Old Bailey Proceedings.
22nd April 1907
Reference Number: t19070422

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
22nd April 1907
Reference Numberf19070422

Related Material

1907, APRIL.

Vol. CXLVII.] Part 871.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]









On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday, April 22nd, 1907, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Bart., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir ARTHUR RICHARD JELF , Knight, and the Hon. Sir REGINALD MORS BRAT, Knight, Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY E. KNIGHT, Sir WALTER H. WILKIN, K. C. M. G., Sir MARCUS SAMUEL , Bart., Sir GEORGB W. TRUSCOTT, Sir H. G. SMALLMAN, Lieut.-Col. F. S. HANSON, 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; His Honour Judge LUMLIY SMITH, Commissioner, and His Honour Judge RENTOUL, K. C., Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.












(Monday, April 22.)


The Grand Jury, at the conclusion of their labours, handed to the Recorder the following presentment: "We, the Grand Jury, are impressed with the number of cases in which aliens appear, and we are unanimously of opinion that the exclusion of undesirable aliens and the deportation of others from our shores should be more rigidly enforced."

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-1
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

PRICE, James (labourer), pleaded guilty to feloniously personating one John Huckfield, a person duly authorised to vote at an election of Guardians for the Union of Poplar.

Mr. George Elliott prosecuted.

It appeared that on March 25 there was an election of Guardians for the Poplar Union. Prisoner was seen by Police-constable Lancaster to go into one of the polling-booths. At four o'clock in the afternoon the constable saw him enter again, having previously spoken to a man. The constable, thinking it somewhat suspicious, followed prisoner, who went up to one of the tables where a clerk was giving out voting papers, and said, "John Huckfield,9 at the same time mentioning an address. It so happened that Mr. Huckfield, a gentleman living in the West End of London, had a vote in the district in respect of some premises belonging to him, but had not taken any part in the election. The clerk was about to hand prisoner a voting paper when Lancaster said, "He is man is not John Huckfield; his name is Price." The officer in charge of the polling-booth asked prisoner his name, and he at first refused to give it.

Ultimately, however, he said, "My name is James Price. I have not voted. "He added that a man asked him if he was entitled to vote, and he replied that he was not, as he was only a lodger, whereupon the man told him to use Huckfield's name, as he, the man said, had gone away. He did not think he was committing an offence, as he did not get possession of a voting paper, and did not, in fact, vote.

Prisoner now said that his conduct had been very silly, but he had no notion that he was breaking the law; he had made nothing out of the business.

Police evidence was to the effect that prisoner had lived in the neighbourhood for a number of years and bore a good general character except that he had been several times charged with drunkenness.

The Recorder said that if he had any reason to believe that person* tion was common in the district of Poplar he should have dealt with prisoner more severely than he was going to deal with him. It was a mischievous offence, and if it was carried out in any district to a great extent it would become very serious. Sentence, One week's hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-2
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JOHNSON, Edward (40, cabinet maker), and BLACKWELL , (30, clerk); both pleaded guilty to burglary in the dwelling-house of Benjamin Bosher and stealing therein 253 gold rings, 15 gold watches, and other Articles, his property, and feloniously receiving same. A previous conviction was proved against Johnson at this Court on March 12, 1900, for larceny, with sentence of five years' penal servitude, and also another conviction on November 20, 1905, three months. It was shown that he had made an effort to reform himself. Against Blackwell a conviction was proved at Middlesex Sessions on October 18, 1902. with 3112 years' penal servitude, also six other convictions, and three summary ones.

Sentence: Johnson, Eighteen months'hard labour; Blackwell, 20 months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-3
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

RAWLES. Albert Stanley Edward, pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Ethel Maud Biddell, his wife being then alive. Sentence: Six months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-4
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BRANDON. Herbert (21, artist), and DARBY, Frederick (19, artist) , were indicted: Both forging and uttering an order for the payment of £268 10s. with intent to defraud; both forging and uttering a certain request for the delivery of goods, to wit, a cheque-book, with intent to defraud; both stealing a post-letter containing a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for £150, the property of the Postmaster-General, and feloniously receiving same; both feloniously altering orders for the payment of £150 and £9 10s. respectively, in each case with intent to defraud; both stealing a post-letter containing three valuable securities, to wit, banker'a cheques, value £19 14s. 3d., the property of the Postmaster-General, and feloniously receiving same. Darby was separately indicted for inciting and procuring Brandon to commit the felonies. Both prisoners pleaded guilty.

Mr. Forster Boulton, M. P. (prosecuting on behalf of the Post Office), said prisoners had been carrying on an elaborate system of fraud. They had used an apparatus composed of a piece of string, some bird-lime, a piece of wood, and some linoleum, by means of which they had been able to extract letters from pillar-boxes. When those letters contained cheques two methods had been followed by the prisoners. If the cheques were small they were used for the purposes of obtaining a cheque-book from the bank by means of a forged request, and prisoners then proceeded to forge. the name of the drawer to cheques for considerable sums, which they were able to cash. When the cheques contained in the letters were for large amounts, prisoners proceeded to forge the endorsements upon them. If a cheque happened to be crossed, they wrote upon it the direction, "Pay cash," and forged the drawer's name to that direction. The total amount the prisoners obtained in this way was £611, which represented 12 cases in which they were successful. There were eight cases in which thev were not successful in obtaining cash for cheques, the aggregate amount of which was £872. Prisoners were described as music-hall artists, and, according to the information of the prosecution, they had spent the money on women and motor-oars. The matter had extended over a period of 18 months.

The Recorder said it was very seldom that they heard so remarkable a story in a Court of Justice. The two prisoners had been guilty of a most elaborate system of forgery, fraud, and felony, and, but for their age, he should have sent them to penal servitude. Sentence: Each prisoner, 20 months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-5
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > other institution

Related Material

NORMAN, Frederick (21, labourer), pleaded guilty to stealing two coats and other articles, value together £8 15s., the goods of Abraham Haimovitch, in his dwelling-house, and feloniously receiving same; forging and uttering a certain request for the delivery of goods, to wit, a Post Office Savings Bank book, with intent to defraud. He also confessed to a conviction at Bow Street in the name of Richard Andrews on April 6, 1904.

Evidence having been given by Miss Hawksley as to prisoner's desire to reform himself 'by joining her Bible-class, the Recorder said he proposed to deal with him with a view of effecting a reformation, as he was impressed with Miss Hawksley's evidence and believed that prisoner had had an honest desire to learn to distinguish between right and wrong. Sentence, Two years' imprisonment under the Borstal system.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-6
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

TILLETT, John (47, labourer), pleaded guilty to feloniously stealing a post-letter containing an order for the payment of 2s., the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.

Prisoner had been a postman for 16 years and had previously been in the Army. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-7
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

NORRIS, Thomas Tredinnick (39, collector), and ARCHER, George Ernest (34, accountant), pleaded guilty to conspiring by false pretences to fraudulently acquire unto themselves divers large sums A money of and belonging to the Worshipful Company of Skinners. Norris being a servant of the Worshipful Company of Skinners did omit certain material particulars in a certain book called the collector's receipt book, belonging to the said company, with intent to defraud. Archer, being a servant of the company, did omit certain particulars and alter and falsify the cash and ledger books belonging to the said company, with intent to defraud.

The defalcations had been going on for about seven years, involving over £4,000. Sentence, each prisoner, 20 months' hard labour.


(Monday, April 22.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-8
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WATSON, James (34, fitter) ; uttering counterfeit coin twice on same day, well knowing the same to be counterfeit. Mr. Sands prosecuted.

PERCY JOHN POWELL , barman to Frank Poole, Victoria Tavern, 171, Burdett Road, E. I produce what purports to be a hall-crown, which was tendered to me by prisoner on March 9 in payment for 11l. 2d. Of ram. When I took it in my band I noticed immediately that it was bad. I asked prisoner where he got it from and he said he got it from Earl's Court. I showed it to the "missus" and she sent for a constable. I went with prisoner to the station, bat no more bad money was found on him. He had only a halfpenny. Having been Marched, he was allowed to go. I gave the half-crown to the inspector at the station.

CLARA WATKIN . I am servant to William Terry, who keeps a newspaper and tobacconist's shop, 504, Mile End Road. On Monday, March 18. in the evening, I was in charge of the shop. Prisoner came in and asked for half an ounce of twist and "Answers." He tendered a two-shilling piece. It came to 2112d., and I gave him 1s., 6d., and 3112d. change. I believe the paper produced is the one I sold. It is dated the 21 st. but comes out a week beforehand. I afterwards handed the two-shilling piece to the inspector. The tobacco produced is the tobacco I served him with. It has got dry now. when I took the coin I sounded it and put it in the till. I thought there was something the matter with it, but I was not sure it was a bad one. Afterwards

I went out to do an errand, and I taw the prisoner go across the road into an off-license house, Mr. Ellis's. I should think that is about three minutes' walk from my master's chop. I afterwards saw Mr. Ellis catch him and bring him back into the beerhouse. I asked a girl what was the matter, and in consequence of what she said I went back and told the master. He said, "Fetch the coin out of the till." He said it was bad and told me to put ii away till the morning. When the detective came in the morning I gave it to him. There were two other two-shilling pieces in the till, but I know this was the one prisoner gave me because it was darker and looked newer than the others.

To Prisoner. There was no one in the shop at the time you came in but myself. I know the tobacco produced it ours because we had come to the end of the twist, and the end. of the twist is thick. It is rolled round and round in one thickness, but at the bottom it is thicker.

CHARLES ELLIS , off-license beerhouse keeper, 387, Mile End Road. On the evening of March 18, about quarter-past 10, prisoner came into my beerhouse and called for half a pint of "old" in a can, the price being 3d. and Id. on the can. He tendered in payment a two-shilling piece, which turned. out to be a bad one. I served him myself and gave him 1s. 8d. change. Afterwards I had doubts about the coin, and, on putting it to my teeth, found it to be gritty. I rushed out at once and found him half-way down Churton Road talking with another man. They walked along till they came to Grove Road, where I saw him have a drink of beer an a hand the can to another man. I caught him by the coat cuff and told him to come along. He said, "What fort" and I said, "You will see when you get back. "I sent for a constable and told him prisoner had tendered to me a bad two-shilling piece. Prisoner said he had never seen me before, bull am certain he was the man. I gave the coin to the constable.

Police-constable 620 K. I was called to Mr. Ellis's beerhouse about quarter-past 11 on March 18, where Ellis prisoner in charge on a charge of uttering a counterfeit two-shilling piece. Prisoner made no reply. I searched him there and then and found on him 2s. and 3d. in bronse. I then took him to the station. I also found upon him some tobacco and a copy of "Answers."

Detective-sergeant GEORGE BURTON, K Division. On March 19 I saw prisoner in custody at the police court. I told him he was suspected of passing a two-shilling piece to Miss Watkins, at 504, Mile End Road, and he would be put up for identification. He was placed with ten others and Miss Watkins picked him out immediately. While the case was going on he stated that he was the man who had passed the half-crown to Powell, thinking it was a good one. I received I he second florin from Miss Watkins. It is of the same date as the other one. The other half-crown was handed to me by the

police officer, and the magistrate said it was not necessary for the officer who actually received the coin to attend.

To Prisoner. I searched the rooms where you live, but did not find anything material to the case. It was in fairness to you that you were put up for identification.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to H. M. Mint, pronounced the three coins to be counterfeit. The florins were from the same mould, and all were very well made.

Verdict. Guilty.

Police-constable HORN, 193 K, proved the conviction of the prisoner at West Ham Police Court on April 9. 1902, in the name of John Smith for stealing a rug from outside a shop, the sentence being 14 days' hard labour.

Detective-sergeant BURTON said that prisoner had been working for Stevenson and Co., 21, Lime Street, for about two years, and, beyond absence for a day or two on account of drunkenness, they spoke well of him and they had written to the Court saying they would be pleased to take him back and give him some further employment.

Sentence, Ninecalendar months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-9
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

NEWMAN. James (45, blacksmith) ; feloniously uttering counterfeiti coin, to wit, a florin.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted. Mr. Burnie defended.

ANNIE JANE ROUSE . I am the sister of Mr. Frank Charles Rouse, who keeps the "Wellesley Hotel," Woolwich, and assist in the business. I had seen prisoner twice before the occasion when he was apprehended. On March 27 he came into the bar and called for Scotch. in payment for which he tendered a two-shilling piece, as I thought, and I gave him 1s. 10d. change. He passed the time of day and then went out. I tried the coin with acid and then called my brother, who put the coin between his teeth and said it was a bad one. I put the coin on the top of the till, and it remained there. I think, till prisoner was apprehended on April 6. I gave a description of prisoner to my brother. I am certain he is the man.

Cross-examined. I said at the station I was not sure prisoner was the man. I said before the magistrate I thought he was the man. I was certain of the prisoner's identity at the station, but I did not *ant to be mixed up with the case. I thought if I said I was not certain they would not call me as a witness.

FRANK CHARLES ROUSE , "Wellesley Hotel," Woolwich. On April 6, about five o'clock in the afternoon, I was in the bar. Prisoner came in and asked for a drop of Scotch, with which I served him. In payment he tendered a counterfeit florin. I put it to my mouth, and, thinking it was a counterfeit, I jumped over the bar shouting, "You have given me a bad two-shilling piece." He said, "Do not make a fuss; here is half a crown." I said I could not accept that as he answered the description of a man who had given my sister one the week before. To that he made no reply. I detained him, and while

I was detaining him my sister Annie came in. I said to her, "Do you identify this man as the man who gave you a counterfeit florin lust week?" and she said "Yes." That was said in the presence of the prisoner. He made no reply. On March 27 my sister had handed me a counterfeit florin, which I tested by (putting between my teeth. On April 6 I gave it to the Inspector of Police.

Sergeant GLBSON. 3 R R. On April 6, about Ave o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Rouse came up to me with the prisoner and said, "This man has just entered my house, called for 2d. of whisky and tendered this two-shilling piece," which he handed to me. "I saw it was a bad one, and I wish to charge him. He was at my house about a week ago and tendered to my barmaid a two-shilling 'dud' piece." 1 searched him at the station and found upon him three good half-crowns and 1112d. bronze. He was then charged and made no reply. On the same day me. Rouse brought another counterfeit florin to the station and handed it to the inspector. The two coins are of different dates—1899 and 1900.

Sergeant TABJBABD. About half-past nine on the evening of April 6 I went to prisoner's address in Brent Road, Custom House. He was there occupying a back room and a front room. A woman who said she was his wife took me up there and showed me the two rooms. In the back room, between the mattress and the lathes of the bed, I found the board produced. I have seen similar things used by coiners for the purpose of polishing coins. The two perforations would hold two florins. It is called by coiners a rubbing board.

Cross-examined. I do not know what such a board can be used legitimately for. I do not know that such boards are used for making the suckers of bicycle pumps. I should say that they are used exclusively by coiners. I have never seen such a board in use in cycle factories.

Re-examined. I speak with some knowledge of instruments of this kind.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins, H. M. Mint. The coins dated 1899-1900 are counterfeit. The board produced may be described as a polish board of limited area. In the whole course of my experience I have not met with a polishing board of this perscription. The coins in polishing boards are usually supported by nails or pins so as to keep the coins tight, and a polishing board will probably hold 20 pieces. Of course, the idea of only two coins is very limited.

Cross-examined. The board might be used for perfectly legitimate purposes, but the curious part is that florins exactly fit into the holes.

Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner confessed to a conviction at this Court on September 8, 1896. of uttering counterfeit coin.

Sergeant TARBARD recited a list of convictions dating from 1883. including three convictions for coining. Hi* last sentence was one of three months' for failing to report, and prisoner had declined to five any information as to what he had been doing since the expiry of that sentence in September last. For again failing to report, there was now a warrant out against him. His last conviction for coining was in 1896.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-10
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CRAWLEY, George (54, coster) ; unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin, well knowing the same to be counterfeit; assaulting Henry Bird, a police officer, in the execution of his duty. Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

ALFRED WHITE , manager of the King's Arms, Old Kent Road. On the afternoon of April 1 I was serving in the bar. Prisoner came in bout 20 minutes past four, called for a glass of ale, and tendered in payment what appeared to be a two-shilling piece. I knew the coin was bad as soon as I had taken it up. I was about to bend the coin when prisoner rushed out of the bar. I jumped over the counter and followed him about 40 yards:, caught him, and brought him back to the house. I had never seen him, before to my knowledge. There was a constable on point duty just opposite the house. Prisoner was very violent on being arrested, and I had to go to the assistance of the constable, whom be kicked several times in the stomach and tried to bite.

Police-constable HENRY BIRD, 301 L. On the afternoon of the 1st of this month I was called to the "King's Anns" and saw prisoner in the public bar. In answer to a statement made by White, prisoner said he knew the coin was a bad one. I then asked, "Have you any more!" He said, "No. "I said, "I am going to search you to see if you have. "He made no reply to that. After I had searched him he said, "I knew you would not find any; I knew it was a bad one, but I wanted to work it in." I found 1s. 5d. on him in good money. I took him into custody, and when he got outside he threw himself to the ground and kicked me in the abdomen three times before I could properly secure him. White came to my assistance, and another constable also and prisoner was taken to the police station. He was very violent all the way, and I had to use my truncheon. I was afterwards seen by the divisional surgeon and put on the sick list and remained on the sick Use until this morning. White handed me the counterfeit two-shilling piece produced.

CHARLES PENNELL , divisional surgeon, L Division. On Easter Monday I was called to Rodney Rond Police Station, where I was called upon to examine the last witness. I took him into the Inspector's room and stripped him. There were no marks of violence, hot he complained of pain and pressure and a feeling of sickness in

the abdomen. He was on the sick list till yesterday morning, when he attended at my surgery and resumed duty Ibis morning. During the whole of that time he hat complained of pain, discomfort, and sickness, consequent upon the blow or blows. I also examined prisoner, who had a certain amount of bruising at the point of the right shoulder, but no bones had been broken. Prisoner had been drinking.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . Inspector of Counterfeit Coins, H. M. Mint, described the coin an much below the average of counterfeits.

Prisoner called Detective-sergeant BABBITT, L Division, and GEORGE MABTIN, priest, to prove that ha had been hawking oranges the previous Sunday.

Verdict, Guilty.

Detective-sergeant BABBITT proved that prisoner was liberated from prison on February 27 last, and read a long list of convictions, including sentences of penal servitude, dating back to 1879.

Verdict, Twelve months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-11
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SALTER, James (36, labourer) ; feloniously possessing a ladle and other articles, well knowing the same to be intended to be used for making counterfeit coin.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted. *

Detective-sergeant JOSEPH THOMPSON, H Division. On April 6, in company with other police officers. I went to No. 8, Mill Hill Terrace, Actosi, about 12. 30 a.m. In a room on the third floor I found prisoner in bed. I told him we were police officers and should arresr. him for making counterfeit coin. He said, "I do not know that you will. "I again told him the nature of the charge, an I thought that probably, being in bed, he did not quite understand. He made no reply to that. In company with Police-constable Dickenson I subsequently searched the premises. We found a ladle containing some metal, which had been melted, by the side of the fireplace. In a basket under the bed I found tome pieces of soft metal (loose), a piece of black antimony, some silver sand, a glass jar, some liquid in a bottle, and a bottle labelled "Poison," containing cyanide of potassium in a solid form, 28 files wrapped up in four separate packets, two books containing chemical recipes. On the mantelpiece we found a large, almost round, lump of antimony. In the cupboard was. Some platter of Paris, some copper sulphate in paper, a jar containing some plating solution, and two other papers containing, apparently, French chalk and saltpetre. Some acid had recently been thrown in the fireplace, and amongst the ashes were some very small pieces of metal, apparently fallen from the ladle. In a drawer in the table in the room I found two pieces of glass, a small piece of brush, and a Face of bath brick.

ELIZABETH POWELL . For 11 years I have been living with prisoner as his wife. We had been at 8, Mill Hill Terrace, Acton, three weeks

before his arrest. I have seen some of the articles produced at Mill Hill Terrace, The ladle was used for soldering. I have seen the plaster of Paris and the file* there. In one of the rooms are some shelves on which I keep some articles of clothing. On Good Friday last I found there a number of shillings and sixpence in a piece of newspaper; I did not count them. Salter was not there at the time. I afterwards asked him for some money, and he said he had not any. I said, "Oh, yes, you have. What money is that up on the shelf?" He said, "You have been nosing up there. You must not touch what is up there. "He then asked me if I had taken anything from (he shelf and I said "No." He then gave me a shilling out of his pocket. The money remained on the shelf until the following Wednesday, when prisoner put it on the top of the drawers. I then took it and put it in my stocking. I kept it in my possession until the following Friday night, when I took it to the police station at Acton and handed it over to Sergeant Blake, to whom I made a statement. He took the statement down in willing, read it over to me, and I signed it. I did not see prisoner make coins at any time. When I went to the station I was in a temper and upset and I had had a little too much to drink. On the Thursday prisoner and I had some conversation about the coins. He asked me what I had done with the money, and I said I had spent it. He said, "You cannot spend them," and I said, "Why not?" He said "They are 'dads.' You will get locked up. "The statement I made at the police station that prisoner said to me, "I can do something easier than hard work," is correct. It is not true that I said at the police station, "He has appliances for making counterfeit coins. "I do not know what I did say that night at all. The statement was read over to me, but I do not think I made any objection to it at the time. I was asked if I had assisted in making these things and I said "No." Prisoner threatened what he would do to me if I touched them. I said, "I will have some of the money up there." He said, "If you do I will pay you."—I never said that I had frequently seen him with counterfeit coins in his possession. I did not know then what counterfeit coins meant or what "dud" coins were. He told me on the Wednesday night and again on the Thursday morning that he would like my b——guts out if I did not give them back. I went to the police station for protection. Prisoner ceased work on the Friday before Good Friday. He had previously been working on the "tube" whitewashing. I have seen him looking at money at different times. I have never seen him packing up any money. I also made statements about the money at an office (the Treasury).

To Prisoner. You sent me to purchase the nitric acid produced. I saw you put some on the dog's collar to write your name on. Some of the smaller bottles I brought away from the West London Hospital. I asked you to mend the grate with the plaster of paris. You said there would not be enough plaster to do that, as it would want

about 14 lb. I said I was not going to get any 14 lb., and I would leave the grato as it was. The powder in one of the bags it bread flour, not French chalk. There was some permanganate of potash in the house, which was put into the water to wash with. One of the jars produced contained alum, with which you said you meant to experiment in tanning rabbit skins. On the Sunday before the Friday when you were arrested I asked you to solder a hole in the bottom of a bath with some of this metal, but you told me you could not solder it because you had no spirit of salts. You put one of the pieces of metal into the ladle, but it would not stick to the bath. There was also some cyanide of potassium in a Bovril bottle, with which I understood you were going to plate some pom-pom shells and cartridge cases your brother had brought home from South Africa which you had fashioned into the shape of scuttles, but you told me you did not finish them because you had read in the papers that the percussion caps sometimes exploded. The silver sand was used for scouring saucepans. I never saw you attempt to make a counterfeit coin. The reason you gave me for not having given me much money for the past few weeks was that I used to spend it in drink, but I never did. The cause of our quarrelling was that you went about with other women. You drove me to go to the police station by telling me that you were going to have another woman on the place and I should not go there.

Re-examined. When I bought the nitric acid I did not give my name and address, but said that the stuff was to be used to write a name on a dog's collar.

WILLIAM BLAKE , station sergeant at the Acton Police Station, spoke to the witness Powell coming to the station on the evening of April and making the statement produced. Powell made no complaint that what had been written down was incorrect.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to H. M. Mint, testified that the shillings and sixpences produced were counterfeit, mostly from the same moulds. The white metal, antimony, cyanide of potassium, silver sand, etc., were materials used in the making of bad coins. There were no signs of metal on the files. The sulphate of copper was for electrifying purposes. The chemical recipes in the two small books had nothing to do with coining. Most of the articles produced were capable of being used in making counterfeit coin but did not constitute the complete stock in trade of a coiner. Several of the things might be used for innocent purposes.

To Prisoner. I cannot say whether the coins are made of the same metal as that produced. It would be impossible for a man to make counterfeit coins with the articles produced as there is not sufficient material*

In answer to the jury, witness described how a mould was made. The quality of the plaster of Paris was immaterial so long as it was of a certain consistency.

JAMES SALTER (prisoner, on oath). I have never in the whole of my life used any of the articles on that desk for making counterfeit coins. The plating solution in the bottle I bought for the express purpose of doing these shells. It cost me about 6d., but I was afraid of doing the plating on account of what I read about the percussion cap. There were also several other articles I was going to silver, the dog's collar for one. though I do not suppose the plating would have lasted much more than a week, as it was only an amateur affair. I have never made any counterfeit money nor attempted to make any.

Cross-examined. I cannot account for the coins being in the house. As to what the witness Powell has said you must understand that I am the object of her revenge. The statement she made at the police station she has absolutely refuted. The nitric acid is used with soap. The name is out in the soap, and where there is no soap the nitric acid attacks the metal, and when the soap is cleaned away afterwards it leaves the name and address of the owner of the dog. The silver solution I made up myself from a recipe taken from the "English Mechanic" As to what Powell says passed between us as to these coins I say that no such words passed between us. As to my saying of would pay her, that was iff she took my money. I have not given her any money for the last seven or eight weeks on account of her drinking habit. I put my money in all manner of places so that I frequently do not know where to find it myself. She goes to my pockets very night. I hope the jury will consider this a little bit of woman's revenge and animosity. Verdict, Not guilty.

(Tuesday, April 23)

Prisoner was indicted for the possession of six counterfeit shillings and five counterfeit sixpences with intent to utter the same. A fresh jury was empanelled, and after hearing the evidence, which was the same as that in support of the previous indictment, found prisoner Guilty. A long list of convictions, dating back to 1884, and involving in some cases penal servitude, was proved.

Sentence, 12 montihs' hard labour.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE JELF. (Tuesday, April 23.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-12
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded part guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

RICHARDS. Thomas Montagu (49. solicitor), was indicted for that he being entrusted by Frederick James Rudman with a banker's cheque for the payment of £600 in order that he might apply part of the proceeds thereof to certain purposes, viz., to invest the same on mortgage, did convert £150, part of the said proceeds, to his own use and benefit, and also he being executor and trustee of the last-will of Catherine Warrener, deceased, and being trustee under that will of a banker's cheque of the value of £175 as an express trust created by the said will, did unlawfully and fraudulently convert the said property to his own use and benefit. Other counts charged prisoner with converting to has own use the sums of £514 3s., £870 10s., £399 188. 9d., and £476 7s., of which he was executor and trustee under the said will. Prisoner was also indicted for converting to has own use and benefit two certificates of 1,000 dollars, each of the New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, entrusted to him by Rosalie Mary Witt, and also converting to his own use cheques for the payment of £800 18s. 9d., £1,697 16s. 5d., £1,531 5s., the property of the said Rosalie Mary Witt. Other counts varied the indictment, making 15 in all. Prisoner pleaded guilty to all except the American bonds and cheque for £150, which counts were not proceeded with.

Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. Artihur Gill prosecuted; Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., and Mr. Frampton defended.

Sentence, Seven years' penal servitude.


(Tuesday, April 23.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-13
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

DEGENHARDT, Henry John (24, clerk), pleaded guilty, to stealing postal orders for the sums of 7s. 6d. and 5s. 6d., received by him for and on account of Edward Lloyd, Limited, his masters*

Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. George prisoner Sentence, Nine months imprisonment in the second division.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-14
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

TODD, Arthur Brydges (36, clerk), pleaded gushy to forging and uttering orders for the payment of £5 and £6 10s. respectively, with intent to defraud. Mr. Lawless prosecuted. Sentence, 20 months*, ' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-15
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HYDE, James Withington (49, accountant), pleaded guilty to being an undischarged bankrupt and unlawfully obtaining credit to the amount of £62 4s. 8d. from William Acton Quainton.

Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Sidney Laaab prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett appeared for prisoner.

Prisoner was proved to have been bankrupt in September, 1902, trading as J. W. Hyde and Co., company promoters at Wigan; liabilities £1,013, assets £10. Conviction proved in 1905, Marylebone, nine months for fraud, when it was stated 27 cases were charged against him of uttering fraudulent cheques.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-16
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

TYLER, Walter James (52, scaffolder), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Fanny Wiimer, his wife being then alive.

Mr. L. B. Dunn prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett appeared for prisoner. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-17
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > other institution

Related Material

MACKAY, Jock (18, engineer), pleaded guilty to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of George Rolfe with intent to steal there in; stealing one opal pin and other articles, the property of William Francis Fisher, in bis dwelling-house, and feloniously receiving same; stealing the sum of 9s. 7d., the moneys of the Brentford Gas Company.

Mr. W. H. Leyceeter prosecuted.

Sentence, Two years' imprisonment under the Borstal system.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-18
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

MILLOT, Charles Paul (34, engineer), pleaded guilty to forging and uttering a certain authority for the payment of money, to wit, a telegram for the payment of £41 13s. 4d., with intent to defraud.

Mr. George Elliott prosecuted. Mr. R. D. Muir appeared for prisoner.

Prisoner was bound over in his own recognisances in £250 to some up for judgment if called upon.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-19
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CORP, William (42, carpenter) , having been entrusted by Minnie Andrews with 15 yards of cretonne and 15 yards of calico in order that he might apply the said property for the purpose of making it into chair covers for the said Minnie Andrews, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Armstrong White prosecuted.

MINNIB ANDREWS , wife of George Andrews, 24, St. John's Villas, Upper Holloway, dressmaker. On March 11, 1907, I employed prisoner to make loose covers for some chairs and gave him 15 yards of cretonne arid 15 yards of calico. He agreed to do the work and bring it home by March 13. I waited all that day for him, and in the evening went to his apartments, 117, Offord Road, Barnsbury, when I railed to see him. The next morning I went again and could not see him and returned again with the detective. I said to prisoner, "If you have sold it, tell me to whom you have sold it, because you know it is not mine." It was work I had to do, but being busy and prisoner having been recommended to me, I entrusted the property to him to make up. Prisoner said he was sorry, took out the pawnticket, and said it was pledged.

Cross-examined. I did not say, "My good men, if you will tell me what you have done with the material nothing further will be heard of it"

GEORGE PANTER , assistant to Thomas Blackburn, pawnbroker, 227, Caledonian Road. On March 11 prisoner pawned two pieces of materia lwith me for 6s., which was subsequently identified by prosecutrix. Sergeant FRANCIS HALL, Y Division. I arrested prisoner on March

I went to his house 117, Offord Road, Barnsbury, and knocked at the door of his rooms, but could get no reply. Finally I found him concealed in a cupboard. I said to him, "I have reason to believe you have disposed of some calico and cretonne entrusted to you by Mrs. Andrews, of St. John's Villas." He said, "That is all right, it is at my wife's place at Bath Street, City."I said, "Very well, I will go mere with you." He said, "You go, I will stop here. "11 No," I said, "You come with me." He said, "It is no good, I have pawned it," and gave me the pawnticket. I took him to the station and finally found the goods at the pawnbroker's. He did not express his regret.

MINNIE ANDEREWS , recalled. When I handed the goods to prisoner 1 told him the work was urgently required for my customer, He thoroughly understood I had put the work out owing to pressure of business, otherwise I should have done it myself. I waited at the customer's house all day on March 13 for the prisoner to bring it in and, if it was right, to pay him. I then went home to see if there was anv message from prisoner and then on to his apartments.

Prisoner handed in a long statement, which was read, declaring that he had no felonious intent, that he had been drinking with friends and pledged the stuff for safety.

Verdict, Guilty. The Jury recommended the prisoner to the merciful consideration of the Court. Convictions proved: October 20, 1899, Clencenwell, six months for larceny; June 23, 1900, North London, six months for fraud; October 21, 1902, North London Sessions, 12 months for fraud; April 26, 1904, North London Sessions, 12 months, stealing furniture. Said to be a capable workman who could get plenty of work, but that he made a practice of stealing goods entrusted to him. The Jury desired to withdraw their recommendation to mercy. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-20
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SPACKMAN, Henry (46, carman) ; robbery with violence on George Phillips, and stealing from him the sum of 3s. 6d.

Mr. C. W. Nicholson prosecuted.

GEOEOI PHILLIPS , boot finisher. On Easter Sunday night, March 31, at 11 p.m., I was at Kingsland Road Bridge. Prisoner and two other men attacked me, knocked me down, and robbed me of 3s. 6d. I lave known prisoner personally for seven or eight years. I could not say who hit me; the three came on me at once. On Monday., norning I saw the prisoner inside the "Duchess of York" public-house and gave him into custody. I did not know his name. I was Hacked after 11 p.m.

Police-constable FREDERICK TOWNSEND, 427 G. On April 1, at about nine a.m., I was on duty near the "Duchess of York."On informaion given me by prosecutor I called the prisoner out of the public-house and prosecutor accused him of assaulting and robbing him the night previous. Prisoner said, "I am innocent."I know the

"Duchess of York" in Kingsland Road. Regan's shop in Wilmore Gardens is a few yards out of Kingsland Road.

Prisoner's statement in answer to the charge "I am innocent of this, sir, really. I have no witness except a man I borrowed the money off last night to go to bed. He keeps a fish shop."


RICHARD REGAN , 96, Wilmore Gardens, Kingsland Road, fishmonger. On Easter Sunday, March 31, prisoner came to my shop at 10. 30 p.m., and sgain at 10. 55. He came for the money for his lodging. He lodges *t a common lodging-house about 10 doors from my shop. I ave him the money (5d.) and he went straight towards the lodging-house. I think the lodging-house closes at 11 p.m., but they can get in up to 12, and, no doubt, if they pay their way night workers can get in later. Prisoner was in the habit of lodging there and I have very often lent him the money. Prisoner pushes my barrow for me.

GEORGE PHILLIPS , recalled. I had been wandering round with a friend on the evening of March 31 and went into the" Duchess of York" and came out when they called "Time" at 11 p.m. I then walked to the bridge, which took about seven or eight minutes, and was attacked there at about 10 minutes or quarter-past 11. I saw prisoner outside the "Duchesa of York. "I know the lodging-house the last witness spoke about. Prisoner was going in the direction from another lodging-house in the Muir Road.

Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner confessed to having been convicted of felony at North London Police Court on June 18, 1901, when he was fined 20s., or seven days, for larceny from the person. A conviction of larceny, with 14 days in April, 1899, was proved. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.


(Monday, April 23.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-21
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

LANSDOWN, Benjamin Morris (37, clerk), pleaded guilty to, being servant to Henry Sarson, unlawfully falsifying a petty cash book, with intent to defraud; feloniously forging and uttering a certain accountable receipt, to wit, a commission account for the sum of 7s. 5d., with intent to defraud. Sentence, Six months' imprisonment in the second division.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-22
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CHISHOLM, Alexander (35, fitter), pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm to George Childs, with intent to do him I grievous bodily harm, and to disabling him, and with intent to resist and prevent his own lawful detainer. A number o! previous convictions were proved. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-23
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > with recommendation
SentencesImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

GUDGE, Edward William (27, clerk), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Mabel Ratherine Archer, his wife being then alive. He pleaded not guilty to an indictment that, being the bailee of a bicycle, the property of Susie Humphreys, he did fraudulently convert the same to his own use.

Mr. Leycester prosecuted.

SUSIE HUMPHREYS , domestic servant. I mot prisoner in Hyde Park on November 9. He told me he was a private detective from Soot-land Yard and his name was William Gudge, 12, Iillington Street, Pimlico. He said he was a single man, and I continued to walk out with him. He borrowed £1 4s—on June 14. I had a bicycle, it is me same that I have seen since in the possession of me. Simpson. Prisoner said a chum of his would like to boy it for his daughter He spoke about it on Thursday, February 14, and I let him have it. I sarid I wanted £5 for it. He took it away on Friday, February 15. I saw him next on the Sunday, and he said his chum might buy it, but it was at Soctland Yard. Then I met him on Tuesday, the 19th, and he said he could not get it then I did not see him again until the Sunday night, when he was arrested. He oame to where I was living. I had been to the police on Saturday, the 23rd. I gave prisoner no authority to sell the bicycle.

To Prisoner. The bicycle was bought on the hire system, and I wanted you to sepl it for me. I admit that in the pantry there was a great deal of silver about and that you were frequently in the pantry. You told your wife that I was a silly, simple thing, and you could get anything out of me. I do not admit that you could have stolen what von liked at any time out of the pantry. I did not promise to come and see you at Brixton Prison. I trusted you until I found you out.

To fihe Judge. He asked me to marry him when he was ill on February 7. I said, I do not know that I want to marry you."

CHARLES HENRY SIMPSON , 460. Fudham Road. I know prisoner. I first saw him on February 15. He said, "Will you buy 4 his bicycle I said, "The wheel is a 28-inch wheel and a small frame—not very saleable. How much do you want?" He asked £3. I said, "I will give you 50s." He said, "I would not sell it, but my wife has been confined. I must have 30s. to-night. "I said, "That is a funny, thing. "He came into the shop and I said, "Where is the receipt "and he said, "It is at horns and my home it at Egham. "I said he must bring me the receipt. He said, "I must have 30s. and I paid it to him. He came again the next day and wanted the balance. He had no receipt, but he said he 'had written for it. (Receipt produced, dated February 14). On February 16 I paid him another 10s., and on the 18th the balance. He produced the letter, which I accepted as a receipt: "Dearest Will,—I have looked all over the place for the receipt for Olive's bicyole, but cannot find it anywhere. I have

looked everywhere you say it may be. I hope Olive is better. Give her my love. I think this is all, only mother is not very well today.—From your loving lister, Mabel."The police knew two or three week* afterwards. The bicycle is the same bicycle that was identified by Miss Humphreys.

To Prisoner. You did not tell me it was bought on the hire system. I referred to the maker on the receipt.

Detective-eergeowt RALLEY. I arrested prisoner on February 24. When he was charged at the police court he told me that he had sold the bicycle to a cycle dealer, and he told me it was to pay for hie wife's confinement and also that he had sent a sovereign down to Egham.

To Prisoner. You made no resistance whatever, and you gave all the information you could. You gave evidence once in a case at Bristol, and you were paid your expenses for doing so, in the prosecution of a disorderly house at Bristol.

To Mr. Leycester. Prisoner applied to join the police force, but hit character was unsatisfactory and he was declined.


EDWARD WILLIAM GUDGE (prisoner, on oath). On the Thursday prosecutrix came to the house where I was lodging at 12, Lillington Street, and while talking she asked me about the bicycle. She asked me if I could sell it. I said I would try. She said, "Come over tomorrow morning and I will give it to you."I took it on Friday at 10 o'clock. She told me to sell it for what I could get. I was to keep the bicycle for a fortnight, and if I could not sell it in a fortnight I was to bring it back to her. I sold it for £2 10s. I used the money for my wife's confinement. I knew that I could give it to her in a fortnight, out I was arrested after I had the bicycle for five days. I was always shown into the pantry, where there was a basket of silver of the value of £100, and if I wanted to be a thief I could have stolen ii many a time. When I met prosecutrix first I said I was a policeman, but it was only done for something to talk about. If it had come into my head to say I was a judge I should have said it.

Cross-examined. I did tell her I was a detective—in fact, I was a traveller. I always had some money. I sold this bicycle the same day that I got it, but I did not tell her so, and I did not give her any of the money. I was going to work for the Junior United Service Club and for Colonel Jopp. I was bound to have the letter signed Mabel because there was no receipt with the bicycle. It was written to deceive Mr. Simpson and to make him believe it was a genuine affair.

Mrs. OLIVE MYRTLE GUDGE. I am the wife of prisoner. I do not think he could have raised £2 10s. in five days to give to Miss Hum phreys unless he had friends to help him. Had they known he

wanted £2 10s. to give to Miss Humphreys they would have given it to him. I was confined on February 10.

Cross-examined. At prisoner's dictation, I wrote to prosecutrix this letter:"Dear Miss Humphreys,—I have just received your letter, and I am sorry to say you will not be able to see Mr. Gudge tomorrow at it is hit head and back he is suffering from, and the doctor ays he must be kept very quiet, but perhaps you could manage to see him on the Sunday. I think he will be well enough to see you by then. I will let you know at once if he it any worse. He knows I am writing to you. He asked me to enclose this note for you in my letter. I think, if anything, he it a little better to-day.—Yours very sincerely, Olive Taylor."I signed the letter in my maiden name. My husband atked me to write it, and said he would tell me the reason later on. I did not know that she did not know he was a married man. I know she knew he was married. I did not sign it in my married name because my husband atked me not to do so. I wrote this letter to Miss Humphreys from 12, Lillington Street. He would not tell me about Mitt Humphreys. I knew there was a Miss Humphreys.

Verdict, Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy. Sentenced to two months' in the second division for bigamy and, separately, to four months' in the second division for larceny.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-24
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

HOPE, Selina Maria (otherwise Shelton), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Clarence Wm. Hope, her husband being then alive Sentence, Two days imprisonment.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-25
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

LOFTHOUSE, Alfred Joshua (25, seaman) , robbery with violence on John Hoddinott, and stealing from him one gold watch and chain; JOHNSON, Frederick (29, labourer) , stealing a watch and chain, the property of John Hoddinott, from his person.

JOHM HODDINOTT , On April 13, in the afternoon, I saw prisoner Johnson. I was coming from a public-house in Lower Kennington Lame, when there was a disturbance, and they took me by the arm and asked me to come away. I felt I was being closed in, and I looked for my watch, and Johnson had it in his hand. I struck at him to gain possession of the watch. Lofthouse struck me about the head. I closed with Lofthouse, and a constable came up. The other prisoner got away, and the watch was found afterwards broken on the ground. The value of the watch was £6.

To Lofthouse. When I went to the public-house you were not there. I had never teen you before.

To Jobnson. It was four o'clock in the afternoon when you saw me; we were in the "Flying Horses" and the "King's Head" and the "Gloucester," and the "County Terrace" and the "Beehive" public-house.

Police-constable RICHARD WILLAMS. I remember April 13, while in the Lower Kennington Lane, seeing the prosecutor there and the two prisoners struggling. Prosecutor said to me, "This man (Loft-house)

struck me in the face and snatched my watch," and Lofthouse said, "He assaulted me first." Johnson ran away, and prosecutor handed me the watch. The swivel of the chain was borken and the watch damaged. I arrested Lofthouse at the time; he went quietly to the station. At the station he was very abusive all the time the charge was being taken; he said to prosecutor, "I will kick your guts out when I come out."

To Lofthouse. When we got to the station you were there about a quarter of an hour before the charge was taken.

JOHN HODDINOTT , recalled. It was Johnson who had the watch in his hand. When the constable came up I had hold of Lofthouse and gave him in charge. The watch was snatched from me. I took hold of the man and charged him with stealing the watch. I was in rather a dased state.

Detective EVE. On April 18, at 10.45. I saw Johnson in St. George's Road. I told him I should arrest him for robbing Hoddinott. At the station he was placed with eight other men, and picked out by the last two witnesses. On the way to the station he said, "I will pay Joe. for this." He was charged, and he said, "Yes." gling there was a good crowd of people round.


ALFRED JOSHUA LOFTHOUSE (prisoner, on oath). I was proceeding on my way home when I met prosecutor surrounded by a number of persons, and he said, "This is the man who snatched my watch." At the station prosecutor was taken to a private room, and when he returned the inspector said, "You will be charged with stealing a watch and chain." I said, "I know nothing about it. How could I have stolen the watch and chain when he charged Johnson with stealing it?" I never saw prosecutor before till I saw him surrounded by this crowd. I was proceeding home. The man received his injury in a fight in the afternoon with a man named McMorris.

Cross-examined. Prosecutor was drunk. If he says I followed him it is untrue. I did not see the other prisoner with the watch in his hand. I did not say this man assaulted me first; the officer has made a mistake. He had not struck me—he obly took me by the wrist. I did say, "I will kick your guts out"—I was excited at the time. I said, "I do not know anything about it." I did not deny it becasue I reserved my defence at the police court. I was very angry with the prosecutor. I admit being in Lower Kennington Lane, and I saw prosecutor talking to a constable.

FREDERICK JOHNSON (prisoner, on oath). At half-past three I met prosecutor in the "Flying Houses"; then we went to the "King's Head." A little after four we went to the "Gloucester," in Mason Street, and they would not serve us on account of his friend being drunk. Then we went to the "County Terrace," where we were served.

We went to another public-house at Harvey Street, Hew Kent Road, and we were there for half an hour with two young woman and the other man; from there we went to another public-house, where we were not served. Then we went to Hart's, and McMorris and prosecutor got fighting. That must have been between seven and half-past eight. I took prosecutor away from the other man. I picked him up and said, "Come out of it." The other man was taken down to the station and arrested. I got water and bathed prosecutor's eye, which was bleeding. We went to the "Cricketers" and we had two drinks. I said, "You had better come down Kennington Lane and have some supper." While I was in a tobacco shop two or three came along the street singing, and prosecutor said, "You have got my watch." This was from a quarter to nine to 9.30. I went to the "Cricketer's again by he back entrance.

Cross-examined. We had been to a lot of public-houses. We were in 11 public-houses.

Verdict, both prisoners, Not guilty.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-26
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

DAWSON, Thomas William (55, labourer) , attempting to carefully know Mary Ann Hombleton, a girl under the age of 13 years. Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, One month imprisonment in the second division.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-27
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

SMITH, William James, otherwise Charters (31, coachman) , carnally knowing Ada Mildred Carter, a girl above the age of 13 such under the age of 16 years.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Six months' imprisonment in the acount division.

GOULD, George (34, metal polish maker), pleaded guilty to burglary in the dwelling-house of Henry George Harold and staling therein two statuettes and other articles, his property, and feloniously receiving same; steeling one coat, other articles and moneys, the property of Henry Jennings, the younger, and feloniously receiving same; breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Henry Jennings, the elder, and steeling therein one clock, other articles and moneys, his property, and feloniously receiving same; steeling 16 pairs of trousers and other articles, the goods of Charles Clarks, and feloniously receivjng same; stealing a post letter containing a money order for the pavment of £3 18s., the property of the Kleenite Company, Limited, and forging and uttering the endorsement on the said order, with interest to defraud; breaking and entering the warehouse of the Kleenite Company, Limited, with intent to steal to steal therein; breaking and entering the warehouse of the said company, and stealing therein four blouses, and feloniously receiving same.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour on each indictment, run concurrently.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-29
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

HOWES, Alfred (20, carman) , attempting to carnally know Rosina Maria Wood, a girl under the age of 13 years. Verdict, Guilty of indecent assault. Sentence, Three months' imprisonment in the second division.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-30
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

STARR, Thomas Percy (35, traveller), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Lucy May Murphy, his wife being then alive. Sentence, Three months' imprisonment in the second division.

BEFORE THE RECORDER. (Wednesday, April 24.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-31
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

WITHERS, Alice Amelia (41, laundress), pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Edward Bean, her husband being then alive.

Mr. Sidney Williams prosecuted. Mr. Purcell appeared for the prisoner.

Mr. Purcell stated that prisoner had married a second time after a continuous absence of her husband for six years and nine months, had lived with the second husband for 12 years, and, on the first husband's reappearance had returned to, and was now living, with him. With the permission of the Judge, prisoner withdrew her plea of guilty. Mr. Williams offered no evidence, and the Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-32
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BAINES, John (50, dealer), pleaded guilty to stealing one pewter inkstand, the goods of the Postmaster-General, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Forster Boulton, M. P., prosecuted. Mr. Curtis Bennett appeared for prisoner.

Prisoner pleaded guilty to having been convicted at Newington Sessions on May 18, 1905, for stealing jewellery, receiving 12 months' hard labour. Two summary convictions for unlawful possession, and five years' penal servitude on December 3, 1888, for inflicting bodily harm, were also proved. It was stated by Mr. Curtis Bennett that prisoner a month after his five years' sentence had been sent to Broadmoor as insane, and, of the year's imprisonment, had been 11 months in the prison infirmary. It was suggested that prisoner was of weak intellect but not insane. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-33
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HOPKINS, Arthur Percy (25, clerk), pleaded guilty to feloniously stealing valuable securities, to wit, certain bank cheques of the value of £61 10s. 2d., £42 12s. 3d., £45 14s. 2d., £26 0s. 8d., and £24 15s. respectively, the goods of Edward Leadham Hough, his master, and feloniously receiving same; feloniously forging and uttering certain endorsements on certain orders for the payment of £61 10s. 2d., £42 12s. 3d., £45 14s. 2d., £26 0s. 8d, and £2*4 15s. respectively, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted.

Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-34
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

COCKSEDGE, Robert Dunderdale (32, clerk), pleaded guilty to being a person adjudged bankrupt within four months next before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him, did feloniously quit England and take with him the sum of £490, which ought by law to be divided among his creditors, with intent to defraud.

Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted.

Mr. George Elliott ana Mr. Dwyer appeared for prisoner.

Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-35
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

DALEY, Obadiah (45, mason) ; robbery with violence on Henry Fussell, and stealing from him the sum of £1 11s. 6d., or thereabouts. Mr. J. Wells Thatcher prosecuted.

HENRY FUSSELL , 33, Great Peter Street, Westminster (lodging-house), painter. On Tuesday, April 2, 1907, at about one p.m., I was sitting on a form in the kitchen asleep when I was roused by prisoner rubbing my face. I had been drinking, and had gone into the house to get sober and pull myself together. Prisoner roused me and two others robbed Mr. There were about fifty in the kitchen. The other men threw me on the floor, knelt on my chest, held my hands out, put a hand on my mouth so that I could not scream, and robbed me. I had a sovereign and half a sovereign in this pocket, fastened with a safety-pin, and about 2s., which was taken. I could not say which one done it. The three went out together, and I followed them into a public-house, the "Star and Garter," opposite the lodging-house. I went for a policeman, and when I returned they were gone. About 2112 hours afterwards I saw the prisoner and gave him in charge.

(To the Recorder.) I was living in the lodging-house, bad got up at seven a.m., and was in the" Elephant and Castle" about a couple of hours, and about an hour in another public-house. I was in two or three public-houses. I cannot say what time I returned to the lodging-house. I believe prisoner had been staying there, but I did not know him. I do not know that the prisoner did more than rub me on the face, but I can swear he went out with the other two men. I was not very drunk I had no difficulty in being served.

Cross-examined. I do not remember seeing prisoner in the "Elephant and Castle" in the morning and giving a little girl who was with prisoner a penny, but I may have done so. I know prisoner by sight.

There being no further evidence of identity, the Jury stated they. did not wish to hear any more and returned a verdict of " Not Guilty."

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-36
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

WALTER, Henry (26, traveller), and JOHNSON, George Frederick (26, clerk) , both robbery with violence on George Davis, and stealing from him a suit of clothes and other articles and the sum to £1 15s. or thereabouts.

Mr. W. M. Powell prosecuted; Mr. Burnie defended Walter; Mr. Penry Oliver defended Johnson.

GEORGE DAVIS , butler, 15A, Basil Street, Knightsbridge. On March 14, at 0. 15 p.m., I was at the "New Inn," Edgware Road, when prisoners came in. Johnson asked me for a cigarette. I said it was rather funny he should ask me for it being so well dressed. Walter said, "He is only joking," or trying you as a joke. "I stood them a drink, and we went together to a place called "Funland," and were weighed, stayed there about five minutes, and went on up the Edgware Road to Sam Isaacs' fish shop, where we had some fish for which I paid. From there we went by motor 'bus to Hyde Park Corner, and on to the "Daisy" public-house in Brompton Road, and had a drink each for which I paid. After staying there a few minutes I went to my master's house in Basil Street. It was my evening out. Previous to that Walter invited me to his place to play cards. Then 1 called at Basil Street and changed my boots, at they were hurting me, for slippers (produced), and also left £6, taking about £1 18s. with me, and rejoined the prisoners. From there we went to the "Globe" public-house and had another drink. I paid. After leaving there we walked up Brompton Road and took a cab from Harrods Stores. Prisoner had said they were non-commissioned officers in tiie Grenadier Guards stationed at Knightsbridge and were under going a course of training. I paid for the cab—We drove to the Empire Music Hall, Chelsea, and walked to 6, Brometer Street. (To the Recorder. I am not in the habit of going with anyone I pick up in the street—it was the first time.) As soon as we got inside the house I was knocked down by some Mona instrument. There was no light in the passage. I went to the house because they invited me to have a game of cards. I was knocked down. I was subjected to all kinds of assault, kicked in the mouth, my eye was bruised, I was knocked on both eyes, but this one the worst; my face was punched with their fists; I was dragged on to the bed; they kept on punching me for a considerable time; they eventually pulled my suit of clothes off and put on me the trousers and coat (produced) which belong to Walter Walter then said, "Go out you b——."Johnson said, "No. keep the b——here."(To the Recorder. I was sober. Walter then threw me out—I had no boots on. I walked up Brometer Street and met a constable, who took me to Walton Street Police Station. I told him what had happened to me. At the station I stated my charge to the inspector.) I stayed there the night—I was not locked up. The doctor was sent for and examined me. When I left the house I was in a dazed condition. Some books were found in the pocket of the coat they put on me. These were the clothes, shoes, shirt, and collar taken off me (produced). The shirt and collar are blood-stained. I went home on the following morning. I paid £2 15s. for the suit of clothes and 30s. or 35s. for the overcoat.

Cross-examined by me. Burnie. I could not say where I met the constable. I remained in the charge room and went home about six a.m. We did not all begin wrestling together. We had had a conversation about wrestling. I did not see Walter take his boots off.

He did not take his things off and wrestle with me. I could not shout—I was knocked about too much.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. I may have been in the "New Inn" public-house before. After we came out of "Funland" we did not go to another public-house. I did not say I had gone out to get drunk, and intended to. I was not very drunk that night. I did not go into a public-house at the Empire Music Hall and have a drink and ask Johnson to carry a gallon bottle of ale home. He left us and may have gone to the public-house. It must have been about midnight when I left the house in Brometer Street.

WILLIAM EVANS , divisional surgeon. I saw prosecutor at 2. 45 a.m. on March 15 at Walton Street Police Station. He was suffering from a contused wound on his scalp above the left ear, 1114 in. long and 112 in. deep. Both the left eyelids were swollen and bruised; the lower part of the eyeball was also bruised; the upper lip was bruised. The scalp wound might have been caused by a blunt instrument. (To the Recorder. It might have been caused by falling on a fender, but it looked more like a blow with a stick. He had been drinking, but seemed to know what he was about.) He was in a confused, stupid condition. I could not say whether it was due to drink or the blows. The injury was not very serious.

Cross-examined by Mr. Burnie. He seemed to be recovering from the effect of drink.

Sergeant ALBERT FERRNTT, B Division. On March 15 I went to 6, Brometer Street, a house let out in three flats. The front room on the ground floor was in a state of great disorder; there was evidence of a very severe struggle having taken place there—bloodstains were on the bedding and carpet. I found the clothing identified by prosecutor thrown about the room; the bloodstained shirt was under the bed. (To the Recorder. No attempt had been made to dispose of the clothing—it was in various parts of the room.) I found blood stains on the 'bedclothes, sheets, and pillow-case. I produce the clothing. The pockets were turned out, and seven keys were lying loose on a small table in the room. The fancy, waistcoat was afterwards brought to the station by Walter's wife. The upper part of the house was unoccupied.

Cross-examined by Mr. Burnie. There was a lot of broken crockery about. The pockets were empty and turned inside out.

Police-constable WILLIAM HOSKIN, 230 B. On March 15, at two am., I was in King's Road, Chelsea, when the prisoner Johnston made a statement to me.

Cross-examined by me. Oliver. Johnson was hatless and had no boots or stockings on. He was drunk. He said he had been knocked about at 6, Brometer Street.

To the Recorder. Johnson's head, face, collar, and front of his shirt were covered with blood. I said, "What is the matter with you" He said, "I have been knocked about at No. 6, Brometer

Street." I said, "By whom?" He said, "By a man. "I accompanied him to the house and knocked at the door several times, when it was opened by Walter. Johnson said Walter was the man who assaulted him. I arrested him. Walter's shirt was in ribbons and stains of blood on his drawers. He had no trousers on. We all entered the house together. In the front room there were fragments of the toilet jug, stained with blood. There was a pool of blood on the floor under the washstand, large stains on the bed and bedding. Johnson found his boots and put them on. I took Walters, who was quite sober, to the station and charged him. He said to Johnson, "Did I strike you with the jug? "Johnson said, "I am not sure, but its something that broke." johnson failed to appear to prosecute the charge and Was was discharged.

Detective-sergeant JOHN REID, B Division. On March 15 I arrested Walter at 10. 30 a.m. outside Westminster Police Court after no prosecutor appeared. I told him he would be charged with being concerned with another man, not in custody, in assaulting and robbing a man at 6, Brometer Street, Chelsea. He said, "I suppose it is all right; that is the fault of drink. "The prosecutor was there and picked Walter out from nine others.

Inspector ALFRED WARD, B Division. On March 15 I arrested Johnson at 23, South Parade, Chelsea. He was in bed. I told him I should arrest him for being concerned with a man named Walter, in custody, in maliciously wounding and robbing a man named Davis. He said, "I was there. We were together all the evening and had gone there for a night's amusement. I had taken in a gallon of beer. I had nothing to do with the robbery. I was against the man being assaulted, and this is what I got for it," pointing to his head. At that time his head was bandaged. He was afterwards conveyed to the station at Walton Street. At about five p.m. he was charged, and in reply said, "It was bad enough to have his money, but he need not have kicked him."

Cross-examined by me. Oliver. I said nothing about his not appearing to charge Walter.

(Thursday, April 25.)

Verdict, Not guilty.

The Recorder said it was very fortunate for the prisoners, especially Walter, that no alternative charge of assault had been preferred.


(Wednesday, April 24.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-37
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

PLUM, John, pleaded guilty to stealing a watch from the person of Peter Galen. Mr. Oliver prosecuted.

Prisoner and another were observed by the City Police on April 16 behaving in a suspicions manner in proximity to the prosecutor, and prisoner was subsequently taken with the watch in his possession. Prisoner had been convicted of loitering by night with housebreaking instruments in his possession and is now awaiting trial at the North London Sessions for stealing bicycles.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-38
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

LAROCHE, Charles (53, journalist) , having received certain property, to wit, one 50 franc note for and on account of Louise Dubois,.

Mr. Walter Stewart prosecuted; Mr. Paul Methven defended, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

LOUISE DUBOIS , examined through an interpreter. I live with my husband at 20, Southampton Street, Fitsroy Square, and am by occupation a brodeuse (embroiderer). I know prisoner, who lives at 56, Mortimer Street, but I do not know his occupation. On January 10 or 11 he came to our house and asked me to lend him 5s. I told him I had no change, but that I had a bank-note for Fr. 50. He told me to give it to him and he would change it, and I could then give him the 5s. He took the note but did not return. I waited eight days and then went to Mortimer Street and saw his wife Two days afterwards he came to my house and told me he had lost the bank-note. That was tine first intimation I-had to that effect. After waiting. three weeks my husband gave information to the police. Prisoner said he would repay, but did not do so.

Cross-examined. The landlord probably opened the door when prisoner called. If it was my husband I know nothing of it. He was not present when I lent the prisoner the money, but he brought him into the room. I first saw prisoner one day last summer when he came to ask some question about broderie on behalf of his wife. My husband did not tell me that prisoner had come to borrow money and he had told him he could not lend him more than 5s. Prisoner asked me not to tell my husband that he had borrowed the money, Though I was not to tell my husband, I thought it a proper thing to lend him money. I did so with good intention as he was going to pay me back. I do not know that prisoner had. asked my husband to lend him £2. It was not because of that I gave him the Fr. 50 note, which would realise about £2. I expected prisoner would bring me the change on the same day, but I could not go and ask. him. about it in the evening because I was to ill to walk. I told my" husband about it perhaps 10 or 15 days afterwards. I was afraid he would be angry with me for lending the money. I can write, but I cannot use my hands. My left hand is dead, paralysed, and the other one is not much better. I am nevertheless a broiderer, and a good one, but since the month of September I have not been able to broider. I told prisoner's wife when I called in Mortimer Street, after eight days, that I wanted my money back. She told me her husband had changed the moue, but had tost a good deal of money on the exchange,

as it was a Belgian note. I am sure prisoner's wife did not say the note had been lost when her husband was going to change it. What she said was that he had lost a good deal on the exchange. Two or three days after prisoner's wife had made that statement prisoner came and said he had lost the note. I told him I did not believe it. I then thought that he had used the money for himself. The reason the police were communicated with was that we might get our money back, because this gentleman (prisoner) was telling us all kinds of "fairy tales. "I have never heard of the County Court. This is the first time I have been in a court. I did not think that when one goes to law in this country one goes to a. policeman. I know nothing of it. Re-examined. No one has said before to-day that the whole of the money was lent. I did not tell my husband about lending the money because prisoner did not wish me to tell him, and I thought I was doing him a service. As to whether this money was mine or my husband's, when I go to Paris I bring French money with me, and then I have it in my poesession. It is not separate money, because if my husband wanted any he could take it.

Sergeant JAMBS BUCKSTONE, D Division. At eight o'clock on March 4 I saw prisoner at his house door in Mortimer Street. It is about five minutes' walk from where the last witness lives. I told him who I was, and that I should arrest him for stealing on or about January 10 a Fr-50 note which he had obtained from Madame Dubois, promising to get it changed, and had not returned with it. Prisoner said, "I wanted the money for my rent. "I took him to the Tottenham Court Road Police Station, where he was charged. In reply, he said, "I roiled the note up, put it in my pocket, and lost it. 'Cross-examined. I do not know anything against the prisoner. The charge sheet was signed by the prosecutrix's husband.


PRISONER (on oath). I am a journalist. I recollect the occasion when I got this Fr. 50 note. It was on January 4, I went to 18, Southampton Row. The door was opened by the husband. I told Dubois that I came to ask him for a loan of £2. He told me that trade being very slack he could not personally lend me those £2, but he thought perhaps his wife might, who had saved money to go to Paris to get into what we cellules petits menages"(almshouses). He took me into his wife and told her the reason of my coming. Of course, we were all speaking in French. At that moment somebody rang the bell and he went down to open the door. Nothing was said about 5s. I never asked for 5s. After the husband had gone downstairs the wife then said to me. "I am going to lend you those £2. I have only Fr. 50 bank notes. But do not let my husband know that I have got money. "She then went to her trunk, took out a little piece of paper rolled up less than a cigarette, which she told me was a bank note, and gave it to me. I put it into my waistcoat. I could not

swear now whether the bank note was French or German, because I do not open it. We had some conversation about trifling things, and I then went away saying I thought I would be able to return the money on the Friday or Saturday in the following week. When I had got past ratzroy Square I could not find it. I thought if I went back and told them I had lost the note it would look funny, and the beat thing would be for me to try to get the money to make it up. On the following Thursday I went and told Madame Dubois it would "be impossible (for me to fulfil my promise on the Saturday, as I had lost the note, which was the truth. I did my best, and thought I would have been. able to repay this money at the end of February, but I could not. I went with my wife to see Madame Dubois five or six times. I was there on what you call the Mardi Gras (Shrove Tuesday). I told her I could not repay before such and such a time, and she said "All right," and that when the weather was fine she would like to go to Paris. At the end of February I received from my daughter in Paris a certain sum, enough to allow me to pay her back. That ex-plains my answer at the police station that I wanted money for my rent. At the police station it was impossible to speak; every word I said was twisted. There is no truth in the suggestion that I asked for a loan of 5s. This is the first time any suggestion of this or any kind has been made against me; I am perfectly innocent of the charge. Cross-examined. I did not tell my wife that I bad lost the money or even that I had borrowed it, and I cannot give any explanation of how it came to pass that my wife should have said to Madame Dubois that the note was Belgian, and there was great lost on the exchange My wife knew of the loan from Madame Dubois herself, who came on the following Wednesday, the money having been lent on the previous Friday. Madame Dubois told me not to say anything to her husband about the loan, because if he knew that she had money he would take it from her. Since he had left his old trade of chef he was doing nothing, and she was keeping him; those were her words. I cannot give any explanation as to why I dad not say to Madame Dubois, "Your husband know perfectly well about you having money" When arrested I said immediately that I had lost the note, and the police said, "We do not believe you; that answer does not pay, my boy. "I was arrested when I was putting the key in the door. The sergeant said, "Will you come to the police station? There is a warrant out for your arrest. "All the way he kept saying" Confess that you have been stealing that money. "I said I had no answer to give, until I was before a magistrate. As a matter of fact, the rent I owed was £2 sterling, which I paid at the end of February. I was obliged to get some money over from Paris. I have a rent book, but it is at home. I am living on terms of complete confidence with my wife.

Re-examined. When liberated I went back to the place where I had been living.

FANNY LAROCHE , wife of prisoner. I remember seeing Madame Dubois on Wednesday, January 9. She came to ask me when

my husband would return the money she had lent him. I said I did not know she had lent him any money. She said, "I lent him Fr. 50." I Afterwards called to see her to tell her that the money would be returned.

Cross-examined. My husband has known the Dubois for some time. I have not known Madame Dubois much.

Re-examined. I am sure it was on this date that Madame Dubois called to see my husband and made this statement to me.

GABRIEL ASTOUL , French avocet, and legal adviser to the French Embassy, stated that prisoner had been known for some two years to the officials of the French Embassy, not unfavourably, nothing being known against his character.

A letter was also read from Mr. Stanton, the Roman Catholic chaplain of Brixton Prison, stating that as the result of extensive inquiries he had found that prisoner had always bore an exceedingly good character. Verdict, Not guilty.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-39
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

DONOVAN DANIEL (32, carman), feloniously wounding Edith Day with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm. Mr. W. W. Lucas prosecuted.

EDITH DAY . I have been living with the prisoner for about ten years, and for some time past at 67, Ernest Street, Mile End. On March 16 I went to call on Mrs. Sarah Haywood about 5 p.m. to have a cup of tea. I had also some bread and butter, but nothing else to drink. Between five and six prisoner came to Mrs. Haywood's and seemed annoyed because I had not done my place up. He had been as far as the City to see if he could get work at Hamburg, where there is a dock strike. The last bit of work he did was about a fortnight before this happened. For the last six months he has been doing two or three days a week, as much as he could get. He asked me what I was going to do. I said, "Nothing." I tried to get out of the room because I was in a temper and did not want to stop there with him. As I was trying to get out I found myself being wounded. I did not see the knife. I was struck twice in the thigh, once in the nose, and be made a thrust across my throat, but it was only slight. The cut in the face was on the side of the nose. After he had done it he said, "This is what drink has brought you to." He then went out. and I went to the hospital with the assistance of Mrs. Haywood. After I had been to the hospital I went to the police station. A friend of mine had a barrow, and put me on it. I did not hear prisoner say anything to the sergeant.

To Prisoner. I have been living with you on and off since 1896. In September of that year I separated from you and went to live with another man, whom I married nine years ago last March. I lived with Day about four months after I was married and went back

to live with you. On March 16 I had had a glass or two of ale, but was not what you might say the worse for liquor.

SARAH HAYWOOD , wife of Robert Haywood, 77, Ernest Street, Mile End. On Saturday, March 16, Mrs. Day came in to have a cup of tea with me. There was another woman there part of the time, but she had to go away to meet her husband. I was not there when prisoner came in. I saw him about half-past five. He said to Mrs. Day, "You have found a new home for yourself?" No doubt he was in a very bad temper, or he would not have come in in that fashion. I was called out then, and when I came back I saw the two of them struggling in the doorway. I pulled Mrs. Day away, and she halloaed out," I am stabbed; I am stabbed!" Prisoner did not say anything. He had a knife in his hand, but I did not see him use it. It was a biggish knife, 6 in. or 8 in. long. Prisoner then went out into the street, and I took Mrs. Day towards her own door. He shut the knife and put it in his pocket.

Sergeant JOHN CAVAN, H Division. On Saturday, March 16, at about quarter-past 10, prisoner came into the Arbour Square Police Station and said, "I wish to give myself up for stabbing the woman I am living with at 67, Ernest Street. She annoyed me, and I did it with a penknife. "Edith Day came in later while prisoner was there. The charge was read over to him, and he made no reply. Previous to that, he said: "I heard you were after me, so I gave myself up. "As he was being taken back to the cells he said to prosecutrix, "I will give you some snuff when I come out. "I was present at the police court on the 18th, when prisoner endeavoured to explain that he meant when he came out to give the woman some "beer and snuff.

RICHARD ROBERTS , clinical assistant at the London Hospital. I examined Edith Day when she was brought in on March 16. On the external side of the right thigh there was a wound 2 in. long going straight down to the bone; the other was in the left groin, extending down the leg a distance of 6 in., a mere scratch above and deepest at the lower part. A third wound was at the junction of the right nostril and the upper lip, gutting right through, and damaging the gum underneath. The last wound was across the throat, a mere scratch. The wound in the right thigh was out of harm's way, but the wound in the groin was within 112 in. of the main artery of the left groin., All the wounds healed by the first attention, without complication or inflammation. Prosecutrix discharged herself from hospital on the 28th, on the 3rd of this month she took the bandages off. I did not authorise her to do so.

Prisoner said he had been irritated by prosecutrix getting drunk and associating with women friends to the neglect of her home. He was sorry for what he had done.

Verdict. Guilty of unlawful wounding. Prisoner was stated to have a very bad record.

Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-40
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HARRIS, Henry Campbell (48, agent), was indicted for forging: and uttering a certain acceptance of a certain bill of exchange for the payment of £5, with intent to defraud; forging and uttering a certain acceptance of a certain bill of exchange for the payment of £5, with intent to defraud. Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and the charges were not proceeded with. He was further charged with obtaining certain small sums by fraud.

Mr. Ricardo prosecuted.

WILLIAM HENRY CRADDOCK , corn merchant, 41, Repton Street, Lime-house. In March of this year I was desirous of disposing of my business, and inserted advertisements with that view. In answer to one of the advertisements I had a visit from prisoner. On March 2 he said he could dispose of the business for me quickly. He gave me a slip of paper with his name and an address at Moundneld Road, Clapton. He asked me for half a crown for advertising and I gave it to him, and he gave me a receipt, saying "If property sold, 2112 per cent, on sale." On the back were the words, "No sale, no charge. If sold by proprietor no charge.—H. Harris and Co., auctioneers, 40, Moundneld Road, Clapton. 2s. 6d. till sold. No other charge. On Thursday, March 7, I received a communication from him informing me that he had a likely purchaser of the business and also the premises and would call and see me in the course of the day. He called the same day at half-past eight in the evening, and said he thought he had a purchaser in Mr. William Clarke, of The Oaks, Grays, Essex, who he said was a general merchant. He asked me the lowest terms I would take, and I told him £40 for the business and £350 for the copyhold premises, and he put the figures down in writing. He measured the premises and asked me to sign the paper on which he had written the particulars. After I had signed the paper he brought out an accepted bill for £5 purporting to be accepted by Alfred Pike, The Oaks, Muswell Hill, and asked me if I would lend him 6s. on it to go to Grays with, as he was short. I next received from him a telegram: Contract signed. See you nine o'clock Saturday.—Harris." He called at 10 o'clock on Saturday morning and handed me a signed agreement between himself and William Clarke, general merchant, The Oaks, Grays, Essex, with reference to the property, the sale purchase to be completed on or before April 20, 1907, or the deposit to be forfeited. We went to Somerset House and stamped the agreement. Prisoner asked me if I would lend him another 5s. on the bill, which I did, and he said he would send me the money by post. After visiting prisoner's house I received the following postcard: "Dear Sir,—Everything is all right. Have not received depost. Will see you in the course of the day. Have been very busy or would have called before. Hope you are well.—I am, yours truly, Harris. "After that I sent a registered letter to the alleged purchaser, William Clarke, because I was not satisfied, and it was returned to me, "Address unknown." Not satisfied with that, I sent

a telegram to William Clarke, which was returned three-quarters of an hour after it had been sent, and I was informed that there was no such person as William Clarke, general merchant, The Oaks, Grays, Essex, and that the Post Office could not in consequence deliver. On March 19 I received from prisoner a letter headed, "Re business.—Respecting the above, my client will be able to deposit on Friday. I should have called on you last week, but I was out with my dad, who died on Saturday and is to be buried on Thursday. Should anything happen that the deposit is not paid Friday, I have a gentleman in the City who will advance you what you require till the business is completed. Sorry for the delay. Hope you are better. Will write tomorrow and make appointment" That was the last communication I had. By this time the bill of exchange had nearly become payable. I sent it to the bank and it was returned.

(Thursday, April 25.)

JOHN BREEZE , newsagent, 10, Linton Street, Islington. I advertised my business in January last, and about a fortnight later prisoner came and asked me if my business was for sale. I told him "Yes," and he said, "I will sell it for you. "He asked me the price, and I told him £85. He described himself to me as an agent, and said he thought he had a customer for me, but would let me know. He said he would want 4s. for advertising, and I gave it to him, and he gave me a receipt dated February 7," Received 4s. for advertising business for two weeks. "He also gave me a piece of paper, with the following written upon it: "No sale, no charge. Commission, 5 per cent, on the amount of purchase. If sold by proprietor no charge.—H. Harris, auctioneer, 40, Moundfield Road, Clapton. Advertisement, 4s., two weeks." He said, "I shall let you know as soon as possible. I think I shall let you know to-morrow. "I had a postcard from him the following day: "Dear Sir,—Will see you in the course of Saturday morning. I think I have sold the business.—Yours faithfully, H. Harris. "Accordingly, he came to my place on the 9th about six o'clock. He said he had been to see a gentleman who had not, however, bought the business, as he had not sufficient money; he was rather short of money, and would I advance him 5s. I gave him the 5s. He said,. I shall let you know as soon as possible. "At the same time that I let him have the 5s. he handed me a bill for £5. I said, "This is good enough for 5s." He said, "Yes, it is good enough if it is any use." The bill was "Accepted payable at the London and County Bank, Finsbury branch, H. Finch," with an address at Perry Lodge, New Southgate. I had not asked for security when he gave me the bill. On February 16 I received the following postcard" Dear Sir,—I have been away from home and will see see you early Monday, when I hope to have matters settled.—Yours, etc., H. Harris. "I did not see the accused after February 9 till last Thursday, when I saw him

at the police court. When the bill became payable I sent it down to the bank and had it returned.

Detective-sergeant JOHN CAVAN, H Division. I arrested prisoner on March 11 about eight in the morning at 41, Moundfield Road. I read the warrant to him; he made no reply. The warrant charged him with feloniously forging and uttering an acceptance of a bill of exchange for the payment of £5 with intent to defraud. I conveyed him to the Arbour Square Police Station, where he was formally changed, He made. no reply then. I made a search of his house and found a number of letters. I have made inquiry at New Southgate for H. Finch, of Perry Lodge, the person who is supposed to have accepted, out could neither find the house nor the man. I inquired of tradesmen and postmen. I also inquired for Albert Pike, The Oaks, Muswell Hill, but could find no such name or place. In my opinion the acceptance is in the handwriting of the prisoner, slightly disguised.

Aoting-sergeant WILLIAM CARR. Essex Constabulary, spoke to having inquired for William Clarke, general merchant, at Grays, Essex, without result.

ARTHUR Nossi, cashier, Holloway branch London and County Bank. The acceptance. purporting to be signed by Pike was presented on March 27. We have no such account. The bill purporting to be accepted by H. Finch was forwarded for inquiries. We have no such account. We have no branch at Finsbury Park; the Holloway branch is the nearest to that place.

