I think they were putting Abraham's name up over the shop, but I am not sure about that. My duties were to take charge of the moneys, to report everything that was going on to my brother, and, to look after things in general. If there was anything to be bought Mr. Swan would acquaint me of it, and I in my turn would acquaint my brother, or if it was a small thing I would have it sent in. I think there was a fair amount bought while I was there, something over £100, and the sales may have amounted to £700 or £800. I never counted up the amounts. I remained until the business was finally sold by arrangement between my brother and the trustee. With regard to Baker, he would not let me know anything about the business, but seemed to take a delight in keeping me out of it, thinking perhaps that he could do it better himself. As to what became of Mr. Swan, I discharged him for impertinence one Saturday night near the end of September. I recollect the occasion of the Hurst Park races, but not the date. I remember distinctly going to the business and asking where Mr. Joseph Myers was, and being told he had gone to the races. He afterwards told me he had lost a lot of money, and I said I was very sorry. That happened more than once, but I do not take any interest in racing matters.

Cross-examined. Before I took over the management of this business I had been in David Myers's business. I have always lived with my people. David Myers had a business at Clapham Junction. Before that I had been with Abraham Myers at his shop in Wales, a pawnbroking and furniture business. I

could not be said to have the entire management of the shop at Clapham, because I was under Abraham Myers, who came up from Wales continually. Joseph Myers did not interfere at all at first, but I was bound to ask his assistance when the men refused to tell me any of the business of the shop. Under Swan's directions they refused to tell me anything. A few weeks after the 17th prisoner was employed there, and continued down to December. Mr. Swan paid the men until one night when he refused to give the money; after that I paid it myself.

ALBERT OSBORN , solicitor. I am a member of the firm of Osborn and Osborn. I represented defendant in his bankruptcy proceedings from December till May. I handed over the document produced to Messrs. Warmington and Co. when I ceased acting in the case. There were some cards and things handed over to me in January by defendant, with a lot of other papers. I fancy I had them before he was released on bail. He was in custody a fortnight and I went to see him at Brixton.

Louis FRANKS , furniture dealer, 26, Hartland Road, West Kilburn. I have been engaged in the furniture trade for many years, and have been with the Paddington Furniture Company, Harrow Road, where I was manager for two years, the Warwickshire Furnishing Company, Manchester and Birmingham, and salesman and manager to Longman and Co., Limited, Tottenham Court Road. I remember being at defendant's place of business at Clapham some time prior to August 17, when some goods were being sent away in a pantechnicon van. Swan was there looking after the despatch of these goods. Prisoner was there also, and I overheard Swan remark that these were a lot of unsaleable goods he had in stock. On August 17 Abraham Myers told me he had bought the business, and asked me to act as valuer. Acting upon his instructions I went to the premises next day and acted as valuer, Mr. Swan acting as valuer for prisoner. Mr. Swan had one valuation book, and I another (produced). We commenced the valuation on the 18th, and finished on the 21st, and signed the valuation at the end. In the result the valuations came out pretty much alike; I think the difference was £80, and we split the difference, and agreed to £40 each. I could not identify the carpets because I did not take a description of them. The valuation was absolutely fair from beginning to end. We took cost prices. There was no difficulty in getting them. They were all marked. There may have been one or two instances where a ticket had not been put on an article, but I, of course, judged that according to the market price and the condition it was in. Prisoner did not interfere with the valuation in any way. I know Mr. Stewart, and met him in December last. I also met Thomas, the dentist. He made a communication to me about Mr. Myers and some races.

Cross-examined. The valuation was made independently all the way through. We never looked at each others books to see what was being put down. Supposing a table or a chair to be shown we looked at it together. We worked together to that extent. We got at the value by looking at the cost mark, which was on each thing. We had no invoices or stock book, and I do not think it would be any use to point to something in the invoice and ask me to find it in the valuation list. If you pointed out a roll of linoleum, say No. 228, there would be no means of identifying it in the valuation list, so it would be difficult to test the valuation, but I was satisfied as to it. It is difficult to state the average length of a roll of linoleum, as the length varies from 12 yards up to 50 yards or 60 yards. There is no standard length, so that in dealing with the linoleum it would be necessary to get the length of each piece. Consequently the price of rolls of linoleum varies very much; the price would vary according to the quantity. We struck an average. A very large number of rolls of linoleum were taken at £2 each. We did not look at each roll of linoleum, to see what price was upon it, and put that down. On looking at Swan's valuation I find "Lino, one roll, £2 "; then a series at £2. Those figures are not mere guesses. I think that is a very good price. I valued the goods; I did not guess at them. All linoleums vary; you might not get two rolls alike. Where the £2 is put all the way through they were full rolls.

To the Judge. With regard to the linoleums being priced the same price exactly, I can only explain that that I reckoned the value of the rolls standing in the room, and we took them at £2 a roll as a very good average price to put upon them. We did not take the exact price of each roll. If they were put at £2 that could not be the exact price of each roll.

Examination continued. I remember being examined at the private sitting. To the best of my recollection I told the same story then. I told the Registrar before whom I was examined that I took the amounts on the tickets except in the case of new rolls. At the meeting with Swan and Joseph Myers I happened to be within earshot. Swan said he had a lot of unsaleable stuff from Hawley's, and Joseph Myers said it would be a good thing to get rid of it. I cannot remember that the statement that there was a lot of unsaleable stuff was made at any other time.

Re-examined. With regard to the way in which we arrived at the £2 per roll, I took each as a full roll. I had a note with me on a piece of paper of the whole amount that was there. They varied somewhat, but they were all full rolls, and we took them and said. "This will be a very fair valuation at £2 per roll." The rolls were all of similar size, and stood like soldiers

in the centre of the room, and Swan and I agreed at that amount. As to there being rolls put down at £4 15s., possibly they were of better quality. With regard to other articles in the shop, leaving out the carpets, the cost price was on the label, not in plain figures, but so that Swan and I could understand. With regard to the rest of the furniture, most of it was marked. If Swan and I had put down the cost price, unless we had misstated, the figures, we should naturally have arrived at the same price. In most instances the prices were there staring us in the face.

To the Judge. As a rule I take the cost price unless I think the article is damaged, and ought to be valued at less.

MICHAEL LIPPMAN , wholesale draper, 91, Middlesex Street, Aldgate. I have known defendant for some time. I sometimes go to race meetings. I daresay I was at Hurst Park in August, of last year, but I will not swear I was there. I do not believe I was at Hurst Park races, but I was at Gatwick where I saw Mr. Myers (prisoner). He said he had had a very bad time; he had been backing the favourite. I believe those who backed the favourite did have a bad time. He asked me for advice, and I told him to back Joel's horse, which happened to be "Evacuation." He said he had had £100 on the favourite. The favourite did not win, but came in second.

Cross-examined. I have known defendant over 20 years. I did not tell anybody I had seen him at Hurst Park. There are plenty of bookmakers there. I was asked to make a statement with regard to this matter just before I had the subpoena, about three weeks ago, I should think it was. Mr. Joseph Myer's brother brought the subpoena to me. He said, "There is the subpoena for you; you have got to come up and see the trouble. Do you recollect seeing me at any race meeting?" I said, "Yes." There was nobody with him. I know he had two or three bets at the race meeting.

Re-examined. As far as I know bookmakers do net keep accounts; they give you tickets. People betting put their money down. Bookmakers, I think, do not want to know the people they bet with.

SAMUEL HALL , 167A, Latchmere Road, Lavender Hill, commission agent. The date of the Hurst Park races was September 1, if I remember right. I quite forget whether that was the date of Gatwick or Hurst Park, but I know one was on August 26 and the other on September 1. I attended Hurst Park races last year on two days. I saw defendant there. As far as I could see he was backing horses. I saw him at two o'clock, and I afterwards saw him in the paddock, and after the last race, which would be about five o'clock. With regard to the Hurst Park card produced, my signature is attached to it. Jevington is in Sussex, as far as I can remember. On that particular occasion I told him to back Gallinago. He said, "If

I win I will give you a pony." I remember being at Gatwick races, I think it was on September 1 and 2. I saw Mr. Myers (prisoner) at that race. I advised him to back a horse on that occasion, but he came back and said he had not backed it, and I was vexed with him. He came back on the second occasion and told me the same thing. He came back after the first race, after Gallinago had won, and said he had had £100 on something else. I naturally enough felt vexed with him. That is all I know about it. He had lost a lot of money according to what he had told me. He told me he had lost £100 on the first race, £100 on the second race, and £80 on the next. I think he had lost £2.000 by the way he went on. Of course, I got nothing by way of commission.

Cross-examined. I call myself a commission agent I am not a jockey, but I have served my time. I was naturally vexed at not getting commission through prisoner not having backed the horses. I have never made a book, but I frequent race courses. I hold a license from the Jockey Club as a jockey's valet. If you tell a man to back a horse and it wins you naturally expect something. At Gatwick I advised him to back Victoria May for the second race to win. I am aware that there is such a thing as backing for a place. I won't be quite sure that Victoria May did not win that race. I know it was one of Marsh's horses. Lost Link was in the first race. In the second race Victoria May was not the winner, but Sybil Primrose. You will find it on that paper (the "Race Card "). As a matter of fact, prisoner did back Victoria May; that is what he told me then. I cannot tell you when I first saw prisoner. I used to see him when I frequented race-courses before this, but I have not seen him on the race-course since. As to when Myers came to know that my evidence was material, I should not have known about it if he had not put a piece of paper (subpoena) into my hand. That was on Whit Monday, if I remember right, after the case had been committed for trial. He followed me about for four or five days with the subpcena in his pocket. I had been away at Manchester, and after I came home on the Saturday night he met me at the "Falcon," I believe it was, and gave me this paper. Of course, I had to go then. I had no idea that I should be wanted as a witness until I got this subpoena. I was walking with my wife when I met prisoner. "Where are you living?" he said. I gave him my name and address, and he said he would subpoena me. I think the first time I saw him after that was when I was at the South-Western Police Court. As a matter of fact, I was not hanging about the police court when this was going on. I was living opposite. I had been living there for the last 14 months, and I am over at the police court pretty well every day. Prisoner gave me no opportunity of saying that I would not assist him. He said,

"I shall subpoena you." I was not called before the magistrate; I knew nothing at all about it.

To the Judge. I had no particular object in putting down Jevington, Sussex, as my address. Prisoner wanted me to write and send him winners afterwards, but I was so vexed when he came and said that he had not backed the horses I had given him that I put anything down. I did not intend to give him my address; that was flat. If he had not come across me this time he would not have got it. The address was written in the paddock. I have nothing to do with Jevington, and am not a jockey.

Mr. Abel Thomas intimated that that was the case for the defence, and addressed the Court on behalf of the defendant.

(Friday, June 29.)

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Six months' imprisonment, second division.

OLD COURT; Wednesday, June 27.

(Before Mr. Justice Bigham.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-32
VerdictMiscellaneous > no agreement
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

ADCOCK, George Robert (39, doctor) , manslaughter of John Nicholas Whyte, on indictment and on coroner's inquisition; The Attorney-General (Sir Lawson Walton, K.C., M.P.), Mr. Charles Mathews, and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. G. C. Kingsbury, Mr. Curtis Bennett, and Mr. Patrick Hastings defended.

Mrs. CAROLINE WHYTE . I am mother of the late Major Whyte. At the time of his death I resided at Monkstown Dublin. My son was about 41 years old. He was a major in the Lancashire Fusiliers and had served in India. Early in 1903 he met with a hunting accident in Leicestershire and was taken to the Hinckley Cottage Hospital. There he was operated upon by Sir Victor Horsley. Subsequently he came to London to a nursing home kept by Miss Robson. He remained there till January, 1904, being attended by Dr. Huxley, and occasionally by Sir Victor Horsley. He then came down to me at Bournemouth, and remained with me till May, 1904. He then came back to London, and after staying a fortnight here went to the Military Convalescent Home, at Osborne. He left there about September, 1904. and returned to London to the house of a Mr. Smith, at Elm Park Road. In January of this year he went to Southsea for a short time, and returned to London, 38, Eaton Terrace, where he remained until April 29, the day of his death. While he was at Hinckley I saw him from time to time at the hospital. I also saw him while he

was with Miss Robson; I noticed a considerable improvement in him then. While with me at Bournemouth he was able to go out daily in a bath chair, and ho could walk across the room with the aid of a walking horse. When I saw him on his return to London he was in a good deal of pain in his legs. He had then put himself into the hands of the Christian Scientists. Mr. Smith was one of that body. I knew my son was then suffering from a bed sore, a very slight one. He had no regular doctor attending him at Elm Park Gardens. There was a so-called healer, Captain Bayne, attending him; he also had a personal attendant, first of all Bullock, and afterwards Bellew. When I visited my son at Elm Park Gardens he said the pain had gone, but I did not see any improvement such as I should have expected from what Sir Victor Horsley had told me. He was able to move about with assistance. At first he was in very good spirits; later on I thought him depressed. I never heard of his suffering from bed sores in 1905. When my son was at 38, Eaton Terrace. I had certain information from friends who had visited him, and in consequence in March I came up to London. When I saw him I noticed an immense difference in his appearance and condition; he looked to me in a dying condition. Besides Bellew there was a Christian Science healer, Mrs. Grant, attending him. It was from Mrs. Grant that I first learned the name of Dr. Adcock. On March 27 I saw the accused by appointment in Brompton Square. I asked him to give me his opinion as a medical man as to my son's condition. He told mo my son was seriously ill; he said, "He is a very sick man indeed," but he had been worse when he came up from Southsea. He also told me that my son was suffering from abscess, but that he hoped it would improve, and that he would be able to return to Ireland in six or eight weeks. I asked him would he attend my son medically, because I had no faith in Christian Science; he said he would do so, and would do all he could for him. This was a matter I was most urgent about, for I thought my son's life depended upon his having proper medical advice. On April 2 I had another interview with the accused; he told me my son was improving; that the discharge was less, and that the abscess was healing up or yielding to treatment. I asked him was he using iodoform powder, which I had heard was a strong antiseptic; he said no; he mentioned another powder, ektogan, which he said was equally good. I was not told by the accused that my son was suffering from a bed-sore; he told me it was an abscess. At this interview the accused suggested that he was willing to meet any other doctor I chose to name, Sir Victor Horsley in preference, as it was a surgical case. My son at the time seemed to be improving, so I thought it was not necessary then, but it was arranged that if there was any cause for further

anxiety a friend of mine in London should be communicated with, and that I should be wired to come over from Ireland, and that my friend would make arrangements for a consultation with Sir Victor. I left London on April 7; the accused promised to let me know how my son went on. He did write one letter saying that my son was getting on very well, and was looking forward to coming to Ireland very soon; the letter mentioned that he had been up for a few hours in the day time. On April 24 I returned to London and saw my son; he was very much worse. The following day I saw the accused; I told him that I was horrified—that I saw my son was dying. He did not agree with me; he said he was suffering from his liver, and would be better after a good night's rest. When I saw my son there was a little water coming from his mouth. Defendant said something as to his having to go to the Isle of Wight; I said I thought it would be extraordinary to leave a man in a dying condition, as I considered my son was, without anyone to look after him. He said my son could wire to him if necessary. I then said that he was too seriously ill, and that he must use some measures to persuade him to see either Mr. Huxley or Sir Victor Horsley. Defendant agreed to that. I spoke to my son, and begged him to lose no time, but to let me send for Mr. Huxley. He said, "I do feel very ill, and I think we may as well have him." Accordingly I telegraphed to Mr. Huxley to see him the next afternoon, and I communicated the appointment to Dr. Adcock. On April 26 I went to keep the appointment; defendant was there; Mr. Huxley was two hours late; defendant waited over an hour, but Dr. Huxley was two hours late. When I mentioned to defendant about water coming from my son's mouth, he said it was waterbrash, and did not seem to attach any importance to it. I saw defendant again on the 27th. I told him that Dr. Huxley had confirmed my opinion that my son was in a hopeless condition; defendant made no very particular remark. That was the last time I saw him. My son had his own income, and attended to his monetary affairs quite independently of me.

Cross-examined. I was with my son at Hinckley 17 or 18 days. During the eight months he was with Miss Robson at Cambridge Terrace I saw him on three or four occasions, staying about a week or 10 days on each occasion. It was soon after the accident, I think, that the bed sores formed. While he was with me at Bournemouth he had only one very slight bed-sore, which was purposely kept open by the nurse. In May, 1904, my son was taken down by Nurse Robson to Osborne, and remained there till September. I saw him there; he seemed very well. In his letters to me he complained of having very severe pain, and towards the end seemed depressed. I had a letter from

Miss Haynes in September saying that my son was leaving because he had met with Christian Scientists, and wished to try that system; she did not say that she considered him very ill; she gave me the impression that he was suffering pain, but not dangerously ill. I did hear that the King had made an order extending the time that my son might remain there. While I was at Osborne I did not see the doctor in charge of the case. I knew my son would have proper medical attendance. I saw him the day after he left Osborne, and came to Cambridge Street. He looked ill and in pain. I did not think he was as well as when he went to Osborne; he looked very ill; he told me he, was very ill. He said he had been anxious to get away from Osborne for Christian Science. Nurse Jones, who was a Christian Scientist, did not tell me that my son had bed sores; she told me he was more or less cured, that everything about him was much better; she may have said the bed-sore had healed. This conversation would be within a week or ten days of his coming back to London. She told me that he had been able to give up the use of certain instruments. I spoke to my son at this time as to whether he thought he was better. He said that he had complete freedom from pain, which was a thing he never had had during all the time he was at Osborne. He told me that at Osborne the pain was so great that he thought he could not have stood it much longer; he did not mention the word suicide. He told me he had got freedom from pain within two days of his return to London. At that time there was nobody in charge of him but Captain Baynes and Nurse Jones. I asked Captain Baynes what the treatment would consist in. He told me it consisted in confidence in God and prayer, no medical attendance of any description. My son quite understood—in fact, told me so—that there would be no medical attendance. He had written to me to say that he was anxious to try this treatment. At that time I think it was more or less an experiment on his part, but he certainly knew it was not medical treatment. He was a strong-minded man. I tried my best to dissuade him from trying Christian Science. but I failed. Down to his death he remained fully competent to judge and conduct his own affairs. Several times I endeavoured to get him to give up Christian Science, and possibly other friends of mine also tried. In my discussions with my son his argument in favour of Christian Science was that he had had more relief from pain by it than under any other treat ment. What he expected and always trusted to Christian Science for was the recovery of the use of his legs, which he never got. His locomotion did improve, but very little—not so much as Sir Victor Horsley led us to expect under proper treatment. My son did have some slight improvement. I cannot say whether he regained control of the bowels or the

bladder; I never asked the question; I left it to the doctor and the nurses. I did not ask Mrs. Grant about it. I believed he had abandoned the use of instruments because they were not allowed by Christian Science, but I did not ask the question. During the period of 15 months my son was in charge of Christian Scientists in London after he left Osborne the only Attention he had in the way of nursing was that of Bellew, the manservant. During this period I visited him four or five times. I was not content with the new treatment, and told my son I was very sorry, because I foresaw that it would end as it did end, having been warned very often that if he got any real illness he could not be cured by Christian Science. My son did not to my knowledge walk a quarter of a mile with the assistance of Bellew. I did not hear Bellew swear that. There was not to my knowledge during 1905 any sign of special danger. I did not try to bring in a doctor; I thought it would be useless—that my son would not consent. The result has proved that he was a man easily influenced by ladies or men healers; if not, then I will say because he believed too much in Christian Science. I do not suggest that he was weak-minded. He was so strong in his belief that I considered it was useless to suggest that he should have a doctor; he would not have consented. My wish would have been that he should have one. I did not see him at Southsea. I heard that he had returned, and saw him on March 24. He said Southsea did not suit him. He said he had had a recurrence of his malaria or Indian fever at Osborne. I corresponded with Bellew. On March 23 I went to London specially to see my son. I had not seen him since the end of October—for five months. He was extremely ill; I thought him dying. I saw Bellew on March 24. On the 26th I saw Mrs. Grant. From March 24 to 27 I saw my son each day in the afternoon for about an hour to an hour and a half. I saw Adcock on March 27. My son told me he was a Qualified doctor, who had given up his practice to become a Christian Scientist because he had been cured of some illness by Christian Science. He said he knew him, and had met him several times at Mr. Smith's. I understood he was an ordinary acquaintance. He afterwards mentioned that they were in the habit of spending their evenings together, and that Adcock came to play chess with him, and that they went several times together to a Christian Science meeting place in Sloane Street on Sundays and Wednesdays. I asked Adcock what he thought of my son. He told me he considered him very seriously ill, that he was a very sick man. I asked him, Would he treat him as a medical man? He said he would. I had told my son I should ask Adcock to treat him as a medical man. He agreed, but he said it could only be done with the permission of Mrs. Grant Possibly I did not mention this at the inquest. I did not mention

Adcock's name to my son the first time. I told him I considered that he looked very ill. and that I was very unhappy about him and that I wished very much he would let the doctor see him. That was on March 25 or 26. He said if the healer, Mrs. Grant, would permit it, he would not object. It could not be allowed otherwise. I saw Mrs. Grant, and told her how seriously ill I thought my son to be. She asked me what I wished for? I said, "Proper medical advice." She said she would meet me as far as she could. She then went with me into my son's room, and mentioned Dr. Adcock, and arranged for me to have an interview with him at Brompton Square. I had the interview with Adcock, and asked him to treat my son as a medical man. He said he would. On April 2 I had another interview with prisoner in a little street outside my son's rooms—I did not want my son to know that I was so anxious. I asked prisoner if he was treating my son medically, and how my son was getting on. He expressed himself satisfied. I asked whether he would not prescribe a tonic, and he volunteered himself if I did not feel quite satisfied he had no objection to meet another doctor I chose to name. He mentioned Sir Victor Horsley. I asked. Why Sir Victor Horsley? He said, "Because it is a surgical case." That was a day or two before I went back to Ireland. I saw prisoner, and asked him to treat my son medically two or three times. On the first occasion I was perfectly satisfied, but I wished to reassure myself again. At the first interview I asked him if he would treat him as a medical man, and at the second if he was treating him medically, and he said "Yes." I saw prisoner at Ebury Street. While I was waiting for prisoner I saw Miss Adcock, and spoke in a very uncomplimentary way of Christian Scientists—that I had no confidence whatsoever in Christian Science. Prisoner may have said, "Why not call in a doctor?" I did say that at present it would be injudicious, and possibly useless, to suggest an outside doctor, because he still believed in Christian. Science. I was satisfied with prisoners treatment then. I thought it was useless and would agitate him, and, secondly, I was satisfied as prisoner told me he was improving, and I considered it was not necessary at that particular time. I had no confidence in prisoner as a Christian Science teacher, but he assured me he would treat the case as a medical man, and I was perfectly aware he was a qualified doctor, and still on the medical register. I distrust Christian Scientists. I thought my son very ill and dying, but not in extremis. I returned to Ireland on April 7. I had three interviews with prisoner, and a fourth when he came as a social visitor to tea. I told Miss Adcock I considered the Christian Scientists were killing my son. She said. "Oh." and evidently wished to discuss the question of Christian Science with me. I told her I could not possibly believe in it, I neither

did nor would, that I was not only not a Christian Scientist, but strongly opposed. I returned to England on April 24 for my daughter's wedding, and visited my son that day. His sister and her intended had tea at his rooms. He drank some tea. At the time he was all but dying. On 25th he said, "I feel very bad; my strength is all gone." I saw Dr. Huxley that evening, and he came on 26th. Prisoner knew I was going to call in Dr. Huxley. An appointment was made for prisoner to meet Dr. Huxley, but Dr. Huxley disappointed him, and on the evening of the 26th Dr. Huxley said he did not wish to meet prisoner. Prisoner came on Thursday and Friday, April 26 and 27, but I would not let him see my son. Dr. Huxley attended until he died on Sunday, April 29. Miss Robson was the nurse who saw to the treatment. I do not know whether my son would have seen a doctor—possibly not. He was quite capable of sending for a doctor had he wished. I realised that my son had forsaken the Roman Catholic religion five or six months before he joined Christian Science, 12 months before his death. It would be utterly impossible for a Roman Catholic to be a Christian Scientist. He returned to his religion before he died.

LILLIE ROBSON , nurse, Eastbourne. In May, 1903, my sister had a Nursing Home at 23, Westbourne Gardens. I nursed Major Whyte about eight months there, and after that for four months at Bournemouth. He had a large bed sore at the bottom of the spine when he came to my sister's Home. He also had a small bed sore on the heel which had almost healed. I specially treated the large bed sore with frequent boracic fomentation, night and day, and then cyanide gauze. He was under the general attendance of Dr. Huxley, and occasionally visited by Sir Victor Horsley. When Major Whyte went to Bournemouth the bed-sore was small, but deep to the bone. It had diminished in size, but remained deep, and it remained like that at Bournemouth up to the time when Major Whyte went to Osborne. I heated it with iodoform gauze and cyanide gauze with a cotton wool plug. We had no regular doctor at Bournemouth. Dr. McCall saw him three times. He became better during the 12 months I attended him. When he left Bournemouth he could raise his right leg a little and kick with it, supported by his wooden horse, and could move voluntarily two muscles on the left leg. He had special treatment for passing water; his bowels were paralysed, and an enema was used. This condition continued until I left him at Osborne in May, 1904. I visited him a fortnight before he came to London in August, 1904. He was getting up in the middle of the day for some time then. I visited him twice at Elm Park Road—I thought him looking very thin. I next saw him on April 27, 1906, and noticed a very great change. He was dying. The condition of

the bladder while he was under my care varied, but improved on the whole.

Cross-examined. I did not consider him as well when I visited him at Osborne. At Elm Park Road he was better in some respects; he walked better. He said the bed-sore on the heel had healed and the other had closed. At Elm Park Gardens he seemed better than at Osborne; his movements were stronger.

GEORGE PATRICK BELLEW , 12, Marlborough Street, Chelsea. I became valet to Major Whyte in January, 1905, after Bullock left. I had been in the 3rd Buffs and in India for eight or nine years acting as hospital orderly. Major Whyte lived at Mr. Smith's, 98, Elm Park Gardens, when I entered his service, and I stayed with him till his death on April 29, 1906. In January, 1905, he got up every day, dressed with assistance, and moved about in his room with the assistance of a cradle horse. I used to lift him up. At that time he had a very small bed-sore at the bottom of the spine about the size of a finger nail and 1/8 in. deep. Matter collected in it day by day. I used to wash it twice a day, and place a small pad over it of boracic lint, and make a bandage to keep it in its place. It was my own suggestion. Captain Baynes used to visit Major Whyte every day. Captain Baynes did no treatment; he was the practitioner in Christian Science. I used to leave the room when he came. I found no change in the pad or the wound after he had been. Major Whyte went out every day in a lath-chair. The bed-sore got on satisfactorily. It never quite healed, but it stopped discharging about March or April, 1905, and I left off the boracic lint dressing. I used to wash it every day when I bathed the Major, but did nothing else after the discharge had stopped. He had no control over his bladder. That got better. Nothing was done for that. It got worse towards the end from January to April, 1906. It got better during 1905, when the Christian Scientists were attending. It got worse towards the end of the year, when this bed-sore came on; that was the one which had never completely healed. He had another at the back of the thigh and an abscess. The lower of the two bed-sores encroached on the anus. The turn for the worse was when we were at Southsea, just after Christmas, for three weeks. We came back on January 26, 1906. All through 1905 there was some improvement. He began to get worse towards the end of December or beginning of January, before the prisoner came to visit him at all. He was very bad indeed at Southsea. When I first went there he had a bed-sore on the back of the heel, which I healed with the usual treatment, and that got well. In the latter end of last summer he used to walk about 200 yards down Elm Park Road with

the Assistance of a stick and his arm round my neck He had improved a lot since the beginning of the year. He was never able to walk without assistance. Captain Baynes attended up to March or April, he was followed by Mrs. Grant, and Dr. Adcock came in January, 1906—no one else. We stayed at Southsea at Mrs. Roberta's, a Christian Science boarding-house. He improved the first week at Southsea; he used to get up every morning early and go into breakfast, which was a thing he had never done before, and went out every day in a bath-chair. After the first week he got worse, and there appeared another bed-sore on the back of the hip. That appeared in November or December before we went to Southsea. I applied the same treatment as to the other and it improved somewhat. The bed-sore at the back of the spine was practically healed; there was a scar and the hole, but no discharge. When he got worse at Southsea the new bed-sore got very bad indeed, right away into the bone and there was a tissue over the bone. When the tissue broke very offensive discharge came from it—black and very bad indeed; in fact, I could almost see it decaying—very rapidly. The other bed-sore kept about the same all the time; it was practically healed. I used the boracic lint and washed it with warm water, morning and evening. Major Whyte would not allow me to use anything else. I persuaded Major Whyte to come back to London as it worried me so much, and I wanted somebody to take the responsibility off my shoulders; he would not allow me to do anything; he believed in Christian Science—faith, and nothing else. The condition of the bed-sore worried me very much and we came back on January 26. I had a conversation with him, and, in consequence, went round to 164, Ebury Street, Dr. Adcock's address. I learnt his name from Major Whyte, and saw him on the 27th. I told him the Major was very bad and had a very bad bedsore and would he kindly come round and see him as it worried me, and he did so. I knew prisoner was also a Christian Scientist. I thought he was a doctor who had given up his practice for Christian Science. I told him exactly what the bed-sore was like, that the wound was very black and very offensive and would he come round and see it. When he came round he looked at it. I told him it worried me very much, and I wanted someone to relieve me of this responsibility. He said he would come round and see the Major, which he did. He said it was a very bad sore, and he wrote me out a prescription—Ektogan, a powder for dusting purposes—a tube. I got it from the chemist. This is one of the tubes (produced). I got several. Prisoner told me to dust it on the wound, which I did morning and evening. Before Major Whyte had that powder he had not consulted anyone. He used to speak to Mrs. Grant about it. I was not allowed to use the powder directly I got it from the

chemist; the Major told me not to use it; he spoke to Mrs. Grant, and then I was allowed to use it. Prisoner was in the habit of coming every day. He saw me on several occasions use the powder. He never used it himself. I used warm water and cotton wool. The powder had a great effect—it stopped the wound from getting any worse and from decaying, and it took all the dead flesh away from the wound, which started granulating again and looked very healthy. The granulation was inside the wound; there was a very large wound. At Southsea the Major had the ague and fever—I knew because I had seen it before; he got very cold and shook a lot—shivering, and then he would got a rise of temperature; it is what has been called rigor. That started the second week we were at Southsea; he had the ague and fever almost every day, and it ceased some time after we returned to London—I think some time in February. I do not think any shivering came on again. After we got back to London the front part of the hip began to swell, the whole side seemed to get fat; I think there was an abscess there. I told prisoner, and he saw it. He agreed there was an abscess there. It increased, and about the second or third week in March it burst as I was pressing it with my hand. Prisoner was there. A lot of pus came. This was before any probe had been used. I used to use the probe for dressing purposes and to find out the sinus from the abscess. Prisoner used the probe on one occasion. I used a drainage tube to drain away the matter collecting in the abscess. Prisoner did not use it, but saw me doing so. Prisoner told me to keep it clean and but the powder. I did not use the powder on the abscess—I could not very well dean it in any way; I pressed it every day in order to get the matter away. I could not clean the abscess; I could not get at it as there was a sinus running from the abscess and the bed-sore. I noticed the put from the abscess came out into the bed-sore through some channel underneath the skin. The lower bed-sore itself was in a very good condition. It looked very healthy owing to this powder. I mean it looked a bed-sore with a promise of getting well; that was soon after I used this ektogan powder; it did a lot of good; it seemed to stop it from getting deeper; before I used the powder it was getting very deep. It did not decrease in size, it stopped about the same. The abscess remained as I have described it—large quantities of matter coming, and that remained to the last. Major Whyte's water changed about December or January; it got very think and very offensive. He told me he never suffered pain. One night he was groaning, and he said, "Do not take any notice of me groaning; I am only trying to make myself tired and go to sleep." The next morning he passed some mucous in his urine, which I kept and showed to Dr. Adcock and to Dr. Huxley. That was the night

before Huxley came. His mouth got very dry and sore, and a lot of water came from it. Prisoner saw both those things. Prisoner was paid a guinea a week. I looked after Major Whyte's money—kept the purse. He used to draw cheques when necessary. Prisoner, received about 12 payments. The last time he received pay I had £1 2s. in the Major's purse. The Major told me to borrow £1 off the landlord, as he was too weak to write a cheque, which I did. Prisoner asked me for the Major's purse, and he gave it me back with 1s. 2d., in it taking the sovereign and the shilling, which made up guiness which he was entitled to according to the arrangement prisoner came every day, including Sunday, and so he got 3s. day. No antiseptics were used from the time prisoner came on January 26. Major Whyte would not allow him to was any or any other treatment to the wounds except the powder.

Cross-examined. The prescription was merely the name of the powder on a piece of paper. The chemist is the neighbourhood had not got it, and he sent to the Stores for it. The effect of it was very rapid, and a great improvement prise They remained alone an hour to an hour and a half. to using it the sore was very offensive, and within a day or two after using the powder the offencive odour had gone the appearance of the wound became more healthy, and it happen to fill up or granulate from the bottom, as though it would heal. It was in my opinion much better to use than the bornic acid. Dr. Adcock knew we had to get permission from Mrs. to use it. Major Whyte told, me he asked her permission. About a week before he died he ordered me to discontinue that powder, which I, did, and the offensive odour returned, and the wound went back. Prisoner used to visit every morning, and came down sometimes at night so that, I might get a night of He read to and spent a great deal of time with the Major. I knew him before January 27 as a, friend, of the Major. He came to see him three or four times last summer. They met at the, Christian Science meeting place regularly; the Major used to go there on Sunday and Wednesday every weak. I always went there. I am not a Christian Scientist. On these occasions prisoner had conversation with the Major, and he used to come and discuss matters. Major Whyte told me prisoner had ceased medical practice, but he was a Christian scientist, and that he had embraced Christian Science because he, prisoner, had been healed of a drug, I believe—I think it meant cured of what is called the drug habit Major Whyte told me he was relieved from pain seven or fourteen days after he went into Christian Science under Captain Baynes. The treatment of Christian Science consisted of prayer. I did not sea them; I always left the room. I supposed they were praying. They remained alone an hour to an hour and a half. The Major thought it had cured the pain. He told me he had never had a day's relief when he had been in the hospitals—he

was always in pain until he came into Christian Science; that after he came into Christian Science he had got relief from pain which he had never had before since his accident. The money prisoner had from the purse was by the Major's direction.

(Thursday, June 28.)

The Attorney-General said that prisoner gave evidence before the Coroner, and his evidence was included in the depositions given before the magistrates, and he thought that in a case of this kind it was important that the prisoner's evidence should be read.

JOHN TROUTBECK , Coroner for Westminster, then entered the witness-box, and deposed to the accuracy of the depositions.

LUDWIG FREYBERGEE , M.R.C.P., M.R.C.S., 41, Regents Park Road. I have had considerable experience in pathological examinations. At the request of the Coroner on May 3 I made a post-mortem examination of the body of Major Whyte. The body was in a state of extreme wasting. The general colour of the skin was a greenish brown, with darker mottling, in consequence of post-mortem straining. The condition and the colour of the body gave me the impression that there might have been blood poisoning. Over the spinal column I observed a straight linear scar running down the middle of the back, 8 in. long, which had been produced for the purpose of an operation in 1903. That scar was absolutely healthy and had healed perfectly. Below that scar I observed a large bed-sore, which was roughly oblong in shape, and the two diameters measured 5 in. each from one corner to the opposite corner. The edges were wavy and undermined. In depth it extended the whole thickness of the skin and the tissue lying underneath the skin, and in some parts the membrane which covers the muscles covering the backbone, and it also involved the upper end of the crest of the hip bone. The sore was 1/4 in. deep, but the body being much wasted, at a former period it may have been much deeper. The bed-sore was covered with a brownish-black, smeary, sloughing secretion, with a very offensive smell. This was four days after death. The secretion was due to what happened before death. Considering the state of the man's health, I should expect the body to be in a very offensive condition, but the character of the smell was quite different from that produced by post-mortem decomposition. The upper bed-sore must have been in existence for a very long time, many months. The second bed-sore was separated from the first by a strip of skin 11/4 in. in width, and was situated over the left seat bone and the eminence caused by the neck of the thigh bone. It

is the lower part of the hip bone, and the bed-sore measured about 3 in. in either direction, and led into an abscess cavity extending between the superficial and deep muscles of the hip, and surrounding the hip joint, and ending somewhat in front of the joint near to the groin. The lower end of the hip bone was exposed, rough and decayed. The capsule of the hip joint was entirely destroyed, likewise the bone which connects the head of the thigh bone with the socket of the hip bone. In consequence of that the head of the thigh bone had dropped out of the socket of the joint to the extent of about 1 1/2 in. and had become corroded on the surface. The cartilage which covers the head of the thigh and the thigh-bone was entirely destroyed. From this abscess cavity there were extending downwards between the muscles along the bone subordinate sinuses to the extent of about 4 in., end there was a further extension of that cavity upwards, towards the lower end of the bowel, the rectum, which was undermined completely to the extent of 2 in. of its length. A further extension was though a hole in the hip-bone into the polels, and there was pus between the membranes underlying the pelvis and surrounding the neck of the bladder. I examined the urethra, which I found filled with pus, which, at the time of the post-mortem examination was oozing out of the urethral erihce. The bladder was contracted, and the walls of the bladder, which are composed, of thick mucous membranes, were ulcerated, and in many cases covered with an adherent false membrane. There was pus in the bladder and a rough brittle stone, the size of a small prune, which, in my opinion, had been formed by the depositing of the residuum of the urine left behind in the bladder were distended had become stagnant and decomposed. The stone must have been forming for at least twelve months. The tubes that conduct the urine from the kidneys to the bladder were distended by purulent urine. The mucous membranes lining these tubes were swollen, and there were superficial ulcerations in the cost of the membranes. The left kidney was embedded in a very firm, fibrous mass of tissue of unnatural growth, due to chronic inflammation. The cup-shaped or funnel-shaped upper ending of the tube connecting the bladder with the kidney was distended and ulcerated, and the smaller and of the tube itself in the bladder. There was a stone sticking in two of the recesses of the upper end of the tube called the pelvis of the kidney. The kidney substance round it was very fibrous, in some places suppurating. The kidney itself was reduced in size. The right kidney was very large, and there were purulent streaks in the kidney substance running from the pelvis upwards towards the outer surface of the kidney. There was vas in both kidneys. The formation of the accretions in the kidney was due to stagnation of the urine in the kidney itself. Except for the changes due to the deceased having suffered from general

blood-poisoning the body was healthy. That is, to say, the brain, heart, and lungs were normal.

Mr. Justice Bigham. With those exceptions, you could hardly call this putrid body a healthy body, could you?

Witness. There was no other organic disease. The liver was large and fatty. The spleen was somewhat affected. The stone in the kidney and in the bladder was a consequence of the purulent disease of the kidney and the bladder. When the urine becomes very purulent, the deposition is, of course, increased more rapidly. The spine was broken. The second vertebra was crushed in front, but that had all healed with the formation of a strong bony union. There was no pus surrounding the seat of the fracture. The spine was in a condition to enable the man to walk. He did not walk because, when the fracture occurred, there was, as a consequence of the fracture, compression. The vertebra was driven into the spinal canal and this compressed a portion of the spinal cord on the left side and caused paralysis on the left side. The paralysis was due to the accident itself, not to the treatment of the bone after the accident This paralysis prevented the deceased from walking immediately after the accident. As to his being unable to walk without a cradle—after the immediate recovery from the effects of the fracture, there was a gradual improvement going on which was followed by the reduction of the muscles paralysed, and he, therefore, became able to move his nght lower extremity just in the same way as he became able to have proper motions of his bowels of his own accord, whereas soon after the accident he had not. The action of the bowel was restored. He dispensed with ennemata, and also with the catheter when he came under the treatment of Captain Baines after leaving Osborne, and that treatment was never resorted to again. He continued up to his death to have motions and to discharge his urine in the ordinary way; but the patient was, no doubt, unable to pass his urine voluntarily by his own action; he was not able to completely empty the bladder each time he passed water, and, therefore, required surgical assistance. In my opinion he would probably always have required to have the catheter passed once a day to empty his bladder completely. As to the question of his requiring surgical assistance in his motions, from what I have heard the action of the bowel had completely returned. The liver was fatty and cloudy, and the details of the liver could not be made out; there was a haze over the cut surface, and the liver was soft, a condition indicative of it having been implicated in the general process of blood poisoning. The blood poisoning may have had two causes, one the decay and suppuration of the parts exposed by the bed sore, which became decayed and infected. The infection and suppuration spread and formed a

large pouchy abscess over and surrounding the hip joint, whence the microbes could easily have been absorbed into the system. Blood poisoning was due to the escape of pus into the system. The pus came from the bed sore and also from the bladder and the kidneys. The bed sore over the hip joint led into the abscess beneath it. Both the abscess and the bed sore produced pus, and the pus got into the system through being absorbed into the lymph vessels, whence the microbic organisims were transferred to the blood. Blood poisoning must have been going on for some months, from the moment when the bed sores became offensive and discharging.

Mr. Justice Bigham. That would be according to Bellew long before the defendant came upon the scene. Bellew sent for defendant because he found the bed-sores, so he says. Do you attribute death to the blood-poisoning?

Witness. Yes. The danger of death was existent before defendant came on the scene. I found no sign that the abscess had been opened. From what I saw of it I should say it had discharged purulent matter in large quantities. According to the formula Ektogan is oxide of zinc. Its use would be for the treatment of superficial wounds or the weeping surfaces of eczema. I doubt very much whether it has any antiseptic effect.

To the Jury. The abscess was caused in my opinion by the retention of the secretion formed by the bed-sore in between the muscles under the skin, and its retention not haying been relieved by operative means, the suppuration made its way into the tissues by degrees. The abscess was set up by the bedsores, and the poison from the abscess partly found its way back to the bed-sores; the one would feed the other through the sinus or channel.

Cross-examined. I still agree with my evidence before the coroner as to the efficacy of Ektogan. I then said, "Ektogan has no efficacy as regards the progress of disease. In this case it was rather injurious. The pus would be driven inwards by the dusting powder, and would go to other parts of the system." I had read of Ektogan before the investigation. I said at the investigation it was common oxide of zinc, and that its formula was Zn O. The formula is Zn 02, which is a great distinction, as the second atom of oxygen would act as a disinfectant. If any considerable proportion of the oxygen were readily given off then the peroxide of zinc would become oxide of zinc in the natural process. As to its injurious qualities, I know that there being in it a proportion of zinc permanently insoluble in water it would form cakes if mixed with any secretion containing albumen. The secretion under the crust would therefore remain pent up, and so be further absorbed into the system. That is not a purely theoretical opinion. I have not had any Ektogan submitted to me, but I have seen its description in the

Extra Pharmacopoeia. The Extra Pharmacopeia says it is "a white amorphous powder insoluble in water," and it goes on to say it is used or recommended for the treatment of superficial wounds and diseases of the skin. It did not therefore follow that it was suitable for treatment of deep wounds. My professional work consists largely in the making of autopsies and the giving of evidence arising out of them.

Mr. Kingsbury. Do you think it is fair to a man who is on his trial for his liberty that you should speak in this reckless fashion as to the uses or disadvantage of a powder called Ektogan.

Mr. Justice Bigham. I do not think that is a question you can put to him.

Mr. Kingsbury. Very well, my lord.

Cross-examination continued. I have not read the report on Ektogan in the "Lancet." I did not make a microscopic examination of the spine.

Mr. Kingsbury. Is it usual in cases of fracture of the spine—?

Mr. Justice Bigham. I do not know what you are doing at present. Are you going to contend that this death was not due to blood-poisoning?

Mr. Kingsbury: I say it was not due to any blood-poisoning over which we had any control.

Mr. Justice Bigham. That is quite a different matter. Are you going to contend that it was not due to blood-poisoning; because, if you are, your cross-examination is right enough. If you are not going to contend that I do not see what you are driving at.

