Old Bailey Proceedings.
23rd June 1908
Reference Number: t19080623

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
23rd June 1908
Reference Numberf19080623

Related Material

1908, JUNE.

Vol. CXLIX.] Part 885.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]









On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Tuesday, June 23rd, 1908, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BELL , Knight, Alderman, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir EDWARD RIDLEY , Knight, and the Hon. Sir WALTER G. F. PHILLIMORE , Bart., Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir W. VAUGHAN MORGAN , Bart., Sir WILLIAM P. TRELOAR , Bart., Sir ALFRED J. NEWTON , Bart., Sir T. VEZEY STRONG , Kt., W.M. GUTHRIE , Esq., and C. JOHNSTON , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON , Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET , K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; His Honour Judge LUMLEY SMITH , K.C., Commissioner, and His Honour Judge RENTOUL , K.C. Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

DAVID BURNETT , Esq., Alderman











(Tuesday, June 23.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-1
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BROCKWELL, Walter (36, porter), pleaded guilty of stealing a valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of the sum of £9 9s. 9d., the property of William Bean, his master; feloniously forging the endorsement on a certein order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of the sum of £9 9s. 9d., with intent to defraud his said master; stealing two sheets, two waistcoats, and other articles, the goods of William Henley, his master.

He also confessed to a conviction of felony at this Court, on March 25, 1895, in the name of William Robert Beadcroft, and three other convictions were proved.

Sentence, Fifteen months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-2
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HELLIER, Herbert Frederick John (24, clerk), pleaded guilty of forging certain orders for the payment of money, to wit, withdrawal notices for the several sums of £6 and £9, feloniously uttering the same, well knowing them to he forged, and thereby obtaining the several sums of £6 and £9, the property of the Postmaster-General, with intent to defraud.

He also confessed to a conviction of felony, at North London Police Court, on November 30, 1904.

Sentence, Eight months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-3
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

VIDLER, Edward Cyril (19, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing, a post letter containing a Post Office Savings Bank book and a further post letter containing a Post Office Savings Bank book, the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-4
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

COOKE, Maud , being entrusted by Zalig Waller with a diamond ring for the purpose of pawning the same, did fraudulently convert to her own use the proceeds of the said property.

Mr. Burnie prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

ZALIG WALLER , 159, Amhurst Road, Hackney, jeweller. The ring, the subject of this charge, I bought for £32 10s. I have known prisoner twelve months; she had pawned things for me on three or four occasions, and always accounted to me. On February 24, about noon, I saw her at Charing Cross Station; I showed her this ring and she said she could get £35 for it at Attenborough's in Golden Square. I gave her the ring for this purpose and she promised to meet me in a quarter of an hour at Piccadilly Tube Station. I waited there the whole day and she did not come; I next saw her when she was in custody. I do not know whether she knew my address; she knew my name. I knew her name and she gave me an address; I went to this, but found she did not live there.

Cross-examined. I was introduced to prisoner by a Mr. Wright, who was manager at Attenborough's; that was 18 months or two years ago. My meetings with prisoner on these transactions were always at some railway station; I never made the appointments; it was Wright who wrote to prisoner when I wanted her. It is not the case that while I have known her she has pawned a large number of articles for me, only about three or four. I do not recollect, in February, 1906, giving her a pearl marquise ring as a return for her services. I deny that she pawned altogether 30 or 40 articles for me. It is not my "business" to purchase articles cheaply and get a lady who did not look like a dealer to pledge them; I have done it once or twice—not very often; I may have had other ladies to pawn for me. I did sometimes redeem the articles pledged; I cannot recollect instances in which I did so. At the time this transaction took place I was an undischarged bankrupt. I usually gave Wright half the profit on each pawning transaction; I do not know what he gave prisoner. I deny that just before she left me on February 24 we went into the buffet, that I put the ring into a bluish fluid and told her to look sharp, because the lustre would go off; that story is all lies. I deny that two days afterwards I met her in the Haymarket, that we went to Scott's and had some drink, that I asked her what she had done with my ring, that she said she had taken it to several pawnbrokers, that she eventually got £26 on it, that on reaching home she found she had lost the money, that she was sorry, and would do her best to pay it. I swear that that is all lies. She did not tell me that she had written that morning to a friend abroad for £30, and when she got it she would pay me; I did not ask her to meet me the next morning at the "Waterloo Tavern," Haymarket, and to put on her best dress and look smart as I wanted her to pawn a brooch for me.

Re-examined. I never till to-day heard anything of the story of meeting prisoner on February 26. I obtained the discharge in my bankruptcy on May 16. (To the Jury.) I keep no books and have no record of my pawning transactions; I do not now keep a banking account.

HORACE S. BULL , pawnbroker, Bishopsgate Street. The ring produced was pledged with me on February 24 for £26 in the name of Mrs. Maud Cooke.

Detective-sergeant SYDNEY WHITEHORN , E Division. On March 5 I received a warrant for prisoner's arrest on the charge of larceny. I was unable to find her until May 5, when she was being detained at Wimbledon Police Station on another charge. On my reading the warrant she made no reply, nor did she when charged at Bow Street. Later on the charge of larceny was withdrawn and the present charge substituted; she again made no reply.


MAUD COOKE (prisoner, on oath). The address I gave to prosecutor was my correct address at the time I gave it; I left it last November; I had not given him my new address; his address I did not know. I was introduced to him two years ago by Mr. Wright; I have known Wright seven or eight years; he is no relation of mine. In February, 1906, I first met prosecutor by appointment and he gave me some articles to pawn for him; he did not himself pawn, because he was known to be a dealer. From that time down to February 24 last I pawned things for him nearly every week, Wright making the appointments for me to meet prosecutor at different railway stations. I was sometimes paid for my trouble, sometimes not. In February, 1906, he gave me as a present a small pearl marquise ring. On February 24, about 11 o'clock, I met him by appointment at Charing Cross Station and he showed me a half-hoop diamond ring and other articles. We went into the buffet; he mixed a bluish fluid and put this ring and others into it. He told me to go in a cab to Attenborough's and pawn this ring and get as much as I could on it. I went in a cab to several pawnbrokers—first to Jeyes', in Oxford Street, then to Smith's, in Tottenham Court Road, to Harvey and Thompson's, in New Oxford Street, to Barnett's, in Holborn, to Vance's, in Fleet Street, to Attenborough's, in Chancery Lane, and to others I cannot recollect—they all offered me £20. Finally, I left it at Bull's shop in Bishopsgate Street, getting £26 on it. It was then about four o'clock. I then went and had some tea and sandwiches; then I met some friends and had several drinks. I got the worse for drink and hardly remember how I got to my home at Merton. The £26 I had got from Bull's, in gold, I put in my purse; I remember having the purse in my hand when I got in at the Tube station in the City; on getting out at Clapham Common Station I missed the purse. I was too frightened to go and see prosecutor, but two days afterwards I met him in the Haymarket and he asked me to have a drink in Scott's. At Scott's he called for drinks and asked me what I had done with his ring. I explained that I had pledged it and lost the money. I told him the places I had been to. I said I was willing to pay him back for it. I told him I had written to a friend abroad that morning for £30, which I had done, and he said he was willing to wait. I said it would be about seven weeks before I heard from my friend, and he told me again he was willing to wait. He then

asked me if I would meet him at the Waterloo Tavern, Haymarket, at 11 o'clock the next morning as he wanted me to pawn a diamond brooch; he asked me to put on my best dress, as it looked much smarter. Next morning I was not well enough to keep the appointment and I did not know where to communicate with him.

Cross-examined. Wright sometimes gave me commission; I used to see him very frequently; I do not know whether he is here today; he was supposed to be, but he has not come. It was about four p.m. on February 24 when I pawned the ring at Bull's. The reason did not at once go back to meet prosecutor was because I did not think he would wait; I had previously had articles of his in my possession for two or three days, and I did not think he would worry. I live with my mother; she is not here to-day; I mentioned to her the next morning the loss of my purse. I also went to the Tube station and asked the liftman about it; he is not here to-day. I was too frightened to go to prosecutor that night; I knew that if I went round the Haymarket way I, could find him. I looked for him on the 25th and I saw him on the 26th. Wright was present at the interview. I did not instruct my solicitor to set up at the police court the defence that Wright had a claim against prosecutor. I considered that prosecutor owed me some money; I had lent him money when he was hard up; I did not intend to keep this sum because of what he owed me, but if I had not lost the money I was going to ask him for what he owed me. He owed me about £13. I did tell my solicitor about having lost the money; he did not set up that story at the police court or ask any questions about it. Prosecutor told me on February 26 that there was a warrant out for me; I said, "Well, I am here, I will come with you"; he said, "I don't want to do that; you can find me some money." I did not go to the Haymarket after the 26th; I was not keeping out of the way. Nothing was mentioned before the magistrate by me or my solicitor about the loss of the purse.

Re-examined. The magistrate had intimated that the case must go for trial, and my defence was reserved. This is the first time in my life that I have been charged with dishonesty.

After deliberating for three-quarters of an hour the jury were unable to agree and they were discharged.


(Tuesday, June 30.)

Prisoner was again tried on the same charge; the evidence was repeated.

Mr. Herman Cohen prosecuted: Mr. Purcell defended. Verdict, Not guilty.


(Tuesday, June 23.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-5
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

WARWICK, William (22, carman) ; unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day.

GEORGE ORSI , 295, Cambridge Road, Bethnal Green, confectioner. On June 8, 1908, at about nine p.m., prisoner came to my shop. He asked me if I would have a drink. I said, "No." He said, "Give me a packet of Woodbine cigarettes"—which I gave him. He put down a shilling; I gave him 11d. change and put the shilling in the till. There was no other shilling in the till at the time. At about 10 p.m. Miss Rudge sent for me, and I came into the shop. Prisoner was there. He said, "I have got plenty of money, dad." Rudge gave me a shilling (produced). I went to the till and found the other shilling. I then went for a policeman.

Cross-examined. Prisoner asked me to show him the coin which I said was bad. He said, "Is that a bad one?—send for a policeman." I showed prisoner the shilling Miss Rudge had given me. After prisoner had been taken to the station I went, there with the other bad shilling.

ANNIE RUDGE , 295, Cambridge Road. I occasionally serve in prosecutor's shop. On June 8, at about 10 p.m., prisoner came in and asked for a packet of cigarettes at 1d. and tendered me 1s. I gave him the cigarettes and 11d. change. Not liking the look of the coin I called prosecutor and handed it to him. He asked prisoner if he knew the shilling was bad. Prisoner said, "I am sorry—I must have taken it by mistake." Prisoner said to me, "Why did not you tell me when you took it?—bring a policeman."