Prisoner stated that he borrowed the money in good faith, and if Craddook and Breeze had called at his house for it they would have had it back again. Verdict, Guilty.

Detective-sergeant CAVAN said that as far as he knew prisoner had not been in custody before. He had formerly held good positions, and up to 1905 had an auctioneer's license. He had resided at Moundfield Road about four months, and during that time had raised small sums varying from 5s. to 19s. on these forged acceptances on the London and County Bank. The addresses given was "The Woodlands," "The Oaks," or something of the kind in a district, Muswell Hill, New Southgate, or Putney, without any street or road being mentioned. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH. (Wednesday, April 24.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-41
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LEWIS, Richard (45, agent) , having received certain property (to wit) bank notes for £80 for and on account of Louisa Painter, did fraudulently convert the said property to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Huntly Jenkins prosecuted. Mr. Purcell and Mr. G. L. Hardy-defended.

Mrs. LOUISA PAINTER (widow), 89, Church Road, Islington, formerly carrying on business at 50, Cromer Street. I first knew prisoner in November, 1906. He used to visit a lodger. The general shop business which I had I sold on the advice of prisoner, and he suggested to me to take a house in Church Road, as I should get my living easier by letting apartments, furnished and unfurnished. The business fetched £62 10s. I paid £50 deposit for a house, and I kept the remainder by me. I did not go to Church Road. I went to prisoner's house. He and his wife invited me to stay with them. I had previously lent him £7 on an I. O. U. During my stay there he borrowed this money during the week before the other money was drawn from the bank, and he paid me back the £7. He asked me to go to his house as a friend until my house was finished painting. Nothing was said about. payment. I was. there, I think, ten or eleven days. I broke my stay there because he and his wife quarrelled. I came to purchase 89, Church Road, through prisoner's suggestion. He took me to the house and advised me to buy it. The first payment I made to Mr. Ward was £5 on January 25 in prisoner's presence. I paid a further sum of £45 to Mr. Ward on January 28 at his office. I have been unable to purchase the house, so I lose the £50. I was unable to do so on account of prisoner robbing me of it. £50 was the deposit, and the completion of the purchase of the house was to take place on February 18. On January 29 I went to prisoner's house to stay. Prisoner knew I had money in the Post Office Bank. He asked me about this house and what money I had got, and he thought that the beat thing I could do with the money was to purchase the house. On February 11 I went to the post office at 202, Essex Road, and prisoner asked to accompany me. I had previously filled up the withdrawal form. I put the withdrawal form down and the book, and he said to the young lady, "Please pay Mrs. Painter as much in notes as you can. "She first said the had only £65 in notes, but she found another £10 note or another £5 note. It' made £75 in notes and £5 in gold. When she put the amount down he said, "You had better let me count those notes, as she might rush you with had notes. "He whispered this to me. I thanked him, and he then picked them up. He sort of poehea me on one side and said, "You had better let me take them home for you or somebody might rob you of them," and he pulled his pooket-oook out and put them in. I did not raise any objection to that. He said he was going on to his office, but he should not be there long. Would I accompany him to his office, 75, Fetter Land I waited outside; then we went home to prisoner's private house. 140, Church Road. The same night that the money was drawn I said he had better give me the notes. He had all the money. He said, "No, it is not safe in your possession. "He had no claim on this money, nor did he suggest on February 11 that he had any claim. He was a little intoxicated tot a week or more on and off. I think I saw him on February. 12. I was staying in his house. I did not see him in the morning, but I saw him again at night, and asked him for the money.

I said, "I wish you to give me the money. "He refused to give it up, and said it would not be safe in my possession; someone might rob me of it were it in my possession. On the 13th I went to Davis, the auctioneer, with his wife. I wanted some money to furnish my rooms, and prisoner wanted some furniture. He bid up for me When we came outside he said "You will have to pay this money," Before going there he suggested he would pay me up what he owed me independently of the £80, because that was for the settlement of the house. I had not a halfpenny left of the £60 I had sold my shop for, and he said, "You will have to settle up for this furniture. "I said, "You told me you would settle up." He said, "I have not been able to get my money. "I said, "In that case it will have to remain there, because I cannot withdraw any more money. What is left is my children's. "I said, "Some of the furniture belongs to you." He said, 'You will have to draw it. "He wanted me to pay for the lot, I think. He bid up for furniture for me to the amount of £11 13s. The same morning he said that he would pay me up, whatever the furniture came to he would settle for it, as he owed me such a lot of money. On the 13th or 14th I left his house in a temper because he would not give me up the notes. I believe it was the day after the auction he asked me if I was going to settle up for the furniture, and I said I could not if he could not pay me up what he owed me. He said he could not. I said, "Then the furniture will have to remain, because I have not got the money to get it. "We got to words about it. I asked him for the notes before I left, and he would not give them up. He declined to give them, as they were not safe in my possession. He would keep them till the purchase of the house. I Went to 89, Church Road. I remember the occasion when prisoner returned me £20 in gold; that was on the 19th. I saw him at his house. The morning after I left his house I went over before breakfast, and his wife assured me he would not touch my money. I went every day to try to get his address. I went sometimes twice a day because Mr. Ward was wanting me to settle up for the house. I went five or six times before the 19th. I saw prisoner on the 19th at his house, and he apologised to me half a dozen times. He said he was very sorry he had gone away with my money, that he had had a £300 deal in his literary work, and he put his hand in his pocket and drew out £20 in gold. I said, "This is no use to Mr. Wood and Co. are wanting me to settle for the house" He said he could not draw his money for a day or two, but would give me good interest for the money. I said he had no business to use my money, He apologised for it. As he came back with a new suit on and a new overcoat, I believed he had had a good bargain. I saw him next day, and then he was arrested. I believe I saw him at Clerkenwell Police Court, but I am not quite sure.

Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. I first made the acquaintance of prisoner in November. He did not help me in the business, but he said he felt sorry for me. His wife suggested that I could go there

while my house was being painted. I sold the business myself. He suggested I ought to have £100 for it, and he advertised it once, and he went to me. Howe, the landlord, to settle up matters. The date he stole my money was February 11. I did not go to a police station and lodge a complaint. I did not want to go to law if I could get my money without. I saw him only once or twice between February 11 and the furniture auction. I went with him to see a solicitor about proceedings I was taking against another man. I do not think he really meant to keep my money; he said it was not safe in my possession. I paid all my debts to the solicitor myself. He paid £2 and I gave it him back out of his £20. He gave me £20 out of the money he had stolen. I had taken some proceedings against Hugh Hamilton, and that was the object of the visit to Mr. Metcalfe. I applied for a summons for a threat. Hamilton was a lodger in my house. He had promised me marriage, but through Mr. Lewis scandalising him it was put an end. to. Prisoner said the beat thing I could do was to sell my shop and get out of his clutches. I applied for a summons against him for using threats, because he said he would kill me as I had deceived him. The result of the summons was that Hamilton was bound over. I had known Hamilton several months.

Re-examined. £3 or £4 would cover the loans by prisoner down to February 11. At the time I made my requests for this money prisoner never said that I owed him the money, nor did he suggest it was a loan. I had not lent him any part of the money; it was drawn expressly for the settlement of the house purchase. The £5 was for my own use, because I had not any money left.

EDWARD ALFRED WARD , auctioneer, 298, Upper Street, Islington, I was the agent for 89, Church Road. Mrs. Painter paid me £5 deposit on the house on November 25 and on January 28 she paid me £45. On the latter date she was accompanied by Mr. Lewis, and the money was paid by Mrs. Painter in his presence.

Cross-examined. I had two or three interviews, and Mr. Lewis was there on each occasion. Those are the two occasions I have spoken to.

GEORGE HENRY BURGESS , 16, Eastcheap, E. C., secretary to a public company. I called on February 12 at 89, Church Road and saw prisoner and Mrs. Painter. Prisoner showed me his pocket-book con training banknotes for £50 and £10 and a third note. He then turned to Mrs. Painter and said, "I have shown Mr. Burgess the notes. Have I not, Mr. Burgess?" I replied, "Yes. "He then said, "We shall be all ready For completion on the 18th," the day fixed for the completion of the purchase.

Cross-examined. I saw prisoner I should think previous to the 12th about twice. I was surety to the vendor company which sold the house to Mrs. Painter. Prisoner told me, or wrote to me, that he could not complete as he had to go to Manchester.

RICHARD LEWIS (prisoner, on oath). I met Mrs. Painter in the. middle of November. I went to see Hugh Hamilton on a certain matter, and I was introduced to Mrs. Painter in Hamilton's room. I took my wife to see Mrs. Painter. Mrs. Painter wanted to get rid of him on account of his threatening to murder her. He used to come to her every five minutes threatening her, and my wife advised her to get out of his clutches by selling the business, and I assisted her in doing so. The purchaser was brought to me and we made the deal in her parlour. She asked £70. I had a quiet talk with her. She only gave £15 for the business five months previously. I got her to take £62 10s. I had borrowed £2 and £5, and I gave her an I 0 U for £7; that was previous to the sale of the business. When she sold the business she had nowhere to go to, and we hed taken the other house, and I said we had room, and she might as well live with ray wife. She came to our house and she had practically everything she wanted. I introduced her to the other house, 89, Church Road. Mine was 104, Church Road. It was arranged that when the business was sold Mr. Ward was to receive a deposit on the house. Directly the business was sold for £62 10s. I telephoned to Mr. Ward to say the business was sold and we would entertain the house. I went up to Mr. Ward's place in the evening, and we both of us went to Mrs. Painter. She paid a deposit of £5, and Mr. Ward made her sign an I 0 U for £45. She signed the I 0 U for £45, which made £50. It was understood the £45 I O U was to be taken up on the completion of the sale of the business, which took place on January 28. On January 28 I drew up the agreement both for vendor and seller. There was £45 paid in notes. The £45 was paid to me and the gold was paid to Mrs. Painter. Those notes I put in my pocket at Mrs.

Painter's suggestion. After that I telephoned to Mr. Ward to say the completion had taken place and Mrs. Painter and myself would, wait on him. I went up to Mr. Ward's place with Mrs. Painter. I paid Mr. Ward the £45, which I had in notes. Mr. Ward handed me back the contract and the receipt for £50 and also the I 0 U. That was on January 28. There was a connection of some sort between Mrs. Painter and Hamilton and Hamilton found she had left her shop. The brother came up and said unless she would clear her character she was no longer a sister of his. I advised her to go to Court and clear her character. I bad written to Mr. Metcalfe making arrangements to meet him at Liverpool Street on February 11. On the 11th at nine o'clock Mrs. Painter came to my house. I said to her, "It is no good going to Mr. Metcalfe without you have money." She said, "I have that £80 note," and she produced it. I said, "It is no use going with the £80 note without your tank book. "She sent her little child" over to the house to get the bank book and handed me the £80 note, and when the little child brought the book I put them into my pocket and we both of us went to the post office. This money was drawn to pay Mr. Metcalfe's fees. She handed me the note from the book at the breakfast table. I walked inside the post office and put down the withdrawal note on the counter, which was previously signed. I said, "Will you oblige us with as much note. as you can, £75 in notes and the rest in gold. "The clerk said she had only £70 in notes. She said, "This note is not signed," and she handed back the note. Mrs. Painter went to the desk to sign the note. She handed me back the note signed, and I handed it to the postmistress for Mrs. Painter. The postmistress handed me the £75; in notes and £5 in gold. I said to Mrs. Painter, "Will you take this money or shall I?" and she said, "You had better take it. "I pulled out my pocket-book and put the notes and gold in. We went to meet Mr. Metcalfe. At 10 o'clock I met Mr. Metcalfe, and it was arranged' that the prosecution of Hamilton should be taken in hand. On the Tuesday my wife, myself, and Mrs. Painter met in Clerkenwell Police Court, when a summons was applied for, which was granted. I paid the whole the expenses of that day and we returned home. I took Mrs. Painter to my club, the Mildmay Club, where we spent the evening. On Monday we went to Mr. Metcalfe's house. We were together all day on the 12th, when she said I bolted to Manchester-. She went to supper with me at the club, and we came home together. I offered her this money on the Monday night. I paid Mr. Metcalfe £2 at her suggestion. He said, "What about my fees!" and she said, "You pay him and deduct it out of my money. "We went to the City Club to supper and arrived home—my wife, Mrs. Painter, and I. I said to her at the supper table, "You had better take the money." She said, "No, it is not safe for me to take it; you keep it. "In the presence of my two sons. Frederick and Richard, and my wife, I offered her this money. She was frightened of Hamilton, she said. Before my sons and wife she said I had better hold the money. My

two sons went over with her. She came to my house next morning. I met her at the sale. We were together practically the whole of the day and she never asked me for anything. On the Thursday I saw her and told her I was going to Manchester. On the 14th I went to Manchester. When I came home on the 19th I sent an intimation to Mrs. Painter to say I was at home and should like to see her. She came over to my house and said she hoped I bad done a good deal. She said her friends were coming up, and she must have some money. I had a lot of gold and I said, "Will £20 he sufficient?" She said it would. I said if she did not want the other I would not mind allowing her interest for it. There were four or five of us, including my two sons and my wife. I said, "If you do not want to use that money 1 will allow you interest for it." She was satisfied. Then we went to the Court, and her brother and three sisters came to my house. I returned to Manchester that day. Then I was arrested by Sergeant Henbest An action for fraud was brought against Mrs. Painter by the purchaser of the business, and I was threatened to be brought into the action. The following letters were read from Messrs. Wood and Sons, 16, Eastcheap, February 28: "Sir,—Mrs. Painter has instructed us to act for her in connection with this business, and to state that any outstanding questions between herself and the New Century Estate Company have been adjusted to her satisfaction, and to request that you will produce the £55, part of the money which you hold belonging to her, here to-morrow, Friday, at four o'clock, when she has arranged to settle the purchase. She states that she will adjust the further amount belonging to her which you hold with you personally. We must also ask you kindly to bring to-morrow at four o'clock here the £3 3s., which she handed you to forward to the building society's solicitor, or, if you have already sent it to him, perhaps you will kindly let us have his name and address and the receipt he gave you for the money.—Yours truly, Wood and Sons." "March 1. Sir,—89, Church Road.—We have reported to our client, Mrs. Painter, your letter of to-day and our interview on the telephone. We are now instructed to apply to you for payment of the £55 and the £3 3s. entrusted to you to pay the building society's solicitor in the course of Monday next, and, failing payment within that time, we propose to take proceedings to enforce payment of the amount which was handed to you as agent or trustee for Mrs. Painter, and we shall therefore adopt the special remedies applicable to the recovery of such moneys. This, of course, will be without prejudice to the other moneys which you hold.—Yours truly, Wood and Sons.

Cross-examined. I am a literary agent. I expected some sort of payment for my services to Mrs. Painter. I do not agree that January 25 was the date on which the £5 was paid in respect of 89, Church Road. It was January 22. The £10 deposit was paid to Mrs. Painter on the sale of the business on the 22nd, and the completion was to take place on the 28th. On the day the £10 was paid we paid Mr. Ward £5 out of the £10. It was Mrs. Painters money. On January

28 £45 deposit was paid, and Mrs. Painter was present. It was her money, but my hand paid it. Mrs. Painter's object in going to the post office was not to get money to complete the purchase, but to pay Mr. Metcalfe's fees. Mrs. Painter went to meet Mr. Metcalfe at 10 o'clock that morning at Liverpool Street Station, and she raised that money to pay Mr. Metcalfe's fees. It had nothing to do with the house. We paid him £2. She could not draw less than £80 because the order was for that amount. I understand that her object in filling in the withdrawal form for £80 was to pay. Mr. Metcalfe two guineas. I deny that I said to Mrs. Painter, "Let me count up the notes, or she might rush some bad ones." I took the money and put it in my pocket-book in the post office. I said, "Shall I take it, or will you?" and she said, "You had better take them." We went to my office, and she waited with my son outside. She did not ask me for her money. They were offered to her, but she declined to take them on the evening of the 11th in my kitchen in the presence of others. I was not drunk. I saw her on the 12th at nine o'clock a.m., and she did not ask me for the notes. On the 13th I went with her to Davis's Auction Rooms to buy furniture for her. I did not want any furniture. I bid for her, and I paid £2 deposit. We do not pay till we clear. She would not have it, and I saw Mr. Davis and told him to put it up again. It was sold in the sale room on the 28th. I do not know whether there was a profit or lost. On February 19, when she asked me for money, I polled out a handful of gold. I had no occasion to apologise. I did not say I would give her the remainder in a day or two because she knew I was going away the next-day. I told her I would give her good interest, and I would keep the money till I had got through my business. I agree it was her money, but I had a right to it. It must. be a loan at interest. I was not entitled to keep it. It must be a loan. She owes me a balance which she has never paid. I agree I owed her £50. (To the Judge: I am. Not able to pay it. I can if time is given. I do not wish to rob the woman.) £50 of this was a loan, or something like it. It has to be arranged for how long. I said I would give her good interest. No interest was arranged. I did not offer the £50 to her because I had not got the money. I was robbed of it, if you want to know, in Manchester. That was the second time I went to Manchester. I was robbed in Manchester on the 25th. I was at the races. I got mixed up with a lot of men, and I found myself with 30s. on the Saturday night instead of all my money. It was taken out of my pocket, I took between £70 and £80, because I was at Warwick Races. I won money there. I went to Warwick on the'20th, the day after the case was heard. From Warwick I went to Manchester, via Birmingham, the same night. I was at the Altcar Coursing Meeting outside Manchester. When I was getting out of the train I found my money was gone. I only had 30s. or 35s. I was coming from Altcar to Manchester. My money was in notes and gold. (To the Judge. The £50 note was cashed at Alton's Bank, Manchester. The first time I was there.) It was Mrs. Painter's £50. When I came home

I gave her £20 out of the £50. It was part of the gold I got by cashing the £50 note. I did not make any complaint to the police about the robbery. I was robbed of between £70 and £80. I did not want my wife to know where I had been. I had £4 in gold left. I never communicated with the police. I was in company; I did not wish to be known. The date of the robbery was the 21ST. I did not wan to disclose the company—they must have been a lot of racing sharps; I did not know them.

Re-examined. I did not know that all Mr. Metcalfe would take was £2. On February 11, before going to the post office, I had the note in my possession; my son and my wife were present when I received it. We got to the post office at 9. 40, and we met Mr. Metcalfe at Liverpool Street at 10 o'clock. She did not attempt to give me in charge. She knew I had the money, and we walked to the Tube Station and we met Mr. Metcalfe as arranged at 10 o'clock. We paid him at the house £2. On the 12th a summons was applied for, and she did not make any complaint to the magistrate. On the 13th was the auction sale and she made no complaint. On the 14th I went to Manchester. On the 26th I went to Warwick. I went straight on to Manehester the same day through Birmingham. I came back on the 26th. On February 11, when we came back at supper, we were in the kitchen, and I offered her the money in the precence of my two sons and my wife. This account was never furnished to prosecutor. I did not instruct my solicitor to give it to her solicitor. On the 14th of February I went to Manchester. At that time I bad Mrs. Painter's money in my possession. I took it with me because I wanted to utilise some of if. I returned on the 19th, and on the 20th I went to Warwick, taking her money with Mr. I changed the £50 note at Alton's Bank on my first visit to Manchester. I changed it because a £50 note was a very funny thing to carry about. When I left Manchester I had £80 or £90 in my pocket, because I did not spend much the first time. When Mrs. Painter said, "I must have some money." I said, "Would £20 do?" She did not know the value of notes, because when she had the note before she gave it to me. I pulled out gold. and I said, "If you do not want the money now I will nay interest. "I did not hand all her money over, because she only asked me for some money. I did not want my wife to know I was in the companv of women.

MRS. LOUISA LEWIS , wife of prisoner. Mrs. Painter was staving at our house from January 28 to February 14. On February 11 Mrs. Painter came over to 89, Church Road, and said to my husband she wished him to go with her to draw money from the bank in the presence of my son Richard. She wished him to take the withdrawal note. She handed it to my husband in the kitchen. My husband said, "It is no use without your bank book." She sent her little boy to fetch it, and handed it to my husband, and he put it into his waistcoat pocket. They came back at two o'clock. Mrs. Painter did not make any complaint of my husband having robbed her. I was cross about something and she

said, "Do not be cross. We have been round to two or three different places, and we have had two or three glasses of stout, and the result is I wish you to go to Leyton to night. "She made no complaint about my husband Immediately after supper Mrs. Painter was going over to her house to sleep, and my husband said, "What about your money and notes?" and he took them from his pocket and offered them to her. She said, "No, I won't take them; you know I am afraid of at man Hamilton. He might murder me and get off with the money. "Three of my sons were present, Richard, Frederick, and Frank. Richard and Fred went over. She said, "I am frightened to go into the house. Will you search every room in the house for me? "I saw Mrs. Painter on the 12th, and again there was a complaint. On the 14th my husband went to Manchester. I next saw them together on the 19th. She said, "Dick, I must have some money. "My I husband said, "How much do you want?" and he pulled out a handful of money. He said, "Is that sufficient?" and she said, "More than enough. "She did not wish for more, as she had no intention of paying more for the house. She hoped he would make good money with it, and he could use it and give her interest. He said, "Very well, that is as you like, but if you wish to have this house you must draw more money," and she said, "I know, but I am not going to draw any more."

Cross-examined. I have not talked over this case with my husband; he did not tell me to come and give this evidence; there was no need for him to remind Mr. On February 12 Mrs. Painter came to our house early in the morning for her meal. She did not ask for her money in the evening. My husband was not to keep the money for any definite time. She was supposed to owe us the money for living. It was supposed to be a loan to my husband, but for no definite time. No definite rate of interest was arranged. She said my husband could use it, and if he gave her interest she would rather he did that than pay any more money for the house. I do not think it would shock me very much if I knew my husband went to a race meeting; I know a good many men do that sort of thing. I Should consider he ought to know how to conduct himself without his wife interfering. He came back from Manchester on Tuesday, the 26th, and I went to the station to meet him. He told me he had had a loss, that he was robbed of his money. I was too much upset to ask him where he was robbed. He said he lost the whole of his money in his possession; he lost it in Manchester, I believe. I do not know whether it was on the race-course it happened. All I remember is being very much grieved when he said he had been to the police. I believed him; he never told me he did not go to the police. I never mentioned it to Mrs. Painter. I do not think I saw her after the 26th. She came to the area door. I did not tell her my husband had been robbed; I do not know whether it would be the natural thing to do.

To Mr. Hardy. The warder was present when I saw my husband at Brixton Prison. My husband did not suggest what I was to say.

RICHARD LEWIS , 15 years of age, prisoner's son. I remember February 11, in the morning, being in the kitchen; there were present my mother and father, prosecutor's daughter, and Mrs. Painter. They were talking about drawing money, and Mrs. Painter passed my father a note. She had not brought her bank-book, and my father told her she ought, and she sent her daughter over for it. My father put it in his pocket. I did not see him return the note to her. I was present at the time it was handed to my father. In the evening of the 11th my father came back to supper. Just after supper Mrs. Painter was ready to go, and my father pulled the notes out of his pocket and offered them to her, and said, "You had better take these notes." She said, "No, she would not, because she was afraid of the man. If it was found out she had got money he might take it." My brother and I searched the house, and we told her it was all right. My father came back from Manchester on February 19. Mrs. Painter said she would like some money, and my father offered her the money and gave her £20. She said that would be enough, and that he could borrow the other to go to Manchester. and she hoped he would bring back more to it My father told her he would give her interest on it, and she said, "All right. "Between February 11 and 19 Mrs. Painter did not make any complaint of my father having robbed her of the money.

Cross-examined. I remember my father coming back from Manchester on the 26th, and I remember his saying he lost the money; I believe it was on the train at Manchester. He told us what he lost. He only said he lost it in the train. I remembered it all the way along. I was asked if I did remember it when my father was arrested on March 7. I remember Mrs. Painter came round the next morning on the 12th. They were to go to court to take out a summons against the man. Nothing was said about the money.

FREDERICK LEWIS . 18 years of age, prisoner's son. I remember February 11, after supper, my father handed the money to Mrs. Painter, and she said she would not take it, as she was frightened to take it over to the house because that man might murder her, and the money would enable him to get away. Richard and I went over and searched the house. I saw Mrs. Painter on the 13th and 14th, but she did not complain that my father had robbed her. I was not present when the £20 was paid.

CHARLES EVERY , 21, Castle Road. I remember February 19. When I entered the kitchen Mrs. Painter was preparing to leave, and Mr. Lewis said, "Is that enough, or shall I give you some more?" and she replied, "No, I do not wish you to give me any more, because I have decided not to complete the purchase of the house till I am thoroughly satisfied with the drainage, and until the necessary repairs have been done. I hope you will bring back a lot when you come back from Manchester. "Then they began discussing the case they were going to that day at the North London Police Court, and prisoner turned and said he did not know whether he should be able

to go to Manchester that night. I was to go to his office and he would telephone me.

Cross-examined. I was employed by prisoner. I am not employed in regular work now. On February 19 this money was paid to Mrs. Painter. I do not know what the arrangement was to be. I did not hear that he was to allow her interest. The prisoner was going to Manchester to sell some manuscripts. He did not tell me he was going to the race meeting; I did not know he was a racing man. I was asked whether I remembered this just before the second remand you Mrs. Lewis, whether I could remember anything in relation to the case.

Verdict, Guilty. Several previous convictions proved. Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.


(Tuesday, April 23.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-42
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

BELFORD, Henry (40), was indicted and charged on coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Henry Joseph Walters. The Grand Jury having thrown out the bill, no evidence was offered on the coroner's inquisition, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-43
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

FOUCAULT, Emilie Victorine (29) , feloniously throwing upon Andre Jaques Delombre a certain corrosive fluid, viz., sulphuric acid, with intent to burn and disfigure him and to do him some grievous bodily harm.

Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. Frampton prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Basil Watson defended.

ANDRE JAQUES DELOMBRE . I ordinarily live in Paris, where my father has a flat in Rue de Monceau, and have lately lived at 17, Lindley Road, Tottenham. I was born on November 19, 1880. I first met prisoner, who was then single, on March 12, 1898. She was living with her mother, Madame Berger. In March, 1899 she married M. Foucault. it was then that I first had sexual relations with her. He died on January 11, 1901. Prisoner made no claim on me to marry her. On May 30, 1903, prisoner married M. Rocher, from whom she separated in August, 1903. In October, 1903, M. Rocher presented a petition for divorce in the. French courts, which he withdrew and re-presented in February, 1904. Prisoner then presented a petition for dissolution of marriage. Both petitions were allowed. The court found that the charge of immorality against the wife was not proved, but allowed the husband's petition on the ground of cruelty (injures graves) on both sides. Prisoner appealed to the Court of Appeal, which appeal was dismissed on January 2, 1906, with costs. Our sexual relations continued to 1906, when prisoner's

Attitude towards me changed. She threatened to kill me and my ather, and came on more than one occasion to our flat and created a disturbance, as also when I met her from time to time in the streets. She said as my affection had cooled down towards her I could not do any good to her, and she threatened to kill my father, for whom she knew I had very great affection She also threatened to kill my brother Roger. I took a loaded revolver from her on many occasions in 1906. About June, 1906, she told me she was pregnant, and asked me if I would acknowledge her child. I said, "No," which did not seem to upset her. On September 28, 1906, I was returning to our flat in Rue de Monceau to lunch when I saw the prisoner with my brother, who said in her presence she had been to the flat. She then repeated that she would kill my father, brother, and me. In the evening I went to her house and took a revolver from her that she had under her pillow. She said, "Oh, I don't mind—I will buy another one. "I afterwards saw prisoner in Rue de Rouen on October 5, the day before I left for London. I did not tell her I was leaving then, though she knew I should have to go, as I had done on several occasions to pursue my studies. Up to that time she had made no request to me to marry her, nor had the subject ever been discussed. I am an agricultural engineer, and hold a diploma of the National College at Grignon. I took lodgings at 17, Lindley Road, Tottenham, on October 6. Mr. Sueur, a friend of mine, lived at No. 3. He had known prisoner in Paris, and prisoner knew him as a great personal friend of mine. On arriving at Tottenham I pursued my studies. I did not receive any communication from prisoner. On the evening of November 17 I received a message to go to Sueur's house. On arriving there I found prisoner in the parlour. She said, "Good evening, you did not expect to see me. "I said, "Yes, I rather expected it was you. "She said, "I have come to ask you for an explanation. "I said, "I am ready to give you any explanation you like." she said, "No, not now, but in London; you must come to London, and you must stay with me. "I said, "It is impossible to go so late to London and find accommodation there. 'She said, "I will not part with you. I will go where you live. "I said, "It is impossible, because I am staying at a house where there are only gentlemen, and we cannot have accommodation there. I will try to make arrangements for you at Mr. Sueurs" She said, "I shall not sleep with you. "I made arrangements with the landlady of No. 3 for her to stay the night, and prevailed on her to do so. I returned to No. 17. Before leaving her I told her I was ready to answer her questions She said, "No, not now. "On Sunday morning, November 18, she came to 17, Lindley Road, where I lived. I told her she could not have accommodation there. She was with Mr. Sueur, and returned with him to 3, Lindley Road. After breakfast I went to No. 3 and saw her at breakfast. I went into the sitting-room, and asked her what explanation she wanted to have from Mr. She said, "Not now; when we are alone."Then

I asked Mr. Sueur to go out of the sitting-room, which he did. I then said, "We are now alone; what have you to tell me? "She said, 'When we are in London. "I called Mr. Sueur back and told him the would not speak. I asked for a directory in order to find a hotel where I might take her in London. She mentioned the Hotel Cecil, but we made up our minds to go to some hotel in the City Mr. Sueur was to accompany us to London, but I dissuaded him. Sueur accompanied us to the gate, and when in the street the told us she had forgotten a small conversation book at 17, Lindley Road, and she was in such a state that I had to fetch it, while Mr. Sueur accompanied her to the station. He carried her bag; I rejoined them at the station. Mr. Sueur went home, and when we were alone I told her of my intention to go to London to find accommodation for her, and afterwards to come back to Tottenham, leaving her there, at soon as possible. No train being available we went by tram-car I carried the bag. About one o'clock we arrived at the hotel, where a room was taken by prisoner in her own name. We went upstairs, and I said, "Now we are quite alone, what explanation have you to ask for?" She said, "Not now. "I said, "When?" She said, "After dinner. "I said, "It seems you will not speak to Mr. Allow me to take the notes I have taken at the library, because I have to work. "I took the notes out of my pocket, and sat down at the open window. She was talking. I did not hear what she said. I began writing. I caught these words, "It is no use what you are doing—it won't be of any use to you. "Dinner was at 1. 30, and we went down together. Prisoner chatted unconcernedly about everything and about English customs generally. After dinner I asked her if the wanted to have a cup of coffee. She said, "No. "We went upstairs, and as soon as we got into the room she asked me if I would get her a cup of coffee. I asked her why she did not have it downstairs. She said, "It did not occur to me. "I rang the bell, nobody came, so I went to the landing, and seeing nobody went downstairs and ordered it to be brought up to No. 47. I returned to the room. The coffee was brought up with milk and sugar on a tray. She complained to me of the smallness of the cup. I told her it was a good-sized breakfast cup, and she could not have a larger one. She said, "I have a draught to take with my coffee. "Then I pointed to the metal jug on the tray, telling her she might take the jug and mix her draught with the coffee in it. I went to the other end of the room and took out my notes again. She went to the window and looked it. I got up and went to the window. Then I saw a policeman on his beat, trying the doors in the square. I asked her if she was going to ask me for any explanation. She said, "I was about to do so. "Then she went to the washstand and took the cup and put it on the window shelf and sat down on the left side and I on the right. This is the bag (produced). The porter brought it into the room. She took a bottle out of it after the coffee had been brought. I did not see her lock the door. I said my answer would

be very simple. She said, "What I have to say is this: Either you shall marry me or you must kill yourself, if you are not a coward, or I will kill you." Up to that moment marriage had never been mentioned by her. I said, "Certainly not—why should I? You do not love me—indeed, you hate me, and I do not love you. "She said, "Oh, do not be uneasy; I shall not be troublesome. I only want my child to bear your name; we will not live together. "I said, "I will not marry you" Then she said, "You must kill yourself or I will kill you. "She did not show signs of excitement. Seeing that the moment had arrived when she might be excited, I said, "Now I know the explanation you want from me, and you have my answer; let us go out for a walk. "I went to the bedside on which my overcoat was and began to put it on. In doing that I turned round facing her, and I saw her standing up with the cup in her hand, and with great violence she threw the contents in my face. Instantly I felt a smarting pain, my sight became dim, and I realised that I had received vitriol. I rushed to the door and tried to open it and found it closed. I shouted, but nobody came up, and I kicked through the panel of the door. Then she said, "Oh, I will open the door," and she opened it; I do not know how, for I was blind. I got into the passage on the landing and found some people Who took me by the arm. I was shouting, "Hospital! hospital! I am burning." I asked for a cab, but none was to be had, and we went running to the hospital. A police officer came and took me under his charge to St. Bartholomew's, where I was seen by Dr. Butcher. I was an in-patient for about 18 days. Up to November 18 I could see quite well with both eyes. The sight of the left eye is lost. I suffered from the right eye at first, but the sight of that I now have. I was burnt on the left side of the face by the vitriol. I am told I shall always have the signs. I have also marks of the burning on my wrists and forearm which I shall always have. I gave my evidence at the Mansion House on December 13: After I left the hospital I had to go into a nursing home, which I left on December 23 or 24.

Cross-examined. I am now almost free from pain and much better than I was. I first met the prisoner on March 12. 1898. Her name was Berger. Prisoner was then quite a young girl and had been in the convent of the Sisters of St. Paul. I formed the opinion that she was an innocent girl when I first met her. I went for picnics into the country with her and her younger sister—also for cycling excursions. She was then engaged in a pawn broking business. We became great friends and companions and our relations were quite innocent. In October, 1898, my father came to know of our intimacy, and he was extremely annoyed and insisted on my breaking off the friendship, which I did. I promised him I would never see her again. I wrote her a great many letters. This one of May 14, 1898. is in my handwriting. [After some discussion the Court allowed Mr. Elliott to refer to various letters written by the prosecutor to prisoner during the period of their acquaintance

in order to show the relations that existed between them.] Although I had promised my father not to meet prisoner again, I met her a few days afterwards in the street. She seemed very much upset and I renewed my friendship with her. I was equally anxious to continue the friendship. I had a great affection for her, but I had been rather pressed not to renew it because of my promise to my father. I wrote her on February 22, just before her marriage to M. Foucault in March, 1899, "What assurance have I that I shall always be able to see you, dear Renee? I shall love you always," etc. On March 9 1899, I wrote: "I weep to think that you will be the wife of this clod-hopper—a chattel of this dollard—you are so fine and so delicate. Oh, I know you well, that I shall not have to be jealous of him to serve you, to help you, and will play the cat to your bear. Such will be my role. I am bright in public, but below the surface in the land of the Arabian Nights I shall serve you and help you and love you always, and make you happy." I went to the wedding. I met her two days afterwards or the next day, and had improper relations with her. On March 22, 1899, I wrote: "I desire to speak to you, to discuss money subjects with you, to make arrangements on the conduct we shall have to pursue. I have heaps of advice to give you. I think, if you follow it, you will live on good terms with your husband. I dare not say happily as I shall teach you how to content him, but how not to discontent him," etc. Then on April 13 I wrote: "It is getting late, when I must go to bed. Why have I not you with me?" etc. [Reading the letter down to the words]" You are the soul of my body." I did not habitually commit adultery with her during her marriage, but sometimes, until the death of my mother. I loved my mother very much, and I promised her not to see prisoner again. When afterwards I renewed my friendship with her, I told her I did not love her any more, because I promised my mother not to love her. I kept my promise for several months. I met her and told her I had not affection for her, and she knew the promise I had made. During her marriage I had apartments at 3, Place de la Sarbonne. She came to my rooms several times. I went by the name of John Lerout. That went on until August, 1900, when I left Paris to commence my studies at the School of Agriculture, of Grignon. I received a telegram from prisoner, announcing the death of her husband, and I went, to her in July, 1901, and she went to Grignon with me. I never wrote to my father asking his permission to marry her. I never promised marriage, or spoke of it. One of my sisters, who was eager I should be happy, said, "If you really love this woman you must love her and marry her. "On October 31, 1901, I wrote: "How sweet it would be to be always together—always until death, or who knows what might happen. Some other event may separate us far ever. "In November, 1901, I wrote: "What a pity you are not here. You certainly are in thought; so much so that in my letter to my father I spoke of 'a little woman you know of,' and tried to

describe the love that I intend to make clear and more seriously to you one day. "I wrote to my father, and probably in one of those letters I spoke of the feelings I had at the time. I said to my father, I have a loving feeling to someone. I do not know what I said to my father. Prisoner knew perfectly well that I never had the intention, to marry her. I said I was sorry not to have married her when I loved her, but she married in the meantime. I never afterwards had intention to marry her. I was not the lover of this woman. I had only passing attentions with her, and it was after this time that I renewed my friendship with her. She married her second husband in May, 1903, when she went into the country to one of her husband's estates. I corresponded with her. I know he became very suspicious of me. He had good cause. On November 19, 1903, I wrote, I think," My darling, how delightful a child would be. How well you would know how to bring him up in the right way. I regret that you nave no son. I do not forget that my Renee won't be all mine and I hide my sadness in despair by depicting to myself your maternal solicitude for the adorable being who would have been my adopted son. "I meant that I would have good feelings for her child, the child of her husband." The future does not belong to us, and I was wrong to forget that. May each forget it and remember only our strong love, our kisses, and our caresses. "There were divorce proceedings between her and her second husband in 1904, in which I acted as her friend and adviser. On February 13, 1904, I wrote, "It is of the greatest" importance you do not keep back the affairs of which you speak to me. Though you think them quite secure, one never knows. "I meant my letters and all letters she had from other gentlemen. I go on, in my advice to her what to say, "I deny absolutely the allegations of my husband. I have always conducted myself perfectly. "I advised her to say she was not guilty if they could not prove it. "I have all my life, before and when married to M. Rocher, had nothing to do with him," etc. It does not say that is to be stated on oath to mislead the President. It was a lie if she had to say Chat on oath. In writing those words I meant the woman had not to give to the President a proof that she had been guilty of misconduct, or adultery, if her husband was unable to give the proof. She had misconducted herself with me. It was untrue, but not a lie unless on oath.

(Wednesday, April 24.)

ANDRE JAQFES DELOMBRE , recalled. Cross-examination continued. I was conscious of the fact that in prisoner's divorce proceeding in France was an appeal by the husband, and also by her. I was not consulted about it. At that time I was not in constant communication with the lady. Our relations were of an intermittent character. I was informed by prisoner from time to time of her relations with, her husband, and offered her my advice. She did not tell me she had

Attempted her life with a revolver, nor show me a scar on her forehead. From January 4 to May, 1905, I had no relations with her, but may have written letters to her. I did meet her in a tramoar and go for a walk with her, when I invited her to go with me to the Horticultural Exhibition, and she went with me on a subsequent date. We went on boating excursions several times. I also took her to Rueil and Herblay, and relations took place there between us—I do not know that I suggested them. We were overtaken by a storm, and in consequence dined at Pecq, passing the night there. I do not remember whether the husband was keeping a watch on Madame at that time, but I knew it was important that my relations with her should be kept secret. Prisoner had a flat at Neuilly for nine months; once or twice I possessed a key of the flat, and visited her. I told Madame that I visited her when my father took his breakfast away from home. That was every Tuesday. In August, 1905, I was staying at Portirieux. Prisoner came there, but I do not know if I suggested it. She was there about a month, and we met every day. I bought a motor-car. (Letter of March 30, 1906, put to witness, who said the date was 1904.) In 1906 I was in Paris, and this letter has been written from London. (Mr. Elliott did not press the matter.) As to the letter of April 28, 1906, prisoner had just before written me that she was ill—owing to a delay in her monthly courses. The "Edmond" referred to is a friend of mine, a doctor in chemistry, to whom I sent for the address of a midwife. The phrase in the letter: "As soon as the third month has passed you must act vigorously, 'refers to her monthly courses being brought back, and her seeing a midwife, who would look after her health. I did not urge her to undergo an operation. When I gave her the midwife's address I also gave her the address of a doctor. She had 200 francs from me to pay any expenses she may have had in her treatment—I do not know what that treatment was Prisoner told me that the midwife had done something to her which failed to accomplish its object, but that was a lie. When she told me she was pregnant I told her that she had only to have a child, to let the thing take place. I deny that when I suggested she should go to the seaside and have a rest after "acting vigorously," I meant after the vigorous action of the midwife in procuring abortion. In saying I should be back in Paris at the proper moment I meant I would do my best to be there when she had followed the treatment necessary for her good health. I did not mean, the moment of an operation. The reason I said, "I shall come and see you, and my care for you will be as attentive as it is tender," was because she was ill and required attention. If her child had been mine I would have acknowledged it. The undated letter beginning, "I have not yet seen Edmond," was written a few days after May 10, 1906, when I returned from the Alps. I do not in fact know what the midwife was paid. Prisoner told me she gave her Fr. 200 for the two examinations that were made. I have never had a quarrel with Madame Foucault about a child being born. On one occasion

I took a loaded revolver from her. She did not say she intended to commit suicide with it, but that she intended to kill me. She wrote me that she had taken a dose of poison; but it was untrue. I was in Brighton at that time, and as I had had no relations with her she told me that, thinking it would bring me back to her. I telegraphed to my father, and he went and found it was a lie (Prisoner produced a loaded revolver from his pocket.)

Mr. Justice Jelf. I had no idea that a witness could come into Court in a case of this kind with a loaded revolver. Will you hand it to the police? I do not think you ought to come into Court with a loaded revolver in your pocket.

Witness. I did not know the custom of English Courts. I tried to bring it at I took it, without changing it.

Mr. Justice Jelf. You might bring it in a locked box and give someone else the key. Do not do such a thing again. We do not allow such a thing done in our courts. (The revolver was handed to the police.) From March 16, 1906, when the stormy discussion took place, to April 12, immoral relations may have taken place. Up to April 28 I was still on affectionate terms with Madame in order to calm her down so that she would not exhibit threats to me and my father. From May to October our relations continued. On October 1 I procured a furnished room, which prisoner occupied. I did not live with her at that time, hut I may have had relations with her. On October 5 I left her abruptly. I did not receive a letter from her on the 16th, nor did I know she had written me. I received no news from then. I had so great a fear of her that order was given that no news from' her was to be sent to me. I heard afterwards that prisoner made her will before leaving Paris. When she came to Lindley Road on the Saturday night I asked alter her health, and was friendly and polite. I do not know that she said, "At all events you did not worry very much about my health up to the present." I told her I had been to my father, and he had said, "Andre, prepare your trunks, you are going to leave us to-morrow." I think I told her it was my father who had prevented me writing to her. She told me she had come to London to know my intentions, and I told her my intentions were to break off all relations with her. I absolutely deny that I said I would make her a pension for the support of the child, and that she answered, "I did not come here to get any money, and if you give me any now I would throw it out of the window." I may have said, "Why did you come here?" She did not say, "I came to ask you to marry me," but" I came to ask you what is your intention?" I did not say, "I will discuss this to-morrow." This interview took place between half-past six and a quarter to seven. I told her I had to go to the library, and she said she would accompany me. She wanted to sleep with me that night, but I said it was impossible. She did not suggest that I should tell the people of the house that she was my wife.

She suggested going to London and staying at an hotel: I said it was too late, but she said, "That is no matter to me. I will not leave you." She said she thought my remark about not getting rooms in. London was an excuse to get rid) of her. I subsequently made arrangements for her elsewhere. We passed the evening together in the free library at Tottenham. She was angry, and asked me to go to a refreshment house with her. Next morning we met about quarter past 10. She wanted to have breakfast with me, but I told her she could not, and she went back with my friend. She was rather annoyed that she could not breakfast with me. I then saw her at the hotel, about one o'clock and remained in the bedroom with her till lunch time. Prisoner told me she had met a friend of mine in Paris, but did not say that this friend proposed to be an intermediary between us. We had lunch in the public room, and after returning to the bedroom Madame closed the window; but she did not say she was cold. I was greatly surprised that she shut the window—and I thought it was done so that she could fulfil her intention to shoot me without people hearing so well if I called for help—and she would be able to run away. I know she had a revolver with her then, and had an opportunity to shoot me if she had wanted. (Revolver produced-) I did not see it in her hand, it was taken from her by the policeman. I thought her original intention was that when the coffee wee brought up she should pour the sulphuric acid into one of the cups, and I should drink it without knowing it, but as I took: my coffee downstairs she had not the chance. Very probably she threw the coffee out of the cup and filled it entirely with sulphuric acid. Prisoner never suggested that I should drink the coffee. I do not know that there was a glass in the bedroom—it would have been just as easy for her to pour the acid into that glass if she had known it was there. The glass would have been smaller than the cup. I did not notice whether she drank the coffee or threw it away—I was looking at. my notes. I deny that prisoner took any portion of the sulphuric acid. I have heard that she had some burns. (Witness indicated how prisoner and he were standing at the time.) She was sitting on the left side of the window and I on the right side, and the cup of vitriol was on the window ledge. When I put on my coat I turned round like this. (Witness indicated how he put his coat on.) I did not step towards her. A great portion of the fluid went over the wall because it was thrown with great violence. I do not know how full the cup was. After the event prisoner did not do anything hostile. She unlocked the door—which proves that she had locked it. I know a great deal of damage was done to the room. I did not say to prisoner just before the affair, "You want to be my legitimate wife" or "my lawful wife," nor did she say, "Yes, I want to be your legitimate wife, otherwise I shall never belong to you again. There are only two doors open to me, either I must marry you or I shall kill myself." She may have asked if I had told my father that she was going to

have a child—I do not remember. I did not say that my father said, "If you had listened to me in 1898 this would not have happened. "Nor did she say, "Is that all he found to tell you? The Delombres are men without honour and without conscience."I am quite sure nothing of the sort was said. It is because I have honour that I am here.

Re-examined. A great number of letters passed between myself and prisoner during the time I knew her. She returned me the letters I had written—that would be after the second marriage. I put them in my box, and latterly in my cupboard in one of my rooms. The last time I went to my rooms in the Rue de Monceau was on October 5, 1906. I think the letters put to me by Mr. Elliott were amongst those. The reason they came into madame's possession was that she came about November 14 or 15 to my rooms and told the housekeeper she had forgotten something belonging to her (objected to). When I returned to my apartments the letters were missing. I have the letters which she wrote me while I was in England. In regard to divorce proceedings, it is a fact that in France the judge has an interview with the husband and wife before going on with the proceedings—that is with a view to reconciling the parties. The violent scene on March 16 of last year occurred at the gate of my father's house, and in the street at different times. That was in the evening, about quarter past nine. She complained that I might have paid attentions to other ladies, and said, "I will be glad to kill you rather than you should give yourself to another lady." And afterwards, to avoid scandal, I went out with her into the street. I tried to calm her, but did not succeed till one o'clock in the morning—going to and fro in the street. I made an appointment for the Sunday, but did not see her; and went to her house on March 19, when she threatened me, and I took a revolver from her. The last time I took a revolver from her was on September 28. After the quarrel on March 16 I discontinued relations with her. I do not know whether they were renewed before April 12, when she left for Forchambeau. I do not know for certain when they were renewed. I have a clear memory of what occurred at Tottenham and when I went to London with her on November 17 and 18. At the time of the occurrence in the bedroom, when I put on my coat, it necessitated my turning my back to prisoner, and after I had got on my coat I had to turn towards her. When I did so I had not got my coat on fully. I was putting the right side over my shoulder.

To Mr. Justice Jelf. When the coffee was brought in it was on a tray, which was put on the washstand, three or four yards from the window. Prisoner put the cup on the window shelf some time after it came into the room. When she took it to the window I saw a dark liquid in it like coffee.

JOHN WINGLER , porter at Tranter's Hotel. On November 18 prosecutor and prisoner came to the hotel at half-past one in the afternoon.

They took one bedroom on the second floor. About two o'clock I heard screams, and I fetched the police. On going up to the room I taw that the panel of the door had been kicked in or out. I asked prisoner (in French) what she had been doing. She replied that she was in the family way, that she came over to see prosecutor about the marriage and about the child. She said, "He refused me. Then I ordered a cup of black coffee. After I had drunk the coffee I put some of the vitriol stuff in the cup." I am not sure whether she said, "I would have drunk it," or "I would have him drink it." "I went excited and poured the contents over him." I asked why she did it. She said, "I want to know if I have a name for my child."

Cross-examined. At the police court I said, "I cannot say whether she said she would drink it herself." I am certain the said, "I became excited and poured the contents over him," not "the stuff went over." I cannot say exactly the French words she used.

Police-constable JOHN NASH, 406, City. On November 18 I was on duty in Bridgewater Square when I heard screams coming from Tranter's Hotel. I went there to a room on the second floor, where I saw prosecutor apparently suffering from some corrosive fluid burning. I saw the fluid running down his face. I sent him to the hospital. Prisoner was taken to the station and charged with attempted murder.

Cross-examined. She made constant inquiries as to prosecutor's condition, and seemed greatly upset.

Police-constable EDWARD BARRETT, 477, City. On November 18 I went to Tranter's Hotel to the room on the second floor. On the dressing table there was a tea tray, on which was a cup and saucer. The cup contained some dark fluid, looking like coffee. There was a bottle half-full of a dark fluid standing close by. Prisoner was there talking in French to Wingler. There were some marks on her face and hands. I afterwards carefully examined the room. On the walls there were splashes of the fluid, and on the counterpane of the bed, and on I he washstand. A lot had gone on the carpet and burnt holes. Cross-examined. There were also marks on the ceiling and on the window.

Acting-inspector WILLIAM DAY deposed to receiving from Barrett the cup and beetle and handling them to Dr. Kearney.

JAMES KEARNEY , M. R. C. S., 26, Bartholomew Close. I tested the liquid contained in the cup and bottle handed me by last witness. It is strong sulphuric acid. Its dark colour is due to foreign material. It could not be due to the fact that the bottle was filled from a pewter or tin measure. I found no trace of coffee in the cup, but I tested for nothing more than the acid.

CHARLES P. PAGET BUTCHER , M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., house surgeon at St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Prosecutor was brought to the hospital in the afternoon of November 18, and I treated him. He was suffering from extensive burning of the face and hands. There were burns on both sides of his forehead, on both eyes, and both eyelids, on. the

whole extent of the left cheek, and slightly on the right cheek, on the left tide of the neck, and on both wrists. The left eye was very swollen; the front of the eye was opaque; the right eye was in a similar condition. When the swelling disappeared the corner of the left eye was found to be dead and opaque; vision has now completely gone; the right eye gradually improved and he has now with that normal vision. The soars on the face, I think, will never altogether disappear. There were burns on his clothes. I cut a piece out of the shirt and made a test, and I am able to say that the burns were caused by sulphuric acid.

Cross-examined. Time will no doubt modify the disfigurement now noticeable in the prosecutor. From the nature of the injuries I think that the left side of his face must have been facing towards the direction from which the acid was thrown. It would not require anything like the whole cupful of acid to produce these injuries.

To Mr. Justice Jelf. It is commonly known that this liquid is a poison, taken either alone or diluted. To drink it is known as a method of suicide.

EUGINE K. SUEUR , 3, Lindley Road, Tottenham, employed by the Credit Lyonnais. I have been for some time a friend of prosecutor's. I have frequently seen prisoner in Paris. In October prosecutor came to reside at 17, Lindley Road. On November 17 prisoner called at my house. I saw her and prosecutor there on my return home in the evening. She stayed that night at No. 3. Next morning I saw her before breakfast time. At her request I took her to No. 17, and I was present at the interview between prosecutor and her there. She and I returned to No. 3 to breakfast. After breakfast prosecutor came, and I was present when he talked to prisoner. He offered to give her any explanation she required, and she said, "Not now, when we are alone. "On that I left them together. Later on I went with her to the station. I asked her what she had come to London for. She said, "I am expecting a child for January next, and Andre deserted me I want some explanation, and if he does not give it me I will return to Paris and see his father and his uncle and make as much scandal as possible, and in January I will have some birth cards printed and send them to all the Ministry and the Cabinet and the Deputies and the Foreign Office. He can do what he likes. He will have to bear the consequences of his deed. "Then prosecutor returned to us. I asked that I should accompany him to London, and he said "No," and they went to London together.

Cross-examined. She raised no objection to my going to London with them, but I did not hear her say to him, "Your friend can come with us. "Although all she actually threatened was to create a scandal in Paris, I was nearly sure at the time that something like what did happen would happen. I feared this deed, but I was reassured when she told me that she intended to go back to Paris. I do not remember her saying to me, "Andre seems to wish to get rid of

me; he treats me as he might a gay woman; for nine years we have known each other, and yet he came to London without giving me his address because I was giving birth to a child."

Acting-sergeant ROBERT HODGES, 499, City. I speak French. On November 18 I was caned to Moor Lane Station, and there saw prisoner. Her box had then been fetched there from Charing Cross Railway Station. I asked her for the keys. She said they were in her bag at Tranter's Hotel, and that I was to be careful, as there was some of the sulphuric acid on the bag. I got the bag at the hotel. There was in it a box of cartridges. It had contained 25. There were 19 left I then assumed that prisoner had a revolver. On returning to her I asked her for the revolver. She hesitated a moment, and then said it was in her gown, which wee on the seat beside her in the cell. I took from the gown a fully-loaded, six-chamber revolver. She kept on talking to me about the whole business, I was the only one there who could speak French: I told her that it was not necessary to say anything to me, and that she had better be careful, as what she said might foe used against her, but she persisted in talking. She told me that she had been twice married, and that her second husband had divorced her owing to her intrigue with Delombre, whom she had known for several years. After the divorce she had lived with Delombre in Paris until he left her suddenly without any warning, merely sending her a letter from which she recognised that he was deserting her. Knowing he had a friend residing at Tottenham, she had gone there, and there had found Delombre on November 17. She told him she was enceinte, and asked him to marry her. He refused to give her any definite answer, but promised to discuss the matter the following day. On the 18th she and Delombre went to Tranter's Hotel. About 1. 30 they had dinner. After dinner he had a coffee. On their going to their room upstairs she asked for a cup of coffee, and one was brought. She said she wanted a larger cup, as she wished to take a draught with the coffee. Delombre told her to drink some of the coffee first and then put in the draught. She refused, and a larger cup was brought, about half full of coffee, which she filled up from a glass bottle. Delombre asked her what if was, and she told him it was a draught she had been ordered to take. She asked him to marry her, and he refused. He stood up and began putting on his overcoat, saying that he would leave her, And that after he got out of the room would never recognise her again. Whilst he was speaking she raised the cup of poison to her, lips three or four times, and was on the point of drinking it, intending to commit suicide in his presence, but after his remark she lost control of herself, and, not knowing what she was doing, dashed the contents of the cup full in his face. He screamed and rushed to the coor, but was unable to open it, and kicked in one of the lower panels. She went to his assistance, and opened the door for him, so that he could go to the hospital; she had never previously intended

to do him any injury; had she desired to do so she could have shot him with her revolver. "She told me that she had purchased the sulphuric acid in Paris, and, explaining the dark colour, that when the chemist filled the bottle from a jar he used a tin or pewter measure or funnel. During the night she asked repeatedly how Delombre was going on. She sent a telegram to her cousins, because she said that before coming to London she had told them that she should commit suicide if Delombre refused to marry her, and they would be anxious about her. In her purse I found her will, with the date of November 17 written over some other date; she explained this by saying that she had first written it in Paris, and had altered the date in the free library at Tottenham on November 17.

Cross-examined. She appeared very much distressed that she had caused these injuries to Delombre, and asked frequently as to his progress towards recovery. I saw her in the cell about 11. 30 at night; she was excited, and welcomed me as one who could talk to her in French; she was relieved to be able to talk to someone in her own language. I gathered from what she said that all along she had not intended any injury to Delombre, but simply her self-destruction. I was talking to her off and on two or three hours. I told her several times that she need say nothing, but she was excited, and kept on sending for me to talk to her; after the had told me her story she seemed to settle down.

At the conclusion of Hodge's evidence, Mr. Justice Jelf very highly commended the officer upon the way he had given his evidence, and upon his dealing with the accused under trying circumstances. His Lordship congratulated the City police force upon having a man who had the accomplishments of this officer, and who used them so quietly and so well in the course of administration of justice, and with such kindly regard to the accused who was in his charge.

ROSE PERRIN , waitress at Tranter's Hotel, said that on the day in question she took up a cup of coffee to the second floor room and handed it to prisoner; the cup was nearly full; she took up no second cup.

(Thursday, April 25.)


EMILIE VICTORINE FOUCAULT (prisoner, on oath). My father died when I was eight years old. I was the eldest of four children. When I was 10 I was sent to the Convent School of the Sisters of the Order of St. Paul, at Soisy, where I remained till I was 18, and then went to Paris. About a year after I met M. Delombre. I was coming into Paris with my youngest sister. I was going to pay a visit to a friend of my mother's with my sister. She lived in Rue de Rome. On returning home I met M. Delombre, who sought to accompany us. I declined, but my sister assented. He left us on the way, as he was going to supper. He offered to take us the next

day an excursion to St. Germain-en-Laye, one of the surroundings of Paris. We accepted it. My mother did not know we were going. We spent the day in the country. From that time the acquaintance ripened. He then behaved with perfect propriety, and our relations remained so until my marriage. About this time, in 1898, M. Delombre's father objected to our meeting, and M. Deiombre communicated to me the desire of his father that our relations should cease. The next day I met him at the Louvre. He forgot what he had promised, or what has father had spoken about, and our relations were renewed and continued until my marriage with M Foucault. A month before my marriage I had a letter from M. Delombre dated February 22, 1899:"What assurance have I that I shall be always able to see you. "On March 9 I received the letter: "I weep to think you will be the wife of this clodhopper," etc. My marriage was on March 21, 1899, at which M. Delombre was present. He was very motioned and cried a good deal. He asked me for an appointment the next day or the day after. On March 22 I received this letter: "I desire to speak to you to discuss many subjects with you," ego. I kept the appointment the day or second day after the marriage, when, for the first time, there was impropriety between us. I received this letter from M. Delombre, dated April 1:"Get a room to your taste for when I come, and get everything ready. Think of my love for you. You are the soul of my body. "M. Delombre took a room at No. 3, Place de la Sorbonne, where I visited him three times a week regularly at about 1. 30 p.m. I used to remain till seven p.m. Improprieties took place between us. My husband was ignorant of the meetings, which continued until October, 1900. in October, 1900, M. Delombre left Paris to commence his studies at the School of Agriculture, at Grignon. The following November my husband became very ill, and died in January, 1901. I was absent from M. Delombre from the time he left for Grignon until after my husband's death. I received a visit from him three weeks or a month after his death. His visits continued. His studies were still continuing at Grignon. I visited him there. He insisted on my going to visit his cottage there. I refused several times, but acceded after. Our former relations from that time recommenced. I was still very fond of him, and he appeared to be of me After that "M. Delombre regularly paid week-end visits to Paris, I sometimes returning with him to Grignon. He told me that he had asked his father if he would give his authorisation to our marriage. His father answered the letter, which he showed me: "You will marry, yourself, at the age that I have, when I married also, and I will choose you a wife who will be worthy of your mother's name. "That is November 21, 1901. Our relations still continued. Marriage was discussed between us at the time of my second marriage in May, 1903. M. Delombre came to see me at my home with his brother. The brother was outside on the balcony. M. Delombre asked me if I would like to wait until he had a situation, so that he could marry me. I made him understand I did not wish to enter into a family

that had nothing but disdain for me. We continued on friendly terms down to May 30, 1903. I was introduced to M. Rocher by a friend of my mother's. He was a man of letters, and used to write on different matters. He did not know M. Delombre then. Immediately after my marriage I had relations with M. Delombre. I received this letter from him on November 10, 1903: "I think, my darling, how delightful a child would be, and how well you would know how to bring him up in the right way," etc. I was living with my husband at that time in Paris. Our relations continued until the divorce proceedings. I also received this letter on February 13, 1904:" It is of the greatest importance you do not keep back any of the affairs of which you spoke to me. "That refers to the letters he bad written to me. The divorce proceedings lasted a considerable time, during which our relations continued On July 5, 1904, I received a letter from M. Delombre breaking off all relations with me, and I determined to poison myself with corrosive sublimate. I drank some, but immediate care was given to me and I was restored. M. Delombre was at that time in Brighton, and he at once came back to France On January 19, 1905, M. Delombre wrote to me that he would not live with me any more. I did not write to him, but I took a revolver and fired at my forehead. The bullet deflected, and only scarred me, which scar I still have. That was the revolver produced yesterday by M. Delombre. He knew of it four months later. In 1905 I was travelling about with him and boating, and for nine months lived with him in a flat at Neuilly, of which he had the key, and remained until May, 1906. On April 22 I received this letter: "I thought you were either ill or having a good time," etc I was then in an interesting condition, and had informed M. Delombre of it before his departure for the Alps. He advised me to consult a midwife. I went to the midwife, and she told me she could not understand or give a full account, and that I had to wait for the three months. I subsequently went to the midwife recommended by M. Delombre. She confirmed the opinion that I was in an interesting condition. M. Delombre gave me Fr. 200 for an operation for abortion. I went to the midwife on June 24, and she told me she had to prepare for the operation. On the day fixed I revolted and declined to have anything further to do with the woman. M. Delombre told me then that I ought not to cause any delay, because the child. later on, would bear the marks of this attempted operation, and that I should go to the woman and try to forget the object for which I was going. I went, and M. Delombre offered to accompany me. I feared an accident, and did not wish to compromise him. It was in relation to that matter that the letter of April 28 was written. After my return to Paris, in May, I lived at the Rue de Rome with M. Delombre till October 5, 1906, when another room was taken for me by him. About October 5 he visited me, and appeared to be on terms of great affection. On October 6 I received a letter from him, and saw him no more in Paris. I learned that he had left for>

England. I was very much upset. Seeing that he did not write to me during three weeks I went to my solicitor and told him in what position I was, and informed him at the same time that Delombre had left me. He informed me that the child I was bearing would be illegitimate. I was very much upset, and did not wish to abandon my child. I was still fond of M. Delombre. I made up my mind to come to London and poison myself in his presence if he still refused to recognise my child. I tried to get morphia, but did not succeed, and then bought some acid. I had read in a newspaper that a medical student had. poisoned himself with sulphuric acid, and that the death had been a violent one. I regulated my affairs before departing, and borrowed money of my solicitor. I came to England on November 17. I altered the date of my will at the free library then with M. Delombre. He sought to catch hold of the will I had in my hand. I went to Tottenham and found M. Delombre. When he saw me he was upset. I told him, "You did not expect me. "He answered, "I have thought that it was you," and then asked me how I was. I said, "You have not bothered yourself very much since your departure about me". He said, "You are right—in fact, nobody has troubled himself about you. "Then he blushed and answered with rather an embarrassed air, saying that when he arrived home his father had told him to prepare his box and that he would be leaving the next day for London. I said to him, "It is your father also who has prevented you from writing to me. "He answered very assuredly," Yes, it is practically. "I said, "If I have come to London it is with the intent of knowing your intentions; it is a month and a half age since you have left Paris. You have had time to reflect. "He answered, brutally, 'My intentions are to break off absolutely with you." I was upset, and said, "You would not wish me to bear, alone, the consequences of your act?" He said, "I shall make you a pension for the child. "I said, "I have not come to London to fetch any money; if you gave me some now I would throw it out of the window." He said, "What is it you want?" I answered, "I have come to ask you if you will marry me." He said, "I have no time to discuss that now. I must go to the library, and will discuss that later on. "I said, "I will tell you what are the reasons which force me to ask you that. "We were about to go then to the library, but before going away at the door of the drawing-room, M. Delombre said to me, "I do not know where you are going to sleep to-night. "I said, "I shall sleep with you. "Then he answered, "That cannot be, and I shall reflect much better if I am alone. "I said, "If it is awkward for you, or if I am in your way, I shall pass the night in an arm-chair." He said, "That cannot be, as I am in with a family here. "I said, "You might present me as your wife." He said. "They know that I am not married. "I said, "Let us go to London." He said it was too late to go to London then. I thought he was not telling me the truth, and I insisted upon saying, "That is no matter to me;

I shall not leave you." He said, "I hope you are not going to make a scandal here," and he made arrangements with the landlady of No. 3, Lindley Road, who gave me a room for the night. Then we went to the public library, where we remained some time. We then had some refreshment. I spent the night at the same house where Sueur was living. That night, on leaving M. Delombre, it was understood with him that we should meet the next day at 10. 30. I accordingly went to see him, and Sueur asked him to allow him to accompany us. When we went out it was very foggy Sueur went. to speak to M. Delambre I took my breakfast at Mr. Sueur's. I was very much irritated at the rude way in which M. Delombre treated Mr. Sueur accompanied us, and then asked if he could accompany me, and I accepted. M. Delombre was with me at the time. Sueur went indoors to fetch his hat and we started for the station. M. Delombre, finding I did not walk quick enough, used some very strong language to me. I said to Sueur, in Delombres absence,"Andre is in haste to get rid of me, and he treats me like a gay woman because he knows that I am going to have a child. He should have much more consideration for me, as it is nine years' since I have known him. If my child is to be born he will have to bear the consequences, as I shall send some letters acquainting the birth of this child to his father and his uncle. "Then M. Delombre rejoined us. Sueur then left us, and M. Delombre said to me, "Au revoir until to-night."I said, "To-night you are staying with me" I did not object to Sueur accompanying us, and said, "Your friend will not be in the way." When we got to the hotel I engaged a room for two persons, and signed the hotel book in my name. We were left in the room together. I had a revolver in my pocket, and could have easily used it if I had wished. Delombre asked if I would have a cup of coffee, which I refused. He had some. I had had some not long before, and being nervous did not want any more. We then want to the bedroom. On opening the door I felt that the room was cold and had a shiver. I went to close the window. I sat down, and feeling worse said, "Now I would like to have some coffee. "It was cold weather and very damp. Some coffee was brought up; the cup was not quite full; there was milk in the milk-jug and I drank half a cup of coffee. M. Delombre asked me for some explanation. I drank the remainder of the coffee and then filled the cup up with some of the acid which I had. I had at no time offered the coffee to Delombre to drink. My intention was to drink it so as to poison myself. I drank some. As I threw my head back I felt in my bosom the child moving, and it seemed to me that it was a warning of the child revolting or giving a caution, and then I dashed away from me the contents of the cup. I did not see M. Delombre. He had just before that said. "I don't know why I remain here. I have no time to lose and I am going away. Now all is finished between us I do not know you any more. "I had acquainted him that my child would be an adulterous child. He was putting his overcoat on behind me and was preparing to take his cap off the bed. He was

about two yards off. As I threw the fluid away from me some went on him. I opened the door for him, as he could not He kicked me. He wiped his face with a handkerchief and called, "Hospital—hospital!" The door was locked. I had locked it as I intended to poison myself, and that he should remain in the room to see me die. When he went into the corridor I remained in the room. I never had any intention of throwing the liquid on M. Deiombre or of injuring him in any way. I helped to speak amicably with him, and did not know that that which occurred would have followed. I was much distressed when I found what had happened.

Cross-examined. I was about to drink the fluid when I felt and thought of the child. I remembered the incident of M. Deiombre kicking me, when I came to myself, after the birth of my child on January 7 last. When I took the corrosive sublimate in July, 1904, I was sick at once without an emetic. I was taken to the hospital. The letter I wrote to M. Deiombre was before I took the poison. My attempt on my life with the revolver on Jury 19, 1906, left a soar on my forehead. I have not had it from my early girlhood. The bullet took another direction. I had not the soar when I met M. Deiombre in 1898, nor did I tell him it was the result of a fall. I had a fall when I was three or four. years old. You can see the mark under my left eye. When I put the cup to my lips at the hotel on November 18 I felt the fluid on my gums and wiped it away at once. When M. Deiombre first met me in 1898, he was about 17, and made me believe he was 20. When I married he was just over 18 and I over 21. Three weeks or a month, alter the death of my husband M. Deiombre visited me, bolt intimate relations did not take place at once. I visited him at Grignon in 1901. My next marriage was in May, 1903. My husband presented a divorce petition against me the following August. The President allowed him three months to think the matter over. When I determined to come to England last November I visited M. Delombre's flat in Rue de Rome, and took possession of a number of letters. I bought the revolver and cartridges after his departure for London for my protection. I bought the sulphuric acid a fortnight before my departure. I do not know that it is, ordinarily, colourless. I got it at an oil shop. The man served me out of a bottle that was rafter clear, and poured it into a pewter measure, and I saw it turn black. The man told me it was due to the measure, which was not clean. It was an accident that the colour resembled coffee. I carried the loaded revolver in my cloak, and the cartridges in my travelling bag or trunk with the sulphuric acid. The armourer where I bought it loaded the revolver. My will which I had in my purse I made on August 22, when my relations with M. Delombre were perfectly friendly. I did not specify that the explanation was to be given in London.

(Friday, April 26.)

Cross-examined. I do not recollect laying to M. Sueur that I would give no explanation until M. Delombre and myself were alone.

M. Sueur did leave the room, but he went to fetch a book for finding the addresses of hotels. I do not remember him leaving the room in consequence of my saying I would give no explanation to M. Del ombre until we were alone. I did not say to M. Sueur that M. Delombre could do what he liked, but would have to bear the consequences. I did mention birth cards to M. Sueur; I did not say I would send them to the French Cabinet Ministers and Deputies. I said I would send them to M. Delombre's relations, but I did not indicate what relations. I left my bag with the vitriol bottle in it in my room at the hotel when I went down to dinner. When they asked me if I wanted any coffee at dinner time I refused it. I afterwards asked for coffee upstairs in my own room. I took the cup in when it was brought to the door. There was only one cup. I then locked the door and took the key out, after I had a little coffee and put it in my pocket. I drank the contents of the cup at two different times. After I emptied it I poured the vitriol in. I was in front of the window by the side of M. Delombre. I shut the window on arriving in the room. It was not through the open window that we watched the policeman trying the doors. We had some conversation about the policeman. I do not remember saying to M. Delombre, "That is all very well; it is a very good thing for those who are bent on mischief, as when the constable is gone they know they have their chance. "There are details that I do not remember, as I was so much upset. I did not say to M. Delombre, "What I have to say to you is this—either you shall marry me, or you shall kill yourself, if you are not a coward, or I will kill you. "I do not remember his saying to me, "You do not love me—indeed, you hate me; neither do I love you. "I do not remember saying to him, "Do not be uneasy; we shall not live together. "M. Delombre said to me, before the acid was thrown, "I shall not marry you. "I was suffering very much; but I do not remember whether my exterior was calm. M. Delombre did not say, "I have heard your proposal, and you have heard my answer. "When he got his coat I had my back turned from him, but he had not his back turned from me. I cannot recollect all the details. I felt my child, and was in pain. The defence of accident suggested itself to me at once. M. Delombre told me he was going to leave me; but he did not speak about a walk. I did not see him put on his coat. The cup was in front of me. I was not at that time facing him. That was not the moment when I threw the contents of the cup in his face. I threw the contents without knowing where 'M. Delombre was. The porter, Wingler, was among the first to come into the room after the occurrence. I said a few words to him in French. I did not say to him, "I told M. Delombre that I was in the family way, and that I wanted to question him about the child and about the marriage and that he has refused; I ordered a cup of black coffee, and drank the coffee up and put some of this stuff in the cup, and told him I would have him drink it; after that I became excited, and threw the stuff that was

in the cup in his face. "Wingler asked me what I had done, and I said I had thrown the contents of a cup, which was sulphuric acid. I was taken to the hospital and to the police station the same afternoon. I saw Hodges, the police-constable, late that evening. He asked me for my keys, and I told him they were in a leather bag at the hotel. I told him to be careful in handling the bag as there was sulphuric acid over it. He asked me for my revolver, and I told him he would find it in my cloak. I told him I used it for protection when travelling. He asked me if I fully understood the charge. I told him I had been living with M. Delombre after the divorce, and that my husband had divorced me on account of M. Delombre. I told Hodges that I asked M. Delombre in the room whether he intended to marry me, and he refused, and that he said when he got outside the room that he would never recognise me again. I said, in substance, that when M. Delombre said he was going away and would not know me again, I lost control of myself, and not knowing what I was doing, dashed the contents of the coffee full in his face. I was well enough to appear at the Mansion House on Monday, November 19. M. Delombre not being able to appear, the case was adjourned till about the middle of December. I received a letter on April 28 from M. Delombre when I was at Fou-chambault. Before leaving for Fouchambault I had stated to M. Delombre my fears as to my condition. I consulted a midwife, and wrote and acquainted him of it. I returned to Paris about May 28. I did not then ask M. Delombre to give me some money for. the purpose of ascertaining my condition. He has my letters and could produce them, with the answer to that letter. If I have taken away any letters belonging to M. Delombre they must have been letters written in 1898. This letter of February 11, 1904, is in my handwriting. It may have been changed into the wrong envelope. I cannot recollect exactly the date of the divorce, it may have been proceeding at that time.

Re-examined. M. Delombre directly approved of the divorce proceedings. I had nothing to do with the altering of the colour of the acid. I lost a quantity of blood at the police station. During the whole of the nine years I had been acquainted with M. Delombre, until this fatal day, I had never struck him or injured him in any way; nor had I ever threatened to shoot him or to do him any injury. He had never complained to me that he went in fear of me. To Mr. Justice Jelf. When the cup came up, full of coffee, I first drank half of it, and afterwards the remainder before I put the acid into it.

Mr. Justice Jelf. I certainly understood in the first instance that the stuff which stood in the cup on the window-sill was a mixture of the coffee and the acid. Why did you pour the acid out in the cup, when you were going to drink it—without anything mixed with it at all—pure sulphuric acid? (A.) I wished to perfect a violent death, and I feared that, by taking the acid mixed with the coffee, death would

not have been violent enough. I know the acid was black. If it had been pure white acid that I poured into the cup I should have been afraid that he would have found out that I was going to do somebody an injury.

GEORGE BATHURST GRIFFITH , Medical Officer, Holloway Prison. I examined prisoner on November 19. She had a burn on her lower lip, several burns round her mouth, and a long burn two inches beneath the left eye, a smaller one three-quarters of an inch on the left eyebrow, several burns on the back of the right hand and one on the back of the left hand. They were probably caused by corrosive acid. The burn on the lower lip and the burns round the mouth induced me to believe that she had began to drink the acid. I believe it is the invariable practice to put linseed meal round the stopper of bottles containing acid of this description to prevent its spilling in transit. It forms a sort of concrete, and than they put a leather or paper cap over that. That is a custom enforced by railway companies when carrying it. Since hearing of this case I have made certain experiments with sulphuric acid and linseed oil. Into two small phials I put sulphuric acid, and added to one a few drops, of turpentine, and to the other a few drops of linseed oil; the acid was discoloured a dark brown, similar to that (produced). I have six or eight cases of suicide or attempted suicide by corrosive acid during the year. In regard to the alleged kick by M. Delombre, prisoner complained to me of pain in the back on November 21, and I gave her a plaster. I did not see the place. I did not know that there was any question of injury. I thought it was due to her condition. She was quite rational when I saw her on the 19th.