Mr. Kingsbury. My contention is this. This man may have died of blood-poisoning. If he did, that blood-poisoning may have originated in half a dozen different ways, and I wish to get this witness's opinion as to the various ways in which that might have arisen, altogether outside decay.

Mr. Justice Bigham. Let us clear the ground. Are you going to submit to the jury that the man did not die of blood-poisoning?

Mr. Kingsbury. No, I am not going so far as that.

Mr. Justice Bigham. Very well, start with that. By all means cross-examine this gentleman as to whether death was due to blood-poisoning or to some other cause than that which be says it was due to.

Cross-examination continued. In cases of fracture of the spine inflammation of the spinal cord is usually set up. If the spinal cord is severed there is death within a short time, but not necessarily death from injury. There is a recision of the spinal cord. There was evidence of damage received by the spinal cord at the time of the accident. Adhesions had formed between the

covering of the spinal cord and the lining of the bony carbon evidencing acute inflammation at one time around the spinal cord. Mere irritation leads to adhesions of the membranes; inflammation might lead to suppuration. In this case there was no formation of pus near the seat of the injury or in any part so far as I could see. Such irritation or inflammation would not in itself be a possible source of blood-poisoning. In cases of fracture of the spine it is usual for retention of urine to be produced, but not cystitis, which is inflammation of the bladder. I have seen perhaps a dozen cases of fracture of the spine; cystitis was present in one or two of them, and such a condition of the bladder as cystitis might be a possible source of blood-poisoning. In this case the bladder was ulcerated, and the urinary passages from the outlet to the centre of the kidney were one long tract full of matter, and such a condition as that might be a source of general blood-poisoning. Stone in the bladder and stone in the kidney might also be possible sources of blood-poisoning. It is characteristic of such fractures as that sustained by Major Whyte, that there should be destruction of the tissues over the sacrum or bottom of the spine. Sacral mortification would be a fair description of that condition, and sacral mortification would be a source of general blood-poisoning. (The witness was next examined upon the medical reports forwarded to the Treasury from the Hinckley Cottage Hospital.) The putrid condition of the urine spoken of in May, 1904, is an indication that the bladder had become irritated by the decomposing urine contained in the blood. The bladder being irritated might have produced pus, but there are two years between that date and the death. Orchitis followed by cystitis would be a possible source of stone in the bladder if it lasted long enough, but the stone in the bladder was not large enough for such a long time. A similar condition would also be a source of stone in the kidney. If there had been a stone at that time it should have been detected when the catheter was passed. I could not say whether if a nurse passed the catheter the stone would have been detected. As I have said, the head of the thigh bone was partly eaten away; the socket into which the thigh bone fits was partly eaten away, the capsule was destroyed, and the thigh bone was dislocated and away from its joint. I have never seen such a bad condition as the result of a neglected bed-sore. It is the worst case I have ever seen. I have seen as the result of spinal injury flaccidity and laxness of the capsule, but I have not seen a case in which the capsule was entirely destroyed and the bone eaten into. (Witness was then examined upon the report of a lecture by Sir William Gower in the "British Medical Journal. ") In the case referred to there was erosion of the head of the femur, but destruction of the capsule was entirely absent.

To the Jury. The length of time a man having blood poisoning can exist depends entirely on the way in which the infection takes place. If a little is absorbed daily, or once a week or so, life may be prolonged in a state of chronic blood-poisoning.

Mr. Justice Bigham. Where blood poisoning arises from eating German sausage or something of the kind, a person, I suppose, could live a twelvemonth.

Witness. That is a condition of blood-poisoning. It is blood-poisoning, but it is chronic blood-poisoning. Where blood-poisoning is due to the bursting of an internal tumour, death very often takes place in 48 hours. In the present case blood-poisoning might have existed for more than four months in a chronic state.

Mr. Justice Bigham. I understand that you said death was due to blood-poisoning arising from the escape of pus which had been going on from the time the bed-sores became offensive, and that was some time before the defendant appeared on the scene.

Witness. Yes. I could not say how long the abscess had been forming. The abscess in the hip must have been there a few months gradually forming and extending. I could not say how long a time was necessary for the destruction of the joint; I can only make a guess. The abscess could not have been forming for 12 months, because, in that case, death would have ensued much earlier. It is difficult to say if the period was six months. I put it that suppuration was going on, at any rate, for three or four months. Bearing in mind the account given by Bellew of this man's condition before 1905, it might be longer than four months; it might be six, but not more than that. The use of the catheter is sometimes a source of infection if it is dirty. I have seen cystitis set up incidentally by the use of a dirty catheter, and death following upon cystitis. As to the dozen or so of cases of fracture of the spine that I spoke of, it is 20 years now since I was house surgeon, and I cannot say that I remember any of them recovering. I do not remember whether they died from blood-poisoning. I remember one case that died from meningitis. Meningitis is due to a microbe, and in that case meningitis was caused through the infection spreading; it was a form of blood-poisoning. I believe I stated at the inquest that some of the cases died from septic pneumonia; in other words, all the cases that I remember died from one form or another of blood-poisoning and within a few months of the injury.

Re-examined by the Attorney-General. I have not known in my experience a case where death has resulted three years after the injury. Having regard to the medical history of the case, there is no reason for supposing that the original injury

would have occasioned that if he had been carefully treated. There is no indication of any cause which would have occasioned death which was in operation before November, 1905. According to Bellew's evidence, the bed-sores then began to be serious, and a month later offensive, and in my opinion that indicated a grave state of things. There was nothing in the post-mortem to indicate death from any other cause. There was no indication that death was attributable to the causes suggested in cross-examination, such, for instance, as inflammation of the spinal cord, cystitis, orchitis, stone in the bladder, or stone in the kidney. The cystitis and the condition of the kidney were contributing elements produced by the general process of blood-poisoning which involved these parts of the body. In my opinion, if proper medical and surgical treatment of the bed-sores and abscesses had been adopted as far back as January life might have been prolonged. With reference to what happened at Osborne two years before the death, when Major Whyte suffered from orchitis, followed by an acute attack of cystitis, after which a small abscess was formed, which was opened under gas, that, in my opinion, was proper medical treatment. During the stay in the hospital the bladder was relieved daily, so that no putrefactions would be set up by retention. Galvanism and the use of massage are curative agencies in such a case. The application of the curative agencies, common in such a case between May and September, when he left, would explain the subsequent freedom from pain. Ektogan is not an appliance that I would use for any except the most superficial wounds. Powder dusted over the surface is not medically regarded as a proper antiseptic for treating a deep wound, and is not adapted for such treatment at all. I should say the proper way of treating a deep wound which is secreting matter would be to open up the wound, to wash it out, to drain it, to remove the dead flesh that may be there either by scissors, or if necessary, even with the cautery, to transform the deep pouchy wound into an open wound, and to take proper surgical measures to prevent the introduction of the surrounding air and also to prevent the secretions from the surface of the wound. The application of surface powder might have the result of presenting to the unskilled eye the appearance of improvement; the wound would granulate and look like healing. Although it might look better, the action of the poison, the microbes in the seat of the wound, would not be affected in the slightest, and, in my judgment, such treatment would make things worse, and that was, in my opinion, the result of the application in this case. In my opinion the fact that the bed-sore and the abscess were united by means of a channel explains the condition of things found at the postmortem examination in respect to the destruction of the hip

joint. The inference I draw from Bellew's evidence wag that the abscess was consequent on the bed-sore, that the bed-sore came first. As to cutting out the abscess, I think he would have been in a fit state to have had such an operation performed in January. I never saw the man alive, and cannot speak from my own observation as to his condition on January 27, but I have heard that he went by train to Southsea and other places, and the journey by train would improve his condition.

To the Judge. The fact of the urine of the deceased man being putrid in the summer of 1904 would be an indication of there having been catarrh of the bladder with the formation of mucous, and this mucous had collected in floccules and been deposited, and then generally at that stage mixed with the pus. The presence of pus is always dangerous, because if it gets into the system it sets up blood-poisoning. With regard to the acute attack of cystitis from May 3 to July 9, that might also indicate the presence of pus and the consequent danger of blood-poisoning. Orchitis is irritation of a similar description but not so serious as cystitis.

Mr. Justice Bigham. He was discharged on September 13 from Hinckley, and this is the report as to his condition: "Left of his own wish, special leave having been granted him. to remain at the end of August "; that means he could have stayed another three months if he had chosen. "Has become a Christian scientist Condition on discharge not so good as on admission." What do you infer from that?

Witness. The general condition of patients of this sort fluctuates; there is very often a more or less rapid improvement; then there is some going back. No doubt the attack of cystitis and the abscess in the testicles had operated to make the man worse. It is true that the influence on a man's brain when he is suffering from any disease, irritation, inflammation, or anything else may cause his condition to improve. If you can persuade a man to take a more cheerful view of his condition, his condition may improve. He might very well have thought that after the Christian scientists began to practise upon him his condition was improving, and it might have been so. The symptoms of cystitis and orchitis which developed in the Cottage Hospital might also have developed later on after he had left the hospital without the Christian scientists knowing anything at all about it, and that condition of things might have happened long before the defendant came, and these are all conditions which might have set up the blood poisoning from which the man died. I am satisfied that if this man had been treated surgically or medically his life would have been prolonged, but I could not say that his life would have been saved. To begin with the surgical treatment, there should have been

first the systematic surgical cleansing of the bed-sores, the opening up of the abscess, if only for the purpose of letting out the pus and to prevent the accumulation of recently-formed pus, the removal of the dead and decayed flesh, the drawing off the urine by means of the catheter, the washing out of the bladder by means of antiseptic lotions prepared in a scientific way with sterilised water, and the continuance of massage and galvanism in order to encourage the muscles, together with a medical regimen depending upon the general condition of the patient as ascertained by the thermometer. The chief part of the treatment would be surgical; the medical treatment would consist in the administration of tonics and drugs. The treatment I have mentioned would probably have resulted in the prevention of the continued absorption of poison and would probably have enabled his system to cope with the poison already absorbed. In a healthy body, and under ordinary conditions, nature would get rid of the blood-poisoning itself by throwing it off.

SIR VICTOR A. H. HORSLIY , F.R.S., B.S., F.R.C.S., M.D. I practise as a surgeon and have had a great many years' experience in my profession. I was called in in the month of February, 1903, to see Major Whyte, who had just sustained injuries from a hunting accident and was lying at Hinckley, near Leicester. He had a fracture, a dislocation of the lower parts of the dorsal region of the spine, and the bones were pressing upon the spinal cord. He was completely paralysed in the legs, in the bladder, and in the bowel, and he had completely lost sensation as well as motion below the seat of injury. He was in intense pain. It was quite obvious that to save his life it would be necessary to remove the pressure from the spinal cord. We therefore made the usual operation, what is called laminectomy, which means the cutting away of the laminae or arches of the vertebrae. That is to relieve the pressure. These had been driven in, and at the operation we found that the left half of the cord was cut by a fragment of bone that was sticking into it. This being removed, the pressure was taken away from the spinal cord and gave him the opportunity of recovering, but it was quite clear from that moment that he could never recover complete power, or anything like complete power, in the left leg. When my duty was at an end I returned to London and the wound healed by the first intention—that is to say, it healed without the formation of pus. When a wound granulates and heals slowly with the formation of matter we call that by the second intention. We expect to get wounds healed by the first intention nowadays. If we do not, we think we are probably at fault. By the use of antiseptics we can prevent suppuration. He was removed to a nursing home in London and remained there during that year in the hands of Miss Robson, who is, I believe, a competent surgical nurse. Dr. Huxley was in constant

charge of the case, and I saw Major Whyte several times in consultation. When he returned from Hinckley three months after the operation he had already begun to recover power in the right leg. The left, of course, was completely paralysed, and during his stay at the home he gradually improved. The bed-sore, with which be came from Hinckley, steadily got better, and he began to recover power in the bowel, but his bladder required washing out in the usual way. With the careful attention that he received from Miss Robson he was gradually encouraged to move, and she got him ultimately to crawl before he left her. I last saw him in the May of 1904, the day before he went to Osborne. The bed-sore with which he came from Hinckley was healing under proper treatment, and I do not remember that any other developed while he was in Miss Robson's hands. The presence of bed-sores is very common in such cases. There is the very greatest difficulty in treating them because the tissues are in a paralysed state, and therefore the treatment has to be most carefully adjusted medically from day to day; you often have to change the antiseptics which you are using. They require constant attention and most competent skill; they are the most difficult of wounds to heal. I saw him a day or two before he died. Dr. Huxley was with me; Mrs. Whyte was in the room, a bedroom attendant, and also Miss Robson. He was then in a dying condition. He was in a most awful condition really. Not only the room he was in. but the next room—the sitting-room—was pervaded with this terrible gangrenous smell. He had an enormous bed-sore, chiefly on the left side of the sacrum, and the smaller sore below had communicated with the abscess, and it was quite evident that the whole of the tissues round the under part of the thigh and groins were undermined. I did not examine him more thoroughly because it was obvious that nothing more could be done, "there were indications that the bed-sores or wounds and the abscess had bad surgical treatment. There was a dressing on it. I understood Dr. Huxley had seen him a day or two before, and had ordered the application of antiseptics; but even with that disinfection and deodorising, the stench was horrible. I have not heard the description which has been given of the condition of the bed-sore when Bellew called in the prisoner to attend Major Whyte. I assume that it was discoloured and deep-seated, and in such a condition as would cause concern to a hospital attendant of some experience. If I were called to a septic bed-sore, the first thing I should do would be to apply a warm, mild antiseptic fomentation, such as boracic acid. Then, having cleansed of the sloughs, which would take about 24 hours, I should examine it very carefully to see whether it was pocketing the skin, that is to say, tending to burrow under the skin. If I found any such burrowing

I should follow it up by making a small incision, wash that out, and cleanse it thoroughly, in other words, I should convert the apparent flat sore into a completely open cavity, to that no pus could possibly accumulate in it. No other treatment would be efficacious. Certainly I would not recommend leaving it alone. I have heard of ektogan as a disinfectant or curative powder. The application of ektogan to the surface of the wound would not affect the case in the least. The infection is due to microbes growing in the tissue, and always tending to grow deeper and deeper. If you put even a really strong antiseptic powder on the surface, you do not get at the source of infection. I agree absolutely with Dr. Freyberger's evidence that it is a most dangerous thing to apply drying powders to these bed-sores, because they form a cake on the surface and prevent the discharge from escaping.

Mr. Justice Bigham. Do you mean to say that the use of powders such as this, which dry up the surface of the bed-sore, is not common?

Witness. It entirely depends upon what you call a bedsore. Its use is common in cases of weeping eczema. That is not a sore, but a skin disease. The bed-sore begins by being red and inflamed, and in the formation of such a bed-tore powder would be a good thing. The ektogan it always spoken of at a dusting powder, but at soon as the sore begins to putrify, to form pus, or any filthy growth inside which is poisonous, you require an antiseptic to follow it up and destroy it. If you do not destroy the microbe, you will never get it bealed; you must get at the root of it. Assuming that the poisonous pus is forming, there must be some point at which it must escape. It cannot escape externally; but, in this case, found its way through the tissues of the body, all of which had been more or less weakened by the paralysis, and that constitutes the great danger of these cases, and that it why we have to watch them so closely, because we can never be quite sure that an abscess it not going to open at one point or another. There was no evidence of any surgical treatment of the abscess by cutting into it. I heard the description of the sinus or channel connecting the bed-sore with the abscess and the fact that by pressure of the abscess the collected fluid escaped at the bed-sore, and, in my opinion, the connection between the bed-sore and the abscess is perfectly straight forward. The man had a bed-sore which in the early stages gradually healed. Then it was left alone and neglected and became infected. When I last saw it it led down to the bone, and therefore it always was a dangerous bed-sore; it was neglected and became infected, and then gradually increased again, and The microbic infection as it destroyed the skin burrowed down under the skin and between the muscles right

down to the hip joint. Assuming the presence of the abscess to be brought to the attention of the surgeon or any competent person, it ought to have been at once probed, and as soon as the end of the abscess under the skin had been ascertained by probing a small cut should have been made and the cavity Hushed out with antiseptic lotion and cleansed. I hear it has been spoken of in the evidence as an operation. It is ridiculous to call it an operation, because in the first place this poor fellow was anesthetic at the very point where you would have made the cut; he would never have felt it; he would not have had to have gas. There can be no doubt that the patient died from an attack of blood-poisoning, but it depends upon what you mean by blood-poisoning. If the patient has a septic tore he may have that for months, and yet the microbes causing it never gain access to his blood system, and therefore they do not kill him. People live for months and years with a septic sore, but all the time the patient is getting weaker, because he is absorbing from that sore the chemical products that these microbes produce in the sore, and that is a form of blood-poisoning. Dr. Freyberger did not say so, because he was not asked the meaning of blood-poisoning. There are two kinds of blood-poisoning. There is blood-poisoning due to infection, a microbe in the blood, and blood-poisoning due to infection by something that the microbe produces. If you have a septic or poisonous sore or abscess, so long as you have that you are absorbing these chemical products, which of themselves cause fever, and if they go on long enough will ultimately cause death. What usually happens is that the microbes themselves are absorbed into the lymphatics, and thence pass into the blood system and cause death. The bed-sore being neglected in the first instance, the patient then got an abscess. How long that abscess had been in existence is a very difficult question to answer. We know that an abscess of that kind might fairly have been formed within three months. If I am asked how long the abscess had been there, I cannot give a scientific answer to that question. I can hazard the opinion that it may have been there certainly two months, and it may have been there three months.

Mr. Justice Bigham. I understood Dr. Freyberger to say that it might have been there six months.

Witness Well, I am not prepared to express a dogmatic opinion, but my own feeling is that three months would be a more accurate rendering than six months. I think if he had had it for six months the microbic blood-poisoning would have occurred before.

Mr. Justice Bigham. I rather understood from Bellew, who was a man of some practical experience, and had been a male

nurse, that this abscess was in existence before the defendant appeared at all.

Witness. Oh yes.

Examination continued. Assuming that at the end of January there was an increase of putrefaction in the wound, and that shortly afterwards the swelling was observed in the hip, one would expect to find the two connected, and that is the moment at which I say the whole thing should have been explored, and if pus was found of course liberated. I think the treatment I have described would have greatly prolonged the man's life, but I do not think it is possible to say conclusively that it would have prevented death. I do not think it is possible to say that at that stage, even with very active treatment the bed-sore could have been got to heal up again. I do not think it is possible to answer that question. I can say confidently and absolutely that the effect of such treatment as I have described would certainly have been to prolong his life very much. At this moment he might have been a living man, and probably would have been a living man had that treatment been applied.

Mr. Justice Bigham. What you mean, as I understand, is that if the man had received proper surgical treatment in connection with this abscess the probability is that he would have lived longer than he did.

Witness. Yes. I was in Court when Dr. Freyberger was examined, and I heard him describe the presence of pus in the bladder and in the kidneys after death. There is nothing inconsistent in the presence of pus in those parts of the body with my view as to the cause of death. It is what I should have expected to have found assuming blood-poisoning to have set up in the way described. Acute inflammation of the bladder or cystitis occurs very commonly in these cases, and I should regard it as nothing more than a common incident, but if a man starts catarrh of his bladder in that way and has a septic sore anywhere else he is liable to get most dangerous cystitis and, ultimately, inflammation of the kidney. As to the suggestion that there had been inflammation of the spinal cord, evidenced by the existence of adhesions between the bone and marrow of the cord, that is entirely a misapprehension of the facts. In every case of injury there is a certain amount of bruising and a little extravasation of blood leads to the formation of adhesions between the membranes. It is no evidence whatever of inflammation by itself. This man had no myelitis, which means simply inflammation of the spinal marrow, and has nothing to do with injuries from simple accident; it has nothing to do with the present case. It is locomotor ataxy. I attach no importance to the adhesions in this case as indicating the cause of blood-poisoning. It has nothing to do with blood-poisoning

whatever. It is the ordinary result of bruising. As to the sug gestion that the abscess was not formed by the escape of pus from the bed-sore, but was due to some injury of the hip-bone, consequent upon fracture of the spine, in my opinion fractures of the spine do not produce any disease of the bone. My explanation of the fact that bone came away is, as follows: When the patient begins a bed-sore it begins by inflammation of the skin superficially; the skin sloughs away and exposes the deep tissues, and the microbes go through the deep tissues and attack the bone. The bone in this case was already bare when he returned from Hinckley, and that constituted a particularly dangerous feature; of the bed-sore, but it gradually covered until it was reduced to a small hole. The application of Ektogan as treatment for a bed-sore, pressure from time to time to allow the pus to escape, the insertion of a drainage tube, the use of warm water and the use of the probe would not be surgically regarded as in any way adequate treatment, and is not reconcilable with any standard of proper professional treatment.

Mr. Justice Bigham. I do not understand at present that it is suggested that the defendant ever did treat this case as a properly qualified man.

The Attorney-General. Your lordship has heard his statement on the subject.

Cross-examined. I saw Major Whyte in Cambridge Terrace, from which he was moved to Miss Robson's three months after the operation. At that time the bladder required to be washed out antiseptically. It is necessary to use the catheter in order to prevent residual urine—in order to secure the bladder emptying itself. At that time the patient had bed-sores, which are exceedingly difficult to handle, and as long, as they are unhealed they are a constant source of danger. If I were called in to advise, and ordered a certain treatment, and the patient refused to have it, I should withdraw from the case. I should not call it desertion of my friend if I refused to accept responsibility if I were not morally justified in undertaking it. If I thought an operation was a necessity, I should advise it, and if he refused, I should say, "Consult someone else." I could not undertake the responsibility when a treatment was to be thrust upon me which I considered wrong. It is a question of moral responsibility from beginning to end. The patient might refuse to take a certain drug, and I might say, "Possibly another drug might help you," and I would not object to his taking that, but when it comes to a matter of life and death there is no doubt about it. Assuming the bed-sore was not very bad, the proper treatment would be to clean it, and apply antiseptics. Antiseptics which may be quite efficient vary in their effect on the tissues, and we very often have to change it because we find that some antiseptics have an injurious effect on the tissues.

I have seen poisonous results from the use of carbolic acid and iodoform mercury. In this case I wanted an antiseptic that would have an effect on the microbes. Ektogan is valueless. It is quite a proper application to the skin if it was abraded. I do not consider it a proper application for a wound when the skin is destroyed or for a serious ulcer or an abscess or a bedsore such as this. I base my opinion of its efficiency on my experience of the use of it. The degree in which a powder that is insoluble in water could liberate oxygen must be extremely feeble. It would not attack the microbes in the tissues themselves. I have not tried it on anyone, but I have seen it used as a dusting powder. I have not tried any experiments since the former investigation. My opinion is not based on theoretic grounds. I have had a very large experience, and the volume of oxygen which you have to use to produce, an appreciable effect is very great, so much so that when you buy it in solution, and the whole thing fumes with oxygen, you do not get any result; therefore, I say, that to believe that, from an insoluble powder, sufficient oxygen could be given off to affect a wound of that septicity, is quite incredible. My statement is based on the fact that to produce an effect on such a wound, you would have to use an enormous quantity of oxygen, which a powder like that will not give. I do not believe the application of this powder would have the effect of removing slough. Bellew's statement that the effect was immediate is not incredible to me. Sloughs are ready to separate at any time. If you put on dry powder, if we donot want to form a cake, at the next discharge, a certain amount of slough will come away with it. As regards the stench, it is incredible because, although antiseptic deodorants were used for two days, the stench in the rooms was horrible. I am speaking of April 29. I have seen friends of patients very kind to them amidst smells which are most disgusting. I cannot believe what Bellews states, that after the time he used the Ektogan there was no offensive odour in the room. I say that, in spite of the deoderant, there was an extremely horrible smell in the room. There is always, in necrosing bone, and I have no doubt that Bellew was accustomed to the bad smell. Borne kind of disinfectant had been used by Dr. Huxley for two or three days before I came, and, in spite of that, the room was most offensive. If Bellew told me that though that disinfectant was used for those three days, and that there was no such smell in the week previously when the Ektogan was being used, I could not accept that. I could not believe there was no offensive odour. Necrosing bone always gives off certain gangrenous odour. That is the characteristic odour which was so extremely prevalent when I came there. I have not heard of any definite powers attributed to Ektogan. All I have heard

is that it is, to a certain extent, a deoderant, but that it has no healing property, and it did not stop the progress of the abscess. The application of the powder to a bed-sore such as this was very improper. As to what Dr. Huxley did on the 27th, in my opinion, a medical man might scatter truly antiseptic powder on the wound and then apply a wet dressing, and in that be perfectly justified because the wet dressing would prevent the caking which the application of the dry powder by itself always produces. I quite agree with Dr. Huxley's evidence when he says: "Assuming Ektogan to be composed of di-oxide of zinc, the antiseptic effect of the free oxygen will be so little that it would have no effect on the organisms there. Finding Mr. Whyte was in this condition I recommended that he should have a nurse and gave directions that the parts should be thoroughly cleaned with an antiseptic solution of mercury and then dusted over with an antiseptic powder creolin." I agree with the use of powder under those circumstances, because washing it with antiseptic lotions would prevent the caking. The matter would go on forming in the bed-sere and in the abscess. You dust an antiseptic powder all over a bed-sore like that when it is saturated with a lot of lotion, and then you apply the dressing; the suppuration goes on quite freely, and the antiseptic powder is washed away in the flow of pus. If you put moisture on a wound by capilliary attraction, the secretion of the wound is conducted away into the dressing, but if you heap on a wound a mass of dry powder you form a cake, and it is an objection because it prevents the secretion escaping. If you used creolin powder in a quantity that might cake. I understood the Ektogan was used in a medical fashion, which would be to heap it on the wound, and if you use the dry powder in dressing you heap it on the wound, and, under those circumstances, it would form a cake. If it was not heaped on, it would not form a cake. Creolin if it was heaped on would form a cake. I am asked the question: Would not creolin form a cake? My answer is, Yes, if you use creolin as a medical man would use it—heap it on to the wound in a quantity. If you are using it alone, that would tend to form a cake; but if you are using it in combination with mercury alone, and a moist dressing, it does not form a cake. It is stated on the bottle "1 gramme of 40 per cent, of Ektogan liberates 140 milligrammes of H 2 O 2." That means that when it is applied to the surface of the wound it liberates some sort of gas. I do not know whether the pus would be an acid liquid sufficient to liberate the oxygen. I do not know anything of the theory that when it is brought in contact with purulent matter the atom of oxygen is released and continues as long as the pus is formed to liberate the oxygen. I have not condemned it without knowing,

because I compared it with other antiseptics. What I said was that there was a bed-sore, that the bed-sore was pursuing a perfectly straightforward course until it was neglected, that it then became septic, that then the microbes burrowing into the tissues spread into the surrounding tissues and caused an abscess. I never said that the burrowing of the microbes was because the pus was imprisoned and the abscess created. I was asked the effect of putting dry powder in a quantity on the wound, and I said it would form a cake and prevent the escape of the matter. I do attribute the abscess beyond all doubt to the bed-sore. It is a perfectly straightforward case. If a bed-sore is neglected an abscess is the invariable thing. If you have a septic bed-sore the organisms are all the time trying to burrow into the tissues, and if you do not treat the sore you will get an abscess which will increase and cause death. I do not think it is possible that at the time of the hunting accident his hip was in any way sprained or strained, because we should have found it out. The man when I saw him was very much more concerned about his broken back than anything else. He was absolutely conscious and able to discuss the matter with me. He would not have felt the hip. He had lost all sensation below the waist. If he had had any pain in the hip he would have volunteered it. The man's hip could not be strained without the position of the joint being seriously altered. All I can say is we have no evidence of any injury to the hip. There might have been injuries all over the body which we did not perceive. Assuming there was a strain at the hip joint, it would not be possible for an abscess to follow without infection. He could not develop it without infection. I know that when Dr. Huxley saw him the first time he was suffering from septic throat, and that when he was at Osborne he had cystitis, and I knew he had orchitis and an abscess which required to be opened. They are all due to infection, and also they are sources of infection. It is not possible that the abscess in the hip is due to the strain in February, 1903, because we should have discovered it when he was under my care and Dr. Huxley's. Abscess of the hip is one of the most serious things that can attack a man; it is unmistakable. If you have an abscess dueto the microbes of tuberculosis it might form quite slowly and insidiously, but if you have an abscess due to sepsis it runs a totally different course, and it is a very acute thing, which makes a man grievously ill. I cannot admit that, although he may have had a strain and though he had these constant sources of infection, there was any connection between the abscess on the hip and anything but the neglected bed-sore. The postmortem shows clearly that it was the ordinary direct extensions of the bed-sore into the surrounding muscles down to the hip joint. The necessary and natural tendency of an abscess in the

hip joint is to find an outlet for the pus, and if there is a bed-sore in the neighbourhood of the hip the pus from that abscess will go that way. He never had an abscess on the hip and the time that I saw him. I tell you that during the time he was under my care and observation—that is to say, for almost a year—he had no abscess on the hip. I deny that when I was before the magistrate last I fixed the date of the commencement of the abscess as in December. I was asked whether I could give the date, and I said it was not possible. Then I was repeatedly asked, Might it be three months or four months? Of course, we cannot give positive answers to questions like that from a scientific point of view. We do not know when the organisms have got exactly so far. It is no good asking me questions to which I cannot give anything more than a surmise. I did say, "The abscess might have been forming for two or three months, but that is an estimate. The attendant Bellew said he noticed a swelling forming in front of the hip in January. I think probably it began in December." I am not in the least anxious to put it at three months; on the contrary, I particularly guarded myself against anything of the kind. I said it was impossible to make a dogmatic statement on this subject. I refused to make an absolute statement in pure pathology of which we know nothing. My statement as regards the future course of this case is based upon my clinical experience for 20 years. I have heard of the condition of the urinary tract which had evidently been in existence for a long time, because Dr. Freyberger spoke of the thickening of the coats of the bladder and the ulceration of the urinary tract. Cystitis was of necessity a constant source of danger. Certainly it was not present when Major Whyte came from Hinckley, because he would have been dead long ago. He had cystitis when I first saw him in January, which must have been developed at Hinckley. We also have a condition of inflammation of the bladder, and that would have been a source of danger. I cannot tell you when the cystitis extended back to the kidney. I think it must have been subsequently to his being at Osborne. At Osborne he apparently was well, or as regards the urinary tract, till he had this attack of cystitis. If be had had trouble then in the kidneys he would have had very severe symptoms indeed at Osborne. I do not think the condition disclosed in the' report on May 3 could affect the kidneys, otherwise he would have shown more constitutional symptoms. The ammoniacal condition of the urine in these cases often persists for years. There is one kind of organism that produces the ammoniacal condition of the urine and another organism which attacks the kidneys and causes death by blood-poisoning; and if one is lucky enough by reason of having the bladder frequently washed

out not to get the second kind of organism he would live along time. The second is a micro-organism discoverable by the microscope. I did not suggest making a microscopic examination, because it was not necessary. It was not any danger at all at that time because he was being properly treated, but it is dangerous when it is neglected. I am sure the kidney was not affected. As regards stone in the bladder, these phosphatic accretions are common in cystitis when it is not treated. The stone in that case would take about a year to form. By itself I do not think that had anything to do with the blood-poisoning. If the patient gets into his bladder septic organisms, the organism which is capable of spreading up and entering the kidneys, then the stone in the bladder is possible. The condition described here, that is orchitis, and a hard and painful and tender condition followed by abscess, necessitate the presence of micro-organisms in that department. It is possible to control the: cystitis if you take care of it. Assuming the microorganisms have worked up as far as the centre of the kidney syringing will not reach them. I should have considered him not to be in danger at that time because he had been washed cut. The washing out prevented the organism going out to the centre of the kidneys. I have said that, in my opinion, these organisms had not reached the kidney, otherwise he would have had severe constitutional symptoms. A patient who has an attack of inflammation of the kidney has rigors and vomiting, showing a high temperature had been going on for some time. The use of a catheter is a common source of infection, and the infection produced by the use of the catheter is a source of blood-poisoning, and a common cause of death. That would be more likely in the case of a patient with cystitis. It would be more likely to have a fatal result if the kidney and bladder were seriously affected. Uremia is a common cause of death. I have had experience of cases of fracture where uremia supervened and death. Probably there were bed-sores which would be receiving from me antiseptic treatment. I have had several such cases. I have had a considerable number of cases of fracture similar to Major Whyte's where death has supervened, and, in the vast majority, one form or other of blood-poisoning baa been caused, and in all those cases the patients have had the benefit of the highest form of antiseptic treatment. It is possible in a case of this kind, no matter how skilfully a man may be treated, blood-poisoning may set in and end fatally. Notwithstanding what I have said, I could speak as I did this morning as to the man's recovery because here is a man who is proved by the post-mortem to have his vital organs in a healthy condition, consequently hit resisting power was extremely good. The organs I am referring to are the heart and lungs. The kidneys were very much diseased. The

bladder is not a vital organ, but the Kidneys are vital. The post-mortem showed that he did not die from the infection in the kidneys. I admit they were in a very bad condition and the bladder also was in a very bad condition; but the bladder can be removed, and we do remove the bladder now for disease sometimes, and a man can go on living without it. If it is affected with cancer he is the better for removing it. The liver is a vital organ, and the post-mortem showed that it presented an appearance due to acute blood-poisoning.

To the Judge. The bladder, kidney, and, to some extent, the liver were affected by the blood-poisoning. I was asked upon what data I base my opinion that he would have lived if properly treated during the three months. I base my opinion upon the fact that when he was seen in January the abscess was commencing. If that abscess had been treated actively and surgically, as it should have been, I consider that man, in that condition, could have gone on living, and his life would have been prolonged.

To Mr. Kingsbury. I said in my deposition, "I think I saw him eight hours before his death. He was obviously dying. I should brave said his case was hopeless six weeks before. If I had seen him six weeks before I should have said he had received his death sentence. I may have said it seven or eight weeks before; it all depended on his general condition of nutrition whether he could fight against septic poisoning say, ten or twelve weeks before. Sometimes a patient will recover from acute septicaemia." What I was asked there was as to when the infection entered his system, and I said that he probably received his death sentence six weeks before. I said that because I had in my mind the fact that the evidence then before us showed that the abscess had begun in January. With a man in that condition, with a septic abscess there all the time. I think it is impossible for his life to have been saved, and I think so still. I do not say he had received his death sentence 12 weeks before. I believe he received his death sentence weeks before.

To the Judge. I was asked what I would have said if I had seen him six weeks before he died. I should probably have said if he was in that state that he would not recover. Then, again, I am asked to go further back and give more and more dates. What I have said is that the chances of his recovery entirely depended on the resistance power, which is not a thing we can gauge. All we can do is to open the abscess and disinfect it.

To Mr. Kingsbury. The condition of this man as I saw him on April 29 was due, in my opinion, to the neglect not only of three months previously, but of more like 18 months. He

never, as far as we can make out, received any proper treatment for 15 months.

Re-examined. Assuming the neglect I spoke of which existed down to January. 1906, and assuming that at the end of January, 1906, the proper remedies had been applied for the purpose of doing away with the result of this poisoning, in my opinion this mans life would have been prolonged.

HENRY HUXLEY , M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., 39, Leinster Gardens. I first saw Major Whyte on May 14, 1903, and attended him throughout the period up to January, 1904. At the time I saw him the operation wound had healed, but the had a bedsore on the sacrum at the bottom of the spine, which was in a clean and healthy condition when I saw it. It was being treated by the usual and accepted antiseptic treatment which continued till he went to Bournemouth, and the bed-sore decreased in size but was deeper. It is desirable with a sore of that kind to keep the bottom of the wound perfectly healthy and induce healing from that point rather than induce healing from the upper edge covering up the interior. I remember seeing him again before he went to Eastbourne in May, 1904, and I considered that his general health had improved, but I did not examine him. In November, 1905, I remember his paying me a non-professional visit. I next saw him on April 26, after receiving a letter from Mrs. Whyte, and I found him very emaciated with a very feeble pulse. He was dying. He mentioned he had severe pain during the last few months, and on this account this man wished to be relieved, and I obtained the services of a nurse. He passed slough from the bladder, and then the pain disappeared. Bellew showed it to me. It was offensive. The patient was taking very little nourishment. The room was very offensive, so much so that we could hardly stay in it. There was a gangrenous odour. I examined his back, and found a large bed-sore about the size of the palm of the hand over the sacrum and another lower down, slightly separated from it on the left buttock. It communicated under the skin with the bed-sore on the left buttock. On squeezing the abscess about a teacupful of pus was squeezed out, of an offensive character. The bed-sores were in an offensive condition. There was very little discharge. Most of the discharge was from the abscess when squeezed out. The only proper treatment to prevent blood-poisoning was to use antiseptic treatment. The bed-sore, that is the lower one of the two, did not have the appearance of such a treatment having been applied to it—it was not aseptic, and the other was in the same condition. I used a solution of mercury and ordered creolin to be put on to the dressing. The smell in the room was offensive and there was no antiseptic on the dressing. Creolin is soluble in water. Mercury was used as a solution to wash out the

cavity of the wound. At that time no treatment would have saved his life. He was in a hopeless condition. Not all the doctors in the world would have saved him. It was too late for any operation. There was a condition of general blood-poisoning throughout the system. The septic conditions were sufficient to account for the general blood-poisoning which I found. I do not know Ektogan. I had not seen it before Bellew showed it to me.

To the Judge. Since I was before the magistrates I have not made any inquiries for the purpose of ascertaining what is the effect of the application. It is a solution of peroxide of hydrogen which gives off a large quantity of free oxygen.

To Mr. Kingsbury. Assuming that it is dioxide of oxygen it would not give off sufficient oxygen to have an effect on the organism there; the amount of oxide would not be sufficient. If you could have had a sufficiently large quantity of oxygen set free it would have kept it aseptic. Given the formula for this Ektogan powder, it would not give a sufficient quantity of oxygen.

To the Judge. I had a conversation with Major Whyte about his treatment. I explained to him that an abscess would not empty itself sufficiently unless it was opened at the lower end and, therefore, the poisoning would continue in this condition, and I said: "Why has not this abscess been opened?" He said, "I did not know it had to be; you do what you think necessary." He made no objection to everything I laid down. I pointed out then that it was impossible for me to treat him as long as he was a Christian scientist and as long as he was being treated by another medical man. I could not have prolonged his life or saved him; therefore, except for the purpose of giving him some comfort, I was quite useless, but you cannot have two forms of treatment going on at the same time. I could have relieved his pain, but I could not have prolonged his life. He made no objection, and asked me to continue and come next day. When I said to him, "I cannot continue to treat you as long as you are connected with Christian scientists," he said he preferred my going on treating him. I understood that up to that time he had desired to submit himself to these people, and it was only when he was at death's door that he changed his mind. Up to that time he had, according to my view, determined to submit himself to these Christian scientists, but he made no objection to anything I suggested as treatment, but he had been under medical treatment before I arrived. I said he could not have another medical man at the same time as myself, therefore he understood he was being treated medically. When you come to a case like that, and you find such a condition, and nothing done which ought to be done, we do not generally meet under those circumstances.

I would not see a man who has been treating a patient improperly for consultation, although I should tee him personally.

To Mr. Bodkin. My answer to his Lordship as to Major Whyte's willingness that I should treat him is founded on my conversation of April 26. I went the next day, the 27th, to see him, and he was sinking, and on the 28th I wrote to Dr. Adcock, "I shall be glad if you will meet me and Sir Victor Horsley at 12.30 to-morrow (Sunday) at Major Whyte's, 38, Eaton Terrace. As he has been under your care for some months, and his position is so grave, I think it will be well in your interests as well as his to meet us to-morrow."

To the Judge. I thought he might with to offer tome explanation, because we did not understand what the treatment had been. I was not laying a trap for him. I thought we might get information which would be in vindication of himself. I could not give a death certificate in the case, and it was a question whether he could. I wrote, "I think it will be well in your interests as well as his to meet us to-morrow," because I was going to refuse to give a death certificate.

To Mr. Bodkin. The medical man last in attendance on a patient is the one who may give a certificate of death, but supposing he makes up his mind not to give a certificate, the usual thing is to refer to the medical man whom he succeeded.

To the Judge. I believe this man was dying from neglect, and I have not had another case of a like character. Cases have occurred and have been reported, in which it hat occurred.

To Mr. Bodkin. I was called in when he was dying because hit mother wanted me. I should not give a certificate under those circumstances, and I thought it my duty to communicate with Dr. Adcock. It struck me at a case in which he had been neglectful of the ordinary and proper treatment, because from the condition I found the patient in and from the size of the abscess it must have been there at least a month.

To the Judge. It could not have been there less than a month. At the police court I said the abscess must have been there more than a month.

To Mr. Bodkin. Given the existence of an abscess in that place and of that character the usual course would be to open it as soon as the pus was detected, but there was no appearance of ibis abscess having been opened in the usual manner among doctors, and this was operating on my mind when I wrote that letter. I had not seen Dr. Horsley before writing it, but I telephoned to him and asked him to meet me on Saturday, and he made it Sunday. I told him Major Whyte was dying. I got a reply to that letter on the Monday.

To the Judge. In the deposition I say, "I telephoned to Dr. Horsley on Friday, and in consequence of that I wrote to

Dr. Adcock saying that Sir Victor Horsley was coming with me on Sunday to see Major Whyte, and I thought in his own interest he ought to be present, not in consultation." I had already refused to see him. One reason why I refused to meet him was because I saw such evidence of neglect that I did not think it right to meet him, and it is hardly compatible with professional etiquette to meet a person who is a Christian scientist, and I had heard that he called himself a Christian scientist. They were both reasons operating on my mind. These two reasons were sufficient to justify me in saying that I would not meet him in consultation. At that time I did not know Dr. Adcock was a registered medical practitioner. I did not know anything about him at that time. He was on the register. If he ceases to practise he can take his name off. I do not know whether he had a surgery. I think the address was St. Bartholomew's Hospital, which is used by a good many students at the hospital. He was undoubtedly a qualified man, and he was acting as one. He says he opened the abscess. This is the defendant's answer, dated from 164, Ebury Street, on the 30th: "Dear Sir,—I have just received your note, having been out of town since Saturday. I expected to meet you on Friday at 4.30, and waited at Major Whyte's till 5.15. I left word that I would wait at home till you sent round, as I am only 200 yards from Major Whyte's room. I again called on Saturday at 11.30, and waited some time for you. As I am leaving London to-day, I shall be unable to meet you. Major Whyte has been treated in Christian Science until you saw him. I have been attending him for the two wounds and they have improved very much since I first saw him. I used Z.N.O. dressing. He had no fever since the second week I saw him, when I opened an abscess which has been washed out twice daily. Beyond looking after his wound I have given no medicine; in fact, he refused to take anything in the shape of drugs while being treated in one science. I myself have given up practice. His condition up to a week ago is better that when I first saw him; two months ago he did not look like living many hours. Before he took Christian Science he told me that his doctors had given him no hope of his getting better, and he told me that if it had not been for the help he get from Christian Science he would not have been alive now.—Yours, faithfully G. R. ADCOCK."

To Mr. Bodkin. I got that by post. I had definitely made up my mind to refuse a death certificate signed by myself, and it seemed to me the fairer course to give notice to the gentlemen who had been attending him for some months, and that entitled me to give the notice rather than go to the Coroner's office.