Police-constable WALTER TILLING , 341 J. On June 8 I was called into prosecutor's shop, where I saw the prisoner. Prosecutor said prisoner had given this shilling in payment for a packet of Woodbines. Prisoner said, "I am willing to go to the police station with you—I did not know it was a bad one." I searched him in the shop, and found on him two sixpences and sixpence in bronze; that was good money.

Prisoner (not on oath). I only passed one bad coin—I know nothing about the second one. I did not know that the one I had was bad and I should not have passed it if I had known it was bad.

Verdict, Not guilty.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-6
VerdictNot Guilty > directed; Guilty > unknown; Guilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FEATHERSTON, John Alfred, WILSON, Frank (33, agent), NORTON, Lawrence (41, clerk), HENRY, Thomas (35, agent) ; all stealing one sewing machine, the property of the Singer Sewing Machine Company, Limited.

Mr. Leyceater and Mr. Lawless prosecuted.

CHARLES JAMES POWELL , manager for the Singer Sewing Machine Company at Richmond. I have under my supervision a small shop

at King Street, Twickenham, where Featherston was employed. He was in charge of that shop when I went in October, 1907. It was part of his duty to let machines out on the hire system. Norton and Henry were also under me as salesmen—Norton from October 5, 1907, to January, 1908 and Henry from December 20, 1907, to March 11, 1908. I do not know Wilson. Agreement produced was brought to me on November 27, 1907, by Featherston, referring to a machine No. S1421142, purporting to be signed by May O'Callaghan. I allowed the machine to be delivered, believing the agreement to be bona-fide. £1 8s. was paid on the machine. For some time nothing was paid. We do not always press for payment. I next saw the machine when it was produced by Mellett and Thomas, pawnbrokers, Richmond Bridge, and identified it. The instalments were in arrear. I have never authorised Featherston or anyone else to deal with the machine in that way.

Cross-examined. Featherston had a right to give a receipt without coming to me. It was his shop, and he would send the machines out, but every one had to be passed by myself before we paid him a premium for the transaction. The machines were kept at his shop. If I had not thought it a bona-fide sale I should have ordered the machine to be returned. Nothing was due to Norton. Henry was employed only on commission. There was no monev due to him.

EMILY O'CALLAGHAN , 14, Crane Road, Twickenham. I signed one agreement at the and of 1907, Featherston came to me and asked me to sign it. He asked me to store the machine. He said I was not to pay anything. I did not ask him if there was anything to pay.

Cross-examined. The machine was brought the same evening that I signed the agreement. I signed also receipt (produced) on delivery of the machine.

EMILY OLDFIILD , 26, Andover Road, Twickenham, daughter of Emily O'Gallaghan. In November, 1907, I remember Featherston coming to see my mother about a machine. I was not there when the agreement was signed. From what Featherston said the machine was allowed to remain in the house. It remained there till February 24, when the prisoners called. Norton said he had called for the machine. Henry said something was the matter with it. One of them went and returned with a cart and the machine was taken away.

(Wednesday, June 24.)

The Common Serjeant asked Mr. Lawless how he made out the larceny against Featherston.

Mr. Lawless submitted that it could be larceny by a trick.

His Lordship did not think, so far as the case had gone, that there was any larceny. If there was a case of larceny against any one of the four, of course the case would have to go on. He did not know what was going to be proved, but the only question of larceny he could see was as to the witness Mrs. Old field. If they took the machine out of the hands of a person in whom the property was not, and pawned it, it remaining the property of the Singer Company all the time, he should tell the jury that that was not larceny at all.

Mrs. EMILY OLDFIELD , recalled. I am constantly in and out of 14, Crane Road, where my mother lives. I was present in November last when the machine was brought by Featherston. It remained in my mother's house till February. On February 24 the three prisoners, Wilson, Norton, and Henry, came to the house. I had seen them twice before. I only knew Norton by name. He said he had come to fetch the machine which he said he was going to take back to the firm. Henry said that the machine was out of order, and took the number of it. He asked for a little oil, but my mother had not got any. One of them, I cannot remember which, went away and returned with a man named Newman and a cart. The machine was placed in the van and Norton told Newman to take it to Richmond. There were some tools in the drawer of the machine, but they took these out, saying they would not want them. On the next day I gave them to Featherston at his shop in Twickenham, and told him that the machine had been taken away. I cannot remember whether he said anything in reply. On the next night I saw the other three prisoners with Featherston outside a public-house.

Cross-examined by Featherston. My mother was willing to keep the machine providing she had lessons. You did not ask me to hand the machine over to the other prisoners, nor suggest it in any way. When I told you that the other three had taken the machine you asked me who they were. Some-weeks previous to his we had been told by Mr. Morgan, a member of the Singer Company, that they would have to take the machine away as no money had been paid. He said somebody would call for it towards the end of the week. I do not remember you saying when I told you about the machine being taken away, that you thought probably it was all right as it might have been sent for by the Singer Company. I said I thought you would have called for the machine, having placed it there. I had known Norton as working for Singer's.

Cross-examined by Wilson. I was at my mother's house when you called for the machine. I was not surprised that you called for it.

Cross-examined by Norton. I had known you perhaps a little over two months before this machine was taken away. Featherston's shop is about 10 minutes' walk from my mother's place. I did not make an appointment for you to come for the machine. My sister opened the door when you came. I made no arrangement for you to pawn the machine. I did not have any of the money, nor meet you afterwards at the "Coach and Horses"; I saw you down there. While you were waiting for the van to come Wilson played the piano and Henry sang. One of my sisters joined in the harmony. I did not know whether you were taking the machine to Featherston's or to Richmond. We apent about an hour and a half in jollification; my mother asked you in out of politeness. I have had a machine myself from Singer's; Mr. Featherston brought it. It was a treadle machine.

Cross-examined by Henry. I cannot say who fetched the van.

Re-examined. This is the first time any suggestion has been made about my receiving money from the prisoners; it is absolutely un-true.

(Norton said that he was cross-examined about it at the police-court, but it was not put on the depositions.) Featherston took my treadle machine away. That was because the payments were not kept up regularly enough; my husband was out of work.

JAMES NEWMAN , fishmonger. I know prisoners Wilson, Norton, and Henry. On February 24 Henry came to me to hire a cart. He asked me to do a little job—about an hour's work. I took the cart to 14, Craven Road, where Wilson and Norton brought out a machine and put it in the cart. Then Wilson and I and a man I had with me drove to Richmond Bridge, where we stopped at a pawnbroker's shop, by Wilson's direction. The machine was then carried into the shop and we drove off. I did not see the other two prisoners again. Wilson paid me 2s. 10d. for the job.

Cross-examined by Henry. Wilson paid me after he made the pledge. I did not see him pledge the machine. I did not see you at the pawnbrokers' nor in the cart.

WILLIAM BATT , manager to Mellett and Thomas, Richmond Bridge, pawnbrokers. On February 24 prisoner Henry came to the shop and asked me if I took sewing machines. I said I took them with an official receipt. He said that he had one. After about half an hour he came back; so far as I know, he was alone, but I heard voices outside. The machine came up on a cart and two men carried it in, but I did not notice who they were. Henry showed me the letter produced. I had seven or eight customers at the time and I could not say exactly that it was Henry, but to the best of my belief. The letter is in these terms, headed: "Singer Sewing Machine Company 15, King Street, Twickenham, 24/1/08. Dear Sir,—Your letter to our central office, of the 20th inst., has been forwarded to me for reply. We do not issue duplicate final receipts in any case. On referring to my books, I find that machine No. S1421142 has been fully paid for and the company have no further claim on the same. I think this intimation will be sufficient for the receipt you mislaid." It is signed "A Featherston, manager." On seeing that I took the machine and advanced £2 5s. I have not the ticket, but I produce the machine. (The machine was not produced.)

EDWARD STRINGER , manager to Singer Manufacturing Company, Kingston branch. Wilson was employed by us for about a month, from December last to January. I knew him as Edward Peacock. The letter produced by last witness looks to be in Wilson's writing.

Cross-examined by Wilson. I have not the record here, but I believe you were with us for about five weeks. I do not remember you asking me at the police court to bring an agreement here. I do not keep these arrangements. I advised you to remain with the company when you decided to leave, as I thought you were a likely man. You placed out five machines, I believe, while you were with us. You resigned three weeks before you left us. The machines you placed were to people I knew before you joined; they were not tampered with.

Re-examined. Some of our salesmen and collectors make a good thing out of it. I have a man who has been 17 years with us, another 14 years. One averages £4 a week; another £3 a week, and I have a lady who averages 30s. on the same agreement as Wilson was on. They have no salary. The commission for a machine would average about 27s.

RUDOLPH HOFFMER . I am a supervisor for the Singer Company in the South-Western district. We have a great many shops in that district. On March 23 Featherston came to me at the head office, St. Paul's Churchyard, and volunteered a statement. At that time investigations were going on in regard to machines which were missing. I took him down to our solicitor's office and he made the statement (produced) in my presence. It contains the following: "O'Callaghan's machine was lifted by Henry and Wilson and pawned with a pawnbroker at Richmond Bridge, Twickenham. If any receipt, I do not know who wrote it."

Cross-examined by Featherston. I believe you were asked your address when at our office, and I think you said you had not any regular address, but any letters sent to your brother would find you. I advised you that it would be better to surrender. You wrote the same night promising to appear on the Wednesday.

Detective-sergeant WILLIAM MOORE , T Division. On March 23 warrants were issued for the arrest of the four prisoners. On April 29 I arrested Wilson in Chiswick High Road. I said that I believed his name was Henry. I wanted both men, and I did not know which was which. He said, "No, my name is Watson." I said, "Is not it Wilson or Peacock?" He said, "No, you have made a mistake." I replied, "I do not think so; you answer to the description of the man I want on a warrant, and I shall take you to Twickenham Police Station on suspicion of being Wilson." He then said, "The game is up; my name is Wilson. Have you got the others?" I took him down a side street and explained the warrant. I handed him over to another constable, and he was detained by him in the street. I then went to 4, Cambridge Road, Gunnersbury, where I saw Henry in bed; this was 11.30 in the morning. I told him I had a warrant for him, in the same terms as I told Wilson. He said, "I thought the matter was settled; I did not think Singer's would take any action." With the assistance of the constable I conveyed the two to Twickenham Police Station. When the warrant was read they made no reply. On May 4, at 11.30 p.m., I saw Norton at 67, Anselm Road, Walham Green; he was in bed. I read the warrant to him, and he said, "Have you got Featherston?" I said no; and conveyed him to the station. On May 20, while the case was proceeding against these three, Featherston came and surrendered. He spoke to me first, saying, "I think you want me." On my reading the warrant he made no reply. When charged with another matter he said, "I know nothing about the second. What I did in the first I admit."

Cross-examined by Featherston. I do not know what you referred to when you spoke about the second charge.

Cross-examined by Norton. At the time of your arrest I believe you were employed by a motor-cab company.

Cross-examined by Henry. Your mother told me you were ill is bed when I arrested you; she had told me that twice before.