Cross-examined. I say in my report that the burns on the lady were of moderate severity.

To Mr. Justice Jelf. Very little of such acid would produce a very bad place. The lips, or the inside of the eye, are very sensitive.

I do not think such acid could strike the face without making a mark. It is very heavy—much heavier than water. If it were flung round as she described it would go a long distance. The expression "vitriol" means sulphuric acid. I cannot say I have seen many cases of vitriol throwing, but I have seen a good many of hydrochloric acid.

EMILIE VICTORINE FOUCAULT . recalled. To Mr. Justice Jelf. I never had vitriol in my possession before. I did not know its danger. I did not know that sulphuric acid was vitriol, or that it was sometimes thrown at people and they were injured by it. I did not know it caused pain when it touched the human frame. I knew that if taken, as poison, death would be violent, because I have read so in a paper.

ELIZABETH DEUDRY , matron, Moor Lane Police Station. I saw prisoner on Sunday night, November 18. She was calm until we were alone, and then she became very excited. There was danger of

premature confinement. She lost a quantity of blood and was very much distressed. It was about 4. 30 when I saw her first. I never left her. Verdict, Not guilty.


(Friday, April 26.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-44
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

ELLIS, Alice Mary (21, servant); was indicted and charged on coroner's inquisition with the murder of her infant female child.

Sir Charles Mathews prosecuted; me. Symmons defended.

Prisoner pleaded not guilty of murder, guilty of concealment of birth. The prosecution accepted the latter plea, and the jury returned a verdict accordingly.

Sentence, Four months' hard labour.

(Saturday, April 27.)

Mr. Symmons, who by inadvertence had not been heard yesterday before the passing of sentence, asked the Court to reconsider the decision. He said that the medical men were unable to say that the child had had a separate existence; but, supposing they had been able to say that, the defence would have bean that the piece of tape which was found round the neck of the child was placed there by the prisoner for the innocent purpose of assisting its birth, but it got into a knot, which she was unable to undo, and the death was therefore accidental. The prisoner was a girl of very good character. She was in ill health, and if the Court would adopt a merciful course in regard to her, her mother would take her home, the Court missionary, me. Scott-France, would look after her, and steps would be taken for her reception into a convalescent home.

Mr. Justice Jelf said the case at one time looked a grave one. In his view, however, in addition to the question raised by the medical men as to whether there was a separate existence, there was a possible defence which might be a true defence. He should treat this as being a case in which the alleged attempt to put an end to the life of the child was not made out. The prisoner bore a good character, and she was in ill-health. The Court missionary would give her good advice and she must act upon it. He bound the prisoner over in her own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.


(April 25, 26, and 27.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-45
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous

Related Material

GOLD, Louis (27, carpenter), and COHEN, Harry (24, tailor) , Russian Jews; both taking Jane Goldbloom, an unmarried girl under the age of 18 years out of the possession and against the will of her mother, with intent that she should be carnally known by Gold and Cohen and other men; both procuring Jane Goldbloom to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom with intent that she might become for the purposes of prostitution an inmate of a brothel without the King's dominions, procuring (her to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she might become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere, and attempting to procure her to become a common prostitute without the King's dominions; both procuring Sarah Levine to leave her usual place of abode in the United Kingdom with intent that she might become for the purposes of prostitution an inmate of a brothel without the King's dominions, procuring her to leave the United Kingdom with intent that she might become an inmate of a brothel elsewhere, and attempting to procure her to become a common prostitute without the King's dominions; both robbery with violence on George Davis and stealing from him a suit of clothes and other articles, and the sum of £115s. or thereabouts.

Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Arthur Gill, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Kershaw prosecuted.

The evidence showed that. prisoners destined the young women for Buenos Ayres, from which place they were brought back in custody, as the result of complaint to the English police of a woman named Scheinerman, whom they had induced to go to Liverpool by the pretext that they were about to take her to her husband in New York. Verdict, Guilty.

Inspector WENSLEY stated that the prisoner Gold is a native of Minsk, in Russia. He came to this country between 11 and 12 years ago, but has no dependents here. For the past four or five years he has been taking women to Buenos Ayres, going to and fro, and has been the associate of foreign prostitutes and their bullies. Cohen is a native of Warsaw. He also has taken women to Buenos Ayres, where he remained some months. He came over to England with Gold in the same ship. The police had had numerous complaints of girls disappearing from the East End extending over a long period. Men of the prisoners' stamp first seduced such girls, then took them over to Buenos Ayres and there sold them.

Mr. Muir stated that he had been informed by Mr. Cohen, the secretary of the Jewish Association for the Protection of Young Girls, that the society had had to establish a home in Buenos Ayres because of the extent of this traffic. The Common Serjeant. It is clear there is a market there. Sentences: Gold, 15 months' hard labour; Cohen, 12 months. Both prisoners certified for expulsion under the Aliens Act.


(Thursday, April 25.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-46
VerdictsGuilty > unknown

Related Material

EIDINOW, Isaac (47, merchant) , being entrusted by Adolph Sternberg with a parcel of diamonds, for safe custody, did fraudulently convert the said property to his own use and benefit; being entrusted by Leizer Gutworth with four parcels of diamonds, in order that he might sell the same and pay the proceeds thereof to Gutworth, did fraudulently convert the said property to his own use and benefit; having been duly adjudged bankrupt, with intent to defraud his creditors, unlawfully did not, to the best of his knowledge and belieffully and truly discover to Ebenezer Henry Hawkins, the trustee administering his estate for the benefit of his creditors, a large quantity of diamonds and pearls, and how, to whom, and for what consideration and when he composed of the same, the same not having been disposed of in the ordinary way of his trade, or laid out in the ordinary expense of his family'; having been duly adjudged bankrupt, with intent to defraud his creditors, unlawfully did not deliver up to the said trustee certain of his personal property which was in his custody and under his control, making a material omission in a certain statement relating to his property and affairs, and within four months before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against, him, removing certain of his (property to the value of £10 and upwards, and after the presentation of the said petition upon which he was adjudged bankrupt attempting to account for part of his property by a fictitious loss.

Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted, and Mr. Forrest Fulton and Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

ADOLPH STERNBERG , diamond broker, Antwerp. I have been in the habit of bringing diamonds from Antwerp to London weekly. On March 11, 1906, I received from Mr. Sicoheo, in Antwerp, a parcel of 50 7-16 carats brown, Antwerp'-cut diamonds. The size of the stones ran from 5112 to 11-16 of a carat. There were two big stones—one 5112 grains, the other three grains. I received them at 98 fr. Per carat, the lowest price quoted. The terms on which I received them were: I was to return them the following Sunday if not sold, and, if sold, I must bring the money for them. I had to. be paid a commission from the buyer and one from the seller. The broker from abroad is entitled to two commissions. In order to cover my commissions I had to sell for something in excess of 96 fr. per carat. I had no authority to sell them for anything but cash. I came to London with the parcel. On March 14 prisoner met me in Hatton Garden and asked me if I had a parcel of brown diamonds for 85s. I had not-done business with him directly; I had done one transaction with him indirectly before the end of 1905. I said I had got a parcel of the same quality you ask, only for 80s. per carat. He asked me to let him inspect these goods, and I went up with him to his office, 103, Hatton Garden. I showed him these goods. He began to inspect them and asked me for some others, and I produced two more parcels. He was inspecting them till five minutes to three, when I said I had an appointment at three o'clock, and he said, "You would surely not upset all the work I have done." He was inspecting the goods, and I wanted to take the goods with me, and he suggested I

should leave the goods with him. He was examining them, diamond by diamond, very cautiously. I left the diamonds with him and went away. I mentioned to him I only sold them for cash. He said he did not contract to buy them otherwise, if the goods would suit him. I said the man in Antwerp was in need of money, therefore he would sell them cheap. I came back in 20 minutes to his office, and it was locked. Prisoner was not there. I saw him between six and seven o'clock at 82, Hatton Garden in the "Diamond club. "I asked him to return the goods. He said he had not finished inspecting them, as he was called away and then the light was gone. He asked me to leave the goods with him till the morning, and he was sure to buy them, as they looked to him cheap. I said I could not leave the goods with him. He said I should come next morning, and he surely would let me know if they suited him or not. Next morning I went to his office, and I saw his son. Prisoner was not there. I did not get my diamonds. I was informed he was in Birmingham. On March 16 I went to the office and did not find him. I did not receive any communication from him. On the 17th I went to his private house in Victoria Park Road, but he was not there. On the Sunday I read something in the paper which induced me to go to Birmingham on the 19th. I went to Birmingham with Mr. Gurtworth. I went first to the Grand Hotel, and then I went to an office in 21, Bye Street, under the name of Behrends, where I saw prisoner. I asked him for my goods, and he said, unfortunately he had lost them among others in the pocket-book, but there was a hope of recovering them, because the detectives had got clues. I asked him what right he had to take the goods to Birmingham without getting my permission; that I only left them with him. He said it was no use arguing now; misfortunes will happen. The total value of the parcels was £395. The value of Mr. Siccheo's parcel was 20 carats at 15s. Mr. Gutworth-asked prisoner, "What about the 111 carats?" He said, "You told me you left them in good hands. "Prisoner said, "I took them back and lost them. "I came back to London, and I heard from him on Tuesday. He promised on the Monday he would come to town on the Tuesday, and he telephoned to say he could not leave Birmingham just now. On the Wednesday I went down again, and he asked me why I wasted money coming down so often, and I told him I had to come as I could not go to Antwerp as he promised to bring the goods back. I remember going to his house with Mr. Gutworth and Mr. Mirkin on the 25th, Sunday. Prisoner said that "All hope of recovering the diamonds was gone, but, luckily, he was ensured for £3,000, and he was going to get the insurance company to pay, therefore he must have a document to prove to the underwriters that he had such goods as he stated he had lost. He asked for a document to show that he had such goods from me. I told him he had not bought the goods. He said he wanted the document. I had no printed invoices with me. I asked for notepaper, and he dictated the heading of it, which I wrote down: London, 14-3-06.—Mr. J.

Eidinow. Bought of A. Sternberg, diamond broker, 82, Hatton Gar-den, 26718 at £6 10s. per carat, £174 13s. 9d.; 2 15-32 at £6 per carat,. £14 16s. 3d.; 50 7-16th at £4 per carat, £201 15; total, £391 5s.; 1 per cent, bonus, £4; total, £395 5s," That was when I told him he had not bought them. He said there it no other word to put but. bought. "You cannot say, "Left on inspection. "I did not see any other way of putting it down. I wrote it at his dictation. In pencil there is a sum of £6 10s. deducted, leaving £388 15s. I never saw that till the action in the High Court. I know now what it refers to. When I came to Birmingham I told him I cannot go to Antwerp, I am losing trade. I cannot do business, and he promised me £10 towards the loss for the short time which I was losing through him. He gave me at that time £5, and he said he would give me the balance when he came to London. He gave me the sum of £2 10s. for my expenses in going to Birmingham and. for loss of time. I was present at the meeting of creditors on the 26th or 28th in the office of Mr. Eidinow, 103, Hatton Garden. Prisoner was there and creditors. Prisoner suggested that he would give us 25 per cent., 5s. in the £. The creditors declined it. Mr. Robertson was there, and he called him a rogue, scoundrel, thief, and told him straight that he had not lost the goods. Mr. Eidinow answered, "What it the use of all this? You had better keep quiet," and with this they all left. There was another meeting of creditors on April 2, but I did not go-to it. I was at a meeting in the office of Mr. Meyer, the solicitor; I cannot recollect the date. On that occasion I saw some pawntickets, which were produced from which assets were to be made up. Among the pawntickets they found the one now produced: "To Crooke and Riley, dealers, diamond merchants, and silversmiths, 37 and 38, High Street, Birmingham. Deliver to bearer the following articles: "Parcel of diamonos, 70314 carats, agreement for three-months, from March 15, 1906. On payment to you of £200, and £2 18s. per month or part of a month for interest thereon for which you hold the above articles as security for money advanced."I examined this ticket carefully. What drew my attention was the fact that it was pledged on March 15, the day prisoner arrived in Birmingham. I thought it was funny. I had a suspicion my diamonds must be among them, as they were of the same value. I deducted mine, and there was left 20 5-16. I went round to a broker, who I knew had goods with prisoner, and I asked him. Among others I made inquiries of Mr. Gutworth. As the result I commenced an action against Crooke and Riley conjointly with me. Gutworth for a parcel of diamonds weighing 70314 carats. me. Gutworth discontinued his action, but I continued mine in respect of my 50 7-16. I did not have any opportunity of examining the parcel of 17314 carats in the possession of Crooke and Riley before the action came on for trial. I asked for inspection, but it was declined. I was interrogated before—the trial came on for a description of my diamonds that I insured. I gave my description in the witness-box when the parcel was produced

duced in court, when I identified two large stones, one 5112 grains the other 3 grains. The others were smaller ones. Judgment was an my favour. I and me. Riley referred to Mr. Bartelotti the division of the parcel to get my share of 50 7-16. Mr. Bartelotti took out the two large stones and put his tweezers into the parcel and divided the amount. We weighed them and brought the weights back. I was given the share, weighing 50 7-16, the other part was left to Mr. Riley. I produce these stones. (Diamonds produced.) The value of this lot is £200. That is the parcel of my diamonds—Exhibit 8. I have disposed of a few. I had a ring made out of two stones for memory sake. I have endeavoured to pick out of that parcel the ones that were in the parcel of 50 7-16, which I entrusted to prisoner on March 14. In Exhibit 8 are the stones which I recognise as similar to those which I entrusted to prisoner. I have examined the parcel which I got from Mr. Bartelotti, and therein were stones that I had not entrusted to prisoner.

Cross-examined. I am a broker. I am not in any employment. I am an agent for different merchants in Antwerp. I know of Klein; he is a diamond merchant. I do not know of any Klein who is a manufacturer. It may be Cohn; he is a manufacturer in a large way of business. He employs a considerable number of cutters and polishers. He has two or three people who take their goods from him. I pay in Antwerp the price charged for the stones which I am entrusted with. I pay with my own cheques and sometimes give customers' cheques. I have authority to sell property in this country and to give an invoice to the purchaser. I had to give an invoice in my name. I very seldom effect sales on credit. I do, by commission, with the seller. I have authority to effect sales on credit if I think it is right. I come over every Tuesday and return on Saturday, bringing more diamonds of considerable value for sale. I am insured when I leave Antwerp. [To the Judge. The people who entrust me with goods are insured.] A "melange" is an assortment of diamonds from various parcels to suit a particular customer. You do not see a "melange" very often. Most goods are sold by size alone. The bigger goods fetch better prices, and they are kept apart. Merchants have different opinions, but most sell them as they buy them. In this country it is not the general practice to sort the stones to meet the requirements of customers. You identify the stones by the size and colour. At the police court I said that, apart from the two large atones, there was nothing in the colour which would enable me to identify the parcel; the two large stones are darker than the others. With regard to the others I say there is nothing to identify them by the colour, and there is nothing in the cut to enable me to identify the other stones. I know the Antwerp cut. I admit there are some hundreds of cutters in Antwerp. Antwerp and Amsterdam are the only two places where diamonds are cut, and I am satisfied these came from Antwerp. With regard to the two larger stones, they are Antwerp cut, and the others too. All of them. It is only

by reason of the weights of these two stones that I am able to swear to them as my property. When these stones were separated by Mr. Bartelotti it was not found possible to distinguish between those which I claimed and those which me. Gutworth claimed, and we never tried to do so. We agreed with me. Riley to have the goods divided. There was no attempt to distinguish them. I saw Mr. March almost every week. I used to insure goods with him almost every week. When I returned the goods to Antwerp I used to insure with him. I knew him in the way of business. I never knew that photographs were taken of the pawntickets and the stones. I did not see a photograph on the wall in me. March's office. Exhibit 7 purports to be an invoice to prisoner of a quantity of diamonds: "London, 14th March, 1906. Mr. J. Eidinow, bought of A. Steinberg, diamond broker. "I deny that it is an invoice relating to a genuine sale. It was for the purpose of showing to the insurance company to show to the underwriters he had these goods from me, not to show he had purchased them. I said, "I cannot give an invoice for goods. "He said, "Then I shall not make the claim unless I have some document to show to the company. "I did not see anything wrong in it. It is not an invoice, only a document showing he had the goods. At the time I gave the document I believed he had lost the goods, and I did not see anything wrong in giving the invoice, because he was insured for goods in his possession. I understood what he had in his possession was insured, and not merely what was his own. That was what he told Mr. Prisoner said, "It is no use giving me a document on a day after the loss. I cannot put a document before the underwriters to say I have had the goods, after the loss. You must give it on the day I received them. "I recognise that if I had, in fact, sold the goods he would not be entrusted as an agent.

LEIZER GUTWORTH , diamond broker. Prisoner was carrying on business in Hatton Garden. He had done some business with me before March, 1906. On March 7 I saw him in his office and he asked me if I had any diamonds in my possession. I showed him four parcels. The weights were 111118, 28118, 20 5-16, 14 17-32. The value was £793 7s. 9d. The colour was brown. The biggest were a deeper green than the small ones. The first parcel—111118-belonged to my brother. The 28118 belonged to Mr. Goldmints, of Antwerp. The third was Gold's, the fourth belonged to H. Klein, of Antwerp, I had them on sale or return. I had to return the money or the goods at Antwerp on the Sunday morning. I travel over every week, and I had to go back on the Sunday with them or the money. I had no right to sell them on credit. I produced these parcels on March 7. He wanted me to give him them on sale or return, and I did so. He had to give me a balance of £845. He was owing me money for goods which I supplied to him. I wanted that before I would part with any more goods. He offered me post-dated cheques, but I would not take them. I said I have enough cheques in my pocket. I wanted money. He said, "I have a bill in my possession for £980,

dated six months. I will give you these cheques post dated. "I was satisfied with it, and I took four post-dated cheques and let him have the four parcels on sale or return. The four cheques were for the old debt. He told me he was going to Birmingham, that he would be back on Saturday afternoon. He knew I had to return to Antwerp on the Sunday, therefore it was arranged he should meet me on the Saturday. On March 10 I did not see him, and I telegraphed to him. On the 12th I went to the Diamond Club to look for him. I saw his son. On the 14th I saw prisoner at the club in the morning. I went to his office, and I said, "I want these four parcels. You have telegraphed me you were going to Manchester on business. I was told you were in Paris. You have no right to go to Paris with my goods. "His answer was that he did not want me to know his business. Later on I went to his office and asked him for the four parcels. I showed him a letter from my brother in Antwerp, written on the Sunday, to say he must have the 111118 diamonds without fail, as he had got some more goods he wanted to mix with them. Prisoner said, "I left three parcels at Birmingham in a place which is safer than your own pocket. "The fourth he produced at the table. That was the 20 5-16. He put them on the table, and said, "If you like to leave it with me I am going to Birmingham to-night. I am satisfied with the 11118 and the 28118. This colour will suit the other two parcels, and they make a nice melange. "I said, "You had no right to leave my diamonds; they might be changed. I trusted them to you." His answer was he left them in a place better than my own pocket. I consented to let him keep the parcel 20 5-16. The value of the six parcels was £461 6s. 2d. The value of what I let him have on the 7th came to £125. These I let him have on the 14th were on the same terms as the 7th. He was to let me know about the four parcels the next day, and I gave him up till Saturday for the last lot. I did not get an answer the next day. I did not get my goods or money on the following Saturday. In consequence of something I was told I sent a telegram to prisoner at Birmingham on Sunday, March 18. and on the Monday I went to Birmingham with me. Sternberg and saw prisoner at Bye Street, in Mr. Behren's office. I had a conversation about the diamonds, and he told me about his lose. There was one parcel saved of 89314) carats in the last lot. It was left in his pocket. I asked about the parcel 111118, which was my brother's, and his answer was, "I lost it in the pocket-book in which I lost the whole lot in the post-office" He said he had sent off a parcel to his brother at Amsterdam. The whole of them were lost. It was not necessary to ask about the other goods any more. He told me he had lost the 111118, and Mr. Sternberg was present when he told me that. He did not tell me he had pledged my diamonds. I came back to London on the Wednesday. He said. "If you see March, keep quiet." There was a meeting of creditors on the 23rd, when an offer was made of 25 per-cent. The creditors would have accepted it in cash. His proposal

was that if the diamonds realised 5s. in the £ he would give them 5s. in the £, but if they only realised 3s. in the £ he would not give them more than 3s. in the £, and if they realised nothing they would get nothing. The creditors did not agree. The next day I saw prisoner with me. Sternberg and Mr. Mirkins. He said, "I must give him an invoice of the goods which I handed over on the 7th and 14th to produce to the underwriters." He said, "No, the goods were given to you on sale or return." He said, "If you do not give me those invoices I won't put the claim in. "I gave him this invoice the same day, Sunday, 25th:"London, E. C., March 14, 1906. Mr. T. Eidinow. Bought of L. Grutworth, account diamond brokers, 82, Hatton Garden, 3325-32 P. 10, £255 17s. 8d.; 1019-32 F. 0, £74 17s.; 10 1-32 To., £40 10s. 6d.; 6 11-66, 5 F 6 £36 6s.—£407 11s. 2d.—L. Gutworth." At the same time I gave him another invoice of the 7th of March for four parcels. Those two represent two lots on the 7th and 14th. There were four lots on the first day and six on the second. At the meeting of creditors I was shown the pawnticket exhibit 1, and Mr. Sternberg drew my attention to the total, 70114, and he made a statement to me of an arithmetical nature, in consequence of which I went with him to Crooke and Riley, the pawnbrokers. I did not go on with the action because he left me penniless. The weight was marked on the paper parcel which I gave the prisoner. I can identify the smallest diamonds by the colour The smallest are more chart—spotted. I proved in the bankruptcy for £1,595 14s. 9d.

Cross-examined: I have been employed in this business eight years, and during that time I have had dealings with prisoner. I know Cohn, diamond manufacturer. He outs and polishes stones. There are hundreds of diamond manufacturers in Antwerp. Merchants purchase from a number of manufacturers. I paid Goldmints for diamonds by cheque. I have an account in London. I have invoice paper with my name stamped on it. If I do business with people I give them an invoice. I never sell on credit There was a running account with prisoner. I do not insure my goods. I have been some time in this country. It is not a practice with merchants to blend or mix diamonds in the case of commission goods. When they deal on their account they do. When the parcels are handed out they have the weights on them. Sometimes the stones are counted and pot on the paper; generally the weight. I have proved in the bankruptcy. I have given credit for £800 received on account on March 3. Those were post-dated cheques, and they were met On March 10 I gave credit for £250; on March 15 for a further £250. Those cheques were met. I received £1,300. I received cheques up to March 22. The payments of £200, £400, and £750 were payments on running account which I had with prisoner for goods which I had previously sold to him on sale or return. He used to give me post-dated cheques for round figures, not for any specific parcel. There was no credit account between me and prisoner.

I gave him these goods on commission. I do not call it credit when I give a person goods on sale or return. There must have been a credit account between me and prisoner, because he always gave me cheques. The small diamonds I can identify. They are lighter in colour, and they are spotted. Generally the smaller diamonds are lighter in colour than the larger ones. If the rough is light, then the stone is lighter still. If the rough is brown, the stone is lighter still. The big ones are generally browner than the small ones. I did not see the parcel in Birmingham. I do not know how they were separated I could swear the small ones are mine, and not Sternberg's. I admit the stones are common brown diamonds and plentiful at £3 10s. a carat, and sold in large numbers. You can identify between the Antwerp and the Amsterdam cut. I had a talk with Sternberg after the creditors' meeting about a ticket for the 70314). I was satisfied at the time of the action against Crooke and Riley that they ware my property, and that they were part of the property I had handed to him on March 14. I had seen a list of the stones that were lost. The reason I abandoned the action was because I had not the means to continue it. I remember a meeting of a committee of inspection in bankruptcy. The committee of inspection passed a resolution directing the trustees to bring an action against Lloyd's in May or June, and a writ was issued on June 6. I admit that we authorised the trustees to bring an action against Lloyd's for the property supposed to he lost when we knew it was in the hands of the pawnbroker, because it was the duty of the underwriters to prove if he had lost it. I say it was an honest, straightforward transaction. With regard to the invoices produced, I gave them at the time when Sternberg and I were together with prisoner when he asked for the documents to show to the insurance company. I knew it would not be right to give an invoice for goods which had not been sold. Prisoner told me it would be necessary to make the claim, and it was in order that he might make the claim that I gave him that document. I fully believed he had lost his pocket-book. If I were asked why I did not give a memorandum, I should say this is a memorandum. I admit there is nothing about commission in the document. (To the Judge): If I entrust goods to a man to sell on commission I put it down just the same as it is here. I saw Mr. Sternberg write the other document. I saw Mirkins write another invoice. If somebody had bought goods I would give a penny stamp and sign my name if I received cash.

Re-examined. Sometimes I sold on credit, and sometimes on sale or return. With regard to these particular transactions on March 7 and 14, they were on sale or return. My proof in bankruptcy has never been disputed by prisoner. On June 6 I issued a writ against Crooke and Riley, and my solicitor went on with it for some time. It came to my knowledge that there was in existence an action commenced by prisoner against the underwriters before he became bankrupt, and the creditors' trustee had to determine whet they ought to

do with it. That was a matter for consultation. The action was gone on with by resolution of June 26. We thought it was the duty of the underwriters to clear the matter up in Court. When I issued the writ against the pawnbrokers when he became bankrupt we were advised by our solicitors to take action against the insurance company, because it is their duty to prove he has not lost the diamonds. The action was already in existence, commenced by the prisoner, and we determined to go on with the action and have the matter thrashed out in Court. It was for the insurance company to prove that he had not lost the diamonds. My own action with Sternberg was only with reference to the 70314. The other action was to settle the whole question with regard to all the property lost. No other issue was raised in the pleadings except with regard to the 70314.

LAZARUS GOLDMINTZ , diamond merchant, Antwerp. I know Gut-worth, and have done business with him from time to time. On March 5 I saw him in Antwerp, and handed to him two packets of diamonds, 28f and 20 5-16. I have notes of the goods I handed over to Mr. Gutworth made on the same day that I handed them over. The price of the 28118 was £5 5s. They were light brown. The price of the 20 5-16 was £3 10s. Some of them were dark, and some light. I got that parcel of 20 5-16 from Jacob Cohn, in Antwerp. I know the style of his cut. I remember seeing this parcel (produced) before the magistrate. Three of these stones are similar to those in the parcel of 20 5-16. There are some more, but I cannot be certain, as they have been so mixed up. There are other stones in this parcel that were not in the parcel I gave to Gutworth. Gutworth worked for me on commission, and when he sold them he was to send me a cheque. If he did not sell them, when he came back to Antwerp he would give them back to Mr. He had no authority to sell them on credit. I came over to England on March 19, and saw prisoner in Hatton Garden on the 21ST. He said. "You go home, and everything will come all right. There is £3,000 to come from the insurance.

Cross-examined. I am a large dealer, and buy and sell a great many diamonds. This book to which I referred in examination in chief is taken from a larger book. I wrote it down the same day, not in that book. I admit that the 8 is altered into 16. Very often there is a mistake. I probably put 618 and changed it to 5-16. This is the only record I have of this transaction. I buy some brown diamonds every day. I have not seen this parcel of diamonds for 12 months. They are very plentiful at £3 10s. a carat. These three stones I am positive of, because they are cut thick and are dark brown. It is not always the case that the large ones are dark and the small ones light. There are cases where it is not so. As a rule, it is so, on account of their being split through; but it takes a man in the trade to understand it. I can positively identify them, because they are cut thickly, and they are very brown. There are some people who cut them 40 to 45 per cent., and others to 50 to 55. These are 50 or

52 percent. They are cut by Jacob Cohn. I lost my wallet once worth 16,000 francs. Gutworth paid me with cheques on his own bank. As long as I got the cheques I did not mind what he did with the diamonds.

Re-examined. When I entrusted the diamonds to Gutworth an entry was made in some book on the same day. I write in a book which I keep everything I buy and sell.

RICHARD E. RILIY , pawnbroker, of Crooke and Riley, 37, High Street, Birmingham. Prisoner pledged diamonds at our place from time to time. On March 9 he pledged two parcels of diamonds for £350. Exhibit 3 is an agreement signed by prisoner on March 9. "Memorandum made the 9th day of March, 1906. Mr. I. Eidinow, of 193, Hatton Garden, London, E. C., has deposited with Messrs. Crooke and Riley, successors to William H. Wood, late Wood Brothers, 37 and 38, High Street, Birmingham, parcel of diamonds (111 carats), parcel of diamonds (28 carats) as a collateral security for three hundred and fifty pounds—shillings, now advanced to him by the said Messrs. Crooke and Riley, and £3 12s. lid. per month or part of a month, for interest thereon till repayment. In case Mr. I. Eidinow should not repay the said sum, with interest, within three months from this day he hereby authorises the said Messrs. Crooke and Riley to sell the said articles by public or private sale, and oat of the net proceeds to pay themselves the said sum of £350 and interest as aforesaid, together with expenses, Mr. J. Eidinow undertaking to make good any deficiency that may arise out of such sale." On March 10 prisoner brought three more parcels—47 carats, 27 carats, 43 carats—on which we advanced £455. On March 15 prisoner offered in pledge another parcel of diamonds weighing 70 carats, and we advanced £200. I asked him if the goods were his own property. I had had a conversation with the prisoner respecting the ownership of the goods he was depositing. I asked him if he could show me the invoice or receipt for the goods. On this particular occasion I asked him if the goods were his property. I pointed out, if they were goods he had to sell on commission it might be he would not be entitled to borrow money. He said they were his own. I asked him to show me the receipts or invoice, and he said he would next tame he saw me. I believed the statement that they were his own, but he never did show me any invoice. The action was brought by Sternberg and Gutworth. Sternberg claiming 50 7-16 and Gutworth claiming the remainder 20 5-16. Gutworth did not go on with the action. It came on for trial on February 14, and after the parcel was (produced judgment was given for the 50 7-16. Mr. Bartoletti divided them. No. 528, on March 9, 1906, 111 carats and 28 carats, was redeemed on April 17 by prisoner. No. 531, on March 10, was redeemed of. March 15, and 43 was redeemed on July 20 by a stranger.

(Friday, April 26.)

ROBERT H. COOLING , clerk to Messrs. March and Co., 17, Hatton Garden, E. C. On March 13 prisoner called to see Mr. March. I wants

into the inner office, and Mr. March shook his head. I came back to the counter, and told him Mr. March declined to sea him. He said it was re Behrens that Mr. Behrens bought some tickets of him, and someone said to him that Mr. March had them. We referred him to our solicitor.

ROBERT BURDEN , managing clerk to Lewis and Lewis, solicitors. On April 3 I went with Mr. March to Crooke and Riley's. The police-superintendent was there. I took notes for Mr. March of the particulars of the diamonds pledged. Some of the parcels were marked with the weights outside, and those I took down. Mr. March in all cases opened them. When there were notes on the inside on the parcels themselves I took that down. The inside paper gave the fraction. The pawntickets which were demanded of Mr. March were afterwards handed over to our firm.

Cross-examined. I examined the 70314 carats. There was no notion the wrapper, either inside or outside. On the pawnticket it was described as 70314. One stone was 5112 grains, and one stone 3 grains. These are the stones which Mr. Sternberg purports to identify.

Re-examined. I did not weigh those stones. Five-and-a-half grains was Mr. March's estimate of it. I did not hold any communication with Mr. Sternberg with regard to these weights or give him any information. In the case of 70314 carats it was all one parcel; the stones all mixed together. In the case of the 43 carats the two parcels were separate. It was made up of two smaller parcels, one 29 carats 14 17-32.

MR. MARCH, recalled. With regard to the parcel 70314 carats, I made an estimate of the weight of the two larger stones. I did not hold any communication with Mr. Sternberg. I declined to see anyone on the matter. (To Mr. Fulton.) Mr. Gutworth knew I had been to Birmingham to see these stones. He had no conversation with me, because I arranged to take Mr. Gutworth with me to see the stones, and he did not turn trip. He knew the purpose for which I was going. The weights of 5112 grains and 3 grains are mere estimate. I heard when the action wee tried in the High Court what Mr. Sternberg put it at. (To Mr. Gill.) I did not communicate that weight to Mr. Gutworth, or to anybody. No one knew about that weight except Mr. Burden and Mr. George Lewis. (To the Judge.) Alt the time of the robbery on the 17th there was an insurance covering the prisoner, and it lasted two days more. There "was a policy which entitled him to recover up to £3,000.

JOSEPH DANIEL , detective-superintendent in the Birmingham Police. I saw prisoner on March 17 in Mr. Behren's office in Bye Street. Prisoner gave me a list of property which he said he had lost. Police-constable Lawton took down the list in my presence. The investigation of the alleged robbery was placed in my hands, and I got the foots from the prisoner. I have made every effort to find anybody who stole the pocket-book but have not succeeded.

Cross-examined. A somewhat similar application was made to me in March,1905, when a bag of diamonds was lost belonging to a Parisian gentleman, Mr. Glutner. In that case the wallet was stolen in a chemist's shop and another substituted. We succeeded in recovering some of the property in New York. When the details of these stones were taken I did not concern myself with the weights of the individual stones. I have seen Mr. Sternberg here, and I saw Mr. Gutworth in Birmingham. He saw some of the diamonds in Corporation Street. Hunt's, the pawnbrokers, brought them there. I could not say what weights they were. It was some time after the alleged robbery. I could not say if it was after April 3.

Detective JOHN LAWTOK, Birmingham Police. I was with last witness at the interview he had with prisoner on March 17. I took down the following from prisoner's dictation: "12. 30 and 1. 0 p.m., March 19,1906. Stolen, post-office, Warstone Lane, Spencer street, jeweller's L. H. black leather wallett. I. Eidinow, 103, Hatton Garden, thereon, gold letters, containing diamonds and pearls. One parcel 56 carats diamonds, £10; and one parcel, 143114 carats diamonds, £8 10s.; one parcel, 88 3-16 diamonds. £9 12s. 6d.; one parcel 65 carats diamonds, £6 10s.; one parcel. 43 carats, £6 15s.; one parcel, 31314 carats, £6 5s.; one parcel, 20 5-6 diamonds, £3 10s.; one parcel 50 7-16 diamonds, £4; one parcel. 16112 diamonds, £8 15s.; one parcelpearls, 892 grains, 7s. 6d. grain; one parcel pearls, 652 grains, 6s. grain; total, £4,440. I saw the wallet in the. post-office when I sent a parcel of diamonds away, registered letter."

WILLIAM THOMAS MOORE , clerk in the Filing Record Department of the High Court, produced the record in Gutworth and Sternberg v. Crooke and Riley.

ERNEST PRICE JONES , manager of the London and Provincial Bank Spitalfields branch. I know prisoner as a customer of the bank. I produce a copy of the account from February 28 to October 24, 1906. when the account was closed. There were various bills and cheques presented in January and February which were not met on the first presentation; total, £1,779 1s. 3d. On March 15 the account was overdrawn 2s. 8d. After that date other bills and cheques were presented, which were, of course, dishonoured.

Cross-examined. Up to March 17 large sums were being. paid in. He has had several overdrafts previous to this date in March. Several of the bills and cheques at first returned were afterwards paid.

GEORGE TOMLINS . cashier, Birmingham, District, and Counties Bank, Hockley Hill branch. I produce prisoner's account with us from December 1, 1905. to December 13. 1906. On March 16 there was a credit balance of £11 14s. 3d., and at the end of the account £27 14s. 7d. There is a debit balance now of between £200 and £300 owing to dishonoured bills which we had discounted for prisoner. I produce a list of returned cheques. Some of these were afterwards met. The total

amount is £1,600. They extend from December 4, 1905, to the middle of March, 1906. As the final outcome there is a debt due to us of £200 or £300.

Cross-examined. Prisoner banked with us for two years He began to return cheques in December, but it was still a nice working account. Some of the cheques were afterwards met which were dishonoured on first presentation. I should say the account was a satisfactory one on the whole in February. There had been three or four returns. We have had £5,000 or £6,000 under discount at a time.

GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE , messenger, London Bankruptcy Court, produced the file in the bankruptcy of prisoner.

ERNEST HENRY HAWKINS , trustee in prisoners bankruptcy. The total amount of proofs admitted is £9. 352. That will be reduced by certain bills which are under discount. The total liabilities will be about £7,000. The assets are shown as £2,307. They include pawntickets £2,000, which realised £500. The dividend will be from 9d. to 1s. in the £. I saw the goods account showed alleged lost of jewels to the value of £4,400. Prisoner had never accounted to me for the property referred to there except by that statement that it was lost in that way.

Cross-examined. Figures were given to me with regard to a great number of pledged diamonds set out in the goods account, among them 139 and 70314 Crooke and Riley. I sold a good many of the tickets in the interest of the creditors, and the goods were redeemed by the purchasers of the tickets. Amongst them I sold 43 carete, No. 532. I sold all the tickets to one person on July 13, 1906. I had 533. to keep back the one ticket for 70314. With regard to those two parcels 534. 111112 and 28112 in the account I find £350 mentioned.

JOHN WILLIAM ROBERTS , examiner in the Department. of the Official Receiver, High Court. I produce the prisoner's purchase book. I find an entry with regard to the 70314. I find the entry on March 6. L. Gutworth, 11112, 85s., £476 13s. 6d.; 28112, at £5 5s., £149 1s. 6d.; 20 5-16, 21s., £71 16s.; 14 17-32, £6 10s., £95 8s. On March 14 Sternberg, 26718, £6 10s., £174 13s. 9d.; 50 7-16, at £4 £201 17s. 6d.

HAROLD FULLER , clerk in the trustee's office, said he had arranged in order the weights of the parcels in prisoner's goods account. During the period covered by the account from January 1, 1905, to May 26, 1906, there were 184 parcels of diamonds specified, nearly all of them figures and fractions, but in no case were there two parcels of the same weight.

Cross-examined. In the goods account there is an item on November 1, 1905, relating to Mr. Gutworth showing a sale by him of 70 24-32, that is equal to 70314. It can be subdivided into 50 7-16 and 20 5-16 quite as easily as the other parcel. (To Mr. Gill.) That does not affect my statement that in the list of 184 there are no cases in which there are two parcels of the same weight. I do not think there is another one of the game weight.

Police-constable WILLIAM H. GORE. I saw prisoner and told him I was a police officer, and held a warrant for his arrest. I read it to him. and he said, "All right, I will let you see everything; it is your business "The warrant was for having received certain properties, to wit, diamonds of the value of £71 15s. 9d., for and on account of Leizer Gutworth, and fraudulently converting the said property to his own use and benefit. I searched him, and found some precious stones and pawntickets. He was taken to the station and charged, and made no reply.


ISAAC EIDINOW (prisoner, on oath). I have been in the diamond trade 35 years in this country. During that time I have carried as a considerable business. Up to this date I have been able to meet all my liabilities. I always buy diamonds. In dealing with Mr. Gutworth I always buy from him. I had the option of purchasing. Payments were made to Mr. Gutworth from time to time. I paid him from March 1, 1896, to March 17, 1906, £14,000. Those payments were made on account of purchases I made from him. I always had an account with him. I have paid sums to him from time to time to sweep off that account. With regard to the 50 7-16 carats received from Sternberg, that was a. purchase. Sternberg met me in the Diamond Club, and asked me if I wanted to buy. I said, "If you have got something worth the money I will buy and I bought them. This is the invoice received from Sternberg. That represents the sale by Sternberg. I received that in the ordinary course of business. As a rule, I received invoices for purchases made by me. Invoices were given me in the ordinary course of business for goods which I bought. I was not merely an agent entrusted with these goods. I bought the goods from him. I always sort over the goods. That is the practice of the trade to mix them. I made out in my goods account the particulars of diamonds and pearls lost by me, and included in the list was 50 7-16. That is not exactly the same parcel that I obtained from Sternberg. It is untrue that I pawned with Crooke and Riley the parcel I had obtained from Gutworth. 20 5-16. and the 50 7-16 from Sternberg. The identification they profess is not the proper identification. It is the custom of diamond merchants to pawn their goods for safety, and for ready money for further purchases. I have been in the habit of pawning various articles with Crooke and Riley for a good many years. I went to Birmingham on March 15, and on March 17 I gave notice to the police of the loss of my wallet, which I lost in the post-office to which I went to send a parcel to my brother in Amsterdam. I took out my wallet from my pocket. It was a leather wallet. I put the address on the envelope In my brother, left the wallet on the counter while I put the chips in the envelope. I went to the counter and put over the envelope and received a receipt: I had an appointment with Lyons

in the "Goldsmiths' Arms"; I went there and saw Lyons, and we had a glass of beer. I had an appointment to show diamonds, and I went to take my wallet from my pocket and it was not there. I ran back to the post-office, and when I got there I was disappointed. I immediately notified the police. My financial troubles date from the loss of my wallet. The diamonds were of the value of £4,500. I have given my trustee in bankruptcy all the information in my power, and I have sent out in the goods account and the cash account all the details in my possession.

Cross-examined. I agree that Mr. Gutworth's evidence is correct as to the weights of the diamonds I got from him on March 6 or 7, 111118, 28118, 20 5-16, 14 17-32. On March 14 I bought from Mr. Sternberg a parcel of 50 7-16—I do not remember exactly, it is 14 months ago. I pledged a parcel of 111 carats with Crooke and Riley on March 9. The parcel I pledged did not weigh 111118 but 111. The 111118 was written on an old paper. I had a parcel of 111118, and I took out 40118 and I put in 40, part of the old stock. This is the 111 which I pledged in March. On March 9 I pawned a parcel of 28 carats and 111 carats, making altogether 139 carats, for £350, which I took to the bank. I know Mr. March says that it was a separate parcel wrapped in paper, and that on the paper was 28 £. I do not remember if it was an gaper. If he weighed the goods it might be true, and if he did not weigh the goods it cannot be tine. I cannot remember what was written on the paper. There is no dispute that on March 15 I pledged a parcel of 70314, and I say that I bought those goods from Mr. Sternberg on credit. I was to pay him in two weeks and four weeks. I was to give him two cheques for 14 days and 30 days. I never did give him the cheques because I did not see him. I did not give him the cheques because it was necessary to fix the dates. I was not to pay exactly a half in 14 days I was to give him one cheque for £200, and then another for £192 or £193. If he had called on the Saturday I would have given him the cheque. I made the agreement to pay him in two weeks and four weeks, and if he had called on the Saturday I would have given him the cheque. For two days he had got no document. I say these were bought in the ordinary way of business, and that an invoice was given in the ordinary way of business—that is the invoice which is marked No. 7. It was not given on March 14. You do not receive an invoice at once; the invoice comes later. If you buy goods the invoice comes a couple of days later. This invoice was made up later on; I daresay about a week later; it was after I lost my wallet; perhaps I asked him for an invoice, perhaps I wanted it for the insurance company. I did not tell him I wanted an invoice. I bought the goods and he gave me the invoice. I did not say to him. "Give me an invoice in case the insurance company ask me for an invoice." I do not remember whether before me. Justice Jelf I admitted that I did say so. I did not know what I was saying in the High Court case. My father had died three days before, and I

had had no sleep. I did not quite understand what the judge asked Mr. Prosecutor came to roe and gave roe the invoice for the goods I had bought from him. We have spoken many times about the insurance company. It is nonsense for Mr. Sternberg to say that: I dictated it, for he can speak better English than I can. Mr. Riley asked me if I had got an invoice for these goods, I said, "Certainly, I have got an invoice." It was a week before when he asked me if I had got an invoice that I bought the goods. Certainly I had an invoice of 70314 in the office. This 70314 was from a different sort of goods altogether; that is not these goods. I had a parcel of 46114 and 24112, and I mixed these altogether. I went to Birmingham at 7. 10 a.m. on March 15. The 70314 was a mixture that I made up—that was made in Birmingham 46114 and 24112. I always had in stock plenty of stones; got them from goods that I had bought of Kennon and Bobrinsky. I daresay I had Kennon's in December, 1905. The 24112 I had a long time in stock. I do not know whether the rest were a long time in stock or new stock. [To the Judge. The stones that were not pawned were lost in the wallet.] I had no diamonds left, only the 89314, which I had in my purse. I say it is an accident that the diamonds pawned. 70314—is the same total as the two parcels I got from Sternberg and Gutworth of 50 7-16 and 20 5-16; 46114 and 24112 make the same weight. I swear that 70314 is not these goods I bought from Sternberg and Gutworth. I had not given permission to Mr. Behrens to take these pawntickets up to Mr. March.

WILLIAM SCOTT , of Messrs. Attenborough's, 142, Oxford Street. I have known prisoner for five years, and during that time we have bad transactions with him in the ordinary way of business, and we have never had any complaints to make. He has been honest in his dealings during the number of years we have known him.

Rev. JOSEPH FREDERICK STERN, Jewish Synagogue, Stepney. I have known prisoner from 12 to 14 years. I have always considered him a man of good repute.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment in the second division.


(Friday, April 26.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-47
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

MYERS, David (27, dealer), and MYERS, Abel (35, clerk), both conspiring and agreeing together with Joseph Myers to defraud of their moneys and valuable securities such liege subjects of His Majesty as should be induced to supply goods on credit to the said Joseph Myers.

Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. R. F. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Sir E. Carson, K. C, M. P. and Mr. A. J. David defended David Myers; F. Mr. George Elliott and Mr. B. Adler defended Abel Myers.

Sir E. Carson moved to quash the indictment at not stating the charges with I auftcient particularity; no indictment had ever yet been upheld which simply I charged a conspiracy to cheat and defraud. (Cites Rex v. Fowle, 4 Carrinlton and Payne, 592; Regular. Peok, 9 Adolphus and Ellis, 686; Rex v. Gill, & Barn wall and Alderson,204; Rex v. Parker, 3 Q B, 92.) He distinguished Regina v. Sydserff 11 QB, 246) from the present ease as there was there a conspiracy to defraud a parucular person.

Mr. Muir relied on Rex v. (Gill as commented on by Archbold and Roscoe. The Recorder said he would not be justified in quashing the indictment, as the form had been acted upon in so many cases in this court He would reserve the point for the consideration of the Court if desired.

Sir E. Carson then asked that the prosecution should elect on which set of counts they proceeded, as the prisoners were charged on two absolutely different conspiracies, and it would be impossible for the jury to keep the two states of facts distinct. There should be two separate trials. (Cites Regina v. Barry 4 Foster and Finlayson, 389.)

The Recorder said he would be able to protect the prisoners when the point.

FREDERICK CHARLES MACROW , office keeper, Wandsworth County Court. I produce file in the bankruptcy of Joseph Myers, 34, High Street, Claptam. Petition presented August 23, 1905; receiving order, October 3; adjudicated bankrupt, October 10; Mr. John Baker appointed trustee, October 23; confirmed by the Board of Trade, October 26. There is upon the file transcript of the private examination of Abel and David Myers, taken November 10, 17, and 24, and December 1. The liabilities amount to £6,570 19s. 10d.

JOHN BAKER , of Baker, Sutton and Co., chartered accountants. On October 23,1905,1 was appointed trustee in the bankruptcy of Joseph Myers, who had been carrying on business at 34, High Street, Clapham, as a furnisher, and previously at 213 and 215, High Street, Camden Town, end I have made an investigation into his affairs. The liabilities, according to the statement of affairs, were £6,570; assets, 8s. The liabilities included trade bills and bills for money lent. I produce bundles of dishonoured acceptances held by creditors who have proved amounting to £970 11s., and of trade bills £1,524 17s. The 8s. which I received was the balance of Joseph Myers' account at the London and County Bank. The amount of liabilities in the Camden Town business is £935; for goods supplied on credit to High Street, Ctapham, £3,850, all incurred, between March and August 17, 1905. On December 23,1905, Joseph Myers was arrested for offences under the Debtors' Act of 1869, and tried on June 26 and 29, 1906.

Sir E. Carson objected to evidence of Joseph Myers' conviction for bankruptcy offences as not relevant to the present charge. (Objection overruled.)

Examination continued. Joseph Myers was convicted on June 29. 1906, of various offences under the Debtors' Act. Abel Myers gave evidence on his behalf, and I saw David Myers in Court. I found the business at 213 and 215, High Street, Camden Town, in David Myers' possession, under memorandum of agreement (produced) of April 14,1905, between David and Joseph Myers, by which Joseph agrees to sell the goodwill, book debts, stock, fittings and lease for

L 1. 750. to be paid as to £500 by a discharge of purchaser's claim for services rendered and money lent, as to 2 by payment on signing agreement, £100 on April 28. and the balance of £1,100 within su months, all the outgoings up to date to be discharged by the vendor The agreement bears a receipt for £50, signed by Joseph Myers I hat document was produced on subpoena at the police court. I also produce agreement between Josdph and David Myers, of June 6,1905, for the sale of a business at High Street, Camden Town, by Joseph. including the goodwill, stock-in-trade, fixtures and fittings for £1,250 presently received. I applied for the examination of David Myers at a private sitting in the bankruptcy of Josdph Myers, and on November 10 he produced the hiring agreements in the Camden Town business and a number of cheques given him by Joseph Myers in payment for the business. He agreed to the inspection of the books, and my clerk attended to do so and returned and made a statement to Mr. On November 17 he did not produce either the hiring agreement or the books. On November 23 I received a letter from David agreeing to my inspection of the hiring agreements, and I sent two clerks to his premises, who brought back a schedule balances. at the adjourned private examination of David Myers he accepted the figure of £6,227 16s. 5d. as the amount of the book debts. The cash-book was produced, tied with red tape, in respect of all entries after April 14, 1905, and he stated that the later entries were no concern of ours. The matter was referred to Judge Russell, who on December 4 ordered that the questions should be answered. On December 5 I issued a writ against David Myers, claiming a declaration that the agreements of April 14 and June 6, 1905, were a fraud and a sham, that the assets of the business formed part of the estate of Joseph Myers, and were divisible amongst his creditors; for a receiver to be appointed, and an injunction to restrain the defendant from selling or otherwise parting with the business and property comprised in the said agreements. On December 7 an interim order was made appointing me receiver until the trial of the action. I received the key of the premises but not the key of the safe. An order was made for its delivery, and I received it on February 23, 1906. A large part of the business was in respect of hire and purchase agreements, the balances owing on which, at the date of the transfer, April 14, 1905, amounted to £6,227. David Myers' cash-book shows receipts thereunder from April 14 to December 7, of £2. 286 14s. 7d. From December 7, 1905, to July 13, 1906, I collected £746 Is 5d., making a total of £3,032 16s., and on July 13 I sold the stock and book" debts of the business for £600. Between January 1, 1905, and April 14, 1905, £1. 451 had been collected in respect of hiring agreemerits. The usual length of the hiring was three years. The number of agreements was about 2,500. I recovered judgment in the action against David Myers on July 10, 1906, setting aside the assignment as a fraud. As receiver of the camden Town business I realised £1,722. On March 15, 1905, I was trustee in the bankruptcy of the

business of D. C. Hawkey, house furnisher, 34, High Street, Ciapham, which I sold at the end of March, 1905, to Joseph Myers, at the "all at" price of £1,800, payable £800 in cash and £1,000 iu four bills of £250 each, at three, six, nine, and 12 months, signed by Joseph, Abel, and Nathan Myers. The first bill was paid when due by Joseph, and the others have since been paid. I produce agreement of August 17, 1905, between Joseph and Abel Myers for the sale of the lease, fittings, stock-in-trade, furniture and book debts of the business at 34, High Street, Clapbham, at £100 for the lease and goodwill, £50 for the fixtures, and the book debts at their nominal value less 30 per cent., the amount to be fixed by valuation; payment £750 on signing the agreement, as to £750 by Abel assuming the responsibility of three promissory notes of £250 each., At a private examination of Abel Myers on November 10, 1905, he produced an account showing that the purchase price of the busins 4 was £1,903 6s. 7d.; that the Cross value of the furniture and stock in trade was £2,480 16s. Id—after deducting 30 per cent., £1,736 11s. 1d., paid in cash £750, three bills £750, and as to £121 14s. 1d. by a payment on August 23, and £50 deducted for a dishonoured cheque. I produce office copy of bill of sale August 23,1905, between Joseph and Abel Myers, reciting agreement for the sale of the Clapham business for £1,736 11s. 1d., and conveying to Abel Myers the household furniture, stock in-trade, and effects at 34, High Street, Clap)-bam, for the consideration of £1,736 11s. 1d., registered August 24, 1905. I cannot trace any payment of the £750 by Abel to Joseph Myers, 1906. nor of the sum of £121. On December 5,1905,1 issued a writ against 1907. Abel Myers, claiming a declaration that the agreement of August 17 1908. and the bill of sale to August 23 were fraud and a sham, that 1909. the bill of sale was void and of no effect, and that the property comprised 1910. in such agreement and bill of sale formed part of Joseph's 1911. estate, for the appointment of a receiver and manager, and an injunction 1912. in the same terms as in the writ against David Myers. I 1913. was appointed interim receiver on December 7, continued by consent 1914. on December 20. On July 10, 1906, I obtained judgment in that 1915. action. The Clapham business was sold by me in March, 1906, for 1916. £1,300 to H. M. Bernstein 1917. 14. 1905. Joseph at.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. I first sold Hawkeys business to Joseph Myers in March, 1905, for £800 in cash, and bills for £1. 000, which were paid. On April 14, 1905, Joseph assigned the business he had been carrying on at camden Town to David. So far as I know, Abel Myers had nothing to do with that sale. I cannot say whether Joseph's business wee solvent or not on April 14. When he became bankrupt £935 was due on that business: those debts were incurred before April, and that was the amount due in respect of the business Joseph sold to David. At the time of that sale he had just paid £800 in hard cash. I know that was borrowed. He had also hire purchase agreements to the amount of £6,000 face value, and he had Hawkey's business which he had bought from Mr. He

had also paid £250 in respect of the first bill. When he became bankrupt all his liabilities, £6,570, except £950, were in reference to Hawkey's business, viz., £5,620 for debts contracted between the sale to David and the bankruptcy. About £100 of it had been con-traded before April 14. Dubof's bills were for borrowed money amounting to £870 11s.; three amounting to £150 had been granted before April 14. None of those bills fell due till September or October. The amount due by Joseph at the date of the bankruptcy on the Camden Town business would be in all about £1,100, the rest being in respect of the Hawkey business, which he bought from Mr. Between March and August he received from David £1,250. That would be enough to pay the £1,100. but he used tensioned for other liabilities, so that I should say he did not get enough to pay liabilities. I have cheques for £1,250 from Joseph to David, and receipt corresponding thereto (produced) commencing April 14. I have David's bank account while he had the Camden Town business, but I cannot say whether the payments refer to that business. The payments on the hiring agreements become due at intervals, generally weekly. Most of them were paid at the office. Tighe was employed to collect others, which were in arrear or in the country. There was a good deal of expense in collecting arrears. I received in respect of the hiring agreements £1,167, and sold the remainder with the business stock, etc., for £600. I claimed the two businesses, Campbell's and the one at Clapham, from David and Abel Myers, and they submitted to judgment, with costs. Out of the three businesses I received: Camden Town, £1,700; Clapham, £1,500; and Campbell's, £500—the total amount realised being £3,500 Cross receipts; against that there are the expenses of working, legal costs, etc. I have not declared a dividend. My account has been audited every six months by the Board of Trade. I am still official trustee, but have had little to do since August, 1906, except attending to this prosecution. I did not wind the estate up in August because the creditors resolved on this prosecution. I have received about £500 remuneration as trustee. The amount was fixed by the committee at 33 1-3 percent. upon the Cross receipts. As Official Receiver I got £300 in respect of David and £200 in respect of Abel. That is £1,000 altogether. I am not to get any more, nor do I receive anything in respect of this prosecution.

(Saturday, April 27.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I produce all documents relating to the three businesses in my possession. When I sold the Hawkey business to Joseph Myers I had another and lower offer from Porter; I accepted Joseph's offer as a fair price. I got the best price I could as the seller-£i,800 "all at." For the purpose of stamp duty £1. 000 was put as the purchase price of the lease and goodwill, an £800 for the stock. That is so stated in the agreement and in my

report. The division was arranged between my solicitors and Joseph's solicitors. I consider the price at which Abel Myers purchased from Joseph unfair, because a large amount of stock had been purchased by Joseph in the interim. The value of the stock in the sale from Joseph to Abel was fixed by arbitration at £2,480, less 30 percent.—£1,736. Assuming the bona fides of the stocktaking, that was a fair valuation. I now know Abel carried on a legitimate and sound business at Abersychan, near Pontypool. Abel Myers met the four promissory notes of £250 each when due without default. In no transaction connected with this matter either as to bills or costs has Abel failed to pay a single penny. Apart from the question of the genuineness of the sale of the business to him, I do not suggest that Abel has broken faith. Before being joined as a defendant in this prosecution my solicitor suggested he should find the money for his brother David's costs. [To the Recorder. I do not think I have had any fresh evidence against David or Abel after the prosecution of Joseph Myers. Throughout I acted on on advice' of my solicitor.] Abel Myers' costs were £330, and David's £200. The committee resolved to prosecute the prisoners on July 27. My solicitors wrote in August pressing Abel Myers for the costs of himself and his brother David. Mr. Raphael will be called. I have no doubt Abel made himself genuinely liable for the four £250 bills, and that he was able to pay them. He did pay them. He had to find about £1,000 which was said by him to have been paid—£500 in gold, £250 by cheque, and £121 in cash. He also paid £157 rent due at the time of purchase.

Further cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. In the assignment of the Camden Town business there was a separate assignment of the book debts amounting to £3,200 nominal for £325. That was the best price I could get. One of Tighe's collection accounts (produced) shows £17 6s. collected; expenses, £13 18s. 2d., leaving a balance to be handed over of £3 7s. 10d. Out of the amount David received, £2,286 14s. 7d., you have to allow the expenses of collection. It would not be fair to take £3 out of £17 as the average, because a large number of the accounts were paid to the office without expense. Tighe was put on to collect the doubtful debts; 50 (percent, would be nearer the mark, as the cost of collection, on an average. Another account (produced) shows that Tighe collected £11 0s. 9d., and spent in expenses £10 13s. 4d. All Tighe's returns were bad—he looked after the bad or doubtful debts. Before I sold £3,200 worth of debts for £325 I tried to get the best price, and that was the best offer. To the Recorder. The lease of Campbell's business was handed over by David Myers in November, when he was examined in bank-ruptcy. The estate disclaimed the lease as worthless.

Re-examined. Joseph received from David between March and August £1,250. While in possession of the business David receiver £2,286 14s. 7d. from the hiring agreements. Tighe was employed as collector by David, and, as Receiver, I took him over. He attended

to the country department and the bed debts. The Treasury refused to take up this (prosecution on an application after committal, but have agreed to make an allowance in respect of costs, which is the usual course. In reference to my remuneration, I have been at work on this matter from October 23, 1905, right up to the present time There has been a tremendous amount of work, and in connection with the Receivership I had to employ two special clerks, who remained on the premises the whole time. The amount of my remuneration was fixed by the Master. Since Joseph Myers purchased the Hawkey business of me he has purchased stock on credit to the amount of £3,800, which has been proved for in his bankruptcy Abel Myers received £100 for guaranteeing the payment of the four bills for £250 each.

RALPH RAPHAEL , 59, Moorgate Street, solicitor to the trustee in the bankruptcy of Joseph Myers. On December 5, 1905, on Mr. Baker's instructions we issued a writ against David Myers claiming a declaration that the agreement of April 14, 1905, was a fraud and a sham, and void under the Statute of Frauds. On the same date a writ against Abel Myers, claiming a similar declaration regarding the assignment of August 17, 1905, in respect of the Hawkey business, on July 5, 1906. The defendants consented to judgment in the terms of the writs.

Sir. K. Carson objected to the evidence of civil proceedings in the bankruptcy of Joseph Myers as irrelevant to a criminal prosecution against the prisoners.

Mr. Muir submitted that it was a very important pices of evidence as an admission of the fraud committed by the prisoners.

(Evidence admitted.)

I produce Exhibits signed by the prisoners consenting to judgment and costs and witnessed by myself and their solicitor.

Cross-examined by Sir. Carson. At the Time the actions were settled Joseph had just been convicted. Nothing was said to the prisoners about prosecuting them. I considered it no part of my duty to give any such intimation. I did not shake hands with the prisoners or offer them cigars; it is an absolute concoction to suggest that I said they should hear no more of it, or that it was a verv good thing that it was all settled. I should have looked upon a suggestion like that as trying to intimidate them. Since the prosecution of Joseph the only piece of evidence I know of against the prisoners is the fact of their consenting to the judgments, showing that the assignments were a fraud. The prosecution had been discussed with the committee of Joseph's creditors long before, and was decided upon at the time of the settlement—before July 5. We were advised that criminal proceedings could not be commenced until the civil proceedings were over. The settlement put us in a position to prosecute. In a case of fraud like this I considered it no part of my duty to mention to the defendants that the settlement would form a part of the evidence against them. Abel Myers paid his own costs of £330. Alfter prisoners were arrested and were in gaol bankrupfcy

notice was served upon David in respect of the costs, viz., £200, on the civil action. I do not consider David has been sufficiently punished by being 11 weeks in gaol. I want to obtain possession of the South African shares he has transferred to his brother. I know Simeon Jacobs, the brother-in-law of prisoners. He saw me and asked whether a composition of 5s. in the £ would be accepted.

I said if a proper. proposition were put forward by way of restitution the creditors would be consulted, and the matter mentioned to the I Court with a view to withdrawing the prosecution. Nothing was said about costs of the prosecution. The costs of the prosecution would have been about £250. Jacobs did not tell me on March 4 that Abel bad no intention to settle, and that there was no reason why he should pay his brother's creditors. I did not say, "Very well, as they have made their bed so they mutt lie on it."

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I was consulted by Baker with regard to the prosecution of Abel. I did not make any inquiries about his financial position before issuing the warrant. Abel was examined in Joseph's bankruptcy. I cannot say that anything was disclosed showing him to be insolvent, though I certainly did not gather that he was a man of position. From his examination I con-eluded that the assignment of the businesses was a juggle. (Witness referred to a large number of passages in the shorthand notes of the prisoner's examination in Joseph's bankruptcy on November 10, 17. and December 1, 1905). I considered the whole thing savoured of fraud. Bankruptcy proceedings had been commenced against Nathan Myers, but he was not made a bankrupt. I have seen the pass-book (produced) of Abel, and I heard the evidence of Pratt, the bank manager. A summons was first taken out against Abel, and as he could not be found a warrant was issued at the suggestion of the magistrate. The pass-book shows an ovenrdraft of £1,600, and the payment in of £1,773 on June 24. That may have been in respect of a loan on real property, by I know nothing except what the book discloses. As he was alleged to have committed a fraud I was instructed to prosecute him. I do not consider it my duty to make inquiry as to a man's financial position when one has drawn the deduction that he has committed a fraud. I knew that he and his brother had got all the money out of these businesses. It was my deduction, and it is the impression on my mind now, that the £1. 000 he paid on the Hawkey business came out of the stock he had at Clapham.

Re-examined. An application for a summons against David was made before the magistrate, and as David's present address could not be found, a warrant was issued against both defendants. I found that David while in prison was transferring Chartered South African shares to Abel, and in consequence bankruptcy proceedings were started. The evidence given in the bankruptcy examination led me to think that this was a juggle, and that there was no genuine sale

by Joseph to Abel. Joseph in his bankruptcy made a claim against his father, Nathan Myers, of £1,400, which he scheduled as a bad debt.

(Monday, April 29.)

HERBERT CEOSS , 345, Kentish Town Road, manager to Bernstein and Cohn, house furnishers. We have a branch at 213 and 215, High Street, Camden Town, which we bought from Baker, together with a large number of hiring agreements. I produce the ledgers, and an account of the amounts received since July 30, 1906, in respect of agreements existing on April 14, 1905. From July 30,1906. to February 4, 1907, we received £289, and since then £62. Those are Cross receipts. I employed two collectors at 37s. 6d. and 35s. I week.

WILLIAM GEORGE STAPLETON and HERBERT ABHBY STAPLETON, official shorthand writers to the Wandsworth County Court, produced transcript of the private examination of David and Abel in the bankruptcy of Joseph Myers on November 10, 17, 24, and December 1, 1905, large portions of which were read.

HERBERT HIKTON PRATT , manager, Lloyd's Bank, Pontypool. Abel Myers has an account at my bank; of which I produce a certified extract. On August 17, 1905, an unpaid cheque of Joseph Myers is debited. On August 19 cheque in favour of David Myers, £250 (produced) was debited. It was paid in gold. On August 16 there was a debit balance of £107, on August 17 £157, on August 19 £388. Interest is charged on the overdraft at the ordinary banking rates. I quite looked upon him as a solvent person. Abel Myers, as a pawn-broker, would be very likely to keep in hand large amounts of gold for the purposes of his business. I should not be surprised at Abel having £200 or £300 in gold at his premises. If Abel had submitted a reasonable proposition for an increased overdraft we certainly should have accepted it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I have had 30 years' experience as a banker. I believe Joseph Myers did cash the £250 cheque, which was paid in sovereigns. The cashier has given evidence to that effect in the bankruptcy court. Abel Myers had an old-established paws-brokers' business at Abersychan, near Pontypool, which his father had before him, and he has 'been a district councillor of Abersychan for three years. In June, 1904, he had a debit balance of £1,632, and on June 24 there is a payment in by cheque of Roberts, Jones. and Everett, solicitors, Exeter, of £1,773. We allowed him overdraft upon security In December, 1904, the overdraft wae £223, and on August 16, 1905, £107; in December, 1906, his overdraft was £1,300. in respect of moneys which I believe were drawn in connection with these proceedings. In relation to both his overdrafts and ordinary current account, we have always found Abel Myers perfectly honour able in his transactions.

Enwnr DOCRRRR, manager, London and County Bank, High Street, Clapham. I produce certified copy of Joseph Myers, 34, High Street,

Clapham, account from March 25, 1905, until its close on November 7, 1906. On August 10 the credit balance was £18 11s. 1d.; on August 11 £50 was paid in; on Augusl 16 the balance was £30 8s.; on August 21 by a cheque to self of £30, a balance of 8s. was left, which has been handed to his trustee. There is no payment in of £500 on August 19 or of £250. I produce list of dishonoured drafts, including cheque of August 16 for £50 in favour of Abel Myers. I produce list of dishonoured acceptances presented for payment by Joseph Myers as between August 30 and December 30; there were 22, amounting to about £1,300.

Cross-examined by Sir. Carson. There were no dishonoured cheques in the month of April, 1905. The first bill dishonoured was August 1905. There were no bills dishonoured in April.

ARNOLD KING, clerk, National Provincial Bank of England, Alders-gate Street. I produce certified copy account of Joseph Myers from February 28 to August 14, 1905, when it was closed by a debit entry of 5s. on August 14. Sixteen bills were dishonoured, the first being dated April 21, 1905, and the remainder between August 25, 1900, and January 13, 1906, amounting in all to £690.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. The bill of April 22 was for £25 and is marked "No advice." It may have 'been returned because we had no instructions to pay it.

Re-examined On April 22 there was a debit balance of £70. (To Sir E. Carson.) I presume that was in respect of an authorised overdraft.

FEAHCIS GIOBOI SAUHDERS , manager, London and South-Western Bank, Clapham Junction. On September 7,1904, David Myers, of 61, St. John's Read, S. W., opened an account by a payment of £12. On April 18,1905, the balance, £20. 17s. 2d., was transferred to the Camden Town branch.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. So far as I know, Joseph Myers had nothing to do with the account. He introduced David to us. The account was never overdrawn. (To the Recorder.) It was a straightforward small accounf.

FEIDIBICK ADOLPH RICHARDS , manager, London and South-Western Bank, Camden Town. David Myers opened an account with my bank on April 17,1905, by transfer from the Clapham branch in the name of the Camden Town Furnishing Company. I produce a certified copy to December 30, 1905. When Mr. Baker took possession under a consent order and the account, it showed a balance of £24 9s., which is still standing to his credit. The turnover it £2,691. The account has always been in credit.

Cross-examined. my bank was aware that the Camden Town Furnishing Company was David Myers. So far as I know, Joseph Myers bad nothing to do with the account at any time.

RICHARD ADAMS , cashier to Horatio Myer and Co, bedstead manufacturers, Vauxhall Walk. My company is creditor in the bankruptcy of Joseph Myers for £132 in respect of three separate accounts. (1) With regard to 34, High Street, Clapham, between April 6 and July

20, to the amount of £108 7s. 9d.;(2) 213, High Street, Camden Town, December, 1904, to May, 1905, £32 15s. 6d.;(3) 61, St. John's Road, known as Campbell's, in the name of Joseph Myers. The ledger shows "Myers" only. The other accounts are J. Myers and Joseph Myers. There is a balance due of £14 3s. 6d.

Cross-examined. I did not know that David Myers was the owner of the Clapham Road business. Invoice (produced) is made ou. Myers. If the order came signed "D. Myers," the clerk would probably make it out to him. I considered that David Myers was the manager. Letter (produced) is in my handwriting: "October 26, 1905. Mr. D. Myers, 213, High Street, Camden Town.—We beg to return your post-dated cheque," etc. I did not know the business was transferred to David Myers. I wrote the letter: "Mr. D. Myers, 61. St. John's Road, Clapham.—We thank you for your cheque, £9 6s. "I received cheque of D. Myers in May, 1905, for £7 5s. 9d. That went to the account of "Myers." Our solicitor wrote letter on November 13, 1905, to "Mr. D. Myers, 61, St. John's Road, Clapham.—We are instructed (by Messrs. H. Myer and Co., Limited, to apply to you for payment," etc. That is in respect of goods supplied in May, 1905. Mr. Raphael was our solicitor in another matter. In my deposition I said, "We sued David Myers for an account on the advice of Mr. Raphael."That was for £32 16s. in respect of the Camden Town account. Mr. Raphael advised us to do that. I cannot produce any letter from Joseph Myers in reference to either of these businesses from the time of the assignment.

Re-examined. Letter of June 2, 1905, is addressed to "Mr. J. Myers, 213, High Street, Camden Town.—We beg to enclose hers statement of account of your three establishments," etc. I knew Joseph Myers in connection with the three businesses.

WILLIAM JACOB DIAMOND , 3, New Inn Street, Curtain Road, overmantel manufacturer. I am a creditor in the bankruptcy of Joseph Myers for £263 10s., of which £132 0s. 8d. is in respect of goods deli vered to 34, High Street, Clapham, and £97 12s. 6d. for a dishonoured trade bill. We discounted this for Duboff. It is not in respect of goods supplied by us. We supplied goods to Campbell's business on the order of Joseph, on October 9, 1904, to the amount of £37 0s. 4d., and further goods to December 17, 1904. The last order came from David Myers. We supplied goods to 34, High Street, Clapham, to the amount of £132 0s. 8d. I saw Joseph prior to the opening of the Campbell business, in reference to supplying goods up to June, 1905. I had inquiries about' it. I may say I had a good opinion of him and I always replied favourably. I offered him at the opening 12 months'credit. I believed he was the proprietor of the Camden Town Furnishing Company; Campbell's, St. John's Road; and 34, High Street, Clap bam. The inquiries were coming rather too often, and I considered my position, that I might mislead other people, and that I was not warranted in stating that which I did not know to be fact; so I went over to High Street and had a conversation with Joseph Myers. I told him that several inquiries had been made of me and that those

were the answers that I had given, and asked him whether I was right in doing that. He said, "I must correct you with reference to Camp bell's. When I opened the business it was a good one; the family have been at me, and, as I have got an established business at Camden Town, I have sold the Campbell business to David Myers, so that he has got one business and I have got two."That conversation took place in June, 1906. I believe his mother persuaded him to sell the Campbell business to David. He said it was a good business and paying well. He said, "I expect David in at any moment, and if you like to wait you will get a cheque. I waited until about six or seven p.m., but David did not come in. Of course, David did not know I was coming. Up to this time my transactions had been with Joseph. I knew David as his brother. I might point out that when I was getting orders for Campbell's business I went up to High Street, Camden Town, and saw Joseph and David there, and Joseph gaid to David, "I shall come up and see what you require," and they both picked out the goods for starting the business at Campbell's. Whenever Joseph gave me an order he always asked David whether anything was wanted. David seemed to have a good knowledge of the business and to be the manager.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. Joseph did not tell me that his brother, was going to open at St. John's Road as Campbell's. I may have bad an order in July, but I was not sent in till August 9. I say they were both together when the goods were ordered. Order of July 18, 1904 (produced), is a list of the goods ordered—it may be in David's writing. The arrangement waa that I was to give him 12 months' credit from the opening order, and whatever was ordered in the meantime to be on the ordinary terms. I was not doing that for David. I wrote a letter wishing him success in opening. Every cheque I got in payment of the account was from David. I never got a penny from Joseph because he was bankrupt then. I should not like to give my opinion as to whether David would pay Joseph (the bankrupt's) debts, because it would not be favourable to you. I did direct the prosecutor here to apply to David for the balance due. I went over to David, and he said, "I will pay you Campbell's account," which amounted al that time to £7316s. 10d. He gave me post-dated cheques which were dishonoured, and, as everybody was suing David Myers for the money at the time, I said, "I may as well be in time," and I gave it to Mr. Baker and asked him to get it. I got a cheque post-dated for August 9 on July 22, which was paid, and which cleared off the debt for the Campbell business from Joseph Myers—that was for goods after April 15. there were no goods sent in between November 10,1904, and April 15,1905.

Re-examined. I never heard a word about the transfer of the Camden Town business. I was under the impression that Campbell's was Joseph's business, and I do not remember ever speaking to David about it.

WILLIAM THOMAS O'NEILL , Cannon Street, carpet merchant. I was petitioning creditor in Joseph Myers's bankruptcy, the amount due to

me be. ng £700 or £800. I first knew Joseph in April, 1904, carrying on business as the Camden Town Furnishing Company, High Street, Camden Town, supplied him with goods, and was paid down to Octo-ber, 1904. I have supplied further goods from December 12, 1904, to May 5, 1905, for which he gave bills for £155 15s. 3d., which are unpaid. I never heard of the transfer of the Camden Town business to David until the bankruptcy petition. I remember Joseph opening the business at High Street, Clapham. He came and saw me on March 28, 1905. with David. They selected goods for the new branch amounting to £400, and I subsequently supplied £215 worth of goods further, for which 'bills were given. On August 19 I received cheque £41 5s. 6d. from Joseph, which was returned unpaid on August 22. I went to see Joseph, failed to see him and presented a petition in bankruptcy on August 23. In February, 1906, I went to 34, High Street, and identified goods supplied by me which had not been paid for. I also, in August, 1904, supplied goods to Campbell's, 61, St. John's Road, Clapham Junction, for which I received the orders from David Myers. The goods were entered in the ledger to Joseph and transferred by his request to the account of David. I considered David was managing at Camden Town for Joseph. I supplied about £350 of goods to Campbell's on the credit of Joseph; they were paid for before the bankruptcy by a bill of Joseph, accepted by David, and met.