Cross-examined. I had definitely made up my mind to decline to give a certificate, and if he had another reason which

I did not know, why he should grant the certificate, I would give him the opportunity of stating it. What more should I have written? Why should I tell Dr. Adcock that I would not give A certificate when I had asked him to meet me. The Utter did act suggest I wanted him to meet me in consultation. I carefully did not use the word consultation. When I use the phase "Will you meet me" without the word consultation, it means that it is not a consultation. If he had some explanation he could have given a certificate and I should not then have written to the Coroner. I do not think it would have been more candid to say "I am not going to give a certificate. Assuming that he had come, I should have told him that I was not going to give a certificate, and he would have heard Dr. Horsley's opinion as well of the case. Major Whyte was dying from exhaustion as the result of blood-poisoning. The object of the death certificate is to notify to the Registrar the cause of death. It is not usual for a medical man to become a policeman; but it is usual for a medical man, if the case is not treated properly, to refuse his certificate and notify the Coroner if there is any possibility of the certificate being given by anyone besides himself. If the certificate is not given by the last medical man in attendance that would excite the suspicion of the Registrar. In this case there was a public duty, and any man with a sense of public duty would have done as I did. When I was called in and saw Major Whyte I saw he was dying, and that there was nothing to be done except having the parts as clean as possible. I said in the deposition, "I agree with Sir Victor Horsley that Major Whyte was a doomed man for eight, perhaps 10 or 12, weeks before his death." But I agreed with Sir Victor's evidence, and he said, "According to his power of resistance."

To the Judge. I should think from his condition he was a doomed man a month before. That abscess must have been at least a month in the condition it was in. It depends on how much you can recover the power of destroying these organisms.

To Mr. Kingsbury. I agree with what Sir Victor has told us today—that from the time Major Whyte left Osborne he was neglected, and I agree with what Sir Victor said, that he attributes his death to the neglect for these 15 months. When I came in on April 27 I gave some form of anodyne, but I have no recollection what it was. I know phenyl; it it one of the coal tar series, but it has no depressing effect on the heart and no element of risk. I do not thing Ektogan was a drug that had any element of danger in it to a man who was dying. I have refused to meet Dr. Adcock, because in the first place of the treatment, which I found had not been used, and secondly, because I understood he was a Christian scientist and Christian science and medicine are incompatible. It is true among

medical men that once a man has qualified he has complete freedom as to the method in which he pursues the practice in medicine, and you have no right to say to a medical man, "You must practise medicine according to my school," but the question of meeting other people in consultation is different. The same thing would apply to homoeopathists. There are some doctors who practise hydropathy. I have a perfect right to say whom I will meet. I do not interfere with private beliefs; I say I will not meet people on certain points. I said Ektogan is not an antiseptic of any value from the formula?; I have never tried it. I have no experience of it, and practically never heard of it until this investigation. I have not tried any experiment or asked anybody to experiment with it since. In a case where the whole thing depends on the septic condition, anything that is not antiseptic is no good. I still say it is not an antiseptic sufficient to be of any use. If you have a solution of oxygen in 20 volumes it gives off an enormous quantity, but that is only two volumes, and two volumes in a case like this is not sufficient to be of any use as an antiseptic.

(Friday, June 29.)

Cross-examination continued. The meaning of the phrase in that letter "in your interest" was that, if Dr. Adcock wished me to give a death certificate, and did not wish me to refuse one, it might be that he had some reason for giving one that I did not know of. I was attending Major Whyte from May 14, 1903, to January 14, 1904. My first attendance on him was in connection with a septic throat; that was thought to be due to drain poisoning. He had a bed-sore on his arrival from Hinckley; that was treated by being kept clean and applying antiseptics; I do not know whether what we used was a mercury solution or izal or boracic acid; if either of these caused irritation we should change to one of the others. During this period, to the best of my recollection, there was no occasion to use the catheter. The nurse would not have used it without my instructions. What I said before the magistrate "was that the condition was not such as to require the use of the catheter; I have no recollection whether it was used or not; it might be necessary to use it occasionally to wash out the bladder, as it might not empty itself entirely. Before the magistrate I said, "I agree with Sir Victor that Major Whyte was a doomed man for eight weeks, perhaps 10 or 12, before his death. "but there was a modification of that; nobody can say exactly the length of time a person may live with septic poisoning; it entirely depends on the power of resistance of his tissues to destroy the organisms. The abscess was noticed first in

January; if the abscess had been opened when it was first noticed, it would have stopped the absorption of septic material. Mr. Justice Bigham. As a medical man, well acquainted now with all the circumstances of this case, in your opinion would any medical help have been of any use ten weeks before this man died? A. It depends entirely on the condition he was in at the time. Q. You know now what the condition was; if you say you cannot form an opinion, that is a very excellent answer. A. I cannot without knowing the exact symptoms. Q. Then I think it is a pity you ventured to confirm Sir Victor Horsley. A. But I think he said much the same thing, that he could not give an accurate date. If the abscess had been opened at the very beginning he might have been saved. Q. Do treat us as intelligent beings, and try to give a simple answer; when do you think first medical help became of no avail? A. Probably after the abscess had been there some time. Q. Will you fix a date? A. No, certainly not.

Cross-examination continued. I agree with Sir Victor Horsley's description of the action of Ektogan; it is an insoluble powder; the sine in it is insoluble, and it forms a cake. When I was called in I used a powder; that was a creolin powder, and was simply applied in the dressings at a deodoriser; I also used an antiseptic lotion, a solution of mercury. The man was dying when I saw him; I simply used an antiseptic lotion; no treatment would have made any difference. I agree with Sir Victor "That a man might be in a condition of pysemia for months or even years, and if he had sufficient vitality he would resist it, and it would not come to a general poisoning." A man might have a certain amount of organisms in his blood which would not cause general poisoning, provided they were being eaten up. There are degrees of blood-poisoning; if the poisoning is not of a severe nature, a healthy man's tissues will destroy the organisms. The various complaints from which Major Whyte was suffering while at Osborne, from May to September, 1904, would no doubt make him more liable to attacks of poisoning. The condition of things described by Bellew would be a drain on the Major's system and lessen his power of resistance. It would be possible to gel blood-poisoning from the scratch of a pin, if the pin were septic. Q. What do you say was the cause of the Major's death? A. When I saw him he was dying simply from exhaustion as the result of blood-poisoning; if you have a long illness that in constantly sapping your vitality, there comes a time when it comes to an end.

Re-examined. During the ten weeks preceding death, if the blood-poisoning had been arrested, the source of poisoning would have stopped, and he might have recovered.

Mr. Justice Bigham. The important question is, could it have been arrested?

The Attorney-General. My Lord asked whether you could give a positive statement as to what extent life would have been prolonged, or exactly at what stage effectual treatment could have been taken; is it possible scientifically to describe with accuracy either of those periods? A. No.

Mr. Justice Bigham. I did not expect that he would be able to give definite information upon such a speculative subject; I wanted an opinion.

The Attorney General. As my Lord puts it, it is to some extent speculative? (A) Certainly; and the speculative pert of it is that one cannot tell of any individual what his power of resistance is. The Major had shown such extraordinary powers of resistance during his illness that one cannot see why he should not eventually have made a recovery if the source of the poisoning had been removed when it was first noticed. The source of poisoning I connect with the bed-sores, but not with the cystitis or orchitis. If the source of infection had been effectually stopped in January, and the abscess had been opened, I do not see that there was any other subsequent or contemporaneous operative cause which would have occasioned death. In writing the letter I did to the defendant I had no other wish than to give him an opportunity, if he desired it, to give his own explanation; that is what I should hope that anyone would have done to me in similar circumstances.

Dr. E. H. G. HOFFMEISTER. In 1904 I was medical officer in attendance at the Osborne Convalescent Home for Officers. Major Whyte arrived there on 31 ay 3, and remained there under my care until September 13. When he came he was suffering from paralysis of the lower part of the body. His body bore the scars of bed-sores which had healed; there was one bed-sore on the sacrum which was healing; I treated that with antiseptic washings and dressings, and it got better. When he arrived his control over the bladder was imperfect; his urine was foul smelling and ammoniacal. A catheter was used by the nurse under my superintendence; the bladder was washed out with some mild antiseptic, and it improved, and the patient obtained a better control over it. The washings did not commence till he had been there some little time, when he had the attack of cystitis. The bed-sore got better ail the time the Major was at Osborne. At the time he left Osborne I did not see any reason why he should not have lived some years—say four or five years, at least. I agree with Sir Victor Horsley as to the proper treatment of bed-sores. I remember some time in June or July an officer and his wife being admitted; I got some information with regard to them subsequently. On September 13 Major Whyte discharged himself from the hospital. The officer and his wife were Christian scientists; they had

every influence over Major Whyte and induced him to take up Christian Science and leave the hospital.

Cross-examined. Captain Fisher is the name of the officer; I am not aware that he mentioned Christian Science to Major Whyte at the request of the hospital matron.

Mr. Justice Bigham. What has this to do with the case? We are not trying Christian Science.

Mr. Kingsbury. These people are in Court, and they would like your lordship to give them, an opportunity to rebut a reflection which has been made upon them elsewhere.

Mr. Justice Bigham. I shall give them no such opportunity.

Cross-examination continued. From within a few days of Major Whyte's arrival the catheter was used, at first once a day, and then two or three times a day. The use of the catheter is a very frequent source of infection. The bladder may become infected from the use of a dirty catheter, and this would be a possible cause of death. Infection introduced in that way is liable to creep up the urethra to the kidneys, and there set up microbic trouble; that would be an increased source of danger. I do not think the stone in the kidney or stone in the bladder would have much effect in this case; if the stone had remained for a twelvemonth it would be a possible source of death. I say that Major Whyte did improve while he was at Osborne; his bed-sore and his bladder improved. Q. Did he improve? A. Well, he was much the same when he came in as when he left The official-report of his condition on discharge was written by me. It states: "Left at his own wish, special leave having been granted to him to remain at end of August; has become a Christian Scientist; condition on discharge not so good as on admission, in consequence of attack of cystitis and abscess; limbs much the same; were improving with treatment at first." I say that he was in much the tame condition when he left as when he came in.

Mr. Justice Bigham. What does that report mean, except that he was not as well as when he went there? A. His condition on discharge was not so well, because—. Q. Never mind about "because "; it means that he was not as well when he left as when he came in, does it not? A. It does not to me. The man had been laid up in bed for some time before he was discharged, and his condition was not so good, in consequence of his having been kept in bed and kept on low diet, and having had an abscess in the testicle. You have heard that soon after he left he began to pick up; it was simply a temporary condition. Q. When he left your hospital was he in as good a condition as when he went there? A. Well, I suppose not, if yon put it like that.

Cross-examination continued. I am not prepared to admit that the trouble to which I attribute his not being so well, the cystitis and the abscess, was certainly due to the use of the catheter; I admit it is likely. Q. To what do you attribute his death? A. Well, I did not see him. He was in good condition when he left us.

Mr. Justice Bigham. What do you mean by good condition? A. Good condition as regards life. Q. This wretched man, in the state in which we know him to have been, you say was in good condition. A. Yes, I do.

Cross-examination continued. Major Whyte was not telling the truth when he said that he never had a day's freedom from pain at Osborne. He did suffer acute pain for a few days when the orchitis was beginning, and I then gave him hypodermic injections of morphia. Besides that, I do not think I treated him for the relief of pain. Cystitis would not produce pain if it was chronic.

Re-examined. The attack of orchitis began on July 9; it was followed by an acute attack of cystitis. This caused the formation of an abscess, which had to be opened under the influence of gas. As a medical man I distinguish between the general condition of a patient and the consequences of temporary illnesses. When Major Whyte left, a sufficient interval had not elapsed for his complete recovery from the effects of those temporary illnesses. This explains what I meant in reporting that he was not on the day he actually left so well as when he came in; there was nothing to lead me to suppose that he would not entirely recover the condition he was in in the previous May.

ALFRED WARD , Police Inspector B Division. I arrested defendant at the close of the coroner's inquest; I told him I was a police officer, and should arrest him for having caused the death of Major Whyte; he said, "Very well." On his being charged, his reply was, "Certainly." On searching him I found two phials, one containing sulphate of morphia and the other sulphate of strychnia in tabloid form; in the waistcoat pocket I found another phial containing tabloids of atrophine and strychnine and morphine and strychnine; also an empty phial labelled "Morphine and strychnine," and a hypodermic syringe. Defendant asked me to let him have the tabloids back; I asked him what they were for; he said he was taking them for indigestion; I said they were marked "Poison," and I could not let him have them back.

Cross-examined. Before the magistrate I said that defendant bad given me a false address. When I went to Ebury Street, the address he gave, I saw the gentleman who rents the house; he told me that until within a day or two defendant had rented a flat from him; he said that defendant could come there at

any time he liked. Defendant did not tell me that he gave that address because he was going to the Isle of Wight; he simply said that was his address.

(Evidence for the defence.)

PRISONER (on oath). I practised my profession of medicine from the time I was qualified until February, 1905, for a period of 10 or 12 years. In 1905 I decided, as the result of personal experience of Christian Science treatment to abandon medicine. Major Whyte was for some time a friend of mine. I had known him since March, 1905, but not intimately, until September. My acquaintance with him arose through Christian Science. I discussed the subject with him. He knew I had been a doctor, but that I had given up practising in any sense. At that time I was studying Christian Science, I never at any period attended Major Whyte as a doctor. I was not in charge of him as a Christian Scientist. Mrs. Grant was treating him. He would not, in my opinion, have at that time accepted the attention of any doctor. I saw him on his return from Southsea on January 27. I regarded that first visit to him as of a friendly character. Bellew had been dressing his wound for some considerable time. I knew Bellew to be a man of large experience is an army orderly. There was nothing that happened between Major Whyte and me from September down to that January 27 that led me to suppose that he desired me to attend him in. any medical capacity. All I did on January 27 was to write down the name of a disinfecting powder—Ektogan. This is not the form in which I should have done it had I been writing a prescription as a medical man. I should in that case have put my address on the top of the paper, the patient's name at the side, and signed my name and qualifications at the bottom. I should also have written the prescription in full in ink and given directions how to use it. I came to receive a guinea a week for my services because Major Whyte asked me to accept a fee and offered me two guineas a week. I told him I could not accept it because I had given up practice as a doctor, but, ultimately, after some altercation, I agreed to accept one guinea, which was the fee of a Christian Scientist. I believed that was the fee he was paying Mrs. Grant. From that time until Dr. Huxley came back to attend Major Whyte, I never prescribed any medicines for him. I never during that period treated him surgically or medically in any sense of the word. Bellew applied the Ektogan. It is not correct as stated by Mrs. Whyte, that at a conversation between her and myself I suggested that I should have a consultation with Sir Victor Horsley, as I regarded this as a surgical case. An interview did take place between Mrs. Whyte and myself, at which my sister was present, on April 2. It arose in this

way. I was going into No. 38, Eaton Terrace, to see Major Whyte, and I met Mrs. Whyte outside. I told her I should very likely be an hour with her son, and I suggested she should wait in my flat with my sister until I returned home. After I left Major Whyte I returned to my flat at 164, Ebury Street, and found Mrs. Whyte talking to my sister. They were discuss ing Christian Science, and Mrs. Whyte was expressing her views thereon, and I said to her. "If you want a doctor, why do not you call in a doctor?" She said, "It was no good; her son would not have a doctor; that doctors had already done what they could for him." I believe I mentioned Sir Victor Horsley's and Dr. Huxley's names, because I knew that they had been attending Major Whyte previously. I met Mrs. Whyte on April 26, the day Dr. Huxley was called in. I have never at any interview with her suggested that I was attending her son as a doctor. I have never promised her that I would attend her son as a doctor. I received a letter from Dr. Huxley dated Saturday, the 28th, on the Monday. I left town for the weekend on the Saturday afternoon, and within an hour of my receiving the letter on the Monday I answered it. "I have just received your note, having been out of town since Saturday. I expected to meet you on Friday at 4.30. and waited at Major Whyte's till 5.15." I did wait during that time. It is not usual for one doctor to wait for another in that way if there is a medical consultation. Q. Did you leave word, as you say here, "I left word I would wait at home until you sent round, as I am only 200 yards from Major Whyte's "? A. Yes, I told Bellew I would stay at home until he sent for me. Q. You write, "As I am leaving London to-day shall be unable to meet you "? A. By that I meant I was leaving London on Monday, and should not see him again, as I should be out of town. I was going to stay in the Isle of Wight for some time. Q. You say, "I have been attending him for the two wounds, and they have improved very much since I first saw them. I used Z N.O. 2 as a dressing. He has had no fever since the first week I saw him." What did you mean by that phrase? A. I merely wished to give Dr. Huxley any information that I could not give him by not seeing him. I did not mean that I had been attending Major Whyte in a medical sense. Q. "I have given up practice." That was true at that time? You had absolutely given up practice? A. Yes; I wanted him to understand that I was not attending him as a doctor. Q. "Before he took up Christian Science he told me that his doctors had given no hope of his getting better." Had Major Whyte told you that? A. Yes. I suppose he told me that more than once, and I knew it very well.

By the Court. Major Whyte told me that his doctors had said to him that there was no hope of his getting better.

Cross-examined. I thought I was called in to see Major Whyte in January in the capacity of a friend, and not in any surgical or medical capacity. Bellew told me that the Major's wounds were in a serious state, and very foul smelling. I cannot my that I went with the expectation of having the wounds shown to me. Bellew told me that Major Whyte wanted to see me. I had a very good idea why. He did not mention any other reason for my visit except the state of the wounds, but I did not know that Major Whyte would allow me to see them; I knew Major Whyte's belief. Bellew told me he would not accept the responsibility of treating the wounds. I considered I went as a friend, but I expected to be shown the wounds. I thought they were most serious. I did not think they required serious treatment; I thought he was beyond all medical treatment, and I told my sister so, and I believe Mrs. Grant also the same day. I ordered the Ektogan simply to keep the wound clean and to take away the smell; treatment never entered my head. It was the only possible thing to be done, because he was beyond hope of either surgical or medical treatment; he was a dying man at the time. Had I been a doctor I could have done no more than I did. I should have used nothing but that powder. The difficulty of suppuration in such a wound would have been met with mere Surface treatment. There was no question of the surface of the wound healing over; it was full of a gangrenous mass, and in the ordinary way I would not have dared to have touched the wound with anything, because it was so deep down, and I should have been afraid of the bloodvessels being touched. In the ordinary medical way the only thing to do was to apply something to clean it. I did say before the Coroner that "As a doctor I used to keep a bed-sore clean by washing it with antiseptic lotion." But that was either the bed-sore on the back that I was speaking of or any bed-sore. This was more than a bed-sore. It began with a bed-sore, but it was more than a bed-sore when I saw it; it was a gangrenous mass. I do not know that I should always use lotion in addition to the powder. I have used Ektogan powder before when I have been in practice without any lotion. If the notion of treatment had entered my head I should not have considered that this case demanded both lotion and powder. I believe Ektogan is an antiseptic powder. Antiseptic lotions are not consistent with Christian Science, but whether consistent with it or not, they were not necessary. I meant by saying before the Coroner: "I applied the treatment so far as it was consistent with Christian Science," that if I had been attending him as a doctor I should not have allowed anybody else to have anything to do with the case at all, and I should have dressed the wounds myself and taken charge of the case entirely. That was all I omitted that was not consistent with

Christian Science. The powder was not inconsistent with Christian Science, and I explained to Mrs. Grant that it would have the same effect on the wound as opening a window and letting fresh air and sunlight into a room that was stinking. That was the object of using the powder—to cleanse the wound and remove the smell. In that way I persuaded Mrs. Grant to allow it to be used. I did not consider I was treating him at all; I simply considered I was advising him as a friend. It did not occur to me to use an antiseptic lotion in this case, and it was not necessary, and I was thoroughly acquainted with Major Whyte, and I knew he would never have used any remedy that he considered inconsistent with Christian Science. I did not ask him whether he would allow me to use an antiseptic. I asked him whether he would allow me to use this powder, and he refused to allow me to use it until Mrs. Grant gave me permission. I think the answer I gave before the Coroner, that "No antiseptic was used in this case; Major Whyte would not allow me," was only an afterthought. That is my explanation. From the medical or surgical point of view I considered that Major Whyte could not have had anything better than what he had. I was seeing the Major constantly. I think the wounds were shown to me on nearly every visit. I saw them dressed. I was paid a guinea a week because he would not have liked me to be there spending my time with him without giving me something; he did not like it; he did not like me to do anything to help him in any way without his paying me for my time. I often went twice a day; sometimes three times a day. I did not always go to see the wound dressed. I often spent an hour and a half in the morning there, and I used frequently to have tea with him, and I often spent the whole evening with him from eight until 12. The guinea a week included any service I could render him. It included my service in connection with the wounds. I saw the wounds dressed. I knew how they ought to be dressed. I think I recognised that it was a part of my duty to see that that work was effectively done, but Major Whyte had a will of his own and he would have his own way. I think my position would be correctly described as a Christian Science nurse. I thought I was paid a guinea a week for being with him and helping him in any way I could. I did a great deal more for him than simply seeing the wounds dressed. Including help as a nurse, if it is put in that way. I recognise that Major Whyte employed me to do the best I could for him under his directions. That included the superintendence of the wounds under his directions. I recognised it was my duty to apply my knowledge as a medical man as far as he allowed me to.

Mr. Justice Bigham. That is a question which I do not think is quite a proper one. What his duties were depend entirely upon the circumstances under which he was engaged. He cannot

tell us what he thought his duties were. It is for the jury to say what his duties were and whether he neglected them. You must remember we are trying a criminal case.

The Attorney-General. Quite. I do not want to press the point further than your lordship thinks it ought to be pressed.

Cross-examination resumed. My attention was called to the development of an abscess on the left hip and round over the thigh. I think that might have been a week before it broke. Bellew pointed out to me that there was pus collecting, and I confirmed it; I told him, I think, that an abscess was forming. That did not strike me as a very grave symptom because it was grave the whole time; it was no more grave then than it was before. I seriously meant that. I do not see how you can make a dying man worse than he is. I think my answer does mean that he was in so moribund a condition that what would have been a serious aggravation of the case of a healthy man did not matter in his case because he was a dying man. I did attach importance to the formation of the abscess, but it could not have made matters worse. I knew there was nothing to be done. He did live for three months from January 27, when I thought he was a dying man, but he was treated by his practitioner, Mrs. Grant, during that time. The formation of the abscess by itself would have been most important, but, connected with the other things he had it was only another straw. In addition to the bed-sores, he had all sorts of internal troubles and his spinal cord was severed. When I saw him I should not have been surprised at his dying, at any moment—he looked so ill and so wasted. I did not take his pulse; I was not there as a doctor. I did not test his heart's action nor sound his lungs, nor take his temperature, nor come to the conclusion that he was dying by any recognised scientific test, but I think anyone going into that room would have come to the same conclusion as I did. I cannot say I disregarded the abscess altogether; I looked upon it as a very grave symptom, but it was a symptom that could not be treated surgically. I absolutely mean that; nothing could possibly have been done. If I as a surgeon had opened the abscess it would have meant opening the whole of the thigh down to the hip-joint and he would never have recovered from the operation; he would have died there and then on the operating-table. The abscess itself was evidence enough of that without any further examination. I formed the opinion apart from any question of Christian Science that an operation could not surgically have been performed. Having been a doctor, I naturally remembered all I had learnt, and when I saw him it naturally came into my mind, "Here is a man that nothing can possibly be done for." The abscess that Bellew showed me was another abscess. I remember distinctly there was a small abscess where the bone presses

against the thigh lying down on the hip; there was a small abscess there that was forming, but certainly the other part of the thigh was swollen. I do not think I have ever made the suggestion to anybody that an operation could not be performed owing to the condition of the patient. It is true that I wrote to Dr. Huxley: "I have been attending him for two wounds; they have improved very much since I first saw them, when I opened an abscess. I opened an abscess which has been washed out twice daily." That refers to the little abscess. I can remember Bellew passing a probe up and showing me how near the probe came—almost through the skin. He passed the probe up and I took it out of his hand and a good deal of matter came away; I should think that little abscess contained half a teacup full of matter. There was more than one abscess. There was one superficial abscess and there was this large abscess round the hip joint, and in speaking of an abscess I was speaking of the small abscess. I am quite certain Bellew would remember the occasion. At the time I did not know there was a large abscess there; it did not show itself in any way; the thigh was bigger, but the only indication of the abscess was the matter coming away. There was only one orifice from which pus came away, when I saw it, and that was through a sinus into the bed-sore. There was no other opening. The abscess burst under the skin into the bed-sore. I entirely disagree that that showed that putrefaction had been continuing in the bed-sore and that by means of a sinus the matter had collected and formed an abscess. I think the abscess was there forming before the bed-sore appeared at all. I should think it was some weeks after I had seen the bed-sore that my attention was first called to the abscess. The reason I say the abscess was there forming some weeks before my treatment of the bed-sore is because it is impossible there could have been a large abscess there; it could not have formed in the time. I do not agree that it must depend on the condition of the patient. The head of the hipjoint is almost as hard as a billiard ball, and it is inconceivable to me that that could have been eaten away at any rate within six months, and at the post-mortem examination I understand the head of the bone was eaten away, and the cavity wherein the bone was was also eaten away, and it is quite impossible for that to have occurred at any rate within six or eight months. After the abscess was broken I saw it being treated by Bellew. He did more than squeeze it; he syringed the abscess out, and he put the powder all over the surface of the wound or the bedsore. It was not opened up. It could not have been opened up. I am absolutely certain if it had been opened up it would have killed the man on the spot. I did not suggest that to Dr. Huxley, because I never spoke to Dr. Huxley. When I wrote to him and said I had opened an abscess up and had it washed out twice daily I was referring to the small abscess, as I have

already explained. I was not referring to the abscess which continued down to the time of his death; it would be impossible to wash out an abscess round the hip joint. That was exuding a pint of matter a day. The abscess that was washed out was a small abscess, as I have told you, on the hip, which I have no doubt was connected with the other one. I have mentioned this other abscess before. It is true that I said before the Coroner: "Powder was used to clean the wound and prevent it smelling. I still continued attendance notwithstanding the powder was discontinued. I heard Bellew's evidence. I watched him dress the wound. He squeezed the wound on several occasions to get the pus out. As a medical man I do not think that was proper and efficacious treatment." I think that alone would not be proper and efficacious treatment for a wound, but he was having the oxygen from this powder which would permeate right up into the abscess. Bellew was not doing anything that he ought not to have done; he could not have done anything more. I think what I meant by my answer before the Coroner was that in the ordinary way it would not be proper and efficacious treatment. The ordinary way would be to open up an abscess, only you could not in this case. I adhere to my statement before the Coroner that I should never have operated when Bellew first pointed out the abscess to me, and that I used the probe to find out what was the matter with him as a medical man as a matter of curiosity. I was very anxious that he should not have this abscess break through on to his hip because he would have been very unhappy about it and very disappointed. It did not matter to me, as far as it went, because I could not have done anything, but I had always been a doctor and it is very difficult to set aside your thoughts, as it were. If I could have done anything more for Major Whyte I would have done it. I think I saw Mrs. Whyte three times altogether. I told her that I thought her son was very seriously ill. I think I did tell her that when I first saw him I thought he was in a hopeless condition, but that he was getting better. I certainly thought when I saw Mrs. Whyte that he was getting better. I think the abscess was broken at that time. I do tell the jury that he was getting better, although a pint of matter at a time was being discharged from the abscess. He had no fever at that time, he was eating very much better, and he was able to get up. During the time I first saw him he was in bed very ill indeed, and he certainly was getting better. There never was any indication to me that there was any blood-poisoning at all; he never showed any sign of blood-poisoning. He never showed any symptoms of blood-poisoning when I saw him. I have never seen a case of blood-poisoning in a man who was able to eat two or three good meals a day, and smoke cigarettes and enjoy them, and sit up and have conversations and enjoy them, and play games. I think he did

die of blood-poisoning, but there were certainly no symptoms of blood-poisoning when I saw him. I saw none of the necessary concomitants of blood-poisoning. I believe it was the Christian Science treatment that helped him and that as soon as he stopped that he got worse and died. In January, when I saw him, he was dying of exhaustion; he was fearfully weak and ill. I thought he was dying from exhaustion from this bedsore. I did not knew his internal economy altogether, but I knew what he had had the matter with him, and I knew he had certain troubles, bladder, and so on. I think the bed-sore was a very grave factor in the case. The bed-sore continued down to the time of his death, but I think the bed-sore was only a symptom of what he was suffering from. He was suffering from his spinal cord being practically cut in halves, and there was no proper nourishment and blood and nerve supply to those parts. I think rigors would be a symptom of blood-poisoning, but Major Whyte told me he was accustomed to have those attacks; that he had had some Indian fever and that was the cause of it. I accepted that. I suppose he did have blood-poisoning to a slight extent. By blood-poisoning I mean the absorption of different forms of bacteria ever since he had had his accident I know he was getting better, however, but as soon as he left off being treated in Christian Science he gave up all hope and got worse. I certainly think it was a sudden demise due to the abandonment of hope. I did not understand from Mrs. Whyte that she regarded me as attending her son as a medical man. I deny that she asked me to attend him as a medical man. I knew she had no faith in Christian Science. I knew she knew I was a Christian Scientist and a medical man. I knew she was exceedingly anxious about her son. I never recognised Mrs. Whyte as having anything whatever to do between her son and me. I was seeing her son, and she asked me a lot of questions about him, but her son told me to be very careful what I said to his mother. I think she very strongly disapproved of Christian Science at the time. I think I did tell her on one occasion that her son was getting better. That was absolutely true. I certainly do tell the jury that at one stage I thought he was getting better. He certainly did get better, and he continued better for some time; in fact, he was able to get up out of his bed and come and sit in a chair. I did not tell her as a doctor that I thought he would get well, but I did tell her I believed it as a Christian Scientist. I had known of cases as bad as his get well, and I did not see any reason why he should not. I think I did distinguish in my answers to Mrs. Whyte between my views as a medical man and my views as a Christian Scientist. I did say I told her I thought he was getting well, and I thought so at the time. As a

doctor, I saw no hope for him whatever, but as a Christian Scientist I did. I am sure she understood that as. a doctor I had no hope of him whatever. I did draw a distinction in her son's case between my opinion as a medical man and my opinion as a Christian Scientist, and she told me that I was a fool for giving up medicine and believing in Christian Science. She did ask me when she went to Ireland to write to her to Dublin how her son was getting on. I suppose she did want me to write to her to relieve her mind concerning her son. I did not know that her mind would only be relieved from anxiety by having my opinions formed according to ordinary knowledge and judgment, and not according to Christian Science. She knew my opinions perfectly well. She never attached a straw's weight to my opinions. When she asked me to write to her you must remember the fact that she did know I had given up medicine and taken up Christian Science. She knew I was a man of ordinary practical knowledge. It was true to write to her and say he was going on extremely well. He was certainly decidedly better; he got up. I did think he was going on extremely well. I felt no alarm about him as a Christian Scientist. Major Whyte told me to write and tell her that he was progressing favourably, and was looking forward to his return to Ireland, and that I intended to take him over to Ireland. He did tell me he was looking forward to going over to Ireland, and he asked me if I would go across with him. I thought that was due to his hope as a Christian Scientist. He had the same hope as I had of his getting well; for medicine he was absolutely hopeless. Mrs. Whyte knew that; she had already said to me that he was hopeless from the medical point of view. I do not know that I attached importance to Dr. Huxley's letter. I looked upon it as a threat. I remember reading it to my sister, and saying What a curious letter it was to have from Dr. Huxley. I looked upon it in this way, "If you do not come up and see us, we will make things uncomfortable for you." I answered the letter. A letter containing a suggestion that it may be unpleasant for me if I do not meet them and give them certain explanations, is a disagreeable letter to get. I did not resent the letter. I do not suppose I should say it was an unhandsome or ungenerous letter. I wished Dr. Huxley and Sir Victor Horsley to believe that I simply attended Major Whyte as a friend. When I wrote my letter in reply to Dr. Huxley the letter was written in a great hurry, and I took no note of what I said. The letter was simply written to let them know that I was not attending Major Whyte as a doctor, but that he had been treated in Christian Science the whole time, and that I was simply there to help him in keeping his wound clean. I did not say that I had had nothing to do with the case, and was simply

there as a friend, because the letter was written in a great hurry, when I used the expression that I had been "attending" Major Whyte for two wounds. For the last ten or twelve years when I had been to see a man it has always been as a doctor, and it is a very difficult thing to get out of the way of saying "attending" or "visiting." That is simply the phraseology I have always been accustomed to, and I used it on this occasion. I was also writing to a doctor. It was a true description to say "they have improved very much since I first saw them," because the wounds were certainly in a far healthier state than when I saw them first of all. I do say that correctly describes the condition of the wounds, although one of them was so connected with an abscess that when the abscess was pressed the pus jumped out of the wound. When I saw him on the Thursday before he died he was in a very much better condition than he was when I first saw him in January. It is certainly true to say that the wounds had improved very much. I was not thinking of the abscess then. I was not referring to the abscess there. I think I had said that the abscess was being washed. When I wrote that I had opened an abscess which had been washed out twice daily I meant, as I have explained, that in the ordinary sense of the word I did not open an abscess; a probe had been passed up, and the abscess practically opened itself. I did not tell the doctors that I had not opened an abscess, because I have never spoken to the doctors. I was asked by Dr. Huxley to meet him and Sir Victor Horsley, but I was unable to do so. I considered it an act of great courtesy on my part to write to Dr. Huxley at all. I did not convey to him anything that was not true. When I used the expression "opened an abscess," I intended to convey that a probe had been used on one occasion. If you opened an abscess in the ordinary way it would mean that a knife had been used, and it could not convey to a man who had seen the patient that a knife had been used, because if a knife had been used there would have been a scar, and he would have seen the scar, and there was no scar. Bellew had washed it out twice daily with warm water and then this powder was sprinkled on the surface. I intended to convey that it had been washed out with warm water. I do not think a surgeon would have understood it to mean that it had been washed out antiseptically. I had already stated what I used in the way of antiseptics, and if I had intended to mean anything else but water I should have said "carbolic," or whatever lotion had been used. My letter further states that I am a Christian Scientist, and he knows what that means. To cut the abscess and wash it out antiseptically would have been proper surgical treatment, according to ordinary practice, of an abscess. That practice was not followed in this case. I knew Dr. Huxley had

seen the case, and he would have seen there was no scar, and I told him the only thing I used was the Z.N.O. 2 dressing, or Ektogan. I did not say it had burst itself and that a probe had been used for the purpose of exploring the extent of the abscess, because the probe was not used with that intention. When I passed the probe up the matter came away; it was quite unintentional. Bellew is not correct if he says it had opened some time before. I acknowledge that the use of the expression "opened" would mean to a surgeon that it had been opened with a knife.

Mr. Justice Bigham. His answer is this—that he presumed Dr. Huxley had seen it, and if he had seen it he must have seen that it had not been opened with a knife.

Mr. Kingsbury. If I might suggest it, Bellew is in court, and possibly your lordship will ask him.

Mr. Justice Bigham. If it becomes material we will ask Bellew.

Cross-examination continued. When I wrote and said: "Beyond looking after his wound, I have given no medicine—in fact, he refused to take anything in the shape of drugs while being treated in Science," I meant to convey that I was there only as a friend, and my letter goes on to say that I had given up practice and had become a Christian Scientist. I also wrote that letter at a friend's house in less than five minutes so that I could catch a train to go down into the country, and I do not suppose that I gave that letter a moment's thought. I simply wrote it and took the letter round; it was not delivered by post as has been said. I took the letter round to 38, Eaton Terrace and I saw Bellew at the door. I asked how Major Whyte was. He said, "Major Whyte is dread." I said, "I have a letter for Dr. Huxley," so if I had wished to conceal anything I could have done so with the greatest ease, because I knew all that had happened. I did not mean to convey that apart from the refusal of the patient to take drugs I would have given him medicine. When I said I had given up practice, I think that would convey to him pretty well what I meant. I am a believer in Christian Science. I believe it cures everything.

By the Court. I honestly believe that. It did not cure this man because he gave up Christian Science before he died. I think it is more than probable that if he had continued a Christian Scientist he would have been alive now. I really do not know enough about Christian Science to tell you why it is that Christian Scientists ever die.

Cross-examination continued. That it my faith. Properly applied, I think it would stop the effects of all poisons in the human body, even including snake bite. It would cure indigestion also. I have never heard that strychnine is a cure for

indigestion. Nux vomica is a different thing from strychnine. I had a phial upon me when I was arrested containing a mixture of morphia and strychnine. A mixture of strychnine and nux vomica may be a very common cure for indigestion. I was very anxious to retain the phial which was found in my pocket. I was asked what it was for. I said it was for indigestion. That was a lie. I should like to explain why I had those drugs with me. I had been a victim to not only the morphia habit but to the cocaine habit, and 18 months ago I was an absolute wreck; I was a skeleton, and weighed under nine stone. I had done all I possibly could to get over this habit. I had been to several institutions, and could get no benefit whatever. As a last resource I was induced to try Christian Science, which I did not believe in at all—in fact, I scouted the idea.—and I got a distinct benefit from it. As you see me to-day I think I am a fairly healthy specimen. But, mind you, I was not cured of these drugs all at once, and, during this worry that I had when I was put in this position for manslaughter, I foolishly again retorted to taking morphia to relieve me, but it was not for indigestion or anything of that sort. It was simply a relapse. I returned to my old enemy. But when you come to think that I was an absolute wreck, and that I was told by several doctors that I was the worst case that it was possible to imagine, and that I should die within six weeks, I think I have a fairly good case for believing in Christian Science. I did my very best to cure myself by moral means, but I was told I was beyond all hope, and now you see me as I am to-day. I did go back, but how long have I gone back for? I think if you inquire into my case you will find there is no better case for Christian Science, because I was considered as absolutely hopeless.

Re-examined. I have never taken the drugs since. At the time I provided myself with them I was anticipating the possibility of going to gaol. I was able at once to do without them without any further trouble. Since that time I have had no further recourse to them. The statement I made to the police inspector was unfortunately untrue, but I had not the moral courage to say what the drug was for. It is possible for a person to become suddenly affected with blood-poisoning. I think Sir Victor Horsley stated that a man might be well one day and dead that day week from blood-poisoning. I agree with that. I considered Major Whyte was dying when I saw him on his return from Southsea. From that time forward and for some considerable time there was, in my opinion, a steady improvement in his condition. In April, and within a day or two of my leaving the house, Major Whyte was receiving guests. I know that I had tea with him and his mother on the last Thursday I saw him, and I knew that he had had visitors in on the evening before—I do not know whether to dine with him

or not. I believe one lady used to dine with him frequently. Considering his condition, the whole time I offered him the best advice I could as a friend. When I first saw him in January I considered him a doomed man. That was twelve weeks before his death. About a week before he died I noticed a change in his condition for the worse.

Mr. Justice Bigham. We do not want to go over the same ground again.

Mr. Kingsbury. No, my lord, and I am not quite sure that it would not be better to leave the matter where it is.

By the Jury. I should not, on account of the opinions I hold, prevent any friend from calling in medical aid in a case where it was necessary. If Major Whyte had asked me, "Do you think I should have a doctor?" I should have said, "Call a doctor in by all means." I should have been only too pleased. In fact, when Mrs. Whyte suggested it, I said: "By all means call in Dr. Huxley."

FREDERICK SHEARMAN TOOGOOD , M.D. I am now superintendent of the Lewisham Infirmary. I am on the list of pathologists of the London County Council. I have experimented with Ektogan. I have about 400 patients under my charge at the Lewisham Infirmary, many of whom are paralytics suffering with bed-sores. I have used Ektogan in many of those cases, and the result has been that it has enabled bed-sores which previously have not healed to heal up. I have used it in five cases of long-standing bed-sores. Some of the bed-sores healed, some did not, but they all improved. Some absolutely healed.

Cross-examined. Ektogan does leave a deposit of zinc upon the wound, which leaves a kind of wall round it, if it is not properly washed off. I use it as a dusting powder, but not as a dusting powder only. I do not allow it to form a case round the wound. That would be very injurious. I do not agree that the washing should be done with antiseptic lotion. I have purposely used sterile water. I did not near Sir Victor Horsley say that the use of antiseptic lotion was necessary. In connection with Ektogan I do not think it is necessary.

Miss ETHEL ADCOCK examined. I am the sister of Dr. Adcock, and live at Bembridge, in the Isle of Wight. I remember being present at an interview between my brother and Mrs. Whyte on April 2 of this year at 164, Ebury Street. My brother said, "If you are not satisfied with the Christian Science treatment why do not you call in a doctor?" and he mentioned Sir Victor and Dr. Huxley as having seen him before. Mrs. Whyte began by saying she would say one thing for Christian Science, that it had stopped her son's pain and enabled him to have a natural sleep, but that was all it had done.

Cross-examined. The names of these two medical men were mentioned by nr brother. Mrs. Whyte did at first express herself in a not very complimentary way towards Christian Science, but she came round a little afterwards in the course of the same day.

Dr. FRIEDLANGER called (examined through an interpreter). I am a doctor practising in Benin, and I am teacher and professor at several clinics. I make a special study of diseases of the utinary organs. At the clinic and in private practice I get putrid sores in the groin and elsewhere to treat. I have had experience of Ektogan as an antiseptic application for three years in about 100 cases. All the physicians look for an antiseptic which does not work antiseptically quickly but in a constant way, in a nascent way. I consider in a case of sloughing and putrid bed-sores this would be a suitable application as being non-toxic, and non-irritating and does not smell. Oxide of zinc has been used for many years for children as a. dusting powder when the skin gets irritated. It is a suitable Application for a sloughing bed-sore, such as this we have heard of.

Cross-examined. I have not used ektogan exactly for a bedsore. I have never used it for a bed-sore of any kind. Some forms of dusting powder suit some persons and some forms suit others. First of all, I use antiseptics which do not do harm. The primary use of this dusting powder is a dusting powder for children. That is its accepted use. I have used ektogan in such cases as phimosis operations on the glands, wounds, and burns. I have used it for bubo, which is a particularly offensive and sloughy sore in the groin. In such sores I prefer this antiseptic to any other that I know of.

CAPTAIN HENRY FRANCIS THORNHILL FISHER . I was in the Eastbourne Convalescent Home for Officers in July, 1904, and I had a conversation with Major Whyte as to his condition. He gave me to understand that the doctor could offer him no prospect of recovery. He told me he was frequently in great pain while at Eastbourne. He told me that when I was at his bedside while he was actually lying in bed at Eastbourne. He complained to me of the severity of the pain. I am now a Christian Scientist.

Cross-examined. I do not think he was in pain at the time I had the conversation with him, but he was in bed. I had no idea of what the disease was. I was at Eastbourne about the middle of July as far as I can remember, and I stayed there until towards the end of August. He told me he had no chance, he believed, of recovery. He did not tell me he had been comparatively well for him between May 3 and July 1. I did not discuss his condition with him more than he told me he did not consider he had any chance of recovery under medical treatment

That was at the end of the conversation. I was thereabout six weeks, and I left there about August 15. I think I saw him three times I was studying Christian Science then. I discussed it with Major Whyte to a certain extent, but very little.

(Saturday, June 30.)

Mr. Justice Bigham, in summing up, asked the jury to find a verdict of guilty or not guilty of manslaughter, and, in arriving at their decision, to consider three questions—(1) Whether the relationship of doctor (or nurse) and patient existed between defendant and the deceased; (2) whether defendant grossly neglected the duties of such position, if it existed; (3) whether that gross neglect conduced to the death.

After long deliberation, the jury disagreed. Trial postponed to next Session, defendant being released in his own recognisances in £500.

NEW COURT; Wednesday, June 27.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-33
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

REED, John William (26, clerk), and O'CONNOR, Fergus. (41, agent); conspiring and agreeing together to defraud Edward James Frankland of his goods, and obtaining from the said Edward James Frankland divers articles of jewellery with intent to defraud. Reed stealing divers articles of jewellery, the goods of Edward James Frankland, his master.

Mr. Lambert prosecuted; Mr. Purcell appeared for Reed, who pleaded guilty.