FRANK WILSON (prisoner, on oath). I must plead guilty to pledging this machine, but with no felonious intent. On the day when this was pledged Norton called at 4, Cambridge Road, where I was living with Henry, who was the landlord there. Norton asked us if we would care to pledge a Singer sewing machine. I asked him why he did not do it himself. He told me that this particular machine was in Twickenham, and that he had pledged two or three in that neighbourhood for Featherston, which were redeemed afterwards. So he thought the pawnbroker would smell a rat if he went again. He said it was for one of Featherston's customers who had got behind in her payments, but if she pledged it she would be able to keep the payments going. I told Norton I was willing to do it on condition that it was redeemed, and asked him what I should get. He told me the lady could not offer more than 5s. I was out of a situation at the time and pretty hard up, so I told Norton I had no money and was not going to walk to Twickenham, which is about four miles from Gunnersbury. Henry said he had a shilling or two, and would pay the fares if he was paid back. We arrived at Crane Road, Twickenham, and Norton called at a house while we waited at the end of the road. He came back and said that the lady was not there, and would we wait. The machine was really stored at her mother's house, so Norton went to fetch the lady and Henry and I went to a beer-house. Soon after the lady and Norton came along, and we followed to the house, where we were asked in. The rest of what happened is practically as has been mentioned. Before we drove away Norton assured me that the machine would be redeemed all right. I took it for granted that Norton had arranged everything with the lady. On receiving the money from the pawnbroker I paid the carman 2s. 6d. and his man 4d. Henry and Norton were waiting for me towards Twickenham, and I met them. We adjourned to a public-house, the "St. Margaret's Hotel," where I handed Norton the pawnticket and two guiness, the balance of 3s. having been expended on the carman and the ticket. Norton paid me 5s. and gave Henry 5s. He said he was going to have 5s. for himself, and the rest to go to the lady whom the machine belonged to. I was in Twickenham next evening with, I believe, Norton, when I saw Featherston, who told me that he knew I had pledged one of his customers' machines, and he thought it very uncalled for to do a thing like that behind his back. I told him that I thought he knew of it beforehand and raised no objection. Shortly after this Mrs. Oldfield came up and we adjourned to a public-house to talk the matter over. Featherston then said to me that if any other customer of his was interfered with he would inform the company, as he was in guite deep enough trouble himself with machines without others pledging them. Mrs. Oldfield

asked me how much I had pledged the machine for, and I told her £2 5s., less expenses 5s. She then grumbled and said that Norton had not given her sufficient. I said it was nothing to do with me. I forget how much she said she had received, but it was a good bit under what she should have got if Norton had only retained 5s.

Cross-examined. Most decidedly Mrs. Oldfield knew of the pledging. Norton asked her at the police court about receiving the money. My real name is Peacock. I was going to mention that in the next case. I told the police officer that Wilson was not my name. There was nothing to cross-examine Moore about. I told the officer my name was Watson because I did not want him to arrest me. I knew perfectly well that my correct name would transpire. I had pledged a machine before this one, and I have pledged one since. The letter signed A. Featherston is in my writing. Norton had one of these forms of the Singer Company in his pocket. Norton told me that Mrs. Oldfield wanted the machine pawned. We knew that the pawnbroker would want a receipt. Norton said to me "I suppose you can write an ordinary letter?" He told me he had a memo. form. I did not write the receipt till the machine was in the cart, and then the number was taken. I wrote it in a public-house close by. Mrs. Oldfield did not know about this document. Norton and Henry knew what I was writing. The date of January 24 on the letter must be a clerical error. A: Featherstdon and E. Wilson are fictitious names. Mrs. Oldfield knew the machine was not going to Singer's. We did not tell her so. I believe Featherston was told about the machine being pawned before Mrs. Oldfield told him. (To the Judge.) I did not know the ladies' names when the machine was pawned. I knew Mrs. Oldfield had not got a receipt from what Norton told me.

LAWRENCE NORTON (prisoner, on oath). About three days before the machine was pawned I arranged with Mrs. Oldfield that it should be done. I thought it belonged to her instead of to Mrs. O'Callaghan. I think the pawning was suggested by me in a joking way. She asked if the payments would be kept up, and I said we, meaning Wilson, Henry, and myself, would arrange that. I said I thought I could let her have 10s. out of the pawning, and arranged that the machine should be called for on the 24th. Meanwhile I saw Wilson and Henry and arranged with them. The machine was pawned by Wilson as stated. I handed over to Mrs. Oldfield that same evening I think 9s. I had arranged to meet her at the "Coach and Horses" in Twickenham. I think we all had an equal amount, about 9s. I mignt have had a few shillings more myself. The money was divided at "St. Margaret's Hotel." I cross-examined Mrs. Oldfield about the money at the other court.

Cross-examined. She said she did not have any money. I rather fancy I also asked her about my calling on her before the pledging. I had known Mrs. Oldfield some time. I went round with Featherston on his collections. I did not know the machine was out in the name of O'Callaghan. It is not true that I produced the form on which Wilson wrote; it did not come from me. I was in the public-house

talking to another man while he was writing it. I could not say how it was arranged that the receipts should be written. It is customary for agents to make the payments themselves so as to keep machines out; the manager at Richmond has frequently told us we had better do so.

To Wilson. I do not know where the form came from; I never had one of these Twickenham bills. I have pledged a machine for Featherston when he was manager at the Twickenham office. He had a receipt book and gave me a receipt. I redeemed that machine.

(Thursday, June 25.)

JOHN ALFRED FEATHERSTON (prisoner, not on oath) said that while he was manager at Twickenham he lived above the shop, at the top of the building, and that sometimes the shop was left and a lot of memos. would very often be on the counter. They had no bolt on the door, and anyone could get in who wanted a receipt and so take the forms. He pointed out how Norton admitted that he was not introduced by him to Mrs. Oldfield. He had employed Norton at odd times because he was out of work and he (Norton) had never failed to account for money which he had collected, consequently witness trusted him and would do so again.

Wilson and Norton having addressed the jury,

THOMAS HENRY (prisoner, not on oath) said that for his trouble in the affair he had received 5s. from Norton. He had worked five times for the Singer Company, covering a long time, and he had never had any misfortune with them before.

Verdict, Featherston (by direction of the Judge), Not guilty; Wilson, Norton, and Henry, Guilty. The Jury were of opinion that Henry had been led into it and was guilty in a lesser degree. It was stated that there was a previous conviction against Wilson 10 years ago at South London Sessions, but the record had not been properly kept and a certificate could not be got.

Sergeant MOORE stated that Wilson had received three months in 1898 for stealing a bicycle, and received one month in January, 1905, for begging by letter. Norton was stated to have been concerned some time ago in obtaining trucks of coal by fraud, but was not prosecuted.

Sentences. Wilson and Norton, 14 months' hard labour; Henry, 9 months' hard labour.

An order was made that the machine be returned to the Singer Company on payment of the money advanced.


(Wednesday, June 24.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-7
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

WILSON, William (motor omnibus driver); manslaughter of Ernest Ewins.

Mr. C. E. P. Boyd prosecuted; Mr. Joyce Thomas defended.

Sergeant EMPTAGE , 86, T Division. I produce plan, made by me to scale, of portion of Fulham Road where Moorpath Road joins

into it. At that point there is a wide sweep. The width of the Fulham Road there is 47 ft. On May 26 I charged prisoner with manslaughter. He replied, "Yes, sir; all right."

CHARLES STANSFIELD , 47, Earl Street, Edgware Road (16 years old). I knew the deceased lad Ewins by working with him; he was about 14 years old. On May 19 we were both in the employment of Bartlett and Co., blind roller manufacturers, 40, Earl Street, Edgware Road. Ewins and I were pushing along Fulham Road a truck laden with tin blind rollers; there were 27 rollers fastened lengthwise across the truck. The weight of the rollers altogether would be no difficulty at all for u✗. to push. We were on the near side of the truck, within a foot of the pavement; Ewins was on the outside. There was no traffic in the road. When we were about 10 yards past the water trough a Vanguard motor 'bus, going the same way as us, ran into us. I was thrown on to the pavement. The 'bus struck the outside wheel of our truck; Ewins seemed to be carried right round the truck and one of the wheels of the 'bus passed over him. The 'bus swung round right across the road and stopped within two yards of Ewins's body. The 'bus was driven by prisoner. After the accident he told me his steering gear was stiff.

Cross-examined. That afternoon we had taken the truck from Earl Street to the place of the accident. it was not a heavy truck to push; it was not an unwieldy load. Ewins and I had pushed larger ones than that along the street; there was no tendency to swerve the barrow; we were going perfectly straight. I heard no hooter or shouting; we were only paying attention to our work.

EDWARD MORRIS , house surgeon at St. George's Hospital, said that the lad Ewins was admitted to the hospital at about 12.40 on May 19. He had broken the large bone of the hip and had separated the two large bones from their attachments, and there were other severe injuries; as the result of these injuries he died on the following day.

FREDERICK MANSELL , cab driver. On May 19, about midday, I was in Fulham Road, and I saw these lads pushing a truck; I was on the opposite side; they were about a foot away from the pavement and walking along steadily, keeping an even course. About 15 yards past the water trough I saw a Vanguard motor 'bus going in the same direction as the truck push right into it from behind. There was no other traffic in the road. The 'bus was going at eight to ten miles an hour.

Cross-examined. The bus was not being driven recklesely or wildly; prisoner was trying to steer it off the barrow, but he was too late.

CHARLES CHEADLE . I was travelling on the top of the motor 'bus. After we passed Moorpath Road I noticed two lads pushing a truck, going level with the pavement, about a foot from the kerb. As the 'bus went to pass Moorpath Road it seemed to me to be going towards to pavement. I heard a crash, but did not see the actual striking of the barrow; the 'bus pulled up sharp.

Cross-examined. I did not notice how the 'bus was being driven, but as we got near Moorpath Road it seemed to me to be making for

the kerb, as if there was a difficulty in steering. I heard the hooter blown.

JAMES W. PACEY , 411, Fulham Road, a passenger on the 'bus, gave similar evidence. He expressed the view that the truck, loaded as it was, was unwieldy and awkward for two lads to push along London streets.

WILLIAM RAYNER and WILLIAM L. WELLER , two other witnesses of the accident, gave similar evidence.

Police-constable LEWIS HARRISON , 33 T R. On this day, hearing that there had been an accident, I went to Fulham Road, at the point where it is joined by Moorpath Road, and there saw prisoner is charge of a Vanguard motor 'bus; he told me he was driver of the bus. He said, "I was going towards Putney; I was driving about 10 miles an hour. They (meaning the two lads in charge of the barrow) were about two or three feet from the kerb, on the non side. I was trying to steer to miss them; I sounded my hooter; my steering gear was stiff. "The 'bus had been drawn up on the near side of the road. I left it in charge of another officer and went to the station to make inquiries; I did not then know what injuries the lad had sustained. On being informed by telephone from the hospital that he was not likely to recover, I returned so Moorpath Road and took prisoner to the station.