Cross-examined by Mr. David. We considered Campbell's Joseph's! account, but a separate account was opened at his request to David. I say the credit was given to Joseph, but it was put as a separate account in the name of David at his request. The cheques were David's. I never had a cheque or acceptance from Joseph in respect of goods debited to David trading as Campbell's. Bills produced are all drawn by me upon and accepted by David Myers, trading as Campbell's Fur-nishing Company, and the name of Joseph never appears in them from first to last. Invoices produced represent transactions with Camp-bell's and are made out to David. They are after the account had I been separated, and do not represent the opening transactions. I never recognised David Myers as the proprietor of either business. (To the Recorder.) Joseph had an interview with me; then, at his re-quest. I transferred the account to David, but we understood Josepel was still the proprietor of the business—that he was trading as David. I understood that the money to meet the acceptances was found by Joseph. I found that the lease was in the name of Joseph. I heard it after the examination before the magistrate. The bundle of documents produced are in the name of David; they are all after the ac count was transferred. I am on the Committee of Inspection, and I voted for this prosecution. We had had it under consideration for some months. I was aware of the civil proceedings which were settled with the payment of costs by David. I went to Mr. Lewis, solicitor, Chancery Lane, on August 22,1905, and learnt there for the first time that the Clapham business had been transferred to Abel by Joseph I was told it had been done on the advice of Mr. Lewis after taking

counsel's opinion. I did not know that Abel had guaranteed bills for £1,000 in payment of Joseph's liability to Baker.

(Tuesday, April 30.)

RALPH RAPHABL , recalled. On referring to my call book I find I was in error in stating that I did not tee Simeon. Sydney Jacobs on March 4. He did call. (To Sir E. Carson.) He did not say that Abel had said he was not prepared to pay anything farther or "Why should I pay my brother's creditor? I have lost enough already." I did not say, "Then a prospect of a settlement it hopeless." No such conversation took place at all. Jacobs said, "I have not been to sea you because I found that what took place between us in confidence and without prejudice it trying to be used by the Myerses and I decline to be a party to it." I perfectly remember that. I have no note of it. I did not send my clerk Clayton to ask Jacobs to call on Mr.

Re-examined. At none of the three interviews I had with Jacobs did the conversation suggested take place.

Rose MAY SIMMONDS, clerk to George Butler, 34, The Arch, Great Suffolk Street, furniture manufacturer. Joseph Myers was our customer, and I produce copy of his account from October 5, 1904, to July 28, 1905. His indebtedness at. the time of his bankruptcy was £56 8s. 6d., which it unpaid. Three items are for goods supplied to 34, High Street, Clapham. I produce post-dated cheque of August 21, 1905, for £50, by Joseph, which was dishonoured.

rest was to Camden Town.

WILLIAM JOHN PILCHIB , manager to Jones Brothers, Oakweed Court, Kensington. My firm are owners of 61, St. Johns Road, Clapham Junction. On August 11, 1904, lease produced was granted to Joseph Myers for 21 years at £275. It contains a covenant against sub-letting without the consent in writing of the lessor. David wrote on August 21, 1905. taking us to transfer the lease to him but that has not been done. The letter from David encloses cheque for £72 for a quarters rent due in June, and states: "As the lease of 61, St. John's Road is made out in my brother's name, and at I have always found the rent, rates, and taxes, and at I have purchased the above premises I would be glad if you would content to having the lease transferred to me, at all the firms recognise that the shop it mine. "It is headed "Camden Town Furnishing Company. "Receipts were sent to Joseph Myers, I do not know whether David signed the cheques. (To the Recorder.) On letting the premises Joseph appeared to be a man of substance, and his references were satisfactory.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carton. I could not say whether we got all the rent from David. Letter (produced) enclosing the rent for the

first half quarter is from David. Cheque of December, 1904. £68 15s. is by David Myers, and the receipt is made out in his name, also cheque of August 21, 1905, £72 5s. I think we sent the receipts to Joseph at Camden Town. Looking at the letter of May 3, 1905, we sent that receipt to David. Receipt for income tax under Schedule A (produced) in the name of D. Myers was forwarded to us, so that he would be the rated occupier. The last cheque for rent of May 2, 1905, £63 18s. 10d., is from David. I could not swear that we had any rent from joseph. On July 30, 1904, David gave me a receipt for the key. We received all the rent to the date of the bankruptcy, and the lease was then disclaimed by the trustee.

Re-examined. On September 30,1904, £5 was paid for shop front. We sent the receipt to "Mr. Myers, 61, St. John's Road."

JOHN HINRY HOOREN , carman to Frank Smith, 9, Bedford Row, Clapham, furniture remover. On August 28, 1905, removed a load of furniture from 34, High Street, Clapham, to Campbell, 61, St. John's Road, Clapham Junction.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. List produced is the goods I re-removed. I knew Twain, the manager at Hawkeys. The removal was done at 11 a.m. without secrecy. Blum received the goods at Campbell's.

HERBERT EAST , trading as Wilson and East, Northcote Road, Clap-ham, auctioneers. On December 7, 1905, I saw David Myers and Blum at 61, St. John's Road. David asked me to make an offer for the stock and I offered £120 and suggested that it would be better to sell it by auction as he would get a better price. The next day I made a list. On December 11 David Myers asked for a cheque on ac-count, and on the 12th I gave him a cheque for £85. On December 12 I received a letter from Raphaels, and, in consequence, stopped pay-ment of the cheque. I saw Blum on the 13th, and saw David Myen on the 14th. David said he should present the cheque. I told him. of course, it would not be met. The sale took place and realised £175 6s. net, which I held under an injunction obtained by Messrs. Raphael.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. I suggested an auction, and David agreed. The sale was 'advertised in the usual way with cats logues placards, and advertisements; there was no secrecy. I remember it was something to do with the bankruptcy of Joseph. David might have said that the lease had been taken over by the trustee. Joseph was then made a bankrupt. I afterwards heard that David had then been examined. None of the proceeds went to David—there was an injunction, and I handed the money to Mr. Baker. We sent a cheque to Raphael on behalf of the trustee. Cheque (produced) for August 28 from David to Abel Myers for £45 is in David's handwriting.

JOHN MCCARTHY DOUOLAS . I was in the employ of Joseph Myers it 213, High Street, Camden Town; subsequently at 34, High Street, Clapham. up to June 24, 1905, when I left. On December 14, 1905, I went to Wilson and East's auction rooms and identified six or seven

articles of furniture as goods taken by Joseph Myers from Hawkey's trustee. I recognised them by the tickets produced.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. Some of the goods were old stock, and some came from Hawkey.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I did not see Abel Myers at all in connection with the removal of those articels.

JOHN JAMES BOSSON , warehouseman to George Butler. I produce Invoices for goods supplied to High Street, Clapham, of April 14, July 26 and 28, 1905. In March, 1906, at High Street, Clapham, I identified articles supplied by us to Joseph Myers and not paid for.

Detective CHARLES GOOOGIN, W Divison. On January 9, 1907, I found Abel detained at Pontypool Police Station, read the warrant to him after cautioning him, and he made no reply. I also took possession of certain letters at 33 and 34, High Street, Aberaychan (produced).

Cross-examined. I did not find any incriminating letters. Abel had been arrested the previous day by the local police.

BERHARD BYRNE , sergeant Royal Irish Constabulary, Queenstown. On January 15, 1907, I saw David Myers at the "Rob Roy" Hotel. Queenstown, and asked him to accompany me to the smoke-room. I had no charge against him. I asked him where he was a native of, and he replied "Pontypool, in Wales". He stated that he had left there nine years ago, and that he had returned from South Africa the previous Saturday, landing at Southampton and arriving at Queenstown on Monday. I asked him whether he had any documents or papers in his possesion that would satisfy me that Daniel Morrison was his correct name. (To the Recorder.) I did got think he was an anarchist. I observed him on the beach and I became suspicious and exercised my discretion in making further inquiries. I asked him to accompany me to his room, which he did, and if he had any objection to me opening his portmanteau. He declined, but after a short time assented. I again asked him for his name, and he replied, "Daniel Morrison." In the act of opening his portmanteau he said, "I may as well tell you the truth—my name is David Myers," and he said that he had carried on business at Clapham Junction, Camden Town, and at 61, St. John's Road, under the name of Campbell. He said he had left for South Africa on October 20, 1906. I found a ticket by the "Arabic," sailing July 30, issued at Cork on January 14, and a passenger's inspection card in the name of "Daniel Morrison." I wired to Scotland Yard, learned that he was wanted for conspiracy, and arrested him. (To the Recorder.) The police had given me no notice that he was wanted.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. I had no knowledge of any charge or warrant against him whatever. I acted purely on suspicion. I have arrested over 50 persons in the same way without a warrant or any information whatever. I ascertained that he was leaving for America under the name of Daniel Morrison after landing at

Southampton from South Africa, and I considered it rather strange as he could have embarked at Southampton. He gave me his name and businesses (before I knew of any charge against him, but I saw a postcard in the portmanteau which would have given me the information. The information he gave me was correct, and it was that which enabled me to find out that there was a warrant out against him and to get the warrant. If he had refused to give me any information I would have arrested him on suspicion of having committed a felony. I have done so on many occasions.

Re-examined. I have arrested several in the same way, and I never was mistaken in one yet.

HENRY JAMES SMITH , clerk to the Union Castle Mail Steamship Company, Limited, 3, Fenchurch Street. The "Kinfauns Castle" arrived from the Cape at Southampton on January 12, 1907. David Myers was a third-class passenger.

Sergeant TOM ANDREWS, W Division. I found David Myers at Queenstown under arrest, read the warrant to him, and brought him to London.

FREDERICK CLAYTON , clerk to Messrs. Raphael. On November 4, 1905, I served a subpoena on David Myers for the production of ledgers, cash books, and all books of account containing entries relating to the business of Joseph Myers from January, 1905, to the date of service.

Cross-examined by Sir E. Carson. I called at S. S. Jacob's house on Sunday, March 3, 1907, and was told he was away. I saw Mrs. Jacobs land two other sisters of the. prisoners, and said that I had called to see Mr. Jacobs on several matters. I did not say that Mr. Raphael wanted to see him. Mr. Jacobs was a olient of the firm and had been writing to the firm on several matters, and I called to get instructions with regard to getting judgment summonses. This prosecution was then pending, and prisoners had been on remand some time, but I said nothing about it. I remember Jacobs saying to me, "It is a pity I have been mixed up in this affair. I knew nothing about these people before." He came up to me quite casually at the police court and referred to the unfortunate position he was put in by attending there. I had had several letters from Jacobs complaining of delay in his own matters. I attended to all Jacobs's matters, as I am the County Court clerk. I have never been to his house on a Sunday before. Jacobs is, I suppose, a man of some substance. I could not say if he was objected to as bail. I told Mrs. Jacobs there was no hurry about those matters, and at any time Mr. Jacobs would call I would see him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I saw Esther Myers, and she asked if I had called to see Mr. Jacobs, and she told me that he was not in. She may have said that he was at Brighton, and asked me what I had called for. I said I had to see Mr. Jacobs on several matters, and, as I was passing, I looked in. As a matter of fact, Mr. Raphael had not sent Mr. Nothing was said about his brother-in-law's case. When Mr. Jacobs called the next morning I did not see him.

Re-examined. Mr. Jacobs lives at Southgate Road and I live at South Tottenham, and, as I frequently walk down to Dalston on a Sunday, I called there. I should mention that Mr. Raphael came back this morning and asked me if I had been down there. I told him that I had, and he reprimanded me—said that I ought to have been very careful about going down there under the circumstances. (To the Recorder.) I had merely gone in connection with the County Court proceedings.

HENRY JOHN SWIFT , Old Street, E. C., bedding manufacturer. I am a creditor in Joseph's bankruptcy for £67 7s., for goods supplied to High Street, Clapham, in 1905. In July and on August 15 I called on Joseph. He gave me a post-dated cheque, which was returned unpaid. In March, 1906, at High Street, Clapham, I identified goods which I had supplied and not been paid for. I also had transactions with the Camden Town and Campbell's businesses. I knew Joseph as the proprietor at Camden Town. Subsequently I had transactions with David there. At Campbell's my transactions were with David. Cross-examined. At first I did not know that David was the owner of Campbell's; afterwards I did. All my dealings were with David, and he paid everything. I said in my deposition, "I carried on business with David Myers at St. John's Road down to August, 1905. During that time the cheques I received were all his, and I recognised him as the owner of that business. I have an account against David beginning September, 1904, for goods supplied to his place of business, Campbell's, 61, St. John's Road. I knew him as carrying on business under the style of Campbell. There may have been transactions with him prior to September, 1904. He paid me his account from time to time. That is right. He paid me every penny he owed Mr. I also had dealings with David at Camden Town. I afterwards knew that Joseph had handed that business over to David. I went to Joseph at Clapham for a cheque for Camden Town. There were two accounts, and he said that David would pay the Camden Town one, as he was carrying on the business there. I said, "All right," and I went to David and got paid. I was paid everything as far as David was concerned.

Re-examined. I gave the ordinary trade reference for Joseph on his taking the lease of Campbell's.

Statement of Abel Myers on committal: "I am not guilty, and say that it is a Case of blackmailing. "Statement of David Myers: "I am not guilty."

Sir E. Carson submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury of conspiracy,-either between the two prisoners or between then and Joseph.

The Recorder said there was no evidence of any general conspiracy between David, Abel and Joseph, bat that he could not say that there was no evidence to go to the jury of conspiracy between the two prisoners.

Mr. George Elliott having opened the case on behalf of Abel Myers, the Jury intimated that they did not want to hear any further evidence, and that they did not think that there was sufficient evidence against the prisoners. They returned a verdict of " Not guilty."

Mr. David asked that the police be directed to return to David Myers any property of his in their possession.

The Recorder. You do not require any order.

Mr. David moved that the indictment against Joseph Myers be also quashed. (Cites Reg. v. Plummer, Kelynge, 109.)

Mr. Graham Campbell intimated that no proceedings would be taken! against Joseph, and there would be a nolle prosequi entered.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE JELF. (Saturday, April 27.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-48
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

TAYLOR, Ralph Creak, was indicted for the manslaughter of Richard Herbert Margerum.

Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted; Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. C. W. Mathews defended.

Police-constable HY. GLASS, 538 N., proved a plan to scale of the neighbourhood referred to in the evidence.

Police-constable JOHN SERJEANT, 719 N. On March 15, at 11. 35 p.m., I was on duty in Seven Sisters Road, on point, about 250 yards from Howard's fish shop. A motor-car, driven by prisoner, passed me, going in the direction of Finsrbury Park, at about 12 or 13 miles an hour. Shortly afterwards I heard a crash. Opposite an electric standard, just beyond Howard's shop, I found the motor-car standing crossways on the road, and Margerum lying dead. I asked prisoner how it happened. He said, "The man dodged about the road; I did not know which way to turn. I did not know what to do. I tried to avoid him, but could not" He added that he was going at about 15 miles an hour at the time. On being charged at the station with manslaughter, he made no reply.

ARTHUR HOWARD . I keep a fish shop at 673, Seven Sisters Road. which is close to where the trams stop at the corner of Stonebridge Road. On this night I saw Margerum, who had just left my shop, hail a tramcar. and go towards it. He had got to the middle of the down road, when the motor-car struck him. The motor was on its wrong side. The road was clear of traffic and the car was going at full speed. It came like a flash of lightning. The speed was something terrific, from 30 to 50 miles an hour. I heard no hooter sounded.

Cross-examined. Margerum was looking towards the tram as he went to catch it. I did not see him hesitate in the road or change his position. As the motor struck him I heard a clatter of the brakes applied. I am not prejudiced against motors. My estimate of the pace is a guess. The car did not slow down at all.

MARGARET HOWARD , wife of last witness, gave similar evidence, putting the speed of the motor-car as "tremendous."

ALEXANDER GLENDINNING , assistant to the Howards, who also witnessed the occurrence, said that the car was coining along at a rapid pace. About five yards before it reached deceased, the brakes were applied, and the tyre burst; then the car skidded end struck Margerum. The pace of the car was "terrific." He meant by that very fast. He had seen oars going faster.

ALBERT BREE, living two doors off the Howards, described the occurrence, putting the pace of the car at 40 or 50 miles an hour.

He did not hear the tyre burst, nor the hooter sounded.

DR. EUSTACE DE REUTER , 761, Seven Bisters Road, said he was called to the scene of the occurrence immediately. Margerum was lying in the road, dead. He died from shock, as the result of the injuries he had received.


RALPH CRRAK TAYLOR (prisoner, on oath). I have been a chauffeur for four years; for the last two years in the service of Colonel Lockwood, M. P. There has hitherto been no complaint against Mr. On March 15 I was driving Colonel Lockwoods motor brougham from Buckhurst Hill to London. As I turned into Seven Sisters Road I was registering ten miles an hour. I was on the near side. I saw a tramcar, which pulled up just as. I came to it. There were some passengers on the near side pavement going to get into the tramcar. Instead of interfering with them I went to the off side. When I was passing the car I was going just, under 15 miles an hour. As I was passing the car a man came off the pavement and came right across in front of Mr. I at once put on the foot brake. I blew two blasts on my horn, and then released the valve and put on the side brake. The man was then in the middle of the road. He hesitated, and turned back as if to go the same way that he had come. The effect of putting on the brakes was that the car started skidding. Had the man stood still in the centre of the road I should have passed without touching him. There was ample room for him to have gone forward, but he stepped back into the position of danger. (Witness described the trifling damage to the motor brougham—which, after striking the deceased, ran into an electric standard—and said that had he been going very fast the brougham would have been smashed to pieces, and he and the two persons on it must have been killed.)

Cross-examined. After turning into the Seven Sisters Road I gradually increased my pace. In the space between, where I am certain I was only going 10 miles an hour, and the scene of the accident, it would have been impossible to increase the speed to 25 miles an hour. When the road is in good condition I can, going at 15 miles an hour, pull this car up in less than its own length.

Sir Charles Mathews was about to call other witness, when the jury stopped the case and returned a verdict of Not guilty. (It should be stated that at the inquest on the death of Margerum the coroner's jury returned a verdict of accidental death.)

Sir Charles Mathews said he was desired by Colonel Lockwood to express his extreme regret at the accident, and to say that Colonel Lockwood had compensated the widow, who was perfectly satisfied with what he had done.


(Monday, April 29.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-49
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

LETHERN, R. G. forty-eight, timekeeper, indicted for carnally knowing Lillian Gertrude Lethern, a girl under the age of thirteen years, pleaded guilty to a common assault.

Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted.

Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., and Mr. Root defended.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances, to come up for judgment when called upon.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-50
VerdictGuilty > insane
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

COTTRELL, Ellen , twenty-seven; feloniously wounding her infant daughter- Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald prosecuted, and Mr. G. L. Harvey defended.

Mrs. JANE BLACKBURN, 15, Ward Street, Lambeth. At 11. 30 on March 12 I went round to prisoner's house. She was on the landing on the top stairs, giving the baby the breast. I ascertained that the baby had its throat cut and I saw blood on Mrs. Cottrell and on the baby. I said the baby must go to the doctor. She said, "Do not take my baby "I said, "That baby must see the doctor." and I took the baby from her. Mrs. Cottrell was very dazed. I left the baby at the caretakles, and went to look for the father.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was very dazed. She did not seem responsible for her actions. She kept on repeating: "Do not take my baby." I am certain she did not know what she was doing.

Police-constable RICHARD CRIPPS, 77 L. At 11. 15, on March 12, I went to 50, Ward Street, and saw a child eight months old with its throat cut. I took it to the hospital, and it was seen there by doctor, who dressed the wound.

Police-constable GEORGE HIGMAN, 190 L. About 11. 45 I was called to 19, Ward Street, and I went to the first floor and I saw prisoner lying in a dazed condition. I said to her, "What is the matter? "She replied, "Oh, my baby; give me my baby! "There was a pool of fresh blood. I was handed a case containing two razors by the husband of prisoner (case produced). Pointing to the black one in the case, he said, "This is the one she did it with" I took her to Kennington Lane Station, and she was then seen by the doctor, and charged. She made no reply.

Cross-examined. She did not appear to know what she was doing or to be capable of looking after herself.

Detective-Sergeant JOHN BEAD. At once o'clock, on March 12, I went to 19, Ward Street. On the first floor landing, 3 ft. by 5 ft. I found two patches of blood, one measuring 2 in. by 3 in. and 1 in. by 4 in. The first one is near the door leading to the room occupied by prisoner. At the station I saw two razors in a case. On the white one there were some marks of blood on the handle on the blade. On the inside of the case there were also a number of spots of blood.

Inspector KNELL. At 1.30, on March 12, prisoner was brought to the station. I told her she would be charged with the attempted murder of her baby by cutting its throat, and she said, "Not my baby."

Cross-examined. Three years ago her father was taken to Marylebone Infirmary, and detained three months suffering from loss of memory and melancholis. Her grandfather was detained many years, and eventually died in Hanwell Asylum. On June 1, 1994, prisoner, who was then 14 years, was charged with attempted suicide by jumping into the Serpotime, and she was discharged. It was apperent to me as the police station she did not know what she was doing.

DR. HAROLD B. WHITTENOUTT , Surgeon at St. Thomas' Hospital. At 1245, on March 12, Mrs. Cottrell's baby was brought to the hospital suffering from an incised would 4 1/2 in. long on the right-hand side of the neck running front below the lobe of the right our downwards and upwards to the midline of the neck. It was a close out wound such as would be caused by some sharp instrument. It exposed the air passeges. The child was very anaemic and weak and in a collapsed condition. The injurice were very serious for the time being, but it has quite recovered.

Cross-examined. It was a very well norished child. Giving the baby the breset was a great strain, and disease would be likely as develop from it.


Dr. G. GRIFFITHS, Medical officer at Holloway Prison. I saw prisoner on March 12. She was in a very poor physical condition then mentally very dazed. I thought at that time she was insane. She was completely demented. If you asked a question she could not comprehend it. She stares in a vacant way. In a person congenitally weak suckling a baby would cause the insanity to develop.

Verdict, Guilty, but insance at the time, so as not to be responsible for her actions. Ordered to be detained during H.M. pleasure.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-51
VerdictGuilty > insane
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

HART, Isabella (35) ; attemping to kill and murder Ellen Hart and Emily Hart and attempting to kill and murder herself.

Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted. Mr. Rooth defended at the request of the Court.

Mrs. WARRECKER, 182, Guinness Buildings. I live in the same block of buildings as prisoner. She has two children—Ellen Hart, 10 years, and a baby three or four months. On March 6 I saw her in the morning about 11 o'clock, standing at her own door at the landing, when she looked very ill; she suffered from' wind. She asked if I could get her threepenny worth of brandy, which I did. She said, "I do feel queer." The next time I saw her she was sitting on the bed with her throat cut. This was about two 'hours afterwards. The baby was in the bed crying. Mrs. Horton came in, ran towards prisoner, and took the knife out of her hand, and I ran on to the landing with the knife in my hand.

Cross-examined. I gave the knife to a police officer. I knew prisoner before the birth of the child—she was a very kind, tender, and affectionate mother. I knew her before the death of another child, who died of diphtheria. She seemed very dazed, and fretted very much about her child. She was always talking about her.

HELEN GODDABD , 185, Guinness Buildings. On March 6 I saw prisoner at a quarter-past 12. I said I would go with her; then she began telling me about a bad dream she had. She told me she dreams the gipsies had taken her little girl away and burnt her eyes out. I said, "You have had nightmare—it is not a real dream. "I asked her how her baby was. She said, "I think it is much, better this morning. "She asked me to come in. I went in and took the baby up out of the bed and she gave it the breast. She commenced talking about the little child who had died. She said she would never be happy again. She was very much depressed. I told her she was very ill, and she must go somewhere. I left her at 1. 30. After dinner Ellen Hart came up to me, and I noticed her throat was cut, and I bound it up. I went down to see prisoner. She was lying on the bed. I said, "Whatever have you done, Bella?" She said, "If my Nellie dead?" She said, "Kill her" three times. She appeared to be very ill.'

Cross-examined. I saw a considerable change in the woman from the time that I last saw her. I had been away half an hour. She was in a fainting state. I have known her 20 years and worked with her for eight years. She was an indulgent and kind mother. She has had seven children and five are dead. A great change came over her after the death of her child. That child died shortly before the birth of the last child. She was very fond of the child that died.

ELLIN HART , aged 10. Prisoner is my mother. After dinner my mother asked me to play at blind man's buff. I asked her why she wanted to play blind man's buff, and she said she had seen two children play at it in the grounds. I tied a handkerchief round my eyes to show her how to do it, then ran after her. After that the handkerchief was tied round her eyes by me, and then she ran after Mr. Then she put it over my eyes and asked if I could see. I said, "No, I could not. "Then she put me on the bed and I felt something cut my throat. I did not cry out; I lay still on the bed and pretended I

was dying. Then I took the bandage off my eyes, and my mother had the knife in her hand and was putting it across the baby's throat. I ran out, and Mrs. Goddard attended to me and took me to the hospital Cross-examined. My mother has been very kind to Mr.

Mrs. HELEN HORTON, 189, Guinness Buildings. On March 6 I went into prisoner's room and found her lying across the bed bleeding. I held her until the doctor came.

Dr. BARBER. I was called to the prisoner's room on March 6 and found her lying on the bed with two large gashes in front of the throat, one penetrating the windpipe, and she had lost a considerable quantity of blood. She muttered, "Let me die," or" Let Nellie die." It would not be easy to inflict the injury with the knife produced; force would be required. She seemed half suffocated. There was blood on Her throat and mouth and the was very rigid. Her arms were stiff and her eyelids twitching. I saw the baby at the hospital and attended to the wound. It was a large cut on the left side, extending from the ear to the windpipe, 3 in. long, and a half to three quarters of an inch deep and penetrated the windpipe. The woman was labouring under great excitement, which was foreign to an ordinary person. I had never seen her before. I noticed a difference in her before the magistrate. She was very much flushed when I saw her, and before the magistrate she was very pale. The flush was caused by the condition of heart suffocation. There was great mental excitement going on. I did not examine her as to insanity, but all these were symptoms which I would expect to find in a person who was insane. If she was flushing before the injury that might be caused by the condition of mental excitement. Giving milk to the baby might cause flushing, and that would cause the mental excitement.

Police-constable THOMAS BAIIBXR, 254 M. On March 6, at 1. 45, I was called by Mrs. Goddard and Dr. Barber, and found prisoner on the bed with her throat cut. I took her to St. Thomas's Hospital. I received the knife from Mrs. Warrecker.

Detective-inspector ALFRED NICHOLLS. On March 12 I saw prisoner at the hospital and told her I was a police officer and would arrest her on the charge of wounding the two children, and also attempting to commit suicide. She appeared in a very dased state. She muttered something. She did not seem quite right. At the station the charge was read over and she made no reply. I was present before the magistrate at the hearing when the house-surgeon at the hospital gave evidence. Opportunity was given prisoner of cross-examining him. I saw him sign the deposition.

Cross-examined. The woman seemed dased when I arrested her. There were two remands before the magistrate. On the first remand she fainted and I was directed to take her to Holloway Prison in a cab. She appeared to improve and get clearer in the head.

Dr. WEST. I have seen Dr. Davis this morning. He has a carbuncle on his face and cannot attend. Dr. James Davis's deposition was read.

Dr. GRIFFITHS, Medical Officer at Holloway Prison. I have had prisoner under supervision. She has been in prison the whole time. When she came under my care she was very dazed and comprehended with great difficulty simple questions. She was most intensely de pressed. It seemed a depression that was beyond the ordinary depression. She has improved since. I would not certify her insane, but there is a slight amount of mental feebleness left. I knew that I might be asked to give evidence here.

Verdict, Guilty, but insane at the time so as not to be responsible for her actions. Ordered to be detained during His' Majesty's pleasure.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-52
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

WEBB, Sarah (23, factory hand) ; feloniously throwing upon William Webb a certain corrosive fluid, to wit, spirits of salt, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

WILLIAM WEBB (fish porter), 27, Marsden Street, Kentish Town. I was separated from my wife (prisoner) by order of the magistrates. I was ordered to pay her the sum of 8s. a week. On March 23 nothing was owing, but a payment was due that day. I was at my house at eight p.m. when prisoner called. She said she came for her allowance, and I said I had sent it in the morning. I walked away down Malden Road. I stood at the "Shipton" and she walked opposite site Mr. Then I walked away to Chalk Farm Road with a friend named Gibson. I saw prisoner run by me from behind; When she got in front of me and was facing me, she threw the salts over me I struck my ear and went over my face and in my mouth. I could hardly speak. It felt hot; it hurt me a bit—I walked away on the bridge—I took out my handkerchief and wiped the acid of and then went up to the bridge. Prisoner walked over the road and struck me in the face with her hand and I hit her back in the eye. On Sunday night I went to the police station, and on the Mon day I saw Dr. Marshall, who examined me.

To Prisoner. On the following Wednesday I was going to the Alexandra Palace to a. boxing championship. I did not go as my ear hurt me On March 23 I did not tell you I would send the allowance on to you. I told you I had sent it on, and it ought to have reached you, and it had reached you at six o'clock. I told you I would send another one next week. I have not got the pocket handkerchief. The sans did not burn the handkerchief; it did burn my face. (To a Juror. I am wearing the suit of clothes I had on at the time. There were some spirits on it, but I washed them out.) This is the handkerchief (produced) which you threw it me one hour and a half afterwards to put round my neck, That is. your own handkerchief.

HAROLD GLBSON . I remember meeting prosecutor at Chalk Farm Road on the evening of March 23, and I walked along the road with

him. Prisoner ran in front of us and threw this acid. She came to the left of us, and then turned and said something and threw the acid. I saw that prosecutors face was red and scaley on the lips and nose; he walked backwards and put his hands up to his face Prisoner came across the road and hit him while he had his hands up to his face; then he struck her back.

To Prisoner. When you threw the acid I ran for a policeman.

THOMAS MARSHALL , Divisional Burgeon, Y Division. On March 25 I examined prosecutor. I noticed three pale brown spots on the cheek and a large surface of brown on the ear as if from fluid thrown' On the side of his jacket there were two spots of a light pink colour. I should not expect spirits of salt to show as much as was shown on the face unless there were considerable impurities in it, such as iron. Crude spirits of salt would contain these impurities. It would produce stronger effects than the medical hydro-chloride acid; I call it corrosive fluid. I put a number of atoms on my. skin and between my fingers, and took some into my mouth. It stung a little on the skin and in the mouth. It produced a burning sensation. Is it got in the eyes it would be more serious. I do not think if the acid struck the eyes and were washed out at once it would result in permanent injury, but it would do more injury than on the skin. If you removed the acid from the skin quickly there would be no mark left—That is what I mean by saying I do not understand the mark. If the acid had been fortified with a little nitric acid, then I could not understand it better, but I do not know whether it was so. Supposing prosecutor wiped it off fairly soon it would stain him before he got it wiped off.

Police Constable FRANK PAYNE. On March 25 I saw prisoner at York Road, King's Cross. I told, her I had a warrant for throwing corrosive fluid, and she said, "I expected this. I will tell you all about it. My husband has treated me shockingly. I threw it over him for revenge so that he should not go to the Palace on Wednesday."*

To the Judge. She said this on the way from York Road to the station. I did not mention Alexandra Palace to her. She used the word it revenge. "I made a note immediately afterwards (note produced). This is made afterwards at the station, and purports to be a summary of what she said.

To Prisoner. I did say you are very much like your sister, whom I know.


SARAH WEBB (prisoner, on oath). My husband left me the second week in February, 1905. My mother advised me to go to the magistrate and get a maintenance order. Mr. Taylor allowed me a separation order with an allowance of 8s. a week. I had one child, and another was born on September 9. I said to my husband." What arrangement are you coming to; do you wish me to go to the court

again?" He arranged to continue the 8s., and I handed over the oldest boy to him. On December 8 I went to him and said. "I have come for my money"; all he offered me was 4s. He said, "Do you think I am going to give you money for a child that does not belong to me?" I said, "You know you are the father of my children. I said, "On Monday I will summons you:" As I said that he struck me, knocking me into a passage where he was with his mother, and calling to his sister, said, "Here she is, Mary; now give her what she has been asking for. "They knocked me about in the passage. A neighbour heard my screams. On the Monday I went to the magis trate for a summons for assault against him and his sister, and a summons was granted. On the Saturday I saw my husband, and he asked me not to go to the court against him, and said, "Don't go, Sarah, and I will come back." I forgave him that because he said he was coming back home. This is the reason for what I did which I am sorry for. On March 23 I went up to my husband far the money; I knocked at the door, and his sister said, "Bill does not live here now." I said, "I will wait a little." I waited a quarter of an hour and he came. I said, "I have come for my money." He said, "I will send it on. "I said, "You have told me that tale before, but my money has not come. "He has kept me waiting till Sunday morning. I walked down to Chalk Farm. I already had the spirits of salts that I threw over him. I had the spirits when I went to ask him for the money—I did not intend to hurt him because I mixed it with water. I threw the contents at him and he ran across the road and Gibson went for a policeman. I ran across the road. Directly he saw me he struck at me and I hit him back. Verdict, Not guilty.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-53
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

STAGG, William Albert (17, labourer) ; attempting to kill and murder Jenny Hill.

JENNY HILL . I was keeping company with prisoner. On March 26 we were walking along over the bridge at the Surrey Grand Canal, Kotherhithe. We were walking to the corner of the lane and I said, "I don't think it matters to night." That is a saying of mine—T meant to say I was not going down there. We did not have a quarrel. He said, "You are trying to make me a fool." We were at the side of the water—I had hold of his hand, and he had hold of mine. He caught me round the waist and threw me in. I tried to get out but could not.

Cross-examined. I am very fond of prisoner. I speak to him now, but I do not go with him. I have written an affectionate letter to him while in prison. I am very fond of him still. (Letter read). I do not know what the depth of the water in the canal was.

Police-constable CONRAD SCOTT, 41 M. On March 26 I heard a splash in the water of the canal, and saw a man run away. I cannot say who he was. I was near to the splash at the side of the canal—quite close to where the splash took place. I ran along the towing

path. A man who was on the bridge said, "There she is in the middle." I dived into the canal and I had to swim. I dived the best part of the distance. I bad my coat on—it took me a minute or a little less to get to the spot where I dived in. I was assisted two men—Sidney Adams and Erneat Terrier. The woman was unconscious. We used artificial respiration for some minutes, when she came round and was taken away in the police ambulance.

Cross-examined. I was 100 yards from the splash. I did not bear anyone cry out," Hullo! "I went home and changed my clothes. I went with the detective and (arrested prisoner. He did not come to the rescue, or get anyone else, as far as I know. She had rather a narrow escape. She was sinking seven or eight inches under the water, and a few minutes later she would have been drowned.

(Tuesday, April 30.)

SIDNEY ADAMS , lighterman, Rotherhithe. At 11 p.m. on March 26 I was coming over (the Surrey Grand Canal when I saw a splashing in the water. I ran to the water's edge and saw Police-constable Scott going into the water. He fetched the girl to the edge and I laid down and helped him out. I have taken barges up and down for some time, carrying 75 to 80 tons, which draw 5 ft. 3 in. or 5 ft. 6 in. Where the woman was at first is 3 ft. 10 in. Four yards from the side it is 6 ft. 5 in., and seven yards away 7 ft.

Cross-examined. There is a tow path. I did not hear any shouting.

Dr. WILLIAM GOLDSBOWER-WEST, Bermondsey. At 11. 30 on March 26 I saw prosecutrix at the (police station. She was drenched from head to foot and shivering. There was evidence of water in her dungs. Her general condition was. pretty good. She was sent home on an ambulance. I saw her the next day. There was still evidence of water in her lungs and she complained of pain in her chest and cougth and irritation. She is all right now.

Sergeant WILLIAM SMITH, M Division. I went with another officer at 1. 30 a.m. on March 27 to 61, Oroft Road, Rotherhithe, where we found prisoner asleep. I woke him and told him I was a police officer and should arrest him for attempting to murder Jenny Hill throwing her in the Surrey Canal. He said, "Quite right—it is best to tell the truth." I cautioned him. He dressed and I took him. to the station. On the way he said, "This is all through jealousy—through going out with" her uncle on Sundays. She thought I was. going with other girls. We have had rows every night. She has asked me to do her in several times. Is she dead? I said, "No." He said, "That is a good job for other people, but not for Mr. It made me wild when she said she hated Mr. I thought I would go round and tell her father in the morning and give myself up. You don't want any witnesses—I admit I did it."

Cross-examined. Prisoner's parents are most respectable people, and he has been in steady employment since he left school, and a highly respectable lad up to this time.

Inspector ALFRED NICHOLLS. I saw prisoner at Rotherhithe Police Station at 7. 45 a.m. on March 27. lie was charged and made no reply.

Verdict, Guilty; recommended to mercy on account of his youth. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour. The jury highly commended the brave conduct of Police-constable Conrad Smith, and his lordship fully concurred.


(Monday, April 29.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-54
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CATTELL, Richard (28, clerk), and BOYSEN, Otto (54, traveller) ; both obtaining by false pretences from Edgar Day 56 1b. of wax and 11 12 cwt. of wax respectively; from Stanley Clark 14 dozen packs of playing cards, and from Alfred Dew paper and envelopes to the value of £6, in each case with intent to defraud; both stealing one book of order forms, the property of Charles Lestocq Cripps and another, the masters of the said Richard Cattell; both forging and uttering four orders for the delivery of 56 lb. of wax, 1 £ cwt. of wax, 14 dozen packs off playing cards, and paper and envelopes to the value of £6 respectively, in each case with 'intent to defraud. Cattell pleaded guilty.

Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. E. P. Boyd prosecuted; Mr. George Jones, defended Boysen.

STANLEY CLARKE , assistant to Messrs. Charles Goodall and Son, 17, St. Bride Street. I know the prisoner Boysen. He came to Messrs. Goodall's on March 22, and told me he wanted some playing oards I asked him whom they were for; he said, Cripps and Son, 17, King Edward Street, and I then showed him a sample pack. He ordered 14 dozen packs at 8s. 6d. a dozen, the value of which is £5 19s. He asked me not to send them, but said a man would call for them with an ortfer form.

Cross-examined. I have no doubt about prisoner being the man who called. I am positive he mentioned the name of Cripps. We ordinarily deliver goods. I did not ask him for any introduction or references. It did not occur to me that the order might be forged. We have orders from Cripps and Son, usually by post. I do not recollect having had an order from them over the counter. I have been with Messrs. Goodall 15 years. I am positive prisoner did not give Cripps' name as a reference, and that he represented that he came from Cripps and Son.

FREDERICK FENSON , assistant to Goodall and Son, spoke to making up the cards into a parcel and handing them to a messenger in exchange

for an order form in the name of John Cripps and Son, and initialled "C. L. C." He believed the order was genuine.

RICHARD STANLEY BOWMAN , jeweller, 82, Aldersgate Street. I have known Boysen for some years, and recollect him coming to my shop on March 22. He said he had some playing cards for sale, and I said I would look at them. I agreed to buy 10 dozen packs for £2 10s. The receipt (produced) was given me by prisoner.

Cross-examined. I got to know Boysen in the course of business, I forget exactly under what circumstances. I knew him as a commission agent and had dealings with him, perhaps on three or four occasions. None of them turned out to be wrong. He said the cards were a job lot he had bought, and the price I paid would be a fair price for slightly damaged or old stock.

EDGAR DAY , traveller in the employ of Benjamin Watkins and Co., sealing wax manufacturers, 11,. Rose Street,' Newgate Street. On March 23 an order form for 1 cwt. of red sealing wax, signed in the name of Cripps and Son, was brought to us by a licensed messenger named Lyons. Upon the form was also written: "If you cannot do the full quantity please send us as much as possible, and oblige." He took 56 lb. with him, the value being 6d. per lit. I made out the invoice to Messrs. Cripps and Son. I have known the firm for some years, and believed the order came from them. On March 25 we received a telephone message as from Messrs. Oripps and Son, and subsequently another licensed messenger called with an order asking us to send per bearer 1 cwt. of brown sealing wax and 1l. 2 cwt of red at 6d. per 1lb. Believing the order to be genuine I gave the messenger what was asked for. I have since seen the property in the hands of the police with The exception of 28 lb.

HENRY LYONS , licensed messenger, stationed outside the Manchester Hotel, Aldersgate Street. On March 23 I saw prisoner Boysen at Aldersgate Street Station. He asked me if he was a licensed messenger, and I said, "Yes." He then said, "Will you take this order to Messrs. Watkins, of Rose Street, Newgate Street, take a barrow, get the order, and meet me at Aldersgate Street Station?" If I am not at Aldersgate Street Station, will you meet me in Carthusian street?" I took a barrow, and got the order as directed. I afterwards saw prisoner in Carthusian Street. He said, "I will get a ball of string and tie it all together." There were six parcels, I think. By prisoner's direction I left the wax in the cloak-room at Aldersgate Street Station. I gave prisoner the ticket and also the invoice.

JAMES LYONS , licensed messenger, brother of last witness. On Monday, March 25, (prisoner (Boysen came to me outside Aldersgate Street Station and said, "Here is a job for you" and gave me two papers (order forms) and a cloak-room ticket. I cannot read much, but pri-soner told me where to go. I went to a turning out of Newgate Street and gave a gentleman the order and he gave me the sealing wax (11l. 2 cwt.), which I put on a barrow and took to the Hop Exchange. I also took there a lot of parcels which I received on presenting the other

order form from Messrs. J. Simmons and Co., wholesale stationers, Hill Street, Finsbury. Boysen did not tell the number at the Hop Ex-change, but waited for me outside. The things were taken up in the lift to a room, I think, on the third floor. I did not see anybody be sides Boysen. I saw Cattell at the Guildhall and recognised him as a man I had seen outside Aldersgate Street Station.

ALFRED DEW , assistant to Messrs. J. Simmons and Co., Limited, wholesale stationers, Hill Street, Finsbury. On March 25 the last witness called at our place of business with a printed order purporting to come from John Cripps said Sons for five reams of "Hieratica" note. paper and 10,000 envelopes. A telephone message with reference to the matter had been received the same morning. I looked out the things and gave them to the messenger. The value of them was £6. I was satisfied the order was genuine. I have since identified some of the notepaper.

THOMAS BURT , wholesale stationer, 101, Bishopsgate Street I know prisoners. I remember that, towards the end of March, Cattell rang me up on the telephone and told me that he had 11. 2 cwt. of wax for sale. He subsequently called, and I agreed to give 6d. per 1b. for it. The wax was subsequently delivered by a porter. Cattell called on the same day and drew £1 on account.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner five or six years in business and privately. He has called on me at times offering me various goods. I am a general merchant as well as stationer. The goods he offered were mostly stationery. I have a shop down by the fish market All the dealings I have had with prisoners have been quite straight, and Boysen has always behaved like an honest man. Sixpence per pound is not a very low price, but the fair and usual. price.

Re-examined. It is two or three years since I had any transaction with Boysen. I do not recollect what it was. I should say it is about 18 months since I had any transaction with Cattell. I bought five reams of "Hieratica" paper from him about the same time I bought the sealing wax at 12s. 6d. a ream and 6s. 6d. per 1,000 for the envelopes, less 10 percent. In February I also bought some paper from him—several sorts.

To Mr. Jones. Those were goods which are not the subject of this charge. To the best of my knowledge that was a perfectly straightforward and innocent transaction, like all the previous transaction! The police have been round to my place to make inquiries about other goods. It was blotting paper which they suggested had been come by in some improper way. That was the first I had heard against these people. The previous transactions were all right. The quantity of blotting paper in question was about 10 reams. The police asked me if I had bought any blotting paper, so, of course, I told them I had. I said nothing about this at the Guildhall. This did not come out at the Guildhall. I think there was something mentioned because I gave them the invoices.

CHARLES LESTOCQ CRIPPS . I trade with my brothers as John W. Cripps and Son, at 70, King Edward Street, as wholesale stationers.

Prisoner Cattell was a junior clerk in the country department. The order book produced is one of the order books which were used in that department It contains a number of blank forms with printed signature. Those are ordinary order forms used in our business. The various orders in this case appear to have been taken out of that book. They are all numbered. The two lots of sealing wax obtained from Messrs. Watkins, the playing cards obtained from Messrs. Goodall, and the notepaper obtained from Messrs. Simmons were not ordered by my firm. Neither Cattell nor Boysen had any right to use the name of my firm for the purpose of obtaining any goods or to make use of these order forms. Cattell might possibly have been sent with an order. We never, in fact, received any of the goods these firms have parted with, nor the invoices. I did not know that Cattell was carrying on business as or had anything to do with the business of Castell and Co., or was connected with any other business except the business of my firm. I do not know Boysen at all. The initials "C. L. C." on some of the order forms were not written by Mr. When these orders were given Cattell was still in our employment.

FRANCIS WILLIAM WOOD , lift attendant, Hop Exchange. An office was taken in the name of Cattell about six weeks ago—No. 97. I first saw Boysen when he required to have the name of Cattell placed on the door. That was about a fortnight after the office had been taken. Prisoner Cattell is the man I knew as castell. After the name had been up for a day or two Boysen told me he was expecting some goods, and if I would put them in the office he would. see me all right afterwards. Some goods came in the next day. It was on a Saturday or Monday in March, but I could not tell you the date. It was some bundles of sealing-wax and stationery. They were taken away the next day. I did not see prisoners frequently to the office. I saw Cattell about twice and Boysen about four times. They had possession of the office about a month altogether. Boysen never mentioned what 'he had to do with Cattell and Co. At farm I know prisoners kept keye of the office in their pockets.

Detective-sergeant JOHN DIOBT, City Police. On March 27 I was in Red Cross Street, where I saw prisoner Boysen. I told him we were police officers and were making inquiries in reference to some forged orders. He said, "Yes." I said, "I understand from this nun, pointing to Lyons, that you gave him an order to take to Messrs. Watkins, of Rose Street. Where did you get the orders from?" He said, "A friend of mine gave them to Mr. "I said, "Who is your friend?" He said, "His name is Cattell. "I took him to the station, where he was charged with receiving a book of orders. I subsequently arrested Cattell. On Boysen after his arrest I found some blank order forma, which I produce. They are apparently taken out of the same book. I also found on Boysen some invoices) relating to the transactions with Watkins and Simmons. I also found on Boysen some printed notepaper with the heading, "R. Castell and Co., 97, Hop Exchange, London, S. E."; also a key with

a wooden label, 97, Hop Exchange, S. E. I found a similar key on Cattell.

Cross-examined. I did not know Boysen before. All that he told me was perfectly correct. He gave a correct address, and made no secret of where the stuff came from. He put me on Cattell's track at once, and did everything he could to assist Mr. He said he did not know there was anything wrong. He is a German. When I mentioned Cripps's order form he said, "I got that from Cattell." I do not know that I should have found Cattell but for the information given by Boysen. I did not know anything about Cattell. I asked Boysen where Cattell worked, and he said at Cripps's. Boysen appeared to be very surprised when I arrested him, and did not behave as if he was expecting something of the sort. All that he did say was quite consistent with his innocence.

Detective FREDERICK PIERCY, City Police. On March 22 I searched the room at No. 6, Paul's Road, Canonbury, occupied by Boysen, a small 'back room on the second floor at 5s. a week. Under the bed I found a brown leather case, and in it the order book produced belonging to Messrs. Cripps and Sons.

To Mr. Jones. He told me it was there before I searched. Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Each prisoner 14 months' hard labour. Mr. Humphreys asked for the delivery up of the order-book, it having admittedly been stolen from Cripps and Son. So far as the goods seized were concerned the practice was now to make no order, but to leave them in the possession of the police for the parties interested to pursue their civil remedy, there being now a. provisional order under which they could summon the Commissioner of Police.

Judge Lumley Smith made the order for the return of the book to Messrs. Cripps and no order with respect to the goods.


(Tuesday, April 30.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-55
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HEAD, William (18, labourer), pleaded guilty to carnally knowing Louisa Kent, a girl under the age of 13 years. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-56
VerdictGuilty > manslaughter
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WOOD, James (28, carman), was indicted and charged on the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Maria Webb. Sir Charles Mathews prosecuted; Mr. Watt defended. The evidence was unfit for publication.

In the course of the case Sir Charles Mathews sought to put in evidence certain statements made by the deceased in prisoner's absence, after the fatal injury, incriminating him, on the ground that they were in the nature of a dying declaration. Mr. Watt objected. After some discussion his Lordship reserved his decision until after the hearing of the medical evidence as to deceased's then condition. At the conclusion of the evidence his Lordship ruled that inasmuch as she evidently

believed herself to be dying, the solemnity of the occasion was tantamount to the solemnity of a declaration on oath, in view of impending death, and he therefore admitted such statement in evidence.

Verdict, Guilty of manslaughter'

Sentence, 10 years' penal servitude.


(Tuesday, April 30.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-57
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty

Related Material

JACKSON Lionel (53, public-house broker) , having been entrusted by John Richardson Frazer with £150 for a specific purpose, did fraudulently convert a part thereof amounting to £80 15s. to his own use and benefit; having received from— Gardiner £50 for a specific purpose did fraudulently convert £34 thereof to his own use and benefit; having received from John Thomas Whetter £50 for a specific purpose did fraudulently convert a part thereof, amounting to £20, to his own use and benefit; having received from Frederick William Wehrhahn £100 for a specific purpose did fraudulently convert a part thereof, amounting to £20, to his own use and benefit; having received £100 from Charles Collins, did fraudulently convert part thereof to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Low, K. C-, and Mr. George Elliott prosecuted; Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. W. H. Thorne defended.

Mr. Travers Humphreys said that having heard the opening statement of Mr. Low he felt it his duty to advise the prisoner that there was no defence that could be successfully made to one of the charges. If prisoner pleaded guilty to that, he assumed that the prosecution would not proceed with the other cases.

Mr. Low said that prisoner having pleaded guilty to one of the counts was quite sufficient to enable his lordship to deal with the matter.

The jury thereupon returned a verdict of Guilty.; Sergeant GEORGE HAYNES, Division, said he had known prisoner. personally for a number of years. He traded for some years as Jackson and Co., transfer agents. He was adjudicated a bankrupt for the second time in 1899, and was still undischarged. On June 7, 1905, he was summoned at Bow Street for obtaining credit without disclosing that fact. The case was adjourned, and in the meantime the amount was paid. In July, 1905, several complaints were received by the Director of Public Prosecutions, but owing to representations that the various plaintiffs were protected by their own society, the Director declined to take the matter in hand. In addisection to the cases before the Court there were some seven or eight others. Prisoner's real name was Jacobson, but witness had always known him as Jackson. During the time he was doing a very fair business prisoner had kept up a rather elaborate establishment Sentence, Four months' imprisonment in the second division.


(Wednesday, May 1.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-58
VerdictGuilty > manslaughter
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

JONES James Albert (19, bakers assistant) ; murder of Maria Frances Jones, his wife; the like on coroner's inquisition.

Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. Symmons prosecuted; Mr. G. Herbert Head defended.

Police-constable FRANK GEORGE WADE, 176 K, produced a plan of Goldstone Buildings, Bermondsey, which are entered by a court from the street.

CATHERINE BRADSHAW , widow. I formerly lived at Goldstone Buildings, but am now residing in Tower Bridge Road with a friend. In the course of last year I was living in Winston Buildings with my daughter, Maria Frances, and there was living in the same block an elder daughter, Mrs. Misselbrook. I occupied rooms on the ground floor and my daughter rooms on the floor above. To reach the street my daughter would have to pass from the staircase through my kitchen and front room. We have known prisoner about three years. Prior to Christmas of last year he and my daughter were keeping company and walked out together. He was a frequent visitor to the house, and a little before Christmas my daughter told me something in regard to her condition, and I discovered that she was pregnant On inquiry I found that prisoner was the father of her child, and it was arranged that they should be married. My daughter was 18 last November. The marriage' took place last Christmas, and as it turned out she was then seven months gore in the family way. She was in work as a packer and prisoner was working as a baker's assistant. After the marriage they lived with me at Winston Buildings. A fortnight after prisoner was taken ill and had to go to Guy's Hospital where he remained three weeks. He afterwards lived again at Winston Buildings until my daughter was confined on February 21 of this year. He had no work in that interval. My daughter gave up work on January 2, so I had to support them both and afterwards the child As to the suggestion that I told him he should leave my house and go and live with his father, I told him he could stay if be liked to sleep upstairs along with my two boys, but he did not feel as if he would like to stay upstairs; he did not like the room; it was an unlucky room, he said, as he had been carried out of it he would not go up there any more. He lived with me before they were married and was sleeping upstairs when he was taken bad. He was again taken to the hospital. After the marriage they slept in the downstairs front room and I slept in the back kitchen. After the child was born he said he would go home and stay with his father; his father had offered that he should sleep with him. After that he used to come every day to see my girl, and after March 21, when she went back to her work, he used to come in the evening. I used to feel it very hard for him to be out of work, my daughter being at home and I had two others out of work besides. My daughter felt it too, and I used to

speak to him about it, because I felt it very hard having four of them at home and no one bringing in a penny only what I earned myself. My daughter told him so too, and was glad when she could get back to her work, and that was pretty often a. topic of conversation. We generally asked him if be had got a job or had any ideas of getting any work, but there was nothing of the kind the week my daughter died. She thought it very hard that she should have to go to work to keep her baby. I remember something occurring on Easier Monday with reference to prisoner and another man having offered refreshment to a couple of girls. I was at home on Friday, April 5. Prisoner came in about half past seven, and brought in some vaccination papers and talked them over with his wife in the front room. I was in and out till quarter past 10, when I had an appointment to keep. They seemed excellent friends. When I left my daughter was sitting in a chair by the side of the fire with her baby on her lap, prisoner being close to her. On the table were some cups and saucers, bread and butter, and the knife produced. As I went out I heard my daughter say to prisoner, "Jim, fill the kettle for me," and he was going to do it at I went out of the house. He would have to go into the kitchen to do that. At a quarter pest 11, my daughter, Mrs. Misselbrook, came to me at the "Star and Windmill," at the corner of Long Lane, where I was talking to a friend, and in consequence of what she said I hurried home. On passing from the front room to the back I found my other daughter lying dead at the foot of the staircase with her head upon the bottom step.

Cross-examined. There was a pool of blood where my daughter had been sitting and there were traces of blood through the door to the back kitchen. There was blood on the handle of the door and on the bottom panel. The lamp was in the front room, and there was no light in the kitchen but that reflected from the front room. Prisoner came to stay in my house about three months before the marriage. I did not know my daughter was on trouble till November. I allowed prisoner to sleep at my house because he said he was very uncomfortable at home. It was between October and December that he was taken to the hospital with typhoid fever. It is not true that I am to be found in the "Star and Windmill" every night. I cannot have much time, as I am at work from nine in the morning till two past nine at night. It is not true that I have the reputation of constantly being drunk. I have never been in difficulty at the police-court through being drunk. My daughter, Mrs. Misselbrook, had two rooms above mine. She has a husband and four children. While prisoner was there they all slept in the one room, and he had the other. He paid so much a week for his lodgings. After I returned from the "Star and Windmill" I did not see my granddaughter Maud till she was fetched in. One of the police-officers asked if there had been anyone there at the time, and my daughter called her in. I have never spoken of the matter to Maud except at the Tower Bridge Court, and at the inquest. I have been

A widow since February of this year. My husband was buried three I days before my daughter was confined. I was married at St. John's Church, Walworth, on May 28, 1871. I passed by the name of Hooley when I lived with a man of that name. I never passed as Mrs. Vandall, or Randall. I never told Mrs. Misselbrook that my daughter Dolly (deceased) was an illegitimate child. As I said before the coroner, my daughter and son-in-law were on good terms on the night of April 5, and generally speaking, they were very comfortable. as far as I know. Last year I was living at Walworth. I left then last June. Prisoner would come there every other night. I was not suspicious of what was going on. Prisoner and deceased used to be left alone in the back room night after night, but I could not help that. I had my work to study. I cared for prisoner when he was living with me as well as I could, as well as I do my own. I did not try to set his wife against him because he was not earning money, nor cause frequent quarrels between them. I did not try to separate Dolly from her husband, or I should not have allowed them to get married. I did not, by planning, succeed in alienating the girl from her husband. I did not for two months make the boy's life a perfect burden to him. I did everything to make him as happy as my own children as far as I could, but I did not have much to make them happy with, only the little bit of money I earned. When prisoner was in hospital he let me have his coat and vest to pawn to pay a week's rent. His wife pawned his boots to get herself some food. I recollect a present of food being tent from Guy's Hospital after my daughter was confined. The doctor ordered it, as she was in sues a weak condition. It is not a fact that we all shared that food except Jimmy. He had the same as we had. It is not the fact that for two months I had been abusing him in the foulest language. I did on one occasion use foul language to him. That was when the baby was a week old. On Good Friday I was not nagging him the whole day, nor the whole of the following week, nor was I calling him bad names and doing everything I could to irritate him. It is not the fact that after he returned from hospital I one night turned him out of bed and made him sleep on the sofa without any covering. It is not the fact that I lived an immoral life in Walworth and endeavoured to get my daughter to do the same. She was too good for that. Or that when I found Jimmy was not bringing in any money I deliberately set myself to separate them in order that my daughter might lead the same life as I was living, When prisoner and deceased were both in work they used to bring me home their earnings. 1 could not have kept them if they had not. I did not know that after the confinement they were offered a home by Jimmy's father. Jimmy's father had no more home than I have got; he only had two rooms, and if my daughter had gone there she would have had to sleep on the floor in the downstairs room, and she had an objection to doing so, because she did not like the idea of going to sleep in the room where his mother died. If they could not help her in her

confinement I am sure they would have had nothing to give away if she had gone there. My daughter strongly objected and said she would not go. It is not the fact that there are constantly strange men at my house night and day. It is not the fact that there was a strange man there when Dolly was about to be confined, and had to be turned out. It is not the fact that during February I pawned Dolly's wedding-ring. When her husband was in hospital she lent me her dresssing to pawn. I never told her to tell Jimmy she intended to go about as a single woman. We had notice to quit some time in March. I did not urge my daughter to break off with Jimmy so that the might go with me alone. I did not tell Mrs. Misselbrook that I was trying to break things off between those two. They were man and wife. How could I break anything off? And I did not wish to. She was the wrong sort of girl to do that. Mrs. Turner did not attend my daughter as midwife. We had a doctor from Guy's Hospital She came and washed the baby the first week. I did not have a quarrel with Mrs. Turner. She did not say to me, "You are trying to make Dolly at bad as you are." At my daughter's funeral my carriage did not have to be protected by the ponce. There ware plenty of policemen there because of the crowd. Re-examined. When prisoner was in work he handed over the money he was earning; he was always all right, and when he was out of work he lent me hit coat and vest to pledge.

ELIZABETH MISSELBROOK wife of Ernest Misselbrook, formerly living at Goldstone Buildings. I have four children. My daughter Maud was 10 last March. I remember on the evening of April 5 tending Maud for an errand at about 10 minutes to 11. After the had gone downstairs I heard the banging of the back-yard door. After about five minutes I heard a noise and then the street door go. For some reason or other I thought I would go downstairs and see what it waa. Half way down the stairs I caught sight of my sister lying at the foot of the stairs half on her aide with he head resting on the bottom stair. Her face was turned towards me and deathly white. I was frightened, and ran back to my room and shouted from the window for help. A man named Murphy came and got in through the window below. I then went downstairs and saw that my sister's throat was cut, and that she was lying in a pool of blood. I saw the knife produced lying in the front room on the table smothered in blood. Murphy was holding the baby. I went and fetched mother from the "Star and Windmill"

Cross-examined. I did not see my daughter Maud after this till the police arrived. I said I could not understand how it happened, and I said that only the minute before I had sent my little girl on an errand, and then the policeman said, "Where is that little girl!" Then the child was brought in by some lady, before I spoke to her, and stated what the had seen. I have not discussed the matter with her since or mentioned it to her. I had sent her for some eel liquor. When I opened the window I saw a boy, and tent him to knock at

Mr. Murphy's door. There was a good deal of blood in the from room by the table, a pool of blood about 12 in. across. The baby in Mr. Murphy's arms was dripping with blood. During the previous two or three months mother was constantly nagging and tormenting prisoner about him being out of work. During the time he was in hospital she pawned his boots and clothes. When he came out he used to go off day by day with my husband looking for work. When he picked up a few coppers he always brought them home. I always thought Dolly and Jimmy were on the best of terms. They seemed fond of each other. I have seen mother carrying on to Jim, but I could not say trying to separate them. I know he offered her a room at his father's, and she would not go there with him. I do not know a Mrs. Hall who lives at No. 15. It is a fact that my mother has used extremely foul and abusive language to Jim on many occasions. She pawned the wedding ring. I should not allow my wedding ring to be pawned unless I was in downright need. I had none of the food which was sent from Guy's after Dolly's confinement. I believe everybody else had some of it except Jimmy. I generally have my meals in my own place.,

Mr. Head, in cross-examination, proposed to question witness as to the character of her mother, Catherine Bradshaw, on the ground that it was evidence of provocation to establish that the mother had been attempting to induce prisoner's wife to lead an immoral life. Mr. Justice Bray said that sufficient ground for this plea of provocation had probably been laid in the cross-examination of Bradshaw; but it was not permissible to cross-examine one witness as to the character of another.

MORRIS MURPHY , of 14, Goldstone Buildings, gave evidence of getting through the window of the downstairs front room and finding the body lying as described by previous witnesses.

Cross-examined. The baby was lying underneath the table in a pool of blood.

STEPHEN HARRIS , 1, Lamb Lane, Bermondsey Street, carman, spoke to seeing the last witness get through the window. He was admitted by Murphy by the street door, and saw the body as described.

Police-constable PIGGOTT. On April 5 I went to 16, Goldstone Buildings. In the front ground floor room blood was on the floor, and there was a knife on the table with blood upon it. In consequence of what the last witness told me I went into the kitchen and found a woman lying on her left side at the foot of the staircase with her head on the bottom step. Her throat was cut. I sent for Dr. Stocker, who arrived shortly afterwards.

Sergeant CHRISTOPHER LUCAS, M Division. On April 5 I went to. 5, Goldstone Buildings, at 11. 15 p.m., and afterwards to No. 2, Crowley Place, the residence of the prisoner's father, where I saw the prisoner. I told him I should arrest him on the charge of murdering his wife. He said, "All right, guv'nor. I will go quiet." He went quite quietly to the station.

MAUD MISSELBROOK . I am ten years of age. The deceased is my Aunt Dolly and I was living at 15, Goldstone Buildings, with my father, mother, and sisters, in April, 1907. On the night my Aunt

Dolly died I came downstairs to go an errand to get tome eels for my mother, and I went through the kitchen into the front room, where prisoner and Aunt Dolly were. Aunt Dolly was sitting by the are warming the baby's feet and prisoner was sitting on the corner of the bed. They said something which I did not hear, and the prisoner took up a knife from the table, and put it behind him, took the baby away from Aunt Dolly, and went into the kitchen. Deceased rushed out after him. After a short time prisoner came back with the baby. There was blood on the baby's head, and the knife was in his hand with blood upon it. Prisoner put the knife on the table, put the baby in front of the fire, and rushed out into the street. I followed him out. He walked along the Tower Bridge Road. I then went for the eels for my mother and returned to No. 15. There was a crowd round the door and I was told that my Aunt Dolly was dead.

Cross-examined. When prisoner ran into the back kitchen the door was open. As I returned from my errand I saw Arthur Pool, and told him what had happened. Mrs. Murphy took me into her house and I told her what I had seen. I said that Jimmy had nearly knocked the jug out of my hand.

Sergeant FREDERICK PUSEY, M Division. On April 6 I saw the last witness at the Grange Road Police Station at 2 p.m., and she made a statement (produced), which I took down in writing. I read it over to her, and she signed it.

Sir Charles Mathews proposed to put the statement in, having regard to the cross-examination.

Mr. Justice Bray said he would not allow it to be be put in yet, but the statement having been proved it might be put in later if necessary.

HENDRY JUPE Coroner's Officer, Bermondsey. On the night of April 5 I was at 15, Goldstone Buildings within an hour of the occurrence. I took the child Maud's statement, while the body was in the house, in this book (produced).

Mr. Justice Bray. I will leave that in the fame category as the statement proved by the last witness.

GEORGE JONES market porter. Prisoner is my son; he will be 20 years of age next June. I remember his child being born. My son was out of work at the time. He used to sleep at my place. I saw him at my house in the evening of April 5. I went to bed about seven o'clock. I never heard my son go out. The next time I saw him was at my bedside, and I heard him say, "Dad, dad, I have done something now; I have knifed young Doll" (meaning his wife). I said, "Oh God, you silly boy, have you been and hurt her?" He said, "I don't know, father. "I asked him if he had hurt the baby; he said, No."

Cross-examined. My son and his wife seemed on very good terms. I know that while he was in the hospital his clothes were pawned. He used to sleep at my house because his mother-in-law turned him

out of her house. I offered to let his wife come and live with him at my house, but his mobher-in-law would not let her. He used to complain of the way his mother-in-law treated him; he said she used to keep on nagging him and called him out of his name.

Dr. FREDERICK STOCKER. I was called in to Gold stone Buildings on April 5, in the evening. The girl was dead when I saw her There was no injury to the baby. I held a post-mortem examination on the girl, * found a wound in the neck 5 £ in. in length, going down to the bone—The wind-pipe was severed. There were no other injuries. The knife (produced) is a weapon that would cause such injuries as I found. The cause of death was syncope.

Detective-Inspector ALFRED NICHOLLS, M Division. On April 5 at 11. 40 p.m., in the back room on the ground floor I saw the body of the deceased. She was lying at the foot of the staircase with her head towards the kitchen door and her feet towards the door of the front room. There was blood on the lower part of the staircase, and on the table was the knife which had been taken from the front room I then saw prisoner at the Grange Road Police Station, and stated that I should charge him with wilful murder of his Vile at No. 15. Gladstone Buildings, by cutting her throat with this knife (produced). I said, "Whatever you say I shall take down in writing and give in evidence at the police court. Do you understand?" He said, "Yes, thank you. "I told him the charge, and he said, "She has brought it on herself. She was always jawing me, and her mother jawed me too. She was always chipping me about being out of work, and told me she would never five with Mr. Her mother said she would not lei her come to Mr. M. He was then formally charged, and made no reply.


ERNEST MISSLEBROOK , 15, Gladstone Buildings, father of the deceased. At the time of the murder I had been away from home for about two weeks. Prisoner was treated all right by his wiles mother, Mrs. Bradshaw, when he was at work, but when he was out of work she used to snack him and call him bad names. When the child was born she would not let him sleep with his wife afterwards, and turned him out of the house. I was there when she told him he could not sleep in the house any more, and that he must go home to his father's—she did not say why. The snacking went on while he was out of work—when he used to bring home the money she was all right Prisoner used to give his money to Mrs. Bradshaw, he did not give i' to his wife. Between the time when the prisoner came out of the hospital on February 6 and April 5 he earned a little with me selling firewood; he did not get regular work. Every night Mrs. Bradshaw came home she was boosed, and she would nag him and carry on When she was drunk she would come home perhaps at half-past 12 or one a.m., and she would start snacking and nagging and swearing

at prisoner and calling him foul names. Prisoner and deceased were on very fair terms. He always went with her when she went on an errand and I never saw them quarrel.

MARY DAKIN , 16, Gladstone Buildings. I lived next door to the prisoner. On Good Friday last I heard a shocking row there going en all day. I had to go out as I could not listen to it any more, I heard Mrs. Bradshaw call prisoner all sorte of names—shocking names—I do not want to make use of them. It was going on right up to night time. I heard it in the morning when I was going out. They were always carrying on at that lad. I saw the prisoner crying in the yard. After the occurrence I went into the house; the little girl was not there. I saw the deceased lying on the bottom of the stairs with her head on one side on the bottom stair' There was a lamp hanging from the ceiling. There was blood' along the placemore in the back than in the front There was blood between the table and the fireplace. The man from next door had the baby in has arms.

Miss JANE DAKIN, Mrs. LOVATT, and Mrs. JANE HEAD gave similar evidence.

(Thursday, May 2.)

JAMES ALBERT JONES (prisoner, on oath). On the night in question Maud came into the room about 10 minutes before this thing happened. On coming downstairs she walked straight to the street door and went out into the street. After Maud had gone the deceased went on at me about me not being at work. Then she struck me across the chest with her band, called me a lazy bastard, and told me if I went away in the navy she hoped the boat would go down and that I should never come home again so that she might go with somebody else; she did not intend to go along with me any more. Then the struck me again on the shoulder. I must have picked up the knife then and struck the blow. This was in the front room just by the fireplace. I then ran out of the street door and ran home to my father and told him what I had done.

Cross-examined. The kitchen at the back was unlighted except through the open door of the front room. Maud, in passing through the rooms made no stay at all. My wife had the baby in her arms end was holding it to the fire warning it. She was about to get up when I struck the blow. When she struck me she was standing up. She had sat down again. My wife did not leave the front room before the blow was struck. It is not true that she ran from the front room to the kitchen. The baby was stall in her arms. I do not properly remember seeing it fall. I think my wife remained standing after the blow; I can hardly remember. It is not true that I ran after her with the child on one arm and the knife in the other hand. It is not true that the blow was dealt to her in the comperative dark of the back kitchen. The blow was dealt in the full light.

of the front room—I did not see where the blow had taken effect. I did not know that I had put the knife to her throat—not properly. I saw blood streaming from the neck and ran away; I was frightened. I did not go into the back kitchen at all. I did not return from the back kitchen with the baby in my arms with its hair covered with blood. I never touched the baby. If the baby was found covered with its mother's blood on the front room blood must have flowed from its mother's neck so that it reached its head and face. I think I threw the knife on the table. I made no effort to attend to my wife; I did not know what I had done properly. I think while I was there I holloaed out once, "Sally. "I cannot remember whether when I went to my father, I said, "Dad, dad, I have been and done something now. I have been and killed young Doll. "I do not remember him saying to me, "Good God, you silly boy! Did you hurt her?" At that time I did not know whether I had hurt her or not. I do not recollect that I made a statement to the officer (Inspector Nicholls) at the Grange Road Police Station. I do not recollect being cautioned that whatever I said would be taken down in writing. As to whether I said in reply, "She brought it on her-self," I do not know what I did say properly; I may have said that. I do not remember that I said, "She was there 'jawing' me and her mother 'jawed' me about being out of work. "I do not remember saying that she said she would never live with me again. I cannot explain how it came about that neither to my father nor the police did I say a word of these twoblows; I was pretty nearly out of my mind; my head was bad that night. I do not know where I aimed art; I had no intention off doing it.

Verdict, Guilty of manslaughter.

Mr. Justice Bray said he had heard sufficient to satisfy him that this boy was of good character, and was glad that the jury had been able to take a merciful view of the case.

Sentence, Penal servitude for 10 years.


(Thursday, May 2.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-59
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

PULLEN Henry (37, fruiterer) , feloniously causing grievous bodily harm to Mary Ann Orton. with intent to kill and murder her.

Mr. Frank Mathew prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

MARY ANN ORTON , Winton Buildings, Winchester Street, Pentonville. I lived at the above address with prisoner. In the early morning of April 2 I got up and went into the scullery, leaving the prisoner in bed, got a drink of water, and came back. Prisoner said. "Kiss me," and I did so. I asked him to let me go to sleep, and I remember no more until the blows woke Mr. I remember seeing

prisoner with his hand raised. I could not say myself what was done; I found I was bleeding. I was taken to the surgery. I was quite sober, and had been at business all day. I am a fishmonger.

ELLIN WOODARD , 55, Winchester Street. I was staying with Mrs. Orton on the night in question, and slept in the kitchen. I was awakened by a scream, and rushed to the bedroom, where I saw prisoner with his hand upraised about to give Mrs. Orton another blow. I seized his upraised hand by the wrist, and with my left hand I catched him at the back of the neck and took him into the kitchen. Prisoner, with his hand upraised, said to Mrs. Orton, "Now say I cannot do it." He said to me in the afternoon, "This is her last day. To-night will tell all."

Constable JOHN AGAR, 281 0. I was called to No. 1, Winton Buildings on the mornings of April 2, where I saw Mrs. Irton sitting in a chair covered with blood. Prisoner was in the next room making an attempt to escape by the window. I held him down in a chair until the inspector arrived. Prisoner was taken into custody.

Inspector FRANCIS ODELL, G Division. On arriving at the house I saw Mary Ann Orton sitting in the bedroom. She was bleeding very much from wounds in the head. Prisoner was sitting in the kitchen. I sent for the divisional surgeon, and in the presence of the prisoner Orton made this statement to me: "I was asleep. He woke me up twice, saying, 'Look at Mr. 'I woke up. He dashed me in the face with a jug. He said, 'Your time has come.'" While the surgeon was dressing the wounds I searched prisoner's bedroom. I saw the jug, which was quite dean and unbroken. I found this hammer. The handle was in the fireplace. I sent prisoner down to the King's Cross Police Station and charged him with wounding with intent to murder. In answer he said, "It is wrong; I am innocent" The bed clothing and a tablecloth in the kitchen were all stained with blood, and on the head of the hammer was a hair, to which I called the attention of the divisional ifrgeon.

Dr. R. L. CAUNTER, 44, Mecklenburgh Square, Divisional Surgeon. I found prosecutrix suffering from shook and loss of blood. She had lost a great deal of blood. I observed, various wounds, a deep gouged wound on the right cheek into which I had to put five stitches. The ala nasi on the left tide was torn from the cheek and a small portion of it was destroyed. There was a circular contused wound on the front off the head, but was not important; a circular wound on the left side of the head exposing the skull and much bruising and injury to the left shoulder. I had some conversation with prisoner, who in my opinion was sober, and I saw no reason to suppose that he was of unsound mind. I examined Mrs. Orton again on April 9. All the injuries were doing well with the exception of a round wound on the left side of the 'head, which was suppurating, and there was evidence of injury to the skull bone. I then found that there were eight distinct circular and well-defined bruises on the

left shoulder, over and above which there was a deal of bruising not so well defined. There was also bruising under the chin on both sides of the throat and bruising of the ring finger of the left hand, a large bruise at the back of the fore arm, one bruise on the upper arm. and three in front of the chest on the left side. I examined the hammer, and found one hair on it which I compared with the hair of Mrs. Orton's head, and found that it tallied. The wounds were such as might have been inflicted with a hammer, and must have been inflicted by some instrument of that sort. It was impossible that they could have been inflicted by any sort of jug. Prosecutrix was perfectly sober. I should think that probably some 20! blows were inflicted, but I should be prepared to swear to 16.


HENRY PULLEN (prisoner, on oath) said that Mrs. Orton came in at a quarter to three, when he was is bed. She was not sober, and she was not drunk, but she had had a quite sufficient quantity during the day. After she had got into bed he got up and got a jug from the mantelpiece which contained water for drinking purposes. He said to her, "Are not you going to speak to me?" and with that she turned up her nose and made an unseemly noise with her mouth. With that being very provoked, and without the slightest intention of doing her any harm, he raised the jug with one hand to throw some water over her, and it was then the witness came in. He struck her twice with the jug, water and all. Previous to that a little while they had an altercation one day, and she struck him so violently that he had to be taken to Gray's Inn Road Hospital, where he laid unconscious for 20 minutes, and had to have nine stitches put in. She was taken to the police station at Hunter Street, but he never charged her. He thought more of her and his baby than of himself. He could only say that he had acted under great provocation. They had worked hard together, and lived happily together in the country, but since she had been back from the country she had got a lot of friends round her, and she never arrived home before 12 o'clock at night. There was not a better woman in the world, but when she got a little drink she was rather obstinate and very aggravating and tantalising.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding. Police proved that on February 19 prisoner was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment at Clerkenwell Police Court for an assault on the same woman. Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-60
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

BARKER. James, otherwise Thomas Gallard (48, laundryman) , carnally knowing Ivy Gladys Wetherall, a girl under the age of 13 years.

