Old Bailey Proceedings.
31st March 1908
Reference Number: t19080331

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
31st March 1908
Reference Numberf19080331

Related Material

1908, MARCH (2).

Vol. CXLVIII.] Part 882.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]









On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Tuesday, March, 31st, 1908, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BELL , Knight, Alderman, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir JOSEPH WALTON , Knight, one of the Justice of His Majesty's High Court; Sir J. WHITTAKER ELLIS, Bart., Sir WALTER WILKIN , K.C.M.G., Sir MARCUS SAMUEL , Bart., Sir G.W. TRUSCOTT, Sir GEO. SMALLMAN , Sir T. VANSITTART BOWATER, and Lieut.-Col. F.S. HANSON, Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FREDERICH ALBERT BOSANQUET, K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; 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.

DAVID BURNETT , Esq., Alderman











(Tuesday, March 31.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-1
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FOLEY, Morris (19, labourer), and HAYES, Thomas (20, fireman), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the warehouse of Miall Cooper Barton and stealing therein 24 bottles of brandy and other articles, the goods of Miall Cooper Barton.

Foley admitted having been convicted on March 6, 1906, at Thames Police Court, receiving three months' hard labour, for stealing gas-fittings; two other short convictions were proved. Hayes admitted having been convicted at Thames Police Court on May 4, 1903, receiving four months' hard labour, for larceny.

Sentence: Foley, 15 months' hard labour; Hayes, two years under, the Borstal system. The Recorder afterwards recalled Hayes and stated that, as he had a deformity rendering him unsuited to the Borstal system, he would be sentenced to 12 months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-2
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WRIGHT, George (40, no occupation), on March 4 pleaded guilty of forging orders for the payment of money, to wit, for the payment of £9 12s., £12 10s., and £12 15s. respectively, and feloniously uttering the same well knowing them to be forged with intent to defrand (three indictments); obtaining by false pretences from Charles John Purslow the sum of £4 10s., from Richard James Atkins and the Referee Cycle Company, Limited, the sum of £3 16s., and from Herbert James Cathie the sum of £12 15s., in each case with intent to defraud.

Evidence being given of good character, prisoner was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-3
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

NICOL, Charles (38, tinsmith), pleaded guilty of stealing one Savings Bank deposit book, the property of Stanley Dolling; forging and uttering, well knowing the same to be forged, a certain request for the payment of money, to wit, a withdrawal note for the sum of £10, with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, well knowing the same to be forged, a certain receipt for the payment of money, to wit, the sum of £10, with intent to defraud.

The prisoner being a labourer unconnected with the Post Office, of previous good character, and having committed the offence when in great distress, was sentenced to one day's imprisonment.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-4
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BROWN, John (22, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing two post letters containing postal orders for the payment of 2s. and 10s. respectively, the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-5
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

JAMES, Philip Edward (31, porter), pleaded guilty of stealing one post parcel containing one silver lamp, the goods of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office; stealing one post parcel containing artificial teeth, the goods of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post office.

It was stated that the prisoner had been in the Rifle Brigade, had served through the Omdurman and Transvaal campaigns, and had left the Army with a very good character after four years 276 days' foreign service. The Recorder said that in recognition of the services he had rendered to the Crown he would release prisoner on his own recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-6
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

COLLINS, Howard John (35, bank manager), pleaded guilty of indecently assaulting Ethel Muriel Skinner.

Mr. W. Clarke Hall and Mr. Barrington Ward prosecuted; Mr. C.F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. Randolph appeared for prisoner.

It was stated that prisoner had made arrangements to marry the prosecutrix, who at the time of the offence was a fortnigtht under 16.

Released in his own recognisances of £50 to come up for sentence if called upon.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-7
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

MARSHALL, Edward Metham (38, journalist), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £15, with intent to defraud.

Prisoner was stated to have served through the South African War with credit, and to have then joined the German Legion, which he had to leave through being unable to conduct operations in British territory; recommended to mercy by the prosecutor.

Ordered to remain in custody till next Sessions.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-8
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HANNAN, Owen (23, French polisher), pleaded guilty of robbery with violence on William Denton Sumner, and stealing from him the sum of £4, his moneys.

Prisoner admitted having been convicted at North London Sessions on February 21, 1902; three other convictions were proved.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-9
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SMITH. William (70, cook), pleaded guilty of maliciously damaging two plate glass windows, value £20, the goods of Henry Francis Wills.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.


(Tuesday, March 31.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-10
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

EDWARDS, William (30, baker), pleaded guilty of feloniously uttering and possessing counterfeit coin. Several previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-11
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

DAVIS, John (52, tailor), pleaded guilty of uttering counterfeit coin well knowing the same to be counterfeit and possessing counterfeit coin.

Nearly £3 of good money was found upon prisoner, against whom there were eight previous convictions.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-12
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

TAYLOR, George (38, hawker), pleaded guilty of feloniously uttering counterfeit coin twice the same day; possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter same.

Prisoner's method was to employ boys in circulating the coins, sending them to make small purchases with counterfeit florins. He was stated by the officer in the case to bear a very bad character, and there were several previous convictions.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-13
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

NORTHFIELD, William (26, labourer), WILSON, James, otherwise Northfield (23, carpenter), and WILSON, Eliza (19, sack maker) ; all feloniously possessing a mould for the purpose of making counterfeit coin; possessing counterfeit coin, with intent to utter same. James Wilson pleaded guilty.

Mr. Sands prosecuted.

Detective-inspector ALBERT FERRETT, L Division. On March 6, at about half past 12, I went to 64, Salisbury Buildings, Victory Place, Walworth, with Sergeant Beard and Sergeant Cornish. I knocked at the door of the tenement occupied by the Wilsons, which was immediately opened by the female prisoner. We entered. James Wilson was lying in bed, and Northfield was sitting by the chest of drawers with his cap and coat on. I told them we were police officers, and had reason to believe there was counterfeit coin in the room, and also a mould for its manufacture. Wilson said, "There are no counterfeit coins here." The room is a small one, and all the prisoners could hear what was being said. Northfield said nothing nor did the woman. I searched the room, and in a chest of drawers found the mould produced wrapped in old rag, 32 base shillings identical with the mould, two files and a spoon. In the cupboard I found a small saucepan used as a melting-pot, containing small portions of metal, some silver sand used to brighten the coin, some grease, and some other metal. Wilson said, "Well, there you are. I suppose it is all up. You have got the lot," and at the same time he handed me a shilling which he took from a vase on the mantelpiece and which proved to be the pattern piece of the mould. Prisoners were taken

into custody. The woman commenced to cry when she understood the situation, and said, "Will they keep me as well?" Northfield only said, "I do not live here." I took the female prisoner to the station, and was present when they were charged. They made no answer.

Detective-sergeant BEARD, L Division. I was present at this raid and saw all the things found. I took Northfield to the station. On the way he said, "Well, Beard, I give you chaps credit. You do do your work neat. You have caught us fairly. It seems funny that you should have come when you did, because when we are making we always have the table and the bed against the door. You might tell me who done this for us. I shan't give you any trouble. I have only been at it about three weeks myself. I suppose you followed me from home and saw me go in?" With regard to the relationship of the prisoners, Northfield and Wilson are brothers, and their real name is Northfield; the woman is living with Wilson, but is not his wife.

To prisoner Northfield. I saw you searched. I think 1s. 1 1/2 d. in good money was found upon you, but I will not be certain about that We were keeping observation on the place three hours before we made the raid, and you did not enter the place in that time.

Detective-sergeant CORNISH spoke to taking James Wilson to the station; 7s. 6d. in good money was found upon him.

THOMAS MACELDON , collector, of Salisbury Buildings, stated that he knew the female prisoner as Mrs. Northfield and James Wilson as Northfield. Prisoners occupied the room about two months before they were arrested.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTERSS , the officer of the Mint, stated that the 32 counterfeit shillings came from the mould produced. The good shilling had been used as a pattern. The coins were not a good mint, being rather rough. The other articles, the files, antimony, silver sand, saucepan, etc., were used in coining.


NORTHFIELDSSS declined to give evidence on oath, and stated that he knew nothing about the matter.

JAMES WILSON (prisoner, on oath), stated that Northfield came to his rooms only about two seconds before the police made the raid. Witness was in bed when he came. Northfield had nothing to do with the making of the coins. Witness was guilty of that with another man not here, who had given information to the police. The female prisoner also had nothing to do with it, and knew nothing whatever about it.

Cross-examined. Cornish took me to the station. I did not make statement to him on the way to this effect: "I admit you have caught us properly." I did not say to Cornish it was my room; nor did I say, "Billy don't live there. He comes in and helps me. I have only been at this game about a month." I did not make either the mould or the coins, but I plead guilty to being concerned. so

far as I can see, this was a proper plot. An old counterfeit coiner comes and makes them for nothing for you and shows you how to do it, and says, "Put them in the drawer and put the key under the cup," and when the detectives come and search the place they lift up the cup, take the key, and unlock the drawer.

Detective-sergeant CORNISH, recalled. As I was taking James Wilson to the station he made a statement. Salisbury Buildings is about 400 yards from Rodney Road Police Station, and on the way ha said, "You have caught us fair. I ought to be ashamed of myself for doing such a thing at this, especially to let her know all about it"—meaning the female prisoner—"I do not care about myself, because I can put up with it. It is her I am sorry for. I must admit you have caught us properly. It is my room. Billy don't live there, but he comes in and helps me. We have only been at this game about a month." Immediately I got to the station I sat down and made a note.

ELIEA WILSON (prisoner, on oath). I have been living with James Wilson, but am not his wife, unfortunately. On frequent occasions I have been sent out for two or three hours in a day, and told to come in at a certain time, and I have had to come in at that certain time, and I never saw any of those things (coining implements). I am perfectly innocent of anything. When I was sent out I used to go to my mother's. I used to say to prisoner (Wilson), "Why do you send me out, and why do these chaps come in here?" and he told me, "Mind your own business, it is nothing to do with you." For about three weeks he has done this to my knowledge. That is since I have been at home. I had previously worked at Carr's premises for 18 months. I left there because I was ill, and when I was better they took me back, two or three days a week, until my place was open. On the day before the arrest I had been out with my sister-in-law all day, and when I got home, at 10 minutes past eight, I said to my husband, "What! not washed yet. Very well, I am going to the South London," and he replied, "I have done what I have, got to do. I have settled my business, and I will go with you." So we went together to the South London. I do not know anything about this matter.

Cross-examined. I keep my clothes in the long drawer. The little drawer is always kept locked. I cannot say I never had the curiosity to look into the little drawer, but I never had the chance. If I asked about it he (Wilson) always told me to mind my own business.

To Northfield. You had been in the room only two or three minutes before these gentlemen (the police) came. I got up at about half-past 10 and did my work and was preparing the midday meal when these gentlemen knocked at the door. They must have followed you in. They must have seen you come in as there is only one outlet. When you come in you said, "I have come round to ask Jem if he will lend me a shilling and to tell him that grandmother is very bad."

LOUISA WILSON , 8, Gordon House, Old Kent Road, mother of the last witness, spoke to her daughter who, she understood, was married

to James Northfield, having on several occasions spent a considerable part of the day with her.

Verdict: Northfield, Guilty; Eliza Wilson, Not guilty. The indictment against the latter for feloniously passing the coin was not proceeded with, and the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty in respect of it. Three convictions against Northfield were proved and one against James Wilson.

Sergeant BEARD stated that according to information received by the police the male prisoners had been engaged in making counterfeit coin for about two months. Prior to their going to their present address they were engaged in coining, and observation was kept on them, but the police were not successful in catching them. He had known prisoners for nine years, and with the exception of once or twice last year, when Northfield was travelling with a "Punch and Judy" show, neither of them had done any work whatever. They were the constant associates of cycle thieves, and during the last six months he had seen them in company on different occasions with no fewer than 13 known makers of counterfeit coin.

Sentences: William Northtfield, Five years' penal servitude; James Wilson, Three years' penal servitude.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-14
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

CARROLL, William (23, packer), pleaded guilty of unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin; possessing counterfeit coin.

Prisoner was formerly in the army, and served in Burmah. Owing to an accident he had to leave the service and his discharge was marked good. His Lordship communicated with the Church Army, to whose care prisoner was on Thursday (April 2) handed over. Mr. Spencer, an officer of the church Army, said prisoner would be sent to one of the labour homes in the country, where he would be kept from bad company until regular employment could be found for him.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-15
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

BROWN, John (28, labourer) ; uttering a counterfeit coin.

Mr. W. H. Sands prosecuted.

FREDERICK HOLMAN . I am manager of the "New Inn," Westminster Bridge Road, of which my father is proprietor. At a quarter to two on Saturday, February 22, prisoner came in to the bar and asked for half a pint of ale✗ and a packet of cigarettes. He tendered in payment what appeared to be a five-shilling piece. I picked it up and said, "This is counterfeit." I had taken two other counterfeit crown pieces within five weeks. They are all dated 1890. My father asked prisoner where he got it from, and he said it was part of his wages, which he had just been paid. My father told me to fetch a constable and I did so. In the presence of the constable prisoner said that he received the crown piece in part change of a sovereign.

To prisoner. I do not recollect your having ever come into the place before. There are seven of us in the bar, and we serve several hundred customers a day.

Police-constable NORMAN MACDONALD, 394 L. I was called to Mr. Holman's house at 1.45 on Saturday, February 22. He prodused the five-shilling piece, and pointed out prisoner as the man who had passed the bad coin.

(Wednesday, April 1.)

NORMAN MACDONALD , further examined. I said to prisoner, "you heard what the landlord said." He replied, "Yes, quite right. I received it with my wages this afternoon. I work for Bailey, Sell, and Co., Newgate Street, E.O. The clerk paid me at 1.30 this afternoon." I said, "What money did he pay you?" He said, "10s. in gold, two half-crowns, and a five-shilling piece." He produced a 10s. piece, and twopence in bronze, and I asked him what had become of the remaining 4s. 10d. He said, "I paid 'Jack the Lighterman,' of 55, Belvedere Road, two shillings which I owed to him." Belvedere Road is in Lambeth, and runs out of the Westminster Bridge Road. The landlord produced another five-shilling piece, saying that both coins were similar in appearance, and bore the same date, and I told prisoner I should take him to the station for inquiries as to the truth of his statement. He replied, "Do not do that; I will give you my name and address." He gave as his address 55, Belvedere Road, which is a common lodging-house. Inquiries were subsequently made at Newgate Street. "Jack the Lighterman" was sent for, and at the station said, in the presence of prisoner, "I have not seen you all day." In reply to that prisoner said, "Well, I suppose I am in the wrong."

Sergeant JOHN COURSE, L Division. I saw prisoner detained at Penton Place Police Station. I asked him the number of Bailey and Co., in Newgate Street, and he said 38. I asked him who "Jack the Lightermen" was, and what he owed him two shillings for? He said, "It is what I owed him, and that is all I want to say about it." I was present when "Jack the Lighterman" came to the station, and was spoken to with reference to the two shillings. In the presence of prisoner he said he had not seen him since the previous night. Prisoner then said, "All right, I suppose I am wrong." I asked him how long he had been at Bailey's, and he said two years, and that he had lived at 55, Belvedere Road, five years. I afterwards made inquiries in Newgate Street. The premises, 36 to 41, are wholly occupied by Messrs. Faudel Phillips. I have searched and made inquiries in all this district, but no such firm as Bailey's is mentioned in the directories nor anywhere else, as far as I can find.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , of the Mint, said the three coins produced were counterfeit and from the same mould, and were not of very good make.

Prisoner declined to give evidence on oath, but addressing the jury said he was that worried with one constable and the other and that excited he did not know what he was saying. The previous day he had drawn a sovereign from a bookmaker in Soho in respect of a bet, but he did not want the man to get into trouble by doing so as it would give him (prisoner) bad name. He changed the sovereign in the "George," in Shaftesbury Avenue, and went home drunk. Next morning he went to the market to buy a few flowers and coming home he called to have a drink at this public-house and offered this five-shilling piece to change. Any man was liable to have a counterfeit

coin on him, but he had sufficient good money to pay for what he had. He wanted money also to pay for two nights' lodging.

Verdict, Guilty. Previous convictions were proved, dating back to 1894.

Sergeant JOHN COURSE stated that at the police court he asked prisoner if he could tell him of any place where he had been employed or give any information of his general habits, and prisoner informed him that he had been selling papers, but could give no reference to anybody.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.


(Wednesday, April 1.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-16
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

KITCHENER, John (29, chauffeur) ; coroner's inquisition for manslaughter of Charles Edward Cox. The Grand Jury having thrown out the bill the prosecution offered no evidence on this indictment. A formal verdict of Not guilty was returned.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-17
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ALLAN, William (40, engine driver), pleaded guilty of wounding Susan Allan, his wife, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm; attempting to kill and murder himself.

It appeared that prisoner had been married for 12 years and had six children. Messrs. Macfarlane, Lang, and Co., for whom he had worked, gave him an excellent character. Prisoner seemed to have had an imaginary grievance against his wife in regard to her conduct. Just before the assault was committed the prosecutrix told her husband that she was going to leave him. She denied that there had been a quarrel between them.

Prisoner was sentenced on the next day (April 2) to Three years' penal servitude.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-18
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

BOWES, William (63, bookseller) ; feloniously sending and causing to be received by Alexander Duncan a letter demanding money, to wit, £100, of him with menaces, without reasonable or probable cause. well knowing the contents thereof.

Mr. W. H. Leycester prosecuted.

ALEXANDER DUNCAN , wine merchant, Edinburgh. Prisoner is my uncle, and was formerly the owner of a public-house in Midlothian. In 1888 I and my brother bought that house from him for £1,250, which we paid by instalments, and he got 6 per cent. In 1896 I borrowed £2,000 from prisoner, which has now all been paid back at 5 per cent. interest. I owe him nothing. In 1903 he wanted to start a business. He wrote me about several places which I knew were no good, so I would not lend him the money he wanted. Prisoner afterwards, so I heard, came to London and started a bookseller's business, and at the beginning of March this year I got the following letter from him: "279, Holloway Road, London, March 1, 1908. Alec, I have been in London for the last nine months trying to get a living

as a bookseller. My business has turned out a complete failure. As I have not been able to pay the last quarter's rent and taxes the land-lord has sequestrated my furniture and stock, which is to be sold on. Now, I have to insist that you and John send me a cheque for £100 to enable me to get a new chance, the alternative being on your failure to send me the money required I will come to Edinburgh and shoot you on the spot. I do not care a brass button whether I am bung or not. You can show this letter to the police if you like. All I want is publicity and have all Edinburgh ring with your base conduct. If my brother had thought for a moment you would behave as you have done he would curse the day you were born. That letter is in his handwriting. I then put the matter into the hands of my solicitor, Mr. Stephenson.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I borrowed £2,000 from you in May, 1896. When you asked me for assistance to purchase a hotel in the Highlands I knew it was not a good place, so I thought I was your friend in not assisting you. I wrote you in 1903, telling you my opinion and asking for an interview. which you never granted. You were too proud and wanted a big place. My cousin, Mr. Stephenson, advised you to get into a small place. I did not try to get a place for you because I knew your ideas. My father is dead.

JOHN WALTER STEPHENSON , 111, George Street, Edinburgh, solicitor. The last witness brought to me the letter of March 1 which has been read. I sent to prisoner the letterproduced (in which he is offered £1 a week by his nephews), which he returned in another letter of March 6 (produced), which is in his handwriting, in which he says he refuses to be a pauper and prefers death, and that what he wanted was a sum of money to pay rent and taxes to prevent his furniture being sold, etc. On receipt of that letter I communicated with the police.

Detective-sergeant GEO. OSBORNE, Y Division On March 12 I went to 279, Holloway Road, taking with me the letter (produced) of March 1, which prisoner had sent to prosecutor, also Mr. Stephenson's answer and prisoner's second letter. I told him I was a police officer, and that I believed he had written these letters. He said yes. I said, "I am instructed to caution you as to your future conduct. If you continue, the matter will become very serious and proceedings will be taken against you." He said, "All right. I cannot help that. I shall continue to write to my nephew. I have a just claim on him, and if he does not meet with my demands I shall put my threats into execution." I said, "Surely you don't intend to shoot him?" He said, "I will; I will go to Edinburgh and I will make Edinburgh hum." I then reported the matter. On March 16 prosecutor came to London and laid information, and I arrested prisoner on the same day. After I had read the warrant to him he said, "All right, I can't help it; I don't mind."

To prisoner. You wrote no more letters between my cautioning you and your arrest.

ALEXANDER DUNCAN , recalled. While prisoner was in Brixton Prison I received the following letter from him: "March 21, 1908.

Alec, I have now been five days in prison and think I have been sufficiently punished for what I have done. If you do not withdraw the charge I will cross-examine you in public court and expose the story of your sister's shame and your brother William's debauches. You have already shown yourself to be one of the basest specimens of humanity that ever lived, and if the case is not withdrawn by Tuesday morning, the 24th, you will only cover your name with eternal infamy. A number of ladies and gentlemen in London are taking up my case and have visited me in prison."


WILLIAM BOWES (prisoner, not on oath). When I had money I assisted my nephew to the extent of £2,000, and I also assisted his mother. I have now no money. I applied several times to get as hotel license in various parts of Scotland, and my nephew, being a wholesale wine merchant, was in the habit of assisting people, but he never would assist me. I came to London with £150 in my pocket, which was soon swallowed up by the expenses of taking my furniture and books to London and fitting up the shop, etc. The business turned out a complete failure, the books I had brought being of too high a class for Holloway Road. Many a day I have stood in the shop and never drawn a single shilling. One Saturday I stood for 13 hours in the shop and never took a single penny. When I wrote the letter to my nephew I had 3s. left. I could do nothing. I had a wife and four children in Glasgow. I had to sell my furniture bit by bit. I lived at the extravagant rate of 1s. a day, 3 1/2 d. for my breakfast, 6d. for my dinner, and 2d. for my tea. I am now 63 and was never in trouble before, and I think Mr. Duncan has shown himself one of the basest specimens of humanity I ever came across.

Verdict, Guilty of sending a letter demanding money with menaces.

(Monday, April 6.)

Prisoner having communicated with his friends in Scotland, a Mr. Murray said he was willing to be surety for prisoner's good behaviour, and the latter was released on his recognisances, and Mr. Murray as surety in £100, to come up for judgment if called upon.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-19
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JACOBS, Adolph (23, packer) ; feloniously attempting to kill and murder William Warner.

Mr. W. H. Thorne prosecuted; Mr. Warburton defended.

WILLIAM WARNER , 30, Rathbone Place, gilder. I live with my father and two sisters on the third floor. Prisoner occupied another room on the same floor, with a woman living as his wife. About midnight on February 22 I came home and went into our back room, where was my sister Emily and her father. I do not remember seeing my other sister, Mary, there. I took my coat and jacket off and had some supper. Then I went into the bedroom and began undressing. While partially undressed I went into our back room

again where I saw Mr. Jacobs and my father. The former asked me if I would have a drop of beer; he had a can in his hand. I said no, I had just had some supper and was going to bed. Jacobs and my father were speaking together; I do not know what about; they seemed to me friendly. I asked my father where Mary was; he said she was in the next room with Mrs. Jacobs. I then went to the door of prisoner's room, and said to my sister, "See there is no noise now because I am just going to bed; there is other people in the house." It was nothing unusual for me to say that because Jacobs and the woman were always quarrelling. There had been, no disturbance that night to my knowledge. I had no sooner got the words out than I felt two severe blows on the back of the head with some sharp instrument or other. I turned round sharply to tackle Jacobs, who had hit me, and that is when I got the stab over the eye and these other two (indicating). I could see that my sister and Mrs. Jacobs were in the room—this happened in the doorway. They were not far away. There was nobody else there to my knowledge. I called out, "Father, I am stabbed." My father came in and got Jacobs away, and in doing so got his finger cut. During that time I managed to struggle out of the room and down the stairs, how far I do not know, because I fell to pieces. I was smothered in blood. I was taken to the hospital.

Cross-examined. Before this occurrence I had everything off except my pants, stockings, and shirt. I asked where my sister was, but I did not hear her talking with Mrs. Jacobs. Mr. and Mrs. Jacobs were always quarrelling, and I have on several occasions told them that if I were their landlord they would have to get out. I do not remember that my father was very drunk that night. My father was not having a row with my sister to my knowledge. I do not know of any rows that evening. I did not hear prisoner say to me, "Be a good boy, and do not make a row with your father." I was sober on that night. There were no words spoken by Jacobs at all. After prisoner had struck me I might have been slightly in his room, but not to my knowledge. I never gave prisoner any provocation at all. I did not strike him a violent blow in the face and make his noss and mouth bleed. I have no knowledge of touching Jacobs.

HENRY WARNER , 30, Rathbone Place, journeyman baker. I am the father of last witness. On Sunday, February 23, I was in my room with prisoner and my son; then the latter went to his room. I ate my supper, and then I hear my son hollo out, "Father, he stab me." I ran out and saw that Jacobs had my son round the neck and was stabbing him. He had something like a little knife. I see not much. Then I caught the knife and cut my finger. My son was full of blood. He ran downstairs and I followed and opened the door. Then prisoner whistled for a policeman. When I got to the door with my son I saw a man named Muller, whom I know. He said, "What's the matter here?"

Cross-examined. I worked at one place for 26 years. I now work for Marshall, Shaftesbury Avenue. I am not given to drink. I like my glass of beer. I was sober on this night and was not having a row with my daughter. It is not true that I often have rows with

her. I did not treat my daughter so violently that she tried to commit suicide. I had not got a black eve on this night. At the time my son holloed I had a table knife in my hand which I was going to cut some bread with. When I ran in to help my son I threw it on the floor. I was not going after my daughter with the knife. It is not true that I said, "When I see my daughter I will kill her."

MARY WARNER , daughter of Henry Warner. On the night in question., at about one a.m., I was with Mrs. Jacobs in her room, sitting on the bottom of her bed, when my brother came to the door and said, "Mary, don't make too much noise in the house; people wants to sleep." I said, "All right," and Mrs. Jacobs said, "All right." He did not come into the room. He had been undressing and had his pants on and that. Then I heard Jacobs open father's door and say something to my brother. Then I heard my brother say, "Father, I am stabbed." I rushed to pull them away, and saw Jacobs stab my brother twice. Mrs. Jacobs also helped to pull prisoner away. When my father came and tried to part them Jacobs cut his little finger, knocked him down, and gave him a black eye. When my father came out of his room he dropped a knife on the floor of the landing. My father was not drunk on that night. My sister Emily at this time was at the street door talking to a friend. We had all come in together when the public-houses shut. I did not know of any quarrel between my father and Emily. There were no rows that night at all. I would have heard them if there had been.

Cross-examined. My sister was taken to Holloway about a year ago for tying to commit suicide. I could not tell you why she did it. It is not true that my father violently assaulted her and turned her out. I have not spoken to my sister about why she tried to commit suicide. (To the Judge.) My father and sister have had one or two talkings; he has never rowed her properly, nor beaten her, nor knocked her about.

Re-examined. I have asked my sister about the attempted suicide, but she would not tell me about it.

JULIUS MULLER , 87, William Street, Hampstead Road. At about one, on the morning of February 23, I was passing 30, Rathbone Place, when I saw William Warner brought out bleeding; then I saw the father, who called me up to the room and showed me all the blood, saying that his son had been stabbed; and he thought he was dead. I heard prisoner (who was in his room) say to his wife, "Put the knife away." I asked prisoner if he was the son-in-law, and said, "It is better you be quiet and make no much row." Afterwards I say, "What for you stab the man?" He did not give me a proper answer.

Police-constable ERNEST KITCH, 299 D. On the early morning question I heard screams in Rathbone Place and went to the top floor of No. 30, where I saw prisoner with a lamp in his hand. I said, "Where is the man that stabbed the other?" He said, "He must have run out." I asked him to put the light under the bed so that I could have a look. I looked, but found no one. On prisoner's face and hands there was a lot of blood. Afterwards Henry Warner came

up and said, "That is the man that stabbed me," indicating prisoner. The latter said nothing. I took him to Tottenham Court Road Police Station.

Inspector CHARLES CLARK, D Division. Early on February 23 I went to. Middlesex Hospital, where I saw William Warner, and in consequence of what I heard went to 30, Rathbone Place, where I searched a front room on the top floor, finding a knife (produced) wrapped in a piece of paper in a small box on the table. I afterwards saw prisoner at the station, and said I would charge him with attempting to murder William Warner by stabbing him. He said, "Do what you like, Inspector; I cannot help it; my hands are as clean as yours." On being charged he said, "I did not do it; the old man over there, his father, did it." I searched him and found a police whistle in his pocket.

EDWARD GOSS , house surgeon, Middlesex Hospital. About one a.m. on February 23 William Warner was brought in, and I examined him. He was bleeding profusely and had four wounds on the upper and back part of the head, two of them deep. He had also a superficial wound on the back of the neck and five or six small cuts on the face. I had to put in 12 stitches. I saw him three days later, when the wounds were nearly healed. I think the wounds might have been caused by the knife produced.

Cross-examined. I do not think it likely that the wounds could have been caused by a fall against a sharp substance. The deepest of the wounds was about one-eighth of an inch; the breadth about one-sixteenth; the length about one and a half to two inches. I should think it is impossible they could have been caused by falling against sharp brass handles. Each separate wound might have been but not all four. Prisoner was at the hospital for about 45 minutes the first time. He came back the next day, but I did nothing to him. I do not think it was the point of the knife, which is sharp, which struck the head. It is probably a knife used in shoemaking. (To the Judge.) The wound on the neck was undoubtedly a cut.

Police-constable ERNEST KITCH, recalled. I did not hear a police whistle when I heard the screams of murder. I was in the street opposite the house. There were two or three voices.


ADOLPH JACOBS (prisoner, on oath). I am German, and a shoemaker. Last Saturday five weeks I sat on the table about 12 p.m. and got my supper. I heard Mr. Warner in his own room. I heard a row between father and daughter. About five minutes after he comes out and says, "Is my daughter Millie here?" He had a knife in his hand. I said no. He says, "Jacobs, look what she has done to me." The man's eye was swollen. "When I find my daughter I will kill her." He ran out of my room, and I ran after to the back room. I saw the son there; he was half-dressed, and I said to him, "Willie be a good boy and don't make a row to your father." I asked him to have a glass of beer and go to bed. He then ran out into my front room. I had gone after the father to be good friend to him, as he

had a knife in his hand, but the father was not there, only the son. In the back room the father and two daughters sleep. There are two beds. The son sleeps in the front room with the brother. There was always rows with the father and daughter. The father was very drunk that night; he is always drunk. I followed the son into my room and said to him, "Why do you stop here naked when my missus is in bed?" He was half-dressed. He said nothing, and I pushed him out of the room, saying, "Come on, go in bed." I then shut the door after him. The sister had gone out by this time, and my wife and I were left in the room. The son then pushed the door open and came two feet into the room, giving me a smack in the face. I fell on the floor, and he fell over me. I pushed him away and heard him knock his head two or three times on the chest of drawers—on the brass handles. He then got up and ran out of the room, and I heard him say, "Father." I went to go to the washstand to wash my face and hands. I had blood on my face. Then Mr. Warner, the father, comes in with a knife in his hand. He says, "Is my daughter in here?" I said, "No," and went to the window, which I opened and blew a police whistle, I think five times; then I saw the policeman. While we were struggling my wife was between us trying to stop us. I did not use that knife on the man. It was in a box at the time. It was to the old man, Mr. Warner, that I said, "Put the knife away," not to my wife. I spoke to him in German. I was sober. I have never had a quarrel with these people. The policeman did not give me time to tell him what had happened. He said, "Where's the knife?" and I said I had no knife.

Mr. Thorne submitted that as prisoner had attacked the character of a witness for the prosecution in suggesting that the father had so cruelly illtreated his daughter that she was driven to attempt suicide, and in other matters, that he was entitled to cross-examine prisoner as to character. Mr. Warburton did not object.

Cross-examined. I am a bootmaker. I was convicted seven years ago for living on the prostitution of a woman, getting three months' hard labour. I suggest the prosecutor got his injuries by falling against the brass handles of the chest of drawers. I said to the inspector when I was charged that the old man, the father, had done it, and think so. I said that if it was done with a knife there was nobody but his father that could have done it. The father came twice into my room, the first time before the son came, the second time after the son came. On the second occasion I heard no row between him and his daughter. Mary Warner was in my room when the son came in the first time. I do not know if she was in the second time. I did not hear prosecutor call out, "Father, I am stabbed," simply "Father." The brass handles on the chest of drawers are very sharp; they are not round. I pushed the man away three or four times. I said nothing when Muller came up; it was on the first occasion the father came that I said, "Put that knife away." I had not been talking with the father in the front room at all. I had only been in the back room, and did not see the father there. I did not hear young Warner ask his sister not to make a noise.

MARIAN JACOBS . On the night of February 22 or 23 we came home about 12.20. Willie Warner was at his door, and says to Jacobs, "Come in, I want to speak to you." Jacobs goes in his place for half a minute, then comes back to our room and says to me, "Willie Warner makes a quarrel with me, and wants some row; it is better I stop indoors." so he shuts the door and begins to have supper. Then after 10 minutes we hear a big row in Mr. Warner's room, and old Mr. Warner comes with a big knife in our room and says, "Is our daughter Emily in here? Look at what she have done; she gives me a black eye, and if I find her I kill her." He looks behind and under my bed. Then Jacobs says, "Harry, don't make yourself unlucky; put that knife away." Warner had a bread knife in his hand and he drops it on the floor. Then Jacobs takes him back to his own room, takes the beer with him, and they have a drink together. Then I undress myself and go to bed; Mary Warner comes in, and we talk together. Jacobs comes back and sits down to finish his supper. Then Willie Warner comes half dressed into my place and Jacobs says, "I can't make it out what for he comes undressed in your place when you are in bed." I say I do not know. Then Willie Warner takes Jacobs by the shoulders and pushes him on the chest of drawers, hand the two fall on the floor. Jacobs was underneath. Then I get out of bed and push Warner out of doors and Jacobs indoors. Jacobs then takes a police whistle to the window and whistles for the police. The police come up after this, and I can say no more because I am very excited. That is all I know. I did not see Jacobs with a knife.

Cross-examined. Mary Warner was in the room during this scuffle. Willie Warner had not been in my room before that evening. I cannot say that Jacobs took Warner by the shoulders; I was in bed. The first time that Warner came into the room he said something to Mary; I cannot remember what. He was not pushed out by Jacobs. I cannot remember Muller coming upstairs. The knife produced belongs to Jacobs; it is an old work knife. I put it in the box where it was found. (To the Judge.) When Jacobs came into the room young Warner had gone out, but came back when Jacobs spoke to me about him.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding.

Sentence, Five months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, April 1.)

GREAVES, Douglas (29, clergyman), who pleaded guilty on March 6 of committing an act of gross indecency with Charles Alfred Magnus, a male person, and was remanded in custody, appeared for sentence.

Mr. C.F. Gill stated that prisoner had now taken all steps specified for severing his connection with the Church. He had relinquished

his curacy at Stepney, and under the third section of the Clerical Disabilities Act had executed a document which was enrolled at the High Court, and had been sent to the Bishop of Chichester.

He was released on two sureties of £100 each and himself in £100 to come up for sentence if called upon.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-21
VerdictsMiscellaneous > postponed
SentencesMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

O'SULLIVAN, Daniel (23, soldier) , committing an act of gross indecency with Robert d'Humieres; and HUMIERES, Robert d' committing an act of gross indecency with Daniel O'Sullivan. (Recognisances of himself and surety estreated.)

Mr. Moran prosecuted; Mr. Randolph defended O'Sullivan.

Humieres still not having surrendered, the Recorder enlarged the recognisances generally sine die, every effort to be made to procure the attendance of Humieres, O'Sullivan being bound over in £10 to take his trial at a Sessions of which he would receive notice to appear.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-22
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

ANSCOMBE, James (48, saddler) ; feloniously attempting to shoot at Henry Charles Kirk, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

The Grand Jury found "No bill" for attempting to shoot; prisoner pleaded guilty of common assault. He was ordered to enter into his own recognisances in £25 to come up for sentence if called upon and meanwhile to keep the peace.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-23
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HANDRA, Kate (32, no occupation), SMITH, Margaret (27, servant), HAYES, Gertrude (20, no occupation) ; all robbery with violence on Ernest Smith and stealing from him the sum of £2 5s. and one watch and other articles.

Mr. T.E. Morris prosecuted.

ERNEST SMITH , 1, Chorlton Place, St. George's Road, insurance broker. On Monday, March 16, at 11 p.m., as I was coming out of the "Denbigh Arms," where I had been to get some postage stamps, Hayes accosted me, having a child in her arms. I went up St. George's Road towards Winchester Street, when I was accosted by the other two prisoners. Handra patted me on the face and asked me to stand her a drink. Someone then came behind me and pulled my arm. As I turned to look I was struck on the back of my head, pulled down, and thrown into a doorway. Prisoners then wrenched the buttons off my waistcoat, struck me in the face, making me bleed, kicked me on the side, and took from me my watch and chain, purse, containing £2 5s., and tobacco pouch. I think there were four women, but I was too much stunned to see. They said, "Do for him," and one of them said, "I will do for you; you have bit me"—that was Hayes. I shouted "Police! Murder!" She put her hand in my mouth to stop me, when I bit her. Smith was the one who accosted me as I walked up St. George's Road; I could not say what she did afterwards. I had seen Haves before in the "Denbigh Arms," when she spoke to me and told me her child was starving. I bought heart cakes for the child. She said it was too young to eat them. I told her to moisten them in her mouth and let her child eat them. When

I came out it was raining and I gave her sixpence outside the public-house. Handra was taken by a policeman; I went to the station with them and identified her; she had my property upon her. On the following Tuesday I identified Smith in the dock.

Cross-examined. I first met prisoners in St. George's Road. Smith was amongst the lot.

Police-constable HENRY WILSON, 385 B. On March 16, at 11.30, I was in St. George's Road, when I heard cries of "Police!" I saw three women rush from the doorway of No. 66, went across and found prosecutor lying on the step, bleeding very much from the mouth and nose. He said, "Those three women have done it—catch them if you can." I ran after them and caught Handra. She said, "It was not me, it was the other two." She was taken to the station, searched, and a tobacco pouch taken from her was identified by prosecutor as his property. I do not identify the other women.

Cross-examined. Handra did not say anything when I showed her the pouch. At the police court she said she had never seen it before. Detective-sergeant THOMAS EVANS, B Division. On March 23, at 7.30 a.m., I saw Smith at a house in Denbigh Street. I said, "I am a police officer; you answer the description of a woman wanted for being concerned with Kate Handra in stealing a watch and chain, £2 5s. in money, and a tobacco pouch from Ernest Smith." She said, "I know nothing about it; I am quite innocent." I then said, "Do you deny it? If so, you will be put up for identification, if you wish." She said, "I was there, but I did not have any of the money." I took her to the station and charged her, when she said, "No, I know nothing about it." On the same night I saw Hayes at the station and charged her. She said, "I was in the squabble. Janet Price was there; she was the cause of it all. She hit him down, and I said to her, 'Do not hit him.' I went to try to pick him up and he bit my finger. Janet Price was the only one who put her hands into the man's pocket, and she put the tobacco pouch in Handra's pocket." I then asked her if she wished to give any information respecting the property. She said, "No, I won't tell you anything about the money, but I did not see the watch." She was then formally charged and said, "Yes, I was there, but the woman Handra was quite a stranger to me." She did mention money; she knew there was money missing.

Statements of Prisoners. Handra: "I never saw the man and I never spoke to him. I never saw the tobacco pouch till I saw it at this Court. The woman Hayes told me this morning that Janet Smith put it in my pocket. I am innocent. I have no witnesses."

Smith: "I do not know the man; I had never seen him before. I never knew anything about the tobacco pouch. I never hit the gentleman or laid my hand on him. I am innocent. I have no witnesses."

Hayes: "We were all with the man. Janet turned round to me and said, 'Run.' Then she told me she took his tobacco pouch out of her pocket and put it in Handra's. She told me the same night

she did not know what to do—that man gave me his card, which my husband has at home, to come and see me in the morning."

KATE HANDRA (prisoner, not on oath). What I have to say is, I am innocent. I know nothing at all about it. I saw the squabble. I was told Janet Smith had put the tobacco pouch in my pocket.

MARGARET SMITH (prisoner, not on oath). I am innocent of the money and the watch and chain, but, as to the tobacco pouch, I will own up that I picked that up and gave it to one of them, but I do not know which one it was. (To the Judge.) Janet Smith is the one who ran away.

GERTRUDE HAYES (prisoner, not on oath). Kate Handra told me this morning that Smith should say, "Let us rob him." This was the one that knocked him down. I picked him up, but, as to robbing him or taking anything off him I did not. I had nothing to do with it.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentences, All six months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-24
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BOYD, Henry Caton (34, jockey), pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Florence Elizabeth Prowse, his wife being then alive.

Mr. Green prosecuted.

Prisoner admitted having been convicted at Winchester Quarter Sessions on April 10, 1907, of obtaining a valuable security by false pretences, receiving six months' hard labour; he was now undergoing 12 months' hard labour for feloniously obtaining money; he had also been twice bound over.

18 months' hard labour, to run with the previous sentence.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-25
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

TYLER, William (56, printer), pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Albert John Pitkin a certain valuable security—to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £1 11s. 3d., with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, well knowing the same to be forged, divers documents to wit, divers letters purporting to be written and signed by O. William Taylor, William G. White, John Parry, William Gregory Redstone, and H.M. Viret respectively, in each case with intent to defraud.

Prisoner admitted having been convicted in 1901 of felony at Hertford Assizes. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude for the felony; 12 months' hard labour for the misdemeanour. To be concurrent.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-26
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ELLIOTT, Leslie Wallworth (26, clerk), pleaded guilty of, having been entrusted with cerain property—to wit, 17 signed cheques, in order that he might retain them in safe custody and apply to pay and deliver the same for specific purposes, did unlawfully and fradulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-27
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WILLIAMS, Thomas (55, no occupation), pleaded guilty of stealing one pocket book containing three cheque forms and other articles, the goods of George Clifford Bower.

Prisoner admitted having been convicted on January 1, 1899, at Clerkenwell, receiving seven years' penal servitude for receiving stolen

jewellery; three other convictions were proved. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.


(Wednesday, April 1.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-28
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

GUSMANN, Harry (28, painter), end GUSMANN, Elizabeth; uttering counterfeit coin; possessing counterfeit coin, with intent to utter same.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.

(The case against Elisabeth Gusmann.)

ANNIE ELIZABETH CORNELIUS . I am housekeeper to Mr. Dowsett, dairyman, 105, Crescent Road, Plumstead. On the evening of Tuesday, March 3, I was serving in the shop when the female prisoner came in and asked for two penny eggs. I served her and she tendered in payment a 2s. piece, and I gave her 1s. 10d. change. The money she tendered I put into the till, in which until that time there had been no silver. Next morning I took the till to my employer. There was no silver in it, except this 2s. piece. No one except myself had been serving in the shop. Mr. Dowsett took the coin and kept it. On the same morning I sent a pint of milk by prisoner's directions to an address she gave at 24, Bloomfield Road, but the lad I sent it with brought it back. I next saw prisoner at Woolwich Police Court on the following Friday, when I picked her out from five or six other women. The florin produced is the one I took from prisoner.

Prisoner said she was not there at all, but was expecting to go to bed with her baby, and that her landlady could prove that the was indoors the whole evening.

Witness. I am certain you are the woman.

JAMES DOWETT . On March 4, on looking into the till, as described by last witness, I found a counterfeit florin. There were only copper coins in the till besides. I took the florin to the police by whom it was marked.

GERALD FOX . I am 13 and my mother keeps a confectioner's shop in Lewisham. On March 23 I was there at about quarter to seven. Prisoner came in and asked for a packet of "Woodbines." We had no "Woodbines," and I gave her "Tabs" instead, and she tendered in payment a 2s. piece, which I took in to mother. I afterwards took it to the "Duke of York" beerhouse and showed it to Mr. Jane, the barman, and shortly afterwards he came to the shop with a policeman. Prisoner was still there and was given into custody.

ARTHUR JANE , "Duke of York," Lewisham Road. I examined the coin brought to me by last witness and found it was bad. I told the lad I would bring the change over I then went to the mother's shop with a

constable, who asked prisoner whether she had any more and where she got it from. She said she had got it in wages from where she worked; that she came from Plumstead and was going with her husband to Greenwich Theatre.

Police-constable ERNEST JOHNS, 259 R, spoke to going to the shop with the last witness. He asked prisoner how the coin came into her possession, and she said it must have been given to her for wages. In her purse was a good 6d. and 1 1/2 d. in bronze. At the station the inspector marked the coin produced. She stated that she was going to the theatre with her husband. Asked why her husband did not come in for the cigarettes, she said she did not think he had any money on him so she went in for him. She gave her address as Walmer Road, Plumstead.

Detective HENRY FREE, L Division. On March 4, at 9.45, I received a florin from the witness Dowsett, which I marked in his presence.

Sergeant HANCOCK. In consequence of certain instructions, I kept observation upon 24, Walmer Road, Plumstead, from eight o'clock until 10 o'clock at night, when the male prisoner arrived. I told him we were police officers, and asked him where he had been. On searching the premises I found a tobacco pouch containing 10 counterfeit florins, wrapped separately in paper, of the date of 1907. I found also five pieces of antimony, four pieces of recently melted metal, and a file with metal adhering to it.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , officer of the Mint. The coins produced are all counterfeit and from the same mould. Antimony is one of the ingredients in the manufacture of counterfeit coin. The coins are pretty well made.


CATHERINE SHOTTON . I live at 24, Walmer Road, Plumstead, and prisoners occupy one room there. I recollect that on the night of Tuesday, March 3, when I went out between half-past seven and eight o'clock there was a light in prisoner's room, showing that they were in, and when I came back it was still burning. They were still in then, because we bolted the door for the night and the door was not unbolted after we went to bed, so they could not have come in after that. I know the Crescent Road, but I do not know the shop. I should say Crescent Road is about five minutes' walk from my house.

To Mr. Beaumont Morice. There would have been time for them to go out and return before I got back. I remember Mrs. Gusmann being out with her husband on the Thursday evening.

Verdict, Guilty of both charges.

(The case against Harry Gusmann.)

Sergeant HANCOCK. On March 5, when prisoner arrived at 24, Walmer Road, at a quarter to 10, and went in, we went in after him. I said, "We are police officers. Where have you been tonight?"

He replied, "To Lewisham with my wife, and I lost her there." I then said, "Your wife is detained at Greenwich for uttering counterfeit coin, and I have reason to believe you have something on you you ought not to have, and I am going to search you. We will go up to your room." He said, "I have only a purse with some money which I found tonight." I searched him, and in his left-hand jacket pocket I found the tobacco pouch produced containing 10 counterfeit florins. I then told him I should take him into custody for possessing coins. They were wrapped up in brown paper separately. I charged him with having them in his possession with intent to utter them. He said, "You cannot charge me with uttering." I found two shillings or three shillings good money and two tram tickets. In a box under the sofa I found five pieces of antimony, four pieces of metal, and a file with metal on it. He had a tin box with two half-sovereigns and 12s. in good money. When I found the pieces of antimony and the metal I told prisoner I should take possession of then as they were articles similar to those used in the manufacture of counterfeit coin. When I had the largest piece in my hand he said, "That is a bit of an old salt-cellar." I conveyed him to Woolwich Station, where he was told that he would be detained pending inquiries respecting his wife, detained for uttering similar coin at Greenwich. He said, "I found the money as I was going to see Charlie Davis about my dog, and the coin my wife had was one which was in the purse you have got." The 10 counterfeit florins correspond with the two which were handed to Miss Cornelius and Fox. When charged at the station with possessing counterfeit coins he said, "I found the money as I was going to see Charlie Davis about my dog at Lewisham."

Detective EDWARD PITTAWAY, R Division, who accompanied last witness, gave corroborative evidence.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , of the Mint, gave evidence of the coins being counterfeit.

Prisoner made a statement to the effect that he did pick up the coins, and said that neither he nor his wife knew that the money was bed. He produced discharges and references from his employers.

Verdict, Guilty. Previous convictions were proved. It was stated that prisoner had been employed by Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, at Erith, and was a man who could nearly always get good work.

The Common Serjeant sentenced the male prisoner to 18 months' hard labour, and released the female prisoner on her recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-29
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Miscellaneous > military naval duty

Related Material

WHITHAIR, Arthur (22, sailor), and WHITHAIR, Alfred (20, labourer; both feloniously possessing mould for making counterfeit coin; possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same. Arthur Whithair pleaded guilty.

Mr. Sands prosecuted; Mr. Burnie defended Alfred Whithair.

Detective-sergeant BEARD, L Division. On March 25, about five o'clock, I was in Orb Street, Walworth, with Inspector Ferrett and sergeant Cornish, and saw prisoners and another man. We followed

them to East Street where we lost sight of them. Later we again saw them in Orb Street. Prisoner Arthur appeared to be examining something in his hand, which he eventually gave to the other prisoner. They walked along to the corner of Meadow Row, where they met a third man, and proceeded to walk along Rodney Road. After having been under observation for about three minutes or four minutes we arrested them as they were about to run away. Inspector Ferrett said, "We are police officers, and suspect you of having some base coin in your possession." Neither of them made any reply. I was about to search Arthur when he put his hand into his trousers' pocket and produced a little packet containing 14 counterfeit six-pences dated 1905. Handing me the packet he said, "Here you are, sir, this is all I have got." Alfred could hear what was said as we were all standing close together. I found in Arthur's vest pocket another sixpenny piece. The third man was discharged at the station.

Sergeant GEORGE CORNISH, L Division. I took the prisoner Alfred to the station. He put his right hand into his left-hand vest pocket and produced this counterfeit sixpence, dated 1905, and handed it to me. On the way to the station he pointed to Arthur and said, "This is my brother. We had only just met the other chap. He did not know we had these coins. He had nothing to do with it. I could not get work or I should not be doing this." He was taken to the station.

Inspector ALBERT FERRETT, L Division. I was present when the three men were charged, and afterwards went to 15, Sturge Street, Southwark Bridge Road. In the back room on the first floor I found a small mould for manufacturing sixpences tied up in rag and wrapped in paper, some silver sand in a corner by the fire place, some grease, a tin of black, some plaster of Paris, and a knife—all being things used in the manufacture of base coin. I took the things to the station, and while I was undoing the parcel Alfred said, "This is being out of work and bad company." At the conclusion of the he case he said, "Arthur, we shall have to let mother know now."

WILLIAM IRVING , 15, Sturge Street. Southwark. I remember letting my first floor back room on February 24 to a person named Whithair. On March 10 I remember Alfred coming and asking for his brother. He was constantly coming there, nearly every day. Sometimes he would stop an hour or two, sometimes not five minutes. He had been to his brother's room the day they were arrested. He came a little after two and stayed till about four o'clock. I should think Orb Street is a mile or a mile and a quarter away.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , officer of the Mint. The 16 sixpences produced are all counterfeit and from this mould.

Verdict, Guilty.

Mr. Sands said there was an indictment against Alfred for felony in respect of the mould, but he did not think the evidence was sufficient to proceed upon.

The Common Serjeant directed a verdict of Not guilty on that.

Sergeant BEARD said there was nothing against the prisoners. Both since they left school had been in various places, and in all they had been given good characters. Since November, Arthur, and since September, Alfred, had done no regular work, and it was in. January last that they came under the notice of himself and other officers, since when they had been in the company of different makers of counterfeit coin, including the two men Northfield and Wilson, tried the previous day. In this case the prisoner Arthur made the coins, and had been going round with, his brother uttering 20 or 30 a day. Alfred had worked at different places since he left school. For four years he was messenger at a post office in Borough High Street. There they gave him a very good character, and subsequently he was in a place twelve months. Then, with his sister, he opened a fried fish shop at Peckham, but it was a failure.

Sentence: Arthur Whithair, Nine months' imprisonment. On the following morning the Common Serjeant, having ascertained from Dr. Scott, the medical officer of Brixton Prison, that Alfred Was a suitable subject for military service, handed him over to an officer of the Church Army, with instructions to see that he should hate an opportunity of presenting himself for enlistment.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-30
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CRAWFORD, Henry (24, stoker) , possessing counterfeit coin, with intent to utter the same.

Mr. Sands prosecuted.

Detective-sergeant PRIDE, J Division. I was with Detective Allen in Stoke Newington Road at 20 past four on March 21. I saw prisoner standing at the corner of Castle Street, Stoke Newington Road, talking to another man. They parted. One man walked across to the other side of the road; then both proceeded in the direction of Stamford Hill. After walking about 150 yards the second man crossed the road and spoke to prisoner, then returned, and they both continued in the same direction. About 300 yards further the man again crossed and spoke to prisoner. After following them threeqnarters of a mile or a mile we lost sight of them in a crowd opposite the Bon Marche. We searched the neighbourhood for about 20 minutes, and eventually returned to High Street, Stoke Newington, where we again saw prisoner, this time alone. I ran up and said to him, "What have you got about you?" He said, "Nothing." I was about to search him, when he said, "If you want to search me take me to the station." Assisted by Police-constable 237 N, who held one of his arms, I was about to put my hand inside his clothing, when he put his hand to his coat, apparently holding something inside. I forced his hand away, put my hand into his breast pocket, and found two packets, one of which was partly open, and I saw that it contained half-crowns. I then took prisoner to the Dalston Lane Police Station and found they contained 18 counterfeit half-crowns of the date of 1901, wrapped in brown paper and tied with cotton. Detective Allen searched him and found two other half-crowns, making 20 in all. I asked prisoner how he accounted for the possession of them. He said, "I found them in the train at Stepney."

Detective FREDERICK ALLEN, J Division. I stopped prisoner at the corner of Church Street, and said to him, "Have you been in any shops in this road?" He replied, "No." I saw Sergeant Pride take the packets from the inside right pocket of his jacket. On searching him at the station. I found two counterfeit half-crowns in his left-hand trousers pocket, wrapped up in this piece of paper.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , officer of the Mint, said the coins were counterfeit, all from the same mould, and were a pretty good make.