Police-constable GEORGE LOVE , 826 T, said he took over from previous witness charge of the bus and kept charge till Inspector Brain came and examined it. No one was allowed during the interval to tamper with the steering gear or other machinery.

Inspector CHARLES EMWRICK , T Division. I was at Walham Green Police Station when prisoner was brought in by Harrison. Before any charge was made against him (and, therefore, I had not cantioned him) I asked him how the accident happened. He said, "I was driving along the Fulham Road, near the kerb, towards Walham Green, when I ran into the truck; I did not see the truck until I was about 10 yards from it; I then went to turn to my offside, but the steering gear was stiff; it has been stiff for some time. I have not seen a fitter or been near the yard, or I should have got it altered; I did not think it was dangerous; I have only been driving a motor bus in the street for two days. "I telephoned to Scotland Yard, and Inspector Blaydon was sent to examine the 'bus. After he had examined the machinery prisoner was charged.

Inspector ARTHUR BLAYDON , attached to the Public Carriage office, Scotland Yard. On May 7 prisoner passed our test as a driver of motor 'buses and received his license; he was tested on a De Dion 'bus. On May 19, about half-past 2, I went to Fulham Road and there saw a Vanguard 'bus in charge of Police-constable Love. I examined the machinery of the 'bus (one of the De Dion type), especially the steering gear; I found nothing defective. I sent for prisoner and again tested the machinery in his presence. I asked him if he could show me any defect which would contribute to cause the accident, and he failed to do so. I drove the 'but along the road,

having to turn it once or twice, and I found no difficulty in steering it.

Cross-examined. Having passed the police test, prisoner may be taken to have been competent, on the day in question, to drive this 'bus. I have had experience of motor 'buses since they were first introduced in London. The parts of this 'bus that I examined were not stiff and were not rusted; the 'bus was in daily use, and I found it fully lubricated and in full running order; I think prisoner was under a misapprehension altogether as to the stiffness of the steering gear. If earlier in the day something had happened to dislodge part of the steering gear, I should say it was highly improbable, indeed, impossible, that a sudden wrench caused by the 'bus coming into contact with the truck would have put things so far right that at the time of my examination I could not have noticed anything wrong.

Re-examined. The 'bus was fitted with powerful brakes. Going at 10 miles an hour, the driver would be able to pull up in 10 ft. With the road in good order, and the brakes properly applied and in good order, it works out mathematically at one foot per mile.

GEORGE CLASSENS . I am in charge of 20 motor 'buses kept in the Vanguard yard at Dalston. I have been with the company three or four years and am a certified mechanic. On May 19 it was my duty to see that the 'buses which left the yard were in good order. I personally examined the 'bus taken out by prisoner; I tested it in the usual manner, running it twice round the yard—altogether about 80 yards, and testing the engine, the brakes, and the steering; there was nothing defective whatever.

Cross-examined. I start testing my 'buses about 6.30 a.m. and finish about 9.30; on this morning it was about 8.45 when I tested prisoner's 'bus. I did not hear the conductor say before the coroner that he left the yard with the 'bus at 7.55. I made no notes of my test; it took about three minutes. I am a working mechanic and do not come here as an expert on the parts of a motor 'bus.

CHARLES BAKER . one of the men employed by the Vanguard company to travel along the 'bus routes and attend to the repair of vehicles breaking down. On May 19, about 2.45, I took over the 'bus in question from Inspector Blaydon in the Fulham Road. In front of Blaydon I tested the steering and also the brakes and found them perfect. I drove the 'bus back to the yard at Dalston, going via the Embankment, taking about three-quarters of an hour. During the journey I found no difficulty in driving the 'bus and nothing wrong with the steering.

WILLIAM KEEHNER . I am conductor of this 'bus, and was on it from the time it left the yard on the morning of May 19. We want out at 7.55. Our journey was from Shoreditch to Putney. We had done the first complete journey and were on our return from Putney to Shoreditch when the accident happened. I had not noticed any difficulty in the steering and prisoner had made no complaint to me.

Cross-examined. I am positive we started at 7.55; I have confirmed it by my waybills.

Inspector EMERICK , recalled. On May 19 I attended, with Mr. Francis, the magistrate, at St. George's Hospital, to take the dying declaration of Ernest Ewins. Prisoner was also present. Ewins said, "I was going along with a barrow; another boy was with me. A Vanguard came along and squashed me between the motor and the barrow; I was picked up in a van and taken to the hospital. On the barrow were tin rollers. I was close to the kerb on the near side. I was pushing the barrow, the other boy was by my side."

Police-constable HARRISON , recalled, proved the arrest of prisoner, who made no reply. Before the magistrate prisoner said, "I am not guilty and reserve my defence. "

Sergeant EMPTAGE , recalled. (To Mr. Thomas.) I have made inquiries as to prisoner's character. He was employed by Pickfords as a horse driver for eight years; Pickfords gave him the character of being honest, sober, and industrious; he was, in fact, discharged by them because he lost time by being too slow. He is a life abstainer.


WILLIAM WILSON (prisoner, on oath). I was driver of this 'bus on May 19; that was the first day I had driven it, and the previous day was the first I had driven a motor 'bus. We left the yard about 7.55. I first noticed a difficulty about the steering on our first journey. At Norfolk Street, Strand, my engine would not take the 'bus up the hill; I had to keep on steering to the offside to keep the 'bus on a straight course. The steering gear seemed to be working very stiff. At the time of this accident I was going between eight and 10 miles an hour. Just at that place there is a curve, and the steering wheel has to be kept turned to get round. I first saw these boys when I was about 10 yards from them. If the steering is free there is no difficulty in avoiding an object at that distance. As soon as I saw the truck I did all I could to avoid the accident; I tried all I knew to steer the 'bus off them; I applied my brakes, but they did not seem to act at the time. I sounded the hooter and shouted when I was four or five yards from the boys to give them a chance of getting on to the pavement. Before actually striking the truck I put on the brakes and stopped the engine, and the 'bus steered of like a flash of lightning and went right broadside across the road Immediately after the accident, before I had had time to have any advice or suggestion put into my head, I told Blaydon and Emerick that it was due to the stiffness of the steering gear.

Cross-examined. When I first noticed, at Norfolk Street, some difficulty in the steering, I did not think there was danger; I thought it would work off in time. I did not attach importance to it; if there had been any road fitters handy I should have had it seen to. I did not see these boys until I was about 10 yards from them; I have to look after other traffic as well as the near side traffic. I was locking right straight in front of me; I cannot explain why I did not sea the boys earlier.

FRANK JAMES FIELD , 40, Disraeli Road, Putney. I am a motor engineer and an expert in motor matters; I have been chief engineer to many large London and provincial motor omnibus companies; I have special knowledge and experience of the De Dion type of 'bus. Having heard the evidence here, I say it is possible that there was a certain amount of difficulty in connection with the movements of the steering gear of this 'bus, which might have originated after it left the depot and existed up to the time of the accident. The steering gear in a De Dion chassis is particularly light, the parts are subject to various strains and shocks; the 'bus coming into rather severe contact with the kerb, say, on rounding a curve, might cause a distortion of some vital part, which would not become apparent while the 'bus was on a straight course; then a similarly sharp wrench in the opposite direction, caused by the 'bus running into this truck, may have restored the distorted part so as to put the gear, not into perfect condition, but into fair working condition. With the 'bus and the truck in the position described here, 10 yards apart, there would, if the steering gear was in good order, be no difficulty in the 'bus avoiding the truck.

Cross-examined. I have not examined the 'bus driven by prisoner. It is not at all impossible for rust to be present in the steering gear of a 'bus in constant use. I do suggest that a second blow or wrench might so correct the defect caused by a former blow or wrench that an expert like Inspector Blaydon might notice nothing wrong if he examined the machinery immediately afterwards. It should be possible, by applying the brakes, to stop the 'bus within 10 yards, going at 10 miles an hour.

CHARLES MULBERY , clerk to Pickfords: Prisoner was in our employ for nine years. He held a clean record and a very good character as a most careful driver.

After deliberating for nearly an hour, the Jury handed in the following finding: "We consider that the steering gear got out of order and that the driver was at fault in not discontinuing the journey until it had been rectified." His Lordship held that upon this a verdict of Not guilty must be entered.


(Wednesday, June 24.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-8
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

PETTITT, Charles Herbert (22, clerk), pleaded guilty of feloniously 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 the sum of £1 15s., with intent to defraud; endeavouring to procure the said sum of £1 15s. by means of a certain forged instrument, to wit, a banker's cheque, knowing the same to be forged; stealing one postal order of the value of 15s., the goods of the General Electric Company, Limited, his masters, and two cheques and two letters, the goods of Hugo Hirst.

He also confessed to a previous conviction at Marlborough Street on November 2, 1905. Prisoner has been in many situations as shorthand clerk and typist, from some of which he has a good character.

Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-9
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

RANDALL, Charles Sidney (21, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing on April 3, 1908, a certain post letter containing a valuable security, to wit, a postal order for the payment of 10s., the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office; stealing on May 15, 1908, a certain post letter containing a valuable security, to wit, a postal order for the payment of 2s., the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.

Prisoner was engaged at the Streatham Post-office; by his own confession he has been a wholesale thief of letters. At his home the police found the remains of 2, 000 letters. If there was nothing of value in them they were destroyed. Postal orders he negotiated and cheques he tore up.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-10
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

HELLEN, Roger (19, porter) ; maliciously wounding George White.

Mr. Hadfield prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

GEORGE WHITE (prosecutor). I am 18 years of age and live at Cuperlow Court in the Minories, and am a van guard in the employ of the London and South-Western Railway Company. On June 12, about half-past one, I was in Goodman's yard. Prisoner came to me and said, "What about this fight?" I replied that I would fight him in the night time. He then pulled a knife out from his sleeve, made a run at me, and stuck it in the right side of my chest. I had my waistcoat open. I fell down by the office door and was picked up and taken to hospital. I only saw the blade of the knife. I did not see what he did with it.

To the Court. I have known him about 10 years. He is employed by the Great Eastern Railway Company. I had had no quarrel with him. He came up to me and said, "What about this fight?" He was sober. I do not know what he came round for. He said it was a fight between me and him, and I said, "I will fight you in the evening."

Cross-examined. I know nothing about fighting. I have heard of a gang of boys called the "Forties," but I do not know anything about their going about the City and Stepney night after night with revolvers, knives, and things of that sort. I have only been out with them once or twice. I only know a couple of them. I went down with them to see this lad (prisoner). It was suggested at the police court that I was ringleader of the gang, but that is not so. I said before the magistrate that prisoner was a member of the "Forties" and left, but it is not true that because he left the gang I would have nothing more to do with him. It is not true that a number of boys,

including myself, got round him with revolvers and knives the day before this happened. I was not carrying a revolver then. I have never carried a revolver. Prisoner and I had been good friends before. I did not ask him why he wanted to fight me. His coming up to me was quite a surprise. I was not very much injured and was able to attend the police court next day and to return to work on Monday.