Mr. George Elliott and Mr. F. Eustace Fulton prosecuted.

Verdict, Guilty. Previous conviction proved of a similar offence in 1887

Sentence, 16 months' Imprisonment, prisoner having been for two months in Brixton Prison.



(Monday. April 29.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-61
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BECK . (G. (31, waiter), pleaded guilty to feloniously causing to (be,. received by David Hunter a letter, knowing the contents thereof, threatening to kill and murder him.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.


(Monday, April 29.)

22nd April 1907
Reference Numbert19070422-62
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > no evidence; Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous

Related Material

CRUMP George Arthur (55, stationer), ANDERSON John (45, agent), TARRANT Richard Philip, SKINNER Alfred, WATTS, Tom (56. carman), BAIRD John (37, engineer), RICHES Alfred, HILL. Frank William, HILL Lewis George, and HODGKIN Edward John, were indicted for that they, being members, officers, and servants of the Guardians of the Poor of the West Ham Union, conspired together and with Harry Elijah Bond and other persons, between July 1, 1903, and the taking of this inquisition, to contravene the Public he Bodies (Corrupt Practices) Act, 1889. The indictment also charged a similar general conspiracy between all the defendants between the same dates to unlawfully solicit, incite, and endeavour to persuade Bond to contravene that statute by corruptly promising and giving gifts, etc., (to the defendants, being members of that public body, as inducements for voting and procuring votes in relation to contracts for the supply of coal and to the defendants, being officers of the public body, for permitting to be delivered to the Infirmary coal of a less quantity and inferior quality than charged for. The defendants were also charged with conspiracy on the same dates to cheat and defraud the Guardians of the West Ham Union. L. G. Hill, Riches, and Hodgkin were also charged with having, on April 9 and April 10, 1906, conspired together and with Bond to falsify and make and concurin making false entries in the gate-porter's books of the infirmary relating to dates between May 8 and September 23, 1905, so far as such books related to entries of deliveries of coal under Bond's contract L. G. Hill, Richards, and Hodgkin were charged with having, on April 9, 1906, made a false entry under date May 20, 1905, in the same book, and with knowingly putting forward to Mr. Boggis-Rolfe in the course of his statutory audit false books—namely, the same gateporter's books containing false entries as to the deliveries of coal under Bond's contracts as true and genuine books with intent to induce the district auditor in his public audit to accept the same as true and so pervert the due course of law and justice. Other indictments against certain of the prisoners individually were first proceeded with.

The Attorney-General (Sir J. Lawson-Walton, K. C., MP), Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. 8. A. T. Rowlatt prosecuted. Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., Mr. Frampton, and Mr. J. Wellesley Orr defended L. G. Hill. Mr. Hammond Chambers, K. C., and Mr. Austin Metcalfe defended Hodgkin. Mr. L. Macaskie defended Crump. Mr. Walter Stewart and Mr. Lort Williams defended Tarrant. Mr. John Mansfield defended Anderson and Baird. Mr. J. Penry Oliver, Mr. R. P. Hughes, and Mr. R. V Wynne defended Skinner. Mr. Schultess-Young defended F. W. Hill. Mr. Huntly Jenkins (at the request of the Court) defended Watts, Mr. Merlin (at the request of the Court) defended Riches.


GIORGE ARTHUR CRUMP was indicted for that, being a member of the Guardians of the Poor of the West Ham Union, he corruptly solicited and agreed to receive for himself and others gifts and rewards for doing something in respect of matters in which that body was concerned—namely, for voting for, or procuring or endeavouring to procure, the appointment of persons as officers of the body—to wit, Edward Albert Hawkins, John Connolly Carrol, John Chamberlin, Frederick Albert Wadsworth, James MacCormack, Jesse Fordham, and Frank Austin Hinton, and corruptly received gifts and rewards from certain of these persons.

ALFRED HALL . I have been assistant clerk to the West Ham Guardians since 1891. I know Crump as a Guardian. Jesse Fordham was a candidate for the post of relieving officer in 1902, and was among the selected ones. In 1900 he was unsuccessful. In some cases applications coming before the Board would be referred to a committee to report on. Fordham was appointed on March 20, 1902, at £120 a year. In 1902 John Chamberlin was a candidate—about that time. He was appointed assistant collector to Mr. Bryett. On June 29. 1905, Bryett resigned, and there was a competition for the post of collector, and Chamberlin was recommended on September 7 by a special committee. There was a full Board on September 14, at which prisoner was present. Frank A. Hinton was transferred early in 1903 to be assistant superintendent relieving officer. In 1906 he was not candidate for the post of assistant to the superintendent relieving officer, but was not successful in getting any votes. Early in 1906 Mr. Wads

was a candidate for one of the relieving officerships, and was I appointed. Crump was present, among others, when the house com I committee's report was considered. In the early part of 1906 there was a vacancy for the stewardship of the Infirmary. Amongst others, Edward Albert Hawkins was a candidate—he was not successful. In 1900 John Carrol was appointed assistant relieving officer, and a full relieving officer in 1901. In 1906 he was a candidate for the steward I ship, but was not successful, a Mr. Eastman being appointed. Early in 1906 there were four medical officerships vacant. On February 15, 1906, the Board met to consider the candidates, and Dr. MoCormack was appointed to No. 21 district. Crump was present then. Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. The committee go into the question of the qualifications of proposed officers, and the full Board go into the recommendations of the committee. The voting is generally by ballot. The Board question the candidate as to hit fitness for the post. The candidates write their testimonials on their application forms. I am generally present at the committee meetings. I was present at the one in regard to Wadsworth. I cannot say as to Carrol. I did not notice whether Crump busied him-self about getting the candidates elected any more than anyone else. He was present at all the meetings except Carrol's. I don't know whether there was a committee about Hinton. My suspicions were not aroused on any occasion as to an unwonted interest shown by Crump in any of the candidates.

JESSE FORDHAM , 23, Chobham Road, Stratford. I am a relieving officer of the West Ham Union, appointed in March, 1902. I first entered the Guardians' service about 11 years ago as an attendant. In 1900 I applied for the post of assistant to the general relieving officer, and spoke to some of the Guardians—Crump for one. I called at his shop. I told him I wanted a poet; he told me there would be expenses incurred for getting about seeing his friends and standing drinks. I suggested that £5 would be sufficient. He said. "Yes, I think that will do. "I had a good idea who the friends would be. A few days later I drew some money from the Post Office, and paid Mr. Crump £5—I think it was in gold. I paid him on two occasions. I did not write him that time. I got no acknowledgment at that time. I was a selected candidate by the committee, but did not get the post. In 1902 I went in for a vacant relieving officership. I spoke to Crump about it. I said, "I want you to obtain me the post, and, of course, there will be expenses incurred. "I may say that that is a well-known fact and did not want any telling. Crump mentioned £100 for himself and colleagues. I was agreeable to pay it. I was not appointed then, hot the successful man would not accept the post, so I got it instead. I think I paid Crump £15—by cheque, I believe. I only paid Crump one cheque. I remember having some conversation with a man named Bentley, who is now a relieving officer. I also know Hinton, who is assistant collector to the Guardians. I remember him being a candidate for some post, and, having a conversation with him, after which

I spoke to Crump about him, telling him that Hinton was seeking a post. Crump said he thought £10 would ensure him the post. After I had been to the Local Government Board I went to Crump and told him I was being cross-questioned by them as to whether I had paid for my position and had told them that I had not; also that Bentley bad disclosed everything. I wanted is know if the cheque that I gave Crump had been found. It was a cheque I had obtained from my father—an open cheque. Crump told me that if it was found by the Public Prosecutor I was to say I had lent the money to him (Crump), as he was not able to pay for his dinners which he received at the Guardians' office. After I had been to the Local Government Board I went to see Anderson, another defendant. I wrote out an account of what bad taken place at the Local Government Board at Crump's house and gave it to Crump, requesting him to deliver it to Anderson Crump put it under the rug and told his son to deliver it next morning at nine o'clock. In January of this year I made a full statement to Inspector Kane.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. The reason Crump put my statement under the rug was that another Guardian happened to come in while I was writing it—Mr. Cornish. He had no knowledge of this transaction. I have known Crump for about eight years; by sight at first. I had not come across him before 1900. I had not been in difficulties while I was attendant in the epileptic ward, that I know of. It is the general practice in West Ham to pay money when a man canvasses for an appointment. I should not like to say there are not some men who obtain a post occasionally upon their merits. I had tried for four years on my own merits, and was unsuccessful. I had some of the highest testimonials, but I could not get the post without paying for it, and I was prepared to pay for it. I did not get the post of relieving officer, in 1899 because I was not willing to meet my liability of £100. I did not get back what I had paid. In 1902 I went back to Crump. The £15 cheque that I paid was after I was appointed. I paid £5 before the appointment. I cannot awear to the exact amount I paid Crump. I mentioned the £15 at the police court proceedings. The cheque was borrowed from my father. It came through the London and South-Western Bank, Forest Gate. The cheque is destroyed, and the counterfoil has not been kept—I can produce the pass book if that is any use. I wish I could say that no money passed between me and Crump. I enclosed the cheque with a letter to Crump, which I handed to his son. My income was increased by £40 or £50 a year when I got this appointment. It would rise to £200. I never assisted my father in money matters in my life. He would not be glad that I got the appointment on the terms on which I did get it. He would not believe that I paid money to get it when I told him about two years ago. When I made the statement to the Local Government Board I was anxious not to incriminate the defendant. I certainly cared for myself in the matter, but when I

made the statement there was no defendant to incriminate. I wish I could say that I gave Crump nothing except the £5 alter I had got the appointment, and that he asked for nothing.

Re-examined I think I had seen some of the Guardians as to what I should say in my statement to the Local Government Board. The story I have told the jury is the truth.

FRANK AUSTIN HINTON , 8, Belton Road, Leytonstone. I entered the service of the Guardians in May, 1899; I became assistant to the superintendent relieving officer in 1904, and got my present position of assistant collector in December, 1906. I had a conversation with Fordham about my candidature in 1903 for the assistant collectorship. After that I heard him speak to Crump on my behalf, and heard Crump say that if I liked to spend £10 he could guarantee me the appointment; the £10 was for cab expenses and getting about among his colleagues. I did not get the appointment. In 1906 I went in for another position, and was one of the selected, but did not get a vote. Crump told me I had made "a duck." I paid no money that time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. I never spoke to Crump myself I was about two yards away when Fordham spoke to Crump. I am positive I heard Crump say that if I spent £10 he could guarantee the appointment. I did not hear all the conversation. It was an understood tiling all round that we should pay money to get the posts. Fordham had no authority from me to offer any money.

JOHN CHAMBERLIN , 13, Oakland Rise, Walthamstow, collector to the Guardians. I had bean a clerk in the master's office for some 10 years. In November, 1902, I applied for the post of relieving officer. I spoke to a lei of the Guardians, among them Crump. He said, of course, he would have to go round, and that would make it expensive. He suggested £20. I agreed, after some demur, and said I did not like tie idea of doing it. I was unsuccessful. Shortly Afterwards I saw Crump, and he said he was sorry I did not get the appointment. He mentioned that he had had a lot of incidental expenses, and ultimately I paid him £5 in. coin. About the beginning of 1903, somewhere in March, Lewis Hill was appointed steward to the infirmary, and I started working amongst the Guardians with a view to applying for the resulting vacancy. I sent a circular to the Guardians and saw Crump, who said it was not much good going in for it as it was to be a case of living in, and I did not want to do that, as I was married. I went in for the post of assistant collector and was appointed. I met Crump as I was coming out of the office door, and he told me I was successful. A few days after he told me he had had some expenses in going round to see the members. I told him I could do nothing, but later on if he liked he could go to a tailor where my brother was employed, which he did. and I had a bill sent me for a suit of clothes and a fancy vest.

which I paid. It was about £3. On June 29, 1905, Mr. Bryett resigned, and I became candidate for the collectorship. I personally canvassed and had others to canvass for Mr. I asked Crump for his support, and he said of course if I wanted the position I must be prepared to pay something. He said there were others who were in pared to pay for it. I said I did not see why I should have to pay. as there had been no complaints against me, and just previously the justices of Stratford had complimented me on the way I got cases up for maintenance orders, and that it was rather hard to have to do such a thing, but I would consider the matter. I saw him a few days later, and he asked me if I could manage £50 which would be £5 each for his party, as there were 10 of them. I agreed to that. and got my appointment on September 7. 1905. About that time I had an account with the London and Provincial Bank, having £5 to credit. I pledged with them a life policy in the Sun Life Office—through Mr. Acworth—for £45; that with the £5 made £50, which I drew out the same day in gold—I saw Crump at his office, and gave him £14 in gold. The balance I paid to other Guardians who are not present one £16 and one £21—that makes £51. At the end of October I pledged some jewellery of my wife's, getting six guineas, which with £10 of my salary, making £16, I paid to Crump. At the beginning of the next year I arranged with the Bank to continue the loan, 'paying £10 off. In May I borrowed £20 from my father, and paid off the balance. I paid Crump two more £10's, making £50—that made £86, including the other two Guardians At this stage the prisoner withdrew his plea of not guilty, and pleaded guilty in reference to the charges relating to Chamberlin. also to that relating to Dr. McCormack, though he did not admit that he had had all the sums mentioned. With regard to the other counts he pleaded not guilty.

The Attorney-General said he did not think he should be right in isolating two of the charges.

Mr. Justice Jelf agreed with the Attorney-General, adding that it was desirable to have a thorough investigation of the case, which was one of the most important heard in the City for some years.

FREDERICK ALBERT WADSWOBTH . I was appointed relieving officer in February. 1906; I canvassed for that appointment, and paid one of the Guardians a sum of money. I did not canvass Crump personally. Two days after my election I sent £5 to a man named Carrol.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. I had no personal relations with Crump. I have only Carrol's word as to what he did with the money. In sending him the £5 I asked him to hand it to Crump. Carrol was a friend of mine, and I paid him nothing for himself.

EDWARD ALBERT HAWKINS , now steward at Brentford Infirmary. Last year I applied for the stewardship of the West Ham Infirmary.

I was introduced to Crump as a prospective candidate, and had an hours conversation with him. I asked him if he would support me for the poet, and he said it should he treated as a matter of business; I said, in what way; he replied, the appointment is worth the first, year's salary; that would be about £200. I asked him what would become of the £200; he said, "Oh, it will go to my party; on the Board"; he added that if I did not get the appointment no money was to be paid. He said £200 would be the minimum, and would depend uppon the number of other candidate* who came forward; if they offered more the amount would be raised. I did not pay anything; my candidature was unsuccessful; I only got three votes Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie Carroll was himself a candidate for the post; I did not then know that he was a friend of Crump; I know it now. I am certain that Crump did not tell me that he was going to support Carroll and therefore could not support Mr.

Dr. JAMBS MCCORMACK, physician and surgeon, 89, Walthand Street, West Ham. In July, 1906, I became a candidate for a relieving officership. I had some conversation with a Mr. Daly, and gave him £10, and afterwards £90 and £5. I obtained the appointment; the salary is £130, rising to £180. I had no conversation with Crump.

Dr. ARTHUR DALY, 370, Forest Road, said he received from McCormack the three sums mentioned, and handed the same to Carroll. Witness never saw Crump.

JOHN CONNOLLY CARROLL , a relieving officer under the Guardians. I know Crump very well. In June, 1906, I was a candidate for the stewardship of the infirmary. I spoke to Crump as to my prospects; he said that Hodgkin, the master, was running a candidate from Shoreditch, that Madden, the meat contractor, was at that moment at the workhouse discussing the matter with Hodgkin, and that he frump was to meet them that evening. I saw him next day; he advised me to withdraw my candidature, and said that if I would not press the matter Madden might get me an appointment elsewhere. I told him that I intended to fight; he said, "If sot you will have to find some money. "I said, "Why I" He said, "I shall have to get about amongst our fellows"—meaning his party—"and screw them up, and they are such a lot of wobblers 'they will promise to vote for you, and if they get a bigger offer from the other side they will vote for them. "I asked how much I should have to find. He said. "Oh, about £80."I said I had some claim to the appointment without paying for it, but eventually, as there seemed no prospect of getting it otherwise, I agreed that if I was appointed I would pay the £80 demanded. Crump mentioned the names of seven or eight Guardians, and said that "his party" would want about £10 each.

He said. "The other day a man came to me from Brentford (Hawkins), and as I wished to ascertain which way Anderson was going, I advised him to go to Anderson; he went, and came back and told me that Anderson suggested to him that he should pay £200 for the appointment, that being one year's salary; Hawkins refused to pay it. "Shortly afterwards I again saw Crump; he said he had been going about among the people, and was a little out of pocket, and would like £2 on account; I gave him that, and later on another £2; he told me this was the stiffest fight he had known since he had been a Guardian. I was unsuccessful in getting the place. I remember Wadsworth, going in for a relieving officership in February, 1906. I spoke to Crump about it; he said he would do what he could to help Wadsworth, but there would be some little expense, a matter of £5. Wadsworth got the appointment. I received from him a letter which I opened in Crump's presence; the letter thanked me, and asked me to thank Mr. Crump and give him the £5 enclosed; I gave the money to Crump. Dr. Daly spoke to me about Dr. McCormacks candidature; I saw Crump, and asked him to do what he could to help McCormack; he' said he would, but that his own vote alone was not much good, and that if Dr. McCormack wished to get the appointment he would have to pay to secure the votes of Crumps party not less than £100. Having seen Dr. Daly on the matter, I went to Crump again, and told him that Daly on behalf of McCormack would agree to pay the money, although it was a very large sum; Crump said, "You may take it from me that whoever wants the appointment will have to pay for it"; he said his party would require about £10 each. I eventually paid Crump the three sums mentioned by Dr. Daly, with the exception of the last £5, of which I kept £2 10s. myself. When this case was before the magistrates I made a statement to Inspector Kane.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. When I was applying for the stewardship in June, 1906, I canvassed other Guardians besides Crump; I did not offer them money I knew it was no use trying to get the appointment without paying for it, and I knew that Mr. Crump was the medium by which I could get it by paying; I knew there were other people who would not vote unless they were paid; Crump has always been the intermediary between the officers or applicants and that party; there were other people who would pretend they did not know anything about it if you approached them; they would even tell you to go to Crump; in some cases Guardians have sent intending applicants who could pay to Crump. Crump was a great personal friend of mine; I have always had the Highest respect for him; he always showed the greatest interest in getting the very best men for the positions. I know there is a certain party on our Board, and Crump was practicallv the secretary of the party; all arrangements were made through him; in other words. Crump did the dirty work. It is not the fact that I first mentioned money to him. He did say that if he distributed all the

money amongst others and left nothing for himself he would be quite content, and I believed him; but since I have found that he was only offering the Guardians £5 where he was supposed to be paying them £10 to vote for me I decline to believe him at all; he was going to stick to £40 for himself. As to the £5 Wadsworth transaction, it is an absolute wicked lie to suggest that I divided that with Crump; I swear before God that I never got a farthing of it. I knew that Wadsworth, who was my friend, had not got any money to give away; in fact, he probably had to borrow this £5.

GEORGEF. WADSWORTH . A few days before the appointment of my son, F. A. Wadsworth, in February, 1906, I lent him £20.

(Tuesday, April 30.)

Verdict, Guilty on all counts. Sentence postponed till conclusion of the conspiracy trial.


JOHN ANDERSON was indicted for corruptly soliciting and agreeing to receive certain gifts and rewards for doing something in respect of certain matters in which the public body waa concerned—vis., for voting for or procuring or endeavouring to procure the appointment of certain persons as officers of the public body—namely, J. Chsmberlin, J. Ford ham, and F. Bentley.

Mr. Mansfield said that the defendant, acting under his advice and having no answer to the majority of the counts, desired to plead guilty, except she fifth count, which charged him with soliciting from John Chamberlin, a candidate for the appointment of collector, a gift of £15 as an inducement to do something in respect of that matter—To that count he pleaded not guilty. He pleaded guilty to receiving.

The Attorney-General, replying to Mr. Justice Jelf, said he did not think the distinction was sufficient to prevent his accepting that plea He should not offer any evidence on the fifth count.

A verdict of Not Guilty on the fifth count, and a plea of Guilty on the other counts were entered. Sentence postponed till conclusion of the conspiracy trial.


ALFRED SKINNRR was indicted for unlawfully and corruptly soliciting from John Chamberlin, a candidate for the office of collector, £20 as an inducement to him to vote for his appointment at a meeting of the public body at which the appointment was discussed, and also for corruptly receiving from Chamberlin £21 as a reward for that; other counts charged him with corruptly receiving from Frederick Albert Wadsworth, a candidate for a post, a gift of £10, and from Frank Austin Hinton, another candidate, a sum of £40.

ALFRED HALL proved that Skinner was elected Guardian in April. 1902, that he has been a constant attendant at Board meetings and committee meetings, that he was present at the meetings at which the appointments of Chamberlin and Wadsworth were made, and also at the meeting in 1906 when Hinton'a application came before the Board and Hinton did not receive a single vote.

Cross-examined. I cannot say whether, on the Hinton application. Skinner's support was given to a candidate named Jacobs. As to the Wadsworth. Occasion, Wadsworth had previously been an official and had a good character.

JOHN CHAMBERLIN . I entered the service of the Guardians about 1893 as a clerk in the master's office. From time to time I made various applications for better positions, but was always unsuccessful In June, 1905, there was a collectorship vacant, and I went in for it I spoke to several Guardians, amongst others to Skinner. He came to me in the office on June 29 and asked if I was going in for the appointment. He said it was worth spending a bit on. He suggested £20. I agreed to pay him this if I got the appointment. Altogether I paid for this berth £86. I had £5. I borrowed £45 from the London and Provincial Bank on my life policy. I pawned some of my wife's jewellery. I borrowed £20 from my father. I first paid Skinner £21 instead of the £20 agreed upon. He said, "I have seven to pay. Make it £21, and that will be £3 each." I paid Crump £14 and Anderson £15.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. Before seeing Skinner I had spoken to Crump. He spoke of his "party," not then mentioning names. Later, when I had paid him one or I was instalments, he mentioned names. I paid all these sums in gold. I was not asked to do so, but, from my knowledge and what I had seen going on, I knew it was the genera! practice. On one occasion my brother was applying for a receiving officership. He knew what I had had to do and said to me," I suppose I shall have to pay? "So when I saw Skinner I said, "My brother says he is willing to pay something." I never troubled any more, neither did my brother. He applied for the post and was unsuccessful. I swear I paid Skinner the £21. It is not the fact that I offered him £10 to £20 to support my brother's application and that he ordered me 'out of his shop.

FREDERICK PEDLER , pawnbroker's assistant, proved the pledging by John Chamberlin of certain jewellery for £6 6s. on October 26, 1905 JOHN JAMBS CHAMBERLIN, father of John Chamberlin, said that he advanced his son £20 in May, 1906.

WILLIAM GEORGE ACWORTH . manager of the London and Provincial Bank. Stratford Branch. John Chamberlin kept an account at my branch. In October, 1905, we advanced him £45 on his life policy. On October 5 he drew out £50.

FREDERICK ALBERT WADSWORTH . In February, 1906, I was a candidate for & relieving officership. I spoke to several Guardians, among them Skinner. I asked him to use his influence for Mr. He said there would be some expense attached to it. I said I was willing to pay He said 10 would cost £20, as there were seven or eight others to share with him; two he mentioned were Bissell and Crump. I agreed to pay him £10 the day after the appointment and the rest as soon as I could. I obtained the appointment, and on the day following the election I called at Skinner's shop and paid him £10 in gold. He then said that no part of it was for himself, but that it was to go for the others of his party. He said, "You must not say anything about this or you will incriminate yourself as well as Me." In october, 1906, I paid him another £2 10s. I had had to borrow £20 from my father, and had been paying it back. On December 19 I met him at a Board meeting. He said, "Has anyone been to see you yet?" I said, "No." He said, "If anyone comes you must know nothing about it; there has no transaction taken place between us." I said, "All right."

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. Skinner said he wanted the money, not for "the party" "but for" his party. "I did not ask who they were When he mentioned Crimp as one of his party I thought it strange seeing that I had already paid Crump, but I was not at all surprised. I never asked Crump whether Skinner had paid him. I knew that I was doing wrong in paying this money. I have a wife and family to keep, and I was willing to run the risk,

GEORGEFREDERICK WADSWORTH , father' of last witness, deposed to lending his son £20 just before the election.

FRANK AUSTIN HINTON . Early in 1906 I was candidate for a post under the superintendent relieving officer. I had some conversation with Fordham, then a relieving officer, and he spoke to Skinner. Later on I saw Skinner. He asked me the salary I was receiving—it was £100 a year. The new post I was seeking was at £140. I said I understood from Fordham that I was to pay £10 for the appointment Skinner said it was worth £40 to Mr. He said that he was fighting hard for another candidate, Jacobs, who was in rather distressed circumstances, but that if Jacobs fell out, as he expected, he would run Mr. Finally we agreed that I should pay £40. He said it was not all for himself; there were others to divide it amongst. He said it was a criminal offence, and that if I opened my mouth I should be implicated, so that I was not to say a word to anyone. At the election I was unsuccessful. I did not pay any money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. Jacobs did not get elected. In spite of my having promised this £40, I did not get a single vote. It is not the fact that Skinner refused to support Mr. I am certain that it was armnged between us that he was to have £40 if I got the position.

JESSE FORDHAM . I spoke to Skinner about supporting Hinton's candidature. and asked him if he would do what he could. He said.

"There will be something to be done, you know; something like £10." I told Hinton what he had said.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. Skinner said nothing to me about supporting Jacobs. I had been to several Guardians—amongst other to Crump. The latter asked me for money. There are, of course, Guardians you could not suggest money to, but there are about 10 who accept money and they influence the majority. I did not know that this was a criminal offence, but I admit that my conscience told me it was not a right thing to do. It is impossible that I could have mistaken Skinner for someone else.


ALFRED SKINNER (prisoner, on oath). I have been a member of the Board since 1902. Chamberlin's story this morning is absolutely false. He has never paid me £21 or any other sum, except for goods purchased of Mr. I remember seeing Wadsworth about his candidature; there was absolutely no mention of money between us; I never paid him any money; I have never since I have been a Guardian received any money from him as a commission or a bribe. I remember seeing Hinton about his application. I told him "I am running exCouncillor Jacobs for this office, as he is in distressed circumstances, and I am going to use all the influence that I can to secure him the appointment," which I did. I did speak to Hinton about the diffence of £40 between what he was receiving and the salary of the other appointment. My idea, as I told him, was that, he being a young man in regular work at £100 a year was practically provided for, and I was; going to run Jacobs. I do not recollect Hinton offering me any money to vote for him. Chamberlin approached me about securing a better position for his brother, and said that if I would use my influence amongst the members of the Board to secure a permanent post for his brother he would give me a little gift—from £10 to £20. I said I would not do it Since I have been a Guardian I have never received any money from anyone either for my own influence or for getting anything done on the board.

Cross-examined. I say I do not recollect Hinton offering me any money. I am not clear about it If he did do so I do not say that it would come as a shock of surprise to Mr. I should think it funny; I do not mean a joke. I scarcely know how to explain it. I certainly should think it was wrong and recent it. I never said to Hinton that if he opened his mouth he would be implicated. Wadsworth's story that I made a similar statement to him is also untrue. I have known Crump many years; not intimately, but as a member of the Board. I never knew or suspected that he was getting any money in respect of these offices. [Witness categorically denied the statements of Chamberlin, Wadsworth, Hinton, and Fordham. It may be coincidence that these four men tell so similar a story. I do not know whether they have any animus against me; there seems a lot of animus about; they have made use of me for what they could in getting their appointments and now they want to punish me for doing the thing that was right. I have been a father to the poor people of our district

and have always done my duty as a Guardian. I can assign no reason for these men coming forward and telling a tissue of lies against Mr. Justice.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence postponed till close of trial of general. conspiracy charge.


FRANK WILLIAM HILL was indicted for corruptly receiving from William George Acworth, a candidate for the office of treasurer to the Guardians, the sum of £5 as a reward for voting for, or securing the appointment of, the said Acworth.

The Attorney-General opened the ease.

(Wednesday, May 1.)

ALFRED HALL , clerk to the West Ham Guardians. Prisoner was elected a Guardian in April, 1903, and re-elected in 1906. Up to September 19,1903, Mr. Twain, manager London and County Bank, Stratford branch, was treasurer. He died on September 19, 1903, and the vacancy was advertised in the local papers on October 1. There was a meeting of the Board! on October 15,1903, at which Anderson, Crump, F. W. Hill, Sansom, Skinner, Tarrant and Watts were present, and W. G. Acworth, manager of the London and Provincial Bank, Stratford, was appointed treasurer by 22 votes against 12 for Doherty, the manager of the London and County Bank. There is no salary attached to the office of treasurer. Twain had held the office for 15 years. The account of the Guardians is a very large one. At the Board meeting there was a discussion whether the vote should be by ballot or by show of hands and ballot was determined on. F. W. Hill, Crump, Sansom, Skinner, and Waits voted for ballot.

Cross-examined. A number of Guardians were present, against whom no suspicion has been raised. The ballot was determined by 21 to 14. It is not necessary for a Guardian to be present all the time to be put down as present. Prisoner was a regular attendant at the Board meetings.

WILLIAM GEOEGE ACWORTH . I have been for about 12 years manager of the Stratford branch of the London and Provincial Bank. Twain was not manager of the London and County Bank, but was connected with it by a pension at the time of his death. I applied for the post of treasurer with the sanction of my employers. The account of the Guardians amounted to £300,000 to £400,000 a year. I applied to many of the Guardians and to many people in the neighbourhood to assist my candidature. I did not know the prisoner. Mr. Jones, manager of the East Ham branch of my bank, introduced me to prisoner at his shop, where he trades under the name of the Central Printing Company, saying that my bank had a large claim upon the Guardians as large ratepayers, having 10 branches in the Union.

Prisoner promised to do all he could to help Mr. I called to see him a few days before my appointment, when he said he was in business and would be glad if I could do anything for him. I said we should have to leave that to a later period; I could not promise anything then. He said some of the Guardians got a few pounds for their votes. I said I could not do anything. I declined to do anything of the kind. I also saw Candy, a licensed victualler, and Bignell, as ironmonger, who assisted me in canvassing. I called upon Sansom, a Guardian, a clothier at Walthamstow. On October 15 I attended the offices of the Board with Doherty and other candidates and was informed that I was appointed. Up to that date I had neither paid nor promised any person money. I had incurred in luncheons and travelling expenses £9 17s. 6d., including a subscription to Mr. sray, a Guardian, to a service at a church to which he was appointed On October 16 prisoner called at my bank and was shown into my private room. He congratulated me on my appointment, and said that he had been working for me and speaking to all those he could for me, and that that morning he was short of money—could I give his, a fiver? I said I did not like that kind of business at all. He said if I could meet him in this he would be very much obliged, as he was just starting in business and that he had voted for Mr. I said I was very much obliged, and eventually gave him £5 in gold from my purse Some conversation followed about his opening an account at one of our branches, but as he did not live in my district we left it over all I afterwards gave him a letter of introduction to the Stratford branch The sums paid to various people were afterwards reimbursed by my bank, and, including other expenses, amounted to nearly £100 It was allowed me in January, 1904, when my salary was increased by £10. I have had rises in salary every year, but that was the smallest I have had for many years.

Cross-examined by Mr. Schultess Young. I supplied my bank with details of these payments, mostly. (To the Judge.) Prisoners name was not mentioned. His payment came under the head of "Others" I was not asked what the "others" were. (To Mr. Young.) I paid Sansom £45, Bignell £15, Morgan £3 3s., Cundy £3 3s., Davidson £3 3s. and Jones £3 17s. 6d. I said at the police court that I gave Norman £1 1s., but I have been since told that I did not pay that (To the Judge.) I had no account of it, but I Was always under the impression that I had paid it. (To Mr. Young) The £9 17s. 6d. were my personal expenses which were not charged, including I un cheons and things of that kind. I supported Mr. Murray at a recognition service for the settlement of the minister at his charch, and I put two guineas into the plate, which I afterwards charged to the head office. Mr. Murray was a personal friend. It is a poor platform neighbourhood, but there were several gentlemen on the platform to support the minister. I charged £45 paid to Sansom, who is dead I was not at that time in financial difficulty. I borrowed some money from a friend to pay Sansom. but I held shares which I could have, sold. I anticipated that I should get the amount from the

need office, but I was expressly informed that they would not allow any payment to the Guardians, whatever might be the result. That was when I went to the head office to get my candidature sanctioned. Sansom's amount of £45 and the £5 to the prisoner made up "others £50" in my account. The head office had heard of the Guardians receiving money in bribery'. That interview was a few days before my election. I never saw prisoner until three or four days before my election. I had heard that there was bribery locally, and it was spoken of at the head office. They made no inquiries as to whether any of these amounts were for Guardians. They accepted my account some months afterwards. My office knew that I was a candidate for the treasurership, but they did not know all the minor details of my work. I charged about £10 as the expenses incurred. The £9 17s. 6d. I received towards the end of October, and £80 at the end of January. My account is at the head office. I saw it two months ago. I had no letter from the head office asking for any explanation. I believe no question was raised, but I cannot recollect after three or four years. I did not tempt the prisoner in the slightest. I have given him no orders for printing, except a small order for some private cards on December 14. I am quite certain that I did not promise or pay a single penny in bribery before the election. I gave prisoner no reason to expect that I would pay him anything. I would not entertain it in any form. The first tune I saw prisoner was when Mr. Jones introduced me to him at his shop, and I asked him to support Mr. There was no talk' about money then. I afterwards went to see how he was getting on. He then promised to do more than support me—to help me and do all he could for Mr. There was a boy in the shop, but out of earshot. Prisoner came to me the day after the election, when I gave him the £5. He then said nothing about collecting an account. He then spoke of opening a bank account, but the amount was somewhat small, and he said he would leave it for a short time. Shortly after, I wrote to Jones, the manager of the East Ham branch,* It will be to the bank's interest to allow Mr. Hill to start an account. "That was after he had the £5 out of Mr. His would be a small account, but there is a good deal of competition for tradesmen's accounts.

Re-examined. I have been nearly 30 years in the service of the bank, have passed through all the various stages of their staff, have been 12 years manager, And am now managing an important branch. I knew nothing of the prisoner until this election. I knew he was a Guardian by the list. I only knew his business on going to his shop. I am certain I have not mistaken him for another Guardian. It was with regard 16 orders for printing that I said, "I cannot promise anything now; you will have to leave that to a later date. "When he called and had the £5 on the day after the election there had been no previous transaction between himself and the bank. The Union account was opened by October 29. I was then treasurer. Sansom committed suicide while under remand after these proceedings had commenced and a coroner's inquest was held. I took no receipts for

these payments, which were all in gold. There is not the slighted ground for the suggestion that the £100 was kept by me to meet dial embarrassment. The suggestion has never been made before. I may say that I am buying my own house through a building society and the greater parix of the cost is paid, and I am buying two other houses in the same way. My shares are all fully paid up. I owe no one anything. My life is insured for a large amount, and* the pro miums are all fully paid. There is no ground for the suggestion that the bank passed the account knowing it was false. The account pro duced id what I sent to the bank: "Election carriage, one guines; Jones, out of pocket expenses, etc., £3 3s.; Morgan, services resdered, £3 3s.; Davidson, services rendered, £3 3s.; Cundy, services rendered, £4 44; I Bignell, services rendered, £15; others, £50; total £79 14s." None of the names mentioned are Guardians. The guines was paid for Skinner's municipal election. He asked me if I would send a carriage, and I asked our surveyor to do it for Mr. Skinner said he had voted for me, and I thought one good turn deserved as other. Murray had been a supporter of mine, and at his initiatory Service I put two guineas in to the box and charged the bank with it.

To Mr. Justice Jelf. The London and Provincial Bank have existed for 40 or 50 years, and have 300 or 400 branches. The Union as count would be a very beneficial account, amounting to £300,000 or £400,000 a year. There would be a good deal of competition to get it. I believe I had only the small rise of £10 that year because I had the misfortune to lose some accounts. Before going in for this I had the sanction of the head office. I was expressly informed that they would not sanction any payment to the Guardians—they would not encourage it. Had I been asked who "others" were I should have had to tell them. I do not think there was any suspicion on the part of my bank that the payments were to Guardians.

Mr. Justice Jelf said that such things were capable of explanation but to an outsider it looked as if some explanation was required that the bank, after having heard that, in the past, payments had been made to Guardians, should not have asked any questions as to what the words "and others £50" in an account meant.

The Attorney-General said that the witness could not know what took place at the Board meetings of the bank.

Mr. Justice Jelf said he Was only asking for information. He was not holding an inquisition into the matter. There might be an absolute explanation of the whole thing, but it was his duty to call public attention to a very extraordinary state of things.

The Attorney-General said that, with regard to the officials, he quite agreed with the learned' Judge, but, of course, such matters would not come Wore the directors.

ARTHUR BIGNELL . 27. Upton Lane. Forest Gate, ironmonger. I know some of the Guardians of West Ham, including the prisoner, I keep my account at the London and Provincial Bank, and knew that Acworth was a candidate for the treasurership. After a conversation with him I spoke to several of the Guardians, including prisoner.

After the election I applied to Acworth for £30, and he paid me £15, which I took and used for my own purposes.

Cross-examined. Of course, I had had some expenses. I said at the police court that I mentioned £30 merely as a prohibitive figure. I did not want the money, and when I received the £15 I had not made any mention about expenses.

JOHN GEORGE CUNDY , 91, The Grove, Stratford, licensed victualler, I knew Acworth in October, 1903, and saw several Guardians in connection with his candidature. To one Guardian I gave £3 or £4 in coin. After the election I saw Acworth I do not remember received any money from him. I would not positively deny it—it has gone from my memory.

Cross-examined. In consequence of what Acworth said to me, I went to see Watts before the election.

Mr. schultess Young submitted that there was no Corroboration such as was required, on well-known authorities, when the prosecution rested upon the evidence of an accomplice. Mr. Justice Jelf. I do not think "accomplice" is quite the word in each a thing as this; I do not think it quite covers this. I do not say this is not an accomplice in a sense; he is taking part in a transaction which requires two to do it. How ever, I am quite sure there is evidence for the jury.


FRANKWILLIAM HILL (prisoner, on oath). I first set up in business in 1901, not in my present place, but in the vicinity. I am married, and have children. I have a small jobbing printing business. I called it the Central Printing Works, because the borough, having, been divided into two parts, this happened, to be in the Central Ward. I was elected a Guardian in 1906. I had never been in public before, I have always been a fairly good attendant. I recollect Mr. Acworth calling upon me about the end of September or the beginning of October, 1903, with Mr. Jones, Who had previously called upon me in respect of the same thing. Mr. Acworth was introduced to Mr. Jones as candidate for the treasurership of the West Ham Board of Guardians, and he said practically what he has said this morning. He told me of the numerous claims the bank had upon the West Ham Board for their support, and I said I would vote for him as I had already promised Mr. Jones I would do. I had also been canvassed on behalf of other local gentlemen before ever I knew Mr. Acworth. Nothing at all was said about me getting business from the bank. As far as I can recollect, the interview took place in the evening and did not last very long. I could not promise to canvass for Mr. Acworth or do more for him than vote because I knew very few of the Guardians. It is not correct that Mr. Acworth came a second time. He came once only with Jones; never alone. After the election I paid Mr. Acworth a visit, I should say, towards the end of October, at the bank in Stratford Broadway. That was in consequence of a communication from Mr. Acworth stating that there were one or two small jobs I might pick up if I called there.

Mr. Justice Jelf. Was that put in cross-examination? Mr. Schultess Young. I asked Acworth whether Hill had not called in respect of an account. I think that was all I said.

Mr. Justice Jelf This it quite a different thing; a definite thing.

Mr. Schultess Young. I am only asking Mr. Hill to give me the details within his memory.

Witness. When I went to the bank I was invited into Mr. A. worth's private room and told the nature of the work I was required to do—it was a little lithography. Mr. Acworth instructed someone to look up the papers and then informed me that the plates were as the printer's, and he would have to give them a little job to get the plates back. As a matter of fact, I got that order in the spring of the following year.

Mr. Justice Jelf. Do let us keep to what you cross-examined to You will have to call back the witnesses on the other side to see if they accept this account.

Witness. In the course of conversation, Mr. Acworth asked me if I had a banking account. I said, "No." He said, "It is to the advantage of every business man to have an account." I agreed, and he said, "Cannot we have you as a customer?" I said, "Not at the present time." Mr. Acworth said he would be very pleased at any time, and he gave me an introduction to the manager at East Ham. I afterwards opened a small account at the Stratford branch. It is not true that I told Mr. Acworth I had been working for him, and wanted a fiver. He did not say anything about not liking the business at all or anything of that kind. I congratulated him upon his appointment. He did not pay me £5 in gold from his pocket. He gave me an order that day for Christmas cards for his private residence, which I executed. I had other orders from the bank, for whom I was doing work down to last October or November small turns, perhaps 18s. 6d., 12s. 6d., 6s. 6d., and so on, aggregating perhape £5 over the whole period. These are all shown in my books The balance to my credit was never very large, say £20. I have received no moneys whatever on behalf of Mr. Acworth. The only thing I received as the result of knowing Mr. Acworth was the bank's business. I was present at the meeting of the Guardians when Mr. Acworth's name was brought up as a candidate for the treasurership The majority of the Guardians voted that a ballot should be taken I voted for Mr. Acworth. I believe the Guardians invariably vote by ballot. The rule it to have an exhaustive ballot Except for these little printing jobs I have neither had nor expected to have any money advantage for voting for Mr. Acworth.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. I had been extensively canvassed by gentlemen of the district whom I knew far better than Mr. Acworth, and it was from their opinion that I promised him my vote. Until he called with Mr. Jones he was an absolute stranger to Mr. The letter from Mr. Acworth, which brought about our second meeting, was destroyed, like a good many other things I should like to find now. I have no idea why Mr. Acworth should have written me a letter suggesting there were some jobs I might pick up, unless it was, as I said at Stratford, that he thought that one

good turn deserves another. As to the suggestion that Mr. Acworth would not be canvassing for Christmas cards so early as October, allow me to explain that we start canvassing for 'private Christmas cards in September. I keep an order book, but it is very rough (book produced), and the Christmas cards were supplied in blank by a arm in Glasgow and I used to print them. I have no proof to produce that I took the order in October, but I produce the receipt for payment in December. At the time of the election I had no banking account. I had had one at the London and South-Western Bank but had then drawn all the money out and expended it in my business. I did not say anything to Mr. Acworth about assisting me in my business. I think the way that came about was that Mr. Acworth said a banker's reference would be of great assistance to me in my business in the way of getting credit. That was at the same interview new at which I secured this order. I suggested to him that my accounts were rather small, and he said, "That does not matter, Mr. Hill There is no knowing what they will grow into, and if we look after the little ones the big ones will look after themselves, end you may be able to introduce our bank to two or three of your friends. "He suggested that I might go to another branch. I have no other answer as to why he should be interested in my having an account. I am not versed in bankers' methods. I did not stay discussing the chances of the election with Mr. Acworth. It is true that I was a young man just starting in business. I had been established about two years then. If I bad helped him during the election that might explain why he should be anxious to help me afterwards. I never promised to work for him and I never dad work for him. I voted for him. As to Mr. Acworth's statement that I asked him if he could be of some help to me in my business, and that he said, "I cannot promise you anything now; you will have to leave it to a later date," and that in consequence of that I went to see him, such a conversation never took place. I had no banking account at that time. My account with the London and South-Western Bank had been discontinued. It is quite true that I was financially short, but I have no recollection of any conversation on the subject with Mr. Acworth. It is not true that I asked Mr. Acworth to let me have a fiver. I might have told him business was bad. Acworth did not say to me, "I do not like this business at all, Mr. Hill." I did not say, "If you can meet me in this I shall be very glad, as I am practically only just starting business." As to whether congratulations usually follow the event, and are not postponed for a month, in this ease they were postponed until I met Mr. Acworth. I am certain the meeting was not on the 16th, because the day following the election was a Friday, and as the Guardians take up the full day on Thursday, Fridays and Saturdays are very busy days with me in making up the amount of time I lost in going to the Guardians, so I am positive it would not be on Friday that I saw Mr. Acworth. I did not get the lithographic work till February of the next year, as

he said he would have to get the plates back from the printers. I did small jobs for him up till last November. I have been on most friendly terms with Mr. Acworth, and feel I am under considerable obligations to him. There is not the smallest ill-feeling between him and me, and I would like to say at this stage that I dissociate myself from any personal attack on Mr. Acworth. Some time has elapsed, and I think, perhaps, he has made a mistake. I would not like to suggest that Mr. Acworth bad wilfully uttered a lie, but all this occurred four and a half years ago.

Mr. Justice Jelf. Mr. Attorney-General. After all this evidence has been gives, it seems to me to be really oath against oath, and this young man certainly has gives his evidence in a way which makes one listen to him. I do not know how it struck you at all, but, considering what the Crown have to establish and that the burden of proof rests upon them, I do not know whether you think it is a case that might be dealt with. I think I see some indication on the part of the Jury.

The Attorney-General. It is a case that is not clearly established, but I bare put forward all the evidence obtainable.

Mr. Justice Jelf. I find it very difficult to put my finger exactly upon what evidence there is of corroboration, and, under the circumstances, this man's liberty must not be taken away unless it is clearly proved. I do not know how it strikes you or bow it strikes the Jury at the present moment.

The Foreman of the Jury. The Jury want to know whether they have power to stop the case.

Mr. Justice Jelf. You are quite at liberty to do so if you think it is not made out to your satisfaction.

The Foreman. The Jury do not think there is a case, my lord.

The Attorney-General. I have not the slightest wish to press the case.

Mr. Justice Jelf. It is quite right that it should be investigated. We may find distinctions between the different cases. Personally, I think there is a distinction in this case. The young man seems to have given his evidence very straightforwardly.

A verdict of " Not guilty" was returned.,


TOM WATTS was indicted for, on October 1, 1903, corruptly receiving a gift of £3 as an inducement for him to vote for William George Acworth, a candidate for the office of treasurer to the West Ham Union.

Mr. Huntly Jenkins, who defended prisoner, desired to say at the outset that he made no insinuation against Mr. Acworth's personal honour and integrity.

JOHN GEORGE CUNDY . I know Mr. Acworth, and when he was candidate for the position of treasurer in September and October of he called at my private house. In consequence of what then passed between us I spoke to certain persons who were Guardians, amongst others the defendant Watts, whom up to that time I had only known by name. I met him opposite his greengrocer's shop and asked him if he would vote for Mr. Acworth for the treasurer ship. He said, "If you want me to oblige you by voting for Mr. Acworth, what price me?" He said, "Well; some people think it a

great bore not to have a dinner on the table on Sundays. "I said, "Oh, well, it that is the case, give them one," and I gave him to the best of my knowledge £4. I would not swear whether it was £3 or £4. He said, "Thank you, I will tee that they get something on the table next Sunday." I said, "All right," and bade him good day. He led me to believe that he would vote for Mr. Acworth. As to Mr. Acworth's statement that he paid me three or four guineas I do not recollect receiving the money from Mr. Acworth. I would not be prepared to say he did not pay the money; it is a long time ago.

Cross-examined by Mr. Huntly Jenkins. I am a respectable licensed victualler and would not knowingly do an unlawful act. When I offered this bribe I knew I was doing an unlawful act. I am very sorry that I took an active part in the matter. It was at Mr. Wetts's suggestion that I paid the money. My design in going to him was not to bribe and corrupt him but to get his vote. Mr. Acworth did not say that if I paid money away he would reimburse Mr. He said Watt's was a very valuable vote and asked me to get it, but did not tell me how I was to get it. The suggestion of bribery came from Watts. I do not remember asking Mr. Acworth to reimburse Mr. If you like to take 41 that way I paid this money out of love and affection for Mr. Acworth, double that amount; it was business affection; there was no love about it. I made two journeys from Dover, where I was staying on account of my health, to try and assist him. Ha wrote to me at Dover and I came up from Dover on purpose to see Mr. Wat'ts. I cannot tell you how much money I paid away on Mr. Acworth's behalf; it was not hundreds; the only money I paid away I paid to Mr. Watts, except the expenses of the journeys. I never asked Mr. Acworth to reimburse me; I may have told him that I paid away money, but I cannot swear it; it is a long while ago. I am under the impression I may have done so.

GEORGE WILLIAM ACWORTH . At the time of the candidature I knew Mr. Cundy very well. Mr. Cundy was is very prominent local licensed victualler well-known in the neighbourhood and trustee of one of the large associations connected with the trade. The bank had relations with him in connection with the Licensed Victuallers' Protection Society. I called upon him with reference to my candidature and asked him to do what he could for Mr. Some months alter the election I had some conversation with Cundy. He either called or I met him just outside my bank. As a consequence of that conversation I paid him three or four guineas. On the paper shown to me this morning it was four—I was going by memory. It is one of the amounts I was reimbursed by the head office.

To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. The list of payments was sent up to the head office about three months after the election. I did not tell Cundy if it was necessary to spend any money he was to spend it. He told me he had had some expenses. I do not recollect that he mentioned

the name of Watts. Watts was an important voter for me, and I was particularly anxious to catch him. I did not ask for details as to how he had expended the money. He volunteered some information to Mr. I did not know that he had seen Mr. Watts. Candy also spoke to someone else. I recollect nothing about Watts.

ALFRED HALL gave evidence as to the appointment of Mr. Acworth at successor to Mr. Swayne.

Mr. Justice Jelf said he had thought there might be a difficulty as to whom the money was received from, but the statute did not say it must be from any particular person named.

The Foreman of the Jury. The jury consider there is no case.

Mr. Justice Jelf. Considering that the witness was not very satisfactory in his recollection I am not surprised at your taking that view.

A verdict of Not guilty was entered.

(Thursday, May 2.)


The ten defendants were tried together on the indictment for conspiracy.

Mr. Hammond Chambers submitted that the prosecution should be put to select upon which of the ninety counts of the indictment they would first proceed. Certain counts charged corrupt practices, dating back to July, 1903. Hodgkin did not enter the service of the Guardians until 1906. It would be unfair to him to proceed with the whole of the counts on bloc, Cites R. v. Barry, 4 Foster and Finlason. p. 369 (Martin B.). and R V. King. 1897, 1. Q. B. D). p. 214 (Hawkins J.) Mr. Mansfield supported the point and suggested that at least the charges might be taken in two groups, one, conspiracy on the part of the defendants who were Guardians; the other, conspiracy on the pert of those who ware officers. Cites R. V. Burch, 4 Foster and Finlason, p. 407 (Montague Smith J.)

Mr. Stewart and Mr. Martin associated themselves with the submission.

Mr. Justice Jelf said that the case for the prom cut ion was that here was one great and widely ramified conspiracy, extending over a long period and with a number of different parties to it. It would be impossible to try such a case piecemeal. He would take care to make, and to see that the jury made, every proper distinction between the different defendants.

ALFRED HALL repeated his evidence giving the dates of the election of the Guardian defendants and details of the appointments of defendants who were officers. He produced a number of Bond's tenders for the coal contract; the first was in September, 1902.

To Mr. Macaskie. Bond tendered in 1901. His tenders have been for coke as well as coal; his coke tenders were never accepted.

HARRY ELIJAH BOND . I have traded at Leyton as a coal merchant for five or six years, with offices at High Street and at the Leyton railway sidings. I used Leyton and Wood Street Stations. I was assisted in my business by my son, H. W. Bond, and for a time by a clerk named Smith. I had carmen and vans. In May, 1906, my

business WM converted into a limited liability company. In July, 1906, I became bankrupt; I have not yet got my discharge. In August, 1906, I was charged at Stratford County Police Court with obtaining money and a cheque by false pretences from the West Ham Guardians. After some evidence, I pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the second division. While in prison I had several interviews with Inspector Kane. In September, 1902, I first tendered to the Guardians for coal. I then knew only two Guardians—Crump and Cornish. For this tender I did not canvass or use any influence with the Guardians or officials. I was successful in obtaining a six months' contract; it was for house and steam coal to the workhouse. That contract was honestly and properly carried out by Mr. I next tendered for a twelve months' contract from September, 1903. Just before tendering I met Crump accidentally in the street. He reminded me that I had ceased to be contractor and asked me if I intended to Vender for the next contract I told him I did and that I hoped I should have his support. He said, "There is no reason why you should not become a contractor again if you will accommodate yourself to the usual customs of contractors. "I asked him what the customs were. He said they were for the contractors to pay. certain sums to some of the Guardians and some of the officials. I asked what he expected of me He said the demand varied by the amount of profit that one was able to make out of the contract. He suggested that the job was worth £100. I told him that if he and his colleagues could secure me the contract I would he willing to pay him that amount. He said that the money must be paid in gold, and that it would go to certain individuals—namely, Anderson, Cornish, Watts, Skinner, Tarrant, and himself. He suggested that I should see Lewis Hill. I did see Hill, and, on my introducing the matter, he said, "If you are prepared to fall into line as the others do there is no reason why you should not get this contract and others." I asked what he meant by falling into line. He told me, in substance, that I should pay him £100 during the currency of that contract if I secured it. I demurred, and pointed out that if I paid this I should make nothing at all. He suggested that if I secured the contract I should see two other officials, and arrangements would be made between the four of us for charging for coal which was never delivered. He mentioned the two men—Riches the storekeeper and Baird the engineer, He suggested that I would have to pay Riches £5 a quarter. Baird, he said, was an unknown quantity. "We don't know much about him; you mutt see him yourself and make your own terms with him." I agreed to pay the £100. At this time I had had no dealings with Baird or Riches. Riches came to my house one evening after I got the contract. He told me that Lewis Hill had asked him to call on me with the object of coming £o some arrangement for faking the delivery notes—making out the quantities delivered to be considerably in excess of what they actually were. We discussed how it should be done. I was then about to start delivering the coal in bulk instead

of in sacks. It was suggested that additions might be made in this way: A load would be, say, 1 ton 16 cwt., and he would add 2 or three cwt., making it 18 or 19 cwt., or it would be 1 ton 18 cwt., and be would add 2 cwt., making it two tons. We also agreed that he should be supplied with a number of my delivery notes, and that fictitious weights should be put in, and the dates filled in by him afterwards. I told him that Lewis Hill had suggested that I should pay him £5 per quarter, to which he agreed. I called on Baird and told him Lewis Hill had asked me to tell him that I should be charging for two or three tons of steam coal weekly more than was actually delivered, and that I should offer him £10 a quarter to wink his eye at it. I mentioned that I had arranged with Lewis Hill and Riches and some of the Guardians. Baird said he was not at all surprised to hear that I had to pay for my contract as he had to pay a considerable sum to secure his job, and that, as long as I did not overdo it it would be all right. Shortly afterwards I saw Crump. He said his colleagues had asked him to call on me and satisfy himself as to my ability to carry out the contract, which would run into between 10,000 and 12,000 tons in the year. I had a friend, a Mr. Moore, who was agent for the Whitwell Collieries. He was then at Yarmouth. I suggested to Crump that he should go to Yarmouth with me and see Moore. He assented, and we went. I introduced Crump to Moore. Moore told Crump that if I secured the contract and bought the coal from his colliery there would be no difficulty as to the supply. Crump appeared satisfied. We stayed two nights at Yarmouth. I paid the expenses, £5 or £6, being reimbursed about half by Moore. In September, 1903, I tendered for the yearly contract for house and steam coal at £9,211—that was for the work-house, the infirmary, and the school. The tender was accepted. The coal on coming to the railway station would be put into sacks and weighed; that is the way we started. After a little the practice was to deliver the coal loose in the cart, the Cross and the net weight of the load being ascertained over the railway weighbridge. A pairhorse van was used when the load was three tons; generally a singlehorse van was used. At the workhouse and the infirmary a record is kept at the gate porters lodge of everything that passes. Riches was at the infirmary gate porter's lodge. The carman in charge of the van would take duplicate delivery notes stating the date and the weight and kind of coal. If the weight on the note was found wrong the note would be returned corrected. I used to send weekly invoices and quarterly accounts. When I had arranged with Baird for the carting of steam coal in bulk I arranged with Riches to send the delivery notes to him without any weight at all, and that both sides should accept the weighbridge weights. The added 2 or 3 cwt Riches would put on £he back of the delivery note in ink, and on the back he would put the actual weight in pencil. Riches would also send me the spare delivery notes filled up with fictitious dates and weights. In my daily sales book an account was kept against the Guardians; the true deliveries were entered in pencil. Then, when

I got the falsified or fictitious delivery notes the pencil was erased and the new figures entered in ink, so that the sales book tallied with the delivery notes. I also kept a ledger; this was made up from the ink figures in the sales book. The invoices sent to the Guardians corresponded with both books. Soon alter the contract commenced I taw Baird. I told him that the difference between the buying and selling prices of the coal was very small and almost entirely absorbed in expenses. I pointed out how there would be a saving in working expenses if I could deliver the coal in bulk instead of in sacks, and I could afford to pay him something out of the saving. I offered him 2d. a ton, and he agreed. From that date we carted the steam coal to the infirmary in bulk. This arrangement with Baird continued throughout all my contracts; the amount was paid to him in coin, monthly. During the first portion of the 1903 contract we delivered coal in sacks. There was the same system of gate porter, weighbridge, weighbridge clerk, delivery notes, invoices, and quarterly accounts. Six months after the contract commenced I had a conversation with Lewis Hill as to the deliveries to the workhouse, where, up to that time, deliveries had been properly carried out. Lewis Hill asked me if I was charging only for coal actually delivered at the workhouse, so I told him I was. He then said that I ought to see someone there and make with him a similar arrangement for fictitious deliveries to that made with him and others at the infirmary, giving as his reason that unless fictitious deliveries were charged for at the workhouse the difference between the consumption at the infirmary and workhouse would be noticeable and would probably lead to some question on the part of the authorities. I agreed to that. He suggested that there were two or three that I should see there, and mentioned Spinks, the labour master, who was generally at the weighbridge. After that date, March, 1904, fictitious charges were made by putting in fictitious delivery notes for coal which had never been delivered. That dishonest system continued throughout the contract. Alter I had tendered, and been accepted, for the 1903-4 contract, I called at Crump's shop and he showed me from his book the amounts of the various competing tenders. He said mine was not the lowest by more than £100; that there had been some effort by some of the Guardians to give the contract to the lowest tenderer, but owing to their arguments my tender was accepted. He wanted to know when I could pay. I told him I was willing to pay them £10 each on the contract being sealed and the balance when I received my first cheque. He seemed satisfied with that. I then saw Lewis Hill at the infirmary. He told me he had used his influence with his friends and so I bed got the contract. About the end of October I paid Anderson, Watts, Crump. Skinner, and Tarrant £10 each. I am sure whether I paid P. W. Hill the first year. I paid Anderson at his office in St. James's Street, Waltham stow. Crump, Watts, and Skinner came to my house and I paid them together in gold in my drawing-room. I had cashed a cheque at the bank and I took the money from my wife in the

dining-room. They came by appointment. The money was reedy in the dining-room. I took them into the drawing-room and paid then there. During the 1902 contract the only Guardians I knew were Crump and Cornish. I had been introduced to the party of five or fix, including Sansom. My wife handed the £10. That made £60. At the end of 1903 or beginning of 1904, when I received the quarterly cheque, I paid all those I have named, excepting Anderson, £7 each. I afterwards gave Crump Anderson's £7. That made £102. In January, 1904, I paid Hill a first instalment on £100 of £25; Baird £10, Riches £5, Jackson £5. Jackson was the engineer at the workhouse. On receipt of the other three quarterly paymeats under the 1903-04 contract, I made the same quarterly payments to those four, and after the March quarter there was a additional £5 to Spinks, making altogether on that contract £295 During 1903-04 contract I got my coal cheaper from the Whitwell Colliery through Moore's agents. The Union business was about half of my trade. During 1903-1904 about three or four hundred tons were charged which were never delivered, including fictitious delivery notes and fictitious additions to the amounts delivered, the value being about £300. That includes workhouse and infirmary. We kept in our books an account against the Whitwell Colliery, showing the exact amount of coal bought, which, on inspection, would have shown that we were buying less than we were apparently selling; so a bogus firm was introduced called "Wright, Ramsay and Co," who purported to be coal factors selling to Mr. This fictitious account was kept precisely in the same way as the genuine account—periodical deliveries, the mark on the railway waggon, the owner of the railway waggon, the colliery weight of the waggon, the output depot weight of the waggon, the date of its arrival at the depot, and the date of its clearance—entirely fictitious entries. That account was in our books in May, 1906, at the date of the Local Government Board inquiry. This account has now been taken out of the ledger. In the daily sales books the pencil marks are still visible. The book produced is for 1905. That arrangement is carried right through to the end. Ledger produced is from January to May, 1906. It has the usual indented index. At the time of the inquiry I took out that part relating to the Wright, Ram say account on folios 549 to 554, which are missing. I took out the part of the index which contained their name, and recopied the other names on the other page, then took the book to the printers, Alexander and Sons, Ltd., and got them to make a new indent to the index showing the four letters, T V W X on one page instead of the two letters T V. I drew cheques for Wright, Ramsay and Co., which were cashed by myself or my son at the bank and the money used in my business. My son Harry knew of the existence of Wright, Ramsay's account—he used to keep it, and also he knew about the fictitious pencil entries. Davis, my clerk, knew also Smith did not know the truth about the Wright, Ramsay account

or the pencil entries system. I tendered again for the contract for Before doing so I saw Lewis Hill, F. W. Hill, Crump, and the two engineers, Baird and Jackson. I asked Lewis Hill if he would use his influence to secure for me the same amount of support as he had done in the previous year, and he agreed to do so provided I made the same arrangement with him during the currency of the next contract as I had done during the then contract—that is, to pay him £100. I agreed. I saw Baird, and told him that if I was successful I would make the same arrangement wish him during the nest contract—£10 a quarter. He agreed. I saw Crump, and we came to the same arrangement, the amount to be £100. I became acquainted with F. W. Hill in the latter part of 1903 or the beginning of 1904. He became Guardian early in I was introduced to him by Crump as a Guardian who would be likely to look after my interests on the Board. Skinner, Crump, Watts, and Sensom were in the bagatelle room, and Hill and I came outside and, in the presence of Skinner and Crump, I promised that Hill should share in the amount I had agreed to pay for the first contract. I am not pure whether Watts and Sansom came out with us. That is, that Hill was to have £10 like the others. I gave Hill some work to do as a printer—to the amount of about £3 or £4 in all. I then saw Jackson, Baird, and Riches and continued the arrangements with them. On the evening of the day the tenders ware opened I saw Crump at his shop. He told me that, although I was not the lowest tenderer by about £341, they had secured me the contract. He said that there had been some suggestion on the pant of some Guardians that the lowest tenderer should be accepted, but that they had urged that I was a local man employing local labour and had so secured me the whole contract. Tender produced is mine. The amount is rather larger than the previous year—£9,348 10s. 10d.; it is sealed September 15. I made the same payments of £10 each in gold to the Guardians whom I had paid before, and to F. W. Hill in addition. Watts and Crump came to my house together; Sansom came alone; Skinner and F. W. Hill came to my office. I did not pay Anderson personally. During the contract the same dishonest system of deliveries was carried out at both workhouse and infirmary in the same way; the Wright, Ramsay account was continued through the year, and the 2d. a ton payment to. Baird; my cheques were received at the quarterly periods and on receipt I paid Lewis Hill, Baird, Riches. Jackson, and Spinks the same amount as before in coin. I paid Baird, Jackson, Spinks, and Riches invariably at their respective offices; Lewis Hill almost invariably cams to my house; my wife has seen him there several times. He usually came in a cab at about eight, nine, or ten o'clock and spent the evening with us until one or two in the morning. He would have whisky and cigars, or wine. All the quarterly payments were made at each quarterly period throughout that contract.