HENRY CRAWFORD (prisoner, on oath). I was travelling from Stepney to Dalston. I changed at Bow to come to Dalston, and in the train I got into at Bow I found this parcel tied up with cotton in the train. I noticed it just as we were leaving Hackney Station. I just broke the cotton and tore the piece of paper, and the paper came out with two coins in it. I had never handled counterfeit coins before and did not know what they were. I put the two I pulled out of the paper into my left-hand trousers pocket. I came out of Dalston Station and walked along the main road. The man who came over and spoke to me called my attention to a Punch and Judy show, and I stood a little while noticing it. A little further on an officer came up to me and asked if I had been in any shops. When the other constable came up they seized my arms, put their hands into my pockets, and took out the coins. I was taken to the station and charged with having 20 counterfeit coins in my possession. I had had the coins not more than 25 minutes in my possession from the time I found them on the railway, and going along I was considering whether I should take them to the railway officials or to the police.

Cross-examined. I was going to Calvert Road, Tottenham, to see a nephew of mine. The man who spoke to me was a complete stranger. I was not walking with him all the time, as the police officers have sworn. I did not know it was bad money. I had never seen counterfeit coin before. I live at 67, Park Street, Poplar, with my own people. I last slept there on the Friday night, and was taken into custody on Saturday. I have been in prison four times. Those are the only times I have been away from home.

Verdict, Guilty. Several previous convictions were proved.

Detective-sergeant PRIDE said that prisoner had given him a name to inquire of as to his character, a Mr. Brown, 36, Limehouse Causeway, builder. He said he had been working there for some time and Mr. Brown would give him a good character. I made inquiries, and found the address to be a chandler's shop, occupied by a Mr. Turner, who knows nothing about prisoner. Prisoner declined to give any other information about himself. I made inquiries also at 67, Park Street, Poplar, and his father tells me he has not lived there for four years.

Detective HENRY CAMPION, K Division. I have known prisoner about seven years, but have never known him do any work. He is

living in Poplar, but his wife, who practically keeps herself, says she has had no money from him for some time. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-31
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

BASKILL, Samuel (24, cabinet maker) , Russian, feloniously marrying Rachael Novick, his wife being then alive.

Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

Mr. Leycester stated that prisoner married a woman named Leah Benedict on February 1 of this year and the woman Novick eight days later, and prisoner's allegation was that the first marriage was bad, as the woman had a husband living in Russia, from whom, however, she alleged she had been divorced. The burden of proof was on the prosecution to prove that the divorce was valid, and this, of course, was a matter of evidence. Judges in this country were not supposed to know the laws of foreign countries, and what the law of Russia is must be proved by evidence, and the only evidence with which he had been supplied was that of Mr. Feldman, Ecclesiastical Assessor to the Chief Rabbi, who, having inspected the bill of divorce, held it to be good, and that the woman, so far as the Jewish religion was concerned, was free to marry again.

The Common Serjeant. He means that the Jews would consider that a good divorce, but it certainly would not be a good divorce in England. You cannot get rid of your wife in England by saying she is not your wife.

Mr. Leyceater. It would save a good deal of trouble in the High Court if that could be done. Mr. Feldman was questioned on the point before the magistrate, and said he believed the divorce would be recognised in Russia, but he really did not know and was not prepared to say so definitely.

The Common Serjeant said he would hear the evidence.

ASHER FELDMAN , Ecclesiastical Assessor to the Chief Rabbi in London. As to the duties of my office, we have a double function. All cases referring to ecclesiastical law and cases connected with Jewish matters come before us. I am not a Russian lawyer, but in the course of our procedure one comes into contact with so many cases, and I live amongst the population, and in virtue of daily contact with their ways and manners I know a good deal of the practice of Russian law. I have seen the decree of divorce in this case. It is written in Hebrew. It does not bear the seal of any court. These documents never have. (Witness proceeded to translate the document.) This is a bill of divorce according to the law of Moses and of Israel.

The Common Serjeant. This is notice from the husband to the wife that she is free to do as the likes and is not his wife any more. There is no reason given as the ground of divorce. It does not say that she committed adultery or anything else.

Mr. Leycester. Do you know what legal effect, if any, that would have in Russia?

Witness. In Russia it would free the wife to marry, because the Jews in Russia are allowed to marrv in accordance with their own rites, and that marriage is recognised by the law of the land, and in a

similar way divorce, according to Russian law, as far as my knowledge goes, is recognised by the law of the land.

The Common Serjeant. In Russia people get rid of their wives whenever they like.

Witness. Well, I must say the law of divorce is not as stringent as in this country. Under Jewish law the married can get a divorce by mutual consent.

The Common Serjeant. I am not satisfied that the Russian law is that this is a real secular civil divorce. It may be that in Russia they allow the Jews to do as they like.

Verdict, Not guilty, by direction of the Judge.


(Wednesday, April 1.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-32
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

DICKIN, William Henry (36, accountant), DICKIN, Arthur George (35, clerk), HILLYER, Alfred James (23, accountant) ; all conspiring and agreeing together by false pretences to defraud such of His Majesty's liege subjects as they should induce to pay them money for and on account of a certain society, to wit, the Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited; obtaining by false pretences on October 25, 1907, a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for £200 from Cecil Henry Southwell; on October 23, 1907, the sum of £50 from Arthur George Prince; on October 11, 1907, a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for £50 from George Frederick Cartwright; on September 23, 1907, two valuable securities, to wit, banker's cheques for £100 and £50 respectively, from John Joseph Jones; on December 4, 1907, a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for £50 from Walter Hoole, in each case with intent to defraud; attempting to obtain by false pretences on November 30, 1907, the sum of £50 from Arthur George Prince; on October ber 12, 1907, the sum of £200 from George Frederick Cartwright; on September 26, 1907, the sum of £150 from John Joseph Jones; on December 2, 1997, the sum of £200 from Walter Hoole, in each case with intent to defraud.

Sir Charles Mathews, Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Symmons, and Mr. Arnold Ward prosecuted; Mr. R.G. McDonald and Mr. Aronson defended Arthur George Dickin; Mr. Stampa W. Lambert and Mr. C.L. Collard defended Arthur James Hillyer; William Henry Dickin was undefended.

JOSEPH WALTKINS , clerk, Brentford County Court. I produce the file of bankruptcy proceedings of the defendant W.H. Dickin carrying on business as Hibbins and Co. at 6, Cambridge Parade, Twickenham Road, who was adjudicated bankrupt on December 11, 1902, the gross liabilities being £3,412 4s. 2d. and assets £441 1s. 3d. The receiving order was made on December 5, 1902, the petitioning creditor being Max Meyer. There was a final and only dividend of 2 3/8 d.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. This pamphlet you hand to me contains a photo of your premises with the name "Hibbins and Co."

at the top and underneath W.H. Dickin, proprietor, but I have never taken particular notice of it as I do not know that neighbourhood. I have been subpoenaed here to produce the bankruptcy file. The amount of book debts shown in the statement of affairs in £587. Mr. Mercer received his release as trustee of the bankruptcy proceeding on July 1, 1907. The proceedings do not say that the whole of the creditors had been satisfied.

Reexamined. I know nothing about the creditors having been paid since.

ALBERT EDWARD HOLS clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House. I produce the file of the West London Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited, registered on November 12, 1906. Among the signatories is William Henry Dickin, described as of 13, Walbrook, director of public companies. The witness to all the signatories except that of W.H. Dickin is W.H. Dickin himself. The witness to W.H. Dickin's signature is a person named Rackham. The registered office of the society originally was 13, Walbrook. Then it was changed to 44, Bedford Row; than it was changed again to 4, Duke Street, Charing Cross, and on going into liquidation it was changed to 341, Birkbeck Bank Chambers, which is the address of the liquidator, Mr. Price. The company went into voluntary liquidation on October 10 last year. There is no capital, it being a company limited by guarantee, the limit being £1. There are seven subscribers, but for the purposes of registration the number of members is limited to 100. I also produce the file of the Dorset Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited, which was registered in the same way, as a company limited by guarantee, on December 8, 1906. The registered office of that company was 44, Bedford Row, but there was a notice of change to Downing's Farm, Tatworth Chard, Somerset. I also produce the file of the Croydon District Tradesmen's Provident Society, limited, which was registered on February 6,1907, the witness to the signatures being William Henry Dickin, of 44, Bedford Row, described as "system expert." Arthur George Dickin, of 56, Kentish Town Road, described as a cycle and sewing machine dealer, is one of the signatories. A compulsory order to wind up that society was made on October 29, 1907. There were 100 members for the purposes of registration, limited by guarantee to £1 each.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. The public have access to these files at any time. The defendant Hillyer's name does not appear in these three files.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. In the case of the West London Society the change of address I find is signed by Alfred James Hillyer. (To Mr. Lambert.) That is dated September 6, 1907. He signs as secretary. (To W.H. Dickin.) The names of the signatories to the West London Society are G. Pitt Lewis, John William Rackham, Edward L. O'Toole, William Henry Dickin, Charles William Bennell, William Broad, and Henry G. Betts. (The witness read the objects of the society and also Clauses 1, 3, 4, 19, 21, 28, 30, 32, and 38 of the Articles of Association.) The resolution to wind up the Croydon

Society was under the 1862 Act. When the compulsory winding-up order of October 29 was made, for all practical purposes at Somerset House the company was in voluntary liquidation. I recognise these notes on one of the articles of the Croydon Association, which shows that the declaration in compliance of the Act either was not produced or was not in order. (The names of the signatories of the Croydon Society were read out by the witness.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Aronson. The name of Arthur George Dickin appears in the list of signatories of the Croydon Society.

JOHN FOX , law clerk, office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies. I produce documents in connection with the Tradesmen's Provident Society registered on September 13 last year. Two copies of the rules with the application are signed by seven members and the secretary, Alfred J. Hillyer, of 44, Bedford Row, which is the address of the registered office of the society. There has been no registered change of address of that society. The Central Tradesmen's Provident Society was registered on September 26, 1907. The address of the registered office is 5 and 6, Magdalen Street, Oxford. There was also an application made to register the Yorkshire Tradesmen's Provident Society. The application was received at our office on May 1 last year. It bore the signature of John Hibbins, of 32, Cliftonville Street, Leeds. The registrar refused to register the society while these proceedings were pending, because at that time John Hibbins was under arrest in connection with the Tradesmen's Provident Society, and, as the rules emanated from 44, Bedford Row, the same office as the Tradesmen's Provident Society, the application was not granted. On September 26, 1907, another application was received to register the Southern Tradesmen's Provident Society made by Ernest Catt, of 44, Bedford Row. He withdrew his signature from the rules. The application to register that society was subsequently renewed by Alfred James Hillyer. Mr. Roberts withdrew his signature and subsequently the papers were returned to him. The cost of registering these societies was £5 each. I do not know anything about the Tradesmen's Provident society, nor the North London Tradesmen's Provident Society, nor the South London Provident Society, nor the East London Provident Society.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. As to the Southern Tradesmen's Provident Society, the application was received on September 26, 1907, and the correspondence address is Ernest Catt, 44, Bedford Row. On October 3 the secretary withdrew his signature and on October 21 the application was withdrawn.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. I know a certain amount about the Act of 1893. On August 16 the rules of the Tradesmen's Provident Society were issued; two days after there was a certificate issued from our office showing that it had paid £5. That came by post. This paper refers to the Central Tradesmen's Provident Society, showing that they paid £5. A friendly society is not limited until it is registered. (The witness then gave in detail the formal steps connected with the registration of the different companies and with regard to alterations in the rules.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Aronson. The defendant, A.G. Dickin, is not one of the signatories of the Tradesmen's Provident Society. I believe our office has never had any communication with him at all about these transactions.

JOHN JOSEPH JONES . I am an architect and surveyor practising at 14, South Square, Gray's Inn. On August 20 last year I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" in relation to a director being wanted. I replied to that advertisement, and received a letter dated August 22 from 44, Bedford Row, signed "J. Whiteley." On August 27 I went to 44, Bedford Row, where I saw the defendant, W.H. Dickin, and I told him I had come in reply to the advertisement. He said he was attending to the matter. I told him I was an architect and showed him my card. He said they would he wanting an architect and surveyor for part of their work, and that the name of the company was the "Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited." He said that practically he was appointing the directors. I asked him what the system was, and he said it was a similar one to the old coupon system of trading stamps. He said they were taking over the North, South, East, and West London Tradesmen's Provident Societies, which were being wound up in voluntary liquidation. He said that anyone who was a surveyor, as I announced myself to be, would be useful to him in that part of the work where they were leaning on mortgages and so on, in connection with property. He distinctly mentioned that was part of the work of the society. He said the capital of the new company would be £50,000, and that the number of members taken over by the new society from the old ones was 400; that the average amount paid by weekly members of the old society was £1 2s. 6d. per week; that the number of directors was to be 12, with the qualification of £150 in shares. The amount altogether that would be put into the concern by the directors and the officials would be £2,000, and my remuneration, in the event of my becoming a director, would be £100 per annum, and my professional charges for additional work done as surveyor, and 2 per cent. on the profits. He said the income would be about £300 a year. That was exclusive, I think, of the additional professional work. The sum of £1,000 was mentioned by him as the extent to which he himself had financed the scheme. He said that Walter Foster was the managing director of it. He referred to the co-operative system and produced a book—"The English Wholesale Co-operative Societies Annual," and he referred to the large accounts and the balancesheets mentioned therein. He suggested that I should stipulate to become the surveyor to the society as a condition of becoming a director. He said he was related to Dickins and Jones, of Regent street, drapers. I then left, and upon the same day I wrote a letter to him, to which I received a reply dated August 18. In that letter was a form called "Instructions Note for Application of Directors and Share Qualification," the cheques in regard to which were to be made payable to Walter Foster, and crossed "London and County Bank." On the 28th I again called at 44, Bedford Row. with this document, and saw the defendant, W.H. Dickin, asking him whether

the society was registered. He said that it was. He mentioned a number of names to me as those of persons with whom he was negotiating to become directors of the society, one being a Mr. King, an accountant and actuary; Mr. Mossop, a solicitor; Mr. Whitehead, and Mr. Walter Foster, managing director. At that interview he again said the number of members actually in existence whom they would take over was 400. On August 29, after making inquiries, I discovered that the society had not been registered. On August 30 I received a visit from W.H. Dickin, when I mentioned my discovery to him, and he referred to a receipt that he had for the application for registration for £5. I took that to be a receipt in relation to the registration of the Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited. I was not satisfied that it had been registered, but took it as some sort of an explanation. We went to 44, Bedford Row, where we had some more talk with regard to the society and its prospects. W.H. Dickin said that there were 400 new members in addition to the 400 members taken over who were making a weekly subscription at an average rate of £12s. 6d., and that the staff was to be 200. At that interview he gave me the names of Mr. Walter Foster and Mr. Mossop as directors. At that interview I heard Hillyer's name first mentioned as proposed secretary. The appointment had not been fixed. In addition to the names of Walter Foster and Mr. Mossop, I have a note of the name of a Mr. Gateman; Mr. Oldman, an accountant in the City; also the name of a barrister, and a solicitor, Mr. Whitehead. He (W.H. Dickin) said he would be a director, but not yet. The notes from which I have been reading were taken by me at the interview. While I was taking certain notes of documents he got up and demanded the papers from me. He said they were his papers and that I was taking an undue liberty with them in making a transcript or a copy. He said I should not leave the room without his having the papers. I put them in my pocket and stood on the defensive. He then called into the other room for a clerk (whose name I afterwards found was Hibbins), and they each stood at one of the doors and prevented me from leaving the room. I said I should bring an action against him for detention and imprisonment. There was some question of calling for the police, and, eventually, after a few minutes he (W. H. Dickin) collapsed and begged my pardon. Harmony was ultimately restored and the conversation resumed business lines; it turned on the registration. Later on at the same interview he said that Hillyer had paid him in £200 for shares, and also that Foster and Mossop had paid in £200 each, that half Mossop's shares were for work to be done, so that instead of being £200 it was only £100 in cash. There was then some discussion as to what would be the weekly income of the society as derived from its old members—namely, 400 at £1 2s. 6d., which worked out at £450 gross. From that there would be a deduction of £50 for expenses and £50 for something else, which would bring the net income to £350 per week. At the interview of August 30 I said that the registration must be completed before I finally gave my decision in the matter. On September 13 the registration

was completed. I received a letter from Mr. W.H. Dickin dated September 14, which enclosed a form similar in all respects to that which I had previously received except the body of the document, saying, "Herewith please find the sum of £150, being payment in full for the 150 shares." On receiving this I went to Bedford Row, where I saw the defendant, W.H. Dickin and Foster, the managing director. He was introduced to me as such quite early in the matter. I had seen him before and the defendant Hillyer. Doubtless, I may have seen Hillyer before—I am not certain. I had not seen him before to know him. He was introduced to me as Hillyer, secretary of the company. Upon that occasion I was handed a list of the directors, wherein my own name actually appears. A statement was made to me then as to the number of shares which actually had been subscribed for—namely 2,000, but not all paid for—that 6,000 practically had gone. The defendant, W.H. Dickin, said the banking account was to be opened at the London and County Bank, in Holborn. Foster, in the hearing of Hillyer, said that the banking account was to be opened with £300. Foster's statement in Hillyer's hearing was that there were 200 good men—that is, the tradesmen who were subscribing were, perhaps, 500 on the books, but 200 good men. (To the Judge.) This note was made at the interview. (Examination continued.) I asked what "200 good men" meant and was told that out of the 500 there would be 200 who would solidly keep the number up, who were really subscribing at £12s. 6d. per week. On that occasion I was reasonably satisfied with what I was told by W. H. Dickin, Foster, and Hillyer; the figures varied, but in the main I was satisfied. I certainly thought the thing was genuine. Having that in my mind, I wrote on September 18 to W.H. Dickin. (The letter was read.) My proposal referred to in that letter was that I should pay £50 down, but, in regard to the balance, shares should be issued up to the amount of £100, and that sum should be afterwards deducted from the fees I had earned in the service of the society. Ultimately on the same day I received a letter from Hillyer, but in it there was no information as to how many shares were taken up or the amount which had been paid for them. On the next day, September 19, I went back to Bedford Row and saw W.H. Dickin and Hillyer, when the statement was repeated with regard to Hillyer's having paid £200 for his shares. They were both there. On that occasion they handed me a typed draft agreement for me to take away and consider. It was on that occasion that I arrived at some fresh terms upon which my money was to be paid over, which is shown in the agreement. The proposal was not quite identical with the terms on the face of the agreement. (Exhibit 64 was read to the witness.) (To W.H. Dickin.) My notes were made in your presence. (Examination continued.) As appears in my note I believe the statement was that Hillyer's £200 was paid through his solicitor, Mr. McIntyre, by cheque. With regard to the typewritten agreement of September 19, an appointment was made upon that day that I was to return for the purposes of executing it, on the 23rd,

if I wished to do so after considering it. Between-whiles I saw my solicitor. On September 23 I went to Bedford Row accompanied by my solicitor. There were present myself, my solicitor, W.H. Dickin, and Hillyer. The agreement is signed by Foster and Howarth. I think it had been previously signed by them. There was an interview between the draft and when this actual agreement was prepared by Mr. Mossop, their solicitor, and I went there to execute it. (The agreement was read.) I signed the agreement, which was attested by my solicitor. I then drew two cheques, one for £100 and the other for £50, both payable to the Tradesmens' Provident Society, Limited, or order, and crossed "London and County Bank, Holborn branch." The endorsement on them on behalf of the Tradesmens' Provident Society, Limited, is "Alfred J. Hillyer, Secretary." At this same interview on the 23rd Hillyer drew a cheque on behalf of the society upon the Holborn branch of the London and County Bank for £50, representing my retaining fees and fees on account in advance as director. It was paid into my bank and honoured shortly after on presentation. (To the Judge.) I paid £150 and got £50 back. (Examination continued.) I did not know that my cheques were used for the purposes of opening the banking account at the London and County Bank. On September 25 I received a letter, Exhibit 68. I had seen in one of the newspapers some advertisement in relation to some other Tradesmens' Provident Society for a directorship, which turned out afterwards to be in connection with the Southern Tradesmens' Provident Society. (The letter of September 25 was read.) In response to that letter I went again to Bedford Row on September 26 and saw W.H. Dickin, who told me the capital of the Southern Tradesmens' Provident Society was £500,000, that its objects were the same as the Tradesmens' Provident Society, and that it was going to work the Southern and Eastern Counties; that 11 companies were going to be formed together, or 12, and that its operations were to extend to Ireland and Scotland. The qualification for a director was to be £200, but a reduction was to be made to me as I had the appointment in the other. I said I would give my answer in a short time. I asked when a board meeting of the Tradesmens' Provident was coming on, and W.H. Dickin told me business was going on well, and there was no need for a board meeting at the moment; that when a board meeting become necessary notice would be given in the ordinary way. I went away practically without any further news of the Tradesmens' Provident Society until about October 24.

(Thursday, April 2.)

JOHN JOSEPH JONES , recalled. After September 26 my next visit to Bedford Row was October 24, during which interval I received no communication from the Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited. I may have been to the office perhaps once on the question of canvassers for the obtaining of the tradesmen's contracts, but not connected with any actual business of the society. I wanted to initiate myself into

the actual working of the society. I discussed it with W.H. Dickin. On October 24 I went to the office, where I saw a Mr. Cartwright; while I was talking to him W.H. Dickin came out of his office. Cartwright said he was ruined. The whole place was in a muddle, people could not get their money. Cartwright said he had put £50 in as a Manager. W.H. Dickin called me into his room and then said that they were in financial difficulties all round, and that some embargo had been put upon the society's cheques at the bank. Hillyer was present besides W.H. Dickin. Mr. Pratt came in during that time. I do not know whether A.G. Dickin was there; he probably was there; he was there a good deal—I cannot say. I asked Hillyer how many shares had been taken up. He said, I think, 970. I tried to ascertain what had been received in cash and how the shares had been distributed. I could get nothing from him; I could get no books. I was the only director left. Howarth had practically resigned and gone to Leeds. There was a new director named Hibbins who was acting. There was another director expected—a Mr. Southwell. Hillyer said that Southwell would come on in a day or two as managing director. I asked him where the £800 he put in had gone to. He then said that he put the £200 in the West London Tradesmen's Society some time before and that had been transferred and allotted in shares with this new society in connection with some new furniture. He also said that Hibbins had not paid, but that "£150 in cash will be paid to-day or to-morrow by Hibbins." As to Howarth he said, "He does not hold any qualification shares, he was appointed before the qualification was settled." I was told there was £15 balance at the bank. I could not ascertain where the money had gone to. I called again on the 25th. Exhibit 70 incorporates what happened: (Exhibit 70, letter October 25, 1907, was read.) I called again on the 26th and saw Hillyer and was then handed a letter, Exhibit 71. (The letter was read.) I answered that letter on the 26th—Exhibit 72. (The letter was read.) I called on October 28 and found that Messrs. Jones, Lang and Co. were in possession on behalf of the landlord. I saw Hibbins there. He was a defendant at Bow Street, but was discharged by the magistrate. I also saw Hillyer at Bedford Row on October 28. Exhibit 73 is the letter I wrote referring to what took place on October 28. (The letter was read.) Between October 28 and November 4 I was at the offices at Bedford Bow on one or two occasions. My letters record what took place on each of these visits. (Exhibits 75 and 76 were read.) I did not get any answer to Exhibit 76. (Exhibit 77 was read.) I did not get any answer to that letter. On November 13 I found that the society had moved away to Parliament Chambers, Westminster. I never saw any of the defendants there. At the time I parted with my money I most certainly believed that the Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited, was a genuine society or I should not have parted with my money. I believed there was an absolute business and that they were taking other businesses over. I believed the statements which were made to me by the defendants, and it was my belief in those statements which induced me to part with my money. As to the

Southern Tradesmen's Provident Society, it was too big. I wanted to go a little slow. I have not had a cent back of my money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. I am relying on my notes for a great part and my memory. I think I saw Hillyer on September 17. I remember sitting in the room with the three of them. I do not know that Hillyer was not in London on September 17. I know he wrote me a letter on September 18. It is very difficult to remember the first time you hear a man's name mentioned. His name was on the door—I believe it was on the door the whole way through—"A.J. Hillyer, accountant and auditor." I do not remember A.G. Dickin very much. I had seen Hibbins as a clerk; it was he who stopped me from getting out of the room. As to the period before September 23, I am not confounding Hibbins with Hillyer. They are different in style and dress. I did not know that my subscription was the first subscription that came into the coffers of the society. My receipt is stated to be "On account of directors' fee, as per agreement." That is the only thing I could put down, in a receipt. I did not know that this was a new society just starting in business. I knew it was taking over the North, South, East, and West London Tradesmen's Provident Societies. Up to August 23 I did not have much discussion with Hillyer, but he was present. I think I saw him with W.H. Dickin over the Southern Society. I say the misrepresentations that Hillyer made were that he had paid £200 into the society. He was present when Dickin made that statement. Personally, Hillyer did not make that statement; he was there when Dickin said that he had paid £200. I do not know that Hillyer was appointed secretary of this society on September 23. I understood he was receiving a salary.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. I have never seen the minute book. I have here my notes of August 30. The names of the signatories are in the book of rules that are registered. I have a note here that the receipt for the application to register the society was dated August 15. The prisoner, W.H. Dickin, produced a minute in typewriting, being the appointment of Walter Foster and A.J. Hillyer as secretary, which he said was signed on August 16, but not dated until later, and that when the witness discovered it was undated it was subsequently dated September 14. Witness said he could not remember making any remark about the date. (His Lordship, having examined the document, said it appeared to him that it was all typed at one time, including the date, in which opinion the Jury concurred.)

Cross-examination by W.H. Dickin continued. The first time I saw you you apologised because Mr. Whiteley, the writer of the letter I brought, was not in. I called two or three times, and I came to the conclusion that there was not much business in it in the ordinary sense of the word, and when I called and saw you you said there had been some mistake and that the letter had been written by another man. The first time I saw you I think I was standing at the door. I think you said you were general adviser and organiser to the business. I first saw Hillyer at the interview of September 17. He wrote me

on September 18. When I gave my cheques I received the society's cheque signed by Foster for £50. It was part of the arrangement, as stated in the agreement. I had to wait till the afternoon until the society's cheque was cashed. I heard yesterday that my cheques actually opened the banking account. (His Lordship remarked that Exhibit 102 showed that the account was opened on September 23 by two cheques of £50 and £100.) I remember that the rules were set out in a eulogistic way as to all the objects of the society on this co-operative principle of yours and they were afterwards cut down into one sentence. The rules were considerably altered by the Registrar. When we first met we read through generally the objects of the society paragraph by paragraph. You mentioned that there was a provision is the rules that one director of the twelve retired annually. The stipulation in the agreement that I was to be the one appointed for 11 years did not arise until the settlement of the agreement. (Exhibit 57 was read.) I know a little about friendly societies.

(The learned Judge told W.H. Dickin that his cross-examination was entirely unconnected with the issues before the Jury and called his attention to the different counts in the indictment and explained to him that it was for the Crown to prove them.)

Cross-examination continued. When I began to make inquiries on August 29 I began to feel that I was in very unsafe water. (The witness was cross-examined at considerable length on the figures which appeared in the estimated balance-sheet and denied that he went through it with W.H. Dickin, saying that he put the papers on one side as not deserving of consideration at the time. The prisoner, W.H. Dickin, proceeded to go through the figures, when the Judge said that, aasuming the balance-sheet was all false, it would not have the slightest influence against him, as a false pretence must be a false pretence on an existing fact and explained at some length the nature of the charges which W.H. Dickin had to meet, as set form in the indictment.) Witness: I certainly asked something about what the reserve fund was going to be, but I do not remember specially as to any figures; I wanted to get the principle of the thing. Some reference may have been made to the reserve fund being properly protected by trustees being appointed.

Prisoner W.H. Dickin proposed to read correspondence between himself and a guarantee society when Mr. Bodkin objected, and the objection was upheld.

Cross-examination continued. Mr. Touch's name in reference to being a proposed trustee of the reserve fund did not occur until somewhere before the signing of the agreement. I say that this estimated balance-sheet I regarded all along as simply a scheme. The great point at the first interview was this book about co-operative societies which you referred to and that part of the rules which describes the objects of the society. I have a note here that £300 a year per annum would probably be the income of each director. We did not discuss the figure of £1,100 at all which appeared in the estimated balance-sheet as being what the directors would receive

per annum. You gave me a lot of literature, but I put it on one side as merely puff and bluster. With regard to the draft of my stamped agreement, I suggest that it was probably typed in your office from your rough written draft.

To the Judge. This typewritten draft was given me by W.H. Dickin. It was amended by my solicitor, and is incorporated in the actual agreement that I have. The original draft was called for at Bow Street to show the retainer. The intention was that £50 should be as a retainer.

His Lordship here asked W.H. Dickin if he had not thought of applying to have counsel allocated to him, to which he replied that it was such a big case that if he did so it would be a great question whether a counsel would be able to grasp the facts, as he would only be able to get his brief in Court. His Lordship then pointed out again the points in the different counts of the indictment which he had to meet, and requested him to confine his attention to them as closely as he possibly could.

(After further cross-examination on the figures appearing in the estimated balance-sheet.) As to there being any occasion up to October 24 on which anything was withheld by you from me, I say that I did not see any books or figures. I asked in that letter for certain things but I did not get them. From August to October 24, except on the one occasion when you kept me in the room, our relations were friendly. I certainly looked to you for everything—I got my information principally from you. Foster was at Bedford Row as representing the managing director. I was introduced to him at the interview, I think, on August 29. I cannot say absolutely that you were in the room when Foster told me about the 200 men bringing in £1 2s. 6d. on an average per week, but you were in and out of the room at the time. I do not remember ever seeing a telephone in your room. (To the Judge.) I would go the length of saying there was none. (Cross-examination continued.) I did not know then, but I do now, that Foster had been managing director of the proposed East London Society. I understand that no such society as the East London has ever been registered. On September 17, when I went to Bedford Row, and during the time I had been calling from August 17, the name of the Tradesmen's Provident Society was on the door and Hillyer's name with the description of "Accountant and Auditor" underneath. The changes of the names of the different societies in the inner lobby downstairs was simply phenomenal. I made copies of the names of the different companies. On the glass was "Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited," share capital £50,000, registered September 13, 1907—44, Bedford Row, London, W.C." That was on a small printed paper 4 1/2 in by 2 1/2 in., stuck on the glass. The business card you hand to me does not agree with what I say was there. It may have been that the words, "registered 13th September" and the "£50,000" were in red letters. Hillyer's name, as far as I can remember, has always been on the door. He told me that in the transfer of his £200 some furniture had been incorporated as part of the price. His name

appears in the Parliament Chambers office, and the "Tradesmen's Provident Society" is quite a small matter there. He himself told me that he had taken the offices there, so that when the Tradesmen's Provident Society did not please him he should turn them out. I took these names because there was such constant shuffling about of the names on the door. I saw that the names in the passage were altogether obliterated on September 16; all cleaned off. These names were taken on September 15. When I first came to the office I cannot say Hillyer's name was there. I do not think it was downstairs, it was on the door of the office. I say that emphatically. As to his not being there on the 17th, all I can say is I have a letter from him on September 18. It is possible he might have returned from his holidays or from his honeymoon. When I called the first time you said you were forming a company—the Tradesmen's Provident Society—you were forming a lot of companies, but it was one society that you were dealing with then. You told me you were connected with these other societies; the North, South, East, and West London Societies, which were taken over in voluntary liquidation. I do not remember asking which of these societies a director was wanted for, but doubtless I did. The Tradesmen's Provident Society was the society that we were dealing with. It was supposed to work 15 miles round London. I do not know that I remember that being said at the time, but it came out afterwards. I never heard that the reason why Hillyer got his £200 worth of shares was that he was to receive £3 a week from the West London Society and 30s. from each of the others. I never knew that he was connected with the West London Society at all until a long way on. It is untrue to say that on August 27 Hillyer was receiving 200 fully-paid shares and a salary of £5 a week because he was making a sacrifice. I doubtless asked at the first interview who the secretary was. I offered my own references then to show that it was bona fide on my part, and I wanted to take an ordinary business way of coming in contact with you. I possibiy may have asked whether Hillyer was a chartered accountant. Hillyer himself told me about his shares on October 24, when I came round and found the awful condition the society was in. I came into the office and met Cartwright. It is impossible to say when I first met your brother, he has been about the office most of the time. On October 24 when I came into the office I met Cartwright in the little room. He was very excited and I asked him what the trouble was. Cartwright said he was ruined, and I wanted to know what was the meaning of it. I did not hear Southwell announced.

The cross-examination was of such a discursive nature as to the Particular rooms in which conversations took place, and whether W. H. Dickin could see from one room into another, that Mr. Bodkin here interposed, and called his Lordship's attention to the different counts of the indictment, saying that it was apparent that the public time of the Court had been wasted by matter that was irrelevant, and asked his Lordship to exercise his discretion by directing W.H. Dickin to confine his attention to the specific issues raised, and that if he did not do so to allow the prosecution to proceed with other

matters. The learned Judge said he quite agreed with what Mr. Bodkin had said, and again cautioned the defendant as to the time that he thought was being wasted.

Cross-examination continued. On September 24 I think it was Hillyer who told me there was £15 in the bank. I directed my attention to finding out what the assets of the society were at the moment. (Page 11 of the depositions of the witness at Bow Street was then read.) I was told on October 24 that the banking account was stopped and the cheques had been returned.

(Friday, April 3.)

JOHN JOSEPH JONES , recalled. (Cross-examination by W.H. Dickin continued.) On September 17 Foster, Hillyer, and yourself told me that there were 2,000 shares taken up—they may not all have been paid for—the cash may not have been in hand. (The witness was here cross-examined with reference to his deposition at the police-court on these points and also as to the number of weekly members.) I said in my deposition, "I should like to think that Dickin was honest at the beginning, but by the result I have come to the conclusion he was not honest." I came to the conclusion that there was a departure from being honest when I discovered how things were going, and since then I have had not the slightest doubt about it. On September 23 I certainly did not know there would be no board meeting until October 24, but that did not cause me any suspicion. I wanted to be initiated into the actual detail of the business. On September 26 I saw you in reference to an advertisement which was inserted. On September 26 the Southern Society was not registered; it was merely an application to register. I most certainly suggest that you would say anything that was not true. The whole way through you told me everything untrue. I have a note that Hillyer said that Perkins had gone off as a director. There were a lot of names which I had not given which you gave me. All the directors had gone except myself. There was nobody there except Southwell, who was coming in. Hibbins was doing all the directorate then. On September 23 you did not introduce Hillyer to me—you introduced Hillyer to Davidson probably. On September 23 I and my solicitor were present. We were not there very long. It was simply a matter of exchanging agreements with the signatures. I gave my cheque for £100 and there was to be a cross entry for the £50. It might have been that my solicitor thought that if the company went into liquidation it would be better for cheques to be exchanged. You told me something about your social position. I do not know if there is any misstatement in Count 9. It was true that there was to be a qualification for managers and directors. Most of the directors have not paid. (The defendant, W.H. Dickin, here stated that there were 100 people in connection with the society who had paid money to the society and done legitimate business with it. The learned Judge said that if W. H. Dickin gave the names of the 100 witnesses who had paid he would let the jury pick out 10 of

them at random and send for them. W.H. Dickin said that there were 1,000 contracts with the public which were said to be fictitious. Mr. Bodkin pointed out that if the prisoner had availed himself of the Poor Prisoners' Act any material witnesses could have been called.)

Cross-examination continued. If you were doing your business as you set out to do it in an honourable and honest way it would have been a genuine business. I knew that the proposal connected with carrying out the business was not carried out. On October 17 I asked you to put somebody on in regard to canvassing.

The learned Judge called the attention of the defendant, W.H. Dickin, and of the Jury, to the charges made against him and connected with the witness in the box and expressed the opinion that the cross-examination was not in the least degree helpful.

Mr. Bodkin suggested that a short way of dealing with the defendant, W. H. Dickin's, case would be to read the cross-examination administered in his behalf at Bow Street, in which course his Lordskip acquiesced.

Crossexamined by Mr. Aronson. With regard to the charges against A. O. Dickin, I simply did what I could after making inquiries to set some action going. I did not do it specially against any one man. On October 24 I communicated with the police in connection with the others. I cannot say I did specially mention the name of A.G. Dickin to the police as the name of a man who had swindled me from the beginning; I think that arose afterwards. I came to the conclusion that A.G. Dickin had swindled me as a part of the whole concern. I cannot connect him deliberately with any one fact. Personally, I had no connection with him. I only knew him there as a clerk. I remember distinctly coming into contact with him on October 26. I think he told me then he was a clerk. I remember another occasion upon which I had a conversation with him, on October 31; that was when the supposed board meeting was going on. I think I also saw him once at the Law Courts. On each of those occasions I understood he was a clerk—he was occupying a subordinate position there. I think he had something to do with the district managers—superintending and looking after canvassers or something of the sort. I heard he came from the West London Society. I did not hear that he left them on September 7 because they would not pay his wages. I suppose I saw him at Bedford Row before October 23; I could not be certain. I cannot tell if he has got any part of my money. The only time he deceived me was when he spoke about the Yorkshire Society meeting being held. I say that he knew that it was the meeting of the Tradesmen's Provident Society that was going on. If he is prepared to swear that he told me that he did not know anything about the Yorkshire Society except its name I do not know that I should be prepared to contradict that.

Reexamined by Mr. Bodkin. As far as my answers in regard to A. G. Dickin are concerned I am only speaking from my own personal

observations. I understood that A.G. Dickin was a sort of overlooker of the district managers. I saw a district manager there (Mr. Cartwright) and I think I saw Mr. Delaine. The four men I have in my mind as district managers are: Prince, Hughes, Delaine, and Cartwright. On the majority of my visits to Bedford Row I saw A.G. Dickin. W.H. Dickin's accounts as to the condition of the society varied from time to time. The only book I ever saw belonging to this society was a register of members, and that was after four applications. That was the book which was roughly snatched away from me by W.H. Dickin. When Southwell did in fact part with his money it must have been perhaps 10 days or a fortnight after October 24—after the meeting when I went and found they were all in a muddle. The day I went to that meeting was October 24, and Southwell was to come in the following day. Each time I went there was somebody coming in as director. As a director of the society I was not in the slightest degree consulted as to engaging Mr. Southwell as managing director, or that he should pay £200 in order to qualify. Exhibit 69 is my letter in answer to the advertisement about the Southern Society. That is dated September 5, 1907. I parted with my money on September 23. Until after I parted with my money I had not any idea whatever that the advertisement which my letter answered emanated from the same persons as those to whom I had just paid £150.

CECIL HENRY SOUTHWELL , 29, Montague Place, Russell Square, civil engineer. I saw an advertisement in the "Times" on October 11 last (Exhibit 1), to which I replied asking for particulars, and, under date October 15, I got a reply signed "A.J. Hillyer per N.D.," secretary. I called on October 17 and saw a lady clerk and was then shown in and saw Hillyer. I had this letter (Exhibit 2) with me and sent it in, and asked what it was about, because the letter did not show to what it applied at all. I then had some conversation with Hillyer about the letter. He gave me some information as to the position offered and then referred me to W.H. Dickin. He told me there was a directorship vacant at £100 which was different from the one advertised. I said that that was not good enough, the one advertised being £300. He then inquired for W.H. Dickin and handed me over to him. I went in and saw W.H. Dickin in another room. Hillyer described him as "general adviser"—I suppose to the society. He explained that Hillyer was suffering with a bad headache, and that he would attend to me. He gave me information as to the business of the society and the position offered. He showed me various documents and a reprint from the "Drapers Record," I think, it was; a draft agreement to the manager directorship and an estimated balance-sheet of the year's working. He explained roughly the methods of working the society, the objects, and the issue of these stamps, and so on. After an interview of about half an hour I took these documents away with me and said I would consider them. I said to him that, of course, I had had no experience of work of that kind, and he told me that experience was not really required—it was mainly supervising staff, attending to general correspondence and director's duties generally; attending meetings, and so on, and that

he would, for the first, month, give me the benefit of his assistance and advice—a sort of tuition. He said the method of business was that the tradesmen members were provided with books with stamps, which they would issue to their cash customers at discount. He explained to me that the members paid 4 1/2 per cent. of the face value for the stamps and the customers got 4 per cent, as a reduction, and that the customers could utilise these stamps either in purchasing goods from any of the members' shops, or bring the stamps to the office and obtain cash. The value of the stamps depended on the financial condition of the society. I got the draft agreement (Exhibit 3) from W.H. Dickin. There is a stipulation in it for a service for five years. I also got Exhibit 4 from him. I took these documents away and examined them, and called again on the 24th. I thought the balance-sheet was very optimistic, and he said he was convinced that the results would be even better than this statement and more favourable; but even dividing the result—that is the tradesmen that they could get to take it up—by four or five—the scheme was workable and could be carried out. I asked him at the second interview why he did not take the position of managing director himself. His reply was that he could be adviser to a dozen or more societies, but he could not be managing director to them all; his intention was to create at least a dozen of these societies; that he had then registered two and two were in process of registration. In discussing the agreement with him I said I thought it would be a fair agreement, but there was one thing I could not agree to and that was to bind myself to five years. He agreed to alter it, and drafted the alteration that was made, and asked me whether I would sign the agreement with the alteration in it. I said I did not see any objection, and should be disposed to do so. He said he would have it drafted that same day, and it should be at my house in the evening, so an appointment was made the next day to sign. The 200 shares I was to take were specified in the agreement. I called again the next afternoon and signed the agreement, my signature being witnessed by W. H. Dickin. Hibbins signed as a director and A. J. Hillyer as secretary. The signatures of Hibbins and Hillyer were on the copy signed at the office, I think. Dickin signed in my presence. On the 24th I was introduced to Hibbins as one of the directors. He left the room and I had no conversation with him. Having signed the agreement, I said, "I suppose you would like some money now?" and W. H. Dickin said, "Yes, if you please," so I wrote a cheque. I then asked jocularly whether I should not get a receipt. He said. "Oh, certainly," and handed the certificate for shares which was handed to me by Hillyer. It was already prepared—it was not written in my presence. I got it on October 25, but it is dated November 25. That is signed, "W. Foster, director," and countersigned "Alfred J. Hillyer, secretary." The cheque I gave was drawn by me on the London and South-Western Bank, Kensington branch, "Pay Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited, £200," and endorsed "Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited, Alfred J. Hillyer, secretary," but I inadvertently did not cross

it. I must have handed it over at about 3.20. I left the office about 3.25. It was cashed on the same day. It has been paid through my bank. At the same interview I got a copy of the rules (produced) and other literature. He asked me to put off the beginning of my duties until November 1. I agreed to that, as it suited my convenience. I received Exhibit 11 by the last post on the 30th, and went there on the 31st. I was there at four o'clock. I was introduced to Mr. Hibbins as a director, to Mr. Vennell as a director, and Mr. Mossop as solicitor of the society, and, of course, Hillyer was present. It was suggested that I should take the chair. I sat at one end of the table, and in that sense I did take the chair. The first thing that I wanted was the minute book to read the minutes of the last meeting. I was told that it was at the solicitors. The solicitor informed me that he had the minute book to submit to counsel; he said it was over some difficulty with the landlord about the premises. I have never seen the minute so I should not recognise it. The statement was made by Hillyer and confirmed by Mr. Mossop. I said I wanted to see the minute authorising the sealing of my agreement and my appointment as managing director. Then it was admitted there was no such resolution on the book. Hillyer stated that he did not think one was necessary. W.H. Dickin was not there; he was away from London. Both Hillyer and Hibbins seemed to think it was not necessary that there should be a resolution authorising the use of the seal. Mr. Mossop did not think it was absolutely necessary, but he admitted it would be better if there had been one. He admitted there was none. Exhibit 12 was handed to me on that day by Hillyer. I expressed my surprise at finding my name in the centre, as I thought I was the latest appointed. It was then admitted that this book had been written up that morning—the ink was quite fresh—for my special edification. I said I did not think I could act as chairman and take any part in the proceedings, and Mr. Mossop agreed. It was then suggested that the other two directors present, Hibbins and Vennell, should pass the necessary resolution there and then, and I asked the solicitor whether as the rules stated nothing of the subject two directors were sufficient quorum to transact business. On that Vennell said he did not think there was any resolution as to his appointment as a director, and he, therefore, would sooner not act, as he did not think himself in order, so that we came to the conclusion that no meeting could be held. Mr. J.J. Jones then came into the room. Mr. Jones informed me that he was one of the directors, that he had heard that a sort of meeting was going on, and had come to see what it was about. Hillyer retorted that they did not consider Mr. Jones a director. Mr. Jones told me he had qualified by paying his money, and that he was a qualified director. Hibbins did not think that he had qualified, but he simply said that he did not consider him a director because he refused to act as one, and had given information to hostile persons—he mentioned North and Talbot, the solicitors. I asked Hillyer whether the rule that said any director might be removed by a special general meeting of the directors had

been complied with, and he said it had not. I then said, then Mr. Jones must be a director. Mr. Jones offered to transact business jointly with Mr. Hibbins, but they would not allow it—both Hillyer and Mr. Mossop objected to Jones acting then. While I was in the room I did not hear the Yorkshire Society mentioned. I distinctly did not know that I was taking part at a meeting of the Yorkshire Society. I went again on November 1, which was the day upon which my duties should have begun. I found A.G. Dickin, and he told me Hillyer was at the solicitors' office, but would be back by lunchtime. A.G. Dickin told me he was organiser. I made an appointment for the afternoon to go through the books at a quarter to two. Hillyer came back about half-past three, and said he had to return to the solicitors, informing me that there would be no meeting. It had been arranged the previous day that there should be a board meeting. Hillyer said he had no time to show me the books that day, and he told me that they wanted a map, and he thought I might be getting on with that, dividing London into 12 areas of equal proportion. I said I thought I should be doing better to acquire information to act as a director than making out this map, but his words were, "That will keep." I was introduced to Lampard. I understood he was one of the district managers, but I do not know which district. He had a glowing account of how successful he was in getting tradespeople to join, and so on. I asked Hillyer whether he had any time to go into the books, a little general kind of information. He said he had no time that morning; he was very busy and would have all the men to pay. Then I asked whether there was anything I could do, and he said, "No." I then left the office with Vennell. I went again on the following Monday, November 4, about half-past 10. In the passage there was a doorway with a narrow flap over a sort of counter-top and as I lifted that somebody inside the door; there was a pigeonhole there; pushed the bolt, but they were just too late. I raised the flap and a man I had never seen before stepped out and asked me who I was. I gave him my name and said, "Who may you be; I have never seen you before," and before he made any reply the door opened and W.H. Dickin came out of another room and asked me to go in. Inside there were W.H. Dickin, Hillyer, and Hibbins. W.H. Dickin took a very imposing attitude. He said he regretted to hear that I had broken my agreement; that I had told people I was not managing director, and had broken my agreement in half a dozen different ways. I had been introduced freely to people who came to the office as "managing director," but I said, "Not yet." W.H. Dickin said that either an agreement existed or it did not exist, and that, not being managing director, I had no right there whatever and said, "Out you go," and I left. On November 5 I wrote this letter (produced), to which there was no reply from the society or any of the other directors. When I parted with my money I believed there was a genuine society called the Tradesmen's Protection Society, Limited, and I believed the other statements made by W.H. Dickin that they were getting members as rapidly as he had stated, and that the businesses of the society were good.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. I knew that it was only an estimated balance-sheet. I criticised it as too optimistic. I am a civil engineer, but not a member of the Institute. I knew if I found money for qualification it would be useful for the objects of the society. I would not say that, with the exception of the letter I told you of, until I signed the agreement, I had no conversation with Hillyer with regard to the society. Hillyer said that the society was flourishing. He gave me information regarding a directorship pure and simple, and when I told him that that was not what I had been led to expect by the advertisement and he found I was driving at a managing directorship he handed me over to W.H. Dickin. I took away such documents as Dickin gave me, and at the end of a week I thought it was a feasible scheme. I now believe that if it was honestly worked it would work as well as any other. I never had a letter saying that my application had been entertained and that I should be appointed managing director. Hillyer and Dickin were present during the signing of the agreement. On the 31st I was introduced to Hibbins and Vennell. There is no minute of my being appointed. It was on my initiative that no board meeting was held. I was not properly qualified. The solicitor, Mossop, who was present, agreed that my objection was reasonable. I asked the solicitor whether two directors were sufficient to transact business; he said they were. I had no objection to Hibbins and Jones acting. A.G. Dickin introduced me as managing director to Delaine. Lampard, if I remember rightly, was introduced to me as district manager. This book of "checks" handed to me is in conformity with the methods that I was told would be working. I cannot say that Hillyer made any representation to me about the society until I parted with my cheque.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. When I first went to Bedford Row I noticed the name of the society and the capital—£50,000. The first time I saw you you told me that you were the proprietor of the copyrights and that the society was working under license from you, and that you were general adviser to the society. At our first interview on the 17th you told me that you wished to appoint a managing director, and, in the light of future events, I call that a misstatement. I signed the agreement and paid the money. and to that extent I was appointed a managing director. On my side the interview was distinctly with the object of my becoming managing director. In the light of future events I should say it was distinctly to your advantage to get my £200. As far as I was concerned, we distinctly had an honest interview—I cannot say about you. I have never said the scheme itself was not worth looking at. I understood that two societies were registered and two were in process of registration. At the first interview there were no statements which were not reasonsble. You drafted the alteration in the agreement. (To the Judge.) W.H. Dickin mentioned the Oxford Society especially as a most flourishing one, and he mentioned the Croydon Society, which was, according to him, going into voluntary liquidation in order to be absorbed with the Tradesmen's Provident Society. I was to be managing director

with a salary of £200 before I parted with my money. (Owing to the nature of the further cross-examination by W.H. Dickin, Mr. Bodkin said he was quite willing that the cross-examination administered at Bow Street should be read so as to shorten the case. W.H. Dickin continued to cross-examine, when the Jury interposed and asked that that course might be adopted.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Aronson. I have nothing to say against A.G. Dickin.

CHARLES THOMAS HART . I am a clerk employed at "The Times." I produce the original of the advertisement signed "A.J. Hillyer, Esq.," which appeared in the issue of "The Times" of October 11, 1907.

FRANK EDWARD BAXTER , clerk in the West Kensington branch of the London and South-Western Bank, proved the cashing of Mr. Southwell's cheque just before four o'clock on October 25, it being endorsed, "Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited.—Alfred J. Hillyer, secretary." One £100 note, one £50 note, two £20 notes, one £5 note, and £5 in gold were given to Hillyer.

JOSEPH PERCIVAL HUDSON , inspector of bank notes at the Bank of England, proved that the £100 note had been passed through the Civil Service Bank, Charing Cross (the defendant Hillyer's bank); that one of the £20 notes was endorsed "J. Hibbins, 44, Bedford Row," that the £50 note was endorsed "M. Dickin," and the £5 note had only the banker's stamp upon it—the Civil Service Bank, Charing Cross, and Parr's Bank.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. The £100 note and the £5 were tendered to the Bank of England on the same day. The one with Hillyer's name on it reached the Bank of England on November 9.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. The £20 note with Hibbins's name on is endorsed by "F.S. Beck." The £50 note came through Barclay's Bank.

ERNEST PELLING , cashier at the Civil Service Bank, Charing Cross. Exhibit 17 is a certified copy of Alfred James Hillyer's account kept there. Exhibit 18 shows how the credit entry of £62 on October 26 on Exhibit 17 was made up—viz., one £100 note and one £5 note being paid in and £43 given back to him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. The total amount paid in during the time the account was running was £131. The £62 was a cheque drawn in favour of Messrs. Rickards, which came back to our bank through the London and Westminster Bank, Lothbury, and bearing upon it the stamp of the Oxford Bank.

ALEXANDER DUNCAN CHESTON . I am a clerk in charge of Barclay's Bank at the Hanwell branch, where Mrs. Monica Dickin had an account, which was opened on June 14 and closed on December 13, 1907. On October 26, 1907, a sum of £22 was paid in by means of £50 paid in, and £28 given out (£18 in cash and two £5 notes), leaving a credit of £22.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. On September 14 there is an entry, "Hillyer £12," paid by a cheque. His name does not occur again. I have not looked through the books since I gave evidence

at the police court to see whether the amount of £32 2s. 7d. paid in on June 14 included a cheque of £25. I have got "Cheque, £32 2s. 7d.," which means there is one cheque; it is improbable that it may have been cheques.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. There is nothing in the account to indicate how many cheques you paid in out of your own account on Lloyds Bank, Holborn Circus branch.