EDWARD JAMES FRANKLAND , wholesale jeweller, 28, Ely Place, Holborn. In August, 1905, I engaged Reed as canvasser and agent at a salary of 10s. a week and a commission of 10 per cent, upon all sales, and he continued in my employ up to May 12, 1906. He was entrusted with stock of the value of £100 to £150, which he had to take round for sale. Purchasers would fill in and sign form produced, pay a deposit, and the balance would be collected by my office. Reed had to bring in all orders once a week and produce his stock, less what he had sold. On April 28 he gave me a form signed by Maud Grayson, of 52, High Street, High Barnet, teacher in the Roman Catholic schools, purporting to have bought a watch and chain value £10. The watch and chain was missing from Reed's stock. He then had nothing more to do with the customer, the instalments being collected through another hand. On May 2 I sent a subscription card in envelope produced, which was returned

marked "Not known." I afterwards received a letter produced, signed Maud Gray son, 26, Camberwell Road; "I expect to be in Barnet next week, and shall esteem it a favour if you will kindly take care of any letter addressed to your care in my name." I caused inquiries to be made at High Street, Barnet, and no person was found named Maud Grayson at that address. I afterwards wrote to Maud Grayson and got no reply. I saw Reed, and showed him the correspondence in the presence of O'Connor. I asked him who signed Maud Grayson's order. Reed said, pointing to O'Connor, "You did it." O'Connor said nothing. Watch and chain produced were part of the stock given to Reed. I produce order form of January 23, 1906, signed by Charles Hemsley for an albert. Pawnticket produced was handed to me by Reed. I referred to this and a number of others in O'Connor's presence; he made no reply. I received from Reed order form in name of Charles Dean, 163, Sydney Street, Mile End, for watch and chain. I sent a subscription form to that address, which was returned through the post.

Cross-examined by O'Connor. I knew nothing of you when you came with Reed. You came willingly, and from that time until arrested three weeks afterwards you gave every information and assistance you could, and made no effort to get away. (To the Recorder.) O'Connor admitted he had signed a number of these orders, including the three produced. There are £600 worth altogether. He admitted filling in many forged orders at Reed's request. He said that he wanted money for an action, and Reed advanced this money to him. (By O'Connor.) The value of Reed's stock would be £100 to £150 selling price, including profit. Reed was in the habit of carrying these goods day by day in his bag for the purpose of taking orders, and I only saw him once a week. You at first denied signing Maud Grayson's order. Reed then said, "Yes, you did," and I could not say whether you admitted it or not.

Re-examined. I could not swear to O'Connor's handwriting. A great many of the orders are in the same handwriting. Hemsley and Dean's are in the same writing; Maud Grayson's is in a different writing—I could not say if it is Reed's.

O'CONNOR. I have no desire to occupy the time of the Court. My defence is a very simple one—not that I did not sign those orders—I certainly did assist Reed in money matters merely as a paid servant, and under the impression that Reed was a responsible person, and that he had no master. I admit I wrote Hemsley and Dean's orders, but not Grayson's.

JOHN BISSELL (police-sergeant). On May 24 I arrested O'Connor at 88, Waterloo Road, for conspiring with Reed in obtaining, by means of a forged order, purporting to be signed by Maud Grayson, a watch and chain value £10. He made no

reply. I took him to Gray's Inn Road Police Station; he was shown the orders, and he picked out a number that he admitted he had signed, amongst them being Hemsley's and Dean's. He said, "I should not have been in this trouble if it was not for Reed. I had about £20 out of this, and it was to pay for an action my wife was taking. Did you get any I.O.U.'s from Reed? I gave him one every time he gave me money. Of course, it was wrong, but I must make the beat of it."

Cross-examined by O'Connor. I arrested you at 88, Waterloo Road, a solicitor's office. I do not know that you attended there for the purpose of surrendering. It was at Mr. Barnes's office. Mr. Barnes was acting for Reed. You were waiting for Reed to come back.

HARRY BLACKWELL FRANKLAND , manager to prosecutor. On May 14 I went to the Law Courts with Reed to find O'Connor. He was introduced to me by Reed in the name of Barnard. I said, "I understand you have signed some orders for jewellery for Reed?" He said, "Yet, I have." I said, "Will you come round to Ely Place and see Mr. E. J. Frankland." We walked round together. The conversation sworn to by E. J. Frankland then took place.

Cross-examined by O'Connor. You produced a telegram which I pointed out was in the name of O'Connor and you then said that was your real name. There are 30 orders in the same writing as Dean's and Hemsley's and admitted to be signed by O'Connor. There are 20 in the bundle produced, the value of the goods obtained on those being about £153.

CHARLES WILLIAM LEVITT , assistant to Wade, pawnbroker, Stockwell Road. I produce a watch pledged on April 23,1906, in name of Arthur Barnard. I took in other articles, which do not form the subject of present indictment.

CHARLES STANLEY BERRIDGE , assistant to J. and J. W. Davis, pawnbrokers, St. Martin's Lane. I produce gold neck chain, pledged April 25, in the name of George Barnett.

ALFRED WALKER , pawnbroker, 389, Walworth Road. I produce gold albert chain, pledged January 23, 1906, for £2 2s., in name of A. Bernard.

RICHARD AMBIT , assistant to Mrs. Barnett, pawnbroker. On April 17, gold albert produced was pledged with me by O'Connor for £2 2s. in the name of Barnard. I know both Reed and O'Connor. Prosecutor has seen and identified the chain.

Cross-examined by O'Connor. I have known you about five years. I produce five articles pledged by you.

LESLIE DAVIS , assistant to H. Davison, pawnbroker, Westminster Bridge Road. I produce gold watch pledged on March 31 in name of Barnard and duplicate ticket. I have nine articles pawned with me, some of which have been identified by prosecutor. One is in the name of Atkins.

EMILY GANE . I am the landlady at 154, Princes Road, Kennington. I have had no one staying in my house of the name of F. Hemsley. I received letters addressed to Hemsley, which I delivered to Reed.

Cross-examined. I never saw O'Connor.

LEON MUNDEL , 163, Sydney Street, Mile End. No one of the name of Dean has stayed with me. I do not recognise O'Connor.

Mrs. ARTHUR, tenant, of 52, High Street, Barnett. No one of the name of Maud Grayson has stayed at my house. Some letters came in that name, which I returned to the Post Office.

ERNEST BAXTER , police sergeant. On May 24 I saw Reed at 88, Waterloo Road, and arrested him. At the station I showed O'Connor 108 pawntickets. produced, and a list of the property pledged to the amount of £184 7s. 6d. I also showed him a number of order forms, and he then selected 20 as in his handwriting. He said he did not write Maud Grayson's. He admitted having written and sent letter to Barnet in the name of Maud Grayson: "26, Camberwell Road. Dear Sir,—I expect to be in Barnet next week, and shall esteem it a favour if you will kindly take care of any letter addressed to my name." He said he would volunteer to assist me in showing the part he had taken in the matter, and said, "I did not know for certain, but I thought Reed was a master man. I wrote the order forms and letters at his dictation." He selected a number in his handwriting, and said, "I have pledged some of the articles in the name of Barnard." I said, "What do you mean by using that name?" He said, "My professional name is Barnard."

Cross-examined by O'Connor. You expressed your surprise at the value of the goods.

JOHN WILLIAM REED , prisoner, on oath. I plead guilty to stealing these articles of jewellery, the property of my master. I have known O'Connor some considerable time. His occupation is something to do with writing plays and that kind of thing, and he is connected with the law in some kind of way. I met O'Connor before Christmas. He signed the orders, and the goods were pawned. He knew I was employed by Mr. Frankland—he used to come on Saturday to meet me at Ely Place. I simply asked him to put his name down as a teacher. I told him I was supposed to sell these things to people in schools. He had half the money on each transaction. He wrote Grayson's order at my lodgings. I did not write it. Sometimes I pawned the goods and sometimes O'Connor, always within a day of the transaction. We paid something for the deposit, as a rule, and divided the rest of the money. The first order was concocted before Christmas. I began to rob my master because I was short of money. I told O'Connor. He had no money at all, and he quite understood what we were doing. He said he had a law action, and I thought we could

repay it. I do not know that the value of the goods is £180. Of course we paid the deposits off the amount.

Cross-examined by O'Connor. The I.O.U.'s are a trivial matter for small sums I lent you on Saturdays out of my salary, and when we made the fictitious orders you said, "Let the I.O.U. stand over." You had your wife to keep. I took as salary and commission 25s. to £2 10s. a week. Looking at Mr. Frankland's book, the average is £3. I am a single man. I had expenses to pay. I do not admit you were working for me.

FERGUS O'CONNOR (prisoner; not on oath). I have known Reed for some length of time. I met him in January or February, 1906, after a long absence. I knew ho had occupied fair positions, and also that his family were moderately well off. He came to me and explained that he was doing very well in the jewellery line, showed me the goods, and said he had about £200 of value with him. Apparently he had no master, and as far as I knew he was acting for himself. He told me it was necessary for him to have a certain form filled up, and that owing to business not being so very good among school teachers he was getting orders from ether people, and that to all intents and purposes they were legitimate orders; would I oblige him, he being himself rather a bad writer—as he is—by writing letters for him and occasionally attend to business for him, as he found the business was really too big for him—he was not capable of being in two places at once. When he was going to one place he would ask me to go to another and attend to that business for him, he paying my fare; then the next day I would report progress to him, tell him what I had done, and so far as I was concerned the matter was then out of my hands. I had not the faintest knowledge of even the existence of Frankland; I did dot believe there was such a firm, although I pressed Reed on several occasions as to the existence of Frankland. As to the name on the order forms, it is a well-known fact in the city that many firms trade in other names; even Frankland themselves carry on business in other names. I had no reason to doubt for a moment that Reed was not himself trading in the name of Frankland. I had not the remotest idea that these orders would not be legitimately met, paid for, and eventually cleared off. I simply acted as a paid servant, and worked as an employee of Reed. On every occasion when Reed lent me money, apart from what he paid me for my expenses, an I.O.U. was handed over for the sum. In filling the orders up it did not occur to me for a moment it was a fraud.

Verdict, guilty; sentence, each prisoner, twelve months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-34
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

BELL, Charlotte Susanna (34, no occupation). Feloniously marrying William Charles Green, her husband being then alive.

Mr. Lyons prosecuted; Mr. Symmons defended.

Proof of the first marriage being insufficient, the jury, by direction of the Recorder, returned a verdict of not guilty.

THIRD COURT; Wednesday, June 27.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-35
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

KEEFE, Luke (22, general dealer), STROHM, Harry (34, baker), And STROHM, Ethel (22, wife of Harry Strohm) all pleaded guilty to feloniously possessing a mould for making counterfeit coin, possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same, and Keefe to feloniously uttering counterfeit coin to Ethel Clements and Florence Clements well knowing the same to be counterfeit.

The Common Serjeant, observing that the offence seems to be growing more common, and light sentences only gave encouragement to crime, sentenced Keefe to penal servitude for five years, and Harry Strohm to penal servitude for three years. Ethel Strohm, whom he considered to have been acting under the influence of her husband, he directed should enter into her own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-36
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation; Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > sureties; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

NEUMAN, Morris (19, tailor), PAYNE, Victoria (18, field worker), TUCKER, Thomas (59, cooper), and TUCKER, Frederick (17, labourer), were indicted, Neuman and Payne for uttering counterfeit coin twice on same day well knowing the same to be counterfeit, and for possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same; Neuman, T. Tucker, and F. Tucker for feloniously making counterfeit coin, and T. Tucker and F. Tucker for possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same. The joint indictments against Neuman and Payne were subsequently proceeded with.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

FRANK KNELL , Inspector L Division. On the evening of June 12, about a quarter-past seven I was in West Square, Southwark, with Sergeant Beard and Sergeant Cornish, keeping observation on No. 5. I saw prisoners Payne and Neuman leave that house. I followed them to the Elephant and Castle, and saw both enter several shops together and separately. They afterwards returned to No. 5, West Square. At nine o'clock the same evening I saw the female prisoner enter 29, Lambeth Walk, a confectioner's shop, in the occupation of Louisa Brewood. After she had left the shop I entered and saw Elizabeth Cassidy, the assistant, there. She handed me a counterfeit shilling, produced, which I marked. I saw prisoner Payne go into several other shops in Lambeth Walk, and afterwards into

No. 1, Juxon Street, also a confectioner's shop, kept by John Stratford. After she had come out I went in and received the counterfeit shilling, produced, which I marked. After entering several other shops the prisoner returned to No. 5, West Square. I saw no more of them that night, but the following morning at half-past one I went to West Square in company with other officers. We went up to the front room on the first floor, where I saw prisoners Neuman and Payne. On searching the room, on the table I found seven counterfeit shillings wrapped in tissue paper, so that they should not touch each other and wrapped in newspaper as well. In a basket, on the floor behind the bed, I found 12 counterfeit shillings also wrapped in paper. In a cupboard I found a saucepan with some metal adhering to the bottom. The metal appears to be tin; it is a white metal. I also found some copper wire, plaster of Paris, antimony, granulated tin, and some whiting. I also found on the table a letter ready for posting, which I opened and read. Neuman made a copy of the letter as follows, substituting at my suggestion six o'clock for eight o'clock: "My dear Frend. I woold Like to Se you Wendsdy night 6 o'clock at my Place Morris, with 100 Sixpences, the money you gave me—the money is waiting (wanting). We are idle. Don't fale. Yours truly, Morris;" That was addressed to "Mr. Shoeng Raagan, care of C. Sneleing, 21, Harford Street, London, Mile End." The original letter was in the same handwriting, with the same peculiar bad spelling. I posted the copy as addressed. I then told Neuman be would be charged with uttering and with possessing plant for the manufacture of counterfeit coin. He said, "I did not make them myself. I allowed two men to use my room for that purpose. I know I have done wrong. They made 170 shillings and gave me 25 for the use of the room. I will do all I can to assist you to find the two men." At the station he said nothing.

To Thomas Tucker. The house in West Square was placed under observation on June 11.

JOHN BEARD , detective-sergeant L Division. On June 11 I was in West Square, Southwark. I commenced observations on No. 5 at 9.15 a.m. I saw prisoners, Thomas and Frederick Tucker, go into the house one behind the other. I was there until 1.30 and did not see them leave. In the early morning of the 13th I went to the house in company with the last witness and another officer. I was present when the search was made and saw all the articles which have been produced found. I went there again in the afternoon, and at about five o'clock the prisoner Frederick Tucker entered alone. I asked him what he wanted there and he said, "I have come to see my friend Morris." I told him I was a police-officer. He was arrested and searched. I found a packet of cyanide of potassium in his

vest pocket. The cyanide I put in this tin from the nature of it; previously it was in a plain white packet. I also found a packet of nitrate of silver. Two other small packets had been broken in half. I also found 3d. in bronze and one return half of a railway ticket. I found one letter and the letter-card which has been read. I pointed to the cyanide of potassium, and said, "This is what they use in the manufacture of counterfeit coins." He replied, "A man gave it to me to bring here. I do not know who the man is." Pointing to the letter-card I said, "How do you account for this being in your possession?" He replied, "The man who sent me for these packets sent me." I said, "You will be arrested for being concerned with Neuman and Payne, now in custody, who occupied this room, in making and passing counterfeit coin. Neuman says you and your father came here on Monday and made it. He said, "I know nothing about it I came here on Monday with my father, but did not stay long. He told me to go out and come back in the evening." He was then taken to Kennington Lane Station, where Thomas Tucker was brought in afterwards by Inspector Knell and Sergeant Cornish, and Frederick Tucker said, "That is my father." Neither prisoner made any reply when the charge was actually read. Both the Tuckers refused their address. Neuman when arrested said, "I am going to speak the truth, and will assist you to find the two men who have been here making the coin, if you let me post that letter (pointing to the lettercard, of which the copy was made). They will be here at eight o'clock to-night They are father and son. They said they would see me all right as they liked me. They were here on the Monday."

To prisoner Neuman. I was present when three counterfeit shillings were found on you.

Neuman. I deny that I had more than one in my possession.

Witness. Two were found in the inside jacket pocket and one in the vest pocket.

----CORNISH, police sergeant L Division. Prisoner Thomas Tucker came to No. 5, West Square, about eight o'clock in the evening. Inspector Knell told him we were police officers, and he was arrested for manufacturing counterfeit coin in that room. He said, "I only come here to see my friend Morris. I have not been here half a dozen times." I searched him, and found the return half of a railway ticket, from Aldgate to Latimer Road, and a purse containing a little good money. I asked him for his name and address, and he said, "Thomas Tucker, no home. I came up from Deptford to-day." I said, "Your friend Morris is locked up for possessing counterfeit coin, and he says you and your son came here and made it." He replied, "How do you know it is me? I have not got a son." I then took him to the Kennington Lane Station. On the way he said, "You

will have to prove it. I shall not open my mouth until I see how things go." At the station the younger Tucker, when Thomas Tucker was brought in, said, "That is my father." When the charge was read over Thomas Tucker said, "I am charged with having a counterfeit coin in their possession. I do not understand that." Both the prisoners Tucker refused their addresses. I searched Neuman alter his arrest, Sergeant Beard being present. I found in his vest pocket one counterfeit shilling, produced, which I marked "H," and two other counterfeit shillings in his inside jacket pocket, which I marked "D." In a vase on the mantelpiece I found another counterfeit shilling, which I marked "V." I also found two pieces of the metal from which the coins are made. They are known as "gaets," and are formed in the aperture of the mould, and have to be cut away from the coin. I also found a purse containing 8s. 6d. in good money, and one counterfeit sixpence, produced, and a small pocket-book. On Thomas Tucker, besides the railway ticket, I found 2s. silver and 5d. bronze.

To Thomas Tucker. I did not see a roan with a red handkerchief come out of No. 5, West Square.

LOUISA NOBLE , wife of William Noble, 5, West Square. My husband is tenant of the house, and we let furnished rooms. I know the prisoner Neuman, and the female prisoner I know as Mrs. Neuman. They have been at my house six weeks. They came first on April 7, a Sunday, and hired the drawing-room front at 9s. a week, including washing, paying a week in advance. I had never seen the prisoner Thomas Tucker until I opened the door for him on the day he was arrested. The police officers were then waiting for him in Neuman's room. I only saw the younger Tucker on two occasions, once before he was arrested and at the time of time arrest. The first time he came he asked for Neuman, and I think Neuman went out with him, but I am not sure.

To Thomas Tucker. I do not know anything of another elderly man having been to the house repeatedly to see Mr. Neuman. An elderly man called for Neuman on Derby Day, and I understood the; went to the Derby together. A young man and his wife also came to see Mr. Neuman.

JAMES SWELLING , newsagent, Harford Street, Mile End. I know the prisoners Tucker by the name of Ragan. I first knew them about twelve months ago. They came into my shop and asked me if I would allow them to have letters addressed there, and I agreed. From time to time I received letters addressed in the name of Ragan. Sometimes one prisoner called for them and sometimes the other. The elder prisoner said the younger was his son, and the letters were to be given to no one but himself or his son. The letter card produced was delivered

at my shop on June 13, and I delivered it to the younger Tucker. The fee for each letter is 1d.

To Thomas Tucker. I cannot remember your son coming for a letter from your son in the navy on Monday, the 11th. You gave as a reason for asking that the letters should be given only to yourself or your son, that your wife was of intemperate habits.

ELIZABETH CASSIDY , assistant to Mrs. Brewood, 29, Lambeth Walk. I was in the shop (a confectioners) in the evening of the 12th of this month. The prisoner Payne came in and asked for I oz. tea, the price being 1d. She tendered 1s. in payment. I had only 10d. change, so she asked me to give her another 1 oz. of tea. I (put the shilling in the till. There was no other money in the till. Shortly afterwards the police-inspector (Knell) came in, and in consequence of what he said I took the shilling from the till and gave it to him, and he marked it.

JOHN STRATFORD , 1, Juxon Street, Lambeth. I keep a confectioner's shop. About 10 o'clock in the evening of June 12 prisoner Payne came in and asked for a packet of "Woodbines," and gave me a shilling, which I put in my waistcoat pocket, and gave her 9d. change. Two or three minutes afterwards the inspector came in. I pulled the coin out of my pocket, gave it to him, and he marked it. It is the coin produced.

CHARLES KENNERLEY , 43, Lambeth Walk. I sell cat's meat. On June 12, at 10 past 10, prisoner Payne purchased 1d. worth of cat's meat. The shilling she offered in payment I put on a ledge. There was no other silver there, only farthings said halfpennies. I had hardly turned my back, when the police officer came in and asked me for the coin which he marked. I can swear to the coin produced.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to the Royal Mint, gave evidence to the effect that the whole of the coins produced were counterfeit and from the same mould. With the cyanide of potassium and the other things counterfeit coins could be made without a battery. "Gaets" were pieces of metal from the aperture where the metal was poured in.

MORRIS NEUMAN (prisoner, on oath). A fortnight last Saturday I was in Aldgate, and went into the "Three Nuns" for a drink, when the two Tuckers, whom I had never seen in my life before, came up to me and started to talk to me, and asked me if I knew anything about racing. I replied, "Yes; I get a very good living at racing in the summer, but I went to work in the winter." Thomas Tucker asked me if I had been at the Derby, and I said I had been down to Epsom all four days. He then explained to me in a very funny way that he wanted to work in my place for betting and racing, and would give me

25s. for the loan of my room on the following Monday. As I thought it would be very easily earned, and there was no harm in it, I thought I would let him come into the rooms, and as I was in a tight fix I thought the 25s. would be very handy. I have never done anything wrong before. I am very glad to say I have never seen anything of this in my life. Accordingly he came on Monday, the 4th, and brought with him a packet, which I understood was a book. He tent out for several cans of beer, and kept on treating me until I was never in such a fix in all my life. I do not take drink much. He kept on saying, "Go on; have a good drink," until I did not know where I was, and I laid down for a while and when I get up I saw them doing; this ere work (making bad money). Both the prisoners Tucker were at my room on June 11 from nine in the morning till 7.30 in the evening. When they had finished they gave me the 25s. wrapped up. I never knew they were wrong; I could not tell the difference when I looked at them. I was thunderstruck and frightened. I would not have anything to do with them. On Wednesday in the evening I went down to my friend and borrowed half a sovereign to pay Mrs. Noble. I went to the Canterbury in the evening by myself, and when I got home I am sorry to say my girl (Payne) had been in mischief and had been out and passed three of the shillings. I told her she had done a very wrong thing. I never in my life had seen such a thing. I have always been a good lad. I have a mother with ten little children, and I have given her as much on an average as 15s. a week. This is the first time I have done anything wrong, and I hope you will forgive me for the sake of my poor mother and children. They (the Tuckers) left me their address and said to me, "If you want any more of these 'ere you have my address. I can send you as many as you want—cartloads of it." On the Wednesday, when the inspectors came to my rooms at 1.30 in the morning, I said I would try and get these men (the Tuckers) here, and I wrote to the prisoners where they told me to write for them to be at my room at six o'clock. I helped the detectives to catch them. I had nothing to do with the coins. I never handled one of them in my hand. I cannot believe I have done wrong, sir. I had them three days in my possession and have not touched them.

To Mr. Wilkinson. I do not think I stated before the magistrate that the prisoners told me they were coming to my rooms to make base coin and that I agreed to lend them my place for that purpose. If that statement is in the signed depositions I am very sorry I should have made it. I was in the room all the time they were there—on the bed. I did not know till the finish what they had been doing. I knew about sending out for the beer. I know the younger Tucker went out to buy some

things. He brought back a piece of copper wire, some white metal, and some white powder. The younger Tucker straightened out the copper wire and made a coil with it with a loop at the end. He then put it into a plate with some liquid. The elder prisoner when he left told me how he made the money with wire and metal and one thing and another. I could not understand it. It seemed a mired-up affair to me, and I took no notice of it. I do not know where the two pieces of metal (the "gaets ") came from. I was in trouble in Manchester in January and September, 1904, but I have now turned over a new leaf. In January, 1904, I was sentenced to two months' hard labour for stealing clothing, and in September to three months for stealing a watch and chain from the person. I had got into bad company. Since then I have been in New York. The elder Tucker gave me an envelope with his address on, "Mr. Thomas Ragan, care of F. C. Snelling, 21, Harford Street, Mile End." Prisoners left behind them the things with which they had been making the bad money. They did not tell me they were coming back at all. All they did was to hand me their address. They explained to me about the mould or "trap" in which the money was made. The "trap" they took with them, but the other things they took away. The reason Tucker gave me that address was that he said they were making tome real sixpences, so I said all right, would he give me 100? "The money is waiting" is a mistake. I meant that I wanted the money.

Prisoner was questioned at some length by Thomas Tucker as to whether there was not a third man present at the meeting at the Three Nuns. He (Neuman) was supposed to understand' that Tucker wanted his room for racing purposes. It was not till the finish of the day that he knew they had been making base coin. Thomas Tucker went out on the 11th to pawn his watch, but was not out very long. Frederick Tucker was out about twenty minutes. The "lady" (prisoner Payne) was reading during the greater part of the day.

THOMAS TUCKER (prisoner, not on oath) said. On the day in question I met Neuman at the Nuns. I suppose I am allowed to say that I am out of Work, and I am a man who gets a living now by gathering old clothes and umbrellas—umbrellas in particular. On these umbrellas there are ferrules, brass knobs, and to on. These I silver over and sell for 1s. 6d., 2s., or 2s. 6d., whatever I can get for them, in the streets, and as to refusing my address, I have no home. This man has accused me of making counterfeit coins, and in another instance he writes to me for 100 sixpences. Is it possible for me to go to this man's place and make counterfeit coins, and that he should write to me for 100 sixpences? Another thing I have to say is that the lad (Frederick Tucker) is acting under my instructions. He

has done nothing at all. As to my making counterfeit coin in Neuman's place, it is a lie. I am supposed to give him 25s. in bad shillings, but the other man who was there was no doubt the confederate, and I have dropped in for the lot; 25s., he said, was given him, but where did this come from? There must have been somebody doing all this, and I have gone there like a lamb. I will acknowledge that I went for this chemical, which I use for the purpose of silvering these umbrellas. I was induced to do it first of all by a man who wanted me to get him some silver. He said he would pay me well for it. To make a long story short, I gave the lad two lots of silver, and said, "Take it up to him and tell him it is half a crown." The name of the man, I do not know. Of course when he got up there you know the result He was detained. I went up looking for him, and was trapped in the same trap. The very same trap that was set for him was set for me. They waited there for me. Neuman says he borrowed 10s. on the Wednesday. I have bad nothing. It takes me all my time to pay a night's lodging for me and the lad at present. This boy (Frederick) was born in British North America. I was formerly in the Army, and left with a good character. If I have done anything contrary to the law I richly deserve to be punished, but do not let the sin of the father fall upon the lad. Fancy him coming out of prison. He will fall deeper into the mire until he becomes a hardened criminal. I am sorry to say I am numbered amongst the criminals at the present time. He is a good, hard-working lad, and I hope someone will take him in hand. I have done nothing particularly wrong. My great fault was finding this man Neuman silver. He is a younger man than I am, but he is older in crime. In addition to that, he is representing himself as what he is. His face will tell you that.

Frederick Tucker declined to say anything.

The jury found Neuman and the two Tuckers Guilty, but hoped the Court would be lenient to the younger prisoner on the ground that he was under the influence of his father.

The indictment against Neuman and Victoria Payne was then proceeded with. The witnesses in the case were the same as in the previous indictments, and briefly recapitulated their evidence.

NEUMAN, asked if he had anything further to say, said he believed now that he had done wrong, but did not know at the time that he was doing wrong. He had told the truth, and nothing but the truth, and had helped the police to catch, the prisoners Tucker. Out of the 25 counterfeit shillings he received only three were changed, and personally he had had nothing. He was only a poor lad, and the money was a temptation at the time. He had been a good lad for the last two

years, and had been in America trying to higher his position, but did not succeed. He landed there in the winter, and was not ashamed to shovel snow for a living. When he returned he went to Glasgow and worked there, and afterwards went to Manchester, and thence to London, and had tried his hardest to get on. He hoped he would not be sent to prison, as he had had enough punishment during the last fortnight, and this was going to be a lesson to him, and he would never do anything like this again.

The jury found Neuman guilty of the unlawful possession of counterfeit coin, but did not consider there was sufficient evidence of uttering. Victoria Payne they found Guilty on all counts.

Inspector KNELL said there were no other convictions against Neuman besides those that had been mentioned. As regarded Tucker, the police had been unable to trace his antecedents far back, but on September 12 last he was tried as Thomas Morris, with three others, for uttering counterfeit coin, and acquitted, the three others being convicted. On September 9, 1902, he was charged with highway robbery with violence, and acquitted. The younger Tucker had been under the observation of the police for some months.

Mr. SCOTT FRANCE. of the Police Court Mission, said the parents of Victoria Payne were in Court, and he understood they were very respectable people living at St. Albans. With the approval of the Court, a home would be provided for her, and the lady, Miss Annie Salter, who was willing to take her under her charge, was present.

Sentences, Neuman, 15 calendar months, with hard labour; Victoria Payne, bound over in her own recognisances in the sum of £10; Frederick Tucker, three calendar months' hard labour; and Thomas Tucker, four years' penal servitude.

NEW COURT; Thursday, June 28.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-37
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

JESSHOPE, Alfred (46, butler) ; committing an act of gross indecency with another male person.

Mr. Macleod prosecuted. Mr. Symmons defended.

Verdict, Not guilty.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-38
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

DEVONPORT, John (35, labourer) ; having been entrusted by Susan Egan with the sum of £5 in order that he might apply the same in the purchase of certain furniture did fraudulently convert the said moneys to his own use and benefit.

Mr. J. Campbell prosecuted.

SUSAN EGAN , 11, Church Street, wife of John Egan. Prisoner is my brother-in-law. On May 4, 1906, he said he knew where to buy a lot of furniture. I said I could not go and buy it, but he could have the money and buy it and come back to the shop. I gave him £5 in gold. He said he would come back in two hours. He never came back nor sent the furniture.

Cross-examined. Prisoner has never borrowed money from me before. I never lent him the money. He did not ask me to lend him five sovereigns.

JOHN GARNER , detective, B Division. I arrested prisoner on May 28 at nine p.m. He said, "I only had it as a loan."

MRS. SUSAN EGAN recalled. Prisoner never told me what furniture it was. I keep a shop. The arrangement was for him to buy the furniture and divide the profit with me. I gave my information on May 21.

JOHN DEVONPORT (prisoner, not on oath). I am in the habit of borrowing money off this woman, and have done so several times. She told the detective I borrow money off her and always pay her 2s. in the £ every Sunday night. I was to go down and settle up. I bought several things, but I happened to have a bit of bad luck and I did not show up and she had me arrested.

ROSE HOLLOMAN . Prosecutrix told me on Tuesday or Wednesday six weeks ago that she had lent prisoner £5. She said, "I have often lent him money before." She had just been to the station. She said he had promised to pay her the next week.

Cross-examined. Prosecutor did not tell me why she had lent it to him. I have known the prisoner and his wife and family 27 years. I do not know what he has been doing between the 4th and 27th May.

MRS. DEVONPORT. I am the wife of prisoner and have five children. I am the mother of seven. My sister (the prosecutrix) lent him £5. She has lent me money. She lent me 12s. 6d., and I paid her 13s. 3d. On Friday, May 1, I went to her and wanted £5. Prosecutrix said, "I have lent Jack £5." I said, "He will pay you" We have borrowed more than £5 of her. She has lent me money to go to Covent Garden Market to go to work. My husband and I had a quarrel and he went away. I did not know prosecutrix had taken a warrant out.

Cross-examined. Prosecutrix has lent prisoner money on previous occasions. She has lent me £2 10s. She is married and keeps a greengrocer's shop. She lends us money and charges 2s. in the pound interest.

Verdict, not guilty.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-38a
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

PARRY, Joseph (25, clerk). Forging and uttering an endorsement on an order for payment of £2 14s. 7d., with intent to defraud.

Mr. L. S. Green and Mr. J. R. C. Lyons prosecuted; Mr. Condy defended.

Rev. CLAUD HENRY ELLIOTT , clerk in holy orders, vicar of Christ Church, New North Road. Between September and October last year I engaged prisoner to assist in secretarial work. He was anxious to study for the church. Facilities were found, and he was assisted in his studies. I offered to pay for him. He remained with me until May 21, and things went on fairly well between us. On May 21 he had been given certain envelopes to address; he returned them on the 23rd. Marshall did printing for me; I owed him £2 14s. 9d. Prisoner asked me for a cheque for him, and I thereupon drew cheque, produced, on my bank, which prisoner took away. I next saw him on June 1. I had had a conversation with Marshall, and in consequence of that referred to the counterfoil of my cheque-book, and showed it to him. I cannot swear to the handwriting of prisoner.

Cross-examined. I know prisoner's handwriting pretty well. The endorsement produced may not be disguised. Prisoner has been with me since December 1. I had communications with him before. He lived in the neighbourhood. He is married. He assisted me in the work of the perish and the debating society. I occasionally entrusted him with moneys to pay for printing. Marshall's bill was not connected with the debating society. Prisoner came to me and said Marshall was pressing for his money, and I gave him the cheque. During the time he has been with me. I have always trusted him as an honourable and trustworthy man, and he came to me with a good character. I never suspected him till Marshall came and asked for this money in June. I should not be justified in saying anything against prisoner's character. I could not say anything against his character. I dismissed him on June 3 because of certain statements he made to me on June 2. He said there were statements about myself which he regarded as scandalous, that there was a story about my having bullied a girl who had died, that I pledged her to say things against the wishes of her relations. I asked him if there was anything else. He said yes, I was being watched whenever I was away from the parish. He said those things, in his opinion, were scandalous. I think he meant to frighten me. I think he wanted more salary—that he came to blackmail; that was my impression. I do not think he said I had not paid his salary when due. After he was arrested his solicitor wrote that he would have to take proceedings if prisoner's salary was not paid. His salary was not in arrear. I undertook to pay him £35 a year originally. He came to me in September. I told him the congregation could not manage more than £35 a year, but I said, "Put your mind at rest. I will undertake for the

next three months to pay you £5 a month—that is £60 a year, but I cannot promise to pay for longer than that more than £35 a year." I paid him £5 a month for three months, and continued to do that. When this transaction took place his salary was not in arrear. When I dismissed him I owed, him a month's salary. He had not previously to that asked me for his salary.

(Friday, June 29.)

Rev.CLAUD H. ELLIOTT, recalled. Further cross-examined. It was on June 2 that prisoner repeated to me the remarks he had heard. It was some clerical matter. I do not think he said he thought it his duty to tell me. He said that they were scandalous and personal. He did not suggest on that occasion there was any truth in it, but on June 3 he did. It was an Alleged clerical interference with this girl, and he referred to the fact that I was watched. That was a separate thing. He simply said he heard that I was watched whenever I went out of the parish. Prior to that I had told him to repeat to me any remarks. I was in the habit of going away from time to time on business or holidays. Between May 23 and June 2 I was away for one or two nights only. I went down to Bournemouth. I did not see prisoner between May 23 and June 1. He came to me on the afternoon of June 1. I said I was very busy, but would have to have serious conversation with him soon, that I had not time to do it then, but I would do it as early as possible. On June 3 I dismissed him. He had not been near me for 10 days. He was supposed to come to me every day to see if there was anything to attend to. Marshall is not a church worker, he is a printer who has done printing for me on about four occasions. I discharged prisoner before I knew the cheque had not been handed over to Marshall. After he told me of these remarks I ceased to regard prisoner as a friend. I told prisoner's wife she had better not speak to me. I do not know that I said that her husband had not treated me as a friend. I was very careful not to say anything. I said nothing about the cheque. It may be for all I know that during the whole time prisoner was going about the parish doing his duties as usual, and had called on me once or twice ineffectually, and had not succeeded in seeing me.

ARTHUR JOHN MARSHALL , 121, Essex Road, printer. I hare done printing work for Mr. Elliott. In May there was about £3 due to me. The first order I did was 4s., which was paid in cash by prisoner. I have only a post office bank account. I prefer being paid in cash. I have paid cheques through the post office, but the tradesmen oblige me. I told prisoner I preferred cash to cheques. I saw cheque produced at the bank. It is not my endorsement. I did not authorise anyone to sign

my name. I received 14s. in respect of it from prisoner. I asked him for the whole account, and he told me he had not got the cheque, but I could have 14s. on account. He gave me to understand he paid the 14s. out of his own pocket. I had been for some time asking for payment Prisoner said, "How much do you want?" I said, "I want the lot." He said, "Will this be any use to you?" and he gave me 14s., which was very acceptable. I think that was the Tuesday before Whitsuntide. (To the Recorder.) Prisoner suggested on one occasion that he should cash my cheques, as I told him it was so awkward to cash a crossed cheque. He asked if he should cash them, and I said "Yes."

On the suggestion of the Recorder, a verdict of Not guilty was returned.

THIRD COURT; Thursday, June 28.

(Before the Common-Serjeant.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-39
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; No Punishment

Related Material

CORMACK, William (30, bricklayer), and CORMACK, Amy (27, wife of male prisoner). Amy Cormack, uttering counterfeit coin; William Cormack, aiding and abetting Amy Cormack. Mr. Wilkinsonmale prisoner prosecuted.

ALBERT EDWARD HAYNES . I am a tobacconist, of 377, Liverpool Road, Islington. The female prisoner came into my shop on the 1st of the present month, about two o'clock. She asked for a 1/4 oz. of snuff. The price was 1 1/4 d. She gave me a shilling in payment. I noticed it was bad, and told her so. I handed it back to her, and she left the shop, saying she would take it back to where she received it. I watched her and. saw her join two men. Then she went into a hosier's shop a short distance off. She spoke to the two men before she went into the hosier's and when she came out of the hosier's again. She then went into King's, the confectioners, and when she came out she joined the men again. I then saw her go into Arthur's, the grocers, which makes the fourth shop, including mine. She joined the same two men again. They were about 12 yards from me on the opposite side of the road. Coin produced looks like the coin that was tendered to me. After the female prisoner left my shop, and while I was watching her, I met Sergeant Freeman and made a communication to him and pointed out the woman and the men to him.

WILLIAM CORMACK . When my wife left me to go and get some snuff I was in a public-house. I was by myself, and when I came out next she was in charge of a constable. There was no other man with me whatever. I walked up to the constable

and asked him what was the matter. I said "I am her husband." He said, "Will you come to the station with met" and I said, "Very good, I will come" and so I went, and there was no other man with me whatever.

Witness. I saw him speak to the woman on all these different occasions. I have no doubt at all that it was the same man.

AMY CORMACK . He has made a mistake in saying I spoke to anyone, because I did not. I was by myself. I only had the one shilling, and did not know it was bad. I thought I could, get it changed, and when I could not I was standing considering what I should do with it when the sergeant came up.

FREDERICK ARTHUR . I keep a provision shop at 404, Liverpool Road. The female prisoner came into my shop on June 1 about quarter-past two. She asked for a penny packet of tea. and a penny tin of milk. She handed me a shilling. I told her it was a bad one. I took the things back and gave her the coin back. She said she had not had it very long. Haynes made a communication to me after that. Coin produced is the one; I bent it slightly myself.

ISOBEL LLOYD . I am an assistant in a hosier's shop at 457, Liverpool Road. About five minutes past one on June 1 female prisoner came into the shop. She asked for a pair of socks, 23/4 d. She handed me a shilling; it was bad. She said the had no more money, and that she had taken the shilling up the road.

ANNIE KING . I am the wife of Charles King, confectioner, of Liverpool Road. Female prisoner came into the shop a little-after two on June 1. She asked for a loaf, 21/4 d. She handed me a shilling. I told her it was bad. She said she knew where she got it, and would take it back and come back for the loaf. She never came back.

JAMES FREEMAN (police-sergeant, Y Division). On June 1 Mr. Haynes pointed out female prisoner to me and also two men who were in front of her. Male prisoner is one of the two men. The other man has not been arrested. I told female prisoner that Mr. Haynes, who was standing by, had said she had been trying to pass a counterfeit shilling. She said, "Not me. "I took her into custody and kept the two men still under observation. At the top of St. James's Road one of the two men, the male prisoner, came across and said, "What's up, Amy?" I asked him who he was. He replied, "She is my wife ". I asked him to accompany me to the police-station, where he was arrested after inquiries had been made.

Prisoner. I was not in front of the officer. I was in the Liverpool Road and looked up the St. James's Road and saw my

wife with the constable. I made haste and caught up to them and I asked, "What is up, Amy?" He said, "Who are you?" I said, "I am her husband," and he said, "You had better come to the station," and I said, "Very well," and I went to the station with my wife. It is impossible that I could have been pointed out to you; it is no good standing there telling untruths about it.

THOMAS POWELL (detective, Y Division). I was at Caledonian Road Police Station when prisoners were there. The counterfeit shilling was handed to me by Sergeant Freeman. I asked female prisoner if she could account for the possession of it. She said a man gave it to her that morning in a public-house in White chapel, and she did not know the man or the house.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , inspector of counterfeit coins to His Majesty's mint. Coin produced it an obvious counterfeit; it hardly requires any test; its appearance is sufficient.

AMY CORMACK prisoner, not on oath. I want you to take my little children into consideration.

WILLIAM CORMACK , prisoner, not on oath. I had the misfortune to have to leave my home this winter and had to take a furnished room, and the place was condemned, and since then I have had no place to put my head under with my wife and children. I have been out of employment.

Verdict, William Cormack, Guilty; Amy Cormack, Guilty, under the coercion of her husband; William Cormack was given a good character. Sentence, William Cormack, One month's hard labour; Amy Cormack, discharged.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-40
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

NEWMAN, James (40, blacksmith) , uttering counterfeit coin.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

WILLIAM DRYBOROUGH . I am manager of the "Queen Eleanor" public-house, Tower Street, Hackney. Prisoner came in about 11.30 on June 15. He asked for two of Scotch. I served him with it He handed me a bad 2s. piece in payment. I told him it was bad, and said, "I believe you are the same man that passed one here a fortnight ago." He said, "I think you are wrong. "I gave him in charge. I believe the prisoner also came in on May 18 and passed a bad florin. My barman Plant served him. I found the bad florin in the till immediately after prisoner left. Coins produced are the two florins.

WILLIAM PLANT On May 18 prisoner came in and called for two of Scotch. He gave me a bad 2s. piece. I gave him 1s. 10d. change. I put the 2s. piece on the till. There was no other silver there. The manager came to the till immediately after and said, "This is a bad 2s. piece." I said, "That is the one that man gave me who has just gone out." I next saw the prisoner at the police station on June 15. I picked him out of

about nine or ten other men as the man who passed the bad 2s. piece to me on May 18.

By the Prisoner. I did look up and down the row of men at the police station several times, and eventually picked you out, and said, "I think this is the man." After the police sergeant spoke to me I said I was sure. He asked me, "Are you quite sure?" and I said, "Yes, I am certain that is the man."

Re-examined. I still feel certain prisoner is the man.

FRANK GROVES , P.C., J Division. I was on duty in the neighbourhood of Tower Street, Hackney, on the morning of June 15.

I heard a police whistle blown, and I went in the direction of the "Queen Eleanor" public-house. I saw the manager and the prisoner. The manager made a statement to me, and I took prisoner into custody. Prisoner said, "I did not know I had it." Mr. Dryborough said, "He looks like the man who was here ft fortnight ago, and passed a bad 2s. piece." I searched prisoner, and found in his right-hand pocket two good half-crowns and 1 1/2 d. in bronze. Prisoner threw one of the half-crowns on the counter and said, "Take the 2d. for the two of Scotch I had." Mr. Dryborough did so. I then took prisoner to the police station.

By the Prisoner. At the police-court Dryborough said it was a month previously that you were in his house. First he said a fortnight, and then a month.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , inspector of counterfeit coins to His Majesty's mint. The two coins produced are counterfeit. They are fairly well made. They are different moulds.

Prisoner (not on oath). On this morning I went into this house, where I have been I daresay dozens of times, and asked for a drink in the ordinary way. The coin was found to be a bad one. That I did not know. I was charged then with being a man who had been in that house a fortnight before first, and then a month, and then after a week they got the exact date—after a week to think about it. Then as to the identification. The manager believes me to be the man; the barman thinks I am the man. I have been in there I daresay some few times between those two dates, and nothing whatever was said about it. All I can say is I admit the second one, although I did not know it was bad, but the first one I know absolutely nothing, about.

Verdict, Not guilty.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-41
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WOODWARD, John (38, bricklayer), and DEXTER, Elizabeth (22, charwoman) , feloniously possessing two moulds and other tools for making counterfeit coins; possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter same.