Re-examined. I am not a member of the "Forties," but I went down with three or four of them to see this lad. They said they wanted to go and see him about something. I do not know what the gang exists for.

THOMAS HENRY SMITH , 17, Stewart Mansions, Camberwell. I am a carman in the employ of the London and South-Western Railway. On June 12 I was in Goodman's yard standing outside my office door. Prosecutor was with me. Prisoner, whom I now know as Roger Hellen, came up to my boy (prosecutor) and said, "What about this fight?" and my boy replied, "I will flght you to-night." Then, without any warning, prisoner drew a knife and stabbed him on the right breast. He then turned round and ran away. I chased him and caught him up by the Mint. I saw the knife. My boy had done nothing to annoy prisoner.

Police-constable JOHN COLLEY , 872, City. On June 12, about 1.50 p.m., I was outside the Mint. I saw a crowd and on going to see what was the matter found last witness holding prisoner. Smith said, "This chap (prisoner) has stabbed my boy." I took prisoner into custody. I took him to Coodman's Yard where the affair had happened, and then to the police station. When I arrested prisoner, he said, "Yes; I did it. They have all been on to me. I threw it away under the arch" (meaning the knife). I did not find it.

Cross-examined. When he said, "They have all been on to me," I naturally wondered what that meant. I have heard of a gang called the "Forties."

Dr. KARL ERNST SUNDEL , M.R.C.P., assistant resident physician at the London Hospital. On June 12 the boy George White was brought to me. He was suffering from a wound half an inch long and a quarter of an inch deep on the right side below the clavicle. The edges of the wound were clean cut. There was no deep structural injury. The wound had been caused by some sharp instrument—suggest a knife. There was no serious injury.


ROGER HELLEN (prisoner, on oath). I am a porter in the employ of the Great Eastern Railway goods department, and have been employed by the company five years. I have never had any sort of charge made against me before. I live at 4, Bushell Street, High Street, Wapping. I know a gang of boys called the "Forties." There are a number of such gangs. I went out with a gang about five times. The last time I went out was about six weeks or two months ago. Prosecutor has been in the habit of going out with them. On June

11, the day before this happened, I was done work about half-past 12 in the day, and having heard from some other boys that prosecutor wanted to fight me, I went over to Stepney to look for him. I saw him surrounded by a crowd of boys. Before I could get at him one of the boys got between us and kept me away from him. one of the boys rushed across and deliberately hit me one in the mouth One of the boys produced a revolver.

The Recorder inquired how this was material. The production of the revolver would not justify the use of a knife the next day when there were no other boys there at all.

Mr. Eustace Fulton thought it might if prosecutor and the other boys had produced a state of mind in which prisoner was in fear of being attacked, but not otherwise.

The Recorder said that anything that took place on June 11 afforded no justification at all, and he would have to tell the jury that prisoner had no right to use a knife unless his life and limb were in danger; a fortiori, whatever took place on June 11, prisoner would not have the right to use a knife the next day.

Mr. Eustace Fulton. If someone pointed a revolver at him, and he had reason to think he was in danger, he would have the right to protect himself. Surely what took place the night before would be justification.

The Recorder. Certainly not.

Prisoner, further examined, admitted taking out the knife.

ARTHUR DENNIS , bootmaker, Wapping; CHARLES HAMMOND , clerk in the cartage department of the Great Eastern Railway; HERBERT JOHN LEWIS , and Mrs. HELLEN , prisoner's mother, were called as to character, and spoke to prisoner having always borne the reputation of a peaceable and respectable man.

Upon the advice of the Recorder, prisoner withdrew his plea and pleaded guilty, and the jury returned a verdict accordingly.

The Recorder remarked that so far as the jury and himself were concerned, this was an undefended case. No one in this country was allowed to use a knife with impunity; the use of the knife was not a characteristic of English people unless there was reasonable ground to believe that life and limb were in danger, in which case a man might of course defend himself.

Mr. Dennis having intimated his willingness to be bound in the sun of £10 for prisoner's good behaviour, the Recorder allowed prisoner to enter into his own recognisances in the sum of £25 to come up for judgment if called upon.


(Wednesday, June 24.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-11
VerdictsNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

COOPER, Douglas William ; committing wilful and corrupt perjury; in incurring certain debts and liabilities to Edward Henry McLaren to wit, the sum of £178 1s. 6d. on November 14, 1906: £25 on December 5, 1906, and £200 on December 27, 1906, did unlawfully obtain credit by means of fraud.

Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., and Mr. Clarke Hall appeared to prosecute; Mr. Wildey Wright to defend.

Mr. Gill said that after considering the evidence for the prosecution he did not think there was sufficient corroboration to justify him in offering any evidence on either of the charges.

The jury accordingly returned a formal verdict of Not guilty.


(Wednesday, June 24.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-12
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

BARTER, Frank Charles (42, insurance manager), pleaded guilty of committing wilful and corrupt perjury.

Sentence, One month's imprisonment in the second division.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-13
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BROWN, William (62, labourer), pleaded guilty of maliciously damaging by night one plate glass window to the amount of £60. Two previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-14
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

BEVINGTON, Arthur Claude (54, traveller), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering a certain order for the payment of money—to wit, a Post Office order for £1, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Frederick McLaren the several sums of £2 0s. 1d. and £5 5s., and from Edwin Burrows the several sums of £4 5s., 1 1/2 d. and £5 13s. 10 1/2 d., in each case with intent to defraud. He also confessed to a conviction of felony at this Court on September 8, 1907. Prisoner was said to have forced his sons and a daughter to try and pass cheques which they knew to be worthless. He had conducted an extensive series of frauds through the "Exchange and Mart" and was said to be the worst fraud in London.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-15
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

CORNELIUS, James , feloniously embezzling and stealing on March 5, 1908, the sum of £1 3s. 11d., on March 7, 1908, the sum of 3s., and on March 10, 1908, the sum of 11s. 2d., received by him for and on account of John Harrison, Limited, his masters; embezzling and stealing on February 7, 1908, the sum of 11s. 4d. On February 14, 1908, the sum of 18s. 5d., and on February 15, 1908, the sum of £6 1s. 1d., received by him for and on account of his said masters; embezzling and stealing on February 28, 1908, the sum of 13s. 5d.; on same day the sum of £5 13s. 1d., and on same day the sum of 3s. 6d., received by him for and an account of his said masters.

No evidence was offered, and the Jury, on the direction of the Judge, returned a verdict of Not guilty.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-16
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

ELLIOTT, Walter Keith (29), pleaded guilty of ,obtaining from the Waldorf Hotel Company, Limited, on April 23, 1908, the sum of £2; on April 24, 1908, the sum of £5, and on April 25, 1908, the sums of £3 and £2, in each case by false pretences, with intent to defraud; stealing a blank cheque form of the value of one penny, the property of Madeline Marie Auguste Coke.

Mr. George Phillips prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett appeared for prisoner.

Sergeant RAVIS said the prisoner was an Englishman, born at Cannes. He went to school at Brighton and then at Cheltenham. He was expelled from the latter school for ordering goods from tradesmen and not paying them. He afterwards went to Australia, where he married the daughter of some wealthy people. He left that country, deserting his wife, having drawn bills on a London firm, the principal of which was a friend of his father's, which he had no right to draw. He worked his passage to America and eventually got into trouble in a lumber district. He came back to England, but a relative at once shipped him back to New York. He next appeared in Switzerland, where he stole a man's cheque book and forged cheques. He went back to Australia and stayed with his wife for eight months and then went to India. In 1902 he got into the hands of moneylenders and was made bankrupt. He has an income of nearly £1, 000 a year, which is mortgaged till next year. He had settled £8, 000 on his wife when he married her. He had taken a house in Elgin Avenue and run up bills for servants' wages and rent, which he had never paid. At the time of his arrest he appeared to have been drinking very heavily for some time.

Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment (second division).

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-17
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

WEST, Thomas (25, gardener) , feloniously setting fire to gorse and wood at Harrow Weald Common, the property of Sir William Gilbert and others.

Mr. Macdonald prosecuted.

JOHN GREEN , 1, Hutton Court, Bushey Heath. On the evening of May 21 I was on Harrow Weald Common at about a quarter to eight p.m., and my attention was called to a fire burning on the common. I went over and saw prisoner deliberately light the gorse with matches in two places. Not seeing a keeper, I went to Sir William Gilbert's, and when I returned the prisoner was taken into custody by a police-sergeant. I know prisoner by sight.

Sergeant AYLING , S Division. I was called to Harrow Weald Common on the evening of May 21, and on my arrival I arrested prisoner for having set fire to the gorse. On the way to the police station prisoner said, "I did not hurt nobody." When charged he said, "I do not know nothing about it. I did not hurt anybody."

Dr. JAMES SCOTT , medical officer, Brixton Prison. I have had prisoner under observation since May 22. His mind is weak and he is considerably below the average intelligence, although I could not say he was insane. He had had some drink, and was not a man who could carry drink at all well.

Mr. SCOTT-FRANCE, Court missionary, said that prisoner's people were very respectable agricultural workers, and they and the witness would look after prisoner if he were liberated. He was accordingly released on his own recognisances.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-18
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HOWARD, Arthur, otherwise Alfred John SNAPE (35, steward), pleaded guilty to stealing the sum of £6 9s. 10d., the moneys of Lockhart's, Limited, his masters. He was then indicted for feloniously marrying Emma Lizzie Macdonald, his wife being then alive.

Mr. Day prosecuted.

SARAH TAYLOR , Denmark Farm, South Coley, Yorks. I was present at the parish church at the marriage of Alfred John Snape and my sister. Prisoner is the man I knew as Snape. I produce copy of the marriage register. I last saw my sister a fortnight ago and she is still living.

To Prisoner. You lived at Brow Lane at the time of the marriage.

EMMA LIZZIE MACDONALD . I manage a shop for my brother at 227, Blackstock Road, Highbury. I first met prisoner in 1903 at one of my brother's shops, where he was employed. He said he was a single man, and, on March 19, 1905, I went through the ceremony of marriage with him at West Hackney Church, Stoke Newington. He left me on April 17 of the same year. By advertising in "Lloyd's News" I found him, and he came back in December, 1906, and I lived with him again for six months. I never saw him or heard from him again till a few weeks ago. I have had two children—one is living.

