Old Bailey Proceedings.
18th March 1907
Reference Number: t19070318

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
18th March 1907
Reference Numberf19070318

Related Material

1907, MARCH.

Vol. CXLVI.] [Part 870.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]









On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, March 18th, 1907, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Bart., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Right Hon. LORD ALVERSTONE, G.C.M.G. (Lord Chief Justice of England); Sir J. WHITTAKER ELLIS, Bart., Sir JOSEPH RENALS, Bart., Sir ALFRED J. NEWTON, Bart., Sir JOHN C. BELL, Sir T. VESEY STRONG, W. GUTHRIE, Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K. C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET , K. C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and His Honour Judge RENTOUL, K. C., Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.












(Monday, March 18.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-1
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BODIMEADE, George Sidney (22, cook), pleaded guilty to stealing 10 jars of marmalade and other articles, the goods of William Ernest Read, bis master; stealing four backs of bacon and other articles, the goods of his said master. He also confessed to a conviction at Middlesex Sessions on February 18, 1905, of felony, with a sentence of two years' imprisonment; several other previous convictions were proved. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-2
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > other institution

Related Material

FAIREY, George (16, labourer), pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a place of Divine worship, St. Mary's Mission Hall, Willesden, and stealing therein one pair of piano sconces, and other goods of James Dixon, and feloniously receiving same; breaking and entering a place of Divine worship, the Congregational Church, Harlesden, with intent to steal therein. He also confessed to a conviction, at Harlesden Petty Sessions, on September 28, 1905, of larceny, and one two other previous convictions were proved.

The Recorder said the Court would make an effort—he did not know whether it would be successful or not—to save the prisoner from a career of crime. A sentence would be passed upon him for the purpose of his being sent to a prison where the Borstal system had been introduced, under which, while under strict discipline, he would be taught a trade which it might be hoped would be of service to him when he was released, and would keep him away from evil companions. The Home Office desired that sentences under these circumstances should be long, in order that the Borstal system should have a chance of success. He sentenced the prisoner to two years' imprisonment under the Borstal system.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-3
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HARGERSON, John (35, agent), pleaded guilty to stealing 13 1/2 yards of velvet, the goods of Edward Lock, and feloniously receiving The Court met for the first time in the new Sessions House. (See Supplement.)

Same He also confessed to a conviction, at this Court, on September 9,1902, in the name of William Jackson, with a sentence of three years' penal servitude, for stealing goods from boys in the streets by means of a trick, and a number of other previous convictions for similar offences were proved. Prisoner's method was to stand at the door of a snap or warehouse, as if belonging to the place, and upon an errand boy passing with a parcel, stop the boy, and induce him to earn a few coppers by fetching some stamps or telegraph form, leaving the parcel with prisoner, who decamped as soon as the boy was out of sight. Sentence, 20 months' hard labour.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-4
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LUKE. Jane Jeffrey (36, lady's maid) ; forging and uttering an order for the payment of £30 15s., with intent to defraud; forging and uttering an order for £3 15s., so as to make it appear to be one for £30 15s., and uttering same.

Mr. Vaughan Roderick prosecuted.

GEORGE FAUDELL GURAND . In January, 1905, prisoner was left in charge of my mother's house, 108-9, Marine Parade, Brighton. I was with my mother in Switzerland when she posted to the Brighton rate collector a cheque for £3 15s. The cheque (produced) bears my mother's signature; it was drawn for £3 15s., and made payable to the rate collector; the amount has been altered to £30 15s., and the payee's name to "J. J. Luke," and the alterations are initialled "F. W. G."; these alterations are not in my mother's writing.

To Prisoner. When I spoke to you about the cheque you told me that at the time you did not know what you were doing. I think now than you were not responsible for your actions.

To the Recorder. I mean by "not responsible" that prisoner used to do very foolish things, and was quite eccentric.

WILFRID GOLD .I keep an hotel in George Street, Marylebone. In March, 1905, prisoner came to my hotel; she had no luggage. She paid 5s. 6d. for her first night's lodging. She stayed nearly three weeks, and ran up a bill of nearly £20. Two days after she came she handed my cashier a small bag, in which was a cheque. This is the cheque (produced); ft is for £30 15s. At the end of her first week I asked prisoner whether I might present the cheque; she asked me to hold it over; the same thing occurred the following week I gave her credit on the faith of the cheque. The third week she consented to my paying in the cheque, and I did so; it was returned. Prisoner had left just before I paid in the cheque, and I did not see her again until she was arrested last month.

To Prisoner. The morning after you arrived you told me you had come up without any money, and I voluntarily lent you some.

ELLEN STORY , cashier to last witness. I saw prisoner on her coming to the hotel in March. 1905. She handed me a bag containing some coppers and a cheque; I identify the cheque (produced); I handed it to Gold to put in the safe.

Sergeant ALBERT DRAPER, B Division. On February 27 last I arrested prisoner on a warrant. I read the warrant to prisoner, and

showed her the cheque. She said, "I received it from Mrs. Gurand to pay taxes with. The amount was wrong, and I received it back from the tax-collector. I afterwards altered it, but I did it whilst wider the influence of morphia; in fact, I do not remember doing it; I know I did it, but I do not remember the act itself. I never do remember anything that I do when I am under that influence." She also said that she was in great poverty, and was hoping to he able to raise some money on a mortgage. I received the warrant in April, 1905; prisoner had then gone to Belgium; it was not thought worth while to have her extradited. I received information of her return last month, and then arrested her. At the police court she made no reply to the charge.


JANE JEFFREY LUKE (prisoner, on oath). I have not the smallest recollection of altering or changing the cheque. I recollect going to the hotel. I mortgaged my income some years ago; I thought it was not mortgaged to the full amount, and I came up to London with the intention of raising more money. I do not recollect having this cheque with me when I came up.

The jury found prisoner guilty, but considered that the hotel keeper should be censured for his credulity.

The Recorder said he would treat the offence rather as a fraud than a forgery; he believed prisoner was perfectly responsible for her acts. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-5
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HARDING, George (40, traveller) ; obtaining by false pretences from Sidney Blow and A. W. Gamage, Limited, two gold rings with intent to defraud.

SIDNEY BLOW , salesman to Gamage, Limited, jewellery department. On Friday, February 22, between 7.30 and eight, prisoner came in and wanted to see a wedding ring and also a belcher ring, which I showed him, the value together being £3. He tendered a cheque for £6 5s. (produced), drawn by Negretti and Zambra in favour of R. D. Carter, on the London City and Midland Bank, and dated February 20; prisoner said it was as good as the Bank of England. I gave the cheque to the shopwalker, who referred me to the counting house. The cheque was initialled on the back by the manager of the counting house. I paid it in to the cash desk, and got the receipt and £3 5s. in exchange. I gave prisoner the change and the receipt and he went away. I had never seen him before. The next time I saw him was on March 7. On that day I went down to Ludgate Hill, to the "Old London" public-house; there I saw prisoner; as soon as I got in he got up and went away. There were about a dozen people there I should say; I at once recognised prisoner. He went out and crossed the road. I followed with the detective, and the latter stopped him in Ludgate Hill. Those are the rings (produced). When he was arrested prisoner said nothing to me.

To Prisoner. You might have said, "I suppose it is as good as the Bank of England."I should say you were less than half an hour in the shop; roughly about 20 minutes. I do not know that we will get the best part of the money back; I know nothing about that.

FREDERICK WILLIAM CLARK , shopwalker at Gamage's. I remember prisoner coming in and making a purchase at the jewellery counter, and the salesman handed me the cheque (produced), which I sent to the counting house. The latter accepted the cheque, and it was cashed at the cash desk. I heard a remark passed as to the cheque by the accused: "It is as good as the Bank of England." A few days afterwards I was told the cheque had been returned, marked "signature differs."

To Prisoner. You may possibly have said, "I suppose it is as good as the Bank of England."I should say you were in the shop about a quarter of an hour. You did not tell me you had just come from Negretti and Zambra's. As to our getting any of the money back, I know that when you were taken into custody there was found on you £4 15s.

MARK WILLIAM ZAMBRA , manager to Negretti and Zambra. The firms cheques are signed by Mr. Negretti, Mr. Zambra, or myself. The signature on cheque (produced) is not ours. I do not know the name of the payee; nor do I know the prisoner.

To Prisoner. I could not say whether the clerks on the first floor were there after the ground floor had been closed; it is possible. I most probably had left. The outer door is closed to customers after seven. There is a separate entrance which might be open.

CHARLES RUSSELL , cashier at the London City and Midland Bank. I remember cheque (produced) being presented. It was sent back marked "signature differs." The cheque came from a book which belonged to G. Berkeley Hill, a solicitor, and which was issued on April 18, 1904. The unused cheques were returned. Mr. Hill is dead.

To Prisoner. I suppose the cheque book would be returned with all the unused cheques. We might issue loose cheques to a customer we knew.

HENRY JAMES BRAND , manager at Sidney Smith's, pawnbroker, 1 Upper Street, Islington I advanced prisoner 15s. on a gent's gold belcher ring on February 23. On March 2 he came again, when he said he wanted to sell that ring, and also his wife's wedding ring. I purchased the latter for 19s., and he redeemed the belcher ring, which I bought for 173. I knew prisoner for three or four years as a customer. On March 6 he signed the receipt (produced).

To Prisoner. My impression was that you said it was your wife's wedding ring you wished to sell. I feel pretty confident of that, I remember having some conversation about the rings, but I do not remember exactly what it was.

Detective-Inspector FRANK HALLAM. On March 7 I was in Ludgate Hill with Detective-Sergeant Newell, and Clark and Blow,

about five o'clock, when I saw accused leave the "Old London" public-house hurriedly. I stopped him, and told him what he was charged with. He said he did not know anything about it. I then took him into custody, and at Snow Hill Police Station he admitted he was the man who sold the rings. He gave his correct address, 24, Britannia Row, Islington.

To Prisoner. You have given the police no assistance whatever; I don't know anything of a man named Russell, nor that your wife had a stamped telegram ready to wire to the police as soon as this Russell turned up.

Detective CHARLES FREUCHAM, plain clothes patrol, in reply to prisoner. You have spoken about a man and woman named Russell. Your wife said that Russell had been to her place, and she was going to put him away for bringing you into this job. I looked up the information, and found that a woman named Russell was wanted. The man Russell is not circulated as wanted; I do not know that he is now. I do not know that your wife had a telegram ready to send off to the police as soon as she had any information to give.

To the Judge. The above took place on March 7. Prisoner said he would give all the information he could. He said Russell's wife was wanted for stealing a diamond pin, and Russell for standing bail and both absconding.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I reserve my defence and witnesses. I ask for bail in order to find the man from whom I received this cheque."


GEORGE HARDING (prisoner, on oath). A man named Charles Fred Russell was indebted to me for £1 8s. 6d., money lent; he had promised to pay me on February 22 if I met him at 6.15. I met him at a billiard hall adjoining Moorgate Street Station. He then said, "Well, I have got the money, but I have only got a cheque, end I cannot pay you till I get it cashed. It is a crossed cheque, sad therefore will have to go through a bank. "He said it was from a customer of his. Russell is a commercial traveller with Long and Co., in Leadenhall Street. His brother is the manager there. I pointed out to Russell that the cheque was not payable to him. He lea me to believe Carter, the payee, was the customer from whom he received it. I said I thought anyone would change it with such a veil known name on it. He said if I could change it I might do so, and keep what he owed me. I was to meet him again at the same place that evening at half-past nine to give him the change. He told me I should not be able to change the cheque without buying something. I said, "What shall I buy?" He replied, "I have been going to buy myself a belcher ring; you can give 25s. or 30t. for it; I don't want to pay more." When he left me it was about quarter to seven. It then occurred to me that Negretti and Zambra's would

themselves cash the cheque. I went to their place; the front door was shut; one of the assistants who was standing there told me to go round to the office; I went there and saw their clerks, and showed them the cheque; they said that the manager had gone, and that I would have to call in the morning. I then left. On pasting Gamage's, seeing jewellery in one of the windows, I went in and bought the two rings as described. At half past nine I met Russell, and showed him the rings and the £3 5s. change; he kept 35s. and gave me 30s., which was 1s. 6d. more than he owed me. I told him that I had bought not only his ring, but one that I wanted to give to my wife. He said he thought he could not really afford the belcher ring, and gave it to me to resell for as much as I could. Next day I went and pledged the ring; I thought he would not like it sold for 16s., so I pawned it. Russell had promised to meet me in the same place the next day; I went, and he did not keep the appointment, and I have not seen him from that day to this. My wife has told me that he called when I was at my house, and asked her whether I had got into any trouble about a cheque. (To the Recorder.) I understood that I was not allowed to call my wife as a witness, or I would have had her here. I immediately went to Long's and saw Russell's brother; he knew nothing of Russell's movements except that he had left his lodgings at Brixton.

Cross-examined. I did not tell this story to the police; I thought I must wait till I came into Court. I knew Russell at Hastings 20 years ago; he is very respectably connected; his father is a clergyman. I have taken no steps to bring Russell's brother here; I thought he would be no good. My wife and a detective have been hanging about the office for days trying to find Russell himself.

To the Recorder. My wife wanted to give evidence here, but I wrote from Brixton Prison to tell her that she would not be allowed to give evidence. I wish she was here. I shall be glad of a postponement.

The hearing was adjourned till to-morrow, to enable Russell, the manager of Long's, and the prisoner's wife, to attend.

(Tuesday, March 19)

JOSEPH HENRY RUSSELL , 39, Cromwell Grove, West Kensington Park. (By the Court.) I am an agent for T. Meredith Roberts and Co., Hull, and share an office with a friend at 52, Leadenhall Street. I have a brother, Charles Frederick, of no occupation. It is not correct that he is in my business, nor is he a traveller for A. W. Long and Co. whose office I share. I last saw prisoner about February 22. He called at the office to ask if he could see my brother, or if I could give him his address. I told him I could not. I had seen prisoner about five times before. When I first saw him he was with my brother, who turns up periodically when he wants anything. He is a ne'er-do-well. I have no knowledge of this case. I had a letter from prisoner's wife on Saturday.

To Prisoner. I believe you said you wanted to see my brother very particularly. I told you I had not seen him for some time, and had so idea where he was. I said I should be glad not to see him or his wife, as they were a continual nuisance to me at the office. I told you if I saw him I would tell him you wanted to see him. I do not know now where he is.

Cross-examined. I cannot say definitely when prisoner came to me. I think it was before February 22. He did not make any complaint about a cheque my brother had given him. I did not know the late Mr. Hill, a solicitor, and do not know that he was a friend of my family.

Mrs. HARDING (prisoner's wife). I could not get here before, as I had not a penny and had to walk to Hozton to get some money. "Jack" Russell came to my house one day and said, "Where is George?" meaning my husband. I said, "He is not at home." He said, "Has he got into any bother over some cheque?" I said, "What do you mean? No. "He said, "If he has, tell him he must scoot at once. "I told my husband when he came home, and that is as much as I know. I said, "What have you got to scoot for? I am very comfortable here. I am not going to move away. "I have three little babies. I have been to the police to try to find Russell and wrote an anonymous letter to his brother the other day telling him my husband was taken for a cheque and that he had left two rings behind him, and if he would come back I would give them up to him, thinking his brother would get Jack Russell to come. I have helped the police all I can, but cannot find him. I have been married seven years. We were very badly off, and I had to pledge my wedding ring and have never redeemed it. This letter of March 16 is in my writing: "Dear Mr. Russell,—Can you tell me where Jack or Queenie are? They came to me about a fortnight ago and I was out. I am sorry to say my George is locked up for a dishonoured cheque He bought two beautiful rings. I want Queenie or Jack to get rid of them for me," etc. If they thought I had got the rings Jack Russell would have been the first to come if he thought that they were worth anything, because they have asked me to place jewellery which they have come by dishonestly which I would not do.

Cross-examined. I only suggested in the letter getting rid of the rings.

To Prisoner. Jack and Queenie came to me one day to pawn a diamond ring which Mrs. Russell had stolen, and I would not They pawned it and went to Portsmouth. That is the last I heard of them. Verdict, Guilty of obtaining the money by means of a forged cheque. The Jury added that they thought Messrs. Gamage had been guilty of great carelessness in taking the cheque from an entire stranger, in which remark the Court concurred.

Prisoner confessed to being convicted of fraud at the Lewes Quarter Sessions on October 20, 1903, in the name of George Frederick Harding, and other convictions were proved.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

The Recorder commended the position of prisoner's wife to me. Scott France, the Court Missionary, for temporary help.


(Monday, March 18.)

CASEY, Annie (23, factory worker); convicted at January (1) Sessions (see page 244) of possessing counterfeit coin, and uttering same, was sentenced to imprisonment for one day, on the report of the Court Missionary that she was now getting an honest living.

MARSH, Millicent (19, nursemaid); convicted of perjury at last March Sessions (see page 654), came up for sentence.

Mr. W. W. Grantham having addressed the Court on behalf of prisoner.

Mr. Scott France, the Court Missionary, stated that prisoner could be placed in a home at Leicester, temporarily, from which she would be sent to a suitable situation.

The Common Serjeant said that, the general opinion of the jury and of those who had sat on the Bench during the trial being that prisoner had acted under the influence of those more strongly-minded, she would be allowed to enter the home, and would be bound over to come up for judgment if called upon.

(Tuesday, March 19.)

Prisoner was handed over to the care of Miss Hibbs for conveyance to the home at Leicester, being bound over in her own recognisances in the sum of £20, the Common Serjeant informing her that if there was no cause of complaint she would hear no more of the matter.

(Monday, March 18.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-8
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

NUTKINS, William (29, engineer), and PURSLOVE, John Lambert (35, engineer); were tried at last Sessions on charges of fraud in connection with horse racing (see page 558), when the jury disagreed. On their now coming up for re-trial, Sir Charles Mathews for the prosecution offered no evidence, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-9
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

REED, Edward Frederick (27, carman), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Louisa Charlotte Havell, his wife being then alive. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-10
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

EALES, John (46, labourer), pleaded guilty to stealing 32 1/2 lb. of sheet lead, the goods of G. Ball and others, and feloniously receiving same. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-11
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > other institution

Related Material

WALLIS, George (19, labourer), pleaded guilty to breaking and entering a certain place of Divine worship, to wit, St. Matthew's Church, Oakley Square, with intent to steal therein. A previous conviction was proved. Sentence, Twelve months' in Borstal Prison.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-12
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

WHEELER, Walter Henry (formerly a soldier), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Harriet Rosina Edney, his wife being then alive.

Prisoner married the widow of Sergeant Inglis, of the 5th Royal Irish, at Meerut, in 1897. Being afterwards sent to South Africa he was separated from his wife, and contracted the bigamous marriage in 1903. In June, 1902, he was discharged from the army as unfit for service, receiving a pension of 1s. per day.

Sentence, Two months' imprisonment, hard labour being remitted so as not to affect prisoner's pension.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-13
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

GREENWOOD, Basil (28, estate agent), pleaded guilty that beings trustee of certain property for the use and benefit of Mary Jane Dunville Pearson, he did convert part of the said property and the proceeds thereof, to wit, the several sums of £10 10s., £5, £5, £10, £10, and £300, to his own use and benefit. Sentence, Four months' hard labour.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-14
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

WEBB, Jane (42) ; feloniously wounding Ethel Webb, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. E. H. Coumbe prosecuted. Mr. R. C. Lambert defended.

Sergeant RICHARD RICKETTS, Y Division. On January 12 last prisoner came to the police station at Caledonian Road and made the following statement: "I have struck my child on the head with an iron. She is on the bed bleeding." I said, "Is the dead and where is she?"She replied, "No, not yet. She is at 3, Luard Street on the top floor. There is other people in the house. I do not know why I did it. "I detained her and went to the house. In a back room on the top floor I found the child Ethel Webb bleeding from two severe wounds at the back of the head. The flat iron produced was handed to me, smeared with blood. In the front room I found a bowl containing blood and water and a blood-stained cloth. There were splashes of blood about the room. Prisoner was sober, but very distressed.

Constable CHARLES ADAMS369 Y. On January 12 I met prisoner at the doorstep of the Caledonian Road Station. She said, "Will you come round to No. 3, Luard Street?" When I said, "What fort" she replied, "I have knocked my little girl on the head with a flat iron. "We found the girl bleeding from two cuts at the back of the head. There was a bowl of blood and water in the front room. The flat iron produced was smeared with blood.

Cross-examined. The child's head appeared to have been washed.

MAROARET FRASRR , M. B., and S. B. Lond. and house physician at the Royal Free Hospital. On January 12 Ethel Webb was brought to the hospital. I examined her and found two wounds at the back of the scalp and there was a sign of a slight fracture at the base of the

skull. The head had the appearance of having been recently washed. There was a good deal of hemorrhage from one of the wounds, which might have been produced with the iron produced. The child has made a perfect recovery from its injuries.

Cross-examined. If a child were hit with such an iron with any force I should expect a very serious wound indeed. The wounds are consistent with the iron having been dropped on the child if dropped from a great height, but it would have had to be dropped more than once I think there must have been two separate blows. Unless the iron had been dropped from a great distance there must have been force used.

ELLEN WILLIAMS , wife of Benjamin Williams, living at 3, Luard Street, Islington. I remember hearing Mrs. Webb and her little girl in the front room on January 12. I saw Mrs. Webb go out and shortly afterwards a constable came.

Cross-examined. Prisoner and her little girl have been in the house about a year and ten months. I knew them pretty well. Prisoner was a very good mother and seemed very fond of the child. So far as I know, she never ill-treated her in any way and seemed a thoroughly respectable woman. I never once saw her cruel to the child.

ETHEL WEBB , aged 11. On this particular day I was dusting the front room. I remember that it was a Saturday. I was stooping down dusting a chair when something dropped on my head I felt it strike me once and my head began to bleed. Mother bathed it and laid me on the bed. She then went out to fetch the doctor and I was taken away to the hospital.

GEORGE MATHEW GRIFFITHS , medical officer, Holloway Prison. On January 12 prisoner was brought to the prison. She was very dazed and depressed and understood very little of what was said to her, and it was very difficult to carry on a conversation with her. She was very tearful, and in the midst of conversation would cry out, "I cannot realise it. "I kept her under observation, and reported to the police in a week's time. I thought on the 12th she was insane, and if called upon to certify her as a lunatic I would have done so. She was suffering from melancholia, which would result from a lowered physical condition arising from dyspepsia. I would not certify her as insane at the present moment, but her general condition is that of feeble health and her mental condition is doubtful. If I saw her now for the first time I should not certify her as insane. On January 12 she was undoubtedly insane, in my opinion.

Cross-examined. It is very possible that the sudden shock of an accident and finding she had injured her child might in her then state of health have resulted in turning her brain.

To the Common Serjeant. She has been in hospital the whole time she has been in prison, and, as the result of hospital treatment, she has improved.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding without responsibility for her actions.

The Common Serjeant said that prisoner would be detained and taken care of as long as it was necessary.


(Tuesday, March 19.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-15
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

LOWE, John Walter (40, draughtsman), pleaded guilty to feloniously sending to Edwin Healey a certain letter threatening to accuse him of an infamous crime with intent to extort from him certain moneys.

Mr. R. D. Muir prosecuted. Mr. W. Warren appeared for prisoner.

The Lord Chief Justice, in passing sentence, said the case was an exceptional one, and there was something in it he could not understand. There seemed to be no motive for the acts committed, and the prisoner had always borne a most excellent character, otherwise he should have passed a severer sentence. He would communicate with the Home Secretary (and the prisoner would be at liberty to do so) to see if any inquiry could be made as to whether he was suffering from anything to account for his act.

Sentence, Twelve months in the second division.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-16
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WHITEFOORD, Caleb Charles (65, medical practitioner) ; feloniously using certain instruments and means other than poison or noxious things or instruments with intent to procure the miscarriage of Emily Kentish.

Mr. it. D. Muir and Mr. Symmons prosecuted. Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., and Mr. Forrest Fulton defended.

Verdict. Guilty, but the Jury recommended prisoner to mercy on the ground of his great age and his physical infirmities. Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this Court on June 29,1901, of felony and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. This conviction was also for procuring abortion. There were nine other indictments (relating to six women) left on the file of the Court. The police had particulars of six other cases, as to which indictments had not been preferred. Sentence, Ten years' penal servitude.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-17
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ENDRES, George (31, turner) ; feloniously wounding Marie Endres, his wife, with intent to kill and murder her, and to do her some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. C. W. Nicholson prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

SYDNEY LANX DUPRXB . I assist my uncle at his wholesale linen warehouse, 29, Warwick Lane, City. Mrs. Endres was employed there as an embroiderer. On the morning of February 20 prisoner called and asked to see her; I called her from her work, and left the

two of them talking together, returning myself to my office. Shortly after I heard a scream; I went to them, and found that the woman had a wound in her neck. Prisoner said to me, "You can give me in charge, and send for a doctor."

Cross-examined. Prisoner seemed rather excited; I did not see him binding up the wound.

Inspector ROBERT MOODY, City Police. I was called to 29, Warwick Lane; I saw prisoner standing in a room, and a woman lying bleeding from wounds in the throat. Prisoner said to me, "I have done it, and now I want you to charge Mr. "There was another man there, and prisoner was helping him to bind up the woman's throat. Prisoner handed me the razor (produced), saying, "This is what I did it with. "

Cross-examined. From inquiries I find that prisoner is a man of good character; he has been in one situation five years. He had been separated from his wife for seven weeks, but during that time had supported her. I know a man named Lynock; he has admitted that he had improper relations with Mrs. Endres.

SAUL SMALLHORN , House Surgeon at Bartholomews Hospital. I examined Mrs. Endres on her admission to the hospital. She had two cuts on her neck, about three-quarters of an inch deep, one 3 1/2 and the other 4 £ inches long.

Cross-examined. They were, as it happened, not dangerous wounds. They might have been caused by slashing, but one of them, I think, must have been inflicted intentionally.

MARIS ENDRES . Prisoner is my husband. I was separated from him for eight weeks, but during that time I saw him every day. He had accused me of carrying on with another man. On February 20 he cut my throat with a razor.

Cross-examined. Prisoner has sent me half his wages every week; he had always been a good husband. I know Lynook, and have been intimate with him. Prisoner accused me of this, and I admitted it, and he then slashed me with the razor. Lynock was an old friend of prisoner's.

No evidence was called for the defence, but a letter was put in from Lynock to prisoner, and another from his wife, both admitting misconduct.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawfully wounding. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.


(Tuesday, March 19.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-18
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

FOSTER, Alfred (30), and SHELDRAKE, Thomas (29) ; robbery with violence on Walter Hubert Douglas and stealing from him £4 10s. and a ring.

Mr. Purcell prosecuted.

WALTER HUBERT DOUGLAS , 54, Vicarage Road, Tottenham. I am of independent means. My present injured arm and eye are the result of an accident apart from this case. A friend named Saville came and had tea with me on February 19, and we left about 5.10 and went to the "Prince of Wales" public-house in the High Road, where I cashed a cheque of my own for £5. The landlord gave me five sovereigns in a bank bag, in which I also placed a half-sovereign and put the bag in my right-hand hip-pocket. I was wearing on my little finger a signet ring, value £3 10s. We remained there about 10 minutes, and then went towards High Cross and met the prisoners, who were strangers to Mr. I think Foster spoke to Saville first. They then spoke to Mr. Saville and I went towards High Cross and they followed. We went into the "Ship" tavern and Foster came in and asked for a drink. We had one, which I paid for. Foster then went away. We met him outside with Sheldrake and one or two others. We turned to the left on our way home. Poster said, "Let us go across the way. We can get a drink over the way." I agreed, and we went into the "Plough. "Saville was outside. Foster called for the drinks, and the barmaid refused to serve as. I was not drunk. We left and went towards my house, and Saville followed. We went into the "George and Vulture." Foster called for drinks, and I paid with silver out of my right-hand trousers pocket. We stopped there five or six minutes and then went towards Scotland Green, when Foster proposed we should go into the "Brewery Tap," which we did. Foster called for drinks, and I paid first from my right-hand trousers pocket and for a second drink from my hip pocket. I put the silver in my trousers front pocket, leaving the remainder of the gold in my hip pocket. We stopped about an hour and had several drinks, and then went to the urinal, the prisoners following. That was about 8.30. Foster struck me in the left eye with his fist, and Sheldrake struck me in the body with his fist. I was knocked down, and became partially unconscious. While on the ground I felt somebody dragging at my left hand, on which I had my ring. I was assisted back to the public-house by a man named Steele. I missed the gold out of my pocket and my ring. My keys were hanging by the chain from my pocket. I next saw the prisoners in custody, and picked them out from 10 or 11 others.

Cross-examined by Foster. I met Saville out of doors when he came to tea with Mr. I had no one else with me when we met you and Sheldrake. I did not invite you to have drinks with us. I had not had a fight with the potman of the "Ship" that day. I had as abrasion on my note; not a cut I got that from a friend in the afternoon in play. I do not know whether he is a potman. I had Dot a swollen eye. I can't say how many drinks you had at the "Brewery Tap." I had two or three. We had a drink at the "Ship" and the "George and Vulture," but not at the "Plough."

By the Court. I had, say, half a dozen drinks between dinner and tea before I met prisoners. As a rule, I have a glass of bitter. I think I had a glass of port.

By Foster. I did not treat everybody in the house. I think you did, but at my expense. I was not drunk. I got my present injuries by slipping off a pair of steps on Saturday night trying to put up a picture. I was not in the company of Dick Parkes, a pugilist. I Know him. While in the "Brewery Tap" you made an appointment to see me at my place at 11 the next morning to have a spar, as you said you had some boxing gloves to sell. I did not say I wanted to get into form because I had had a row with the potman at the "Ship" I am an amateur boxer. You might as well ask me about rowing. You posed as a professional, said you had a pair of gloves, and could teach me something about boxing. I did not see Saville give you one of his cards. I was in the company of the "Ship's" potman in the afternoon.

Cross-examined by Sheldrake. I was not in company with men named Nicholls and White when I met you. I did not ask you in the "Brewery Tap" if you knew of a remedy for a swollen and black eye. You both followed me to the urinal. Foster struck me first. I was surrounded by a number of persons when I got my senses.

THOMAS STEELE , foreman painter, 9, Elizabeth Terrace, Tottenham. I went into the "Brewery Tap," Scotland Green, about 8.15 p.m. on February 19, where I saw prisoners, Douglas, and one or two others I only knew Douglas. I was in the same compartment. Foster called for drinks and said, "Walter (Douglas), if you don't pay, I will." He appeared to be on familiar terms with him. Douglas paid for two or three drinks. I left about 8.30 and went towards Scotland Street, where I saw Douglas and prisoners outside the urinal. Foster struck Douglas in the face and Sheldrake struck him in the body. He fell. (The Recorder.) As the result of the blows or his drunken condition. Which was it?—The blows. Sheldrake was at the front part of him and Foster at the back, and, as I got closer, Foster's hand came out of Douglas's hip pocket. They both ran off towards the High Road. I and another man helped Douglas. His keys were hanging by a chain from his pocket. He was taken back to the beer-house. I went to the police station and gave information to Detective Dixon. I then returned and found prosecutor standing outside the shop with another man.

Cross-examined by Foster. I saw you all three go out of the "Brewery Tap" together, and I saw you and Sheldrake hit prosecutor. There was a light over the urinal. I said, "What's up?" and you ran off. I don't know whether I said that at the police court. I have known you for some months by sight. I did not see anyone touch prosecutor's hand when he was down. I am sure you were not lifting him up. He was on his back, but sideways when you took your hand out of his pocket. I know prosecutor to speak to.

Cross-examined by Sheldrake. I did not go to Foster and say when prosecutor fell, "Don't get him locked up." I did not raise an alarm.

To the Court. I thought they were larking, having been drinking together. I did not attach particular importance to their running away. I heard prosecutor say he had lost his money directly he came to He said, "It's all over with Mr. "I said, "What is? Are you hurt? He said, "No; they have had the money out of my pocket and my ring is gone. "

By Sheldrake. I said, "I see the tall man (Foster) take his hand out of your back pocket. "Prosecutor had a red eye at the "Brewery Tap"—not black. I did not hear of his having had a fight that afternoon. I did not hear of any remedies or that Nicholls went out for a tallow candle. There was a cut on prosecutor's note.

CHARLES ARTHUR TIJOU , architect's assistant, 23, Pond Road, Tottenham. I am a stranger to prosecutor and prisoners, and do not recognise prisoners. I was in the urinal, Scotland Green, at the time in question and heard a conversation between some men. They came oat, when the taller man struck prosecutor a very severe blow in the face, which I heard the report of and which knocked him down, and the two men fell on him. There was a rush of six or seven men from the opposite side of the road and they all seemed to be scrambling for something on the ground. I saw Steele there. I waited a minute or two and saw prosecutor brought across the road and taken into the public-house. I did not notice what became of the two men. After hearing from a person who passed, I went to report it to the police and gave a description of what I had seen.

Cross-examined by Foster. I was about 25 ft. away. I saw an arm reach out as the blow was struck. I did not see who struck the blow. A passer-by told me of the robbery. I do not recognise you. My report at the police station was that one was a tallish man and the other short. The tall one struck the blow in the face. I was a casual passer-by.

CHARLES SAVILLE , 11, Elizabeth Terrace, Tottenham. I went to prosecutor's house and had tea with him on February 19. We went to tae "Prince of Wales," where prosecutor changed a cheque. We came out and met prisoners. They spoke to prosecutor. I fell back, and prosecutor walked towards the "Ship" and went in with them. I went into another compartment. I came out and saw them standing on the opposite side of the road. They went into the "George and Vulture."I followed, and we all came out and went to Scotland Green "Brewery Tap," where prosecutor paid for some drinks with a sovereign from his hip pocket. Prosecutor and prisoners went out after nearly an hour. I next saw prosecutor come back with his eye bunged up.

Cross-examined by Foster. Two or three of you came up, and I kept out of your company. I have not known you long to speak to—perhaps a few months. There were four or five in the "Ship" White and Nicholls were there and the prosecutor—perhaps six altogether. I did not see what passed, but I believe prosecutor gave Nicholls something and he went in for drinks. I had not heard that prosecutor had a row with the man at the "Ship" I noticed a little contusion of his nose, but nothing to speak of. I did not notice his eye.

I gave you one of the prosecutor's cards at the "Brewery Tap," making an appointment with the prosecutor the following morning at 11 o'ciock. You were talking about boxing gloves and the price. I did not hear the landlord at the "Vulture" refuse to serve prosecutor. I was served. I do not think prosecutor had been drinking that day. He knew what he was doing. He would not have been served in the last place if he had had too much to drink. The "Brewery Tap" is now closed by compulsion—not from any fault of the landlord's, but there are too many in the neighbourhood. Prosecutor paid for drinks two or three times through your instigation.

Cross-examined by Sheldrake. I was only with prosecutor when you met us. I believe four besides prosecutor went into the "Ship" for drinks. Nicholls paid for drinks and said, "This is one for you. "

Police-constable REGINALD LOWRY, 758 K. I was at the corner of Scotland Green at the time in question. I know the prisoners and saw them going towards the High Road together. Just as they came towards me I saw Foster look at me and nod to Sheldrake, and they went off sharp. One kept on one side of the road and the other went across. I have known them separately; not as being together. Cross-examined by Sheldrake. I was at the corner of Scotland Green at 8.25. I did not hear any disturbance until after you had gone. I know you by sight. I cannot say that you have been convicted. When I saw you speak to Foster and go off sharp I thought there was something wrong. I did not keep observation because I did not know that anything was wrong.