Male prisoner pleaded guilty. Female prisoner pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Partridge prosecuted.

ANNE GOODY . I am a landlady of 24, Ducket Street, Stepney. On Easter Monday I let my second floor front room to a young woman named Dolly. That is the female prisoner, but I only know her by the name of Dolly. She said she was married. The male prisoner came and lived there with her. They had entire occupation of the room until May 19. The rent, 6s. a week came in regularly. The man used to go out in the course of the day and come home to his meals. The woman remained in the house when he was absent. She did the cleaning of the room and the making of the bed.

WILLIAM BURNHAM (detective-sergeant, Scotland Yard). I and Detective. Reed have had the prisoners under observation since March last. I have often seen them together. On May 4 I saw them outside the house, but more often I have seen them inside. We could see into the room. On the night of Saturday, May 19, about a quarter-past eleven, I saw them come along Ducket Street and go upstairs into their room. I entered the house and went upstairs to the second floor front room. I went into the room and told them I was a police-officer, and that I suspected them of having counterfeit coin in their possession. The man said, "All right, governor, I don't want to give you any trouble. You will find all you want in that tin box." I forced the box open and found it contained these two plaster of Paris moulds for sixpences, dated 1904 and 1905, a handkerchief which contains metal, some cyanide of potassium, an unfinished crown piece, some copper wire, and a florin. They were counterfeit. These two squares of glass, with plaster of Paris adhering, were also found. I continued to search, and he took a counterfeit crown and two florins from his pocket and handed them to me and said, "You had better take these; I think that is all." Later on he said, "Half a minute. I have got something else here," and he went to the bed and took these four crowns from between the bed and the mattress. He handed them to me and said, "Now you have got all. You will let this girl go?" I told them they would be charged with being concerned together in feloniously manufacturing these implements for the manufacture of counterfeit coin. He said to her, "Don't worry, Dolly; I will get you out of this. This is all my fault." She said, "All right; I am not worrying." He then said to her, "Tom has done this." At the station she made no reply. He said, "This woman does not know anything about it."

FREDERICK REED (detective, New Scotland Yard). I have been with Sergeant Burnham on various occasions, and have seen prisoners together. I went to 25, Ducket Street, with Sergeant Burnham. I found a quantity of files. The files were in a box underneath the table. These pieces of metal I found in the coal cupboard and this knife in a clock on the mantelpiece. The knife had plaster of Paris adhering to it. I also found

these two packets containing plaster of Paris in the coal cupboard.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , inspector of coins to His Majesty's mint Articles produced form nearly a complete outfit of a coiner.

Prisoner DEXTER (not on oath). All I have to say is I am perfectly innocent of this charge, and I think it is very hard, this being my first time in prison, that I should be brought into such a thing as this.

Prisoner WOODWARD (not on oath). I wish to speak a few words on the female's behalf. The files and things that were found in the cupboard I made an excuse to her about that I was a bricklayer by trade, but the other things, the moulds and things found in the tin box, were always kept locked up in the box, and the female never had the key; she knew nothing whatever about it Verdict, Guilty. A number of previous convictions were proved against the male prisoner. Sentence, Woodward, Seven years' penal servitude; Dexter, Nine months' hard labour. The detective officers were highly commended by the jury.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-42
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

STEWART, Charles (25, labourer), and McCARTHY, John (23, traveller), pleaded guilty to being in possession of counterfeit florins with intent to utter and with two separate utterings, acting in concert.

Sentence, Stewart, Ten months' hard labour; McCarthy, twelve months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-43
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

EVANS, Rowland Thomas, charged with perjury in his public examination, and with committing a number of bankruptcy offences. Pleaded Not guilty to perjury; guilty of second indictment.

Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett defended.

The first indictment was not proceeded with. Mr. Mathews addressed the Court on the second indictment. Mr. Curtis Bennett addressed the Court on behalf of prisoner.

(Evidence for defence.)

FREDERICK WILLIAM BODDY I am a tea merchant. I have known defendant for about 14 years, and have had considerable business dealings with him during that time. I have found him to be honest and straightforward in all his dealings. The defendant has been suffering a great deal in health.

WILLIAM SANDELL . I have known defendant for 12 or 14 years. I have known him well socially during that time. He has been thoroughly honest and trustworthy in every respect,

and has borne a good character. He has suffered very much in-health of late years.

CHARLES WESLEY . I am an accountant. I have known defendant about 15 years, both as a friend and in business. I have found him to be thoroughly honest and trustworthy, and he has borne an excellent character. He has suffered in his health.

Sentence, Three months' imprisonment in the second division.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-44
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BAKER, Thomas (27, labourer) , uttering and with being in possession of counterfeit coin.

Mr. Partridge prosecuted.

BENJAMIN PEARCE . I am a fishmonger of 108, Mare Street, Hackney. On Saturday night, May 12, at half past 10 prisoner came into my shop and asked for a penny piece of fish and a halfpenny worth of potatoes. I served him. He put a 2s. piece on the counter. Coin produced it the one. It was a bad one. I asked where he got it, and he said his wife had given it to him. I asked him for his name and address; he did not answer. I then fetched a policeman. Prisoner sat and ate his fish and potatoes. I handed constable the bad coin. I told prisoner before I went that I was going to fetch a policeman, and he remained in the shop eating his fish and potatoes.

To the Prisoner. You did have time to answer me before I went to fetch a policeman. You could not have left the shop when I went out because there is a gate against the door, and we could have shut the door instantly on you.

HARRY HOARE , police constable, 206 J Division. I went to Pearce's shop and saw prisoner there. Pearce handed me a bad 2s. piece, and said prisoner had given it to him in payment for some fish. Prisoner admitted that. I asked him how it came into his possession. He said he did not know. I asked him if he had any more money with him. He said, "Only another half-crown." I said, "Let me have a look at it." He then put his hand in his left-hand trousers pocket and took out a two-shilling piece and a shilling, which he quickly replaced and took out half a crown from his right-hand pocket. I said, "Let me look at what is in the other pocket." He took the money out, and I said, "This two-shilling piece is bad as well." He said, "That is the two-shilling piece I gave Mr. Pearce." I said, "No, it is not; I have the one you gave him." I then took him to the station.

PERCY SAUNDERS , police-constable, J Division. I searched prisoner when he was brought into the station. I found half a crown and one shilling good silver and 1/2 d. in bronze, two boxes matches, one packet of "Woodbine" cigarettes, three books of cigarette papers, a pocket-book, and a photo.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to His Majesty's Mint. The two florins produced are counter

feit, from the same mould; they are not particularly good imitations.

PRISONER (not on oath). I have never been locked up before; I have never been in trouble in my life before.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Four months' hard labour.

NEW COURT; Friday, June 29.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-45
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ORAM, James Edward (50, cabman) ; indecent exposure.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-46
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

GARGANO, Orazio (33, baker) ; indecently assaulting Vicenzino Coppola. Verdict, Not guilty.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-47
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

MECOY, Charles (35, decorator) ; breaking and entering the warehouse of Frank Corrigan and another and stealing therein an overcoat and other articles, their goods, and feloniously receiving same; breaking and entering the warehouse of John Ambrose James Wheeler and others and stealing there in a quantity of silk, their goods, and feloniously receiving same.

Dr. Counsell prosecuted. Mr. W. H. Sands defended.

PERCY JOHN SHRIBE , 41, Dalkeith Road, Ilford. I am a tailor's cutter to Corrigan and French, who occupy premises on the first floor of 11, Falcon Avenue and 20, Aldersgate Street I left Falcon Avenue at nine p.m. on May 10 and fastened the door with a padlock. No one lives on the premises. The next morning, the 11th, at nine a.m., I found the showroom in disorder, and a fur-lined overcoat, blue serge vest, two pairs of trousers, and a fancy dress missing, of the value of about £25, the property of Corrigan and French. On the second floor the garments were taken off the hooks and thrown about. Many of them had been tried on and thrown into a corner. In one of the fitting rooms a lot of coats had been thrown down and made a bed of. I found the trap door from the cutting room that I used to give out work had been forced, the bolts had been forced off, and entrance effected. It was large enough for a man to get through. I fastened it the night before. I recognise the prisoner as a window-cleaner who has been to clean our windows several weeks previously, for some months. He would know the premises, and has been upstairs several times.

Cross-examined. He has been to clean windows for eight months. I did not know that he left off because he was lamed by an accident.

JANE GRANT , 63, Wilmer Street, Bethnal Green. I am employed by Corrigan and French. On the morning of May 11

I came to work at ten minutes to nine with Ellen Kane, and was wailing at the corner for Miss Snow, the forewoman, to open the premises. Miss Snow opened the door and went upstairs, when the prisoner and another man walked out of the warehouse carrying brown paper parcels. I picked him out from a number of men at the police station.

Cross-examined. We usually come to work at 9 a.m., or 8.30 when very busy. I do piece work. Three firms occupy the premises. The other people do not come so early. I did not think there was anything remarkable in the men coming out with brown paper parcels—I thought they were men from the tailors, and I should not take particular notice of them. When we got upstairs they could not get the door open. I was three or four yards from the men, one walked in the road and the other on the pavement, and they went in different directions. They walked towards me, and could have seen me. I could not say which way each one went. I went to Moor Lane Police Station to see if I could identify the man I had seen. I had no difficulty in picking prisoner out and put my hand upon him. There were other dark men without whiskers. I picked him out on May 17. The men walked rather quickly, and were able to walk quite well.

ELLEN KANE , 18, Easton Street, Rosebery Avenue. I am in the employ of Wheeler and Forsyth, 11, Falcon Avenue. On May 11 I went to work at 8.50 a.m. Jane Grant was there. Miss Snow opened the door, and before we went up two men came out with brown paper parcels. Prisoner was one of them, I identified him on May 17, and I have no doubt he is one of the men.

Cross-examined. When I went to the station I did not faint but I felt nervous. The men walked very well—very fast. I did not notice the other man so much as the prisoner; he had a black moustache; they both had. Prisoner had a striped coat on, the other man a navy blue. Jane Grant went in first to identify prisoner, and I went in afterwards by myself.

----LANE, police-sergeant, G Division. I arrested prisoner on May 16 at 8.50 p.m. at the "Marlborough" public-house, Upper Street, Islington. I said, "Mecoy, you know me?" He said, "Yet." I said, "You answer the description of one of two men wanted for breaking into a warehouse in Falcon Avenue on the 11th of this month. I shall take you into custody on suspicion of being one of those men. You will be put up for identification." He said, "All right, if I am going to be put up for identification I don't mind. I know you will treat me fairly.' I took him to Shepherdess Walk, and he was handed over to the City Police. He was searched, and £3 11s. 6d. in silver and 1s. 10 1/2 d. in bronze was found on him.

Cross-examined. He seemed rather pleased that he was to be put for identification. He said, "I do not mind being put up for identification." He was not at all nervous. He knows me well, and is not at all nervous when he is with me. He said, "I know you will treat me fairly." His wile was with him and another woman. I know he had had an accident to his foot some two or three weeks before—sprained his ankle. He was walking quite well when arrested; he had recovered.

Re-examined. I went to the house where prisoner lives and examined the front door. There is an old rusty bolt at the top of the door, which cannot be used; the bolt could not be shot into the socket; I tried it.

(Evidence for defence.)

CHARLES MECOY (prisoner, on oath). I live at 12, Baldwin Street, City Road, about half a mile from Falcon Avenue. On May 10 I got home at about 10.30 p.m. nearly intoxicated; I had been drinking all day; I was sensible. My landlord, Mr. Newton, and my wife helped me upstairs. I went to bed; my wife undid my boots because I had a bad foot. I awoke at 10 a.m. on May 11, perfectly sober. About four weeks previous to the robbery I had an accident, fell and knocked the instep back, which rendered me lame, and I have not recovered yet I was at the infirmary, and they sent me to St. Bartholomew's Hospital to undergo the X rays. I could not walk properly on May 10. I had been working at window cleaning at ware-houses in the City. I did not leave that because of the accident, but because I had an argument with the firm about money matters. I met with the accident two or three days after leaving the firm.

Cross-examined. It was a bad thing to get drunk on a sore instep, and to drink all day. I generally use one or two public-houses. I was drinking in Clerkenwell, about a quarter of an hour's walk from my home, but I can take a tram. I always rode home, whether drunk or not. I do not know how I went home that night. I was sensible. A drunken man occasionally recovers himself. I did not come home in the tram on May 10. I had a walking-stick—it was lent to me, and I have returned it My left foot is hurt. I am standing on my right foot. I went to sleep as soon as I was put to bed, and got up at 10 in the morning. I had been out of work four or five weeks. I was unable to work. I got the money found on me on a horse-race. I backed Bass Rock for 10s. on a 10 to 1 chance. It was ridden by Heath in the New market Flying Handicap. I had saved the 10s. out of my work. I had been nearly four weeks out of work before that. I had saved close upon £3; then, of course, I was assisted by my own people during the

time I was out of work. I did not go home drunk on May 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, or 15. I was drinking in a public-house when arrested at 8.50 on the 16th. I was not drunk on any night except the 10th. I got drunk that night because I had an exceptional win on a horse. I brought the £4 home.

Re-examined. The question of the money was gone into at the police-court, and the magistrate ordered the money found on me to be given up, because I explained how I had won it.

FLORENCE MECOY , wife of prisoner. On Thursday, May 10, prisoner came home about half-past 10. I opened the street door; he had had a drop of drink. I and the landlord helped him upstairs. I stopped with him all night, and he got up in the morning at half-past 10 and went out. He had a bad foot. He could walk pretty quick, but not so fast at if his foot had been well. He had been using a stick.

Cross-examined. He was drunk on May 10. He does not very often get drunk. I do not know if he got drunk on the 12th or 13th. I remember the 10th, because it was our land-lord's son's birthday. Prisoner had some money, I do not know how much. He gave me some in the morning. He had a good bit. He showed me a good bagful of money on the 11th before he went out. He went out about half-past ten. I am sure he did not come home at half-past nine on the morning of the 11th. The landlord did not come to see him in bed. I mot the landlord the next morning, and he asked me if prisoner had got up, and I told him No.

BENJAMIN NEWTON , 12, Baldwin Street, City Road. I rent the house at 16s. 6d. a week. Prisoner has lodged with me since last September on the second floor. I well remember the night of Thursday, May 10, because it was my youngest son's birthday. I saw prisoner. He gave three knocks at the door at 10.30; his wife came down and let him in, and I helped him upstairs. He walked lame. I fastened the door, and did not hear anyone go out that night. Each lodger has got a key.

Cross-examined. When the lodgers are in I bolt the door. I swore before the magistrate that after assisting the prisoner up to his room I bolted the street door. No one could have gone in with a key. When I went out the next morning at 7.30 I unbolted it. At the police-court the clerk had it down "locked," and I corrected it to "bolted." I swear I bolted it that night. You can use the bolt. The bolt and the staple are not thick with rust. Sergeant Lane came to my house and called my attention to the bolt on the door. My youngest daughter bolted the door, and he could not open it until I unbolted it. The detective tried, and succeeded in locking him self in.

Sergeant LANE recalled. Myself and Sergeant Stewart, in the presence of the last witness, after he gave his evidence at the police-court, went to his house and tried to see if the bolt would act. It did not. It would not go into the socket. The socket was broken away and the bolt was useless. I called Newton's attention to it, and he called my attention to the other bolt, which is simply a spring look in the door. Newton's daughter was standing there, and he invited her to put the bolt in, and she could not. His statement that that bolt would act is absolutely untrue.

Sergeant STEWART. I accompanied the last witness to Newton's house on June 1, after he had given his evidence before the magistrate. We got there before Newton came from work, about 5.30. We tried to bolt the door. The bolt would not work. The end of it was bent, and there was a portion of the socket left, but it was absolutely impossible to bolt the door effectively. Newton's daughter did try, but she could not do it, and I heard Sergeant Lane ask Newton to try himself, which he did, and he said, "Now see if you can open it," and the door opened in the usual way.

Verdict: Guilty. Prisoner pleaded guilty to being convicted of felony at Clerkenwell June 25,1904. Convictions proved: April 1,1888, stealing, three months' hard labour; December 16, 1889, Central Criminal Court, housebreaking, 12 months; August 24, 1891, North London, stealing watch, 18 months; May 21,1894, North London, stealing money, three years' penal servitude; December 21, 1903, Clerkenwell Police Court, stealing lamp, three months; June 28, 1904, North London Sessions, stealing, 18 months.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-48
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CAULFIELD, John Thompson (49, painter), and TAYLOR, Alfred David (42, clerk) ; obtaining by false pretences from Charles Thomas Andrews the sum of £4, and from John Sidney Beaven £6 12s., in each case with intent to defraud. Caulfield stealing two bank cheque forms, the goods of Baring Brothers And Co., Limited, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. G. L. Hardy prosecuted. Mr. W. W. Grantham and Mr. Frank Mathew defended Taylor.

CHARLES THOMAS ANDREWS , George Hotel, Enfield, licensed victualler. I have known Taylor about 12 months., On Sunday, May 27, 1906, he asked me to oblige him with change for a cheque for £4, drawn by Caulfield (produced). He said he knew the drawer perfectly well, he was a speculative builder in the City, and as I had changed cheques for Taylor once or twice before, and found they were right, and knew him as a customer, I cashed this one for him. I know nothing of Caulfield. I was led to believe it was genuine. I paid it in to my bankers,

and on May 30 it was returned marked "No account." I did not see Taylor afterwards.

Cross-examined by Caulfield. I know you by sight, but I have never known your name. I did not know your occupation at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Grantham. I have known Taylor for quite nine months, and changed cheques for him before and helped him in that way.

JOHN SIDNEY BEAVAN , grocer, Enfield. On Monday, May 28, Taylor came to me and said, "Will you change a cheque for me; I am a customer at your other shop. I have been there, and they cannot do it for me, and have sent me over here." I have inquired at the other shop, and find he is not a customer, and they had not sent him over. I hesitated about changing the cheque; then he said he wanted the money for wages, and I asked him if he knew the signature. He said, "Oh, yet." I said I could not give it all to him, and asked him if he would lake £2. I did that because I never give the full amount if I do not know the person. I could have cashed it in full, but I wished to make inquiries at my other shop first. Taylor asked when he could have the rest. I said, "Probably to-morrow morning." I gave him the £2 and put the cheque in my cash-box, and it slipped my memory. The next morning Franklin, an official from the gas company, came to me and said he had come for the remainder of the change for Taylor, £4 12s. As ho came in uniform, and Taylor had said he wanted it for wages, I paid him the £4 12s. Taylor had told me he was employed by the gas company. I believed the cheque was a genuine one and would be duly honoured. The cheque was paid into my bank and on the 30th returned marked "No account." Taylor endorsed it in my presence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Grantham. My manager is named Gascoigne, a clean-shaven, fair man, about as tall as myself. He might have had transactions with people not on my books. Cross-examined by Caulfield. I did not see you at all. Re-examined. I made inquiry at my other shop and learnt Taylor had never been a customer, had no account there, and had never been in the shop.

PHILLIP FRANKLIN , 28, Laurel Park Terrace, Lee Road, Enfield, canvasser to the Enfield Gas Company. I have known Taylor for 12 months. He is employed by the Enfield Gas Company as clerk at a salary of £1 2s. 6d. a week. On May 29 he asked me if I would call on Mr. Beavan to get the balance of a cheque, £4 12s., which I did, and handed it to Taylor.

Cross-examined by Caulfield. Taylor asked me to go for the money on Tuesday morning, May 29. He was not discharged on the Monday evening.

Cross-examined by Mr. Grantham. I have known Taylor 9 to 12 months. Caulfield told me in Taylor's presence that two houses belonged to him in River View, that he had a banking account and a pension of 17s. 6d. a week from the army. He gave me the impression that he had money and was able to draw cheques.

Re-examined. That conversation was on the evening of May 29, after the cheque had been cashed.

JEFFREY CECIL HOLLINGS , manager to Baring Brothers and Co., Limited. The two cheques produced are our cheques, not issued to a customer, but for internal use. I have been 3 1/2 years in the bank. We have no customer of the name of Caulfield or Taylor.

(Saturday, June 30.)

JEFFREY CECIL HOLLINGS , recalled. Caulfield was employed in painting at the bank, and the cheques have been stolen from the bank. They are cheques used merely for exchange between different departments of the bank. The signatures of the two-cheques are in the same handwriting in my opinion.

ALBERT SUMMERS , detective, stationed at Enfield. I was instructed by Inspector Twigg to make inquiries about two cheques. On June 2 I saw Caulfield. I told him I was making inquiries about a cheque which bore his name and which had been cashed by Taylor with Mr. Andrews. I showed Caulfield the cheque and cautioned him. I asked him if that was his signature. He said, "No, he had never seen the cheque before" I asked him to write his name down, which he did, on paper produced. He then admitted the signature on the cheque was. his. He said, "Yes, it is mine, but I do not remember when I signed it." I then showed him the other cheque, and he said that also was his signature. I then asked him if he could tell me where Taylor was. He said no, but he could find out for me. I saw Taylor at 8.45 p.m. the same day at Swanley Grove, North Kensington, and told him I was making inquiries respecting the cheque which he took to Mr. Beavan. Taylor had absconded from Enfield on Wednesday night or early on Thursday morning. We had suspicion, and we traced him to Swanley Grove. He said, "I got the cheque from Caulfield. He offered to stand security for me for a loan of £10, but it did not come off. On the 26th I went home with him, and he said I could have one of these cheques if I liked. He save me one and I filled it in for £4. Caulfield signed it, and on the Sunday I asked Mr. Andrews to cash it for me, which he did." I said, "Caulfield denies it." He said, "Well, I will go with you. "I then took him to the Enfield Station. I then went to Chase Side, where I saw Caulfield and told him I was making further inquiries respecting this cheque. He said, "I cannot tell you

anything more about it; they belong to Taylor. I wish I could see him." I said, "If you come with me to Enfield Police Station yon can see him, and I took him there. With regard to the case of Beavan, on the same day I saw Caulfield and told him we were making inquiries about that cheque. It was signed "Burrill." He said he had never seen it before. Later in the day I saw Taylor, and told him I was making inquiries about the cheque Beavan had cashed for him on the 28th. He said that was quite right. I, said, "Can you tell me where you got it from?" He replied, "Prom Mr. Caulfield," and that he offered to stand security—practically the same story. After the prisoners had been before the magistrate, Caulfield said, in the presence of Taylor, "I may as well tell you the truth. A man gave me two cheques about four or five weeks ago in a public-house in Ludgate Hill, but I do not know who it was. He asked me for a drink, and I gave him two, and he then gave me the two cheques. I signed them both, the one in my name and the other in the name of Burrill." When I saw Taylor on the night of the arrest, and he told me about the cheque for £6 12s., which bears the name of Burrill, be said, "I took it to Mr. Beavan, and he cashed it for me. I got it from Caulfield. He came to me at the gas office, where I was working, and he tapped at the window, and called me out and asked me how I got on about the cheque that I had on the previous day. I said, 'All right.' He said, 'Would you get one cashed for me?' We then both went down to the Post Office, and there we filled in a cheque for £6 12s. Caulfield signed it in the name of Burrill, and I then took it to Mr. Beavan, the grocer in the town, and he cached it for me."

Cross-examined by Mr. Grantham. I have been told that Taylor's mother-in-law lives in North Kensington. They moved about three in the afternoon on May 31. Taylor volunteered to go with me. He at once gave me his account of the transaction.

THOMAS TWIGG , Sub-Divisional Inspector of Police, Enfield. I received complaints about these cheques, and sent Detective Summers to make inquiries. I afterwards saw both prisoners at Enfield Police Station. I showed Taylor the £4 cheque.

Taylor said, "At about 10.30 p.m., on May 29, I saw Caulfield in the 'King's Head' public-house. I accompanied him and his wife and another young woman to Stafford Villa, Chase Side, Enfield. I told him of my troubles, and he said he would assist me. I had previously been endeavouring to get a loan of £10, and Caulfield said he would stand security. He said, "How much do you want now." I said, "About £4." "Oh," he replied, "If that is all I will give you a cheque on my bank for that amount." He then produced a blank cheque, C 6966, and said, "You can get this cashed anywhere in Enfield, as I have a good account." I filled in the writing part; he signed

his name; and he distinctly told me he had a good account standing to his name in the bank." I knew both prisoners well. Taylor was a clerk in the Enfield Gas Company, in receipt of £1 2s. 6d. a week, and Caulfield was a painter or painter's labourer out of work—a jobbing man. Taylor said, "I went to the George Hotel, and Mr. Andrews the landlord, cashed the cheque for me. He first asked me who Caulfield was, and I told him a builder. I had the whole of the £4." Caulfield said, in reply to that, "Why, you knew at much about it at I do. You knew I had no account at the bank; it was you who first produced the cheques to me; they were your property. I am not going to stand this all. I admit I signed the cheque C 6966 for £4." Taylor said, "I can clear myself." That was when he was charged. Caulfield said, "I admit the first cheque, but I am willing to pay back the £4, and can do so." Caulfield had been employed at Baring's Bank on Good Friday—the offices were being cleaned out—he was one amongst 150 men. With regard to the case of Beavan, I saw the two prisoners together at Enfield Police Station. I produced the cheque, No. 2967. Taylor said, "On Monday, May 28, Caulfield came to the gas office, where I was at work, and tapped at the window, and said, 'I want to pay some small petty disbursements, and you can have £2 more.' I said, 'You are generous.' We walked to the Post Office, Enfield, and he signed the cheque for £6 12s., payable to me, in the name of Burrill. I said, 'This is a different name.' He replied, 'This all right. I have two accounts—I was known as Burrill in the army.' Caulfield was in the army. "Shortly afterwards I went to Beavan and asked him to cash the cheque for me. He said, 'I have only £2; you can have the other to-morrow morning.' I endorsed the cheque and he gave me £2. Shortly afterwards I met Caulfield. I told him what I had done. He said, 'Let me have £1 to go on with.' I gave him two half sovereigns, and told him he could have the other in the morning. The next morning I sent one of our assistants to Mr. Beavan, and he brought me back the balance of the cheque, £4 12s. Out of that I gave Caulfield £2 the same day. I am positive the signatures Caulfield and Burrill on the respective cheques were written by Caulfield in my presence." Caulfield replied, "Yon know as much about it as I do. You knew I had no account at the bank. You first produced the cheques to me—they were your property—I am not going to stand it all. I admit signing the cheque for £4, but the other I know nothing about. You know as much about this business as I do." They were then charged. Taylor said, "I can clear myself." Caulfield said, "I admit the first cheque. I am willing to pay back the £4." Taylor offered no explanation as to how he could suppose that a painter's labourer would be

likely to have an account at Baring Brothers. He is an educated man. When Taylor said that Caulfield said, "I want some money for small petty disbursements." Caulfield said, "What is the meaning of' disbursements "; I do not know what the word is."

Cross-examined by Mr. Grant ham. Caulfield has no houses. Taylor has worked three years at the Enfield gasworks; two and a half years at Hollins and Co., Friday Street, City; three years at Allen Crocker and Ca., Friday Street and five and a half years at Fownes Bros, and Co., Gresham Street. He has never been convicted.

THOMAS CHARLES WHITE , Hampden Villas, Enfield, deputy foreman to Frederick Raike, builder. On April 12 Baring's. Bros. Bank was being repaired. Caulfield was employed at painter on April 12, 13, and 14 at 1s. an hour for about ten or twelve hours a day. He was sober during the time. One at my governors was on the premises all the time. The men were not allowed to bring anything in.

Cross-examined by Caulfield. You were allowed out half an hour for breakfast, an hour for dinner, and half an hour for tea.

Caulfield's statement was then read. "I was working at Paring's Bank during the Easter holidays. Prior to going there I had been drinking very heavily. Seeing a deck open I took eight cheques. I burnt a lot of them, and thought I had burnt them all, but I afterwards found these two. I got on the drink again, and as this fellow Taylor got bothering me about getting a loan I gave the cheques to him. I said, 'Of course they are duds' (that is the slang term for worthless),' and if you like I will sign them.' He said, 'Yes, that will do; I can get the money and clear out.'"

Verdict, Guilty. Caulfield pleaded guilty to being convicted of felony on August 28, 1905. Sentence, Taylor eighteen months' hard labour; Caulfield fifteen months' hard labour.

FOURTH COURT; Friday, June 29.

(Before Judge Lumley-Smith.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-49
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceMiscellaneous > fine

Related Material

STEWART, Charles (35, cellarman) , committing an act of gross indecency with a male person. Verdict, Guilty of an attempt at indecency. Fined £5.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-50
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LAMBETH. William (40, baker) , committing an act of gross indecency with a male person.

Verdict. Guilty. Sentence, twelve months' hard labour.


(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-51
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

EVANS. Charles (34, agent), ATKINS, George (24, clerks and GILBERT, John (40, piano maker) ; stealing 10 pairs of curtains, the property of G. W. Powell.

Mr. H. S. Morris prosecuted.

GEORGE WILLIAM POWELL , Caledonian Road. On May 1 I was convicted at Bow Street of keeping a brothel at 5, Gower Place. On the day of my conviction I gave Frederick Wilkins authority to remove my goods to 28, Liverpool Street. On June 11 I went to 28, Alfred Street and my missus met me on the way and told me that everything had been stolen and I found nothing at Alfred Street. I gave Wilkins no instructions to dispose of the things, and I informed the police. I went to 224, Caledonian Road with Sergeant Davis and Detective Garrod on the 13th and I found three blankets. It took us about two hours to get into the house, and eventually they broke open the door and they found the two prisoners lying on the bed—Atkins and Evans. It was about two a.m. We went at 9.30. We found three blankets, two counterpanes, two pairs of curtains, one toilet cover, one razor and strop. On the night of the 14th I was in Euston Road, and I went up to Gilbert and said, "You must be good enough to come to the police-station, you are wanted, and I took him to Hunter Street. He was. searched, and some of my property was found on him—a snuffbox, two pocket-combs, and two ties. Half an hour later a little girl brought a cheque-book and a number of pawn-tickets, my property.

To Evans. I deny that you and I were in partnership extending over four months.

To the Judge. Evans and Atkins were living with me at Gower Place as lodgers and assisting generally in keeping the brothel, but Williams had not. I never knew him till he was introduced by Evans as being out of work.

To Atkins. I do not think you had anything to do with the stealing. I remember seeing you outside this Court. I said, "I bear you no animosity whatever, but, if it comes to be proved, I shall prove you are as bad as what Evans is, because you have lived along with me."

To Gilbert. You were standing near the Euston Hotel when I met you, and I asked you to say what you knew about where the goods had gone to. I said I would not charge you if I could find Wilkins. I should not have charged you only for the police taking the initiative. You charged yourself in your written statement ad the police charged you on that. I deny that I am living on the immoral earnings of the woman I am

living with. My missus has never been anything of the kind. It is bad enough to assist me in keeping a brothel. I did not sell the goods to Wilkins. I did not give him a receipt for 10s. I was introduced to Wilkins by Evans and gave him authority to remove the goods.

To the Court. Atkins and Evans were only living with me as lodgers and assisting a little by opening the door. There was no disturbance. The value of the stolen property was £30. I do not trace the cheque-book or pawntickets to Evans and Atkins. All I know is they were in the same house in which the counterpanes and blankets were.

----DAVIS, police-sergeant, E Division. I went to 224, Caledonian Road on June 13 at about nine o'clock. I endeavoured to get into the house, but for three hours we failed. When we did get in I found the inner doors were all locked and I burst open the top front room door and there I saw Evans and Atkins. I said to them, "We are detective officers, and this man Powell accuses you of stealing a quantity of furniture from 28, Liverpool Street, King's Cross," Powell searched the bed they were sitting on, and identified some of the bed-linen, and he said: "These are some of mine. I charge the two of them with stealing my things. "Evans said:" This man Atkins has nothing to do with it; they are as much mine as they are his" (meaning Powell's). They were bought when we were partners." At Hunter Street Evans repeated the statement, and Atkins said he had nothing to do with it.

To Atkins. A hire furnishing company had two vans there, and they removed everything in the house that was left. They had the furniture on a hire agreement, and for some reason or other the company took them all back. They took practically all that was in the house.

To Evans. You said that you thought it was the furnishing company, or you would have let us in before.

HENRY GARROD , Detective, E Division. On Thursday, June 14, I charged Gilbert at Hunter Street with stealing furniture from 28, Alfred Street He said, "I did not know anything about it." He afterwards made a statement, and I took it down, and he signed it: "A man named Harry Wilkins, about six weeks ago, met me at the Elephant and Castle, and said some furniture was going to be handed over to him, and that the keys of Mr. Powell was going to be handed to him on the Sunday night, and asked me to help him to move them, and that the owner was going to be tried at Bow Street on the following Monday for keeping a brothel. I met him there on that day by appointment, and we went in and heard his case, and the man Powell was fined £25 or six weeks' hard labour. Wilkins and me came out of the Court, and a constable informed Wilkins that Powell wished to see him, and Wilkins went in and saw Powell. On

coming out he said Mr. Powell had authorised him to dispose of the goods to sustain himself, and pay the rent, and on the same day we went to 5, Gower Place, and removed the goods in a harrow to 28, Alfred Street, and stored them in the kitchen there, and on that or the next evening two men, named Charles Evans and George Atkins, came and searched the goods over, and took away some of the things, and on the following Friday we took the remainder of the goods and sold them in the Cattle-Market. I do not know how much they fetched, and I got nothing out of it. Me and Wilkins have been about together up till last Sunday, and Wilkins said he was going to Ports-mouth, and I have not seen him since." There was found on him a snuff-box, two ties, and two combs. A little girl brought in a cheque-book and pawn tickets, part of the goods stolen. I showed them to Gilbert, and told him a little girl had picked them up in Judd Street, and asked him if he knew anything of them; he said he knew nothing about them. The next day on the way to Clerkenwell Police Court he said, I have been wearing Wilkin's coat, the pawntickets and cheque-book must have been in it, and I dropped them. The pawntickets were all in Powell's name and the cheque-book has been identified by Powell.

ALEXANDER THORPE (porter, 28, Liverpool Street). I remember Gilbert bringing tome furniture somewhere in last month, but I cannot remember the date. It was fetched away by two men, Gilbert and the other man. I recognise Gilbert as one of the men who brought it.

To Evans. I can only identify one man. I never identified, you. I know nothing about you.

To Atkins. I have never seen you at Liverpool Street. I have not seen you at this place in Liverpool Street.

To Gilbert. According to my estimate the other one seemed to have authority in taking the things out of the house. I do not know whether his name is Wilkins.

The jury stopped the case and returned a verdict of Not guilty.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-52
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

HAMBLIN, William (30, carman) , feloniously stealing a load of Thames ballast.

Mr. Leycester prosecuted.

HENRY JAMES WESTON (carrying on business as John Weston and Son, wharfingers and contractors'). In April last I was engaged in carrying ballast from John Shelborne and Go. to a reservoir which was being made at Honor Oak, and I employed! for the purpose of the carting two subcontractors Pritchard and Hobman, who provided the van and horses and carmen. The prisoner Hamblin was one of the carmen supplied by Hobman, and it was his duty to cart ballast from my wharf at Deptford

Bridge to the Honor Oak reservoir. Each load was worth about 5s., and contained about one and a quarter yards.

WILLIAM PALMER . I am employed by Weston's at their wharf at Deptford Bridge, and on April 19 the prisoner was one of the carmen carrying ballast from the wharf to Honor Oak. It was my duty to provide him with a delivery note and receipt. He would leave the delivery note at Moron's and bring back the receipt, signed by Moran's checker. I gave the receipt produced to the prisoner on April 19 with the second load. He brought back the receipt for the first load before I gave him this. He brought back the receipt, which I filed with the others. He would take three loads a day. There were twenty carmen, carting about sixty loads a day. These three men, Hamblin, Roes, and Lee, left separately with the first loads and came back at noon. When they came back from the second journey they came close behind one another.

To the Judge. I accepted the receipt as genuine. Before he got the second load I took the ticket for the first, and, supposing he wanted to copy Osborn's name, he would not have anything in his possession to copy from.

HERBERT OSBORN . I was checker to Moran's at the time this occurred at the reservoir they were making at Honor Oak, and it was my duty when the carmen brought loads of ballast to check the delivery. The carmen would leave the delivery note with me. I would check the load in and sign a receipt for it, and keep a duplicate. I remember Hamblin being at work that day. According to my ticket he only delivered two loads. I have looked among all the tickets, and these are the only two I can find for that day. They are the two I initialled. I always gave the carter one of these to take back. I signed the name in full on what they took back. Before I signed I saw the stuff shot in every case. This is not my signature. I do not sign my name that way. There is a "u" in the name, and I do not put "u" in my name. I receive all the loads that come. There is a temporary man occasionally. I do not mean to say that I sign for every load; occasionally there are one or two in the dinner-time that I do not sign for, but the man I gave authority to would sign, but he would sign his own name and not mine. There was not any on that day. Sometimes there are not above 100 loads shot in the day, but on another day 300 to 400; sometimes 50 or 25. The delivery notes went to the storekeeper. I have an office where I put them. These are the other delivery notes for that day (produced), beginning with 1,116; they were all my initials. I have gone through those receipts, and they are all of them signed by me and none of them are signed by anybody else. If I lost the delivery note I must have lost three consecutive ones; 1,147-8-9 are missing, and they are the only three missing.

To the Prisoner. Sometimes I signed the receipts on a shovel, sometimes on my knee or on the shaft or on the wheel. I have never been the worse for drink at the time.

GEORGE PALMER . I was employed by the prosecutors at their wharf at Deptford. I delivered three loads to the prisoner on April 19. I know that from the prisoner himself. He owned to it at the other court. I had nothing to do with the tickets or delivery notes; that was done by my son. He stands just about the wharf and gives out the receipts and delivery notes.

CHARLES CANNING , detective, R Division. I arrested the prisoner on May 30. I said I am going to arrest you for dealing a load of ballast on April 19. He said I know nothing about it. I took three loads that day and delivered them, and got the tickets signed and brought them back. When charged he said: I know nothing about it; if I had done it I should not have stopped about it. I handed in the receipts for all my loads.

WILLIAM HAMBLIN (prisoner, on oath). I have nothing to say only that I am innocent.

To the Court. I took three loads that day. I cannot read or write. It never happened when I took a load to the reservoir that anyone else but Osborn signed the tickets. I think he signed all my tickets on every occasion. I have taken many hundreds of loads altogether. He only stood at the gate as the loads went in. He did not see them shot. We go in at one gate and out at the other. We did not go out of his sight only seven or eight yards. He stood at the gate where we went in and signed them then before he saw them shot. We could not come out with our loads. The receipt I gave to Palmer in the same condition as I received it. I gave him the tickets each time as I got back, and every load I had went into the job. I did not sell it. I have worked at the place where I am working sixteen years, and at every other place I have worked I have had a good character.

To Mr. Leycester. I remember on one day after taking out the first load Lee and Ross and I came back together. I remember one day, I could not say the date, we knocked a tyre on Ross's cart together, and it delayed us. I could not say whether it was that day or not. I remember being arrested, and the officer told me it was for stealing a load of ballast on April 19, and I said to him I took three loads that day and delivered them. He asked me about April 19, and as I delivered my loads every day of course I would say so. I have always done three loads a day. The governor would give us the sack if we did not. I gave Osborn every note of mine every time, and he signed one and kept one. I did not see what he did with the one what he kept. I cannot sign my own name. I am employed by A. T. Hobman.

To the Judge. The tyre came off when the cart was empty, and we all three stopped to put the tyre on. I could not say that we all reached Deptford together. We were together when we put the tyre on; that is all I do know.

Verdict, Not guilty.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-53
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

HAMBLIN, William (30, carman), ROSS, James (33, carman), and LEE, Charles (34, carman) , stealing a load of Thames ballast. (See previous case.) Not guilty.

OLD COURT; Monday, July 2.

(Before Mr. Justice Bigham.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-54
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CLARKE, Herbert Spencer (32, entertainer), pleaded guilty to indecent assault, Sentence, three months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-55
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

TIFFEN, Louisa (31, laundress) ; murder of George William Brown, otherwise Tiffen.

Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. J. Merlin defended.

HARRY BAKER MADDOX , 11, Windsor Road, Hackney Wick. I am thirteen years of age, and go to school, and am in the sixth standard. On Saturday, April 6, about 8 p.m., I saw the prisoner in the Victoria public-house with her little boy. I knew her by sight. Later on I saw her at the top of Windsor Road, near the fireman's hut, coming from the White Post Lane Railway Arch, the little boy holding her skirt. She slapped the boy to make him stop crying. I followed them down Plover Street into the Gainsborough Road where they turned to the right and went up the bridge on the side towards Homerton, and stood against the iron rails in the middle. I saw prisoner move her skirt. I was watching because I thought it was rather strange she went that way, because she always goes the other way to her home. I did not know she had left her home. She moved her skirt round the boy. The boy was moving his hand backwards and forwards against the railings. I then heard a splash in the canal, and I ran away because I was frightened; I did not know what it was. I did not fancy that the boy had been pitched into the water or fallen in. I cannot swim. I told my brother that I had seen Loo Tiffen pass by, and I heard a splash. I did not think the boy had fallen into the water—I did not know what it was. There was nothing except the woman and the boy to account for the splash. I did not tell my brother I had seen her put out her skirt. I told my mother on Sunday morning that I had seen Louisa Tiffen and the little boy, and I

heard a splash and ran away. That was when I heard from my mother that the boy had been found drowned.

Cross-examined. I remember what I have spoken of quite clearly. The smacking the boy in Windsor Road was only patting him to keep him quiet. I do not think prisoner hurt him. She only smacked him once. I never saw them on the Old Ford side of the bridge, only on the Homer ton side. You can get to Edmonton along the towing-path. You can jump down on the towing-path from the bridge. I said to the magistrate: "I did not see her hit the boy on the bridge, and I could not say positively she did not throw the boy into the water." I heard no cry. It was moonlight, and the gas-lamps were alight. There were no rowing boats about They are there in the evening. It was not like the splash of cars. There are barges just down by the bridge between Gainsborough Road Bridge and Homerton Bridge. The splash was somewhere near the bridge. You can get from Plover Road along the path across the field and along by the buildings against the canal to Homerton Bridge in about four minutes.

Verdict, Not guilty.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-56
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WEST, James (31, silver caster) ; manslaughter of Louisa Emily West; the like on coroner's inquisition.

Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted.

SOPHIA MILLETT . I occupy 39, Charles Square, Hoxton, and let two rooms on top floor to prisoner. Two rooms on top floor are let to Mrs. Corcoran, and the first floor is let to Mrs. Miles. Prisoner has lived there five months 'with his wife and two little boys. On Saturday May 26, 1906, between six and seven, on returning home from shopping Mrs. Corcoran was coming down stairs and said that prisoner was murdering his wife. Prisoner heard Mrs. Corcoran come downstairs and followed after; then Mrs. West came walking down the stairs, and when she got down to the bottom he knocked her down in the corner of the passage and kept on kicking her. Then when he was tired of kicking her he punched her with his fist, as if he were fighting a man. She was on the ground. He kicked her in the stomach several times. I called him a coward, and said I would fetch a policeman; I would not have any more of it; he had done quite enough to her. I went to get a policeman, but there was a fire and the streets were all cleared, and I sent a boy for the police. When I came back everything was quiet, and prisoner and his wife were up in their own room. Mrs. Corcoran and Mrs. Miles came down and went into the yard. Mrs. Miles was at her room door as the prisoner and his wife came downstairs. I was alone in the passage.

Cross-examined. I was the only one there when you kicked her. Mrs. Corcoran was knocking at your door when I came in.

Your wife did not scream because you stunned her with the punching and one thing and another. You kicked her when she was in the corner. I did not tell your wife that day that you had another woman.

Re-examined. I had had no quarrel with the prisoner.