GEORGE HENRY CARTWRIGHT . I am a tea dealer carrying on business at 30, Trinity Square, E.C. I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" of October 3, "Manager required to inspect contracts and collect monies," which I answered. In reply to this I received an answer enclosing a draft agreement. I called at 44, Bedford Row on October 7 and asked for Mr. Foster. W.H. Dickin saw me and explained that Foster was ill. W.H. Dickin said he was adviser and organiser. He explained that the berth was for a district manager, and that I should have to verify the contracts that came in from canvassers. He explained the stamp system, and in order to obtain the post I was to invest £50, for which I should have 50 fully paid-up £1 shares in the Tradesmen's Provident Society. He held up a bundle of contracts, which he said were obtained in one week, and said the society was in a flourishing condition. He said that between £5,000 and £6,000 capital had been subscribed. I asked for the names of the directors, which he refused to give me. I said I would consider the matter and call again; which I did the next day, when he further explained how the contracts were obtained. On October 10 I called again and saw Hillyer, who told me he was secretary, that W.H. Dickin had been called away to Oxford. The draft agreement was shown me by Hillyer. I said I had not my cheque-book, and I would call the next day and complete with W.H. Dickin. I then said to Hillyer, "You have been in this society from its commencement evidently, may I ask what your qualification was?" He said, "£200." I said, "I am wanting to put in £50, and if there should be anything wrong with the society it means ruin to me; I ask you in confidence to tell me if there is anything which you think is not straightforward." He then explained to me that he had put in £200, and he had taken a deal of trouble, and also his solicitor and his father, inquiring about the society, and he assured me that everything was perfectly straightforward and I had nothing to fear. I said, "We are here alone, you need not be afraid—It will be strictly in confidence; if there is anything give me a hint." He said I need not fear anything. I believed it. The next day I called again and saw W.H. Dickin, who said the agreement as altered was in order, and all that remained for me to do was to pay my cheque for £50, which I did, and received a certificate for 50 shares. He also assured me that everything was quite straightforward. I was to work the "West London" district and my canvassers were to be engaged for me. On October 12 I received a letter offering me the post of managing director, which would mean my finding a further £150. I said I would consider it. I consulted my solicitor about it and he went with me to Bedford Row and asked to see the society's

books. W.H. Dickin said the secretary was out and the safe was looked up, and he could not get at the books. My solicitor advised me to have nothing to do with it. I went to 44, Bedford Row for a couple of days as manager on the advice of my solicitor. During that time I did nothing because there was nothing to do, and I subsequently demanded the return of my £50. W.H. Dickin said if I wanted my money back I should get it in due course, and that according to the rules the manager who succeeded me would take up my 50 shares and the money would be handed to me, or if another manager was not appointed in the course of three months I should have my money back. My solicitor demanded its return, but no notice was taken of the letter and I called and told W.H. Dickin that I had come for my £ 50. He said he could not pay me and I had no business there. I said I should remain there to prevent other people being served as I had been served and he said I must go out of his office. I said I would not go. A policeman was sent for, but none came. The hall porter was called, but he refused to come in. W.H. Dickin then commenced talking in a very pathetic manner, and said if I would trust him I should have my money back, and if he did not pay it, Mrs. Dickin would. He said he had more money then than ever he had in his life. I left with the understanding that he promised that he would see that I had my money. I called again the next week and saw a man (whose name I have since learned is Stoodley) and A.G. Dickin. I said I wanted to see the managing director. He said he was not there, but he could answer all questions. He said, "You have no business here, and if you are not out I shall chuck you out." I did not get any part of my money back. On October 11, when I parted with my money, I believed this was a genuine, honest society. I saw Mr. Jones and had a conversation with him. I told him my story.

(Witness having an important engagement tomorrow, his further evidence was postponed till Monday.)

(Saturday, April 4.)

(On the assembling of the Court W.H. Dickin stated that there were about a dozen witnesses he wished to call, and it was arranged that he should hand in a list of the witnesses, and the police would do what they could to secure their attendance.)

ARTHUR GEORGE PRINCE , waiter. On October 11 last I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" (produced), which I answered, and received a letter (produced) in reply, from A.J. Hillyer, in consequence of which I called at 44, Bedford Row and asked for him. I was told he was not in and was given a copy of an agreement form and a cutting from the "Draper's Record" to look at while I was waiting. After waiting some time I saw W.H. Dickin sad told him I had come about the district managership. He explained to me the system of the society and he told me that he could not possibly keep the place open longer than Monday, but that there was another position open, that of managing director, which I could have by paying another £150. I did not entertain that and said I preferred the

outside work. My salary as district manager was to be £2 a week 5 per cent. on all collections, and 5 per cent. on all contracts passed when 10s. had been paid by the tradesman. I told him I knew nothing about the work and he said he would teach me. I said I would consider the matter and let him know. I went back to Dunstable, where I then resided. I wrote to the secretary of the Tradesmen's Provident Society on October 17, and got a reply from him (Exhibit 43). I went again on October 23 to the secretary's office and saw W.H. Dickin and Hillyer. After some conversation W.H. Dickin said, "Have you come to complete?" I said, "Well, I have brought the money, if that is what you mean, but I do not want to pay you my £50 and then in two or three months for you to tell me I am no good." W.H. Dickin said, "We are like the marriage lines—we take you for better or worse." With that I parted with my money, which was in £5 notes, part of a £100 note which I had cashed the day before at the County Bank, Dunstable. The £5 notes handed to W.H. Dickin were numbered 53714 to 53723 inclusive. I then had my agreement given to me (Exhibit 44), also a share certificate for 50 shares. When W.H. Dickin was out of the room I said to Hillyer, "How is the society going, have you many tradesmen?" He said, "We are doing very well, I should say we have about 150 tradesmen members already." In consequence of my engagement as district manager I gave up my house at Dunstable and brought my wife and family to live in the North of London. On Monday, November 4, I attended at the office for the purpose of commencing my duties, and I saw a clerk whom I now know to be Stoodley, and a person I afterwards found to be A.G. Dickin. He said to me that he would come round with me to show me my duties. We went round to various tradesmen and he introduced himself to them as advertising manager and me as manager for the district. The object of calling on these tradesmen was to verify the contracts which had already been passed. A.G. Dickin was simply showing me my work. One of the first tradesmen we called on was a butcher named Jarvis, who said, "Hullo! I thought you had gone a smasher; I have been round to the office and found no one there." A.G. Dickin said to him, "This is Mr. Prince who has got money in it." I said I had, and hoped it hadn't gone smash; and that it was my first day. After we got outside I said to A.G. Dickin, "This does not look very promising." He said that that was another society, the West London, that had gone into voluntary liquidation. I asked what was the cause of it. He said, "The tradesmen in that society paid three guineas and they quarrelled amongst themselves." I said, "Had you anything to do with that?" He said he was managing director, and he was going to put £200 into the society, but he did not put his £200 in until this society was formed. He told me he had £150 in it, and he assured me there was money enough in the society to pay all of us for six months even if no business accrued, but, he said, "We shall get some business before then." I said, "I hope so." He also said he was looking forward to a nice dividend at Christmas. I said, "That sounds better." He said the

capital was £50,000. I asked how much had been subscribed, and be said, "I should say from £20,000 to £26,000." We went round to a number of tradesmen, and they were all waiting, at I found out afterwards, for promises to be fulfilled, in some cases which had been made three months previously. The system was this—that when these contracts were supposed to be passed the tradesmen consented to become members of the Tradesmen's Providence, Limited; they were told that immediately on becoming members and the contracts being verified their names would be put into print on the little booklet which would be distributed or circulated in their neighbourhood by lady canvassers in two or three days; but I never saw a lady canvasser. Many of the tradesmen complained that they hadn't received the books or the literature promised them. I was working in that way, I should say, for about a fortnight, or probably more. A.G. Dickin was with me during the first fortnight but not after then. During that time I did not do any better because there was no business to be done. I did my duty as far as I could. During my first or second week there I saw an article in "Truth," and I spoke to W.H. Dickin and Hillyer about it. I saw Hillyer first end asked him if he had seen the article in "Truth," and he said it was absolute lies—all rot—or words to that effect. W.H. Dickin came in while I was talking to Hillyer, and told me they had been at him for 10 years. I said, "This is very dirty," and be assured me that it rested in his solicitor's hands, and if they said he was to go on with it he was going on with it; and he put his two fingers on the table, it might be like this (describing), and he said, "That is right, and this is wrong; I never get into my bed any night without doing this"—that is right. Then I thought that he was not so black as he was painted. About November 26 I was told there was money to collect in the Cricklewood district, which was not really my district, and I obliged them by going on that district. As the result of my calling on the tradesmen in that district I found that they were dissatisfied and I made a report, dated November, for the week ending November 30, to the managing director. (The report wit read.) I did no good in that district, and I told W.H. Dickin and Hillyer it was impossible to work, and I would not go out unless the society was placed on a proper basis, and unless the promises were kept it was impossible to do any business. I remained at the offices up to the time of the arrest of the defendants. When they left there would be about a fortnight's wages due to me, for one of which weeks I got a post-dated cheque which was dishonoured. After I said I could not go on working the business I got this letter (50), dated November 27. I saw W.H. Dickin and Hillyer the next morning when I went to the office. The effect of this letter meant practically a request for £150 more. W.H. Dickin told me that the qualification for the managing director was another £150, but as they had come to the conclusion that I should be useful to them on the board they would let me off on my paying another £50 down and working the other out in wages. This was within five or six days of their arrest. W.H. Dickin said that he himself and Hillyer had practically given

every farthing they possessed to the society, and they could not touch the money belonging to the society, as it had been locked up since the proceedings in the County Court over the furniture. He then asked me would I mind if he gave me a post-dated cheque for the following Thursday for my money. I said I did not mind. That cheque (Exhibit 51) is a cheque on Barclay's Bank, Hanwell branch, "Pay A.E. Prince or order £2," signed "Monica Dickin," and across it is written, "Cancelled in error." That cheque was returned dishonoured, and it is marked "N./S." I believe all books that were at 44, Bedford Row, were taken to Parliament Chambers. From November 4 to December 4 I was there practically daily; I never saw any signs of any genuine business at all. When I parted with my money I honestly believed that this was a good society and a genuine business.

His Lordship said that the witnesses W.H. Dickin asked to be brought lived a considerable distance away, and it would be an enormous expense calling them; if the Treasury refused to pay their expenses there were no funds out of which those witnesses could be paid, and that to order witnesses whose evidence might possibly be as irrelevant to the inquiry as most of the cross-examination of the prisoner W.H. Dickin was a very serious matter.

Mr. Symmons said that he would consult with Sir Charles Mathews and would ask his Lordship's permission to allow the matter to remain in abeyance until Monday.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. I seriously tell the Jury that there was no genuine business done. The first day I was there I simply waited until A.G. Dickin was ready to go out. I walked out with him and did not return that day. I saw a great number of "check books" similar to Exhibit 52. Since these names were printed in this book handed to me I have not been round. I may say that 20 of these names have no business on this cover at all. When Hillyer told me there were 150 members that was the day I paid my £50. I went out with him on either the third or fourth day with 25 so-called "contracts" over Blackfriars Bridge, and we found that 20 out of the 25 were fictitious. I do not know that that would be the fault of the canvassers and not the fault of the office. I met Delaine at the office. I believe he was a district manager like myself, working a district. He told me he was doing a lot of collecting. The delay in getting printed matter from the printer was most probably due to the fact that he was waiting for his money. All the contracts I passed were under the instructions of A.G. Dickin, and they were all in the office before I went there. A.G. Dickin told me that the Croydon tradesmen were given four £1 shares in the new society—the Tradesmen's Provident Society—and that they were redeeming the old checks. There was only one canvasser that I saw the first week, and he was dismissed after the first week. The next canvasser was also dismissed, and I never saw any others. After I saw the article in "Truth" I put myself into communications with that newspaper, and I followed the instructions of the police. When I was invited to become managing director by that letter I had been in

communication some time with the police. During the time I was there I cannot say that Hillyer did anything more than discharge the duties of secretary; I never recognised him as managing director. Hillyer never, to my recollection, represented W.H. Dickin as a person of means.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. When I applied for the situaion I told you generally what I had been. As to canvassers being appointed, I told you I did not want to appoint them until I got used the business. After the first fortnight there were none to appoint. The terms of my engagement are correctly set out in the agreement. The name on the door was "The Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited, registered September 13, 1907. Share capital £50,000." The postcard which I sent addressed to a "Mr. Meekin" was due to my having confused your name with his. When I first went to the office I had to wait in a little room, and then I went into your room and you went through to the other room through another door to have the agreement typewritten. It might have, taken from eight to twelve minutes to type it—I cannot say. I do not know Mossop; I have never seen him..

The Jury said they were very anxious to know whether Mr. Mossop and Mr. Hibbins were going to be called.

His Lordship said that he himself had suggested that, as Mr. Mossop was present at the interview in his capacity as solicitor, he might himself wish to explain the fact of his being there and taking part in what was alleged by the prosecution to have been a swindle.

Mr. Symmons said that Hibbins was discharged by the magistrate at Bow Street, but he would be called, but that the prosecution were not calling Mr. Mossop as a witness.

Cross-examination by W.H. Dickin continued. Until the contracts were passed, there would be no need to appoint lady canvassers. I cannot tell you if a man named Whiting was the man who had taken the contracts prior to my going there. I think you know the reason you did not get the printing. I never said that I would be responsible for it. You asked me one day to call on the printer on my way home, and I did so. I do not think I have got a letter that Hillyer wrote me complaining that one of the men working in my district had taken a number of orders and that he declared that he could collect £2 a week in my district. I say that the man was telling absolute lies and that to prove it I would walk round again. The cause of the complaints from tradesmen was that the people could not get the literature promised. The only conversation that I had with this man was when I was at the County Court listening to the proceedings over the furniture, and he said that it was impossible to do any more business in the district as the society began to stink.

Mr. Aronson submitted that as the evidence stood at present there was no occasion for A.G. Dickin to prove anything at all. The learned Judge thought that it was so.

Cross-examination by W.H. Dickin continued. I am not aware that I complained that Delaine was drawing commission and I was not. I knew that he was dissatisfied with the business. Anything

that I could tell the police I told them. I stayed on at Parliament; Chambers because I knew I had lost money, and I thought if I could stop others from being swindled I would do so. There was a telephone or speaking tube at Parliament Chambers. These cards produced were made out by instructions from your brother, A.G. Dickin He instructed me to write "passed" on them. From the first, before I invested my money, I believed the thing was a genuine concern. I have not said that one of the things I did believe was the article in the "Drapers Record." I believed the article to express the whole system. I believed at the first that the thing would have been genuine if honest people were at the bottom of it. This portrait on the back of this pamphlet is supposed to be a facsimile of yourself. I found out your name was Dickin. I know it to my sorrow.

(Monday, April 6.)

ARTHUR GEORGE PRINCE , recalled. Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. At the first interview you told me that the position of managing director at £200 a year was vacant, and I could have that if I liked. I believed that the whole thing was genuine. I said I knew absolutely nothing about the business, and you said you would teach me, but I found out more than you could teach me after three days. I passed no contracts on my own initiative. The majority of complaints that were made were that the promises were not fulfilled—half of the people had not got the literature, and the excuse that A.G. Dickin made on several occasions was that they could not get it from the printers. A.G. Dickin when he went out with me was dressed about the same as he is now with the exception of a silk hat. You told me that "Truth" had been at you for 10 years. As far as I remember you told me something about hawking things down area steps, selling watches to servants. As the result of what you told me I thought you had been painted blacker than you ought to have been. I called your attention and Hillyer's before November 30 to the fact that complaints had been made. I did not pass any contracts without A.G. Dickin. The object of our visit was to see whether the contract was genuine. I did not know that A.G. Dickin was succeeding Whiting. I heard his name but I did not know what his position was. I should not expect to go round the first day collecting money; I was simply being taught under your instructions. I was perfectly willing to do my duty, but there was nothing to do. When you gave me the post-dated cheque I gave Hillyer a receipt in his book for it. I received no money for the cheque. All the cheques were signed, "Monica Dickin"; I presume it was her money. It was not a genuine business, and you know it. When you invited me to invest my money you were absolutely insolvent. There are hundreds of things that I have not stated which you told me which were absolute lies; I found out you were telling me absolute lies right away through. You advised me to go away for a holiday for three weeks without payment. I cannot tell you whether there was a need of a director at the time you invited me to become a director

I saw no directors. There is something in the agreement about selling shares, but I cannot remember all that is in it. I never tried to sell any shares. You told me you were general adviser to the society. I had a good opinion of you at first, but not since. If there was any "scheming" you would have the ability to do it. I do not know that an organiser has to be a schemer. (The cross-examination was temporarily postponed pending the production of certain documents.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. The first time I saw A.G. Dickin was on November 4. I had paid my money before that time. I suppose A.G. Dickin would get his orders from his brother, W.H. Dickin. I cannot tell whether A.G. Dickin was ever consulted about the affairs of the society at all; what was done behind the scenes I do not know. On the first day I went A.G. Dickin introduced himself to me as advertising manager. I suggest that he did tell me that he had put £150 into the society. I think he told me that his salary was £2 a week, but he had a commission, from what I gleaned. He did not say that he would like to have £150 in the business—he distinctly told me that he had £150 in it, and that he expected a nice dividend at Christmas.

(Cross-examination by W.H. Dickin resumed.) These contracts produced are the contracts that A.G. Dickin and myself went out to check after they had been passed during the first week. Those that I passed myself were under the instructions of A.G. Dickin. These contracts (indicating) had already been passed before I came on the scene. I simply went round with A.G. Dickin to verify them. I wrote these cards under A.G. Dickin's direction. I believe they had to be printed; whether I was writing them for the printer I do not know.

Re-examined. Hillyer's description in the letter of November 27 is that of "managing director"; but I have always looked upon him as secretary and nothing else. I got that letter after I had been there about three weeks.

ERNEST TRIBE , chief clerk to the London and County Bank, Dunstable, proved the changing by the last witness of a £100 note on October 22 last for 19 £5 notes and £5 in gold; the numbers of the £5 notes being 53705 to 53723.

JOSEPH PERCIVAL HUDSON , recalled. I produce 10 £5 notes, numbered 53714 to 53723. Three of them, numbered 53714, 53719, 53720, bear the stamp of the Civil Service Bank. No. 53715 has an endorsement on it, "A.J. Hillyer, 44, Bedford Row"; No. 53716 has "W.H. Dickin, 44, Bedford Row," endorsed on it; No. 53723 has "A.G. Dickin," and Nos. 53717 and 53718 bear the endorsement of "H.C. Mossop," which came back to the Bank of England through Parr's Bank, Streatham.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. Only three were endorsed by Hillyer. No. 53715 was cashed at the Bank of England on October 24, 1907.

GEORGE HENRY CARTWRIGHT , recalled. Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. Before joining the society I did not go through the matter

with my solicitor. I wish I had, because I should have saved my money. At the time I joined the society there were two other managers—one named Delaine. C. Hughes may have been the other. The conversation I had with Hillyer certainly did weigh with my determination to accept this position. When I had this conversation I had not seen my solicitor, but I had paid my cheque. I said to Hillyer, "You have evidently been here from its commencement, may I ask what your qualification was?" and he told me £200. I then said, "Will you tell me in confidence what you think of the society? It is a very serious matter for me—in fact, it means ruin to me if there should be any mistake or it should prove not to be genuine." He told me he had £200 in the society; that it was his qualification fee, and he was quite satisfied as to its stability. He may have said he got married last August. He did not show me his agreement. He mentioned that he had an agreement and that he and his solicitor and his father had taken some considerable trouble before parting with his money. He said that I need not hesitate at all; and on my suggesting my going to see my solicitor before I handed over my money, he said, "You need not do that; save your money." As to the district that I was to manage, the canvassers were to be engaged for me. Hillyer made a representation that the society was a genuine, prosperous one and was carrying on business.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. I am not aware that I have ever seen Howarth. The first conversation I had about the business of the society was not with him, but with you. I certainly said I thought that the remuneration was to be £2 and £5 a week commission—together £7. I did not suggest that the society ought to make an advance on account of future commissions. The foundation upon which the society was worked looked to me to be the same as the giving of trading stamps and redeeming them at tradesmen's shop. You explained your system to me. I knew there was business being done by co-operative societies, but I did not know the extent. This is the first time I have ever seen these red contracts. The bundle which you held up and which you said were contracts were on white paper. When I had that conversation with Hillyer we were alone, and that is the reason I asked him in confidence. He was not likely to give you away. I do not think he was present at any previous interview, but he was there in the same interests as yourself—to get my money. With regard to the other £150 you wanted to get out of me, my solicitor said he would find out in five minutes whether the whole thing was a fraud, and he proved it was.

The defendant, W.H. Dickin, proposed to read some items from Mr. Mossop's bill of costs, but this was objected to and the objection upheld.

Witness. The object you had was to get my further £150. You thought I was an extra "bait" as to the £150 when you gave me that letter. My solicitor, I believe, asked you for my £50 to be returned. You did not say that any communication he wanted to make must be made to the solicitor of the society. My solicitor made a communication to the society's solicitor on the 17th. You said my £50 would be

paid back in due course, and my successor would be bound to take over my shares. I have not the slightest doubt that I told your mother-in-law that the whole lot of you would be arrested, because the law would not allow you to go on in the way you were going on; that is, taking people's money and kicking them out.

(W.H. Dickin, at 2.24, stated that as it would take him another two hours to finish his cross-examination, he would not proceed further with it, his Lordship having said he should stop him at 2.30.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. I had only seen A.G. Dickin when we had the little "brush" and once before.

WALTER HOOLE , 84, The Grove, Ealing, accountant. On November 28 my attention was directed to an advertisement in a newspaper. (Exhibit 80.) I wrote a letter in reply to that (Exhibit 81), and in answer to my letter I received a letter signed "Alfred J. Hillyer, managing director." (Exhibit 82.) Enclosed in that was a synopsis of the system, which contained this statement: "The whole of the money received by the society for shares is, and will be, used for the extension of the business and for no other purpose." I also got a copy of the "estimated balance-sheet," which I read with the other document. On December 2 I called at Parliament Chambers, Great Smith Street, Westminster, saw Hillyer, who posed as managing director of the society. I told him I did not agree with the estimated balance-sheet at all and pointed out various things. He said it had been done very roughly and handed me an amended one. (Exhibit 84.) He showed me a book of the rules of the society and said there was £1,470 of capital subscribed, of which he had contributed £200. He said he had had many others after the post, but he would give me preference as I was a chartered accountant. There was another man in the office, whom I afterwards found out to be W.H. Dickin. He was present during some of my conversation with Hillyer. The next day I got a letter and draft agreement. (Exhibit 85.) I looked it through after my solicitor had made some pencil alterations in it. I rang the society up on the telephone and asked for Hillyer. The person I spoke to said he was Hillyer. The next morning I received a letter from Hillyer and kept an appointment at the society's offices. He was there with W.H. Dickin. I asked to see the register of members, which was produced, and which purported to show that 1,470 shares had been issued. I also saw an entry in it as to 200 shares standing in Hillyer's name and that he had paid cash for them. Having seen those entries I made up my mind to complete the matter. I asked them when they would want payment to be made, and they said on the signing of the agreement. I said it was not convenient for me to let them have the £200 immediately, I could let them have £50 on account; and it was arranged that I should send them £50 that evening. I said to Hillyer, "You must have misunderstood what I said on the telephone yesterday." He said, "Oh, it was not I, it was my managing clerk, Mr. Dickin, who spoke to you," nodding over to the place where W.H. Dickin had been sitting—he was not there then. The same evening I drew a cheque for £50 (Exhibit 89), and sent it to the office of the society, and with it a form of receipt I had

brought away from the office. The cheque, however, fell into safe hands; it reached there after they had been arrested. It has never been presented. When I parted with my cheque I thought it was a good thing carried out honestly. I believed the statements that were made to me. My solicitor told me to have nothing to do with it, but as Hillyer was practically a member of the same profession as myself I took it to be genuine. (To the Judge.) It struck me as rather a good thing. I thought it was like putting money on a horse.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. Hillyer did not tell me that he was originally appointed secretary, but that the managing director having resigned he had recently been appointed to occupy that position—he told me he was general secretary. When we were talking about the capital he may have said that he did not want a very big capital. I asked him who the directors were. He said there had been resignations, and there was only himself at present, but that they were hoping to appoint new directors, who would be new tradesmen, who had come into the society. With regard to the estimated balance-sheet I knew it was purely problematical.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. When Hillyer brought me into the room in which you were you did not get up, and I was not introduced to you. I saw you on December 2 and 4. The fact that a chartered accountant was selected out of 20 other applicants was, I should say, a guarantee of intention of honesty. You were present during part of the conversation.

WILLIAM STOODLEY . I am living at present at Leyton. I have known W.H. Dickin since I was a boy of about 10. In October last I went to see him and told him I was out of employment, and he said he would give me a situation. I went back between November 1 and 4, and was engaged as a clerk and messenger. Hillyer was at the office that day. I was introduced as a friend. I ran messages and had to make myself useful. When anyone called I used to ring through to W.H. Dickin and Hillyer, and sometimes they would see them, and sometimes they would not. With regard to the entry in the minute book of November 8, I did not know anything about my being appointed secretary. That is my signature at the bottom of the page. I asked what they wanted my name for, and they said they were giving a full account of the postage stamps that had been used, and I believed it and signed my name. Both these pages were blank when I signed my name. The word "Secretary" is not in my writing. With regard to the entry on November 5, I never heard anything of this board meeting at which I was appointed secretary. I was at Bedford Row about a week. With regard to the entry of a board meeting on November 15, I was not present at any such meeting. I think the writing is Hillyer's. There was not much work at Bedford Row, and rather less at Parliament Street. A.G. Dickin was supposed to be advertisement manager. I remember Mr. Hoole calling when Hillyer and W.H. Dickin were in. After Mr. Hoole had been in, W.H. Dickin said he would pay me my back salary; there were two weeks and two or three days owing to me then. The furniture went from

Bedford Row to Parliament Chambers. I believe there was an action in the county court about it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. I can write and read pretty well. I was in the police force for some years. I saw Mr. Prince one day at Bedford Row, but I do not know whether it was the 4th. I do not recollect seeing Delaine there. (To the Judge.) I did not resign from the police force. I had a little misfortune. I was dismissed from the force. (To Mr. Lambert.) I cannot recollect seeing Lampard at Bedford Row. I used to keep a little postage book, but it was not filled up at this time. It did not strike me as an odd thing that I should be required to put my signature in a book that was not the postage book. I thought as W.H. Dickin was my guv'nor I should do what he told me. I signed some documents in my capacity at secretary under W.H. Dickin's instructions. I signed this document because W.H. Dickin explained to me that the. secretary was out.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. I was not very frightened when you were arrested; there was nothing for me to be frightened about. I remember going to your house with my father, who thanked you for what you had said for me at the police court. I never saw the solicitor. I have never been to his office. I do not know who he is. You and Hillyer generally sat together. I used to do some copying for you at Bedford Row. I went home about five o'clock. I was at Bedford Row for about three weeks. When you were arrested I was not afraid of anything because I knew what was going to occur.

Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. A.G. Dickin had to obey orders—he was a servant as far as I knew. He was away for two or three days. He used to go in to W.H. Dickin and Hillyer and report to them.

Re-examined. I never heard of A.G. Dickin getting any wages. He was advertisement manager. I cannot do typewriting as well as it is done on Exhibit 50. Hillyer always typed the letters.

FREDERICK PERCIVAL JARETT ALEXANDER . I am an insurance agent living at Hackney. I have known Hillyer for some years. In August last I was visiting him at Bedford Row in connection with some insurance matter, and he asked me if I would sign some articles of association in connection with sortie society issuing trading stamps. I told him I did not wish to sign them, but he pressed me to do so and I signed them. Another signature is that of a Mr. Mather. Subsequently to that I again called on Hillyer, and he asked me to sign a book of rules on account of the registrar making some alteration in some rules. I noticed Mr. Mather's signature in the book. I knew that at that time he was in the South of France. I asked how he got Mather's signature—whether he had sent it to him for his signature, and he said, "No, they did it inside," pointing to a room that I believe was in the occupation of W.H. Dickin. I did not know that as a signatory I was one of the directors, until I was told so by the police. I did not have any communication from the society as to any directors' meeting. My name appearing in the minute book

under date September 14 is not my writing. I have never been present at any meeting at any office which the society had or was supposed to have had. I never had any certificate of shares nor paid anything for the one share I had, nor got any dividend or bonus.

(Tuesday, April 7.)

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. I did not know that I was a director, and when I signed the rules I did not know I was pledging myself to take a share in the society—I know it now. I did not read the rules. I knew it was necessary to have so many signatures before the Registrar of Friendly Societies could register. I had not met either of the prisoner before signing the rules.

Re-examined. The signature on the minute book is not mine. I took no part in the appointment of directors. I only signed the Articles of Association. I have had no certificate for one share, nor applied for one, nor paid for it.

CHARLES PARGETON , clerk, London and County Bank, High Holborn. I produce copy account of the Tradesmen's Provident Society, opened September 23, 1907, and operated upon up to October 19, 1907, when there was a balance of£5 10s. 6d., which still remains—I suppose there has been a stop put on it. The total of the account is £372 16s. 6d., including £50, which was at once paid out. There are 12 cheques to W.H. Dickin, amounting to £125 16s.; Mossop, two cheques, £32 and £10; two to Salomis, £26 and £9; Foster, five cheques, amounting to £18; Howard, two cheques, amounting to £5 18s.; cash, five cheques, amounting to £20.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. On October 19 we received a letter from North and Talbot, solicitors acting for members of the society, and directing us not to part with any further funds. I know of no cheques dishonoured before that date.

JOHN HUGH MATHER , advertisement canvasser. In June, 1907, I saw Hillyer at 44, Bedford Row, entered into an agreement to learn the business of a chartered accountant, and paid him a premium of 50 guineas. There was not much business doing. I learnt that he was connected with various Tradesmen's Provident Societies. I was away on a vacation from September 3 to November 16. I signed with Alexander two books of rules on August 16, and the pink form produced. I did not know the rules had to be altered. The name on the book produced is not my signature—I know nothing about it. I had no certificate for a £1 share and paid nothing in respect of it. On September 14 I was in Havre. I had nothing to do with signing the document produced. I have attended no meeting of directors.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. I examined the first set of rules which I signed in August. I should have signed the second set if asked. Shortly after my signing it Hillyer left for this honeymoon. I saw him on September 2 and 3. It was never suggested to me that I was to be director. If anyone wanted to communicate with

Hillyer he would be put through on the telephone—there was a private telephone to each room. I was at Bedford Row from June or July to September 3. When I came the names of a number of societies were up on a white tablet—there was no alteration that I noticed. Hillyer had two or three rooms; it was a small office; he was forming a laundry company. I audited with him the books of a restaurant which he was going to form into a company. He had other work besides the societies. I remember W.H. Dickin instructing Hillyer. W.H. Dickin was in the offices when the signing took place, but I think not in the room.

HAROLD NISBET PRICE , chartered accountant, 450, Birkbeck Bank Chambers. On October 10, 1907, I was appointed liquidator of the West London Tradesmen's Provident Society. That society was registered November 12, 1906, and is in voluntary liquidation. I received the books. The register of members and minute book I received from Mr. North, who was acting for the majority of the members, who had taken possession. I received further books five or six days later, after making several applications to the secretary and then to the solicitor. I sent my clerk several times to Hillyer at 44, Bedford Row, and he came back without the books. I got them eventually. The offices were on the second and fourth floors at 44, Bedford Row. A.G. Dickin was managing director, W.H. Dickin general adviser, and Hillyer secretary. Exhibit 103 is a summary of the receipts and payments during the existence of the society. From 103 members subscriptions were paid amounting to £185 17s.; on account of subscriptions, £10 2s. 6d., making £196 19s. 6d.; receipts from cheques, £10 1s. 9d.; from A.J. Hillyer, £200; sale of furniture, £52; Dorset Tradesmen's Society, £3 12s. 1d.; Croydon Society, £10 11s. 11d.; Oxford Society, £2; rent, £21 4s.; making a total of receipts £479 5s. 3d.; balance overdrawn, £95 0s. 9d.; petty cash book, 19s. 7d.; making a total debit balance of £96 0s. 4d. On the other side the payments are to W.H. Dickin, £185 10s.; A.G. Dickin, £86 8s. 10d.; Cox, £31 10s.; Hillyer, £28 18s. 5d.; rent, £29 17s.; directors' fees, £14; furniture, £18; postage, stationery, advertising, legal expenses, salaries, etc., £85 1s. 1d.; balance at bank, 3s. 1d. I find no trace of any stamps being redeemed or any fund put aside for the purpose of redemption. £10 1s. 9d. had been received from cheques (stamps)—that is the amount of legitimate business. The bank account was opened on June 11, 7907, and closed July 30, 1907, with a credit of £150 from Hillyer. The total payments in were £245 1s. 2d. On July 30 there were no assets beyond the bank balance of 3s. 1d. There was some furniture which had been transferred to the Tradesmen's Provident Society. There is an undated entry in the ledger in Hillyer's writing of £40 for furniture bought from Wolfe and Hollander. That firm was threatening action for payment of their bill, £40 18s. 3d. I saw their solicitor, and explained that there were no assets to realise upon, and they took no further proceedings. Other furniture had come from the Croydon Society, supplied by Fenton. A minute of September 4, 1907, in Hillyer's handwriting records that the Croydon Society owed

the West London Society £26 for rent, and in consequence the managing director had locked the rooms on the fourth floor and taken possession of the furniture therein—"This course was unanimously approved." (Minutes were read authorising the sale of the furniture to Rickard for £52.)Out of that sum payments were made to A.J. Hillyer, £15; W.H. Dickin, £9 15s.; A.G. Dickin, £9 15s.; and £15 10s. to housekeeper, window-cleaner, etc., making £50 of the £52. It was then resolved that in the interests of the society the management be placed in the members as a body, and the officers resigned with the exception, of the secretary, Hillyer. In the cash book, folio 13 is an entry in Hillyer's writing of September 5, 1907, "Cash, M. Rickard, furniture, £52." I find no invoice or receipt recording that sale; there is no trace of the money being paid into the bank, or how it was disposed of except the above-mentioned items in the cash book. There is no correspondence in the letter book about the sale of furniture. Of the 59 payments of £3 3s. recorded as paid by subscribers, about half is paid into the bank; the remaining 30 payments are accounted for in the cash book. The West London Society was an absolute failure from the subscribers point of view—they got nothing out of it; the majority of the money went to W.H. Dickin. Hillyer received £200, which he was supposed to have put in. Of that £200 £150 is traced into the bank account, the other £50 I cannot trace. I got into communication with several of the members and they considered the society a total failure. Several of those put in the list as members were not members. Members were liable under the guarantee of £1 each; I collected about £12 from them. I have examined the books of the Tradesmen's Provident Society, and prepared a summary of the receipts and payments. (Exhibit 104.)The total receipts are £1,046 7s. 8d., out of which W.H. Dickin receives £499 1s.; Hillyer, £53, and £10 on account of purchase of furniture; Mossop, solicitor's fees, £110; J.J. Jones, £50; directors' fees, £16. £987 19s. 1d. are the total receipts shown by the cash book. Of that only £372 16s. 6d. went into the banking account. Prince £50, and Southwell £200 are entered in a separate column in the cash book under "House account"—I have never seen that expression before, and do not know what house it refers to. On September 23 there is a minute recording a resolution to sell the furniture for £62 by bill at one month, and on October 26 there is an entry in the cash book of the receipt of £62. This furniture was supplied by Wolfe and Hollander, and Fenton, and was apparently the property of the West London Society; part of it then passed to the possession of the South London Society and then it all becomes the property of the Tradesmen's Provident. Rickard buys it for £52 from the West London; sells it to the South London Society for £62. I can trace no payment to or from Rickard in respect of it. As the liquidator of the West London I tried to get possession of the furniture; I was told it belonged to the Tradesmen's Provident, who had bought it. I saw the furniture at the offices, 44, Bedford Row—it was in very good condition.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lambert. I have not seen Hillyer's banking account. I was instructed to make a report upon the Tradesmen's

Provident in December, 1907. I have reported on its position according to the books as they stood. I presume the heading "House" and "Bank" in the cash book are the same as "Cash" and "Bank." According to the minutes there is a liability to Prior and Rickards of £62; there are entries in the ledger showing a liability without the amount being mentioned. The cash book and petty cash book are in Hillyer's handwriting. There it no portion of receipts put aside for redemption of checks. The receipts for checks sold only amounted to £5 3s. 11d. I do not know what proportion according to the rules should be put aside for redemption. In the ledger I find, "Foster, 200 shares"; it is apparent that they had been given to him. Under his agreement dated September 23, appointing him secretary, Hillyer received 200 shares and £3 a week. Payments show £53 paid as salary and £10 on account of furniture. The petty cash book in Hillyer's writing shows payments of £22 10s. 9d. more than he received. The books show that Hillyer has found £200 for the Tradesmen's Provident and received £53 by way of salary less £22 overpaid in petty cash—that is £31 for his services from July to November. I am not in a position to say that he overpaid the petty cash. Of course, he was drawing a salary from the West London. I cannot trace any payment back to him of the £200. I am not in a position to say the accounts are dishonest; they are incomplete. The credit entries are made up from entries I find in the books.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. £34 altogether is shown to be provided by W.H. Dickin in the petty cash. Besides the furniture supplied by Wolfe and Hollander and Fenton, there appears to be paid £5 to Nye and Co. for fittings; a sum to Auld and Co. for desks and tables; £12 to Prior and Rickard for desks, and board table £2 10s. Cash advanced by Vennell, £16 10s., is repaid. There is not £320 due to me as liquidator—I should be very glad to find it if there is. The books are correct as far as I know, but they are not complete. On October 24 and 30 I find £150 received from Hibbins and £150 from Vennell. On October 24 there is paid to W.H. Dickin £150, and on October 30 £90 and £60; that £300 is included in the £499 received by W.H. Dickin.

Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. From the books of the Tradesmen's Provident Society I find that A.G. Dickin has only received £2 a week salary.

CHARLES HENRY KNOTT , 44, Bedford Row, housekeeper. I know the three prisoners as occupying offices in connection with a number of societies. They took four rooms on the second floor in May, 1906, and afterwards had four rooms on the fourth floor. They removed in November, 1907, to Parliament Chambers, Charing Cross. The furniture was all removed on November 8, 11, and 12.

Cross-examined. The furniture came on two occasions. There was one room known as Hillyer's room. It is possible for furniture to come in without my knowing.

THOMAS STANLEY FREPPON , 300, Mile End Road, ironmonger. I carry on business in the name of C. McCarthy. On March 5, 1907,

A.G. Dickin called on me and I became a member of the East London Society, and paid £3 3s. on July 2. I afterwards saw W.H. Dickin at 44, Bedford Row; he spoke to me with regard to some office furniture he required, and on July 13 wrote ordering furniture to the value of £58 8s. 11d. for the Dorset and District Society, which I supplied. I made several applications for payment, sued and obtained judgment by default. A distress was put in at 44, Bedford Row with a view of seizing the furniture, and it was claimed for rent by another of these beautiful societies. I saw there the bulk of the furniture I had supplied.

JOHN FARMER , salesman to Wolfe and Hollander, house furnishers, 52, Tottenham Court Road. On December 15 A.G. Dickin and Hillyer selected a quantity of furniture and ordered it to be supplied to 44, Bedford Row, in the name of the West London Tradesmen's Society, to the value of £40 18s. 3d., which was supplied. I applied for payment and saw W.H. Dickin. He wanted two invoices made out for two portions of furniture, one for Hillyer and one for himself. I asked him to write to the bookkeeper of our firm. Correspondence passed, but no payment was made. Our solicitor was instructed and a writ was issued, when the West London Society went into liquidation.

RICHARD SKINNER . In October, 1907, I received an application from two gentlemen to join the Tradesmen's Society, and received stamp book and show-card produced. I had nothing further to do with it. Contract note produced bearing my name is not in my writing, and I have given no authority to anyone to sign it on my behalf. No canvassers have called upon me. I do not recognise A.G. Dickin.

Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. I did not pay anything to the society. The two men who called said that I was to pay for the stamps as I gave them away, and that they would send canvassers round. I said I would put the show-cards in the window. As no customers called on me the book of stamps was put in the drawer and has remained there ever since. (To W.H. Dickin.) I was given to understand that canvassers would be sent round recommending people to come to my place. I received the booklet a month after the two men called.

Re-examined. I heard of no canvassers having gone round the district.

ALBERT WINTER , 9, Grove Street, King's Cross, provision merchant. In October, 1907, two men called on me from the Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited. I told them I would have nothing to do with them. Afterwards a book of stamps was delivered, and the two men called again. I told them I did not like the idea, and would have nothing to do with it. Contract note produced bearing, my name is not signed by me nor with my authority. It has on it, "Passed, A.G.D." The stamps are lying on the shelf in my shop.

RALPH BOSMAN , 53, Stamford Street, hairdresser. I know nothing of the Tradesmen's Provident Society. No one has called on me nor

canvassed me about it. Contract note bearing my name (produced) is not signed by me nor by my authority.

Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. I have an assistant, and am sometimes out.

Re-examined. My assistant has been with me nine years and would report to me any caller.

Sergeant WILLIAM STEVENS, E Division. On December 4 I searched Parliament Chambers and found a large quantity of books and papers, a good many of which I have brought here—the register of directors and managers of the Dorset Tradesmen's Society; minute book and cash book of the Tradesmen's Provident; paying-in book of the London and City Bank; cheque book with 50 cheques unused; register of shares allotted, showing that 51 persons have paid £1,253 into the society; a number of returned cheques; eight receipts showing money paid to Dickin by the Tradesmen's Provident between September 23 and November 30, amounting to £500 1s.; four receipts showing £50 paid to Mossop; six receipts of Hillyer for £24; three receipts, for £5 4s.; two receipts, A.G. Dickin, for £2; receipts to Howarth and Walter Foster; receipt of £50 to Jones; agreement between the Tradesmen's Provident Society and Hillyer, Southwell, Jones, Foster, Cartwright, Prince, Hughes, Allen, and others; letters from North and Talbot to the West London Society; receipts for advertising; a number of letters from Jones and others which have been exhibited; bill of exchange for £62 with "Orders not to pay" across it; two sheets of paper showing that £251 5s. 6d. had been received by the Dorset Tradesmen's Society; bill of exchange at one month drawn by Willans and accepted payable at the London and City Bank, Holborn, "for the Tradesmen's Provident, A.J. Hillyer, secretary.," cancelled, and with "Orders not to pay" written across it; share certificate book of the Tradesmen's Provident.

Cross-examined by W.H. Dickin. A large quantity of literature and other stuff was left behind.

Detective-inspector JAMES STOCKLEY, Bow Street. On December 4 I went with the last witness to Parliament Chambers at 12.10 p.m., and saw A.G. Dickin on the first floor. I asked him his name; he said Arthur Dickin. I told him I was going to arrest him on a warrant for conspiring with his brother William to defraud Mr. Southwell of £200. I then went into an adjoining office on the same floor and saw Hillyer and W.H. Dickin. They acknowledged their names. I said I was going to arrest them on a warrant. I then called A.G. Dickin into the room and read the warrant to the three. W.H. Dickin said, "I have been expecting this. I suppose you know that when the article appeared in 'Truth' I called at Scotland Yard, and at Theobald's Road Police Station as well as the station at Hanwell, to ask if the police were wanting to arrest me. I am glad of the opportunity of seeing this matter through." I said the offence that the warrant related to was alleged to have occurred in the previous October, when the Tradesmen's Provident Society was carried on at 44, Bedford Row; therefore they would be taken to Bow

Street and charged. That was done; they made no answer to the charge. They were searched. On W.H. Dickin was found 2s. 2d.; on A.G. Dickin 1s. 8d.; and on Hillyer 4s. The next morning I found at the office an unopened letter containing a cheque of Mr. Rule.

Statement by A.G. Dickin. Anything I have done with the Tradesmen's Provident Society I have done in good faith by orders from directors according to my agreement. In certain charges against me I shall be able to prove I was not in the Tradesmen's Provident Society's employment when either they were interviewed or persuaded to put their money into the same.

(Mr. McDonald submitted that there was no evidence against A.G. Dickin; that he was a mere servant, as was admitted by witnesses. Held that on both counts there was evidence to go to the jury.)


WILLIAM HENRY DICKIN (prisoner, on oath) read for 3 1/2 hours a statement setting out the history of the various companies and his proceedings with regard to the various prosecutors.

(Wednesday, April 8.)

WILLIAM HENRY DICKIN , cross-examined. The Co-operative Accident Assurance Association was registered under the, Companies Act, October 25, 1905. John Hibbins was secretary and I managing director. It was followed by the General Accident Company; it was wound up under the order of Mr. Justice Buckley, August 30, 1906, with liabilities £2,792 7s. 11d., estimated assets £182; but I had the consent of the Official Receiver to enter into a contract in my own name for the sale of that society for £2,000 in cash and £8,000 in shares. The General Accident Insurance Society was registered under the Companies Act on July 31, 1906; Vennell provided £150 of the £300 for registration; John Laurence Hibbins and myself were signatories. My wife, Monica Dickin, held 1,000 shares. I was one of the joint managers; that company was wound up under the order of Mr. Justice Warrington on November 1, 1906. Wertheimer and Lee and Armitage and Ibbetson were printers to the first society; their debts were paid by shares in the second company. I could not say if the amount was £565 11s. 6d. The next company I was concerned in was the West London Tradesmen's Provident Society, registered on November 12, 1906; that was not a complete failure because there could only be 100 members and there were 92 enrolled. On December 18, 1906, I registered the Dorset Tradesmen's Provident Society, Limited, offices 44, Bedford Row, subsequently removed to Chard, in Somersetshire; Bloomfield and Hillyer paid £200 each; Bloomfield paid £200 for the post of secretary; it was put into the society's account at Stuckey's Bank, Chard. I was a witness to the signatories of that company, and I designated myself as a system expert. The Croydon and District Provident Society was registered February 6, 1907, was voluntarily wound up on October 29, 1907, and

merged in the Tradesmen's Provident Society—it was a voluntary order by consent. The Tradesmen's Provident Society was registered September 13,1907. On October 1, 1907, there was an application to register the Yorkshire Tradesmen's Provident Society; on September 26, 1907, the Central Tradesmen's Society was registered; that is now in existence and doing business. On September 27, 1907, the Southern Tradesmen's Provident was registered. The Central and Southern each had a capital of £500,000. I attempted to obtain from Jones £150 in connection with a berth in the Southern. In the West London Hillyer was secretary, A.G. Dickin managing director, and myself general adviser. I was to receive 10s. a week, 25 per cent. of the £3 3s. paid by each member, and a percentage of the profits. On September 4 there is a minute in Hillyer's writing stating that a sale of the furniture was authorised for £52, out of which payments were made to Hillyer of £15, W.H. Dickin £9 14s., A.G. Dickin £9 15s., J. Hibbins £4, and other payments to housekeeper, etc., making up £50 12s. It was further resolved that in the interests of the society the management be placed in the members as a body, and Taylor, Vennell, A.G. Dickin, and W.H. Dickin resigned. That was because at the meeting on July 18 the members complained that they did not want expensive offices and officers, so I resigned and made a sacrifice of £50 a year. The books show there were 92 members who paid, or were liable to pay, £3 3s. each. I cannot say if 59 paid £185 17s., and that there were payments of £10 2s. 6d. on account of subscriptions, making £195 19s. 8d. in all. The books will show Hillyer paid £150 and two sums of £25. I cannot tell you if I received £185 10s. 8d. from that society; I only received what was due to me—the books speak for themselves. I cannot say if my brother received £86 8s. 10d. and Hillyer £28 18s. 9d.; they must answer for themselves. The furniture bought from Fenton and Wolfe and Hollander was not paid for, it was a personal debt owing by me and Hillyer; that was part of the furniture of 44, Bedford Row; other furniture was supplied by me. In the ledger of the West London Hillyer has entered the furniture as owing by the society to Fenton and Wolfe and Hollander. There is no date to that entry. It is not correct. I do not know anything about it, and I cannot explain it. Fenton sued the Croydon Society, obtained judgment by default, and put in the sheriff at Bedford Row, and A.G. Dickin as managing director of the West London Provident claimed the furniture on account of rent due by the Croydon Society; that happened on September 6. I saw Talbot and showed him the minute book of the Croydon Society, which had gone into voluntary liquidation. I told him if he would invoice the goods to the Tradesmen's Provident they would be paid for in a month. As landlords we were bound to sell the furniture. We received estimates from Prior and Richard, Willett and others. Willett bought the furniture first and received £2 for his bargain I was a party to the agreement to sell the whole of the furniture and fittings of the West London to Rickard for £52. That does not include the whole of the furniture in the eight rooms. Hillyer sold his furniture to the Tradesmen's Provident Society about

September 30 and received cash for it. Rickard paid by cheque on or about September 3. Some of the chairs were taken off the premises. I know one chair was taken and was away some days. On September 28 the Tradesmen's Provident sold the contents of two rooms—Nos. 45 and 48—to the Southern Society. I gave £40 and the receipt has been produced here. The bank paying-in slip shows they received that money by two cheques of £50 and £10 from W.H. Dickin from the Tradesmen's Society. There is a receipt on October 3, "For the Tradesmen's Provident Society, A.J. Dickin, secretary, received £60; £40 for the furniture in rooms 45 and 48 on the fourth floor, and one quarter's rent, £20, in advance." The society was registered on September 26; registration was not refused. The rules were not in order, and the registration did not go through until October 9. That £60 was returned by payments of £10 on October 23 and £50 on October 25. When Jones called the only reference to members was that the Croydon Society had 40 members; I did not say we had 400 members, nor that they had been taken over by the Tradesmen's Society, nor that that society had a weekly income from each member of £1 2s. 6d. I read the rule to him which said that the society had 12 directors, and that the qualification was to be £150 in shares; that £2,050 would be put in by the directors and officials. I told him the salary I proposed to offer him was £100 plus 2 per cent, of the profits, and that that would work out at £300 a year. I read Rule 6c to him, which stated that an architect was required for the purposes of the society. I told him Hillyer had 300 shares; and that Mossop had agreed to take 200, and Foster 200, which he had as his qualification. I did not tell him that those three had paid for 200 shares each. I did not tell him that an income of £450 a week could be relied upon. His own answer in the police court gives such a statement a lie, for the banking account was opened with £30. I saw Jones on September 17; Foster was present; he was managing director to the Tradesmen's Provident, but he did not put in any money. I have not seen Foster since the first week in October. I did not tell Jones that 2,000 shares had been already taken up, and that 6,000 had been applied for and practically taken up. On September 18 Jones wrote and asked how many shares had been taken up. Hillyer replied, "If you send your cheque made payable to the society for £100, together with a letter accepting £50 in cash and £50 in shares for your year's fees, you will be duly elected a director and surveyor to the society. As we have no wish for you to put your money into the society or to accept services on the society on the strength of some one else having taken shares, we would thank you to treat this matter as if, you were the only shareholder and director." On September 19 Jones called with a draft agreement. I did not tell him that Hillyer had actually paid £200 for shares in the Tradesmen's Provident; it would not have been true if I had. On September 23 Jones called with his solicitor with the agreement signed, and paid two cheques of £100 and £50. Foster and Hillyer then signed a cheque for £60 which was handed to his solicitor. That was the first operation

upon the London and County Bank, Holborn. On September 26 Jones called and saw me. I told him that the Southern Society was formed to work all the south coast; that the capital was to be £500,000 sterling, that the qualification of a director was £200, but that he could come in at £150, the same as he had to the Tradesmen's. If I assured him that the Tradesmen's Provident was going on all right it would have been quite right—everything was splendid. On October 11 I got from Cartwright £50 as a district manager of the West London, and on October 23 £50 from Prince. Cartwright called on October 24—I did not see him. Hillyer did not say in my hearing that the £200 had not been paid to the Tradesmen's Society—it had been paid to the West London, and Jones knew that perfectly well. Any reference to furniture at that time would be that Hillyer had sold his own furniture to the society for £10 or some such sum; it is shown by the books. I did not see Jones from October 24 till October 29 or 30, when I showed him the register. On October 24 we were not in great difficulty—we had £55 then in the office which we had had from Prince. The pass book shows a balance of £5 10s. 6d. On October 11 an advertisement appeared in the "Times": "Managing director required. Good organiser capable of controlling outside staff. Qualification £200, salary £300 and bonus. Apply 44, Bedford Row. "I saw Southwell on October 17 and read to him draft agreement which was prepared, and which he took away with him; it was a copy of Foster's. I told him of the Premium Trading Stamp Company, which had been a great success. That is not one of my companies. It had a turnover of £50,000 a week. I told him that mine was an improved system, and showed him an estimated balance-sheet, "Subscribed capital £6,800"—that is 11 directors at £150 each; 12 managers at £50 each; secretary £200, and managing director £200; that makes £2,050. Then we figured that we should get out of the 5,000 tradesmen one share each to the extent of £4,000. "Estimated profit £2,812 10s. per week, or for one year £46,250." I put that forward as a genuine estimated balance-sheet, and I should use the same one to-day. I accept responsibility for it. I saw Southwell again on October 24; he came prepared to be managing director. On October 25 he signed the agreement and paid his cheque for £200. That was cashed over the counter that afternoon. I do not remember if it was by my instructions. At five p.m. Hillyer and myself met at Mossop's office. He gave me £50, which I paid into my wife's account; £20 was paid to Mossop for costs; Hibbins had £20 to take to Jubb for printing; Hillyer was to pay £105 into his bank, and he gave me a cheque for £62 to send to Rickard to pay for the furniture. Jones has said what he got for his £150; Prince got his wages and his appointment; Cartwright got his wages and his appointment; Southwell got his appointment, but he never completed it.

(His Lordship said that a telegram had come from Bristol saying that Rickard could not be found. Prisoner said he had had a letter from him saying he would attend, as his Lordship had expressed a wish to see him.)

To the Jury. The word "estimated" should be read before "subscribed capital," and all the way through in the balance-sheet. Mr. Foster lives, I believe, at Westcliff-on-Sea. He has had a business there for some years. The police tell me they have been to his address at Cheapside, but cannot find him. He has his name up there next to the "Draper's Record"; he is an advertising expert. I have known nothing of Foster since October last. As far as I could judge, he would be about 42. Mr. Whiting was assistant-manager, and the police tell me they cannot find him. He left on October 19, the day we were turned out of the office. He had been four years with the Premium Trading Stamp Company. I believe he came to grief; I don't mean by that that he went to prison; he became bankrupt. (To the Judge.) The amended balance-sheet says, "Say subscribed capital"; that was the one Mr. Southwell saw.

BENJAMIN THOMPSON , 12, Calthorpe Street, Gray's Inn Road, lithograph writer. (Several contracts were identified by witness as hiving been taken by him for the Tradesmen's Provident Society.) The one in the name of Skinner seems to be all in my writing. I had Mr. Skinner's authority. In Mr. Winter's case permission was also given; that is also signed and filled in by me. Bossman's is a similar case. (Prisoner W.H. Dickin stated that the witness had brought in 105 contracts.) Most of the contracts are not signed by me; some are in lead pencil. In most cases I had full permission to take the contract. When I had not permission there would be a little wavering, and when the second man called that would finish it. These contracts were not fictitious; they were bona-fide business.