Sergeant ALFRED HALE, 7 N R. I received information on the evening in question, and went towards High Road, Tottenham, about 10.5, and saw the prisoners. I had Constable Thacker with me. We were in the ranks, and he stepped out and got in front of prisoners I followed out to see what was occurring, and thought the prisoners answered the description. I told them I should arrest them as they answered the description of two men who were wanted for assaulting and robbing a man. Foster said, "This is all right," and Sheldrake said, "This is a fine thing. "They were taken to the police station, and put with 10 other men, and were asked if they were satisfied with the men amongst whom they were placed. Foster said he wanted someone taller—about his own stature. He then expressed himself satisfied. Sheldrake did not exactly complain, but said, "What about me, I am 5 ft. nothing—what about me; where am I to go?" and he placed himself among the shortest men. Prosecutor was called in and identified the prisoners at once. The charge was read over and they made no reply. Before the charge was entered Sheldrake said, in the presence of Foster, "What are we charged with?" I repeated what I told him outside and he replied, "I do not know this man; we were not together; this is another police blunder. "

To Foster. You were walking towards me and towards the police station in the High Road.

To Sheldrake. You did not say at the station, "I do not know Foster," but "I do not know this man," pointing to Foster. "We

were not together. "It was possible for you or anyone to see us. I should say it was 300 or 400 yards from the station where you were wrested.

Police-constable ARTHUR THACKER, 342 N. I was with Sergeant Hale and arrested Foster. He said, "Hollo, what's up?" I said, "It is on suspicion of assaulting and robbing a roan to-day. "He said, "This is all right. "They were together. We were going out on duty. Sheldrake said at the station, "This is another police blander. "I searched Foster, and found on him 3s. 6d. in silver and 3d. in bronze.

Detective CHARLES DIXON, N Division. On February 19, at 8.45, I saw Steele at the police station and received information from him. Shortly after prosecutor came in. He was bleeding from a cut on the nose, and his left eye was swollen. His clothes were smothered with blood. From what he said I circulated a description in time for the nights patrol. At 10.30 I saw prisoners at the police station. They were identified by Steele and prosecutor amongst 10 other men. Foster said, "What does he mean? He does not know what he is talking about. We have been treating him all the afternoon. "Sheldrake said, "I have never seen the man before. "I said, "It is a great pity you ran away when he was knocked down. "He said he had been with him and was treating; him all the afternoon. Foster made no reply after that. Sheldrake was referring to the proseentor when he said he had not seen the man before. I have known the prisoners for years as companions.

To Foster. When I said, "What a pity you ran away," I went by the conversation you were addressing to the prosecutor that you had been looking after him all the afternoon. I knew you had run away, from what I had been told. I know you have been living in Tottenham for a considerable number of years.

To Sheldrake. I did not say you were alluding to Foster. Foster Mid, "Give me justice, Charlie. "Of course, he knew my Christian same.

To the Court. I was present at the identification. Prisoners selected their own positions and asked me to fetch two taller men, which I did.


ALFRED FOSTER (prisoner, not on oath) said he met prosecutor, Saville, George White, and Nicholls and another man, whose name he did not know. As he knew Saville, he stopped and spoke to him and prosecutor, when it was suggested that they should have a drink at the "Ship," which they did, that he (Foster) went into the urinal and came back and found prosecutor outside. They went across to the "Plough "for a drink, and the head barman refused them. They then went to the "George and Vulture," where prosecutor called for drinks and got served, and then Saville came in and prosecutor said

to Saville, "Haven't you got yours?" He said, "No" Prosecutor said, "Have one," and he treated him, and then prosecutor was going to have another one, and the landlord said, "I think you have had enough"They all went down to the "Brewery Tap," and prosecutor said he had had a row in the afternoon with the man at the "Ship," and he had heard it since suggested that it was through prosecutor having a row with a man that he had got his injuries that day. They had several drinks at the "Brewery Tap." He (Foster) wanted to pay for the drinks and prosecutor would not allow him. Sheldrake went out to get something to eat, and on coming out they saw prosecutor coming out of the urinal and he stumbled over the cobbles and fell.

RICHARD WILKIN , L. R. C. S., Pembry Lodge, Tottenham. I attended at the Tottenham Police Station on February 19 about 10 p.m. and examined prosecutor. He was suffering from a contused eye and broken nose. He had had some liquor, but I do not think he was drunk.

To Foster. The skin was broken over his nose. He knew what he was doing perfectly well.

To Sheldrake. I do not know whether he had had time to revive. He might pull himself round in about an hour and a half. He had lost a considerable amount of blood from the top of his nose, not from the nostrils.

FOSTER (continuing his defence) said that when prosecutor stumbled he picked him up and Saville came up and said, "Don't let him get locked up Steele took prosecutor out of his hands, and he and Sheldrake then walked away and had something to eat, and as they were walking along in the highway they were taken into custody. There was absolutely no evidence to prove that any robbery had been committed.

THOMAS. SHELDRAKE (prisoner, on oath). I am a painter. About 6.30 on February 19, I was in company with Foster walking towards Edmonton way. When I got near the station I met prosecutor with Nicholls, White, and Saville, and another man. They stopped and spoke to us for two or three minutes when prosecutor said, "Let us go over the road and have a, drink. "We went across to the public bar with Nicholls, White, and the other man, and Foster, and prosecutor went to the private bar. Just 'before we went prosecutor gave Nicholls 1s. We stopped there five or six minutes, and when we came out we met prosecutor outside talking to Foster, and then we went to the" Plough" and the prosecurtor called for drinks. The head barman refused to serve him, thinking he had had enough We went out and went into the "George and Vulture" and had a drink there, and prosecutor called for another drink. We went from there to Scotland Green to the "Brewery Tap," and prosecutor said, "Let us go to Jack's (the proprietor of the house) and have a drink." The prosecutor asked if I knew a remedy for his eye, and he had a cut on his nose. I told him briar root was a good thing,

and Nicholls said, "Tallow candle will stop its getting black; I will go and get you one. "Nicholls got him. one, and asked ham how he came by has black eye. He said he had a fight with the potman at the "Ship," and he was going to get his own back, using a foul expression at the time. When we went out prosecutor was coming from the urinal, and as we got outside the door he stumbled and fell. Foster, being in front of us, rushed and assisted him to get up, and then Steele came out of the public-house and said, "What's the matter with him?" I said, "He has fallen down." He said, "Do not let him get locked up," when Saville came up to help him. I went into the urinal and Foster came in a minute alter and we went towards the High Road to the pork butcher's. I had 6d., so I had three pennyworth of pickled pork and a pennyworth of pease padding and I had 2d. left. We were walking up the High Road about 10.5 when we walked into the constables out on their ten o'clock duty. Two of them stepped out of the ranks and said, "We arrest you." I said, "What for?" They said, "On suspicion of assaulting and robbing a man," and when we got in, naturally enough prosecutor identified us as being in his company and Saville identified us.

Cross-examined. We had not been with prosecutor all the afternoon, only from 6.30. He had been treating us to drinks. He fell down as he came out of the urinal and laid on the ground as he fell. He did not seem to fall heavily. We did not go to help him as he had enough assistance. Foster was helping him. Steele passed us as I was going to the urinal. It is untrue that prosecutor was struck in the face and body. Steele has no animosity against me to my knowledge. I said at the police station that I knew nothing of it. I reserved my defence. I suppose it, is a concocted charge.

GEORGE WHITE , bricklayer, Tottenham. To prisoner Foster. I saw prosecutor with Saville at the time in question. He had a bit of skin off the side of his nose and a red eye, as if he had been hit; I met you with him at the "Prince of Wales." You were with Dick Nicholls and Bay. We then went to the "Brewery Tap. "Nicholls fetched a tallow candle for prosecutor's nose and gave it to him, and he rubbed it on his eye. He was not drunk, hut had had something to drink. Prosecutor paid for drinks, and treated everybody in the house. You offered to pay; we were about an hour there.

Cross-examined. I did not see prosecutor go out off the "Brewery Tap." What I said before the magistrate was true. I did not look at him when he came back with Steele. I did not know that anything had happened. I heard of it about half an hour after. I am not a friend of the prisoners. I have seen them. Foster asked me, to go to the police station.

SHELDRAKE. I don't think there is any evidence. I have never been convicted in my life. I think I have been most falsely charged.

The jury, without desiring his lordship to sum up, acquitted the prisoners, being of opinion that they were all drunk together, and

that there was no evidence that the prisoners had robbed the prosecutor, in which view the Court concurred.


(Tuesday, March 19.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-19
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > with recommendation
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ROE, Arthur (35, clerk), and LANE, Robert Charles (39, clerk) ; both stealing Bank of England notes, banker's cheques and moneys, of the value together of £989 3s. 4d., the goods and moneys of Henry Phillipson Spottiswoode, the master of the said A. Roe, and feloniously receiving same; Roe, stealing a cash box, postage stamps and moneys, of the value together of £3 10s., the goods and moneys of John James Edwards, his master. Roe pleaded guilty.

Mr. Frampton prosecuted; Mr. Rooth defended Lane.

GEORGE JAMES ROWLEY , managing clerk to Mr. H. P. Spottiswoode, solicitor, 30, Norfolk Street, Strand. On the morning of March 6 Roe was in Mr. Spottiswoode's employment, and had been since November 6 of last year, as copying clerk. On March 5 I handed to Mr. Amos, the cashier, Bank of England notes of the value of £685 and 4s. 11d. in cash, and two cheques, one for £300 and one for £3 18s. 5d. I produce the paying in book with those sums entered The slips are torn out, so that I have not the counterfoil stamped by the bank. I saw Roe up to 25 minutes to six in the evening, when I left. I do not know Lane at all.

ALBERT JOHN AMOS , Mr. Spottiswoode's cashier and book-keeper. On March 25 I handed to Roe £685 in notes, two cheques amounting to £303 18s. 5d. and 4s. 11d. in money, together with a paying—in slip for the purpose of paying the total amount to the London and County Bank in Oxford Street.

JOHN DALTON SAMUELS , cashier, London and County Bank, Oxford Street branch. Mr. Spottiswoode has an account at our bank. No such sum as £989 3s. 4d. was paid into the account on March 5. A crossed cheque for £500 was paid in on that day, and on March 6 two cheques, one for £300 and one for £3 18s. 5d. I did not receive £685 in bank notes.

SIDNEY PLOWMAN , assistant to Kimbell and Sons, 182, Aldersgate Street. On the 6th of this month prisoner Roe came into the shop and asked to see a diamond ring in the window. I got it out, and eventually sold it to him for £46, which he paid with a £50 note. He endorsed the note, "J. Edwards, 257, Upland Road, East Dulwich. "I asked him if there was anything else, and he said he would buy a watch, but he did not see one in the window that he liked at all. I eventually sold him a lady's gold watch and guard for £9 10s., which he paid with a £10 note. He mentioned that he had come into a small legacy, and had noticed the diamond ring for

two or three days. On the same day some time afterwards I had a visit from a detective.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was alone. He volunteered the statement that he had been left a legacy.

ERNEST BATCHELDER , assistant of Durant and Sons, jewellers, 40. Cheapside. On March 6 prisoners came into the shop about 20 minutes to one, and Roe said they wanted to see a ring which was in the window. I took the tray out, and they picked out one at £68. Lane asked if that was the bottom price. I said it was, and Roe said he would have that one. Lane put the ring on his little finger and remarked that it just fitted. Roe paid for it with £50 and £20 Bank of England notes. A receipt was made out and £2 change handed to prisoners. Roe gave the name of James Edwards, 215, Upland Road, East Dulwich. They were both sitting in front of the counter at the time and Lane could have heard the name and address given. I noticed that Roe had other notes in his possession. I was suspicious of the transaction owing to their manner and appearance and followed them after they left the shop and until I met Detective Lawrence, to whom I made a communication.

Cross-examined. I knew Detective Lawrence through him coming to the shop with police notices. This was my first attempt at amateur detectivism. I did not know either of the prisoners when they came is. Throughout Roe played the leading part, and I understood him to be the person purchasing. It is usual to enter transactions of this sort in a book with the name of the purchaser, but not the address. The address in this case was volunteered. The name was given in the endorsement on the notes.

Re-examined. I followed the two men because of something that I noticed.

GIOROE BLACKBURN RUSSELL , assistant to Sir John Bennett and Co., jewellers, 65, Cheapside. Prisoners came to the shop about 1.15 p.m. on March 6. Roe said, "You have a ruby and diamond ring in your window marked £60; I should like to see it. "I took the tray from the window. There were two rings on the tray marked at the same price—a five-stone ring with three rubies and two diamonds and a three-stone ring with a ruby and two diamonds. Lane tried them both on his finger and finally decided on the three-stone ring, Lane remarking that he liked that one best on account of the paler colour of the ruby and its fitting his finger better than the other one. Roe paid for the ring with two £20 notes and two £10 notes. I called the clerk down, and he took Roe's name and address as James Edwards, &5, Upland Road, East Dulwich. Lane was sitting close by and could have heard distinctly what was said. Immediately they had gone Detective Lawrence came in.

Cross-examined. It was Roe who took the most prominent part in the matter. It did not strike me as an unusual transaction.

Detective WILLIAM LAWRENCE, City Police. Between 12 and one o'clock on March 6 I was on duty in Cheapside in company with

Detective Tupe. In consequence of the communication made by Batchelder. I proceeded to follow prisoners. They went into the side door of Messrs. Prothero and Morris, the auctioneers, and I saw Lane with what appeared to be bank notes handing some to Roe. They then went to Messrs. Bennett and Co. 's shop in Cheapside. After looking in the window some few minutes they entered the shop. I kept observation on them through the window, and when they came out I went into the shop and examined the notes. I continued to follow them with Detective Tupe, and Detective Adams joined us. They went to a lavatory in the Guildhall yard, where I heard Roe say to Lane, "We have passed those two all right. We will have another try." They then came from the lavatory. I followed them and stopped them, and, telling them I was a police officer, I said to Roe, "I believe you have some bank notes in your possession?" He hesitated for a moment and then said. "Yes; I have one." I said, "I have seen more." With that he handed me four £10 notes. I said to him. "Where did you get these from?" He said, "I had a small legacy left Mr. "I then said to Lane, "I have reason to believe you have some in your possession?" Lane replied, "Am I bound to answer that question?" I told them both I was not satisfied with their statements and should take them to Cloak Lane Police Station and detain them for inquiries. They then gave me a ring each from their fingers. I took them to Cloak Lane Police Station, where further search was made. On Roe, in addition to the fonr £10 notes he had handed me, there were eight postal orders of 20s. each. £88 in gold, 12s. 6d. in silver, with 10d. in bronze. In addition to the diamond ring he handed me, there was one diamond and ruby ring, a lady's gold watch and chain and a pawnticket for a pair of boots, shirt, and vest, and he was carrying a new umbrella. On Lane I found 19 £5 notes, two postal orders for £1, £241 10s. In gold, 6s. 6d. in silver, and 1s. 9 1/4; d. in bronze, and another single-stone diamond ring, a yellow metal watch and chain, a pawnticket, a stylo pen, cigar-cuttor, and a knife. I then asked for further explanations as to all this property. Roe said, "You will have to find out and make your own inquiries." I then traced the notes through various sources to Mr. Spottiswoode's. I afterwards informed prisoners of the fact, and Roe said, "Yes, that is quite right. I did steal it from there." They were taken to Bow Street and charged. Sergeant McEvoy ascertained the address of Roe.

Cross-examined. Lane, I believe, gave a correct address. So far as I know, he is a man of respectable character. Prisoners did not see me when I was following them along King Street. It was my business that they should not see me. I was quite close to them, touching them at times. In the urinal I was not more than six inches from them. I heard what Roe said as to their having passed those all right and about their having another try quite plainly. It was then that I decided to arrest them. Lane told them he was holding the property he had for Roe after being searched at the station.

Detective WILLIAM ADAMS, City Police. I took Lane to the Cloak Line Station, where he said, "All I know about it is that Roe told me he had been left a legacy. I know nothing more. "I asked Roe how he came into poesession of all this money, and he said, "I have just received a legacy from my trustees." I asked him who his trustees were. He said, "That is for you to find out. What I have said you will find is right."

Cross-examined. When Lane made the statement he had had no opportunity of conversing with Roe. They were taken separately to the station.

Detective-sorgeant MCEVOY, E Division. Prisoners were handed over to me on March 6 at Bow Street. I have made inquiries about them. Roe is living at 57, Dewsbury Crescent, Chiswick. Roe and Lane are related, having married two sisters.

Cross-examined. The address given me by Lane was correct.


ROBERT CHARLES LANE (prisoner on oath). I live at 72, Hewett Avenue, Wood Green, and am married. I have had no employment for 19 months, but was formerly a private secretary to a Mr. Williams, a commission agent, who is now in Flashing, bat whose brother is here to speak for me. They have known me since I was a boy. This is the first time I have been in any sort of trouble. Although Roe and I have married sisters, I do not know him very well. I do not think I had seen him for nine months before this occurrence. On March 5 I received a telegram at my house, and in consequence came up to London, where I saw Roe, who produced to me some notes. He said he had come into a legacy, and as it was rather a large sum, he asked me if I would meet him in the City on the following day by the Rank, and be with him to protect him while he changed these notes into gold. I accordingly met him in Lothbury. He went into the Bank of England and I waited outside. When he came out we had a drink and then took train from Moorgate to Farringdon Street, and in the train he handed some money to me indiscriminately; I do not know how much he gave me. He said he would "end a telegram to his firm that he would not be going to business that day. From Farringdon we walked dcwn the Gray's Inn Road and towards the "Angel," near to which he bought a ring for £21. From there we went to Kimball's in Aldersgate Street. Roe (pointed out a ring in the window, and, remarking that it seemed a nice ring, said he would go in and get it. I again waited outside. From there we went to Durant's in Cheaptide. The account given by the employee of what occurred there is correct. I heard Roe give the name of Edwards with an address somewhere in Dulwich, but I did not pay any particular attention to what he said. I asked him outside why he had not given the right name, and he said he did not want them to know anything

about the legacy at home. The statement as to what took place in Bennett's shop is also correct. As to what occurred in the urinal I have no recollection of Roe making the statement deposed to by Lawrence. I cannot swear as to what I said when arrested, but I believe I said to the officer that I was holding the money for Roe. I was naturally nervous and excited being charged in this way. I gave up one of the rings that had been purchased. I have at one time been fairly well off, and have helped Roe and helped his wife and family when he 'has been in difficulties.

Cross-examined. Roe has never been in a very good position since I have known him, but for some little time I thought things had been getting better with him. I believe he has seven children. I did not think it a little odd that Roe should ask me to accompany him next day. I did not suggest to him that it would be quite safe to bank these bank notes. He did not tell me from whom he bad got the legacy, and I had not the curiosity to ask, nor the amount of it I was with him on the 6th from half past nine until he was arrested. I did not go with him to his employer's bank to pay in two cheques. In Gray's Inn Road Roe went into two post offices, I think. I do not know whether that was for the purpose of buying postal orders and changing notes. The postal orders I had in my possession when arrested were two he asked me to buy. I do not know what Roe's idea was in going about changing these notes. I did not ask him a single question about it, or as to why he could not carry the money in his own pocket. It did not strike me as odd that a poor man with a wife and seven children should be buying expensive diamond rings. He seemed a bit elated. Roe has never lived with me. I did not know that he had had a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment. I have never visited him in prison. I do not remember the date of my marriage, but it would be about six years ago, as my little boy is five. I was married at St. John's Church, Upper Holloway. I was then living opposite that church. Roe was married years before Mr. Before I was married I knew very little of Roe; I had only seen him once or twice. I had known my wife about four years before the marriage. I knew the name and address given by Roe to the jewellers was false. I did not recognise the name of James Edwards as one of his former employers, also a solicitor, who is now charging him. I accepted his statement that he had come into a legacy as the truth.

Cross-examined. When I say that I met Roe at half past nine in the morning of March 6 I am not certain that I am speaking quite correctly. I did not think he was dealing with a quantity of stolen property.

ARTHUR ROE (prisoner on oath). I was married 17 years ago I have been in trouble before this. I caused a telegram to be sent to Lane on March 5, and saw him that night at Finsbury Park. I told him I had some notes I wanted to change at the Bank, and made

an appointment to meet him there on the following day. I told him I should like to have some one with me—it would be more safe. I told him in effect that I had come into a little money, and he did not ask me any particulars. As nearly as I can recollect he met me on the morning of March 6 at half-past nine or 20 minutes to ten. The banks open at nine o'clock, and I paid in that morning at the Oxford Street branch of the London and County Bank cheques amounting to £500. I had lost the credit slip that had been given me, or I should have paid more in. I had to make out a fresh slip and I am very sorry to have done such a thing. I went into the Bank of England alone to change some notes. They asked me one or two questions and asked me to endorse one of the notes, and then they paid me the money. They asked me if I wanted it ail in gold. I said, "No," and they gave me what I asked for. I sent a telegram to the office saying I should not be there till later. I went into two post-offices to buy postal orders and change notes, but did not send Lane into any. (Witness proceeded to detail the subsequent purchases of jewellery has narrated by the previous witnesses.) I did not see Detective Lawrence in the urinal, but I remember some one looking very closely at me. The statement that I said, "We have posted those two all right. We must have another try" is a fabrication. What I said was, "We have done that all right. I am going to get a light now." I stood still and got a light and the detective pissed me. The latter part of the officer's statement is absolutely incorrect. The statement that when after being seized and I was asked to account for the money, I told the officers to find out as best they could is also incorrect. I told them I had obtained the money at the Bank of England. I told Lawrence that I had had a legacy. I never told Lane or asked him to infer that I had obtained this money improperly.

Cross-examined. I scarcely knew Lane at all before his marriage, but since then have known him well. Previous to March 5 I had not seen him for eight or nine months. I telegraphed to my wife from the City to send a telegram to "Bob" (Lane) to meet "Harry" (myself). If I had been arrested alone the police would not therefore have known that Lane had been meeting me. When he met me on the morning of the 6th he said, "Oh! it is you," that is all. I explained later why I had asked him to meet me. He was not carious. Finsbury Park is about six miles from his home. I referred at that interview to some notes I was going to change in the morning and was with him about 10 minutes. Lane is pretty well to do. He is not absolutely bound to work at all. He derives some little income from his mother, who has some house property. When Lane asked me where I got the notes from I referred to this legacy. If the money was a legacy there was not the slightest reason why I should not have kept the notes. People do a lot of funny things when they have other people's money; I am not trying to screen myself. I handed Lane money and notes in the railway carriage. I

do not know how much. I handed him what I thought was about half; there was no counting. I thought it would be safer to hand him some of the money until I got home. It did not occur to me that it would be a good thing to have a lot of gold in the hands of a friend. It was not on my instructions that Lane purchased the postal orders. Lane helped me when I was in needy circumstances a long time ago. Lane did not ask me why I, a sane man, wanted to buy diamond rings. He did not ask me why I was spending the morning converting notes into cash and jewellery.

WILLIAM JOHN WILLIAMS , of the "Bolingbroke Hotel," Dashwood Road, Battersea, licensed victualler, spoke to having known Lane for some 25 years as a straightforward, respectable, and honest man.

Verdict: Lane, guilty; recommended to mercy as having been the dupe of Roe.

Sentences: Roe, three years' penal servitude; Lane, nine months' hard labour.

Mr. Frampton said he had been asked to mention that the recovery of all the money and the apprehension of prisoners was due to the smartness of the assistant (Batchelder) and of the officers in following the two men after they had been pointed out.

The Common Serjeant thought that both the assistant and the officers were to be commended for bringing the prisoners to justice.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-20
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

MAY, Aron , of German nationality, being an undischarged bankrupt, did unlawfully obtain credit to the amount of £20 and upwards, to wit, to the amount of £71 from Harry Stern, without informing him that he was an undischarged bankrupt.

Mr. A. J. Lawrie, who appeared to prosecute, offered no evidence, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL. (Tuesday, March 19.)

WILLAN, Charles (27, stoker), found guilty at January (2) Session (see page 479) of receiving stolen goods, came up for judgment He was bound over in his own recognisances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-22
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

MACK, James (42, dealer), pleaded guilty to stealing a purse containing 10s. 5d.; he also confessed to having been convicted on January 19, 1904, and receiving three years' penal servitude for larceny. A long series of convictions, commencing in 1882, including several sentences of penal servitude, were proved. Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.

(Tuesday, March 19, and Wednesday, March 20.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-23
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

MENDELL, Barnett (28, tailor) ; attempting to procure Millie Cohen. a girl under the age of 21 years, to become a common prostitute.

Sir Charles Mathews, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Arnold Ward prosecuted; Mr. Paul Methven and Mr. G. Gathome-Hardy defended.

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Wednesday, March 20.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-24
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SHANLY, Daniel (44, wheelwright) ; feloniously sending and causing to be received by Henry Mossop a certain letter, knowing the contents thereof, threatening to kill and murder him. Also feloniously uttering the same.

Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. J. Crabbe Watt prosecuted; Dr. E. P. S. Counsel defended.

Mr. Muir, in the course of his opening, said that it was necessary in order to follow the case to disclose the fact of a previous conviction. Dr. Counsel assented, and Mr. Muir accordingly detailed to the jury the circumstances of the conviction. (These appear sufficiently in the evidence.)

HENRY MOSSOP , solicitor, Lincoln's Inn Fields. In January, 1902, I acted for prisoner's mother, and went to her house on January 16. She instructed me as to her will, and I took a note in pencil at the time she was lying in bed. She desired that her property should be given to her son Michael William, with a trust in favour of such of the children of her son Daniel who were under 18. Michael William got no beneficial interest. There was a provision that he was only to apply the moneys for the benefit of the children so long as he had the control and maintenance of them. The net estate is a little over £800. Mrs. Shanty executed the will in the presence of myself and a neighbour. She died on November 22, 1904. A caveat of the will was entered on behalf of the defendant by Messrs. Howard. I communicated with them and showed them the will and my instructions. They said that Daniel had told them there was a later will. They searched, but could find no trace of one, and probate was granted on January 3, 1905. I had an interview with Meesrs. Howard on January 5, 1905, when prisoner and his wife were there. It was arranged that out of the capital and income a sum of 30s. Per week should be paid to me. and Mrs. Daniel Shanly jointly, they undertaking to apply the money for the benefit of such of the children as were under 18. On that occasion the prisoner was extremely violent, mostly making strong statements against his brother Michael—who was not present. Messrs. Howard could not get their casts from prisoner, so they were 'allowed to be (paid out of the estate. After that I regularly sent a weekly cheque to (prisoner and his wife for 30s. April 4, 1905, was the last payment. On April 7 Emily and Nellie (prisoner's children) came to see me, and complained of their father's conduct to them and their mother. On April 19

Nellie came and said prisoner had attacked her mother with a knife, that she had interfered and got cut. I advised her to go to Messrs. He ward for advice. On June 6, 1905, prisoner and his wife, with two younger children, I think, called on me, and desired me to continue the payments. I got instructions from the executor to pay £1 a week from then, and some fees for training Emily at a school for shorthand and typewriting. On July 5 Emily called on me and complained of her father's conduct to her sister Nellie. She also complained that he once made an indecent proposal to herself. I advised her to lay the matter before the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and telephoned to them. I took her the same day to see the secretary and she told him the story. On July 10 prisoner called and said that Mrs. Shanly had left him in consequence of a few words and desired me to make the cheque payable to him alone. I said I would take the executor's instructions. On the next day I had a call from the wife and the daughter Emily, who told me prisoner had attempted suicide by taking oxalic acid; also that he had committed grave offences with his third daughter Bessie and he would be charged as soon as possible. From that day to this I have paid Mrs. Shanly £1 a week out of the estate. Prisoner was arrested upon a charge made against him in reference to his conduct towards one of his daughters, and he was tried at this Court, convicted, and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment. I had nothing to do with that prosecution except having advised the prisoner's daughter to communicate with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. After his conviction the prisoner wrote from Wormwood Scrubs Prison a series of letters to his wife and to me charging me and his brother with a conspiracy against him to procure his conviction on a false charge by means of perjured evidence. Ultimately in February prisoner sent the letter which forms the subject of this charge, saying that, if the authorities did not help him, he should take the life of his brother, his wife, his eldest daughter, or myself, whichever he first happened to meet, and he added that he would have justice or commit the crime of murder, I then placed the matter in the hands of Scotland Yard.

Cross-examined. When I received the letter of February 3 I had some fear that prisoner might assault me, but I did not mind that. He called at the office in December and hung about for an hour or two, but I was away. He did not come again as far as I know and did not attempt to act on his threats. I did not attach much weight to his threats. I do not know what he had in his mind when he wrote the letters. He kept on making the statement that he wanted his case re-opened. I had nothing to do with his case nor influenced any of the witnesses, as he alleged in his letters, beyond taking the daughter to the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I thought his threat was a serious one. On that point I should say prisoner seems mad. I am pleased to hear that prisoner is sorry he wrote that letter, and that he accepts my statement on oath to-day. When

prisoner said he was coming to London from Swansea to report himself to Scotland Yard it did not make any difference to my mind. I gave evidence at the police court and heard the evidence of Inspector Dew, who said there was no letter written to Scotland Yard. I beard the Inspector say that prisoner had evidently come straight to Scotland Yard on arriving in London. He did say he was going to pet his case (referring to his previous conviction) before Scotland Yard. Nothing was said at the police court about his having told Scotland Yard of his threatening letters. If I had really thought he vas going to Scotland Yard to say, "I am going to murder Mr. Mossop," I might perhaps not have thought so much of it. I should have looked upon it more as the act of a lunatio. (Letter of February 9 from the Church Army Lodging House, Swansea, to Mrs. Shanly, was put to the witness, also one of February 20.) Those art in prisoner's writing, also another letter of February 24, from Newbury to Mrs. Shanly (produced and read).

Inspector WALTER DBW, Scotland Yard. I obtained a warrant for prisoner's arrest on February 22. I saw. him at Scotland Yard on February 25, when he called voluntarily. I told him who I was and read the warrant. He said, "Yes, that is quite right, I did write it." He afterwards said, "Will you send to Mr. Davidson, of the Catholic Prisoners' Aid Society, for some papers he has of mine?" He then said, "I wrote to Mr. Quinn saying I wanted this case investigated, and called here as soon as I got to London. I have tramped from Swansea. I expected I should have been arrested after that letter, and I want my whole case gone into." He was then conveyed, to Bow Street. When the charge was read over he said, "Yes, that is right." I found on him a razor and a piece of paper bearing Mr. Mossop's address—Caversham House, Oakhill Road, Putney, S. W., also the names of late partners of Mr. Mossop. I could find no trace of a letter to Superintendent Quinn.

Cross-examined. Superintendent Quinn was at Scotland Yard when prisoner called. I understood that he asked for him. I left directions teat when he called I was to be told, and I saw him instead of Quinn. The latter had nothing to do with this case. Prisoner might have known Quinn when he (prisoner) was in the Metropolitan Police 25 year a before. When he called, I am sure he had come from a long tramp; he had come from Swansea direct He seemed to have bad a shave that day.

Mr. Mossop, recalled. I do not know how prisoner got my private address. He bad never known me at Caversham House. I left there in June of last year. My name would be in all the directories.

ERNEST DURBAN , clerk to Henry Mossop. On December 14 last prisoner called at our office. He said he called with reference to a letter he had written to Mr. Mossop, and that he called with the intention of publicly thrashing him with the object of reopening his case. He also mentioned his brother Michael William conspiring with Mr. Mossop to obtain false evidence. He was very excited at

times, but did not seem to have been drinking. He said he would wait about till Mr. Mossop came in. He did not call again.

Dr. Counsel for the defence having raised the question of calling Dr. Scott, his Lordship said the judges had determined that any question affecting the intentions of an aoeused man at the time he committed the act charged was a mutter for the defence alone. There was no obligation on the Crown to call people to show the condition of mind of the accused, unless that had something to do with the offence charged. If the defence wished to raise evidence of prisoner's sanity it was for them to call Dr. Scott.


DANIEL SHANLY (prisoner on oath). It is false for Mr. Mossop to say that he had nothing to do with my prosecution and conviction. It is different to his evidence at Bow Street on March 5. I cannot accept his statement—I was improperly convicted. I was innocent in thought, word, or act, and did all in my power to clear myself in the regular way. My wife told me she was compelled by Mr. Mossop to alter her evidence at Marylebone Police Court. I believe there was a conspiracy against me, me I did when I wrote the letters. I hoped that I would be brought before the court and my statements would be listened to. That is the reason I wrote the letters. I could not remain under the disgrace. I wrote both to Superintendent Quinn and to Mr. Mossop from Swansea on February 20, and also to my wife. I told Superintendent Quinn of the steps I had taken to place my case before the Home Office in the hope they would grant an inquiry. As they would not do so I placed it before the manager of the bank where my wife had been cashing the cheques. I had taken all steps in my power to bring my case before the courts. I carried the razor to shave myself with. I took oxalic acid through my wife leaving home and neglecting her children; everything was in pawn. When I took the poison I gave Emily two letters, which were suppressed. Mr. Mossop stated at Bow Street that these letters were shown to him. I have never jumped into a canal. I did not intend any violence to anyone.

Cross-examined. If I am to explain my object in threatening the life of my brother, my wife, my eldest daughter and Mr. Mossop, I must go back into the will.

Dr. JAMES SCOTT, Medical Officer, Brixton Prison. I have had prisoner under my observation since February 26 and know something of his past history. I do not consider him insane. I would not call his ideas about Mr. Mossop and his brother delusions, although he is very bitter against them.

Cross-examined. He seems to know the difference between right and wrong.

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

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-25
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

LIPFERT. Otto (27, motor driver) ; manslaughter of Walter James Wells.

Mr. Hoffgaard (with him Mr. Forrest Fulton) prosecuted; Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. C. J. Mathew defended.

Police-constable PERCIVAL ATTERSALL, 226 E, proved a plan of the streets, etc., referred to in the evidence.

Police-constable JOSEPH ROOTH, 144 E. On January 25, at 12.45 am., I was on duty in the Strand. I was walking east; when opposite No. 442 I saw a large motor-car proceeding east on the offside, the south side, of the road; about the same time I saw a man crossing the road in the direction of the telegraph office towards Charing Grots Station; just as he got past the refuge on the offside of the road the front near side of the car struck him; he appeared to be turning his head towards the clock in the telegraph office, looking over his left shoulder, away from where the car was coming. There us hardly any road traffic about; there were a good many foot passengers about. I heard no horn or hooter sounded. It was the front of the car that struck the man, and I heard the smashing of glass. The car was going on the offside of the refuge. I noticed a cab drawn up at the telegraph office; there was room for the car to have passed on the north side of the refuge, between the cab and the refuge. The man was taken to the hospital in the motor, prisoner driving it. At the hospital I told prisoner that I estimated he was going at about 20 miles an hour when the accident occurred, that I thought he was driving in a negligent manner, and that I should charge him with causing grievous bodily harm. He said he was only going at about 12 miles an hour.

Cross-examined. When I was first examined before the magistrate I did not say anything about the car being on the offside of the road. I was a bit flurried; it slipped my memory. When I first saw the ear and the man he was about 15 yards from the car; at the police court I said three yeards, but I corrected it; before the coroner I said 20 yards. If the car was going at 20 miles an hour it would be in my view less than three seconds. It was coming along the Strand, on the Trafalgar Square side; it appeared to be coming from Duncannon Street. I did not see the car swerve before it struck the man; as won as that happened I heard the brakes put on, and then it swerved to the right. The man appeared to be walking across obliquely, as if to go down Villiers Street. The body was picked up about eight yards east of the refuge, in the middle of the road. It was the front part of the car that struck the man; before the coroner I said it was nearly the middle of the car that struck him. I am sure the car came on the south side of the refuge.