HARRY ELIJAH BOND , recalled, further examined. It was during the 1904-5 contract that I made an arrangement with F. W. Hill the be should come in with others of the Guardians in the payments of the contracts, and he suggested that he should come into this matter with two of the officials of the East Ham Council with the object of getting a code specified in the tender forms of the Council so that I might become a successful tenderer there. He was a member of the East Ham Council at that time. I agreed to an appointment with him with the object of getting an interview with the electrical engineer of the East Ham Council and the secretary of the Education Committee. He got me both the introductions. I was not a successful tenderer and never entered into a contract with the East Ham Council. I communicated the system of keeping the books and delivering the coal on falsified and fictitious delivery notes to Crump, and I understood that the others knew all about it. I do not recollect that he said anything special when I told him about it, or that he ever referred to it directly again. Up to about June, 1905, I had been supplying English coal under my contracts, the contracts being for English coal June, 1905, I received a letter from Mr. Hilleary, clerk to the Guardians, and, in consequence of that letter, I afterwards supplied Welsh coal at the infirmary. hat was a supply outside the contract, and the price 23s. 2d. per ton. I spoke to Lewis Hill and Baird about the change. here had been complaints, I suppose, from the surrounding inhabitants of the dense volumes of lack smoke the shaft of the infirmary emitted from time to time. The officials wanted to know how that could be obviated and I suggested, in conjunction with Hill and Baird, that Welsh coal would remove the nuisance, it being very much less smoke-producing. From June to Michaelmas I supplied about 500 tons of Welsh coal. I did not always supply Welsh coal at the price and under the description of Welsh coal during these three months. I arranged with Lewis Hill that the Welsh coal should contain a mixture of English coal, and as the price of English coal was 14s. 11d. against 23s. 2d., the delivery of a load partly English and partly Welsh would mean a considerable additional profit, which was to be equally divided between Lewis Hill and myself. The appearance of Welsh coal is different from the appearance of English coal. It has a much more glossy brightness than the average coal from the Midland districts of England, and to a person accustomed to deal with coal the difference is easily noticeable. I also had conversation on the subject with W. Hill, and also with Baird, the engineer, to the effect that I should substitute about one-third of English coal for Welsh coal, so that the loads as they came along would contain about one-third of English coal. I did not agree to pay Baird anything more in respect of this arrangement. The mixture supplied during the three months was mostly in bulk, and the arrangement as to the 2d. a ton that I had made with Baird extended to that mixture. My loaders had

instructions to put the English coal in the bottom part of the vans and the Welsh coal on top. When we carried in sacks we used to load the vans sack and sack—a sack of English and a sack of Welsh, so that in the one case in running out of the van the Welsh would mix with the English, and in the other the shooting of alternate sacks would have the same effect. I think about 900 tons charged for as Welsh was, in fact, mixture. I had a conversation with Lewis Hill at the beginning of August, 1906. I met him in the workhouse grounds, and he suggested that, as the Guardians were in vacation, it would be a good thing to make a few pounds additional profit by substituting English for Welsh coal, which they had adopted for the infirmary. I said that I had already made an arrangement with Lewis Hill for doing so. The two Hills are not related. I agreed to pay F. W. Hill £5 or £6, I forget which it was now. To the best of my recollection it was in cash and paid at my Leyton Station office. The period was then coming along for the 1905-6 contract, for which I thought I would wish to tender. I had conversation with Lewis Hill in the early part of July. He told me Hodgkin would have to come into the arrangement that year. I had seen Hodgkin at the workhouse, but had not been formally introduced to him. Lewis Hill told me he would arrange for Hodgkin to be at his house in the infirmary grounds that evening, but Hodgkin was engaged on other business. I, however, saw Hodgkin next day at the workhouse. Hodgkin appeared to be expecting me and told me that from what he had heard from Mr. Hill and my friends on the Board he thought we should get on all right together. I told him I was paying Hill £100 a year and that Hill had suggested I should pay him a similar amount. I referred to what had taken place between me and the Guardians, and told Hodgkin that the Guardians were already asking for more money, and that unless I could make some additional profit I could not possibly afford to pay these increased demands. He asked me if I could not get preferential rates from some collieries with the object of having these particular collieries' coal printed on the Guardians' tender form. He told me he would use his influence to get whatever collieries I was successful in negotiating with on the Guardians' tender. I saw Lewis Hill next day at the infirmary and told him the purport of the conversation with Hodgkin. and he said he would use hit influence also with the Guardians to get any particular coal specified that might be arranged for. The observation that the Guardians were already asking for an increased sum came about in this way. Crump called at my office one day and told me that other competitors in the coal trade were offering more than I had been paying, and suggested that if I wanted to keep the contract I should have to pay more also. I told him I should have to consider the matter, that I could not promise there ands then to pay more than I was paying, and I asked him to come back in a day or so's time for my decision. He came back a few days later and I told him that, having had some conversation

with Lewis Hill and Hodgkin, I was prepared to pay the additional demand, £150. Crump told me at that time I should probably be invited to meet all the contractors, and that the amounts agreed to be paid by each contractor would be put into a pool and equally divided amongst the constituents of the party to which he professed to belong. I know Mr. Albert Page, the agent of the Blackwell Collieries Company, which supplies coal from the Sutton, Alfreton, Shirland, and Blackwell pits. He came to my office after I had been to his, and from my office we went to the workhouse, where we saw Hodgkin. I introduced Page, and told him that the company he represented raised a coal which I thought would be suitable for the purposes of the workhouse and the infirmary. In order to prove that my statement was true, Page offered to take Hodgkin, Lewis Hill, and myself down to the collieries in Derbyshire. Hodgkin did not accept that offer. Page suggested that, as we could not get away to go to Derbyshire we should have a night out in town, Hill, myself, Hodgkin, and Page beginning with a dinner at Frascati's, in Oxford Street. The dinner duly took place, but I do not remember the date. We afterwards adjourned to the Oxford Music Hall. During the dinner Page offered, in the presence of both Lewis Hill and Hodgkin, to give me a preference of 6d. a ton if his Sutton Main coal was specified on that tender—their Alfreton seam. Hodgkin and Hill said they would get it specified on the tender. After we came from the music hall, Hill, Hodgkin, and I, on our way back to Walthamstow, discussed the question at length. I do not recollect all that took place. It was arranged that the coal raised by the Blackwell Company should be specified in the Guardians' tender. It was arranged that I should see the engineers at both the workhouse and the infirmary and arrange for some small quantities of inferior coal to be supplied, and that my practices with Riches and Spinks should be continued. The inferior coal would not necessarily come from the Blackwell Colliery. I recollect having some conversation the same night with Lewis Hill with reference to Riches. He told me that Riches would have to be paid £10 a quarter during the currency of the next contract, instead of £5, as was the then custom. I told him I would not agree to any further additional payments. Lewis Hill said, "He must have it, and if you cannot afford to pay it you must stop £5 a quarter out of the amount that you have agreed to pay me and make it up in that way. "In the month of August, 1905, I was away on a holiday and remember going to the infirmary when I came back and seeing Lewis Hill, who told me he wanted to make sure of me getting the contract for next year. He told me to go to the Master's house the night before the tenders were to be opened, the object being to open the tenders that had been received that day, and if my tender was not the lowest I should be able to make it a little lower than the lowest so as to secure the contract. I said the whole thing would be a bit risky. He replied, "Not at all; there is no risk about that. We always do it." I told him I wondered how I could escape the man at the gate, because it

would be unusual for me to come at that time in the evening. He laid they usually made provision for that evening, and I think he added that no entry would be made of my coming. Eight o'clock was the time I was to be there. This conversation took place on a Monday. (Tender for 1905-6 produced.) That is my tender—dated "September 13. "I sent that in before 10 o'clock that day. Between the Monday when I saw Lewis Hill and the Wednesday I directed my son to procure some envelopes. got the tender forms by application at the office—not necessarily personally. do not know whether the tender is in my handwriting—it is signed by me; the address and figures and the sureties are also filled in by me—al the manuscript of it except the witness. The form of tender specifies the various kinds of coal. The amount of my tender is £12,775. I was tendering there for "Welsh washed nuts." The reason "Middle Duffryn" is put in is that I arranged with Messrs. Cory and Sons, Mark Lane, to have a preference of 3d. a ton on that particular coal. "Washed nuts" is a nut coal that has gone through a process of washing in order that every particle of dust might be removed before loading into the railway wagon or ship. I was tendering at £1 0s. 5d. per ton. The coal supplied in the three months to Michaelmas was of that character—principally from the Middle Duffryn pit. For the contract over the whole period I was tendering at £1 0s. 5d. what I had been charging 23s. 2d. for. I had no contract for the short period. I entered into a 12 months' contract for the supply of £2,000 to £3,000 worth. The tender was sent in in proper time, before 10 on the Wednesday morning. I saw the envelopes my son had bought; I do not think I taw them written. On September 13 I was at the infirmary about mid-day and saw Lewis Hill. I may have seen others, but not specially. I left there with Lewis Hill in Dr. Vallance's trap, between one and half-past, I should think. We pulled up outside a public-house in High Road, Leytonstone. We saw a four-wheeler drive up, and Hill said to me, "There it Madden, we will just stop and speak to him. "I saw Madden and two others. Hill got out of the trap and went to the cab and spoke to Madden—the others were strangers to Mr. I stayed in the trap. Hill rejoined me and we drove on to the workhouse. Later in the day I had an appointment in London—at five o'clock. Before I went I gave some directions to my son Harry. I got back to Leyton Station between 9. 30 and quarter to 10, meeting my son there, he having the envelopes with him. We went together towards the workhouse. I went in, but he did not. I did not know the man at the gate; he was about my size, or be may have been taller, and about my age. He told me where the master was—I thought by his speech he was Irish or Scotch. I gave my name going through, and went to the Master's house, where the floor was opened by Hodgkin. I went into a small room on the right of the hail and saw Lewis Hill, Madden, and the asbestos contractor, named Dick—also two others whom I do not know. Hodgkin came in with Mr. Hill was standing up, but the others were sitting round a table—there were lots

of papers on the table, tender forms and envelopes—long briefsized ones. One of the men whom I do not know was filling in a tender form, writing from the dictation of Madden. There appeared to be envelopes there that were unopened. I actually saw envelopes that had been opened. There was whisky and soda on the table, and I think they were all smoking. The tender being filled 'up by the unknown man was completed, signed, folded, put into an envelope, sealed, and handed Co Hodgkin. I saw it signed by the man who was filling it in. It was about 11 then. Hodgkin told me as it was getting late and there were too many coal tenders to go through I must trust to my luck and my friends on the Board to secure the contract on the following day. I had brought the envelopes in with me, but kept them in my pocket—none of them were used. I did not notice that the tenders I saw were coal tenders. I think we had to put in the left-hand corner of the envelope the word "coal," so far as the coal contracts were concerned. When I left the gate porter telephoned for two cabs, which came. Hill and Dick went in the first, and I in the second. Hodgkin told the porter to telephone. It was about 11. 30 then. The temporary offices of the Guardians were at the workhouse then—the permanent ones were rebuilding. The temporary Board room was quite new the room we were in, and we had to go between that and the offices being rebuilt to get to the master's house. I think Madden and the unknown man went out before we did. On the following day, the 14th, I saw Crump, who said there had been a big fight, but they had eventually, on the argument that I was a local and tried man, employing local labour, although other tenders were lower, secured me the whole of the work. He said I was lowest on Newton Chambers, Sutton Main, and Alfreton best hard seam, but that Charrington, Sells, Dale and Co. were 2s. 4d. a ton below me for Welsh washed nuts and Franklin and Co. 1s. 10d. per ton below for that tame coal. Crump wanted to know when I was likely to be able to pay them. I said I could pay them £10 on the contract being sealed. Two or three weeks later the contract was sealed and I made the payments—£10 to Sansom, Tarrant, Watts, Skinner, F. Hill, Bissel. and Crump. Watts and Crump came to my how* together; Skinner and F. W. Hill to my office at 469a, High Road, Leyton. and Bissel called at my office on the bridge. These cayments were in sold. I sent Tarrant's by cheque. I think by post. I borrowed £50 from my clerk, S. J. Smith, by cheque on his wife's account, which I cashed. This I used partly in payment of the sums named. After I got my last quarterly cheque for the 1904-05 contract I made further payments, Lewis Hill £25, Baird £10. Riches £10, Spinks and Jackson £5. In October, I disbursed £70. The £50 was a payment under the contract just expiring. The systern of charging for undelivered coal upon either fictitious delivery notes or increased ones continued under the new contract, at both places—also as regards the Welsh washed nuts in mixing with

English coal. The first cheque under the new contract, £3,057 16s. (which I pleaded guilty to obtaining by false pretences), came on January 18, 1906. After that I made more payments—Lewis Hill £20, Baird and Riches £10 each, £5 each to Spinks and Jackson. Just before that I borrowed £50 from Mr. Cox against my post-dated cheque for £51. With that I paid Hodgkin £25 and Anderson £10—the latter in gold—in a cab in London. At that time I was consulting Mr. Giddins, a solicitor. We had an appointment with him, Anderson being connected with some litigation that was on It was on the way to the solicitor's that I paid him the £10. At Christmas time I paid £5 each to Watts, Crump, and Sansom, and when I got the cheque I paid £10 to Crump, £5 to Watts, and £5 each to Skinner and F. W. Hill. That made the total up to £120 out of the third year's contract. I agreed with Crump and Sansom (and, believe, Watts) that the remaining £30 should stand over till the payment of the next cheque, which never came, and I have not paid the £30, and never shall. I think the payments then to Crump were partly intended for someone else. From time to time, during the currency of the contracts, complaints reached ma—both verbal and written—from Lewis Hill invariably; some at his office, at the boiler house, the infirmary, and some were made over the telephone. At first they were as to the quantity of dust which the steam coal contained; and, later, when I was delivering Welsh coal, they were sometimes as to dust and as to putting too much English amongst it. Lewis Hill told me that the chairman and some members of the Board had complained to him, and that he was bound to complain to Mr. He told me the complaints would have to be made in writing, and I most not mind if his letter was a bit strong in terms, because he was bound to do it. I very seldom had a letter of complaint without the whole thing being communicated to me over the telephone first. I had a few letters of complaint from Mr. Hilleary, and also one from Mr. Mackenzie on behalf of the Epping Forest Commissioners—a complaint of smoke. Lewis Hill sent me to Baird, who showed me the letter, and said it was a very serious complaint. He suggested that he should reply that the shaft at the infirmary had caught fire and had been burning for three days. (I never heard of the shaft being on fire.) I afterwards saw two reports about this. Baird showed me one, and Baird and Hill showed me the other. I only saw part of the one Baird showed me; it was in a book. (A book produced.) That is something like it. I do not know that that is the actual book. (Witness looked through the book but could not find report.) I understood the report was to be submitted to Lewis Hill. It was a day or two later that I saw the one shown me by Baird and Hill; it is in the book produced. (Report read.) The part relating to the fire in the shaft is the same as the other report. About that time—January 24, 1906—I had a conversation with Lewis Hill, who said Baird had drawn a report which was too injurious to me, and he had told him to destroy it and draft another. The one prepared was the one which was read to-day, in substance, about the fire in the

shaft. The first report that I saw in the small book was partly hidden by some blotting paper. I got two or three complaints from Hodgkin only during the very later part of my last contract. I saw some samples of coal in Baird's possession in his office. He told me that the chairman had several times been down to the stokehold and looked at the coal and complained to him of its quality; also that the chairman had several times brought a gentleman whom he regarded as a coal expert, and that as the two were taking sample away he had done so too, and put them in his office. As regards the illicit payments, I paid most of them myself, but I have on occasions got others to pay for me—my wife and eldest son, Harry. Harry took money to Watts, Tarrant, Lewis Hill, and Richer. On no previous occasion, I think, bid the tender forms specified the collieries from which the coal was to be got. In April, 1906, Mr. Boggis Rolfe held his audit. While it was proceeding I had a mes sage (April 9) to see Lewis Hill. I went to the infirmary and saw him; he appeared considerably agitated; he said he had had two or three urgent messages from the auditor to send down the gate porter's book and the weighbridge book; he asked me whether I thought the two books would agree; I said I could not tell; he said it was important that they should agree, and suggested that I should tit down then and there with him and check the one with the other. I replied that I had no intention of being caught in his office tampering with or altering the books. He mentioned that his reply to the auditor's message had been that he had told the boy off to look for the books, and that he himself was engaged with the stockkeeper. Finally the weighbridge book and four gate porters books were tied up in two brown paper parcels; Hill gave then to a clerk to take to Riches office; Hill suggested that it would be well for me to send my trap round from the front of the building, because if I was seen carrying the parcels out through the front entrance the hall porter might want to know what they contained. I sent my trap round to the back and went down the back steps and put the parcels in. I took the books home, and I. my son Harry, and my clerk Smith at once began to compare the hooks and make the alterations. When it was found that the weighbridge books contained more entries of coal than the gate porter's books, a figure 2 was placed against my name in some instances, to indicate that one load was really two loads; sometime 2 was conrented into 3. The three of us were engaged doing this from four to five; then Hill came in; he asked if I had finished, as the auditor was pressing for the books; I said we had got very little done yet; he then sat down and assisted us for fifteen or twenty minutes; he left saying that he would return at eight or nine o'clock. I had to go to London that night; I left my son and Smith investigating the books. Next morning Lewis Hill again tent for me, and I saw him at the infirmary; he said that the auditor had discovered the alterations in the books; we had a long conversation

as to whit should he said if he and I and the others were called before the auditor. He told me that if he was pressed he should say that he knew nothing whatever about the books having been altered, and asked me to make a similar statement; he said he would get Riches to say that he had actually received all the al entered in the weighbridge book, and would get Hodgkin to say that no reliability could be placed upon the gate porter's books, and Baird to say that the consumption of coal at the infirmary, In his opinion, would be considerably in excess of that at the work-house. Later on I saw Riches; he assured me that he would stick to the statement suggested by Lewis Hill; I also saw Hodgkin, who gave me a similar assurance. On a later day, after Baird and Lewis Hill had been before the auditor, I saw the two of them, and we discussed the whole question. Hodgkin mentioned the entry in the gate porter's book of April 9 at the Local Government Board inquiry, which commenced on May 4. I told Hodgkin that a clerk named Short had handed the book to him (Hodgkin) and he had burnt it, and I asked him if there was any truth in it. Hodgkin told me I might rest assured that the book would never again be seen, because it was the truth that Short had told Mr. I was at the inquiry and gave evidence. So far as I know the book was not then forthcoming, and I have not since seen it. Lewis Hill, Hodgkin. and Baird were also witnesses at the inquiry. My books were produced before the Inspectors, Messrs. Bird and Oxley, and amongst them was one in which the Wright-Ramsey account appeared. I heard Lewis Hall give his evidence to the Inspectors. He said, with reference to the gate porter's book, that he knew nothing about any alteration, and did not believe that any had been made. I recollect supplying coal to the Guardians while these contracts were going on—I mean apart from the Guardians as a body connected with the infirmary and workhouse, to some Guardians individually. My ledger shows a supply of coal to Skinner amounting to three and a half tons between November, 1905. and February, 1906, the value being £3 10s. 0d. Skinner never paid me for that quantity, but the account in the ledger appears to have been settled, and the entry is in my handwriting. It was not the usual practice for me to make such entries in the ledger; as a rule it was done by my dark. As to how it was that that account was dealt with out of the ordinary way, some one took over my book debts on May 10 by assignment. I did not want them to go to Skinner for this amount of £3 10s. od. It was understood that he should have the coal without paying for it; therefore just before May 18 or on that date I wrote the words here "By Cash £3 10s. 0d. in settlement of the account. "On page 224 I find a similar account with Crump. The amount of that is £1, and that was dealt with by me in the same way. No payment was ever received from Crump. On page 338 there is a similar account with Spinks, and on page 343 with Sansom and with Riches on page

366. I recollect having supplied one other person in the same way, not one of the defendants. The entry of £1 to Riches represents a ton. In all those cases coal was in fact delivered by me I burnt my books in or about the month of May, 1906, and everything else in my possession relating to my dealings with the Guardians. The ledger was a comparatively new book. It contains my account with the Guardians running on from day to day. The first entry in the Guardians account is October 2, 1905, and it runs right on to the time I ceased delivering coal. I ceased delivering coal under the 1905-06 contract in the first week in May. I also kept a daily wagon book which contained entries from the beginning of 1906, and in it was the Wright-Ramsey account, but only shows the quantity of coal. The earlier books in which the Wright-Ramsey account appears were destroyed. I thought I had destroyed everything in my possession—delivery notes cheques, letters, accounts and everything relating to the Guardians I had an office at the railway at Leyton and after I became bankrupt all my belongings, papers, and property were taken possession of by the trustees. I thought I had left nothing in the office at Leyton. I remember being shown in the witness-box at Stratford certain cheques and papers. I had not the slightest idea that they were in existence; I thought I had destroyed them; all. The date of the bankruptcy was July, 1903. There was a petition it June. I had not seen these cheques, counterfoils, and documents from the time I put them away in the cop board early in 1906 till I saw them at the Police Court. When I saw them at the Police Court would be about the middle of December, some time after my examination had commenced. With regard to the Wright-Ramsey account, I used from time to time to draw cheques as if in favour of that fictitious firm. The cheque produced for £50, payable to Swan and Co., is drawn by me, and the counterfoil is in my handwriting. It was filled in with my knowledge and authority—"Wright-Ramsey coal account, £50."The cheque to Swan's was in respect of a second-hand motor I bought. We were apparently behind in our apparent payments to the Wright-Ramsey account, and this £50 was used to level that account up, but the money really went to Messrs. Swan, so that in entering up my books I should credit the Wright-Ramsey account and credit myself on the counterfoil with £50, although no money went into that account at all. The money represented by the Wright-Ramsey cheques I paid to those Guardians and those officials whom I have named, in pursuance of the arrangement I had made with them. In my pass-book, under date of January 20, 1906, I find a debit of £51 to Cox. I borrowed £50 from Cox on a post-dated cheque for £51 and repaid him on that date. I sometimes made the illicit payments by cheque. I was introduced to F. W. Hill in the early part of 1904. as I have said. I gave him some orders for printing to the extent of not more than £3 or £4. He did me some advertising postcards, billheads and memos., some wagon tickets, and some notepaper. I think that was spread over a

period of rather more than a year. I remember him and Skinner coming to my office and asking me for an order. I paid him at he sent the goods along. I recollect paying him the cheque for two guineas (produced) on March 2, 1905: "Pay Central Printing Company or order, £2 2s. H. E. Bond. "It is endorsed "Central Printing Works. Proprietor, P. W. Hill." As to the cheque, "Payments to Hill, or order, £6," dated February 22, 1904, I really do not recollect why I did it. I did not owe him that sum for work done by him. I recollect Hill coming to me in April, 1905, and telling me he was building some new premises in East Ham and was hard up for ready cash and he asked me to give him £10. I told him I could not afford to give it to him, but he still pressed for some portion of it, and I believe I eventually gave him £5. My impression is that I paid him in gold but if the cheque is now there it would appear that I paid it by cheque. I remember Hill saying he did not like the idea of taking a cheque, but if I would make it payable to the Central Printing Company he would accept it in that form. On November 22,1904, I gave him a further cheque for £10, and another on March 2, 1906, for £2 2s.; in all I had paid him £23 2s., whereas £3 or £4 was the total amount of work done by him. Tarrant was a tailor. He made some clothes for me, I think, in 1905, but I cannot tell you when. It was winter clothing, so I should think it was near the winter. He made me two suits, for which he charged 50s. each. He also made an overcoat for a younger son of mine, for which he charged £1 7s. 6d. I remember drawing a cheque in favour of "R. Tarrant, or order," for £17 17s. 6d. The amount of the clothes came to £7 7s. 6d., and the additional £10 which this cheque provides for was part of the amount Chat I agreed to pay him by reason of the gement I had entered into with Crump. The cheque is dated October 26, 1905, which would be about the date of the sealing of the contract, for which I waited before I made such payments. I cannot explain the balance of 10s. I remember Crump being a candidate at a Guardians' election. and I paid his election printing expenses. I think they came to £6 7s. 6d. Alexander and Sons, of Leyton, did my printing. Miss Jessie Alexander was a witness. I cannot say when the printing was done. I also paid moneys to Tarrant, Watts, and Skinner for their election expenses—to Tarrant £5 and to Watts £5. Watts was both a Guardian and Town Councillor. I paid £5 to Skinner in respect of his election to the West Ham Town Council. I remember paying money to a man named Cornish, who was also a Guardian.

Mr. Marshall Hall and Mr. Stewart objected to this evidence.

Mr. Bodkin submitted that the evidence affected Terrant.

Mr. Justice Jelf: It affects him in this way. If the jury think, as the case goes on, and as one by one a thing is added, there is a link between the defendants with regard to the main conspiracy, of course, all the things said by each of there in the absence of the others is evidence against them. These separate incidents, if they stood by themselves, would be sufficient to make a case against any of these who were not present when it was said.

Witness. I paid Cornish £10. That was towards the expenses of Terrant and Watts, their last election. I do not remember when it

was. I was introduced to Madden by Lewis Hill at Madden's house. Lewis Hill invited me to go there.

At the request of counsel, cross-examination was postponed.

JESSIE ALEXANDER , High Road, Leyton. I assist my father in the printing business. We have done work for Mr. Bond. I remember in March, 1904, doing some election printing for Mr. Crump. Bond gave me the order for it, and it came to £6 17s. Mr. Bond paid the account. I recollect last year doing a small job for Mr. Bond in regard to an index with four letters on one indent. No charge was made for that. It was quite a small matter, and Bond was a customer.

BENJAMIN HARTNELL COX , draper, Levton. I know Bond, and on three occasions, in July and August, 1905, and in January, 1906. I have lent him money, which he has repaid. The loan in January was for £50 against a post-dated cheque for £51.

CHARLES WILLIAM MOORE , manager of the Whitwell Colliery Company. 46. Ismailia Road, Forest Gate. In August, 1903, I was stopping at Yarmouth. I have known Bond, and had dealings with him before that. I saw him in Yarmouth in the August of that year. He came with Mr. Crump, whom I had not known before. Bond introduced Crump to me and said he had brought him to see me so that I might assure him (Crump) that he was capable of supplying the West Ham Board with coal should he succeed in getting contracts. I had some conversation with Crump about coal. He asked me about several qualities of coal and as to the density of their smoke. He said he who desirous of helping Bond to get the contract, but he wanted to be sure he was capable of supplying so large a quantity of coal as the West-Ham Guardians were likely to require. I told him Bond would be capable of supplying all the coal that the West Ham Guardians would require provided he continued to deal with the Whitwell Coal Company. This conversation took place at the "Royal Alfred," and when I came up to London again I gave Bond 50s. for his travelling expenses to Yarmouth. I afterwards supplied coal to Bond.

Cross-examined bv Mr. Macaskie. I am sure the interview did not take place earlier in the month. Bond and I were not staying at the same hotel; there was no question about Bond's financial position. It was a question whether he could carry out the contract. Bond was in a small way of business, and it was a question of quantity, the Guardians requiring a large quantity of coal. As I understood Crump's attitude, he came down to assure himself that Bond was capable of carrying out so large a contract should he succeed in getting it—It seemed to be a perfectly proper inquiry, and it did not surprise me that one of the West Ham Guardians should ask such a question. We tendered for the contract is October, 1902: Bond was tendering at the same time. I cannot say that I tendered in March, 1902, or whether Bond promised me Crump's report. We have tendered once or twice for the contract. I should think twice, perhaps three times; not more than that. Bond has bought a good deal of his coal from us.

Detective-Sergeant CURRIE, Scotland Yard. On November 26. 1906, I arrested Crump at his shop, 124, High Road, Leyton, the charge against him being that of conspiring with others to cheat and defraud the West Ham Guardians. He said, "I have nothing to fear. I should like to know what it is all about. I have received a surcharge from the auditor. "I took him to the police station. I also arrested Sansom on the same charge. He was remanded on bail, and took his own life by suicide in the interval.

Detective-Sergeant WILLIAMS, Scotland Yard. On November 26 I arrested Tarrant at his shop, 30, East Street, Barking. I told him I held a warrant for his arrest for conspiring to cheat and defraud the West Ham Guardians. He said, "I do not understand it. This is very awkward for Mr. "Later in the same evening I arrested Frank Hill. I told him who I was, and read the warrant. He said, "All right, can I have bail. "I have been through the in firmary porter's book for April and May, 1906, and have extracted in exhibits 52 and 53 the visits of Bond to the infirmary in April and May, 1906, and made a similar extract from the corresponding books of the workhouse as to the visits of Bond.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. Tarrant's expression, "This is very awkward," may have had reference to his having had to leave his shop at that awkward hour. He gave me free access to his books and papers; I received every assistance. I went to another shop of his and searched, and there his wife gave me every assistance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young. F. W. Hill gave me the full'. run of his office.

Cross-examined by Mr. Merlin. I cannot say that when Bond went to the workhouse he went with the object of seeing Riches. The purpose of his visits is not given. It appears that the books have been kept very carelessly by the porter at the gate, the column for the purpose of the visit not having been filled in.

Police-constable HERBERT SANDERS. I arrested Baird on December 5, 1906, on a warrant, which I read, charging him with conspiracy, He said, "As a matter of fact, I know nothing about any conspiracy only, of course, that the quality of coal delivered was not according to contract I want to put everything in your way as regards papers to assist justice, as, according to what I read in the papers, this is what I expected. You know I gave Mr. Kane every information as far as Bond was concerned freely, in fact volunteered it. I did not try to hide anything. "I took him to the police station and was there in charge of him when Anderson was brought in the same evening. Some few minutes afterwards he said to Baird, "Have they got Jackson." Baird replied, "No." Anderson said, Then they ought to," and Baird said, "He was the biggest one in the concern."

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. Baird gave me every assistance in finding papers, and it is also true that he had given every assistance in the prosecution of Bond. The had taken a number of

samples of coal, and those were in his office when I arrested him, and were ready for use by the prosecution. I saw them at the Court. I cannot say they were pretty bad samples of coal or that they were dusty. Bond did not at first plead guilty. Baird gave evidence against him at the trial. This trial had been going on for some time before Baird was arrested on November 26. The it quiry started in October, and the proceedings had been fully reported in the newspapers. The conversation between Baird and Anderson was loud enough for me to hear, but was not addressed to Mr. I do not think the name of Jackson, the engineer at the workhouse, had been mentioned so frequently as Baird's. I cannot say whether or not, under the circumstances, it was surprising that the name of Jackson should have been mentioned. I am certain that Baird said he was "the biggest one in the concern. "It did not seem to me that Baird was joking.

(Monday, May 6.)

HARRY ELIJAH BOND , recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Stewart When once we had determined on the system of short delivery, etc., the falsification of books and the other matters followed automatically. Anything necessary to be done I was prepared to do. The gate porter's book and the weighbridge book did not tally on April 9 It was to my house that the books were taken in order to be operated upon. I do not admit that I am an expert in the art of fabricating evidence, and have not "been engaged in it for years." I was equally ready with the others to throw dust in the eyes of the Local Government Board officials. I admit I was willing to instruct if my son Harry in similar processes. I told him what to do, and he did it My wife knew also; she knew that I was paying money to some of the Guardians and some officials, but she did not know of the system by which such moneys were secured from the business in order to meet those engagements. I did not hear my wife give her evidence before the magistrates. I was in charge of warders then. I have read that she said, "I know just as much as my husband does. "I suggest that my wife probably thought she did know all when she knew about the payments. I cannot point to anyone outside my wife and son who can corroborate my statement that Tarrant took a bribe from me, nor any writing independent of my own. When the Local Government Board official was inquiring I stuck to the statement that had been mutually agreed upon. I denied the truth of the allegations at that time. I was willing to commit perjurv to save the lot—not to serve my own purpose. I did not plead guilty at first to obtaining a cheque by false pretences. I was not confronted with any cheques during the earlier proceedings, and had no idea of their existence. I do not know whether I gave my evidence before the Local Government Board inquiry with the same confidence as I did here. The process of falsification involved the burning of the books that were in existence, with the exception of the one that is in Court.

The process went on from the time the Wright-Ramsey account was instituted. I was willing to be a party to putting forward that the gate porter's book was altogether unreliable. If we had stopped at that the whole game would have been up. Having begun, we had to go on to the end in order to try and complete our nefarious work. When I pleaded guilty to obtaining a cheque by false pretences I had been guilty of forgery. The money I obtained from the Guardians in the course of the "nefarious transactions" was, roughly, £1,000. I am not influenced in the least by the hope that if convictions are got against these men no further proceedings will be taken against Mr. My attitude has changed since the Local Government Board inquiry through the opportunity that Pentonville Prison provided me with for reflection. I was interviewed twice there by the defective. He was with me from about 10 or half-past in the morning till 4. 30 or 5. 30 in the evening. I cannot give a specific date upon which Tarrant was at my house. Possibly he has been on one occasion only. He did measure my son for some clothes once—not at my house. I do net know who is the manager now of my business—there is no business now. Tarrant never made clothes for Harry; not to my knowledge. I did give money to another son, Edward, to pay his tailor's bill, but he did not pay Tarrant Tarrant was eventually paid by Mr. He has also made clothes for my little son, described as "Master Bond." He did not make two single-breasted jacket suits at 30s. each. He made an overcoat—£1 5s. was the price. In 1905 I was making a fairly good profit out of my business. Tarrant did make, a morning coat for me, which I wore here on the first day I was in the box. The suit was 50s. I have not bought any clothes since this scandal. I believe I paid £2 15s. for the suit I am wearing. I deny that the suit supplied me by Tarrant was £3 10s. He never made me a serge suit. I have not worn a serge suit since I left the sea, and never had one in 1904-5. I did purchase a dark tweed suit from Tarrant at 50s. I bought two at that price. I have the accounts, which do not agree with what you are asking. I thought I had destroyed all the accounts that were at the office. Tarrant never made me an overcoat, nor a pair of trousers apart from those belonging to the two suits. As far as my payments were concerned, they were made in gold, with very few exceptions. I say distinctly that the cheque to Tarrant, £17 17s. 6d. was partly for a bribe. I think I have a fairly good memory, but I do not remember that I gave my name to the porter on the night, of September 13. 1905. The porter would know me, and the probability is that I did not. I am not carrying on any business now, nor earning my living. I am giving a small allowance from the Treasury weekly.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I first knew Lewis Hill during the currency of my first contract with the Guardians, September. 1902, to March, 1903. Later on we both became interested in football, but I never played football. We were joint directors of the Levton Football Company. I first went into business on my own account on October 29, 1900; that was a coal business. I have not

said that I was at tea. My son was at sea. Yes, I did say I had not worn a serge suit since I had been to sea. I left off going to sea in 1885, having been about 11 years at it. I was in various positions rising to an officer. I was in the Duthie Line out of Aberdeen; the Aberdeen White Star Line, and with the line of boats that Wilson's have taken over, and also on a coaster out of Inverness. I think my last ship was called the "La Plata," and I was an able seaman in her. I then went on the London and India Docks Joint Committer in the water department, staying there five years; after that collector to the Northern Light Coal Company, then manager to Chandler and Sons, Stepney Green. I was with them some 8 1/2 years, and then set up for myself, but I do not know about being in opposition to them I certainly got some of their customers. They gave me £10 when I left them and wished me luck. I think it was in 1901 or 1902 that I became a member of the Leyton District Council. S. J. Smith was in my employ whilst I was carrying out the West Ham contracts He got £2 5s. a week and commission. When I was on the Leyton Council Smith got a coal contract with them. Smith's business was bought by me, but not at that time. I took no part in the voting on the coal contracts; I would recommend the Council as to the quality of the coal. The business was never carried on in my name; Smith's name was there and, I believe, still is. It is not true that it was Smith's business carried on in my name, and now my business carried on in Smith's name. I believe Smith is carrying on a coal business now, but I do not know anything about his business now. Apart from a few articles of jewellery of my wife's, which have been sold, we have had nothing but the Treasury allowance. Smith and I are not on friendly terms now—we had a disagreement in August, 1905. I have read that Smith swore he gave me two £50 notes that he happened to have in the house. I do not think I said before the magistrates that he gave me "his cheque." I still say that he paid me "my cheque." My recollection is that he gave me his wife's cheque for £50. I was not asked about the second £50. After I started business in October, 1900, I borrowed £300 from Messrs. Shenstones, piano dealers. The Whitwell Company had not a bill of sale over my goods when I started business. It was in 1903 I gave it to them. They lent me £1,000. I afterwards increased Shenstones' loan to £1,000 by 1905. The Whitwell Company had been paid before that, I think, in 1903: In my examination before the Official Receiver I swore that I had never been in a position to pay Shenstones'; that was in August, 1905. In 1900 I was taking an interest in religious matters—preaching, etc During my first six months' contract, when there was no bribery or secret commission, the only man I knew was Crump. I should think I made a reasonable profit out of that transaction. I did say that £250 per annum was the greatest profit I made during the time I was contractor. The Shenstone loan was not repaid. I think I owe then £420 now. I believe I had one or two complaints during the first contract, but no trouble. When Crump came to me and suggested

my teeing Lewis Hill I did not think it was a preposterous proposal. I had never before that paid commission, except to servants, and never received a secret commission from anyone. Crump told me that Lewis Hill would not be at all difficult to deal with, and I went to him. He was practically a stranger to Mr. I had no experience about commission being paid in the workhouse. He was in his office at the infirmary. I told him that I had had a chat with Crump, who had advised me to come and see him with reference to securing his influence for the next contract. Hill's expression about "falling into line" conveyed to me that I should have to do as I had heard other contractors had to do—pay for their contracts. Crump had told me only the day before exactly what was the practice of contractors tendering for the supply of goods to the West Ham Union. I knew at once what Hill meant by "falling into line," but I wanted him to put in his own way expressly what he wanted me especially to do. There had been no suggestion as to what I should pay Hill, therefore I asked him what he meant. He said that if I was prepared to nay him he would use his influence with quite a number of the Guardians, and that there was no doubt I should get the next contract, and suggested that I should gay him £100 in quarterly payments of £25. Hill was reputed to have a good deal of influence with the Guardians. I was to see both Baird and Riches. At that time I had not applied for the contract. The preferential rate for coal had not been suggested at that time. At that interview the short delivery system was suggested. I was to pay Riches £5 and Baird £10 a quarter. I was to pay altogether £260. When I said my profit never exceeded £250 it was by the actual sale of coal that was the reasonable profit I made, and the £260 commissions was to be realised by charging for coal which was never delivered. That would represent from 300 to 400 tons of coal in a year. Lewis Hill went into details with me about it at this very first interview that I had with him. I do not know that we arrived at the exact number of tons, but we certainly did discuss the quantities and the amount that I should realise. We spoke of the Cross deliveries under the contract—10,000 to 12,000 tons. Crump had told me the number of tons that the contract would cover. This was the early part of August, 1903; the tenders went in in September. It was before my annual holiday, which was in September, when my wife and I went to Yarmouth. I did not see Baird until the middle of October. I tendered alter the interviews with Crump and Lewis Hill. Before my holiday I went to Yarmouth with Cramp and saw Moore. That was to satisfy Crump that, if I secured the contract I could carry it out. At that time I had given my bill of sale to the Whitwell Colliery—I did not tell Crump about that. I know that on October 22, 1903, a letter of complaint came to the Guardians about my coal from "W. Elber," of 16. Ward Street, Walthamstow, saying, "I call your attention to the coals that Mr. Bond is carting into the new infirmary, Whipps Cross Road. They are a shocking lot of stuff, and he has got.

the contract under a wrong name—the name should be the Whitwell Colliery Company. "I believe I have got that letter at home now. Morgan, who was then master of the workhouse, brought it over to my office. It was equal to an anonymous letter; we both went to the address, and found there was no such man known there, and never had been. There is no such street as" Ward Street" in Walthamstow, but we went to Wood Street. We could not find the writer, and came to the conclusion that it was anonymous At that time I did not think anyone was trying to persecute me, or was jealous of my getting the contract, or trying to ruin me, buy I said that in reference to this letter. The committee decided that no action should be taken in the matter. We take delivery of the coal out of the wagons at the station on to our cart. The carmen come to our office first for orders, and we get an advice from the colliery of the coal at the station, and it is delivered from there to its destination, the carmen having got delivery notes with the amount of coal they are to take. With steam coal they had blank delivery notes. When carted in sacks there could not be short delivery so far as the actual load was concerned. Each carman would have a separate ticket, and would take two or three tons in a one or two horse van. He would hand his ticket to my foreman, who would instruct the ganger to load the quantity. If he had a ticket with the weight in blank he would throw the coal out of the truck into his van and fill his van, taking it to the infir mary weighbridge. I do not suggest the carman knew there was any trickery going on. It was always the custom to take the house coal in sacks, but steam coal was invariably in bulk. We handled the coal, the railway delivering the truck, and we paying a 6d. siding rent for eight days. If they were in my railway wagons it sometimes paid better to land the coal, so as to get the wagons away. It was not done with the connivance of the carman. The scheme was carried out in this way. A carman would fill his van with coal. When we first began to deliver in bulk we weighed at the railwav station. About a month or two afterwards the railway machine broke down, and with the concurrence of Lewis Hill we took the coal to the infirmary weighbridge. I pointed out to Lewis Hill and Baird that it cost me 1d. a ton to weigh it at the station, and we continued to weigh it at the infirmary weighbridge, and accepted their weights. The carman took his delivery note into the storekeeper's office, who would direct the carman to deliver the coal, would keep the delivery notes, and Riches at the end of the week would send the notes to my office. The perforated portion should have been returned to the carman, but was not. In every other case except the infirmarv, the counterfoil would be given back to the carman. I do not know whether not getting it excited his suspicion. I did not ask the carman. I do not suggest the carman was in it. With regard to the mixing of coal, we would land two wagons of English coal and two of Welsh at the top, and when the

carman shot it into the bunkers the two would mix. When delivered in sacks one sack of Welsh would be put to one of English. The carman would know the fact, but would not know the object of it; he would think that was my contract way of doing it. I started the Wright-Ramsay account late in 1903. At that time we were short of ready money, because we had to give three months' credit to the Guardians, and were financed by short overdraft at the London and County Bank. I was not spending more than £250 a year. I kepi a trap for business purposes and a man to go with me and mind the horse when I went in to see a customer. I was making about £250 from the Guardians' contract, but my business was about half as big again. I was doing 10,000 tons a year in addition to the. Union contract. My son aged 21 knew of the conspiracy—I am sorry, but so it is. My accounts were audited by a firm of chartered accountants, and the year's trading to 1905 showed a net profit of £900. In May, 1906; the business was turned into a limited liability company with a capital of £5,000, of which £11 5s. 0d. as paid up; Alexander £10 and Wetherall £1 5s. 0d. was appointed managing director at a salary of £250. In May, 1906, there was not a profit of £900 a year being made, as the stoppage of a cheque for £4,000 by the Guardians had prevented us doing business. I believe the police have some of the books dealing with my legitimate business. I never created a fictitious account before I became contractor to these Guardians for the second time. I did not corrupt Lewis Hill—he corrupted me, but after I fell into this mess I was as bad as he was. Fraud never entered my mind until I was tempted by Crump and Lews Hill. I did not think the payment of £100 a year to the Guardians was wrong at the time. What I thought corrupt was charging for coal which was never delivered; that certainly came upon me as a surprise. Towards the end of 1904 there were complaints about coal. In July there had been complaint about dust, upon which I reported to the Board, and in November, 1904, I made a statement before the Board, when about 40 Guardians were present, with Mr. Paul in the chair, and my explanation was accepted. I have made no suggestion against Mr. Paul. My explanation was substantially and literally true, and the correspondence would prove it. It was with reference to an attack by the Digby Colliery Company. A resolution was passed that I might continue to supply, and, on the motion of Anderson, that no coal be accepted from the Digby Colliery Company in future. The Digby Colliery Company wrote a letter of November 23, 1904, on which I brought an action against the Digby Company for libel and the jury found a verdict for the defendants. The point of action was the truth or falsehood of my statement. (The Judge: As they pleaded privilege, it does not follow that the merits were gone into.) In December, 1904, Lewis Hill wrote letters complaining of the coal, and I wrote letters in reply which were true; it was about dust. I do not suggest they were

bogus letters, but the letters were invariably read to me over the telephone before being posted; I did not suggest corrections-Lewis Hill woe quite capable of writing a letter. On November 24, 1905, I wrote a letter to the "District Times" in reply to a statement of Tallack. In the year 1905-6 my payments became over £400, though Lewis Hill got £20 less. I cannot give you the exact dates, and I have no writing to corroborate my statement about the payments to Lewis Hill. I believe my wife was present on several occasions when he received money from Mr. Lewis Hill had told me that no money was to be paid to him at the infirmary, but one day he 'phoned me to send him some and my son took it over. I paid him £100 on the 1903-4 contract, £25 a quarter on receipt of my cheques from the Board; these sums were paid in the dining-room of my house. I paid him £200 from September, 1903, to September, 1905, and £20 at Christmas, 1905. Then I paid him £50 in respect of the arrangement as to Welsh coal. I saw Lewis Hill on April 9 about the books at 2. 45 p.m., and I had no idea of asking for them until he told me what had taken place. My son made the alterations, Hill assisting in what was being done. I appeared and gave evidence before the Local Government Board inquiry on May 2, 3, 4, and 9, 1906, when Mr. C. J. Smith, my solicitor, indignantly repudiated the suggestions against Mr. Cory and Sons filed a petition in bankruptcy against Mr. I had given charging orders on the amount due to me from the Union. I was examined in my bankruptcy on August 1 and arrested the same day. Before my business was turned into a company a firm of chartered accountants prepared a balance-sheet showing that the net profits were £900 for the year to June, 1905. With regard to the destruction of my books, I had from 40 to 50 different sizes. I burnt them in a manure pit at my stable yard, tearing them up and pouring oil on them. I had made entries of every payment I made to the defendants in a small book, about 9 in. by 3 or 4 in. in size, on two or three pages. They could have been torn out and burnt at any moment. It was a difficult thing to burn the books—it took me from 11a.m. till four p.m. Mr. Sharman, solicitor, represented me before the magistrates. Mr. Sharman had represented Riches and Lewis Hill at the inquiry. Mr. Sharman did not have an interview with the Treasury solicitors to my knowledge, but he stated to the magistrates that I was the victim rather than the tempter, and that all the information he had would be placed at the disposal of the authorities. I pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months in the second division Inspector Kane was two days taking my statement—I declined at first to make one. The whole position I take up is that these people suggested this fraud, and we participated in it, and I carried it out.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. I first met Crump seven or eight years ago, perhaps longer. I have said that my first tender to the Guardians was in September, 1902; I accept your suggestion that I tendered early in September, 1901. I have known the Whitwell Colliery Company for many years; I do not recollect their tendering

to the Guardians. Down to September, 1903, I had been tendering for two yean; I do not know why no attempt was made during that period to corrupt me; the Guardians were the tame, but I suppose they did not know me sufficiently then; they had not founded Mr. In obtaining the £1,000 on bill of sale from the Whitwell Company I made no terms about taking their coal if I secured contracts. The books I destroyed covered the whole period I have been in business, from 1900 to 1905. In August, 1903, Crump and I were members of the Leyton Tradesmen's Association; I never told Crump that I was in financial straits or discussed my position with him. I do not say that it would be undesirable or unnatural for him as a Guardian to try to satisfy himself as to my financial position. With regard to the conversation with Crump in August, 1903, the reason he gave me for my going to see Lewis Hill was that the latter could use an influence with many of the Guardians that no one else could exercise but him, and that if I secured his support I should probably secure that or any other contract I cared to tender for. It seemed that Cramp influenced one section of the Guardians and Lewis Hill another. Whenever I tendered for coal I also tendered for coke; my coke tender was never accepted; they told me that that belonged to another man. Crump certainly, knew of my system of bookkeeping. I say that he was willing to look after my interests generally as a contractor in consideration of his participating equally in the division of the £100. With reference to the proposal that a meeting of the contractors should be called, and the moneys which each had arranged should be pooled and divided, so far as I know that never came off; I was never invited to a meeting; perhaps they mistrusted Mr. I was at one time a candidate for the Essex County Council; Crump was on my committee, and worked hard for me. Shortly afterwards he was a candidate for the East Ham Guardians; I paid him £5 towards his election expenses, and also paid £6 7s. 6d., his printing bill. I do not think I said before the magistrates, though it so appears on the depositions, that these two amounts were in respect of two different elections; I paid both sums on one election. The ton of coal sent to Crump in February, 1906, was never paid for; I have only my statement to that effect; spread over two or three years I should say he similarly had six tons. The two receipts you hand me are for coal that was never paid for; I used sometimes to send receipts, although no payments were made. It is not the fact that the only times Crump visited my house was once after I had got the 1903-04 contract and again when I was having some trouble with the Coal Porters' Union; I never in my life had the slightest trouble or correspondence with that union. I do not admit having tempted anybody throughout all this business; at first I was tempted, but, as a matter of course, after we had begun the system I dropped into it, and we were all on an equal footing. Mr. Gunn, the manager of Cory's, said at the inquiry that during one of the adjournments I had asked him to give me certificates showing that

Cory's had supplied me with the whole quantity of coal the Guardians had ordered from me, and that he refused. That statement is not correct. It is not the tact that the first time Crump came to my house after my getting the 1903-04 contract I, out of gratitude for the services he had rendered to me, gave him £2; with the exception of a sovereign I once gave him for cab fares, he has never had so small a sum as £2. I repeat as a positive and absolute fact that I have paid Crump at my house, not on one occasion, but on more than half a dozen, sums of between £5 and £10.

(Tuesday, May 7.)

ARTHUR CLIFTON STOCK , clerk to Mr. Giddins, solicitor, Abchurch House, Sherborne Lane. Mr. Giddins was acting for Bond in December, 1905, and January, 1906, in respect of his action for bel against the Digby Colliery Company. I remember Bond coming to the office with Anderson on December 6, 1905. They left in company with Mr. Giddins in the middle of the day. I have never seen Bond and Anderson together except at the office.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. Anderson was a witness at the trial, and came to make a statement as to his evidence.

HARRY ELIJAH BOND , recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield I only made two payments to Anderson. I cannot give you the date of the first 'payment. I can only say it was late in 1903, some short time after the acceptance of the first contract, and was made in his office in James Street, Walthamstow. No one was there when it was made. I cannot tell how many times I have been to Anderson's office. He had offices in another place, and that was the only time I ever was in that office. I did not approach Anderson with the object of asking him to support my tender either for the 1902 or 1903 contract. As a matter of fact I had not seen Anderson for some years before this occasion, although I had known him some fourteen yean. I did not go to his office when the trouble arose which led to the explanation about the Digby Colliery Company to ask him to assist me in getting a hearing before the Board. I believe Anderson was asked to do so by someone else. The second payment, as I say, was made in a cab as we were going to my solicitor's office, and my recollection is that it was made out of the cheque given me by Cox, but I Lave not the dates before me, and if the solicitor's diary is produced which shows I was there on December 6, I could not have paid him cut of that cheque. I certainly say that that £10 was a portion of the £150 which I agreed to divide equally amongst eight Guardians. It was not paid solely for the purpose of compensating him for the time ant trouble he had devoted to my affairs. The question of compensating him was never raised or mentioned. I always read the newspaper reports of the Guardians' meetings from beginning to end. I know that a resolution was passed after the trial rescinding the resolution which excluded the Digby Colliery Company. I do not know

that that resolution was moved by Anderson. I do not know that there is any shame in saying that I am a Freemason. Anderson is also a Freemason. Baird was in my view a subordinate officer. I cannot give the date of the interview when I first introduced this subject to his notice; it was after the contract. When I told him I had made an arrangement with Lewis Hill to charge for a quantity of coal which was never to be delivered my acquaintance with him was very slight. Baird was described by Lewis Hill as an unknown quantity; Hill did not quite know what manner of man he was; I suppose he had not been able to "get at" him. I did not know whether Baird was an honest man or not until I went to him. At to it being a fair presumption that he was honest, you must believe everybody honest until you find them otherwise. From what I had been told by Crump and Lewis Hill I did not think it was a risky tiling to tell the whole thing to Baird, an unknown quantity. If Baird had been an honest man when I went to him with the tale it would have blown the whole thing out of the water. Baird accepted the terms without discussion. My conversation with him about the 2d. a ton took place about the end of the year. The contract imposed no obligation to put the coal into sacks, but for years it had been the custom to do so. As regards creating oust, I do not know that there is much difference between carrying in sacks and in bulk. It largely depends upon the quality of coal. If you are carrying hard coal you carry very little dust, but if it is soft coal you make abundance of it. Down to July, 1905, all the steam coal I had delivered was English, and there was no question as between English and Welsh. It was in June, 1905, that we first commenced to deliver Welsh coal at the infirmary. It was in June that Baird had been making experiments with various kinds of coal, and I remember supplying a number of sample wagons. After the Guardians once commenced to use Welsh coal they did not cease to use it. It was after the experiments that I had the conversation with Baird. I am under the impression that I mentioned this matter at the Police Court. I certainly mentioned it to Inspector Kane when he took my statement. I gave Baird no additional advantage for the risk he was going to run in taking English instead of Welsh coal. The only date that I can remember on which I made a payment to Baird was Christmas Eve, 1905, but I say that I made payments to Baird on each Christmas Eve after I had made the arrangement with him. I certainly have a very distinct recollection of making him a payment on Christmas Eve, 1905. In 1903 I had paid him two or three email amounts on account, and I made up the balance of the £10 on Christmas Eve. I do not remember saying at the Police Court on January 3 "I first made a payment to Baird at Christmas, 1903, in gold, all at once. "The first payment was made at Baird's office in the main block of the infirmary buildings, near the boiler-house. I may have given Baird a box of cigars at Christmas. I may have given him a sum of £2 or £2 10s., but I did not tell him he might get a bottle of

champagne with it. If I said that verbal complaints were invariably made by Lewis Hill that is not correct; they were sometimes made over the 'phone. I specified in the Guardianas' tender form for the first year's contract for the infirmary a coal known as Skeys Beans. After I had ordered along the first twelve wagons it was found that it ran through the bare, and they could not fire with it successfully, and in consequence of complaints the coal had to be disposed of at considerable disadvantage to myself. I do not think I came to the infirmary and said, in the presence of some of the stokers or one of them, "Who is making a noise ever this coal?" Nor did Baird say "I am; remember I have a contract with the Guardians as well as you." There were several letters of complaint over the coal. I was not asked to report on a complaint; I was asked to reply to complaints, and I did so by letter. Where there are contracts for 10,000 or 12,000 tons entered into, spreading over a year, there are bound to be complaints. Hill wrote to me, and I replied, saying, "The quality of the coal is, of course, the same, and not inferior, as suggested by you." I have said that Baird showed me a report from McKenzie, part of which was covered up by blotting paper. I do not know that I was asked about this at the Police Court. I remember saying at the Police Court that Lewis Hill told me that the report which Baird originally drew up with regard to the supply of Welsh coal was to injure me, and was torn of and destroyed; it was the, report I have mentioned, part of which was covered by blotting paper. I saw Baird, and he showed me a letter written by Mr. McKenzie, and said, "I do not want to say anything about the quality of the coal. I will say in my report that the shaft caught fire and burnt for three days. "I never knew of such a fire. I do not know or believe that it took place. He also said in the report that the coal was not up to sample, but not to Mr. I do not consider that Baird was treating me rather badly at the time. I was never in very much trouble. There was not much difficulty in persuading the Guardians that I was keeping my contract, and that I was, on the whole, rather an injured man. I had an interview with Baird after the audit had been held at the workhouse, at which we discussed the whole question, and more especially the quantity, and arranged that he was to say that the consumption at the infirmary was considerably in excess of that at the workhouse; that was true, but not to the extent that he said at the inquiry. It was slightly greater. I contracted to send on requisition such quantities as might be wanted up to a certain quantity. The contracts would be based on the experience of previous years. Oh several occasions coal ran short Once only I had to arrange to cart coal on a Sunday afternoon. It is not true that during the first year's contract all the steam coal was delivered in sacks.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. I knew Skinner kept a shop where he sold tools; I bought a knife of him once. He assisted me to get elected on the Council by making a speech at one of my meetings. At that meeting Mrs. Bond was with Mr. He knew Mrs. Bond long

before. I do not know that he promised her a canary that evening, but we had a canary in 1903, and I had a cage for it from his shop. He has been to my house perhaps four or five times. On each occasion he had someone with him. When he paid me as I allege on the occasions mentioned it was in the presence of the others who were with him, and they could see what I gave him. On each occasion he came for money; he never came for any other purpose. I gave him £10 sometimes, £7 another time, and £5 another time, but this was not all at my house. I noted these payments in the book which I burnt. That book was not filled. There was no idea in getting rid of it, I was burning the bulk of the books, and it was amongst them. Skinner ordered coals of me, and I sent an invoice with it; there was no price put on the invoice. On turning up Skinner's account in ay ledger, I find it has got "By cash" written against it. It had been "By balance," but I erased that on May 10, 1906, so that they should not go to Skinner for the amount. I have never sent him an account unless it was a receipted one. I used to draw a cheque on my bank and pay in the amount of course to the office, and the amount that I paid in would be credited to Skinned or to the others, and a receipt would be sent in due course; it was one of the fictitious forms of cheques. It was part of the arrangement, as it was also that Skinner should be supplied with tree coal when he wanted it, and tome of the other Guardians, but not all of them. If they had called upon me to supply 15 or 20 tons a year it would have been unreasonable, and they would not have got it. I will swear I never gave Skinner a receipt in May, 1906, for the amount in the book; but I nay have done for a similar amount. I say I sent other coal besides that during the three years from 1903. He called at the office to get the sums of money I have mentioned; F. W. Hill was with him with the exception of the correction I made this morning. If my story is correct there would be £30 still owing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jenkins. Watts has been to my house four or five times perhaps since this bribery has been going on; it is more than twice. I have never had a dispute with my men over wages, and he did net come to see me about it. He has never called on me about my County Council election. He spoke at one of my meetings. I have made him payment for his election expenses. We were anxious to secure Watts' return as a member of the West Ham Board of Guardians; he was a man who appeared to be without funds himself, and it was necessary to raise funds in order to pay the election expenses; it was part of the plan in order to carry out the arrangements I had made with the Guardians. I have said that I have destroyed all documentary evidence that had of any payment. My son took him over £5 at one time; my wife never did. Inspector Kane was the first person, as representing the prosecution that I mode a statement to. He was about two days taking it down. I think I mentioned the names of two or three others, besides those in the dock in my statement who ought to be implicated in this conspiracy. When I first saw Kane I told him all I knew about Watts, that was about

last October. I cannot say why Watts was not arrested till January. Besides my appearances at the Police Court I have had three interviews with Treasury officials; two with Kane and one with Mr. Sims. The only means of living I have at present is the small allowance I am getting from the Treasury and the proceeds of the sale of some of my wife's jewellery. It was £2 2s. a week at first; it is now £2 10s. a week.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young. I have a fairly good memory. I am not quite sure when F. W. Hill came into the payments. I first knew him in the latter part of 1903. I had plenty of time to think over matters in Pentonville, and I did so. I had facilities given me for seeing the inspector when he came. F. W. Hill's introduction to me was with the distinct object of participating in the arrangement that I had made with others. I say that was late in 1903 or the beginning of 1904. I said al the Police Court that I had my first conversation with him just before the 1904-5 contract, but I corrected that almost immediately afterwards; I told the Treasury officials of it the same day that I gave the evidence. After I had the conversation I have mentioned with Lewis Hill I said I saw him in the workhouse grounds in August. I said before that he said "As the Guardians are in vacation it is an opportunity for making a few pounds by substituting one sort of coal for the other." I am sure that was the very early part of August. I said it was two or three days after the vacation of the Guardians had commenced, because I was under the impression at that time that the vacation of the Guardians commenced on August 1. I should be surprised to hear that Hill's name is not down as passing through the workhouse grounds at all during the first week of August. I am surprised to hear that he was at Yarmouth then, because I saw him in the ground. I agreed to give him a few pounds, five or six. I said before the magistrates that Hill came to me in 1904 and asked if I could let him have £10, but it was in 1905. One of the cheques given to Hill was made out to the Central Printing Company, because he did not want his name to appear. I did not call his attention to the fact that another bribe had been made out to F. W. Hill and not to the company; I did not make any suggestion at all about it, I only fell in with what he suggested. I said before the magistrates that F. W. Hill never printed any delivery cards for Mr. These (produced) are wagon tickets, not delivery cards; they are what we use on the side of the wagon to know exactly what quantity of coal we get out of each wagon. I swear he never supplied me with envelopes. I say I never had 2. 000 wagon tickets from Hill. We did not on an average empty more than four or five wagons a day. I had work done at other printers' I had some memos done by him; I cannot swear to the quantity, but I should not think 5,000, because they would last an extraordinary while. I did not have 2,500 envelopes done by him. I had some envelopes printed, but not by him. I had similar envelopes to this (produced) in my business. The printing on this is smaller than mine. I do not think I ever saw my name

so small on the back of an envelope as that. I had billheads like this done (produced); this is Hill's printing, but I did not have 2,500 of both kinds; I should say I had a thousand of each. These may have been samples he supplied me with. I should say he did 500 wagon tickets for me; that would be all I should want. Messrs. Phelp Bros, and Messrs. Alexander and Sons printed envelopes for me; they are both in the Leyton Road. I had these note heading printed (produced); I cannot say when; Hill did about a thousand of them for me; I had no invoices done only in the form of the billhead now shown to Mr. He printed 10,000 of these advertisement cards at the rate of 12s. 6d. per 10,000; it was cheap printing. They were hardly cards, a sort of delivery bill advertisement; they were on a very flimsy sort of paper, something between a very thin paper and a very poor card. He did not print 20,000 of them for Mr. I had a number of cards done by other firms; I have given the names. I never had any coal postcards printed. I said in chief that Hill offered to take me up to the East Ham Council. I do not know that the engineer and Mr. Paget had been brought here for the purpose of identifying Mr. Hill took me there during the first winter of the yearly contract of 1903 and 1904, I know that because there was a fire in the office of the clerk of the Education Committee, and he took a piece of coal from the scuttle and showed me a sample of the stuff they were then buying; I cannot be certain as to when it was. I wrote to the Guardians on April 25, 1906, comning that the cheque in payment of the last quarterly deliveries hat not been paid, and that it bad placed me in a very serious position with my creditors, and that it would be impossible for me to continue supplying unless payment was made. I saw the clerk, who explained why it would not be paid. I did not offer to take my books to the Union office, and give the auditor full information as to my transactions, neither to Dr. Hilleary or anyone else; that is absolutely false. The question was never raised by him. I told Dr. Hilleary that I was quite willing to produce my colliery contracts, and he wrote the auditor a letter saying that I was willing to produce my contract notes if one auditor so desired. I say that Hill never bought coal of Mr. He did not supply me with goods in August, 1903; I did not know him then. He did not supply me with 5,000 cards at 15s.

Cross-examined by Mr. Merlin. I was convicted of attempting to obtain £1,229. That related to deliveries of coal in 1906. The bulk of that £1,229 related to coal actually delivered by Mr. I have never been paid anything at all in respect of coal actually delivered by me in the first quarter of 1906. I do not know that I thought the Guardians would try to discover what amount I had actually delivered, and that they would pay me for it. I cannot give you a date as to when it was I discovered that the Guardians would not pay me anything at all in respect of that; I know that the cheque was drawn early in April. I was not charged till August. The payment of the cheque was suspended. I thought at that time they would knock

something off on account of inferior quality, and that was all at that time. It does not follow that I had a grudge against the Guardian. They will not pay me at all now, it will be my trustee in bankruptcy. I do not know what claim he has made. I believe two or three meetings of my creditors have been held. The petition in bankruptcy was filed July 3; part of my public examination took place on August 1; part of it has still to come. If this £1,200 odd or the balance of it were paid I should not be able to pay 20s. in the pound. There a £4,000 due. My liabilities, amount to between £5,000 and £6,000. and my assets I say are £7,000. I did not think of saying anything to Inspector Kane until he came to Pentonville Prison in October. As to whether I should have said anything to him if I had not known that this £4,000 was not going to be paid. I did not know then; I do not know it now, but I thought any sum the Guardians paid me would be less the amount I admitted having had fraudulently from them. Under the six months contract of 1902 I delivered things properly. I cannot say who officiated at the weigh-bridge at the workhouse during the six months. I do not think there was a weighbridge at the infirmary during that period. I do not remember ever seeing the coal weighed at the workhouse. Under the 1903-06 contracts the coal delivered to the infirmary was 5,000 or 6,000 tons a year. That would mean sometimes 20 tons or 30 tons a day. The storekeepers could, of course, keep my carte waiting about a good deal if they liked to turn crusty, but my carmen never complained to me that they were being kept unduly. The storekeepers never raised any objection with regard to small differences in the weight. If the delivery notes were corrected I had of course to alter all my books, From 1904 we delivered generally in bulk. That saved me from 9d. to 1s. a ton. I do not agree that that gave the storekeepers more trouble than if it had been loaded in sacks; they had simply to weigh the load, that is all. If the coal was in sacks the sacks would be weighed at the depot. The load would go on the weighbridge just as it left the depot, coals, weights, scales, and everything. To me checking a bulk load would not be more troublesome than checking 20 sacks. It is simply a question of weighing the Cross and weighing the tare When the change was made from sacks to bulk I mentioned the matter to Lewis Hill, and Riches, as the inferior officer, of course, acquiesced. The payments to Riches were not on account of his having been obliging over this matter. I do not remember him giving any trouble at all. I have given him a box of cigars at Christmas. On 5,000 tons the saving of 1s. per ton by handling the coal in a less troublesome way would come to £250 I made periodical payments to Riches in respect of the agreement that I had entered into with him. There was the same arrangement between me and Spink that there was between me and Riches, and I paid him £5 a quarter after the first six months of the 1903 contract. I believe Spink is still employed at the workhouse. I have no reason to give my my story with regard to Spink was disbelieved and his story believed. I believe Jackson the storekeeper and engineer is still

employed at the workhouse, although I charged him with the same thing as I charged Baird and Riches. I may have had some curiosity as to the reason in my own mind; but the matter has never been discussed with the Treasury. I have not asked a single question of anybody about it. I think I may say I saw most of the delivery notes that came back from the infirmary. Riches weighed the coal at the infirmary. I do not know that a boy named Payne was employed at the infirmary in January, 1904, to weigh my coal and act on the weighbridge generally, and that Riches would only know what the boy told him. I was at the infirmary very frequently, never less than twice a week. I do not know that the boy Payne says that his figures were never altered at all before the notes were given back to the carmen after being initialled by Riches. I do not know that I can produce a single weighbridge delivery note showing that Riches has tampered with the weights, though of course I had some thousands in the course of the three years. I burned them. Riches, who had to look after all the stores, and to divide them up as they came in, including more than 2,000 lbs, of meat, had more assistance than you suggest. There was Baker, his brother-in-law, a married man. I said in cross-examination at the Police Court that letters used to come from Riches weekly. I cannot produce any of them. I believe there were some on the file when I was arrested, but I have not had access to my offices since I was arrested. I have absolutely nothing against Riches in writing. I cannot say whether the gate porter's book is reliable with regard to the number of carts that peat in and out. I found a difference between the weighbridge book and the gate porter's book. the latter having apparently omitted a number of carts I should think I paid a goodly number of visits to the infirmary in April, 1906. I knew and spoke to Riches in October of He came to my house in that month, and not in 1904, as suggested. I met Riches in the lower corridor of the infirmary. I do not recollect that the first time I saw him he asked me for half ton of coal, and that I said, "Who are you?", or that when he had explained I said, "You can have half ton at contract price." I never charged him anything. I probably booked it up at contract price. He has never paid me for that half ton. On the occasion of Riches' visit in 1904 I did not say "Come down and have some whisky and cigars with Mr. "I daresay he had whisky; I do not know about cigars. I did not then make the suggestion that he should be slacker in checking my deliveries. Riches was not at the stewards' office on April 9 when the turmoil occurred and the auditors were called in. He was not there on the night when I altered the books and was making the gate porter's book agree with the weighbridge book. I hol myself out as the person who has been corrupted, and say that Riches also corrupted my son.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. The head of the infirmary is the medical superintendent, and of the workhouse the workhouse master. They have separate staffs, separate management, and separate books. In my books the workhouse and the infirmary

were kept quite distinct. At the time of the first contract in 1903. which lasted for six months, the master of the workhouse was a Mr. Morgan. Mr. Hodgkin became master in March, 1905. Before that time I had not the slightest knowledge of him. Mr. Morgan had nothing to do with these improprieties; only Spinks and Jackson were concerned in them. In a transaction of this class it would be to my advantage to have as few people to pay as possible. It is true that I said before the magistrate, "My notes were not stamped on the back until after 1906."If Mr. Hodgkin, directly he came in 1905, instituted a stamp to be stamped on the back of the delivery notes. I never saw it. I do not know what took place in regard to the part that was left at the workhouse. My portion of the delivery notes for April, 1905, have been burnt. I burn them immediately after the Local Government Board inquiry of last year. I do not know that in one month out of 34 delivery notes, 20 are signed by Spinks, 13 by uniting, and one by Webb, but I will not attempt to dispute it. I do not suggest that either Whiting or Webb was one of my minions. It follows that so far as the workhouse was concerned I could not be always sure of getting Spinks to weigh my coal. Last Wednesday I was sitting on a seat at the back of the dock with Mr. Carroll on one side, and the defendant Hodgkin on the other side of Carroll. As to whether Hodgkin leant across Carroll and said: "I cannot imagine why you should bring me into this matter as I had nothing to do with the delivery notes"; he did not put it quite in that way. He said, "You know I knew, nothing about Spinks. "I did not reply to him. "I know that you know nothing about the false notes and that Spinks was the man who alone was responsible. "What I said was, "No. I do not admit that. "I know that as master of the workhouse Hodgkin had a great deal to do, the number of inmates daily being something over 2,000, in looking after them and the various supplies I should not think he had anything to do with the quantities of coal. I do not suggest that I brought Hodgkin into this fraudulent circle, but that he came in as the result of what Lewis Hill had said. Before the early part of July, 1905, I do not remember having had any conversation with Hodgkin beyond saying "Good morning." I used to have letters from him about the coal from time to time. In April, 1905, he wrote calling attention to the careless way in which the carmen delivered the coal. I frequently bad letters from him with regard to alterations in the delivery notes and correcting my weekly invoices, without any suggestion of fraud on either side, drawing attention to bona fide mistakes in the delivery notes, sometimes on my side and sometimes on the other side, also letters of complaint of the quality of the coal. Having got on very well in Morgan's days without bringing Morgan into it, why should I want to bring Hodgkin into it? I was told he would have to come into the arrangement that year; I cannot tell you why. I knew that Hodgkin had come with very large experience and very high character from other work-houses. I knew that after he came he effected some very great

improvements in administration, for which he ought to have credit. Having that knowledge of him I do not seriously mean to tell the jury that I went to him and told him exactly what I have said here. I saw him in one of the rooms on the left of the hall. It was in the morning. He did not appear at all surprised, hut appeared to have been expecting Mr. He at once agreed. I was there perhaps half an hour. I passed on, entering through the porter's gate. I am not aware that so far as the books show the only visit I made in July up to July 15 was to the masters office on July 6, and that I went at 4. 35 and left at 4. 40. It was very seldom I was in the workhouse for that short space of tame. I do not recollect that visit. "Bond, coals," appears all over the book, but I should not go to the work-house at the time of delivery. I cannot pledge myself to any date in July as the date of the interview. The first payment I made to him was early in January, 1906. I said before the magistrate that that was out of the cheque I obtained from Cox, the draper, before I got my quarterly cheque from the Guardians. I paid the cheque into my account with the London and County. My recollection is that I drew out £50, £25 of which I paid to Hodgkin and £25 to Anderson. I had not heard from Hodgkin that when he was rearranging the workhouse he suggested that collieries should be specified in the tenders. I do not know that that is a usual thing in tenders. I have only tendered for the supply to the West Ham Union, and know nothing of any other Guardians' method of arranging their tenders. I see nothing unwise in the Guardians specifying the Alfreton and Button collieries. I do not suggest that Mr. Page, the representative of the collieries, was party to anything fraudulent. I introduced Page to Hodgkin as a gentleman able to supply from seine of his collieries a coal which I thought would give the Guardians every satisfaction. Hodgkin may have said that so long as the coal was good coal the did not care what colliery it came from. I do not remember his saying that so long as the Alfreton and Sutton collieries supplied good coal he would not stand in the way of my tendering. Hodgkin declined to go to the colliery to see for himself, and I cannot say whether he was asked to the dinner at Frascati's that same evening. The dinner took place towards the end of August. The contract was discussed at the early part of the dinner. I do not suggest that one single word was said about Hodgkin falling into the swindle. We did not discuss that before Mr. Page; we then only discussed whether he would give me a preferential rate. My having a preferential rate was not in any way detrimental to the Guardians, provided I was honest in other respects. I do not suggest that at any interview at which Page was present anything was said in any way discreditable to any one of us up to that time. We parted with Mr. Page outside the Oxford. Nothing dishonest had been discussed at all. We discussed that in the train between Liverpool Street and Walthamstow, and it was then this scheme was laid.

(Wednesday, May 8.)

Cross-examination by Mr. Hammond-Chambers continued. The discussion after the Frascati dinner took place in the train from Liverpool Street to Walthamstow, between Hodgkin, Lewis Hill, and myself. We travelled first class, and only a lady was in the carriage. On September 13, 1905, I was at the "Ship and Turtle," Leadenhall Street, till about 9 p.m., and arrived at the workhouse at 9. 45. Hodgkin opened the door and I went into his room. I saw a man I do not know writing at the dictation of Hodgkin. He was probably filling up a tender. I did not see any tender altered or destroyed. Tenders are made on forms supplied by the Guardians; it is not usual to fill them up at the workhouse: I have never done so. They had to be in by 10 a.m. on September 13. Shaw is a clerk is the office. He was not in my pay; he wanted me to pay him, but I declined. On May 2, 1906, the day before the Inspector's Inquiry, I had an interview with him on the vacant ground in front of the temporary offices. I first mentioned it to Kane in Pentonville Prison two months after I was sentenced, and when I was for two days making a statement. Hodgkin was complaining about my deliveries daring April and May, 1906. On April 30, 1906, I wrote to him "Owing to the fact that I have not yet received my cheque in payment of the last quarter's deliveries, it has been impossible for me to meet the demands of my creditors, and in consequence I am unable to get a further supply of Welsh coal. I am therefore sending you a supply of English coal for the present. As soon as I am able to meet the demands of those to whom I am indebted I shall be able to get a supply along, and I trust that under the circumstances you will be good enough to wait until after Wednesday next." At that time the steward of the infirmary was suspended, and Hodgkin was acting as steward. On May 7 he wrote asking when I should resume the supply of Welsh coal, and from that time I was unable to deliver, and they bought elsewhere.

Re-examined. In April, 1906, the Guardians were withholding my cheque amounting to £3,200. At the time I was convicted a statement was made by my solicitor, and two months after I had a visit from Inspector Kane, who asked if I desired to make a statement. I said I should like a little time to consider it. He called again shortly after, and on that visit and a subsequent visit I gave a full account of all these transactions, and these proceedings were instituted while I was in prison. In making my statement I had no documents to refresh my memory. In burning my books and documents there were some which escaped destruction owing to an oversight. I thought all had been removed from my office on the railway sidings to my office on the bridge, but some documents have since been found there since the railway company went into possession. No inducement was offered me to lead to my statement before or since, and I have served the whole of my sentence. I have had an

allowance from the Treasury of £2 2s., subsequently of £2 10s. A week. I have no other means whatever; my name hat been associated with this case, and neither my son nor myself have been able to obtain employment. I have eight children at home, besides my wife and myself to keep. Since I have been giving evidence a bill-of-sale holder has put an execution into my house. The payment of £10 made to Anderson had no connection with his giving evidence in the action of the Digby Colliery Company against Mr. He was paid his let for that at my solicitor's office. There is no truth in the suggestion that Lewis Hill let me have the porter's books in a moment of weakness. He swore at Stratford that he knew nothing about it. The books relating to the coal deliveries could not have been sent to me, as the coal contractor, for any legitimate purpose. My tender was sent in on September 13 before 10 a.m. Neither I nor any of the contractors could have had legitimate business at the workhouse in relation to the tenders at 10 p.m. that night. Lewis Hill, Hodgkin, two contractors, and a contractor's clerk were there, and the clerk was filling in a tender. There was no object in our being in the office of the master except to see the tenders that had been sent in. Hodgkin said it was too sate to see them; he said he could not get a key to fit the cupboard. I knew Baird would receive my approaches favourably, because a was told by both Lewis Hill and Crump that it was the custom of contractors to pay considerable sums to officials and guardians for the contracts which they secured, and that arrangements were made for short deliveries in almost every case. Mr. Mackenzie wrote in January, 1906, from the office of the Commissioners of Epping Forest, complaining of the nuisance caused by the smoke, and asking if something could not be done to remedy it. Baird informed me that he was going to attribute the nuisance to the chimney stack, and he so reported. At that time very nearly half the coal was English and not Welsh. Baird's explanation as to why he kept the samples was that the chairman and other members of the Board had sometimes been down to the bunkers and taken samples of the coal, and Baird thought he also ought to take samples, and had done so. I saw the samples in his office. They were very fair samples of what had been delivered. I saw them burnt. In my experience the infirmary was never so short of coal as to make it necessary to consume the samples. There would have been about 1 cwt. of the samples, and the consumption was sometimes 15 tons or 20 tons a day. They were burnt because they were samples. I should think the weighbridge at the infirmary would register fractions of 1 cwt. down to one pound. The invoices produced show weighings of round tons, without a single fraction. I recognise the signature of Lewis Hill upon them, so that each one of these invoices is represented as having been checked and passed by him: "Examined and entered correct, Lewis Hill. "The period covered by these invoices is May to September, 1905. Whether in bulk or in sacks it is almost impossible that loads would come out exactly to the ton. As to the

cheque for £6 of February 22, 1904, in F. W. Hill's favour, when I was examined before the magistrates I had not seen the cheque. It was found amongst the papers at my old office at the railway sidings Until I was under examination at the Police Court I had not had that cheque brought to my memory. With regard to the interview with Hodgkin in July, 1905, so far from it being a surprise to Hodgkin, I was led to expect that he would expect to see Mr. Lewis Hill told me when I went to see him the previous evening that Hodgkin could not come as he had intended, but had arranged for me over the 'phone to see him at his house next day, and it was his suggestion that a preference should be given by the colliery company, who would thus ensure the delivery of their coal to the Union. The whole matter was arranged at the dinner at Frascati's. The preferential rate, of course, made it possible for me to tender slightly lower than any other competitor, and still give me a very fair additional margin of profit. I had arranged with Hodgkin to pay his £100 a year at the first interview. Before the collieries were specified in the contract I had been able to buy coal anywhere I liked.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. I think I mentioned at the Police Court that I saw the samples burnt, but, at all events, I mentioned it to Inspector Kane. Baird gave evidence against me on my prosecution. I do not remember that he was asked whether the samples had been burnt. The samples that I sew burnt were taken from a little place at the right of the stokehold. I do not think it was on a Sunday. I was very infrequently there on a Sunday. The samples were put into the furnace. To the best of my recollection it was early in 1906, before trouble arose with the Local Government auditor.

ARTHUR CLIFTON STOCK , Mr. Giddins' clerk, recalled, said that in the action of Bond v. The Digby Colliery Company Anderson was served with a subpoena and attended at the trial, but there was no occasion for him to be called. The trial came to the ordinary ending.

MARGARET ELLEN BOND . I was married to Harry E. Bond in 1901, and have lived at the house where we now live ever since. Harry Bond and Edward Bond were my step-children, and lived there too We have a dining-room and drawing-room on the ground floor. I remember my husband getting the contract first of all in November, and again in 1903. He went to Yarmouth about the time of the second contract, and shortly afterwards I went there to him, Before that I had not made the acquaintance of any of the guardians of the West Ham Union. I made the acquaintance of some of them shortly after my return. On the occasion that Crump, Skinner, Watts and Tarrant came to my house I remember something taking place with Skinner, when he was introduced to Mr. We were speaking of birds. He asked me if I was fond of them and I said "Yes." He asked me if I would accept of one if he sent me one and I said "Yes." He afterwards gave me a canary, and I put on the

cage the date when I had it, 11. 12. '03. On the occasion of their calling, the Guardians went into the drawing-room with my husband. I went in also, but only stayed a few minutes; they stayed about a couple of hours. I went into the dining-room. My husband came out and took some money from the mantelpiece in the dining-room into the drawing-room. I had previously seen him count up two or three £10 lots and also £5. It was all in gold, and in paper bags. I did not see the paper bags again after my husband had taken them away. Other visits have since been paid to the house by officers or guardians of the Union, perhaps half a dozen times, at the contract times and at Christmas. Besides those I have mentioned, I have seen Mr. Sansom and Mr. Cornish, there, and Mr. Baird twice. Anderson called on September 15, 1906, but that was after the trouble. I have seen F. W. Hill there, and Lewis Hill several times. Lewis Hill used to come at half-past nine in the evening and stay till half-past one or two in the morning. I believe he came in a cab belonging Powell, of Leytonstone. I knew why he came, and have seen whisky and cigars in the dining-room where he and my husband sat On these other occasions my husband did not take any money from the dining-room, as I have described on the first occasion. I have seen him do it frequently, not particularly when Lewis Hill came, but when the guardians were there. I have seen money handed by my husband to Lewis Hall and Sansom. I was introduced to Hodgkin at the cricket match at the infirmary not very long ago. I saw Riches at the inquiry. I do not know bun personally. After my husband was sent to prison Crump called upon me three times. He called on September 8. It was some, months since I had seen him previously. He asked me, in the first place, if I had heard that he bad called the evening before. I told him yes, that I had heard it from Harry. He went on to say that he was very sorry for me, and had called to see if he could help me at all. I told ham I was very much annoyed with Harry for having said anything to him about it; that I did not wish him or any other guardian to know anything of my position. He said I need not mind him knowing, and that it was generally known in the neighbourhood; that he had been talking to several guardians about my position, and also that he had been to see two or three gentlemen in the neighbourhood, among them Mr. Bussey and Mr. Benjamin Cox. He said that, having been unable to get any information from them, he had thought ha had better come to see me, his immediate purpose being to assist Mr. He then asked me if what Harry had told him was true, and I said "Yes." I think it was then I told him I should not care about accepting charity from anyone, especially from guardians. He told me that I must not take it as charity, but merely as one friend wishing to help another. He asked me had I heard from my husband, or was I going to write to him. I think I told him I was expecting a letter from him. He asked me if I would let him know if I did hear. Crump asked me if I knew whether he had told them anything. I asked what he

meant by that; be replied that he had heard it remoured that my Husband was going to make a statement. I said if he took my advice certainly he would do so. He said he did not think it would do any good. I told him I thought it might possibly tend to reduce hit sentence. He said he did not think it would. I think he told me that one month had gone and the other five would soon go. I told him perhaps the month had gone quickly to him, but to me, his wile, it certainly had not done so. I think I said, "I do not see why my husband should suffer alone when, there are others more guilty tin he. "The name of Mr. Sharman, the gentlemen who had defended my husband, was mentioned. I told Crump I should go to see Mr. Sharman and consult him about our position. Crump advised at not to do anything of the kind. I expect he was sorry to see me so upset, and advised me to let matters be. He told me my husband had got his sentence and he would have to finish it. I told him I knew as much as my husband. I think I told him I hoped to get at husband's sentence reduced. Anderson's name was mentioned.

Mr. Mansfield objected that this was not evidence against Anderson.

Mr. Justice Jelf: It is not evidence if it stands by itself, but if the jury think that Anderson by other evidence is hooked on, if I may use the expression, fastened on to this conspiracy, then by law and common sense what is evidence against oat is also evidence against a co-conspirator.

Mr. Mansfield: I agree, subject to this proviso: in order that evidence against one or two co-conspirators may be evidence against another, it must be evidenced something done in the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Mr. Justice Jelf: Is there any doubt now, after all these days, of conspiracy?

Mr. Mansfield: The conspiracy had been accomplished at the time when the conspirators' statement is made.

Mr. Justice Jelf: The conspiracy had not been achieved at the time; it had been partially achieved and was going on being still more achieved and would have been going on at this moment being still more achieved probably if it had not been stopped.

Mr. Mansfield cited the judgment of Chief Justice Denman in Regina v. Blake (6, Q. B., p. 126), where the question was whether a note on the counterfoil of a cheque which showed how the proceeds of a conspiracy had been shared with a coconspirator was evidence against the co-conspirator.

Mr. Justice Jelf: The object of the conspiracy had been fully accomplished; the whole of the judgment turned upon it. I shall allow the evidence.