ADELAIDE MILES , 39, Charles Square, Hoxton. I occupy rooms on the first floor. On the evening of May 26, at about 6.30 to 7, I heard screaming downstairs from my room. I heard a scuffle, and I recognised the voices of Mr. and Mrs. West in the passage by the street door. I heard Mrs. Milieu say, "Leave her alone, you coward. You have given her enough. If you do not I will go for a policeman." I went back into my room and shut the door. After two or three minutes I thought it was all quiet, so I came out again, and I saw Mr. and Mrs. West going up their stairs—prisoner first and his wife following. She looked very white, and was carrying her shoe in her hand as if it had fallen off. I went down to fetch my boys into tea. Mrs. Corcoran came running downstairs and spoke to me. We heard prisoner and Mrs. West coming downstairs and ran out into the back. I stayed there about five minutes and came back and looked round the door. I saw prisoner and his wife on the stairs. He was holding her, she lying down with her hands up. Mrs. West said, "Mrs. Millett, Mrs. Millett, Mrs. Millett, go for a policeman, I am bleeding to death." Prisoner said to his wife, "I will throw you downstairs, I will murder you, and I will poison you." I was so frightened I went back into the yard. I did not mention that before when I gave evidence. I was not asked. I was not under the impression I should be called. I only took my boy to the court. I saw my boy Ferdinand at the street door.

Cross-examined. I cannot remember saying to the coroner's officer in front of Mrs. Corcoran that I did not know anything about it nor Corcoran saying, "Nor do I."

At the request of prisoner the witness's deposition before the coroner was read.

FIEDINAND HINDMARSH . I am nine years of age, and live at 39, Charles Square, with my mother—the last witness. On a Saturday evening in May I saw Mr. and Mrs. West coming down the stairs as I was just opposite the street door. Mrs. West came down first, Mr. West came down afterwards, and Mr. Weft wanted to take one of the little boys away from her, and Mrs. West would not let him. There was a little boy there. Mr. West pulled her hair, and pulled her round and pushed her down with his knee and his hand, and kicked her in the stomach. She fell on the stairs. She lay down flat on the stairs. Mr. West went up, and Mrs. West went upstairs after him. My mother was in the back yard.

Cross-examined by prisoner. You kicked Mrs. West once. My brother and Mrs. Corcoran were there when you kicked her, and there was another girl outside our door—nobody else.

ANNIE CORCORAN . I live at 39, Charles Square, on the top floor. On the evening of May 26, between six and seven, I was in my room. I heard quarrelling in prisoner's room, next to mine. I went down and spoke to Mrs. Millett, and went into the back yard with Mrs. Miles. On Sunday morning I saw deceased in bed. She had a bruise on her jaw and a bruise on her knee.

Cross-examined. On Sunday night I went into your room, but I did not undress the children. Your wife gave me some pawn-tickets to mind for her when she went to the hospital. I do not know they were for children's clothes. As she gave me the box with the tickets I gave them to you. I helped to carry an over mantel to pawn; your wife laid you had asked her to pawn it for the rent and she took some rent to the landlady the same day.

EDITH MARY NORTH , 24, Brunswick Place, Hoxton, district visitor. I visited the deceased on May 28, and met the prisoner on the stairs as I left I spoke to him about hit cruelty to his wife. I said, "How came you to do such a cruel thing?" He said, "I suppose it was the booze"—they had been drinking. I accompanied prisoner back to the room where she was. They each complained that the other was most in fault, and they were blaming one another for what had occurred.

Cross-examined by Prisoner. I met you on the landing on the first floor. I was going to get some lemons to make your wife a drink. I am quite sure you said, "I suppose it was the booze." I do not remember the exact words, but I spoke of the cruelty. I am positive you did not say, "The booze caused it," When I went back to the room I spoke to both of you about giving up the drink. I was in the house trying to get Bible subscribers, and I was invited to go and see your wife, which I did. I have been called upon to give evidence, I think, by the police.

THOMAS ALLEN , 57, Pitneld Street, Hoxton, registered medical practitioner. On Sunday, May 27, at two p.m. prisoner came and asked me to go and see his wife. He said she had fallen downstairs the previous day. I went at once. I found her suffering from contusion of the intestine and several contusions on the body. I saw a contusion on the right lower jaw, three or four bruises on the right wrist, and the abdomen was swollen and tender. On the following day her condition had changed; her temperature had risen slightly to 100.2 degrees; her pulse had risen to 100, and she showed indications that I presumed might lead to the necessity for operative interference within twenty-four hours. I therefore advised her immediate removal to 8t. Bartholomew's Hospital. The evidence that led me to

think an operation was necessary was the history of the case—that she and her husband had had a squabble on the stairs, and that she had fallen down and hurt herself—what prisoner had told me. She had a very slight amount of shock—she was very white; her pulse was below the normal (76 instead of 80); she complained of intense pain in the centre of the abdomen, and the abdomen was swollen; her temperature had risen to 100.2 deg. instead of the normal 96.4 deg.; and the bowels had not acted. Her general condition indicated commencing peritonitis. The alteration from the first to the second day indicated the difference between a contused intestine and a possible rupture of the intestine and commencing peritonitis. I did not consider it had there and then become necessary to open the woman's abdomen, but I considered she was in such a condition that she ought to be removed to a hospital, where that operation could be done if it became necessary. I did not see her again.

Cross-examined. Peritonitis would cause intense pain.

To the Judge. There was no bruise visible at that time on the abdomen where the injury was supposed to have been received. A deep bruise may not come out for three or four days afterwards; there was a swelling and the bruises I have mentioned.

WALTER LOUGHBOROUGH , house surgeon, St. Bartholomew's Hospital. I was present on May 28, between 9 and 10 p.m., when the deceased was admitted. I examined her, found a swollen and tender abdomen, a raised temperature of 100.2 deg., and rapid pulse of 120. I noticed marks of external violence, bruising over the right side of the cheek and on the right wrist; there was a small, faint bruise in the centre of the abdomen above the navel, and also a faint bruise in the left breast. They were recent bruises. She was put to bed, and was under the charge of Dr. Moore till the following Friday, June 1, when I saw her again. Her temperature had risen; I was told she had vomited several times during the previous night, and I saw the vomit. It was ordinary vomit. It indicated intestinal disturbance. Her abdomen was becoming more distended, the pain had increased, her pulse was weaker, and she was looking very much worse. We expected to find some laceration or rupture of the intestine, which was causing localised or general peritonitis, and the only treatment possible in that case was to open the abdomen, let cut the pus, and sew up, if possible, the rupture. It was the only chance the woman had. I held the post-mortem examination. A rupture of the intestines was found in the small intestine, the portion directly continuous with the stomach. Dr. Colt administered the chloroform. We suspected peritonitis, and we found it there. The condition of the pulse would indicate the condition of the heart. After the

chloroform was administered Dr. Colt informed me the bad stopped breathing. I came to his assistance, and saw breathing had stopped; her pulse was very feeble, just palpable in the carditis, that is the arch of the neck. I then did artificial respiration at Dr. Colt's request, then listened to the heart, and failed to hear it. We did it for 15 minutes, and as there was no response Dr. Colt also applied the galvanic battery. We also administered strychnine. As there was no response we were obliged to consider the woman was dead. There were present in the operating theatre the operating surgeon, Mr. Rawlins, four nurses, two surgeons, one dresser, Dr. Clark, and about three or four onlookers, students, and qualified men—about a dozen altogether. The deceased was on the operating table. I conducted the post-mortem with the aid of the pathologist. Mr. Colt was present. We found a rupture of the smaller intestine, and general peritonitis, due, in my opinion, to the ruptured intestine. It is almost impossible to say whether death was accelerated by the chloroform. She was in a very critical condition before. I do not expect she would have died in three minutes without the chloroform; otherwise it would have been a most foolish thing to perform the operation. In my opinion the operation was absolutely necessary. Direct violence would cause the rupture and the other injuries. A kick would cause it or a blow. She told me it had been caused by falling downstairs—that is possible—by falling against some particular body, such as the corner of the banister. My diagnosis led me to the conclusion that it was the result of violence.

Cross-examined by Prisoner. Your wife told me she had fallen downstairs catching her stomach against the bannister and the edge of the stairs. She would have had a better chance had she gone through the operation.

GEORGE HERBERT COLT , Junior Pathologist, St. Bartholomew's Hospital. On June 1 I administered the anesthetic to deceased. I selected chloroform. I gave it very slowly and carefully, more slowly than usual, because the patient was breathing with a certain amount of difficulty and had been reported to have vomited, in which case it was safer to give it very slowly. I felt the heart; it was beating more feebly than usual. I consulted Dr. Loughborough and Mr. Rawlins, the Surgeon. They both considered it was the woman's only chance. The chloroform was being administered four and a half minutes and she had altogether 45 minims—roughly one-tenth of an ounce in that time, that is a little slower than usual. After four and a half minutes the patient's breathing became what we call laboured; and I instantly stopped the administration of the chloroform. I drew the patient up so that the head was hanging well back over the end of the table, and the respiration continued—it did not cease at once, but was going on quite

naturally, for three and a half minutes from the time and the heart was beating. Three and a half minutes after the stoppage of the giving of chloroform, the patient's respiration ceased, and some five seconds later the heart ceased beating. Artificial respiration was attempted and the galvanic battery. There was not the slightest response. I have administered ansesthetics in about 250 cases. I have had no accident before—I do not consider that an accident—I have had no unfortunate result before.

Cross-examined. Q. Is there any possible way of knowing whether the heart stopped beating from peritonitis or through the chloroform being administered? A. Yes. It is a matter of opinion, but there are facts, and the facts are these: When the heart or the respiration stops, or both stop, from chloroform, it occurs in one of two stages as a rule—either very early in the administration—i.e., within 15 seconds of the commencement of it, the heart suddenly stops; or very late, say, two hours, or as much as three or four hours, later in a prolonged administration—that is in the case of chloroform. And in the case of chloroform on applying the electric battery there is nearly always a response, the respiration almost always begins again—or I will not say that, I will say the muscles contract nearly always when the battery is applied. In the other case, when the stoppage is due to peritonitis, there is no response to the electrical stimulation, and the form the respiration takes before it ceases is different, it becomes what we call sobbing or sighing. The patient's cheeks are drawn in, and it is just as if the patient was sobbing. That occurred in this case, and that is the way in which patients suffering from general peritonitis die. It is a very serious disease. There are two kinds of rupture—one is hernia, the other is a break, a broken piece of the intestine. In one there is a hole in the intestine, in the other there is not. In the case of your wife there was an actual round hole in the intestine, so that the matter Inside could past outside. It is a matter of opinion, but it is my very strong opinion that the chloroform had nothing to do with the death; It is a chance of about 96,000 to one against. This case might be the one. It is a matter of opinion.

FREDERICK JOSEPH ALDER , Coroner. I held the inquest in this case on June 5 and 12. Prisoner gave evidence after being duly cautioned. His evidence was taken down in writing in my presence, read over, and signed by him.

JAMES WEST (prisoner on oath). I came home on the Saturday from the Varieties. My missus was a bit queer. I took no notice being out of temper and went to bed. In the middle of the night she woke me up. She was sick all over the place. She got up and walked about. I got up and made her some tea, and did all

I could. She got worse towards the middle of the day, so I went and got her some brandy, and gave her that with some milk. About two o'clock I went to Dr. Allen and asked him to come immediately. I had a bit of persuasion to get him to come, it being his rest time, but at last I prevailed on him to come. In the two days I went to Dr. Allen about five times for different things, because she was in such agony and pain. On the Monday night he said, "I advise you to take her to the hospital; I think she has got peritonitis coming on—I am not sure; you will soon know; if it is so there must be an operation." My brother and I carried her downstairs and took her in a hansom to St. Bartholomew's, getting there about nine o'clock. We carried her into a small ante-room. We kept the cabman waiting three-quarters of an hour or an hour. At ten o'clock they examined her, and asked me if I was willing for her to go under an operation that night. I said "Yes." They asked me to go upstairs with her. I went into the ward and sat on the side of the bed. I fell asleep in the arm-chair by the fire; that was about one o'clock in the morning. I saw the nurses round my wife's bed four or five times in the night using an injection. At half-past four they woke me up, gave me a cup of tea, and said, "There will not be an operation on your wife this morning; there will not be an operation till we let you know. Will you call back at dinner time." I went back at dinner time. They said, "Your wife seems pretty fair, and we do not think there is any need of any operation." I went to work on the Wednesday. Of course I stopped at home the other part of the week at the request 'of my wife; she asked me not to leave her; she thought she was dying. On Wednesday I had an hour off from work, and went to see the head doctor of the ward. He said, "I have thoroughly examined your wife, and I cannot find anything dangerous the matter with her; there it no need of any operation; she is suffering from a few contused bruises, and that is all. We must keep her here two or three days to ate further into it," I said, "If there is nothing the matter with her she wants to come home" He said, "She will be all right here." I went again at night time, and they said, "You cannot see your wife, but she is progressing favourably" I went each night afterwards, and at dinner time as well. On one occasion they said, "She is progressing all right, but not to be disturbed." I was up there till nine o'clock each night. On the Friday night I worked till twenty-past eight. I was up at the hospital about a quarter to nine. Just as I got up at the hospital I saw a woman coming past me on a wool stretcher. I thought to myself, "That looks like my wife" I saw her sister behind. I said, "Is that Mrs. West, Loo" She said, "Yet, they were telegraphing for you all over the place. She has come over worse, and they are going to have an operation on her." I was

only working in Clerkenwell; only the deceased knew where I worked. I saw her go into the room, and heard her holloa out, "Don't hurt me" She seemed terribly afraid of this operation. Of course, her sister had been through an operation for hernia; she thought she was suffering from the same; she seemed terribly afraid of it, and I heard her call out, "Don't hurt me" Then half an hour afterwards they came out and told me she was dead; that was after telling me all the week there was nothing the matter with her. I was with her sister at the time she was brought out after she had died. I had the news broke to me properly, of course. I was stunned, and so was her sister. We waited and went in to see her. She was warm. I went home, and have lived in the same place since. This landlady and all the witnesses who have come up have said that they did not know anything about it. When they asked me how the deceased died I told them. This Mrs. Millett, who is supposed to have seen such a lot, I went up and told her the same day she died, and I told her everything.

Cross-examined. My wife was following me about for five hours in the street, and the reason I never struck her, which I would have done while I was fair mad with her, was she had been following me all over the place, but she seemed to sober up a bit when I took her for a good walk round. I took her for a six-mile walk. From two o'clock to six o'clock she was following me round the street. I was angry with her. I should never have thought of kicking a man, let alone a woman, or a cat, or a dog. Mrs. Millett says she saw me deliberately kick my wife and my wife never says a word—my wife never utters a sound—and she says there was nobody else there. Then there is the boy gives evidence. He says he saw me kick Mrs. West once, and there was nobody else there. I say what Mrs. Millett says is absolutely lies; she surmises it. Mrs. Millett did not send for a constable. I asked her at the police court did she send for a constable. She said she sent a boy; and Mrs. Miles said, "I sent my own son for a policeman"—who is six years of age. I had had a row with Mrs. Millett about her putting into my wife's head my being late of a night, and that I must have another woman. I asked her why she told my wife that. That was on this same day. It caused my wife to come to my shop and holloa it down the passage. She admitted it. There is only the deceased woman to say that she said so. As to Hindmarsh's evidence. I asked him who told him to say May 26. He said, "My mother told me to say May 26." I said, "What day was it?" He said. "Saturday." I said, "Who told you to say it was Saturday?" He said, "No one." I said, "How do you know it was Saturday?" He could not tell me. I said, "What day comes before Saturday?" He could not tell me at all. They told my wife's sister—at least it was surmised—my wife's

sister mentioned something about my striking my wife with a cricket bat on the head. That was the first of it. Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-57
VerdictGuilty > insane
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

HUTCHIN, Arthur (16, cashier) ; feloniously wounding Alfred Hutchin with intent to murder him.

C. E. P. Boyd prosecuted.

ALFRED GEORGE HUTCHIN , tailor, Dorset Place, Pimlico. Prisoner is my brother. My father is verger of Holy Trinity Church. On Easter Monday prisoner, my father, my brother-in-law, two sisters, and myself went to the Zoological Gardens. Prisoner and myself came home together. My elder brother came home with my two sisters. We had missed our father at the Zoological Gardens and he came back by himself. We were in the parlour with the prisoner that night between eight and nine o'clock. My father did not quite like our having come home without him. While he was talking about it I saw my brother strike my father on the head once with a hatchet (produced). Prisoner had not said anything before he struck my father either to my father or to me. I believe the hatchet i" usually kept in the back yard. I cannot say how it came to be in the parlour. I nearly fainted. Then my sister ran into the room and went for help. I came to my senses a bit. I cannot say where my brother was after he did it. He appears to have gone out into the street. When the doctor was attending to my father prisoner got up off the chair he was sitting on and gave a peculiar laugh, and said, "He is breathing." At the time he did it prisoner gave a peculiar laugh after it happened; he looked very white and his eyes appeared to be starting out of his bead.

GILBERT COPE , 10, Roehampton Street, Westminster, qualified medical man. I was called to 11, Dorset Road, between 8 and 9 p.m. on Easter Monday. As I came to the house prisoner was parading up and down outside, throwing his arms about and shouting, "I did it, I did it, I am not mad." The father was sitting in an armchair with his back to the window apparently in a faint. I had been called to see a man who had cut his throat, but his throat was all right There was a lot of blood running from his head. He had half a dozen cuts on the side of the head. I attended to the wounds temporarily. The prisoner came into the room and began mattering to himself and shouting out. In my opinion he was mad. I have had him under my care for about eighteen months for various complaints—nervous dyspepsia, nervous debility; he complained of lack of memory, of drowsiness, and feelings of impending disaster. Every time I saw him he exhibited mental symptoms. It would be years, in my opinion, before he will get well. He might do so, but the probability, in my opinion, is he will get worse, and that he might have another outbreak. If his physical

well-being is looked after he might improve mentally, because he is undoubtedly physically below the average. He is looking better than when he went away.

Prisoner (not on oath). I did not know what I was doing of.

Verdict, Guilty, but insane, and not responsible for his actions at the time. Ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure in Brixton Prison.

THIRD COURT; Monday, July 2.

(Before Judge Rentoul.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-58
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FENDALL, Joseph Harold (32, ironmonger) ; stealing six bundles of iron and two bundles off iron, the goods of C. P. Phillips and another.

Mr. H. G. Booth prosecuted; Mr. Wildey Wright defended.

CHARLES PERCY PHILLIPS , merchant, trading at Cullom Street, E.C, as C. Phillips, Jones, and Co. Examined. Mr. Jones was a partner with me, but went out in October, 1905, and I took in a brother as partner. The defendant was originally engaged by me in August, 1904, as traveller. There were disagreements between him and me, which resulted in my discharging him verbally on December 31, and he was re-engaged by me (on terms which were sent to him in writing on January 13, 1905), at a salary of 50s. a week and a bonus at the end of every three months' business making the salary up to one-third of the net profits of the business brought by him. It was accepted by letter on February 2. I recognise the book produced as a book kepi at our store, in which orders are written to be dispatched by railway. We have a store at the Midland Railway at Royal Mint Street, where this book is kept end occasionally brought to the office. Prisoner brought to the firm an order for eight boxes of nails, saying he had one or two customers at Croydon, that he wanted to send two boxes to each of them, and that by sending them down in one batch it would save the railway carriage, and I gave him permission. He would go to our store with my authority, and write out an order in duplicate, the original of which be would hand to the railway company, and the duplicate we made our invoice from. The carbon is put between, and then he writes on top. One is left in the book and the other one is torn out and given to the railway company. I remember the order on December 1 for eight boxes of nails, 2 cwt. He said he wanted that sent down to Croydon. We had several customers at Croydon, and three or four of them wanted two boxes each, and I gave him authority to go to the store. The order kept in the book is for eight boxes of nails, but, on the sheet of paper which ought to tally with it and was handed to

the Midland Railway, "Six bundles of iron" are added in the handwriting of the defendant, and "Forward—urgent" is alto added. He never told me anything, about the order for six bundles of iron. The word "Forward" means that carriage it to be paid at the other end, and we should not see any document from the railway company. We should not know what the rates were and would not be able to tell from the rates the quantity that was sent. On December 28 defendant gave as another order. He handed in the order in the usual course, and I asked him if the Mayo Forge Company was a good firm, and he replied it was. I questioned him with regard to every order that he brought in whether they were substantial people. We had a previous order from them. The order was on December 19,1905, for 33 bars, 5 bundles, 4 boxes—weighing 19 cwt. 1 qr. I told him to go down and have the iron inspected, and ho would enter it up in the book and put in the weight. The order is in his handwriting. In the carbon impression below it the 5 is altered to a 7. He never told me anything about that alteration. The goods were forwarded. I did not know the Mayo Forge Company were the defendant's, nor did he ever tell me so. On June 12 I applied for a warrant at the Mansion House, which was granted. Nobody had access to that book but myself. Nobody except myself, and the railway servant in charge had the key. Most of the handwriting in the book appears to be the prisoner's. The price of the six bundles of iron would be 24s., and the two bundles about 14s.

Cross-examined. I have been partner in this firm for six years. I had a partner, Mr. Jones, and then he left, but we parted on friendly terms. After that my brother became partner, and he is with me now. January 30 was the date of the agreement between defendant and ourselves and the acceptance on February 2. I went to South Africa on January 26 last year, returning in August. During that time Mr. Jones had the sole management of the business. (The witness wrote down the ordinary signature of his firm and handed it to the counsel and then wrote down the figure 7 in his ordinary way of writing it.) The value of the six bundles of iron is about 24s. and the two bundles 12s. Looking at the duplicate order-book, at the writing of the" six bundles of iron "on" December 1,1905, I swear that is the defendant's writing. It is in the ordinary and natural writing which I would know at any moment. Assuming an order to be given for 20 bundles of iron, we know the quantity the railway company have forwarded to our customer by looking at this book, the duplicate order book. Generally that book is kept at the store. We never knew what the railway company said if it is sent carriage paid; the person we get our information from is the person who sends the iron away. If it is sent carriage forward we do not know what the railway

has sent until we happen to go down and look at the duplicate order. We never do that except when we suspect anything or have anything to look up. We first knew in this case that the railway had sent six bundles of iron, in addition to eight boxes of nails 10 days before we took the matter up. We looked at that book fairly often, because we were making a great many inquiries. We would know a week or two afterwards. With regard to what happened on December 1, 1905, I am relying on my memory in connection with this book. I do not remember (but I will not swear to the contrary), after getting the iron for the eight boxes of nails, and after the manifest was made out on December 1, going to the Midland Railway stores with the defendant and seeing some rusty iron lying on the floor. Defendant did not say to me, "That is like the sizes of iron I want for my customer" I swear he did not say it. He did not mention the size of the iron that the customer wanted, nor did he turn up the stock-book and say, "We have no: got this size in stock." Nor did I say, "You know better than I do whether it will suit him or not" We had no conversation about it at all. He did not say, "I think it will suit; in any event, you can send it with the nails to my place, and if he does not take it I can sell it elsewhere to customers in Croydon" I did not say, "Just put it down in the book" He did not write that in my presence by my instructions. We did not know the defendant was carrying on business in iron at Pump Vale, Croydon. We did not know till six or seven weeks ago. With regard to G 1. if he had altered the 33 bars to 133 bars we should have missed the iron. I have heard it suggested in evidence that the Mayo Forge Company was carried by Helmsley, and the tenancy was altered on October 30, and the agreement for the assignment of the business by Helmsley to the defendant was on January 1. Burchell and Edwards, solicitors, acted for us some time ago. When we applied for the warrant on June 12 we had an idea the defendant was connected with a business called Hodgkins, but it was difficult to find him. I have not seen him there, but I have been there twice to find him. I had not had several interviews with the defendant in Mansion House Chambers. I did not swear that he was carrying on business at Mansion House Chambers. I had been informed that he was carrying on business there. I swore, "I am informed that he was recently carrying on business under the name and style of Hodgkins and Co.," because he told a lot of our customers so. I was beginning to believe it at the time I swore the information. I had a copy of the circular sent out by the defendant in my possession a few days or a week before applying for the warrant. I did not apply for the summons because I had an idea he was going to go away, from somebody who came to our office—Mr. Palmer, our traveller. He told us that defendant

had been telling all our customers that be purchased oar business for £3,000. I instructed Mr. Romain, solicitor, to act as our solicitor in the criminal proceedings the day before the issue of the warrant. I had seen copies of a correspondence between Burchell and Edwards, and defendant's solicitor, R. N. Appleyard. I had not seen the correspondence when I left Burchell and Edwards for the purpose of instructing Mr. Romain in the criminal proceedings. I did not wilfully and intentionally conceal from Mr. Romain the fact that this correspondence had been going on. Mr. Romain said at the Mansion House that he had never seen it. I did not know that the defendant's contention was that we owed him a considerable sum. He made such a lot of excuses that I did not take any nctice of them. (Letter of April 19 from Burchell and Edwards read.) The letter is addressed to J. H. Fendall, Messrs. Hodgkin and Co., 66, Mansion House Chambers. We did not proceed by summons because we were responsible to Wotherspoons, for whom we were acting as agents, for money which the defendant collected of theirs. We were in the dark as to what money he had taken, and we are to this day. (Letter from Messrs. Appleyard read, dated April 21.) We did not show that letter to Mr. Romain. Up to this time I have not made any charge against defendant with regard to Wotherspoon's matters. I went away on January 26, and returned during the first 10 days of August. Mr. Jones left me, but not because of disagreement. He never brought any capital into the business. He was not my manager, but he worked the business with me. I said him out. What I paid him has nothing to do with this case. It did not render the firm short of ready money. My brother was there to bring in any money that was wanted. (Witness wrote a statement and handed it to the Commissioner.) The money was paid in cash in October, and the last lot was paid in February. He left the firm on October 31. We were not particularly short of money, because I could get as much money as I wanted at a minute's notice. We did not instruct the defendant to instruct solicitors to get in money from different customers. I know he was working with a man named Lovett in King William Street. He was not acting as our solicitor on our instructions. In March defendant was not claiming from us the balance of £70. He knew he was owing us money.

GEORGE ALBERT MORGAN , delivery clerk to the Midland Railway Company, Royal Mint Street. It is my duty to attend to the office, and the prosecutor has got a store there, The defendant gave me the order of December 1, 1905, containing six bundles of iron and eight boxes of nails. Those goods were taken out of stock by him. The delivery-sheet was made out by a clerk in the office. On December 20 another order was given

for 33 bars, 7 bundles. 4 boxes, "Urgent—Carriage paid" Those goods were actually handed out.

Cross-examined. I could not say how often statements were made by the company to the prosecutors as to the quantity of goods removed from their store to our offices. We get 200 or 300 every day. The accounts would be sent in by the company to the prosecutors weekly, or two or three times a week. If it was "Carriage paid" we should send in the bill there and then, but if it was "Carriage forward" the bill would go to the consignee and Mr. Phillips would not know anything of it. We should not enter in our books 'the amount removed nor in any books of Mr. Phillips.

JOSEPH JOHNSON , carman, in the employment of the Midland Railway, examined. On December 2, 1905, I delivered to the L.B.S.C. eight Boxes and six bundles of iron consigned to Fendall. Pump Vale, Croydon, and I delivered them to L.B.S.C.

ALFRED TOWNSHEND , carman, Midland Railway, examined. On December 22 I delivered to L.B.S.C. 33 bars, 7 bundles, and 5 boxes consigned to the Mayo Forge Company.

HARRY JAKES , carman, L.B.S.C.R. On December 5 I delivered goods to J. H. Fendall, and the delivery note is Ex. L. It contains eight boxes of nails and six bundles of iron.

JAMES DIPLOCK , carman, L.B.S.C.R. On December 22 last I delivered to the Mayo Forge Company 33 bars of iron, seven bundles, and four boxes. Helmsley signed the sheet.

THOMAS WILLIAM HELMSLEY , farrier, 79, Prince's Road, Croydon. On December 22 I received the consignment of iron to the Mayo Forge Company. I was manager to Mr. Fendall. At one period I owned the Mayo Forge Company, and transferred it to defendant on October 30, 1905. I entered into a deed with him (produced). It is in defendant's handwriting. He entered into occupation on October 30, and he paid me a salary. On January 1. 1906, he entered into an assignment (produced). It was drawn up between ourselves. Defendant said he would have it typewritten, and it was delayed, and did not come till January 1. I was paid the consideration in the beginning of November.

To a Juror. I suppose the iron consigned to the Mayo Forge Company was worked up into the business.

Cross-examined. As far as I know both of these documents which I signed were truthful documents. I had been carrying on the business of this forge for 18 months prior to October 30. I state that the business was transferred on October 30. The document of January 1, 1906, was not read over to me. I was foolish enough to sign it without. I had known defendant, and had had dealings with him before October 30. I admit my business was not in a flourishing condition at that time, but defendant did not offer help to finance me, and he did not

finance me in the business until January 1. He did not ask me to pay him the sum I owed him. He did not say, "If you cannot pay I will take over the business, and cry you quite." It was not in pursuance of that that the later agreement of January 1, was entered into. I signed the January 1 document without reading it because he was in a hurry. He said, "Sign this paper; it is just the, same as the one we drew up, only it is typewritten," and I signed it. I deny that I owed defendant money, and that the £20 was to be taken as the consideration of my business. I thought it was straightforward, and defendant was in a hurry and I signed it. £20 was never mentioned. I never carried on the business in the name of the Mayo Forge Company myself. I collected one or two, accounts for defendant. Afterwards I paid them over. Defendant discharged me, but not, because I had received moneys which I had not paid over. Lake paid me money which I paid over to the defendant, but I cannot recall the date. I did not receive money from Green. I am not doing anything now. I was in my last situation about six weeks. I have had three or four situations since I was discharged.

Re-examined. I did not give the order for 33 bars five bundles and four boxes. I signed for it at defendant's servant. Defendant first called it the Mayo Forge. There is nothing that I complain of in the agreement that I am aware of. I had nothing to do with any books whatever. I have had three or four different places, but I was not discharged for dishonesty.

Mrs. THORE (wife of Fred. Thorne, 79, Queen's Road, Croydon). I remember the defendant and Helmsley calling on me on October 30 with reference to these premises, of which my husband is the landlord. We were all three present. Helmsley told me he had sold the business to Fendall, and he asked us to transfer the agreement to him. I asked Fendall to write it, and he wrote it on the agreement; then I asked him to write me a copy, and he wrote this. My husband signed the agreement which Fendall has. Since that time the defendant has been in person, and I have collected rent from him.

Cross-examined. Helmsley told me he owed some money to the firm that Fendall was working for, which he could not pay. Helmsley owed me a sovereign, and I said he could not have it until I was paid. I had a bother in getting my rent, and I talked it over with Helmsley. Defendant was present at the time that this conversation took place. The business was transferred on October 30, The solicitor served us with a subpoena. He did not remind me that the tenancy had changed from October 30. I do not remember his asking me whether anything was said about the time when the business on these premises was transferred, nor did he ask me if Helmsley had said in defendant's presence that he sold the business on October 30

to defendant. I told them that it was sold on October 30. I know the money was handed to Helmsley (£3 something), and he gave me a sovereign out of it.

To Mr. Rooth. Helmsley owed me two weeks' rent—£1.

WILLIAM MILLER , detective-sergeant, City Police. The war rant was handed over for my execution on June 12, and on the 13th I executed it at Mansion House-Chambers. I went into the lower basement and saw the defendant in an office. I said. "Are you Mr. Fendall?" He said, "No; which Fendall." I said, "Harold." He said, "No," I said, "I have every reason to believe that you are, and I hold a warrant for your arrest." I took him to the station; he gave an address, 70, Brighton Road, Croydon.

Cross-examined. I did not know that he was moving from Brighton Road, Croydon, to Harringay. He had been moved from there some little time. (Receipt produced: "Received June 6, of J. Fendall, £14 in discharge of rent, ") I cannot speak to that. I had no difficulty in finding him. He was in his office, trading as Hodgeson and Co. As far as I know, he was carrying on a responsible business there. I know nothing against. I do not know anything about him.

HENRY GARROD , City Police. I was with the last witness, and I went to the address given by the defendant, 70, Brighton Road, Croydon, and there I found an empty house, with a notice in the window, "To let."

(Tuesday, July 3.)

CHARLES PERCY PHILLIPS , recalled. Further cross-examined. Prisoner had no instructions from me to buy goods from my firm in his own name and pay out of moneys collected by him for those goods. He had instructions on several occasions to buy small amounts of goods. He was to bring up the original receipt, and we paid him the money forthwith as soon as he presented the receipt. He was to buy in our name, not in his. There might be an item which we had net in stock required to make up an order, and we instructed prisoner on several occasions to go and purchase that. In those cases he came up afterwards, and said he had paid for them, as he could get them very much cheaper by paying cash, and he handed us the receipt, which we had to pay. He handed in money he had received with the receipt for the amount, which he deducted, and we paid him for the goods.

By Mr. Rooth. In Ex. G 1 the order appearing in cur book for Mayo Forge Company, Mayo Road, West Croydon, for 33 bars and five bundles and four boxes, the weight, 19 cwt. 0 qr. 1 lb., is the same in the copy account, although It is altered to 33 bars seven bundles and four boxes; that is because the company always take our weights. The

carbon sheet has been taken out and "5" written in the original and "7" in the copy in prisoner's handwriting. The copy should be a facsimile. There would be either 2. cwt. or 1 cwt. difference, according to the size of the "bundles. This book is what the prisoner brings to me, and says that he has weighed it up. The "5" is in prisoner's handwriting.

GEORGE ALBERT MORGAN , recalled. It is true that the railway company accept the weights. Mr. Phillips has large consignments of iron—four or five ton lots, and when he is satisfied with the weight he gives us the signed note, and we accept that as the weight.

Cross-examined. It is not my business to be in the weighing house. It is one of the company's rules; it is not from my personal knowledge, but I know it is done. There is always a company's man present when it is weighed. When we have a signature we do not weigh again. The other company, the Brighton Company, would accept the weight—they would probably reweigh. Any overweight sent to the customer would be a dead loss to the prosecutor.

(Evidence for defence.)

JOSEPH HATROLD FENDALL (prisoner, on oath). I am a wholesale iron merchant, carrying on business under the style of Hodgkin and Co., at 66 and 67, Mansion House Chambers, and my private address is 31, Harringay Road. I was previously at 7, Mansion House Chambers, and I moved to larger offices at 66 and 67 at the March quarter, 1906. I have never stolen any iron whatever or any bundles from the prosecutor or anybody else. I have never acted fraudulently in reference to any of these things, or made any alterations in these books except with the permission and absent of the prosecutors. With regard to the order for eight boxes of nails, to which it is said six bundles of iron are added, I had a conversation with Mr. Phillips upon my appearance at the office on December 1, and it was arranged then to deliver eight boxes of nails to my place at Pump Pale for various cash customers in order to avoid the extra carriage. Following that, at the same interview, it was also arranged that prosecutor and I should go to the stores and go through the stock of iron for the purpose of taking the distinct sizes there were in stock, and alto to execute two or three cash orders for iron in Croydon at the fame time, which I had mentioned to him in the first instance. It was his own suggestion to go to the stores, because he turned up the stock-book, which was in such a muddle that no one could make top nor tail of it. He said so. I suggested the sizes to him, and he turned up the stock-book and mid, "Weil, according to this we have such and such a quantity." I said, "From the appearance of it I do not think it is in stock." He said, "We will

go down together; probably the clerk has taken the stock wrong." This would be about midday. We went together to Royal Mint Street at about 2.30. We got out the notices. Then we went through the stock, got out the eight boxes, and put those aside, and the order was made out. There was, approximately, 25 tons of iron in store. It is put into a rack; we never took it out of the rack, but simply counted the approximate number to see how far the book was wrong. There was iron lying on the floor—about two tons—that was getting rusty very fast. I required different sizes for the orders I had to execute. We went through the rack store and the floor store. We went through the sizes; there were several sizes which were very near the sizes required, and I said, "Well, we might substitute these sizes for the sizes that are required," and Mr. Phillips said, "Very well, I shall be glad if you can, if you think they will suit the customers." Then the matter was left in abeyance for a short time while we went through the stock of rivets. Mr. Phillips was wearing a dark grey cloth coat. We went through the stock with the rivets; took the sizes; then we came to some hoop iron. There were some rivets under the hoop iron, and as it was getting very late we decided not to move the hoop iron that day to get at the rivets, but first to finish getting out the orders before the railway company closed; so we arranged to come down another day to finish taking the stock. That would be, approximately, at half-past three. It was rather dark. Then we came back to the iron. I said, "What about this—had I better send it to my place for them to view." He said, "Well, you know best" I said, "We had better send it." He said, "Yes." He held the order from his book in his hand, and he said, "You had better write it on this." The time was getting close. He pulled out his watch, it was five minutes past four. I have the book before me. He said, "Just put it on there," and I put it on the original, as you see. They were the goods for to-morrow, and I put it on in his presence. I wrote it, and he took the order to the Midland Railway Company himself. Every bit of it is in my ordinary handwriting, just the same as the other—that is where the six bundles of iron are added. In my experience, during the last 15 years I have been in business, I have always found that the railway company weigh everything before it leaves the premises. They put it into the truck and weigh it upon their weighing machine. In this case we might 'take the Midland Railway Company's evidence as their man puts it: When a consignment of iron comes up from the country, it comes up on account of Phillips, Jones, and Co, and they take the number of bundles and the weights and put it down in their own stores. With a small parcel like this, such as six bundles going out to some customer and carriage to be paid, the bundles are sure to be weighed before

dispatch, so that they may know the cost of carriage. The railway company would only take the weight as given by the prosecutor in an exceptional case, where a man owns a ware-house under the company. This was a very special case, and for any iron he puts ready for despatch in that warehouse the Midland Railway Company take his weights, but so far as they themselves are concerned afterwards, if the goods are sent carriage forward, they will reweigh the goods; they will transfer it from there to the Brighton Company, and the Brighton Company will weigh it again themselves and charge for the proper weight. There is a page torn out of the book between the first and second orders. The six bundles of iron are section 1/2 by 1/4, 5/8 by 1/4, and 1 in. by 1/4; they are 1/2 to 1 in. by 1/4. On December 20 my position with regard to the Mayo Forge Company was simply landlord of the premises. I took over the Mayo Forge Company on January 1. The name was altered to the Mayo Forge Company alt Hemsley's suggestion, about a month after October 30, when I became tenant of the place. Hemsley had a certain amount of liabilities, and he could not pay them, and it was suggested by him that I should take over the Forge. He approached me a time or two. I was some time before I considered it at all, and then I was to secure myself in some way or other, so I became tenant on October 30. From that time to January 1, the date of the assignment of the business, I financed him—he simply said to me, "I shall want so and so for Saturday," and sometimes I should advance him £1 or £2. Hemsley took the incomings from the business between October 30 and January 1. I was simply tenant, and was testing the business to see whether it would pay me to take it over or not. He had a certain amount of money which he collected from the business. I was not the possessor of the business between October 30 and January 1. I was not taking money from the receipts to pay off Hemsley's debt to me—there was none to take. All the money that came in was expended on the necessary outgoings'. I had been financing him before, and if he come to me for an advance on Saturday or any other time I did it if I could. Towards the end of December I found I was no better off in getting money from him, and in consequence he made the assignment, and I took over the business. We had a conversation, and I agreed to take it over. Hemsley was to take all the incomings that were due to the date of the transfer and pay all the liabilities. I took it from January 1 onwards and it has been mine since then. It is in existence now. On December 20, when the order was given I had no interest in the business except as I have stated. (To the jury.) Hemsley bought the goods for the Forge from me as a traveller. Borne were from Phillips, Jones and Co, and some from others. Phillips knew I was supplying

the goods. He was doing business before I financed Hemsley. I have no books or account showing the financing; it was all done verbally. Hemsley put it down himself, and I took his word for granted—they were paltry sums. The assignment was put down nominally as for £20; that represented moneys due. I paid him over the balance, £3 odd shillings. I read the assignment over to Hemsley aloud in the presence of the attest ing witness, the solicitor's clerk. I took over the Forge, and continued to employ Hemsley as artificer in the Forge until about March or April, when I gave him notice. Things were not going on satisfactorily. The accounts were very unsatisfactory, as I found out from two or three sources he had been taking the money and not accounting for it, especially customers who dropped in and got a few shoes done for a few shillings—those were never accounted for week after week. In order to save him, so that he could, get another situation, I gave him a weeks notice. I told Hemsley why I gave him notice. He said he was very sorry. Through the following week I had not a man suitable for it, so of course I gave him another chance. Phillips knew I had taken over the Mayo Forge Company after January—probably the end of January. I told him. On the morning of December 20 I had no conversation with Phillips as, to wanting these bundles, bars, and boxes, except to see if we had got it in stock. He asked me whether the Mayo Forge Company were responsible people between October, and November—that was with regard to a previous order Phillips had supplied, considerably before October. He had supplied Hemsley early in the year 1905. The December 20 order was not the first he had in the name of the Mayo Forge Company. When the first order came he asked me if they were good for the account. I said I thought so—he could make his own inquiries, I told him, which I think he did. I have the order before me for 33 bars five bundles and four boxes. "Five bundles" was written in the first instance. It is my writing, all written at the same time. On the manifold there seems to be two "7's," a light and a heavy "7." That is supposed to be a manifold copy of the first order. "5" should have come out on the copy; probably there was no carbon. I do not see why it should not have all come out, unless the carbon got torn. I cannot account for the alteration at all. I did it in the usual way, and this "5 bundles" should have come through. I did not alter the "5" to the "7," or write in the "7" in the place of "5." Neither "7" is in my writing. The order would be taken to the Midland, office—by myself, I should say, if there was no one else present. There is no sheet torn out of the book between that and the next sheet. This one fits in there exactly. I never tore one out. Mr. Phillips, or someone in the office, would see the book the next day, or probably the same day, when they went down to the warehouse to send the goods away. Mr.