Sergeant HUGH HUNT , C Division. I first got into touch with prisoner on June 3 this year at Grimsby, where he was detained on another charge. When I charged him he said, "I considered my first marriage was not a legal one as the clergyman married us right away without having the usual notice, because my wife was in trouble. I petitioned several times regarding this, but no notice was taken. The second wife wrote me while I was away and I answered her letter, but I have not seen or heard of her since." When charged at Bow Street he said, "It is not a bigamous marriage." I have compared the certificates (produced) with those at Somerset House and find them to be correct.


ARTHUR HOWARD (prisoner, on oath). In 1906 I asked advice about this marriage ceremony, which took place at Coley Parish Church, as I had doubts as to its legality, and I was informed it was illegal as the banns should have been published in the parish in which I resided and the parish in which the lady resided; this was not done. My residence at the time of that marriage was Haworth's Hotel, 20, South Gate, Halifax, where I was employed as baker and cook. I produce copy of the banns taken from Coley Parish Church.

Cross-examined. My wife had nothing to do with the publication of the banns. (To the Judge.) The Rev. William Davenport said

the marriage would not be legal, but as it was a little church it would not matter.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction at this Court of felony on March 6, 1899.

Sergeant HUGH HUNT , recalled. Prisoner's age is 35. He deserted his first wife 12 months alter marriage. He was charged at Halifax in 1896 with embezzling his employer's money, but the charge was not pressed. In the same year he stole £15 and goods value £10 He bigamously married Minnie Annie Gale at Whitechapel on December 22, 1898, in the name of Arthur Howard. He managed an eating-house in Whitechapel Road, from which he absconded with £22 odd of his employer's money and the savings of the woman. In March, 1899, he was sentenced at this Court to five years' penal servitude for bigamy. After coming out he seduced a young kitchenmaid, who obtained an affiliation order against him. On March 19, 1905, he married his employer's sister, the prosecutor. He absconded from Lockhart's on June 17, 1906, with £6 odd. Afterwards he became acquainted with a young woman from Ollerton Park, Yorks. On the day of his arrest in Grimsby he was about to marry another woman.

Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour on each charge, to run concurrently.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-19
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

ROBINSON, William Frederick (45, accountant), pleaded guilty of fraudulently obtaining from Barnet Nimerosky a quantity of cigarettes, an ounce of tobacco, a pouch, and 11s. 6d. by means of false pretences, and with intent to defraud; and to obtaining from Herbert William Holmes some photographic films and 9s. in money.

Mr. Wellington prosecuted; Mr. Day appeared for prisoner.

Prisoner was said to have passed worthless cheques all over London to the amount of £300 odd; he never appeared to have done any regular work.

Sentence, Six months' imprisonment (second division).

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-20
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WAGGOTT, Jeffrey Ernest (25, window dresser), pleaded guilty of unlawfully taking Hilda Florence Broadbridge, a girl under the age of 18 years, out of the custody, and against the will of her father, Frederick Charles Broadbridge, with intent to carnally know the said Hilda Florence Broadbridge.

Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.


(Thursday, June 25.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-21
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

McINTYRE, William (44, costermonger) ; feloniously wounding Mary Trickett, with intent to kill and murder her or with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Wing prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

MARY TRICKETT . For nearly 12 months I lived with prisoner as his wife; I left him a fortnight before May 11. On that day, at 17 in the morning, prisoner came to my brother's house, 81, Ford Street, Bow, where I was living, and asked me to go back to him. I refused, and he went away. He came back at half-past two; I was then in the house alone. He again asked me to go back to him. I said, "No." That we could not agree, so it was useless to keep talking. My sister in-law, Mrs. Jones, came in and told him to go away. He said he had not come there to be ordered about. Mrs. Jones then went to the street door, and prisoner immediately came straight across the kitchen and cut my throat and then ran away. I did not see the knife. Previously to this, prisoner had kicked me and knocked me about.

Cross-examined. I am all right now, although there is some pain. Prisoner was upset at my refusing to go back to him, and he was crying. He only cut me with the knife once. As he did it he cried out, "I will do you in."

Mrs. ELIZABETH JONES . I was present when prisoner called and saw my sister-in-law on the morning of May 11. He asked her whether she would go round to his room and take what belonged to her, as he was going to give up the room that night. She asked him to bring her clothes round there in her box. He went away and returned with the box. Then he called again a third time; I was out then. When I returned he was in the kitchen, with prosecutrix. I said that if he had told her what he had got to say he had best be going. He said he had not come to be ordered about. I said I would see that he was ordered out. I went to the door to get one of the children to go for a policeman. I then heard Trickett scream; I turned and saw that he had cut her throat; he was just passing the knife into his pocket. He came back a fourth time, soon after he had done this and asked for his strap, which was on the box.

Police-constable WALTER SEYMOUR , 776 K. On May 11, at 5.45 p.m., I saw prisoner in Old Ford Road. I told him I should arrest him for cutting a woman's throat at 81, Ford Street that afternoon. He said, "That's right; I shall have to face the music; I did not mean to hurt her; I have kept the b—cow for 12 months; she has been the ruin of me." On his being searched at the station there were found on him the poker and knife produced.

Cross-examined. Prisoner sells sweets on a barrow in the streets; the knife is one that he uses in his business for cutting up nougat, etc.

Dr. THOMAS G. STURKE , 130, Roman Road, Bow. On the day in question I was called to attend to prosecutrix; she was in a state of semi-collapse, with her throat cut. There ware two wounds—one on the left side, about half an inch deep; another about 2 1/2 in. long, running straight up the middle line under the chin, about the same depth. Neither wound was dangerous; they might have been inflicted with the knife produced; they might have been dangerous had the knife been sharper. I should think that considerable force must have been used.

Sergeant RICHARD NORRIS said that when charged at the station prisoner replied, "Just so; it was simply a threat."

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate. "On May 11. about nine a.m., I went round to see prosecutrix, as I heard she was unwell I found her in the kitchen and I advised her to go to the infirmary; I asked if she would come back to me when she was better. I then left her. As I was going out she called me back and asked me to bring her a few of her articles from the house. I went back with them about three or four hours after and I asked for the box that I took them in. She would not give it to me back. She became excited and ordered me out of the house. I turned and said to her, 'You little she-devil, you ought to have your head cut off,' and I suited the action to the word with an old knife I had in my pocket, not with any idea of hurting her whatever. With that I left the house. I went back an hour after to demand the box and strap again. There was nothing said to me that I had done any harm whatever. At five o'clock I went to the house again. I was walking along Old Ford Road when a constable said he would take me into custody for wounding a woman in the neck; that was the first I heard that I had done any harm."

Verdict, Guilty of unlawfully wounding. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-22
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown; Guilty > lesser offence
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WHITE, Henry (26, engineer), and WHITE, Edith (20, shop assistant). were indicted together for stealing from a dwelling house a bedstead and other articles, the goods of Walter Penfold.

Mr. G. W. H. Jones prosecuted.

Mrs. ELLIN PINFOLD . I have three rooms at 96, Winchester Street, King's Cross. I let the middle one to the female prisoner at 7s. 6d. a week and the two prisoners lived there for some time as man and wife. On May 5 I left home for a few days; I locked up the doors of my two rooms, and everything was quite safe. On the 7th I returned and found one room had been forced and the other had been opened with a key and all the furniture was gone, that from my rooms and that which belonged to me from the room rented to prisoners. I valued the property at £52. I identify the articles produced as part of my property, which I left locked up on May 5.

To Henry White. I did not see you on Easter Monday and did not tell you that I wanted to sell some of my furniture.

Mrs. EMILY RUFF , 93, Victoria Road, Alexandra Park, daughter of last witness. I went to my mother's house on May 6; her two rooms were then locked up. I saw the female prisoner. I got the keys from the landlady and went into the rooms and found everything sale. On leaving I again locked up the rooms. On May 8 I went to the place and found all the things had been taken away.

Mrs. BEATRICE DUPOIS . I live at 96, Winchester Street, and hold the keys in the absence of tenants. When Mrs. Penfold left on May 5 she left her keys with me. On the 7th a van was brought and I saw the two prisoners assisting to remove Mrs. Penfold's furniture. I asked Edith White whether she was moving. She said, "Yes." I

asked her where she was going to. She said to Shepherd's Bush and showed me a receipt for 5s. deposit that had been paid on a place there.

To Henry White. On Easter Monday you were helping Mrs. Penfold to put her place straight. I was there, but I did not hear her tell you that she wanted to sell some of her furniture.

To the Court. I heard Mrs. Penfold give female prisoner instructions to take her things to Shepherd's Bush if she saw her way to do so. I supposed Mrs. Penfold was going to live there.

Mrs. ANNIE DOUGLAS , 8, Chalcot Road, Tottenham. Henry White is my son. Early in May he came and asked me if he might leave some furniture at my place for a week or two, as he wanted to store it until he got settled down. I assented, and he brought the furniture. On May 20 Edith White called on me and said the furniture was hers, or as much hers as his.

Mrs. MAUD FOX, another tenant, of 96, Wincheste Street, said she saw the two prisoners on May 7 assisting to put the furniture into the van.

Sergeant ROBERT SHARPE , N Division. On May 26 I saw Edith White at North London Police Court and told her I had a warrant for her arrest in the name of Edie Flowers for being concerned with Harry Douglas in stealing a suite of furniture and other property of the value of £52 15s. At the police station I said to her, "I believe that skirt you are wearing is some of the clothing stolen." She said, "No, it is not; I paid 8d. for it in Chapel Street." She also said that the lace collar she was wearing she had picked up in Mrs. Penfold's room. When charged she replied, "There was others in it besides me, and if she says the value of the furniture is £50 she tells lies; it is not worth £20."

Called upon for his defence, the male prisoner asked to have read a statement he wrote from gaol. In this he stated that Mrs. Penfold told him that she wanted to sell some of her furniture; that he said he had not got the money to pay for it, but would give her some jewellery for it, and that he gave her and her husband at the end of April and early in May £80 worth of jewellery. The whole lot of furniture was not worth £30. The reason he wrote this statement was to get an innocent girl out of this trouble; Edith White never knew anything at all and was always getting at him for having taken the things away.

Mrs. PENFOLD , recalled, swore that she had never sold the furniture to Henry White and never had any jewellery from him. She admitted having been imprisoned for keeping disorderly houses.

EDITH WHITE , in her defence, handed in a written statement, in which she confirmed Henry White's story about jewellery being given to the prosecutrix.

Verdict, Edith White, Not guilty; Henry White, Guilty.

Henry White was then indicted for feloniously wounding James Sherman with intent to kill and murder him or with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

JAMES SHERMAN , 37, Barrons Road, Stamford Hill. On May 16 my wife and I went out for a walk at nine in the evening and returned about an hour later. I went in by the area door. I went upstairs, leaving my wife in the basement. I noticed that there was a light turned up in the sitting room. We both went into the room and found everything in great confusion. I then began to go upstairs and prisoner came rushing down. I caught hold of him, and he began beating me about the head with some heavy instrument. He got away and went out of the front door. I followed him down the steps and chased him down the road, and eventually he was captured. I was laid up for a fortnight and am still under the doctor's care. I identify some of the articles produced as property taken from my house.