DANIEL SLOWMAN , in the employ of the Poat Office. On this morning I was in the Strand. My attention was first directed to the car by the sound of it coming along the road; it seemed rather a powerful car, coming along at a fast pace, I thought about 16 to 20 miles an hour. I saw it when it was level with me just opposite the station. I followed it with my eye till it seemed to me to strike a man who was stationary in the middle of the road; on its striking him he seemed to go in the air; I heard a crash of glass; and the car Served right over to the right into the offside kerb. I spoke to

prisoner, and said he ought to be ashamed of himself. I heard no horn-blowing or tooting or shouting; if there had been any I must have heard it. I cannot say on which side of the refuge the car came.

Cross-examined. I did not notice the man till the car struck him: he appeared to be stationary, not walking.

WALTER LENSEN . clerk. On this morning, about 12.45, I had driven up in a cab to the telegraph station; I was standing by the cab when the motor-car came up; I did not see where it came from or on which side of the refuge it went; it was going at a very great speed; I heard no horn blow or shouting. I did not see the deceased before the car struck him.

WILLIAM SEAL , cab driver. I had driven the last witness in my cab, and was drawn up outside the telegraph office close to the kerb. It was a fine clear night; the roads were rather greasy; there was no traffic about. There was room for anything to pass between my cab and the refuge; the cab showed the regulation lights. I neither saw nor heard the motor till it came by me; I heard no shouting or horn-blowing. The car went by me very fast, with a swish; I should say it was going at about 18 or 20 miles an hour. I cannot say which side of the refuge it went. When it passed me I looked up and saw a man crossing the road leisurely. He was about eight yards from the motor when I first saw him, and in the middle of the road; the near side front of the car struck him. There was plenty of room for the car to have passed on the other side. If prisoner had been going at a reasonable rate I believe he could have avoided the accident.

Cross-examined. My whole observation of the car. is confined to the distance of eight yards. I did not notice whether the car had lights. The deceased man was looking straight in front of him, not looking over his left shoulder. I did not see the car swerve until it struck the man; then all four wheels stopped and it skidded into the right kerb.

Lord CLANCABTY was, it was stated, not well enough to attend, and, by agreement of counsel, his evidence before the magistrate was read as follows: "On the early morning of January 25 I was in the motor car, which was supplied by the Hotel Cecil. I directed the defendant to drive me from the Trocadero to the Hotel Cecil. I left the route to him entirely. I think we went down the Strand, not Duncannon Street. I have driven motors. I estimate our pace at about 12 miles an hour. I am unable to say on which side of the refuge we passed. I remember the hooter being blown a good number of times during the drive. It was blown two or three times in rather rapid succession when approaching the refuge, and then I heard a shout". There was an interval between the three times the hooter was blown of, roughly, about quarter of a minute, and a shout followed the last. The driver shouted. When I first noticed deceased he was in the middle of the road; he was walking.

I was sitting nearly in the middle of the car, a little towards the near side. The man when I saw him was facing obliquely towards the east in-gate of Charing Cross Station; he was in the middle of the road. I cannot say whether he was nearer the north or south kerb. As defendant shouted he put on the brakes, and they turned the car to the offside, south; that was the first time I saw the man; he appeared to be about eight or ten yarda in front of the car. The near front wheel just caught the man on his right aide. I heard the glass of the wind-screen fall, but I did not see the man strike against it. When I first saw him he appeared to me to be stationary. I did not me him step back on to the near side pavement. The brakes were put on before the man was struck, not afterwards. (Cross-examined.) My attention was attracted by the hooting and shouting, and that was the first time I noticed the deceased. I cannot say how he got to the middle of the road. I have no doubt about the pace is were going—12 miles an hour; certainly not more. I had never seen the chauffeur before that night. If the car had been going more than 12 miles an hour he could not have pulled up in so snort a distance, but would have gone up on to the kerb; this is partly my reason for fixing the pace.

Inspector EDWIN PRESTON, £ Division. I was on duty at Bow Street Police Station when prisoner was brought in; he was quite sober. He was first charged with causing grievous bodily harm; the charge was altered when Mr. Wells died. Prisoner made no reply to the charge. I afterwards visited the scene of the accident; there was glass lying about; the bulk of it about 8 ft. from the kerb on the south side of the Strand. The road there is 42 ft. wide.'

CHARLES F. A. HEREFORD . House Burgeon at Charing Cross Hospital. Mr. Wells was brought to the hospital on the morning of fridsy, January 25; he was unconscious; there were injuries to his head and right leg; he remained in the hospital till he died, on the Saturday afternoon. On making the post-mortem examination I found no trace of alcohol.

FREDERICK JAMES WILSON deposed that he had known Wells for some years; that gentleman enjoyed good health, and his sight and hearing were perfect.

CHAPPLE, clerk to the Automobile Company, Offord Road, Islington. Defendant has been in the employ of my company since April. 1905, as a driver-mechanic; before coming to us he had been driving motors for seven years; he has an absolutely clean record, and is one of our very best drivers. The car in question was a 30-h. p. Darracq.


OTTO LIPFERT (prisoner, on oath). I have driven motor-cars since 1898 in Germany and England, since 1902 in London. This is the first trouble I have ever had. On the night in question I drove from the Trocadero along Piccadilly, through the Haymarket, across Trafalgar Square, leaving the Bakerloo Station on the left, and going

along the Strand; I did not go up Duncannon Street. I passed the refuge on my proper side, the left hand side. When I first saw the man who has died I was on the corner of the telegraph office, where a cab was standing. I blew the horn immediately; I had blown it several times before I got to Duncannon Street. I also shouted, but I was too near the man then. I saw the man coming from the pavement and running across the road; first I saw him about two yards from the pavement; he seemed to me to step back towards the pavement, and then he ran forward again, across the road, turning his head to the left, looking at something at the back of him; I was then within three yards of him. I shouted again to him; I had no time to blow the horn again, because I was working with my hand and feet to steer the car round and put the brakes on. I put the brakes on about three yards before the accident happened; I put on the foot brake first, steered the car to the right, then when my hand was free put on the hand brake. I supposed when I blew the horn he would stop again, and I steered the car as fast as I could and with as much power as I could to avoid him; if he had stopped I could easily have cleared him; instead of that he ran on the faster and ran right into the car. I brought up the car about 15 yards from where the accident happened. The car was carrying two head lamps, carbide lamps, in front, and two paraffin lamps and an electric lamp behind; they were all fully lighted. I did everything possible to avoid the accident. I was going at about 10 or 12 miles an hour, not more.

Cross-examined. When the car struck the man he was not in the middle of the road, but about three or four yards from the pavement on the north side. I should have put on the brakes sooner than I did but for the man stepping back; I lowered the speed a bit; I supposed he was going back to the pavement and would stop there. I am quite sure that I came between the cab and the refuge. It was the lamp bracket and the rail that caught the man.

Verdict, Not guilty.

The Lord Chief Justice, in discharging the prisoner, said: The jury have taken a view of the case which they are quite entitled to take. I hope, however, that this will be a warning, because, though I am quite sure you have conducted your business extremely well, on the other hand there is a great deal too much reckless driving I hope that this unfortunate occurrence, which the jury have found not to be the result of your negligence, in the sense I have indicated, will be a warning that extreme care is required in driving motor vehicles in London.


(Wednesday, March 20.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-26
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HARRY WILLIAMS (43, riveter); feloniously wounding Marie Tree with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Thatcher prosecuted.

BENJAMIN TREE , landlord of the "Boundary Tavern," Commercial Road, E. Marie Tree is my sister. About 7.25 p.m. on February 12 prisoner was in the bar and had some ale, which he drank up. On the counter was another half-glass of ale, the owner of which had gone out. Prisoner took up the half-glass to drink it. My barman laid, "This is not your beer, put it down." He did not put it down when told, and the barman attempted to take it away from him, and as he snatched at it to take it away some of the beer went down the prisoner's waistcoat. He picked up a china jug of water and said, "Take that, you bastard," and threw it at him. It missed the barman, knocked off my hat, and struck my sister, who was behind the bar. He attempted to escape. My sister was stunned, and stood in the bar like one petrified. The barman and I stopped prisoner and sent a customer for a constable and another customer was sent for a doctor. Prisoner was sober. I had never seen him before.

Police-constable ARTHUR PIZZY, 72 H. I took prisoner into custody at the public-house, to which I was called, about 7.40. He said nothing. I saw the last witness and the barman in the bar.

MARCUS COHEN , M. 8., registered medical practitioner, 100, Commercial Road. On February 12 I was called to the "Boundary Tavern." where I saw the young woman suffering from severe shock and a cub across the bridge of her nose. She was lying on a couch in the bar parlour. The two nasal bones were smashed completely back to the level of the eyes, and there was a long cut extending over the bridge of the nose. I performed an operation, and was able to raise the left nasal bone. I did not succeed in getting the other bones back to their place. She is permanently disfigured, but it going on all right This broken jug might cause such a wound. A good deal of force would be required. I saw the pieces of the jug afterwards, on which I found blood. I continued to visit her up to last week. She is able now to go about her ordinary duties.

MARIE TREE .I live at the "Boundary Tavern" with my brother. I was in the bar when the jug flew at me. That is all I know. I was attending to my duties. I do not know prisoner. I was just going to speak to the barman. I was in bed a week, and suffered much pain at times. I feel a little pain now and again.

JOSEPH PRICE , barman, "Boundary Tavern." Prisoner took up another man's beer, and I told him to put it down. I pulled it away and some beer went on him. He threw the jug and hit Miss Tree. I jumped over the bar and caught him. He said nothing.

Prisoner's statement before Magistrate. "I am sorry it occurred. I have been locked up three weeks now, and hope you'll look over it as well as you can. "

HARRY WILLIAMS (prisoner, on oath). The barman jumped over the bar and said, "That is not your ale." I said, "It is," and told him a man gave it to me. I was in conversation with him, and he said he did not want it as he was going over to have his tea and I could drink it. I said I would drink it if he did not want it and I

took it up; the barman took it away from me and threw it in my face. I never saw the lady in the bar. The barman threw the contents of the glass in my eyes. I wiped my eyes and picked up the jug to throw the water at him and the jug slipped out of my hand. It was accidentally done. The barman jumped over the bar. and the landlord and barman and one or two others knocked me down and they kicked me. I was on the floor when the police-officer came to lock me up. It is a thing I have never done before.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawfully wounding, with great provocation. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-27
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > no evidence
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LANG, Lewis (30. labourer), GREEN, James, and GREEN, Alfred, conspiring and agreeing together to defraud the Tower Tea Company, Limited, of their goods.

Lewis Lang pleaded guilty to having conspired to steal 29 lb. of tea.

Mr. George Harris prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Basil Watson defended James Green; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Alfred Green.

FRANK EADBN , Tower Tea Company, Limited. I am engaged in the warehouse in Wellclose Square, Stepney. Lang was in our employ. His duties were to clean the windows, clean the sifters, and sift various rubbish collected from the various floors. The rubbish swept from the floor contains tea which is put on one side, and sold to anybody we can get to buy it. I have had some dealings with James Green, who used to collect the rubbish after it was taken away. He also used to buy the waste wood from our coopering department, which would include old tea chests cut down. He did not come personally, as a rule. He paid for the waste wood, and we paid him for taking away the rubbish 3s. 6d. a load. Green's van was in our dock on February 15. The dock is an open space into which the vans back. The carman was in charge of the van, which was being loaded when I saw it with a number of cases of waste wood. There was a man there named Thomas Mynott, timekeeper. He sent for me, and when I arrived at the dock he gave me this note. It is in Lang's handwriting. In consequence of that I went to the Leman Street Police Station, and was shown some bags by the detectives. This is a coffee-bag, which I identify. These are standard bags that we store tea in or sweepings mixed with wood and dust, which would be about the floors of the warehouse. These two bags full of the tea sweepings would weigh from 40 lb. to 50 lb. This bag contains tea that has been sifted and wooden particles and dust taken away, and contained somewhere about 30 lb. It would be worth about 1s. a lb. to-day. At the time it was stolen it would be lid. wholesale price. There are two qualities of sweepings. This bag is siftings not mixed and the other is siftings mixed. The one would be about 10d. and the other about 1s. I do not know Alfred Green.

Cross-examined by Mr. Basil Watson. The sweepings when sifted would be worth 1s. a lb. The siftings contain all sorts of tea. These

bags are not new, probably two years old. Bags are sometimes put over the vegetable refuse sent away. I should say they are not three rears old, but I cannot say definitely. There were a lot of old bags left at Jewry Street, which may have been dirty. They have not been cleaned since the prosecution began. They are exactly the same sort of siftings that might be obtained from any other firm, such as Peek Bros., for instance. James has been employed by my firm to take sway these siftings for about seven years. It would be his duty to return any bags that went back. The timekeeper would know all about it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jenkins. I do not know Alfred or hit name, and have had no communication with anyone except James.

Re-examined. When I say the bags are two or three years old I refer only to this special description of bag. This is a flax-bag, and one of them was a common jute bag. The flax are specially woven for our purpose. They are serviceable in our trade as long as they do not contain holes and are not stained with anything that smells. I have not examined those bags since they have been in the possession of the police. I find now they are thoroughly sound. The life of a flax-bag is from seven to ten years. These jute bags cost about 2d. Or 3d. each when bought, but they would be utterly useless for the purpose for which the others are used. They are simply turned out and told at the first opportunity. They originally contained raw coffee. The flax-bags are used for the sifted tea, and are specially made for the purpose. I should say these are not old bags that hove been cleaned up.

THOMAS MYNOTT . timekeeper, Tower Tea Company. I was in the warehouse yard when Malony was loading up on February 15. Lang was standing on the platform apparently watching the van. He had nothing to do with the loading. It was not his business to be there. When the van was loaded the carman showed me a note. I was Green's van. The envelope was also shown to me with Green's name on it. The van was loaded with waste wood. I opened the envelope and read the contents. I sent up to the last witness and showed it to him. The wood is removed from the premises about once a fortnight. Green also went to remove the rubbish and refuse. It is not taken away at the same time as the wood. The van was in charge of Malony. I have never seen sacks or bags like these go out with the waste wood. There ought not to be any bags in it. Disused bags go out with the rubbish to cover up the effluvia of the household refuse. The rubbish is removed in old tea chests and covered over with bags. Such bags as these should not be used for the purpose. The bags should be returned. I have given instructions to Malony to bring them back. This coffee bag, with letters on it, is a new bag.

Cross-examined by Mr. Basil Watson. I said at the police court the bags were used for covering tins in which the vegetable refuse was placed. They can be cleaned by washing. These have been cleaned

and are not new. We had a fire at our old premises in Jewry Street when a lot of bags were removed containing refuse.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jenkins. I had to caution the caiman about not returning the bags. I do not know Alfred Green. I have had no communication with him.

Re-examined. I cannot say whether the bags removed from Jewry Street were bags sent away as rubbish. I was not there.

PETER MALONY , carman to James Green. I know Alfred Green as James's brother. I have been between 14 and 15 years in their service. Alfred has been a working chap in the yard, the same at myself. They deal in wood, coal, coke, flour and corn, and sell tea in the shop, which is opposite the firewood yard. I have been in the habit of going to the Tower Tea Company with the van belonging to Green, to fetch away waste wood refuse and rubbish. I never took away anything else. I went there sometimes once a week and sometimes once a fortnight for sax or seven years. I went there on February 15 with the van between 10 and 10.30, when I was told to take away a lot of firewood, which was brought down to me in a lift, and I loaded it up in my van. It consisted of old cases. I know Lang by seeing him deliver rubbish and refuse when I have gone there. On this occasion he was in the timekeeper's yard when he gave me a note in an envelope sealed up, saying, "Give this note to Mr. Green. "The note was as follows: "Dear Green,—In one of the chests of wood you will find one bag.—Yours, truly, L.L." I thought it strange and gave it to the prosecutor. I never had a note from Lang before. I handed it to Mynott, the timekeeper. I took my van to Green's place, when Eaden told me I could go. Three police officers followed, and they were present when the van was unloaded. They requested me to have the packages unloaded. I turned out about 13. Alfred Green was there. I found a parcel of tea in this coffee bag. I did not know the bag was there. The tea was at the bottom of the bag and covered over with small bus of firewood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Basil Watson. Sacks and bags were put in every load—sometimes to keep in the smell of the refuse. After the fire in Jewry Street two dozen or more sacks were put in my load. I took back the best to the prosecutors' premises and did not return what I considered bad sacks, which Green washed and used. The day the parcel arrived Green was at his usual occupation at St. Katharine's Dock selling firewood. Mrs. Green persuaded me to go that morning.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jenkins. If I had thought there was anything wrong I should not have had anything to do with it. I am an honest and respectable man, and Alfred Green did not have anything more to do with it than I did, except to unload it at the request of the police, when I was helping. As soon as he saw it he said, "I do not know anything about it. "I believed him. He seemed surprised to find it there. I have never come across anything suspicious before on unloading.

Re-examined. It appears that Green has washed these sacks.

Detective HENRY DESSANT, H Division. I went to prosecutors' presumes and saw a van laden with chests leave the premises for Cable Street. I followed it on instructions. It was being driven by Malony. The van stopped opposite No. 35, James Green's premises. I saw Alfred Green with the carman unloading the chests and taking them to the yard. I and another officer entered. I said to Alfred, "Where is Mr. Green?" He said, "He is out; he will be back in about an hour and a half." I said, "Whose duty is it to unpack these chests?" He said, "I do and Mr. Green." I said, "How long have you been doing this?" He said, "For years." I said, "Are you related to him, or in any way connected with the business?" He said, "No." I said, "We are police officers and suspect that a bag of tea is in one of those chests." He said, "I know nothing about that" I told him to empty the chests. He commenced doing so. In the fourteenth chest I saw this coffee bag containing about 30 1b. of tea with a lot of broken wood on the top of it. I said, "How do you account for the possession of that?" He said, "I know nothing at all about it." I then went to the Tower Tea Company's premises, Wellclose Square, where I saw Lang, who made a statement to me and I took him to Leman Street Police Station. I returned to Cable Street. I was present at the station when the three prisoners were there. Lang made a statement to me in the presence of the two prisoners. I had communicated with Brogden and the other two were arrested in my presence. Lang's statement was taken down and signed by him. This second statement was quite voluntary. He said, "I want to tell the truth." I said to him, "Anything you have to say will have to be voluntary. It will be taken down in writing and given in evidence." Pointing to James Green, Lang said, "This is the man I mean, sir. I have known him since last August. I first went to his shop at Cable Street to order his van to come round to our firm to clear away rubbish. There used to be tea-leaves and rubbish, and sometimes he gave me 1s. for beer money. He said to me, "If you put in a decent bit of stuff I can give you a bit extra for beer money." I sent him about 10 lots—sometimes loose in chests and sometimes in bags. I put the coffee bag found containing tea into one of the chests taken away by Green's carman this morning. I gave the carman a note to give to Green. Green has given me different sums of money—sometimes 2s., 3s., 4s., and 5s. The week before Christmas he gave me 7s. 6d." James said, "He is talking at random. I know nothing about it." Lang said, "It is true, and you know it." They were afterwards charged. Alfred said nothing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. When I first came to James Green's premises he was not at home. I do not think he was at the prosecutors' premises that morning, nor, so far as I can say, was he personally present during any of the proceedings from the time the note was handed by the carman to the timekeeper down to the time of my arresting Lang.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jenkins. When I first saw the bags being unloaded at Greens premises the van was standing outside. The boxes were afterwards taken off by Malony and Alfred Green. I said some thing to Alfred before I asked him to look into the boxes. The bag was found in the 14th box. All he had done was to unload. He said he was not connected with the business. Alfred made no reply to the statement made by Lang.

Re-examined. There were some empty boxes in the yard, but any how I saw the contents of all these boxes. I do not believe they had begun to turn them out without any request from me. There was a lot of broken wood about the yard. The van was not unloaded before we got there. We were standing within 20 or 30 yards from the place and saw them unloaded, and saw the whole of the chests taken on the premises. The unloading had been completed when we went up.

Detective WILLIAM BROGDEN, A Division. I followed the van in company with last witness to Green's premises, 42, Cable Street, and saw Alfred and another workman there, and told them we suspected that one of the chests contained a bag of tea. That was before the van was unloaded. Lang was first arrested and afterwards James and his brother Alfred. When we got there Alfred, James, Malony, the carman, and another man were there. Detective-sergeant Dessant asked for James Green, and he was informed he was out. Then Alfred advanced, and he was asked where Mr. Green was and when he would be back. He said he was not in a position to say. The Sergeant said, "What do you do here?" He said, "I am workman." The Sergeant said, "Whose duty is it to unload these particular chests? He said, "Mine and Green's," and then Dessant told him we suspected a bag of tea was concealed in one of the chests. Alfred said if so he knew nothing about it. We told him to take the chests from the cart, and when, I think, the 14th box was unloaded we came across one tea. It was covered over with a quantity of wood. Dessant asked Alfred Green how long he had been doing this particular work. Alfred replied for years in conjunction with his brother James, and on this particular bag of tea being found in the chest, in reply to Dessant asking, how do you account for this tea? he said, "I know nothing about it." Dessant then left me. Up to that time nobody had arrived before Dessant left me and went to Wellclose Square, where Lang worked. I stayed behind in the yard at Cable Street. James Green came in about 1.45. I told him we were police officers, and that morning a note had been intercepted addressed to him in consequence of which we had those particular chests examined, and a bag of tea had been found in them. I asked how he could account for it. He said, "I know nothing about it; it must be worked by the carman." I then said. "Have you any more tea at your shop?" He has a shop immediately opposite. He said, "Yes, I deal in it. "Previous to this Dessant had returned and made a communication to me. I said, "I have reason to believe you have a quantity of tea and also sacks belonging to the Tower Tea Company in your possession." He

replied, "Well, I may have some sacks belonging to them, because tome time ago I cleared a quantity of rubbish away from Jewry Street and there was a lot of sacks there belonging to them. Tea I deal in." I then searched the shop, No. 42, and took possession of the two flax sacks, produced, one containing 20 lb. and one 25 lb. I said, "What about these sacks?" He said, "Very likely they were there. I cannot say." I said, "Can you show me any receipt for this tea?" He said, "Yes, I can show the receipts for any amount of tea." I said,. "Then show me one for this particular tea." He said, "That would be impossible, because this tea was purchased in a large quantity, and they had to what they call blend it." I said, "Under those circumstances you had better retain them and hand them to your solicitor." This is one of the receipts he handed to me. He said he was in the habit of dealing with that firm. I said, "A man named Lang is in custody for stealing tea, and he has made a statement incriminating you." He said, "I do not know anybody of that name." I said, "Your answer is not satisfactory, and you will be charged with receiving these three sacks of tea in conjunction with your brother Alfred, well knowing it to have been stolen." He said, "I know nothing about it. Probably it is somebody who thinks I am getting a shilling or two and done this for spite." When at Leman Street Lang made a statement in the presence of the prisoners, which Dessant took down in writing. James said, "You are speaking at random. I know nothing of it." Lang said, "It is true, and you know it." I have not made inquiries at Peek Bros, and Winch, for I do not consider it necessary. As he could not show me a receipt for this particular tea I told him to retain the receipts and hand them to his solicitor. He told me he dealt in large quantities of tea. I had no reason to doubt it I ascertained from prosecutor that he had been dealing with the Tower Tea Company a number of years.


LEWIS LANG (prisoner, on oath). I was employed by the Tower Tea Company. Part of my duty was to sift the sweepings of the warehouse. They would be gathered up and put into a bag daily. The tea I sifted would be in a bin. I have only seen James Green about twice to speak to. I should say I met him about the latter part of last year. I saw him when I went to the shop in Cable Street to order the van round for rubbish. He would say, "All right." I have pleaded guilty to taking 29 1b. of tea. After stocktaking in January I found that tea and put it into a chest, and, fearing I would get into trouble, I put the wood over it. I signed this statement, and that is what I told the prosecutor then. It was not true. I hardly knew what I was saying because he and Brogden were half-threatening me. I did not give it voluntarily to them, and it is not a true statement. I wanted to get rid of the tea because it was over. I had never taken it into stock. I had never done such a thing before.

Cross-examined by Mr. Harris. I have not seen either of these men until this case came before the magistrate, or spoken to them nor has anybody spoken to me on their behalf. I wrote that note to Green because I did not know what to do with, the tea. I considered I had a right to it. I thought I would get into trouble if it was found out there. I did not want to send it to Green in particular. This is my note: "Dear Green,—In one of the chests of wood you will find a bag.—Yours, truly, L. L. "I was standing on the stops of the dock yesterday talking to the Greens. I was in one of the cells the best part of the afternoon. I had no communication with them.

To Mr. Elliott. I had not the slightest communication with these prisoners, nor have I had any inducement held out to me to alter my story. The tea not being entered in my stock-book on February I would have got me into trouble with my employers, and I was anxious to get rid of it so that they should not find it out. It was for that reason that I put it in the cart belonging to James Green and covered it over with wood. I had never before written to Green. I did not know it would cause the trouble it has done.

To the Court. I may have said to the officer, "I have not put any tea with the wood before. I sent him some under rubbish about every fortnight since last August. "The officer asked me if I knew James Green and I said, "Yes," and pointed to him. James Green said, "He is talking at random. I know nothing about it."

The Recorder. Did you then say, "It is true, and you know it"? I said that I knew him. It was not true according to that statement. I did not take it in that light. I took it in the light that he said the did not know me.

Mr. Jenkins submitted that there was no case against Alfred Green. The Recorder. I shall tell the jury to acquit him.

JAMES GREEN (prisoner, on oath). I am a corn chandler and tea dealer, of 42, Cable Street, St. George's-in-the-East. I have carried on the former business for 14 years and the latter for six or seven years. I had a contract with the Tower Tea Company to clear their trade and vegetable refuse at 3s. 6d. a load for six or seven years I also bought their waste wood at 1 1/2 d. a bucket. I have known Lang since last August. He has sometimes come to me with an order from the company. I have not seen him there, as I do not do the carting personally. I have given him 2d. beer money when he has come to me. I never arranged with him to send me tea stolen from the company or that he should write to me. On February 15 I left home at 9.45 a.m. for St. Katharine's Dock to arrange for the delivery of firewood. This bill relates to it. I returned home about 1-30. I had no idea that Lang was sending me tea. I bought wood of the company, but my tea of Peek Brothers. I can show my receipts—some of them run into £80 or £90. When the Tower Tea Company removed from their old premises I removed the rubbish and bought some fixtures of them. The rubbish included old sacks

The sacks that were wet I bung up to dry. I do not think they included any found by the police. I think they came from Wellclose Square. They were put over the kitchen stuff to keep the smell from rising, and when we emptied them we found some, perhaps, in too filthy a condition to return. I found the police officers on my return. I saw Malony in the yard. The officers did not let me speak to him except that I said, "I have not seen you this morning. "He nodded is response, and they hustled me out of the wicket-gate and parted me from him. Brogden said, "Are those your premises over the way? "I said, "Yes." He said, "Have you got any tea over there? "I said, "Yes," and in company with Dessant he said, "All right, we will have a look." I took them to the back part of the shop where the tea sweepings are stored, where they found some bags, including these two. They said, "How do you account for these bags?" I said, "I believe they came from the Tower Tea Company. I cleaned them and used them in my business. "They said they would take them to the station and I would have to go. I showed them the receipt for the last consignment of tea. They did not ask me for the receipt relating to those particular sweepings. I have sot had any conversation with Lang as to altering his evidence. He his been on bail and crossed my path on Saturday and said, "Good evening. "I said, "What do you want? We must not be seen talking" He said, "I want you, if you can, to assist me. I am starving." I said, "I cannot support you. You are trying to ruin me. I can't give you anything. "A friend named Porter, of Cable Street, was with me He works at the gasworks, I believe. I cannot give his address, but could point out the house.

Cross-examined. Up to six or seven years ago, my business was mainly the granary, firewood, and removing. I bought 1,500 1b. of sweepings in January. Part of that found in the bags was of this particular tea, the receipt for which I handed to the detective. I had no other tea on the premises. When cleansed it would be sold in the shop at 1s. per lb. It cost me 3 1/4; d. It is not true for Lang to say he has not spoken to me since the latter part of last year. Eaden did not give me orders to return the sacks. I only kept them as they were in such a filthy condition. I never asked if I could keep them. Alfred is my brother. I did not think of having Porter here. James Green received a good character.

Verdict: James Green, Not guilty; Alfred Green, Not guilty. No evidence was offered against James charging him with stealing and receiving tea, and a verdict of Not guilty was taken.

Sentence: Lang, 18 months' hard labour.


(Thursday, March 21.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-28
VerdictGuilty > manslaughter
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ALEXANDER, Herbert Percy George (21, carman) ; murder of Honora Histon; the like on Coroner's inquisition.

Sir Charles Mathews, Mr. Arthur Gill, and Mr. Arnold Ward prosecuted; Mr. Walter Stewart and Mr. Lort-Williams defended.

Police-constable HARRY URBAN, 29 G. I produce plan made to scale of Whitecross Street and the turning into Roscoe Street. The distance from the drug stores to the blank wall round the corner is about 70 ft.

JULIA HISTON . 102, Whitecross Street Honora Histon was my sister, was about 21 years of age, and worked in a factory. She and I lived with our mother at 102, Whitecross Street. Prisoner walked out with her for about four years. He used to call about eight to 8.30 every night, and they walked out. They were friendly, but when he met us out on Sunday night he might come up and quarrel with her—have a few words with her—and then he would go with her again. The last time he came was Wednesday, February 27, when he called for her at 8.30, and they were out together till half-past 10 or 11. On Thursday and Friday he did not come. On Saturday evening, March 2, at 6.30 p.m., I was with my sister going up Whitecross Street to get some errands. Near the drug stores we saw the prisoner on the other side. He beckoned with his head and my sister went over to him, I following behind. When she got round the corner he hit her in the mouth. I was half a yard from her. I heard no conversation. I saw nothing in his hand. She said to me, "He has chived me, Julia. "I said to him, "Don't hit her, hit me," and he said, "Go away, or else I will hit you," and I went to fetch my brother. He hit her in the mouth, and she fell. I only saw one blow. She said, "He has chived me" before she fell, and then when she fell he picked her up. I have heard that "chive" means a knife. I only saw him hit her twice in the mouth, and I did not see him hit her anywhere else. Bowers came up and was holding her. Prisoner said to me, "You pick her up." I said, "No, you pick her up, you done it," and I left her to fetch my brother. When I came back a little boy said she had gone off in a cab. I went to the hospital, but I did not see her; I was too excited. My sister Mary was there, and they let her see her.

Cross-examined. I said before the magistrate that prisoner and my sister always seemed to be on very good terms, and that he seemed very fond of her. He used to come for her every night; he never stopped away from her; he used to come every evening. I keep company with Jack Cumming. On the Wednesday evening prisoner came about 8.30 and was with my sister in the little tunnel way that divides my house from the next. I was there with Cumming about four yards from them. I heard no quarrelling on that occasion. When we went out on Saturday we did not expect to meet prisoner. My sister did not call out to him. She went over to him. They said nothing. They were together about five minutes before I saw him hit her. Directly we met him he hit her. They never stopped to speak to one another. They were facing one another. I did not see her put her arms round his neck. When I came up to

them he picked her up. I did not see he had a pencil in his band—he had nothing in his hand. I saw him bit her in the month, and the fell down directly. I was watching them until the moment when he picked her up and put her against the wall. Up to that I did not go away. I never saw what be had in his band. I see him hit her; be never said anything. I did not notice that he was very much concerned at her condition—I was excited; that is why I went to fetch my brother.

MARY HISTON , sister of Honora Histon. On Saturday, March 2, my sister went to work at nine a.m. as a fancy box maker, returned it two p.m., and went out with Julia shopping at six p.m. Prisoner used to call for deceased every night, the last time being Wednesday, February 27. Deceased never went with any other young man. I heard prisoner and deceased jangling once, but they bad always been on good terms.

EDWARD Fox, 16, New Street, porter. I have known prisoner for come years, and also the deceased girl with whom he kept company. On Thursday, February 28, I was with prisoner between eight and nine p.m. I asked if he was going out with his girl, and he said he had a night off. On March 1 prisoner called for me at 8.10 p.m., and we went together to the London Music Hall, Shoreditch. Prisoner said he was not going with Honora Histon any more. I asked him if it was all up, and be replied. "Tea. "He said she had been round three times for him the previous evening, and that he had not seen her—he had not been out with her. On Saturday, March 2, I was with him from 2.45 till just after six p.m. We each had had two glasses of ale and two glasses of stout—two pints of beer each. He left me to go home to Gee Street, Goswell Road, which is about two minutes' walk from Whitecross Street. Prisoner had a knife, and on the Thursday evening I saw him cutting wood or a pencil with it.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner for some time, and he and I were great friends. He has always been a steady lad all the time I have known him. He used to go out with a van, and I dare say would have to sign delivery sheets. He always had pencils with him. He had a habit when talking to anyone of fidgeting with a knife or pencil—always cutting or sharpening it. It was an ordinary pocket knife with a blade about 2 £ in. long. On Thursday he met me between eight rind nine p.m. We spoke about arranging to get a suit of clothes for me on the instalment purchase system. I do not know if he met me for that purpose. I have frequently gone to places of entertainment with prisoner. On Friday we went to the London Music Hall; the performance began at 9.10. On Saturday I left off work at 2.10 and met prisoner about 2.45 p.m. We went to an eating house and prisoner had some tea and a piece of cake or pudding, then we had four half-pints of beer each. I never saw prisoner intoxicated to my knowledge. He seemed all right that afternoon. He had a pencil behind his ear. He always carried the same sort of

pencil coloured yellow, like those produced. He was cutting it when I came up to him. When we parted we arranged to meet again at nine o'clock. I think his wages are 16s. a week. I do not know that only 5s. 6d. was found on him. He spent 2d. at the coffee house and put two or three pennies into a machine organ and what was paid for the drink. When he left me at six p.m. he was sober to my idea—the drink had had no effect on him.

THOMAS BOWERS , 19, Old Street, chemist's assistant. On Saturday, March 2 I was in Whitecross Street between six and seven p.m., and turned into Roscoe Street, when I passed the prisoner and two young women. The deceased had her hands up to her face and appeared to he crying. I heard a mumbling sort of talk—they were all talking together; talking at one another. I knew the sisters Honora and Julia Histon before. The talking went on while I walked about 20 yards past them. I stopped and looked round for about two minutes and then I saw the deceased fall right flat on her face in the road. I did not see what happened to her before that The sister and the prisoner were close to her at the time. I then walked back to assist. The young man asked me to assist him to pick the woman up and I did so, and we got her to the wall, where I held her up. I asked Julia to go and fetch some water. The water was brought by another person; the deceased drank about a wineglassful and vomited it up, together with a little clot of blood. I asked the young man what he had done. He said he hit her and she fainted away and fell on her face. He asked me to go for a cab, which I did, leaving the deceased with Mrs. Gwyan, who had come up, and who held the deceased in her arms. Julia must have gone away. I did not see her afterwards. I then left and sent a cab back.

Cross-examined. When the young man asked me to lift her up he did not seem in the right sort of temper—he did not seem distressed. He seemed anxious to help the girl. He did not seem grieved that she should be in that condition. I was there about quarter of an hour or 20 minutes. He did not realise that her condition was serious then. He was distressed when she fainted and did not come to. They were all talking at one another, including Julia. While they were talking deceased was about two yards from prisoner. I did not see her move towards him. She stood on the kerb and fell flat in the road, I passed them and stopped, and they appeared to me in the same position. The prisoner could have escaped if he wanted to. There was no other man in sight except myself, and I was 20 yards away. He remained till I left Mrs. Gwyan and a few people had come then To tell you the truth, I was not studying him; I was thinking more of getting the young woman conscious. I saw no injury to her mouth and I saw no knife.