Phillips saw it every time he went down to the stores. I only went down to oblige him—this was not my work at all. The value of the difference between five bundles and (Seven would be about 8s.; and 25s. would be about the value of the six bundles of iron in the second order. Mr. Phillips, had £5 10s. on account of those two orders. Looking at my account I gave copies to Phillips on the different dates—not as a whole. This is taken from my book, but there are a number of slips on which he put it down himself. My books are here. With regard to the order of December 12 for eight boxes of nails and six bundles of iron, on December 15 you have a list showing a payment to Phillips of £1 15s. 3d. paid for five boxes of nails. The order came to £4 5s. The nails and bundles were sold to different customers, and as I received the money I paid it to Phillips. There are four or five lots paid on that date—£4 13s. 6d., £1, £1, £2, and £1; they are appropriated to other people's accounts. (Slips produced.) Here is the item I refer to, £1 15s. 3d., December 15, in my writing. If the book was not present it would be put on a slip. There is no cash entered on that date. On January 21 six bundles of iron and two boxes of nails of the same lot were paid for. There is £6 10s. 5d. paid in on the cash book. Thai is £1 5s. 6d. for six bundles of iron, 15s. 9d. for two boxes of nails, F. Anderson £2 19s., and F. A. Carpenter £1 10s. The £6 10s. 3d. was paid in cash, and it makes full payment for the order on December 1, with the exception of one box of nails, which would be in stock at the present time. The next order, Mayo Forge Company, 33 bars, seven bundles, and four boxes, would amount to about £9; £5 10s. has been paid on account, £3 10s. on December 30, and £2 on February 3. It was not paid in respect of specific items, but would go against what wit owing. It is untrue that I was discharged before January 30, or at any time. There were several items in dispute. The books were in such a muddle that they could not tell who owed the money or whether it had been paid or how it stood, and Mr. Phillips endeavoured to throw the responsibility on my back, so that he could make a composition with his creditors. He suggested that the books were in such a muddle that I should give him a full statement of the accounts owing to the firm. I made one so far as I could. It was impossible to give a full statement. Some dealings I understood; others I did not know. The written agreement of January 31 was between me and Mr. Jones. He has been in court. With regard to the clause, "All cheques and cash must be forwarded to us immediately on receipt," an alteration was made fourteen days after the date of the agreement. There were several orders in hand for goods which they had not in stock. Mr. Phillips was in South Africa at the time, and it was suggested by Mr. Jones to me that as the

goods were not in stock, and as he did not know what market to purchase from, I should purchase on my own account in my own name, and charge them to Phillips, Jones, and Co. in the ordinary course. I was to find the money for the time being; then when there was any money in I could deduct it, or if there was none in hand they would pay me for the account. I advanced from £2 to £10 on a Friday to pay small accounts, and when I had the money in hand I deducted it, and then accounted to them. That arrangement continued till Mr. Phillips returned and was still adhered to after he returned. With regard to the clause, "No receipts to be given except on our printed form, either for our accounts or those of Wotherspoon and Sons"—that was altered. They had not any books to give receipts from. There were no forms printed from January until, I left. Looking at my pass-book, £11 16s. 8d. was a sum advanced from my own bank. This is the cheque produced. The "C. J. P. and Co." has not been put in since—it was written at the time of the purchase. It was with Mr. Phillips's knowledge that practice was pursued. He has had the invoices from time to time, and allowed credit for the moneys I had paid. Jones left in October. In October and November Phillips said the firm were very short of money. Before he returned I had instructions from Jones to take any action that was necessary for recovering accounts in their interests. I was to pay the money for the plaintiffs myself and get it back later on. List produced shows the costs I have paid for the purpose of County Court actions—£32 12s. 6d. I have given Phillips a list of those expenses from time to time, and a full list like this. Those sums have been actually expended out of my own pocket for the most part. I always had to pay railway charges, and have paid £12 12s. 8d., as per list produced. In some cases I paid them; in others a took it from the accounts paid by the customer, and when I handed them to Phillips he would not allow them, and so I had to stand the loss myself. I tendered, them to him from time to time. In consequence of his not paying them, of course I hold the receipts myself. Some of them were my own customers for the firm; others the firms customers. Seven are the firm's customers entirely. The prosecutors have received considerable sums of money through my action in endeavouring to recover these moneys. The firm owe me commission for 12 months previous to my leaving in March, 1906. It grew from £10 to £50 and upwards month by month. I applied to Phillips each quarter for payment as it fell due. The payments made were on account of commission, and not on account of my rent. He would say, "You had better have a £5 on account, whatever you can do with, and we will balance up later on." I never got it because he could not make it out. He was to get out a

full statement of all the business introduced by me, but I never had it. I suggested he could get it out by taking the orders sent by me and sent by my customers. He said, "I will do it when I can get time." As I did not succeed in getting it, in March I decided to leave them and go into business for myself. I told Mr. Phillips, and did so. I was arrested on a warrant on June 12. There was no difficulty whatever in finding me. I did not supply Phillips with any lists of accounts due to me—he had my orders. We had a verbal conversation, and it was decided he should balance the books and render a statement of account to me showing what was due to me. I handed him the accounts with reference to County Court costs, and with, reference to railway charges of £32 12s. 6d. and £12 12s. 8d. after I left. I had some money in hand of the prosecutors, and I gave him a statement of that. After deducting that from the amount due to me there was a balance, of £48 due to me irrespective of any commission. There was about £47 to £50 commission due to me. There was no arrangement between me and Phillips that I should take over all the ironmongering department of the business, and in consideration of it to give him £50, forego any commission due, and take the stock at a valuation. He was to pay me the railway charges and county court costs. I attended the courts in several instances at his request afterwards. In reckoning my commission I struck out the bad debts. The £50 for commission is on business introduced—some paid and some not.

Cross-examined. The arrangement to take over the ironmongery department took place at the time I handed in my accounts in March, 1906. It was an arrangement of very little importance to me. It was not in writing. I have no one to call as a witness to it. My letter of March 21 refers to it. There is a later letter from your clients. Letter of March 21 is: "I beg to inform you that I have taken over the above business. Your kind commands will be esteemed and receive my prompt and personal attention." The same day I wrote: "Dear Mr. Phillips,—In reply to yours of the 20th inst., I venture to suggest that it is Already arranged with you that the arrangement made between us should come to an end, and I will continue to carry on the business"—this is not an invented letter for my own purposes. Mr. Phillips knew all about it. I wrote about "severing my connection" because we had severed it as far as the introducing further business was concerned. That letter is not inconsistent with the other at all. It may be the stock-in-trade was worth £400—I do not know. I should have thought £250 would have covered it. I could have found the money to take it at a valuation. Where I could have found to is my business. It is not true that the prosecutors have made only a profit of £175 6s. 5d. during the time I have been

in their employment. The list produced does not contain all the business—that is the business introduced and completed. I have introduced £800 or £900 more than is down there. I cannot tell you what is omitted without going through the whole of the orders sent in and the whole of the orders received direct. I should be entitled to one-third of the profit. I have received about £180 from the prosecutors. I made my list out from the copies of the orders. Mr. Phillips has the originals. In regard to county court matters, I collected a sum of £16 17s. from Colt, £3 5s. from Banks, £4 17s. 2d. from Baker before February 4. I did not collect £5 17s. 9d. from Baldwin. I collected £1 from F. G. Taylor—not direct. I collected £4 from E. Champion, £3 2s. from Collins. I did not collect a sum from J. W. Alexander, Cheitsey County Court. I collected £9 12s. 6d. from W. Moss, £3 10s. from £. A. Carpenter. I did not collect £11 5s. from Grace, nor £6 9s. 10d. from Sherlock, nor £6 11s. from C. J. Pearcey. I owe nothing on account of the Mayo Forge Company. When Mr. Phillips said the firm was short there was no one present. He did not say there was a great deal of money due to the firm, and he was anxious I should get it in soon as it had been owing a long time. I was never discharged by the prosecutor art all. Phillips called at my private residence in 1904. He did not charge me with having received money of the firm which I had not handed over. He did not challenge me at all with anything of the sort. He called at my address on purpose to get a statement of accounts that were owing. It was suggested immediately he returned from South Africa that Jones had got the accounts into a muddle, and there were a lot of accounts which had not been entered. He came in his own interest. He came really specially to see what business I was doing of my own and what station I held; that was the sole purpose he came for. He was dubiously minded as to whether I was giving him sufficient of the business or as to whether I was taking the bulk—the best business for myself. My brother was ill at the time. I did not say my brother was dying of pneumonia and implore him not to press the charge. I knew be could not do it. I did not make any arrangement to repay moneys. I admit I entered into the arrangement of January 30—not with Mr. Phillips—with his firm, Phillips, Jones, and Co. I wanted to get a certain amount weekly to pay my expenses instead of going on my own. You have got my invoices for the goods I bought. I bought goods on my own account and invoiced them in my own name. I brought him a verbal order for eight boxes of nails. It was by his direction it was written in. I could not enter it in the ledger because he had the ledger himself. The ledger is made up from the notes which are taken down on these invoices—indirectly from the invoice book. Everything taken out of stock at the

railway station ought to be written into the order book. I do not suggest he wrote this in; I wrote it on his instructions. I wrote it in his presence. It is not true that I wrote it afterwards. It was treated as a cash sale. I was carrying on business as J. Harold and Co. after December. I suggested that the goods had been sent to Hemsley because I believed he would pull himself round eventually. I took the tenancy over from Hemsley really to prevent proceedings being taken against him for his debts. I expected Hemsley would be able to recover the business. Mr. Phillips would know when I took it over by the orders. On December 20 there was a telephonic message to Phillips from the railway company to the effect that there were two bundles of iron more in the consignment lying there than was signed for. I went to the telephone, received the message, and told Phillips that the Midland Railway Company said there were two bundles in excess of what was signed—were they to send it or not. He said we must take that as correct. On February 8 J. Harold and Co. bought of Benjamin Baker goods to the value of £6 16s. Edward James was carrying on business at that time in the name of Harold and Co. I was interested in the business.

(Wednesday, July 4.)

THOMAS HADLEY , Netherton, near Dudley. I am connected with the Prudential Insurance Company. I have been director of the Dudley District Benefit Society. I have known the defendant 25 years or more. My experience of him has been that he has been an honest, straightforward, and upright man as far as I know. He has lived a very respectable and very sober and steady life. I have been intimately acquainted with him in our own district, but not in London.

EDWARD CHARRETT , Old Hill, near Birmingham, electrician. I have known prisoner for many years past and done business with him. He bears an excellent character throughout the district of Old Hill, where he was brought up.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, twelve month' hard labour.

OLD COURT; Tuesday, July 3.

(Before Mr. Justice Bigham.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-59
VerdictMiscellaneous > unknown

Related Material

LEHFELDT, Frederick Charles (49, agent) , soliciting and inciting persons to sell to the prejudice of purchasers a certain article of food purporting to be butter which should not be of the nature, substance, and quality of the article demanded by such purchasers.

The solicitor-General (Sir W. S. Robson. K.C. M.P.), Mr. Muir. and Mr. Bodkin appeared to prosecute.

Accused was called on his recognisances, and did not appear.

Mr. Justice Bigham ordered defendant's recognisances and his bail to be forfeited, and issued a warrant of arrest.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-60
VerdictGuilty > insane
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

TURNER, Charles Henry (36, carman) , murder of Florence Amy Turner; the like on Coroner's Inquisition.

Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. Arthur Hutton and, Mr. Curtis Bennett defended.

Mr. Mathews said that prisoner, a mail-cart driver, was a good father and an exemplary husband. He was very fond of all his children, and especially of the little girl whose death formed the subject of the charge. For some time before May 23 he had been in a worried state about his wife, who was in the habit of going away from home and leaving him to look after the children, who were five in number. He worked in the evening, and he used to spend the day in searching for his wife. On the morning of May 23 he had been trying to find her, but without success. In the afternoon he went to sleep with the little girl in his arms, and suddenly wake up and inflicted a wound on her throat with a knife from which she died. Prisoner immediately afterwards became in an hysterical condition. The only question was as to the state of his mind when he committed the act.

Mr. Hutton said he did not dispute the facts. He proposed to call Dr. Scott, medical officer of Brixton, to prove that the prisoner was insane at the time he committed the act.

Mr. Justice Bigham said he had read Dr. Scott's report, and in the circumstances he did not see what advantage would be gained in going through the details of the case, the jury having heard the opening statement and the facts not being in dispute.

ALBERT TURNER . I am nine years old. I live with my father (prisoner) at 6, Diss Street, Bethnal Green. On May 22 mother went out in the evening, just after father had gone to work; he used to work at night and be home in the day. On May 23 I saw father about eight in the morning. He asked whether mother had come home; I said no; he then attended to us and give us breakfast, and I went to school. I saw father again about three in the afternoon. My sister Florrie was playing on, the steps; she was 3 1/2 years old; father was very fond of her. She and father went into the sitting-room. About an hour later I went into that room and saw father and Florrie lying down apparently asleep; father's arm was round her neck. Father woke up. and I saw him take a pocket-knife out of his waistcoat-pocket and cut my sister's throat; he said nothing while he was doing it. Afterwards he went to a neighbour's, Mrs. Ashby's, and I saw him throw his hands up and fall back on to the ground.

Dr. ANDREW WIGHT , surgeon at Mildmay Mission Hospital,

Bethnal Green. On May 23 at 4.30 in the afternoon the deceased child was brought into the surgery. She had two cuts in the throat, clean cuts as if with a knife. The cause of death was the injury to the jugular vein and carotid artery caused by those two cuts.

Dr. SCOTT. I have had prisoner under observation in Brixton Gaol since May 24. I have observed him closely and had interviews with him, and followed his correspondence, and got all the information I could about him. I have come to the conclusion that at the time of this occurrence he was in an insane condition, probably from epilepsy, and did not know what he was doing.

Verdict, Guilty of murder, but insane so as not to be responsible at law for his actions at the time he committed the crime. Prisoner was ordered to be confined in Brixton Prison during His Majesty's pleasure.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-61
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

DUTTNALL, Frank (18, newsvendor), and CHANNELL. Charles (15, newsvendor) , buggery with George Muir. Verdict, Guilty. Mr. Justice Bigham said that, if he could, he would order both prisoners to, be thrashed, but the law did not allow it. To send them to prison would do them no good, nor anyone else. They would be released in their own recognisances in £5, to come up for sentence if called upon.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-62
VerdictsNot Guilty > directed; Not Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

FARRANT, William James (18, painter), and SHERWOOD, Edward (18, stonecutter) . Farrant, rape on Annie Sheppard; Sherwood, aiding and abetting Farrant.

At the close of the ease for the prosecution the Judge directed the jury to return a verdict of Not guilty. On another indictment of Sherwood for rape on Annie Sheppard, the prosecution offered no evidence, and a verdict of not guilty was returned.


OLD COURT; Monday, June 25.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-64
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HILIARD, Robert (39, barman), pleaded guilty to stealing the sum of £40 17s. 3d., moneys of his master, E. F. Tratt, and feloniously receiving same; also to having been convicted at this court, on July 22, 1901, of larceny. Several other convictions were proved. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

NEW COURT; Tuesday, June 26.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-65
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BATES, Henry (31, labourer), pleaded guilty to attempting to carnally know Minnie Edith Furner, a girl under the age of 13 years, and indecently assaulting her. Sentence, 20 months' hard labour.

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-66
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BIRKETT, Robert (48, labourer), pleaded guilty to feloniously causing grievous bodily harm to Charles Hutton, a metropolitan police-constable, with intent to resist the lawful apprehension of himself, and to do him some grievous bodily harm. Nine convictions for drunkenness, gambling, and assaulting the police were proved, and prisoner received 15 months' hard labour on June 28, 1904. Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT; Thursday, June 28.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-67
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BRADSHAWL, William Jeffrey (27, stone dresser) ; double uttering of counterfeit coin. Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.

EMILY TONGATE . My husband is a tobacconist and confectioner at Forest Gate. About nine p.m. on May 30 prisoner came into the shop and purchased a penny packet of "Woodbines." Coin produced is the shilling he gave me in payment. I gave him 11d. change and he left the shop. I looked at the coin directly he left and found it was bad. Later on, the same night, I went to the police-station and there saw the prisoner.

ALFRED BENJAMIN . I was in the shop of the last witness on May 30 when prisoner came in. I saw him tender 1s. and get 11d. in change. In consequence of what Mrs. Tongate said, I followed the prisoner. I found him standing under some trees in Forest Lane with another man. I followed him until he was arrested.

To the Prisoner. I have never said I found you in a public-house drinking gin.

BEATRICE POWER . I am manageress to Mr. Vickers, confectioner, of Forest Gate. About nine o'clock on the evening of May 30 prisoner came into the shop. He asked for 1d. worth of shag and a packet of "A. G." cigarette papers, amounting to 1 1/2 d. I served him. He tendered 1s. in payment. I gave him 10 1/2 d. change, and he left the shop. In consequence of what a customer said to me I looked at the coin again and

found it was bad. Later on I went to the police-station and saw prisoner there. I handed the coin to the police.

ALBERT WHEELER . I was in Vickers's shop when prisoner came in. I saw him tender 1s. for what he bought and receive 10 1/2 d. change. I afterwards saw the coin and found it was bad. I went after prisoner and found him about 400 yards from the shop. I spoke to Sergeant Bryant, and he took prisoner into custody.

To the prisoner. I never said I saw you go into a public-house and found you drinking gin.

CHARLES WEBSTIR . I am an iron and metal merchant. Prisoner worked for me five years ago. I had not seen him for four or five weeks previous to May 30. I then saw him, and gave him a few coppers; no silver.

ROBERT BRYANT , Sergeant K Division. I took prisoner into custody for uttering counterfeit coin. I asked him to produce what money he had, and the produced a counter feit is. and a Id. He said, "That is all the money I have got; Charles Webster gave it to me." No other coin was found on prisoner. When charged he said, "I admit the is. I had, but the others I know nothing about."

WILLIAM JOHN WIBSTIR , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to His Majesty's Mint. Three coins produced are all counterfeit, made from the same mould, 1899.

WILLIAM JEFFREY BRADSHAW (prisoner, on oath). I am exceedingly sorry this has occurred. I own I begged the bad shilling. I had an impression Charles Webster gave it me. He has been very good to me at different times and has given me money. I have never been into any of the shop whatever. I sutter from nerve paralysis, and my sight is affected, and I have to play a whistle in the streets for my living.

Cross-examined. I never went to Forest Lane that evening. I was not picked out from a number of other at the police station. All the witnesses are mistaken as to me. One is simply bearing out the other's statement.

Verdict, Guilty.

Detective-sergeants Robinson and Brown, K Division, proved that prisoner had been an associate of men who had been sentenced for coining. Sentence. Twelve months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT; Friday, June 29.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-68
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

ALLWRIGHT, Albert (45, merchant), and ALLWRIGHT, Bernard Augustus (19, clerk); conspiring to obtain goods by false pretences with intent to defraud.

Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Arthur Gill, and Mr. Kerskaw prosecuted; Mr. W. M. Thompson and Mr. Wynn Werninck defended Albert Allwright; Mr. J. D. A. Johnson defended Bernard Allwright.

JOHN SAMUEL MOORE . I am in the employ of the British Typewriting Company, 195, Oxford Street. I received a letter signed "Bernard Shaw" on October 11, 1905, in consequence of which I went to Prince Regent's Lane on the 12th, taking a typewriter and a case and straps. I saw the elder prisoner, Albert, there. I told him I had brought the typewriter in answer to the letter from Mr. Shaw, and I asked for Mr. Shaw. He said Mr. Shaw was out, but he was Mr. Shaw's clerk. I delivered the typewriter to him and the case and straps. He gave me the receipt, now produced. I saw the prisoner Albert. sign it I told him the price of the machine was £11, and the case and straps 10s. extra. I left it on approval for one week. I have called several times for the money. We have never been paid.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. I have only seen the prisoner Albert twice, the first time for about 10 minutes and the second time two or three. I see a great many people in the course of business. I did treat this as a fraud, although I sent to a firm to collect the debt. It was regarded as a debt from Bernard Shaw. The order was type-written.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. I never saw Bernard Allwright on any occasion.

Re-examined. The receipt is written on the same letter paper as the typewritten order.

JOSEPH HUGGINS BRITTEN , clerk to John Jackson, contractor, of Plaistow. I had the letting of the shop and house, 26, Prince Regent's Lane, at the end of September last. Prisoner Albert called on me with regard to it. He gave the name of Bernard Shaw, 13, Eleanor Road, Woolwich. I agreed to let him the house and shop at £26 per annum. I could not get my rent, so I distrained, and in that way got one month's rent.

ADA REED . I live at 13, Eleanor Road, Woolwich. I have never known anyone of the name of Bernard A. Shaw living in my house. I have lived there two years. A letter came for Bernard Shaw; I returned it to the post-office.

GEORGE JACKSON . I am a builder. In October of last year I painted the front of No. 26, Prince Regent's Lane. The place was occupied by the prisoner Albert. I saw the younger prisoner Bernard there on one occasion. There were some goods delivered there. I saw no business being done while I was there. There was not much in the place, some vices, and glue, and two or three bales.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. I know he tad only been in the shop a week or two. It did not surprise me there was not much there.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. Although it is true that I only saw the prisoner Bernard for a minute or two on the occasion seven or eight months ago, and just said, "Good morning" to him, I recognise him.

JAMBS GEORGE DANGAR , clerk to the Welsbach Incandescent Company, Westminster. On October 24 last I received typewritten order produced from Bernard A. Shaw, value £2 2s. On November 9 I also received typewritten order produced for goods value £10 12s. 6d. They were despatched to address given in both cases. On December 12 I received written order produced from A. Irons, hardware merchant, Albert Road, North Woolwich, ordering goods to the value of £2 2s. They were despatched. I received a further order on January 1 and also on January 19. They were despatched. I had no idea that Irons and Bernard Shaw were connected. On March 30 I received order produced from Revett Bros., The Arches, Station Approach, Forest Gate, to the value, of £4 4s. They were supplied. I did not know that Revetts were connected with Irons or Shaw. I have applied for payment in all three cases, but have got no payment at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. I do not know Albert I only saw him at the West Ham police court I made inquiries about the three firms before supplying any goods. As a result of those inquiries I sent the goods to the three addresses.

Re-examined. The total amount of goods sent to Prince Regents Lane was £13 2s. 6d.; to Irons £22; and to Revett Bros. £4 4s.

WILLIAM ROYSTON , carman to Carter Patersons. I delivered a parcel addressed to Bernard A. Shaw, Prince Regent's Lane, on October 27 last. This is my delivery sheet. The elder prisoner signed it "A. Right" I delivered another parcel there on October 31. This is my sheet. The elder prisoner signed it "A. Cast."

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. At the police court I said I thought it was signed by the elder prisoner. I do not know why I said that. I am sure prisoner is the man.

PHILIP ELLINGFORD , carrier to Carter Patersons. I delivered a package to A. Irons; 177, Albert Road, Woolwich, on December 11, 1905, last. My delivery sheet was signed by a woman.

BERT ARCHER , carman to Pickford and Co. On January 3 last I delivered a case from the Welsbach Mantle Company addressed to A. Irons, 177, Albert Road, North Woolwich. The sheet was signed by a woman in the name of A. Irons. On January 23 I delivered another parcel to the same address. That was taken in by the same woman and signed in the name of A. Irons. I have delivered goods there five or six times. I have never taken goods away. I have seen the elder prisoner there once or twice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. It was a small one window shop. I did not see much goods there. I saw mantles and globes, and different things for incandescent lights.

JAMES GIBBS , carman to Pickfords. On April 3 this year I delivered a box to Revett Bros, Station Approach, Forest Gate. The box was from the Welsbach Company. The younger prisoner took the box in. My delivery sheet was signed by him "F. Brown." Box produced, No. 8,338, is the box. I never saw the elder prisoner there.

CHARLES RUDOLPH DURREAU . I am employed in the Estate Office of the Tottenham and Forest Gate Railway Company. On February 8 last the younger prisoner came to me with regard to one of the arches in the Station Approach. He said he wanted a shop for his employer. He did not give any name at the time, but I gave him the full particulars, and he said he would come back and say whether it would suit. A few days afterwards he called again, and said his employer would have the shop. I gave him a form to fill up, which he brought back a day or two afterwards; the form produced is the one. He said he wanted to take immediate possession, and asked me to write for the references at once. He must have called a day or two before the 8th, and brought it back to me on February 8. I wrote to his references, A. Allright, 139, Davenport Road, Catford, and to Mr. G. Davis, and received satisfactory replies. I drew up the agreement, and on February 21 the elder prisoner called to sign it. I asked him who he was. He said his name was Revett. He signed the agreement in my presence, and initialled all the alterations. He paid the first month's rent, £1 15s., in advance, and he got the keys. The following month we received £1 15s. by postal orders, but we have received nothing since. Up to the date of their arrest prisoners were in possession of the premises. I have been there at all times of the day, but never could get in.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. I only taw the person who signed the agreement once. At the police court I said I was not absolutely certain prisoner was the man, and I am not absolutely certain now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. I am more certain about its being the younger prisoner because I saw him three times.

JOHN MORRIS HARRIS . In November. 1905, I was a clerk in the employment of Mr. Ely, of Cross Street, Woolwich. I let a shop, No. 177. Albert Road, Woolwich, to a woman giving the name of Irons on weekly tenancy at 10s. per week.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. The woman who was pointed out to me at the police court as being the wife of the elder prisoner was not the woman I let the house to. I do not think I have seen either of the prisoners before.

CHARLES ABBOT MILLER , clerk at "Lloyd's News," Salisbury Square. We were advertising for sale the "International Library

of Famous Literature" at the end of last year. We received form produced filled up on May 21. Having received it, we wrote to G. Davis, 56, St. Stephen's Road, West Ham, asking for a reference. We sent a set of the books and pictures of the value of £11 to him on November 30, believing him to be a person to whom the books might be entrusted. On December 5 we received another order in the same form as the other one from Mr. G. Davis of the same address. We executed that order on December 22. The value was the same—£11. We have never received any payment beyond the 2s. 6d. that was enclosed in each order. We have applied for payment at St. Stephen's Road, but have been unable to obtain it. We were not able to find anybody at the place. On December 11,1905, we received a similar order signed, "Albert Irons, "177, Albert Road, North Woolwich. That order was executed on December 21. It was to the value of £11. Beyond the 2s. 6d. sent with the order we have received no payment. We had no idea that Irons and Davis had anything to do with each other.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. I know nothing whatever about the prisoners.

WILLIAM THOMAS WHITEHEAD , carman in the employ of Pickford's. On December 1 I delivered a parcel to G. Davis, 56, 8t. Stephen's Road, West Ham. This is my delivery-sheet. The person to whom I delivered it signed the receipt in the name of G. Palmer. The younger prisoner was the person. On December 28 I delivered another parcel to the same address. That was signed for as H. Palmer. The younger prisoner took it in and signed for it. Both thorn parcels were from Lloyd's.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. I deliver a very large number of parcels in the course of a day. I do not remember the appearance always of everybody who signs a receipt. I never saw the person who signed the receipt except on those occasions, and at the police court.

BERT ARCHER , carman. On December 23 I delivered a case from Lloyd's addressed to A. Irons, 177, Albert Road, North Woolwich. A woman took it in and signed my delivery sheet.

EDWARD ERNEST KNIGHT , clerk to C. C. Taylor and Son, estate agents, Mile End. In October last I remember some application being made to me with regard to taking the shop No. 56, St. Stephen's Road, Plaistow, and some days afterwards a second man called in connection with it. The second man was supposed to be the son of George Davis. I see him here to-day. It is the younger prisoner. I communicated with my employer.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. An older man called first. I saw him but I should not recognise him. I never saw him again. When the younger man called I asked him who he was, and he said he was the son of Mr. Davis. The letter he brought

with him said he was the assistant. At the police court I do not think I said anything about the son, because I was not asked that question. When the younger man called on the second occasion he said he was the son of Mr. Davis, the man who had come before.

WILLIAM BOITEAU . I carry on business as C. C. Taylor and Son, estate agents, Mile End. I was agent for the letting of 56, St. Stephen's Road, Plaistow. I received letters produced signed "G Davis." In December I got a postal order for 15s. 6d., the rent, lets a deduction for repairs. After that I got no rent. It was about March when we retook possession.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. In October, 1905, some person giving the name of Davis called to see me; I cannot identify Albert Allwright as that person.

To Mr. Johnson. I never saw Bernard Allwright.

WALTER FREDERICK LAKE , 47, Henley Road, Tooting. I am a partner in a business carried on as the Flag Toe Clip Company. We received the order produced which purports to come from Revett Brothers, wholesale ironmongers, Station Approach, Forest Gate: "March 30, 1906.—Dear Sirs, please supply one gross Flag Toe Clips, brown, and oblige, M. Revett." The clips are for fastening on to the toe of the bicyclist in order to prevent the toe slipping off the pedal. I despatched the goods to the address given per Messrs. Pickford on March 31. The price of the goods was £4 1s. On April 9 I received another order on the same stationery, and signed as before, M. Revett, for another gross, which were also supplied. I also received an order on April 3 headed, "Beehive Cycle Works, Church Road, Little Ilford." "Please forward one gross Flag ToeClips. Yours truly, A. West." We carried out that order. We have not been paid for any of these goods. I did not know that there was any connection between A. West and the Beehive Cycle Company, and believed that these were genuine businesses. I identify the box produced as that in which we send out our goods.

JAMES GIBBS , carman, of Pickfords, proved the delivery of a parcel on April 2 and on April 11, addressed to Revett Bros., Station Approach, Forest Gate. The sheets were signed "F. Brown" by the younger prisoner. He did not see the elder prisoner.

GEORGE GROTTICK , carman, of Pickford's, proved the delivery of the other parcel of toe clips at the Beehive Works, Little Ilford. The parcel was taken in by the elder prisoner, who signed the sheet in the name of A. West.

FRANK ARTHUR BALL , Manor Park Road, house agent. I had the letting of St. David's Terrace, Church Road, Little Ilford. Prior to March of this year there had been the Beehive Drapery Stores there. In the second week in March the elder prisoner

took the premises in the name of West, and paid the other people out for the, remaining fortnight, as he wanted to get in. He took possession as from April 1, under a monthly agreement at a rental of £2 per month. He paid a deposit of £1, and subsequently another £1, and he gave notice at the end of the month when he was arrested, and the police took possession of the shop.

Cross-examined by Mr. Werninck. I believe a business was being carried on there in the hiring of cycles.

To Mr. Johnson. I never saw the younger prisoner at all.

WILLIAM FIELD , secretary of the Dura (formerly the Guaranty) Incandescent Mantle Company, Streatham. On April 21 received the following order from Revett Bros., the Arches, Station Approach, Forest Gate, London, addressed to the Guaranty Incandescent Mantle Company, Phoenix Works, Streatham: "Dear Sir,—Please supply two gross Dura W.D. Mantles and two gross Dura S. W. Mantles.—Yours truly, W. REVETT." The order was on printed stationery and the body of the letter was type-written. I supplied the goods through Carter, Paterson. On April 9, on the same stationery, and signed "M. Revett," I received an order for one gross D.W. Inverted Mantles and two gross S.W. Mantles. These were despatched probably the day after. On April 10 I received another order for one gross Dura W.D. Mantles, which were also supplied. Four more gross were ordered on April 23. The value of the goods supplied was April 3, £5 18s.; April 10, £4 7s.; April 11, £2 8s.; April 24, £5 18s. We had not applied for payment because we usually allow goods to remain one month on credit, and the month had not expired at the time prisoners were arrested. One box of the goods was produced to us by the police.

VICTOR MENTH , carman, of Carter, Paterton's, proved the delivery, on April 4, of a cardboard box despatched by the Dura Company to Revett Brothers, at Forest Gate. The box was taken in by the younger prisoner, who signed the sheet "F. Brown." Similar parcels delivered on April 19 and April 25 were received and signed by the younger prisoner.

ALFRED FARROW , carman, of Messrs. Bean's, carriers, proved the delivery of the other parcel on April 12. As it was marked "Urgent" it was delivered next door, as they liked to get rid of these "Urgent" parcels as soon as possible, and there was nobody at Revett's address. The sheet was signed by the young woman who took the parcel in.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. I stated at the police court that the parcel was delivered to Revett's and that the sheet was signed by the younger prisoner. I was then speaking to the best of my belief. On investigating the matter I find that was not the case.

RICHARD BARTHOLOMEW , cycle maker, 15, Llanover Road, Plumstead. I have known the defendants some time—15

years; it may be more than that. I bought one gross of Dura Mantles of the younger prisoner, I think in April this year. They were invoiced to Revett at 28s. per gross. I paid 21s. for them, which was the price asked. I gave the mantles up to the police. I have bought other mantles from the prisoners. That was a couple of years ago, when they were in the mantle trade in Church street, Woolwich. I also bought of them 45 gallons and 30 gallons of burning oil and 45 gallons of lubricating oil, for which I paid £14. I think that was in April of this year. I also bought a cycle frame for £3. I had six" other frames in my possession at the time the police came which prisoners had sent to me to have made up. I bought the contents of the shop. 177, Albert Road, Woolwich, kept by a Mr. Irons, for £20. The purchase included shop fittings and fretwork outfits, some brushes, a quantity of nails and screws, gas globes, and gas chimneys, some inverted burners, balls of string, and a few gas fittings, a quantity of odds and ends. Previously to that the elder prisoner had asked me to give him a cheque for 30s. in the name of Mr. Irons. I had not a cheque book at the time, and could not give it to him, but I said I would give it him if he came up next morning. I think this was in February. He asked me to send it on to Mr. Irons, ironmonger, North Woolwich, but I misdirected it Next day Mr. Allwright came to me and said I had not sent the cheque, but, of course, I showed him the counterfoil, and he asked me to give him another one as there was some mistake about it. I gave him another and stopped the first one, which about four days afterwards was returned to me by the Post Office authorities. I think that must have been about Christmas time. At to how I came to go to the shop in February, Mr. Allwright said a friend of his had had the brokers in and was going to clear out. I looked at the shop the same day and was introduced to Mr. Irons. I have never seen him since. I said I really did not want the stuff and if I paid for it it would have to be in two or three instalments. Irons said that would be rather awkward as he wanted the money, being in difficulties. I said. "I cannot have the deal," so he said, "Well, how can you pay me?" I said, "I do not care how it is, a cheque occasionally, £5 at a time until it is paid off." Then he said, "You had better make the cheques payable to Mr. Allwright." I paid the money with cheques in Mr. Allwright's favour, and did not trouble about getting the receipts. I just simply looked round and said I would give £20 for the things. That, of course, was not the full market price for new things. One does not buy a lot of stuff like that at the full market price. I got it at a price that I could make a profit at. Irons and Allwright had some conversation between themselves, but I could not tell what was said; possibly they may have been discussing Allwright's commission. Allwright came from time to time to my shop, and I paid him. For years Mr.

Allwright has been about with me, and if he was in Woolwich he would turn up and see us. I think I paid the money within about three weeks or a month. I bought mantles and cycles off Allwright after I had finished paying for the Irons business. I do not know anybody called West, but Mr. Allwright asked me to make out a cheque for £5 payable to West. I daresay that would be about April 18. I could give you the exact date, but I did not think it mattered. That cheque came back to me when I got my pass book. I cannot say that it came back through the Manor Park branch of the National Provincial Bank. I live at Hanover Road, Plumstead. I do not know that I can produce the cheque to-morrow morning, but I can let you have the counterfoils.

Mr. Muir. Perhaps you had better bring your pass book.

Cross-examined by Mr. Werninck. I have known the elder prisoner for some time. He kept a large mantle shop in Woolwich for five or six years, and supplied me with mantles and various other goods. I considered him a good business man.

EDMUND MAYO , partner in the Eagle Cycle Motor Company, Coventry. Examined by Mr. Kershaw. On April 11, this year, I received a typed letter from Revett Bros., wholesale ironmongers, etc., the Arches, Station Approach, Forest Gate: "Dear Sirs,—Will you please forward one of your Coventry Eagle cycles to retail at £6 10s. on approval, and oblige, M. Revett." On receipt of that letter I sent off a gentleman's bicycle by train, the wholesale price being £4 5s., and the invoice was marked "Net each price payable on delivery." I have not received payment for that bicycle, nor seen it since. On April 19 I received a further order from the Beehive Cycle Works, signed "A. West," for a gentleman's and a lady's bicycle, the wholesale prices being £4 5s. and £4 10s., to be sent on approval, with the understanding that they might be returned within seven days. That letter is typed, and the "A. West" is signed with a rubber stamp. I sent off the gentleman's bicycle on April 21 and the lady's on April 23. The invoices sent were in the same form as the previous one. Neither has been paid for. I had no idea that "West" and "Revett" were the same persons or in any way connected. I have subsequently seen the bicycles in the possession of the police, and identified them. On May 6 the following letter was received from the Beehive Cycle Works: "Dear Sirs,—With reference to my account with you for the sum of £8 15s., owing to an unforeseen law action, I find myself temporarily short of ready money. I therefore am compelled to ask you if you will accept six equal monthly payments in settlement of this matter. If this is not satisfactory and it pleases you better that I return the goods, I shall be pleased to do so. Apologising for the trouble to which I am putting you, I shall be much obliged if you will give this matter

your immediate attention.—Yours truly, A. West." This was after the arrest.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. We allow a month's credit for certain models, but not for those sent.

FRANK GOULD , L. and N.W.R. carman, Bow Station, proved delivery of a cycle to Revett Bros, on April 17. The younger prisoner signed the sheet in the name of "F. Browne."

JAMES EDWARDS , Detective K Division. In January last I was keeping observation at 177, Albert Road, Woolwich, where the name of Irons was over the door. I saw the elder prisoner. He was selling an article and conducting business. I was often at 56, Stephen's Road, about the time, and on January 1 saw the younger prisoner enter the premises at 12 noon, and leave at 2.45 p.m. I followed him to Plaistow Station, and there lost him. I could not see what sort of premises they were inside, there being a curtain across the window. On January 3 I saw him cleaning the window. I followed him again to Plaistow Railway Station and thence to East Ham, where he jumped on to a car to evade pursuit, and I lost sight of him. On January 4 I was keeping observations on St. Stephens Road and saw him leave at 1.15 p.m. In the previous November I was in the neighbourhood of Prince Regent's Lane, and saw the elder prisoner at a house with the name "Bernard A. Shaw" over the door.

Cross-examined by Mr. Werninck. 177, Albert Road had the appearance of a hardware shop, and a quantity of hardware and rubber tyres were lying About. He was apparently doing business and serving a customer. The house in Prince Regent's Lane was also a shop, apparently a receiving office. There were curtains across the window and some loose glue in front. The shop, contained a number of large packing cases. I did not see any business transaction. It looked as though the occupant was opening a stoop of some description.

By Mr. Johnson. Albert Road is two and a half or three miles from St. Stephen's Road. I did not keep observation on St. David's Terrace, Ilford.

CHARLES SAVILLE , of the Greenwich County Court, produced the file of the proceedings in the bankruptcy of Albert Allwright. He described himself as of 68, Church Street, Woolwich. The gross liabilities were stated at £1,329 17s. 9d. and the assets at £37 3s. 5d., which actually realised £10 4s. 6d. The costs of the bankrptcy were £10 0s. 3d., so that the surplus was only 4s. 3d., which had not been distributed. No application had been made for his discharge.

GUY MERCER , Detective-Sergeant, K Division. I have kept observation on Bernard Allwright since April 9. The premises at Forest Gate consisted of a quarter of an arch, and were held in the name of Revett. I only saw the prisoner Bernard on

the premises. He was there from between nine and ten in the morning till tour and sometimes five in the evening. When he went in he would lock the door, and if a van came he would take the goods in and sign for them, and then he would generally go away for an hour or two, come back, lock himself in, take in any parcels, and then go away again. Besides the taking in of parcels I saw nothing indicative of business. I saw nothing sold. The name "Revett" was painted up, but there was nothing to denote the kind of business. It was more like a warehouse or depository. On April 25 I saw the younger prisoner in the Romford Road, West Ham. He was carrying a big brown parcel and a Box. The parcel contained two gross of "Dura" mantles, and the box his typewriter. I told him I was a police officer, and asked him where he got them, and he said, "I have just brought them from Mr. Revett's shop at Wanstead Park Railway Station. I am taking them to East Ham Railway Station to leave in the cloak-room by Mr. Revett's instructions. The mantles came to the shop this morning from the Quaranty Mantle Company. There are another two grow at the shop." Questioned as to Mr. Revett, he said, "Mr. Revett deals in ironmongery, cycle goods, etc. To my knowledge he has no other place of business whatever, and I do not know where he lives." I then told him his explanation was not satisfactory; he would have to accompany me to Forest Gate Police Station. At the police station he gave the name of Bernard Augustus Allwright. 139, Davenport Road, Lewisham. He said, "I live there with my brother, Albert Allwright. I first met Mr. Revett at the Woolwich Free Ferry. We got into conversation and I told him I was out of employment and he gave me a situation. I have known Mr. Revett about two months. He bought a typewriter to the shop the second day after I commenced working for him. Mr. Revett does not carry on any other business to my knowledge. I do not know where he lives, neither did I ever know." He was subsequently charged with unlawful possession of the mantles and the typewriter. He also said that before he went to the Arches he used to work for a Mr. Davis, of St. Stephen's Road, Plaistow. As to the mantles he was carrying, he said "I wrote the order for them last Monday (April 23)." On the following day (April 26) he was brought before the magistrates, and then volunteered the statement, "I gave the reference for Revett's. I told my brother that a letter would be sent to him. He knows nothing about it whatever." I have not been able to find out anything about Mr. Revett, or Mr. Davis, or Mr. Bernard A. Shaw, or Mr. West, or Mr. Irons. On May 2 I went with Inspector Godley to 135, Lathom Road, East Ham. The prisoner Bernard, when arrested, gave as his address, 139, Davenport Road, where his brother, he said, resided. At Lathom Road I took possession of a lady's bicycle, which has been identified by Mr.

Mayo. I made a complete search of the house. On May 10 I went again with Inspector Godley. There were three more bicycles found, two in an outhouse at the back of the premises. One of the sets of the International Library of Famous Literature was also found.

Cross-examined by Mr. Werninck. The elder prisoner lived at Lathom Road. When I was watching Revett Bros., I followed the younger prisoner, and after several attempts saw him go in there.

By Mr. Johnson. The younger prisoner knew I had been following him for some time. On the Saturday previous to his arrest I followed him from the Arches in Forest Gate. When he came out he just went round the corner of the street and I followed him, and when I got to the corner he was just standing round there. He then went back towards the shop, and when I got to the corner I found him standing there again. Shortly afterwards he came out and I was behind him. An electric tram came along and he jumped on it with a view to leaving me behind, but I ran and caught the tram and got on. He went as far as Upton Park, Forest Gate. Then he took another tram to East Ham. He walked along East Ham to Denmark Road, and then took another tram back to Green Street, Upton Park, where he went into the railway station and took a penny ticket back to East Ham, where he bad just come from. He sat on a seat on the platform next to me. Presently an electric train came in. He looked at the train and then went on reading his paper. When the train was about to start he jumped on to it, but I was equally as quick. I pushed him aside and got in too. Then he went into a public-house and sat there for two and a half hours, and I sat there also. Finally I came out and waited in the street till he came out again, and then followed him back to East Ham. Instead of going the ordinary way home he made a roundabout circuit over a footbridge. Lathom Road is parallel with the Burgess Road, and there is a narrow passage running at the backs of the houses facing the two streets, and there is also a little cross passage, so that you can go down the side of one house and along the back passage into any particular house. He never used to go in the front way, but used to wait until there was no one about, and then slip down the passage and in at the back door. In that way he led me many a dance.

(Saturday, June 30.)

MAUD GIBSON . I am employed in the shop next door to Revett Bros., Station Approach, Forest Gate. The name of Revett Bros, is still up. I have never seen anybody but the younger prisoner, Bernard, go in or come out. There seemed

to be a mystery about the place; it Appeared to be always closed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. There were about 10 or 11 shops in the Approach; some were empty. Picture postcards is the business carried on in our shop. I could not see how many people went to Revett's, but lots of people went there and knocked, and then came to us afterwards to make inquiries. People could go there without my seeing them.

DANIEL J. WEBSTER , cashier, London City and Midland Bank. I know the elder prisoner. He had an account at the bank. Cheques produced are the elder prisoner's cheques.