Dr. LESLIE DURVO . I was called to attend to prosecutor on May 16 He was suffering from a contused wound, 1 1/2 in. long, on the top of the cranium; there was a cut right across the scalp, exposing the bone; there were other wounds on the forehead, on the nose, and on both arms; several arteries were cut. The injuries were of such a nature that they might have been inflicted with the jemmy produced. The blows must have been given with very great force. Three or four of the wounds were such as might have been sufficient to endanger life.

Inspector JOHN MARTIN , N Division. On the night of May 16 I saw prisoner at Stoke Newington Police Station and charged him with the attempted murder of James Sherman and other charges. He replied, "They (Mr. and Mrs. Sherman) came on top of me. He put his arms round my neck, and when I was arrested they all put their sticks up like this."

Police-constable WILLIAM BENTLEY , 517 N. On May 16 I went to Cazenove Road, where I saw prisoner being held on the ground by several people. I took hold of him and asked him what he had been doing. He made no reply. I took from him the silver box produced. I asked him where he got it from. He said, "I do not know the house, but it was up there, somewhere," pointing towards Barrons Road. On being searched at the station the other articles produced were found upon him.

FREDERICK WINGATE , coachman, 11, Besborough Road. On the night in question I was in Grove Lane. I heard shouts of "Stop that man!" and saw prisoner running. I gave chase, with two or three others. In Osbaldiston Road he ran into a garden and crouched is a corner. I said to him, "Come out of that." He came towards me and, all of a sudden, he made a rush at me; I struggled with him: he hit me a blow in the mouth with something hard and got away. I again went after him and he then struck me with a jemmy. The other man who were trying to hold him struck out with their sticks and he struck out with the jemmy right and left, saying "I will kill you." I managed to trip him up and I then took this jemmy from his hand.

Verdict, Guilty of wounding, with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Prisoner pleaded guilty to the burglary in Sherman's house and to wounding Mrs. Sherman and Wingate. He confessed to a conviction at Leeds Quarter Sessions on April 9, 1906, and several other convictions were proved.

Sentence, Seven years' penal servitude.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-23
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

WHITEMAN, William Herbert ; feloniously sending to Charles Leonard Still, knowing the contents thereof, a certain letter, demanding of the said Charles Leonard Still, with menaces and without reasonable or probable cause, certain moneys, alleged to be due from the said Charles Leonard Still to himself under a promissory note for £80 made by the said Charles Leonard Still.

Mr. Ritter prosecuted; Mr. Horace Avory, K. C., and Mr. Leycester defended.

CHARLES LEONARD STILL , canvasser, Sidcup. Prisoner is a registered moneylender, carrying on business in the name of Seymour and Whiteman. Towards the end of 1904 I borrowed from him £20 on a promissory note for £40. I paid instalments for some seven or eight months. Finding that I had almost paid the note off I asked prisoner to lend me another £10, for which I signed a fresh promissory note. The note was left in prisoner's possession. Subsequently I paid 12 or 13 instalments, up to January, 1906; then I had to file my petition in bankruptcy. I did not return prisoner as a creditor, because, knowing that I had paid so much back, I felt that I had paid more than the principal and the interest. Early in 1907 I met prisoner. He referred to my position as a bankrupt and asked what I was going to do; I said I was going to do nothing. In August I again met him. He referred to my bankruptcy and to my not having returned him as a creditor, which he said was a criminal offence; he also spoke of my having given a bill of sale, which also he said was a criminal offence and he threatened to expose me to the Official Receiver. This frightened me, as I had no knowledge of the law. I accordingly went to his office. He turned his books up and said, "The bill I hold from you, with the interest to date, comes to about £80; if you like to sign a bill for £80 and pay me per month it will just be between you and ourselves and we will say nothing about it." Prisoner was right in saying that I had given a bill of sale. In my bankruptcy my furniture was estimated at £140. Some of my friends bought the furtniture for that amount, and a little time after they suggested that if I gave them a bill of sale on the furniture it would be an additional security; this I did. Being alarmed by prisoner's threats, I signed a promissory note for £80; I did not read the note and thought it was for £40 only.

The charge, as opened by Mr. Ritter, was based upon a letter, dated, August 21, 1907, from prisoner to prosecutor, saying, "We are determined to have this matter settled, and now give you final notice that unless we receive the overdue instalment by 12 o'clock noon to-morrow we shall immediately expose this Bill of Sale transaction." Mr. Ritter's contention was (1) that this was demanding with menaces; (2) that it was demanding "without reasonable and probable

cause," inasmuch as the effect of prosecutors bankruptcy, whether prisoner was returned as a creditor or not, was to wipe out his and every other debt, and that therefore prisoner when he got the second promissory note must have known that he obtained it by duress.

Mr. Justice Ridley intervened at this stage of the evidence; he ruled that, if a bankrupt did not return. A. B. as a creditor, the bankruptcy was no bar to a subsequent claim by A. B.; that in this case there was, within the section, "reasonable and probable cause" for prisoner's demand; that a question of civil dispute was introduced; and that it would not be safe to convict. The jury accordingly returned a verdict of Not guilty.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-24
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BROGWELL, John (48, dealer) ; carnally knowing Lily Love, a girl under the age of 13 years. Mr. W. Clarke Hall prosecuted. Verdict, Guilty of attempting to carnally know. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.


(Thursday, June 25.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-25
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

KEMPTON, George Henry, otherwise David Franks (24, traveller) ; stealing one purse and the sum of £24, the goods and money of James Botten, from his person.

Mr. O. M. Wilshire prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

Police-constable EDWARD WALKER , 900 City. On June 7 I was on duty in St. James's Place, Aldgate. A crowd had gathered, owing to the fact that it was the Sunday prior to Bank Holiday, and the gipsies go there to make extensive purchases for the holiday, buying cocoanuts and other things. St. James's Place was formerly a nut and orange market. The crowd on this occasion numbered about 200 persons. I had been engaged in dispersing the crowd, with the assistance of other constables, when Mr. Isaacs came up and spoke to me. I saw prisoner there. He accosted prosecutor and put his right hand on his left shoulder. Botten, the prosecutor, is a gipsy Then I saw prisoner's left hand go sharp into prosecutor's trousers pocket. I was about half a dozen yards off. I could not see whether prisoner had anything in his hand as he drew it back, as the two confederates who were with him moved. Then all three hurried away together. I went up to prosecutor and said, "Have you lost anything?" In consequence of the communication he made to me I went after prisoner and stopped him. The other two men made off into the crowd. I said to prisoner, "Where is the Purse you took from that man's pocket just now?" He said, "have not spoken to anyone." I said, "What did you say to that man as you took hold of him by the arm just now?" He replied, "I was simply advising him to go away." I said, "Yes, and putting your left hand into his

side pocket at the same time." Just at that time prosecutor came up with another constable, and prisoner said, "I have not got a half-penny on me. Search me." I then said, "After what I have seen I shall take you to the station," and I told the other officer to bring prosecutor down. At the station when he was searched £21 in gold was found loose in his right side trousers pocket and 14s. silver loose in his left trousers pocket. There was no purse. About three hours afterwards, as I was working the beat, I found the purse lying empty behind the Boswick gates of No. 39, Duke Street. The doorway there is about 5 ft. back. I had not taken prisoner that way to the station, but that was the direction in which the other two men went.

Cross-examined. When I asked prisoner where the purse was he did say, "Me! You have made a mistake!" I said that before the Alderman, but it has since slipped my memory. Mr. Botten had been having a quarrel with somebody, what he calls "arguing the point," and there had been an excited crowd round. There is a regular market in St. James's Place and an especially big trade is done on the Sunday before Bank Holiday. I did not catch hold of prisoner at once after what I had seen, because I am allowed to use my own discretion. It was not a minute after prisoner went away that I arrested him. I asked him at the station where he had got this money from; he refused to give any account of it and said it was his. The crowd was hostile and would have torn me to pieces if I had not had assistance.

JOSEPH ISAACS , fruit salesman, Glee Church Lane. I was in St. James's Square on June 7 and was talking to the constable and saw prisoner trying to persuade prosecutor to go away, but I was not near enough to hear what he said. I saw him put his left hand into prosecutor's trousers pocket. I did not notice whether prisoner was in company with other persons. I could not say whether there was anything in prisoner's hand when he drew it out, as I only saw the back of it. I made a communication to the constable, who immediately spoke to the prosecutor. Constable Walker then arrested prisoner.

Cross-examined. I never lost sight of prisoner from the time he left prosecutor till the time the constable put his hand upon him.

JAMES BOTTEN , flower hawker. I was buying cocoanuts in St. James's Place on June 7. On Sundays we make it a rule to go and get cocoanuts. I had £24 in a washleather purse in my left hand trousers pocket. I had five shillings in loose silver, which was left in my pocket. When the constable spoke to me I put my hand in my pocket and found the purse was gone. Prisoner had previously come up to me and said, "Old man, get out of the row." I had been arguing with the man what was selling to me.

Cross-examined. I had been having a little trouble with a man I had a row with at Easter—I was naturally a little excited. A woman also told me to go away, but she did not touch or push me. The purse opens with two hasps or balls at the top. (To the Court.) It is very easy to get the purse open, turn it over, and get the money out.

Police-constable DYSON SHARP , 927 City. I was not on duty in St. James's Place on June 7, but, coming through there, I saw a crowd and went towards it. I saw prisoner and prosecutor standing together. I heard some reference to a bet, but what it was I could not say. Prosecutor said, "I have plenty of money," and put his left hand into his pocket and drew it out with his fist closed as if he had something in it. He then put his hand back again into his pocket and kept it there for a few minutes. While prosecutor had his hand in his pocket and his elbow out, prisoner put his hand upon his elbow and said, "Come away, old man." They then moved away and went and stood at the corner of the street. I thought it was a came worth watching and I kept observation upon the two men. At the same time I observed that they were being already watched by the officer Walker and Mr. Isaacs. I stood a little way away, mingled with the crowd, but not so far away that I could not see all that was going on. I saw prisoner reach out his hand in the direction of prosecutor's pocket and then walk away. Then there was a general rush towards the prisoner, I crossing over to the front of him. Walker took hold of the prisoner first and said, "Where is the purse you have taken?" Prisoner said, "I have not got his puree. I have not got any money." Then he held his arms up and said, "Search me Prisoner had gone, I should think, 20 or 30 yards before he was spoken to by Walker. I was at the station when the £21 in gold and 14s. in silver was found upon prisoner. He said the money was his own and declined to give any further account of it. He was asked by the inspector where he got it from.