Examination continued. I did not know Anderson at that time; I had never seen him. Crump mentioned Anderson's name, and asked if had called upon Mr. I said "Anderson? Which Anderson do you mean?" He said, "John Anderson the guardian. "I said he had not been to see Mr. Crump then said "If ever a man ought to help you, he is the man." He also said Anderson would call in a few days. I asked him why he thought Anderson should help me, and he answered "He is our champion bleeder. "I asked him what he meant by that, and he replied, "All I can say is, Mrs. Bond, that he is our champion bleeder." Crump before he left gave me a sovereign. I asked him to understand that I was not asking for it. I asked him from whom I was accepting it, whether he was giving it or it had been given to him by someone for Mr. He said he was giving it from his own pocket. After he was gone I put the

sovereign in the; envelope produced, and dated it 8. 9. 06, I kept the envelope until October 17, when I showed it to Inspector Kane, and afterwards I took it to the Police Court and handed it in when I gave my evidence. Crump said he would call again and would see Anderson and send him. Crump came next on September 11. I told him I had made up my mind to go and see Mr. Sharman. He said he thought I was acting in a very silly way. He asked me if the reason I wanted to get my husband home was that he might provide for us. I told him, of course, that was a big consideration, but there were other reasons. I think this occurred on the second occasion; but it is so long ago, I forget. Crump said he felt sure I should not do any good by going to see Sharman, and advised me if I had a brother or a gentleman friend who Would advise me to talk it over with him. I said I thought my husband had been led into this by others. Anderson came to see me on the morning of September 15. I went to the door. He asked me if I knew him, and I said I did not. He then said "I am John Anderson, the guardian." He said he had heard of my husband's sentence, and was sorry, and would like to have a little talk with Mr. I then asked him in. He said he fad had some conversation with Crump, who had told him of my position. I said Crump had told me he (Anderson) would probably call. I also told him I should not thank Crump for talking about my business. He said he did not think Crump had done so, but it was talked about among the Guardians. He said he had come to offer me assistance if I would accept it. I told him to understand I was not asking him for assistance, neither should I do so. He said he did not suppose I would, that it was a very delicate matter, and that he had come to offer, not to he asked. I told him, as I told Crump, that I did not like the idea of accepting charity. He said he had talked it over with some gentlemen and the Guardians, and they wished to assist Mr. He offered me five sovereigns. I asked him, as I had asked Crump, if it hid been given to him for Mr. He said no, he was giving me that. He told me I could have more if I liked to go to him at his office or write to him. I told him I certainly should not go to his office, and I certainly should not ask him for anything. I took the £5 and put it in the envelope with Crump's sovereign. I tore off the corner of the envelope in order that I might put the money inside, and finally handed it to the police. Anderson told me the address of his office. He told me if I wrote to put "private" on the envelope. He said he would come again on the following Saturday or the beginning of the week after, and bring me another £5. I suppose I made some answer, but I cannot remember what it was. He did not call any more after that. I had been to Mr. Sharman, but had not made any statement. I gent a letter to my husband through Mr. Sharman. There was another letter which I posted to my husband. I got back again the letter I gave Mr. Sharman. It was closed, but had been opened. That letter was written after Crump's two visits, and I think before Anderson's. I remember the date of the football match at the infirmary on April 9. My husband and I were going, but we

neither of us went. My husband was at home. Mr. Higgins, who has some position at the workhouse, came to see my husband, and drove away with him in his trap about two o'clock. He returned about four in the trap, bringing with him some books which were taken into the drawing-room. As to what books they were I only know that they were very large books. I had never seen any books of that description at the house. I went into the drawing-room during the afternoon. My husband was there with Mr. Smith and Harry. They were writing—working on the books. Lewis Hill afterwards came, I think in Dr. Vallance's trap. I think he stayed from half to three-quarters of an hour. He came again between eight and nine o'clock. I do not think he stayed many minutes. My husband was at home until about seven in the evening. He then left, and I could not say when he returned. I think Harry and Mr. Smith were working till 10 or 11 o'clock. Harry went away in a cab from Greenslade's and took the books away. The young lady that he was keeping company with went with him. That is the last I saw of the books.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. I am afraid there has not been the completest marital confidence between my husband and myself. I have in all matters safeguarded his interests when I could. I thought I knew as much about this matter as he did. This was not a business I would of my own accord have had anything to do with. Of course I did not like my husband paying money away, but I certainly should not betray him by telling anybody of what was going on. The young lady Harry was keeping company with came to go out with him about half-past nine on the evening of April 9. I knew they were doing something to the books, but I did not know what it was, or that it was urgent. I did not ask what they were doing during those long hours. I think I saw Tarrant at the house only once. I believe he came on that occasion with Skinner. I may have said that Crump and Tarrant came together; that did not mean they were let in at the door together. I still say Crump, Tarrant, Skinner and Watts were all at my house together.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. I never saw Bond give Crump a bribe. He only came to our house when the contracts were discussed and when payments were made. I do not know of his coming about the committee meetings of the Tradesmen's Association. When these men came I always went out of the room to get the money. I asked my husband about it, and he told me he was paving that money to secure the contract. After my husband was in prison Crump came on September 7 when I was not in, and called the following day. He told me he had spoken about me amongst the Guardians. He also mentioned Bussey and Cox. I said I did not like to receive charity, that it was galling to me from anyone, especially from the Guardians I said I was expecting a letter from my husband, and that if he look my advice he certainly would make a statement, and that I intended to tell all I knew. Crump gave me £1.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. Baird came twice to my house; I do not know what about. I was in straitened circumstances when

Anderson came to see Mr. He appeared to be anxious to assist me, and said he was sorry for the position in which I was placed. He said nothing about he and my husband being brother Masons. He gave mf £5, and said he would give me further money if I wanted it—that any money I wanted he would give me, and that he would call on the following Monday and bring another £5.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. I only remember seeing Skinner twice.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jenkins. I was introduced to Watts at my house in 1903, and I do not remember seeing him again. I never saw him receive money from my husband. The first tune I made in; statement was on October 17, 1906, while my husband was in prison, and I told him of it the next day. It had not been spoken of before between him and Mr. Inspector Kane took my statement, and he then had a paper, which I understood was my husband's statement.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young. I had never seen F. W. Hill, and did not know him by sight.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. The only Homes I saw Lewis Hill at my house were contract time (about September) and Christmas time; he has not visited us at other times to my knowledge. I have been present when he received money, but I cannot give the day or the year. On April 9 Higgins came between 1 and 2 p.m., while we were having dinner. My husband came back afterwards and finished the dinner.

HARRY WM. BOND , son of H. E. Bond. I have assisted my lather in business as a clerk for several years,' and was living with him in August, 1906. Davie was also a clerk; Smith was collector. The Wright Ramsay account was a fictitious account, in which was entered supposed receipts of and payments for coal to a non-existent firm in order to show that we received a sufficient quantity of coal to compare with that charged to the Guardians. Cheques were drawn in that name and cashed and the money used in the business. I was familiar with the system of delivering coal to the infirmary and work-house. The quantities were entered in our books in pencil, the counterfoil delivery tickets were sent from the infirmary by Riches weekly by poet, with the greater quantity marked en them, and those quantities were then entered in ink in our book. Spinks forwarded delivery notes from the workhouse, and a similar system was pursued. To both places blank delivery notes were supplied from time to time, which were returned with loads marked on them which had never been delivered. My father has told me of the arrangement with Guardians and officials, and I have taken sums, generally of £5, in paper bank bags to them. I know F. W. Hill, Anderson, Crump, Tarrant, Watts, Skinner, Lewis Hill, Hodgkin, Riches, and Baird. In 1905 I took money once to Lewis Hill at the infirmary, and told him I had brought it from my father; three times sums of £5 to Riches at his office at the infirmary; once to Tarrant at his tailor's shop in

Canning Town—I do not know the amount; once to Watts at his house at East Ham—I do not know the amount; once to Baird in the infirmary grounds—I do not know the amount. I live with ay father, and have seen at our house Lewis Hill once or twice in the evening; Crump once in the afternoon and once in the evening. In September, 1905, my father tendered for the 1905-06 contract. I bought envelopes of the size produced at Myers, 287, High Road, Leyton, took them to our office, and addressed them to the West Ham Guardians in different handwritings. I then went with my father to the workhouse, and he took the envelopes into the workhouse. On April 9, 1906, about 4 p.m., I received a message at the office from my father, went to his house, and received a parcel containing the gate porter's and weighbridge books of the infirmary. I assisted in making the gate, porter's book agree with the weighbridge book as far as the number of loads was concerned. If one load is delivered no figure is put to the entry in the weighbridge book—simply the name of "Bond"—and in many cases I put "2" or "3" in frost of the name. I was at work on it till 10. 30 p.m., assisted by S. A Smith, our clerk. My father was there. Lewis Hill came in two or three times for a quarter of an hour, and showed us what he wanted done with the books, and (how to cook them. He came at about 5 and 9 p.m. We did the period under audit up to Michaelmas, 1905. I then sent for a cab from Greenslade's, of Leyton, which was drives by Hicks, arranged the books inside, and drove with my young lady to the infirmary, took them into Lewis Hill, and told him that we had made them agree. During the inquiry before Mr. Bird and Mr. Oxley our business books and papers were destroyed—not in my presence. We supplied Crump, Skinner, and Riches with coal free of charge. In September, 1906, Crump called to see Mrs. Bond. I told him she was out, and he said he would call the next morning Saturday. He asked how she was placed financially, and I told him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. We had some hundreds of customers apart from the Union. I do not think Crump could have paid for the coals without my knowing it, as all money passed through my hands. I do not think Crump knew of the Wright-Ramsay account or of the system of fictitious deliveries. I saw Crump at our house twice—once he dropped in to tea, and on the occasion on September 7, 1906, I told him what money Mrs. Bond had comity in, and that she was badly off. I heard that a committee had been formed to assist us, and I think my mother got something from them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. I do not remember how much money I took to Baird; it was in 1905; that is the nearest date I can say.

Cross-examined by Mr. Jenkins. I know I took Watts some money once, but I do not know how much it was. I took it to his shop, which is a. small general shop at East Ham. I do not recollect the name of the road. I looked it up in the Directory, and drove there with my brother; it was about half an hour's drive. A woman in the

shop, whom I took to be Mrs. Watts, showed me into the back room; Watts came in, and I gave him the money and said, "This is from my father. "That is all I remember saying. I do not recollect the whole of tine conversation. My brother stayed in the trap outside. I do not recollect what reply Watts made. I do not think Watts knew Mr. I was there about a quarter of an hour. We did not discuss it at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. I knew of this fraud from the commencement of the 1903-04 contract. All the previous books have been destroyed—I do not know what the object was. I saw Lewis Hill twice at our house, once being April 9, 1906, but I have frequently seen a cab outside when I was told Lewis Hill was there. I cannot say what part of the year 1905 I took him money. I commenced altering the book on April 9 at 5 p.m. Lewis Hill came in shortly afterwards. My father was there. I said before the magistrates that Lewis Hill had nothing to do with the alterations so far at I knew.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. My father periodically wrote off money owing by Guardians (or coal and sent receipts as if the money were paid. I recollect Skinner being supplied with, coal in 1906 which was not paid for so far as I know. Some of the Guardians were on friendly terms with my father, and they have been at our house on several occasions. I have never seen Skinner there.

(Thursday, May 9.)

HARRY WILLIAM BOND , recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Merlin. In the three years my father supplied only house coal and steam coal. In the event of there being an order for any special kind of coal, such as anthracite or coke, I suppose it would have come to him at the contractor. I do not remember that he supplied anything outside the contract at any time. Besides delivering from the depot we delivered also from Wood Street and Leyton. From Wood Street we usually delivered in sacks—20 sacks of 2 cwt. There is, therefore, nothing to be surprised at in two tons appearing so frequently in the weighbridge book. I have frequently seen coal weighed at the work-house but not at the infirmary. There were two or three men employed in weighing I think, but I only knew Spinks. I should be surprised to hear that there were as many as eight men employed in weighing. Riches would control the deliveries at the infirmary. I do not know the boy Payne. I do not know that he has done most of the weighing since January, 1904. I have only seen Riches at the weighbridge office We did not weigh the coal in bulk at the depot, but we weighed all coals delivered in sacks. We sometimes delivered steam coal in sacks in two-ton loads. I do not know of any interview with Riches about increasing the weights When I said at the Police Court, in answer to Mr. Cowll. "I never had an interview with Riches about increasing the weights," I meant I never went to see him with the special object of talking about increasing the weights. I may have

pasted a remark. I always found Riches very obliging in weighing the coal; he never kept the carts waiting about. As to whether I found Riches in different parts of the building in the course of hit work, he has not been at the weighbridge office when I have been there sometimes. I know Riches was the storekeeper and had to do with the distribution of the stores. When I made a payment to Riches I simply said "I have brought it from my father." and he said "Thank you." I do not recollect him saying more than that. I made similar payments to Spinks at the workhouse and made the same remark to him that I had brought it from my father. I think Spinks is still at the workhouse. Riches and Spinks sometimes hid to post on the vouchers for delivery notes initialled by Mr. There was nothing exceptional in their doing so. If the boy could not find Riches at the time he had weighed the coal the delivery note would be sent on at the end of the day or at the end of the week. If they were not handed back to the carman they would be sent by post. I am not at present in business for myself. There is no coal business in my family now at Leyton. I discovered in the early part of 1906 that the Guardians were not going to pay the £4,000 with respect to the coal delivered. The contract would have run to September in the ordinary way. We stopped delivery on May 8, 1906, when we found that the £4,000 would not be paid. I have not seen my father learning his depositions off by heart.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. I said before the magistrates that I was carrying on a business of my own. It was carried on from the address I was living at and had no connection with my father's offices It was in no sense my father's business, but a goodly number of my customers had been customers of my father. I worked chiefly on the old customers that I knew. I ceased to carry on that business some time in last November. Since then I have been earning a livelihood by doing a little bit of canvassing now and again. That is not my sole source of income. I have played a billiard match or two and been paid for that. I have no allowance whatever from anybody. I haven't lived at home for some little time until quite recently, a fortnight ago. I will not deny that I have had frequent conversations with my father and stepmother relating to my evidence, and these conversations have covered practically the whole ground of my evidence. I will not say that my recollections are those of a man who has compared notes with his father and stepmother. As far as I know there was nothing wrong about the 1902 transaction either with regard to the hooks or otherwise. I said before the magistrates that the books relating to 1902 had been destroyed. I was told that they tad been destroyed. I only know it from what I heard. I have made entries in the 1902 book which, according to my evidence, were all bona fide transactions. I have never stated to anybody that I have saved enough money to start a public-house business. Such a statement would not be true if I had made it. I was in full possession of all or nearly all the information relating to my father's business, I cannot tell what has become of the £900 a year profits vouched for

in the balance-sheet published. The endorsing of the Wright Ramsay cheques, the alterations in the entry of the gate porter's book, and all that I did under the directions and instructions of my father. I know that was for the purpose of manufacturing evidence to meet the inquiries which possibly might be made as to these short deliveries and false deliveries. The money to pay Tarrant for the clothes supplied by him was not handed to Mr. I do not think anybody was present when, as I alleged, I handed a sum of money to Tarrant. The money was in gold in a sealed paper bag. I was present when my father put it into the bag. No independent person was present. I think that was in 1905. I have never said how much money was in the bag, and am not prepared now to say.

ALBERT PAGE , London agent of the Blackwell Colliery Company, Limited. I had known Bond about seven years as a coal merchant. I saw him on July 3, 1905, and on a subsequent date went to the West Ham Workhouse with him where I saw Hodgkin. I asked him if intone in authority could go down to the colliery to inspect the coal. He said he could not spare the time, and added, "You see what Lewis Hill, the steward of the infirmary can do." He said he would telephone, and the reply came back that he could not go. After that I asked Hodgkin to have dinner with Mr. I asked if there was any chance of our coal being placed upon, the tender form, and he said be could not say. I left it for him and Lewis Hill to make an arrangement to have dinner with me, and the occasion was fixed for August I think Bond made the arrangement. There were present Lewis Hill, Hodgkin, Bond, and myself. I recollect that Hodgkin asked at the dinner "Is your coal good coal," and I told him I thought that it would suit their purpose wonderfully well. Nothing was said direct between me and the defendants about getting our coal upon the tender form, but, in fact, it was put on the lender form for steam coal with one other quality for house coal, so that whoever got the contract our steam coal was bound to come in, but not necessarily the house coal. Our collieries include the Sutton Main. We supplied that house coal to Bond from October, 1905, to March, 1906.

Cross-examined by Mr. Orr. I have only seen Lewis Hill once—on August 31, at the dinner.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. I went to the work-house with the express purpose of discussing the taking of my coal with Hodgkin. The coal I proposed to supply was good, suitable coal, a very useful coal indeed. It is no unusual thing in trade to give a preference, and I have done it several times since. I do not consider it was in any way an improper thing. So far as Hodgkin was concerned, I never offered to give him anything. He never asked to, or suggested that I should give him anything. Apart from any question of preference, ours was a suitable coal for the Guardians to have. We supplied several large institutions with it. Hodgkin at first declined the dinner. I had no conversation with Hodgkin, and didn't write to him between the interview at the workhouse and the dinner. At the dinner no suggestion was made that Hodgkin should

be paid anything if our coal was specified in the tender. There was to discussion that would suggest any impropriety at all in dealing with this coal. In the year 1906 I again saw Hodgkin with regard to taking our coal. I said to him "Do you think there is any chance of our coal being specified again in these tenders," Hodgkin said he had written to the clerk of the Guardians suggesting that they should specify their own coal; in other words he referred the matter to the Guardians, and would rather not have anything to do with it. It it a common thing to specify on the tender forms what coal is to be used.

Re-examined. I think I spoke to Hodgkin after the inquiry hid been held by the Inspector. I do not recollect that at the dinner at Frascati's anything was said about preference. The arrangement as to the preference was on July 3, between me and Bond.

JOHN RIDD SMITH , cabdriver to Greenslades, Leyton. I am known as Jack Smith—by no other name. On April 9, 1906, at 10 p.m., I took young Bond and a lady up in Oliver Road, Leyton. They had a parcel, and I drove them to the new infirmary. Bond took the parcel in, returned to the cab, and drove away. Card (produced) shows my day's work and contains an entry, "10 p.m., 3s.," which I received from Bond for the fare.

SAMUEL JOHN SMITH , coal merchant. Leyton I have known Bond for some years, and from July 31, 1905, assisted him in his business as a traveller. In October, 1904, I had lent him £50, and three months afterwards lent him another £50. On April 9, 1906, at about 9. 30 p.m., I saw Lewis Hill at Bond's house. Young Bond and myself were comparing the infirmary gate porter's book with Bond's ledger, and making the addition of a figure "1" or "2" in various places. We finished at about half-past nine. Lewis Hill came in for a few minutes, and spoke to Bond. I did not hear the conversation. Gate porter's book (produced) of April 29, 1905, I had before Mr.

Cross-examined by Mr. Orr. I had a written agreement of service for three years with Bond of February 25, 1906 (produced)—there was no agreement of partnership. I resigned on July 27, 1906 Just prior to that the business was made into a limited company. When making the alterations I had no knowledge that it was a fraud—as a servant I did what I was told. Delivery notes were not used on that occasion; we were simply altering the ledger to make it agree with the gate porter's book. I was told by Bond that it was the infirmary book. I had seen Lewis Hill at Bond's before.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. There was a tacit understanding that I might become a partner if I proved myself worthy, but no agreement. I was not there to do anything I was told and to ask no quetions—nothing of the kind. I lent Bond two sums of £50. I know nothing whatever about the deliveries of coal to the infirmary. There would be two, three, four, or five carts sent at one Mr. The gate porter, if he saw an additional cart coming, might alter "2" into "3."

Re examined. There is no doubt I was assisting in altering these entries—principally in patting a "2" in front of "Bond." I never altered a figure.

JAMES JOHN DAVIES , clerk to Bond from December, 1905, to July, 1906. I entered daily deliveries of coal to the West Ham Union in 1907. the sales book. Firstly in pencil under the direction of young Bond, 1908. who afterwards altered them in ink and sent the invoices accordingly.

HENRY DORRINGTON NIBLETT , ambulance driver, West Ham Infirmary. One afternoon during the audit in 1906, by directions from the office, I drove a trap to Oliver Road, when Lewis Hill got in end directed me to drive to the front gate of the workhouse, which, I did. A clerk in the office named John Clark got into the trap with an oblong, book-shaped, brown paper parcel, and we then drove to Bond's house in Oliver Road. Lewis Hill got out and went towards Bonds house, and told me to drive to Bond's office, which I did. Clark got out of the trap, went into the office for about two minutes, returned, and we drove beck to the Union, where Clark went in and directed me to drive back to Oliver Road, which I did. Lewis Hill was there, and I drove him back to the infirmary. I cannot recollect exactly what happened to the parcel, but I believe it was delivered at Oliver Road. I recollect Lewis Hill asking for the parcel. I never saw the parcel after that. I do not recollect the distance of Bond's office from his house. I do not remember what Lewis Hill did with the parcel.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. This took place in April, 1906, and I was not asked about ii till December, 1906, when Inspector Kane saw Mr. I distinctly remember Hill giving an order for the gate porter's book to be taken to the infirmary, and it was taken over by the ambulance at about 9 a.m.

WILLIAM HENRY JOHNSON , hall attendant, West Ham Infirmary. During the audit of 1906 Lewis Hill directed me to get out the gate porter's books for the period under audit, March-September, 1905, which I did at about 2 p.m., and put them in the Committee room. A clerk named Jack Clark then directed me to go round the wards for the lists, where I saw Lewis Hill, who told me to bring the gate keeper's books to his office, which I did. There were, I think, seven books. Then Hill gave instructions to dark to put them in a brown paper parcel. At about 3. 30 p.m. I saw Clark take the parcel out. I did not see them again until the inquiry in May. After the books were taken away I heard Clark speaking on the telephone at about 4 p.m. At 8 p.m. I saw Lewis Hill engaged with the stocktaker.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall I heard Lewis Hill tell Clark to send the books up to the workhouse by the first ambulance. The telephone is used a good deal. I never heard Lewis Hill read a letter through the telephone.

PERCY BIRNAGE , senior clerk, Steward's Office. On April 9, 1906, during the audit, I received a telephone message from the workhouse,

had a conversation with John Clark, and then asked Lewis Hill if he knew anything about the books they required down at the clerk's office. Hill said that Clark was attending to the matter. Lewis Hill and I went to Clark. I asked Clark. "Why did you tell me that untruth about the books?" I was referring to what Clark had told Mr. I said, "You know all about it." Clark made no reply. Hill said that I might leave it—I need not trouble any more about it Before I spoke to Clark I had told Lewis Hill that Clark had said that he knew nothing about the books.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. I do not recollect Baird complaining to Lewis Hill about the smoke. If I said so before the magistrates it was a mistake. I heard Baird complaining to Hill in the steward's office about the coal.

JOHN HENRY HOARE , gate porter at the Infirmary. In April, 1906, I was night porter, the day porter being Thomas Clark. One day in April, 1906, as I came on duty at 8 p.m., Thomas Clark spoke to Mr. My duty was to enter in a book the names of persons entering or leaving the workhouse. On that night a cab came in with tin persons. As the cabman drove in one of the occupants said either "Medical Superintendent" or "School."

Mr. Marshall Hall objected that as there wan no evidence of this particular book having been destroyed secondary evidence of entries could not be given.

The Judge ruled that there being evidence of a series of books of which this was one being destroyed, the evidence was admissible.

I entered in the book "Two visitors," and the exact time—it was between 11 and 11. 30 p.m. The cab remained about 10 minutes and then left, and I made the entry off its leaving. Payne attended at the weighbridge. Bond's carts frequently passed in. I should not alter "2" into "3" if a third one came, but would make a separate entry. There is a long drive and you would see at once how many were coming in.

REGINALD ALFRED HIGGINS . I have been assistant master of the workhouse since April, 1903. During Mr. Boggis Rolfe's audit ii April, 1906, I went to Bond's office at 1. 15 p.m. by direction of Hodgkin, and told him "The steward has telephoned to say that he wants to see Mr. Bond." Bond then drove in his trap in the direction of the infirmary.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. Morgan was previously the Master. Hodgkin succeeded him on March 25, 1905. At that time delivery notes for coal were not signed. Hodgkin had a stamp made with which each delivery note was stamped and signed on the back. The delivery note was in duplicate; one part would be given back to the carman and the other stamped and sent up to the office. At the end of each week the invoice from Bond would be checked by the stamped delivery note containing the signature of the officer receiving the coal. Each week there would be errors discovered. The deliveries to Forrest House would be done in the same way. I would correct the invoice and notify Bond. Sometimes the

error was in favour of Bond and sometimes against him. (Several specimens of errors in the invoices were explained by the witness.) The delivery notes would be kept until the audit. In April, 1906, all the workhouse books and the coal delivery notes were pat before the auditor. He had the gate porter's book directly he asked for it I was directed to get out a comparative statement of the amount of coal used in 1905-06 and 1904-05, which was sent to Dr. Hilleary. It showed that during the twelve months from March, 1904, to March, 1905, 400 tone more house coal had been consumed at the workhouse than during the period from March, 1905-06. I assisted to get out an account showing the expenditure during the six (months after Hodgkin came as compared with eighteen months before, and it showed a saving to the Union between £6,000 and £7,000. Hodgkin's time was fully occupied. Details were of necessity left to the officers under him, of whom there were 130. There are fully 2,200 inmates. There passes through Hodgkin's hands accounts to the amount of £76,000 annually. When Mr. Boggis Rolfe's audit was taken Hodgkin's figures were perfectly corrupt, so far as I know. There were five officers attending the weighbridge—Spinks, Whiting, Meecham, Gibbs, and Hinchcife. Spinks is still employed on the same duties. Jackson was engineer, and is still there.

Cross-examined by Mr. Merlin. All coal delivery notes were checked by me in the office. The notes came to me at the end of each week. It would be an effective check if it had the signature of the person receiving the coal. It would be practicable for Spinks to show untrue amounts on the delivery notes. I am still assisting the Master, and Spinks is still employed. I only get delivery notes of cosl for the workhouse. I have nothing to do with the infirmary. I took the delivery notes for the workhouse up to the auditor.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. I did not see Bond frequently during the four years; perhaps six times. I never noticed what clothes he wore.

Re-examined. The system of delivery notes applied to all supplies. The change introduced by Hodgkin was that each note was stamped and signed by the officer responsible for the quantity delivered. Previously they were not signed by anyone, and you could not tell who had received the goods. The only check the workhouse have is to check the delivery note with the invoice. I do not doubt that there were large quantities of coal short delivered, and that notes were wrongly filled up by the officer at the weighbridge. The practice was to keep the delivery notes until the audit; alter that no one troubled about them. The file of delivery notes for January, February, and March, 1906, is missing. They were put before the auditor; I do not know who has taken them. I saw them scattered about on the Board room table one evening during the audit. (To Mr. Hammond Chambers.) Hodgkin followed me into the Board room, and I pointed out to him that these delivery notes were lying all over over the table and not being cared for; he said, "Go and tell

Hall," which I did. Hall came out, and I believe he told the accountant to have them locked up in the safe. (To the Judge.) There would be a quantity of pipers in the room while the audit was going on.

DOUGLAS HORACE BOOUIS ROLFE , Local Government Board Auditor, Essex District. My first audit of the West Ham Union accounts was held in April, 1906, for the period ending Michaelmas, 1905. I compared the amount of coal used at the workhouse and the infirmary for the half-year ending Michaelmas, 1905, with the corresponding half of 1904. The cost to the workhouse was substantially the SUM in both periods, but that to the infirmary showed a large increase. I called upon Lewis Hill for an explanation, and he handed me a written statement (produced), dated April 10, 1906. I received it* day or two before the 10th. I asked for the gate porter's books of tat infirmary at 1 p.m. on April 9, and afterwards made three, or four requests for those books, but had not received them at 5. 30 p.m., when I left. The next morning, April 10, I arrived at the work-house shoddy after 10 am., and found the gate porter's books in the audit room. I had also asked for the coal delivery notes, which I had not received. With my assistants I went through the gate porters books, and noticed that a number of figures—"2's," "3's" and a few "4's"—were in bright fresh-coloured ink against the name of "Bond." I made a list (produced) of such suspicious figures. During the 35 days there were 40 numbers added before the name of "Bond" in the gate porter's books, representing an addition of about 80 tons. I drew Lewis Hill's attention to those entries, and required the production of all the gate porter's books from the opening of the institution up to April 9, and also all the delivery notes. I received no delivery notes prior to Lady Day, 1905. I found no fresh-coloured entries or figures subsequent to Michaelmas, 1905 I looked through the weighbridge books, and was struck by a graft number of the items being in round numbers of tons without cwts. of quarters. There are 19 on one page, 18 on another, and 22 on a third. This applied to both steam coal and house coal. I have inspected the workhouse books. When leaving on April 10 I placed the gate porter's books and delivery notes in the custody of Dr. Hilleary. and I think he spoke to Hill on the subject. I called for numerous boob and papers in my audit, and whatever I called for was produced to me. I am not sure whether I had the gate porter's book of April 9. On April 11 I required the attendance of some of the officials, to whom I put a number of questions, and their answers were taken down in shorthand. I have read the transcript and corrected it according to my recollection. Amongst the persons examined was Lewis Hill, the steward, and Riches, the storekeeper. (Mr. Bodkin read the transcript of the proceedings). So far as I can recollect the entries in the book corresponded with the entries in the delivery notes; I am not absolutely certain. Upon hearing the answers to my question and upon investigation of the books I drew up a report to the Local

Government Board, and in consequence of that report an inquiry was held by Mr. Bird and Mr. Oxley. The audit was adjourned, and in the interim all the papers and books which I had before me from the early date of April were left in the ordinary course of audit work in the Board room, except those I specifically dealt with.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. As far as I know the statements in the statement signed by Lewis Hill are accurate. I do not know anything about his administration of the infirmary; I have no reason to suppose they are not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Merlin. The statement that the delivery notes always exceeded the entries in the gate porter's book was made at the audit; I cannot myself say that definitely, because I have not examined every entry.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. At the audit I also had all the books from the workhouse before Mr. Every one of those was supplied to me directly I wanted them. I do not remember the gate porter's book being called for. I also had the various delivery orders from March to the date of the sitting. I have heard no suggestion that there has been any alteration of the workhouse book. As the result of the audit I went into other and very numerous matters besides the coal contract. The audit was about six months is arrear. Taking the result at the. workhouse, there had been a considerable saving over the corresponding six months. I cannot give the actual figures. Although there had been a decrease in expenditure there had been a considerable increase in the number of inmates. The reduction was in coat per head; I cannot tell you whether there was an actual saving in the total figures. The reduction in cost per head meant, of course, a very considerable saving to the Guardians and the ratepayers.

Re-examined. Ordinarily I should not have sent for the gate porter's book. It would be rather an exceptional course to take. The hooks I should send for for the purpose of the audit would terminate at Michaelmas, 1905, unless they were something exceptional. Before I sent for the gate porter's book I had observed that the weights were recorded in round numbers in the weighbridge-book. I have noticed an increase in the quantity of coal. On comparing the cost per head at the workhouse with the cost per head at the infirmary I noticed not only an increase in the actual cost but in the relative coit. The cost at the infirmary was five times as great as the cost at the workhouse, and that was really the reason why I sent for these books. I examined the gate porter's books continuously from Michaelmas to March, 1906. I saw no apparent alterations either before or after the period under audit, but in the period not under audit the fresh ink figures related exclusively to Bond, and finished at the period when the audit would ordinarily terminate, and there were none afterwards. The, result of my examination of the alterations for 35 days shows 80 tons short delivery of coal. I cannot say anything about short delivery on a particular cart. That would not include any short deliveries which might be due to excessive entry of the weights on the weighbridge.

To Mr. Merlin. The two-tons round deliveries entered in the books and on the delivery notes were, I noticed, very numerous, I should regard the round weight of two tons as a normal and natural state of things.

The Attorney-General pointed out that in the case of the Welsh nuts, which were not delivered in sacks at all, there were 12 entries on one day, November 21, every one of which was two tons exactly.

OWEN WYATT WILLIAMS , chartered accountant. I have had submitted to me a number of invoices and delivery notes for coal charge against the Guardians and delivered to the. workhouse by Bond. I have also had the weighbridge-book at the workhouse and the pit porter's book. I have examined these documents from the period April 1 to December 31, 1905. I find that the weighbridge-book for the workhouse, the delivery notes, and the invoices practically agree I have compared the weighbridge-book with the gate porter's book at the infirmary and I find a discrepancy between the two amounting to 145 loads. Assuming two tons to the load, that would represent 290 tons, and in value £228 15s. 6d.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. I made this investigation at the beginning of this year. I do not know that tit discrepancy was, in fact, first of all found out by Hodgkin and a letter written about it, and notice given of it. I was instructed to make the investigations not by Mr. Hilleary, but by the Treasury. I have not heard that so long ago as November 5, 1906, the attention of the Guardians was called to the matter. Assuming for the moment that from the weighbridge a delivery note purporting to be good on the face of it was sent into the office to be checked, and subsequently as invoice came containing a similar charge, there would be no possible menus in the office of telling whether that was a real or a false delivery, of course assuming that the delivery note was properly signed by the responsible party. No question would arise unless you happened to have your suspicions aroued.

JOHN CONNOLLY CARROL , relieving officer, at one time missionary at the West Ham Police Court. I know Crump very well, and recollect having a conversation with him at his shop in the June of last year. Mr. Macaskie submitted that this could not a fleet the charge against Crump. Mr. Justice Jelf: We are not denting with individual points now. We are looking into the conduct of these people in their mode of management of this work-house, and it is impossible to shut out. anything that can possibly bear upon that.

Mr. Marshall Hall: The rule is. I think, quite clear that if certain acts are charged and those acts are admitted as evidence of other acts ejusdem generis they are admitted on this ground and this ground only that they go to show the object or the purpose for which such acts went done. The only evidence which is admissible strictly is evidence absolutely relevant to the charge. If you travel outside the charge for the purpose of giving evidence of other acts of conspiracy I submit that that is not evidence.

Mr. Justice Jelf: One of the counts of this indictment is a general count for com I lining together to defraud the Guardians; and if I find that evidence is given I do not say whether it is true or not) of a very widespread conspiracy to defraud the Guardians by having false accounts, by bribing officials to conceal the fact that dis honesty is going on with regard to these accounts, that there is conspiracy being

carried out to open tenders, to see what is in the tenders before some of the tenderers know that they are being opened, the day before they are going to be opened, I do not see what legitimate objection there can be to it. The objection apparently is because it is evidence in respect of these men who are charged, but that is by no meant sufficient; because once you have connected people together, in a conspiracy, or given evidence to connect them together, then what each one of them does or says is evidence against them all. It is manifest you can never get to the bottom of any conspiracy in this world if you are not able to do that. One man might be kept out of the way although he may really be one of the leading spirits of the whole thing, and if he manages to keep himself always in the dark you would never be able to get a case at all. As soon as you once get a man connected with tot thing or partly connected with it, it becomes a question for the jury whether he is connected with it; if he is, he is affected by the statement which those conspirators made.

Mr. Schultess Young argued that F. W. Hill was not involved in this evidence at all.

Mr. Justice Jelf: Every one of these persons was involved in this joint conspiracy; they are all several and joint conspirators; and if this conspiracy is sufficiently wide and ramified to make these things relevant we must have them out.

Mr. Schultess Young: There must be some evidence against my client that he was a member of that conspiracy before it is evidence against him. The only evidence against him is that of Bond; no one else so much as knows him.

Mr. Justice Jelf: Evidence by Bond is evidence by a man who has been guilty of corruption, but what is there to discredit Bond if he, being an accomplice, is corroborated in all aorta of ways by other people? If there is evidence connecting your coast with him it most go to the jury. I am satisfied that there is evidence to connect every one of these persons, though it may not be accepted by the jury.

Mr. Schultess Young cited Rex v. Hardy (26 State Trials): "In indictments of this kind there are two things to be considered, first whether any conspiracy exists and next what share prisoner took in the conspiracy. Before the evidence of conspiracy can affect a prisoner materially it is necessary to make out another point, viz: that he consented to the extent the others did." (Buller, J.)

Mr. Justice Jelf: If Bond is corroborated in his main story it is not necessary that be should be corroborated in every branch of it. There is no rule or law about an accomplice. If a man in cross-examination becomes stronger and stronger with every question that is put to him I do not see why that is not corroboration in itself, supposing the man is an accomplice and he is cross-examined to show that he is telling an untruth and he gives a marvellously excellent answer which completely knocks the bottom out of the question, do you mean to say that is not corroboration of the man?

Mr. Schultess Young submitted that agreement amongst conspirators to act in concert for a particular end must be established before evidence could be given of the acts of any of them.

Mr. Justice Jelf: Supposing you have a conspiracy which lasts for years and extends into all kinds of machinations to defraud and you have the act of a particular man connecting him with some minor part of the conspiracy, nevertheless that is sufficient to land him in it My opinion is that there is ample evidence to bring four client into it all. If you persuade me that I am wrong I will cry peccavi and say I am wrong, but I do not think you will.

The Foreman of the Jury: I beg your pardon, my lord, bat may we not go on with this? Our patience is being exhausted; we have had so many of these legal arguments of the learned counsel; he may rest assured that we shall not drag his went into the case unless there is evidence to bring him into it.

Examination continued. I remember having a conversation with Crump in June, 1906, at his shop in reference to filling up the vacancy of the Mastership of the workhouse. Crump said that during the time there was a vacancy in the position of Master of the work-house he one Friday night, at 10 o'clock, met Lewis Hill at Liverpool Street Station, and they went from there to Gow's fish shop in

Broad Street, where in a few minutes they were joined by Madden. Madden, speaking to Crump and Hill, said, "Allow me to introduce to you the lady and gentleman whom I have spoken of as Matron and Master of the West Ham workhouse." He then introduced Mr. and Mrs. Hodgkin as the Master and Matron of the Shoreditch work-house. The lady then left them, and they proceeded to negotiations. Madden, after a. conversation with Hodgkin, turned to Crump and said, "I am afraid it cannot be done for the sum you mentioned." Then Madden said, "Do not let us spoil the ship for a halfpennyworth of paint; add another £25." Crump told me that Madden was the meat contractor of the workhouse. Crump said he had paid a visit to Madden the evening before with reference to the contract for the following year. The visit was paid to Madden's house in St. George's Square. He was sitting with Madden either in the dining or drawing room when the servant knocked and said that Mr. Madden was wanted on the telephone. Madden said, "Who is it?" and the servant said, "Mr. Mills." Madden then told the servant to switch him on to the telephone, and Crump said so close was he to madden that he distinctly heard through the telephone the voice at the other end saying, "Your tender is not the lowest, and unless you are prepared to take off £1,000, and, if possible, £2,000. you will certainly lose the contract to-morrow. If I were you I should write to-night without fail and amend your tender." Madden promised to do so. He then put the receiver up, and said to Crump, "Mills suggests that I should drop £1,000 or £2,000 off my contract What do you think. I am prepared to do it. I would rather take off £3,000 than lose this contract." Crump said, "I should advise you to leave your tender as it is; you will get the contract even if you are not the lowest. We will see to that." Madden said, "If you can do that I shall be glad, and you may come and see me after wards." Madden got the contract next day. Crump also said he went to see Madden a few days afterwards at his shop at Victoria Station, and told him he had got the contract, and Madden gave his a £5 note and a parcel of meat Crump said, "If it had been anybody else I should have got £100, but it is always the same; where they get £10 I get £1." About December 12, after this prosecution had commenced, I met Anderson in the street, and asked him if there was any prospect of Tom Watts being arrested. He said he believed there was, and that if he was others would get into trouble as well. I told him I had heard about Watts from Crump. Anderson asked if I thought he could go and see Crump or Mrs. Watts, and I said "No, because I believe they are all being watched." He appeared to be very agitated, and went off to a Council meeting. This was about three days before he himself was arrested.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. At the time the conversation took place between Madden and Mills over the telephone I was seeking a subordinate stewardship.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. Crump stated that he would have nothing to do with Anderson by reason of his action in connection

with the election of treasurer for the Union. Anderson, he said, on that occasion received £50 for himself.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. I do not in any way pledge myself that what Crump told me was true. I suppose really his object in telling me all this story was to try to screw me up, I being at that time candidate for a post. He wanted me to pay £80 for it. I remember the conversation between Hodgkin, myself, and the elder Bond in this Court. Hodgkin leaned over to Bond, and said, "You know I know nothing about the false delivery notes," and Bond said, "I know Spinks knows all about it, and should be here."

(Friday, May 10.)

Mr. Justice Jelf, referring to statements made yesterday by Carroll against Crump, said that he must not be taken as thinking that that was necessarily weighty evidence against the other defendants. He should tell the jury that very little weight ought to be attached to it, although it was legally admissible in a case of this kind.

WALTER GEORGE TRACE , 13, Scarborough Road, Leytonstone, clerk to Mr. Powell, cab proprietor, produced a book containing account with Bond, and showing entries of cab booked to him on September 13, 1905, from the Union to Denmark Lodge, 11. 25 p.m.; also an order for cab on the same day from Lewis Hill, from the Infirmary to the Union, 7. 33 p.m., and one on same night from the workhouse to the infirmary at 11. 20 p.m. Another entry for a cab on April 9, 1906, booked to Lewis Hill at 95 p.m., from the infirmary to Denmark Lodge, returning at 10. 5 p.m.; also a number of entries against Lewis Hill for cabs from the infirmary to both Denmark Lodge and 469, High Road, Leyton; these items being paid by Lewis Hill.

Cross-examined. I did not know who travelled in these cabs. I occasionally saw Bond in 1905 and 1906. I could not remember whether he ever wore a blue serge suit.

JAMES KAVANAGH , night porter, workhouse. I began my duties in March, 1904. I sign on at 7. 30 and start work at eight. In rammer I stop on until six in the evening, and in Winter time until seven. Three books were kept to record persons going in and out; a general book, for people coming in and out with the traps and Guardians; also cabs and vans; a visitors' book for people visiting the indoors officers, and an indoors officers book. (General book produced), showing Lewis Hill, September 13, "Entered 8. 5 p.m., left 1140 p.m. ", and entry of Mr. Dick, "8. 45 p.m., left 11. 40 p.m." (Booked to front oflence.) I knew Dick as a friend of Lewis Hill, and had seen them together, going in and out of the workhouse. They generally stayed about a couple of hours. On September 13, I think, they both left together in a cab. In the general book Crump is entered "10 p.m., left 10. 15 p.m., Guardian. "The inmates of the workhouse go to bed at eight. In the visitors' book there is entered "Mr. Watson and friends, entered 10. 10 p.m., left 11. 35 p.m., to

master's." They entered and left in a cab. I did not know Mr. Watson nor his friends. There is also an entry in the same book relating to Bond, on the same date September 13, "Entered 10. 45. left 11. 30 p.m., to master." There was a man named Osborne acting as night watchman that night, whose duty was to report anything unusual in a report book (produced). There are the initials E. J. H. appended to a report in Osborne's writing—that is the master's initials. Three or four days after the proceedings at the police court I saw Hodgkin passing into the workhouse. He asked me if I had heard of what had taken place. I said, "Yes, I was very sorry." He asked if anybody had been to see me; I said no; he said no doubt they will; he said, "I want you to tell the truth; I want everybody to tell the truth "; that is to the best of my recollection. I said. "Certainly, I will tell the truth."

Cross-examined by Mr. Orr. I frequently saw Lewis Hill at the workhouse and often with Major Dick. There was nothing significant about his visit on September 13. I made the entries in the book it the time; they are correct.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. I did not often see Bond at the workhouse; I did not know him, and had to ask him his name. I cannot remember what sort of clothes he wore.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. The cab with "Mr. Watson and friends" drove up to the master's house. Major Dick walked in, but I cannot tell you where he went to. As "Mr. Watson" went through he shouted out when I asked for his name, Mr. Watson and friends, to the master's house." It was never suggested that I should not book Bond's visit that night; nor did the master ever instruct me to make incorrect entries in any of the books. He was, as far as I know, very strict about the keeping of the porter's book. I believe the book is sent up the next day to be checked in the office; that is the day porter's duty. I have heard that it was Hodgkin who informed the police with regard to the book I have given evidence about.

W.M. JAMES CURTIS , stoker at the Infimary. I remember that Bond in 1905 began delivering Welsh coal. I took samples up to about the first month or six weeks, by direction of Baird first, then Mr. Paul We were taking samples on and off up to the Local Government Board inquiry. I daresay there would be between 40 and 30 altogether. We kept them in a little box at the top of the stokers bathroom. I burned these samples, but cannot remember the date I would not like to say it was April, 1906. I do not know how soon after the inquiry. I have been trying to remember for the last six weeks. I remember Mr. Boggis Rolfe's inquiry. I do not know whether they were taken then or not. It may have been a few days before. I could not tell you. I do not know what was the good of taking them. I do not remember the second inquiry, by Mr. Oxley and Mr. Bird; I may have known of it at the time, but it has slipped my memory—I cannot believe it if I do not remember. It was a Sunday

night when I burnt the samples. It might have been the next day after Mr. Baird's orders.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. The assistant engineer, Hallett, was present when I burnt the samples. The dynamo attendant might have seen me do it. Bond was not there. I took the samples from the tap of the bathroom, and put them, boxes and all, in the fire. We may have been short of coal on that Sunday night—we had been on many occasions. There might have been a hundredweight in the samples. I remember a fire occurring in the chimney shaft about Christmas, or the new year 1906. I saw the chimney, with sparks and fire coming out, and a lot of smoke. There was a tree on fire also, which was beaten out. I did not take particular notice of the condition of the tree. I have from time to time reported to Baird about the coal being mixed—sometimes he has brought the steward, sometimes Bond; they have all come over together sometimes; they would have a chat and go away again. I think in the 1904 contract they started bringing the coal in bulk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Steward. I used to see Bond there frequently. I never noticed what clothes he wore; he usually had an overcoat.

Re-examined. I have other work to do than remembering dates. I am sure Bond began delivering in bulk in the first six months after the first contract. My memory is good on that because I had to work hard through it I burnt all the samples that were there on that Sunday night. I should have said "I burnt the samples" instead of "I burnt my samples." We were all taking samples. I know nothing about any other samples. I think some of the other stokers' samples were put with mine.

GEOBOE AUGUSTUS PAUL , Chairman of the Guardians since 1904. I made complaints to Baird and Lewis Hill shout the quality of the coal In April last year I told Hill it was the third time in eight days that I had had to complain. I said, "Mr. Hill, I shall not report this matter to you or to the committee in future; I shall take it to the Board and make a Board question of it." He expressed his regret that the coal was bad, and said he would attend to it at once. I think on the same day—Saturday or Monday—I had a letter from aim enclosing one from Bond to the effect that the coals were according to contract, and that my statement to the contrary was, to say the least, incorrect. On that I had a sample of coal taken and sealed, because from what I had heard from some of the Guardians I feared a libel action. The letter had been addressed to Lewis Hill. Baird never complained to me; he had admitted they were not to sample when I had spoken about it. I told Baird that I had recived information that the coal was not to sample—I know nothing about coal personally—and when that was so he was to take a sample and put it aside. I think Baird told me he had reported to Lewis Hill. I asked Baird what the conditions of his appointment were and he said he

did not know. Then I said, "For your own protection you had better lock it up and see, because in my opinion it is your duty to report to the Infirmary Committee as engineer." That conversation was before the inquiry. I asked him why he had not reported to the Board. He said Hill had told him to report to him, and I told him I did not know whether that was correct; he had better look up his conditions. I have spoken to Baird over and over again about the coal. A complaint was received from Mr. Mackenzie; that I had nothing to do with; it would be relegated to the Infirmary Committee. I saw a report from Baird about a fire in the shaft. I remember seeing Watts, Tarrant, and Cornish in the lavatory at the workhouse, and heard some angry remarks; when Tarrant—and I think it was Cornish—had left I said to Watts, "Why, Tommy, what I is the matter?" He said someone had sent £10 to Cornish in order to defray the cost of Tarrant's and his (Watts's) election, and they had been jacketing Cornish for sticking to the money. Watts said that that was the first time he had seen him since the election.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. At the meeting on November 11. 1904, Bond gave an explanation with regard to the Digby Colliery Company, a very excellent explanation. I entirely believed him and I think every member of the Board did too. From the commencement my aim was to trap Bond. I suggested to Hill that if he did not put his house in order trouble must come—that was in respect to general administration. At the time of Bond's statement I thoroughly believed him; not only did he convert the Board, but by their order I congratulated him on his successful defence. I thought my former suspicions were ill-grounded; I do not believe that now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I said distinctly at a meeting of the Board that I believed Bond was swindling us. At the following meeting a letter was received from the Digby Colliery Company saying that all Bond had said was untrue, but, in spite of that we accepted Bond's statement I know Lewis Hill did write to Bond complaining, on one occasion, because he sent it direct to Mr. Hill sometimes came with me to the meetings in my cab.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. I remember the resolution to rescind the previous one about no action being taken to reopen the matter of the Digby Colliery Company. I took the view then that an action having been threatened the Board should do nothing. I did not vote on that occasion. I do not remember whether Anderson I did or not. The latter moved a resolution to expunge from the minutes the resolution excluding the Digby Colliery Company. He told me that he did that because he had attended the trial and heard what was said. It was Lewis Hill's duty to attend the Infirmary Committee, but I do not think that applies to the Works Committee I do not remember saying at Stratford that it appeared to be the duty of the engineer to report to the steward. My suggestion as to his reporting to the committee did not come till quite late is Bond's contracts. I do not think I complained of Baird not taking

the initiative in making complaints. He did take samples. I have one here if you wish it. He did not conceal the condition of the coal; the thing was too palpable to conceal. Baird once told me that half the coal was not Welsh. There was a discussion about October, 1905, about it. That was not the occasion when Baird said the coal was mixed. On more than one occasion he has told me a large quantity of the coal delivered was not Welsh. On one of those occasions I asked him why he did not refer the matter to the committee and speak to the steward. I do not dispute that there was a discussion before the Board about delivery of coal in bulk, and I should not be surprised if there was a difference of opinion. I remember Mills, and other Guardians saying that to supply coal in sacks would make dust. After Mackenzie's complaint Baird said the coal was not up to sample, and Bond was told, by me that if it occurred again the contract would be cancelled. I heard afterwards about a fire in the shaft, but I did not believe it. I cannot say it did not occur. The samples of coal were kept lover a lavatory adjoining the boiler house. I last saw them during Messrs. Baird and Oxley's inquiry. To my knowledge there were fifty samples taken in large sugar boxes weighing at least a ton in all. I cannot say whether Bond's retaining the contract was due to any omission of Baird's. I could not answer that question except to his detriment. If he had looked after it properly Bond would probably not have continued it If Baird had taken my advice and reported to the committee every time the coals wore bad—and I take it they were had in nearly all deliveries—there would have been a quantity of reports to be presented to the Board which could not have been ignored. I was twice a week at the infirmary to certify lunatics, and each time I went into the bunkers. It was no part of my duty to bring the matter before the Board. The chairman it only the figurehead of the Board, not an inquiry agent I was fully informed as to the coal upon inquiry. I wanted to help Baird because I knew trouble was coming. I have repeatedly brought the matter before the committee. (To the jury.) Baird's reply when. I asked him why he did not report to the committee was that he was told by Mr. Hill to report to him and not to the committee. (To Mr. Marshall Hall.) One excuse put forward by Bond was that there had been a strike at the colliery, and he had been unable to obtain coal. I want to be fair to all. I have no animus against any one. (A number of letters and minutes were read referring to complaints of the Board in December, 1904, and January, 1905, and Bond's replies.) Cross-examined by Mr. Merlin. I received complaints as to the quality of coal from the beginning of 1904 onwards. I felt that we were being cheated, and expressed my opinion to the engineer. My complaints commenced in the end of 1903 or beginning of 1904, and I then warned Baird. I was trying lo get at the truth of the matter, and found it extremely difficult. Bond continued for three years to get contracts and to fool the Board, chairman included. I should

not be surprised to find he had fooled you all here from what I have seen of him here. I know Bond's evidence implicates Spinks and Jackson. If I knew why they are still employed I should not tell you (The witness was directed by the judge to answer the question.) Then I must say I do not know. I am not responsible; the chair man only does as the Board directs. I have made no endeavour to discharge them. (To the Judge.) I believe Bond's statement is true, and I accept his allegations about Spinks and Jackson that they are implicated. (Mr. Merlin.) Why have you not endeavoured to get those two men out of your employment at West Ham? (A.) Must I answer that I (Mr. Justice Jelf.) Yes. (A.) There may be other proceedings to follow. (To Mr. Merlin.) I am not allowing them to stay. You must speak to the Board, not to Mr. I have no authority to dismiss those men. If I had I should not do it at present. I only act by resolution of the Board. (Mr. Justice Jelf said that this must not be pressed too far.) Riches has been at the infirmary three years; he came with and has borne a good character. The Board decided not to pay Bond's cheque at the time of the Local Government Board inquiry in May, 1906. On the admissions made by Bond I declined to sign the cheque. I suppose it made him a bankrupt automatically.

Cross-examined by Mr., Hammond-Chambers. I was chairman when Hodgkin was appointed master. I have always given a great deal of trouble and time to the affairs of the workhouse. When Morgan, the previous master, retired, the workhouse had got into almost a state of chaos, and we were very anxious to get the best man we could as master. There were some 200 or 300 candidates, from whom seven were selected. We desired a married man, so that his wife could be matron. The salary was £300, with an increase up to £350, and superannuation after 33 years' service of £180. We had excellent testimonials about Hodgkin, showing that his age was thirty-nine. He began with two years as junior clerk at St. Pancras, five years storekeeper at St. Pancras. Then the husband and wife were 4 1/4 years master and matron at Shardeloe Union, and then master at Shoreditch for seven years. I accept those particulars from you. I know he has been in Poor Law a great many years. On his taking up the position on March 25, 1905, he pointed out to me that practically no store book was kept, and he instantly started a proper store book. He also had a stamp to be put on delivery tickets and to be signed by the officer receiving the goods. Up to the date of the audit, so far as I know, he performed all his duties satisfactorily. He got out comparative statements every six months showing that he had saved the workhouse several thousands of pounds. At the time of the audit in May, 1906, Lewis Hill was suspended as steward of the infirmary; Hodgson was appointed acting steward, and during the six months following he showed a very great saving at the infirmary. I may say at once that a better officer no Board of Guardians could have had as an administrator. On October 29 and

November 5, 1906, he wrote letters produced, reporting on the fictitious deliveries of coal.

Re-examined. The reports of Hodgkin were some months after Bond's conviction in August, 1906, of making short deliveries and delivering inferior quality of coal. Bond had pleaded guilty to a charge extending over the whole of the previous twelve months. I became chairman in 1904, after Bond had become coal contractor. I have no doubt the charges of short delivery and bad quality were well founded. Baird never volunteered a statement as to the state of things. He did not act on the instructions I gave him to complain to the committee so far as I know. He took samples under my instructions, which I saw stored over the lavatory every time I entered the bunkers. In the latter part of 1903 a Guardian showed me a letter of complaint and I spoke to Baird about it; I had other anonymous complaints from time to time. Had a fire existed three days in the shaft that would not account for the complaints which lasted three years. Bond was written to by the Board in consequence of various complaints; he wrote asking to come before the Board to explain his position, and he did so in such a forcible, lucid and logical manner that he convinced the whole of us that he was the victim of a coterie. There has been no inquiry by the Guardians in reference to the present charge. Anderson was chairman of the Infirmary Committee at the time of the Digby Colliery dispute. He moved on November 10, 1904, that no further action be taken with regard to Bond, and that the Digby Colliery Company be struck off the list of contractors, which was passed. After the result of the libel action in February, 1906, Anderson moved that that resolution be expunged; it was seconded by F. W. Hill, and carried unanimously. Until this matter came before the police court I had not the faintest suspicion there was any collusion between the officials and Bond.

ISAAC MYERS , 287, High Road, Leyton, stationer. About 12 months ago, at nine or 10 p.m., H. W. Bond purchased long envelopes like those produced. It was at the time tenders were being sent in to the west Sam Guardians.

HENRY DORRINGTON NIBLETT , recalled. On April 10, 1906, at eight a.m., on orders from Lewis Hill's office, I took the same trap round as I had driven the day before to the steward's office, when John Clarke got in with an oblong brown paper parcel similar to that I had seen too day before; I drove to the workhouse; Clark got out, took the Parcel, returned without it, and I drove him back to the infirmary. Entry in workhouse gate porter's book (produced), "Niblett enters 8. 15 a, m.; leaving 8. 20 a.m. with trap and books to clerk's office" is correct. Later in the day I went to the workhouse with the ambulance, and had a conversation with the porter there.

Cross-examined by Mr. Orr. At one p.m. I drove Lewis Hill from the auditors to the infirmary—I could not say the time it was in the

forenoon on the day before I had taken the books; I think it wool be about 12 noon.

STEPHEN AYLES , Trefusis, Park Hill Road, Wallington. I was master of Lambeth Workhouse up to 1902, when I retired on a pension, and have acted as clerk to Charles Madden, meat contractor, 22, Strutton Ground, Westminster. I entered his employment in September, 1905. I did a little temporary work for Madden two or three weeks before that at his private house. I had known him as a meat contractor to Lambeth eight or nine years—I did not know him personally. A few weeks after I left Lambeth I knew him personally. I might have done a little casual work for him gratuitously, such as writing a letter for him. In 1902 I met him at a restaurant, and he made overtures to me to go into his employment, which I refused; that is when I first knew him to speak to. Then I did not see him again for four years—I meant to say frequently. For seven or eight months before September 12, 1905, I met him very frequently. I might have done work for him two or three years before September, 1905. Sometimes I have worked out contracts for him or written private letters. I never had money for it; I was paid it joints. I did not keep his books. I said at the police court, "For three years before August, 1905, I was associated with him in keeping his books and at contract time." I did not keep his trade books. I used to go to 56, St. Georges Square, and his previous private residence, 4, (Buckingham Palace Gardens. I used to write cheques and private letters for him. He cannot write—only sign his name. In September, 1905, he was meat contractor to four or five institutions. I filled up some of the tenders and worked them out. In June, 1904, he paid me £5 for work, and from then to September, 1905, he paid me three or four times. The three weeks' casual work before September, 1905, was writing letters. He was ill, and I went to his house to do it He paid me for that. I knew he was meat contractor to West Ham—not to Shoreditch. I could not say he never was, but I feel certain he never has been. I have known Hodgkin as master for 10 or 12 years I do not know his Christian name; I may have heard it. I had only seen him about twice or three times in 10 years. I made out Madden's tenders to West Ham in 1905, but I think not before; I may have helped to work out the prices before. On the morning of September 12 I saw Madden at his office. I believe the tender forms of West Ham-produced were then in his drawer. They were not touched that day or forwarded to the Board on the morning of the 13th. The West Ham meat contract would total to some £16,000 a year to Madden. 8t. George's, Hanover Square, might be a little bigger contract—or about the same. I saw Madden on September 13, 1905, at seven or eight a.m., or it might be 11 a.m. The tender forms had not been touched then. I had no conversation with Madden about the tenders then. I do not remember. I tried to telephone to the West Ham Union, about 10 or 11 a.m. by Madden's instructions, but did not get through. I appreciate that the tender forms should then have

been at the offices. adden had left, and he returned at about six p.m. I never left 22, Strutton Ground all day, and was not at the "Red Lion" at Leyton with Madden. At six p.m. I tried to telephone again to West Ham, but did not succeed, and Madden and I went to West Ham, taking two tender forms in an envelope. I may have filled the signature in and got it ready. I always sign for Madden—he can sign cheques, but he won't if he can help it. I signed the two tenders produced. "Charles Madden" is in my writing. I would not say whether it was signed before we left for West Ham. "Charles Watson, witness," is also written by Mr. Madden suggested that I should use some name other than mine and mentioned "Watson. 'He said, "Use some other name than your own because, you being an old Poor Law officer, the Guardians might be diffident about giving their votes if they knew you are an ex-colleague of some of their officials." I said, "What name shall I use?" and he said, "Watson." I put in "Charles," with the address,"22 Strutton Ground," which is my business address. I am known there as Stephen Ayles, and am there two or three days on and off in a year. How long after September, 1905, they would have found me it very uncertain. "Charles Madden" and "Charles Watson" are differently written—intentionally—to make it look more business-like. (To the Judge.) I mean to deceive—to make people 'think one person signed it and another witnessed it. (To Mr. Bodkin.) There were two clerks at Strutton Ground who would be available as witnesses if I had drawn the tenders up there. I could not pledge my oath they were written at Strutton Ground—if not, it would be at West Ham. We went to the West Ham Workhouse in a cab and arrived at 8. 30 p.m. Madden and I walked through the gates, and either Madden or I gave the name of "Watson and friend." Madden's name was not given to my knowledge. I see The entry in the book, "Mr. Madden and friends. Entered 10. 10, left 11. 38. Both to Master. "There was no one with us bat Madden and I I have known the Master forten years, and he has known me as Ayles. I should say it was intentionally done to conceal the name. We went to the Master's room. I know the way to every Master. I had been there so many times. I could not' remember how many times I have been there in Hodgkin's time, but in the late Master's time I have been there seven or eight times. We went to a room on the ground floor. Hodgkin was about there, and Lewis Hill was inside. I have known Lewis Hill as steward 10 or 12 years, and he would know me by name. A man named Dick was there. Madden apologised to Hodgkin for being late, saying it was not businesslike, but there was something he wanted to know about deliveries; that was the cause of it—whether there was any alteration in the deliveries on the new contract as against the old He wanted to know before he filled up his tender. There was some talk with Lewis Hill and Hodgkin and the answer was there were no alterations; the deliveries were to be the same. Hodgkin complained about it being so late, everyone agreed it was late, and then Madden suggested that we should go

and complete the tender. Someone suggested that there would not be time to return to Westminster. At the time I thought we were within the time, that the tenders had not to be delivered till ten the following morning. I want to emphasise that. Then I think Hodgkin said there would not be time to post it, and Madden said, "There is no alternative for it but for us to do it now. It must be done now. I cannot run the risk of not getting the post and being too late. Get the form." He told me what to put down, what he would tender for, and I put it in to the two tenders produced. One is for about £3,000, the other is the big tender. It took me about three-quarters of an hour to work it out. I sat at the table to do it. There was a bottle of soda water on the table and a couple of glasses. I did not see any whisky, and none was brought there in my presence. I was the only one smoking. I was smoking a cigarette, and I apologised. Madden sat next to me. The others were talking. I had to ask them to stop, as my work was difficult. Hedgkin was standing up, and saw me doing it. Bond came in, and I think he was there when I left. I accept what is in the book as to the time I was there—one hour and twenty-five minutes. I think Hodgkin saw me sign the tenders. I then sealed and addressed them and left the envelope with Hodgkin. I do not recollect whether it transpired that Dick and Bond were contractors. Neither Hodgkin nor Hill pointed out that the tenders should have been in before 10 a.m. on September 13. I swear I did not notice it I think Hodgkin put the sealed envelope on the mantelpiece. I think Hodgkin brought Bond in. I did not hear him say anything. I just caught my last train going back—12. 9 a.m. I saw Madden the next morning between 6 and 8 a.m. at Strutton Ground. I did not telephone to West Ham, nor did anyone in my presence. I pledge my oath to that; nor Hid I send any message to West Ham. I went down there between 10 and 12, and waited outside the By rd room with other contractors' representative I knew they would open the tenders that day. I said good morning to Hodgkin, but had no other conversation with him. I saw three Guardians, whom I was told were the chairman, Crump, and Dr. Hilleary, come out. I went into Hodgkin's office while waiting Lewis Hill came in, and I just said "Good morning" to him. We were not joined by another Guardian. I saw no one fill up a tender there. I was there till the afternoon, and did some writing there filling up another tender we had on for Southwark. I did not give any tender to a Guardian. There is not a Word of truth in that suggestion. I have never seen Crump. I know Anderson by sight. There was one who might have been Anderson came into the master's office, and I said "Good afternoon" as he passed I have never had a conversation with him. I learned that Madden had got the contract at about 5 'p.m. that day.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. If I had wanted to conceal anything there was nothing to prevent my putting "September 12" on the tender. I saw no tenders opened on September 13. The only

tender I saw there was the one I was filling up. Madden cannot write anything except his name, and that is why he got me to sign and fill up his tenders. I said at the Police Court that I thought I might have signed tenders in 1903,1904, and 1905, but some of 1903 were put to me which were not in my writing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. On September 13 Hodgkin seemed surprised to see us, and asked our business. Madden said he had come to make inquiries. Hodgkin said there were no iterations. Then Madden said, "We will go away and fill in our tender and send it in by post." Hill or Hodgkin said, "There will never be time for that, as it must be in the first thing in the morning, as the Guardians are going to sit to-morrow." Then Madden said we would fill it in now and leave it, which we did. I did not know we were committing any sort of impropriety.

Re-examined: I last saw Madden on November 29, the day alter the report of his prosecution appeared in the papers. I have never teen him since, and have no idea where he is. (To the Judge. There was no reason for secrecy so far as I know. Madden said, "Use another name. "Watson was in my mind, and when I went into the gate I gave "Watson."

ALFRED HALL , recalled. It was the practice to distribute tender forms amongst contractors who had. been on the list for some time. Forms were sent to Madden on September 6, 1905, and also to Dick. Probably Bond would call to get his forms. More forms would be printed than were necessary—the spare ones in the temporary Board room in a locked cabinet—it was a place which could be easily opened. It was the practice for the Board to allow at least a day between the last day of sending in and the Board meeting at which the tenders were to be discussed. The majority of the tenders would come in on the morning of the last day—September 13. I had charge of them, and kept them in a case fitted with drawers. I should think there were about 150 tenders altogether. They were all locked up on the Wednesday night. When I arrived next morning at half-past nine the cupboard was locked apparently as before. The tenders were opened by a clerk in the temporary Board room—while the Guardians were present. I did not check the tenders when I put them away and took them out in the morning. I saw Hodgkin and Hill in the Board room all that morning. There would be no difficulty in getting access to the cupboard where the tenders were. At the audit by Mr. Rolfe I heard about the books being wanted—that was something after two. I telephoned to the infirmary about three; to Clarke (Lewis Hill's clerk), and afterwards to Lewis Hill. I told him the auditor was asking for his books; would he send them at once? I suggested that Clarke should bring them on his motor-cycle. Hill said, "It is no good talking like that, there are too many of them" I again telephoned, as the auditor was complaining against me, and said. These books have not come yet"; he said, "They are coming

now by ambulance; I am sending them now." That would be about; four. The books had not come by nine o'clock, when I left. Next morning when I came the books were laid out before the auditor. The latter pointed out some entries to me; I noticed figures to the left of Bond's name; there is no doubt they were fresh coloured ink figures. I then went for Dr. Hilleary, and he came. I think Mr. Rolfe suggested that he should get the remainder of the boob; he had only then got those for the half year ending September, 1905. At the end of the day I put the books in the cupboard where I left the tenders, and there they remained till Thursday, April 12. The books that are missing now were there then. That was the last time I saw the April 9 book. Each day I put the books in that same cupboard. I don't know whether I looked it each time. Anybody in the workhouse at night might have had access to them. After the inquiry—quite late in the year—I had a conversation with Hodgkin about the consumption of coal. (Bond had been borrowing from people against the money, about £4,000, owing to him by the Guardians, and actions had been brought by the creditors against the Guardians to recover this money), and said that we wanted to show whether Bond had been doing the same at the workhouse as he had been doing at the infirmary. Hodgkin wrote me two letters. The first one he wanted back. I said I could not return it. Hodgkin supplemented that first letter by one of November 5.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. I was not present when the complaints were reported to the committee, except the one from Mr. Mackenzie. There were several applications by Bond for cheques that were never paid. I think he had something on account in 1903; I am not sure about the 1902 contract. I do not think Bond was me. ever refused when he asked for money on account. There were applications by other contractors as well. The Guardians in 1905 passed a resolution that in future contracts should be paid quarterly. Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart. At one election for filling up a post, Tarrant proposed that the voting should be by a show of hands Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. Many of the complaints from the infirmary would be by Lewis Hill. There is nothing unusual in officials being present at the Board meetings. Any tenders arrriving too late would be marked "Late." I never open a tender at all They would go before the Board in the ordinary course. We very rarely had tenders late. There would be very few local tender—most would come from London firms. A lot would come by poat I think I should notice if they had been taken out of the envelope and put into plain envelopes and the postmark removed. I did not go through the envelopes on the occasion in question.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. Baird's salary would be £130, rising by £5 annually to £150, and he had a house and his food In September, 1906, the food was commuted for £50 a year—I do Do not know whether Baird had got into his office when first the infirmity

was opened. I do not know where his office is. In the ordinary course a complaint which reached the Infirmary Committee through the steward would emanate from the engineer. The report read from page 201 of minute book, would, I should say, come from the steward (The witness read a minute about the smoke issuing from the chimney shaft.) I remember Mr. Spurgeon getting up at the meeting of February 1 and complaining that the engineers were largely responsible, because if the stoking were properly done there would be no smoke to complain of. Mr. Spurgeon said he had been in the line and knew all about it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young. F. W. Hill was chairman of the School Committee in 1905, and on tie Special Committee with regard to ophthalmia. He did pay a visit to Chigwell with other Guardians. Cross-examined by Mr. Merlin. You may take it that the Guardians would not appoint anybody without satisfactory testimonials. Riches has not had any complaint against him until these matters. I should not say that his duties would take him all over the infirmary. I do not know. I never knew there was a boy named Payne employed by Riches.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. I believe the work-house books were sent immediately the auditor asked for them. When I checked the books I never had any difficulty in getting them.

Chief Inspector JOHN KANE, New Scotland Yard. I saw a statement from Bond to his solicitor some time before October 13. On October 11 I went to Pentonville and saw Bond, but he made no statement then; on the 13th I called again, when he did make a statement. On October 17 I called and saw Mrs. Bond. She made a statement and signed it. I received from her an. envelope containing £6 in gold. Then on October 20 I saw Bond again and took a further statement from him. I then reported to the Public Protecutor, and the following were arrested:—Crump, Lewis Hill, Tarrant, Sansom, F. Hill, Hodgkin, and Riches. When arresting Riches he said, "I have nothing to say except what I said at the Local Government Board inquiry." When I read the warrant to Hodgkin he said, "Very well," Lewis Hill's observation was, "It is all damned rot; it is ridiculous. "Anderson, Baird, Watts, and Skinner were afterwards arrested. Anderson said, It is most unfair; it is absolutely untrue. I am not guilty of that. Skinner's reply was, "I say nothing; I have nothing to say. "Cross-examined by Mr. Stewart: I have heard all the evidence that has been given here. I never interviewed Bond until he was arrested, I was present at the Police Court when he denied his guilt. He pleaded guilty on the remand, just after his solicitor had made some observation, I think. My first interview with Bond after his conviction (which was August 10) was on October 11. I did not see his wife in the interval. The incident about the £6 was this: Mrs. Bond mentioned that one of the prisoners had offered her a sovereign and another one had brought her £5. I naturally said, "What have

you done with the money" She said, "I put it in an envelope. I tore off a corner of an envelope that had already been sealed up." I said "Where is the envelope now, and the money?" She said, "It is upstairs." She afterwards fetched it, and I became possessed of it I did not tell her it would be better for her husband if she made a statement. I first of all approached Bond, when he told me he was willing to make a statement. He had caused his solicitor to tell me that. When I went to Pentonville I asked him to tell me his story in his own way. Then he began to tell Mr. I did not say to his on the second visit: "We hope you are not going to send us away without a statement." Bond is a bit muddled in his recollection. It is quite possible that I put a question or two to Bond to clew up anything that was not intelligible.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. Anderson gave me every facility to search his office, etc., when I arrested him. I have seen his banking account.

Cross-examined by Mr. Young. Two members of the East Hut Council have been in Court for the purpose of identifying Bond a being introduced to them by F. W. Hill, but they do not do so.

Cress-examined by Mr. Hammond Chambers. Hodgkin gave at every assistance when he was arrested. I did not know anything about what is called the visitors' book until Hodgkin told me of it that is the book containing the entry of September 13.

FREDERICK HILLEARY . I am clerk to the West Ham Guardians.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mansfield. I remember Crump telling me Mrs. Bond was in a destitute condition, and asking whether anything could be done in the way of making a payment to her on account of what was due to her husband. Anderson was with me at the time. I do not remember that Anderson made as though to go away, nor Crump saying, "Oh, do not go away; you can hear what I have to say." Crump afterwards made an appeal on Mrs. Bonds behalf in the Beard Room. I do not remember Baird's testimonials when he was appointed.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. I have been Clerk to the Guardians for 39 years and seven months. I think it is admitted that Hodgkin brought the workhouse to a peculiarly high standard.

(Monday, May 13.)

DOUGLAS H. BOGGIS ROLPE , recalled. (To Mr. Marshall Hall.) Referring to Bond's statement that the September-March, 1903 contract was carried out honestly, I do not know that any books are available by which to test that statement. The delivery notes are probably missing, but the porter's books and the weighbridge books may exist also the invoices.

ALFRED HALL , recalled, produced a list of the assignees of Bond of his interests under the contract of September, 1905. This completed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Stewart formally submitted that, as against Tarrant, the story given by Mr. Paul as to the conversation in the lavatory, on May 8th, 1906, was not evidence.

Mr. Justice Jelf said he was inclined to think it was not, but, strictly speaking, there was a doubt whether it could be ruled out He would certainly advise the jury not to be in any way guided by it.


GEORGE ARTHUR CRUMP (prisoner, on oath). I live at 124, Leyton High Road, and am a stationer. I came into the district of Leyton nearly 30 years ago, about 1883. I started business directly afterwards. I was elected Guardian of the West Ham Union in 1889, and was reelected unopposed in 1901, and again in 1904. In 1900 or 1901 I joined the Leyton Tradesmen's Association, where I met Bond. I soon took an interest in the coal contract, which, interest led to my making complaints of the way they were carried out. I was on the committee which considered these complaints. Knowing Bond as a coal contractor, I sought his advice. There are many coal contractors—local men—in Leyton; three, I think, are on the Leyton Tradesmen's Association. Bond accompanied me to the workhouse to inspect the coals and give me his opinion about them—that would be about 1901. I felt it my duty to seek advice. I could not get satisfied on the Board, so I tried elsewhere. Bond's visit took place before has tender of 1901. He told me that in his opinion we were being cheated, and that if he had the contract he could supply a better coal and save us hundreds of hundreds a year. When Bond, tendered in 1901 he merely asked what I could do for him; I supported him, and naturally asked my friends to do so, believing him to be a thoroughly honest man. This was done absolutely without reward. When the Board selected tenders a very large factor with them has been the local labour, and quality, not only the price; the cheapest we consider is not the beats hut often the dearest. I have always piefared to support local tradesmen. In 1902 the Whitwell Coal Company tendered. Mr. Bond asked me to support them as he was not to a position to do it himself. He said it would do him a good turn if they got it; finances would not permit him to do it. I was not supporting a man whose financial position was not sound; I was supporting his nominee. In September, 1902, Bond sought my support before the election, and I did all I could for him. We were in constant relationship at the time through being members of the Leyton Tradesmen's Association. On all public matters Bond and I were always band in hand, and all philanthropic movements too. No promise was made to me in respect of the 1902 contract. Soon after Bond got the contract in 1902 complaints were made. I observed in one of the hunkers in G block that there was nothing but coal dust. I was told it had come in the same afternoon, and I immediately sent for the master—that was Morgan—who came and viewed it. He told. me be could use it,

The Attorney-General submitted that the conditions of the fulfilment of the 1902 contract were no part of thin inquiry.

Mr. Justice Jelt agreed. It had been taken all along that the first material date in thin trial was the autumn of 1903, and Bond's statement that up to that time nothing wrong had occurred had been accepted by all parties.

Mr. Marshall Hall said that Bond had been strenuously cross-examined at to credit. If it could be shewn that, during a period when Bond admitted that no iufluanoe had been brought to bear upon him by any of the defendants, a contract of his had nevertheless been corruptly carried out, that would go to the root of Bond's evidence.

Mr. Hammond-Chambers pointed out that he had cross-examined Bond as to this very point The real case for the defence was that Bond was the fons et origo of this scheme—that he had been the corrupt party all through.