ANNIE TIFFIN , Peabody Buildings, Roscoe Street. On March 2, between six and seven p.m., I saw two young women and a young man standing in Roscoe Street on the other side of the road from me One of the women was crying. I did not hear anything said. I saw the one who was crying fall in the road The man picked her up. I

said to the other woman in the hearing of the prisoner, "Did he hit her? "(To Mr. Stewart.) Prisoner was attending to the deceased and gave no signs of hearing what I said. (Evidence objected to by Mr. Stewart and disallowed.)

ELIZA GWYAN , 9, Peabody Buildings. On March 2, between 6.30 and 7, I was in Roscoe Street, when my attention was directed to a small crowd, and I saw two young men holding the deceased up. I knew one of the men—Tom Bowers. I recognise the prisoner as the other. I went to assist. Bowers left, and I put my two arms round the girl, who was standing against the wall. I found my left hand was covered with blood. Prisoner saw it. I said in his hearing, Oh, my God, what is this?" Prisoner said nothing, he just drooped his head. I said, "For God's sake, somebody get a cab, if not she will die in my arms! "Some water was brought. Prisoner seemed as if he was going to faint, because he could not hold her up himself—I had to do so. A cab was fetched. Prisoner and I assisted 'her in sad went with her to the hospital. She died in my arms in the cab. While in the cab prisoner said he had been out with her between three and four years and he loved her dearly. He did not know what made him do it. He said she had been flirting with other chaps; that he loved her, and he did not know what made him do it He said, he had not seen her for a week. This was in the cab. I had not told him when she died. When she was standing against the wall I saw she had a big wound on the left breast. She was carried into the hospital on a stretcher. About five minutes afterwards I told prisoner that His sweetheart was dead. He said, "My God, my God, don't say that! "and he fainted and they took him away.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was tall all but fainting before the cab came—he seemed terribly upset by what had happened. When we go her in the cab at first she knelt on the floor with her body across my knees and prisoner helped to support her. She never spoke. After prisoner was taken to the station Police-constable Rowe spoke to me between 10 and 10 minutes past seven. I said two or three things to the police officer Rowe. (To the Judge.) Deceased wore a blouse, a black velvet body, and a fur collarette. Under the blouse was only a chemise and stays.

ARTHUR WATKINS , steward! St. Bartholomew's Hospital. About seven p.m. on March 2 the deceased was brought to the hospital by prisoner and Gwyan. I sent for a policeman who remained outside the surgery. I then asked prisoner for his name and address. He replied, "Herbert Shepherd, 84, Gee Street, Goswell Road" I asked him the name and address of deceased. He replied, "Honora Histon, 102, Whitecross Street, St. Luke's. "I then asked what he knew of the matter. He said that he was sharpening a pencil and she (meaning the deceased) tried to throw her arms round his neck and the knife must have gone into her. I said, "I think this is a case that the police must investigate. "I had regarded him as a friend of the deceased. I then called the constable and repeated

what prisoner had said. Prisoner repeated the same statement and said nothing further.

Police-constable THOMAS TILBURY. 295 City. On March 2, at about seven p.m., I was called to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Watkins stated in the presence of the prisoner that the prisoner told him that while he was sharpening a pencil the girl caught him round the neck and the knife must have gone into her. Prisoner repeated the same statement to me. The (prisoner said he was sharpening a pencil, the girl caught him round the neck, and the knife must have gone into her. I said, "I must take you to the station. "He replied, "I did not mean to do it; I am very sorry, I did not (mean to do it" He was taken to Snow Hill Police Station and charged with murder, and afterwards conveyed to Old Street Police Station. He made no reply do the charge.

Police-constable RICHARD ROWE, 395 City. I was at Snow Hill Police Station on March 2 at 7.30 p.m. when prisoner was brought in by the last witness. Prisoner was asked where? the matter had happened, and he said in Banner Street. That is close to Roscoe Street. I searched the prisoner and found nothing on him. I said, "Where is your knife?"

Mr. Stewart objected to evidence of statement made by prisoner after arrest (Cited Regina v. Gavin, 15 Cox. 656.)

Sir Chas. Mathews submitted that the statement was admissible, not being obtained by inducement or threat.

The Lord Chief Justice said the ease of Gavin went a great deal too far if it was to be held that under no circumstances would a statement after arrest be admitted, but he would not admit the statement in this case.

I took (prisoner from Snow Hill to Old Street. On the way he made a statement to Mr. (Objection renewed.) Prisoner started the conversation himself. (Evidence admitted.) Prisoner said, "I went to see her early to-night because she has been flirting about lately with other chaps, and I had not seen her for a week. She must have fell on to the knife. I did not mean to kill her. I suppose I shall get the rope. "I told him he had better not say any more, as whatever he said I should make a note of and it would be used in evidence for or against him. Prisoner said, "I will make no further statement." (The Lord Chief Justice: It would have been most unfair to the prisoner and against his interest to have excluded that statement.) I took down in writing what prisoner had said as soon as I got into the station and read it to him. He said, "I did not say 'she has beer flirting. "I said, "Did you say to me, 'She must have fell on to the knife? "He said, "Yes. "I said, "Did you say, "I shall get the rope'? "He said, "Yes. "I said, "Did you say you had not seen her for a week?" He said, "Yes. "He practically admitted all the statements except the flirting. He sometimes goes by the name of Shepherd. He gave his right address and the girl's right address. At City Road he said his real name was Herbert Percy George Alexander.

Cross-examined. The address prisoner gave was that of Mrs. Shepherd where he lives. I had not spoken to Mrs. Gwyan except to say, "What is it?" She said, "He has killed her." That was on the way to Snow Hill Station. Gwyan did not say that the deceased had been flirting about lately with other chaps. Prisoner said that to me himself.

ELIZA GWYAN , recalled. I cannot recollect what I said to Rowe as we went to the station. I was saying it was a dreadful thing and so on. I said to prisoner, "What made you do it? "Going along I told Rowe that prisoner had said the girl had been flirting with other chaps.

Inspector ANDREW KING, G Division. On March 2, at 11 p.m., at City Road Police Station I charged prisoner with the murder of Honora Histon. I searched him and found on him two pieces of lead pencil produced. There were notches on them. They did not appear to have been recently sharpened. They have not been touched since. I also found a small silver brooch with the name of "Nora" upon it. I found no knife.

Cross-examined. The pencils were taken from prisoner's right-hand waistcoat pocket, which was a very dirty old pocket. I And some mall transverse nicks on the pencil handed me, which I noticed at the time. (To the Judge.) Looking at the sharpest pointed (pencil at the time I saw it, my idea was it had not been freshly sharpened—that was the opinion I formed. The point is a quarter of am inch kng.

ROBERT FOSTER MOORE , house surgeon, St. Bartholomew's Hospital. On March 2, about seven p.m., deceased was brought to the hospital, when I immediately saw her. The body was still warm. She had no—been dead more than an hour. I saw a wound on the breast at the time. On Monday, March 4, I made a postmortem examination. I found a clean cut wound about in. long over the lower left shoulder on the outside; another lower down about the middle of the front of the arm 518 in. long. There was a corresponding wound on the opposite side of the arm—it went right through about 1 £ in. of flesh. I examined her blouse and found cuts corresponding with those two wounds, but no cut on the under part of the sleeve where the wound had gone through the arm. The third wound which I had seen on the Saturday was on the right side of the chest, between the second and third ribs, went backwards, downwards, and towards the right, was about 3in. deep and 518 in. long. It had gone through the fissures of the cheat wall, through the edge of the lung, through the sack which encloses the heart, and into the pulmonary artery, which it had punctured for about 1-3 of an inch. The depth of that artery is 3 £ in. from the. Surface of the chest. That wound would give rise to immediate and copious bleeaing and the cause of death was internal bleeding from the pulmonary artery. The other organs of the body were normal and the body seemed to be that of a well-nourished woman. The three wounds

were given by separate incisions—three distinct wounds; the lower wound on the arm could have been given in no position of the arm, so as to pierce also the chest. The wounds must have been given by the broad blade, 518 in. in breadth, and a clasp knife. The chest wound was above the stays, piercing only the blouse and chemise. I produce the blouse worn by deceased, with papers showing the cuts. Cross-examined. If the lungs of the deceased had been deflated the depth of the pulmonary artery would have been about 3 in. from the surface of the chest. There would be the intercostal muscle between the second and third rib, not a tough substance to penetrate, and two thicknesses of the pleura, a little thicker than paper. They would be extremely easy to penetrate, the weapon missing the rib. Pressure at this point would tend to cause the surface to be closer than otherwise to the pulmonary artery. I do not think a blade 2 £ in. in length would have wounded the artery even if the chest was deflated. It is not impossible, but I do not think so—even assuming deflation and pressure on the surface of the chest. I would not gay that a blade 2 3/4 in. would do it. It is possible that one of the wounds might have been caused by a blade smaller than 518 in. in breadth; but there were three wounds here all of the same breadth. I cannot say it is impossible that the blade might be smaller than 518 the of an inch, but the divergence would not be the same with regard to the deeper wounds. The divergence would be less in the deeper wound. If there was in fact a movement of the weapon parallel to its length in all cases the divergence might be the same. Comparatively slight force would penetrate the membranes and cause the chest wound. Assuming the girl was standing with her arms round the neck of the man and he had a knife in his right hand, it is not impossible that the wound might have been caused by a sudden movement of his right hand. It is not impossible that the wound in the chest might be caused by the girl falling upon the knife in the man's right hand; it is within the bounds of possibility. A surgeon could make the wound with very little expenditure of force. There was no sign of bruising round the edges of the wound to indicate great violence. The same remark applies to the wound in the shoulder. It penetrated the soft tissues and a woman's arm is softer than a man's. The highest wound on the shoulder was 1 £ in. deep. But for the pulmonary artery being punctured I should not have expected death to result from the chest wound.

Re-examined. I do not think it probable the chest wound would be produced by the girl falling on the knife—I should describe it as highly improbable, having regard to the fact of there being three wounds; improbable with one, highly improbable having regard to the existence of the three. The course of the wound might be the same whether the deceased had fallen on the knife or not; it depends on the way the knife is held. There must have been three blows of the knife to cause the three wounds. The two wounds on the arm were about 2 1/2 in. apart. (To the Judge.) Assuming the woman had put her arm round the man's neck, and he had got a knife in his

hand, and he had moved his hand in that manner (describing), either forgetting the knife or intending to hurt her, it is not impossible he might have caused all these three wounds. One can conceive their being done by three rather violent motions of the arm. I can conceive of the two on the arm being caused in that way and by the one in the chest being caused by the woman falling on the knife. I can only say it is not impossible that two might have been caused by cureless slashing and the third by her falling on the knife.

FREDERICK MORLEY STEER , 82, Gee Street. Prisoner has been in my employ for about 12 months. He is a packer, and goes out with the van about twice a week. I know very little about those he came in contact with, but so far as I can judge he has been a fairly quiet and orderly fellow.

NORA SHEPHERD . I am the aunt of the prisoner; he has lived with me since 10 years ago when his mother died. He was always a good boy. I have never heard of any violence suggested against him.

Verdict, Not guilty of wilful murder; Guilty of manslaughter, with the strongest recommendation to mercy. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-29
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

NOTTAGE, John ; manslaughter of Richard Pooley.

Mr. E. P. Walsh prosecuted. Mr. Fordham defended.

WILLIAM PERRY , 18, Sidmouth Street, Gray's Inn Road, painter. On March 2, at 11.55 p.m., I was standing outside the "Bridport Arms," in Harrison Street, Gray's Inn Road, when a man named Harry Byford came out of the public-house and caused me to knock his hat off. We had a few words and were going to fight. Even tually Byford went away Prisoner came up and struck me a slight blow on the arm. Then the deceased came up, caught me by the arm, and said, "Don't fight, Bill." As he did so, prisoner struck him in the face with his fist and he fell on the back of his head in the road. I stooped down and found he was unconscious. It was all done in a second; I could not say whether it was a deliberate blow. I assisted to carry deceased to his room.

Cross-examined. Prisoner has been a friend of Pooley, Byford, and myself. I believe the deceased and his wife were very great friends of prisoner. Deceased had got hold of my arm and was trying to prevent a fight between me and Byford, and prisoner was also trying to prevent a fight between me and Pooley; he was trying to prevent a fight taking place, I should say. I was not looking at the prisoner. I saw deceased on the ground. (To the Judge.) I saw prisoner hit deceased. (To Mr. Fordham.) It was so sudden, I would not swear it was a deliberate blow. It might have been an accidental blow. We had all been drinking. I was not drunk. I. cannot say how the blow was struck. I could not swear that prisoners fist was clenched.

HENRY GREENHAM , 22, Harrison Street. On March 2, at 11 57 p.m., I left the "Bridport Arms" in company with deceased. When we got

outside a fight took place between prisoner and deceased, who was in his shirt sleeves. Deceased stepped away from me in between two men that were going 10 fight. He received a blow in his face from prisoner and fell on the back of his head in the roadway. I ran and helped him upstairs into his room at 42, Harrison Street just across the road. I did not see prisoner endeavour to stop the fighting that was going on.

Cross-examined. The two men I saw shape up to fight were prisoner and Pooley. I know prisoner was a great friend of deceased. Deceased was not trying to prevent Perry and Byford fighting, Byford was trying to prevent prisoner and deceased fighting—that is what I saw. I was standing right between the two men when deceased stepped in between the two the same as I was. I could not say whether the blow was meant for deceased or not, we being so close together. All I say was deceased was trying to prevent it. (To the Judge.) I am not sure that prisoner made the blow wilfully. There was a general sort of scuffle, and I saw deceased hit. I had had one or two glasses.

THOMAS REED , 24, Wakefield Street. At 11.55 p.m., on March 2, I was standing outside the "Bridport Arms" and saw prisoner, deceased, Perry, and one or two others leave the public-house. Somebody knocked Byford's hat off, and he said, "Don't do it again, because I do not like it." Byford and Perry started jangling and were going to fight. Perry took off his coat. Byford walked away. Prisoner then shoved Perry backwards and said, "Don't fight." Deceased stepped towards the prisoner, and the next moment I heard a thud, when deceased fell on the ground. I never saw a blow whatever.

Cross-examined. The only fight that seemed likely to take place was between Byford and Perry.

MARGARET POOLEY , 42, Harrison Street, widow of Richard Pooley. On March 2, when my husband was brought home, I went out to the prisoner and said, "Whatever have you done it for, Jack?" He said, "When he takes a rise out of Harry Byford he takes it out of Mme" I had previously been on friendly terms with prisoner.

JOHN HARRIS PAYNE , house surgeon, Royal Free Hospital, Gray's Inn Road. On Sunday morning, March 3, deceased was brought to the hospital, quite unconscious, and suffering from concussion of the brain. He never regained consciousness and died at midday, the cause of death being fracture of the base of the skull, compression of the brain, and come. The fracture extended right across the base of the skull. It must have been caused by a severe blow from the head falling against a hard substance.

Cross-examined. There was no other injury.

To the Lord Chief Justice. A drunken man falling on the back of his head might easily have received the injury in that way.

On the suggestion of the Lord Chief Justice a verdict of Not guilty was returned, and the prisoner was discharged with a caution.


(Thursday, March 21.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-30
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

SAVORY, Arthur ; stealing 43 cocoanuts and other goods of R. S. Murray and Co., Limited, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Hardy defended.

MATTHEW WASHINGTON , foreman to C. Webster and Co., contractors, 65, Ewer Street, Blackfriars. Prisoner has been in our service a number of years and up to his arrest. We have a contract with R. S. Murray and Co., and prisoner was employed in carting for them for two years.

Cross-examined. He was in our firm for 18 years as carman and horse-keeper, and gave perfect satisfaction. He has borne a good character.

Police-constable ERNEST BERRIDGE, 596 W. On the evening of February 26 I went to 22, Defoe Road, where prisoner lives, at 1.45, and saw him standing at the back of the van, which contained two sacks of provender, one sack of sugar, one sack of maize, and 43 cocoanuts. I asked him what he had in the van, and he replied, "I have got some corn. "When I found the property I asked him where he had got it, and the said, "I decline to say. "I took him to the police station, and he declined to give any information. On the next day he was taken before the magistrate, and he said, "I stole the things. I am very sorry I stole the things. "

Cross-examined. He might have had some drink. My information was that he had stolen property. His brother-in-law said; "I want you to take the man into custody. "If he had given me any information as to where he got the goods I should not have taken him into custody. When the charge was read over to him he volunteered the statement I have mentioned. From the time he was taken into custody till he was charged at the police station I have not put any question to him as to where he got the things from.

Detective HENRY GODDARD, W Division. I was present when prisoner was brought before the magistrate, and when he was asked if he had anything to say he said, "I stole them myself. "After his remand I saw him in the passage of the police court, and he made a statement to me, which I did not invite him to make. I had spoken to him before he was taken before the magistrate and asked him who his employer was and the manager's name. All the questions I put to him were with reference to the charge. An hour intervened between the time I have mentioned and the statement he made to me in the police court passage, and in the meantime he had been before the court. He was not cautioned, as I did not know he was going to speak to me. He spoke to me as he passed me in the passage leading to the cells while the gaoler was conducting him. He said, "The provender and the maize I stole from Webster's yard; the cocoanuts I stole; the sugar I never saw till the constable called my attention to

it in the van. "At 5.15 I went to 22, Defoe Road and saw a van standing outside, and I saw a man put two cases up. They came from 22, Defoe Road. I found there were a number of cases of chocolates and a number of small boxes. I found some of them had the name of Murray on. I spoke to Taylor, who was the man I saw putting the cases in the van, and to Mrs. Goldsmith. I took the contents of the van to the police station. There were 22 4 lb. boxes of different kinds of sweets bearing the name of Murray (boxes produced), 13 7 lb. boxes with Murray's name, eight open cases of chocolates, caramels, and 'Varsity mixture, and one bag containing 50 lb. of sugar. I went back to 22, Defoe Road, at 9 p.m. Taylor still had in his possession one case of Yankeedoodle caramels, which were identified as Murray's, and I took it to the police station. It was not there in the afternoon.

Cross-examined. I was the officer in charge. Prisoner made the remark to which I have alluded when the assistant-gaoler opened the door leading to the cells and called out "Remanded." I did not take down the statement in writing, but I have a good memory. The warder was not present. At 5.15 on the day in question I saw the van outside the house and examined some of the cocoanuts. I saw a man put a case into the back of the van. I waited and saw him bring another case out. I stood 50 yards from the van. I saw two cases put into the van, and there were eight in the van altogether. For aught I know the other six might have been in the van when it drove up. Those that I saw put in were tied up in sacks; 22 of the small boxes were complete, and Murray's name was stamped on every one, and anyone dealing with the sweets would see Murray's name on them. The ticket contains the packer's name. The caramel sweets have not the name of Murray on them nor the 'Varsity mixture. I had not a search warrant. I found them in the street. I was in plain clothes. In the afternoon I did not go into the house because I did not want to lose sight of the van. If I had had someone with me I should have gone into the house. I did not want to cause a commotion by blowing a whistle. Although I was 50 yards off I could identify the two cases that came out of the house.

H. JOHN LAWTON , manager to R. 8. Murray and Co., 67, Turnmill Street. Prisoner was in the habit of coming to our premises every day. His work was to take out deliveries on some days and haul from the wharves and docks. He would bring raw material to our place, including cocoanuts and sugar. He would deliver manufactured sweets and collect the money. He had no authority to purchase goods, as we have a rule that no servant should purchase from the firm. At one time he did purchase from the firm, but that was stopped in January, 1906. After he was in custody I saw the goods seized by the police—among others the cocoanuts. On February 25 we had a delivery of cocoanuts, but prisoner was not engaged in cartin them. I can identify the sweets. There were some in boxes with our name on. The value of them was £35—our selling price. The

retail selling price would be 25 per cent, above that. Some were 2 ozfor a penny. The total weight was 12 1/2 cwt.

To the Court. It would not be possible for a man to escape detection if he took this quantity all at once, but if he took it from six or seven deliveries he might, because we (have 600 bands and we carry from 40 to 50 tons.

Cross-examined. I was manager in 1905. Prisoner did buy some goods from us. Invoices produced have the name of Savory and mage from April 20 to December 13, and the total amount is £3 4s. Then Mr. Murray refused to sell to him on the ground that he was a carman. He thought it was not the right kind of thing for a carman to be buying his goods. The invoices produced range from May 25 and they are debited to the Meymoud Company.

WILLIAM RAYNER , secretary to R. S. Murray and Co. The two accounts produced are copies of our books showing goods supplied to the Meymoud Company.

Cross-examined. I find that goods were supplied to prisoner. I bow the customers of the firm. (A list of same of the customers to whom goods were sold was handed to witness, and it was arranged that he should take it to the office of the company and check it by their books.)

Mrs. HIBBERD. I aim an ironer. Up to the end of February I was living at 22, Defoe Road, where prisoner lived with Mrs. Goldsmith. I was charwoman there and was paid 3s. a week by prisoner. Sometimes Mrs. Goldsmith would take the van out. I heard prisoner tell her to meet him at Bleckfriars in the evening. This happened sometimes once and sometimes twice a week. I sometimes saw the van come home about nine o'clock and I saw what was taken out. It was a sack with a few boxes of sweets in it with the name of Murray. There used to be a few brought home each time—about half a dozen. The last time was eight days before he was arrested. I could not sty what came; I was in bed at the time, but in the morning I saw two cases. I did not see what was in them. Some of the things were kept in the back bedroom in the original boxes. They were only taken out on Friday night. Mrs. Goldsmith kept a stall at Brixton, which was opened on Friday and Saturday nights. On the evening before the sweets used to be taken out of the boxes and put into small bags. I have been to the stall myself. Mrs. Goldsmith owned it. She sold at 3 oz. for a penny, or 4 oz. of nut rock. I have seen some of the boxes at the courthouse and I recognise some of them as being those that Game in. I remember the day on which prisoner was arrested. Mrs. Goldsmith went to the police court, but I did not go. When prisoner was arrested I took the sweets out of the boxes; in that I was helped by Jessie and Willie and the boxes were burned.

Cross-examined. Detective Goddard came to see me last Thursday and took my statement, which I signed the next day at the solicitor's. I was living at 22, Defoe Road with prisoner's father and received an

allowance of 3s. a week; his father receives 10s. a week. Prisoner is not living with his wife. I saw her on Boxing Day. I know that Mrs. Goldsmith does have a stall, and I have been there when she was getting up the stall. On Friday and Saturday nights the stall is held; there is not much doing the other days. Mrs. Goldsmith told me to burn the boxes to which I have alluded. I deny that I was drunk upstairs. There is a bad feeling between prisoner and his wife's relations, but I do not suggest that they would like to do prisoner a bad turn. I saw the boxes arrive, but I had no suspicion that they were come by dishonestly. They were dealt with in an open way, but I used to think it was strange that they should come in at the time they did.

WILLIAM RAYNER , recalled. I find on examining the books that the following people and firms were customers of ours: Bond, Harper, Jackson, Skyer, Avard, Austin, Simmons, Stevens, Small, Page. Croydon Goodie Shop, Petty, Arthur, Hudson, Rogers, Allen, Nixon, Harrison. They are all small c. o. d. customers, generally 2 oz. and penny lines. The accounts vary from 9s. 11d. to £2 or £3.


ARTHUR SAVORY (prisoner, on oath). I lived at 22, Defoe Road, and before this charge was made there was no suggestion of any kind against me. I have been employed by Webster and Co. for 18 years, and from April 20 to December 13 I bought goods from Murray and Co I have the invoices for these purchases. Then Mr. Murray objected to serve me. I was going out with a stall then on Saturday evenings along with a friend in the confectionery trade. I used to buy from the Meymoud Confectionery Company toffee, nut rock, stick-jaw, and candy. Murray's sold them the stuff, and the invoices produced are made out to those people. I used to buy of them. When they, gave the traveller the order he knew that I had them. The last invoice to the Meymoud Company was September 12. They got into bad straits and wanted to get out of it, and from that time I was unable to get goods from them. I used to report myself at nine o'clock to Murray's and wait two or three hours, and by two o'clock the goods would be handed to Mr. Phillips or Wilmore were with me when I delivered the goods. Sometimes a customer did not require all the goods I took to him, and if he sent two back I would have them with the discount. I paid for those two. I have broken bulk to Bond, Harper, Skyer, of Hoxton; Austin, of Stroud Green Road; Simmons, Stevens, of Hoxton Road; and Page. We had 400 customers on the round, and I have broken bulk and kept a lot of their goods. I admit that when I was brought before the magistrate I said that I stole them myself, but the night before I was intoxicated, and a fellow-prisoner at the police-station to whom I applied for advice told me that if I would plead guilty I should get off with a fine of 10s. I deny that I made the statement to Detective Goddard which he says I did. When the Meymoud Confectionery Company

failed I bought their stock for £30, and at the same time my sister died, and I bought the stock of her shop in Green Lanes. I have a list of the stock I bought from the Meymoud Company. I bought cocoauuts and kernels from Phillips, as appears from the bill now produced.

Cross-examined. I was drunk when I was arrested, and was hardly sober when brough before the magistrate; I was slightly inebriated. I pleaded guilty because I thought of getting out of the trouble quickly. I will swear I did not say to Goddard, "I stole the provender and maize from Webster's yard. "I do not even recollect speaking to him. I should recollect it if I had said it. I started the stall about two months after I started at Murray's a couple of years ago. In January Mr. Murray refused to supply me with sweets, but I still continued to get them from him, only under another name, the Meymoud Confectionery Company, and when they failed in August I broke bulk. I knew it was against the rules, but it was not dishonest. I have always been in the habit of getting a living, and Murray's are not the only manufacturers.

A. PHILLIPS, 22, Murphy Street, Lambeth. I was employed by R 8. Webster and Co. as vanboy between a year and six months. I drove with prisoner to Messrs. Murray's and loaded up. I never saw (prisoner steal oases at Murray's premises. Sometimes when we went to a customer prisoner would take a dozen, boxes into the shop and bring half a dozen out and say," He does not want more, we can put them up in front. "This occurred with Austin (122, Stroud Green Road), with Bond on several occasions, with Jackson, Skyer, Stevens, and Award.

Cross-examined. I was discharged by Webster's for insolence and carelessness. We used to take goods back from customers five or six times a week—four or five a week of caramels and the other time 'Varsity mixture. I know the boxes of Yankeedoodle mixture weighing 1 1/4; cwt. I remember Lawrence (of Church Street, Croydon) returning some two or three months ago. We only went there twice, When we got to the shop I remained with the van; I did not hear what took place in the shop.

FREDERICK WILMORE . I was employed by R. S. Webster and Co. as vanboy for 18 months. I drove with prisoner to Murray's and remained with him till he received his load, and I never saw him steal anything there. When we arrived at the various customers I regained with the van, and sometimes prisoner would bring back some cases. I remember Avard, of High Street, Walworth; Simmons, Hodson, of Mitcham Road.

Cross-examined. I left Webster's in November. I was not discharged. I left to better myself. I have been with other carmen, but they did not break bulk; if the customer did not want the goods they took them back to the firm. Prisoner took the goods to his place in Tooting. We would go there with Webster's van when we were round that way.

Mrs. GOLDSMITH, 22, Defoe Road. Before I lived with prisoner I kept a general shop; I sold all kinds of sweets and tobacco. Then I sold my business, but continued to carry on trade as a sweetstuff maker. I gave prisoner money to pay for some of Murray's sweets. When I went to the stall I did not take the sweets in the original boxes; I used to throw them out loosely. I used to empty them out into cases so as to mix them. It is not the fact that I asked Mrs. Hibberd to burn some boxes. I made no attempt to destroy boxes, nor did prisoner ask me to do so.

Cross-examined. The stall belonged to me; I only had it open once a week in Atlantic Road. I used to sell chocolates at 2 oz. for 1 1/2 d., the rest at 3 oz. a penny, and some 4 oz. a penny. I did not tell prisoner what I wanted; he brought what he pleased. I expected he would get them wholesale. When Mr. Murray refused to serve prisoner, then he went to the Meymoud Company; I knew he got the goods by breaking bulk. If any customer only wanted a few they brought me the rest. I know Mrs. Hibberd, but we were not on good terms; she was always the worse for liquor. I remember the police coming the day alter prisoner was arrested and finding some things in the van. That is what I always did; I took them to the stall loosely. It is not true, as stated by Mrs. Hibberd, that she and the two children sat up all night. The girl got up and asked what was the matter, (and I said, "Jessie, your father has been taken to prison." I did not burn the boxes.

(Friday, March 22.)

Verdict, Guilty, the jury desiring the court to pass as lenient a sentence as possible on the ground of the prisoner's former good character.

Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment in the second division.


(Friday, March 22.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-31
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

RAYNER, Horace George (otherwise Turner, 27, clerk); murder of William Whiteley; the like on Coroner's Inquisition.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted. Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Curtis Bennett defended. Mr. Bodkin watched the case for the., Whiteley family; Mr. L. C. Loyd watched the case on behalf of Mr. George Rayner.

Detective CECIL PAKSONS, N Division, proved a plan of the shop, 43, Westbourne Grove.

Sir GEORGE HENRY LEWIS, solicitor, Ely Place. I have acted upon three occasions for the late Mr. Whiteley. I have never heard of the

prisoner before this catastrophe, and never authorised him to go to Mr. Whiteley on January 24, or to use my name at all.

Cross-examined. I did not act for deceased in his divorce proceedings. I believe Mrs. Whiteley obtained a judicial separation by reason of her husband's misconduct. To my knowledge I never acted for deceased in proceedings between himself and Mr. Rayner, sen. I did act for Mr. Whiteley in a matter between him and the Misses Turner. I claim my privilege not to give any further information on. that point.

LOUISA TURNER . I had a sister named Emily. She had a son on April 10.1879. (Certificate of birth produced.) The boy named in the certificate is the prisoner, my sister's son, Horace George. The father's name is George Rayner, and the mother's Emily Rayner, formerly Turner. I know the prisoner, and used to see him from time to time. My sister was living then with George Rayner, the father. She afterwards left him, got married, and died on January 13, 1898. On November 15, 1882, I entered the service of William Whiteley, Limited, at Westbourne Grove, and made the acquaintance of William Whiteley. On January 15, 1883, I went to live at 13, Greville Road, Kilburn, under Mr. Whiteley's protection. I do not remember going to Hove with Mr. Whiteley. I visited my sister while she was there, but I did not see the boy there. On September 15, 1885, I had a son, two of his names being "Cecil" and "Whiteley." He is still alive. About May of 1888 a disagreement took place between Mr. Whiteley and myself, with the result that we separated, and have not lived together since. I saw Horace George Rayner from time to time, two or three times a year; when he was about 15 or 16. I think he saw my son about that time. I went with my son to George Rayner's office, where prisoner was with his father. My son asked me afterwards who prisoner was, and I told him. Prisoner knew quite well, I think, who my son was, and who his father was. Mr. Whiteley saw the prisoner once when he was about four, I think, in his premises, Westbourne Grove. I told Mr. Whiteley who he was.

Cross-examined. My sister Emily was younger than I did not know Mr. Rayner in 1876. I first knew him about a year before Horace, the prisoner, was born. My sister had had a child before that, I understood, and the father, I think, was Mr. Rayner, although he has since repudiated that. If he was not the father I have no idea who was. I did not hear that Mr. Rayner had repudiated being prisoner's father. I think my age is about 50, and I was about 23 or 24 when I went to Mr. Whiteley's service, but I cannot remember. My sister had been living with Mr. Rayner for about three years then; at that time I do not think Mr. Rayner knew Mr. Whiteley. My sister had only been to Westbourne Grove with me as a customer before then. When I went to Mr. Whileley's first prisoner would be about three, and he would be old enough to know who the former was. Prisoner did not visit frequently at Greville Road. I was on good terms

then with my sister and Mr. Rayner, and they often visited me, but not with the child Horace, though his sister came. I remember Stanley Road, Teddington, where Mr. Rayner and my sister lived: that was in 1879 and before that. I never visited there with deceased. He visited me while I was staying at Hove with my sister in 1885. My sister Emily was rather addicted to drink, but I do not know that she was attended by a Dr. Allen in respect of that. This weakness of hers lasted during her life. I have heard that my mother was also afflicted in the same way, but not when I was with her; we lived apart for many years. My maternal grandmother also suffered from the complaint. Greville Road was taken furnished in the name of Mr. Rayner by Mr. Whiteley originally. The reason it was taken in Mr. Rayner's name was because it was for him and his wife (my sister) and myself—so Mr. Whiteley said. I paid all the rates, etc. Deceased paid for the furnished house. Mr. Rayner was ostensibly the tenant, but he did not live there as a fact; he and my sister stayed with me on a visit. I was known as Miss Turner. I purchased the furniture from a Mrs. Graham, 15, Finchley Road. (Receipt for furniture and effects at 13, Greville Road, Kilburn, purchased from Mrs. Graham in the name of Rayner and paid by William Whiteley for £300 produced.) The dispute which arose between myself and deceased had relation to George Rayner. There was a quarrel. Mr. Whiteley made allegations about Mr. Rayner and myself, and proceedings were commenced against Mr. Whiteley by Mr. Rayner for libel and slander. I believe the former apologised, and the charges were withdrawn. I was still living in the same house, taken in the name of Rayner. In fact, all the time I lived under Mr. Whiteley protection I lived in premises taken in the name of Rayner and paid for by deceased. The lease of the house was in my name, I think. My father met with an accident when I was about 15 or 16. He was run over by a railway engine. He used to suffer with his head.

Re-examined. The verdict on my father's death was, "Cross neglect on the part of the railway." This accident occurred at Erith. Prior to 1883 the rooms at Greville Road were taken furnished; then I signed the lease and took it in my name. There was no truth in the allegations that I had immoral relations with George Rayner. I had had no acquaintance with deceased before I went into his service. My father had not been in any employment for some time before his death. He was separated from my mother. I saw him shortly before his accident—he was all right then.

TOM BROWNING , 14, Grove Park Road, South Tottenham. In September, 1905. I was living at 23, Highgate Road. The prisoner's 1906. wife, child, and sister lodged with me while he was in Russia. About March, 1906, prisoner joined them. He seemed then to have some occupation, but he did not tell me what it was. His rent was 5s. 6d. a week. From time to time he was away. There was no difficult then about getting my money. In September, 1906. I removed to my present address, accompanied by prisoner and his family. His rent was then 7s. a week. At first prisoner seemed to have employment,

but afterwards he could not get anything to do at all. His rent was paid up to December 13. About the 18th or 19th he went away with his wife and child, leaving some furniture. On the 23rd he came and said he could not pay the rent due nor the instalments for the furniture; the owners of the latter would call for it, and would pay me my arrears of rent. He said he had come to the end of his tether, he could not get anything to do, and had not a brass farthing to call his own. He had pawned nearly everything he had got. That was the last time I saw him. The rent was subsequently paid.

Cross-examined. I should say he was doing his utmost to get employment, and he told me so. At that time he did not know what to do with himself; his inability to get work seemed to be on his mind a good deal. He never owed a week's rent to me before.

CHARLES OSCAR HARMS , assistant manager, Rowton House, Hammersmith. On January 3 I issued the yellow ticket produced to somebody named Payne, who had been lodging at Rowton House for a short time. He came in on Christmas Eve. A night's lodging in the house costs 7d. The parcel produced was left with me by the man, and I subsequently handed it to Sergeant Williams. The white ticket produced is the locker ticket issued to the man Payne, which entitled him to use a locker as long as he was there, on payment of 6d. He was perfectly quiet while he was there.