G. GODLEY, Detective-Inspector, K Division. On April 25 this year I went to 135, Lathom Road, East Ham, with Sergeant Mercer. I saw the wife of Albert Allwright. Shortly after I arrived the prisoner Albert came in. Mrs. Allwright said to him, "These are two police officers, and Bernard it detained at the station with the typewriter." The prisoner Albert said, "I know nothing about a typewriter." I told him I wanted to search the place. He asked me if I had a search warrant. I said no, and he refused to allow me to search. I obtained a search warrant, and shortly afterwards I searched the place in the presence of the younger prisoner and took possession of a lady's bicycle. It was the bicycle identified by Mr. Mayo, of the Coventry Eagle Cycle Company. I also searched a writing-table in the back sitting-room and found carbon letter book produced. Immediately I found it Bernard said, "That book belongs to me; I had it when I worked at Leeds." I then called his attention to some letters written from 26, Prince Regent's Lane in the name of George Davis, which are in the book addressed to C. C. Taylor and Son, 10 and 12. Mile End Road. He said, "I wrote those letters by direction of Mr. Davis." I said, "Have you found Mr. Davis yet?" He said "No." I then took possession of the book and other property and left the house. Letters produced signed "G. Davis" are copied in the book. They are dated from 26, Prince Regent's Lane. They are the letters which Bernard said he wrote at the dictation of Davis. I also asked him about Revett. I said, "Have you found Mr. Revett?" He said, "No." I went back to the station and charged Albert on a warrant. He made no reply to the charge. On May 3 I charred Bernard with obtaining a typewriter by false pretences. He made no reply to the charge. On April 25 when Bernard was arrested. first, he handed me the three keys produced. One of them fitted the shop in the arches. I searched that shop, and the only books there were the two order-books produced, containing entries dating from March 1 to April 25. One book contains entries of orders sent out. The other is merely an index to the order-book. There were no signs of any business whatever

having been carried on in the place. I found an open box there with 23 dozen Dura mantles in it. I also found the Welsbach case, with the number on it, empty. When I found the lady's bicycle at 135, Lathom Road I asked Bernard in the presence of his mother whether he had got a receipt for it. He said "No; it was Drought here by dad on approval." On May 7 I went to 11. St. David's Terrace, Little Ilford. That was a shop and dwelling-house. There was no furniture in the house, not even a bed. I got into the shop with one of the keys handed to me by the prisoner Bernard. The key opened the door with difficulty, and it was certainly not the key made for the lock. I found there 70 pairs of toe-clips, identified by Mr. Lane, and a quantity of bill-heads similar to the orders that were sent from that address. I found no books of account at all. I found several unpaid invoices and three receipted invoices for rent and goods. I also found cheque produced dated May 2, signed by A. West, and filled in for £9 15s. It was in an envelope, stamped and addressed to the Eagle Cycle Company. The amount is filled in in figures, but not written out in the body of the cheque. It is made payable to the Eagle Cycle Company.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. When Bernard was arrested there were no grounds for arresting him at the time. Albert was arrested on ascertained grounds. The warrant was obtained for obtaining a typewriter by fraud. The house in Lathom Road was nice and clean and well furnished. The bicycles there were not openly exposed. The lady's bicycle was upstairs in a small bedroom and another one was in the green-house. There were three bicycles at St. David's Terrace. One was in the window and two in racks. Curtains and partitions are not unusual things to see in shops. I took all the things away from there in a van. I produce the list of them. There was not a tool in the place. It had been opened four or five weeks. There were some indications that business was intended to be carried on there. From outside people might think it was a genuine business. It was quite the reverse inside. I did not know Albert before personally. I had heard about him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. Bernard did not say he had the book when he was working for the Empire Rubber Company. I did not ask him where that company was, and he did not say that it was at Leeds. He said, "That is my book; I had it when I was at work at Leeds." I am positive he did not say, "When I was working for a firm at Leeds."

RICHARD BARTHOLOMEW , recalled. "C. Watts" is my land-lord. I do not know any other C. Watts. He lives at Sheringham, in Norfolk. I do not think Albert knows that C. Watts is my landlord's name. He is my landlord at one place, and Mr. Brandon is my landlord at the other place. "Palmer"

would be the Palmer Tyre Company I expect. The amount of 9s. 6d. might be for the repair of a tyre. I do not know a George Palmer nor an H. Palmer. When I told you yesterday that except for the Irons transaction I had had no transactions with Allwright for two years, I was a bit confused. I have had slight business with him, as I told you, for years. What I told you yesterday was a mistake. I do not know how I made the mistake, but I thought of it directly after. There was a long interval between my seeing Allwright. I think the cheque I gave him in connection with the Irons transaction was before Christmas. That is the one that came back by post. There is a cheque to C. Watts on October 21, 1905, for £3. It may be my land-lord, I do not know. You must remember my turnover is about £800 a year, and I cannot remember every cheque. I do not know the handwriting or anything about document produced at all. I could not swear to my landlord's signature. I should have to go over my bill files to explain why I paid Allwright £1 10s. by cheque, and C. Watts £3 by cheque on December 21. I could not tell you how much I paid Allwright altogether, but I have remembered several little payments that I have made since. Cheque produced is endorsed "C. Watts." The endorsement is not in the same writing as on the other cheque. This cheque is to my landlord, £6 8s. I do not know anyone called Bernard A. Shaw. "I have only heard of that name in this case. The explanation Albert gave for wanting a cheque in the name of "A. West" was that he wanted to pay some money and wanted it in that name.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. I had transactions with a great number of people in the course of my business. I have known the elder prisoner for a number of years. He has done work for me, and I have paid him for it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. I do not think the price I paid Bernard was 30s. a gross for mantles. I have bought hundreds of pounds' worth of mantles from Albert The usual thing was the I.T.R. 30s. a gross. I always paid Bernard in cash and Albert by cheque.

By the Court. I saw a man who said he was Mr. Irons.

THOMAS GURRIN . I am an expert in handwriting, and have had about twenty years' experience. I have taken the receipt for the Armstrong typewriter, signed "C. Watts," as being the elder prisoner's handwriting. It is written on Bernard Shaw's paper. I have also had before me the carbon letter-book which has been produced. I have assumed certain portions of that book to be in the handwriting of the younger prisoner. All those letters signed "B. Allwright" and "G. Davis" are in the same handwriting. Assuming the receipt to be in the handwriting of the elder prisoner, I say to the best of my ability and belief that the documents produced and shown to me bearing different signatures are in the handwriting of Albert. Assuming

the letters I have pointed out in the carbon letter-book to be in the handwriting of the younger prisoner, I say to the best of my ability and belief that the documents produced and shown to me bearing different signatures are in the handwriting of Bernard.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thompson. The standard I went by is an ordinary kind of handwriting so far as quality is concerned, but it has its characteristics which I have traced to the other documents. The general character of the writing in this blue sheet of paper which you put to me as being the elder prisoner's handwriting is the same kind of writing as that on the documents I have referred to. Handwriting experts are fallible. I have made mistakes myself.

Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. I might be mistaken as to some of the letters I think are in the handwriting of Bernard.

ALBERT ALLWRIGHT (prisoner, on oath). For the last five years I have been trading in incandescent goods. Previous to that I was superintendent to the Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society for Woolwich, and previous to that to the Royal London Friendly Society, 644, Old Kent Road, and from my infancy upwards I have worked as a decorator, and miscellaneously a: plumbing, engineering, gas-fitting, and the trades all round. From my bankruptcy on to the time I left Woolwich I had a carrier tricycle, which I still own, and I used to supply shops with incandescent goods—go to London and get the goods, and deliver them round to the shops. I had a large number of customers. I practically supplied all the shops at Belvedere, Erith, Woolwich, Abbeywood, East Ham, and Barking. Amongst others I served the witnesses Richards and Bartholomew. I had a large business with them. I went to live at 135, Lathom Road, East Ham, in September last. It was solely used as a private residence. At that time I had a definite place of business at 708, Woolwich Road, Charlton. The business consisted of ironmongery, gas-fittings, cycle repairing, and incandescent goods in particular. I had not the proper tools for cycle repairing but I could go to Mr. Bartholomew's, and use his tools for anything particular. Two and a half years ago I bought the cutting and screwing tools of a Mr. Corrigan when he was sold off. I have had those all along, and I have them now. They are now at 135. Lathom Road. I gave up the address at 708, Woolwich Road, Charlton, in October last" I did not take any new premises until March of this year. Meanwhile, I worked with my carrier tricycle, and stored it, when I did not want it, at Mr. Bartholomew's. Just previous to, March the incandescent trade always falls off, and I had to look round and find something to do to keep my family, and being well in with Mr. Bartholomew I arranged with him to build me several bicycles, so that I could go into the bicycle trade as soon as I found a little shop. My wife had said she would

not go into business any more; therefore she took the house at East Ham, and I had to work away from home. I took a place of business at 11, St. David's Terrace, Little Ilford, called "The Beehive." I bought the fittings of the lady that was in possession. I opened those premises as a cycle stores, calling it by the same name, "The Beehive." That name was up when I went there. I called it "The Beehive Cycle Works" and A. West. That is where I used the bill-heads that have been produced. I put up shelves and fitted up a little office with a desk and a nest of pigeon-holes and lettered them, and I had fixtures made to hold bicycles alone the wall. I fitted the place up as a cycle stores. I had a lady's and gentleman's bicycle there. The first two I bought. I sold the lady's, and I stocked the place with the things in this inventory produced by the police and other things that I have sold. I sold a lady's bicycle, several pairs of toe-clips, a lot of cans of oil and repair outfits, and two or three lamps and lamp-wicks. Apart from that, I had sold two bicycles to two young fellows who used to come there, and they were being built at Bartholomew's at the time the police arrested me. I supplied every portion of the bicycles to Bartholomew with the exception of the tyres. He was to have put them together at his works, but the police interfered and stopped it. He was to build me six. He had the materials to build six, the frames, handle-bars, hubs, rims, spokes—everything. I had also other orders in hand at the time of the interruption by the police. The gentleman who looked after the property had got me two customers from a house just round the corner. I do not know the number. They were the two bicycles I got from the Eagle Cycle Company, and I had also written and got from the Eagle Cycle Company bills on which I could sell the cycles on the weekly payment system. I have not been connected with the man long enough to tell you his name, but he was in the court not long ago and gave evidence. Yes; it was Mr. Ball. He got me two customers, a husband and wife; they were going to have a bicycle each in a few days. I had lots of prospective orders also, and, as the police know, I had a good bicycle in the window that I could sell for £3 19s. 6d., and bring me in a good profit. It is quite right that I had invoices, some paid and some unpaid. I had ample means to pay the unpaid bills; my brother shortly had promised to lend me £30. My wife also had £15 of her own, and the offered to lend it to me. A legitimate and good paying business was to be worked up at the Beehive. I was there every day. I wanted to expose everything. I did not want to conceal anything; there was nothing to conceal. I wanted to make the most of the things I had there. With regard to the cheque for £9 15s. which the police found, I know that the amount should have been £8 15s., and not £9 15s., but that was because of a mistake

in the addition of the items. I added them up a pound too much, but I was very agitated at the time; my son had been locked up. This cheque was written out on the morning of that day. I went home to dinner at one o'clock, meaning to post it that day, and take the money my wife had got so as to meet this cheque when it came due. That afternoon I had to go and see the solicitor about my boy's defence, and as I left the solicitor's office I was arrested on a warrant, and during the next week the place was raided by the police, the lock broken, and everything carted away. Before I could get back to send that cheque off I had been arrested. With regard to the rent, there was not a penny of rent due; in fact, I had only just paid the month's rent when this trouble came along. 26, Prince Regent's Lane has been said to have been taken by a Bernard Shaw. I knew a man that traded as Bernard Shaw. At the time these proceedings cover he used the shop as business premises. I do not think he used the house; he lived somewhere in the Barking Road. He represented to me that he was a general buyer of ironmongery goods. I do not know anything about the taking of the place. When I became connected with him he wanted to go into the incandescent mantle business, and I was anxious to supply him; the season was just coming on. With regard to the parcel of Welsbach mantles coming there and being signed for as "A. Right," the signature of "A. Right" on the carrier's sheet produced is not my signature.

(Monday, July 2.)

ALBERT ALLWRIGHT , further examined. With regard to the statement that I told the man who brought the typewriter to 26, Prince Regent's Lane and who asked to see Mr. Bernard Shaw that I was not Mr. Shaw, but his clerk, that is wrong entirely. I said he was engaged. I know Mr. Shaw well. We were that day going to London together, and I was going to introduce him to some houses for incandescent goods. At the time the typewriter was delivered Mr. Shaw was in the back room. I heard Mr. Moore, of the typewriter company, say that I gave a receipt in the name of C. Watts. The receipt produced signed "C. Watts" is not my writing and is nothing like my writing. It is not true as stated by Joseph Brittain, clerk to Mr. John Jackson, with regard to the letting of 26. Prince Regent's Lane that I called at the office and agreed to take the shop in the name of Bernard Shaw. I never was at Me Jackson's in my life. It is not true as stated by Jackson, the painter, that he saw me at those premises every day with my trailer tricycle from 11 to 4. I was working at Woolwich—at the time and had a shop at 708, Woolwich Road. I heard Dorling say that he distrained on these premises on a type-

writer for rent, and that I was present and agreed with him as to the taking away of the typewriter. I did nothing of the kind. I was not there at all. It is also untrue that I came afterwards to the estate office, paid the rent, and got back the typewriter. I never saw Mr. Dorling on that matter at all; in fact, I do not know Mr. Dorling. The only suggestion I can make at to any possible mistake is that the other man was something like me, but you could not mistake him for me. The other man had dark-grey hair about the same as mine, and though a younger man looks much older. I heard Detective Edwards say that he saw me come out and lock the door. I never locked the door in my life; neither do I believe the door locks from outside; it closes with a catch. As to 56, St. Stephen's Road, Plaistow, I do not even know where it is. The statement that I took 177, Albert Road, Woolwich, in the name of Irons is wrong. Mr. and Mrs. Irons and the whole family lived there together, and I supplied them with incandescent goods. I trusted them with a considerable quantity of goods when I first went there. At to the statement of Detective Edwards that he saw me serve a customer, I heard the inspector at the station distinctly give instructions that he should give that evidence. I heard Mr. Bartholomew say that a cheque was made out to Irons at my request for the goods on these premises. May I explain the business I had with Mr. Bartholomew I and Mr. Bartholomew have known one another for a good many years, and it is now about two years since I persuaded Mr. Bartholomew to open a banking account. If he says my cheque was made out to Irons for goods at 177, Albert Road, Woolwich, I am not in a position to dispute it. I think it is possible I may have advised him to make out a cheque. I do not remember having done so. I may have bought something from Mr. Irons because Mr. Irons owes me a considerable sum of money, and when I got to Mr. Bartholomew's I may have sold him something and asked him to forward the cash to Mr. Irons. I agree with Mr. Bartholomew that I introduced Irons to him. I have never seen before this order form from Irons for Welsbach mantles (produced). It is not in my handwriting, nor did I dictate it. I never saw before the order to Messrs. Lloyd for the "International Library of Famous Literature" in three-quarter Levant binding. I have never seen before the similar order from Irons. As to the statement that I took the Arches in the Wanstead Station Approach in the name of Revett and that I gave as a reference myself and G. Davies. until my son had been arrested I did not know where the Arches were. The agreement for the premises signed "Maurice Revett" is not in my handwriting. I never went to the estate office and do not know where it is. I never saw Mr. Durreau until I saw him in the police-court.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I only knew Mr. Shaw at the

shop in Prince Regent's Lane. At that time I fancy I was carrying on business at 708, Woolwich Road. My wife had taken a house at Lathom Road, East Ham, and we were just on the point of leaving there. I carried on business in the name of Harris (Brothers at 708, Woolwich Road. I bought the business of them. If Mr. Harris says that in March, 1905, I had cleared out of 708, Woolwich Road, I say that is a lie. I left in October. My wife left at the end of the June quarter I cannot say the exact date when I left. I was in nearly up till Christmas. I had left some goods there which I thought the landlord would claim, but he afterwards left word with a friend of mine that I might go in when I liked and get the goods as he did not require them. I know 11, Blackwall Lane. It was occupied by a man named Fisher, whom I knew when he used to live at Plumstead. I think he carried on business as Fisher, Sons, and Co. I did business with him. He did not know Shaw. I know nothing of Teacher and Co., of 28, Bryanstone Crescent. Dalston, and did not load one of their vans at Fishers place. I took some ordinary saleable goods from 11, Blackwall Lane in a cart I hired from Messrs. Payne, East Greenwich. I have not seen Fisher since he left Blackwall Lane. I never heard of business being carried on at 25, Willowbrook Road in the name of Newstead. Amongst the goods I removed from Blackwall Lane were some damaged cycle tyres. I took some to my shop at Woolwich and some I sold to Mr. Bartholomew, amongst other people. I sold them wherever I could. I offered them from the cart. As to the statement that I was seen to load up this cart or van at 11 Blackwall Lane with furniture and a case and follow it to 26, Prince Regents Road (Bernard A. Shaw's), where it was unloaded, nothing of the sort took place. As to the statement of Mr. Brittain, Mr. Jackson's clerk, that I came to see him at the estate office, I know neither Mr. Jackson nor Mr. Brittain. The statement that I gave my name as Bernard Shaw, and my address as 13, Eleanor Road, Woolwich, is wrong. I did not take away the keys. I was never there at all. As to Jackson's statement that I went regularly to 26, Prince Regent's Lane, about eleven o'clock in the morning, and came away regularly about four o'clock in the afternoon, all these men are men who have been engaged by the police to get a conviction against me; they did it years ago, and they are trying to do it now. This is a conspiracy got up by the police, and all these witnesses are parties to it. As to Jackson's statement that I introduced the prisoner Bernard as my son, and said he was a partner in the firm, to the best of my knowledge my son was never in the place at all. Dorling's statement that he went to Prince Regents Lane and asked for Bernard Shaw, and that I said. "I am Bernard Shaw." is not correct. Dorling is a broker's man in East Ham and West Ham. where he has often to do very

awkward business, and I say that a man who must often want the assistance of the police is a man who lends himself naturally to the police to support the conviction of an innocent man. I do not know whether Dorling took the typewriter; he says he did. I have never seen the typewriter since the man brought it to the shop to deliver it. I did not give a receipt for it Shaw was in the shop-parlour at the time. I told Moore, the man from the typewriter company, that Shaw was engaged. I do not know what became of Shaw. I last taw him, I think, in November or the beginning of December. I called in December, and the shop was shut up. He did not owe me any money. He did very little business with me. I introduced him to people with whom he did business in London. I did so because I got commission. I got commission from, the Wholesale Fittings Company on account of the sale by them of goods to Shaw. Also from Julius Norman; I did not introduce him to the Welsbach Company, with whom I have never done business. I can always buy their mantles cheaper from an agent. I did not introduce him to the Dura Company. As to the typewriter in the possession of my son, I can only say it was delivered a day or two after he went to work for Mr. Revett. I cannot explain, how a typewriter delivered at 26, Prince Regent's Lane, afterwards by the strangest accident was found in his hand when he. was walking along the street on April 25. I begged of my son to explain the matter, but he could only tell me that Mr. Revett brought it to the shop. As to this being a most unfortunate coincidence, I think it is a coincidence that might happen to any business man. There is no suggestion of false pretences when I received the typewriter. I think. As to where people usually leave valuable portable property like typewriters without getting receipts, I have myself left goods without taking a receipt. I admit that if I did sign the document signed "C. Watts" I made a false pretence. I contradict Moore's statement that he saw me there twice. I have seen this sheet signed "A. Right," which is a sort of pun on my name, Allwright. I cannot explain why Bernard Shaw should put "A. Right" at his signature for the goods received from Welsbach. The signature stated by the carman Royston to have been written by me is not mine. The signature does not resemble my handwriting, not withstanding what Mr. Gurrin, the handwriting expert, has said. I never knew Mr. Davies or Mr. George Davies at all. I know my son worked for G. Davies, but I do not know where. I think he used to go somewhere by train. My son frequently lived at home or visited me. I do not think I ever asked where Davies was living. My son never mentioned any connection between Davies and Bernard Shaw. I never heard from my son that Bernard Shaw had given a reference for Davies. Mr. son would never talk business to me at all. Since this case I have asked my son to explain how Bernard Shaw came to give

a reference for G. Davies. His explanation is that they went into a coffee shop and the whole thing was arranged, and my son wrote out the particulars. As to how it was that Bernard Shaw cane to give the reference, it is a conundrum to me; I do not know anything about it. I do not know of any connection between my son and Bernard Shaw. He was never at Bernard Shaw's shop to my knowledge. I heard Jackson say that I introduced my ion to him at Bernard Shaw's shop. As to the statement that I signed for some goods in the name of Cash, the receipt is not in my handwriting. (The receipt was handed to the jury, and Mr. Muir pointed out that the "C" in Cash was the same as the "C" in "C. Watts ") I did not ask my son for any explanation as to how Davies came to fee writing letters from 26, Prince Regent's Lane. The exhibits 25, 26, 28, and 29 are the letters which my son said were dictated in the coffee shop. There are some letters of my own which came originally from 708, Woolwich Road. Some of the letters looked to be in the handwriting of my other son, Albert. Both my sons write very much like I do, and they often write letters for me. One of the documents appears to be in the handwriting of my daughter May, aged 12. She lives at Lathom Road. My son Albert lives at 139, Davenport Road, Catford, I have been told, but I have not been to his house, so I do not know. I have had the letter-book since November of 1904. I think I bought it at Striker's. I cannot give any explanation at all of G. Davies having letters copied in this book addressed from 26, Prince Regent's Lane. Neither I nor my son had any connection with the business at 26, Prince Regent's Lane. The age of my son Bernard is 20. He was not in business on his own account in 1904. The business he was doing was for other people. I got him a situation with Mr. Brindley Whiteley, of Leeds; my son was the London representative. I do not know anybody called G. Palmer or H. Palmer. The signatures "G. Palmer" and "H. Palmer" to the goods sheet produced do not look like my son's writing. I never bought a set of Lloyd's International Library. As to the two sets of the International Library delivered at 56, St. Stephen's Road, I do not know anything about St.Stephen's Road. The set of books found at my house in Lathom Road was taken there by my son. I asked him where he got it, and he said he had got it through the governor, and was to pay for it by instalments. By "the governor" I understood Mr. Davies. With regard to Irons, I think he opened a shop at 177, Albert Road, Woolwich, in November or December. I made his acquaintance by calling there for orders. I did business with him up to about January 12. I was not present when what remained of him was sold to Mr. Bartholomew. Mr. Bartholomew has always been a friend

of mine, and is not likely to lend himself to a police conspiracy. If Bartholomew said I was present at the sale I have forgotten it Bartholomew's account if not strictly true. I introduced Mr. Bartholomew to Mr. Irons, and went and saw Mr. Bartholomew two or three days afterwards, and told him I thought he could buy the lot for £20. I went down to Mr. Irons and made the deal. I brought them together, and was to receive commission for my services, and as Mr. Bartholomew did not find the money at the time, I said I would find the money on post dated cheques. I paid for the business, but I got the money on these post dated cheques. I do not think Irons had anything to do with Bernard shaw. The document produced in the handwriting of A. Irons does not resemble my hand-writing at all. (The document with others was handed to the jury for comparison.) I do not think I heard of Revett, of the Arches Station Approach, until my ion was arrested. Irons I have not seen since he left his shop some time in February of this year. I paid him all the instalments. I believe Irons works somewhere in Woolwich. I have had no chance of finding him as I have been in prison all the time. My wife has been living at Woolwich, and has been driven to death to get evidence. My wife has tried to find Irons. I saw him about a fortnight after the sale of the things when I met him casually. He was not then carrying on any business. He did not my where he had moved to, and I did not ask him. Revett Bros., the wholesale ironmongers, can hardly be said to have been in the same line of business as myself. I dealt* in mantles, chimney globes, and things of that kind. I never touched ironmongery. I do not think I heard the name of Revett mentioned until my son was arrested. I would rather not express any opinion as to whether the letters signed "Revett" are in my son's handwriting. With regard to the application form for the taking of the railway arch by Revett Bros., the handwriting of that looks like my daughter's. The signature to the Revett agreement does not resemble my hand-writing in the least. I took the name of A. West as a trading name after the bankruptcy because I was given to understand that if the Official Receiver had found I hid got any stock he would claim it for the creditors. The cheque given me by Bartholomew in the name of West was for value received. He bought mantles, chimneys and globes from me. I got the cheque in the name of West because I wanted to pay it into the bank. I wanted to conceal my identity from the bank and from the Official Receiver. I signed all the documents with my usual signature in the name of West. I had no rubber stamp for the signature of "A. West."

Verdict, both prisoners Guilty.

----GODLEY, Inspector, K Division. The total commodities included in the indictment and otherwise is £233 odd. There are

other cases of goods delivered but not paid for from all parts of the country. Previous to this the elder prisoner was in business in the mantle trade about five or six years. He had a business at 12. Church Street, Woolwich, when he went bankrupt. After that he got possession of a business at 708, Woolwhich Road. He then represented himself as Henry Allwright, brother of Albert Allwright Banker. For this business he was to pay £10 down and £1 a month—altogether he was to pay £60. He got possession of the premises and never paid a farthing afterwards. During the time he was there a large number of summonses were issued against him; there are no less than 19 summonses in respect of 708, Woolwich Road. Then we had complaints about Fisher and Co., 11, Blackwall Lane, and observation was kept by the police and a case of goods was removed from there in October last. The elder prisoner was followed from there to 20, Prince Regent's Lane. An officer of the R Division happened to meet my officer who was keeping observation in Prince Regent's Lane, and in that way he was connected with the two businesses. Then we had various complaints in respect to the businesses carried on by George Davies and Revett Brothers, and we were able to charge them with unlawful possession. After the arrest of the prisoner Albert on May 5 it was found that he was supposed to take a business at No. 11, St. David's Terrace, Ilford, in the name of West. I went down on the Sunday and found the place locked up. On the Monday morning I went down there again with two sergeants and kept observation on the place with a view to catching the prisoner Albert, who was then on bail on the charge of obtaining the typewriter. He came there a little after nine o'clock, looked across the meadow where we were standing, and away he went on his bicycle. I found a key that had been found on the younger prisoner opened the door and we were able to get possession. A large number of goods obtained from all parts of the country have not been paid for.

sentence: Albert Allwright, 18 months' imprisonment; Bernard Allwright, eight months' imprisonment.


NEW COURT; Tuesday, June 26.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-70
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

DEPREZ, Louis (27, confectioner), and DEPREZ, Leon (22, confectioner), pleaded guilty to stealing a purse and other articles and the sum of £1 15s., the goods and moneys of Florence Jonas, and feloniously receiving same. Against Louis Deprez, a conviction proved on June 7, 1905, for larceny. Sentence, Louis Doprez, Fifteen months' hard labour; Laon Deprez, Six months' hard labour. Both certified for expulsion under Aliens Act.

NEW COURT; Wednesday, June 27.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

25th June 1906
Reference Numbert19060625-71
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > with recommendation
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WOODLEY, John (24, labourer), and HONE, Elizabeth ; feloniously stealing two signal lamps and 9 lb. weight of metal, the property of the London, Brighton and South Coast Railway Company, and Hone feloniously receiving same. Woodley pleaded guilty; Hone pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Fitch prosecuted; Mr. Finch defended.

AUGUSTINE HARRIS , Inspector of the Railway Police Department. I examined lamp (produced) and found that the door and portions (produced) had been taken away, and that these portions formed part of this lamp. The whole of another lamp had been taken as well.

WALTER PRIKE , signalman, 50, Stanley Road, West Croydon. I am in the employ of the L.B. and S.C. Railway. On May 29 I went to the police station and saw the pieces of metal produced to me now. They formed parts of lamps, property of the L.B. and S.C. Railway. On May 26 I put the piece of wire into the lamp now produced to me. It was not put there for any purpose at all, but it enables me to identify it. The lamps were formerly fixed with four bolts and screws to hold them in place.

JOHN GILLAN , detective, V Division. On the evening of May 27 I and Sergeant Harvey dressed ourselves up as tramps, and from that evening to the morning of the next day kept observation close to Haydon Road Railway Station. At seven in the evening of the 28th I saw Woodley and two others cross over some fields on to the railway line, about 250 yards from Haydon Road Railway Station; they got on the line and loitered about there for some time. We were some considerable distance away and could not see exactly what they were doing. They disappeared the other side of the line. We crossed over, but lost them for some considerable time. We saw them a second time. Two of their bags were very bulky. They

came out of the main way and went into the main road and crossed over to Haydon's Road and eventually into North Road. We lost them again. We got on to our bicycles and scoured the various roads. At about 7.20 I was riding along North Road when I saw this handkerchief spread out on the ground in front of Woodley. He was on his knees taking portions of copper out of his bag and placing them in the handkerchief. He looked round and did not recognise me. I put the bicycle on one side. When I came back be and his companion had gone. I searched the neighbourhood, and eventually at about 7.30 I entered the rear of the female prisoner's premises in East Road and saw Woodley standing facing the kitchen door. Mrs. Hone was standing on the threshold of the kitchen door. She had some money in her hand. I said to Woodley: "Hallo! What are you doing here" He looked surprised on seeing me, and hesitated. He dropped this same handkerchief from his band. In the other band be bad a weighing machine. I said, "You recognise me?" He said, "Christ! Yes." I repeated my question: "What are you doing here?" He said, "I have come to sell this to Mrs. Hone." I said, "Are you sure you have not come to sell her anything else?" He said, "Yes, I am." I said, "What about that metal?" He said, "I have no metal, what do you mean?" I said, "Yet you have." I turned round to Hone and said, "I am Sergeant Gillan. Have you bought any copper of this man?" She said, "No, I have not May the Lord strike me dead if I have ever bought any copper or metal off him in his life." I said, "Come inside in the kitchen." We all three went in. In the kitchen Woodley protested his innocence. I partly turned round to Woodley. Hone was talking; she edged down and picked something up out of the corner of the cupboard. She edged back again until she got to the kitchen table and when there put something on it On this table was a tablecloth, and she gathered it up with the tablecloth. Just then there was another woman in the room; I believe she was a daughter-in-law. She came towards the table. I said, "What have you got there? You cannot do me like that!"and I reached round and pulled the tablecloth to one side, undid it, and found this parcel containing these portions of copper worth about 5d. a pound. I said, "Where did you get that from?" She said, "Woodley brought it here this morning." I said, "Oh, I thought you just told me you never bought any metal off this man." She said, "This is the first lot; I have never bought any of him before." I examined the metal, and on it was marked, "London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway." I said, "This is marked by a stamp of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company." She said, "Yes, I see that." I said, "You had better be careful what you say, or in all probability you will be charged with receiving it." Shortly afterwards my colleague, Sergeant Harvey, who got separated from me when we missed the men, arrived, and we searched the premises. The weight of the metal was about 91b. Mrs. Hone

bad about 4s. in silver and a few coppers in her hand. I knew the kept no books. I have known her before her husband died. She practically managed the business at home, while her husband went out on his rounds.

Cross-examined. I could not say her husband committed suicide on March 19; I am not stationed in the district, and I have not made inquiries. I know her husband had been in business for a number of years. I could not say how many, or whether there had been any conviction during that period against him in respect of this business. On one occasion, in the husband's lifetime, I visited the premises in respect of some springs. I did not threaten them, nor did I say to the husband, "I mean having you one of these times." I do not know the exact date; possibly it was five or six mouths ago when we found the springs there. It is not true that there was much delay in going to 23, East Street, but there was a lot of delay in finding where Woodley had gone to. A woman told me one went one way and another another, but she did not tell me where prisoner had gone to. When I had hold of Woodley on the threshold of the door I blew my whistle because things were getting a bit warm. I did not go outside. I remained on the premises. Hone clasped her hands together and said, "Oh don't make that noise." I could not say whether her daughter-in-law was there all the time. I did not see her the whole time. She was not present when I blew my whistle, nor did she say, "Do not do that, it will wake up the baby." She might have said so, but I did not bear her. A police-constable came in answer to the whistle and took charge of Woodley. I then went out to the front door and beckoned to Harvey, who rode up on his bicycle about the same time. I believe that old iron is not called "metal" in the marine store trade. I cannot say whether or not if Woodley said he had never told any "metal" before to lira. Hone, there would be anything untrue in that. I could not say in which hand the female prisoner had the four shillings and the coppers. Her hand was not closed, it was all of a shake. I could not say if the money was in her hands when she clasped her hands. A quarter of an hour elapsed between the time when I saw the money in her hand and when I blew my whistle. she was in the front room then and had plenty of opportunity of getting rid of it. I did not see her get rid of it. I had hold of Woodley. When I came, he was holding a pair of scales in his hands. I could not say whether he was bargaining about the pair of scales he had in his hand, when I came in. That in what he told me. I did not see Hone place the bag of copper on the ground when I came in. My attention was not directed more to Woodley than to Hone; I had my eye on both of them as far as I could. I did not caution these two people until I had made up my mind to arrest them; I cannot say that any money pasted between Hone and Woodley. Sergeant Harvey was not there when I pointed out the marks of the London Brighton and South Coast Railway to Woodley. It is not true that

Hone said "Yes" when I asked her if the bag was hers. It is true that the metal had gone from the handkerchief into the bag when I got to the house. It is true that she was frightened when I came; she trembled and abused me and soon. I did not hear any money fall out of her hands.

Re-examined. It is not true that I have any spite against prisoner.

I went round to Hones house without being told. The metal I found in Wood ley's possession was copper.

FREDERIC HARVEY , detective-sergeant, V Division. I was with Sergeant Gillan on the night in question, and saw the men, including Woodley. I. searched for the men after that, and finally arrived at the premises of the female prisoner. I followed Sergeant Gillan. I saw Woodley put the metal in the handkerchief when he was on the road. When I went to Hone's house I told her she would be charged with receiving stolen property. She replied, "I have not paid for it yet. you are too soon on the job. Can't I buy metal and pet my living if I like?" I searched the premises, and pointed out the metal produced to Hone; I pointed out the stamps on the metal to her. Anybody looking at that metal could have seen by the marks that it was the property of the L.B. and S C. Ry. When I pointed out the marks Hone said, "I can see it now, yes." I was not there when Sergeant Gillan had pointed out these marks. In reply to the charge Hone said, "I have not paid for it; I did not know it was stolen." It is true that Hone said, when I showed her the company's marks, "I can see it now, yes." I did not come to the conclusion that the had not seen the marks before. She did not say it was the first time the bad seen it.

(Evidence for the Defence.)

ELIZABETH HONE (Prisoner, on oath). I am a widow with two children. My husband committed suicide on March 19 last. He took his own life because he was frightened. He had been in business 25 years altogether. He managed it during his lifetime. We had been married 34 years. No charge was ever brought against me or my husband in respect to the conduct of the business. I have lived 13 years in my present house, and 12 years in Fullerton Road, Merton. I was in the kitchen on the morning of the 28th when Woodley came to ask me to buy a pair of weighing machines which he had bought he said with some rags. I did not buy them, I said: "I do not want them, they are no good to me." After that he gave me a bag. He said nothing. I put it on my kitchen floor. I did not look inside it. I was still talking about this weighing machine and I was going to look at what was in the bag afterwards. He was still talking by the back door when Sergeant Gillan came in. About five minutes had elapsed between the time that Woodley co me to my place and Gillan coming. I had not examined the contents of the bag during those five minutes, nor did I weigh it. I have scales in

my yard, but I bad not been into my yard. I should have to go to the top of the yard and I never went out of the house. I did not bargain for the contents of the bag nor did I pay for them. My daughter-in-law was present at the time and saw all that took place. I had not a farthing in my bands, nor yet a farthing on me. I had 5s. 5d. in the house upstairs in my purse. I fetched the purse down during the absence of Sergeant Gillan. I said to my daughter-in-law: "I will go upstairs and fetch my money," and I went upstairs and got it. I expect my daughter-in-law is here to-day, I have not seen her. Sergeant Gillan did not show me this stuff; he showed me nothing. He took the bag up and just opened it and looked at it, but he pointed out nothing whatever. If I bad looked at the contents of the bag I think I should have given it back to prisoner. If I bad looked I should have known it was dangerous. I did not know that it bad upon it the stamp of the Railway. I can see the stamp on the piece produced, but I have not seen it before. I did not take the metal out of the handkerchief and put it into the bag, which is one of a lot of fish baskets lying out in the yard. I do not know what I use them for particularly, but I have to go to market sometimes—to fetch a bit of fish generally. After Sergeant Gillan had arrested Woodley he was in the washhouse; he stood by the washhouse door. This bag was on my kitchen-floor. I was frightened at the time. I took it from the floor and put it on to the table. I thought there was something going on that did not ought to be. I had a cloth on the table, and I was moving it, when Gillan said, "You need not cover it up." I said, "I am not covering it up; here is what he has brought." I held the cloth up because I was frightened. This is the first time I have ever been in trouble in my life.

Cross-examined. The police came to see me once before about some rubber, and asked me if I bought some rubber, and I said I never bought it. The police had warned my husband twice. It is not true that they have been three times to warn me. I should not have taken the copper if I had known it bad had a mark upon it. The other copper Gillan found was left to me by my husband. Before he died be said, "Look after that stuff in the coal cellar, and also them horse shoes in the yard." My husband never bought anything to my knowledge which was stolen. I cannot see the marks "L. & S. W." on metal produced to me. I knew Woodley was a rag and bone man, and I had bought old iron of him; that is all. When he saw me be had the bag in his hand at the back door. I did tot know what was in it because I had not looked. I knew there was something in it, but I did not examine it well enough to know what it was. I was looking after those scales, I was going to tell him to take it away if there was anything wrong. My reason for taking it indoors and putting it on the floor was to examine it and see what it was. This is the first time Woodley brought any metal to me. He was talking to me about five minutes before Gillan arrived. We were talking mostly about the scales. He was

asking me to buy them. I said they were no use to me. I put the metal between the table and the window on the kitchen floor. I picked it up, but not in the way Gillan stated. I picked it up and put it on the table because I was frightened. My daughter-in-law who was there did not come towards the table to take it away. Neither Gillan nor the other sergeant pointed out to me that it was marked with the mark of the L. B and S.C. Railway. The marks were never shown to me at all. It is not true that Harvey said, "I should be charged with receiving the metal." He did not say anything of the kind. All he said was: "You will have to come up to the station." I do not know that I said to Gillan, when he asked me if I had bought any copper of this man this morning: "No, I have not. May the Lord strike me dead if I ever bought any metal from him." I said, "I never bought any metal of him; this is the first lot that he has brought here." It is not true that I had some money in my hand. I am perfectly, innocent of having had a farthing on me. At the police court I said, I only had the penny in my hand that morning, which I spent for milk. I did not have a farthing in my hand, as I had paid for my milk.

Re-examined. In my trade old iron is not called "metal," and I don't consider iron is metal. I never bought metal from Woodley before. I have never examined this other metal (produced) in my life, and do not remember when it was bought by my husband. The first time I knew that I had this metal in the house was when my husband told me that he had some copper in the coal cellar. I have never examined it. I did not know that there were any marks on it Sergeant Gillan has called twice to warn me. On the first occasion became and asked if the boy had brought rubber to my place. I bad not bought the rubber. It is true that the boy had brought the rubber, but I told him it was no good to me, because it was canvas rubber. He did not warn me. He told my husband that he should have him. There was nothing to warn me about, because I had not bought it. It was about two months before my husband died that Gillan came to me on the second occasion in respect to 3/4 cwt. of old iron springs. I do not know that my husband satisfied him where the springs came from. I took Gillan into the yard, and we found the iron which he asked for. There was one piece short. My husband said, "I will find it in the morning," I do not remember Sergeant Harvey telling me that I should be charged with receiving stolen property at all. I told him that I had not paid for the metal. I do not remember telling him he was too soon on the job.

WALTER HUGHES , plumber, gasfitter, and sanitary engineer of the firm of W. Hughes and Co., opposite Wimbledon Station, EDWARD WIGGINS, coach builder, Wimbledon, and WILLIAM FRANCIS, green-grocer, Wimbledon, deposed to having known Mrs. Hone for many years, during which time she had borne the reputation of an honest, straightforward and hardworking woman.

THOMAS STONE , wholesale dealer in oilcloth, East Road, South Wimbledon. I live about three or four doors away from Mrs. Hone,

and have known her for 20 years; during that period she has borne the reputation of an honest and respectable woman.

Cross-examined. She has not taken an active part in the business ever since I have known her. I cannot say whether her husband used to go out hawking.

LOUISA HONE . I am the daughter-in-law of Prisoner Hone, and live with her, having married her son. I remember teeing sergeant Gillan coming to our place. I had just come downstairs, and was sitting in a chair combing my hair out. I did not see Woodley until Sergeant Gillan brought him in from the washhouse door, but I heard him speak. When Gillan blew his whistle Mrs. Hone said, "Oh, good God, Gillan, don't do that. You will frighten every-body." I did not see any money in her hands. I could be on my oath she had no money. Gillan went away after blowing his whistle, and a policeman came in. Then Mrs. Hone said, "I am going upstairs to get my money," because she had got her clothes on, and Sergeant Gillan had told her she would have to go to the court with Woodley. I was there the whole of the time Gillan was talkins to Mrs. Hone. The scales now produced are the ones they were talking about. Mrs. Hone said, "Here is what he has brought. I have not bought it, and I have not paid for it." I did not see Gillan point out any copper to Mrs. Hone.

Cross-examined. I was there all the time. I did not see either Harvey or Gillan point out any marks on the copper to Mrs. Hone. I only left the kitchen once to get my baby, and neither of the sergeants was there while I was away. One of them went before I went upstairs and the other came in after I came down again I cannot remember what they said about the metal being portions of a lamp. They did not say much about it. They started immediately searching the house. I had never seen the other copper found in the coal cellar, and did not know it was there. I had only been there about ten weeks, and do not know for what purpose the cellar was used. Mrs. Hone picked up the basket from the washhouse and carried it into the kitchen, and placed it on the table and covered it up. I walked towards the table and stood against it there. I did not go there to take the basket. I never gave it a thought. I did not see what was in it; I am not shortsighted. The basket produced is not the one that was on the table, which I think had handles to it. It is true that Mrs. Hone was standing with her back to the table, with the basket behind her and a cloth over it. I think she was frightened and did not know what to do. I did not look at the basket: all I did was to stand up. I did not say anything. Not very long after Gillan came he blew his whistle. The reason for Mrs. Hone having no money with her was because she always takes her money upstairs with her every night and leaves one penny downstairs for milk. When they were talking about the scales I sat and did not take any notice. I did not know that it was anything at all to do with me. It did not strike me as peculiar. I sat there combing my hair out.

JOHN WOODLEY (prisoner, on oath). I have pleaded guilty to stealing this copper. On May 25 I went to 25, East Street, and took with me the copper and a pair of scales. I offered the scales to Mrs. Hone for sale; she refused to buy them, as she said she had a pair already. I had a bag containing the copper, and was going to ask her to buy it. She had not bought it. The copper was on the floor. I had no negotiations with regard to it. There was no money in her hand at all that I saw, Gillan never pointed out the copper to her; he simply took the copper out of the bag and showed it to the other officer. I was close to Mrs. Hone. I put it in the big myself unknown to her. I knocked at the door and asked her to buy the scales. I have never in my life sold or attempted to sell metals to Mrs. Hone before.

Cross-examined. I had been there before, and to tell the truth I went there to sell the copper, but I did not like to approach the subject all at once so I asked her to buy the scales. I took some iron there before which I bought from Mr. Campbell, the builder, at a sale; it was 5 or 6 cwt. I never took anything else there. I had been there several times before for different people when her husband was alive, in regard to buying chimney bars. She never bought anything of me. Mrs. Hone's scales were in the yard.

There was a bag in the yard belonging to her and I put the copper in it. I never heard her say "I took it out of his handkerchief and put it in the bag." I took it out of my handkerchief and put it in the bag myself, because it looked better, as I was going to ask her to buy it. I then knocked at the door and she came out. I asked her to buy the scales. I bad the bag in my hand, then I gave her the bag in her hand with the metal in it, and she put it on the floor, but before I could approach the subject Sergeant Gillan came in. I remember the detective saying, Mrs. Hone standing by, "Where is that metal I saw you take up just now?" I said, "You never saw me with metal. What do you mean?" She did not say a word about what I had given her some in a bag, or about there being some on the floor. He said "You cannot do me like that. What have you got there covering up?" I cannot say why she should be frightened. She said, "I have not bought it. I have not paid for it. This man brought it to me this morning." On July 26, 1894, I was convicted at Southwark Police Court, of larceny, and sent to an industrial school; in July, 1898, for burglary and sentenced to nine months' hard labour, at South London Sessions; August 10, 1899, larceny, two months; December, 1899, Guildford Assises, housebreaking, four years' penal servitude, in the name of John Jenkins; on August 13,1904, Southwark Police Court, fined 20s. or fourteen days for stealing.

Verdict, Hone, guilty; strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury as a first offence. Sentence. Woodley, five years' penal servitude; Hone, nine months' hard labour.


(Monday, July 2, 1906;)

MR. JUSTICS BIGHAM . Mr. Mathews, will you let me mention the case that came to an abortive conclusion on Saturday—that of Adcock? I have carefully considered the evidence in that case, and in my opinion a conviction would be undesirable. I do not think it would be reasonably possible to bring guilt home to the man on the evidence, which, in my opinion, is not sufficient. I do not desire to interfere with anything that the prosecution might choose to do, nor can I say that the prosecution should be abandoned; but I think it desirable that you should know my opinion, so that it may be taken into consideration when the prosecution determine the course they will pursue.

MR. MATHEWS. I am grateful to your Lordship for that expression of opinion, and I will convey the intimation your Lordship has given me to the Attorney-General, and it of course will have his very careful consideration in determining what course should be pursued by the prosecution.

View as XML