MR. Winter, recalled, said that he knew nothing whatever of the contract referred to by Thompson. There was only himself and wife in his shop.

BENJAMIN THOMPSON (continued). I had the permission of Mrs. Winter, and she would remember me calling three or four times. On October 19 I was waiting at the office for a week's wages, which I got paid. I really do not know Mr. Prince; I only heard the name to-day. I may have seen him once. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Whiting engaged me. I do not remember seeing W.H. Dickin before October 19. I think I was with the society for about six or seven weeks.

Cross-examined. I was asked to take the Croydon district first, by Mr. Hughes, I think, for the Tradesmen's Provident Society. I said I was not living in that neighbourhood; then I was given another district—Kentish Town. After Mr. Hughes left I had permission to get business where I could. There was no responsibility on the people who signed the contract, but you could not sometimes make them understand that. I gave in my results to the Bedford Row office—to Mr. Hughes when he was there; sometimes to a lady typist. I generally left them in an envelope addressed to the company. I was paid on the contracts which had been passed; some were not passed. Mr. Hughes was the one who passed them. He had to interview the parties I had been to, to confirm the order and to supply the stamps. Mr. Winter's contract bears the initials "A.G.D." and "C.H." I suppose "C.H." would be Charles Hughes. I remember

going three or four times to Winter's shop. It was a general shop on the left-hand side from Gray's Inn Road. The person I interviewed was a female; she might have been over 40; she was generally sitting down. I never saw her standing. Mr. Winter I never saw. I used to leave a card. I would fill up the document when I got home. I don't think the lady seemed inclined to sign herself. She was quite willing to take the book; she knew there was nothing to pay. Perhaps she thought there was something behind it. She really did not understand the nature of the thing. I do not remember Bossman's shop offhand, nor what street it was in. The whole of Bossman's contract is in my writing. I could not tell when it was signed; it might have been signed at the time or afterwards in the evening. I should say that I had Bossman's consent. Although Bossman has hairdresser's shop in Stamford Street, I do not remember calling at a hairdresser's. The half-dozen contracts now produced are in my handwriting throughout. The tradesmen were quite willing to go in for it, but they were not always willing to take that signature business on. They thought they might be liable. On each of these contracts is "Passed, A.G.D."

Re-examined by W.H. Dickin. I used to see you sometimes passing from one room to another. I cannot exactly remember when I first saw you. I think I must have spoken to you before October 19. I told Mr. Hughes that it was difficult to get the contract signed by the people themselves. I remember seeing a stout man about Lord Mayor's Day; that would be Mr. Prince.

REUBEN EDWIN BRIAULT I was engaged for the Tradesmen's Provident Society by Mr. Hughes. The contracts produced I took for the society; they are all signed by the tradesmen, and are genuine. I remember Saturday, October 19, when prisoners were being turned out of the office. W.H. Dickin asked us to wait for our money, which we did, and afterwards Mr. Hillyer, or someone, came out and give us our money. I remember the removal to Parliament Chambers. On one Saturday there I complained to W.H. Dickin that I was not receiving enough wages. He told me that it was impossible for them to give me any more as they had not collected a penny from my contracts. I said that I would go round to the people and speak about it, which I did, and then told W.H. Dickin that if the collector went round no doubt he would collect some money. Mr. Prince was the man who passed my contracts, but I do not know that he ever visited any of the tradesmen. One of the latter told me he had not been to him. I left the society of my own accord, because I could not get enough money. The contracts were not being attended to, and I could not see that there was enough advertising to make the business pay.

Cross-examined. I was for about six weeks in the employ of the society, up to a fortnight after they were in Parliament Chambers. I was paid a commission of five shillings per contract. When the contract was passed I was allowed a certain amount, and when the tradesman had paid 10s. to the company I got the balance of the five shillings. One of the canvassers I used to meet was Thompson; I

also met another one at Parliament Chambers; also one who came in to Mr. Hillyer's room for some money while I was drawing mine. I saw all three prisoners at different times at the office. When I saw A.G. Dickin he seemed to be a kind of office and errand boy; he was doing up parcels. Some of my contracts are initialled "A.G.P." and "A.G.D.," and some "A.G.D." and "C.H."; the latter is Mr. Hughes. W.H. Dickin used to grumble at me because no money came from my contracts.

Re-examined by W.H. Dickin. The first time I saw A.G. Dickin was on the Saturday there was all the bother. When I was engaged I was told all about the business by Mr. Hughes and Mr. Whiting. The latter appeared to know more about it than Mr. Hughes. I think they left on the Saturday of the bother. I never saw them after that I did not hear of any canvasser complaining that he had not received his money.

CHARLES HUGHES , 7, St. Alban's Road, Harlesden. I do not quite remember when I entered the service of the Tradesmen's Provident Society; it would be about October 3. My initial, which is on the contract produced, means that in my opinion the person who signed that contract was a good and honourable business person. It is witnessed by Briault, who brought it to me. The reason I rejected some would be that the persons had reconsidered their previous statement and would have nothing at all to do with the company. I visited the shops where the contracts were taken from, and when I could not see the tradesmen I took it for granted it was all right after examining the place and seeing what sort of business they did. I do not know what "A.G.D." means. Those initials were not on any contracts that I passed. I should think I passed about 40. I was only there for a fortnight and half a week. I engaged about 15 or 20 canvassers, I should think, but I saw about 30 altogether, some of whom I rejected. I remember Saturday, October 19. I went to Mr. Hillyer to receive my salary and I saw a crowd of men in the next room with Mr. North. I have seen Mr. Whiting once since October 19, but I cannot give his address. When I heard of him last he lived in Cricklewood. I only saw A.G. Dickin once or twice when I was in the society's employ; in the small office where the typewriter was. He had nothing to do with me. The only people whom I knew in connection with the society were Foster, Hillyer, W.H. Dickin, the girl clerk, and Hibbins. I did not come back after October 19 because the premises were closed. I was perfectly satisfied with the business during the first week. During the second week I saw Mr. Cartwright, who no doubt influenced me against the company a great deal. During the three days Cartwright was there there was a continual stream of men applying for situations. It would not be true to say that I did not visit the people mentioned in the contracts which I passed.

Cross-examined. I did not altogether accept what the canvasser said about the contracts. In most cases I accepted the writing on them as being genuine. If I found that the name and address of the tradesman was correct, I should assume his signature was genuine

If Mr. Winter says he did not sign the contract produced bearing his name I am not in a position to say he is wrong. I did not go into Winter's shop to my knowledge. With 75 per cent. of the contracts I passed I went into the shop and spoke to the person in charge. I understood that Thompson had signed one or two contracts himself with authority. I went to Bedford Row first at the end of September in answer to an advertisement. I saw a balance-sheet, where the subscribed capital was £6,000. W.H. Dickin told me that they anticipated paying 100 per cent. I understood that that would be on the £6,000 capital; you could not think otherwise very well. I did not go into the question sufficiently to understand whether the £6,000 was subscribed or not. I believe W.H. Dickin told me there were five or six directors, and their qualification 100 shares. Mr. Dickin told me that he had taken up 100 shares himself, and I understood that all the directors had done so. At this first interview I said that I would think the matter over, and on October 3 I went back with £50 in my pocket Meanwhile I had taken away some literature to read and left the £50 with the society and became a district manager. I was allowed to choose my own district. I lost the £50, but I have 50 shares. I have not sold them; I wish I had. On October 10 I was called down to the secretary's office and found W.H. Dickin and Hillyer. The former said they had been obliged to kick out Foster, and the managing directorship would be vacant. It was offered me on condition I paid a qualification of £150. I said I would think it over, and told them next day that I was unable to take it up. I had net got the £150. I do not think that I missed a good chance. On the Monday after October 19, when I could not get in, I went to the London and County Bank and put a stop on the money, together with Mr. North and Mr. Cartwright. It was on Messrs. North and Talbot's advice that I stopped the account. In the second week of my service remarks kept crapping up about money difficulties that Mr. Cartwright had with W.H. Dickin. That, of course, caused a certain amount of fidgetiness. From what I could gather from Cartwright I was afraid I was in for a bad thing. There is no doubt that they had no capital to work the business with. I did not know whether there was any money to pay the canvassers whom I engaged. I believe the canvassers were not entitled to the full amount of 5s. on the contracts until 10s. was paid by the tradesmen. I did not take any money while I was with the society.

Re-examined by W.H. Dickin. After the contracts were passed the next step would be to take the books round with the stamps. I did not prepare a list for the printer. I did not expect any return from the tradesmen within the fortnight I was there. It would be quite a month before I would expect to collect anything. On my first visit to the society I saw you, not Walter Foster, I saw Foster on the day I paid the £50. I had more to do with you and Hillyer than Foster. I had very little to do with anybody except yourself. You told me that Foster was managing director; I have no doubt that he was. I did not really know what Cartwright's duty was. I thought he was there to help the managing director. On two of the three

days that I saw him he did not do any work to my knowledge. He made some veiled hints that things were not going satisfactorily. I knew that Cartwright had come in contact with you about money and had brought his solicitor with him. He said that he had demanded his £50 back and that you had promised to pay it back. It is in the agreement that my successor should take my shares. I have not seen you since the week after you were turned out of the office. You never asked me what I was going to say here. You knew that I had made a statement to the police.

(Thursday, April 9.)

HAROLD CHARLES MOSSOP , solicitor. When I heard that the prisoners were going to be arrested I was not particularly frightened. I did not really hear that. I had a message from a friend asking me to go to see him, and he told me he had heard there was trouble with some people I had been connected with, and I should be included in it. I told him not to worry himself. When I was served with a subpoens I heard of the charge for the first time.

Judge Rentoul. A solicitor occupies a very peculiar position. He is an officer of the Court. The public places very large confidence in him, and from evidence which came out here I did suggest that it would be wise for you on your own account to ask to be heard, because you seemed to be mixed up in these transactions, and to have been paid out of the money that ought to have gone through the banking account of the society, and the whole evidence left a very awkward impression. I merely made that remark so that you might tender yourself as a witness in order to explain your position. Now, however, the case is altered altogether. At the request of the prisoner (W.H. Dickin) you are subpoenaed as one of his witnesses, and I have nothing further to say.

Examination continued. On August 15 I attended with Mr. Howarth at 44, Bedford Row, and discussed the proposed company and various matters relating thereto. I was introduced by Mr. Howarth to W.H. Dickin, and the latter asked me if I was willing to act as solicitor to the company on certain terms. I did not agree to those terms, and certain other terms were fixed under which I was prepared to advise. Up to that time I had heard nothing of the Tradesmen's Provident Society. I remember that on the 21st W.H. Dickin submitted certain rules for registration under the Friendly Societies Act. I advised Mr. Foster that the rules as drafted were in the form of a memorandum for registration under the Companies Act, that is to say, it contained all the purposes that the human mind could think of, and I advised Mr. Foster that they would not be able to register in that form under the Friendly Societies Act. At the meeting on the 29th Mr. Foster brought back the rules still too comprehensive to allow of registration, as I advised him, and I wrote a letter for him to take with him to the registrar, urging that the matter should be put forward as soon as possible. (Witness was examined as to other interviews detailed in his draft bill of costs.)

Judge Rentoul observed that the printed matter in this case was all right on the advice Mr. Mossop gave, but the point that arose here was that Mr. Mossop was paid certain sums and seemed to have been very much in touch with a society that was alleged, rightly or wrongly, by the prosecution to have been a swindle from start to finish, and the question was whether a solicitor acting with his legal knowledge had so acted without knowing that it was a swindle.

Mr. Bodkin. As I understand it, the issues are whether false representations were made to these four or five prosecutors, whether they parted with their money on the faith of these misrepresentations being true. If Mr. Mossop took any part in making any representations to these people I would submit that is an important matter for him to be examined about, but that there was a society in law existing, and a society which complied, as far as its rules and constitution are concerned, with the statute, there never has been any dispute at all, in fact, no money would have been parted with or representations made unless there had been a society in existence. The question is with regard to this business whether misrepresentations were made to these people by reason of which they parted with their money.

Judge Rentoul suggested that the best thing for prisoner to do was to leave Mr. Mossop to be cross-examined as to his bill of costs.

Witness. With regard to the statement of Cartwright, that on October 11 I withheld some information about the society on which if I had given it he would have stopped payment of his cheque, I had as a fact no information at that date which I think would have had that effect. The circumstances of the interview were exactly these; it might give rise to some misunderstanding. Two or three people called at my office for information about the society; they said that the society gave them authority. I said it would have been much better if they had brought a letter from the society authorising me to give information. Mr. Cartwright accordingly sent me an authority authorising me to produce the Certificate of Registration. I produced it and told Mr. Cartwright I would not answer any questions. The production of the certificate being all I was authorised to do, and he must rest satisfied with that. I had information then that the company was involved in two actions, and I think now that statement might have had that effect, but no information was withheld fraudulently. There was an action in the Clerkenwell County Court, and an action, I think, was still going on in the High Court with regard to the possession of the offices at 44, Bedford Row. The action in the High Court was concluded by agreement between Mr. Eldon Bankes and Mr. Ernest Pollock. My managing clerk attended to the whole of that action, and whether the settlement was before October 11 or not I do not know. In the County Court action we had paid £35 into Court and were fighting to get it out again. On Saturday, October 19, I recollect W.H. Dickin calling at my private house to say that possession had been taken of his offices at 44, Bedford Row. Counsel was rung up and called at my house the same afternoon. Instructions were given that Mr. Hillyer and one of the directors should see if we were locked out on Monday morning. On the Monday morning

I had an interview with Mr. Drummoad Lloyd, who did not think the procedure Dickin suggested was possible, and subsequently I called on another counsel, Mr. Drake, who pointed out that in his opinion the society had attorned tenants to the landlord there, and that action lay in the High Court for recovery of possession. In consequence of those instructions the three writs were issued. On the 23rd there was some discussion in reference to the transfer of the agreement from Foster and Hillyer. I remember writing to Mr. Foster in reference to his not attending to his office duties. As to his being prepared to resign his position and give up his shares for a money payment, I am not sure whether the amount was named. The agreement between Foster, Hillyer, and myself was drawn by me. I remember objecting to Jones's agreement being executed in that form, my objection being that it was an agreement which could never be terminated, but was for ever and ever, and it seemed to be to place the society wholly at Mr. Jones's mercy, because he need not do any work and still draw his salary. I remember having instructions to draw a tenancy agreement for the Southern Society on the fourth floor. That was never concluded. There were several communications between me and the landlord's solicitors with reference to the premises at 44, Bedford Row. At the time the society was turned out I considered they were the tenants. I know that the Tradesmen's Provident Society had paid rent for several weeks, sufficient to establish the society as tenants. I remember Hillyer's agreement was to have 200 fully-paid shares for past services. I suggested at the time that was a contract which ought to be filed. Mr. Foster had something similar, I think.

Prisoner W.H. Dickin. There was never any shuffling of the cards from the time you were in it to the last.

His Lordship said that the prisoner could not expect a solicitor to say that he knew of any shuffling of cards or swindling. It was suggested that a solicitor could not have been in touch with all this and not have at least a very strong suspicion that there was something very badly wrong. Mr. Mossop had come there to explain a difficulty, and it was only by cross-examination that that could come out.

Witness. I confess I cannot remember what the clauses of the agreement were. I do not remember whether the officers of the society objected to the clause that they should not transfer their shares whilst they were in the employment of the society. There certainly was an alteration after the time that Jones came, the effect of it being that Hillver and Foster were released. I attended at Bedford Row on October 31, when Mr. Southwell first attended. W.H. Dickin asked me whether Southwell was properly appointed managing director without a resolution of the board of directors to that effect, and I told him I did not think he was. After some discussion I asked Mr. Hillyer, who, I think, was then secretary, to get the minute book in order that I might see who were the directors and whether any resolution had been passed appointing Mr. Southwell managing director. Mr. Hillyer brought me a note of certain things which he was going to enter up in the minute book, but had not up to then. I then told Mr. Hillyer that, from the draft minutes which

he showed me, I could not make out who was a properly appointed director and who was not, but it did not appear to me that there was a quorum there present. Mr. Southwell asked for the minute book, and Mr. Hillyer said it was at the solicitor's office. It had been sent on to me in connection with the action which was then being discussed. As far as I recollect, the people in the room were Mr. Hillyer, Mr. Southwell, myself, and, I think, two others—I am not sure that Mr. Hibbins was there—I think Mr. Vennell. When Mr. Jones came in I was asked to go out and see him in another room. Mr. Jones said he had come to see the managing director, and I told him that I could not make out whether there was a managing director at that time. I certainly did not think that he was appointed managing director or had any position at all at that time. That was practically all that took place outside, but Mr. Jones continued to bawl at intervals, "I want to see the managing director." I will not say he was aggressive, because that was all he did. He did not say anything about the Yorkshire Society. I think I did tell him he was not a director, but he made no other answer all the way through. After I had returned to the board room, Mr. Jones opened the door and followed me in. I do not know whether what next took place you would call a scene. I told Hillyer and Mr. Southwell before I left that I coud not see what they could do because it didn't seem to me that there was any legal meeting there; there was only one properly appointed director present. I think Mr. Hillyer came to see me on the following day, November 1. I remember that W.H. Dickin was then out of town. About this time Mr. Hillyer saw me frequently. He was very nervous about the society and wanted guidance. On Monday, November 4, W.H. Dickin came to see me. At that time Mr. Vennell and Mr. Hibbins had refused to have anything to do with the society, and I had Mr. Howarth's resignation at the office, but as it had not been accepted W.H. Dickin asked me to ring through to Mr. Howarth to come down and straighten matters up, and he came either that day or the following. The minutes produced of the meeting on November 5 at my office appear to be correct.

To Mr. Lambert. I prepared the form which was signed by the subscribers appointing the various officers. This was a form which the society had before I had to do with them, and I should think would possibly be taken from a book, but not from a book in my office. I had nothing to do with obtaining the signatories. I drafted some of the minutes of the meeting of November 5. I cannot say in whose handwriting the minutes are entered. At the meeting at which the dispute took place with regard to Mr. Southwell, matters in controversy were informally referred to me. With regard to the sale of the furniture, I had nothing to do with that. I cannot give the date when the banking account was closed. I remember it being reported to me. I did receive a £10 note from Hillyer in respect of my costs about October 25. On the 28th I received a further sum of £15. Both payments were in notes, and I received a further £10, making £35 altogether.

Cross-examined. I only knew Dickin in August and I did not know him as connected with any other society than this Tradesmen's Provident Society. I was introduced to him by Howarth, who was in business as a surveyor. He had just been released from prison, having been convicted, I believe, for converting money to his own use. He did not mention the name of Dickin, as far as I can remember, but simply said he had a company that was about to be registered. I was then consulted by Dickin for the purpose of getting the Tradesmen's Provident into order for registration, and after registration took place I was appointed solicitor. That was all I knew of Dickin up to the date that someone sent me a copy of "Truth," about November 9 or 10. I knew nothing in detail about the working of the society, but Mr. Dickin gave me a general outline of the scheme. Occasionally Mr. Dickin used to say, "We have appointed so and so canvasser." It was a mere name to me, of course. I drew the forms of agreement for the various persons who were appointed as managers, directors, or managing directors. I do not know how many persons were appointed to these posts. I think the first board meeting I attended was on September 14; I certainly attended one on October 31 and one on November 5. My opinion was that Southwell was never properly appointed. I did not know at that time that he had paid £200. I do not agree that his money was divided at my office on October 25. I did not know that the £10 I received on October 25 was Southwell's money. By Clause 5 of the agreement the managing director agreed to take up 200 fully-paid shares. At the meeting of October 31 no suggestion was made that Southwell had divulged the secrets of the society or had not given his whole time to the performance of his duties as managing director, nor do I recollect that at the meeting of November 5 it was said when and how and in what respect he had committed breaches of his agreement. I do not recollect that Southwell told me that he had taken up his shares and signed his agreement, but I think very likely he did. I have a strong recollection about him asking me questions as to whether or not I considered he was properly appointed, and he suggested himself that there ought to be a resolution appointing him. When Jones came to the meeting on October 31 he said he was a director, but Hillyer said he had resigned. I have had a large experience of companies. If a director resigns the formality is usually gone through of putting it into writing. I asked for all these things, but they were not forthcoming. The answer which Hillyer made was that his books were not written up. I asked if there was any evidence that Jones had resigned, and the matter was postponed until Mr. W.H. Dickin came back. As far as I am concerned, I have never seen any evidence that Mr. Jones has resigned. At the meeting of November 5 at my office I asked to have the question cleared up, and was told point-blank that he had resigned. I understood verbally. At that date Mr. Howarth was the only director left, and in that case the meeting was not in proper order, but I think we found in the rules that that had been provided for. The other directors had then resigned—Hibbins and Vennell.

Southwell having been turned out, the managing director who succeeded him had to take up his shares, and, according to the minute, his successor was Alfred Hillyer. I do not see by the minute book that Hillyer took up Southwell's 200 shares. I did not take any steps at that meeting to see that the succeeding managing director had properly performed his duty of taking over the shares of the preceding managing director. I do not know Mr. William Stoodley, whose appointment is notified in the minute of November 5. My connection with Howarth has never been professional; it was simply confined to his coming to me as a creditor. I paid his lodgings for two weeks after he came out, and I should like to say in his favour that he has been absolutely honest even to the repayment of that money, which I think must have been very difficult to him. Up to October 11 I had been engaged in litigation on behalf of the company, but had not attended any board meeting. I do not think I said to Cartwright anything so definite as that I had every confidence in the society. My justification of what I said to him was that I knew the company, or what you are pleased to call the scheme, was very much on the lines of the scheme which I knew had produced a large fortune to the workers of it. I knew nothing except what Mr. Dickin told me. I really did not consider the business of the company was my concern. I considered that a successful scheme was being worked in this society. I declined to give Cartwright any direct details except showing him the certificate of registration. I do not think I ever volunteered the opinion that his money would be perfectly safe. I found that the books had not been properly kept, chiefly the minute book. I do not think I ever saw the account books at all. I knew that Hillyer was an accountant. It is not correct to say I got somewhere about £110. The approximate figure is about £95, of which £36 odd was for payment into Court in the County Court action. I had 50 shares in the society. Part of them I paid for and the rest I put to credit, and to my surprise they sent me the certificates straight away. Apparently, they gave me 50 shares for nothing, but I am afraid they have rather overdrawn since. I mean by that the society owes me money for costs. I know Mr. Read, the landlord of Parliament Chambers. I said to him after the board meeting of October 31 something to this effect: "There are some clients of mine—the Tradesmen's Provident Society—who are looking for new offices, and the 'Chambers' are just the place for them." By the terms of the settlement the society, who by the drastic action of the landlords had been turned out, were to have a few days later a 21 years' lease of Parliament Chambers. I subsequently suggested that instead of the society Alfred James Hillyer should be the tenant. I knew that Mr. Hillyer was connected with rich people. I do not suggest it is more usual under such circumstances to take a personal covenant rather than a company's covenant. Hillyer was accepted and an agreement was prepared by me, or witnessed by me, for the purpose of his taking these premises at a yearly rent of £190 for the first seven years. As to whether I thought the society at that time was in a condition to pay £190 per annum, I was dissatisfied with the

company then. I had learned very shortly after that date that Southwell had paid £200 in cash, and that, as the result of his paying it he had got nothing whatever for it, and I thought it was very hard luck. Before putting forward Alfred J. Hillyer as lessee of Mr. Read I did not take any steps to find out whether he had taken over Mr. Southwell's 200 shares. Mr. Read is a man of infinitely more experience than I am, and it was open for him to ask for any references, which he never did. I have no knowledge of any independent inquiry made by Read about the society or Hillyer. He knew I was a solicitor. I received the usual commission pro rata for the recommendation—£9 10s. I believe it is the fact that Read let the premises entirely on my introduction.

S.C. PRATT, a solicitor, and managing clerk of last witness. The first time I had anything to do with this case was when they were turned out of the office in Bedford Row.

Judge Rentoul. Do you think you can tell us anything that is likely to have some effect on the jury? These men are accused of defrauding members of the public. If there is anything that can help them in any way I shall be glad to hear it.

Witness. I can say nothing as regards that except that in the transactions I had with them I did not know of any fraud. W.H. Dickin brought Mr. Jones and asked me to explain the position of the litigation. If I charged for advice at that time it would be right decidedly. He agreed with the course adopted. I did not know anything about the company. That was in the presence of Mr. Hillyer. I do not remember that Mr. Jones forbade us to use his name as a shareholder or director in connection with the society. He was perfectly satisfied at the time. I do not think he would have said it.

To Mr. Lambert. Hillyer came frequently to Mr. Mossop's office for advice.

JAMES JOSEPH DELAINE , 18, Northumberland Place, Bayswater. When I commenced my duties for the Tradesmen's Provident Society I was taken to the Croydon district and introduced to the tradesmen. I cannot tell by looking at the contracts whether I redeemed them from the tradesmen. I redeemed the books; that is all I know. (To Judge Rentoul.) I was what was called district manager. I parted with £50. I more than parted; I was swindled out of it.

Judge Rentoul observed that as the witness had shown himself hostile prisoner might cross-examine him as much as he liked.

Witness. (To W.H. Dickin.) I do not remember if the people in the list produced are some of those I called on. The contracts produced are passed by me and are signed "A.G.D." My collections ran to about 25s. per week; that is the extreme—17s. 6d. to 25s. I was on the job for six weeks and part of the seventh week. That would be at most hardly £7, but I could not tell you to a shilling. I redeemed those books which the tradesmen received back from their customers. In some weeks the company received nothing and in some weeks they received two or three shillings. That is about all the money they received in the office, and that is the only

business that I did. I was to be paid £2 a week, which I was paid, and I was to have commission which I never received. I never made more than £2 a week. The last week they did not pay me; they kicked me out of the office when I went for my money. I wrote to them but I never received a cent, and that £50 is lost. I did not finish with the society; the society finished with me. I had a document intimating that I was suspended, but I do not know for what reason. You had no business to suspend me. I engaged about 20 men, but none of them ever went on because they found it was a rotten affair, and they would not have anything to do with it. I cannot give you any names. You never received 10s. from the trades-people, because you never sent them any customers. I employed people to take the books round. I was at Parliament Chambers about three weeks. I was paid by some of the people that I called on, but I did not know what the business was then. I was not satisfied from the beginning. When I wanted to get my money out I was told I would never get it out, but would have to leave it in in order to get the £2 a week. That was all I could get out of you. Before I put my money in I went to Farrow's Bank and they advised me to have nothing to do with the society.

The Foreman of the Jury said they would very much have liked not to have taken this evidence, because what the witness was saying was likely to produce the only effect upon their minds which 12 business men could draw from it.

Judge Rentoul said he had been about to say before the juror spoke that the prosecution had been wonderfully merciful in not calling these men. The jury very properly wanted to find their verdict upon what was put forward by the prosecution and not upon the evidence which the prisoner with extraordinary folly was calling.

Witness. The 50 contracts produced are passed in my own name and signed "A.G.D." I have worked very hard for you and got nothing for it. I have taken these contracts but what was the good of that? There was no money attached to it; there was no business done. I did not expect when the contracts were passed that they would at once produce money. After the contracts were passed the next thing was to send the tradesmen the checks and the advertising matter. Before you could send that, the tradesmen's names had to be printed on the back, but you never did any of that. You had no names printed in my time.

To Mr. Lambert. I recollect being introduced to Mr. Southwell on November 1 by A.G. Dickin. I never said to Mr. Southwell that I was quite satisfied.

Cross-examined. Hillyer appeared to be actively engaged in connection with the society and paid me my money as a rule. I remember the society removing to Parliament Chambers, and it was from there that I received the letter of suspension. When I afterwards called I had some words with A.G. Dickin. I went down and asked for my money and they would not pay me. He said he would send it on. Then he called Stoodley, who came forward, I did not know that he had been a policeman. A.G. Dickin said to

him, "Hand Mr. Delaine his coat and hat and see him off the premises." Stoodley then threw me by force out of the office. In the meantime Dickin had walked out, saying he would call a policeman, and I met him coming back as I was leaving.

EDWIN ROBERTS , Beckenham. The contracts produced were executed by the tradesmen and witnessed by me. The first week I was calling on tradesmen was the week ending September 28, and I paid into the Tradesmen's Provident Society £3 8s. 6d., which I collected. As far as I can remember I redeemed some books and checks, representing about 7s. 6d. I took Mr. Delaine round and introduced him to the customers as the new district manager, and at the end of the week I had finished with the Tradesmen's Provident Society. If I put an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" on September 1 for directors and solicitors for the Southern Society, it was by W.H. Dickin's direction. I collected some letters from the "Daily Telegraph" and handed them to him to be attended to. I did not know that one of the answers was from J.J. Jones. I was to be managing director for the Southern Society. I got the rules of the society signed twice, and on September 26 those rules were launched for registration, but on October 3 they were withdrawn by me. I wrote to the Registrar and demanded my name to be struck off the roll. The papers were returned to me and I gave them to Mr. North, the solicitor. As to Dickin's suggestion that I am not telling the truth, I do not intend to be frightened and intimidated, because I never was afraid of him. We were always at drawn swords from the very commencement. I wanted to work the society for the benefit of the tradesmen, and he wanted to work it for the benefit of one man—W.H. Dickin. I was managing director, so-called, of the Croydon Society and was appointed in February. The tradesmen who had paid to the Croydon Society had fully-paid shares in the Tradesmen's Provident Society for their money. William Brook, of 107, Spa Road, Thornton Heath, received four shares. Four shares were gives to the members of the Croydon Society for the three guineas paid for membership. As managing director of the Croydon Society I was for past services to receive 200 fully-paid shares—It was a verbal arrangement with Dickin—and £6 a week. I have had considerable experience in engaging and managing men. I was for three years manager for three counties of the "Provident." I was managing director of an insurance company I brought out of my own, and from February till August I was managing director of the Croydon society. I ceased to continue to be managing director of the Croydon Society because W.H. Dickin was connected with it. He got £50 worth of furniture in the name of the Croydon Society, and represented that I knew about it. I knew nothing at all about that furniture until he got judgment against him, and then he said the Croydon society would have to be wound up because Mr. Cox was coming down on him for money owing, and he would wind the society up if I did not. I was managing director when the furniture of the Croydon Society came in, but I knew nothing about it. I never took over the offices. I verbally agreed to have one room and the Croydon Society was to

pay a fair proportion of these four rooms with the four other societies. The whole of the time it was supposed to be in the possession of the Croydon Society it was in the possession of three other societies; I never took possession of those offices, never used the furniture, and never gave orders for it. (To Judge Rentoul.) I paid no money for being managing director. I came in at the very start. (Examination continued.) There was a secretary engaged for the Croydon Society. That society went into liquidation the third week in August.

Cross-examined. I heard that furniture at Bedford Row belonging to the Croydon Society had been seized for rent. I was supposed to be managing director but I had no control practically over the society. Everything was dominated by Mr. Dickin.

ARTHUR GEORGE DICKIN (prisoner, on oath). As far as I can remember I left the West London Tradesmen's Provident Society about October 10. On October 19 I went to 44, Bedford Row, to see my brother about a, reference, as I was leaving my position with the Electric Showcard Company of London. On October 23, when I called again, my brother said he could give me a position with the Oxford Society. On October 24 Hillyer asked me to attend at Bedford Row as an independent party to show people into the offices who were coming to see the register. I was only too pleased to earn money as I was in poor circumstances. I looked to Mr. Hillyer as my master until November 4. On that date I was instructed to take Mr. Prince out and show him the London district, and introduce him to the different tradesmen. I did not tell Mr. Prince that I had invested £150 in the Tradesmen's Provident Society. I did not tell him that the amount invested was £20,000. I did not know how much was subscribed. On November 12 Cartwright called and asked to see the managing director. I said there was nobody in the office. He said, "Will you give me his address?" I said, "I cannot do that because I do not know it, but if you will write to him he will receive it." In the course of conversation it cropped up about him having been to Hanwell and my remark was to him that he did not act very well by going and frightening two defenceless women. It was a personal quarrel with reference to what he said to Mrs. Dickin at Hanwell. He never in his life asked of me to see the books. My initials on the contracts mean that it is passed and it has gone into the office. A list has got to be made out for the printer exactly as it is in the contract. If my initials had not been on they would not have gone to the printer. I was never consulted by Dickin or Hillyer. I had no control in the management. I had to obey orders. I only saw the books which I had to keep myself, and did not know what was going on in any way. I did not receive any money from the society except my salary of £2 a week, and have not received all that. On October 31, when Mr. Jones called, he asked to see the managing director. I took a note in to Mr. Mossop, who came out. Mr. Mossop and he had some high words in my presence.

Cross-examined. For the last 15 years my business has been connected with the sewing machine line as manager, superintendent, and canvasser. I left the Sewing Machine Company on November

30, 1906, and started with the West London Tradesmen's Provident Society on commission about December 3 or 4. I was engaged by E. Cox at 44, Bedford Row, who was the secretary. My brother and he explained the working of the system. On every contract in the first part of my agreement I got 10s. when the money was paid to the society. I had no district to look after. I was supposed to go into West London districts and get contracts. I got an average of about one a week. That represents 50s. or 60s. commission. I was inspector until February 1, 1907, when I became managing director, the first time I ever had such a position. I remained managing director till September 4. During that time I was engaging men constantly, because it was very difficult to get men to tackle a business firm, looking after tradesmen, and some of the time collecting money for the checks issued. Honorary members were constantly writing to say that tradesmen were refusing to give the checks away. I cannot tell how many tradesmen paid the three guineas. I know there were 94 tradesmen belonging to the West London. I have never seen the books and did not trouble about them; that was not my work. It is said that I got £86 8s. 10d. out of the West London; according to my agreement I should have had £16 more. I had £2 a week salary, and I was paid 10s. for every tradesman I got in myself, and for those got in by the men I engaged I was supposed to have five shillings, and reasonable travelling expenses were supposed to be allowed, but were not. The society was registered without capital, and if money did not come✗ in from tradesmen I could not get my money. I should say the society was a success from the tradesmen's point of view. When Hillyer parted with his money I was managing director. I cannot tell you how it was paid. I witnessed the receipt, but aid✗ not see any cheque or bank note. Mr. Cox arranged that Hillyer as secretary was to pay £200. I agreed with the rest; there were five men there, as is shown by the minute. As to the financial condition of the society, at the time, I think it had a few pounds coming in. Hillyer did not get any shares; there were no shares in the West London. When I resigned on September 4 there were at least 84 tradesmen on the books, I should say. The Croydon Society owed money to the West London for rent. The West London paid money in advance for rent for the most part and cash for its furniture. There was furniture upstairs belonging to the Croydon Society. I do not know where they got it from. The West London took that furniture because the Croydon Society owed them rent. It was sold to Prior and Rickard, of Oxford, for £52, and paid for by a bill, which was exchanged for a cheque for the amount, and I believe the cheque was passed through the account After I left I took no further interest in the society. Although I am supposed to be a member of the society I have received no notice of any meeting. Between September 4, when I resigned, and November 24 I was not frequently in Bedford Row. I went once or twice to get a statement for Mr. Searle, and also to see my brother about some money, because I had the brokers in my house at Kentish Town. I held no position with regard to the Tradesmen's Provident Society

between September 13, when it was registered, and November 22. I positively swear that my two visits to the office during that period were not in any capacity in connection with the society. I never heard of the Yorkshire Tradesmen's Provident Society till I was in the police court. The first time I saw Mr. Jones was on the Thursday after October 19. I answered the door. I was always very friendly with Mr. Jones. We never had any words. I admit that I told Jarvis, the butcher, that Prince had put £50 into the society. Jarvis would not have anything to do with it. Prince did not say to me as we left the butchers, "This does not look very promising." I did not say to Prince, "It is another society, the West London, that has gone wrong." As far as I knew it had not gone wrong on November 4. What I did say was that the Croydon Society had gone wrong and was in liquidation. I did not tell him that from £20,000 to £25,000 of capital had been subscribed, nor that there was enough money in the society to pay wages for six months. I did not say that I expected a nice dividend at Christmas. Mr. Prince in all his relations with me never spoke of the society's position. All he did was to go round and inspect contracts. If he wanted to know anything he used to go to W.H. Dickin. Cartwright never asked me to show him the books of the society at any time. On November 11 he asked to see the managing director, and the quarrel between me and Mr. Cartwright was over him going to Hanwell and insulting my sister-in-law and Mrs. Hibbins. I first came across Stoodley on November 4. Stoodley has described me as the advertising manager of this business, and that is true in the sense that I had to look after all the advertising matters belonging to the little booklet, and I was described as inspector and manager. I had nothing to do with the advertisements. I had all my work to do to get out and verify contracts and get them ready for the printer. I saw Mr. Southwell. I cannot tell the day on which Prince parted with his money. I did not know that I had had one of his £5 notes till I was informed at the police court. I believe Mr. Hillyer gave it me with instructions to get a 20s. postal order. It is the only bank note I have had in my hands, I should think, for two or three years. My opinion is that the Tradesmen's Provident was 50 times better than the West London, because the tradesmen had not got to pay any money for subscriptions. I did not buy any shares.

Reexamined. I did not expect the West London Society to be a success in the first few minutes. In the first place, we had no powers to put any literature out until the first general meeting had been held. It would take eight or nine months, perhaps longer than that, to get it properly in order. I was told my position was to be outside to get contracts from tradesmen. If I could not get them myself I was to engage men to get them. I did not know what the title "managing director" meant.

GEORGE FREDERICK CARTWRIGHT , recalled, said that he recollected the occasion when A.G. Dickin said he had insulted a lady, but he denied having done so. He did ask to see the books, and it was then that A.G. Dickin made the charge against him and told him that if he did not get out he would be chucked out.

ALFRED JAMES HILLYER (prisoner, on oath). I was 23 last July. When I left school, at the age of 16, I was articled to a chartered accountant and served five years. I then went into the employment of a Mr. Wilding at Dashwood House. We had a little dispute because I was not able to get my salary and I left him. After that I made up my mind to try and carry on business on my own account and did accountancy work at home, living with my father. In April, 1907, I saw in the "Daily Telegraph" an advertisement in these terms: "Secretary Wanted for Provident Societies. Salary commence at £250 per annum. Would be required to invest £500 by instalments as to be arranged. Security arranged—W.H., Box 458, Postal Department, 'Daily Telegraph,' Fleet Street, E.C." I answered the letter and received in reply a letter signed W.H. Dickin, asking me to call at 44, Bedford Row. I accordingly called and saw Mr. Dickin. The societies were to be four in number, West London, North London, East London, and South London, but the three last were not formed. The nature of the business was explained to me. I consulted my solicitors, and, contrary to their advice, after considerable negotiation, it was settled that I should have the appointment. I was to put £200 into the company and have a salary of £3 a week. W.H. Dickin used considerable pressure to induce me to hand over the money. I was told there were several after the position, and if I did not hurry I should not be able to have it I borrowed £25 from my solicitors, and I believe the cheque for that amount was paid into Lloyds Bank, W.H. Dickin's account, on June 14. I had previously given him £10, which was all the money I had. I am not sure whether it was my own money or whether I had it from my father. On June 20 I paid a further £25 in notes. The receipt was signed "W.H. Dickin, general adviser." On June 29 I give Dickin a cheque for £150. My solicitors raised the money for me on my father's security. The additional £10 Mr. Dickin said he must have for himself for keeping the situation open so long. I was not to take shares for that £200, only to deposit it. On the completion of the payment they entered into an agreement with me as secretary, dated June 29, 1907. The money was supposed to be returnable at the end of my agreement, and I was to have interest at 5 per cent. I do not remember exactly the first day that I commenced my duties. I received my salary for two weeks only. At the end of the company I had £12 further on account of arrears. I discovered there was no money in it at all. The tradesmen objected to paying the three guineas. I complained to Mr. Dickin and the other officers. I suggested that I should see the tradesmen personally. Of course, that was not met with very great approval. Within a couple of days my £200 was used to pay the liabilities of the society. Dickin told me he had gained a lot of experience by this company, and he was going to form a new one without the three guineas entrance fee. I heard of the formation of the new company about the middle of August. The rules were got out by Mr. Dickin and Mr. Foster. I certainly believed that the new company would be a success. I had great faith in it, so great that on the strength of it I got married. On

August 17 I went away for my honeymoon, and I came back on September 1. I tendered my resignation as secretary of the West London on September 13, not seeing any means of getting my salary or any portion of the £200 back. Mr. Diokin had promised me this position in the new society, with 200 shares to recompense me for the £200 I had lost. After I had tendered my resignation the WestLondon went into voluntary liquidation, and I handed over everything to Mr. Price, the trustee. When the new company was registered on September 13 I paid the registration fee of £5, being told that that was the condition of my becoming secretary. In the second application for registration the objects were condensed into about six lines. The signatories to the book of rules were Mather, Foster, Howarth. and Alexander, and I signed as secretary. The memorandum was signed by Mr. Mather and Mr. Alexander. (Mather and Alexander denied their signature to the second set, of roles.) According to the minute book the first board meeting was held on September 23. There were present Mr. Hibbins, Mr. Howarth, Mr. Foster, Mr. W.H. Diokin, and myself as secretary. My agreement was signed and sealed. As secretary I obeyed the orders I received from my directors. I should have been dismissed if I had not. I took no active part myself in originating anything, but merely acted in an official capacity. I was at liberty to carry on the business of accountant so long as it did not affect the business of the society. For that purpose I had a room of my own, and my name as accountant was outside the office. The whole of the correspondence was carried on by me. Numerous canvassers were appointed, and I had so reason to doubt that the contracts were bona-fide until the managers had been round and reported otherwise. A customer going to a particular tradesman's shop would get a preference by reason of his stamps or checks. I considered it was a very workable scheme, and I still consider so, with good management and capital. Canvassers were to be paid according to the number of contracts, and district managers were appointed whose duty it was to go round and verify the contracts so that every precaution was taken, if properly carried out, that the thing should be bona-fide and straightforward. I have no doubt at all that with more time and with capital and better organisation all round the society would have been a success. It had only been in existence two months up to the time of the arrest. Whilst I was at Bedford Row there was some trouble with the liquidator of the West London. They took forcible possession. With regard to the furniture, a large portion of it came from Wolf and Hollander; a little was my own. We had four rooms downstairs and four upstairs. The furniture supplied by Fenton was put on the fourth floor, which could have done with a little more. The furniture of my own was put into my room, and the furniture from Wolf and Hollander went on to the second floor. My own furniture consisted of a set of legal rests and a separate deed box, a file, and small cabinet, and cost me roughly about £13. The West London offices were on the second floor, and they were the landlords of the rooms on the top floor. The occupier of the top floor was the Croydon.

Society, or they were supposed to be; I do not know what arrangement was made. I know that the West London seized the furniture on the top floor for rent due to them. The West London bought a whole lot of furniture whilst I was secretary, and invited offers for it. Mr. Willets and Prior and Rickard both offered £52. Wil lets' offer was accepted, and he proposed to pay by bill, but the society found they could not get anyone to discount it, and gave him £2 to be off the bargain. We then accepted Prior and Rickards offer, and the money was paid into the account of Mr. Dickin, who with it discharged several liabilities of the West London Society. Prior and Rickard afterwards sold the furniture to the Tradesmen's Provident for £62, which was paid by bill drawn by Mr. Foster on behalf of the society. That bill was met by a cheque on my own bank, the society's banking account being closed. I had the money that was paid by Mr. Southwell. No part of that cheque came back to me.

(Friday, April 10.)

ALFRED JAMES HILLYER , recalled. Dealing with Southwell's case, I do not know who inserted the advertisement in "The Times" of October 11. I think I first saw Jones on September 23, the day on which he paid his money. I was not present at the interview he had with W.H. Dickin on September 17. Hibbins is not unlike me in appearance. The two cheques for the £150 came into my possession and were paid into the bank of the society. I do not remember telling Jones that I had invested £200 in the society. With regard to my being asked by Jones to show him the register of members, he made several applications to see the whole of the books, and, on the advice of the solicitor, I refused. Eventually Mr. Jones attended by appointment to see the register. Mr. W.H. Dickin was present and showed him his own account in the list of names. 970 shares had at that time been issued. I inserted one or two advertisements by Dickin's instruction. I was told to take Southwell's cheque and get it cashed the same afternoon. Of the proceeds I paid a £100 note and a £5 note into my own bank and received back £43 in change. One note for £50 was handed to Mr. Dickin, of which he handed me back £3 5s., stating that £46 15s. was due to him. A £20 note I gave to Hibbins to take to the printers. The other £20 note I endorsed at Mr. Mossop's request and gave him, and he gave me £10 change. The balance was put into the safe. On the following morning a £10 note was given to Hibbins and £2 in cash for directors' fees. The money in the safe went in disbursements of the company. The reason for paying the £100 and £5 into my bank was in order to provide the £62 which was subsequently paid to Rickard for furniture, as we could not operate on the society's account. Dickin asked me for £4 to send to Howarth—I think that would be for directors' fees. I had nothing to do with turning Southwell out of the building. Of course, I was powerless—I had no voice in the matter. I looked upon it as a personal quarrel between W.H. Dickin and Southwell.

I cannot say who inserted, the advertisement in the ease of Mr. Cartwright. All the advertisements were dictated by Mr. Dickin; they were never in my own wording. Some of the advertisements were accompanied by a letter signed by me. Cartwright called to see Mr. Dickin. and as Dickin was not in he saw me. He said, "As we are alone, I would like you to tell me in confidence if there is anything you know against this society, because," he said the loss of £50—if he did lose it—would be a very serious thing to him. He asked me if I knew of anything that was wrong. I told him I did not know of anything wrong at all, that I had got married the previous August, and considered that the beat guarantee I could offer, as I had nothing else to depend upon. I told him I considered his money would be quite safe and that I was under agreement with the society. I have a recollection of having shown the agreement to him, but of that I am not quite sure. He did not read it carefully, merely glanced at it. He had not his cheque book with him, but brought his cheque book the next day. It was handed to Dickin, who handed it to me, and I took it over to the bank. I had no conversation about the society with Prince. He brought 10 £5 notes and his agreement was signed by Mr. Foster as director and by me as secretary. Three of the notes were taken by myself as part of the salary due to me, and I paid them into my bank. W.H. Dickin had £10 and I paid Mossop £25. I recollect the advertisement being inserted to which Hoole replied. I had then been appointed managing director, and Stoodley was acting as secretary pro. tem. When Hoole called I explained the nature of the secretaryship to him, the scheme of the society; I gave him the information he required and a copy of the balance-sheet. Hoole asked how the bank balance stood, and I said, "As it is only a young society we have not get very much. We have only had a small amount of capital come in so far, and it has been used for the establishment of the business." I do not remember that I told him what the actual balance was, but I certainly told him it was only a small balance. It was, in fact, £5 10s. 6d. I told him 1,470 shares had been allotted, and he was able to verify the fact himself. It is correct that I said I would prefer him because he was a chartered accountant. Stoodley was brought on to the premises early in November by Mr. Dickin. I knew nothing of his previous history except that he was out of employment. Dickin told me that he had communicated to Stoodley the fact of him being appointed secretary pro. tern. Had the Tradesmen's Provident Society been successful there would have been due to me £242 15s. 4d. I never contemplated helping anyone to obtain money from the public by fraud. Up to the time of the arrest my belief was that with capital these societies would do very well indeed. When I interviewed Hoole I certainly thought the society had a future before it. If Hoole had paid his £200 I should have seen that it was used for the furtherance of the society.

Cross-examined. I think £200 would have been sufficient to carry the society on until it was beginning to pay. The only society I made any investigation into was the West London. It struck me there were

possibilities in the business. It was represented to me as a solid, substantial concern, and I thought it was about as sound as most concerns. It had over 80 members, half of whom had paid their three guineas in full. I looked to the balance-sheet chiefly for the number of members and the amount received. I asked to see the cash book and bank book, but was told that Cox, the late secretary, had refused to hand them over. I had heard of a scheme like this before. I understood the money I paid was wanted for security. I think I was told that references would be dispensed with if I deposited £200. I did not offer references in lieu of payment. I have got back nothing out of the £200. That money is entirely lost. I consider that I was, to a certain extent, defrauded of that money, the society's position having been misrepresented to me, but I did not realise that fact until these proceedings. I first began to suspect when I saw the amount of cash that began to flow in; a few shillings a week. The society had no business of any substantial kind. The tradesmen were there, but had had a quarrel with the society. When I realised that I had been swindled out of my £200 I complained to Mr. Dickin. I told him that I did not consider that I had been treated fairly, and that material facts had been withheld from me. I did say the society's business was not worth sixpence, or words to that effect. It struck me as a fraud to take three guineas from a tradesman and charge 30s. commission for the canvasser who got it. I mentioned that to Mr. Dickin, who said there would be no more entrance fees coming in, and the new society would be on very different lines. Mr. Pitt Lewis, K.C., I believe had been a director, but he died before I joined the society. I relied upon that and other names. The proof that he was a director is that there is a letter from his widow thanking the directors of the West London for their condolences. I found that my money had been parted with for the sole purpose of financing this society. There was practically no money from other sources and the directors were hoping—at least, they told me so—that with this money they, would be able to canvass the district and so get tradesmen in. As to why I did not determine to see that the money was properly expended, I was very young at the time and had bad no experience of company work, and I relied upon what I was told. I understood that Hibbins was the company's bookkeeper. At the meeting of September 4, 1907, of the West London, as secretary, I reported certain amounts to be due. There was more due in the majority of cases, but we worked it so that everybody had a proportion of what was owing, except the typist, who was paid in full, and the housekeeper. In the case of the directors, there was more than£4 owing, and we made a sort of rateable reduction so that everybody might be fairly treated and get as much as possible out of the £50. Then the whole management, with the exception, of myself, proceeded to resign. I endeavoured to bring the members together—the tradesmen. I suggested that if they would support me in the appointment of a board of directors we might be able to go along. If they would give the stamps out and pay for them, I thought that from a small beginning we might work it up to something bigger. I could not,

however, get a single one. They were absolutely bitter against the whole thing, having been promised so many things they were unable to get. As to whether the business of the West London was to be taken over by the Tradesmen's Provident, I understood the new society was to take over the ground which was also to be worked by the three other societies which were to be formed—the North, South, and East. I was asked to register the Southern and sign as the secretary pro tem. That was the occasion of the second application on October 9. Mr. Capt signed as secretary on the first occasion. I never looked upon myself as being secretary of that. With regard to the Tradesmen's Provident, I signed as secretary, not as signatory. I was asked by Mr. Dickin in May, 1907, if I would accompany him and choose what furniture I wanted for my own room. I wanted to be very independent with regard to that room, so that I could say that it was absolutely my own. I had nothing to do with Mr. Fenton at all. I introduced Mr. Dickin to Wolfe and Hollander. I knew Mr. Palmer there, and I thought I should be doing him a good turn. I do not think I had finished paying my money when the furniture came in. I selected some furniture which I arranged should be invoiced to myself, but for some reason they refused to do that. Having regard to the fact that I never paid for it, I regarded it as an asset of the society. I understood there was a large sum due from members—that is what I have been told all along—and I thought the liquidators would collect that and square up this liability with the other. I refused to pay for the furniture because I wanted a detailed statement that it belonged to me. I did not feel I was secured sufficiently. I knew nothing about the furniture from Fenton's at all. I do not remember that Fenton's were claiming £40 or £50 for furniture supplied to the West London. I understood the Croydon Society was exactly similar to the West London, with a three-guinea entrance fee. I understood the Croydon Society was to pay £26 a quarter or half-year, and as they had not paid it the West London seized their furniture. I do not think I have heard of Mr. Rickard at any other address than at Oxford. His society is the Central, of which Mr. Dickin was promoter. I had nothing to do with it. I had nothing to do with the sale of the furniture to Mr. Rickard for £52; the directors did that. Rickard, having purchased the furniture, left it where it was by arrangement with Mr. Dickin, and it was sold within a week to the Tradesmen's Provident Society, which was then being formed, for £62. Why the society should pay the £10 to Rickard I do not know. I had nothing to do with the transaction except signing the minutes. I did not know Mr. Tilhard as the representative of Willetts. It it not true that on September 1 I called on Willetts's manager from the Tradesmen's Provident and said I wanted to sell some furniture. I do not know that an offer of £41 was made for it. I did not make a suggestion to Tilhard to buy for £52 from the West London and resell to the Tradesmen's Provident for £62. I consider that £62 was a very fair figure for the new society to pay. I accepted Mr. Willetts's bill for £62 because I was told to. Eventually I was instructed to cancel the bargain on payment of £2, and subsequently

there was exactly the same transaction with Rickard. The position of A.G. Dickin at the Tradesmen's Provident was a very subsidiary one. He was introduced by Mr. W.H. Dickin as a sort of odd man because he was out of work, in a sort of general capacity to do anything he was wanted to do. I cannot say from my own knowledge what was the object in those taking posts in the society parting with their money on entrance and buying shares. Mr. Dickin and Mr. Foster decided upon that. I do not think it was entered in a minute. The object may have been to finance the society for a time by providing capital. I knew, of course, that Jones was going to part with money, but I did not, having regard to my experience of the West London, disclose to him the history of it; I never had sufficient conversation with him. I was perfectly satisfied with the new society. Substantially the whole of the money which came into the new society from September 13 to December 4 was money that came from the prosecutors. There was business which brought in a little money. I was present at the interview when Jones was told that the banking account had stopped, that the society had got into difficulties about furniture, that the balance was only £15, and that cheques had been returned unpaid. I agree that the account then given of the society was not very rosy. I knew that for the post of managing director Southwell was to pay £200, £50 more than Jones had paid. I did not on October 24, with knowledge of the pallid and anaemic condition of the society, tell Mr. Southwell of it in order to prevent him parting with his money; I did not consider the case was hopeless at that time. The society was in a bad condition, but not hopeless. Its difficulties were all things that could be got over. As to whether it occurred to me that Mr. Southwell might attach some importance to £200, I did not have any negotiations with Mr. Southwell at all. Jones also knew that Southwell was coming in and would pay £200. If Jones did not attach very much importance to it, I didn't see why I should. He was not frightened at all about the society. I went by Mr. Jones's demeanour. I did not know, as secretary pro. tem. of the Southern Society, that advertisements had been put in for a managing director as early as September 5. I have no recollection of the advertisement. I had nothing to do with the Southern Society beyond signing the application for registration. In respect of nearly every advertisement inserted there was an answer from Jones, but I cannot locate any one in particular. The hook had only to be thrown in and Jones rose immediately to it. I could not say whether he answered the same advertisement as Mr. Hoole answered. Out of Jones's £150, £125 went to W.H. Dickin. I had the countersigning of the cheques. Foster had some of the money, but I forget how much it was. By agreement W.H. Dickin was to have 25 per cent. of the share capital. My £200 was included in that, and he took his £50 in small amounts of £10 and £15, not necessarily as the money came in, but as he wanted it. There was nothing in the position of the Tradesmen's Provident which necessitated the appointment of an architect. What I understood was that Jones being an architect and surveyor asked to

have that appointment. He was appointed director and also architect, but I looked upon him at a director, not as an architect. I do not know when his £150 was paid to the company. That was not my arrangement, but Mr. Fosters. I recollect the meeting of October 31. Jones was not allowed to act as director because Mr. Mossop had advised that he was not a director. One day when he came in he was very noisy. Jones didn't get notice of board meetings because he had refused to act. As to whether that was the proper way to get rid of a director and at to what was to become of his £150, I took legal advice on the matter, and I didn't feel that I could do more. I took no steps to see whether he could be recouped. No other director was put in his place for the moment. I was appointed myself on November 5. As to whether it was my duty to take shares from Mr. Jones and buy him out, I held my qualification; I held 200 shares. I did not understand that according to the agreement with Jones every succeeding director to himself was to take over his shares. When he came to the meeting on October 31 I thought he had resigned. I do not think I ever asked him to hand in his resignation in writing. I did not answer a single letter received from Jones after that meeting; Mr. Mossop advised me not to. As to why I did not answer the letters, he had been very nasty with me when he had been up there. Mr. Mossop advised me not to let him see the books in the presence of Dickin. I probably knew of the advertisement in Cartwright's case ("Manager required to inspect contracts and collect moneys. Preference given to one able to invest £50," etc.). He would have to manage the particular district allotted to him; which district would be decided upon at the time of his appointment, I suppose the amount of £50 was fixed by Mr. Dickin, and Mr. Foster would have some say in the arrangement. I signed the agreement which was entered into with him. Of course, my signature would be necessary. I knew the paid the £50. That would go into the London and County Bank at Holborn. The people he would have to manage were the tradesmen and canvassers. I do not think he ever did anything, because almost immediately after he had started his duties there was some trouble with the landlords, and I think he left and did not return. I do not know what the £50 was for; it was used as ordinary capital, and expended on behalf of the society. I did not tell Cartwright I had paid £200 into the society to obtain the post of secretary. If I remember rightly, I said I had £200 in the society. I told Cartwright my opinion of the Tradesmen's Provident Society, but I do not know whether I said anything to him about the West London. As to whether I said that everything was fair and straightforward, I do not know that I used those exact words. Apart from my knowledge of W.H. Dickin I still consider that the society was good. I told Southwell that two positions, a directorship at £100 a year and the managing directorship, were open. He came several times up to October 24. In addition to being dishonest Dickin was violent and offensive, a very unpleasant person to quarrel with. I did not see why I should leave the office for the sake of that one man. The intention was to form a board of directors from among the tradesmen

themselves. I think Southwell called three times to see the books. I thought that with his experience he would be a capable man to split London up into districts. I remember Prince paying his money. He seemed very enthusiastic and to be a man of ordinary intelligence. He told me he had been a licensed victualler, had just come out of a public-house, and had had large experience as a tradesman. He seemed to have the interests of the society very much at heart. I thought he was quite fitted for the post of director. I learned from him of the article in "Truth," and it was a surprise to me that Mr. Dickin took no action. I, of course, knew that so far as the West London was concerned these societies were swindles. I know Mr. Price has said that all that was received by the society from A to Z was £5 3s. 11d. As to who was going to pay the rent of £190 a year, I thought money would be received from the tradesmen. That was my opinion and my belief. I should not have saddled myself with these offices at that rent if I had not believed they were secured personally. As to whether the landlords would rather get possession of their premises than insist on the conditions of a 21 years' lease from a person who is not worth powder and shot, I am afraid I shall have some difficulty with them.