JACOB GERDHARD , hotel-keeper, 23, Red Lion Street, W. C. I first saw prisoner in June last year, when he lodged with me one night under the name of Horace Payne. He said he had come from Russia; he had no luggage. The next time I saw him was on January 4 this year, when he engaged a room in the name of Horace Rayner. He only had a brown paper parcel with him. He used to come in at 11 at night, and went out about 10 or 11 in the morning. He did no; seem to have any employment, but he said he expected some money to come to him. On January 23 he asked to be called, at he had an appointment next day. He was called at half-past eight, and left about half-past nine. Next time I saw him was at St. Mary's Hospital on the 25th. (Box of cartridges produced.) I saw those in his bedroom in a drawer on January 25, and handed them to the police. I did not know prisoner had no money; he always paid me. I think he only had one suit of clothes. He came in a bowler hat and later on he wore a top hat; he wore that on January 24.

Cross-examined. He told me he suffered from sleeplessness. At times he would not speak at all, and appeared to he very depressed. He sometimes spoke of having a rich father and expected to come into £1,000. He said his father was a Yorkshireman and one of the richest men in London. His mother died two or three years ago, he said; and he was an illegitimate son. He got to know his real father when his mother died, so he said, when she was on her deathbed. In every respect he was quiet and well-behaved when. with me.

ARTHUR KEMP , salesman to Cogswell and Harrison, gunsmiths, Strand, deposed to selling box of 50 cartridges on January 23, at 5.30 p.m. (Sale note produced.) He could not identify prisoner as the man he sold them to.

BENJAMIN GREEN , butler to the late William Whiteley, 31, Porchestor Terrace. On January 24 I answered a ring at the gate by prisoner, whom I recognise. He asked to see Mr. Whiteley, but I said he never saw anyone at his residence; he would see him at his office. Prisoner asked me where his office was, and, not knowing, I told him to inquire at the counting-house. He thanked me and went in that direction. He was very cool in manner and very pleasant.

Cross-examined. I had never seen him before. There was nothing in his manner that struck me as being out of the common.

DAVID GOODMAN , chief cashier to William Whiteley, Limited. Deceased's age was 76. My office was in Shop 39. Mr. Whiteley came to the office about 10.30 or 11 on January 24. About half past 12 I saw the prisoner, who asked to see Mr. Whiteley. I asked if he had an appointment. He replied, "No, but if I said he had come from Sir George Lewis Mr. Whiteley would see him at once." I went and told Mr. Whiteley that, and he said, "Send him round." I took [prisoner round myself. Deceased opened the door and prisoner went in. I did not notice any recognition between them.

Cross-examined. I was in deceased's confidence in regard to matters connected with the business, but had no knowledge of his relations with the Turners or Mr. George Rayner. He was a very busy man, and had a good number of callers every day. Half an hour was not an unusual time for him to give to a customer. He would not see anyone calling for orders. So far as I know there was no break in the interview spoken of. Prisoner when he came was quite calm and businesslike. I did not hear any of the conversation between him and deceased.

WILLIAM JAMES , assistant in the fur department at William Whiteey, Limited. I am known as Jules. On January 24 I was at the repair desk in Shop 43, close to Mr. Whiteley's office. At one o'clock, or shortly after, deceased came out of his office. He came as far as the end of my counter, and called to me. I went to him and he said, "Go and fetch me a policeman," in an ordinary voice. I went at once, Mr. Whiteley standing in the same place. When I came back in three minutes Mr. Whiteley was dead.

Cross-examined. I actually saw deceased come out of his office. As there is no glass in the door you could not see through it. I did not see prisoner as Mr. Whiteley came out; the door was left open after he came out. He came out fairly quickly, but in the ordinary way. here was nothing in what he did to make me think he was apprehensive, except sending for the policeman. He did not attempt to rush away. As far as I knew prisoner remained in the room.

GEORGE MCCONNELL . messenger to an umbrella-maker. On January 24 I was in William Whiteley's premises near the repair desk.

I saw deceased come from his office to the corner of the counter where I was. He said, "Jules, fetch me a policeman."He stood there a minute or two, and then another gentleman came out—the gentleman there (indicating prisoner). I saw prisoner push Mr. Whiteley, and §ay, "Are you going to give in?" Mr. Whiteley said, "No." Prisoner said, "Then you are a dead man, Mr. Whiteley. "Whereupon prisoner pulled out a revolver and shot twice at deceased, who was about eight inches away. I was frightened and ran behind the counter. Then I heard a third report, and saw Mr. Whiteley fall, but not the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I am sure I remember what was said. I did not hear prisoner say, "Take this," and hand him a piece of paper. Mr. Whiteley was standing by himself when I saw him first. In a minute or two prisoner came out of the office, and gave deceased a push. Prisoner did not say, "Are you going to come in?" I do not think I was in a position to clearly recollect what was said before I ran under the counter.

MAUD HARRIS , assistant at William Whiteley, Limited. On January 24 I was at the counter near Mr. Whitelev's office, and saw Mr. Goodman bring a man round into deceased's office, about half-past 12. The next I noticed was Mr. Whiteley coming out, and a few minutes later the other man. This was just before one. Mr. Whiteley looked very pale. Then I heard the reports. That is all I noticed. I was very much upset.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was in the room about twenty minutes. I could not say it was half an hour. I did not notice that deceased was agitated. I was serving a customer at the time, and did not see enough of him to make me think there was anything wrong. I did not notice him speak to Jules. He was not attempting to get away. I was about five or six yards off, and could not hear what was said. I did not see prisoner put his arm out towards Mr. Whiteley, nor hand him any paper, nor push him. He came out of the office, stood still, and then fired. I did not see prisoner shoot himself; there was a high stand between him and me.

REECE HERBERT GERRARD , assistant at William Whiteley, Limited, shop 43. At one o'clock on January 24 I was at the centre counter opposite the repair desk with my back to deceased's office. I saw him standing at the end of the counter, and saw prisoner at the other side of the counter. Deceased was facing him. I turned to speak to my customer, when I heard words from the prisoner to this effect, "You had better take this"; with that the first shot went. I turned and saw prisoner with a revolver shooting a second shot at Mr. Whiteley, who fell. Prisoner then shot himself in the head.

Cross-examined. I am sure of the words, "You had better take this." I did not see prisoner put out his arm as though he was going. to hand something to deceased. I simply heard the report of the revolver.

JAMES HOLLYER SIMMONS , buyer to William Whiteley, Ltd. On the day in question I was walking between the counter and the wall, which is part of the entrance to deceased's office and saw him standing there with his back to his office. Prisoner was facing him. I heard nothing said. Deceased was waving prisoner away, and immediately after prisoner raised his hand level with Mr. Whiteley's head, and I heard two pistol reports. I then saw deceased on his knees, and prisoner fired at his own head. I saw a bullet picked up some time after by a constable.

Cross-examined. I gathered that Mr. Whiteley wished prisoner to go away when I saw them at first. I was 3 or 4 ft. away. If anything had been said I think I must have heard it. I saw no motion of the prisoner to put out his hand with a piece of paper in it. The firing was all done in two or three seconds.

Police-constable FREDERICK BUSSY, 175 F. I was on duty in Westbourne Grove on January 24 when the witness James fetched me, shortly after one. Deceased was lying on the floor, and prisoner close to him. When the doctor was bandaging prisoner's head, the latter said, "I am quite conscious. "I found a revolver on the floor. There were three loaded and three discharged cartridges—(some cartridges produced)—the same as in this pink box. I afterwards picked up a bullet, which fell on the counter, where Mr. Simmons was. It was flattened out.

Cross-examined. The prisoner appeared to be seriously injured, although he said he was conscious.

Dr. JOHN FRENCH, 23, Porchester Gardens. I was called in to Mr. Whiteley's premises on the day in question, and saw deceased with two wounds in his head quite dead. I examined him. (Witness indicated position of wounds.) I found a bullet embedded in the right temporal bone. I also examined the prisoner, who made the remark, "I am alive," or "I am conscious," and either, "Do not worry me," or "Do not worry about Mr. "From the marks on deceased's face, the pistol could not have been closer than 9 in. or further than 15 in.

Cross-examined. The condition of prisoner was very critical; he himself had a narrow escape from death. I think, in regard to Mr. Whiteley, the shot in the cheek was the first one fired.

Dr. HERBERT ERNEST BATTEN, casualty surgeon at St. Mary's Hospital. Prisoner was brought to the hospital on January 24 suffering from a bullet wound, which had destroyed the right eye. I attended him temporarily. He said, "My name is Cecil Whiteley. I am the son of Mr. William Whiteley. I have shot Mr. Whiteley. I have shot myself and have made a mistake. Give me something to make me sleep away, there's a good boy. I am quite conscious."I had nothing to do with him after the first day.

Cross-examined. He was in a very serious condition, and had a narrow escape from death.

Detective-sergeant EDWARD WILLIAMS, F Division. I went to St. Mary's Hospital on January 24 and saw prisoner. I took possession of his clothes. I found notebook (produced) in his overcoat pocket—five leaves were torn out. I found the leaves in hit trousers pocket in a purse (produced) and I fitted them in the book. The following words were written on them: "To whom it may concern.—William Whiteley is my father. He has brought upon himself and me a double fatality by reason of his own refusal of a request perfectly reasonable R. I. P."I also found an indelible pencil, which makes the same kind of writing as is on the two leaves. I found nothing else on him to indicate-who he was. I went to 23, Red Lion Street next day, and Mr. Gerdhard handed me prisoner's property, including box of 44 cartridges. I went to Rowton House, Hammersmith, and got a parcel which contained documents in the name of Payne. There was no name on the letters found. They were answers to advertisements.

JAMES FIELD , clerk in charge of cloak room, Lancaster Gate Tube Station, identified envelope deposited there on January 24.

RICHARD LEWIS LISTER , superintendent to William Whiteley, deposed to finding a silk hat on his office table, which he at first thought was Dr. French's. It contained in the lining the cloak room (Lancaster Gate) ticket.

Detective-inspector ROBERT FULLER, F Division. I was called to Westbourne Grove premises on January 24, and took charge of the investigations with regard to prisoner. I went to the cloak room at Lancaster Gate Tube Station and got the envelope (produced) and contents—a Russian passport in the name of Horace George Rayner, 19 pawntickets, a voucher for Rowton House in the name of Payne, a parcel ticket for the same, a receipt for £2 14s. for advertising, an advertisement for a situation, a type-written essay, three blank cheques, a green pocket wallet, a photo, of the prisoner, and 45 other photos.—lewd ones—a letter from Lord Augustus Loftus, the Consul at St. Petersburg, introducing Horace Rayner; a card case, 3d. in stamps, 11 cards, and a red pocket wallet. The pawntickets extend in date from April 17, 1906, to January 2, 1907, and refer to bracelets, boot trees, trousers, etc I saw prisoner at St. Mary's Hospital on February 19, and charged him with the murder. He replied, "I have nothing to say now." He was taken to Paddington Green Police Station and formally charged. He made no reply.

Cross-examined. The pawntickets show that prisoner started with such things as diamond rings and gold watches and came down to mufflers and trousers, etc.


Mrs. ALICE MAY RAYNER.I am 26 years of age. For 24 years I have been addpted by my aunts, the Misses Knollys, of Bewdley; I am now living with them. In 1898 I made prisoner's acquaintance,

and, after a three years' engagement, we married on November 21, 1901. There are two children of the marriage, and I am expecting very shortly to be confined. After our marriage prisoner and I lived together at various places till he went to Russia in September, 1905. He went entirely with my consent; Up to that time he had been generally a kind and good husband, but he was very variable in his moods. On his return from Russia we again lived together until December 18 last. He was then in great financial trouble; all the summer he had been very hard up, and but for my aunts we should have been destitute. Prisoner constantly tried to get work, but he seemed to have no luck at all. He became very depressed and could not sleep at nights; he got to be very morose and seemed to wear a hunted look. He had not mentioned Mr. Whiteley's name he went to school with Mr. Whiteley's sons and, once as a child, had stayed with Mr. Whiteley at his house.

Miss ANNIE KNOLLYS. I live at Bewdley with my sisters, who many years ago adopted Mrs. Rayner. During the last eight years I have very frequently met the prisoner. I last saw him in November, 1906, at Kidderminster. His eyes were very bloodshot, and he was very excited; he said he had had no food for two days, and had net slept for two days, and that he had only 7d. in his pocket. He was always in a very moody and unhappy, depressed condition. Since December 18 Mrs. Rayner and the children have been living with us.

Miss SARAH KNOLLYS, another aunt of Mrs. Rayner, gave similar evidence as to prisoner's moodiness and depression.

Mrs. ELIZABETH LLOYD, 80, King's Road, Camden Town. In 1904 prisoner lodged at my house with his wife and children. I frequently met him; he was a man of very unequal temperament. He once told me that there was a great secret in his life, that he felt he could not tell anyone, that it weighed him down, and kept him always in a depressed state, and was the curse of his life. I have known him to be for days in that depressed condition.

HORACE GEORGE RAYNER (prisoner on oath). I was born in April, 1879; I have always been known by the name of Rayner; I have always regarded the late Emily Rayner as my mother and George Rayner up to a certain point as my father. I remember in my early years living for a considerable time at Greville Road, and I used to see Mr. William Whiteley there frequently. After Greville Road I remember living at Brighton with George Rayner. Mr. Whiteley called there on several occasions; Mr. Rayner and my mother were there; I do not know whether my aunt was always, there; she was there some time. I went to a boarding-school at Brighton for about eighteen months; then I went to school at Barnet, and later on at Eastbourne; I left school in about 1894, and went to reside with Mr. Rayner at his chambers in Craven Street, Charing Cross. My mother had then left him, and he was living in bachelor chambers. He used

to treat me more like a friend than a boy. He told me on several occasions that I was no son of his; he was usually elevated in drink when he made these statements. He told me that I had more claim upon Mr. Whiteley than I had upon him; that was when I was supposed to be trying to obtain employment. In 1896 I went to Russia; a gentleman I met at the Polytechnic invited me to go out there to learn the language, and Mr. Rayner got me letters of introduction to the British Consuls at Riga and St. Petersburg from Lord Augustus Loftus, who was formerly Ambassador. The gentleman with whom I was to have been placed retired from business, and I returned to London after seven months. I again went to Mr. Rayner's, and stayed with him till 1898, when, owing to a difference of opinion, I left him and went to Bewdley. After being in different employments at Leeds and Birmingham I came up to London, and was for some months private secretary to Sir Henry Burdett. In 1900 I became assistant secretary of the Frederick Hotels, Limited; I stayed there three and half years. I then borrowed some money from my wife's aunt and started business in the City as a commission agent. Late in 1905 I again went to Russia, and returned early last year. I could obtain no regular employment, and my financial position gradually got worse and worse. I found that the condition of affairs made me rather erratic and in a low state of health; I was frequently without food.

Mr. Elliott. We have got now to a few days before January 24. Tell as in your own way exactly how it was you came to make up your mind to go to Mr. Whiteley and the circumstances under which you came to go.—I had believed for some years, since my residence with Mr. Rayner, and even before that, that Mr. Whiteley was, in fact, my father. My mother said to me when I was at school—this was at the time when she was having some quarrels with Mr. Rayner—that if ever I wanted a friend I should find one in Mr. Whiteley if I mentioned her name. On top of that there was the renunciation of me from time to time by my father, as I thought Rayner, and his repeatedly calling into question Mr. Whiteley's name. I therefore considered that I had, and I still consider that I have, ample grounds for calling upon Mr. Whiteley for assistance, at least of the kind for which I asked. I decided at Christmas to blow my brains out, when I was at Rowton House, but I had not the money to get my revolver, which was in pledge, so I thought over for several weeks the question of whether I was justified in going to Mr. Whiteley or not, having regard to the fact that it was 25 years since I had seen him in person. After many sleepless nights I thought that I should be justified in doing so as a last resort, and that in the event of my failure I would commit suicide. Under those circumstances I went to see him. On that morning, between the time that I called at his private house and the time that I called at the office establishment, I had several glasses of brandy, at I did not know really whether I was justified in putting to myself such a gamble; my own life against his goodwill, as it were. However, I decided to go, and I had decided also beforehand that if I blew my

brains out nobody should discover my identity, for the sake of my wife and family and the scandal which might arise. For that reason I left my papers at the Tube station. I bad previously told a friend of mine that in the event of my committing suicide I should leave no trace of my identity. I went in as has come out in the evidence. I knew that if I mentioned my name I should not gain access to Mr. Whiteley; I knew also from Mr. George Rayner's talk in early years that Sir George Lewis had in some way or other been mixed up with what I believed to be the question of my parentage. I, therefore, thought it best to give his name, which I did. As soon as I obtained access to Mr. Whiteley I told him that I had gained access to him under false pretences, that as a matter of fact I had not come from Sir George Lewis, but my name was Horace George Rayner. He said, "Oh, yes, sit down," and he took a seat on the other side of the table, and we salt facing each other. He said, "And what is it that I can do for you?" I said, "I believe I am right in stating, Mr. Whiteley, that your son is speaking to his father?" He said, "Is that so? and when did you see me last. "I mentioned the circumstance that I used to live at Greville Road, and that there I saw him last. He said, "And what can I do for you?" I mentioned to him the desperate straits in which I was as regards money, and my wife's condition, I made no proposition to him with regard to helping me at that time at all. He said, "What business have you been brought up to?" I told him that I had been brought tip to clerical business. He said it was a pity I had not been brought up to some more practical trade. After talking for some time, without getting much nearer the object of my visit, I put it to him, "Can you assist me in any way? I shall be pleased if I can only obtain employment. "I mentioned no question of money to him, except so far as it might be taken by inference. He said, "I must not mix myself up with what bas passed," or words to that effect—"I must not recall the past. "He also said that, of course, it was all very fine, but there were two sides to every question, and that I had only heard one side. I made no comment; I said nothing. He said to me, did I want to go abroad? I said I should be very glad to go abroad, but I could do nothing without catpital. "Oh," he said, "many young fellows go abroad and do very well without capital; I should advise you to go to one of the emigration agencies, such as the Salvation Army. "I was very much nettled in my own mind to think that he showed so little sentiment in speaking to a blood relation, and there was a considerable revulsion of feeling in my mind; whereas I had been very well inclined, I felt nettled. I said to him, "Do you absolutely refuse to assist me, even in kind, by employment?" He said, "I must not do it. "Thereupon I said, "Then I must tell you I made up my mind before I came here that I would blow my brains out if unsuccessful in my application to you. "He said, Don't talk so silly"; but I was already excited, and I produced the revolver from my pocket and put it to my head. He said, "Put that thing down. "I put it behind my back. I was

staggered for the moment as to what was the best thing for me to do; my head was in a whirl. I had still a feeling of revulsion in my mind that he should have treated me as I thought so badly, and I thought, "Well, if he is not amenable to sentiment and to what ought to be a sense of duty, perhaps he may be amenable to a sense of fear." I thereupon made up my mind that I would play that card at a last card, but without any intention at all of carrying it into effect. So I put back the revolver in my pocket and I sat down; I tore the leaves out of my notebook and started writing. Mr. Whiteley, who sat opposite, after I had written the best part of it, got up and went towards the door. He passed me as he went towards the door, and I said, "Won't you wait?" he took no notice. Thereupon I (picked up the paper and put it away, and thought, "Well, that's no use, there is no more to be done in that behalf." I sat on a chair for a minute or two. My head was in a state of blankness. I did not know what to do or what was for the best, having practically condemned myself to death. I got up at last and opened the door to see what had become of Mr. Whiteiey, and I saw him standing outside. It occurred to me at the time that he must think in his own mind that I was going to blow my brains out, and that he must be waiting outside to hear the shot. I think my mind was not improved by the knowledge of that fact. However, I went towards him and extended my hand in a friendly way and asked him to come in again and not leave the matter like that; I do not recall my words, but I remember asking him to come in again. The evidence that I asked him to "Give in" is palpably incorrect. He said to me, "No, I will say no more." I said, "Is that final?" or some words more—I do not know what my words were—and he said, "I have sent for a policeman." That is all I remember of the circumstance; the actual shooting and what was in my mind at the time I do not remember at all. The last I remember was his statement to me that he had tent for a policeman. I had a sort of vague idea of voices in the distance, but there was no idea of time between what I have heard to be the statements in the shop and the statements in the hospital. I remember a continuation of voices, but I do not know where they Were; they seemed to me afar off.

THOMAS CLAYE SHAW , B. A. (London), M. D. (London), B. M., F. R. C. P., H. R. C. S., L. S. A.p., Lecturer to St. Bartholomew's School of Psychology. I have devoted myself for many years to questions of insanity—amongst others to what is called impulsive insanity. I have known cases where persons have for years acted as perfectly rational, and suddenly, under some apparent impulse, have been guilty of acts of instability (I prefer not to say acts of insanity), afterwards recovering their normal sanity. I have examined the accused; I have heard the evidence as to the habits of his blood relatives at to his having been without regular food, and as to hit insomnia and general distress of mind. In my judgment, all that would tend to diminish his self-control, and on that ground he would be more susceptible

to the influence of impulse from any crisis or excitement; the action of some other person regarded by him as a provocation would be more likely to act upon such a brain as his than that of a man of strong and more normal condition.

Cross-examined. I do not say that the prisoner is insane.

CHARLES ARTHUR MERCIER , B. M., F. R. C. P., F. R. C.S., etc., agreed with the evidence of the last witness, also stating in connection that he could not say that prisoner is insane.

Mr. Muir submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury that prisoner was insane, so as not to be responsible in law for his acts.

The Lord Chief Justice agreed, and in his summing-up so directed the jury.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Death.


(Friday, March 22.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-32
VerdictsNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

ZIMBLER, Isaac , was charged with various bankruptcy frauds and with perjury.

Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted; Mr. Leycester defended. At the conclusion of the opening for the prosecution it was stated that a conviction depended on proof that a wages book was kept during the six months from October, 1905, as to which there were 22 witnesses against and seven for. At the suggestion of the Judge no evidence was offered, and the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.


(Saturday, March 23.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-33
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

HAWKINS, Arthur Parker . (36, labourer); murder of Mary Alpe, his sister.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. J. F. Tindal Atkinson prosecuted; Mr. A, Ingleby Oddie, at the request of the Court, defended.

Police-constable WILLIAM ALLEN, 175 L, proved a plan of South Street drawn to scale, showing the house where Mr. and Mrs. Alpe lived and the "Princess of Wales" public-house.

LOUISA ALPE . 85, South Street, Walworth, daughter of deceased I know prisoner; he was the brother of my mother. On Saturday night, February 23, I left the house with my mother, and went to the "Princess of Wales," at quarter to eight. We went into the middle bar and had some refreshment. There was a Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Robinson in the bar. In a little while Uncle Roger (the prisoner)

looked into the bar and called out, "Mary, I want you. "My mother spoke to me and I went outside and taw pritoner. who said, "Tell your mother I want some b——f——money. "I went back and told her and she said, "Tell him I haven't got any. "Then prisoner looked in again, and called out, "Mary, I want to speak to you very particular. "He called out in a demanding voice; then mother went out, leaving the whisky she had been drinking. I stayed behind and heard prisoner say the same to mother as he said to me. My mother said, "I haven't got any; Jack hasn't given me any yet." Prisoner said, "That's the same b——f——tale every time I see you." He asked if Jack (my father) was in, and mother said she did not know. Then prisoner said he would go and see my father himself. Then Uncle Roger and nether went off. I put mother's whisky on the shelf and asked Mrs. Wright to mind it. I got back home at ten o'clock, but did not see mother or prisoner again that night.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Robinson were sitting behind me and mother in the bar. We were standing on the left-hand corner. The seats were right opposite the wall, and they had their backs to the wall. They were at the right of the door, which was a folding door. Mother said she hadn't got a farthing—that was outside the door, I think. Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Robinson would not hear taat, as they were sitting down. I was right against the door. I did not hear uncle say, "You have found your b——pals. "He was on friendly terms with mother then as far as I knew. Prisoner looked in the bar twice, the second time very soon after the first. Mother went out to him after the second time.

JOHN ALPS , 85, South Street, Walworth, husband of deceased. I knew prisoner. He had been in the Artillery—in South Africa. after his money was squandered he paid me a visit. He would ask the wife for money—he has asked me once or twice. I told him all the money I had got I wanted myself. I have sometimes given him shillings. When he came home from India I got him a job where I was employed—the Phosphor Bronze Company—seven or eight years ago. On February 23 I was sitting in the kitchen when my wife and the prisoner knocked at the door. My wife said, "Roger wants a dulling." Prisoner said, "A shilling is no good, I want four or five," and I said, "You have come to the wrong place, old man, I want some money for myself." I then told my wife to go in the passage and I would see to prisoner. So I says to him, "You clear off as soon as you can," and I opened the gate and see him outside. I did' did not see what direction he took. My wife went out two or three minutes afterwards. Shortly after that a Mrs. Wright came to the door. I went out and found my wife lying in the road about four doors from the public-house. I believe the doctor was there then. This was about 10 or 12 minutes from the time when my wife went out.

Cross-examined. When I told my wife to go inside the house while I attended to him, prisoner must have heard me.

Mrs. EMILY ROBINSON, 183, Trafalgar Street, Walworth. Mrs. Wright is my niece. We went together to the "Princess of Wales" public-house. I saw Louisa Alpe standing in the bar with her mother. I was standing up a little while and sitting down afterwards. The first time the door was pushed open I didn't notice, but the second time I turned round and saw who it was. I never saw prisoner before. He said, "Oh, you have found your b——f——pals now." Miss Alpe went out, and then she called her mother. That. man over there is the man who looked in. (Indicating prisoner.) Mrs. Alpe went out, and then came back and finished her drink. When Mrs. Wright and I had finished ours we went out, and Mrs. Alpe followed us. I went across the road with my niece to go to her house, 104, South Street. Mrs. Alpe was behind us. Then we heard a bit of a scuffle, and I looked around and saw a man who seemed to be punching Mrs. Alpe in all parts. I heard her say she had not got a farthing, I suppose, in answer to him. I ran across the road and said to prisoner, "Oh, you are a vagabond," and he ran away. I was on the opposite side when I first saw it. When he ran away I was not a yard off, I suppose. I am positive the man was the prisoner. I attended to deceased, and as I put her cape on I felt something wet and found it was blood. I helped her off the curb. She dropped down and a policeman came round the corner.

Cross-examined. In the public-house I was standing for a minute or two. I do not think I said before the coroner that neither of us sat down. I stood up, but Mrs. Wright sat down. It was on the second occasion I saw prisoner open the door. I turned my eye round quick and saw him. I was not asked at the inquest if I knew the man or could identify him. Prisoner was present at the inquest. When prisoner came to the door of the bar I heard the daughter tell her mother he wanted some money, and deceased said she had got none. She did not say anything then about a farthing; that was outside. I was standing by the corner shop on the other side when the assault took place. There was no lamp there; it was a little bit dark. I can't see very well; I wear glasses. Prisoner was punching deceased five or six times. I went across to them alone. The man ran away directly—in the direction of Thornton Street. His back would be towards me when he ran away. My attention was sufficiently fixed on the man that I should know him again anywhere. I recognised him at the inquest. When I saw the man running away it occurred to me he was the man who looked in at the door. I said nothing about him to the constable. He did not ask me; the mob collected and I was nowhere near. I described the man at the in quest as a dark man, with dark clothes, and wearing a cap. I said before the coroner that the street was dark. I was not in Court at the inquest after I gave my evidence, and have never seen an account of the inquest at all. I talked about the affair with my niece and spoke of the man who struck the blow. I was not asked anything by the detectives or police about picking out the man till I went to the police court. I picked him out there in the dock—not from a

number of other men. I did not say anything at the inquest about getting within a yard or two of prisoner, nor about his being the same man that looked into the bar.

Re-examined. I was not asked to go to the Coroner's Court by a policeman, nor by a detective. I do not think so. From the time I saw prisoner in the public-house to the time I went out was only a second or two.

Police-constable JOSEPH PEARCE, L 397. On February 23 I was coming from St. Anne's Road into South Street, Walworth. As I turned the corner I saw deceased, supported by a woman. She said something to me and then fell to the ground. She was bleeding from a wound on the right side of the neck. The doctor came very soon after, and She was taken to Newington Infirmary. I did not see any man running when I came upon the scene. When I searched deceased found a halfpenny. I did not identify the woman who was attending to deceased.

Cross-examined. I saw no blood on the pavement.

Dr. FRANK ERNEST WELCHMAN, 129, Camberwell Road. On February 23. after being called to South Street shortly after eight. I saw deceased lying in the road in a dying condition. I made a postmortem examination on February 26 and found eight wounds, cut with a sharp instrument. (The witness described the wounds in detail. including one on the upper part of left arm, about 1 1/2 in. deep; another on the top of left shoulder, about same depth; another on the right breast in the nature of a stab; one on the right shoulder, and one in the top of the breast bone, which penetrated the bone and wounded the aorta.) This last would be the one which caused the death; from internal hæmorrhage. I think the wounds would be caused by the same instrument. There was no bleeding when I saw her; it had stopped. (Knife handed.) The wounds could be produced by that knife—the blades had the appearance of being recently sharpened. There was no trace of bloodstains. There would necessarily be blood on the blade after being extracted, but it is comparatively easy to remove same. It is possible that the person inflicting such wounds might escape getting bloodstains.

Cross-examined. There would be blood on the blade, but it does not follow that there would be any on the handle or on the man's clothes or hands. I know Mrs. Robinson did get blood on her, but the bleeding may not have started at the time the wounds were inflicted, as it was chiefly internal, and would not come out till later. There might be a great deal of hæmorrhage from a wound, even though it was superficial. (Witness was Cross-examined as to the wound in the aorta, and admitted that that was the only dangerous one.) The region of the aorta wound is a particularly vital one. If the blow had been above or below or to the right or left it might not have been fatal; it depends how deep the blow was. If it had been an inch above it would have required more force to have been fatal.

Re-examined. I examined the woman's clothes in the region of the wounds; her chemise was saturated with blood. (The witness pointed out the holes in the cape made by the stabs.) When the deceased was lying in the road I did not notice blood anywhere except on her. The blow on the breast-bone must have been a forcible one inflicted by a muscular person. I examined the knife only with my eyes, not microscopically.

FREDERICK PIKE , 73, South Street, carman. On the night in question I went into the public-house, middle bar, about 20 to eight, and saw deceased and her daughter come in. After that I saw prisoner push the door open. I am sure it was he. The daughter went out, then came back, and prisoner pushed open the door again and called, "Mary," and deceased went out. She was away seven or eight minutes. I saw her return and finish her drink—that was after the daughter had gone. When I went out I saw a man walking up and down; that was the prisoner. I went into my house, and soon after I was told something, so I went out to the gate. There was a tidy few people, but I did not go further than the gateway. On March 12 I picked out prisoner from about 10 others. It was two or three minutes after eight when I left the public-house.

Cross-examined. I did not hear anyone say anything about "b——pals." When I saw prisoner walking up and down he was looking towards East Lane, straight up the street, away from where the Alpes lived. Then I saw him turn round twice and walk backwards and forwards. Then I went indoors. When I picked out prisoner at the parade there were two men a little taller; the others were pretty much the same height; they were all unshaven. I was approached to give evidence on the last day of the hearing at the police court.

AMELIA ANNIE BERRY , 87, Great Southwark Street. I lived with prisoner for three years as his wife. He was not regularly in work during the last few months, and we were in want of money; we pawned and sold everything we had. We lived in a back room, at 3s. a week. On February 23 we owed five weeks' rent, and had notice to go. We only had a loaf of bread to eat, the first for a week. On the Saturday prisoner was out from 9.20 till seven at night. When he came back I asked him to have some tea. He wanted to know if there was any butter—there was none. He said, "I have got a penny, the last I've got." I told him what the landlady said. He answered, "I will go down to Mary and ask her to let me have 3s. for rent and 1s. for food." He went out about quarter past seven and came home again in about an hour or hour and a half. He said, "I have been to Mary and asked her for 3s. for Tent and 1s. for food. She said, 'Go back and ask your b——y woman to get it for you.' "He also said, "God pays all debts; I haven't the least doubt he will pay her before long." I was so worried and upset I didn't know what I was saying of. (Mr. Bodkin was allowed to treat the witness as hostile.) It is not true what I told the magistrate. I signed the statement produced, which was given to the detective. It is true as to prisoner

going out at 10 past seven and returning about quarter to nine, and his saying he had been to Mary to ask for 4s., and she had told him to ask his woman to get it. I told the officer and the magistrate that prisoner said, "I have paid her; I don't know whether she is dead or not." I don't remember him saying that; I was so upset. The day before yesterday I had two or three words with the daughter of deceased, but I did not tell her that I intended to say I had made a mistake and get prisoner off. When prisoner came home just before line we went to his brother Jack's. We walked out in the ordinary way. I told the magistrate I rushed out of the house the last thing at night, after we had been to his brother Jack's—that is in Queen's Buildings, Scovel Road, about five minutes' walk. We generally spend the evening there on Saturday and Sunday. Nothing was said there about the rent. While we were there prisoner went out for some beer with his brother—for about five or 10 minutes. After we returned home the police-sergeant appeared. I recognise the knife produced as prisoner's. He told me it was used to scrape his boilers with. He had it about 12 months. I have never seen him sharpening it.

(The previous statement of witness was read.)

Cross-examined. When prisoner came home that night he said, "Mil, I had no luck, I couldn't borrow no money of either. Never mind, Mil, the Lord pays all debts, and I think he will pay her. "I saw no stains of blood on him, nor did I see his knife. He didn't change his clothes or wash his hands. He seemed just as usual. He asked me to go round to his brother's. While there he said nothing about his sister. Prisoner has often tried to find work, going out at four or five in the morning. He is a boiler repairer. When I first lived with him we lived with his mother. He paid her rent sad allowed her 1s. a week and otherwise helped. Prisoner has been a good friend to me. He did his best to provide a home for me and was kind and fond of his child.

To Mr. Bodkin. We both suggested going to his brother Jack's. I said, "Are you going round to Jack's?" and he said, "Yes. "I don't remember him saying he was not going up when we got round there and that Jack's wife had to fetch him. I may have said so in the signed statement. I can't remember it. It is true that Jack's wife came on the landing and said, "Come on, Roj; come on in. "

Detective-sergeant EDWARD BARRETT, L Division. On February 23 I went to deceased's residence. From what I was told I went to two or three other addresses and finally to 87, Great Southwark Street, shortly after 10, and stayed there till midnight, when prisoner and Berry came home. I followed them to their room with another detective. I said, "We are police officers. I believe your name is Arthur Hawkins, known as Roger?" He replied, "That's me." I said, "Your sister, Mary Ann Alpe, has been stabbed to death this

evening. I shall arrest you for murdering her. "I then cautioned him. He replied, "I was there. I shall say what is right at the proper time." I found on him a pocket-knife, closed. I continued to search him. and he said, 'That's the only knife I have got." I have no money or anything. You can see how we are nearly starving." Soon after he said, "You might wait a few minutes while my wife lets my brother Jack know. I should like to ask him to look after my wife and child." I was at the inquest. Mrs. Robinson was not warned to be there. The Coroner was informed that it was desirable Mrs. Robinson should not be called then, but he insisted on it I had taken some statements from her, as also had Inspector Knell, before she went to the Coroner's Court. I was present when the statement was read over to, and signed by, Amelia Berry. (Witness described the bar of the "The Princess of Wales.") It takes 19 minutes to walk from the public-house to 87, Great Southwark Street. Cross-examined. Mrs. Robinson did not have an opportunity of picking out prisoner from other men. The lighting in the street outside the public-house is good; in some other parts it is not.

Inspector FRANK KNELL, L Division. I charged prisoner on February 24 at the police station and cautioned him. He made no reply. When the charge was read over afterwards he said, "All right, sir." I had been in South Street the previous night and found some blood on the pavement between Nos. 75 and 79.