The Attorney-General said that, supposing Bond was fraudulent in respect to the 1902 contract, still the question here was whether he was fraudulent in respect to subsequent contracts, and whether the defendants were involved with him is that fraud.

Mr. Justice Jelf: That is so. This only goes to credit, nothing more. Mr. Hammond Chambers: One of the counts is for "corruptly soliciting." On that the question who was the corrupter and who the corrupted is of vital importance.

Mr. Justice Jelf: Not of vital importance. It is important as to Bond's credit, that is all.

Examination continued. I received an invitation from Bond to go to Yarmouth. I was not well; neither was he, and he said, "I am going down to Yarmouth for a couple of days next week, and if you will come I will stand it." I accepted it with pleasure. Soon after we got on the boat at Tilbury Bond told me that he understood friend of his—a colliery friend—was spending his holiday at Yarmouth, and he was going to introduce me to him. I was introduced to Moore. Bond seemed anxious to get Moore to assure me that be (Bond) was in a position to carry out the contract. I had told Bond that I could not support him because I did not think he was able to do it, and he did his very best to convince me that he was what Moore said did convince Mr. Bond told me that he had got so advantage, and that it would enable him to put the coal in at such a price that nobody else could do it as cheap if they put in coal of good quality. Next morning he showed me the figures, and proved that it would show a margin of 2d. a ton. I felt sure we could not get better value if we got the coal that the Whitwell people said they were going to send. I never had any conversation with Bond in which I said, "There is no reason why you should not become con tractor if you accommodate yourself to the usual customs of con tractors. "We were both on an association that would prevent such a thing. I never suggested that he would have to pay certain sums to officials and Guardians, and Bond did not say that he would be willing to pay. Bond knew Lewis Hill as well as I did; there was no necessity for an introduction. Bond did not pay me and the other Guardians £10 apiece after the sealing of the contract, nor "the reminder" after the first quarterly payment. I do not know what is meant by "the remainder." I have never been to his house to receive money. I always hurried to his house to tell 'him the result of the contest of the elections. I have been twice to his house with other

Guardians. I believe the first was when I took two of the Labour members over to see his time sheets and wages books so that they sight refute a statement which was going to be made at a meeting of the Coal Porters' Union describing Bond as a blackleg with a view of getting his contract cancelled. Three of us went (Tom Watts was one) and inspected his books, and they were satisfied, saying that he was even paying more than the Trade Union wages. Watts gave an explanation at the meeting of the Coal Porters' Union and satisfied them. On another occasion Bond met me with Watts and another (whose name I cannot remember), and said, "Bring them over to my house to-night, and let us have a smoke and chat"—I think that was in the workhouse grounds—which I did on the same night. I cannot tell you the date of this. Bond called me out of the parlour and said, "I want to do something for you" and gave me two sovereigns. Then he said, "Now go and send Tom in; tell him to come and look at my musical box." Tom went in. Boner did not say why he gave me the £2. I bad done a bit for him; I had gone about to get support for him in securing his contract and getting a cheque when he was almost bankrupt. I am only a poor man, and cannot run about for days and days for people's benefit unless they can recompense me in some way. Bond never held out any promise of reward when seeking support for his 1903-04 contract. The first time he mentioned it was when I told him he had got the contract. He said he would put aside a certain sum of money to be used amongst those friends who assisted him in any way. He said that, although he considered he should spend £100, it would cost him more like £150. He said he had to pay the stokers 5s. a week each, and explained that it was a usual thing—done everywhere. The introduction of F. W. Hill was not for the purpose of including him in any payments; it was in connection with the Essex County Council and Bond's election for it. Bond wanted someone to oppose a certain member, Mr. Tramlin. we went to several people with that object, and finally made an appointment with F. W. Hill to meet Bond at the workhouse next morning. While I was playing with the cripples at bagatelle Bond and Hill came up, so I knew the appointment was kept. I presume he had arranged the matter of the election. It is wrong for Bond to say I went outside; I never left the room. Bond had very little to say to me after the election of 1904. He asked me if I was going to support him; that is about all. I did not receive money for my support in the 1904-05 contract. I received the £2 I have mentioned from Bond, and on two other occasions?. Bond knew I was in difficulties, and I had been helping him, so he was helping Mr. I remember contesting Harrow Green Ward in 1904 for the County Council, and Mr. Spurgeon congesting Cann Hall Ward. It had all to do with the same scheme of conspiracy—there was a secret committee formed with the object of unseating some of the best members of the District Council, and they made a tool of me up to a certain point. I was asked to support several men. I got Mr.

Spurgeon in against his will, and was to have been paid for it, but did not get anything. I spent £2 10s. over one election In consideration of my services Bond did not promise to pay my expenses in the Guardianship election; it was one of his friends who made the promise. Alexander, Cox, and Bond called at my house and told me that in return for what I had done for Bond they were going to provide my election printing, and all I had to do was to send it to Alexander and get it done. I went myself and gave the order to Mr. Ernest Alexander. It came to £6 or £7. As to Bond's statement that on one occasion before the tenders for the 1905-06 contracts I paid him a visit and suggested that as the other colliery owners were offering more money he should increase his payments to the Guardians, I never had such a conversation with him. There is not a word of truth in it. I never made any suggestion as to Bond being invited to meet the other contractors, or about the moneys the contractors agreed to pay in consideration of their contracts being put into a pool. I also deny that I received any payments with respect to this contract from Bond. It is not true that I constantly had coal from Bond without paying for it. I had two lots. The first was half a ton Newton Chambers that Bond was recommending to the Board, and he told me he was going to send me a few to try, so that I might be able to speak as to the economy of that coal. The other was in 1906. I never had an invoice for that, and nobody has been to me for the money. All the other coals I had from Bond I have paid for. As to my reason for going to Bee Mrs. Bond, I had heart that she was in want, and I never heard of such a case without offering assistance. I heard she was in distress from two or three gentlemen, and I determined to go and see the chairman of the Tradesmen's Association and lay the matter before him. I was asked to go and see Mrs. Bond and find out the truth, with a view to the formation of a committee and arranging a fund for her relief. When I called on the Friday night. I saw her step-son, and told him the object of my visit was to find out his mother's position with a view of helping her if necessary, and he explained to me the whole of the circumstances they were placed in, that they were practically penni less, and in great need of assistance, and I told him I would call the next day and see his mother. He told me the light had been cut off, and that some neighbours had lent them some lamps to light the home with, and that they expected the water to be cut off the following week. On the following day I called again and had a long talk with Mrs. Bond, and investigated the whole of her affairs. She told me how many children she had and the wages they were earning, that she had a total of 10s. a week from all sources coming in and ten off them to keep, and a large house to keep up, that the light was cut of and she was expecting the water off, and she assured me she was absolutely penniless. Under these conditions I determined to do what I could for her. Mrs. Bond did not say that she did not want charity from anyone. I may have said that she must not take it

as charity, but only as one friend wishing well to another. If she had refused to take it I should have left it somehow. I may have asked her if she had heard from her husband or was going to write to him. She told me she was going to see her husband. I did not ask her whether Bond had told anything. I did say I had heard it rumoured that Bond was going to make a statement. The only rumour I told her of was that I had heard that the was starving. A little later we were talking the matter over, and she said in substance, "If my husband will take my advice he certainly will make a statement." I did not say I did not think it would do any good. She did say it might possibly tend to reduce the sentence. I may have said one month bad gone and the other five will very soon go. I think she said, "Perhaps to you the month has gone quickly, but to me, his wife, it certainly has not." She said she thought there were others more guilty than he was, and mentioned two names. She said, "I do not see why my husband should suffer when there are others more guilty than he. "I did not tell her I was sorry to see her so upset, and advise her to let the matter wait. She did say, "I know as much as my husband," and "I hope to get my husband's sentence reduced." Having found out Mrs. Bond's position, I acquainted the chairman of the Trades' Association, and wrote a letter to the two other gentlemen who had asked me to call, to let them know the result of my interview, and I took her back a sovereign. I realised that while the committee was being formed and subscriptions got up the children and the woman were suffering hanger. All this took place on September 8th. On the following Saturday morning I received a letter from Mrs. Bond asking me to some and see her that she might tell me about the interview with her husband the day before. Mrs. Bond told me on September 15th that she and Mr. Sharman had been to see her husband, but they had not been successful in what they wanted, and they were going again. I remember saying to her that if making a statement would reduce her husbands sentence I advised her to do it. She said that getting her husband home to provide for them was a consideration, but there were other reasons. I did not tell her she would do no good by going to see Mr. Sharman, but I did say, "If you have a brother or a friend I should advise you to talk it over with him. "I never used such an expression as "Mr. Anderson is our champion bleeder," or "If ever a man ought to help you he is the man." I collected 30s. on behalf of Mrs. Bond. I think in all about £28 was collected, sufficient to provide about £1 a week during the time Bond was in prison. There is no truth in Bond's story that I ever either solicited or received money from him corruptly. I have not received a farthing from him beyond the £4 I have spoken of. As to Bond's story that I had all along been aware of the falsification of the books, and the way in which he kept the Wright-Ramsey account, I never bad the least in the any such thing was going on until Bond himself stated so. In the ordinary course of my duties as Guardian, the account relating

to the coal supplies would be before me certified by officials who art paid a large amount to see that they are correct.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. All I have gut out of my connection with this coal company is £4 in money and two loads of coal. I was told by Bond after he got the 1903 contract that be bad expected it would cost him £100, and he found it was costing him more like £150. I knew therefore that he was spending money. The greater part of it would go in perquisites to the stokers—5s. a week to six stokers. Of course, if I were taking £16,000 a year under a contract I should naturally expect to give the engineer something. I do not know that I should expect Bond to give the Guardians money, but he would in all probability invite them to a dinner or a banquet I could not tell how he was going to spend the £150. It did not surprise me as a business man to be told that he was going to spend £150 in getting a contract against other competing tradesmen. It seemed to me a natural thing for contractors to spend money in this way. It is a custom which is carried out all over the country. It did not strike me as wrong. It did not occur to me that I was getting very little out of it—four miserable pounds—when there were contracts for thousands of tons of coal running over three years and £150 to be spent. I thought Bond would give me as much as he could afford With regard to what took place at Yarmouth, I understood that Bond was anxious to show me that he was in a position if he got the contract to carry it out. With reference to Mrs. Bonds evidence, I never saw bags of gold handed over. If such a distribution took place I was not a party to it. When Hodgkin was appointed I thought he was a man who would stamp down this sort of thing. I know that Madden spent money in connection with Hodgkin's appointment; I myself got £5. How much others got I do not know. I frequently discussed with Hodgkin the question of getting rid of some of the officials Hodgkin said he must have a chum appointed whom he could rely on at the gate and at one weighbridge, also a stock-taker who would make everything always correct. I assisted in those appointments and I believe I got £5 from Hodgkin for doing it. After the inquiry, and before I was arrested, Hodgkin promised to give me £5, but be has not paid Mr. Anderson told me he would call on Mrs. Bond, and I expected he would do so. Several gentlemen told me they would send something to her anonymously. I did not go with the object of trying to persuade Mrs. Bond to make a statement, but when she mentioned it to me I told her it was her duty to do so as a wife. I was not anxious to make a sacrifice of myself. I did not go there with the object of making a sacrifice. As to the payment of a sovereign. Mrs. Bond declared to me that was the only one who had been to ask if she was hungry and thanked me graciously, with tear in her eyes, for the money She also told me that someone had called before and had given her £2. She seemed anxious to get it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Austin Metcalf. I made a statement to the Treasury. If the suggestion is that that was with a view to get

ting out of the difficulty myself I had no idea of such a thing. I mean to say I sent it involuntarily as information to the Treasury without any hope of benefiting my position at all. I was on the best of terms with Hodgkin, and if Hodgkin said he looked upon ma and had all along regarded me as one of his greatest enemies, he is making a great mistake. He said he expected he would have to pay £60 for his appointment. I did not know him before that day, yet he talked about paying £60 to me, a man he knew nothing of. That is the way I put it. I always looked upon Spinks as a strictly honest man. He is at the workhouse now; so that as regards the weighbridge there has been no change. There is a different man at the gate. I do not suggest he was put there by Hodgkin. I was ready to take £5 from Hodgkin without inquiry. I should like to see the man who would not. I did not feel curious as to why I was to get £5.

Re-examined. I received the £4 in several sums, two £1 and one £2. I should think the payment was spread over two or three years. I did not receive the money, as payments in virtue of promises made in respect of my services.


RICHARD PHILLIPS TARRANT (prisoner, on oath). I live at 18, Rathbone Street, Canning Town, and have been in business as a tailor for twenty-six years. Up to this time no charge of any kind has been made against Mr. I was elected a Guardian, I think, about 1894 under the new Local Government Act, and have been a member of the Board since then. Except for goods delivered to Mr. Bond I have not received any sums at all from him. I have only been once to Mr. Bond's house. That was some time in 1904 or 1905. He sent for someone to go and see him about some clothes. I went, and he took me into the drawing room and said he had heard I was a tailor, and if I would do some work for him he would be pleased. He also remarked that Sansom had been doing his work previously, but he only gave an order once a year, and did not want anything then, but when he did he would let me know. I had a message from him again, and at that time I went to his office on the bridge. That would be a few months later. I took patterns with me. I had previously had an order from him, when he was measured. On the occasion I went to his office he gave me an order for an overcoat for one of his sons which came to £1 7s. 6s. It was some time before I got the money. I saw Bond one day in the yard of the workhouse and asked him for it, having written about it on one or two occasions. He then told me that his son had had the money on two different occasions to bring across to me, that his son was then abroad, and when he came home he should bring it, and about a week after that I had a cheque for £1 7s. 6d. That is the cheque dated July 12, 1905. There have been two cheques, that one and one at the latter part of 1905 for £17 17s. 6d. When I went to Bond's office on the bridge he gave

me orders for clothes for himself and younger sons. They came to £17 17s. 6d., which was paid by cheque. No part of that cheque was a present. I never received from Bond any sum towards my election expenses. I have never received anything from anybody for election expenses. I may say some prints were sent to me. That is the only thing I ever had. Bond's son has never called At my place to pay me £5. I never remember seeing Bond's son until I saw him at the Police Court at Stratford. I was never about with Bond as his friend. I was only once at Bond's house.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. I was introduced to Mrs. Bond at Bonds house. I was coming out of the drawing-room and she was coming out of the dining-room. I was there alone. I never knew of any other Guardian going there. I have never known of several Guardians being there at once. I cannot swear that I voted for the contract every year. We had a lot of contracts up at one time. I think I can swear I did not vote for him every time. While this case has been going on I have been trying to remember, but my head has been so bad that I cannot. I have never been to Bond's house with Crump, Skinner, and Watts. I never saw anything of little bags of gold at Bonds house, and never by any chance got one. I never got any of Bonds £150, and never heard of it until I was at the police court at Stratford. The cheque for £17 17s. 6d. was all for clothes. As to that being a big order, as I have said, he only gave an order once a year. As far as I know there were three suits and an overcoat for himself and two suits and an overcoat for the boy. I took the order on a piece of paper, and when I came home I booked the particulars. The entries appear on pages 318 and 319. The measurements are for Bond and Mr. H. E. Bond. The particulars as to size show that there were two lengths, and I had to buy a length. This book (produced) is the only one I keep. The numbers at the side show the pieces. I had to buy two pieces. One I had in stock. I have no other book in which I show an account to Bond for £17 17s. 6d.

The Foreman of the Jury said that one of the gentlemen of the jury was a tailor, and might be able to say how many suits the figures represented. The book was handed to the jury, but in the opinion of the juryman who was a tailor it did not show anything beyond two suits and an overcoat, but he was not able to say positively.

Examination continued. As near as I can remember, what Bond got for the £17 17s. 6d. was three suits and an overcoat for himself and two suits and an overcoat for his son. I heard Mr. Paul's evidence as to the lavatory incident. I never at any time had angry words with Cornish or Watts. I know nothing of Cornish having had £10. If he got it he never gave me any of it. When young Bond says he came to my shop it is untrue. Bond was no friend of mine, and when his tenders have come up I have sometimes voted against him; sometimes for him. I have kept an open mind.

The Rev. Canon JONATHAN CHARLES BUCKLEY and MR. WILLIAM MOON gave evidence that Tarrant had borne a reputation for integrity End honesty amongst the people amongst whom he lived.


JOHN ANDERSON (prisoner, not on oath) said he absolutely denied any complicity with Bond in regard to the coal contract; he knew nothing of any of the frauds alleged as to the quality or quantity of coal. Bond made him no payments except the payment in a cab; that was for his expenses as a witness in Bond's action. With respect to his payment to Mrs. Bond, it was made because of her being in distress, which he felt as a brother Mason with Bond bound to relieve. He had never talked with Bond about the coal contract, and it was an absolute fabrication to say that he had received any money from Crump or any other person in this matter.


ALFRED SKINNER (prisoner, on oath). I have never been to Bond's house. To this day I do not know where it is. He never paid me the sums he mentioned—£10, £7, and £5. I remember being introduced to Mrs. Bond and I did promise her, and afterwards send her, a canary. It is not true that I have had any coal from Bond except what I have paid him for. I am not a member of Crump's "party"; I did not know there was a party on the Board. I say on my oath that I have never had any knowledge whatever of any trickery in regard to these contracts, any short weight, or less quantity entering the Union gates.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. Mrs. Bond's detailed story of my having called at her house is absolutely untrue; I was never there.


TOM WATTS (prisoner, on oath). I have for eight years carried on business at my present address at Plaistow—a general shop and for furniture removal. In 1903 I was introduced by Crump to Bond. I first went to Bond's house at his invitation to inspect his books as there was a rumour that he was not paying his men the proper rate of wages. I being a prominent Trade Unionist, Bond wanted me to "My myself on this point. As a fact, I found that he was paying Bore than the Union rate. Next time I went was during an election, to find out what were his views about admitting our children into the Leyton schools. There was no secret about this visit; everybody knew that I was actively canvassing in regard to that matter. At no time or place has bond ever given me any money. Young Bond says he called at my shop at East Ham. I have never had a shop at East Ham. I remember the lavatory incident to which Mr. Paul spoke. I did say to Cornish, "Mr. Bond has told me that he gave you £5 to

give to me for my election expenses; I have never had it, and I want this cleared up. What have you done with it?" Cornish indignantly denied that he had ever received any money from Bond on anybody else's account. As a fact, by election expenses did not amount to £5. I spoke to Cornish because I had heard it stated that someone had sent him £5 for my expenses and £5 for Tarrant's. I swear I never had anything from Cornish. Except in regard to this case, I have sever had any charge brought against me.

To Mr. Oliver. I never met Skinner at Bond's house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. Bond, I understood, was the gentleman who had sent Cornish £5 each for me and Tarrant. I don't know why Bond, a contractor, should have sent the money; I never asked him for it. I should have sent it back if I had got it. At Bond's house I have seen a musical box—I don't know whether in the ball or in one of the rooms. Crump's story of my going out from one room to see Bond in another on that occasion is a pure invention.


FRANK WILLIAM HILL (prisoner, on oath). I am 32 years old, married, with a young family. In 1901 I started business as a printer at East Ham. In 1903 I made the acquaintance of Bond, and I did some small printing jobs for him. The first order was on August 21, 1903, 5,000 cards. Referring to the cheque for £6, alleged to be a bribe, I produce my account of the date of February 11: "2,000 was delivery cards, 5,000 octavo memos., 2,500 billheads, 5,000 quarto billheads, 2,500 envelopes." These would make up the £6. I have made inquiries, and I nave found that about that date I purchased some envelopes from Messrs. Spicer's.

(Tuesday, May 14.)

Examination continued. A witness from Spicer's is here to speak as to the supply of the envelopes. The £10 paid for by Bond's cheque of November 2nd, 1904, is charged for in the book produced: "June 7th. 1904, 5,000 quarto headings, £2; 2. 500 invoices 6mo, £1 15s. 6d."; and July 1, 1904, 5,000 wagon tickets, 2,500 envelops, 20,000 coal cards, 2,000 foolscap envelopes, plain." (To the Judge.) They come in money to about £6 4s. or £6 5s., and the two items amount to the £10 paid in the following November. The waggon tickets (delivery cards) might be 38s. or £2; envelopes 16s. 6d. or 18s. 6d.; coal cards, £2; foolscap envelopes, 10s. 6d. that is to the best of my recollection. I have no invoice in the book but I made a copy from recollection since the case opened. (To Mr. Young.) The coal cards were printed on both sides, and would be quite £3; the first 50,000 were only printed on one side. The leaf is torn out of the November account, and Bond's name is not there In the other book it is entered 20,000 handbills, £2 2s. (To the

Judge.) There is no scratching out there; it has been rubbed. That is the only entry in November for £2 2s. The four blocks produced were used to print 50,000 coal cards, £5, charged on February 16th, 1905. (To Mr. Young.) I was only at the workhouse on business, as shown by the porter's book. I took more interest in the school than in the house. On July 29th I went to Yarmouth for a holiday, staying there till August 12th; I could not then have been at the workhouse. Postcards produced from and to Yarmouth during the time were sent and received by me, and I wrote to Melbourne, my assistant, daily. I drew a cheque for £2 in respect of which I had a letter from the bank. I have never spoken to Bond in the work-house grounds until the inquiry. I never suggested to Bond that as the Guardians were in vacation, and as they had adopted Welsh coal for the infirmary, it would be a good opportunity to substitute English for Welsh coal to make a few pounds. I never had the conversation. He did not agree to pay me £5 or £6, and I never received it at his office. I was not present in the workhouse grounds at anything like that date. I never had a conversation with Bond about receiving bribes in respect of coal contracts or anything else. I never received money from him except for work done. Some portion of the time I was on friendly terms with Bond, until the Spring of 1905. He was interested in a football club, and I suggested to him that I might have the privilege of supplying their handbooks and fixture cards, and he fooled me about with it I never saw him by appointment except on business. I have never been in the bagatelle room in my life, and I do not play bagatelle or billiards. Bond gave me a few printing orders. I did not introduce him to two members of the East Ham Council to obtain a coal contract I was elected a member of the Council on November 1st, 1904. In the spring of 1905 I met Bond in the Barking Road, in a trap. He said. "I want to get a few particulars about the coal contract for East Ham." I told him the electrical engineer and the clerk could give him them, and I went round with him in his trap to the engineer, and he got the particulars, and to the education offices, and introduced him to those two officials. I do not think Paget and Ormond knew Bond it all, and I am not surprised they could not identify him. I had no knowledge of any improper proceedings on the part of Bond until the audit.

To Mr. Oliver. There is no truth whatever in the statement that I and Skinner called several times at Bond's office, and were paid sums of money. I have never been to Bond's office with Skinner or seen Bond pay money to Skinner.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. I heard Bond give evidence at the Police Court as to cheques paid to Mr. My solicitor, Mr. Cowl, had my books. He asked questions upon them, but did not tender them. I was in Mr. Cowl's hands. He might have put the books in then. I took them to him directly I was charged. When he was putting questions as to the orders for which the cheques were

paid I told Cowl to band the books up to the magistrates. He said, "The case will go for trial, and you must reserve your defence." I have always said the books were necessary. I repeatedly told Mr. Cowl to produce my books in Court, and that was the answer he gave. I instructed him to produce them. He said it would be no good there; it would have to be repeated at the trial, and he said, "You will be showing your hand." That was the explanation he gave to Mr. He told me he so much doubted Bond's evidence that he said, "If you show your hand by the time you get to trial he will twist it round the other way." That was the explanation he gave. I was very emphatic about those books going in. I wanted Mr. Young to put them in when he was cross-examining Bond here. All too cheques I received from Bond represented work done. It is not extraordinary that all the cheques are for round figures. In these books you will find many items in round figures. I say these book are a correct index of the work I have done for Bond. I have no book slewing how the figures work out. Those are my every day books, the same as I have used since I have been in business. As the accounts are paid they are crossed. I have no ledger, and I have never had one. The invoices are made out in some cases without the items being extended in the book. My outstanding accounts are not very large, and I recollect when the account went in Envelope produced was filed in February, 1904. It has suffered from damp since it was put on. I did not put it on. The writing was done by one of my workmen when the job was printed on February 9, 1904, and it has nor been touched by pen or pencil since. The writing has been exposed to the same influences which have affected the paper. Looking at the entry in the book, there is certainly a blur there It has not been rubbed out. It looks as though it had been rubbed. I cannot say rubbed out or erased. I did not make the entry. Something has been rubbed. Whether anything has been rubbed out underneath the cross I cannot say. It might be a flaw in the paper. There is nothing extended in the bock for the £6. There are five other entries on the same page not extended. There are a number of items that work out at £5 not extended.

Re-examined. The word "paid" would be put when the cheque was received. Cowl examined Bond upon these books in the Police Court. It was not my fault they were not put in at the time What applies to Bond's entries applies to anyone else who has an account with Mr. Since this case started at Stratford I have searched high and low to produce a definite account of these jobs, and by accident I found the file for December, January, and February, 1903-4, and it was there I found the evidence you have had as to the envelopes I have never tampered with the books at all.

WALTER WILSON , employed by James Spicer and Sons, produced day books with entries in 1904 in regard to envelopes purchased by F. W. Hill. (Two envelopes were handed to witness, one of which he identified as his firm's).

ANDREW SANDERSON , employed by Messrs. Spicer and Sons, identified the same envelope as the last witness had done. (Blocks were produced, the witness giving details of cost of printing, etc.) No printer in his senses would want to make four blocks like the one produeed for printing 500 tickets.

MISS. LILIAN HILL , sister of prisoner, F. W. Hill. I do not live with my brother. I assisted him in business in 1904. I recognise the envelope produced. I set up the type—it was printed by a lad who is not now in our employ. 2,500 envelopes were printed off—they were packed up by me. They were sent to Bond at Leyton—by Carter, Peterson's, I believe. I made out the bill, and, I believe, sent the receipt. There was another order in June from Bond. (Several exhibits were identified by witness.) A search for all the specimens of work his been made, and these are all that can be found. I remember the handbills being done. (Coal delivery cards were handed to the witness.) I recognise these. There was a large order for coal advertisement cards, and they had (Bond's signature on them. I remember my brother going to Yarmouth and returning—it happened to be my mother's birthday when he came back.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. I kept two books, one an order book and one in which I wrote the bills as they were sent out. I am still with my brother in business. We had the bill book until this case came on in the police court. I have not seen it since. The two books produced were the only two kept.

Re-examined. The entry in the small book of 50,000 cards, February 16, is in my writing. I cannot see any alteration there, or rubbing out. (After looking at book through a glass.) I see a slight rubbing.

Further cross-examined. I said I usually entered in the book accounts sent to customers. Sometimes I kept the book, and sometimes my brother. (Account of February 22, 1904, handed to witness.) There is no amount there. Very likely I entered it when I had not the amounts there, and I was waiting. I should say I kept the book more often than my brother. (Order book produced and identified by witness, also bill book, showing entries of £2 and £1 15s. 6d., in June.) There are some more without any prices to them, in July. Then there is nothing more before November. In regard to the four items without any figures, I was sometimes told what the items were and wrote out the invoice at once. When we were sending a job home we usually sent the invoices with it, and the prices would be sometimes given to me then. There is nothing to check the figure of £10, made up to November 22, given by my brother, except the prices of the items shown. I had the items and my brother told me the prices. (The witness searched the, book, but could not find the £5 item, ordered February 16, delivered April.)

THOMAS ROBERT MELBOURNE , compositor I started work for F. W. Mill in October, 1904. I remember an order from Mr. Bond for 20. 000 handbills. It was set up in duplicate, what we call "two on," so to save a run. We did not want any blocks for that. I helped

Hill to remove to Catherine Road. The people next door had made a complaint about the gas engine, and we moved out so as to save any trouble. We burnt a lot of the papers, specimens as well. I remember Hill going to Yarmouth—that was the day I started work for him (book produced). The "1905" at the top of the page it in my writing. I do not know the date when I wrote that—it was when the case was up at Stratford. The "50,000 cards," I should say, is Miss Hill's handwriting, and also the word "February." I only wrote the "1905" as a reference.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. The book was in the office When I put these figures in. That was when Bond made a statement about certain work Hill had done for him, and I looked it up. F. W. Hill was on bail at the time and used to come home. I was supposed not to have anything to do with the books. If I took an order I might have entered it. I did not think it important to put the year in over the entry—it was merely for a reference. I had heard that Bond had said he had paid F. W. Hill a bribe. I did not hear that it was £5. Nobody suggested that I should make the change in the book. I do not think Hill knew of it; Miss Hill might have seen me do it. I did not tell her about it. I finished work for F. W. Hill at the end of that week or the next, and have not been with him since. The book was in the office when I left. I do not know anything about a rubbing out in the book. I touched up nothing else in the book. I have written an order in the book—I may have done so since the date of the proceedings. I think I did not. Miss Hill you not go through the books with me. We did not make any remarks about it; and I do not think I spoke to Hill about it. I do not know whether they noticed my alteration afterwards They never asked me about it. The first time I mentioned it was this morning. I had not given notice to leave at the time—we were slick, and there was no work for me. When I made the entry I had I intended to leave.

Re-examined. I put several orders in the book, both before and after that date.


LEWIS GEORGE HILL (prisoner, not on oath). I absolutely deny that I entered into my arrangement with Bond for short delivery at the infirmary, or that I ever received payments from Bond of any money in respect of any such arrangement. The first time I suspected that there has been any short delivery of coal was in the month of April 1906. Shortly before this time there had been complaints and reports by the Ratepayers' Association of the manner in which Bond had been performing his contract. On April 9, at about 1. 30, as I was having lunch. Bond came to the infirmary and told me that he had been informed that the auditor was asking for the gate porter's book, and having regard to the rumours that had been circulated about him in

respect of his contract, he was anxious to compare the gate porter's books with his own to see if they tallied. I had been a friend of Bend's for some years. We were brother Masons, constantly together over football matters, and were both directors of the Leyton Football Club, Limited, and I foolishly allowed him to have possession of the books. He promised to return them in an hour or so; and the auditor in the meantime having several times telephoned for their production, I went to Bond's house, where I was surprised to find him and his son engaged in making alterations. I then realised that that fact became known I should lost my situation. In order to protect myself I wish to acknowledge that I misinformed the auditor about the books. I never myself altered any books, and it is absolutely untrue to say that I have taken any part in alterations at Bond's house. I deny ever having received money corruptly from Bond. He has borrowed money from me on several occasions. As to the meeting at the master's house in September, 1906, it is true I war there that night; but it is absolutely untrue to say that any tenders were opened. I realise that the part I have taken in trying to shield Bond in respect of the books has placed me in a most difficult position. I hare no one to thank but myself in yielding to his request, but up to the very last he imposed upon me by his protestations of honesty. I have already been most severely punished by being dismissed by the Local Government Board from the position which I had obtained after twenty years' hard work, and can never get any further employment of any kind in the Poor Law by the Beard; and I also lose a pension of nearly £100 a year.


ALERED RICHES (prisoner, on oath.) I was appointed storekeeper at the infirmary in June, 1903. Previously I had been in six other Poor Law appointments. I produce the testimonials I submitted when I went to West Ham. I was in the Royal Army Service Corps, and went through the Boer War. It is absolutely false that I arranged with Bond in October, 1903, to pass additional and fictitious deliveries of coal. I never saw Bond in 1903. I first saw him in April or May. 1904. I have not seen him to speak to more than half a dozen times in my life. In November, 1903, a weighbridge was put in at the infirmary, and the coal then was weighed there; the boy, Payne, looked after the weighbridge. Baker (who was not a married man) assisted me at the stores. Payne was just turned 14. My duties kept me occupied all the day, all over the place, and I was very frequently away from the neighbourhood of the weighbridge. It is untrue that I did most of the weighing. With regard to the delivery of coal in bulk, the carmen would bring in delivery notes, in duplicate; the weight would be put on the back of the note retained by me, and con the-front of the note kept by the carman; the weight would be taken either by me or by Payne. If I was away when the carman came the

deliver note, filled in by Payne, would be left for me to initial, and when I got back I should initial it and send it to Bond by post. After 1904 this grew into a practice. The delivery of coal in bulk would be much more troublesome to me than delivery in sacks; the broken weights would have to be entered both on the delivery notes and in the weighbridge book. The weighbridge was in such a condition that we never took notice of anything less than 28 lb. I admit having received certain sums from Bond. At Christmas, 1904, he came to me and said I had behaved splendidly in dealing with his vans and asked me to accept £5 as a gift, and I did so. At Midsummer, 1905, I had £4 from him for extra work in dealing with loose coal. What I did probably saved him Id. a ton on 5,000 or 7,000 tons a year. Off and on I received various little presents from him as gifts.

To Mr. Frampton. It would be Lewis Hill's duty to initial the weekly invoices; these could be checked by the weighbridge book kept by me, and by the delivery notes handed to me by whoever was at the weighbridge.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. I was responsible for the weighing-in of the coal. The weighbridge book purports to record the actual amount of coal delivered; it ought to correspond with the weekly invoices sent by the contractor and initialled by Levis Hill. I do not admit that he weighbridge book recorded 300 tons more coal having been weighed than was actually delivered; there were no short deliveries to my knowledge. That I swear. I do not think the Guardians have been robbed at all. I do not believe Bond's evidence as to that. I think he was innocent; I say that although he pleaded guilty to it and suffered imprisonment for it. I can only explain the discrepancy between the weighbridge book and the gate porter's book by saying that the latter must be wrong. I have mentioned all that I ever got from Bond—three presents. I cannot suggest how Bond could have got all this short-delivered coal in without my knowledge. I did say before the audit inquiry that I had never received from Bond any present, directly or indirectly; that was false.

Re-examined. I am not responsible for the keep of the gate book; there might be five or six men on duty there during the day. I knew nothing about the alteration of the books on April 9, 1906.

WALTER PAYNE I entered the employment of the Guardians is January, 1904. being then 14 years old. My duties were to weigh the coal and take the delivery notes to Riches' to initial; sometimes I went for him all over the building; he would be away from the weighbridge for a good deal of the day. When I was not there Baker would weigh the coal.

Cross-examined. When Riches was there I would weigh under his directions; he sometimes himself weighed, but very seldom. I never made entries of false weights.


JOHN BAIRD (prisoner, on oath). I was appointed to the infirmary in July, 1902. I first met Bond about Christmas, 1903. In 1906 I got to be rather intimate with him; he was a director, and I was on the committee of the Leyton Football Club. I flatly deny Bond's account of a conversation between him and me early in 1903; I never Bad such a conversation at all; I did not, in fact, pay for my own position; I could not have paid anything; I did not say that as long as he did not overdo it I would accept his terms. His account of the next conversation at which he says he offered me 2d. a ton if I would allow him to deliver coal in bulk is likewise untrue. I did challenge him about his delivery in bulk; I asked him who gave him permission and he said that his contract said nothing one way or the other, but left it to himself. I never received the monthly payments Bond speaks of. At Christmas, 1904, he same to me and said, "It is usual at this festive season to give little recognitions, I have never seen you out," and he gave me £2 10s., saying, "That will buy you a bottle of champagne"; he also gave me a box of cigars. At Christmas, 1905, he gave me £2. There was never any suggestion that these payments were by way of bargaining or bribe. Apart from these sums I have never received a penny from Bond. I deny his story of a conversation in July, 1906, at which he arranged with me that he should send one third English coal in the Welch coal; I never had inch a conversation. Early in the currency of the contract for Welsh coal the Guardians, Mr. Paul among others, came and looked at the coal. I never concealed the fact that there was English coal amongst the Welsh. I first knew of that in July. I made repeated complaints to Bond, and to the steward, and to the clerk. In October I took a sample and complained to Lewis Hill. The new contract started October 1. After three or four weeks there was a prolonged discussion before the Guardians about the coal. I complained in January, 1904, of the coal that came in on Christmas Eve, 1903. That was when I received my first Christmas box from Bond of £2 10s. In July, 1904, I reported to the Infirmary Committee about the supply of steam coal. Mr. Paul and two other Guardians came. Mr. Paul pointed out to me the amount of dust in the stoke hole, and said, "You ought to report this to the committee." I said, "What I have been instructed is to report to the steward." He told me to put in a report to the committee, and say he had told me to do en. I did, and the report is in my book. I know now that the steward dealt with my complaint himself without going before the committee. I learned that at the Local Government Board inquiry. I made a report upon MacKenzie's complaint, which appears in my report book. I never showed that report to Bond. It was written the same day as went before the committee. (To the Judge.) I never showed Bond the report in my b;>ok partly covered with blotting paper. This beak did not come into existence until February 16.

(To Mr. Mansfield.) Mackenzie's complaint is dated January 9, 1906. My report is dated January 24, when it was presented to the committee. It was made a day or two before. I had conversation with Bond on January 22 or 23. He said, "I believe Dr. Vallance got a letter from the Clerk enclosing a report from MacKenzie about the smoke, and that Dr. Vallance has handed that on to you. What are you going to do about it?" I said, "I am going to tell the committee that the coal is not according to contract." I said, "I have been trying to thrash this into them for the last six months. They do not seem to take any notice of it. and I begin to suspect that you are not only a damned liar, but a damned thief. "There was a fire in the shaft which went on intermittently for three or four days. It was not a constant fire. It set fire to a tree just close to my own quarters, That letter was discussed at the Board. Mr. Spurgeon said they had not a proper engineer at the infirmary; they had not a proper man; it was not the coals at all I never said to Bond it was a very serious complaint from a ratepayer, and I should have to give some reasonable reply, and should say that the shaft of the chimney had caught fire and burned for three days. I wrote the report produced of February 6 to the infirmary committee; it was copied by Clowser, the clerk of works, and I stood with him outside the committee room when Finquet, the clerk, came out and said, "Where is your report book, Mr. Baird? "I said, "I have not got the report book this week, I am putting it in this, and I gave it to him. Copy letter-book produced was commenced after that report. The two first pages were torn oat because the copies of a report were spoiled, and I rewrote and recopied the whole report. There never was any report on MacKenzie's letter in any book at all. All my reports are in my report book except a letter to the clerk which would be sent by post. I never destroyed any reportOn January 24 was the Walthamstow Parliamentary election, when Mr. Simon was elected. I did not see Bond in the afternoon. I wrote letter of February 16, 1906, to the steward, "Please note that Messrs. Bond are not delivering anything but English small dross to the boiler house. I understand Bond is only putting in 20 tons of steam coal this day. This would be sufficient with Welsh coal, but with the coal they are sending in not we will require 35 tons"; and March 13,1906,"Since Friday, the 9th inst., we have bad no Welsh nuts delivered, and only very small English, of which we are burning a very large quantity." I took that book to the auditor on April 12 and have never had it since. On a Sunday, between the audit and the inquiry, Lewis Hill sent for me to his house, where I saw Alexander and Bond. Nothing was said about the inquiry. There was a general question put, "Are you quite saw that your boilers burn more coal than they do at the workhouse?" I said, "Yes," which is the fact. The object of my going there was that there had been a complaint that there was nothing but English coal in the bunkers. I telephoned to Lewis Hill the technical part

culars for his letter of April 10, 1906, as to the additional lights, the new lunacy wards, etc., causing additional consumption of coal. Those particulars were perfectly true. I took a number of samples. The first of Welsh coal was October 10, 1905. Mr. Paul had said something about taking samples during the previous contract. There was not a great deal to complain about in the first contract so far as quality was concerned. (To the Judge.) I took samples to show anyone who inquired what was coming in, and I told the Guardians at once that we were getting English and Welsh. (To Mr. Mansfield.) Mr. Paul and other Guardians came frequently to the boiler-house, and I told them from time to time what I observed about the coal. Every committeman was in the habit of looking at the coal. I did not burn any samples in January, 1906. I took simples right up till Bond stopped delivering coal at the Infirmary. I think that was May 1. He delivered at the Workhouse afterwards but not at the Infirmary. The samples that were at the Police-court were taken by the stokers. Those in my office were small samples taken by one of my men and the boy from the larger samples. They were nit up by Crane and the boy and Bower the electrician. Bower sailed for Canada on April 27,1907. I saw them taken, and they were the samples which remained in my office. The biff samples averaged about 22 lb. and the small ones about 2 lb. In June they were taken possession of by the police. As the large samples were lumbering up the place and beginning to drop down in the passage, I thought it was no good keeping the big ones, and they were burnt The Local Government Board Inquiry was over. When I was at the Police-station with Anderson, he said, "Well, Baird, I am sorry to see you here" There was no further conversation for some time, and then he asked me, "Have they got Jackson? "I said, "No." I think he said, "They ought to." I said, "I suppose we are the biggest in the concern."1 did not say that of Jackson. We were trying to put the best face we could on it, I suppose, for both our sakes. Of course I had asked Sergeant Saunders some time before that who was put on the warrant. He said, "Only Anderson and you."

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General: I have bad considerable experience in judging coal, but I am not an expert to tell the different qualities of English coal. I know the distinction between English and Walsh; there is a marked characteristic difference, If English is supplied instead of Welsh it means a loss of 6s. a ton; if half was half was supplied it would be 3s. on the whole. From about Christmas Bond was delivering a cart of English to a cart of Welsh; it was not mixed as it was afterwards. The average consumption at the Infirmary was from 60 tons a week in the summer to 110 tons in mid-winter, and if mixed coals were being delivered under a contract for Welsh the contractor would be swindling the Guardians of about £9 a week on 60 tons. I knew he was delivering it but I did not know he was swindling. If he was doing it in combination with the Guardians he was swindling. I was there to see what kind of coal was sent in. I thought the Guardians knew it. Bond wrote a letter to the Clerk saying that he would only charge for the English coal 14s. 9d. per ton. I cannot say what he did charge. I never saw the contracts. I only knew that my

instructions were that Welsh coal was to be delivered, that I was getting mixed and that that meant that lie was saving 3s. a ton if it was all charged as Welsh, but I did not know that he was doing that. I had never seen the contract. I was never instructed in any way as to any of contracts. 1 was not told to see that I got Welsh coal. I knew that order this contract Bond was bound to deliver Welsh, and if he was delivering a mixture without the consent of the Guardians I know now he was swindling them. I pointed that out to Lewis Hill, my superior officer. I accept Mr. Paul's evidence. The Chairman of the Board knew about it and spoke to me about it, that mixed coal was being delivered instead of Welsh. It was brought up at a Board meeting in November, 1905. Paul told me to complain to the Board after February 1906. I told Paul it was different coal altogether as far back as October, and I thought the Guardians knew they were getting a mixture. With regard to Mackenzie's letter that state of things would not occur very frequently. This smoke nuisance had been going on for three or four years at the time. We had no Welsh coal during the first two years; that is when the black smoke went up particularly. The mixture of coal did not account for all of it. I said the coal was not quite up to contract. It is a truthful report. I sent that to men who I thought were trying to conceal it. The blame was thrown on to me—not on the coal at all. I say again I thought they were concealing what they knew was going on with Bond; I thought some of the Guardians were parties to the fraud. I cannot tell you which of them. Every time I made a complaint about the coal I was practically called a liar. Mr. paul knew the truth and I expected him to carry me through, I being an officer and he the chairman of the Board. At one time I suspected him very much. I never knew of the fraud as to weight until the inquiry—never suspected it. I knew it as to the quality all the time. I did not tell the truth to the committee because I should have been sacked within a fortnight and I have a wife and family to keen, and because Paul knew about it, and so did several prominent members of the Board. If they as members of the Board could not take it up why should I, a junior officer, do it? I think I have put it pretty plainly is he second letter of February 7. I have seen a newspaper report of a discussion at the Board with regard to the quality of the coal. It was because of the newspaper report that I started this book. The letter is the effect of that report. I thought I should get the sack over that letter, and I told the Clerk so when I gave it to him. I told the auditor the coal was not up to sample. I answered every question truly. It was not the whole truth because it did not say there was a fraud. I under stood the auditor was trying to find out about the alterations in the contractor's books as compared with the weighbridge book. I knew he I was seeking to detect a fraud if there was one. I gave him an opening if he wished to pursue the question. I said what I thought would have caused him to pursue the question. I told him it was not up to quality. I did not know it was a fraudalent mixture; I knew it was wrong but I did not know how far wrong. I naturally understood he was putting questions about inferior quality. I did tell him the truth. There was no

fraud on the contract ending Michaelmas, 1905—that was English coal. Two months of it was supposed to be Welsh, but I was shown a letter from Bond saying he could not send in all Welsh, and that the English would be charged at 14s. 9d. a ton. I considered that a satisfactory explanation at the time. This was a letter to the Guardians as a Board, and they were aware of it. I tackled Bond on the subject at various times, and explanations were given to me. The honest Guardians knew about it. There was a party trying to protect Bond. I cannot say who were in the fraud. Crump is one that I always suspected. I first suspected the Guardians who spoke against the staff on February 7. Bond did not tell me he had been talking to Crump. I knew that Bond was very thick with Crump in political matters—that he was a runner for what they call the "A. B. C. party"—that is, Alexander. Bond, and Cox. I have suspected from one time to the other nearly every member of the Board. I do not believe Bond ever said to Crump that he would have to pay the stokers 5s. a week. The stokers bad nothing to conceal.

Re-examined. In September, 1906, I was asked to send in my resignation because I had stayed out from 11 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Saturday, leaving no one in charge, and had given the electrician a holiday, but the discussion at the Board when that resolution was moved was on a report coming from the Local Government Board on the coal question. My last complaint was after Bond's conviction. On November 9, 1905, Bond wrote to the Guardians that there was not a word of truth in the statements. I have frequently stopped Bond delivering coal, but it was never sent back. That was one of the parts of the fraud; there was only enough delivered to last over the day, so that there was nothing to show if I made a complaint, and Mr. Paul knew it, too. I did not then know that it was part of the fraud, but I know it now. I do not believe for a minute Mr. Paul knew there was any fraud going on, although at one time I did suspect it.

(Wednesday, May 15.)

JOHN BAIRD (recalled) further re-examined. With regard to the statement of Harry Bond that he gave me money in the infirmary ground, I never received any money from Harry Bond. My acquaintance with him was very slight. I met him twice to speak to.

F. W. HILL (recalled) further examined by Mr. Young. I produce papers and cards which I obtained from the same place that I got the envelope and the ether papers from. They are kept on a file for about three months in my office, then taken off and packed in a paper parcel and the date written on—April or May. I found the parcel in the cellar. They are in the same handwriting as is on the envelope.

Louis EDWARD FRAYQUET: I have been assistant clerk eight years. I remember the meeting of the Works Committee on February 7, 1906. On the agenda of the Works Committee mention is) made of a report of the infirmary engineer as to the continued smoke nuisance at the chimney "shaft. That arose partly out of Mr. McKenzie's complaint. Before that was reached Baird gave me an envelope addressed as far as I can remember

to the chairman of the committee. When I returned to the committee rooms the committee had passed on to the next business. I put the letter on the table in front of the chairman. I did not see the envelope again. Supposing Baird felt called upon to make a complaint about the coal between the meetings of the committee he would, I take it, report to the steward at first, and the steward would exercise his discretion whether be would deal with it himself or pass it en to the committee. I know that in one case the matter was talked over with the coal merchant before reporting to the committee.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin. There was nothing to make me think the envelope handed to me by Baird was of any importance. I asked for the report concerning the coal nuisance and Baird handed me the letter.

HARRY CLOWSER , foreman and clerk of works, identified a copy of the report or letter addressed to the chairman and members of the committee.

GEORGE TAYLOR . I was in the service of the West limn Guardians from November, 1905, to December, 1906. I remember there being some samples of coal stored in the stoker's room in the bath-room. Towards the end of February I received some instructions from Baird, in conesquence of which I got some boxes and divided them into partitions, into which I put specimens of the samples. I dealt with about a dozen boxes in that way. Having done that I took them to the engineers office.

FREDERICK CHARLES CRANE . I am a skilled labourer and was employed at the infirmary in the engineer's department in the spring of last year. I assisted last witness and Mr. Byers to take some samples from some big boxes and place them in smaller ones. I have sometimes seen the coal coming in that has been brought to the infirmary. I remember on one occasion the second engineer, Hallett, stopped it outside the stokehole because it was not of the right quality. Lewis Hill came to see about it, and it was afterwards taken in.

JOHN GUNN . I clean boilers and Hues for the West Ham Guardians and did so at the end of December, 1905, or the commencement of January, 1906. On one occasion the economiser Hue which leads up to the main flue was all one mass of fire. I was not able to carry on my work there, and it took me two or three days to do the work that I ought to have done in one day. I called the engineer and stoker who were on duty. I have frequently seen people in the boiler-house examining the coal; I should say the majority of the Guardians and several individuals whom I do not know exactly. I have several times seen Baird in conversation with Bond.

WALTER HALLEIT , assistant engineer at the infirmary, said that he had instructions from Baird to stop carts from unloading if mixed coal arrived, and to report the matter to Lewis Hill, the steward. In December, 1905, he stopped the carman from unloading, and told the steward that there was mixed coal coming in. The steward asked whether they were short of coal. Witness replied "Yes," and Hill then said, "Unload it, and I will see Mr. Bond."

WALTER CROUCHMAN . I was employed in the engineer's department in the autumn of 1905 when the contract for Welsh coal was entered in to I recollect Bond coining on one occasion. He walked in and said, "who

is it making all this noise about the coal?" Baird walked out and said, "I am. I have a contract with these Guardians as well as you, and I want to look after my job." Bond said "Oh," and walked out.

JOHN STACEY . I was employed by Bond as carman for 5 1/2 years. I started with him when he started and went on with him to the end. Steam coal began to be taken in bulk into the infirmary in the early part of the second contract. The coal was never stopped at the infirmary gates. I was present on two occasions when the unloading was stopped. Three tons were stopped in the first year's contract by one of the stokers, who went and fetched Baird. Baud came over to look at the coal and then went away. He gave no orders. Lewis Hill and Crump came after that, but I did not hear any talk about the coal. Baird told me to unload it On the second occasion I was stopped by Hallett, the under engineer, with two tons. He told me not to unload and then went away. When he came back he said, "You can unload that now. "On the first occasion the coal was stopped three hours.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macaskie. I do not know whether Crump came to inspect the coal.


EDWARD JOHN HODGKIN (prisoner, on oath). I hare been in the service of public institutions since I was 16 years of age. On leaving school I was appointed a junior clerk of the Vestry of St. Pancras. After serving in that capacity for two years [ was transferred to the post of storekeeper and superintendent clerk at the St. Pancras Poor Law School at Leavesden, which appointment I held or five years. I was then transferred to St. Pancras in the capacity of assistant master and remained there for five years. By that time I was married and my wife was assistant matron. We were next appointed master and matron of Shardlow Union, near Derby, and after remaining there four and a half years were appointed master and matron of Shoreditch Workhouse. We held that appointment for seven and a half years, until I applied for the appointment of master at West Ham, much to my sorrow. When applying for the position of mist or at West Ham I received a number of testimonials from the Shoreditch authorities, and from other places. In my application I did not in the first place rely upon anything but my bare merits, and on getting people to speak for me whom I believed to have influence. I had known Madden previously. When the post of master at Lambeth was vacant, about five years ago, I put in for the post, and I heard that Madden was the contractor, and I went to see Madden. He told me that he would do all he possibly could with the Guardians on my behalf. I have heard that while I was away on my holidays the Clerk to the Lambeth Board was directed to go over and see my workhouse, and I was appointed without his Board having seen Mr. I did not however take up the appointment. The salary for the joint appointment of myself and wife at West Ham was to be £300 a year, residence, and all emoluments, but after I had been appointed for some time my salary was raised by the

unanimous vote of the Guardians to £450 by annual increments. That position I have now lost by reason of this charge and also my pension of £180 a year after 23 years' service under the Local Government Hoard. I left Shoreditch on March 25. Before that I had seen Crump with my wife at the Bishopsgate Station. I had been telephoned for by Lewis Hill to meet some of the Guardians. When I got there with my wife Hill was there with Madden. Shortly afterwards the Vice-Chairman of the Board, Mr. Seckington, came in and we were introduced to him. He asked us our several qualifications and where we had been. Before leaving he said he would do all he possibly could for us. Shortly after that Crump and Spurgeon came in. Crump said, "This will cost you a lot of money. "I asked him why, and he said, "Because the man from Bristol has already been to see me and offered his first year's salary. "I said, "If I cannot get the post on my merits I will leave it alone altogether." Madden said, "As regards paying out, Hodgkin—you leave that to me. "I never said, "I suppose I shall have to pay £60 or £70." Not a single farthing ever passed from my pocket. If anything was paid it was not with my authority. I never heard a single Guardian say he received any. thing for my appointment until Crump said so in this box. I was elected in February and commenced on March 25, 1905. I found the workhouse in a most disgraceful state the accounts were all faked. Five clerks kept certain books. There was no storage book at all. Things were given oat ad lib. I started a report book containing recommendations, which were submitted to the House Visiting Committee every fortnight at their meeting for approval I instituted proper bookkeeping and I carried out reforms to the beet of my ability up to my resignation. I have had no holiday. I found the place considerably overstaffed and effected a saving of £2,000 a year, In eighteen months I reduced the expenses by £6,000 or £7,000. When Lewis Hill was dismissed I took over the charge of the Infirmary and acted as steward for six months, effecting by rigid economy a difference is expenditure of £4,000 as compared with the six months of the previous year, notwithstanding that there were more inmates. I found the delivery notes were not signed by any official. I immediately hid a stamp made "Received by me and found correct officer on duty." I have inspected deliveries of coals at the weighbridge dozen of times. I first saw Bond early in June, 1905. In addition to the work-house and infirmary, I had charge of the branches at Forest House and Abbey Lane. The weighing notes were checked in my office by Higgins, assistant master. There were four officers every day at the workhouse weighbridge. Spinks would not be there more than the others. He was labour master, and is still employed. I had no idea that short deliveries were being made or false invoices being sent in until October, 1906, after the inquiries, when Hall asked me to get out a comparative statement of coal consumed in the workhouse for the half year ending September, 1906. I was so surprised at the difference in consumption that I immediately set to work with Higgins got all the weighbridge and delivery notes from November, 1904, to March, 1906, and discovered these fictitious delivery notes all signed by Spinks. I saw the clerk, and he advised me to make a report, which I

did in my letter of October 29. An inquiry was held on November 27, 1906, the day after I was taken into custody. On June 30, 1905, I was requested by the guardians to make suggestions with regard to tenders, which I did, altering very many items to bring the contracts up to proper form, and which are contained in book produced. I remember Page coming with Bond on July 3 about his colliery being specified in the contract He told me his coal was very excellent, and that Bond had told him that I was about to specify certain collieries, and after assurance that his coal would be suitable to the institution, I said it was immaterial to me which colliery we put down, and I told him that I would put his on the list, rage asked me to dinner and I declined. He also asked me to go down to the colliery, and I said that I could not spare the time. On July 31 Lewis Hill telephoned asking if I would meet him at Frascati's and spend the evening at the Oxford, that he wanted to introduce me to a friend. No name was mentioned. I went to Frascati's by myself sod met Hill, Bond, and Page outside. We had dinner and afterwards went to the Oxford, and all three came on a 'bus to Liverpool-street and went by train to Wood-street. Page left us at the Oxford. Nothing whatever was said about coal. There were two gentlemen and one lady in the carriage with us. Bond never said a word in his whole life to me about the shortage of coal. He has never given me a farthing in his life. Crump borrowed £5 from me on two occasions, which he has never paid back. The first occasion was three or four months after I got there. He sue up to my private office and said that he was very bard up; could I let him have £5? I hesitated. After a time I undid the safe and lent him £5. The second time was in February, 1906, before any inquiry. He said that owing to his having a tobacco contract with the Guardians he would not get his cheque till after March, and asked me if I would lend him £5. I lent it him. The contract is in his daughter's name: He never paid me back. I never asked him for it. It was not an improper payment. He gave me no other reason than I have stated. He never spoke to me about getting rid of any of the officials. I do not remember whether I spoke to him about having a stocktaker; that was reported to the Board. What Crump has sworn about it is false. The first week I was there I asked the Board to appoint a stocktaker and Olaxton was appointed to visit the workhouse every quarter day and certify that the stock was correct according to the books. When I went there the books were taken into the Board-room tad signed by three Guardians without looking at the stock at all It is quite untrue that the stocktaker was appointed for the purpose of enabling coal to be passed improperly. The stocktaker was appointed to find out whether the officials were doing their duty. Hinchcliffe was appointed to the gate on my recommendation 12 months after I got there, and he is still there—he and his wife are assistant master and matron of Forest House. I had to obtain special permission from the Local Government Board for Claxton's appointment. He is also stocktaker at Marylebone and St. Pancras. He was appointed at West Ham to take stock at the infirmary, the schools, and also at the Margate Home. I knew tenders were due to be opened

on the morning of September 14, but I did not know that they had to be in by 10 a.m. on September 13. On that day Dick, an Asbestos contractor, came to see me. He asked me if I had seen Hill, in the morning Hill had asked me if I could get the key to undo the cupboard in the temporary board room. I said, "Yes, I will see what I can do." In the evening he asked me if I had got the key, and I said "No." I had not attempted to get the key. I told Hill perfectly plain that I would not have anything to do with opening tenders. After Dick had arrived, Ayles, Madden, and another man who was introduced to me as Watson, and whom I had never seen before, came. I said, "What do you want? "Madden said, "We have been up to to the infirmary. We were told that Mr. Hill was down at the work house. "I said, "Yes, he is here; he is inside with Dick." I 8aw Ayles tilling up Madden's tender at his dictation. That was about 10. 45 p.m. When Madden came he said he had come to look at the tenders. I said, "You will see no tenders here. "I opened the door and he walked in. There was a general chat amongst them as regards poor law matters in general. Lewis Hill sent out for a bottle of whisky and I supplied soda water. I had no idea of anybody coming. (To the Judge.) I admit I promised to do what I could when he asked me to get the key. I had no idea anybody was coming for the key. I understood from Hill that Madden wanted to put in a low tender. I had no idea of these contractors coming. (To Mr. Metcalfe.) I think they went at about 11. 35. When the audit was being held I was requested to send my books, which I did almost immediately—all the books that were asked for. Lewis Hill asked me on the telephone if I would and Higgins to tell Bond he wanted to see him at once. I saw Higgins and told him. I had an idea what it was for, because I had heard that their books had been tampered with. The books had nothing to do with me—mine were sent directly they were asked for. The gate porter's boot, containing entries of people coming into the workhouse on September 13, was kept continuously at the gate. One evening, after I was taken into custody, I went into the gate porter's lodge and saw it on the shelf. I informed Inspector Kane through my solicitor; he came there and I handed it to his. At the inquiry I answered every question asked me. I gave information of stores hidden at Forest House and the infirmary. I never burnt the infirmary gate-porter's book. There is no truth in what Bond says lent I never heard Lewis Hill say to Bond, "You will never see that book again." (To Mr. Mansfield): Anderson supported many of the reforms that I recommended.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. The offer of the position as Master at Lambeth was made to me when I was on my holiday, and I declined it. I believe it was through the instrumentality of Madden, the meat contractor to that Union. I declined it because I heard that things were very shady there. That was the main reason why I did not go to Lambeth. I had never seen Madden before. I understood that things were wrong; that the house was upside down; that there was defective management; that there was something wrong with the contractors. I will not say that the contractor was feeing the Guardians to accept his tender. I am only telling you what I heard. I was told that short

weight was going in there to the knowledge of the officials. I heard it with regard to the meat which Madden supplied. I did not believe Madden to be a scoundrel. I had no proof of it. I must have believed it to have refused the post. I believed it at the time. Madden must have been a scoundrel if he was delivering short weight. At Lewis Hills invitation I went to meet some of the Guardians of West Ham when I was a candidate for the mastership. I had seen Madden before that and discussed with him my applying for the post. He told me he would support me and I accepted his support. It was five years after I had been proposed for Lambeth. I did not think as to whether Madden had reformed. I was anxious to get the post. I had never seen him since. He was not the meat contractor at Shorediteh. I asked him to help me to get into West Ham. I understand he is one of the biggest meat contractors in London to various public bodies and to the Army, When I went to meet some of the Guardians at the invitation of Lewis Hill, Madden was there; Seckington, the deputy chairman, who attempted suicide after the inquiry had commenced, was there; Crump was there after Seckington went; Spurgeon was there—he was talking with my wife. While there I heard it mentioned that my position could only be obtained by bribing the Guardians. I deny that I asked Crump whether £50 or £60 would do it. I supposed Madden was to do it if it was to be done, and I was willing that he should do it; I only know it is the only way you can get a good appointment. I was not going to find the money. He told me he wanted a man there who was a strong man—to uphold his contract. I take it that is what be meant—to help his contract—not to cheat the Guardians. Madden never did any cheating under me. I took it as meaning to keep him on as meat contractor. I never thought he wanted fee to let in meat of inferior quality and short quantity; I swear that solemnly. I presume he was anxious to keep his contract. I think it was very indiscreet. I had no thought of any dishonesty. I know it is the custom in other places. I did think it honest at the time; I do not now. I did not then give it a thought. I was most anxious to get the post for the sake of my wife and children. By all accounts I should have got it without Madden. I do not know that he ever paid a farthing to the Guardians. The system with regard to stores was that the invoice was sent to the storekeeper to compare with his book and check. An exception was wade with regard to meat. The meat invoice was checked by the delivery notes. I think some of the provisions were not checked by the delivery notes. When I said the books were "faked" I do not mean they were manipulated—I mean they were irregularly kept in all departments. I had never seen anything wrong there.

Mr. Hammond-Chambers submitted that evidence with regard to Madden was irrevalent. The indictment contained 90 counts alleging various offences, in no one of which was there any charge of misdealing with regard to Madden.

Mr. Justice Jelf ruled the cross-examination was absolutely revalent as to the correctness of prisoner's story.

Madden and would not pursue it further The ATTORNEY General said he had indicted the points as to the relationship with Madden and would not pursue it further.

I knew Bond was a big coal contractor and that he represendted several collieries. Bond and page called on me to get page collieryinserted in

the tender form. I did not take it they had come from Hill. I was using past experience; in all London union contracts a certain coal is specified and if anything wrong comes up about the coal, as happened at Shoreditch several times, you could send to the colliery for their representatives to come and look at the coal. It is an advantage to the colliery to get their name put in the tender. I never knew anything about their giving a preferential rate to Bond. I cannot tell you how else Bond was to profit. I was perfectly fair in what I did in the matter. Page came to ask me to put his colliery on the tender. He had heard from some of the guardian that I was recommending that a certain coal should be put on the contract notes, that I had suggested it to the Finance Committee; that was the reason he came to Mr. Bond would have the advantage of getting the cheapest market. I had been writing to Shoreditch and got their copy contract and if it had not been for Bond and Page coming I should have put in their coal. I had never seen Page before. It did not strike me as odd that I should be asked to dinner—I have been asked to dozens of dinners. I knew absolutely nothing about the preference of 6d. per ton. Page paid for the dinner. Lewis Hill invited me; he said nothing about paying. It was a surprise to me to see Bond and Page there. I knew why I was invited—because I got this put on to the tender forms—as gratitude. Before September 13, 1905, I had heard that there was a practice of favoured contractors being allowed to open tenders of other people to see what they were with the knowledge of the authorities—Lewis Hill told me that—so that the favoured contractors could alter their figures accordingly. I certainly do not think that honest. I thought it a piece of atrocious dishonesty and always have done. I did not tell the authorities, made no report, and made no communication to the Local Government Board. I did not know how it was done before my time I never heard that the night before the tenders were to be opened the favoured contractors would come to examine them. If that were the system, I should expect them that night, if I had gone into the system. Dick did not say a word about opening tenders. Dick came about 8. 30 p.m. The tenders were in the cupboard, I had told Lewis Hill I would try and get a key. I had my suspicion why Dick had called. I could not stop him coming. The only thing I could have done (which I ought to have done) was, I ought to have ordered him out of the place. I ought to have kicked him out. There has been many a good man who has been led into a sort of thing like this. Madden, Ayles, and Watson next arrived. I knew Madden and knew what he had come for to open the tenders. I opened the door to him and showed him into the room. I had seen Ayles a few times. There was an elderly man with them who I understood to be Watson; he certainly was not a contractor; I should say Madden could write. I saw Ayles writing on a tender, I did not see it witnessed; the tender was put in an envelope and put on the mantelpiece. Then Bond arrived I knew what he came for. (Q.) why did not you order him out. (A.) Well, it is no use me going away from the fact—they trapped me—I was fairly trapped with these people. I had not noticed that they would arrive. As an honest man I ought to have stopped it; I let it pass; I did not think I should be drawn into it. They

did not come into the Master's house. They came into my apartments;, tellers were locked up in the Clerk's office. I wish I had stopped the whole thing. I did say "I will have no tenders opened in my house. I told the lot of them I ought to have ordered them all out and stopped the whole thing. I told Bond "I could not get a key to fit the cupboard." That was an excuse for not allowing him to open the tenders of the other contractors. I believe I told him be would have to rely on his friends on the Board to secure the contract—if he says so I suppose it must be correct—there are two ways of taking it—I do not believe it at all—I never said it. I meant it sarcastically. I was under the impression that Bond knew three-parts of the Board. I had seen him with many of the Guardians and thought be would rely on that. I cannot deny that I said "We cannot get the key of the cupboard. We shall have to rely on your Wends on the Board to secure the contract." Crump was a member of this interesting gathering. He came and rang the bell. I went to the door and he said "Is Madden here?" I said "Yes." Madden came out and had a chat with him. I remember tenders being opened by the Board the next morning. Ayles then filled up another tender, which I gave to Mr. Anderson. I cannot say what he did with it, but he went across in the direction of the board room. I cannot say whether he exchanged it for the one already put in by Hill. I should not think that a proper proceeding. I did not say anything about it. You could not say very much at West Ham. With regard to the fate of the three contractors who had gathered together that night, Higgins, Bond, and Madden, their tenders were all accepted. I could not say that Bond's tender was the lowest. I saw no dishonesty in the workhouse while I was there. I was not present at the audit, but I saw in the papers that Mr. Boggis Rolfe had made a remark upon the very large quantity of coal which appeared to have been delivered to the infirmary, and that he wanted to see the gate porter's book, for the purpose of comparison with the weighbridge book. When I was asked for the book I received a telephone message from Lewis Hill asking me to send for Bond, and to ask him to call upon Hill. I was down at the gate when this message came. I went to the 'phone, and Hill said to me "Would you mind sending Higgins round to Bond to say I want to see him". just as I looked out of the porter's gate young Higgins was coming round, and I whistled him over to him. It did not appear strange to me that Hill did not telephone himself. I did not understand that Bond was bring sent for in connection with these coal deliveries. If I had had a notion that there was anything wrong I certainly should not have sent Higgins. It did not occur to me that if this were not a secret and improper proceeding instead of Hill asking me to send the workhouse official, round to Bond's house he would have sent straight to Bond's himself. It did not occur to me that Lewis Hill wanted Bond to come round without anybody knowing anything about it. I did not make two payments of £5 to Crump; he borrowed the money. As to the second £5, Crump told toe he had not got his cheque from the Guardians, and that was why he was hard up. He was a tobacco contractor as well as a Guardian and was described as "Messrs. Crump Brothers," but I believe that only his two girls were engaged in the business. They brought the papers into the

workhouse every morning. One I suppose would be about 14 and the other about 15. I know that Crump being a contractor as well as a Guardian occupied a Crossly improper position; it is against the Poor Law Orders. I did not call the attention of the Poor Law officials to that fact The Local Government Board found it out. Crump was not the only one of the Guardians to whom I have paid money. 'Ihere were also F. W, Hill, Skinner, Watts, and Anderson. Hill, I think, only had £5, Anderson had £ 10; Skinner had two £5 and Watts had £7 just recently. These were all loans. I had a suit of clothes from Tarrant for which I paid and have got the receipt. I remember the stewardship of the Union becoming vacant. A Mr. Eastman was a candidate. He was employed at the Shoreditch Infirmary at the same time that I was there. I promised to speak to the Guardians on his behalf, and after I had made that promise I communicated with Madden. I was told by a Guardian (Mr. Etheridge) that Carroll was going to pay out £80 for this position; I then communicated with Madden and asked him if he was interesting himself in anyone. He said he was not. and I think he said he would see Mills, one of the Guardians, and would let me know the result. The letter of October 29, 1906, was written alter I had been told by Mr. Paul to make a comparative statement on the coal consumed at the workhouse and at the infirmary over a considerable period, showing a very great increase in the consumption. At that time Bond had been sentenced, and was in prison. I saw it stated in the papers that Bond would in all probability make a statement. I did not know that Mrs. Bond had been visit by both Crump and Anderson, and that Bond had already made a statement to Inspector Kane.

Re-examined by Mr. Hammond-Chambers. At Shardlow we used all Derbyshire coal. It was a suitable coal to be used in the workhouse. Quite apart from the point of view of the colliery or the contractor it is my opinion that it is to the benefit of the union that a defnite colliery or collieries should be specified in the tender. It is done everywhere when I I have been, but before Bond ever came to me on the subject at all I had suggested to the Finance Committee that certain colleries should be specified. I had not myself considered either the Alfreton or Sutton collieries. I had no idea of their existence. Mr. Page assured me of the quality of the coal as being suitable for our boilers. I did not receive from Mr. Page, or anybody else, one farthing with reference to the coal contract. As to the quality of meat supplied by Madden, I do not think that during the 18 months I was there I had to send more than one lot back. It is generally acknowledged all over London that he supplies excellent meat; the inmates know the difference now that he has lost the contract. During the time I was master of the workhouse Madden did not in any shape or way defraud the Guardians over the meat contract You can have the storekeeper's book—he was the man who took it in; you can have the assistant master here who has checked the account, and you can have the four clerks from the office who assisted. Madden's deliveries were checked in the same way as the other deliveries. I have myself weighed the meat scores of times I swear that on the night of September 13 no one else's tenders were

opened. The only tender I saw opened was the one I have spoken of for meat. I stated in convocation with Bond when we were discussing what evidence should be given that I should state at the inquiry that I could not rely on the gate porter's hook.

To Mr. Walter Stewart The supply of clothes by Tarrant to me was it the ordinary price; £215s. per suit I think it was.

To the Jury. It was not possible for the auditor to find out what I found out. He could only find out what had been supplied from the storekeeper. Any coal merchant putting in tenders could tender for the Blackwell Colliery's coal. Mr. Page did not lead us to believe that he was excluding other merchants. When Madden handed Anderson a tender I did sot suspect Anderson of doing anything underhanded. It may have been that he was acting on behalf of the other Guardian. I have always found Anderson wonderfully straightforward with regard to the administration of the workhouse. If Mr. Page was successful in getting the colliery named on the tender accepted it would lay his colliery open to receive a large amount of orders. It would he nothing unusual for him to grant Bond a preferential rate to get that on; it is done in every business.

ALFRED CLAXTON . I am a professional stocktaker of Ashland House, Ashland Place, W. I was employed to take stock at the West Ham Infirmary and West Ham Workhouse. The first stock-taking was in September, 1905, after the proper orders had been issued by the Local Government Board. Before I was appointed stocktaker I did not know Hodgkin at all; I have never heard his name, and so far as I know he had nothing to do with my getting appointed stocktaker.

Mr. Justice Jelf observed that it was no part of the case for the prosecution that there was anything irregular about the stocktaker.

HENRY LOCKWOOD . I have recently retired, but until May 4, 1907, I have been for fourteen years a Local Government Board Inspector for the Metropolitan District including West Ham. As such Inspector Hodgkin has been under my notice since he became master at Shoroditch in 1897 or 1898. I have always regarded him as a good disciplinarian and a good manager of both the workhouses in which I have known him as master. To the best of my knowledge and belief he has borne a good character.

R. CLAYS, Clerk to the Shoreditch Guardians, and the Rev.

MATTHEW HENRY WHITHILL DAVIES , Chaplain of the West Ham Union Workhouse School and Infirmary, were called as to the character of Hodgkin. Mr. Davies remarked that Hodgkin bore a good character for honesty and straightforwardness, and everybody was astonished when they heard of this.

JOHN HENRY HINCHCLIFFE , Porter at the West Ham Workhouse, deposed that during the time that he had been there he had acted honestly in entering the goods that came in and in keeping the Gate book, and that his book was perfectly correct. He denied that he had ever colluded with Mr. Hodgkin to deceive the Guardians, and maintained that he had done his work honestly. He desired to corns forward in consequence of what was said the other day.

(Thursday, May 16.)

This day (with a portion of the preceding and following days) was occupied with addresses of Counsel.

(Friday, May 17.)

The questions left to the Jury were: Did all or any of the defendant conspire together and or with Bond to contravene the Corrupt Practice (Public Bodies) Act, 1889, in regard to the coal contract. Did all or any of the defendants, whether guardians or officials, conspire together and or with Bond, at any time from July 1, 1903, to the present, to cheat and defraud the West Ham Guardians? Did the respective defendants named receive corruptly from Bond in regard to the coal contract, contrary to the Act of 1889—Crump, £10; Tarrant, £10; Anderson, £10; Skinner, £10; Watts, £10; F. W. Hill, £10; Lewis G. Hill, £25; Riches, £5; Baird, £10; Hodgkin, £25?

Verdict: Tarrant, not guilty; all the other defendants guilty on all counts; Baird and Riches recommended to mercy on the ground that they occupied subservient positions.

Sentences: Crump, 2 years' hard labour; Lewis G. Hill, 2 years' hard labour; Hodgkin, 18 months' hard labour; Anderson, 15 months' hard labour; Skinner, 15 months' hard labour; Riches, 9 months' hard Labour; Watts, 9 months' hard labour; F. W. Hill, 6 months' hard labour; Baud, 6 months' hard labour. Each prisoner was adjudged incapable of being elected or appointed to any public office for seven years from the date of his conviction.

Mr. Muir desired to call attention to the services which Chief Inspector Kane and the officers acting under him had rendered to the cause of justice. The public were deeply indebted to them.

Mr. Mansfield, on the part of the defendants, also acknowledged the kindness they had received from the hands of the officers.

Mr. Justice Jelf said he entirely agreed in those observations, and if any expression of opinion on his part would be of any use to Chief Inspector Kane, either with regard to his future career or to an immediate recognition of his services, he would be glad to give it. His experience was that the better the officer was and the keener in the discharge of his duties the more he was inclined to be kind and fair to accused persons.

Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K. C. (with whom was Sir Charles Mathews), attended on behalf of the London and Provincial Bank to make an explanation in regard to the circumstances in which they paid an account of £79 placed before them by Mr. Acworth, their branch manager, in respect of his election expenses as honorary treasurer of the West Ham Board of Guardians. It was shown that Mr. Acworth had had to borrow £75 towards the expenses, and, as he was then going in for an increase of salary, the directors, who knew nothing about the election matter, were advised to give him a bonus of £80, together with an increase of £10 on his salary, so that he might not be in debt for the £75. The position of treasurer was a personal one, and although he need not have done so, Mr. Acworth had placed the account with his bank

There was no question of any corrupt payment having been made. The matter was dealt with in January, 1904, when there was a great number of other applications for increases of salary.

Mr. Justice Jelf said that the matter, as it stood on the evidence in the trial just concluded, had seemed to him one that required explanation on the pail of an institution such as the London and Provincial Bank, and It was glad to have heard Mr. Rufus Isaac's statement.



(Tuesday, April 23.)