EDWARD MARTIN RICHARD , 76, Divinity Road, Oxford, house furnisher. I was a director of the Oxford Tradesmen's Provident Society, afterwards registered as the Central Society under the Friendly Societies Act. The change was effected partly owing to an article in the "Draper's Record" and partly because the directors did not think the capital sufficient, so decided to establish the society on another basis. I was invited by the tradesmen to become managing director and am so now, having retired from partnership in Prior and Rickard. We have extended the business to Banbury, Bristol, Plymouth, Devonport, Leeds, Bradford, York, and Sheffield, and we have about 1,000 tradesmen who are members of the society.

To Judge Rentoul. W.H. Dickin was the founder of the society. If we wanted any advice we might call him in for it.

Examination continued. The scheme is similar to W.H. Dickin's. As tradesmen are got in in sufficient numbers we issue a booklet to advertise the society and we employ lady canvassers to take it round. The collections in a town of 30,000 or 40,000 inhabitants average about £5 a week to begin with and gradually increase as the trade is worked up and they increase more rapidly after we begin to honour the coupons. I consider the system worked by our society perfectly honest and straightforward. I should scarcely have sold my business and taken over the management of it if I had not believed that. As a tradesman I was very enthused by the benefits that came from the system. As a business man I consider that the operations of the society benefit the individual tradesman. As general adviser of the society W.H. Dickin did not interfere with the management at all. The society runs itself; Dickin certainly does not run our society.

Cross-examined. I ceased to be a member of my firm some time in September, 1907. On September 3 I signed a document purporting

to buy some furniture from the West London for £27 10d. It was left at the offices in Bedford Row. The formality of removing a piece of the furniture was gone through. A chair was brought down to the outside of the premises, set down in the street, and then brought back again. The same day I purported to buy from the Croydon Society some more furniture. I am not prepared to swear that the formality of removal was gone through in that case. The whole transaction was gone through with one gentleman—W.H. Dickin—but the directors of the West London were also concerned in it. I do not know who they were. Dickin told me he was getting estimates for the furniture, and if I liked to buy it another company would buy off me, and I offered such a price that, failing that company coming into existence I could realise on it to-morrow. I understood the reason for the sale was that the West London was in liquidation. I have no recollection of having received a communication, from Mr. Price, the liquidator, about October 30, making inquiries. I received a letter from him on November 6 calling attention to his previous letter, but did not reply to it, not knowing to what it referred. The business was concluded, and I did not trouble any further about it. I deny that I did not answer because the whole thing was a fraud. The registered address of the Central Tradesmen's Society is 28, Baldwin Street, Bristol. It has no connection with any of Dickin's societies. The letter now shown me is written by me. On December 4, 1907, our registered offices were at 5 and 6, Magdalen Street, Oxford, from which address this letter was written. Our paper under the address has the statement: "Share capital, £500,000." The letter commences: "Dear Mr. Dickin,—I regret to say the bird has escaped the fowler's net and we are still stony." That has reference to an amusing incident that once occurred between Mr. Dickin and myself. It does not mean that my efforts to get hold of somebody to pay money into my company had failed and that, with £500,000 of capital, we had not a brass farthing. It cannot mean that because the society has always been able to meet its liabilities. Mr. Dickin used to be a salesman for the Cash Register Company, and every time a register was sold it was referred to as killing a bird. The letter goes on to say, "I interviewed a man in Plymouth, one in Exeter, and two in Bristol." I think at that date we had a position to fill, either local manager or local secretary, or it may be that I was I simply interviewing shareholders, not necessarily someone from whom I required a premium. We advertised for a man to fill the position of local manager, "a man able to invest £25 or £50 preferred." Fifty men applied who were willing to put down the money, but we did not appoint one of them. The reference to Mr. Way, who is a director of the Lydney Colliery Company, is that we were in communication with him to know if he would put £1,000 in the company. He did not become a director because his own directors made him a great advance to induce him to stay where he was. I dot not think tie offices in Bristol were ready and furnished by December 11. "I was awaiting a further lot of advertisements, replies to be sent to 28, Baldwin Street, Bristol." That is right. It is true that W.H. Dickin and I interviewed

a "tall, dark man," named Bosisto. It was with the object of filling the post of manager at the Bristol branch. W.H. Dickin was interviewing by instructions from our board. We have employed him to act for us as an interviewer occasionally; in some cases where situations were to be filled and premiums required. We found him a very successful interviewer. It is true that "I saw him (Bosisto) on Monday and he was prepared to complete on the day he came I only mention, this in order that when we go to Bristol you must not appear to be the company"—that is the Central Tradesmen's Company. Mr. Dickin is one of those men who carry very largely everything in front of them, and he is liable to say things which we as a board would not bind ourselves to, and I wrote to warn him against letting his enthusiasm carry him away. I am prepared to say here to-day that the company cannot afford to do without Mr. Dickin. We have never used him outside the province of interviewer. He engaged three men at Bristol—not at a premium—who have all been successful. "I have reopened negotiations with Bosisto, but he took fright at you." Mr. Dickin gave him the impression that he would have to work 24 hours a day. "I have assured him you have nothing to do with it except draw your royalties." We are under agreement to pay Mr. Dickin certain moneys for his royalties. I expect that agreement is in the safe of the company or in the desk at the head office. We were seven Oxford business men, who registered the Central Tradesmen's Company, the names of which are on the articles. Mr. Dickin acted for us in the registration. "I hope now to secure him (Bosisto) at manager. Do not send that cablegram, as I have now found my code book and can work it through cheaper, but I shall want you to send it." That was a private letter. I came here of my own accord. Is that the course I would pursue if I had anything to conceal? I did not know that that letter was in the hands of the police when I entered the box. "I have one manager fixed "—his name was Pearce—"taking 100 shares at 10s. each in January." He did do so. "And I have a £150 director to come about the middle of January." I do not think he came, and I do not remember his name. We do not take a director now unless he pays £200. When I speak of striking oil I mean that the business is going well. The books of the company will show what the position of the company is. The expression about the £150 director does not strike me as odd. I do not know what Mr. Dickin's methods were. The business of an interviewer is to find what a man is worth. I can produce 20 letters showing we could have had as much money in the Central Company as we wanted. When I had the letter from Mr. Mackenzie asking me to come up the only question raised was the question of whether I received the cheque for furniture. I had no idea that the affairs of the Central Tradesmen's Society were going to be discussed. In that case it is fair to have the books here, not to let it go forth that the Central Tradesmen's Society is worthless, which it is not. I do not know exactly what business the phrase, "Hope you have had success," refers to. My address at the time of that letter was my private one. I had no

stock at that time. My silence towards the liquidator was not one of design nor because I knew that I must give information with regard to a bogus dealing in relation to the firm.

Re-examined by W.H. Dickin. I appeared four or five times at Clerkenwell County Court in the interpleader action. I was in the box on more than one occasion. I do not know who examined me. I believe Mr. North was there. My attendance at Clerkenwell was quite voluntary. The £10 which I got more than I gave for the furniture was not extravagant for the risk I took. If the Tradesmen's Society had not bought the furniture it would have had to go under the hammer, and it would have taken me all my time to realise £50. The company paid me by bill, and I was ready to renew it, but instead of renewing the bill I got the cheque down, which I did not expect. In regard to the Central Tradesmen's Society, we have attached so our system somewhere over 800 tradesmen, who believe that our system is the only one by which they can fight various monopolies, and they join us under a contract. If we do not do the business for them we do not receive a penny. So far as the tradesmen are concerned, it is "Heads I win, tails you lose." They sign these contracts and they can give us up at a minute's notice. We have put hundreds of pounds over the tradesmen's counter. The Central Tradesmen's Provident Society to-day is in a sound financial position. Messrs. Lloyds are our bankers for our other branches—Bristol, Leeds, and Plymouth. We are taking offices at Sheffield because the tradesmen want us to do so. We have about 112 tradesmen in the society there. We have about 55 at Bradford, and some have written to us from York. I have been in the furniture business all my life, and I have been on the road as commercial. I gave up my own business for this one because I believed that the company was needed by tradesmen to support them. The tradesmen offered me the position of managing director, and if I took it they would rally round and put the thing on a sound basis. My father is a Truro man. He financed the Oxfordshire Society with £150. He also financed the present society, of which I am managing director. He was guarantor for an overdraft at the bank. He is well known and a public man in Cornwall.

(Saturday, April 11.)

Verdict: W.H. Dickin, Guilty on all counts; A.G. Dickin, Guilty on the three counts relating to Prince; Hillyer, Guilty on the three counts relating to Hoole. The jury made a very strong recommendation to mercy in the case of Hillyer. It appeared to be his first offence, and he was manifestly led step by step under very strong influence.

Sentences: W.H. Dickin, Five years' penal servitude; A.G. Dickin, Six months' hard labour; Hillyer was released on recognisances to come up for sentence if called upon, himself in £50 and his father and father-in-law in £100 each.


(Thursday, April 2.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-33
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

HAWKINS, Florence (32) ; wilful murder of an unnamed male child. The like on coroner's inquisition.

Mr. R.D. Muir, Mr. A.H. Bodkin, and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. H.D. Roome defended.

After the evidence for the prosecution, which was largely of a medical nature, Mr. Muir, having regard to the admission of Dr. Freyberger, that, assuming the child to be fully born, and that the mother attempted to out the umbilical cord while it was round the child's neck, the wounds which he found might have been inflicted accidentally by the mother, asked his Lordship if he thought the Jury ought to be asked to convict of murder.

His Lordship thought not. Mr. Muir said that the same thing would apply to the charge of manslaughter.

Mr. Curtis Bennett then said that the prisoner pleaded guilty of concealment of birth, which plea was accepted by the prosecution.

Prisoner had up to this affair borne a very respectable character, and her cousin, Mr. Randall, the proprietor of the "Swan Hotel," Maidenhead, promising to look after her till she got something to do, she was released on her own recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-34
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FAINLIGHT, Arthur Percy (27, clerk) ; feloniously sending to one, Nathan Mark Shinberg, a certain letter, well knowing the contents thereof, demanding money by menaces.

Mr. Huntly Jenkins prosecuted.

JOHN DAVID MANAGER . I live with Mr. Shinberg at West Hampstead, and am manager of the Premium Trading Stamp Compasy, Whitfield Street, Finsbury, of which Mr. Shinberg is proprietor. Prisoner was employed there, but was discharged last November. On March 11 I received a letter addressed to Mr. Shinberg at his private address, which I opened, having his authority to do so. I know prisoner's handwriting and the letter and envelope (produced) are in it. "Dear Mr. Shinberg,—I hope you will excuse me taking the liberty of penning these few lines, but I must open out; the strain is too much. You have done me enough harm, goodness only knows, and I require a little recompense for same. I sincerely hope and trust that my instructions are carried out to the letter and so prevent something (illegible). I am not going to waste space to threaten, but intend carrying out what I intend to do in practice. I myself am shadowing every movement of you, and there is only one way out of the difficulty, and that is you do exactly as I write. No. 1. I demand from you the sum of £100, no more, nor less. No. 2. That same is handed to me in gold. No. 3. That you either yourself or one of your agents meet me outside the "Aldersgate Hotel" Wednesday (tomorrow) at 2.20 p.m., and give me same tied up in a leather bag and no fuss about same. You know our society's motto, 'Dead men tells no tales,'" etc. When I got to the office I found another

letter in prisoner's handwriting (produced). Prisoner was in our employ for about a year as collector and canvasser. He corresponded daily with the head office and I saw his letters. Mr. Shinberg does not owe him anything.

NANNING MARK SHINBERG , corroborated the last witness and identified the letters as in prisoner's writing. I have been sick for six months and the business has been done by Mr. Manning.

Mr. MANNING, recalled, said that prisoner's salary had been £2 a week and 2s. on every contract he got.

Sergeant SAMUEL COX, A Division, said that he kept the appointment on March 11 with prisoner instead of the prosecutor, and arrested the former, who said, on the warrant being read, "Well, he has done me a lot of harm; he smiles at you and shakes you by the hand; next day he gives you the sack. He has stopped me from getting a job, the dirty dog. He is worse than Manning, he is only his tool. I don't care if I get five years. I want money and will have it. They will have to give me a job, if not they will know it." I took him to the station and he made no reply to the charge.


PRISONER (not on oath). I have not sent the letter threatening with menaces. The man owes me the money and he knows it. I have nothing to prove my statement.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction at North London Sessions on February 11 last for sending a letter to Mr. Manning threatening to murder him, when he was bound over.

Mr. Manning stated that he had discharged prisoner because he had misappropriated moneys which he had collected. Witness afterwards declined to give prisoner a character as to honesty when asked to.

Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-35
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

HILL, George (33, scaffolder) ; manslaughter of Albert John Corker; the like on coroner's inquisition.

Mr. Herman Cohen prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended (at the request of the Court).

ROBERT GEORGE SAYERS , 154, Elthorne Road, Upper Holloway. On March 21 I was in my front parlour on the ground floor looking out of the window when I saw three men and a woman pass, one of them being prisoner. They were talking rather loudly as if quarrelling. Deceased was not there. About a second or two afterwards I went to my front gate and saw the same persons standing about five doors away. Then deceased came along on the other side, almost opposite, and then one of the men (not prisoner) went over and spoke to him. I know now that it was Lee. They talked for two minutes and then crossed to where the others were. They all stood talking for a minute or so, and then prisoner struck a blow at deceased. I did not hear any words between them before that. Prisoner then struck a

second blow on the side of the face. I could not see whether it was a violent blow, but deceased fell heavily to the ground, the back of his head coming, in violent contact with the road. I heard the sound of it as Hill walked away. The rest of us went to the assistance of deceased.

Cross-examined. Apparently Corker followed after Hill before this affair. The time was about six p.m.; it was not dark. The reason I was at the gate was that I was watching for my son. I did not see Corker raise his hand to Hill; he might have done so without me seeing it. From what I could see, the blow was with a clenched fist. I did not know whether the first blow hit Corker or not. I do not think I said to the Coroner that prisoner hit deceased on the body. It was on the face, if I remember rightly.

JAMES CADE , 134, Elthorne Road, gardener. On March 21, at about six p.m., I was in Elthorne Road, when there was an altercation between three men and a woman, Hill and Corker being among them. I walked about 10 or 12 yards away, and then stood and watched them. Hill walked away 10 or 12 yards, then returned, and struck Corker. Before the blow I had heard no words between them. I did not see deceased lift up his hand to Hill. I saw the latter strike a second blow immediately after, and deceased fell on his back. The second blow was on the face, on the right side, I believe. Hill at once walked down towards Hornsey Rise. Apparently both were sober.

Cross-examined. I had been watching for about five or six minutes. I watched out of natural curiosity; I thought there might be some trouble. The first blow hit deceased, because he staggered. I walked past them and turned round; then it was that I saw Hill strike the blow.

Mrs. INCE, wife of Jesse Ince, warrant officer, Clerkenwell County Court, living at 164, Elthorne Road. On the night in question I had been out Shopping, and on returning to my house I saw two people talking. I went indoors, looked through the window, and saw a man (Corker) come and speak to the other two, who were Hill and a woman. Hill spoke back, but I did not hear anything; he then walked away with his friend and left the man. They walked quite 100 yards away, then Corker took two or three steps towards Hill, as much as to say, "I will follow." Then Hill turned suddenly, came back, spoke to Corker, and gave him a blow. Hill spoke to deceased; he moved his mouth three times. I only saw one blow, then Corker fell on the ground, but did not rise again. Prisoner looked down on the road, put his hands in his pockets, shook his head, and walked away.

Cross-examined. My window would be six to eight yards from where the blow was struck. I did not see deceased do anything, nor hear him say anything. I made a mistake before the magistrate in saying that Hill walked 12 or 15 yards away. I said before the magistrate that deceased appeared to be following Hill to continue the quarrelling, and that Hill appeared as if he were moving away to prevent it. Hill's fist was clenched when he struck.

JOHN WILLIAM LEE , 115, Cottenham Road, Holloway, dustman. Between five and six, on March 31, I was in the "Birkbeck" public-house when Hill entered with a female friend. Holden and Corker were there also. I knew the men by sight. I heard Corker say, "I only asked you for a drink." They had been talking together as if they were having an argument. My friend and I walked outside, and Hill and the woman, followed by Corker, came out afterwards. I should think they were having a row. The policeman moved them on; there was a lot of men about. My friend and I went across Elthorne Road towards Hornsey Rise. Hill also crossed the road with the woman. We walked on in the same direction for about 100 yards; Corker meanwhile was walking on the other side. He then crossed towards me and I went and spoke to him, asking what was the matter. He said he did not know. He then went towards Hill, who was going steadily along, and they started talking. I went towards my friend a little distance off, and spoke to him for two or three seconds, when I turned round and saw Corker with his hand up in front of him (indicating); his right hand. The two were speaking, but I could not hear what was said. Then Hill struck deceased in the face. His fists seemed to be closed. Before he struck him I heard Hill tell him to go away. He did that twice. Corker was moving towards Hill all the while. Corker fell to the ground after being struck. Hill then walked away, and I went to deceased's assistance. I met Hill a little later, and he asked me how Corker was. I told him they had taken him on an ambulance, but whether they had locked him up or not I did not know. He replied, "Oh." Prisoner appeared perfectly sober, but deceased appeared to have been drinking.

Cross-examined. Corker appeared as if he was asking for a row when he spoke to Hill outside the public-house. I could not tell you whether Corker's hand was up in selfdefence. I only saw one blow. I did not realise that deceased had been seriously injured.

GEORGE WESTON , 9, calverley Grove, Hornsey Rise. On the night in question I was in Elthorne Road when I saw Hill, Corker (both of whom I knew), Holden and Lee on the opposite side, as if they were all quarrelling. Hill walked away, with Corker following. Hill then stood and told Corker to go away, but the latter attempted to strike him; then Hill hit Corker twice, once with each hand. I think the second blow caught him on the side of the face. Corker fell on the roadway, striking his head violently. Before he fell he was reeling about a bit. The first blow seemed to just catch him.

Cross-examined. I did not think Corker was seriously injured at the time.

Police-constable WILLIAM RICHARDS, 572 Y, said that he took deceased, who was unconscious, to the Great Northern Hospital.

Dr. WADE, house surgeon, Great Northern Hospital. On March 21 at about 6.30 p.m. I saw deceased in the hospital; he was unconscious. An operation was performed that night, but he never recovered consciousness, dying at 3.30 on Sunday morning. I made a postmortem and found the body was well nourished, very healthy, age about 30;

there was a fracture on the right side of the skull beneath the operation wound and also the trephine wounds. On removing the top of the skull the brain was found to be much lacerated on the right side, with a considerable amount of clotted blood. There was a fracture starting from just in front of the hole through which the spinal cord leaves the skull, coming round the left side of the base of the skull and making a complete circle of the back of the base of the skull, which was separated from the front half of the base. Death was due to laceration of the brain and hemorrhage caused by the fracture. I do not think it likely that the fracture could be caused by a man stumbling. The man's skull was a very brittle one. His breath smelt of alcohol, but I could not tell whether he was drunk.

Cross-examined. I found no bruise on the man's face.

Police-constable ARTHUR BARKER, 21 Y. On the night of this occurrence I arrested prisoner about 8.30. I spoke to him at the "Railway Tavern," Holloway Road, and told him what I should arrest him for. He replied, "I know nothing about it; I was not there." Shortly afterwards he said, "If I get any f—g time for it I suppose I can do it." He had been drinking.

Inspector ARTHUE NEIL, Y Division. I saw prisoner on Sunday, March 22, at midday, and told him that Corker had died from the effects of a blow alleged to have been given by him. I then said it would be my duty to charge him with causing the death. He made a statement, which was taken down by Sergeant Wall and prisoner signed it. After the charge had been read he said, "I deny striking him with my fist." Prisoner's statement was as follows: "I should say he brought it on himself. When I went into the 'Birkbeck' I called for three drinks. He walked over to me from two or three he was standing with, and wanted to know if I was going to treat him, demanded it in fact. I told him I had got no money to treat him, and to go to work the same as I do. He said, 'You won't always be f—g well at work; you will be out of work some time or other. He kept asking me if I was going to treat him. I walked out with two friends. He followed me outside the pub and called me a big, dirty beast, and told me I was no use if I was big, and could beat three like me. He struck me there and I struck him there. I told him I did not want his company, and walked down the road. He came running after me, caught hold of me by the coat, pulled me round, struck at me, and then I pushed him away; he being the worse for drink fell to the ground on the kerb. Little did I think he was injured as he is. I walked away as I was glad to get away from him."

Cross-examined. I told prisoner that the man was dead; he said he was very sorry.


GEORGE HILL (prisoner, on oath) repeated in substance his statement above.

Cross-examined. I was naturally annoyed at what deceased said to me. I did not exactly object to his following me, as long as he did

not interfere with me. I walked about 500 or 600 yards from the "Birkbeck" when deceased followed me and wanted to fight. I told him to go away and walked on. Then I returned and again told him to go away. I was very much upset when I made the statement; that is why I said nothing about turning back. I knew he was following me by the way he was calling to me, "Come back. I will show you the way to fight." I thought I might just as well turn round as have it at the back. I have not given evidence before. I could not tell whether deceased ran or walked after me. The night was a bit dark and anyone would have to be pretty close to see deceased strike me. I slipped away from the blow he aimed.

In answer to his Lordship the Jury said that they had formed an opinion.

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Thursday, April 2.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-36
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

CHESHIRE, Herbert, pleaded guilty of maliciously publishing a certain defamatory libel of and concerning. James Edward Passmore.

Prisoner, having expressed his regret, was released on his own and his father's recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon, and meanwhile to keep the peace.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-37
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

LEMON, Ruth Ann, pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Frederick George Neville, her husband being then alive.

Sentence, Three days' imprisonment.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-38
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

STURGESS, William (22, carman), pleaded guilty of stealing one bicycle, the goods of Emmanuel Mears; stealing one coat, one vast and other articles, the goods of Charles Eve; stealing one purse containing certain money, to wit, the sum of 1s. 8 1/2 d., the goods of Mary Geall; stealing one purse containing certain money, to wit, the sum of 5d., the goods of Rose Mears.

He confessed to having been convicted on February 27, 1907, at the South Western Police Court, receiving nine months for fraud and larceny after eight previous summary convictions.

Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-39
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment; Miscellaneous > sureties; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

PRICE, Victor Herbert (18, engineer), MAJOR, George (19, porter), DRAPER, Robert (17, porter), HUME, Walter Frank (22, engineer); all pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the warehouse of Albert Frederick Hunt, with intent to steal therein; stealing divers tools, the goods of Albert Frederick Hunt, and feloniously receiving the same; Hume breaking and entering the shop and warehouse of James Farren and stealing therein 11 pounds in weight of tobacco, divers cigars and cigarettes, his property.

Evidence of character having been given, Price and Hume were remanded in custody till next Sessions; Major was released on the

recognisances of his father in £25; Draper on those of this mother, to come up for judgment if called upon.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-40
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JOCKHAM, George (35, painter), pleaded guilty of having been entrusted by May Stafford with two rings in order that he might apply them for a certain purpose, did convert the said rings and the sum of £5 10s., the proceeds thereof, to his own use and benefit.

Prisoner was proved to have been convicted at Clerkenwell Police Court on August 11, 1900, receiving six months' hard labour for stealing poultry. He had since borne a good character.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-41
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

DENNIS, John Alfred (44, agent), pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences divers sums of money, to wit, £20 from Albert White, £50 from Hyman Winterman, £5 and £5 from Thomas William Chapman, £10 from William Henry Rayner, £5 and £25 from Henry Oliver Clare, and £15 from William John French, in each case with intent to defraud.

Prisoner admitted having been convicted at this Court on September 8, 1903, receiving 12 months' hard labour. He was stated to have since been carrying on a business of systematic fraud and had lately obtained £465 by fraud.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-42
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

ROBINSON, John Peter, pleaded guilty of unlawfully publishing a defamatory libel of and concerning Eliza Ellen Handcock.

It was stated that the prisoner had apologised for the libel and had provided for the costs of the prosecution. He was released on his own recognisances in £200 and one surety in £200 to come up for judgment if called upon.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-43
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

LAWSON, John (35, sailor) ; stealing eight dozen scarf pins and other articles, the goods of Edwin John King and another.

Mr. W.H. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Burnie defended (at the request of the Court).

Before the prisoner pleaded Mr. Leycester stated that it was a rather peculiar case. Prisoner had been boatswain on board a ship bound for South Africa, and at Durban it was found that some of the cargo had been stolen, the cases being broken and found in the carpenter's shop and prisoner's cabin. The carpenter and prisoner were charged with stealing, the carpenter being convicted and sentenced to 12 months' hard labour and the prisoner discharged. On the way home information was given to the officers by other members of the crew that prisoner had been engaged with the carpenter in breaking the cases and concealing goods under the floor of the carpenter's cabin, where they were then found. Prisoner was now charged with stealing these further goods, which were not the subject of the charge in Durban. Prisoner pleads that he had been already acquitted of the offence. As it would be necessary to obtain the record of the Durban Court before proceeding here, and as some of the officers of the ship had lost a voyage and were being kept

here at great inconvenience, and as the only evidence was that of accomplices, which would probably be insufficient for conviction, he proposed to offer no evidence.

With the approval of the Recorder, a verdict of Not guilty was returned by the jury. Mr. Leycester stated that it was agreed this should be an end of litigation between the parties.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-44
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

FRASER, Alister Pringle ; obtaining by false pretences from John Macdonald a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's draft for the payment of £26, with intent to defraud; having been entrusted with certain moneys and property, to wit, the sum of £15 and a cheque for that amount of and belonging to John Macdonald for a certain purpose unlawfully and fraudulently did convert a part of the said moneys, to wit, the sum of £13 10s. and a part of the proceeds of the said cheque to his own use and benefit; having been entrusted with certain moneys and property, to wit, the sum of £3 12s. and a cheque for that amount of and belonging to John Macdonald for a certain purpose unlawfully and fraudulently did convert a part of the said moneys, to wit, the sum of £1 16s. and a part of the proceeds of the said cheque to his own use and benefit; having been entrusted with certain moneys and property, to wit, the sum of £26 and a cheque for that amount of and belonging to John Macdonald for a certain purpose unlawfully and fraudulently did convert a part of the said moneys, to wit, the sum of £15 and a part of the proceeds of the said cheque to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

JOHN MACDONALD , Shepherd's Bush, draper. In October, 1907, I first made the acquaintance of prisoner, and introduced him to my cousin, J.M. Mackenzie. Prisoner said he had invented something to prevent punctures in tyres, that it would be a very good thing, nothing like it had ever been invented before, and if I would finance it I should have a half interest in it. We had several interviews, and on November 28 I entered into agreement produced. He said he wanted £15 to get the tools that were necessary to do the work. I gave him cheque for £15, and he said he had bought some and some required to be made, and that he had paid £13 10s. for them. I afterwards asked to see them, and he said he had got them at his private house. He afterwards gave me a list of the tools he said he had bought, and gave me on December 24 receipt produced. Early in December he said he wanted two dozen basil skins, that they would cost three shillings each. I gave him a cheque for £3 12s., and he handed me a receipted invoice for the amount. I afterwards found he had only bought one dozen. He then stated that he wanted £26 for a vulcaniser. I agreed to it, gave him cheque for £26, and he afterwards brought me receipt produced showing a vulcaniser had been purchased at that amount from Harrington and Co. I learnt from Harringtons that only £11 5s. had been paid for the vulcaniser, and on January 4 showed him their letter. He said, "Well, if you will let me off I will give you £100." I knew he could not get £100, and I told him if I let him off he would go and swindle someone else.

I put him out at the door, and then applied for a summons at the police court.

Cross-examined. I have had nine years' experience at business. I knew prisoner was 17 years of age, and had recently been employed as chauffeur. He was introduced to me by Murchison, a canvasser who was travelling for me. I knew he had no money to pay for his lodgings, and agreed to give him £2 a week for four weeks till he could show a profit. I did not pay him that—he did not come for it—he was living on the money be got for the vulcaniser. The agreement stipulates that I am to have 51 per cent. of the profits and he to have the rest, and that the money paid was to be applied solely for the purpose of developing and obtaining letters patent. A vulcaniser was bought costing £9. My cheque for £26 was made payable to Harrington. When I turned him out of the house I said I had paid altogether £73 12s.

JOHN MACDONALD MACKENZIE , 29, Oxford Road, Ealing, draper. I was present at several of the interviews my cousin, the last witness, had with the prisoner, and confirm his evidence. Prisoner on January 2 showed me the vulcaniser which he had bought. I said it did not look up to much for the amount that was paid. He said I might think that, but he did not; it was a very fine piece of work.

Cross-examined. I was under the impression that £26 had been given. I did not think the vulcaniser was much for the money.

AUGUSTUS FARINO , managing director of the Farman Automobile Company, 100-104, Long Acre. My firm did not supply prisoner with any tools in November or December of last year. He did not pay us £13 10s. His face is familiar to me. Receipt produced is on our notepaper, but is not our form of receipt, and was not given by us. We have no employee named Dudley. I wrote a letter to Macdonald to that effect.

WILLIAM ALFRED HARRINGTON , 176, New King's Road, Fulham, trading as H.W. Harrington and Co., motor engineers. I have known prisoner five or six years. On December 17 he ordered from me a vulcaniser at £27, for which I gave him a pro forma invoice. The next day he brought me a cheque signed by Macdonald for £26, made payable to my company. I went with prisoner to Harvey Cross and he chose a vulcaniser at £9 which, with expenses and delivery, came to £11 5s., which he paid and I gave prisoner the balance of the cheque in cash. I wrote the letter of July 3 telling Macdonald the facts. Prisoner has worked for my firm for two years as a motor repairer and machine worker. He was one of the best workers I ever had, a good workman and a steady man. He left me in 1905, and I believe went to Scotland for some time. He was afterwards chauffeur to a lady. I had no suspicion there was anything wrong about this transaction. I have seen his invention and believe it an expedient for diminishing the possibility of puncture. I suggested he should make some up and I would get some of my customers to try it. I have been in the business for seven years and think it is a good idea. It wants capital to put a thing like that on the market. It wants tools; a vulcaniser and basil skins would be essential.

JOHN WILLIAM GREGORY , Birmingham Belting Company, Limited. I sold the prisoner one dozen basil skins for 36s. Receipt produced for £3 12s. does not come from my firm, and we have no employee of the name of Benlington. It is a pro forma invoice and the receipt is a forgery.

(Friday, April 3.)

Detective-sergeant BENJAMIN ALLERTON, T Division. On January 13 I served a summons on prisoner. He said, "Yes, that is right; I wat a partner."

Cross-examined. As the officer in charge of the case I have made inquiries about prisoner's character; he bears an excellent one in his different employments; up to this time nothing has been said against him.

Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.

Prisoner was ordered to remain in custody till next session, when it was intimated that he would be released on sureties.


(Thursday, April 2.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-45
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

SHEPHEARD, Charles (32, bank clerk) ; stealing a bond of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway, the property of the Union of London and Smiths Bank, Limited, his masters.

Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. Arnold Ward prosecuted; Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. E.C.P. Boyd defended.

JOHN WILLIAM AVORY , chief clerk in the securities department of the Union of London and Smiths Bank, Princes Street. In March and April of last year prisoner was temporarily employed in the securities department. In February of 1905 there was offered for public subscription an issue of mortgage bonds of the Grand Trunk Railway, Prairie Section, of two values, one of £100 and the other of £200, and in relation to that issue the bank acted as agents for the railway company. The course of business was that the public applied for scrip and exchanged that scrip for bonds at the bank, and the bonds were issued in consecutive order and entered upon a rough sheet which is kept at the bank showing the numbers of the bonds and when they were delivered out. Early in this year I made an investigation with regard to the delivery out of the bonds and found that numbers 11677-8-9 were handed out in January, 1907. The records showed that the next bond handed out was 11681 on April 10, 1907, and there was no record of the handing out of No. 11680, no information as to what had become of it. In the course of his temporary duties prisoner would have had the handing out of bonds from the department, with three or four others, and it would be his duty to enter a record of the fact and the number of the bond and the date of it being handed out on the rough sheet. Whoever made a note

with regard to the handing out of No. 11681 on April 10, 1907, should have called attention to the fact that No. 11680 was not accounted for if he had noticed it. If he had looked at the record he would have found that number did not appear there. My attention was not called to the fact that the bond was missing until a long time subsequently. That set us upon inquiry, as the result of which we got into communication with Mr. Squirrell, the assistant manager and secretary of the Alliance Credit Bank of London, Palmerston House, Old Broad Street, about the last week in January. At the second interview he produced some letters signed "F. Williams," which I immediately recognised as being in the handwriting of Charles Shepheard. I have not the slightest doubt about it. I saw the letters upside down some little distance off and knew the writing quite well. The bonds were kept in a tin box, which was brought up day by day from the strong room to the securities office. The box would be unlocked every day by either one of us as it contained other securities. Prisoner in the course of his employment would have access to the box and its contents. The staff of the department amounts to about eight or nine men, and I should say that six or seven might have access to it in turn.

Cross-examined. The bonds were to "bearer" with coupons attached. The coupon sheet is part of the bond itself. It is all in one piece, and there are no perforations. If you want to detach the coupons you have to cut them off. I could not tell you the exact number of coupons, but they are spread over a great number of years. We had very few of the bonds left, perhaps 12 or 14, the issue having been made some years ago. Besides the Prairie Section there was the Lake Superior Section, and various issues, but we treated them all as one parcel of bonds. There is never much difficulty in selling "bearer" bonds. Such a bond could be sold; at once if the broker knew with whom he was dealing. The interest was payable at the office of the Grand Trunk Railway, not at the bank, so that the bond having left the bank we had nothing more to do with the matter. The tin box containing the securities is generally unlocked at once, as things are required almost immediately the box comes up, and the practice is to leave it unlocked during the day. There is nothing to prevent any clerk in the room having access to the unlocked box, but it would not be unobserved. Besides the staff employed in the office messengers come in from time to time bringing correspondence. I believe I was in charge of the securities department on April 10, but I really cannot tell for certain. Prisoner would only be responsible for entries he made himself. It is no part of his duty to supervise other persons' entries. I have here the rough sheet of April 10. The rough sheet consists of a list of the entries of the bonds and the list number. The list is the sheet on which the scrip is entered when it is presented to the public. The dates are not here; they are in the scrip book. There is nothing to show the particular clerk who hands out any particular bond except the handwriting. Of course, the man who hands the bonds out may fail to make the record. The correction in red ink is a correction of a number entered on the wrong sheet, a bond of

the Lake Superior division having been recorded on the Prairie sheet, and in our investigations we put it right. It is from the scrip book. I am able to say that it was on April 10 that the bond No. 11681 was handed out. Prisoner came into the employment of the Union Bank at the time of the amalgamation with the Cripplegete Bank in July, 1900, when the Union Bank took over the whole staff. Prisoner has, I believe, acted as cashier for the Union Bank, and has also been in the securities department. He is what is known as a "floater," a man who is not attached to any particular department, but has a general knowledge of all departments and is transferred as required. Until this happened his character was absolutely above suspicion. I had certainly myself regarded him as above suspicion. I have been given to understand that his salary was £198, and he would have a regular increase from year to year.

Re-examined. The securities department is never left vacant. The coupons of the unissued bonds are not cut off as they become due. they belong to the purchaser of the scrip and are kept intact. I think there were four or five coupons overdue at this time. Clerks belonging to the securities department would have a right to go to this box, but would not have occasion. Three clerks in the securities department would have a right to go to the box besides myself.

ALFRED NORMAN SQUIRRELL , assistant secretary of the Alliance Credit Bank of London, Palmerston House, Old Broad Street. On April 11 last year a person called at the bank and had an interview with me, in the course of which he handed ma a Grand Trunk Pacific Railway "bearer" bond for £100, No. 11680. He asked me if I could make am advance of £30 upon it, and if he could be allowed to open a current account. He gave the name of Frederick Williams, and as nearly as I can remember prisoner resembles him very much, and to the best of my belief he is my visitor of April 11. I remarked to him that we should have to make inquiries about this bond, and would send it to our brokers, and if he would call in the morning no doubt the matter could be arranged as required. I think the time of the interview was about four o'clock. Our closing time is five o'clock. He left the bond with me and the inquiries I made were satisfactory in their result. On the next day the same man called again about noon, as near as I can say. At that interview I asked him for his name and address and full particulars of his identity. He told me he was traveller for Messrs. Rylands, of Wood Street, and in confirmation of that he produced a lithographed card with the name of "Rylands" upon it, and according to my memory the name "F. Williams" had been written at the bottom, but I cannot recollect whether in pencil or in ink. He gave as his private address St. Lucia, Holland Road, either Westcliff or Southend. He suggested with regard to Rylands that if we liked to send round with him he could be identified there, as he was well known. As far as I remember, I was satisfied with what he stated and didn't send round. I asked him how he would wish to pay the money we were about to advance, and he proposed 12 monthly instalments of £2 16s. 3d., making in all a payment of £33 15s. Half a guinea was charged him for expenses. He said he

required £10 then. I provided him with a cheque book containing 30 cheques to order. He filled in his name and address in the signature book and signed his signature. He then drew two cheques (produced) and signed them in my presence. The first was for 10s. 6d., which he handed to me to pay his expenses, and the cheque for £10 I cashed in gold. The next I heard from him was by letter of May 10, asking me to charge his account with the instalment due on the following day, and I did so. On May 23 I had another letter from him asking me to send him by registered post £5 in cash to the address, care of O. Goeke, 21, Park Street, Southend, and enclosing a cheque for £5. On comparing the signature with the signature in the book I did not think they quite agreed, and in consequence I sent a letter, not to the address requested, but to St. Lucia, and on May 27 I received from him another letter saying that the £5 had not come to hand, and asking me to give the matter immediate attention. I replied by letter of May 28, addressed to "Care of O. Goeke," returning the cheque, calling attention to the signature, asking that it should be resigned. On May 29 I received the following letter signed "F. Williams," "I regret I should have given you the trouble of having to return cheque. I thought I had given you my usual signature. If it should not be quite correct will you kindly honour same as I am in need of the cash." The signature still differed in my opinion, and consequently I wrote again on May 30 to "Care of O. Goeke," saying that the second signature differed from the one we had in our register. I received no answer to that in writing, but on Wednesday, June 5, I received a call from "Mr. Williams." I am not positive, but I think it was before noon. I asked him why he didn't call while he was in town, and he made the remark that he had been very ill, and had been staying at Southend. His appearance struck me as that of a man who had barely recovered from an illness, and he was rather nervous-looking. He brought with him the returned cheque, and asked if he might be allowed to alter it from £5 to £10. I said there was no objection to that, and he altered it in my presence, signing it afresh. On comparing the signature with the register I was sufficiently satisfied about it to honour the cheque. I paid him the £10 in gold. At some previous time we had made inquiries of Messrs. Rylands respecting a traveller named "F. Williams," and I asked prisoner how it was that he was denied at Messrs. Rylands. He assured me positively that he was there, that we could send any one round with him if we liked and get him then and there identified. He even mentioned the name of someone there, but who it was I do not remember now. I told him it was inconvenient for us at that moment to send round, and so the interview concluded. The next I heard of him was by letter, dated June 13, with the address, "G.P.O., Deal." On June 11 a second instalment had become due, and prisoner wrote: "I am enclosing cheque for £2 16s. 3d. instalment of loan due, and one for £2. Will you send me P.O. for this to me at above Post Office. Will you charge my account with expenses. "In obedience to that I credited him the instalment, and cashed the second cheque by sending

him two P.O.'s for £1 each, on June 14. The third instalment due in July not being paid, I addressed a letter to "F. Williams, care of O. Goeke, Southend," to which I got no reply, and the letter was afterwards returned through the Dead Letter Office. On July 24, having heard nothing between whiles, I addressed another letter to "Mr. Frederick Williams, care of Messrs. Rylands," in the City, which was also returned through the Dead Letter Office. On August 10 the fourth instalment was due. It was not paid, and on August 12 I sent a letter to "Mr. F. Williams, care of Goeke, Southend," warning him that unless the instalments were paid the bond might be sold. That letter also came back through the Dead Letter Office. I heard nothing further from "Mr. Williams" between that date and October 12, and as a consequence I gave my broker instructions to sell the bond with the coupons attached to it. The first coupon payable upon the bond was dated October 1, 1907, the others having been cut off. The bond realised £100 19s. On the same day I wrote to "Mr. Williams; care of Goeke, Southend," telling him what I had done, and that letter also came back through the Dead Letter Office. On the account being closed there stood to his credit £74 10s. 9d., deducting all the instalments due after July. In February of this year I went to the head office of the Union of London and Smiths Bank and saw prisoner, and I say now as far as general appearance goes there is a very great resemblance between him and the man who called upon me giving the name of "Williams," and, to the best of my belief, without swearing to it positively, he is the same man.

To the Judge. The Alliance Bank was incorporated in November, 1906.

Cross-examined. I saw "Mr. F. Williams" three times altogether. On the first occasion he was with me about quarter of an hour; on April 12 from 20 minutes to half an hour. I had ample opportunity of looking at him on both occasions. I have no doubt whatever that the person who came on June 5 was the same man who, had come on the two previous occasions. Before June 5 my suspicions had been aroused as to my customer. We had been told he was not employed at Messrs. Rylands. That might have been about a fortnight before the third visit. The fact of the signature differing was to some extent a suspicious circumstance, particularly coupled with the fact that he had given a wrong address where he was employed. That being so, when he came again I took more notice of him. There is no mistake as to the date being June 5, and there is no mistake that it was before half-past one. It could not have been before 11 o'clock nor after two, and, to the best of my recollection, it was near 12 o'clock. When I went to the office of the Union of London and Smiths Bank I was shown into the manager's room. There were five or six people there. I did not know any of them personally, but I conclude there might have been a director or two of the bank, one or two other officials, and perhaps a solicitor. I cannot tell you the name of the gentleman who spoke to me when I went in. I was asked whether I recognised the person (prisoner) sitting there as having called on me in connection with the bond. I was not asked to pick him out from a

number of people. If a person desires to open an account at our bank we in most instances ask for references. We did not in this case. We judge each case on its own merits and its own circumstances. The amount we should have been prepared to allow "F. Williams" to have on account of that bond was somewhere about £90, on April 12, when we had already satisfied ourselves that the bond was all right. He might have gone away with the money and never come near us again. If the larger amount had been asked for we should have made more inquiries, but about the smaller amount we naturally had not a shadow of fear. Before June 5 we had found out that he was not employed at Rylands's, but on that day he satisfied us that he was employed there, and we allowed him to draw £10. We sent him a further £2 without making further inquiries. If he had asked for a further loan on the bond we should have treated it as a new transaction and should have reviewed the matter again. What struck me about the first signature to the cheque, of May 23 was that it seemed to have been made with effort; it had not the easy flow of the signature in the signature book.

ARTHUR GEORGE SAYER , chief manager of the travellers' department of Messrs. Rylands and Co., Wood Street, and for 23 years in their service, said that he had never known any traveller named "F. Williams" in the service of the firm.

OTTO GOEKE , 21, Park Street, Southend, hairdresser. I receive letters on behalf of my customers. In the summer or spring of last year I remember someone coming to ask to have letters addressed "F. Williams" taken in. I should think it was about the second week in May. To the best of my belief, prisoner is the man who came in, but I cannot swear to him. At the time he made the request I had not previously seen him. He came to be shaved. I saw him about four times altogether. Letters came addressed "F. Williams" to my care. The gentleman came for the earlier ones. Later on there were letters for which no inquiry was made by my customer, and I returned them through the post. In the month of February I went to Cloak Lane Police Station, where a number of men had been gathered together for identification. I did not recognise any of them as they were standing face to face with me, but when I caught prisoner side face I thought he was the "F. Williams" who had called upon me.

Cross-examined. It was I on each occasion who handed the letters to "Williams," meeting him full-face as I did so. Of course, when I shave a man I see his face from every point of view, but I did not take any particular notice. I should say the number of men present at the identification was about eight. I said to the police-inspector, "I cannot see the man," and he told the seven other men they could go away and they turned to do so. I do not agree that prisoner was left standing; alone and that it was then I said, "I think he is the man. "It flashed across me all of a sudden that I remembered him.

VICTOR JAMES HODSON , M.R.C.S., etc., 50, Argyll Road, Westcliff. In April last I attended prisoner for an attack of pneumonia at "Totnes," Bedell Avenue, Westcliff-on-Sea, where he was living. I

knew him as Charles Shepheard. I produce my attendance book. I called on him first on April 16, and from the 17th to the 22nd I saw him twice a day, by which time he was somewhat better. Between April 23 and May 4 I saw him once a day only. On May 6 I prescribed a tonic. I did not see him on the 7th or 8th. I saw him on May 9, when he was out of danger and in a condition to be up. I did not see him on May 10, 11, or 12. On May 10 he was sufficiently recovered in my opinion to write a short letter, and after May 9 I should describe his condition as an improving one. I have no note of when he was able to leave the house. On May 23 he called on me. My house is about seven minutes' walk from his. Park Street is rather more than half a mile from "Totnes." Convalescence went on satisfactorily, and, about the beginning of June, with my sanction, prisoner went to Deal for the purpose of regaining his strength. I saw him again about the beginning of June. From time to time I gave him certificates to put forward to his employers for the purpose of satisfactorily accounting for his absence. On June 20 he called on me again and I gave him a certificate, which he asked for on the ground that he did not find himself sufficiently fit to return to his work.

Cross-examined. I do not know of any places in Westcliff or South-end where letters are taken in. for a charge of 1d. It was distinctly a sharp attack of pneumonia. In May I attended his wife and baby for measles. She was isolated from her husband for 14 days. I cannot recollect whether prisoner was in bed when I saw him on May 9, but I think it extremely probable that he was out of bed; there was no reason for keeping him in. I kept him in bed as a matter of routine practice 14 days after the temperature fell. It is quite likely he would have been able to get up before that time. For some time after May 10 he certainly was not in sound health. He had a very bad family history of consumption, and that is the reason I told him he had better take a long holiday.

EMILY GAMBLE , St. Lucia, Holland Road, Weastcliff. I am a widow and keep a boarding-house. I have known prisoner and his wife for about five years. I know that in the middle of last year they left Westcliff for a holiday. I had no one of the name of "F. Williams" staying at my house in May. I remember that three or four letters addressed "F. Williams" were left about the month of April. They were returned to the postman as "Mr. Williams" did not turn up.

Cross-examined. I have been at my present address for three years and previously to that I had another house also in Westcliff. I have cards printed with the name of my boarding-house If anyone calls I may give them a card, but I do not give them to trades people. I have given some to Shepheard for the purpose of him taking them up to his fellow clerks at the bank. I had one gentleman there from the bank named Lindsay Pope. I advertise my boarding-house in the London papers. The following is my advertisement: "Westcliff-on-Sea. Board residence, facing the sea. Minute station. Late dinner. Reduction City gentlemen St. Lucia, Holland Road." I am advertising

now three times a week in the "Evening News," and have obtained visitors by that means.

Re-examined. I think Mr. Pope came 12 months ago last March and left in the following May. He was by himself.

Miss MARGARET STEPHENS, 128, Blenheim Road, Deal. In June last I was living at 96, Blenheim Road and taking in boarders there. Last year prisoner stayed with me from June 6 to the 27th with his wife, two children, and Miss Gamble. He stated that he had come from Westcliff. He arrived on the afternoon of the 6th, a Thursday. He went away one morning and came back next day. Before he left he said if any letters came from the bank I was to forward them to Margate. Only one letter came and I sent it on next day. During the time he was there I knew him by the name of Shepheard.

Detective-inspector PENTIN, City Police. Upon February 24 of this year prisoner surrendered himself into my custody at his solicitor's office, where I saw him by appointment. He made no statement. I was present next day at the identification at Cloak Lane Police Station. I had half a dozen gentlemen brought into the station and prisoner was asked to take his place amongst them. He stood on the left flank of the line. Mr. Goeke was brought in and was asked by the station-inspector if he saw anybody that he recognised to go and touch him. Goeke walked up the line and down again and said, "There is no one here I know." I thanked these gentlemen and dismissed them and as they turned to leave they left prisoner by himself. Goeke looked at him and said, "Why this is the man. I recognise him now I see him side face." Prisoner said, "You are too late now. The others have all gone."

To Mr. Travers Humphreys. The prisoner was then in my custody and, of course, could not leave.

JOHN WILLIAM AVORY , recalled, expressed the opinion that the five letters and five cheques produced signed "F. Williams" were in the handwriting of prisoner. While prisoner was away ill last year he addressed some letters to the officials of the bank and, in witness's opinion, the writer of one group of letters was also writer of the other. The signature and address in the signature book he believed to be in Shepheard's writing. (Witness was then examined as to the various points of identity in the two sets of letters.)

(Friday, April 3.)

FREDERICK WILLIAM STONE , deputy-inspector of securities at the Union of London and Smiths Bank, identified the letters written by the prisoner to the bank officials as being in prisoner's handwriting.

Cross-examined. I was present at the bank on February 5 last when Shepheard was sent for to the head office to see Mr. Houlding, the manager of the bank. At that time he was employed at the Finsbury Circus branch. When I went into the room where Shepheard was there were also present Mr. Houlding and Mr. Wiffen, the Metropolitan branch manager; Mr. Sidebottom, the solicitor of the bank, came in later. Later in the day I had an interview with the prisoner

alone. I knew nothing of the case; prisoner told me of it himself. He said that a very unfortunate thing had happened and he was suspected, and that the officials of the bank did not seem to recognise his answer as sufficient. I said that with regard to the letters there seemed to be a similarity in the writing. I said, "Of course, if you are guilty it will be very much better to own up," or words to that effect. I appealed to him also for the sake of his wife and family. He was very upset, shed tears, and broke down entirely. I said that, of course, the bank were always kind, but I could not speak as to what course they would take. He said, "I cannot confess to a thing I have never done." I do not think anything further took place.