Cross-examined. When Pyke identified prisoner there were nine men there of the same class as prisoner; the majority were the same size. Prisoner was unshaven; some of the others were and some not.

By the Judge. I found no trace of blood about prisoner when I arretted him.


ARTHUR PARKER HAWKINS (prisoner, on oath). I am 36 years old. I was 13 years in the Army, and am now a boilermaker's labourer. I worked at Babcock and Wilcox's for 10 years, leaving there on account of slackness of trade five weeks before February 23. On that day I returned home about quarter to seven, having been out all day looking for work. I told my wife (Berry) I would go round to my sister Mary and see if I could get a shilling or two off her. and I went out. Just before I got to my sister's I thought I would look in at a public-house that I knew the might be in. She was in the public-house; I just pushed the door open slightly and called her.—She came out. I said, Mary, I've come round to see if you've got a shilling you can spare." She said, "I've got no money at all, Roj. I said, "You know I'm out of work, else I would not have come round. I wonder if Jack has got it? I'll go and ask him." She said she would go with Mr. When we knocked at their door my brother-in-law came out. Mary said to him, "Here's Roj wants to

borrow a shilling. "He said, "He's come to the wrong place, I could do with some money myself," and he said to me, "You had better clear off, I've got no money. "I came right away from the house and went down South Street towards Kent Road. I was going down there, and I thought I would turn back and ask them again. I went back nearly as far as the house again. Then I thought, "No, it's no good," so I turned and went straight home. Having to past my brother's house on my way home, I thought I would call on him. He lives in Queen's Buildings, Southwark Bridge Road. It was, I should say, between quarter and 20 past eight when I got to his house. I saw my brother, and He wanted me to go in. I said, "No." I told him where I had been, and the result, and that I was going home. He said, "Won't you bring the missus round here and spend the night with us and have a bit of supper?" I said, "All right." I then went home. I told my wife, "I've been round there, but I can't get anything. Never mind, the Lord pays all debts, and I expect he will pay her. "My wife and I went round to my brother's tad we stayed there till midnight. When we got home the police were there waiting. They said they wanted me for the murder of my lister. I said. "I know nothing about it. "They arrested me. That is all I know. I am sure I know nothing whatever about this affair st. all. As to the knife found on me, it is one I always carry. Every fitter or boilermaker must carry one. When the officer arrested me be looked at my hands and my clothes. I had on the suit I had been wearing all day; they are the only clothes I have got I have them on now. Last night I was called out from my cell in Brixton Prison sad put up for identification with other men. A woman came in and picked out one man. I do not know who he was. Then another woman came and had a good look and said she could not identify anyone.

Cross-examined. When arrested I said to the officer, "I do not bow anything about it. "I also said, "I was there; I shall say what it right at the proper time. "I meant by "I was there" that I had been in the neighbourhood, going to my brother's and my brother-in-law's. When at the public-house I did not put my head inside the door. I just pushed the door open and caught my sister's eye and the came out. I saw her daughter there. She did not come out and speak to me, and I did not speak to her. I am certain of that. When my sister said she had got no money I did not say, "That's the same b—f—tale. "I never have sworn at her like that. I was not angry with my brother-in-law or with my sister. I did not go to the public-house a second time. I have never seen the witness Pyke. I do not remember that I said to my wife when I got back, "I have been round to Mary's and asked her for the money, and she told me to come back and ask my b——woman to get it for Mr. "I am petty certain I did not say it. It was not true if I did. My sister had not said that to me. I deny that I used the expression, "I have paid Mary; I cannot say whether she is dead or not. "When I said "The Lord pays all debts, and I expect He will pay her" I simply

meant that, being my sister, I thought it very hard of her not to lend her brother a shilling or two, and she might get paid out for it. It is not true that after this conversation my wife ran out of the house. I had not recently sharpened my knife; it had been in my pocket ever since I had been out of work.

Re-examined. I was on perfectly good terms with my sister. To the Lord Chief Justice. I never saw my sister after I left my brother-in law's house. When the police told me at midnight that she had been murdered I was much upset. I did not ask for any particulars of the murder. They told me I had better say nothing. I asked no questions. I do not know that my sister had any enemies. I can make no suggestion as to how this happened.

JOHN HAWKINS , 141 (I), Queen's Buildings. I remember prisoner (my brother) coming to my house on the night of February 23 about half-past eight. I asked him how he was going on and what brought him Chat way. He said, "I have just been to Mary. I want a few shillings, but I cannot get it. "I asked him to come in for a little while. He said "No" I thought he might be unwilling to come in by himself, so I asked if he would bring his missus and child round to have a bit of supper. He said, "All right, I'll fetch them." And went away. In three-quarters of an hour he came back with his wife and child. After about five minutes he and I went out and fetched some beer, and I sent one of the children for some fish and potatoes We were not long at the public-house and came back and had supper. He seemed just the same as I had always seen him. I never heard of any quarrels between him and his sister, only ordinary jangles. He did not ask for any water, or wash himself or his clothes while in my place. I did not see him with a knife; I did not know that he had one.

Cross-examined. When Sergeant Barrett came and asked me what time prisoner first called on me I told him it might be about quarter to nine, but I distinctly said he was not to be certain about it. I am sure I told him prisoner had been to my place twice that night. I did not tell Barrett that the second time, when prisoner came with his wife, was about 10 or 15 minutes to nine. I said 10 or 15 minutes to 10.1 have since the committal for trial had a little talk with Berry. She told me she was bewildered when the detectives came to her. I did not exactly "advise" her to say that they went over Blackfriars Bridge after prisoner's return from seeing Mary. But when she said they had been for a walk I told her, "Well, it's a matter of indifference where you say you have been."

FREDERICK PIKE , recalled. (To the Court.) I do not know how I Sergeant Barrett came to know that I knew anything about this matter. The landlord of the "Princees of Wales" is Mr. Craddock; he is not here.

Detective-Sergeant BARRETT, recalled. (To the Court.) Pike's employer sent a message to the station that his man knew something about this; that was a few days after the occurrence.

To Mr. Bodkin. I saw John Hawkins on February 24, in the presence of Berry. He said that prisoner and Berry had called at his place the night before, about 10 or 15 minutes to nine and had supper; he said nothing about prisoner having called earlier on the same evening; I am positive of that. I asked him, "Did your brother call here earlier in the evening?" and he said, "No" I put that question because I doubted the word of Berry; the girls occupying the ground floor of 87, Great Suffolk Street, had told me that Berry had said that it was not true about her going over Blackfriars Bridge.

This concluded the evidence. In the course of his address to the jury, Mr. Oddie made the point that out of six actual witnesses of the assault, only one (Mrs. Robinson) identified prisoner. The Lord Chief Justice pointed out that only two witnesses of the assault had been called to-day. Mr. Oddie elicited from Detective-Sergeant Barrett that the police had the names of four others, two of whom were cilled before the coroner. His lordship allowed further evidence.

Mrs. WARD, 27, Kingston Street, Walworth. On February 23, in South Street, I saw a man strike a woman. On Thursday last I was ant asked by the police about the matter. Yesterday I was taken to Brixton Prison and shown a row of men'; I could not identify amongst them the man I saw committing the assault I was in the "Princess of Wales" on February 23, and saw deceased and her daughter there; I knew them by sight. Deceased came in and took some whisky that was standing on a shelf; two or three minutes afterwards the door opened and a man's face appeared; I heard the man say, "I see you have found your b——f——pale." Mrs. Alpe soon afterwards left. I heard a scream, and on going out I saw a man punching her; he ran away, she staggered and fell. I cannot describe the man or his dress.

Mrs. FISHER. On February 23 I was in this public-house. Mrs. Alpe left there before I did. I heard a scream, and on going out I saw a man punching her. I did not see his face. Last night I went to Brixton Prison and saw some men paraded; I was not able to pick out the man. (Witness also deposed to a man pushing open the door and making the remark heard by the last witness.)

Detective-Sergeant BARRETT, recalled. Before the coroner a woman named Smithson and a lad of 12 named Such were called; they are not here to-day. Smithson did not witness the assault at all; Such saw part of it; he saw a man running away.

The Lord Chief Justice, after reading the depositions of Smithson and Such, said that they did not justify Mr. Oddie in including those two as witnesses of the assault; but it was a good point that out of lour eyewitnesses only one identified the prisoner.

Verdict, Guilty, the jury adding, "The crime was committed absolutely without premeditation, and we very strongly recommend prisoner to mercy."

Sentence, Death.


(Wednesday, March 20)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-34
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SEYMOUR, James Henry Grant (32, commission agent), sad WOOLFORD, James (57, metal refiner) ; both conspiring and agreeing together with B. Holt and one Walters to cheat and defraud Charles Buch and others, and obtaining from them a certain valuable security, to wit, an order for the payment of £3,800 and Bank of England notes for £3,400, with intent to defraud; both conspiring and agreeing together with B. Holt and Walters to cheat and defraud Herbert Carpenter; Seymour obtaining by false pretences from Oscar Joseph Klein the sum of £5,800 in money, and a valuable security, to wit, an order for the payment of £3,400, with intent to defraud; Woolford obtaining by false pretences from Oscar Joseph Klein two valuable securities, to wit, orders for the payment of £21 1s. 6d. and £48 18s. 6d., with intent to defraud.

Mr. Purcell prosecuted; Mr. Ruegg, K.C, and Mr. James Todd defended Seymour; Mr. Eustace Fulton and Mr. Hoffgaard defended Woolford.

THOMAS ERNKST KLIEN , commission, merchant, West Kingston. I made the acquaintance of Woolford some three or four years ago and saw him in relation to dealings in antimony in the summer or commencement of autumn last year. He made a proposal as to finding someone to finance a sale of two small lots, 50 tons and 20 tons of antimony ore, which had been sold to Messrs. Quirk Barton, of Grace-church Street. Nothing came of those negotiations. The next matter which arose was a question of selling antimonial ore. Woolford found that I could sell ore and did sell ore, and we had numerous conferences as to how this was to be sold and who was to finance it. I found it necessary to work the business myself and tried to find someone for him to finance the whole transaction. He told me the amount of ore was 400 tons and that he had purchased it from B. Holt and Co., 25-29, Coleman Street, at what is known as the Wool Exchange, and he handed me the contract for sale at 8s. per unit. That would be about October 26, and a few days afterwards I went I to see B. Holt and Co., and saw someone who I was told was Mr. Holt. He, however, could not speak English, and his clerk, Mr. Walters, interpreted for me. The photograph (produced) is that of Walters, whom I saw the other day in Paris. (Walters or Labarre is now awaiting trial in Paris in connection with the conspiracy.) I then went to Messrs. Buch and Co., and reported my negotiations with them from time to time to Woolford. After numerous conference I arranged with Messrs. Charles Buch and Co. that I should lay the original bought contract before them and also my selling contracts, as I had sold the goods. I had already sold ore at prices running up to £30, £33, and £35 per ton in small lots of 150 tons, the avenge sale price per unit being about 11s. A unit is equivalent to one percent.

This ore was supposed to run to 50 units per ton. The arrangement with Messrs. Buch and Co. was that they were to finance the whole transaction, take up the bill of lading, deliver the orders to me and I was to collect the money from the buyers in their name and pay the proceeds to Buch and Co. The profits were to be divided into three parts, one-third to Charles Buch and Co. for financing, one-third to Woolford, who carried on business as the Comptoir Geologique de la Guyane Anglaise, for finding the sellers of the goods, and one-third to myself for finding the buyers and arranging the finances. Woolford agreed to that. The next question was about delivery. We were to receive the goods at the latest by the middle of November. There was a long delay, and we were continually pressing for delivery. On the question of delivery I was introduced to Mr. Grant Seymour and Woolford said he would be of great assistance, that at one time he had been in Messrs. Holt's office and was a great personal friend of Mr. Holt and had great influence with him, and as I could not speak French fluently I appealed to Mr. Grant Seymour to press Holt for delivery. Woolford described me to Seymour as the gentleman who had found people to finance the contract, and who had sold the goods. I asked Seymour if he was sure the goods would be delivered and when they would be delivered. He said he was perfectly sure they would be delivered according to contract. There was no justification for me making a disturbance about nondelivery as that time had not arrived. I had perhaps seven or eight interviews with Seymour. I was usually pressing for delivery, and Mr. Grant Seymour said he was doing all he could and he was perfectly sure the goods would be delivered at the right time. At one of the later interviews he produced a telegram from Seville to Holt and Co, stating that the documents for the goods, the bills of lading, etc., bad been posted. At one of the interviews he made the remark that he was assisting us greatly in obtaining our goods from Mr. Holt, who was a very difficult man to get on with, that his (Seymour's) time was of great value, and he thought he should receive some payment from me for attending to my business. Two sums of £25 and £10 were paid to him for his services, and a further promise was made that the moment the documents were in my hands and were proved to be in order he should receive £100 from me. I do not remember that he referred to any other part of the business besides the delivery. He stated, re the payment, that Mr. Holt had made it a special request that cash should be paid for these documents when they came forward, the excuse made being that Mr. Holt was a foreigner and did not understand English cheques and wanted cash and cash only. Cash was promised to him. At one of the interviews it was stated by Seymour that a North of England smelter had heard of these goods and wished to obtain them from Holt and Co., and one of the arguments he brought forward in obtaining money from us was that he had continued to sit on Holt's doorstep to prevent these goods going into other hands at a better price than we had paid. These conversations with Seymour took place in Finsbury Pavement, the

name over the door being that of Charles Phillips and Co. There were two rooms; one was quite empty, the other was a small room with just a table and two chairs. I saw some one else there once or twice, but I should not recognise him, nor did I ever speak to him. I heard the documents had arrived about November 24 or 25, but they were never handed over. I know that legal proceedings were commenced by Buch and Co. for an injunction to restrain Holt and Co. from parting with the documents and to compel them to fulfil their contract. I was present at a meeting at Messrs. Bellord and Co's office, Mr. Synnott (a member of the firm) and both the prisoners being also present, at which the legal proceedings were compromised by the signing of a letter from Holt and Co., guaranteeing that we should have the second consignment of 400 tons. Nobody ever saw the first lot. A telegram that Grant Seymour showed me on November 22 had reference to the second lot. On Friday, December 7, Walters came from Holt and Co. 's office to tell Mr. Grant Seymour to let us know that the documents had actually arrived. I at once went to Charles Buch and Co. 's office with the information. This would be about two o'clock in the afternoon. We had been continually asking the name of the shipping company through which the documents were to arrive, but Seymour said that if we had the name of the company we should be putting an injunction on the cargo, and that was what Holt and Co. wanted to avoid. On December 7 I went to Seymour's office in the afternoon and told him that Charles Buch and Co. were going round to Holts office to pay the money and take up the documents. We had a conversation with reference to a further consignment later on. I expressed a hope that next time goods came along there would not be all this trouble about it. Seymour agreed, and said he thought he could get hold of some further parcels of antimony ore. I said we should be only too glad to buy if the price was right. Then we talked about an antimonial ore mine in Cornwall that he had an interest in. I suggested to Seymour that we should go round to Holt's office, but Seymour said it was not necessary. Next day (Saturday) when I went to Holt's office I found it closed. On the same day I saw Seymour at the office of Phillips and Co. in Finsbury Pavement and told him a question had arisen as to the value of the documents which we had paid for, that Holt and Co. 's office was closed, that the shipping company's office was closed, and that the whole business seemed rather suspicious. He then asked me if I had got the £100 for him. I said, "No, I had not got the money yet," and then he turned round and told me that all these questions of suspicion were merely an excuse on the part of Charles Buch and Co not to pay the money they had promised, and so prevent me paying the £100. I did not see him again until he was in custody.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. It was Woolford who came to me about this matter originally. He intimated to me that he had a very valuable contract. If the matter had turned out all right I should

have made a tidy sum. Seymour was not to have any part of the profit except £100. Holts had to me the appearance of being a respectable firm, and, of course, I made myself responsible for the delivery of the goods, having sold them. I had not the least suspicion of Holt and Co. until the evening when they ran away with the money. Walters, at least, ran off with it, and Holt disappeared at the same time. Holt was not in London at the time; he had gone on to Paris before. As far as I know, Messrs. Buch and Co. had no suspicion of Holts until the climax came. I had arranged the contract by which Buch and Co. were to finance Woolford to the extent of 75 per cent, before I saw Seymour at all. I believed that Seymour had a great deal of influence with Holt. I was naturally anxious that he should work with me, and it was on that account I gave him the commission of £100. I did not give him a commission note, but wrote him to that effect. He seemed very anxious to get that commission. The £25 and £10 was given him as a present for helping Mr. Sey mour wanted the £100 immediately, but I said I would not pay it until everything was proved to be correct. I understood that Seymour had had a quarrel with Holt. When Holt stipulated for the money in cash that did not strike me as suspicious. When I was shown the telegram from Seville I believed that it had come from Holts. I believed Holt had told Seymour that there was someone in the North of England who had offered more, and I was extremely anxious to keep the contract. It was I who asked Seymour to go to the meeting at the solicitor's office. He was acting really in the interests of Buch and Co. I was anxious that the action should not go on. Mr. Seymour promised us at the solicitor's office that we should have the second parcel of goods instead of the first parcel. There were present at that meeting Mr. Seymour, Mr. Klien, and Mr. Kirchhove, representing Buch and Co., and myself. I saw Seymour at the office of Charles Phillips and Co. I know nothing of Charles Phillips and Co. I am not suggesting that there is not a Charles Phillips and Co. On one occasion when I asked Seymour the name of the ship or the shipping company he said he did not know, and if he had known he would not have told us as Holt and Co. wanted to keep the name of the ship away from us. I was perfectly friendly with Mr. Seymour and believed in him to the end, but I can hardly say I believe in him now. When Walters went to Prance the money disappeared. I cannot say that he took it with him. I had some conversation with Seymour about some mines in Cornwall. The subject was merely mentioned once, about the time the documents were being taken up. I was to get money to finance those mines through Buch and Co. after the other business had gone through. When I found the offices of Buch and Co. and of the shipping company closed, I had a shrewd shrews suspicion that the whole thing was a swindle. I went back to Seymour and discussed the position with him, and he seemed quite incredulous and said it was all nonsense—rot, and asked me if the time had not come for me to pay him his £100. As to

whether anybody connected with the transaction had the least suspicion of Holt and Co. before December 7 when the fraud was committed, Mr. Klein, of Messrs. Buch and Co., before he left for Russia some time before the documents did arrive left a message that we were to be very careful when paying the money for these documents, his personal idea being that we should never get either the goods or the documents.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I may have known Woolford three or four years, but I had no business with him until the summer or autumn of last year. I understood he was well known as an expert in metals, not an obscure man by any means. There was an agreement with him, and under which I was to introduce sales of metals to Messrs. Charles Buch and Co., and to them only. Naturally, Messrs. Charles Buch and Co. wanted to bind us to carry on this business later on, considering that they had found the money to make the first transaction possible. They gave us a commission note to that effect which I drew up myself. There was nothing I saw at Holt's to excite suspicion. In the interviews I had with Seymour Woolford was nearly always present. Woolford was acting for himself really as seller.

Re-examined. The information about the smelter in the North of England came from Seymour.

SAMUEL LOPEZ SALZEDO , Spanish interpreter. The bill of lading produced gives Ramires Lopez as the captain of the steamer Albatros, of the port of Seville, bound to London with a consignment to Messrs. B. Holt and Co., 25-29, Coleman Street, of 425 tons of antimony pre, one of the conditions being that three bills of lading had been signed upon one of which being executed the others shall be null and void. The date is December 4, 1906, Seville. The name of the shipping company is given as the Campania General Sevillana de Navegacion. Another document produced purports to be a maritime insurance policy issued by the Campania de Seguros Maritimos and the amount of the premium is 1,500 pesetas. The conditions on the back are full of misprints, which would immediately suggest to a person conversant with Spanish that the document is not genuine. There is no bad grammar. The document has been correctly transcribed from a Spanish original, and the misprints are due to the printer not knowing the language. In the second paragraph the word "no" is spelt "non," there being no "non." in Spanish, and the accents determining the tenses are not there. Looking at it I say that it was not printed by a Spanish printer. The consignment is stated to be in Hired for 250,000 pesetas, and the value of the peseta is about 27 to £1.

WALTER JOSEPH SYNNOTT , of Messrs. Bellord, Coveney, Synnott, and Figgis, solicitors, 4, Queen Victoria Street. I acted for Buch and Co. in an action against Holt and Co. for the delivery of ship's documents relating to a cargo of antimony, and in an injunction restraining them from parting with those documents and for damages. On November 22 there was an interview at my office about the matter, there being

present Woolford, Granl Seymour, Mr. Klien, Kirchhove, and myself. The prisoner Seymour told me he represented Holt and Co. I must explain that I had obtained an interim injunction in respect of the writ I had issued for the recovery of these documents. An application to continue that injunction was to have been made on the 23rd. Seymour told me he would appear and oppose this application on behalf of Holt and Co. A document was produced addressed to Buch and Co. undertaking to transfer the second lot of antimony on condition of the action being withdrawn. I said in the presence of Woolford sod Seymour that I must first see my client Mr. Klein (Buch and Co.), in shortly afterwards Mr. Klein came to my office. I saw Klein in the presence of the prisoners, and also privately in another room. I afterwards told prisoners in the presence of Klein that we would discontinue the action, and I served notice to discontinue. Seymour said he represented Holt and Co., and expressed satisfaction with them. Before Mr. Klein came, Woolford had urged the representatives of Buch and Co. to accept the second consignment of antimony and to stop the action. I cannot say all that Seymour said, because he talked a great deal. I made some notes of the conversation. Mr. Seymour said that if the injunction were not pressed Holt and Co. would certainly deliver this new consignment of antimony which he said was then ready to be loaded. That ended my conversation with the matter at the time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I did not then know who Woolford was. I knew that some 400 tons of ore had been sold by Holt sad Co. to the Comptoir Geologique, and we sued as the assignees of that contract. I believed that Buch and Co. were assignees through Klien, who was acting for them, but I believe the transaction was different from what I then supposed. I understood that they had sgreed to find the money to enable Klien to carry out the purchase of this ore from Holt and Co. They had not paid any money because there were no documents on which they could pay. An offer was made to supply another 400 tons of antimony, and I understood that offer was accepted, but no contract was made at all while they were in my office. I understood that Seymour was speaking either as Holt snd Co. or as their agent; I did not know which.

By Mr. Fulton. The view I put before my counsel (Mr. Maurice Hill) was that Buch and Co. and Holt and Co. were the principals, and that Woolford, Klien, and Seymour were middle people who were making commission. I thought Woolford was interested from his anxiety to see the new bargain carried through.

OSCAR JOSEPH KLEIN , continental merchant, trading as Charles Buch and Co., 6, Mincing Lane. I am the prosecutor in this case. This deal in antimony was introduced to me by Mr. Klien last October. I was given the name of B. Holt and Co. as the firm who had sold the antimony to Woolford. I made inquiries of my bankers, the Mincing Lane branch of the London and Westminster Bank, as to B. Holt and Co., and took the buying and selling contract down to them. I saw the manager, who looked the firm up in his bankers' book at once.

His reply was satisfactory, but I have since ascertained that it referral to E. Holt and Co., of Coleman Street, and not to B. Holt and Co. I agreed to pay 75 per cent, of the value of the ore on taking up the hills of lading. I arrived from Morocco on November 16, having been absent a fortnight from London. On November 17, I was in my office, and heard that the documents had arrived. In consequence, I sent Mr. Kirchhove, one of my staff, to Holt and Co. He was a long time absent, and I had a telephone message from him from the office of Holt and Co. In consequence I sent instructions that a cheque should be sent. It was then a message came through that Mr. Holt not being an Englishman, but a Frenchman or Spaniard, did not understand the value of a marked cheque and would prefer cash. The marked cheque was not accepted, and has never been passed, and in the meantime it had got to quarter to one. On the following Monday, Walters, the clerk of Messrs. Holt and Co., came around in the morning, and showed me a letter received from Mr. Holt in Paris, saying that after we did not comply with the contract by paying cash he had made a firm offer by telegram for the same parcel to somebody in Paris, and had had a wire from his Paris customer accepting it. Walters then asked me to come to Holt's the next day when Holt would be back from Paris, and receive the documents against cash. This did not satisfy me and I consulted my solicitor, Mr. Synnott, who advised me to go to Holt's and tender £7,200 in bank notes. On the Tuesday, Walters came and told me that Holt was still away, having met with an accident. I said to Walters, "Whatever happens, on the advice of my solicitor. I am coming to your office to-day at the appointed hour, and will tender the money. "Walters said he could not help it, he had to act according to instructions. Later in the day, I went and tendered the £7,200 and asked to sep the documents. Walters said, "They are in this safe (pointing to a safe) but I cannot give them to you." From there, I proceeded to Mr. Synriott's offices and got an injunction the same day at four o'clock. With reference to the arrangement for the second consignment, in December. I had left London for Moscow. The first time I met Mr. Grant Seymour was at Mr. Synnott's office and I inquired of Mr. Klien who Mr. Grant Seymour was. I ought to have left for Moscow on December 1, but was always waiting for these documents, being desirous of being in London when they were arriving, and as I doubled if they would come I postponed my journey until December 4. which was Tuesday. I left instructions as to what was to be done should the documents arrive. My staff were to make inquiries at the London office, and also telegraph to Spain. I arrived at Moscow on December 9. On the 16th I was informed what had happened.

Mr. Pureell intimated that he would examine prosecutor as to the special charge against Woolford at a later stage.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. The only time I saw Seymour was at the solicitor's office. I did not see him again until these proceedings.

I was very anxious about the first consignment; I was not so inxioua about the second. I was not suspicious. It never entered my head that the documents might be forged, but I thought perhaps there would be no documents for the-ore coming. As to Mr. Holt threat ening to sell the consignment in Paris, I really do not know whether in this case there is a Mr. Holt at all. I once saw somebody who was represented to be Mr. Holt. The fact that Holt required oath did not arouse suspicion in my mind, because it is usual in the trade; a banker's cheque is generally taken. I left instructions as to finding out the name of the steamship company after the documents had arrived. That was not being suspicious, but what I should call the ordinary carefulness of a business man. I saw Holt at hit office after I had obtained the injunction, but I do not think a real Mr. Holt does exist, all the same. I mean he has got another name. I had conversation with him for about 20 minutes. He appeared to be a respectable business man and aroused no suspicion in my mind at all. It was the fault of my staff and "bluff" that the instructions with regard to finding out the name of the shipping company were act complied with. They argued it in this way, that the shipping company having a London office, it was not necessary to telegraph to Spain. I left instructions to telegraph because, of coarse, we did not know by what line the documents were coming forward.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I have seen Woolford, but have not known him long. On my return in November I heard that my people had entered into an agreement with him.

HUGH MANCHA KILBY . I am a broker acting for Messrs. Buch and Co. After Mr. Klein had gone to Russia I heard that the second lot of documents had arrived. I went with Messrs. Buch and Co. 's cashier with a cheque made out for £7,200 in favour of Holt and Co. That was a cheque drawn by Charles Buch and Co. and marked by the bank manager as good. I saw Walters at Holt's office, and he showed me a registered envelope from which he took a bill of lading, the policy of insurance, and a letter of reference. I examined those three documents with the bank clerk and was satisfied that they were all in order. The cheque was then handed to Walters, who said he wanted notes and gold. The bank clerk then said, "Come with me and you shall have them." On reaching the street I observed that it was getting on for four o'clock and said, "If you want to get into the bank in time, you had better jump into a cab and go round and get the money. "Walters and the bank messenger got into a cab, the latter having the cheque and Walters the documents. When I got to the bank I saw Walters counting the notes. Outside the bank Walters said to me, "I hope, Mr. Kilby, that our future business will go off smoothly."

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. It did not strike me as suspicious that Walters refused the cheque and asked to have bank notes because I had known throughout that for some reason or another Holt had insisted on payment being made in bank notes. I agree with me.

Klein that it is not unusual to make payments of this size in cask; a cheque is more general, but it was not sufficiently rare to cause suspicion. I had seen Seymour two or three days before December 7, when the transaction was completed, but I did not tell him that Buch and Co. had got very suspicious of the matter. I did not say they had a list of the shipping companies doing business between Spain and England. I did not say that if the name of the shipping company that appeared on the bill of lading was a name they did not recognise, Mr. Klein had left instructions to insist on a delay of two hours, during which they were to ascertain the status of the shipping company. Mr. Kirchhove was with me on that occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. Woolford was at Buch's office very frequently. I did not see him at Holt's office. Woolford, I understood, was the intermediary between Klien and Holt. I do not know anything about Buch and Co. 's agreement with Klien.

JOHN BRETT , manager of Mincing Lane branch of London and Westminster Bank. By instructions I marked a cheque for £7.200 drawn by Charles Buch and Co. in favour of Holt and Co. I gave that cheque to a messenger to take to Holt and Co. on December 7. The clerk came back with a man similar to the photograph produced (Walters). In consequence of what was said by this man and Buch and Co. 's representative I divided the cheque for £7,200 into one sum of £3,800 in bank notes, and gave a cheque for £3,400 drawn as on behalf of the bank, and crossed it. It appears to have been subsequently paid through Glyn's on behalf of the Credit Lyonnaise, I believe. In return for the notes and cheque I received three documents—the bill of lading, the policy of insurance, and the guarantee. I did not happen to look at them before the money was handed over. I minded them for Buch and Co. Later on I thought I will see what we have got," and looked at them. I saw that there should be three bills of lading, and communicated with Buch and Co. The cheque was cashed the same day by Glyn's house, and the money parted with just before four o'clock. Glyn's Bank is in Lombard Street.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. The cheque was cleared at the clearing house. They clear after banking hours up till half-past four. I do not know whether any bank would cash that cheque on the strength of the name of the London and Westminster Bank. Without snowing the people, probably they would not. The cheque appears to have been first paid to the Societe Generale, as it bears their name, and to have been cleared on their behalf by Messrs. Glyn and Co. If Glyn's knew their people they would probably give the money at once. I never saw Seymour until I saw him in the police court, and as far as I know he took no part in any of the transactions. I have not considered it any part of my business to trace the notes; the fraud was not on the London and Westminster Bank.

To the Jury. The letters "V. P." on the cheque for £3,400 I pull on myself, for the purpose of dividing the cheque. It signifies "various persons account."

To Mr. Fulton. I never saw anything of Woolford.

THOMAS ERNEST KLIEN recalled. I was aware of the message that came from the bankers about there being only one bill of lading. I then went to Holt and Co. and found it closed. I then went to the office of Emanuel Cahan and Co. and found that closed as well. I spent nearly all the Saturday morning (December 8) between the two offices. I saw Mr. Carpenter while I was watching, but did not speak to him. I did not see Mr. Collins.

GEORGE COLLINS , carrying on business as Geo. Collins and Co., printers, 77, Fleet Street. On December 7 I called at Holt's office for a little account. In consequence of what I heard I got into communication with Messrs. Buch and Co., and was afterwards shown the bill of lading, the policy of insurance produced. I recognise those two documents as having been printed by George Collins and Co., and also the heading of a type-written letter, "B. Holt and Co. "I got the order to print the bill of lading on November 19, 1906, and printed 100 copies. Of the policy of insurance we printed 500 copies on November 23. The heading of the letter of guarantee was an earlier order. The orders were given by Walters, whom I have since seen in Paris. With regard to the bill of lading, it is usual to put the printer's name at the bottom, and we put our imprint on the proof, out he would not have it. He made sundry corrections on the proof. We previously showed him good qualities of papers with the water mark of Walter Tanner and Co., London, makers, but he was not satisfied with any of the specimens, and finally chose a paper without any water-mark of a cheaper quality than we usually print bills of lading on. We had previously seen Walters in May, 1906. The first job he brought us was a bill of exchange in the name of Walter May, general merchants, Bear Lane, Southwark, London, S. E. We made a copper-plate which on October 9 we altered at Walters's request to Emanuel Cahan and Co., of Palmerston House. We also printed for him a cheque-plate, "Levis Brothers and Co., American Bankers,"and subsequently a cheque plate in the name of "Messrs. B. Holt and Co., 25-29, Coleman Street, London, E. C." In all there were 500 cheques bound in 20 cheque books. The plate produced it that from which Holt's cheques were printed. The Levis Brothers' cheque plate was obliterated, and nothing else put upon it. I took the order from Walters in each case. He seemed to be the principal man in each of these firms.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I never saw Mr. Seymour. Walters paid for the things he ordered in May, 1906, and we looked upon him as a good customer. The bills of lading, etc., we did not get paid for.

To Mr. Fulton. Woolford was in no way concerned in the ordering of these documents.

To the Jury. I delivered the plate with the goods on each occasion. Walters usually fetched the work; it was very rarely that we sent it.

Detective-sergeant WILLIAM SARGENT, City Police. I obtained from Messrs. Alexander certain references—Meihe and Co., 216. Upper Thames Street, who are agents for the landlords of 25-29 Coleman Street. On February 5 I arrested Woolford in Queen Victoria Street, and took him to the police station, where the warrant was read to him by Inspector Murphy. Woolford made a statement to the effect that the ore was his property.

HENRY CHAMPION , ship chandler, 76, Leadenhall Street. I made the acquaintance of Grant Seymour possibly about twelve months ago. At first it was a friendly affair, and afterwards we had some talk about doing business in the sale of French products. I am not very familiar with French. Seymour was to write the letters in French and I was to sign them. I gave him two of my letter forms signed by Mr. Seymour afterwards wrote me concerning Holt, that they were going into business together, and asking me to be a reference for some offices they were about taking. I did not know Holt and I declined, and the matter dropped. I did not give the reference produced, though the signature, "H. Champion and Co.,"is in my handwriting. I did not authorise Seymour to give such a reference for B. Holt and Co. I should say it is written on one of the two sheets of paper I gave to Seymour. I do not use a typewriter, and have never had one.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I write French very little. I was at school for two years at Tournay, in Belgium. I knew Seymour had not any office when he was proposing to start this French business. I have no recollection of receiving a letter from Alexander Meihe and Co. If I had I should have handed it to Seymour. I never saw Mr. B. Holt. I know that Seymour went for a short time into Holt's office. The French business would have been done from my office. I recollect giving him the two sheets of paper perfectly well. Our friendship did not break up somewhat suddenly. We had no business together and therefore we never met. We had a little dispute over a cheque and it was at that time our friendship ceased. He went to France about that time and I lent him a bag of mine and from time to time I lent him a few shillings. A cheque I gave him for £1 was dishonoured.

ARTHUR JOHN SHARGOOL , collector, Palmerston House Buildings, produced an agreement with reference to the letting of offices in Palmerston House to Emanuel Cahan and Co., dated August 27, 1906. Cahan, or whoever made the agreement, produced a visiting card with the address, "2, The Grange, Maiiland Park. "The references given were to a Mr. Middleton, 66a, Cannon Street, and Richard Walters, 65, Folkestone Road. The references were satisfactory. The man who took the premises was not Seymour. Witness recognised the photograph of Walters as Cahan. (The reference of Middleton is the handwriting of Grant Seymour.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I have never seen Mr. Seymour before. We had no communication with Cahan at Maitland Park—only at the office.

To Mr. Pulton. I know nothing about Woolford.

Detective-inspector JOHN OTTAWAY, City Police. At seven p.m. on January 12 I went with Sergeunt Sargent to 2, The Grange, Maitland Park, and saw Seymour, who there occupied a flat. I told him we were police officers and held a warrant for his arrest for obtaining large sums of money from Messrs. Buch and Co. He said, "I know nothing about it further than that I introduced the two parties to one another. Mr. Woolford, with whom the contract was made, has been to see me with reference to the matter on several occasions and told me that Buch and Co. had placed the matter in the hands of the police." I then read the warrant to him, and he replied, "This is monstrous. Buch and Co. are aware that I know nothing about it." While the room was being searched Seymour took a letter from his pocket and stooped towards the fire. I took the envelope from his hand and said, "You were going to burn that,' and he said, "I was not. Will you read them?" I produce the contents of the envelope. Some are letters in German.