PERCY JOHN WIFFEN , Metropolitan branch manager, Union of London and Smiths Bank, produced letters addressed to himself and Mr. Houlding by prisoner.

Cross-examined. After the interview on February 5 prisoner was suspended for further inquiries. The next I heard of him was on February 23. I know that an arrangement was made between the solicitors of the bank and his solicitors that he should surrender. When he came to the bank on February 5 I showed him two letters signed by himself, one from Southend and one from Deal. At first he denied that one of the letters was his own, but two or three minutes afterwards he admitted it. I could not say whether he had then been told of the allegation against him, but he was very quickly told that there was a bond missing, and was asked if he could give any explanation of it. I do not know whether it was suggested that he should be confronted with the man from the Alliance Bank, but he was quite willing to be confronted.

THOMAS HENRY GURRIN , expert in handwriting. I have examined the two groups of documents produced in this case. To the best of my belief they are all written by one person, as far as one can judge from similarities in handwriting. I have furnished a report with tracings from the original documents. Comparing two of the letters, one from each group, there is a similarity in the "t" and "h" in the words "the," "then," and "this" The "t" is detached altogether from the "h," and consists simply of a slight up and down stroke. In every case it is detached from the "h." It appears to me that the handwriting of the two groups is almost identical. There are other points of similarity in the two groups.

LINDSAY (or) WILLIAM GEORGE POPE, employed in the Lombard Street branch of the Union of London and Smiths Bank. In the months of April and May last I was working at the Princes Street branch, and was living at Southend. I think I went at the end of February or the beginning of March, and I remained until the end of May. I was at the bank from day to day, and was working in the securities department. I stayed at Mrs. Gamble's, in Holland Road. I know prisoner; he is hardly a friend of mine, but an acquaintance I knew at the bank. I saw him once or twice at Westcliff. He knew that I was lodging at St. Lucia. I am sure he knew it, because before I went some little difficulty arose in connection

with my going, and prisoner was good enough to interview Mrs. Gamble about it.

To Mr. Travers Humphreys. My address was also known to a good many of my fellow clerks at the bank.


CHARLES SHEPHEARD (prisoner, on oath). I am 32 and have been married eight years, and have two children. I have lived five years in Westcliff and three years at my present address. My house is within 15 minutes' walk of the station. I have been in the employment of the Cripplegate Bank and the Union for 15 years, and up to the present no kind of suggestion has been made against my character. I have acted as receiving cashier at the head office and general from which I am able to say that I was employed in the securities department. Up to the time of my illness I kept a business diary, from which I am able to say that I was employed in the securities' department from January 3 until February 4. After that I was keeper of the town ledgers until March 6. I was then employed at another branch, and from March 23 until April 3 I was an extra hand in the securities office, and from April 4 to April 16 third man in the securities office. Neither on April 3 nor on any other date did I take a bond belonging to my employers. I cannot say whether I was the person who handed out one of these bonds on April 10. I did not go to see Mr. Squirrell at the Alliance Credit Bank, Old Broad Street, on April 11, and did not know of the existence of such an institution. April 11 was a busy day with us, being Stock Exchange settling day. From the time that I was taken ill on April 16 I did not return to my duties till the middle of July. I agree with the doctor that I could have written a letter on May 10. I believe I had written letters and drawn cheques before that date. I had an account at the bank, which was fed from my salary. I was never overburdened with money. My salary was £190, which was raised to £198 last January. If I had wanted a few pounds my sister or mother would always have obliged me. My sister has money of her own—a little, not a great deal. There was no necessity for money. My mother was down, and she took charge of the household. I should say that on April 11 or 12 my account was in credit a couple of pounds. I did not hear there was an overdraft of 17s. As far as I know, I was never overdrawn. It was on May 10 that I got up for the first time, my wife being then able to help me up. I wrote no letter on that day. I recollect quite well the day before I went to Deal. Arrangements had been made by Messrs. Fuller and Sons, the house agents, to let my house to a Mr. Barrett for 30s. a week for one month, with an option of three months if he desired to stay. The inventory was to be taken by Messrs. Fuller on June 5, the day before I left for Deal. It is absolutely untrue that on June 5 I had an interview between 11 and 12 with Mr. Squirrell. I breakfasted somewhere between nine and half-past, and after breakfast' I began to find that I was in the way, as preparations for the journey were going

on. I went out between 10 and half-past, going as far as the Kurssal in Southend. I suppose it would take me something under an hour to walk there. On the way home I purchased a birdcage and sundry other articles, as I was going to take the family bird to a friend to take care of. When I got back to the house I found Mr. Fuller's son in the dining room taking the inventory, and I assisted him with some of the articles. I pointed out, amongst other things, a Japanese tea service which I didn't wish to have used, and afterwards I accompanied him through the other rooms. After he had left we had dinner about one o'clock. Approximately it was 12 o'clock when I returned. My wife was engaged in various household matters. I recollect that I saw the milkman that morning as I was going out. My wife wanted to get from him a sanitary milk bottle to take away for the baby. My wife came out and spoke to him. In the ordinary way I should leave the house at half-past seven for the bank. Next day I went to Deal and stayed there until June 27, when I went to Margate and afterwards to Broadstairs, and after some other visits we got back to Southend—I think the first week in October. The first I heard of this matter was on February 5, when I was told that very grave suspicion had fallen upon me with regard to the loss of this bond. The writing of the two letters shown to me was very similar. One was in my writing, but of the other I have no knowledge whatever. I asked Mr. Wiffen if he had any further evidence, and he, apparently, had none. Mr. Squirrell attended at the bank on my invitation. Mr. Stone's account of the conversation he had with me agrees with my recollection of it in substance. When he. pointed out that the bank was very kind and that it would be to the advantage of the guilty person to admit his guilt, I thanked Mr. Stone for the kind advice he had given me, but it was absolutely impossible for me to plead guilty to having committed such a thing. I heard nothing more from the bank until I wrote on February 8 a letter in which I expressed the hope that further evidence had come to light. I got an answer on the following Thursday, February 13, from Mr. Wiffen regretting that, after consideration, the directors had felt compelled to place the matter in the hands of their solicitors. If I acknowledged my guilt I gathered that no action would be taken. I understood that the evidence of handwriting was the only evidence they had against me.

Cross-examined. It is not the fact that when shown one of my own letters I denied that I had written it. I was given to understand that if I confessed this crime the bank would deal with me very leniently indeed. The figures in the rough sheet relating to bond No. 11681 are similar to mine, but I would not like to swear to them. I may say the rough sheet is not always kept up at the time; the numbers are often entered afterwards. If I made the entry I should have called Mr. Avory's attention to the fact that there was no record of bond No. 11680, if I had noticed it. On April 11 I caught the 7.20 train to Southend. I usually left between seven and eight o'clock on settlement days, and on other days I used to leave the bank about half-past five or six and would return to Southend by the 5.38 p.m.

train. I used to make the entries in my diaries the same night. I could have paid no visit to Mr. Squirrell upon April 11. I should say one could walk from the bank to Palmerston Buildings very comfortably in eight or 10 minutes. On April 11 I didn't leave the bank after four o'clock until I left to go home. I didn't leave for the purpose of taking any refreshment; we have tea upstairs in the dining room. On the morning of the 12th I was occupied in the security office and I left that day at a quarter to six, but I paid no visit to Palmerston Buildings on that morning. I had known Mrs. Gamble practically the whole of the time I had been living at Westcliff and I know the name of her house was St. Lucia. I knew Mr. Pope was living there. I have never been in Goeke's shop in my life and had never seen him until at Cloak Lane. Between April 16 and July 15 I paid no visit to London at all. I should say that the outside time I was absent from my house on the morning of June 5 was 1 1/2 or 1 3/4 hours. I took the tram on my return, as it was raining, and my shopping would take me 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour. I walked along the cliffs into the town. My object was solely to take a walk. I did not walk in the direction of the station. June 5 was a Wednesday, and I know that a cheap train is run to London on Wednesday morning. I do not know that it leaves at 9.55 and gets into London at 10.55, as I have never had occasion to use it. I have no entries in my diaries after the commencement of my illness. The diary was not found until after we had moved back to Westcliff and I had been at business for some months. I realised that my occupation on the morning of June 5 became of very great importance, directly I heard of the interview at the Alliance Bank, some time after February 5 in this year. I think that was after my arrest, or voluntary surrender. It struck my memory at once that I had had an inventory taken on June 5. The journey to Deal and the taking of the inventory were fixed in my memory, and also in that of my wife. I received no letters from the General Post Office at Deal and wrote nothing from Deal giving that address. I adhere to the statement in one of my letters that my writing has been closely, although not accurately, imitated, but I suspect no one.

VICTOR FULLER . I am in business with my father, Charles Fuller, as Charles Fuller and Son, auctioneers and estate agents, at Westcliff. We have offices at Buckhurst Hill and in London, and the firm has been established 40 years. I produce our attendance book containing entries with regard to people who call on us. The first entry with regard to "Totnes" is in my father's handwriting, and is dated May 21, "Mrs. Shepheard, Totnes, Beedell Avenue, to let for three months," etc. The entry with regard to the taking of the inventory is dated Wednesday, May 29, "Mr. Barrett, Wednesday next, inventory." "Wednesday next" would be June 5. I attended on that day to take the inventory myself. I take Wednesday afternoon as a half holiday, that day being early closing day in Westcliff. The inventory is in the inventory book produced. It was afterwards faircopied and handed to our client I got to the house at 10.30, and started with the top back bedroom, and when I reached

the dining-room I saw Mr. Shepheard. I remember that I put down four serviette rings, which Mr. Shepheard told me to alter to six. I didn't notice the time that he came in, but to the best of my recollection it was between 11 and a quarter past. He remained with me until I had finished. In the kitchen I had put down the sewing machine, and he mentioned to me that it would be locked; I have got that in brackets. I finished the inventory at 12.30, as near as I can tell, and instead of going back to the office I went straight to lunch. I noticed that Mr. Shepheard had a birdcage, which he said was not to go into the inventory. It was raining when Mr. Shepheard came in. I recognised Mr. Shepheard in the streets some months afterwards.

Cross-examined. My attention was directed to June 5 as being an important date when Mr. Freeman, Messrs. Wontner's managing clerk, called two or three weeks ago. Mrs. Shepheard was at home, but did not assist in taking the inventory. It was not from her that I got the particulars with regard to the number of napkin rings or about locking up the sewing machine. She may have given me assistance with regard to the linen. I do not remember that I got any information with regard to the kitchen or scullery from the mistress of the house. Mr. Shepheard counted the number of the knives and I put them down.

MAUD EMILY SHEPHEARED , wife of prisoner. I recollect going to Deal last year, and packing up the day before. As nearly as I can remember, my husband went out on that morning just after the milkman came. I spoke to the milkman about a sanitary bottle and he brought it next day. I remember Mr. Fuller coming to take the inventory. I did not assist him in that. I was too busy packing up and preparing generally to leave home. Mr. Fuller had not been at work very long when my husband came back with a birdcage. After Mr. Fuller had gone we had dinner, our dinner hour being one o'clock. There is no doubt at all that my husband was at home part of the time that Mr. Fuller was taking the inventory.

Cross-examined. When I heard June 5 mentioned I knew at once it was a date on which my husband could not have been in London, and that the inventory had been taken on that date. I couldn't tell how long my husband was absent that morning because I was busy, but he returned before Mr. Fuller had done his work. The linen was not to be used by the people coming into the house. I do not remember saying anything about the napkin rings. I remember saying that the sewing machine was to be locked; I wouldn't have the people use it.

Re-examined. I am quite sure my husband was home to dinner.

(Saturday, April 4.)

Mr. SQUIRRELL, recalled, produced a book of the Alliance Bank showing that the first cheque cashed on the morning of June 5 was the cheque of "F. Williams," payable to "self" for £10. He also

stated that the bank opened at 10 o'clock, and that his statement with regard to the cheque being cashed at 11 o'clock might have been misleading, as it was probably cashed a considerable time before 11, probably about half-past 10.

Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.

Sentence, Six months' in the second division.

Sir Charles Mathews asked for an order of restitution in respect of the £72 19s. 9d. remaining in Mr. Squirrell's hands as the proceeds of the sale of the bond. The Common Serjeant assented, remarking that he did not see why the prosecutors should not have the whole amount of the bond produced.


31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-46
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

STANTON, George (16, labourer) ; feloniously shooting at Henry Charles Rout with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Cornes prosecuted.

HENRY CHARLES ROUT , newsvendor. On February 27, at about 10 past seven. I was underneath Burdett arches selling newspapers with a boy named Hawker. There was a lot of boys round, to whom I was selling papers. Prisoner with half a dozen others came up and wanted to know how much a quire the papers were. I told him the price and asked if he wanted 15 quires. He said, "Don't have a lark," and asked me where I was from. I told him Stepney, and he said, "Liar; you are round from the Common"; or something. He then put his hand in his pocket and pulled out the pistol produced, with which he pointed at my face and I put up my hand. Prisoner fired the pistol and I was hit. I twisted his wrist and took it away from him. I also hit him, knocked him down, and kicked him. Hawker stood over him and also hit him. I did not hear prisoner say that I had a pistol. A man came up and said to Hawker, "You are a man to what he is." A policeman then came up and I was taken to Bow Station. I told the policeman what had happened and gave him the pistol. He said I had better go to the station and have my hand dressed. I identified prisoner at the station on Friday morning. I have no hip pocket in my trousers. I wear a belt. (To the Judge.) I am wearing the same trousers as I was on the night in question. They are the only pair I have. I have another pair, but I do not wear them. I did have a pair of striped ones, but they have been cut up. I have not worn them for six or seven months. I have seen prisoner before, hanging about. I had no pistol at the time of this affair. (To the Jury.) The trousers that were cut up had no hip pocket.

HENRY ROUT father of last witness, said that his son had never had a pair of trousers with hip pockets, and that he (the son) was wearing the same trousers on February 27 as at present; that his son had had a pair of striped trousers which were cut up for rags some time ago.

ALFRED CHARLES HAWKERS , newsvendor. On February 27 I was standing under Burdett arch, when prisoner came up to Rout and asked the price of a quire of papers. There was a lot of us waiting for papers. He was told 9d., and then said, "Don't have a lark. Where are you from?" He then pulled out a Derringer pistol from the left-hand coat pocket and fired it. Rout put up his hand and the bullet went in. I was close by. I think that prisoner also had a bit of iron in his right hand, which he fetched after he fired the shot; I would not be sure. He fired the pistol with his left hand. I should think the bit of iron was off the railings. Prisoner ran away after this had happened. I said before the magistrate that prisoner got hold of the prosecutor's neck and fired. That is right. After prisoner had fired Rout knocked him down and I hit him. Then a man came up, saying, "You are a man to him," and stopped us. I could not say exactly what the size of the bar of iron was which prisoner had.

To the Judge. I only knew prisoner as going round the streets. Since this affair happened I have seen prisoner's mother in Devon's Road Bow. That was after prisoner had been out on bail. His mother asked me how it occurred. I said I did not know who fired the pistol; that I only saw the flash. I did know really, but his mother threatened me that if I went round there the boys would knock my b—head off. I have known Rout ever since I have worked with the papers. (To the Jury.) He fetches from the "Star" office and distributes the papers.

ANSON JORDAN , surgical assistant, out-patients' department, London Hospital. I saw prosecutor the day after he first came to the hospital. I believe that was the day after the occurrence. He had a punctured wound in the palm of his hand, which looked like a bullet wound, in the region of the base of the fingers. It had been dressed when I saw it, so that there was no bleeding nor blackening, nor anything to indicate how near the pistol was when fired. I had an X-ray photo taken, which showed there was a bullet about two inches further up the palm, and we extracted it on the same day. (Rout stood up and indicated how he held his hand.) I think the course of the bullet is consistent with Rout's story.

Detective-sergeant GEORGE BURTON, K Division. At 8.30 on February 27 I saw prisoner and told him the charge. He said, "I was there, but did not shoot. The boy had the pistol himself and pulled it out of his hip pocket. I had asked how much a quire of papers was. He said 9d. I said, 'Do you live round the Common?' He said, 'I will show you where I live.' He pulled out the pistol and shot himself in the hand. After he fired Hawker came up behind and knocked me down. There were six or seven of them, but they were smaller boys. There were five of us. "When the pistol was produced prosecutor said that was the pistol it was done with. Prisoner said, "That is a lie; I never had the instrument at all. I have got four witnesses."

Police-constable GODDING, 598 K. At seven o'clock on the night in question I saw a crowd outside Burdett Road Station. I saw Rout

bleeding from the left hand, with some papers under his left arm. He said that he had been shot by a lad who had got away and he had struck the lad and kicked him on the ground. He handed me the pistol and I extracted the empty cartridge case. The trousers worn by Rout were a dark pair. I did not notice them particularly.

Prisoner's statement. I am not guilty, and wish to give evidence myself.


HENRY GEORGE CHESTER , 40, Blackthorn Street. I sell firewood and coke. I was outside Burdett Road Station at the time this happened. Stanton asked Rout the price of a quire of papers. I know prisoner, but not Rout. The latter said the price was 9d. Prisoner asked Rout how far he had come to get the papers. The latter said, "St. Leonard's Road, Poplar." Stanton said, "I don't believe you," and Rout replied, "All right, then, if you don't believe me"—and put his hand to his hip pocket and pulled out a pistol saying, "Take that." Stanton, on seeing the pistol, made a rush for Rout's right hand. The latter then put up his right hand to shove prisoner away, and in the struggle the pistol went off in his own hand. I then ran down to fetch a constable. There was a number of boys about.

Cross-examined. I did not see prisoner run away. I met him afterwards down where we live, but we did not talk about this affair. I asked him how he got on; that is all. Then we went home. When I ran away I did not know that anyone had been hurt. Rout had a pair of print trousers on.

ALFERED SOUTHWOOD , 44, Blackthorn Street. I am out of work at present. Chester and I were with prisoner on this night. I have known prisoner for some time. I had seen Rout before, but did not know his name. (Witness told the same sort of story as Chester.) Rout knocked prisoner down and another boy kicked him. I saw prisoner round the corner afterwards. I did not know then that Rout had been hurt.

Cross-examined. I was at the police court the first time but not the second, because I was doing a day's work coal hawking. I have spoken to Chester about the case, but not much.

GEORGE STANTON (prisoner, on oath). I was in Burdett Road on this night and asked prosecutor the price of a quire of papers. He said, "Ninepence. Do you want 15?" I said, "Don't have a lark." I stood there for a minute and asked him where he lived. He said "Stepney" and I said "Liar." He pulled out the pistol and I caught hold of his wrist; then he put up his left hand to take my wrist down, and the pistol went off in his left hand. Then Hawker came behind and knocked me down and they both kicked me. A man interfered and told them to stop. I got up to go to see a policeman and went down St. Paul's Road right indoors. I did not see a policeman.

Cross-examined. I did not think there was any harm done. There is a policeman who stands close by where I live, but he was not on the

point where he was supposed to be as I went along. I have been out of work for some time.

(To the Judge.) I am not lefthanded. (To the Jury.) I never had a pistol like that produced.

HENRY CHARLES ROUT , recalled. I have never been charged with using a pistol before.

Verdict, Not guilty.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-47
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

DAVIS, Arthur (28, carman), SAVILLE, Robert Henry (27, porter), WATSON, Arthur James (26, carman), and LYONS, John (58, shoemaker) ; all stealing one mare, value £45, one van, harness, and two pipes of wine, the goods of John Smither and Sons, Limited; feloniously receiving the said two pipes of wine, well knowing the same to have been stolen. Mr. Purcell prosecuted. Mr. Herman Cohen defended Watson.

JOHN BROWN , carman to John Smither and Sons, Limited. On Tuesday, March 10, I took a van to the London Dock and then to the British and Foreign Wharf, where I took up two pipes of Tarragona port, which I had to take to Howley Place, Lambeth. On the way I stopped at the corner of Love Lane and left the van to call at an office. When I returned in five or six minutes the van had gone. The same evening I saw it at Caledonian Road Police Station. I afterwards saw the casks, which I identified by the marks on the orders produced.

Police-constable ROBERT WILSON, 282 Y. On March 10, at 5.15 p.m., I was in Western Road, Barnsbury, where I saw a van, which I took to Caledonian Road Police Station.

JOHN MAJOR , potman, "Griffin" public-house, Clerkenwell Road. I know prisoners Davis and Saville very well. I have seen Watson on two occasions, but not before March 11. I had seen Lyons three or four times as a customer. On the Wednesday morning, about 10.30, Davis and Saville came into the public-house and said that they had some port wine, and did I know anyone who could do with it, as one of the casks was leaking, and they wanted to get rid of it. I said I did not know of anyone, but if they liked to wait I would go and see it and stop it leaking. I went with them in the afternoon about four o'clock up to a mews at Highbury Barn. I did not know the place except that it was a turning out of Ronald's Road and there was a coachhouse with a stable at the back. I there saw Watson for the first time. We all went in, and I took a sample of the wine. One of the pipes was upside down, so I guessed it was empty. The other seemed to be full. They asked me what I thought of it; I said, "Not much"; then I came away. I said I would see if I could find a customer. On the following morning Davis and Saville came into our bar and asked me if I could find a customer. I said, No, that is was no use trying to find a customer without a sample. Saville produced a sample from his pocket, and I then noticed a Mr. Stuart in the saloon bar, so I went round to him with the sample. He is the licensee of the "Horseshoe and Magpie" in Great Bath Street. The

manageress of the "Griffin" was with Mr. Stuart and she drew the cork; then Mr. Stuart tasted it. He said it was very nice and asked me whose it was. I said that I would bring the man round to whom it belonged. I brought Davis round from the other bar, Saville standing outside. I said to Mr. Stuart, "This is the man with the port; I will leave you to do the business." I then walked away to my work. Afterwards I went with Mr. Stuart to the coachhouse, where we saw Watson, and I said, "This is a gentleman who wants to look at the port; he is not going to have it in bottles; he will take it as it is." Watson said, "You can show it to him; you know where it is." I showed it to Mr. Stuart, who said he would have it as it was if he could come to terms. Stuart, Watson, and I then went and had a drink at the bottom of Ronald's Road, where we met Davis, Lyons, and Saville. This was the first time I had seen Lyons in connection with this affair. We all went into the public-house and had a drink. Mr. Stuart said if he could have it for £10 he would have it in the pipe as it was. I said that that was much better than bottling. Mr. Stuart said to them, "When my beer is coming in I will arrange to have the van at the mews." He said he would let me know whether he would have it on Friday or Saturday morning, and I was to let them know. Stuart and I then got on a tram and I went to my house. In the evening, at about nine, a note came to me in the "Griffin" while Davis, Lyons, and Seville were there. I handed the note to them and they read it: "'Horseshoe and Magpie,' March 10, 1908.—Dear Jack"—and then it is torn off. Lyons and Davis went away, and I said to Saville that I would go with them to Mr. Stuart, which I did. I called for two drinks and asked for the guv'nor. The girl said that he was out. I asked for an envelope, which she gave me, and I wrote on a piece torn off Mr. Stuart's note, "That will do nicely. They will expect van at the mews 10 o'clock.—Jack." Saville saw what I wrote.

Cross-examined by Davis. When you came into the bar on the Wednesday with Saville I did not ask you whom the port wine belonged to that I am aware of. I do not remember you saying that it did not belong to you, but that you had been asked to sell it. There was only you and Saville there at the time.

Cross-examined by Saville. On Tuesday, the 10th, you were is our place from about 11 o'clock to about 3.30. I saw you there when I went for my market at about 11. You were there when I came back from dinner, and when I went away at four you were still there. I believe you and Davis were there together on the Tuesday. I know you stopped all the day there. I told you that I was getting nothing at all out of the transaction, and you said you were getting the same. I said, "It is a very good idea."

FREDERICK GEORGE STUART , proprietor of the "Horseshoe and Magpie," Great Bath Street. On March 11 I was in the "Griffin," when the potman, at about 3.30, brought me a bottle from under his apron, and asked me to taste some port wine. I said I did not want to, but I did do so. After that he brought Davis and Saville, telling Saville to stand back. Major then asked me if I could do

with some port wine. I said, "Yes, at a price. How much have you got?" "Oh," said he, "two or three pipes you can have." Then I knew it was wrong for a potman to have that quantity. I said, "It is a large quantity; I do not buy so much as that; if you like to send down to my house I have a lot of empty bottles which I will give you to fill, and I will take half a dozen at a time. He said the price was six shillings a dozen. I said I could not give that. Then we agreed at four shillings. I said, "If you send the van to-night at six o'clock I will have the bottles all ready; I will be there." But I was not there. I went to Somerset House to see an excise official, and then communicated with Inspector Kidd. On the next day I saw Davis and Saville in my saloon bar at about 8.30 a.m. When we agreed the price of four shillings Davis said that they would rather I bought it in a large quantity. He said they wanted £30 for it all. I said, "Oh, no." I lent Davis two shillings on that occasion. When Davis and Saville came to my place on the next morning I had police officers concealed. The prisoners said they were sorry they had not seen me the night before as they had brought the van all ready. I said I had to go out on business, but they could have the bottles this morning if they liked, in about an hour's time; so they said they would be back at 12 with a van to fetch them, but they did not come. In the afternoon I went to the "Griffin," and saw Major, who took me to this coachhouse in a mews at Highbury. I saw Watson standing outside his stable door. I would not go up to the mews at first, and said that the police might be watching, so Watson came down to see me, and Major said, "These men of mine are all right, you need not be frightened, come up." I went up the mews and Watson brought me a horse to look at. Then after that I went into the stable with Major, who showed me the port wine, which was in pipes covered up with sacks. Some was in white enamelled pails. One of the two pipes was nearly empty; the other was full. Major handed me a cup and asked me to taste it. Watson then said, "It is the same port wine as you sampled yesterday. I said, "Well, we had better go and have a drink now." At the end of the street we met Davis and Saville, upon which Watson said, "Here's the two heads." When we got into the public-house Lyons was there. We talked of the price, and they said that they wanted £15 for it, but were open to an offer, because a lot had run away since last night. Finally I agreed on £10. I think that Major had the most to say at this time. I said that I would be having some beer in to-morrow, and when the flap was down they could put the wine down; and I would let them know that night what time I would send the van.

Cross-examined by Davis. You did not say anything about friends outside when you came to see me first. You simply said what the potman said, that you wanted £30. I did make an offer to take them in so many dozen at a time. I knew that none would come in because I knew the potman could not have hogsheads of wine to sell honestly. I did not mention anything about £4 a gross. I have never seen you before that I know of.

To Saville. You did not have anything to say about this business when I saw you.

To Lyons. I had not seen you before the occasion mentioned.

Detective JAMES BUTT, G Division. On March 12 I was with other officers, acting under Inspector Kidd, at the "Griffin." About 11 p.m. I saw Saville, Davis, and Lyons there. Detective Trott was there, and I heard Lyons say to the other two prisoners, "Shut up, there is Trott." Then Major joined them, and they all left the bar. When outside Major opened a note and read it; then handed it to the others. I heard Saville say, "Is he coming to fetch it away?"

Prisoner Lyons. If I had seen Mr. Trott I should have turned round and said, "Good evening, Mr. Trott." I have nothing to care about Mr. Trott, or any other Trotts that I know of.

Witness. Prisoners were in the same bar as I on that evening.

Detective-sergeant JESSE CROUCH, City. On March 10, at about 10 to two, John Brown, carman to the prosecutors, called at the Minories Police Station, and reported the loss of his horse and van. In consequence of information from Inspector Kidd I, with G Division men Butt, Trott, and Gunner, and Hopkins of the City, kept observation, and acting under instructions I accompanied Sergeant Cunningham and Detectives Bell and Gunner to 10, Highbury Mews, where I saw a van backed up to the coachhouse of No. 12. We there saw Lyons and Watson. We were disguised as carmen and workmen. Lyons went into the coachhouse and got a brick and piece of wood with which he fixed the off-hind wheel; then went to the front part of the van, and looking through, the van saw Inspectors Kidd and Matthews approaching. He at once hurried away in the direction of where Sergeant Cunningham and I were, followed by Gunner, as the carman's boy. Cunningham said to Lyons, "Jack, what are you doing here?" He replied, "I am out for a walk." We then took him back to the coachhouse, where Watson was. Matthews said to the latter, "What is this?"—pointing to the two pipes of port. Kidd and Matthews were in plain clothes. Watson said, "It was brought here on Tuesday." At that instant Saville and Davis approached. Inspector Kidd asked Watson who they were, and Watson said, "Oh, they are the men that brought the wine here." We took them all to Upper Street Police Station. I told prisoners that we were police officers, and that they would be charged with stealing and receiving. Davis said, "That is right. I know nothing about it; and I don't want to." The others made no reply. They were then taken to the Minories and formally charged. None of them made any reply.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cohen. Watson put no obstacle in our way at his premises. At No. 8 Watson has a private house. No. 12 comprises a coachhouse, stables, and loft. The mews is not a cul-de-sac. The coachhouse is closed by two folding doors. It opens straight on to the mews. There is a communication between the stables and the coachhouse. I do not know that Watson carries on a business of storing things for people. In the coachhouse there was a vehicle, and in the stable a horse. There was accommodation

for three horses and for two or three carriages. In the loft there was a lot of rubbish.

Cross-examined by Davis. I am sure that Watson said that you and Saville had brought the wine up.

Detective-constable GEORGE BELL, G Division. At 10 a.m., on March 13, I drove a van with Detective Gunner to 8, Highbury Mews, where I saw Lyons and Watson. I told them I had come for the pipes of wine. Lyons said, "Where is Mr. Stuart?" and Watson asked if we had proper tackle, as the wine weighed 15 cwt. Lyons said, "The last words I said to him were, 'Bring the proper tackle.'" We had a general look round, and I followed Lyons and Watson to the coachhouse, and went into the stable. Lyons said, "This is the horse I showed him last night." In the coachouse I saw two pipes of wine. Lyons said, "Look at it running down the drain." It was running from the barrel. They had not sufficient straw to drop it on. I backed the horse and van up to the coachhouse door. Watson went to No. 8 and brought two planks out, and they were placed in a slanting position. Then the four of us tried to push the barrel up, but as soon as we got it a short distance the planks broke. Meanwhile Lyons went to the side of the van and looked through it; then said, "It Ts a rumble, I am off." Watson said, "They are coming for us." Gunner then followed Lyons, and I kept my eye on Watson.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cohen. I think I said before the magistrate that Watson said, "They are coming for us." I have it in my notes. (Witness's note was read by Mr. Cohen, who could not find that Watson had said so.)

Witness. I am positive that he said it, though it is not down here.

To the Judge. "Rumble" is the term used to denote that the police are coming.

Detective-constable FREDERICK GUNNER, City, confirmed the account of last witness as to visiting the stable and attempting to put the wine in the van. Watson went to the stable door and said, "They have come for us"; then Lyons went to the stable door and said, "Blimey, there's a rumble; I'm off," and hurriedly went down the mews. I followed and said, "Wait a minute. I want you; I am a police officer." He said, "What! You a police officer?" I then said that I would arrest him for stealing and receiving; he made no reply.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cohen. I corroborated Bell at the police court. I did not hear Bell say there that Watson said, "They have come for us." I did not say at the police court that Watson said that; I was not asked. I was simply asked did I corroborate Bell, and I said "Yes." I did not think about Watson having said that. I did not think it necessary to make a note of that. (Mr. Cohen read the witness's note.)

Cross-examined by Lyons. You did say that She last thing you said to Mr. Stuart was that he was to bring the proper tackle.

Detective-inspector KIDD, G Division. The officers who have given evidence acted under my instructions and reported to me.

HENRY JOHN GARTHWAITE , manager to John Smithers and Sons, Limited. My firm had to convey the port wine from the dock to a customer. The value of it was £46 15s. 6d. The horse and van have been returned to us.


ARTHUR DAVIS (prisoner, on oath). On the morning of March 11 I was in Gray's Inn Road with Saville, and as we were walking along we happened to meet Lyons and another man. I had known Lyons for a month or five weeks, having seen him in the Cattle Market. He called me aside and asked if I knew of anyone who could do with some port wine. I said, "Rather funny stuff, isn't it?" He said it belonged to a tall, dark fellow; that it had been damaged, and he wanted to get rid of it. I said that I did not think I could sell it. Saville said, "What price Old Jack at the 'Griffin'; he may have some one. "That was Major. The man with Lyons was a publican; a dark man. I had never seen him before. Lyons told me that he was a publican. We then walked round to the "Griffin," and had a drink. We had not been there two minutes when Jack, the potman, came up. I said to him, "How does it go. Do you know anybody can do with a couple of barrels of port wine?" He asked whose it was. I said it was not mine; "It belongs to the party over there," pointing to the dark man. He asked what was wanted for it, so I asked the dark man, who said, "Well, I am in a bit of a corner. I want to get rid of it. I will take £10 or £15 if he knows the men who could do with it." I told Jack, who said there might be a party coming in that afternoon; if we came back at about one or two and brought a sample. I told the other party, who said. "Very well, meet me at one o'clock at the 'Angel' and I will give you a sample." We then left; Saville going one way and the other two another. Saville and I went to the "Angel" as promised, and met the dark man. We then went to the "Griffin," but the dark man did not come in at first; he went to the lavatory. We saw Old Jack there, who said that he had a man for the stuff. He then took me round to Mr. Stuart, who said, "There is no introduction required; I have known that boy for years." Jack said, "Very well, I will leave you to do the business." I told Mr. Stuart that I had two barrels of the wine. He said two were rather too much for him. He said, "It is not yours, and not your friend's," meaning Saville. I said "No; it is a publican, I think; I have only had the pleasure of meeting him this morning. I think he is in reduced circumstances and wants some money." Mr. Stuart said we could bring it in at a gross at a time if we liked; that he had plenty of bottles. After consulting the dark man, I told Mr. Stuart that he could have it at £4 a gross, and he said that would not hurt him. He told me to call round at his place at six that night, and he would give us some bottles, which we could bring back filled in the morning. In the evening we went for the bottles but he was not in. Saville and I went again next morning and saw Mr. Stuart, who said he did not think he would have it in bottles, that he thought he would have the lot, but would like to

see the stuff. I told him where the staff was and he said he would come up sometime in the day and have a look, and if it suited him he would take it away to-morrow. On the same afternoon I went to the coachhouse at Highbury to have a look at the wine with Major, and afterwards we met Lyons and the dark man at the "Lord Nelson" public-house, which is near the coachhouse. Saville was also there. When we came out we saw Mr. Stuart coming from the stables with Major, and the dark man said, "I cannot stop now; you had better do the business." He went off on an electric tram towards the "Angel." He promised to see us later when the thing was done. We went into the public-house, and afterwards Major and Mr. Stuart came in. Watson may have come in, but I can't say. Before the dark man went away he said that we could take £10 or £12 for the wine, but not under that. We agreed finally in the public-house to take £10 from Mr. Stuart, who said he would have it all away in the morning. I did not do all the bargaining; we were all talking. That is all that took place then. Later that night Saville, Lyons, and I were at the "Griffin," when a note came from Mr. Stuart. I did not read it myself, but it was about taking the stuff away at 10 o'clock on the Friday morning. We agreed to be at the stable at 10 o'clock. I did not hear Lyons say, "Shut up, there's Trott," nor did I notice any policeman there. On the next morning I went to the coachhouse with Saville, and as we walked up the mews some police officers came forward and said, "Good morning; do you live up here?" I said no; we were up on business. They said, "Come this way." I think one of them was Inspector Kidd. They took us into the coachhouse. The van was then backed into the gate. One of the officers said he would charge us with stealing and receiving the two barrels of wine, or being concerned; words to that effect. I said, "Right; I know nothing about stealing it whatever." One of the officers said to Watson, "Who are these two men?" Watson said, "They are all right; I have seen them before." The officer made a great mistake when he said that Watson told him we were the men who brought the wine.

Cross-examined. did not say to the officer, "I know nothing about stealing and don't want to." I have known Watson for I should think 12 or 14 years. I never had two words with the dark publican when I met him for the first time. At the commencement I thought the publican in reduced circumstances was a friend of Lyons. He never spoke to Mr. Stuart. I think the publican's name was Fred or Frank; it would be very difficult to find him by that name. I should have handed the money we got for the wine to Lyons; he knew the publican better than I. I have not seen the publican in reduced circumstances since. I did all the talking with Major and Stuart. I was told not to say anything in the police court; that it was no good. I do not know Trott from rum. I never had any idea that the stuff was wrong. I understood it was damaged port wine.

ROBERT HENRY SAVILLE (prisoner, on oath) said that he wished to say the same thing, or practically the same thing as Davis in regard to the transaction. On the day that the wine was stolen he was in

the "Griffin" from 11 to 3.30. If it had been sold he should have got nothing out of it, because it was nothing to do with him.

Cross-examined. I have known Watson a very long time, about six weeks. I have known Davis for years and years. I did not know Lyons at all. I did not hear all that passed in the Gray's Inn Road. I had not seen the reduced publican before. I was told at the police court that I should have to go for trial and that I had to be very careful. I have good references from the Post Office and other good situations. I have had no talk with Mr. Stuart at all.

Prisoner Watson was not called.

JOHN LYONS (prisoner, on oath). I was working in Holloway Road about four or five doors from the "Lord Nelson," when this retired publican (as I thought he was) came to me and says, "Can you do with some port wine?" I said it was a funny thing to do with shoemakers, and I did not know much about it. I thought I might know somebody. He told me he had two barrels. I said that was a lot, but if he came with me I might find someone. We walked to Gray's Inn Road, and there saw Davis with his friend. I asked them if they knew anybody who could do with the wine, not thinking they would know anyone. Davis said, "I think old Jack at the 'Griffin' might know somebody who could do with it." The man who was with me said it was damaged, and when Jack saw it he said, "Yes, it is damaged." I had no more to do with the business after I introduced Davis. I left the stuff to them, as I am a shoemaker.

Cross-examined. I had seen Saville before once or twice; Davis, I think, I had known quite a month. Watson, I do not think, I had known more than a week. I had seen the retired publican lots of times before at furniture auction rooms and such like. He always seemed to be a gentleman. I saw him in the "Lord Nelson" on the first day of this affair of the wine. He only went by the name of George or Fred. I daresay I have known him about a couple of years. I have only heard people say he was a publican. I do know Mr. Trott, and if I had seen him I would have said, "Good evening, Mr. Trott," and had a glass with him. I do not know Mr. Butt. (Butt stood up.) I have seen him once or twice. I did not say when I saw Inspectors Kidd and Matthews, "It's a rumble, I'm off. "I have never heard the word before. I don't know who it was, but one of the officers came up to me and said, "Hullo, Jack, what are you doing here?" I replied that I was out for a walk, and so I was. I do not know Cunningham.

Verdict, all, Guilty of receiving. Davis confessed to a conviction for felony at Canterbury on October 7, 1905, and Watson confessed to a conviction for felony at Clerkenwell Sessions on October 8, 1907; Lyons confessed to a conviction on December 16, 1902, at Clerkenwell, when he received four years' penal servitude for receiving. At that time 18 larcenies had been traced to him. It was stated that Watson was bound over on October 8, when convicted for receiving. In that case property value £750 had been stolen from a warehouse. Watson was in possession, when arrested, of £300 worth.

From information obtained it was said that he had been receiving proceeds of larcenies to a considerable extent.

Sentences (on April 4): Davis, 20 months' hard labour; Saville, Six months' hard labour; Watson, Four years' penal servitude; Lyons, 18 months' hard labour. The police in the case were highly commended.


(Friday, April 3.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-48
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BANKS, Herbert (40, agent), CALLUM, Charles (43, agent), and CURTIS, Samuel (31 traveller) ; all conspiring and agreeing together by false pretences to cheat and defraud divers liege subjects of His Majesty of their moneys; Banks obtaining by false pretences from Harry Kelsey the sums of 5s., 5s., and 5s. respectively; from Edward Berger the sum of 5s.; from Roger Clavell Paton a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for £2 2s. and the sum of £4 4s. in money, in each case with intent to defraud; Banks and Callum attempting to obtain by false pretences from James Veit the sum of 3s., with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Roger Clavell Paton certain valuable securities, to wit, cheques for the sums of £1 11s. 6d. and £5 10s. respectively, in each case with intent to defraud; Callum obtaining by false pretences from Harry Richard Sawyer the sum of 7s. 6d.; from Edward Berger the sum of 5s., and from Roger Clavell Paton certain valuable securities, to wit, cheques for the sum of 5s. and £1 respectively, in each case with intent to defraud; forging and uttering the endorsement on a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for 5s., with intent to defraud; Curtis obtaining by false pretences from Frederick Twyman the sum of 2s. 6d., and from Harry Richard Sawyer the sum of 5s., in each case with intent to defraud.

Banks pleaded guilty of obtaining one sum of 5s. from Kelsey and of uttering; Banks and Callum pleaded Guilty of conspiracy and of having obtained 5s. from Kelsey, banker's cheques for £1 11s. 6d., and other amounts. Both pleaded Not guilty of conspiring with Curtis; Curtis pleaded Guilty of obtaining 5s. from Sawyer; Not guilty of conspiracy. The other indictments were not proceeded with. Banks and Curtis had both had short sentences for larceny and fraud.

Sentences: Banks, 20 months' hard labour; Curtis, 15 months' hard labour; Callum, 12 months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-49
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

TALBOT, Charles Lewis (23, accountant), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, well knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money—to wit, a banker's cheque for the sum of £30; forging and uttering, well knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money—to wit, a banker's cheque for the sum of £150, in each case with intent to defraud.

It was stated that the prisoner had borne a most excellent character up to a year ago, when, having lost a sum of his brother's money in an investment, he was induced by a circular to enter into share speculations during seven weeks to the extent of £354,660 nominally, resulting in a loss of £3,500, which he had obtained by forgery. Evidence of excellent character was given.

The Recorder. No one can have listened to the history of this case without feeling that the law stands in urgent need of revision. It is impossible to speak too strongly of the conduct of those who, having regard to the fact that the prisoner was obviously only about 21 years of age, and, from his appearance, in a humble position in life, nevertheless permitted him to open speculative accounts in six or seven weeks to the extent of £354,000. I entertain not the slightest doubt whatever that the Legislature should intervene for the purpose of imposing upon any such institution of outside brokers the necessity for making the most diligent inquiries before opening speculative accounts with young men in the City of London. So strongly do I feel with regard to their conduct in connection with this case, that I shall direct the Clerk of this Court to furnish the Official Shorthander's note, together with a copy of the proceedings, to the Law Officers of the Crown, in the hope that they may take steps to introduce a measure (which I am quite sure would be passed without opposition) making it an offence for any such society to open accounts under such circumstances without inquiry.

Sentence, 15 months' in the second division.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-50
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

PUSHMAN, Joseph (24, carman) ; stealing a pearl necklace, the goods of the London and South-Western Railway Company.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. R.W. Burnie defended.

BEATRICE PRYOR POWELL , Buckhurst Hill. On January 3, 1907, I was residing at Sidmouth and placed the jewel case produced in a leather trunk, secured with three straps, but unlocked, which I despatched to St. Stephen's Vicarage, Upton Park, by the London and South-Western Railway. The jewel case was put half way down in the right-hand corner of the trunk, with clothes under and above it. It contained a pearl necklet, amethyst and pearl brooch, sleeve-links, a silver chain and pendant, and other articles. The jewel case was locked. On January 5, when the trunk was delivered, it had a string round it and a leaden seal upon the string, which were not upon it when despatched. On opening the trunk I found that a cloth covering which was over the things had been turned back, showing that the box had been tampered with. I at once took the jewel case out; it had been forced open and is marked. I missed a pearl necklace, pair of links, stud, chain, and pendant. There were other articles of jewellery in the box which had not been taken. I identify brooch and necklace produced. They are old jewels of considerable value; I have never had them valued.

HARRY CRISP , 3, Russell Road, Wimbledon, porter, London and South-Western Railway, stationed at Nine Elms goods station. On January 4, 1907, I received a trunk from Sidmouth addressed to

Miss Powell, of Upton Park, and delivered it to the prisoner, who was then a carman in the employ of the London Parcels Delivery Company. He signed for it, marking it on receipt produced, "Not locked." The trunk was fastened with straps over the front. The string and seal were not put round the trunk by me.

Cross-examined. The receipt produced is the counterfoil, the other part being given to the prisoner to take to the London Parcels Delivery Company. I had known prisoner for a year or two as a carman in the London Parcels Delivery Company. He would know all about marking the box as "unlocked."

FRANCIS NAISH , 3, Belgrave Terrace, Stockwell, superintendent London Parcels Delivery Company, Stockwell. On January 4, 1907, prisoner was employed by my company to collect goods from Nine Elms Station, bring them to Stockwell Road depot, and his duty was to mark their condition on the delivery sheet if unlocked. He would not always have a van boy with him; I do not know if he had one on January 4. On that day he brought the trunk mentioned in delivery sheet produced. It was examined, found to be unlocked, sealed up with string, and despatched to Upton Park.

Cross-examined. Prisoner entered the service of the company as van boy, remained till he was 19, and worked his way up to a carman. He then left of his own accord, went to Richards and Cook's laundry, remained there with a good character until their place was burnt down, was with another laundry—Farlie and Eastman—for two years with a good character, returned into the service of my company and remained there till last November, when he was dismissed through running into a truck and injuring a boy. That had nothing to do with dishonesty; he has always borne a good character. He had marked the box as "unlocked" and called my attention to it. My depot is one and a half or two miles from Nine Elms. Stockwell Road is rather a rough neighbourhood. I did not seal the box myself, but gave dirctions for it to be done—it should have been sealed within a few minutes of arrival. It arrived at one p.m. and would be left on the platform or bank until 1.45, when it was taken away; it might be about an hour in the depot. There would be only our men in the yard; it would be the dinner hour. I produce the up way bill, which shows that the trunk was despatched at 1.45 p.m.

Re-examined. My assistant would be in charge of the bank, would receive the trunk and despatch it. I was on outside duty and returned at two p.m. (To the Judge.) There would be a great many vans there at the time; it is a large depot, employing about 60 men and boys.

FLORENCE MINTERN , 1, Hammond Street, Wandsworth Road, single woman. I have known prisoner's wife for some years before she was married. About 15 months ago she gave me necklace produced as a birthday present; two or three weeks before February 15, 1907. I had no idea it was a pearl necklace worth anything like £100. Early this year some girls I work with said it was "good beads" and advised me to get it valued. I took it to Mr. Etheridge, pawnbroker, asked the value and left it with him.

Cross-examined. I always thought it was beads and spoke about it as "them." Prisoner's wife also spoke about it as such. I had seen it lying on the mantelpiece in prisoner's place and had said to Mrs. Pushman that, as she did not wear them, I would rather like them, and she gave them to me for a birthday; present. I took them to the pawnbroker and he said they were valuable. Mrs. Pushman went the next day with me to Etheridge and told him that her husband had picked up the beads in the Stockwell Road.

EDWIN ARTHUR ETHERIDGE , 186, Wandsworth Road, pawnbroker. On January 31, 1908, Mintern asked me to value necklace produced. I saw it was a valuable necklace, detained it, and communicated with the police. (To the Judge.) It was not mentioned in any list.

Cross-examined. I kept it till the evening and then took it to the police station. The next day Mintern returned with the prisoner's wife, who told me that her husband had picked it up in the Stockwell Road and that they did not know it was of any value.

WILLIAM CHORLEY , 110, Southville, South Lambeth, assistant to Samuel Hickinbotham, pawnbroker. On January 12, 1907, brooch produced was pawned with me by the prisoner's wife for 12s. It is worth about £3.

Cross-examined. Prisoner's wife had been to my place on several occasions, mostly for pledging. (To the Judge.) I always question people who come to pledge. I cannot call to mind where prisoner's wife said she had got it; it is so long ago. (To Mr. Burnie.) I did the transaction. I may have seen her wearing this brooch and said, "I may be able to advance you something on that." It may be she did not bring it to pledge at all; it is a long way back to remember—15 months ago. (To the Judge.) It is an old gold brooch, with real half pearls, and may be an old family jewel. It looks like it. I should say it is not worth more than £3. (To Mr. Burnie.) I am sure that I did not offer to lend her 12s. I never make a statement as to amount. I should ask what she wanted upon it.

EDWIN ETHERIDGE , recalled. It is obviously a very old brooch, a sort of brooch that would fetch a good price. If I were valuing it for probate I should say it was worth £5. If I were selling it I should reckon £5 a good price for it. It is very old-fashioned and might fetch more at a fancy price, but its intrinsic value is about £5.

Detective HARRY RUDDERFORD, W Division. On January 31, 1906, Etheridge handed me pearl necklace produced and made a communication, in consequence of which I went to 2, Hemans Street, Wandsworth Road, and saw the prisoner and his wife. I told them I was making inquiries about a pearl necklace, which I produced. Prisoner said, "Yes; I picked up the necklace in Stockwell Road about 16 months ago. Thinking them of no value I took them home and gave them to my wife, Harriet Pushman." (To the Judge.) I knew nothing about the brooch at that time except that there was a brooch stolen. (To Mr. Curtis Bennett.) Prisoner's wife said, "I gave the necklace to Florence Mintern for a present as she seemed to like them, about 12 months ago. I made inquiries and again went to prisoner's house

on March 7 at 6.45 p.m. I told prisoner I should take him into custody for stealing, on or about January 4, 1907, a pearl necklace and other articles of the value of about £100 from a box, which had been in his care on that day. He said, "That is all right, I will tell the truth, I picked them up; that is all I know about them." When charged at the station he made no reply. At that time we had not discovered the brooch.

Cross-examined. Nothing was said about the brooch before the magistrate except that he was charged with stealing that amongst the other articles. The evidence given to-day about the brooch was not given before the magistrate. I saw Mrs. Pushman a day or two before January 7, and asked if prisoner was at home, said that I would come on the 7th, and would he wait in for me. He was at home when I went there. The house was searched after the arrest.

(Prisoner's statement. I only know that I found it. I have no witnesses here.


JOSEPH PUSHMAN (prisoner, on oath). I was in the service of the London Parcels Delivery Company from my leaving school until I was 19, and, after being for some time with a laundry, left with a good character, returned to the company's service, and was discharged in November last in consequence of an accident. I have no recollection of the trunk and had nothing to do with removing the articles from it; the only things that I have seen are the necklace and the brooch. I picked the necklace up in Stockwell Road in the roadway as I was going home to dinner one day—I could not say the day or the month—I took it home and gave it to my wife and she gave it to a friend of hers. I had no idea at all of its value. That is all I know about it. I heard no more of it until my wife reported to me that Miss Mintern had been to the pawnbroker about it. One evening my manager, Mr. Naish, gave me the job to clear up the yard, and when I was doing so and burning some paper I found brooch produced on a brick rubbish heap in the corner of the yard, in a muddy condition—I cleaned it and gave it to my wife—I had no idea of the value-of it. That was some little time after I had found the necklace. My wife did not tell me she had pawned it. I stole nothing from this trunk.

Cross-examined. I picked up the necklace last year. I said 16 months ago. I was not certain of the date. I only know that it was a long time ago. I picked it up just after one p.m. in the Stockwell Road. It was just lying in the road not very far from the depot. I cannot say if Stockwell Road is very busy at that time. I have heard no inquiries about a necklace being lost from a trunk. I thought the things were practically valueless, and that is why I did not tell a policeman. I found the brooch a week or a fortnight after the necklace; that was on my master's premises. I did not think it was worth anything, being a dirty brooch. I often received unlocked packages and marked them on the sheet as was my duty. I do not

remember this trunk. I cannot tell you whether I had a van boy with me that day or not. When Rudderford came to make inquiries he mentioned other articles being lost—a chain and a link—I do not know quite what he did say.

FRANCIS NAISH , recalled. The loss was reported to me within a few days after January 4. I made all necessary inquiries among the men and asked prisoner. He said he knew nothing about it. I read him an extract from the letter, and told him of all the articles that were lost from the trunk. I mentioned the necklace and brooch. I cannot recollect exactly what I said to him; it is a long time ago. I am sure I spoke to him about it. Letter produced was sent to me from the head office containing list of articles lost, and mentioning "A string of pearls and gold clasp; amethyst brooch with pearls," etc.

CAROLINE PUSHMAN , wife of prisoner. About 15 or 16 months ago prisoner brought home what I thought were beads. He said, "I have found a row of beads in the Stockwell Road; it will do for you or one of the children." I said I did not want them. The beads lay about on the mantelpiece, were kicked about the place anywhere, and the baby, my little boy, now three years old, used to play with them in a mustard tin as a rattle. Miss Mintern used to visit me, and I gave them to her, as she asked for them. Prisoner never asked me anything further about them. Some days after giving me the beads he brought home brooch produced, told me he had found it on the dirt heap; it was covered with dirt; I washed it, and wore it where I work, at the Primrose Laundry, Larkhall Lane, about five minutes walk from Hickinbotham's pawnshop. I went one day there for the washing, and saw the assistant, Chorley. He was looking at the brooch, which I had on, and I asked him if it was worth anything. He said it was worth about £2 when it was new. I borrowed 12s. on it, and I told him it was picked up by my husband. I heard no more of this till January 31, 1908, when Mintern told me she had been to the pawnbroker's about the beads and he had kept them. (To the Judge.) The police told me someone had told them that they had seen me wearing the brooch about the laundry. (To Mr. Burnie.) I told the pawnbroker how they had got into my possession. He said that he had taken them to the police station. The police came on February 1. I heard nothing about the brooch till my husband was arrested.

Cross-examined. I wore the brooch about three days before I pawned it; that was eight days after it was lost. I am positive the brooch was not given me the same day as the necklace; it was several days afterwards. Prisoner never brought me anything else that he found.

Verdict, Not guilty.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-51
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LANE, Cecil Woltenberg (32, accountant), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering well knowing the same to be forged certain requests for the payment of money, to wit, claims for repayment of income tax for £4 10s., £6 1s. 6d., £7 10s., £7 10s., £7 10s., and £6, in each case with intent to defraud; forging and uttering a certificate of deduction of income-tax dated March 28, 1907, with intent to defraud; forging and uttering two receipts for money, to wit, the several sums of £4 10s. and £6, in each case with intent to defraud; obtaining and procuring to be paid to him by forged instruments certain moneys, to wit, the several sums of £4 10s. and £6, in each case with intent to defraud; endeavouring to receive from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue the several sums of £6 17s. 6d., £7 10s., £7 10s. and £7 10s. respectively, by certain forged instruments, in each case with intent to defraud.

Prisoner had been formerly collector for the Inland Revenue, and having been dismissed for negligence had been in business as an agent for the recovery of overpaid income-tax. Evidence of previous good character was given.

Sentence, 10 months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-52
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

BERESFORD, Phillip (34, engineer) ; forging and uttering on January 21, 1908, a bill of exchange for £300; on January 27, 1908, a bill of exchange for £300; on February 1, 1908, a bill of exchange for £1,000; and on February 7, 1908, a bill of exchange for £400, in each case with intent to defraud.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty of forging and uttering the bill for £400 on February 7, 1908. He was proved to have received six months' hard labour for bigamy on July 27, 1904.

Prisoner was stated to have belonged to a highly respectable and wealthy family. After receiving a first-class education he had studied for the Indian Civil Service, broken down in health, enlisted in the 5th Lancers in 1892, and been transferred to the 2nd Royal Berkshire Regiment in 1893; he received a legacy which he ran through, and in 1899 enlisted as a trooper in the Imperial Yeomanry, served in the Boer War, was wounded, and invalided home. He received his commission in the 27th Imperial Yeomanry, and in 1902 was promoted to captain. He then contracted a bigamous marriage, for which he served a sentence, and was released in January, 1905, since which he had been engaged as a chauffeur. He was stated to be suffering from incipient consumption.

Sentence, 12 months' imprisonment in the second division.


(Saturday, April 4.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-53
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

BURY, William (31, carpenter), and WEST, Charles (40, portmanteau maker) ; feloniously receiving 10 watch movements, 24 watch cases, and other goods belonging to Alfred James Baxter, well knowing they had been stolen.

Mr. Sydney E. Williams prosecuted.

ALFRED TAMES BAXTER . I am a jeweller at 27 to 35, Charterhouse Street, Clerkenwell. Albert Fitch is in my employment and his duty

is to fetch things from my warehouse. On February 26 last he was sent to the warehouse to collect some goods. He came back and gave me certain information. These watch cases (produced) are part of the goods he had to fetch. There are no marks of identification on them, so that I cannot identify them, but they are similar to those that he had to bring away. He had to fetch 24 of these cases and a quantity of watch movements, a lady's gold watch and silver case. The property was worth between £40 and £42.

ALBERT CHARLES FITCH . I am 14 years old and am employed by the last witness. On February 26 I was walking down Charterhouse Street and had a bag in my hand; in the bag was a parcel containing watch cases and other articles. As I was walking by Saffron Hill someone came by me and pulled the bag out of my hand and ran down the steps. He was not one of the prisoners.

THOMAS ELLIS . I am a jeweller employed at 54, Clerkenwell Road. On March 2 last the prisoner Bury came into the shop and offered a dozen metal cases for sale. I bought them for 4s. These now shown to me are eight of them. I heard afterwards that there had been a robbery and communicated with the prosecutor. I afterwards handed the cases to the police.

Detective JOSEPH JOSLIN. On March 9 I went to the last witness's shop and saw there seven watch cases. I had been informed that two of them had been identified by the prosecutor, and from the description given of the prisoner Bury, I kept observation in the vicinity of Exmouth Street, Clerkenwell, and shortly after two o'clock on Sunday, the 15th, I saw Bury. I told him I was a police officer and he answered the description of a man who sold a dozen watches to Mr. Cox at 54, Clerkenwell Road a week previously. He said, "My name is not Bury; my name is Burton." I told him I believed his name was Bury and I should take him to Gray's Inn Road Police Station. He then made this statement to me, which was written out and signed: "I was in the 'Horseshoe,' Clerkenwell Close, about 11 a.m., when Charles West showed me some watch cases and said, 'Can you get rid of them for me?' I said, 'I will try.' He then gave me the parcel containing one dozen watch cases. I met a man whom I know as 'George' and asked him the most likely places I could sell these cases. He said they are not worth much, but you can try Cox in Clerkenwell Road. I went there and showed the cases and asked 6s. for them. The man, who I think was the governor, offered me 4s. for them, 'As that is all they are worth to me as I might have to keep them a long time. 'I accepted the 4s. I then returned to the 'Horseshoe' public-house and saw West and gave him the 4s. He gave me 6d. and said, 'I will give you another 6d. some other time; they ought to have fetched more than that; they were not worth dealing with.' I then left him and it was 12 o'clock at night before I got the 6d. at the 'Horseshoe' public-house. I never had any transaction before with him, nor any since." I then went to the "Horseshoe" public-house with Bury and saw West. Bury called him outside. I told West I was a police officer and should arrest him for being concerned in stealing and receiving a quantity of watch cases and movements

about a month previously. West said, "He knows as much of the b—watches as I do." Another statement was made at the station, but I was not then present.

To Mr. Justice Walton. I took West to the station and charged him. He then made a statement to Police-constable Rabsen.

Police-constable ARTHUR RABSEN, 447 E. On March 15 I was in charge of the prisoners at the Gray's Inn Road Police Station. West said to Bury: "You have dropped me into it properly." Bury replied, "You could not expect me to stand the lot, could you?" On West being removed from the cell the next day at 12 noon, he said, "Guv'nor, I shall plead guilty of receiving. I was drunk at the time in the public-house, and I do not know who gave them to me." He was referring to the stolen property. When he made the remark to Bury, neither of the prisoners had then been charged. They were charged the next day.

The prisoners' statements before the magistrate. Bury said in answer to the charge, "I only had the cases," and West said, "I say the same."


WILLIAM BURY (prisoner, not on oath). I have never been in trouble before. I have been a carman and contractor and always at work.

CHARLES WEST (prisoner, not on oath). I was in the "Horseshoe" when a man came in and asked me if I could sell the cases for him. I said "No," and then he asked Bury to do so. Bury took them away and gave me a shilling when he came back, kept 2s. for himself, and paid for a drink. I did not know they were stolen. If I had, I never should have had anything to do with them. I was drunk at the time.

His Lordship directed the Jury that there was no real identification of the watch cases and that it would not be sale to convict.

Verdict, Not guilty.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-54
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

OSBORNE, Leonard (24, porter), and KENNEY, Robert (21, labourer) ; robbery with violence upon Henry Ilbury and stealing from his person a purse and the sum of £1 10s., his goods and moneys.

Mr. Lemaistre prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended Kenney.

HENRY ILBURY . I am a warehouseman and live at Willow Walk, Bermondsey. On March 2 last, at 4.30 p.m., I was in Duval Street, Spitalfields, going home in company with the prisoners and another man not in custody. I had been with them about an hour. I had known Osborne for six months. We had drinks together. Osborne suggested my having another drink, but I said "No, I am going home." This was in Duval Street. All four of us were walking abreast in the road, when suddenly Kenney seemed to step back, and the next moment I felt hands across my throat and the thumbs pressed in. I wriggled to get away and then I felt a thump in the back with a knee or something and fell to the ground. I do not recollect anything else except the man who stole my purse. He is the man not in

custody. He took it out of my pocket. I became unconscious. My purse contained 30s. This is the purse now produced to me, but the strap was not broken then. I gave information to the police. Next day I went to the Commercial Street Police Station and saw a number of men and picked out the two prisoners. I could not identify the third man. I have known Osborne for some time and know Kenney by sight.

Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. This was on a Monday afternoon. My work is in Brushfield Street, Spitalfields. I had three glasses of ale that afternoon; it might have been more. There are a few shops in Duval Street. When I was set upon by the three men I had no chance to call out. I sank unconscious to the ground. That was not through drink. When I came to I was in Artillery Passage, at a butcher's shop, kept by a Mr. Nathan. He is not here.

Cross-examined by Osborne. When I got to Duval Street I said I was going home. I was in your company all the time. I had not left you by then. I did not see you run away. I believe you had hold of my hands, and I said to you, "Len, I know you." I did not know your other name then. When I identified you at the station I knew you personally, but I recognised you because you were the man that had hold of my hands when the other man was behind me.

To the Judge. I am sure the prisoners were there when I was robbed and that Osborne had hold of my hands. About an hour afterwards I spoke to a policeman at the Spitalfields Market.

Police-constable O'SULLIVAN, 272 H. Duval Street is a small street. about 120 yards long. About 9.45, on March 2, I and three other officers went to the "Bluecoat Boy" and saw the prisoners and another man there. I told them we were police officers and we should arrest them on suspicion of being concerned in assaulting and robbing a man at about 4.30 on the same afternoon. They were taken to the station. On the way Osborne said, "I don't know what you are taking me for." The next morning the prisoners were identified by the prosecutor. He did not identify the third man.

Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. At the station the prisoners were placed in the matron's room waiting for the prosecutor to identify them, and when we found he could not come they were placed in the cells; this was somewhere between 12 and one. The prosecutor came next morning, somewhere between 9.30 and 10. The prisoners were brought from the cells and placed with nine other men. They were afterwards charged.

Cross-examined by Osborne. I saw you placed in the matron's room, but I do not know what position you were in.

Police-constable WALTER FUNNELL, 88 H. The prisoners were detained in the matron's room for the prosecutor to attend. They were put into the cells after being searched. When they were removed I searched the matron's room and found a purse by the gas stove. This is the purse. Whilst prisoners were in the room I was with them all the time. They were sitting on a form which runs close up to the gas stove. Only a small sum of money was found on prisoners.

Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. Prisoners are not searched until they are going to be placed in the cells.

Cross-examined by Osborne. You were sitting by the stove. I swear I was in the room all the time.

Police-constable O'SULLIVAN, recalled. I searched prisoners the following morning. I was not present when they were searched the first time. I found on Osborne 6d. in silver and 10 1/2 d. in bronze, and 4d. on Kenney. No inquiry has been made of the market constable. Nathan could be got here by Monday morning.

Mr. Justice Walton. What I am thinking about is, whether the prosecutor was sufficiently sober to know what happened and to be able to recognise people.

The Jury. We are of opinion we should have more information upon that point.

(Monday, April 6.)

CHARLES DAVIS , employed by Mr. Nathan, Artillery Passage, butcher. On March 2 Ilbury came to the shop between three and four; he was the worse for drink.

LEONARD OSBORNE (prisoner, on oath). I was in the company of Kenney and another friend of mine in Brushfield Street when I saw the prosecutor. I went to the "Clean House" public-house, and called for drinks for Kenney, myself, and the other man. I knew Ilbury as working in the market, and I asked him to have a drink, which he had. He afterwards paid for one, and Alvarez, my friend, paid for one also. Then we had another drink round and put pennies in the organ. We were in there for about three-quarters of an hour, I should think. When we got outside we said goodnight to Alvarez, and the three of us went towards Duval Street, down Brushfield Street. There is a public-house on the left-hand side, and we had a drink in there. At the top of Duval street prosecutor said he was going home, and Kenney and I left him. This was about 4.20. We went into the "Bluecoat Boy" in Duval Street and had a drink. We stayed there for about 10 minutes. Then I went with Kenney to where he lives. After that I went to the coffee shop and had some tea; then to the Cambridge Music Hall, staying till nine o'clock, after which I went to the "Bluecoat Boy," where I was arrested. That was about a quarter to 10. Kenney was then with me. I had nothing to do with the assault at all.

Cross-examined. Alvarez was not arrested. McGuire was the third man who was arrested in the "Bluecoat Boy." After being in the charge-room at the station we were placed in the matron's room. I cannot account for the purse being found there. When charged, I said, "I think you have made a mistake; you don't want me." McGuire was in the "Bluecoat Boy" when I got there in the evening I had seen him in the early part of the day in Duval Street. I think McGuire sells ice-cream in the street. I did not see him in the "Clean House" when we were there with Ilbury. He might have been there.

ROBERT KENNEY (prisoner, on oath), corroborated the last witness. Prosecutor must be mistaken in saying I was one of his assailants; he had had a lot of alcohol. I know nothing about the purse which was found in the matron's room. There was an officer in the room all the time I was there.

Cross-examined. It was no use saying anything to the officers when they said they were going to arrest us. I denied it, and told them it was a mistake. I did not make any reply to the charge on the following morning. I said before the magistrate that I had nothing to say and reserved ray defence. I knew the magistrate could not settle the case there. I do not know Alvarez, but I know McGuire. His brother is an ice-cream maker and gives him work. I had not seen McGuire till he came into the "Bluecoat Boy."

HENRY ILBURY , recalled. When the police came to me on March 2 I was at home in bed. I did not go down because I had to get up at three in the morning. I told the police that I should be there at four in the morning to identify them.

Police-constable O'SULLIVAN, recalled. (To the Judge.) I did not see Ilbury when he came to the station. The three men arrested were in the same bar at the "Bluecoat Boy." Osborne and McGuire appeared to be in company, and Kenney was sitting at a little table opposite. In consequence of what the inspector on duty told me I went down to make inquiries, and after those inquiries I went to the "Bluecoat Boy" and arrested them.

Verdict, both Not guilty.


(Saturday, April 4.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-55
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

DONOVAN, Annie (36, laundress), RYAN, Ann (40, laundress) ; both robbery with violence on Adrian Moeri, and stealing from him a watch and chain, his goods. Donovan pleaded guilty.

Mr. L.A. Lucas prosecuted.

ADRIAN MOERI . On March 15, at about 12.30 a.m., I was in the Euston Road, near the Piccadilly Tube Station, when the prisoners came up to me. Ryan got hold of me by the neck and pulled me down. The other one snatched my watch. I had been drinking. Three witnesses came up and pointed out to me that my watch and chain had been stolen. They called a policeman, who took the prisoners in charge, and took them to the station. The watch and chain were found on the ground.

JAMES ADAMS , Woburn Mews, blacksmith. On March 14, about midnight, I saw prisoners attack the prosecutor. Ryan got hold of him by the shoulders and pulled him to the ground; while he was rolling on the ground Donovan took his watch and chain from him. I went over to the policeman, who came and took them into custody. When prosecutor got off the ground Ryan rushed at him and punched him in the face. I went with them to the police-station. Donovan

had dropped the watch and chain. Prosecutor had had a drop of drink.

Cross-examined. Ryan, punched him on the left side of the face and knocked his hat off; I do not know whether he was marked. I asked Ryan for the watch, and she said she did not have it. I gave her in charge. I saw Donovan drop the chain out of her pocket and throw the watch on the ground, which the policeman picked up.

ALFRED DOWNING , 3, Cumberland Market, Regent's Park. On March 14 after midnight as I was passing Belgrave Street I saw a struggle. Ryan got the prosecutor round the neck with both arms and pulled him to the ground. Donovan then snatched the watch and chain from his waistcoat. They got up and the prosecutor was walking away. Something was said, and Ryan struck him on the left side of the face, knocking his hat off. Then the prosecutor was walking across the road and we ran across and asked him where his watch was. He missed it, and then said the prisoners had it. We all went across Euston Road and caught the two prisoners against the Tube station, and asked them for the watch and chain. They said they had not got it. The two constables were standing across the road, and they took prisoners into custody. Going along Great College Street towards the station Donovan dropped the chain; the constable caught sight of her, there was a brief struggle and she threw the watch on the ground, breaking the glass. I had never seen the women before.

Cross-examined. I saw Donovan run away as I was standing against the subway. They were both there; Ryan struck the prosecutor; then the two walked off.

WILLIAM PAUL . At 12.30 a.m. on March 15 I was going along Belgrave Street. I saw Ryan drag the prosecutor to the ground. While he was on the ground Donovan took the watch and chain from his pocket. I went and lifted him up and said, "Why don't you go home?" With that Ryan got up and smacked the prosecutor on the left side of the face, knocking his hat off. The two prisoners then went away towards York Road. I said to prosecutor, "Where is your watch?" He said, "I have lost it; I have not got it." We went over and asked Ryan about the watch and chain—Donovan was walking away. Ryan said she did not know anything about it. There were two constables just going along. We called them. One constable held Ryan and the other went after Donovan. The watch was found on the ground; the glass is broken. Donovan, first dropped the chain on the ground and then threw away the watch. I saw the other two witnesses there.

Police-constable TIMS, 736 Y. On the early morning of March 15 I saw a large crowd outside the Tube station, King's Cross, and on going to ascertain the cause I saw Donovan running towards York Road. I stopped her, carried her back and saw Ryan in custody. Donovan was trying to pass the chain on to the crowd. I went to snatch it out of her hand and knocked it away. There was a large crowd there. A lot of loose women and disreputable men hang about there as people are going to catch the last train.

Police-constable JAMES SLATTER, 773 Y. I saw prosecutor outside the Piccadilly Tube station in Euston Road. I also saw the two prisoners and a crowd of other people. Prosecutor complained that he had been robbed of his watch by the two prisoners. Tims took Donovan and I took Ryan into custody. On the way to the station Donovan attempted to pass the chain and dropped it. The other constable picked it up. A little further on she threw the watch in the crowd and smashed the glass. I picked it up. I saw Downing, Paul, and Adams there.

Ryan's statement. The witnesses are not telling the truth.

ANN RYAN (prisoner not on oath). I am innocent. I was very drunk; had been drunk all day. I never struck the prosecutor. She (Donovan) left me standing up against the railing. The policeman fetched her back, put his arm round me, and took me as well.

Verdict, Guilty. Ryan admitted having been convicted on April 18, 1906, at South London Sessions, receiving nine months' hard labour, for stealing a watch and chain from the person. Eight other convictions were proved for larceny from the person. Donovan had been convicted of drunkenness and assault, and was known as a prostitute and associate of bad characters.

Sentences: Ryan, Five years' penal servitude; Donovan, 12 months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-56
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MAYES, William (35, labourer), and MAYES, Walter (23, barge breaker); both assaulting Andrew West, with intent to rob and steal from his person, divers goods and moneys.

Mr. George J. Spreule prosecuted.

Police-constable JOHN LONG, 160 K. On March 8, at 12.15 p.m., I was standing in the East India Dock Road when I saw the two prisoners with a drunken sailor between them, leading him along in the direction of Poplar. When they got to the corner of Oriental Street he refused to go—he broke away from them and went across to the other corner. Walter then gave him a blow in the face; William went through his waistcoat pockets. The sailor dealt William a blow in the face. I took them into custody; they became very violent. On the way to the station William said, "It was not me, it was my brother." On being charged, Walter said, "Quite right." William made no reply. The sailor was very drunk.

Police-constable ERNEST WILTSHIRE, 380 K. On March 8 I was with the last witness shortly after 12 o'clock in the East India Dock Road, Poplar. We were both in plain clothes. I saw the two prisoners with a drunken sailor, one of them holding each arm, going in the direction of Poplar. When they got to the corner of Oriental Street they endeavoured to pull him down there; the sailor got suspicious and got away from them, and crossed the road. Walter walked with him, William behind. Walter struck the sailor a violent blow in the face, felling him to the ground. On his getting to his feet they threw him against the railing and William put his hands into his pockets. I and Lang seized them. Walter became very violent, threw me to the ground several times, but with a great

amount of trouble they were taken to the station. In reply to the charge, William made no reply; Walter said, "That is quite right."

ANDREW WEST , 41, West India Dock Road, sailor. On March 8 I was drunk. I Lave been several weeks ashore. When I came out of the public-house the prisoners were going to fight me. One of them put his hand into my pocket and wanted to take my discharge. I hit one of the two in the mouth and in the face. One hit me in the mouth and I fell down to the ground. I could not tell you the street because it is the first time I have been in London. I belong to South America. As I got up from the ground one of the prisoners caught me by the arm and the other put his hand into my waistcoat pockets.

Verdict, Guilty of assault, with intent to rob.

It was stated that the two prisoners were in constant work and had not been previously convicted, one being a lighterman and the other working in the docks; they were both men of good character. The Recorder said he would treat the case as one of assault.

Sentences, each, Three months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-57
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ROGERS, Edward (21, porter), HEATH, James (60, umbrella maker) ; both breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Ernest Rogers, and stealing therein five rings, three brooches; three scarf pins, and other articles, his goods.

Rogers pleaded guilty.

Mr. L.A. Lucas prosecuted.

EDITH ROGERS , wife of Ernest Rogers, Clapham. I am no relation to the prisoner Rogers. On Friday, March 13, at three p.m., I left my house empty, but fastened up, and returned at 4.45, when I found the bedroom in great confusion, the drawers emptied, the things thrown on the floor. I missed a little green box with some rings and brooches of the value of £36 (produced). The thieves had got in by breaking the lock of the front door. The neighbourhood is very quiet. The next morning I charged the prisoners at the station—Heath's face seemed familiar to me.

FREDERICK FAVELL , milkman. On March 13 I was outside prosecutor's house when I saw the prisoners acting very suspiciously and watched them. One came to the gate, then the other one, then they both went to the door; Heath was meddling about the door, forcing it, using some kind of instrument, a jemmy. They did not see me; there is a hedge in front of the garden. I went to find a policeman. I watched them for about three minutes; the younger prisoner went inside and the elder came to the corner. I went again to try and find a policeman; when I came back both the prisoners were coming away. I followed them up Crescent Lane. I am positive Heath was the man—I identified him next day amongst nine other men. I followed them up Clapham Park Road, informed the constable who was on point duty at the "Plough," and went up again in front, meeting the two prisoners. When they saw me Rogers ran away and I ran after him, captured him, and handed him to the police.

He had the property on him. The next day I identified Heath as being the man I had seen with Rogers.

Police-constable WILLIAM MCMEIKAN, 340 N. On March 13, about 4.15, the last witness spoke to me, and I at once went to Crescent Lane, where I saw the two prisoners. Rogers immediately ran away; I gave chase. He was stopped by Favell. In the struggle some of the jewellery now produced was lying on the ground and I picked it up. Rogers said, "I know nothing at all about it; they were handed over to me by the old man to take to the station for him." I took Rogers to the Balham Police Station. Heath was identified by me the next morning as the other man whom I had seen with Rogers. I am sure those were the two men I saw together. ROBERT PLOWDEN, W Division. On the evening of March 13 I arrested Heath in Green Street, Bethnal Green. I told him I should arrest him for being concerned with a man named Rogers in breaking into a house in Clapham. He said, "You have made a mistake; I have not been out to-day." He afterwards said, "What time do you say that was?" I said, "Between three and four this afternoon." He said, "I can prove I was having my tea then." On the way to Balham station he said, "This is all through being arrested a week ago with Rogers." The next morning I was present when he was picked out by the last two witnesses from nine other men. He was afterwards charged and made no reply.

Inspector SAVAGE, W Division. I visited the prosecutor's house. The front street door had been forced by a jemmy, the box lock being completely broken away. The back dining-room was in confusion. A marble clock and a canister were placed ready to be taken away. In the front bedroom upstairs all the drawers had been ransacked; lying on the bed was a hand mirror, a hairbrush, and a comb. In the back bedroom the drawers had been forced with an instrument. but nothing was missing from the room. In another back room a cabinet had been forced but nothing had been stolen from there. I was at the police station when Rogers was brought in; there was no jemmy found on him; I searched in the vicinity of the house but could not find any instrument. Heath got away.

Heath's statement: I am innocent. I know nothing about it. I was at home having tea when this occurred. (Defence.)

JAMES HEATH (prisoner, not on oath). On this very day I never went out till five to nine in the evening, and at the time when this was supposed to have taken place I was having my tea at home. I have had a shop in the same street for 18 years. The officer said, "You will have to go to the station; you are charged with being concerned with another man of the name of Rogers." I said, "That is easily proved; I have never been out the whole day. My landlady and Mrs. Heath will prove that." I have known Rogers two or three years. I met him just about a week before that and we went for a walk together. I had not been out more than a quarter of an hour before a police officer came and said, "What have you got about

you?" I said, "Nothing; feel." He searched both me and this prisoner. He said, "You will have to go down." He took me and the prisoner down to the station. I gave my name and address to the inspector. They took both me and this prisoner up to North London—five minutes afterwards we were both acquitted. I having been all these years in the street they know me. I do not want much finding. I have only been 10 weeks out of my shop that I had in Green Street.

FREDERICK FAVELL , recalled. I was about 20 minutes backwards and forwards watching these two men—they were both up against the door and they were pushing the door.

Inspector SAVAGE, recalled. I was present at the identification of Heath from amongst nine other men bearing a reasonable resemblance to him. He said he was satisfied with the appearance of the men he had to stand with. He chose his own position. Favell had not the slightest difficulty in picking him out—he went direct up to him and put his hand on his shoulder. The police-constable picked him out also without the slightest hesitation.

Verdict, Guilty. Heath admitted having been convicted on February 20, 1906, at Clerkenwell, receiving 15 months for receiving. Prisoner was stated to be a very dangerous man, a trainer of thieves; he has three sons and a daughter, all of whom have undergone long terms of imprisonment, one of whom is in prison now.

Rogers was proved to have been convicted at Clerkenwell on March 6, 1906, of housebreaking, and sentenced to 18 months' under the Borstal system. He was suspected of being concerned in a robbery at Haxell's Hotel, Strand, where he was employed as porter, and was found bound up with cord, the safe having been stolen.

Sentences: Heath, Seven years' penal servitude; Rogers, 18 months' hard labour.

The Recorder highly commended the conduct of Favell, which had resulted in bringing such a dangerous man as Heath to justice. He directed that Favell should receive a reward of £2.


(Saturday, April 4.)

FINKELSTEIN, Israel (60, merchant), who pleaded guilty of certain bankruptcy offences on March 5 (p. 650) came up for sentence.

It was stated that prisoner had made a confession of some kind since he was last before the Court. He was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment in the second division.


(Monday, April 6.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-59
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

HAMILTON, Margaret Jane Louise (77, no occupation) ; committing wilful and corrupt perjury.

Mr. H. Avory, K.C., Sir Charles Mathews, and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted; Mr. E.G. Jellicoe and Mr. Laurence Hales defended.

Mr. Jellicoe raised certain points of objection on the indictment. His Lordship thought the objections were not good, but said that if it were necessary for him to do anything to enable the accused to raise the question he should do it.

WALTER CROW , chief clerk, Marylebone Police Court, proved the depositions taken by him of the prisoner on October 11 and produced the information which was laid by Robert Caldwell, the prisoner, Mary Ann Robinson, and George Hollamby Druce. Upon that information a summons for perjury was issued by Mr. Plowden on October 11, 1907. On November 27 and 29 witness took the depositions of the prisoner at Marylebone, which were read over to her before she signed them. (The prisoner's depositions were read.)

Inspector WILLIAM REID was here called, in answer to an objection of Mr. Jellicoe, to prove that prisoner was present on all the four days at Marylebone and Clerkenwell Police Courts when Robert Caldwell was examined and was in a position to hear what took place.

Cross-examined. Witness said that the prisoner did not leave the Court at Clerkenwell except during the adjournment, but he could not tell whether anyone else left the Court.

WALTER CROW , recalled, went through the evidence of Caldwell as to a complaint affecting the Duke of Portland's nose. He also produced the depositions of Miss Robinson taken November 18, 19, and 21.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Hamilton was in the box on November 27 for about two hours. On the 29th she was further cross-examined by Mr. Avory during the whole of the hearing in the afternoon. (The witness was cross-examined as to the briefness of his notes of prisoner's evidence as compared with the shorthand notes, with a view to showing that they gave a different impression of the evidence.)

A discussion arose as to whether the shorthand notes should be put in to contradict the depositions. The question was left till later.

Mr. Jellicoe asked the witness whether a coat which he produced was one that had been identified at the police court by Mr. Batt. Mr. Avory objected to the question and contended that the witness could not speak to the coat.

Witness, re-examined. Prisoner made no objection to the depositions when they were read over to her. I read them over myself.

ARTHUR SAMOSON , usher, Marylebone Police Court, proved administering the oath to the prisoner when she gave her evidence there in November last.

CATHERINE BAYLY , 77 years old. I knew Thomas Charles Druce, who carried on business in Baker Street, having gone into his service when I was 15—first as nurse, then housekeeper. I frequently went to the Baker Street premises. That was a furnishing and upholstery business, and I used to take Mr. Druce his luncheon. He was most regular in his attendance there and left at about five at night. We moved to several different houses while I was with him, the last of which was Holcombe House, Mill Hill, Hendon. I think Mr.

Druce died in December, 1864; getting on towards Christmas; I won't be sure about the day. He died in Holcombe House. His wife and family were living there then. Mr. Herbert Druce was about two years old when I entered the service. The youngest daughter was born at Holcombe House. Mr. Druce died about a year or more after we went to Holcombe House. I was with him when he died, holding his hands. He asked me not to leave him until he was gone, and I did not. He had been very bad for two or three weeks, but he had been poorly before. Sir William Fergusson had attended him, and operated upon him twice. One of the doctors who attended him regularly was Dr. Blasson.; the other I forget. It was Shaw, now that I am reminded. He had also some hospital nurses, but he preferred me. Dr. Shaw got blood poisoning through attending on Mr. Druce. The latter died of fistula. He might have been away from business for two or three weeks before he died. Mr. Herbert Druce came in to look at his father on the night that he died. The two doctors were there when Mr. Druce died. Mr. Herbert Druce stood at the door; he could see what was going on. It was nearly morning when Mr. Druce died. He was put in chloride of lime. The body was very offensive; that was why his family could not be in. I was in the room when the body was put in the coffin, but, of course, it was kept a little distance as he was in such a state. He was put into a sort of shell first, and on the next day he was put into a lead coffin, and screwed down after two days. I saw the funeral start, but I did not go. It was about three or four days after the death. Mr. Druce never slept at Baker Street; he always came home early to dinner. There was no sleeping accommodation at Baker Street as far as I knew. I stayed with the family until after Mrs. Druce died. She stayed on at Holcombe House for some little time. There was a son, Walter Druce. I knew his wife, Annie Maria. I remember the fact of Walter Druce dying; that was at York Road. I saw him put in the same vault as his father at Highgate Cemetery. At that time I saw the father's and the mother's coffin in the grave, and a little baby of Mr. Sidney's. Walter Druce died some time after his mother. I daresay I went to the mother's funeral. Yes, I had a cab and went. I did not know Mrs. Druce before she married Thomas Charles. At the time of Mr. Druce's death he had a beard and whiskers, but the beard was not long. It was not false. He never wore a wig, and he had no lumps on his nose. I remember being called as a witness in the Probate Court, when I gave evidence of the death of Thomas Charles Druce.

Cross-examined. I gave evidence the other day at Bow Street. I do not remember saying that Mr. Druce was 40 when I entered his service. I should think he was 50. After his funeral I heard the servants speak about a mock funeral—some girls that were in the house. We had four maidservants. Somebody said perhaps it was a sham funeral, or something, and it was shut up directly. There was nothing to account for saying it. Of course, I was surprised to hear them talking like that. This was directly after the funeral. I happened to go into the kitchen and heard them making a joke,

that it all. I do not know what they had seen to lead them to think the funeral was a mock one. I thought it was wrong to talk like that. I should not have listened if they had been going to tell me anything more about it. I do not suggest they had any reason for telling falsehoods about it.

Re-examined. I do not recollect exactly what the servants said; something about a sham funeral. There were four coaches, I believe, at the funeral, and the hearse.

AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPER , F.R.C.S., one of the experts to the Home Office. I attended at Highgate Cemetery on December 30 last, when the exhumation took place of a body from the grave of Thomas Charles Druce. An oak coffin was brought to the surface bearing the inscription, "Thomas Charles Druce, Esq. Died December 28, 1864, in his 71st year." Upon the oak coffin being opened, it disclosed a lead one, which bore the inscription, "Thomas Charles" on the first line, "Druce, Esq." on the second, "died 28th December" on the third, "1864" on the fourth, "in his 71st year" on the last. It varied a little from the arrangement on the outer coffin. The lead coffin contained an inner shell, in which was the body of an aged adult male, probably between 65 and 75 years of age, about 5 ft. 8 1/2 in. long, allowing for wasting, with a full beard, whiskers, and moustache, dark brown; the heard was grizzly. The features were easily recognisable. I had the photograph produced (marked A) with me at the time, and I formed the opinion that it was one of the man I saw in the coffin. It bore a striking resemblance. On the lower part of the body I found traces of a very destructive disease. There was brown hair on the head, with a few gray hairs; it was natural, but rather thin just on the crown. It was brushed flat down exactly as in the photograph. I first saw Mr. Herbert Druce at Clerkenwell Police Court when I gave evidence.

ALFRED HENRY LAW , shorthand writer, of Bennett and Law, 67, Chancery Lane, proved his notes of the evidence given by prisoner on commission in a civil suit by George Hollamby Druce against Lord Howard de Walden and others, on December 4 and 11, 1906.

Cross-examined. Mr. Frank Russell examined prisoner and Mr. Avory cross-examined. I believe she was in the box for three-quarters of an hour on the first day, it might have been 50 minutes. You could easily get 60 pages of typewritten foolscap, with a very fast speaker like Mrs. Hamilton, in that time. Prisoner said towards the end of one of the days that she was getting tired. If she complained that she did not know what she was saying I should take that down. I should pass by the statement that she felt a bit tired. The reading over to the witness was dispensed with by agreement of counsel on both sides.

Re-examined. Soon after the witness had said she was tired we adjourned.

(Tuesday, April 7.)

GEGEORGE WILLIAM THACKRAH , partner in Druce and Co., 68 and 69, Baker Street. I knew the late Thomas Charles Druce perfectly. I

went into his service in 1860, and was present at his funeral on December 31, 1864. When well he attended to his business regularly; his hours were generally about 10 till four. He stayed away from business for some three or four months prior to his death. Until then he had been in very good health. At that time he was at Holcombe House, Mill Hill. On December 27 and 28 I was at business at Baker Street. I know absolutely from my knowledge that Thomas Charles Druce was not there on those days. When I entered Mr. Druce's service he was living at Finchley Road. On December 31 the premises at Baker Street were closed. No funeral procession started from there. On December 30 last I was at Highgate Cemetery and saw Mr. Druce's grave opened, when Professor Pepper was there. Mrs. Druce's coffin was brought up first, then the coffin of Thomas Charles Druce, with his name on a plate and the year in which he died. The outer coffin was oak, covered with cloth, in that was a leaden coffin, and then a shell, in which was the corpse of Thomas Charles Druce, the man that I had known from 1860 to 1864. Decay had made but a very small impression on the body. I could not possibly doubt it was Mr. Druse's body. The photo produced is of Thomas Charles Druce, by Southwood Brothers, of Baker Street. This copy is made by the London Stereoscopic Company. The photograph (produced) in the sitting position is also of Thomas Charles Druce. Mr. Druce attended to all the details of the business. He was distinctly a competent business man, and I should say above the average.

Cross-examined. I was 14 when I went to Mr. Druce. The business was started about 1830. The photograph shown me (exhibit 11). I should say is the same as the others I have identified. I say as I said before, "In life I saw him only with a beard, and in death the same; the beard is still there."

CASSERLY, clerk in the Principal Probate Registry of the High Court of Justice, Somerset House. I produce an affidavit filed in the matter of Druce against Young, a probate suit, purporting to be the affidavit of Margaret Jane Louise Hamilton. I also produce a file of the proceedings in that suit. It appears that the suit is for the purpose of setting aside the probate of a will of Thomas Charles Druce. The writ was issued on July 11,1898, and the suit was tried before Mr. Justice Barnes and special jury on December 3 and 4,1901. I have the record of the verdict, which was that the paper writings dated March 28, 1860, and November 14, 1864, purporting to be the last will and testament and codicil thereto of the deceased, were duly executed in accordance with the statute, and that at the time of the execution of the will the testator was of sound mind and understanding, and that Thomas Charles Druce died on December 28, 1864.

Cross-examined. The date of the writ is June 27, 1898. There was an application in August, 1898, by Anna Maria Druce to the President of the Probate Court to issue letters of request to the Consistory Court for the opening of the grave at Highgate. The application was opposed by Herbert Druce. The Judge, after hearing evidence,

ordered letters of request to issue. Dr. Tristram, the Judge of the Consistory Court, issued a citation for opening the grave, and then proceedings were begun in the Queen's Bench to prohibit the execution of that citation, which prohibition was granted in February, 1899. George Hollamby Druce intervened in the proceedings for revocation of the will taken by Anna Maria Druce and applied for a postponement of the trial more than once, and the application was dismissed. I was not present at the trial in the Probate Court.

Mr. Avory said that if Mr. Jellicoe wished to put the question whether Mrs. Anna Maria Druce cross-examined as if she was a lunatic he would say so at once.

Mr. Jellicoe. I accept my friend's statement. That was exactly what I wanted.

Re-examined. It appears that the application for postponement by George Hollamby Druce was on the ground, among others, that he was in Australia and his presence was necessary.

HERBERT DRUCE , The Beeches, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, senior partner in Druce and Co., 68 and 69, Baker Street. In 1864 I was living at Holcombe House, where my father, mother, and rest of the family resided. I was about 18 then. Up to then I had never lived away from my father. My father died on December 28, 1864. I remember his death perfectly well. I saw his body about two minutes after; it was still warm. He was in bed. I do not think he went to business after September, 1864. On the morning after his death I saw his body in the shell and I saw it after it had been put in a leaden coffin. I also saw the oak coffin, and I attended the funeral, which started from Holcombe House on December 31. There was a hearse and three or four carriages. I remember that in 1898 proceedings were instituted by Anna Maria Druce for the purpose of getting my father's grave opened and the body exhumed, which I resisted. I swore an affidavit dated March 28, 1898. (Produced and read.) The contents of that are true. In 1901 the probate action was heard before Mr. Justice Barnes and a special jury. On December 3 and 4 I think I was called as a witness. Dr. Shaw, Dr. Blasson, and Mr. (afterwards Sir William) Fergusson attended my father during his illness. Mr. Fergusson performed two operations, I think. Miss Bayly was called as a witness in the probate action, also Mr. Alexander Young, my father's executor. He died last August. Dr. Shaw's deposition was read. I gave evidence that I saw my father lying dead at Holcombe House on December 28, 1864. The two photographs produced are of my father without a doubt; one is a copy. My father always wore a beard when I remember him, and had natural hair on his head. He never wore a wig. The certified copy of the death register (produced) I have no doubt is correct. (Same was read.) Messrs. Glazier and Sons, 198, Tottenham Court Road, carried out the funeral, whose receipted account I have seen. My father kept horses and carriages at Holcombe House and drove to business, but when living at, Finchley Road he used to go by omnibus. He had about 10 servants at

Hendon. I went into the business on September 1,1864. I became a partner three years afterwards.

Cross-examined. My memory carries me back about five or six years before I went into the business. It is very difficult to remember after all this time. It might carry me back to when I was 12. My first recollection is as to living at Finchley Road. When I first remember my father I should think he would be about 54 or 55, perhaps more. I became a partner when I was of age. The business then was not what you would call a large one. I daresay it required a capital value of some thousands. Occasionally funeral furnishing was undertaken, but very rarely. The business is larger now. At the time my father died the capital was about £44,000; but it was not all his. Books were kept, but it has always been a practice to destroy them every 10 or 12 years. When I took over the business there was no ledger showing the origin of the business. I know there are documents which show that the business first started about 1832; documents in the possession of Turquands, Young and Co. You asked me some questions at Bow Street about the origin of the business, and I could not answer them. After lunch I was re-examined by Sir Charles Mathews, and I then told him a good deal about the conduct of the business. I told you that the information as to my father's business was given me by my solicitors after the adjournment. I have not been able to find any account of the beginning of the business. I did not know of my own knowledge when it was started nor with whose money. I cannot recollect having seen the certificate of my birth. I have never searched nor know of any search being made. I have not seen a certificate of my baptism, nor searched for one, nor authorised a search to be made. I never saw a family Bible which recorded my birth. The first 50 years (about) of my father's life were a blank to me. I do not recollect being visited at Finchley Road by any relatives of my father's or mother's. I do not recollect my grandfathers or grandmothers. I did not say before the magistrate that my father and mother did not speak to me about their marriage. My father and mother never told me when they started the business. I was present at one of the applications in the Probate Court for the grave to be opened. I suppose my solicitors communicated with the Cemetery Company when it was known that the grave was ordered to be opened. The instructions were given by Mr. Young, I think. I know the grave was not opened, and he objected to it very strongly. I suppose there is a sewer under the Baker Street premises; I do not know of anything else. I never saw anything below the basement; it was all stone. I heard the evidence of the men who were servants to the Duke in 1865 at the police court, and I never heard a bigger lot of lies in my life. The photo produced (No. 8) I am quite sure is of my father, but it is a copy, and it has been a little faked; it has got more whiskers on than the original; they are carried up a little higher.

(Mr. Jellicoe said his suggestion was that it was the photo of a person who was disguised.) I know that the servant witnesses that

have been mentioned said that they recognised it as the fifth Duke of Portland. (To the Judge.) I never saw the fifth Duke of Portland.

Re-examined. I saw some of the photos which were produced and used at the police court by those who were prosecuting me. One of them was very like the copy which I say appears to be faked. My father always wore a frock coat buttoned up, like the one in the photo produced; it was a kind of rough cloth.

To Mr. Jellicoe. The coat produced was never my father's. It is not the least like the one in the photograph. I have not the photo before me, and I do not want to look at it; I am perfectly positive. (To the Judge.) My father always wore an overcoat for nine months' in the year; it was always buttoned up. It was worn over a smaller, light coat. His undercoat would be a morning cost. (To Mr. Avory.) I think this photo has been scratched up after it was printed, as photographers are very apt to do if it does not come out properly. It was only after the charge of perjury had been brought against me that, under legal advice, I consented to the opening of the grave. I can remember my father faintly at the time of the Crimean War. I should then be about eight years of age. I lived with my father regularly except when we were away for a holiday, perhaps. I did not go to school, but had tutors. My father, when I remember him, only resided at Finchley Road and Hendon. During all that time he attended to the business.

EDWARD HORSMAN BAILEY , of Bailey, Shaw, and Gillett, solicitors, Berners Street. My firm had acted for the Duke of Portland for 70 or 80 years. I knew the late Duke personally, certainly prior to 1870, and I should think up to 1878. In that year he called in Berners Street several times. He died in 1879. The certificate produced purports to be one of the death of the fifth Duke of Portland. As solicitor I went to Harcourt House when the Duke was lying dead there, but I did not see the body. My father was one of the executors, and I was assisting in arranging for the funeral. I also assisted in proving the will of the late Duke, and in taking a cast of the features of the Duke after death. The photograph produced is one taken of the bust that was made from that cast. That photograph fairly represents his features. During the time I knew him he never had any complaint or disfigurement of the nose. The photographs produced which have been identified as of Mr. Druce have not the slightest resemblance to the fifth Duke. The Duke while I knew him was always clean-shaven. When in London he always stayed at Harcourt House, and in the country at Welbeck Abbey. He also had a house at Hyde Park Gardens, which he did not occupy. There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that there was a coffin on the roof of the house in Hyde Park Gardens. The house was occupied by a caretaker and servant. I went over the house up to the top storey, I think, in 1875. There was a complaint from the vestry of Paddington that a dead body was kept in the house, and I accompanied an officer of health over the house to see that there was no dead body, and he was satisfied there was none, nor a coffin. That was four years

before the Duke died, and the inspection was made with his knowledge.

(Herbert Druce, recalled, identified a letter written to him by his father in April, 1859, as in his father's handwriting.)

Witness. I was well acquainted with the writing of the fifth Duke. I have a letter in his handwriting dated August 3, 1859. Scott-Portland was the name used by the Duke after his accession in 1854. My personal knowledge does not go back so far at that. The letter of April 6, 1854, is signed "Portland"; that is in the fifth Duke's writing. From documents in my possession I know when the fifth Duke first used the name of Scott. (Mr. Jellicoe objected to this evidence.) I have a letter here of April 29, 1854, in which he uses the name of Scott-Portland. From the documents in my possession there is no trace of his using the name of Scott-Portland prior to 1854. (Mr. Jellicoe objected that all this was secondary evidence.)

Witness. He only signed himself "Portland" for a few days; before that it was "Titchfield."

(His Lordship said that it seemed to him not worth while waiting time about this; if the witness produced the letter signed "Titchfield," then a letter signed "Portland," and a letter signed "Scott-Portland," and said that ever since, during his recollection, it had always been "Scott-Portland" he thought the thing spoke for itself.

Witness. My firm acted for Lord Howard de Walden in the action brought by George Hollamby Druce, in which I was one of the defendants, at a trustee of the will of the fourth Duke.

Cross-examined. My first connection with the business of the Duke of Portland was immediately after I went into the office in January, 1866. I am not sure whether I saw the fourth Duke before then or after. I saw him at my grandfather's residence. Between that date and 1879 the Duke was occasionally at our office. I did not see him very frequently. In business in which I came across him he was by no means retiring. I have heard that so far as social matters were concerned the Duke was of a retiring disposition, but he was not a recluse. I have been to Welbeck, but not in the fifth Duke's time. I have seen subterranean passages and tunnels there. They were constructed in the latter part of the Duke's time, as far as I know, by the fifth Duke. They extended for a considerable distance. There is one which leads from the Abbey to the stables, another one is a road used for driving through part of the park towards Workshop. There are others connecting the kitchens with the house. I knew Harcourt House; there were never any tunnels there. I never went there with a view of ascertaining if there were tunnels. I do not think I knew any of the gentlemen on the vestry of Paddington, but I have no doubt they were sane. I think what happened was that the officer of health asked permission to go over the house in Hyde Park Gardens because of a report which had been made to the vestry. My recollection is that the sanitary officer declined to give us the names of those who had made the complaint. I did not see the original report, but I saw the sanitary officer's report. All I

heard was a report that there was a body there; I presume a dead one. I did not go to search for it because I knew it was not there. I never heard anything about an individual being missing and supposed to be on these premises. The report arose through omnibus drivers pointing up with their whips, "There is a coffin up there." I have heard them do it myself. There was never any suggestion that a man who wore a false beard had been seen round about the house and then had disappeared, and that that had given rise to the remark that he was lying dead on the premises. The fifth Duke suffered from ill-health a good deal. That may have accounted for his retiring disposition. Perhaps I saw the Duke about half a dozen times, perhaps more. I should think it was in 1889 that I first visited Welbeck. There was a riding school there. There were two busts of the Duke and several photos of them; I do not know whether there was a full face bust. (Two photos of the busts were produced.) The casts for each bust were taken at about the same time after death. The Duke suffered from eczema, but it did not show on the face or neck. It was not such as to make him prefer subterranean passages to being above ground; nothing of the sort. I should not call him eccentric. I know he felt the cold very much, and always wore more than one frock coat. I believe in cold weather he wore three. I never noticed him wearing three coats. I heard the evidence of Charles Batt at the hearing against Mr. Druce, and what he said about the coat produced, but I really could not say what coat the Duke wore under his outer one. He always wore a frock coat. There was nothing extraordinary about the Duke's trousers; I have no recollection of their pattern. His dress was rather old-fashioned. The sketch produced at the police court gave a very good idea of the Duke, but as a rather younger man than I knew him. The clothes are approximately what he wore. (The sketch was produced.) The Duke always wore a wig. I heard recently that 300 wigs were found after his death, but at the time the inventory was taken I heard nothing about them. I have no recollection of any wigs being found in his room. I never heard of the Duke having false beards. I never saw anything on the Duke's nose at all; it was a very finely cut, chiselled nose. There was a doctor near Welbeck who attended the Duke; I do not know his name. Sir Walker Clayton attended him in his last illness, which lasted for some months. In earlier days he was constantly in the doctor's hands. I was in court and heard the evidence given against Herbert Druce. I was watching the case on behalf of the Duke of Portland and Lord Howard de Walden, and I certainly gave what information I could to Messrs. Freshfield, who were acting for Herbert Druce. I knew of the proceedings in 1898 for the opening of the grave. In consequence of the attempts made by Anna Maria Druce to assert a claim to the Dukedom of Portland, my firm put themselves in communication with Messrs. Freshfield. I think my first communication with Messrs. Freshfield in that regard was an informal conversation with Mr. William Freshfield in 1896. I think all my knowledge as to the proceedings for opening the grave was

derived from the newspapers. Both the Duke of Portland and the then trustees of the fourth Duke were desirous that the grave should be opened, but they appreciated Mr. Druce's objection. The action brought in 1906 by George Hollamby Druce against Lord Howard de Walden was a claim to the estates which passed under the fourth Duke's will to Lord Howard de Walden. I have been defending that action. I instructed counsel to cross-examine Mrs. Hamilton, when her evidence was taken on commission, and furnished Mr. Avory with evidence obtained from Herbert Druce's solicitors, Messrs. Freshfield. We supplied the latter with copies of Mrs. Hamilton's evidence after the summons for perjury was issued against Herbert Druce. I told the magistrate that I considered that the prosecution was a move in the civil action. I think it was Freshfields who communicated with the Director of Public Prosecutions after the information was dismissed, but I gave what information was required in the interests of my client and of justice. That was not a move in the civil proceedings. The civil action was dismissed about two months ago, but not before we communicated with the Public Prosecutor. Notice of appeal was only given last Saturday, but it is a question whether it is an interlocutory or final appeal. There was an excavation under the front yard of Harcourt House, which was used as a coal cellar. I have been to the basement, but do not recollect having been in the coal cellar. I do not think I have been in a place like that in the photo produced. I have seen that picture in the "Idler," but I did not go into the coal cellar to see if I could find a place corresponding with it. I instructed a surveyor to watch the pulling down of the place to see exactly what there was.

Re-examined. I should be very sorry to accept anything that appears in the "Idler" as authentic: It was about February 3 when the civil action was dismissed as being frivolous and vexatious. I heard the evidence given by Mrs. Hamilton in December, 1906. It is utterly untrue that the Duke of Portland or Lord de Walden has put any obstacle in the way of opening the grave. The old roadway at Welbeck Abbey passed over the park and consequently interfered with its privacy, so the late Duke constructed a road through a tunnel, which was accepted by the road authorities, and he lighted the road and so got rid of the nuisance of the right of way. It was a public road. Along another tunnel there was a tramway which carried the dinner. The letters produced are signed by the Duke when Marquis of Titchfield, dated 1850 and 1853. The Duke's full name was William John Cavendish Bentinck Scott. The letter produced is one from the medical officer of health, Paddington, dated March 25, 1872, relating to the alleged body at Hyde Park Gardens.

GEORGE EDWARD MOSER , solicitor, of Moser and son, Kendal. Our firm acted for two brothers named John and Edward Suart, who both lived near Kendal. I produce probate of the will of John Suart, dated April 12, 1831, and a codicil of May 30, 1833. Probate was granted on September 6, 1834.

Mr. Jellicoe objected to the contents of the will being given, as irrelevant. He contended that there must be strict proof.

Mr. Justice Walton: He is doing nothing but producing the will. The question is whether that can be put in. It seems to me to be the proper way of proving a will in so far as it is one of personalty. I think it proves itself; it requires no further evidence.

Mr. Avory: You cannot call a dead man to prove the making of the will.

Mr. Jellicoe: It has been held that the probate does not establish a will of realty.

Mr. Justice Walton: No doubt in a case of title to realty you must product the will, but this is a will of personalty and realty. The probate proves itself. I take it for what it is worth; it may or may not be relevant, but Mr. Avory says he is going to produce other evidence which makes it relevant.

(The witness went through the details of the will, and produced the marriage certificate of Isabella Suart and Robert Atkinson.)

Mr. Jellicoe objected that it could be only produced for identification, it could not prove itself. He cited Lyell v. Kennedy (66 "Law Times," 647).

Mr. Justice Walton said that it had better go in, and he would reserve the point if his attention was called to anything that was not evidence.

(The certificate was read.) The witness. I produce a deed of release by the beneficiaries of the will to the trustees dated September 5, 1857. It is signed by three persons purporting to be beneficiaries, one being Margaret Jane Hamilton. I have compared that signature with one which appears on her depositions taken at Marylebone. I consider it is the same signature.

Mr. Jellicoe objected that this was not the proper way to prove the execution of a deed: the witness was not an expert in handwriting.

Mr. Avory: It does not require an expert to compare handwriting. It has been held that a policeman may be an expert on handwriting if you cannot get anybody else. The deed is more than thirty years old, and proves itself on production; therefore I have only to identify it as the deed executed by the defendant; it is not necessary to give formal proof of execution. That rule applies to criminal as well as civil cases.

A lengthy argument ensued upon this point. His Lordship quoted the late Sir James Stephen's book, article 88, and said that he would set upon that; the only question was as to proper custody.

The Witness. My firm have had that deed in their possession since its execution. My father was one of the executors and trustees. He died in 1874, and I still represent the trustees of the will. I have seen a great deal of the writing of prisoner, and have given it a good deal of study. I have, I think, nearly 50 letters of hers which have been received by the firm. I have some of the letters here. (Letter of January 26, 1853, addressed to the trustees and executors of the will of John Suart was produced. Five other letters, all dated 1876, were produced by witness.) I was senior partner in 1876. I do not know the prisoner. I cannot say now whether I attended to this matter in connection with the prisoner; no doubt I should open the letters. The letters produced are signed "M.J. Hamilton." I had not seen prisoner till comparatively recently. I know she came to the office in 1861, and I may have seen her then. Some of the letters are dated from Liverpool, some from 16, Belgrave Street, London, and one from Andover. The earlier ones are nearly all from Liverpool. (Witness described peculiarities in the handwriting. In answer to Mr. Jellicoe, his Lordship thought the evidence admissible for what it was worth.)

Mr. Avory observed that the witness's evidence must be taken in conjunction with the prisoner's own evidence at the police court,

wherein she admitted that she went to live with Mrs. Suart, whom she called grandmother; that she lived first with Mrs. Atkinson, then went to live with Mrs. Suart, and that after the latter's death she inherited a sum of over £3,000 as one of the children.