(Thursday, March 21.)

Inspector JOHN OTTAWAY, further examined. I obtained the key of the safe in Holt and Co. 's office in Coleman Street from Inspector Murphy. In the safe I found nine unused cheque books in the name of B. Holt and Co. and two used cheque-books with the counterfoils remaining in them. There is no entry on any one of the counterfoils. Among the blank counterfoils I found one lettered "H., No.—," and running from No. 1 continuously. The copper plates had been, previously found by Anderton. At 2, The Grange, I found the agreement for the letting of those rooms to Grant Seymour, dated May 24, 1906. He is described as of 66, Queen Victoria Street, shipping agent. I have seen Grant Seymour write, and in my opinion the reference signed Middleman and handed to Shargool for the taking of the (premises at Palmerston House in the name of Cahan and Co. is in Seymour's handwriting.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. The agreement relating to Seymour's private house was not put in at the police court; it was not asked for. Amongst the papers were also two commission contract, on signed by Woolford in the name of the Comptoir Geologique and the other in the name of Soame Montague and Co. (Herbert Carpenter). "In consideration of services rendered by you in introducing us to Messrs. B. Holt and Co., for the purpose of our purchasing ore from the said firm, we hereby agree to pay you a commission equivalent to 10s. per ton on all ore purchased from this firm by us, this commission to be paid immediately the transactions between Holt and Co. and ourselves are completed." One is dated November 2 and the other November 7. Both have impressed stamps upon them. I thought the act of Seymour in stooping to put something into the fir was important, but I did not mention it at the first hearing at the police court because I then only gave evidence of arrest. I am

seriously of opinion that prisoner intended to burn the papers. He told me I could read the letters after I had taken them from him One was a complaint of a firm of German merchants that they had not been paid for goods supplied to the firm of Debouchere Warner and Co., and saying they did not like that sort of business, and would charge the account against Mr. Seymour, Debouchere Warner and Co. being "a swindle firm." The letter was addressed to Seymour. I arrested him on January 12. He had been at home in the interval from December 7 as far as I know. I had no trouble in finding him I know now he had a three years' agreement in respect of his residence. Walters is in custody in France. Holt has not been found. Warrants were issued against Grant Seymour, Holt, and Walters.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. No warrant was issued against Woolford at that time. I made a thorough search of the premises of Holt and Co. and Seymour, and found nothing relating to Woolford with the exception of the one commission note and a receipt for two cheques given by Woolford to Grant Seymour: "Received from Grant Seymour, Esq., two cheques for £10 10s. in payment for one ton of antimony ore, this cheque to be held over until delivery of the ore I searched Woolford's house, but found nothing connected with this transaction. At Seymour's house I saw a Mr. Phillips. I do not know his Christian name.

HERBERT MIDDLETON , Emmanuel Road. Balham, denied giving the reference for Cahan and Co. in respect of Palmerston House premises or authorising a reference to be given in his name.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. The reference is undoubtedly on my paper, "Middleton and Co., mining engineers, ore merchants and mineralogists."

Re-examined. I know Woolford, who for years has come to my place on business. The paper was kept in the stationery rack on the desk. He might have been there sometimes by himself.

To Mr. Fulton. I know both Woolford and Seymour, who to my knowledge knew one another. The latter also often came to my office. To Mr. Ruegg. I do not know Holt or Walters. My office consists of one room, and the stationery is lying about on the table. I went to Holt's office to see Mr. Seymour with reference to some ore he had sold me.

Detective ALFRED ANDERTON, City Police. On January 1 I searched the offices of Holt and Co. and found five bills of exchange drawn by Emanuel Cahan and Co. in favour of Debouchere, Warner and Cosigned with B. Holt and Co. 's stamp. One is endorsed "Seamour," for 2,500 Italian lire. I found letters in French and Italian from foreign firms, all complaining that they could not get their money I also found five copper plates which have been produced and a die for impressing stationery, "B. Holt and Co., 25-29. Coleman Street, EC." There is a plate "B. Holt and Co." for impressions where the cheque is torn from the counterfoil. On the same day I searched the offices of Cahan and Co., 104, Palmerston House, where I found two

more of Mr. Collins's copper plates. Besides the copper plates I found the bills of lading in Spanish printed by Mr. Collins.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. The bills of exchange and cheques and other documents were all found either at Holt's or Cahan's. Some of the bills of exchange had several names on the back. I have not inquired if they were all forgeries. I have seen Grant Seymour's writing, which appears to me to be larger than the signature "Secmour."

WILLIAM OSBORNE , lift attendant, Palmerston House. Cahan and Co. had offices in Palmerston House three or four months before Christmas, latterly as agents of the Campania General Sevillana de Navegacion. I identify the photograph of Walters or Labarre, now in Paris, as the man I knew as Emanuel Cahan. We looked upon him as the head of the Campania General. He was a good deal at the offices and had many visitors. The man I knew as Cahan introduced me to a man I knew as Walters, whom when Cahan was away I might let into the offices with a key. He was about 45 years of age and rather a tall man, an older man than the photograph shows, with a rather conspicuous scar on his cheek. (Holt.) Prisoner Seymour used to visit Cahan two or three times a week. The office was on the second floor.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. A great many people used to come every day to see Cahan. The name of the Campania General Sevil-ana de Navegacion was up more than a week, more than a month. Caldwell Moore and Co. had offices above Cahan's. Cahan also had visitor named Franck, a Frenchman, but I do not know that Franck was a visitor to Caldwell Moore. The latter are old tenants and are there still.

ALFRED DOCTOR , trading as the Parisian Pleating Company. In June, 1906, Debouchere Warner and Co. were introduced to me. I am a costume skirt manufacturer and pleater, and now carry on business in Eden Street, but was then in Moor Lane. I let part of 23, Moor Lane, to a person representing Debouchere Warner and Co. on a verbal agreement at £60 a year, payable quarterly in advance. The first quarter was paid and no more. On December 1 I found the place shut up and had to force it open. In February I called at the office of C. Phillips and Co., on the third floor at 66, Finsbury Pavement, and there saw one of the persons who had been my tenant as Debouchere Warner and Co.

THOMAS ERNEST KLIEN , recalled, further Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. Two or three days before December 7 Seymour said to me he was getting rather sick of doing business with Chas. Buch and Co. and myself as none of the business seemed to go through satisfactorily. I think I told him that Buch and Co. had made inquiries of all the Spanish shipping companies they could think of, and if we found that the name of this company did not appear on the documents we should be very careful about parting with our money. I did not say we would not complete at all. Those were Mr. Klein's instructtions

before he left. I had nothing to do with completion. It was in Charles Buch and Co. 's hands. I heard afterwards that inquiries were to have been made by telegram to Spain, but did not know that at the time.

FRED ROBINSON , tailor and hosier, 47, Broadway, Ealing. On October 13 last a man named Crookshank bought goods, of me to the amount of £4 and handed me in payment a cheque for £10: "13th October, 1906.—Messrs. B. Holt and Co., 25-29, Coleman Street, London. Pay James Woolford and Co., or order £10.—H. J. Grant Seymour." That cheque was numbered "No. 16 1477," and corresponds with the bank counterfoils found in Holt's safe. I let Crookshank have the goods and handed him 10s. in cash. Crookshank should have called for the cheque, but I have never seen him since. I gave that cheque to my solicitor, and it came back marked, "Payment stopped." On October 25 I went to Holt and Co., bankers, Coleman Street, where I saw Seymour and told him I had come in respect of a cheque of which I had a copy which had been paid in at my business. He invited me into an inner office. When I told him the name of the drawer of the cheque he said Grant Seymour was a very wealthy customer of theirs, but at the present time there were no funds in their bank to meet the cheque. I said, "This is no bank." He replied, "Yes, a very respectable bank." I said if that cheque was not met I should at once inform the police. He said he would see Grant Seymour that evening and see what could be done. I asked him if he could give me the address, and he said they never divulged clients' business. On January 29 I paid a visit to the Mansion House Justice Room in consequence of having read something in the paper. I saw Grant Seymour in the dock and afterwards communicated to the police. Seymour could see me at the Mansion House and turned quite round towards me. On February 4 I received a letter purporting to come from Crookshank enclosing the £4 and the 10s. in coin. From October 13 I had heard nothing of Crookshank.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I do not accept the suggestion that I am mistaking Seymour for Walters. I have never seen Walters. I do not recognise the photograph (of Waiters) produced. I gave a description of the prisoner Seymour to the police last October. After I had seen and recognised Seymour at the Mansion House I gave evidence. I did not hear Insector Murphy subsequently say, "I have seen Walters in. Paris. He could easily be mistaken for the prisoner (Seymour). He speaks English like an Englishman."

Re-examined. Having seen the photograph, I say that Seymour was the man I saw in Holt's office, and not the original of the photograph.

Detective-Inspector JAMES MURPHY, City Police. I have been to Paris in connection with the prosecution of Walters. I received from the French police, who arrested him, the key with which Inspector Ottaway opened the safe at Holt's. The address given by Seymour,

66, Queen Victoria Street, is a District Messenger's Office, where they take in letters at 1d. each. There is no shipping agency there. I cannot say that there are letters lying there for H. J. Grant Seymour.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I said before the magistrate that Walters could easily be mistaken for Seymour, but Waiters is a bigger man. If he was sitting down that would not be very apparent. Like Seymour, he is a dark main. We have not been able to get bold of Holt, but have made every effort to find him. Walters speaks English fluently, but with a very slight accent. You want to be with bin—for some time for it to be noticeable. He has been over here for thirteen years. From the photograph of Waiters it will be noticed that he has rather a peculiar mouth and prominent cheeks. The man who has a scar on his cheek is Holt.

HERBERT CARPENTER , manufacturers' agent, Cadogan House, Surbiton, and carrying on business as Soame, Montagu, and Co. I made the acquaintance of Wool-ford about eighteen months ago, being introduced to him by Grooksbank. When I first made Woolford's acquaintance his proposal was to deal in a number of mining shares in a mine supposed to be in Spain. I afterwards saw Crooksbank at No. 1. Telegraph Street, the names up being "Gerard and Co., Gold and Silver Complex Ore Reduction Company." Woolford said he was interested in those businesses, and also mentioned the Comptoir Geologique. He told me he was forming a big smelting concern, and suggested that I should deal in ore with a view to supplying these big smelting companies, who were going to be smelters. He told me he would introduce me to the sources of supply, and in May he introduced me to Mr. Grant Seymour, who, he said, could supply me with a quantity of ore. They showed me a sample of what was supposed to be antimony ore, the amount on offer being 10 tons. Having got the sample, I went about to find purchasers and sold it. Having sold the whole 10 tons, I then wanted delivery, but could not get it. Woolford told me he would take me to where the ore was lying, and we started to go and see it. We met Seymour in Watling Street. Woolford and Seymour went on one side and had a little conversation together, and then they came back to me and Woolford said, "We will now go down and sec the ore." That was all that passed in Seymour's presence. Woolford and I went down to Old Ford and I was taken to a disused smelting works, where I saw a lot of rubbish, some of it loose and some in very rotten bags. Woolford said, "This is not our ore; our ore is somewhere else." I was afterwards shown the ore I had bought at Salmon's Lane. At that time Woolford had been paid £30 for the 10 tons I bought and resold by Nelson on our behalf. The ore at Salmon's Lane seemed a very mixed parcel, and I asked Woolford which was my 10 tons. He said it would have to be picked over, and I agreed to pay for the picking, as he said he had no money for the purpose. I paid £2 8s. and delivered two tons of the picked stuff to Hallett and Fry. They accepted and paid for 9 cwt. and refused the other as not worth treating. I asked Woolford to return to Nelson the balance of the £30. I first heard of B. Holt

and Co. during the latter part of this transaction. Their name had not been used in this transaction at all. I think I was introduced to them by Grant Seymour with reference to buying 400 tons of antimony ore which Seymour said Holts could supply me. I went to Holt's office several times and saw a man I believed to be Holt. Eventually a contract was entered into for the supply of the 400 tons. The contract described the goods as sulphide of antimony ore, as per analysis, guaranteed free from arsenic, zinc, and lead, on the basis of 60 per cent, and not below 50 per cent. I was to pay £7,200 when I had got the goods. I asked in a general way where the goods were coming from and was told from Seville, but they could not give me the name of the shipping company or the ship until the goods had been actually put on board. It was mentioned by Seymour that if I would take 800 tons he had a possible purchaser of 400 tons. The contract was signed about October 25. I saw him afterwards at the office of Charles Phillips and Co., 66, Finsbury Pavement, when I found the goods did not come through. In the meantime I had resold the goods at an enhanced price to 32 purchasers. Eventually I was shown a telegram purporting to come from Seville saying that the documents had left and on December 5 was told they had arrived. Seymour told me he was no longer at Holt's office because he had had a disagreement with Holt. The first time I called at Holt's office I saw a clerk, and afterwards on December 7, Walters. As I met him he was just rushing out. I went on the Saturday, but did not find him there nor on the Monday, when I learned what had happened from a representative of Buch and Co. The letter of reference, signed Middleton and Co., I should say is in Seymour's handwriting. I had several interviews with Seymour at Holt's office. I was told first that the bills of lading had arrived without the policy of insurance; and, secondly, that the goods had been disposed of elsewhere. I was offered a second consignment.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I did not part with any money for any of these goods. As to whether this was an attempt to get money out of me, you have the facts before you; they entered into a contract with me which they failed to keep. Seymour arranged the contract. I have been some years in the City of London. Contracts are not always arranged by a commission agent, but I have heard of sometimes three or four commission agents having a claim on a transaction. When I saw the ore at Salmon's Lane I said I considered it a very inferior lot. I bought at £3 a ton and sold to Hallett and Fry for £6. The contract was for the payment of 75 per cent, on delivery of the documents and the balance 14 days afterwards, on it having been certified by Messrs. Claudet, who are perfectly well-known, assayers, that the goods were satisfactory. I did not think Seymour was acting as agent for Holt's. He seemed to be on equal terms in the office with Holt. I knew he was not Holt, but I did not know he was not amongst the company. I did not think it a strange transaction that Seymour should be taking commission for introducing business to a firm in which he was a principal. It is a transaction which is

carried out daily in the City of London. It would have been a good thing for me if the transaction had been carried out and a good thing for Seymour, whose commission would have amounted to £200 payable after the stone had been assayed and declared to be according to sample. I did not see anything suspicious in Holt and Co. until the final break up, but I thought it extraordinary the documents did not come round on the first consignment. I thought they were an established firm and did not trouble any more about it except that I wanted to get my contract through. I regarded Seymour as acting for Holt and Co. The telegram concerning the document was printed and had the appearance of coming from Seville. It was in French and purported to say that the documents had left Seville. That satisfied me. I consider the price I bought at gave only a fair business profit. I should not have got anything like 100 per cent. There was nothing to excite suspicion in the contract. Holt and Co. understood from me that money would be forthcoming against the documents, but I refused to tell the names of the people who would find the money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I first got to know Woolford about 18 months ago. It is not the fact that I was in the habit of cashing cheques at Gerard's office. I called upon the firm of Quirk, Barton, whom I know by repute. I was not recommended to go there by Woolford. I also went to the firm of Locke, Lancaster of my own initiative. I have dealings in silk. The first deal I had in metals was in May of last year. Woolford introduced me to Mr. Middleton, from whom I bought 20 tons of antimony ore at £5, which I resold at £7 10s. on a unitage. Woolford was to have 1 per cent, of the profits for the introduction, but there were no profits,. and Woolford has not yet paid his proportion of the loss, which was about £20. When tested the ore was found not to be up to the standard. Buying at £3 a ton, I did not expect to get ores very rich in antimony. Antimony is now, I think, fetching £104 per ton. As a matter of fact, I expected to find 15 per cent. I am not an expert in ores, but can tell antimony ore from silicate or stone. I think the amount of antimony stipulated in the contract was 15 per cent.

ALFRED INGLE FROST , clerk in the Coleman Street branch of the London and South-Western Bank. Emanuel Cahan and Co. opened an account with us on September 17, 1906, with £60. They gave as references B. Holt and Co., Coleman Street; Charles Phillips, 37, Argyll Street; and A. Goldschmidt, 1, Finsbury Pavement. The account was closed on December 31 by the bank. On November 12 the bank received a letter from Cahan and Co. stating that on the following Saturday they had a payment to make of £7,000 in gold sterling, and asking if the bank would be ready to let them have the amount in gold and notes on the Saturday before closing time, the charges for commissions and expenses, and also charges for the collection of North American dollar bills, and the rate of exchange. The request for £7,000 in gold and notes fell through, as we heard no more about it I produce five paid cheques.

HUGH MANCHA KILBY . I saw Woolford on or about November 8 or 9. He wanted a loan of £70 to release a small smelting works in Salmon's Lane, on which there was a charge for rent, and where he said some 30 tons of antimony ore was lying. He said it was sold to Mr. Champion for £5 5s., per ton. I said we wanted to see the sale note. I did not think it was worth the £70. The sale note was to be given as collateral security. I said if he would produce the sale note he should have the £70. Two or three days afterwards he came again and brought a letter from H. Champion and Co., stating they had bought the ore on behalf of clients abroad, and I gave him the money. He agreed to put the stuff into a wharf and give us the delivery order. He came again with Mr. Pinhorn, who had distrained upon the stuff for rent, and brought a warrant showing that 680 bags of ore were deposited at the wharf of Knight Brothers, Ratcliffe. That warrant was endorsed by Mr. Pinhorn, and on the faith of the warrant and the letter I directed Messrs. Buch and Co. 's cashier to draw cheques, one for £20 1s. 6d., which was handed to Mr. Pinhorn in payment of his rent, the other for £48 18s. 6d. being handed to Woolford. Both were endorsed by Woolford. It was at this request that the £70 was split up into these two sums. I produce the receipt Woolford gave for the £70. On January 31 I took the sample to Mr. Kitto, assayer and analytical chemist, 30 and 31, St. Swithins Lane. I went with Mr. Kitto to Knight Brothers' wharf, where the 680 bags were examined and samples taken. The opinion I formed of the stuff was that it was soot and bricks, with which one or two pieces of ore were mixed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I had seen Champion, and when we had his letter did not trouble to make inquiries. We required the stuff to be put somewhere where it would not be taken away. The warrant speaks of it as antimonial ore. I was not in the office on December 17 when Woolford came and saw Mr. Klein. We were quits satisfied with the security at the time. No steps were taken until Seymour was being charged alone at the police court. I had previously seen antimony ore. It looks like rock with antimony showing in it. I have heard of oxide of antimony. Mr. Champion's letter described the stuff as antimonial lead gold ore. As we had a contract for the sale of the stuff at five guineas a ton it did not matter to us what the ore was at all.

OSCAR JOSEPH KLEIN . After my return from Russia on December 17 Woolford came to my office. I caught sight of him as I was going upstairs, and slipped round into the office. He touched his. hat, and said he had come to ask me if I would release the warrant on which he had received an advance during my absence, or would I accept his cheque. I said I had only just returned from Russia, and could not yet see daylight in the matter. I had heard what had happened about the £7,200. He said the ore was worth more than £250, corroborating what I had heard from my staff. I told him if he would bring me 250 sovereigns he could have the warrant, and I said,

"Please do not call here any more. "I did not see him any more until he was in custody. I gave directions for both the bulk and the sample to be analysed. The warrant came into the possession of my foreign bankers. and the matter being brought to my attention I directed it to be inquired into.

Crosse-examined by Mr. Pulton. I directed the stuff to be analysed to make sure that it was worth £200. It turned out not to be ore at all. My staff made an agreement with Woodford that all his dealings in ore should be submitted to my firm. I had suspicion that all was not right, and that this forgery or swindle business was being brought about by collusion from my office or with people who were calling at my office. Respecting the antimony mine in Cornwall, Woolford introduced somebody calling himself Crookshank. Just at this time antimony was rising rapidly. Mr. Crookshank introduced a Mr. Nicholls, to whom I paid a deposit on an agreement, but Nicholls has been unable to produce the lease up to this date. The deposit was £34, and which was to be turned into £340 on production of the lease.

BENEDICT KITTO , F. I. C, assayer and analytical chemist, 30 and 31, St. Swithin's Lane. I have had more than 30 years' experience in this business. On January 31 Mr. Kilby brought me a parcel of ore weighing about 2 lb. to assay for antimony. After looking at the stuff I said, "There is very little antimony in this." I broke three of the large stones. One is lead ore, another manganese, and the third a poor sample of zinc ore. I assayed the remainder of the parcel, and found it to contain 2.59 per cent, antimony. It could hardly be called antimony ore; it is ore containing a little antimony. Antimony is not commonly found in manganese ore and zinc ore. It occurs frequently with lead, but not as a distinct mineral. This is what is known as galena, which is a sulphide of lead, but when antimony occurs with lead it is a mineral called Jamesonite, which is very different from galena, and has not the perfect cubical cleavage we find with galena. I afterwards examined the bags, taking 20 at random. The contents were mostly a black material that looked like flue and dust remaining from the treatment of ore of some kind, and amongst it were pieces of brick and flints. I saw a bit or two of lead ore, and three or four stones containing a little antimony. The contents of the 20 bags were then thoroughly mixed, and I took a sample, which on assaying I found to contain 04 per cent, of antimony. That would not be merchantable at all. Nobody would fetch it away.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I did not assay for other metals. If there had been any quantity of lead we should have observed it in the assay. There were traces of lead, but we did not assay for anything but antimony. I should say there was nothing else of any value whatever. More or less silver is always found in lead ores, but we do not often find it in antimony ores. Antimonial lead ore would be the Jamesonite of which I spoke just now. Antimony ore is a distinct mineral containing both lead and antimony. In my opinion

antimony ore or antimonial ore is not a proper description of this material.

To the Common Serjeant. "Black Jack" is a miner's term for zinc ore which is found with lead. They frequently occur in the same lode in close proximity. Mineralogists call it zinc blend.

GLEN STEEL , manufacturer's agent, 63 and 64. Chancery Lane. In July, 1905, I visited the "Three Crowns" public-house at Rainham, in Essex, near the mouth of the creek, where I saw some 60 tons of stuff and had it removed to Hart's Wharf, Old Ford. Smelting works were opened at Maryland Road, Stratford, but the attempt to smelt the stuff failed and the works were shut up. In May, 1906, Woolford called at my office with the object of purchasing the remainder of the ore, which was still at Hart's Wharf—about 20 or 30 tons). He agreed to give £14 for the parcel. He paid there and then £9 in gold and a post-dated bill for £5, which was dishonoured, but afterwards I received £4 in two sums of £2 10s. and £1 10s.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I am not an ore expert, but buy ore sometimes. I bought the 60 tons for £50, the idea being to resell it to a smelting firm. I do not know that smelting is not a proper process to apply to such ore as that. I was glad to sell the remainder cheap to avoid charges. The smelting people acted on advice, and no complaint was made to me that I had sold them a lot of rubbish. There was no mixing with the ore at Old Ford of the cinders and slag from the smelting works to my knowledge.

GEORGE HART , wharfinger, Old Ford Road. In May, 1906, there were some 20 or 30 tons of ore lying at my wharf, on which £15 11s. was due for charges. Woolford and Steel came to the wharf and I agreed to accept £9 in settlement. Woolford directed me to cart it to Salmon's Lame. The cost of carting (£3 15s.) has not been paid. Steel paid the £9.

(Friday, March 22.)

GERARD SANDS , formerly trading a 4 J. Gerard and Co., ore merchants, 1, Telegraph Street. At the beginning of last year I carried on business at 77, Salomon's Lane with Woolford, who at that time was using both 1, Telegraph Street and 77, Salmon's Lane for the business of the Comptoir Géologique and the Gold and Silver Complex Ore Reduction Company, of which he was managing director. In May, 1906. Some 30 tons of material were deposited at 77, Salmon's Lane, which Woolford said had been bought through Grant Seymour from Mr. Glen Steel. At that time I had no personal knowledge of Grant Seymour, but afterwards I constantly saw him and Woolford together. They were usually at the "Mecca," in Watling Street, where I used to go to see Woolford. That went on for two months. Of the lot of 30 tons 10 tons were sold to Mr. Carpenter. The rest remained at 77, Salmon's Lane for some months and was then removed to 58, Salmon's Lane, and for the purpose of removal was put into bags and remained until seized by Mr. Pinhorn for rent.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I was not Woolford's partner, but we had a working arrangement as far as smelting was concerned. I have known Woolford, I should think, for 18 months. If there had been profits on smelting we should have shared them certainly. I never smelted at all. I knew that Woolford and Seymour were engaged in business transactions together. I had no business relations with Seymour.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. During the 17 or 18 months I knew Woolford he was doing business in ore which I had nothing to do with. I would not describe the material at Salmon's Lane as rubbish. Part of it had been through a furnace. Putting ore through a furnace does not necessarily extract from it ail the ore it contains. A large part of it had not been treated. Part of it could be described as lead gold ore, but not the bulk. The best of the ore was taken away in the two tons. £3 per ton is a low price for antimony ore, and I should not expect to find ore very rich in antimony for that sum. I was present when Mr. Klien came to Salmon's Lane to take samples of what remained, but I could not say when it was.

Re-examined. I understood from Woolford that he had paid £30 for this ore. I paid Woolford over £200 in respect of the smeltng arrangement.

To Mr. Fulton. I have not asked for a return of the £200. The matter is not yet ready to commence. The suggestion that I have been defrauded of £200 is wholly untrue. I put £200 into a business which has never been begun.

ALFRED VICTOR PINHORN , estate agent and bailiff, Commercial Road. While Woolford was itenant of 58, Salmon's Lane, in November, 1906, I levied a distress for rent and seized a number of 'bags of material. (Witness also gave evidence as to attending at the office of Messrs. Buch and Co. on November 13 and receiving a cheque for £21 1s. 6d.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton, In consequence, of a communication from Messrs. Buch and Co., I took the bags to the New Sun Wharf.

GEORGE HENRY WALTERS , trading as Williams and Co., carmen and contractors, deposed to removing 680 bags of material from 77, Salmon's Lane, to Knight's Wharf, Limehouse, and JOHN JOHNSON, in the employ of Knight Brothers, to receiving them.

HENRY CHAMPION .I identify the letter stating that the ore had been bought for clients abroad at £5 5s. per ton. Woolford offered me the ore, describing it as antimonial lead ore, and said it contained 30 per cent, of metal, and he would submit a sample cwt. bag to my lients to be assayed, and, if satisfactory, I should have the delivery order, or if I introduced my customers 'to him they should have the delivery order. After a time I wrote the letter produced. I had two clients, but I had a reason for not disclosing them to him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I never got the sample cwt I had no client abroad. I decline to say for whom I bought the ore. I had a customer in London.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. At this time antimony was going up by leaps and bounds, and speculative business was being done. The statement that I had bought it of or a client was a statement of fact.

Re-examined. I was one of Seymour's references when he took Maitland Park.

To the Common Serjeant. There was no description or specification of the quality of the antimonial ore. The quality was to be ascertained by assay. No time was specified for delivery.

KENNETH VERE DOLLEYMORE , solicitor, Golden Square. Mr. Robinson banded me the cheque for £10 drawn by Mr. Grant Seymour in favour of Woolford. I went to the offices of Holt and Co., described as the Bank, about the beginning of November. I presented the cheque, and was referred to drawer. I saw a man whom I now know to be Grant Seymour. I asked if Mr. Grant Seymour was in, and was informed he was not, but might be back in the afternoon. I asked for an appointment to see him, and I said I come with reference to the cheque. I believe I showed it to him, out am not quite certain. I had written to all three people, and given them notice of the dishonour. When I left I asked him to write and make an appointment.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. Mr. Robinson handed me the cheque in part payment of the costs of his lease. The cheque was endorsed to me for the whole of the £10. It was endorsed by James Woolford, Crookshank, Robinson, and myself. I took it to be of the value of £10. He did not tell me that he had only advanced £5 on the cheque. When the cheque was dishonoured I wrote to Grant Seymour, and had a letter in reply, stating that the terms of the arrangement under which the cheque was given were that it was not to be negotiated until certain goods forming the consideration of the payment had been delivered. I do not accent the suggestion that I had mistaken Seymour for Walters. I do not know Walters by name or sight. I did not see Seymour again until I saw him at the police court.

Re-examined. A bundle of photographs was shown me, out of which I identified the photograph of Seymour.

Sergeant SARGENT, recalled, gave evidence of the identification of Seymour by last witness from the photograph.

Inspector OTTAWAY, recalled, gave evidence of two other documents found at Seymour's private address. One was a receipt of £3 from Seymour by Holt and Co. in respect of his tenancy of the office and the other a notification to Seymour by Holt and Co. that in respect of the sale to Soame, Montague, and Co., of 400 tons of antimony ore, it would be impossible to grant a commission on the transaction, the price having been cut down to such an extent as to make it impossible to encroach upon the narrow margin of profit left.

Sergeant ANDERSON, recalled, spoke to receiving from Mr. Brett a list of the numbers of the notes issued to Holt and Co., which has since been registered at the Bank of England. £l,200 of the notes had subsequently come in, some being endorsed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Ruegg. I have done my beat to trace where the notes came from, and have not been able to trace a farthing to prisoners.

Inspector JAMES MURPHY, recalled, spoke to obtaining in Paris the key with which Inspector Ottaway opened Holt's safe. Walters claimed to be a Frenchman, and undoubtedly is. When witness read the charge of conspiracy to Woolford on February 20, Woolford replied, "Great Scott I wish I had had the money. Do not you think that Mr. Klein, of Messrs Buch and Co., and Holt divided the money between them? It is curious that Mr. Klein went to Moscow a few days before the money was paid over."

Mr. Eustace Fulton contended that in order that the acts of co-conspirators might be evidence against a person charged with them it was necessary first to establish an agreement directed to a common design and here, he submitted, there was no evidence from which the jury could properly infer that there was such am agreement so directed.

The Common Serjeant: It is merely a question whether there is evidence that Woolford was taking part without guilty knowledge. There is plenty of evidence, of course, that he was taking part in a deal which we may call dishonest; it is only a question whether he was acting honestly or with criminal knowledge.

Mr. Fulton: There is plenty of evidence that he was acting in the deal with Mr. Klein, but in my submission there is no evidence that he was acting in the other deal with Herbert Carpenter.

The Common Serjeant: I do not see any difference between the two.

Mr. Fulton: There is nothing in the evidence from which the jury can properly draw the conclusion that he was a guilty party to this conspiracy, and that Doing; the case I submit that there is no case to go to the jury on the count of conspiracy to defraud.

The Common Serjeant: I cannot stop the case on one count. There is evidence against him on at least one of the counts.

Mr. Fulton said that on the count charging Woolford with obtaining £70 from Klein he did not make any submission.

Mr. Ruegg did not proceed with a similar submission as to the conspiracy on behalf of Seymour.


JAMBS WOOLFORD (prisoner, on oath). I am a metallurgist and miner, and have had a long experience. I have a process of my own for metal extraction, which was tested by Messrs. Johnson, Johnson and Sons, who are the assayers to the Mint. I first came into communication with the firm of Holt and Co. through requiring about 14 or 15 months ago a small parcel of antimonial copper ore in order to make a demonstration before people connected with the Amalgamated Copper Association. I approached Champion, and he gave me an introduction to Seymour as a party capable of finding that ore; he introduced me to Holt and Co., and that deal went through. I had other small transactions. Holt and Co. having antimonial ore carrying 2 ox. of gold to the ton, I made an offer to them to take the entire output of a Spanish mine at £2 10s. per ton. I understood Holts' had about 800 tons of antimonial ore for sale. My French is very imperfect, and Seymour acted as interpreter, and I entered into a firm contract to buy the whole at 8s. per unit, on the basis of 50 per cent.

to 60 percent.—equal 50 percent, and upwards. Antimony was at the time going up by leaps and bounds in the market. I got it cheap because I undertook also to take 18,000 tons at 20s. on a basis of 10 percent, to 20 percent. I have a large firm of West End solicitors who would have backed me—I did not intend myself to take up that purchase, but would have tried to find people to buy at higher prices, and take the difference myself as profit. I made the acquaintance of Klien later on through Messrs. Coutts, Burn, and Coutts, Limited. I knew that he was anxious to buy ore, and introduced to his notice this contract or agreement I had with Holt and Co. I asked him what amount of money he could find, and used the vulgar expression, "You cannot do these things with 2 1/2 "He said he could find up to £97,000. I said I had two small contracts of 400 tons and we had better start with small contracts. In consequence, through Klien, Buch and Co. and Holt and Co. were put in communication with each other, and my contract with Holt and Co. was assigned to Buch. After that it was only a question of waiting for the deal to go through and getting my commission. I thought there Was £12 a ton to be made, of which I was to get one third. With regard to the meeting at Messrs. Bellord's office, I attended at the request of Kirchhove, and being a person who was going to make a profit out of the deal, did everything I could to make things go smoothly. Beyond that I took no part in the proceedings. An agreement was entered into between me and Mr. Klein with regard to some mining property. That is the transaction of which he complains that he has as yet made no money, but you cannot attack a lode to-day and get £2,000 or £3,000 out of in a night. With regard to Mr. Carpenter, I was introduced to him by Crookshank. Fourteen or fifteen mouths ago Carpenter was at constant visitor at the office of Gerard and Co., his firm of Carpenter and Berry being then in liquidation. I was dealing with Hughes and Shemery, of Billiter Street, for a parcel of 20 tons, and I suggested that Gerard's should go to Pratt and Son, of Queen Street, Cheapside, who would take lowgrade ore, with 12 per cent, or 13 per cent, of sulphide of antimony, when no other smelters in England would, but Gerard's could not find any money, and that fell through. The English smelters have not yet the methods of dealing with such ore. Carpenter said he could find £15,000 through a Mr. Whitehead, a linen draper, and asked me to bring some portion of Gerard's business to his office. Pratt's bought this parcel of ore at £7 10s. per ton through Carpenter. The 10 tons of ore sold to Hallett and Fry was brought from Ayrshire Mine in Scotland. Seymour came to know Carpenter by meeting him at the "Mecca." They were not introduced; it was my object to keep them apart and keep the business in my own hands. Carpenter bought 10 tons of ore from Middleton, but could not get delivery. That is the 10 tons which I took him to Salmon's Lane to see. It was a Broken Hill complex antimonial lead ore, known all over the world, and cannot be melted, but must be volatilised or sublimed. The zinc

is obtained by smashing up the ore, putting it into retorts and distilling it. Harry Furniss, the well-known editor, offered me some works at Old Ford and the whole plant for £50, and Carpenter went down with me to look at it. We went to Old Ford before we went to Salmon's Lane. At Old Ford we saw a parcel of mixed ore containing silver, lead, and oxi-sulphide of antimony; there were some South African tailings, carrying 2 oz. of gold to the ton. The ore we afterwards saw at Salmon's Lane had been removed from Old Ford. As I knew that Hallett's would only take the oxi-sulphide, the ore was picked over. I heard afterwards from Carpenter that Halletis had only accepted 9 cwt. Mr. Nelson handed me a cheque for £30 in Throgmorton Street in respect of this transaction. Carpenter was bird up, and could not find the money. We could not have got the ore without it on 'account of there being some charges. Nelson was to have £5 out of the deal. The cartage for the removal of the ore has not yet been paid, but I gave Mr. Steel £9 out of the £30, and with that he paid the charge. This is the first I have heard of the agreement between Holt and Carpenter for the 400 tons. As regards the charge of obtaining £70 from Mr. Klein, that transaction originated in this way. Very easily I get hard up and short of cash, and it was known to Mr. Klien, who told Mr. Kilby, and Mr. Kilby said, "Well, I do not see why a fellow like Woolfard should go without cash. "Klien told me he would go and see the firm of Buch and Co. and see what could be done for Mr. Later he told me he had seen them, and he could get me £60 on the ore. This conversation took place at the buffet at Fenchurch Street Station, and the reference was to the ore lying at Salmon's Lane. The next step in the bargain was to ascertain the amount I had to pay Messrs. Pinhorn and Pinhorn. Besides that £20 to them I had £10 to pay to smelters, and £60 I thought would hardly be enough, and we increased it to £70. Klien had the brokers in at the time at his private house. We afterwards saw Mr. Kilby, who said. "You shall have the advance on the ore" on condition that Mr. Pinhorn should bring the 26 tons to a wharf. Kilby then said. "We have got the warrant, but we should like to have further evidence that the ore can be sold. Have you sold any portion of this ore before? "and I said, "Yes; through Messrs. Champion and Co." "Well," he said, "provided you get as undertaking from Champion and Co. to sell this ore on your or our behalf you will have the money to-day." As a consequence of that conversation I went to see Mr. Champion, and asked him if his buyer in Brussels or Antwerp would take this parcel off me. He said, "Yea; they are making inquiries for a low-grade ore for the making of oxides, and I think this will just fit in. "He asked what I would take for the ore, and I said £7 10s. He said he did not think he could get me that, end after haggling £5 5s. was agreed upon, and he gave me the letter of sale, which I showed later to Mr. Kilby. Klien was present on that occasion. Samples of the ore were taken and the cheques were drawn. Mr. Champion's letter correctly set out the transaction as between him and myself. Antimonial ore, as in the case of the

Santa Cecilia Mine, may carry 15 per cent, of copper, 25 percent arsenic, and one per cent, of antimony. Where antimony is present in slight quantities the treatment is different; you are assaying for other metals. Antimonial ore cannot be properly treated in this country because the smelters here go for the displacement of the antimony by precipitation by iron. The oxidation process is the one that should be used. At present I have no smelting works, but my process has been satisfactorily reported on. The sooty matter spoken of as being contained in the material is the blue teroxide of antimony, obtained from Hues as the bye-product of smelting. The material spoken of as looking like bricks is the yellow oxide of antimony. As to the suggestion that I was taking part in the fraud upon Buch and Co., I have never had a halfpenny of the large sum handed over to Walters. I believed there were bills of lading.