Witness. The result of the correspondence with Margaret Jane Hamilton was that certain moneys were paid over under the will. There was a legacy to a man named Abbott, which was believed to have lapsed or he could not be found, and that became divisible. (Mr. Jellicoe continued to object.) I have the records in the office of this estate of John Suart having been distributed among the five children. The first division was in 1857, another in 1858, and the real estate is 1869. Then Mrs. Hamilton sold her fifth share of the real estate to her brother. I went to the office as articled clerk on December 30, 1861, and became partner in September, 1867. I do not think I personally paid any money to Mrs. Hamilton, but my firm did. The deed produced, dated 1857, is signed by prisoner. It is between William Hamilton and Margaret Jane Hamilton, his wife, formerly Atkinson. It recites the will of John Suart and the property he left, and recites his death, and the terms under which the children of Isabella Atkinson became entitled. (The different recitals were read.) There is a receipt at the end acknowledging £2,503 3s. 10d. expressed to be paid, etc., signed by "William Hamilton" and "Margaret Jane Hamilton." By this deed it appears that Isabella Atkinson, described as the mother of Margaret Jane Hamilton, died on September 18, 1852, and that Margaret Suart, the grandmother, died in December, 1856. (Mr. Avory pointed out the passages in the prisoner's depositions relating to these moneys.) I cannot speak personally to the £2,500. There was a sum outstanding, and in the next year, 1858, the balance was paid. The second release is dated July 3,1858, made between the same parties. It is signed by Mrs. Hamilton. (Mr. Jellicoe made the same objection as before.) I believe it to be in the same writing as the person who signed the depositions. The amount is £147 18s. 7d., for which she signed a separate receipt. The real property was sold to her brother for £607 in 1869. I did not attend to that personally. Eventually I purchased some of this property, so I have knowledge that way. Exhibit 23 (produced) is the succession account, a duplicate of what is filed at the Inland Revenue. The declaration is signed by Margaret Jane Hamilton in the same handwriting as the other documents. That is dated May 19, 1887. She is described as of "181, Derby Road, Bootle, Liverpool." The letters which I produced from Mrs. Hamilton all relate to this business. (One of the letters, January 26, 1853, was read.) That is signed "Atkinson"; it was before her marriage. It is the same handwriting, although in a different name. There are certain characteristics about the letters which I have studied. The letter dated August 12, 1857, signed "M.J. Hamilton," was identified by witness as in the same handwriting. The "1857" was added by my father on the endorsement. That is also addressed from Bootle. (The letter was read, also letters dated August 14, 1857, January 15, 1858, May 11, 1858, all from the same address; one from the Commercial

Hotel, Kendal, June 11, no year; another July 6, 1858, from Bootle; one November 11, 1858, from 3, Liver Terrace, Great Crosby. Mr. Avory pointed out that prisoner had in her cross-examination in the King's Bench admitted that she lived at that address. Several other letters were read, the signature of Mrs. Hamilton being identified by witness.)

Witness. I produce probate of Edward Suart's will. In certain events the children of Isabella Atkinson became entitled to the property under that will, the general estate. My firm acted in the disposition of the estate. (Mr. Jellicoe raised the same objection.) Sums of money were paid to M.J. Hamilton as one of the children of Isabella Atkinson. There was £150 paid on October 22, 1861, the balance on December 50, 1869, making £1,151 0s. 1d. Then there were two smaller sums, the last being on August 5, 1876, £7 16s. 24., returned legacy duty. Several of the receipts are here. I have not the receipt for £1,151 0s. 1d. I have the draft release, but have not been able to find the original. I have receipts for £147 18s. 7d., £250, £35 1s., and £7 16s. 2d. I have actual receipts for £2,831 7s. 6d., including the two releases. The £607 receipt would be on the conveyance.

(Wednesday, April 8.)

GEORGE EDWARD MOSER , further examined. Under the will of Edward Suart the residuary personal estate became payable to the children of Isabella Atkinson in equal shares, and the share of Margaret Jane Atkinson was paid to her. I do not know that of my own knowledge, but by searching amongst the papers in the office. I produce a receipt dated November 28, 1869, signed by Mrs. Hamilton in the name of M.J. Atkinson. I know her handwriting and also that of Mr. Richard Foster, of the firm of Foster and Son, our Liverpool agents, by whom the receipt was made out. Prisoner's signature is the same as that to letters I have produced, and to her depositions. (Witness also produced other documents bearing prisoner's signature, and certified copies of the baptism of Mary Jane Atkinson on May 11, 1630, of the death of Isabella Atkinson on September 16, 1852, and of Robert Atkinson on October 5, 1883.)

Mr. Jellicoe objected to the certificate of baptism on the ground that there wa no proof that it was signed by a person competent to certify.

Mr. Avery retorted that under "Denman's Act"—the Evidence Act of 1845—certified copies were admissible if produced from the proper custody, and there was further provision in the Act of 1851.

Cross-examined. I joined the firm in 1861 as articled clerk. Between 1861 and 1867 I think my father principally attended to the business of the estate of John Suart, but as he was in rather delicate health he was probably assisted latterly by Mr. Arnold, the firm being Moser, Son, and Arnold. My father died in April, 1874. In the later years I do not think there would be much to do for the estate. After that I cannot say positively who attended to it; it was done in the office. I was the active partner. I think I first saw Prisoner at the police-court. I do not think I have ever seen her write, and

cannot swear that I have opened letters from her signed M.J. Hamilton or M.J. Atkinson, nor that I took part in any of the transactions I have referred to. I have acted under the trusts of the will. I was asked to make a search, I think, three or four months ago, by Messrs. Bailey on behalf of Lord Howard de Walden.

To the Judge. I knew nothing of any Mary Jane Louise Hamilton other than the Mary Jane Hamilton who wrote these letters or who received any sum of money under the will.

EDWARD HORSMAN BAILEY , recalled. (To Mr. Jellicoe.) After the death of the fifth Duke of Portland his papers remained at the office. The general banking account books were not there. I could not say whether there were any of the bills of Batt, the tailor. The Duke's passbook would probably show. I think the Duke kept his own passbook.

To Mr. Avory. At the police-court at the prosecution of Herbert Druce I saw a Mr. Coburn constantly in communication with the prosecuting counsel and apparently giving instructions.

BRUCE PRINGLE , Lombard Street Branch of Lloyd's Bank. In December, 1906, there was an account at the bank in the name of G.H. Druce. I produce an extract from it prepared by me and compared and signed by our manager. It shows that on December 20 there was a balance of £962 17s., and that on the following day a cheque of £600 was cashed payable to Coburn. I also produce a copy of the extract from the bank books showing the numbers of the notes for which the cheque was cashed. It was paid over the counter. Four £100 notes were paid, Nos. 68,001-2-3-4.

WILFRED WILLIAM BOOKER , cashier Kensington Branch of the London and County Bank. In December, 1906, Mrs. Margaret Jane Hamilton opened a deposit account at the above branch, and on December 24 she paid in a sum of £400 in four £100 notes, Nos. 68,001-2-3-4. On February 4, 1907, there was a payment in of £26. I know nothing personally about the matter except from the books. The whole of the money was withdrawn on January 4, 1907. It is usual to obtain the signature of a customer. (The signature book was subsequently produced.) I recognise prisoner as our customer.

Detective-inspector WALTER DEW, Scotland Yard. In March last I received a warrant for prisoner's arrest, whom I found at 21, Richmond Road, Bayawater. I said, "I am Chief Inspector Dew, of Scotland Yard. I understand you are living here in the name of Mrs. Willis, but I know you as Mrs. Hamilton. She said, "Yes, my name is Hamilton." I said, "I am going to arrest you on a warrant for perjury," and I read it to her. Whilst I was reading it she said, "I have not told any untruths." Afterwards she said, "What I said I knew. I do not know why they want to take me. How did you get this address. I should have been away from here if I had known. Yes, you would not have caught me if I had done what I thought last week." I then placed her in a cab and proceeded to Bow Street. On the way she said, "I wonder what Mr. Druce and Mr. Coburn will say about this? They will be sorry. Mr. Coburn is a very

nice man, and as for Mr. Druce he is an honest man, and would not injure anybody. I am sorry Mr. Coburn has brought his wife and six children over here." Later on she said, "I remember your name. You arrested Mrs. Robinson. What a lot of stories she told, but I think some of it was true. I think she must have known the Duke." She was then charged and made no reply.

EDWIN RUDGE PEARCE , shorthand writer, proved the accuracy of the transcripts supplied by Messrs. Cherer, Bennett, and Davis, of the proceedings at Marylebone and Clerkenwell Police Courts

Mr. Jellicoe submitted that there was no case to go to the jury on either count of the indictment. The indictment was divided into three parts. First it charged that prisoner swore falsely in respect of matters relating to the Atkinson family; then that she swore falsely that the Duke of Portland was Druce; then that she swore falsely with reference to her own history. She swore that she was born in Rome, and believed that her mother died when she was born, that her father had her christened in Rome, that the name of her father was Robert Lennox Stuart, that he brought her to England when she was a baby and put her with Mrs. Atkinson in Westmorland. According to the shorthand note it was "Mr." Atkinson.

After discussion as to the admissibility of shorthand notes as contradictory of the depositions, his Lordship said he would allow the former to be read. Mr. Avory doubted if there was power to amend in an assignment of perjury.

Mr. Justice Walton said he did not know that there had been an actual decision on this point. But was it worth while burdening the case with any point on this count. The assignment was then struck out.

Mr. Jellicoe, on the second count, contended that the evidence did not support the assignment with regard to the Atkinson part of the case. There must be two witnesses or one witness plus corroboration, and there was no evidence relating to the birth or christening. The baptismal certificate was not even evidence of the place of birth (Russell v. Barker, 17, "Law Times" 665, and Rex v. Betterton, 5, Barnewell and Cresswell, 568). There was absolutely no evidence that she was not born in Rome. All the prosecution could say was that they had produced some evidence of representations made by prisoner to the contrary, representations which enabled her to get some money from the Suart estate. That did not establish the matter in the least. She might have been wrong, she might have obtained the money under the arrangement with the Atkinson family. According to her story she was an adopted daughter of the Atkinsons and christened by the Atkinsons, having been brought over to England by her father, Robert Lennox Stuart.

Mr. Justice Walton: There is evidence that somebody named Margaret Jane, daughter of Robert and Isabella Atkinson was baptised on May 11, 1880, at the parish Church of Kendal, Westmorland. Was that the defendant?

Mr. Jellicoe: There is no evidence.

Mr. Justice Walton said there was some evidence that the defendant was baptised in May, 1830, but when she was born the certificate did not show at all. What evidence was there to show she was not born in Rome?

Mr. Jellicoe: There is none at all. I put it there is no evidence of the identity of the person mentioned in the baptismal certificate. Upon the authorities there is not sufficient evidence to justify your lordship in leaving the case to the jury.

Mr. Justice Walton: What evidence is there that the mother died some time after the birth of the prisoner.

Mr. Avory: There is evidence that Isabella Atkinson did not die until 1852, by the certificates put in.

Mr. Jellicoe proceeded to cite Regina v. Savage in support of the contention that admission that evidence was false was not sufficient in a case of perjury. There must be evidence coupled with admissions to constitute the evidence required.

Mr. Justice Walton: If it were proved by a number of witnesses that she had always lived with the Atkinsons and had acted in such a way as was consistent only with her being the child of the Atkinsons, had taken her share of the property and so on, would not that be sufficient evidence to convict her of perjury if she swore she was not their child? It is not a question whether it is conclusive evidence upon which she must be convicted. It is only a case for the Crown which requires an answer.

Mr. Jellicoe submitted that his Lordship could not possibly leave such a case to the jury unless there was some legal evidence that she was in fact the child of the Atkinsons, and then her admissions would be of great value as corroboration of one witness. Had the prosecution been able to produce the certificate of birth they would have had the witness and the admissions would come in corroborative of that evidence, but Mr. Avory had failed to produce any evidence of the fast. On the Druce part of the case, counsel referred to the defendant's statements of her first meeting with Mr. Druce, when she about fourteen, at the Baker-street Bezaar—Mr. Druce whom she already knew as the Duke of Portland. There was no reference by her to Thomas Charles Druce. He supposed anyone might be soon at the Baker-street Bazaar even if he possessed the name of Druce without its being suggested that he was Thomas Charles Druce. The evidence she gave was that she knew Scott-Portland, that she knew him before she came to London, and that she went to Baker-street knowing she might see him there. His learned friends wanted to assume that the Mr. Druce referred to was Thomas Charles Druce. The defendant was speaking all along in her evidence of the fifth Duke of Portland, saying that he told her he passed on occasions as Druce, that on occasions he disguised himself for a purpose. If the prosecution could fasten on the defence the statement that the woman had said that she had seen Thomas Charles Druce of Baker-street after the date of his death, the presence of the body in the cemetery at Highgate would settle the question, but she never had said it. It was not possible on this evidence to jump the stile and make the case that the prosecution desired to make.

Mr. Avory quoted from "Taylor on Evidence" to show that the baptismal certificate afforded presumptive evidence of the place of birth if it appeared that the child was very young at the time of baptism. It was quite clear upon the authorities that one did not require to have living witnesses. The certificates with the documentary evidence produced by Mr. Moser and the admission were equivalent to two witnesses. If there was evidence to go to the jury that prisoner's father was Robert Atkinson then it was clear that Robert Atkinson the father had her christened at Burton and not at Rome. There was abundant admission as well as documentary evidence that her father's name was Robert Atkinson and that he did not bring her to England when a baby. There was evidence in her conduct and on the document amounting to the evidence of more than one witness, that this money was not given to her voluntarily, but that she was claiming it. There was also ample evidence to go to the jury in regard to the assignments relating to Thomas Charles Druce and the Duke of Portland. Fourteen of the assignments of perjury were then struck out, and Mr. Justice Walton reserved the question whether there was any evidence to go to the jury, and the question of the admissibility of the documentary evidence for the consideration of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved.

(Thursday, April 9.)

Mr. Jellicoe objected to the admissibility of the birth and death certificates for any purpose. The point was reserved. Also to the admissibility of the affidavit of Mary Robinson of August 8, 1898, except so far as prisoner had spoken to it. His Lordship held that in her evidence before Mr. Plewden she had admitted it to be✗ her affidavit. Mr. Jellicoe further objected to the evidence of the bank clerks as not relevant, and to the documents produced by Mr. Moser from the custody of his firm, excepting the certificates of the deaths of the Duke of Portland and Thomas Charles Druce. The point was reserved.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence was postponed pending the consideration of the case by the Court of Crown Cases Reserved. Prisoner was released on the same bail.

(Friday, April 10.)

ROBINSON, Mary Ann (66, companion), who pleaded guilty on April 3 of wilful and corrupt perjury, connected with the same case as the foregoing trial of Mrs. Hamilton, was brought up for sentence.His Lordship said that having regard to the whole facts of the case, and the way in which the story about Thomas Charles Druce having been the Duke of Portland had been proved to be false, and the harm which such a story might have done, he felt it his duty to pass a heavy sentence, which but for prisoner's age would have been the maximum of seven years. He found it very difficult to find any mitigating circumstances.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.


(Monday, April 6.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-61
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

ROBINS, Oswald Edward ; committing an act of gross indecency with Isaac Rosenberg, a male person.

Mr. Arthur May prosecuted; Mr. Forrest Fulton defended. Verdict, Not guilty.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-62
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CONWAY, William, and EDLIN, Alfred ; stealing two geldings and one headstall, the property of George Taylor; feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted.

GEORGE TAYLOR , 6, Chapel Street, Somers Town, carman. I have a stable at 9, Hampton Street, where I keep two horses. On Tuesday, March 17, at 9.30 p.m., I put my two horses there. On the following morning, at 7 a.m., they were gone. The same evening I went to Tower Bridge Police Station, saw my two horses, and identified them as my property. Edlin has been employed by me for the past three winters, and partly in the summer, as carman. I have seen Conway driving about for other people.

CHARLES HENRY MATTHEWS , New Kent Road, horse contractor. On March 17, about 10.30 p.m., I saw the prisoners. I knew Conway, and had been in correspondence with him. I received postcard produced, post mark "March 12," on that evening or the next day, signed by him: "Not being able to send the horse on Saturday last as promised, I will let you have the two to-morrow when they have finished their job. I will send my chaps over to you so as to save you time. "On March 17, at 10.30 p.m., Edlin brought two horses. Conway had arrived shortly before. He saw my wife first, and then said to me, "I have the two horses coming I spoke to you about—you got my postcard." I then purchased the horses for £7 10s. It was stated as £6 10s. in front of Edlin, and there was to be £1 paid to Conway as the dealing man—which I was to give him behind in the stable. Edlin was only the "mug." Conway was to have £1 that Edlin did not know anything about. I paid Conway a £5 note and £2 10s. in gold. On the following morning I received a visit from Sergeant Goodchild, and handed over the horses to him. I did not know they were stolen. A week or two before that Conway took me

to the Cattle Market to show me the horses he said he was working for a coal firm, but we could not find those horses.

Sergeant CHARLES GOODCHILD, Y Division. On March 18 I received information from Taylor, went to Tower Bridge Police Station, and received two horses from Matthews, which were identified by Taylor as his property. I received a description of the men who had brought the horses, and of Conway by name, made inquiries, and found out who the second man was; observation was kept, and on March 22, at 10.30 p.m., I was with Butters in Gray's Inn Road when I saw both prisoners in the "Lucas Arms" public-house, Cromer Street, Gray's Inn Road. I arrested Conway and told him the charge. He said, "I never stole any horses—I bought two from a man I do not know." I said, "When?" He said, "On March 17." I said, "Where?" He said, "Outside the 'African Chief' public-house, Ossulston Street." I said, "What did you give for them?" He said, "£7 15s." I said, "Did you get a receipt?" He said, "No, I never trouble about them." I took him to the police station and he was detained. On Sunday the two prisoners were put up for identification, and Matthews picked both prisoners out. I showed Conway the postcard which Matthews had given to me. He said, "Yes, that is my handwriting, I sent that to Matthews." Both prisoners were then charged and made no reply. (To the Judge.) I had traced their addresses but could not find them; they had both absconded from their address.

To Edlin. The distance from Somers Town to Matthews's place is about 4 1/2 or five miles—it is quite possible to take two horses that distance in an hour.

Detective BUTTERS, Y Division. On March 21, with the last witness, I saw prisoners in the "Lucas Arms." I arrested Edlin. I told him I should take him into custody for stealing two horses. He said, "I know nothing about any horses." When he was outside he said to the other prisoner, "Con, say nothing, for out of nothing they get nothing." (To the Judge.) He did not give me any assistance.

Cross-examined. Edlin did not say, "Say nothing till you get in front of the magistrate on Monday morning."

Verdict, Guilty. Conway admitted having been convicted at Clerkenwell Police Court, receiving 14 days for stealing a jacket. He had also in 1892 had six weeks for stealing a coat. Since then he was said to have been working honestly up to 12 months ago, when he had been drinking and was believed to have been stealing horses. Edlin admitted having been convicted on April 8,1903, and sentenced to six weeks for stealing a clock, having been charged with house-breaking.

Sentence, both Nine months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-63
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SIMPSON, Robert (22, clerk) ; robbery with violence on Emily Cole and stealing from her a purse and the sum of 15s. 2d., her goods and moneys.

Mr. L. Duckworth prosecuted; Mr. A.C. Fox Davies defended.

EMILY COLE , wife of William Cole, 26, Boston Street, Shoreditch, coat machinist. On March 21 I was in Columbia Road walking with two women who had asked me the way to Guinness's Buildings, and I was showing them when we saw the prisoner. One of the women said, "This man is following us." I said, "If he follows you, call a policeman." Prisoner then came up, struck me in the face and mouth, and took my purse from my hand. He tried to get away; I chased him a few yards and held him. I saw my purse in his hand. He struck me four or five blows. I held on to him all I could. He then said, "Will you let me go if I give you your purse back and a sovereign?" Before this he had struck me in the mouth and made it bleed. A man came up and said, "Why have you done this?" Prisoner said, "She stuck a hatpin in my face." Prisoner said, "You f—g cow, let me go." Then he said, "What are you going to do?" I said, "I am going to lock you up." He said, "I will put a knife in your bleeding heart." With that, one of his companions came and gave me a blow in the ear and prisoner struck me in the mouth and got away from me. I followed, shouting "Stop thief!" and knew no more till I got to the station, when I fainted. When I came to myself I charged him. I did not get my purse back. I had in it a half-sovereign, five shillings, and six pennies.

Cross-examined. I never saw prisoner before nor his companions; there were two that I noticed. I did not speak to him till he tried to get away, when I said I would lock him up. It was a brown leather purse with a silver clasp and "E.D." on it. I held it in one hand and a parcel in the other. Several people, including Pritchard, came up immediately afterwards, when the prisoner tried to break away from me. Prisoner made an excuse. Two men came up to him and said, "What have you done this for?" He said, "I have made a mistake and struck the wrong woman." I said, "You have made no mistake. You have insulted me and stolen my purse. I am going to lock you up." He offered me his handkerchief to wipe the blood from my mouth; so that if I had taken it he could have got away. I said to a young, man in the crowd, "Fetch a policeman; this man has insulted me and stolen my purse." I did not drop the purse. I saw it in his right hand as I chased him a few yards further up the road. I did not see him drop the purse; one of his associates was pulling me by the arm. He came up to me by himself, but there were several behind him. There were four men; the prisoner who struck me, another who pulled my arm, another my waist, and another struck me on the head. One of them said to prisoner, "Give her a kick in the guts." I did not see the purse passed; it was as much as I could do to stop my nose and mouth from bleeding. The crowd seemed to be his friends. When he said that he would give me a sovereign and my purse he had not got it in his hand. I could not say what he did with it.

ALFRED PRITCHARD , porter. On March 26, at 8.30 p.m., I saw a crowd outside Columbia Market, went over and saw the prosecutrix bleeding furiously from the mouth from a blow caused by the prisoner. I went to look for a constable. Prisoner freed himself three

times from prosecutrix and ran about 50 or 60 yards to Union Street. A constable happened to be coming down Union Street and stopped him; he got away, and the constable stopped him again about eight yards further up Union Street. I heard prosecutrix say that he had stolen her purse and she should lock him up as he had greatly insulted her. Prisoner apologised and said he had assaulted the wrong woman. She said that prisoner had taken her purse, with half a sovereign in gold, five shillings in silver, and about 3d. in copper. When I got up there were only one or two men there; there were more females. I saw a female trying to get the prisoner away from prosecutrix.

Cross-examined. I did not see the struggle. Prisoner asked prosecutrix to go away, then he offered her a handkerchief to wipe the blood with, and said he would apologise for he had assaulted the wrong woman. I do not remember the exact words prosecutrix used. She said that she had lost her purse and that prisoner had taken it; that she saw it in his hands. The first time prisoner simply walked away. He ran away when the prosecutrix would not go away; that was before she cried out "Stop thief!" Prisoner was walking down Hackney Road and he got his coat, put it on, then fell into a policeman's arms; but he slipped through and we caught him a little above. I did not hear prisoner offer to return the purse and a sovereign. I did not see anything of the purse.

Police-constable 379 G. On March 21 I was in Union Street Hackney Road, about 8.40 p.m. I heard a cry of "Police—Stop thief!" saw prisoner running in my direction, and endeavoured to stop him, but he dodged by. I gave chase for about 30 or 40 yards and caught him. He said, "All right, governor, don't show me up, I have not got it." The prosecutrix then came up, bleeding very much from the mouth and nose. She said the prisoner had punched her in the mouth and had snatched her purse and she would charge him. I took him to the station. When charged he made no reply. When I was searching him he said, "Just my luck," using a disgusting expression. He had on him 12s. 6d. and a penny. He had no purse.

Cross-examined. If prisoner had thrown the purse away while in my custody I should no doubt have seen it, but there was a large crowd round me, and I had to hold prisoner. The crowd cried, "Shame on him for striking a woman." (To the Judge.) I took him into custody some few minutes after the purse had been stolen. I saw nothing of the three men prosecutrix speaks of, or the woman the other witness speaks of. It is a very rough neighbourhood, indeed. (To Mr. Fox Davies.) They were not rough about me. I had never seen prosecutrix before. When at the station, as I was putting prisoner in a cell, he said, "Can you see a scratch on my nose?" I looked, there was nothing—no marks of a hatpin. In the charge room prosecutrix said he had offered her her purse back and a sovereign if she would let him go.

Prisoner's statement: "I plead guilty to assault, not to stealing."

ROBERT SIMPSON (prisoner, on oath). I had several drinks with some girls, and as we came out of one public-house we went into another. I was in the "Cherry Tree," had several drinks in there, came out, and went into the "Union." When I came out prosecutrix was speaking to some girls I was with. I said, "Go away, mind your own business." She hit me in the mouth and struck me in the nose with a hatpin. There is a little spot here; I showed it to the constable. She said afterwards, "I never done it." I said I was very sorry; I offered her a handkerchief to wipe her nose. She never said anything about her purse being lost. I assaulted her because she assaulted me. I never stole her purse, and I do not believe there was any purse stolen. There were a lot of people round me when I struck the prosecutrix. As for saying I would stick a knife in her heart, I never said a word about it; it is the first time she has ever mentioned it. (To the Judge.) I may have used a filthy expression; I had had two or three drinks; but I never said one word in the station. I never offered her a sovereign. There was no confederate of mine there, nor any man I knew there. I had never seen prosecutrix before.

Cross-examined. There were about five or six girls altogether in the public-house; I had never seen any of them before till I went in to the "Cherry Tree," and they spoke to me. I ran away because I could not get rid of the prosecutrix and the people were coming round. She kept on catching hold of me; it was not because there was any robbery. (To the Judge.) She never said that she caught hold of me because I had stolen her purse, and that she intended to hold me until she got me into custody; nothing of the kind. When we got to the station she said nothing about her purse. I ran away three times from her because I did not like the idea of her holding my coat. I never saw the policeman, and I did not dodge him; he came up and took me.

Re-examined. I knew I would get into trouble about the assault; that was quite enough excuse to try and get away from the prosecutrix and the police.

Verdict, Guilty. Three previous convictions for larceny from the person were proved. Prisoner was stated to be an associate of a well-dressed mob of thieves, frequenting the West End at public functions, weddings and dinner parties, also racecourses, football matches, etc. It was stated that prosecutrix had been threatened by associates of prisoner.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-64
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HITCHCOCK, Frederick (66, housekeeper) ; committing an act of gross indecency with another male person.

Mr. L.A. Lucas prosecuted.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.


(Monday, April 6.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-65
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CRABTREE, John William (61, bricklayer) ; unlawfully assisting in the management of a brothel at 261, Gray's Inn Road, and at 69, Harrison Street, having been twice previously convicted for brethel keeping.

Mr. Leycester prosecuted.

Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner confessed to the two previous convictions. Two convictions for larceny were also proved.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-66
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

STEVENS, William (25, labourer), pleaded guilty of stealing one horse, one hansom cab, and other articles, the goods of William Mayne Foster; an indictment for breaking and entering a certain warehouse, situate at 91 and 92, Shoe Lane, and stealing therein one automatic numbering machine and other articles, the goods of the Addressograph, Limited, was not proceeded with.

Prisoner took the horse and cab from the rank in Panton Street, Haymarket, and plied for hire. Having a fare who disputed the amount asked he was charged and taken to the police station, where he was unable to produce his badge. There was no previous conviction.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-67
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

JACKSON, William (motorbus driver), pleaded guilty of attempting to carnally know Dorothy Hannard, a girl under the age of 13 years.

Sentence, six months' imprisonment.

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-68
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BARDACH, Herman (46, hairdresser) ; unlawfully taking Minnie Nausbaum, an unmarried girl under the age of 18 years, out of the possession of Samuel Nausbaum against his will, with intent to be carnally known by him and other men; procuring Minnie Nausbaum, a girl under the age of 21 years, not being a common prostitute, to have unlawful carnal connection with him, and unlawfully procuring the said Minnie Nausbaum to become a common prostitute.

Detective-sergeant THOMAS KING, D Division, said he had known prisoner 21 years, and had never seen him sober one day or known him do an honest day's work, his nerves being now so shaken that he could not, and he generally employed some wretched fellow countryman to shave for him. His wife was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for carrying on the business of procuring abortions, and was now undergoing a sentence of seven years for the same offence. Prisoner was certainly an undesirable alien.

Verdict, Guilty, and recommended for exportation.

Sentence, 14 months' hard labour.



(Tuesday, March 31.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-69
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HODGSON, Robert (24, fireman), BRADLEY, George (22, fireman), pleaded guilty of both steeling a quantity of lead piping, the goods of Edwin Goodenough; maliciously damaging a certain house situate at 72, Hooper Road, Custom House, the property of Edwin William Goodenough, to amount of £3.

Hodgson admitted having been convicted at West Ham, receiving eight months' hard labour for stealing pork; 20 other convictions were proved, including 12 and 15 months' for larceny.

Bradley admitted being convicted at West Ham on October 8, 1903. He was said to have served three years in the Navy, and to have been discharged as a deserter with six months' imprisonment.

Sentences: Hodgson, 18 months' hard labour; Bradley, 10 months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, April 1.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-70
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

COOK, George (39, labourer), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering a certain meeting-house—to wit, the St. Margaret's Mission Hall, and stealing therein six chairs, one carpet, and other articles, the goods of Charles Henry Ridsdale; feloniously setting fire to the said Mission Hall.

There were many previous convictions against prisoner. Detective Hyde said he did not think prisoner was in his right mind. On one occasion he had chopped his finger off for a quart of beer.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude. His Lordship said he hoped that the attention of the prison doctor would be directed to prisoner's condition.


(Wednesday, April 1.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-71
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LANHAM, George Thomas (38, agent), pleaded guilty of having been entrusted with certain money, to wit, the sum of £62 7s. 0 1/2 d., the property of the Friends of Labour Loan Society, in order that he might retain the same in safe custody, did unlawfully and fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit; attempting to kill and murder himself.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.


(Thursday, April 2.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-72
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ROOKE, Frederick Arthur (56, accountant) ; obtaining by false pretences from John Farrow Gentry the sum of £5 5s. with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £5 5s. with intent to defraud.

Mr. Warburton prosecuted.

JOHN DENT , 47 and 49, Westland Street, Upper Norwood, trading as Simmonds and Sons. Prisoner, as representative of a firm of accountants in the City, came to audit my books at the end of February. He had access to my cheque book (produced) of the London and South-Western Bank, Upper Norwood, the first cheque in which is numbered 365,601 dated October 12, 1907. There are about 30 unused cheques at the end of the book, and the last cheque, No. 366,700, is gone, having been torn out together with the counterfoil. I know prisoner well; he has frequently audited my books. T.L. Valetti and Sons are in business opposite me. I identify cheque produced as that taken from my book, made out for £5 5s., payable to the prisoner and signed in the name of T.L. Valetti and Sons. I know nothing about the making out of that cheque.

Cross-examined. Prisoner did his work well. I was told prisoner was away ill; that was the reason I could not get my work done earlier. It was frequently delayed from that cause. I did not see any signs of insanity about him; he did his work very well.

THOMAS LOUIS VALETTI , of T.L. Valetti and Sons, 58, Westland Street, Upper Norwood, house furnishers. I am acquainted with the last witness; my premises are opposite to his. Cheque produced for £5 5s. is not signed by me or anyone in my firm. I have never seen prisoner until these proceedings.

JOHN FARROW GENTRY , Manor Tavern, Plashet Road, Manor Park. I have known prisoner for seven months as a customer. On February 18 he said he had been at work at Upper Norwood for two days and he was tired, would I cash a cheque for him. He tendered the cheque produced, endorsed it in my presence, and I handed him £2 on account of it. He said it was a good cheque and would be all right. I should have given him the whole amount then, but I had not sufficient gold in the place. He came the next evening and I gave him the balance.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was perfectly sober. He gave me the cheque in the billiard room, and asked if I would cash it. I went in and asked my wife her opinion about it. She said, "I should think the cheque is all right; you have known him for some months," and I then cashed it. He afterwards stood a drink in the bar.

Detective-sergeant ALFRED BOREHAM. On March 10 I with other officers saw prisoner. I said, "We are police officers. I hold a warrant for your arrest for obtaining by fraud from Mr. Gentry £5 5s. by means of a worthless cheque." He said, "I do not know what

you mean." I then read the warrant. He said, "I had no idea that any cheque that has gone through, my hands was a wrong one. I have cashed two cheques with Gentry, one for £1 and one for £5 5s.

I had them given to me in the course of my business." I said, "The only one in question is a £5 cheque. If you wish any inquiries made to find the person who you say gave you the cheque I will have them made." He said, "I do not, want that. I shall not give you the name of the man; I would sooner stand the racket myself." I conveyed him to the station. He made no reply to the charge.


FREDERICK ARTHUR ROOKE (prisoner on oath). I am charged with stealing that cheque and making it out in my own favour. I swear solemnly I never did anything of the sort. I never took that cheque. I never made it out; it came to me in a business way. I did take it to Gentry. What he has stated is not true. I gave him that cheque when I was not myself. I was intoxicated and I walked away and left it. I was drinking in his bar when he came and gave me some money, and I stopped there all that evening. The next afternoon I was drinking with one of his customers. I had been very ill, and I did not know what I was doing. When I went into his place I believe he did give me some money. I went out and went home. I never have been away from home. I never had any idea there was anything wrong. I had no more idea than the man in the moon that such a charge was going to be made against me, and I never have gone away from my home thinking I might possibly be arrested.

Cross-examined. I had the cheque book in my hands every time I was at Mr. Dent's. It was brought to me and left on the desk, so that if required to I could refer to it. I do not wish to say anything about where I got it. I will say this much: Dent has not told everything; he has given me private work, and I very often get a present over and above my employer's fee. I am not quite clear about it, but it is possible that that was given to me at the time I was very ill and did not know what I was doing. I am not prepared to say who gave it me. I have a letter in my pocket from my wife begging me net to say.

Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner admitted having been convicted at Clerkenwell on March 26, 1907, of stealing £3 10s. 6d. from his employers, when he was released on recognisances. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.


(Saturday, April 4.)

OSBORNE, George (38, bookmaker), and GREEDUS, Charles (26, painter); who were found Guilty on March 12 of causing grievous bodily harm to Charles Christopher Williams (p. 762), were statedto have paid the last-named a sum of £25 at a solatium, and his Lordship sentenced them to a month's imprisonment in the Second division, to date from March 3.



(Tuesday, March 31.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-74
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

SEDGWICK, Frederick W. (36, vocalist) ; obtaining by false pretences from Louis William Graff and others one motor car, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Campion, prosecuted; Mr. Jarvis defended.

JOSEPH RYMER , 57, Ennerdale Road, Richmond, manager to Graff Brothers and Gohr, South-Western Motor Oar Company, 9, Royal Parade, Kew Gardens. The main part of oar business is selling motor cars. About October, 1907, prisoner saw me and said his wife was making him a birthday present of a car and he was now ready to have it. He called and selected an Argyll. Louis and George Graff were present when he called. He said his wife had just purchased an estate at East Preston, Sussex, to the extent of 45 acres, and that a deposit of £750 had been paid; he was going to build houses and bungalows and also make bricks on the estate. He had a trial run on the car with Louis Graff. On the next day he expressed his delight with the running of the car, and talked over the price, which was arranged at £257. He said he could only pay £25 down, but his wife had some shares in the Sumatra Delhi Rubber Estates Company, which she was about to sell, and which would be realised in a fortnight, and he agreed to give bills at 14 days for £200 and £32. He paid £25 and his wife signed the two bills produced. Prisoner also told me that he was singing in a choir at a salary of £200 a year. He also said he was a full-fledged barrister. The car was delivered and the bills fell due on October 24, when they were presented and dishonoured. A writ was issued on October 25, and, on the judgment subsequently obtained, the car was seized, when it wae alleged to have been sold to J.C. Marse. An interpleader issue was tried in February, 1908, in which Marse was successful. We served prisoner with notice to attend, but he he did not appear. On the dishonour of the bills, I saw prisoner and reminded him of his promise with regard to the rubber shares. He said, "The shares are sold, or being sold."

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner some years ago in Croydon. I did not know that his father died a wealthy man. My principals and myself were quite satisfied with the statements he made. Prisoner did not ask to see a small car. He said he wanted a showy car and picked this out. I saw him twice before the trial trip; the first time he was alone. I believe Browning called and

took the bills to Mrs. Sedgwick and brought them back signed. He did not say he had bought one acre of land. I am an undischarged bankrupt. I am manager to Graff Brothers and Co. I live in the same house with the firm. There are still civil proceedings pending against Mrs. Sedgwick. I knew prisoner as living at a largish house in Croydon some years ago.

LOUIS WILLIAM GRAFF , 57, Ennerdale Road, Richmond, partner Graff Brothers and Gohr, Kew Gardens. I was present when my manager Rymer negotiated the sale of an Argyll motor car to the prisoner. Prisoner came on the last Monday in September and had a look round the garage. He said he wanted a showy car. We had two Argylls. He eventually said he liked the look of the red Argyll and that he would let us know. He said his wife was going to make him a birthday present of the car, that she had a 45 acre estate at East Preston, which he was developing for her. We saw him the next day at 57, Ennerdale Road. He said his wife and he would want a trial tomorrow. He went on to talk about the estate, said that he was building rows of bungalows there, that he was going to make the bricks first, that his wife had bought the estate and paid £750 deposit. On the previous interview he said his wife had won a Chancery action. On the next day, Wednesday, we took the trial run to East Preston and back. (To the Judge.) We were going to look at the estate, but in the last mile we had two punctures, and we pulled up at a private house where he was going to have tea. We had reached East Preston, but the estate was further down by the sea. I did not want to see the estate at all; I never doubted his word. (To Mr. Campion.) The next day I, my brother, and Rymer saw the prisoner. He said he was very satisfied with the trial, and he would come tomorrow. He came the next day and said, "My wife will take the car. She is selling out some Sumatra Rubber shares, and settling day is in a fortnight. I suppose that will be quite convenient. I will let you have a deposit now." He paid £25, and we had bills of exchange for £232. I implicitly believed the statement he made as to his wife's property. The car was given up on October 7.

Cross-examined. He told me his wife had got the shares, was selling them, and wanted time till the settlement in order to meet the bills. I saw prisoner twice before the trial trip. He did not say he had bought one acre, was going to put up six houses and one bungalow, and when those were let to buy more land. We all had tea together on the trial trip; business was not discussed then. Mr. and Mrs. Browning were there. We had a burst tyre and a puncture coming down. He insisted on having the tyres renewed before the car was delivered. £257 was a good price for the car. I was not very anxious to sell it. It was a 1906 model. I had it in exchange from Lady Garnett; it had been run for two or 2 1/2 years.

Re-examined. I should not have parted with the car but that I believed what prisoner said about his wife's position. (To the Judge.) I knew prisoner by name before; had just been introduced to him. I believe he kept up a large house. Rymer told me he had known him a long time in Croydon, and that he was well connected.

I understood his wife was a woman of means. If he had said nothing about the rubber shares I should not have let him have the car. He also said he was getting £200 a year for singing in a church and that he was a fullfledged barrister. I did not rely on his being a barrister.

(Wednesday, April 1.) GEORGE GRAFF, 57, Ennerdale Road, Richmond, partner in Graff Bros. and Gohr. Rymer is manager to my firm, and it paid a salary. I was present when prisoner came about the car. He said his wife was going to make him a birthday present of the car, that she had invested in a building estate of 45 acres at East Preston, and they wanted the car to visit it; he said he always believed in making the bricks out of the land first as it would be more profitable; that the deposit of £750 had been paid; he did not actually say the purchase had been completed. The car was sold for £257; £25 by cheque, and the balance by bills at 14 days. Prisoner said that his wife would sell out her Sumatra rubber shares, and that the settlement would be in a fortnight. Apart from what prisoner told me, I knew nothing as to the position of his wife. I believed what he said. The bills were dishonoured on October 24, and I, my brother Louis, and Rymer went down to see Sedgwick. We waited until about one a.m. when he returned with his wife. Rymer said to him, "You know perfectly you got possession of the car by stating your wife was selling the rubber shares to pay for it." He said, "It is quite right—they are either sold or being sold." On October 25 a writ was issued against Mrs. Sedgwick on the bills; we got judgment, and on interpleader proceedings with regard to the car Marse, the claimant, was cross-examined before the Master. Prior to that cross-examination I had no idea what had become of the car.

Cross-examined. I knew prisoner by name for some years and have been to his house in Croydon on one occasion—it was a house at £90 or £100 a year. I swear prisoner told me he had bought the whole of the 45 acres. I made no inquiries as to whether he owned the land or as to the Sumatra Rubber Company—we took his word. Prisoner did not ask to see a small car; the Argyll was his own choice. Browning was not present. The car was seized by the sheriff on December 2; on December 4 Marse claimed, and no doubt filed an affidavit stating it was his. We have been in business at Kew for two or three years; Rymer has been with us all that time. Originally I was Rymer's clerk in an auctioneer's business. He has been a bankrupt since 1902. I am 23 years of age. My father was proprietor of the "Griffin" Hotel; Rymer was his manager. I hope Mrs. Sedgwick is a lady of property, but it looks, very doubtful. I gave credit to Mrs. Sedgwick.

JAMES CHARLES MARSE , 5, South Square, Gray's Inn, commercial accountant. In September, 1907, prisoner owed me £87 12s. for money lent on promissory notes, which were overdue, and I was

pressing for payment. On October 22 he called on me, in answer to a letter from my solicitors, and asked me to wait some little time, when he would be able to make an arrangement. He then said that his wife had a motor car, and if I cared to buy it she would take over his indebtedness and receive the balance of the sum arranged for in cash. He said his wife had sold a house, and that part of the purchase price was to be the taking over of the car, as £255. I did not see the car, but he showed me a photograph of it, and offered it at £180. I said I should not feel disposed to pay more than £150. I bought it for £157 12s.; the promissory note £87 12s. and £70 paid by cheques produced, £3 being deducted for solicitors' costs. The cheques have been honoured. I put the claim in my solicitors' hands on October 10. I had been asking prisoner for payment before. The promissory note was payable on demand; it had been held over for a long time. I had demanded payment long before, and it had been ignored. The money was advanced about 12 months before. Part of the purchase money was held over until the car was delivered to my agent by prisoner. The car was in my possession when I was served with the interpleader summons. There was a legal argument as to whether the property had passed. Shepherd, who held the car on my behalf, had previously held it on prisoner's behalf. The possession of Shepherd became my possession on November 6.

Cross-examined. I had previously lent money to Mrs. Sedgwick. She had a Chancery action in 1907 and I lent £17 10s.—I believe to pay counsels' fees. The other cheques are made payable to Mrs. and Mr. Sedgwick. I was pressing for it because I wanted to realise my money; I had sufficient security to make me safe in the shape of acceptances from very respectable people. Prisoner offered to give me a second charge on a house, and when I heard of the motor car I preferred that. No writ was issued by me against prisoner. I was always friendly with him. (To the Judge.) Before taking his promissory note I satisfied myself that either Mr. or Mrs. Sedgwick was a substantial person. I am a registered moneylender and should not lend money on the promissory note of anyone who came without inquiry.

Re-examined. Prisoner was introduced to me by a neighbour whom I have known for fifteen years—Mr. Jenkins. He is prisoners solicitor here present. I was satisfied with his reference, and I made other inquiries. The £87 12s. was lent to prisoner to complete the purchase of the house he occupied. I did not know that the house had a charge on it.

PERCY BANSON , 78, Norfolk Road, Dalston, registrar of shares, Sumatra Delhi Rubber Estates, Limited. I have carefully examined the register of shares and transfers; the name of Sedgwick is not in our ledger as a holder either by allotment or transfer.

Cross-examined. Kruthoffer holds 20,000 vendor shares in the company. Letter produced is in Kruthoffer's handwriting: "Received £15 on account of the purchase of 250 shares in the Sumatra Delhi Rubber Estates, Limited, for £50, to be completed at the end of next

week. Formal agreement to be drawn up and executed forthwith. September 28, 1907.—Frits Kruthoffer to E.J. Sedgwick, Esq. "This contract of sale of 250 shares was never completed by Kruthoffer. They would be £1 shares. Rubber shares are mostly at a premium now. There is no market in Sumatras; we have not applied for a quotation; it is a now company.

Re-examined. We have had many transfers from Kruthoffer, but none to Sedgwick.

GEORGE GOODALL , 28, Rowlands Road, Worthing, coal merchant. Last year prisoner contracted to buy from me one acre of land at £100 and paid a deposit of £20. I produce contract. He did not complete. The total estate is about 44 acres. Mrs. Sedgwick has not paid me a deposit of £750.

Cross-examined. The deposit was paid with Mrs. Sedgwick's cheque (produced). I could not say if the time for completion was fixed for October 31; the time was extended by my solicitor.

FREDERICK WILLIAM WARNER , Littlehampton, assistant overseer and rate collector, East Preston, Sussex. East Preston is a small parish of about 300 acres. I have carefully examined the books—the name of Sedgwick does not appear as owner of land or ratepayer. I am often over the parish. No one named Sedgwick has purchased 45 acres there.


Mr. Jarvis submitted that, on the evidence, there was nothing more than an exaggerated statement of true facts; not sufficient to support an indictment for false pretences.

The Recorder. The substantial issue is whether prisoner made the representations with intent to defraud; whether he obtained the car for the purpose of meeting the claim of the moneylender by false pretences. It must be for the jury.

FREDERICK WALTER SEDGWICK (prisoner, on oath). I live at Berwick Avenue, Kew Gardens, and am a vocalist. I have known Rymer for 15 years; the Graffs have always been with him since I have known him. I carried on business at Croydon as builder and contractor three years ago; Rymer and the two Graffs were then living there. About three months before the sale of the car I met Rymer by accident. He asked me how we were getting on and what my brothers were doing. I told him I had a brother just about to be called to the Bar, and we discussed matters generally. He said, "I am in the motor car trade." I had heard he had been made a bankrupt and asked him how he got on. He told me he had Graff with him, that he could not trade in his own name, but that the Graffs were trading with him; that he had got into a little trouble about some hotel at Kingston over his bankruptcy. A little while afterwards Graff came up. He told me the trouble they had had with some moneylender over this hotel. Then he asked me to go and have

a look at the show of motor cars and suggested I ought to go in for one. I said I thought I should very shortly. He said, "Why not have one now?" I said I could not afford it just now, we had a Chancery suit just pending which had taken up a lot of money; when that was all settled up probably I should go in for a car. He said, "You won't forget us?" I said, "No, I should not." At the end of September I called on him with Browning and told Rymer that I thought about going in for a car; I had just bought a little land at East Preston, was developing it, and wanted a small car so as to be independent of trains. We had a look at several cars, and he suggested my having the Argyll. I said I could not afford it. Eventually he persuaded me to have it. I said I was not prepared to pay the money down. He said, "That does not matter; I have known you for years; I can trust you and you can have a car how you like and when you like." Browning was with me. The Graffs were there on and off, just walking round. The transaction was between Rymer and myself, but the Graffs must have heard part of it. Rymer asked me where the land was—he knew Worthing and had lived there. I said I should like a trial trip. I called on the Graffs the following night and arranged to have the trial the next day, and if the car was not taken to pay £3 for the day's outing. I told him I had bought one acre, that it was a jolly nice little place, and a good opportunity for anybody who could work it carefully; that it was one of those few places that had not been found out yet, quite near the station, and so on. He said he knew it quite well. I said the estate consisted of 45 acres. The statement about £750 is an absolute fabrication. We had the trial trip on Thursday. Louis Graff drove us down. Mr. and Mrs. Browning were with us. There were two punctures on the road. We all had tea together. At the tea we talked about the land. I told him that if the thing went off well I should buy more land, that I had had plans prepared for six houses and two bungalows. Those plans are lodged with the Local Board and £100 of work has been done. Nothing was said about the shares. I invited Louis Graff to come and look at the land; he said he was uncertain as to his light and that the repairs would take him too long—he had only one acetylene light. I never called on him again. I was taken ill the next day. Rymer came to see me in bed and arranged to take £25 and two bills. I think the reason we had two bills was that the stamp was not large enough. That was on the following Monday. I did not see the bills; my wife managed that, as I was too ill. When Rymer came to see me, I told him the money I expected to pay for the car would not be forthcoming as I expected—there was a lot of trouble with the shares, they being vendor shares, and Kruthoffer had written to say it would only be a matter of a few days when he would get delivery. Rymer said, "Well, if that is the case, I have known you many years, we only want the thing to be settled up, we will give you a receipt in full discharge if you or your wife will sign an undertaking that she releases us from any responsibility that might happen as regards the chauffeur driving the car." As a matter of fact I did not want the car and wrote that I

did not want it until I was prepared to pay for it. On the day the bills were due my wife and I came home about 12 p.m., and there were five men standing outside our house, who made a rush at us—Rymer, the two Graffs, Gohr, and another person. They called us "frauds," said that we owed a butcher £3 and that sort of thing. The neighbours were all putting their heads out of window to see what the row was about. I went indoors and shut the door in their faces. The next day at nine a.m. they came again with a solicitor and asked me what I was going to do. I said the whole thing would be right very shortly. He threatened proceedings. I said, "Don't do that, it is only wasting money, you cannot hasten matters on; I will see the thing is done as soon as I can." After that Rymer and Graff put two men to patrol up and down the street till 10 p.m., and the next day started it again. I gave my solicitor instructions to accept service. Marse did not lend me money; I simply guaranteed it, but he called on me to pay it. He had bills as collateral security. The reason we sold the car was that I had been out with it several times and nearly every time it broke down. During the fortnight I had it it cost me £20 to £25. Several people who repaired the car told me it was not worth £100, and I believe I made a good bargain with Marse in selling it for £157. Then he returned me the securities, which were worth £130. After the car was seized, on December 24, on my solicitor's advice, I went to see Graffs' solicitors. They then told me they had consulted Mr. George Lewis and were going to prosecute me and my wife for obtaining goods by false pretences. I told them I did not understand it. It was arranged then that we should pay certain moneys and that I would give them security. Instead of that I raised the money, and my solicitor offered them the cash, but, of course, I was not going to let my wife pay any money unless they withdrew their execution. We offered £70 and post-dated cheques, and subsequently £90. They asked us to pay £90 in cash on account of the debt, £10 on account of costs, pay the claimants' costs, the costs of the sheriff, and their costs of interpleader—altogether nearly £700—at any rate, ever so much more than they had any right to. My wife then wrote and offered to pay £100 down, the claimants' costs, and half the sheriff's costs in the matters, and the other costs spread over six months; that was refused. On March 5 this summons was issued. The interpleader issue was decided on March 11.

Cross-examined. I was present at the interpleader summons, but was not subpoenaed nor called. I never made the representation about the £750. I and my wife were perfectly solvent when I bought the car, and able to meet all demands. I have been living at my present house six months; there is no bill of sale on my furniture; there was one in November, 1904, in favour of H.L. Chitty. I believe there was a bill of sale granted by my wife in September, 1906, on premises known as Crowhurst, High Street—that was our former house. My present house is mortgaged for £350—not up to its value; it is rented at £55. I have been in business at Thornton

Heath, Croydon, and Leatherhead, as a builder. There may have been County Court judgments against me in 1902 and 1903.

(The Recorder held that the prisoner could be Cross-examined to his financial position when making the statement, but not to the whole events of his life.) With regard to the rubber shares, I told Rymer there was a difficulty in the way, and that I should be able to get over it. My wife was giving £50 for 250 shares. Kruthoffer was under an obligation to me, and it was more of a bonus for something I had done for him. I did not tell Rymer that that was the arrangement. I told him we had some shares and it would take 14 days to get the money to pay for the car. I say that the two Graffs are lying. They suggested to take the bills so as to complete the bargain. I mentioned about the one acre of land in part because I wanted the car to save the uncertainty of trains. Both my wife and I have a private income and we could afford to go about. Marse was not pressing me for payment; he had other security. My wife had borrowed money from Marse as a friend.

JOHN CHARLES MARSE , recalled. When prisoner borrowed the money he said he had some money owing from different people, two of whom I knew, and he said, "I will put these bills in your hands, but do not interfere with them because I shall get the money out of them"; two of the bills were from very good people indeed, and I was quite satisfied that I could realise the amount of my debt.

CLAUDE BROWNING , St. Margaret's Road, Isleworth, builder. Shortly before October 3 I went with prisoner to prosecutors' garage. We saw Rymer. The first part of the conversation was about how long he and prisoner had known one another. Then prisoner looked first at a small car. Rymer showed him the Argyll; prisoner said he did not want such a large or expensive car; Rymer said he could not guarantee the other cars, and wanted him to have the Argyll. Prisoner said he wanted a reliable car to go down to East Preston because he had bought an acre of land there and should shortly be building; he intended to put up six small houses and a bungalow and create ground rents. He said there were altogether 45 acres, and if the one acre went well he should buy more. After we went for the trial trip prisoner was ill in bed, and I took a note round to Graff Bros.; they gave me the bills, to which I got Mrs. Sedgwick's signature and returned them. At the trial trip there were two accidents. We stopped up and had tea, and there was conversation about the land. Prisoner again mentioned about the one acre; he did not say Mrs. Sedgwick had paid £750 deposit. Louis Graff was asked to go and see the land, but he was too busy repairing the punctured tyres. I afterwards drove the car with prisoner. I think the body of the car was all right, but the engines were old. One time it broke down five miles from anywhere, and we had to sleep all night in it.

FLORA BROWNING , wife of the last witness, confirmed his evidence with regard to the trial trip.

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Saturday, April 4.)

31st March 1908
Reference Numbert19080331-75
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

CAIN, William, and BELL, Joseph, pleaded guilty of conspiring and agreeing together to cheat and defraud the London and South-Western Railway Company of certain moneys, to wit, the amount of a certain fare between Earley and Twickenham.

Bell admitted having been convicted at Nottingham, April 17,1906, receiving 21 days' hard labour for obtaining 8s. by means of a trick.

Sentence, both Twelve days' without hard labour.

View as XML