Cross-examined. The stuff I wanted to sell to Mr. Champion for £7 10s. per ton was the stuff I had bought from Mr. Glen Steel for £14, and upon 10 tons of which I obtained £30 from Mr. Nelson. I did not tell Sands I had bought the 26 tons from Steel through Grant Seymour. I did not tell Carpenter that Seymour had 10 tons of stuff to sell and show him a sample of it. I did not introduce Seymour to Carpenter as a man who could supply a quantity of ore. Carpenter introduced himself. I introduced him to Middleton. Carpenter never went to Old Ford. He went to Maryland Point, where there was nothing but a disused factory. The only place at which I showed him ore was Salmon's Lane. I did not ask him to pay workmen to do the picking. I will swear that when I went to Mr. Kilby in November I did not tell him I wanted an advance on stuff I had sold at £5 5s. per ton; the bargain had not been struck then I never did ask for a loan. It was Klien broke the ice. Mr. Klien asked me to go and borrow money on the stuff by Heavens he did. I was hard up at the time; I was very often. The sale to Champion was, I say, an absolutely genuine sale. We could not wait for the money from the purchasers as the landlord swept in everything. It is 14 or 15 months since I first knew Holt, who was, I suppose, then carrying on business at the Wool Exchange. No transactions with Holt ever came off. The only stuff I had from Holt was, I think, 4 cwt. of 25 percent, ore, which justified me in going on. I was very frequently in communication with Holt, but we could never get on; he was too hasty for me and never spoke English, but very quick in French, and I got the interpretation from Mr. Seymour or Walters. I did not always find Seymour at Holt's place. I knew nothing about Holt's business except that he was in communication for Spanish and Portuguese ores. No particular mine was mentioned. I have had large dealings in mines. I was just buying a mine in Spain—two—when I was arrested, though I could not pay Mr. Pinhorn. We buy mines in shares, and metals were then at a high price. I think it would be safe to say I have known Crookshank for two years. I gave Crookshank a cheque for £10 drawn by Grant

Seymour in favour of James Woolford upon the eminent bank of B. Holt and Co. Crookshank is concerned in the Ayrshire Antimony Mine in Scotland. I paid him a cash deposit on the dumps. The cheque was in respect of two tons of antimony ore he had sent forward. Crookshank did not tell me that he bought £4 of clothing with it and had 10s. into the bargain. I had another cheque (produced") from Grant Seymour. That is my endorsement, but I cannot say what I did with the cheque. Seymour had contracted to supply some antimony ore from the minis in Cornwall, and samples of this ore had to be brought forward. Carpenter and Middleton had contracted to finance a man to work the mine. As samples of ore were required Seymour asked me to endorse the cheques to raise the money. I did not send Grant Seymour any ore. With regard to the receipt by Seymour for the two cheques for £10 in payment of one ton of antimony ore, the cheques to be held over until the delivery of the ore, the explanation is that Seymour had to supply a two ton sample of antimony ore, and I said I would get it for him from Crookshank from the Ayrshire mine, upon which I had paid a cash deposit. Seymour and I were both hard up, and to raise money Seymour drew a cheque, which I endorsed We had a party who, on receipt of the cheque, was to send forward the ore, and, having the ore, we should have a chance of meeting the cheques. I have heard to-day that the cheque given to Crookshank for the Ayrshire business was changed with Mr. Robinson of Ealing. Grant Seymour and I spoke about the matter several times. He said, as the ore had not come forward, I must get that cheque from Crookshank. I spoke to Crookshank about it, and he said, "It is all Tight; you will have the ore. "Crookahank did tell me he had had £5 on the cheque. Seymour did not tell me that a solicitor had written him at the Grange, Maitland Park, complaining on behalf of his client, who was a holder for value. Holt's office was well furnished, but had not the appearance of a Lombard Street bank. It may have looked like a loan office. I never heard of Emanuel Cahan until this case came on, or of the shipping company through whom this antimony was coming. I do not know that the day before Holt and Co. contracted to sell me 400 tons they had contracted tot sell 400 tins to Mr. Carpenter; that was rather behind my back. I contracted to take the whole 800 tons.

Re-examined. Maryland Point was a factory run by Harry Furniss, the editor, and disused. There was 1 £ tons of slag lying about which has since been made up into the roads. It is not possible I should have told Can; enter that was the stuff. Crookshank did not use the cheque for the purpose I gave it to him but used it to finance himself.

JAMBS HENRY GRANT SEYMOUR (prisoner, on oath). I commenced business as a commission agent in London in 1900, but have spent several years on the West Coast of Africa on and off, and was at the war and obtained a medal as a naval volunteer. As nearly as I can remember, I first came to know Holt and Co. in September, October,

or November, 1905, being introduced by a Mr. Tivison. It was in July last year that I asked them whether they were able to supply any ores. I had previously been requested to introduce Messrs. Holt and Co. to a firm of stockbrokers in the City for the purpose of disposing of some £600 or £700 of Spanish interior bonds not quoted on the London Stock Exchange, and that transaction was carried through. I received a commission of £10, half of which I had to pay to the gentleman who introduced me to the brokers. When I spoke to them about sulpplying ore I had no reason to doubt their being a responsible and respectable firm. When Woolford originally mentioned to me that he was a buyer of antimony ore, and particularly large quantities of high grade, I asked him to indicate to me the principal sources from which antimony ore was derived. Up to that time I knew nothing about antimony. He told me the principal countries were North America, Spain, and Asia Minor. I went to Holt about the matter because he was a Spaniard, at least, so he told Mr. Holt said they would communicate with some friends in Spain and let me know in due course. Some four or six weeks after that Mr. Holt told me that friends of his in Spain, who owned mines in the interior, but were not in a position to spend a lot of money out of pocket, would be prepared to forward 800 tons of accumulated ore to England to his order subject to the bills of lading being taken up on arrival on the basis of 75 percent, cash and the balance after delivery. I then in troduced Woolford and Mr. Carpenter. I should say I had known Woolford since the beginning of the year. He was introduced to me as a smelter and ore merchant. I never heard of Woolford agreeing to buy more than 400 tons of ore. I took a commission note from Woolford at £1 per ton, payable on the completion of the transaction I also took a commission note from Carpenter at 10s. per ton, so that on the transactions being completed I should have received £600. From the first Holt stipulated that the payment of the 75 per cent, should be in cash, and it is distinctly started in the contracts, but that excited no suspicion in my mind, because both parties required a letter of guarantee with the bills of lading to hold them immune from any possible loss, so that really there was no risk if 'the document, were genuine. I knew Walters as Holt's confidential clerk. Holt and Co. informed me that they had bought the goodwill of Emanuel Cahan and Co. As far as I know there was no one but Holt in Holt; and Co. I knew enough about Woolford to know that he himself was not a man of substantial means and capable of carrying out such a bi £ contract. Beyond introducing the people in the hope of getting commission I had nothing to do with the transaction. At that time I had no office, and when Holt and Co. were taking these offices in the Wool Exchange, and in view of the fact that Holt and Co. only consisted of Mr. Holt and his clerk, and they had three fairly large rooms, with a lot of accommodation, I tasked Mr. Holt whether he would be prepared for a reasonable consideration to give me such accommodation as I required, and he agreed. The consideration was

£3 per month, for which I bad the use of his stationery and typewriters and every facility. I was there a little over a month, and left in October because of a dispute with Mr. Holt. I cannot tell if Holt was often to be found at Cahan's offices, as I went there hut once in my life. It is not correct, as a liftman has said, that I went and asked for Cahan's two or three times a week, but, curiously enough, I went to see people in the office over Cahan's. I can tell you about the dispute in two words. Woolford agreed to take up two parcels of ore of 50 tons and 20 tone, but the person who was to finance Woolford failed him, and in consequence Holt declared that Woolford was a auricn, and practically forbade me to do 'business with him, and in consequence I left. With regard to the first 400 tons, it Was repre sented to me that the documents would arrive by Saturday, November 17, and be available for Messrs. Buch and Co. Mr. Kirchhove accordingly attended on that day to complete the transaction. Kirchhove sent for me, and when. I got to Holt's there were also present Holt, Walters, and Woolford. Mr. Kirchhove, in a state of great excitement, explained to me that he had come to Holt's with a marked cheque, but Holt insisted upon cash. After communicating with Mincing Lane by telephone, Kirchhove agreed to return on the following Monday and complete the transaction with bank notes. Holt conceived the very foolish idea that Buch and Co. wanted to lay a trap for him by causing him to deposit the documents, and than intended to keep him dangling for his money, and consequently, as he told me, at the expiration of the moment appointed, having previously made arrangements to sell this ore in France, he rushed downstairs to the; telegraph office in the Wool Exchange and wired to Paris to sell. At the interview on the Monday I was not present, but was told that Holt had gone to Paris. On the 20th Walters told me that Buch and Co. had called at the office with £7,200, of banks: notes to show their bona fides, as it might appear from what transpired on the previous Saturday that Holt's were under the impression that Buch and Co had not got this amount of money. I was also told that to Holt's (profound surprise they had been served with a writ and notice of an interim injunction, which was for hearing on the 23rd, at the instance of Mr. Klein. As to how it was I came to be at the meeting at the solicitor's office, Mr. Woolford and a Mr. Hall called on me at my office in Finsbury Pavement and asked me whether I could bring pressure to hear on Holt to enter into a specific agreement with Buch and Co. to deliver to them the next 400 tons of ore subject to the withdrawal of the proceedings. I was induced to go to the meeting because Kirchhove had arranged to give me £50 if I would enter into Buch and Co. 's service in so far as the negotiation of this transaction was concerned, and do all in my power that the second contract should not escape them as the previous one was alleged to have escaped; they were extremely keen on getting it. Mr. Kirchhove with Klien and Woolford met me at the Cafe Lyons in Gracechurch Street, told me that he was satisfied the only wise course was to settle this dispute amicably, as

if they continued the litigation there would be no earthly chance of their getting any ore from Spain at all, and that this litigation had only been brought about in consequence of Mr. Klein's extremely hasty temperament, and that if they met at a solicitor's office and deliberately thrashed out the whole matter Mr. Klein would no doubt see that no earthly object could be gained by continuing the litigation. Having had that explanation, I went to the solicitors with Mr. Kirchhove, Mr. Klien, and Woolford, and it was there agreed that Buch and Co. were to have the next lot. I most certainly believed that Holt and Co. would deliver the next lot. As to the shipping company they were to come by I naturally said I did not know; of course, nobody knew. Mr. Synnott's 'account of the meeting is in substance correct. It was towards the end of November that I heard the second lot of documents was about to arrive.

(Monday, March 25.)

JAMES HENRY GRANT SEYMOUR , further examined. I never saw the name of the Spanish shipping company at Cahan's office. There was no name at all when I went there. I have never had any transaction of any sort or description with Mr. Carpenter except that I introduced him to Holt regarding the £400. Captain Whitson offered me 10 tons of ore, in May, I believe, said to be 15 per cent ore. He said it was at a smelting works at Maryland Point. The proposition was that I should inspect this ore, and if it suited me I was to buy it for cash. I went there but there was no ore. Before going I offered it to Woolford, and he went to inspect also, but found no ore. That was the end of it, so far as I was concerned. I did not know then that Woolford had obtained £30 from a man named Nelson—I know it now. I have never heard of Mr. Steel until this case and had nothing to do with Woolford's transaction with him. I have no knowledge of any transaction that Mr. Carpenter was concerned in. I met him at the Mecca and introduced him to Holt and Co. I took a commission note from Carpenter for £400—1 should have been entitled to £400 if Woolford had got me first 400 tons, and £200 from Carpenter for the second 400. I should get no commission from Carpenter until the 400 tons had been delivered, assayed, and passed by Claudet. I understood Holt accepted Carpenter as a responsible person who could have carried out the contract. I have reason to say the latter had no means whatever, though I understood he was going to find backers, but he refused to give their names. Previous to that he had asked Holt's to cash post-dated cheques, and that made such a bad impression that Holt told me he had no faith in Carpenter's personal ability to carry through the contract, and presumed he intended to hawk the contract about. It is true I showed Messrs. Buch and Co. 's representatives on December 5 a telegram from Seville saving that the documents were despatched. I do not know whether Klien was there at the time. The telegram was brought to me by

Walters. At that time I had had a disagreement with Holt and had left him. I believed the telegram from Spain was genuine. Klien told me that since Holt and Co. persisted in declining to reveal the name of the shipping company or the vessels carrying the cargo, he had on Buch. and Co. 's instructions compiled a list of the shipping on. panics trading between England and Spain, and if on presentation of the documents they purtported to come from one of those firms they were prepared to complete immediately; if they did not they would demand sufficient time to enable the London and Westminster Bank to make inquiries as to the status of the company. I took it for granted that these precautions were being carried out, as I believed Buch and Co. were men of business. As regards the commission note from Woolford for £400, my original idea was to get a commission note from Holt and Co. direct They absolutely refused to give me one. The two contracts were drawn by the buyers, and those which are put in from Holt are verbatim copies of the contracts put in by Carpenter and Woolford as drafts. I did show Klein the copy of telegram from Seville. At that time I was trying (through Mr. Klien) to interest Buch and Co. in another mine in Cornwall—the Antimonial Lead Mine. Mr. Klien told me he had arranged with Buch and Co. to go down with me, following the completion of the 400 ton contract, and go over the mine and complete the transaction. The question of the £100 arose out of my complaining to Kilby and Kirchhove that the £50 which the latter had promised had not been paid. They paid me something, but not the £50. I received £12 and a fortnight later £10—the day before the perpetration of this fraud. That came from Buch and Co. In the week following the payment of £12 I had several calls at my office from Kilby and Kirchhove, and, finding the balance of the £50 was not feeing paid, I complained to them that I was not being fairly treated; then Kilby offered to pay me £100 after they had received these documents and after I had performed all the work I was intended to do. This offer went through Klien, because Buch and Co. did not wish to appear as principals. I stood to make £700 if this had been an honest deal. I made nothing except the payments by Mr. Klien. In regard to the dishonoured cheques, Mr. Woolford told me a friend of his had large quantities of ore dumps (antimonial lead ore on the lumps) in Scotland, and as a Mr. Hall wanted to buy ore of that kind I arranged with Woolford that two tons of this ore should be sent to me as a bulk sample. The two cheques were in payment of this. I heard that Woolford parted with one of these cheques to a man named Crookshank, and I wrote him a very strong letter complaining of his laving parted with the cheque in violation (the terms of his receipt, vhich were that the cheques should be held over till the delivery of the ore. I was under the mistaken impression that the receipt would be a defence for me if these cheques were negotiated before I obtained my goods. Mr. Robinson did not come and see me at Holt's office after the cheque was dishonoured. I had left Holt's early in October. I told Walters that in the event of either of the cheques

being presented before I told him to meet them they were to be marked "Stopped payment."I have never been in charge of Holt's offices alone. I first heard of the cheque being presented from Mr. Dolleymore by a letter addressed to me, "c. o. B. Holt and Co.," which I received on October 19. I wrote the same day explaining the circumstances. Then I received a similar communication about the other cheques, which I answered in the same way. Until Holt's got this money on December 7 I believed they were a respectable firm. I gave a reference from Holt and Co. to the tenants at the Wool Exchange, whose office they took over. There is a reference from Champion, bearing his signature. I do not remember Champion handing me some of his sheets of paper (in reference to some French agency we were going into) because he was not conversant with the French language. Holt had promised to procure a French agency for Champion. There was no necessity for me to have Champion's paper. He speaks French as well as I do. I have heard him discussing complicated financial business in French. In respect to the reference to Middleton, the body of the letter is in my writing. On August 13 I called at Middleton's office in Cannon Street, and was shown an application from the City Offices Company for a reference about Emanuel Cahan and Co. Middleton was in a great hurry to get off and asked me, "What shall I write in reply? Do you mind writing cut a draft?" etc. I wrote a draft and left it on his desk. That is all I know about it. In regard to the letter about Debouchere Warner and Co., the only reason they were mentioned was to substantiate the reason why Mr. Carpenter did not wish to give further reterences about Charles Phillips and Co., because he had been severely hit financially in consequence of his disappointment over transactions he had had with Debouchere Warner and Co. I had given no reference to the latter. I knew a Mr. Collin who traded as Debouchere Warner and Co. He asked me if I could put him in touch with somebody in Germany whom he wished to use as a general correspondent. I gave him the name of Kortwich, a very old friend of mine, in Berlin. I was not responsible for that introduction, as the Berlin people made their own inquiries and did not rely on anything I did in the matter. I received a letter from them on February 12, the day of my arrest. In regard to the bills found at Holt's office, I know nothing whatever about them. It is not true that on my arrest I bent towards the fire as though I were going to burn some papers. I handed them to the officer and insisted on his reading them. I told him I had only introduced the parties for a commission. I never saw the forged bills of lading and other documents and had no idea they were forged. Since Holt got his money I have never seen him, nor Walters either. I have not had a penny of it, and never made any arrangement with them to benefit through any fraud such as this.

Cross-examined. I first saw Holt at the "Mecca," in Watling Street. I used to see Holt with Woolford there occasionally. I

did not know Holt as of any address but the Wool Exchange I saw him about once a month between October, 1905, and July, 1906, as a casual customer at the "Mecca. "I had had business with him before I gave him the reference. I introduced him to a broker, but I do not know where his office was then. On the strength of that transaction I wrote the letter of introduction, saying I had known him a considerable time as a highly respectable man, possessed of means, apparently, etc. Under the circumstances, I considered it a justifiable letter—for the purpose. It was about June, 1906, when I introduced Holt to the broker, and made Walters's acquaintance about then. I took him to be an Englishman. I had never seen Emanuel Cahan. Holt told me he was dead. When I gave the reference about E. Cahan and Co. I did so because the business was an oldestablished one, I was told. I do not deny that the reference was a grave indiscretion on my part, tout it was open to Mr. Middleton to adjust it as he thought fit. I wrote it as a draft. I admit that I put words into the mouths of Middleton and Co. which, as regards them, are absolutely false. Taking into consideration that this reference was only for the purpose of taking an office, a purely nominal matter, it was simply an indiscretion. I did not know Charles Phillips at Argyle Place. I saw Collin at Charles Phillips's once or twice—at Finsbury Pavement. I nave no knowledge of Mr. Doctor going to Charles Phillips's and seeing the man he knew to be Debouchere Warner. It is quite probable Collin (the man referred to) was at Charles Phillips's. It is untrue that I introduced Debouchere Warner to some German dealers. I do not know anything about their getting 1,258 marks worth of burners from a German firm. The documents were in my pocket, but I just glanced at teem. I did introduce Chas. Phillips and Co. to Kortwich, and I knew Debouchere Warner had got some burners from Germany. I did not introduce Debouchere Warner to Kortwich. I have a faint recollection of seeing Sands at the Mecca. I knew Woolford was frequenting an office called "Gerard and Co." 1, Telegraph Street. He told me he was "The Gold and Silver Complex Ore Reduction Company," and the managing director of "The Comptoir Geologique de la Guyane Anglaise." I am quite clear that I bought one or two tons of antimony from Woolford; I did not hear him deny that, and I have no recollection of Woolford saying that the two cheques I gave him were for the purpose of raising money. Two blank cheques were given to me by Walters as a special arrangement for the specific purpose of figuring as security. I did not know Crookshank; I never heard of him until this case. It is quite untrue that Robinson saw me at the bank on October 25; he has mistaken Walters for me. I never went to Holt's until the end of October. I never saw Robinson until he appeared at the police court. Mr. Dolleymore has also made a mistake in identifying me as the man he saw at Holt's. I was on pretty friendly terms with Charles Philips. In May, when I first met Woolford and these other people I was living in Coram Street, W.C.; my business then was the same

as it has always boon commission agent; I had no office then. There is no question now that Holt is Cahan; Holt was everybody; Walters was simply a clerk. As to the interview at Bellord's office, Mr. Synnott is mistaken in saying that I there said, "I represent Holt and Co. "; no one was there representing Holt and Co., but Buch and Co. had a letter from them offering them a further consignment of ore if they would withdraw the litigation.

Verdict, both defendants, Not guilty of conspiracy; Seymour, Not guilty on the indictment for obtaining money by false pretences; Woolford, Guilty of obtaining £70 by false pretences. The police proved that Woolford was convicted at Lewes Assizes in October. 1904, of certain offences under the Bankruptcy Act. The Common Serjeant, taking into consideration the fact that Woolford had been in prison for six weeks, passed a sentence of Three months' hard labour.



(Monday, March 18.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-35
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

MANN, Thomas (61, labourer), pleaded guilty to stealing a pair of boots, the goods of Isaac Birkett, and feloniously receiving same. He also confessed to a conviction, at the South London Sessions, on January 10, 1906, with a sentence of 12 months' hard labour, for larceny. Eighteen other convictions were proved, including three terms of penal servitude; prisoner had spent 35 years in prison. On his arrest on the present charge he said he would do for the person pursuing him, and threatened him with an open clasp knife. Sentence, three years' penal servitude.


(Tuesday, March 19.)

18th March 1907
Reference Numbert19070318-36
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

DOCKING, Percy (17, labourer) pleaded guilty to breaking and entering the shop of Arthur Frost and stealing therein four handkerchiefs, his goods, and one purse and the sum of 10 1/2 d., the goods and moneys of Clarice Perfect and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Frank Mathew prosecuted.

Prisoner was formerly employed at the prosecutor's shop at West Ham, and therefore knew the premises. He was found in an attic on the morning of February 21, having entered during the night. No previous comviction was proved, but Constable Menzies, 36 KR, described prisoner as having no regular occupation.

Sentence, Three months' hard labour.



As matter of historical record, It Is desirable to Include in this volume the following" documents" relating to the Sessions House, opened by His Majesty King Edward Vll. on the 27th day of February, 1907.]

(Monday, February 25, 1907.)


Commencing his Charge to the Grand Jury, the RECORDER said; Gentlemen of the Grand Jury,—As this is the last occasion upon which we shall administer justice in this building, it may perhaps be interesting to you if I tell you that from very, very early times the site of the present building has been used for the administration of Criminal Justice. The existence of the Old Newgate Prison (on the site of which the new Central Criminal Court stands) can be traced back as far as the year 1188, but the first mention of a Sessions House which can be found in our City records is in the year 1356, which you may perhaps remember wan the year in which the battle of Poictiers was fought, in the time of King Edward III., and the building was at that time designated the "Sessions Hall." In 1785 a new Sessions House was built by the Corporation of London on a site belonging to them, that is the present site. The building then erected and added to from time to time has since been exclusively used for the trial of prisoners, and since 1834, when the Central Criminal Court was constituted by Act of Parliament, has been devoted to the requirements of the administration of criminal justice. The Act under which our commissions are issued was passed in the year 1834. The first sitting was held on November 1, 1834, for the purpose of transacting formal business, by the reading of the commission, and it was attended by the Lord Mayor for the time, whose name was Farebrother, Lord Chancellor Brougham, many of the Judges, and the then Recorder of London, the Honourable Charles Ewan Law, one of my predecessors in the great office I have the honour to hold, who was appointed in 1833, and continued to hold that office till his death in 1850.

The first trial of prisoners took place on November 24, 1834, before the Lord Mayor, whose name was Winchester, Lord Denman, Chief

Justice of the Kings Bench, Mr. Justice Parker, and Baron Bolland, the Recorder, Mr. Law, and the then Common Serjeant, Mr. Mire-house. In this place and on this spot justice has been carried on, therefore, for many centuries, and in this building for considerably more than 100 years. The next Session will be held in the new building, which is to be opened by His Majesty upon Wednesday next, February 27. The building has been erected, as the present building was, by the Corporation of London, at their sole expense and charge. The Lord Mayor has been always included in every commission of over and terminer issued before the passing of our Act in 1834. and in every commission which has been issued at the commencement of each reign since that date, and his is the first name mentioned in the commission.

(Wednesday, February 27, 1907.)

His MAJESTY (accompanied by THE QUEEN) attended at the Old Bailey to open the new Sessions House.

The RECORDER read the following


To Their Most Excellent Majesties the King and Queen, May it please your Majesties.

We, your Majesties' most dutiful and loyal subjects the Lord Mayor. Aldermen, and Commons of the City of London in Common Council assembled, desire to offer to your Majesties the expression of our devotion to your persons and Throne, and our gratitude for your gracious condescension in attending here to-day to declare this building open as your Majesty's Central Court for the administration of Criminal Justice.

This Court was established by Act of Parliament passed in the fourth year of the reign of His Majesty King William IV., and was referred to on August 15, 1834, by His Majesty in his gracious Speech from the Throne on the Prorogation of Parliament In the following terms: "The establishment of a Central Criminal Court for the trial of offences in the metropolis and its neighbourhood will, I trust, improve the administration of justice within the populous sphere of its jurisdiction, and afford a useful example to every other part of the Kingdom."

The area over which this Court has jurisdiction includes the City of London, the whole of the Counties of London and Middlesex, and a very considerable part of the Counties of Essex, Kent, and Surrey.

The "populous sphere" referred to in His Majesty's gracious Speech, which in 1834 had a population of only 1,800.000, to-day has a population of considerably over 6,000.000, and the average number of prisoners tried in this Court each year exceeds 1,100.

A Court-house for the trial of prisoners has existed in the City of London from very early times, and the name of the Lord Mayor for the time being has always been included in the Commission of oyer and terminer by virtue of a charter of King Edward III., bearing date March 6, 1327.

In 1785 a new Sessions House was built by the Corporation of London, and was subsequently several times enlarged; it, however, proved quite inadequate to meet the demands of the present day. and on December 20, 1902, the first stone of this building (which stands upon the site of the ancient Prison of Newgate) was laid.

The present building has been erected at the sole cost of your City of London, without assistance from Imperial funds or the neighbouring counties, and will provide four Courts for the trial of prisoners; and arrangements have been made for the reception of the Lord Mayor, your Majesty's Judges, the Aldermen, Sheriffs, and others connected with the administration of Criminal Justice.

We trust that this building, whilst well adapted for the transaction of legal business, also possesses architectural features at once dignified and beautiful, which will make it an ornament to the metropolis of your Empire and a fitting home for the first Criminal Court of Justice in your Majesty's dominions.

In conclusion, we devoutly pray that all concerned in the discharge of judicial duties within these walls may be so guided by Divine Providence that they may administer justice with firmness and impartiality, ever mindful of the paramount duty which devolves upon them to temper justice with mercy.

That your Majesties may long be spared—secure in the affection of your people—to preside over the destinies of this mighty Empire, is the fervent prayer of your loyal and devoted City of London.


The King, in reply to the Address, said.

It is a source of great gratification to the Queen and myself to preside at the opening of the new Central Criminal Court. We thank you sincerely for your dutiful address of welcome, and we cordially congratulate you, my Lord Mayor, and through you the City of London, on the admirable manner in which this work has been carried out. The building which we shall presently examine with the greatest interest is not only of handsome exterior, but is, I am confident, admirably fitted in every way for the purpose for which it is designed. The great increase in the population of the metropolitan area which has taken place in the last half century renders

the old buildings far too confined for the proper performance of the duties for which they were at one time adequate; and this noble edifice, erected by the City of London entirely at its own expense, will. I am sure, amply fulfil its high purpose by giving convenience and dignity to the administration of justice, in the interests, not only of the inhabitants of its immediate district, but of the vast urban population that has accumulated in the adjacent counties. The old buildings which have now been replaced were, however, of high historical interest, for they witnessed during the century of their existence a change in the administration of criminal justice far greater than has taken place in any preceding century. The barbarous penal code which was deemed necessary 100 years ago has gradually been replaced in the progress towards a higher civilisation by laws breathing a more humane spirit and aiming at a nobler purpose. It is well that crime should be punished, but it is better that the criminals should be reformed. Under the present laws the mercy shown to first offenders is, I am well assured, often the means of re-shaping their lives, and many persons, especially children and young offenders, who under the old system might have become hardened criminals. are now saved from a life of crime and converted into useful citizens. Still more remains to be accomplished in the direction of reclaiming those who have fallen into crime, and I look with confidence to those who will administer justice in this building to have continual regard to the hope of reform in the criminal, and to maintain and strengthen in their new home those noble traditions which have gathered round the high position they occupy. I am well assured that the independence and learning of the Judges, supported by the integrity and ability of the other members of the profession of the law, will prove, in the future as they have in the past, the safeguard of order, right conduct, and true humanity. We sincerely join in your prayer that God's guidance, without which we can do nothing, may be vouchsafed to all those whom duty calls to administer justice in this Court.


On their Majesties entering the principal Court, the Lord Chief Justus (Lord Alverstone) addressed them as follows.

May it please your Majesties,—In the unavoidable absence of the Lord Chancellor I am permitted on behalf of your Judges who administer

justice in this place in your name, on behalf of the members of the Bar, and on behalf of the members of the legal profession connected with it, to convey to your Majesties a humble expression of our loyal devotion to your Majesty's person and Throne, and our satisfaction at the part which your Majesties have been graciously pleased to take in the proceedings of to-day. Your Majesties have just listened to an interesting statement respecting the history, the jurisdiction, and the business of this great tribunal. May I supplement that by only a few observations? And they are to call your attention to the fact that here may be tried a case from any part of England and Wales the importance of which is such as to merit the attention of the highest tribunal, that here may be tried offences committed on the high seas, that here may be investigated any charge against Governors or any high officials from any part of your Majesty's dominions. But, your Majesties, the chief characteristic of this Court to which I venture to call your attention is the frequency of its Sessions, to which in a large measure the satisfactory performance of its duties is due. No less than twelve times a year by statute the Sessions are held, the result being that no accused person need remain untried for a period of more than a few weeks. This Central Criminal Court has commanded for generations the respect and admiration of lawyers in all parts of the civilised world. It has been presided over by some of the greatest Judges that have adorned the English Bench. Its walls have echoed the eloquence of the most brilliant advocates at the English Bar. But beyond that, your Majesties, its procedure, its justice to the accused, and its unbroken adherence to the principle of the English law that every person is deemed to be innocent until he is proved by legally admissible evidence to be guilty, has made this tribunal in the past that which I trust it will ever be in the future, a tribunal worthy of your Majesty's Crown and name. We to whom your Majesty entrusts from time to time the administration of justice here keep steadily before us this thought—that from your Majesty, and from your Majesty only, is derived our jurisdiction, that we act for you, and that we act in your name; and this thought ought to make us, one and all, whatever our position may be, determined that we will strain every nerve, that we will spare no effort, so that we may be not unworthy instruments in the exericse of the greatest of the prerogatives of your Majesty—justice and mercy. That your Majesties may long be spared to add fresh lustre to a Throne established by law and supported by justice is the earnest prayer of everyone on whose behalf I have been permitted to speak to your Majesties.

(Monday, March 18.1907.)


After the Grand Jury had been empanelled.

The Lord Mayor (Sir William Purdie Treloar) addressing the Recorder and them, said,—On taking my seat here this morning as the

first Commissioner of this Court (which I have the honour to occupy by virtue of my position, for the time being, as Lord Mayor of the City of London) for the formal opening of the business, I desire to express the hope that this new Sessions House may be found well adapted for the purposes for which it has been erected, and may fully justify the great expenditure of time, care, and thought which has been bestowed upon it by those who have been identified with its construction. The country owes this noble structure to the liberality of the citizens of London, who, at their own cost and without any contribution from outside sources, have provided the funds necessary for its erection. It may well be that those who have practised and worked in the old Sessions House—and I especially refer to those eminent members of the Bench and Bar whose names and fame are so closely identified with the great trials of other days—may feel a not unnatural regret at the severance of a link which binds us to the past, and at their final departure from a Court-house whose walls had so often echoed with the eloquence of an Erskine, a Wilkins, a Cockburn, and a Hawkins. I earnestly trust that in this palatial edifice, which His Majesty the King opened on February 27 last, justice may be so well and orderly administered that the prestige attaching to the old Sessions House may be perpetuated in the new, and the administration of criminal justice be conducted in accordance with the best traditions of the Bench and the Bar.

(Tuesday, March 19, 1907.)


On taking his seat in the First Court, the Lord Chief Justice delivered a short address in the following terms: So much has been said and so well said respecting these new buildings that I only desire, as coming here for the first time to take the Judge's list, to congratulate the Corporation of London and the legal profession on the new buildings. As far as we can judge at present, they are admirable in their arrangements in every way. I have no doubt some minor points may be discovered in the course of the working of the buildings, but as far as we can judge from a first impression they seem to be most admirably designed. I need not, I am quite sure, appeal to the Bar practising in this Court to endeavour to maintain to the best of their power the high reputation which has always attached to the Central Criminal Court as an example of what a criminal Court should be in the administration of justice and, as I endeavoured to say in the few observations I made when I was first speaking in this building, the preservation of the golden rule of the English criminal law that every person charged is presumed to be innocent until proved to be guilty by legal evidence. The sole question in any case investigated here is, the guilt or innocence of

the accused A trial here should never be made the occasion or opportunity of endeavouring to deal with any other question, however great it may be, or of whatever public importance, and the issue which has to be tried in every individual case is the guilt or innocence of the person tried. I am quite sure that those who succeed the great men who practised in the Old Bailey as we have known it for the last forty years will endeavour to maintain in this Court the high reputation which has always attached to the administration of justice in the old buildings.

View as XML