Cross-examined. I was keeping careful observation because I suspected some of the parties there. I did not see prisoner put his hand into prosecutors pocket. It was impossible for me to see that as there were so many people about. I am certain prisoner said, "I have not got any money", and not "I have not got his money." There was a great noise, but I am certain I did not make that mistake. I was standing directly in front of him.


HENTRY KEMPTON (prisoner, on oath). I am at present living at 34, Great Alie Street, Aldgate. On Saturday, June 6, I had a good day at Kempton Park races, and there met a man named Joseph Goldschmidt, a diamond merchant. We travelled home together in the same train and there was conversation about a diamond ring. I asked him if he had got the ring about which I had previously spoken to him. He said yes, but would take nothing less than £15, and showed me a three stone gipsy diamond ring. I took the ring on "appro.," and he told me if it did not suit me I could return it and he would give me back the £15. Next day we met by appointment in Houndsditch, and went to the "Three Tuns." I told him I did not see my way clear to give him £15 for the ring, but would give him £13. He said, "No, you will not get the best of me for £2," so I gave him back the ring and he handed back the £15. Besides

that I had £6 or £7 when I left my house. We stayed at the "Three Tuns" until closing time, and then came back to St. James's Place, where there was a crowd. Goldschmidt met a customer with whom he entered into conversation, and I went towards the crowd. Prosecutor was in a very excited state, and everybody was coaxing him to go way, so I had a word too. I said, "Why don't you go away, old man?" and he said what a good fellow I was, and something about me being the eight-stone champion of the world. It is not true that I slipped my hand into his left-hand trousers pocket. When the constable came up to me, he said, "Excuse me, you have got this man's purse." I said, "Excuse me. I have not. You have made a mistake if you think I have got this man's purse. Search me and take me into custody." I also said, "I have plenty of money on me."At the station I declined to give any account of the money because I was wrongly accused. The constable asked me where were my two confederates, and I said I had none. The £21 14s. found on me was the mosey I had when I left my house and the £15 Mr. Goldschmidt had given me.

Cross-examined. Goldschmidt came to the station to see me and attended at the Mansion House. This is the first time. I have mentioned Goldschmidt's name in connection with the matter. I did not call him at the Mansion House because the magistrate appeared to want to sentence me there and then.

The Recorder. You must not say that. That is taking away the character of the learned magistrate. I cannot allow you to say that.

Prisoners. I am not saying anything about the gentleman (Alderman Sir Thomas Crosby). I can only say he seemed more inclined to believe the policeman than he did to believe me.

The Recorder. You could not possibly know that.

Cross-examination continued. I was represented by a solicitor and reserved my defence. This is the first time I have made my explanation in Court of how I came to be possessed of that large sum of money, but I told my solicitor previously. I won about £16 at Kempton Park. I had nine to three about Highland Maid and it won. I lost £3 on the next event on Scarpia. I did not back another horse until the race before the last, when I backed Victrix at 10 to 1. Had she lost I should only have won £5; winning I won £16. Mr. Goldschmidt is a respectable diamond merchant of Hatton Garden, and lives at Parkholme Road, Dalston. I have known him to speak to about six months. I have been in South Africa since I was a child until about two years ago. My employment is that of a casual bookmaker's clerk or penciller. I had about £9 when I went down to Kempton, having had change for a £10 note when I left Epsom the day before. My governor (Alf. Cox) gave it to me. He is not in England at present. He is the betting man I work for. He is in Switzerland. He won a lot of money over Signorinetta. He did not write her name, or rather I did not. What the constables and Isaacs have sworn is absolutely false. I do not remember the names of the bookmakers with whom I made the bets at Kempton.

Going about and putting on £1 here and £1 there you forget the bookmakers unless you know them personally.

JOSEPH GOLDSCHMIDT spoke to meeting prisoner coming off the Kempton course on June 6, and detailed the transactions respecting the diamond ring. After prisoner had been arrested witness went to the police station and asked to see the inspector, but was told he could not see him until after the charge was booked. He was afterwards communicated with, and made a statement to Mr. Margetts, the solicitor.

Cross-examined. I have myself come in conflict with the police. There was a little trouble about a bracelet I bought, but it was proved I was innocent. That was about six years ago. The bracelet was part of the proceeds of a big burglary, and I was charged with breaking and entering, but the case was stopped by Commissioner Lumley Smith. Also about 25 years ago I took a box of cigars that I had on commission and disposed of the money. The man charged me, and I was fined £2 or 14 days. I have known prisoner two years. I sold him a couple of little rings some time ago.

To the Court. I do not keep a shop but live private, and dispose of my property to customers in Hatton Garden, where I also buy.

(Friday, June 26.)

Verdict, Guilty.

Detective FREDERICK WEISS , City Police, proved a conviction at the Mansion House last November, when prisoner was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour as a rogue and vagabond in the name of David Franks for attempting to pick pockets. He was then arrested with two other well-known thieves, one of whom was on license at the time. In September of the same year he was bound over at Bow Street for malicious wounding, as the result of a drunken brawl, in the name of George Henry Kempton. Very little is known about him. He stated that in South Africa he had been a jockey.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour. The Recorder expressed the opinion that the defence and the calling of Mr. Goldschmidt were unsatisfactory.


(Thursday, June 25.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-26
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

PRICE, George (17, labourer) ; feloniously shooting at John Jones with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Spreull prosecuted.

JOHN JONES , 14, Devonshire Street, Islington. On June 10, about 11 o'clock, I was in Essex Road, when about five lads called me over, and then they all started setting about me. I ran away and someone halloed out, "Help!" A policeman came along and ran after

them. Price was caught in St. Peter Street. When they started setting about me prisoner took a revolver from his pocket and fired, shooting Collis in the leg. Collis was one of those setting about me. I was struggling with him when prisoner fired. (To Prisoner.) You pulled the revolver out of your pocket and pointed it at me. (To the Judge.) He was firing towards my head more than anything. I do not know if Collis's head was near my leg. I had my head down because Collis was punching me. I had no revolver on me. I had not got a chopper with me. There was another chap with me, Thomas Laban. On another occasion there were about 30 of these boys against us; there were about 15 of us. That was about six months ago. We do not belong to any gang.

THOMAS HENRY LABAN , 47, Cornwall Cottages, Popham Street, Islington. On June 10, about 11.30 a.m., I was walking with Jones along Essex Road, when about five fellows called Jones across the road. As he got across Collis rushed at him and punched him. Prisoner and two others were there. Jones ran away and they ran after him. Then prisoner pulled a revolver from his pocket and fired in the direction of Jones, whom Collis was punching. The bullet caught Collis above the knee as he was struggling with Jones.

To Prisoner. Jones had got halfway across the road when you went after him. There were three fellows on our side altogether. I do not know the other fellow's name. We had just come from work. There were more than three of you.

HENRY PEVITT , 36, Carlton Road, Islington, bookbinder. On June 10 last I was in Essex Road about 11.35 a.m., when I saw about four lads hitting Jones outside a bootmaker's shop. Prisoner was one of them. The four lads ran into the road and Jones ran after them; then prisoner pulled out a shooter from his overcoat pocket and tried to aim at Jones, but missed him and caught one of his companions. Jones was doing nothing at the time. (To the Judge.) The boy who was hit was in the road doing nothing; he was standing and hopping. No one ran away before the shooting. The running away was after the shooting. Before the shooting took place they all hit Jones.

WILLIAM COLLIS , 20, Windsor Terrace, City Road. I have been out of employment for six weeks. On June 10, about 11 a.m., I was in Essex Road. I do not know what happened; I heard a click and felt a pain in the leg, but I took no notice and walked straight on. Before that I had been standing looking in a shop window. I walked on till I got to New North Road when I pulled my trousers up and saw what was the matter. I was took to the hospital on a barrow. I did not see who shot me.

To Prisoner. I do not know whether I was standing by the side of you. I was not hitting Jones. (To the Judge.) I knew Jones and Price before. I saw no other lads there, nor did I see Price. I have seen the latter waiting for Price at his workshop with a chopper; that was about eight weeks back. I saw no boys at all at this place where the affair occurred.

Police-constable FRANK SIMS , 379 N. On June 10, about a quarter to 10, I was in Essex Road when I saw a crowd of people. I was going to see what was the matter when the prisoner ran away. I was told he had shot someone, and gave chase. He was caught and taken to the station, and subsequently charged. He was searched, and I found on him 40 cartridges in an old glove in one of his pockets.

Dr. WALTER GRIFFIN , St. Bartholomew's Hospital. On June 10 I saw Collis in the out-patients' department. He had a small bullet wound about two inches above the right knee joint in the posterior region. I took the bullet out about two days later. I have not seen him since.

Prisoner's statement: "I did not fire at Jones. As I pulled it out of my pocket it went off and nearly shot myself. I was going to fire it in the air to frighten them."

Prisoner said nothing in defence.

Verdict, Guilty. It was stated that prisoner was a member of "The Silver Hatchet Gang," which frequents Hoxton and Essex Road. Jones was at one time a member of the gang, but had left, and the others had a grievance against him. Prisoner had been bound over at Clerkenwell Police Court for disorderly conduct in the streets with this gang. He had been a hard-working lad otherwise.

The Common Serjeant said that this sort of thing must be stopped. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour, with recommendation to be put under Borstal system.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-27
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

PARKIN, James (58, labourer) ; indecently assaulting a certain male person, William Newbury; committing an act of gross indecency with another male person, to wit, the said William Newbury.

Verdict, Not guilty.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-28
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

BUMPUS, Henry Francis, pleaded guilty of, in incurring a certain debt and liability to the amount of £375 to John Kirk, obtaining credit under false pretences. Prisoner had in obtaining a loss in June, 1907, allowed his financial position to be misstated in a form which he had to fill up. In October last he became bankrupt, and then it was that the prisoner disclosed this transaction, as a result of which disclosure the Bankruptcy officials reported to the public Prosecutor. Four instalments had been repaid on the £375 borrowed by prisoner. There was nothing against his character previously, and he was released on his own recognisances in £200 to come up for judgment if called upon.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-29
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SMITH, Walter Charles (29, traveller); obtaining by false pretences from George Humphrey Knight the sum of £10 in money, with intent to defraud.

Mr. W. H. Friend prosecuted.

GEORGE HUMPHREY KNIGHT , 130, Queen's Road, Plaistow, furniture dealer. On May 25 prisoner came to me to get me to insure my glass

and my premises against fire. I had never seen him before. I did insure, and told him if he would come round to my room I would try and get my neighbours to insure also. On Tuesday night, the 26th, I told him I was going to Stratford Market to an auction sale for horses and traps to-morrow. Then I said, "I suppose you do not know of any bargains going in the way of horses and vans, do you?" He said "No." On the next day about noon prisoner came to me outside my shop and spoke in a hesitating manner. I said, "Speak up, man, what is it you have to say—those who hesitate are lost!" He said, "You were talking to me about a horse and trap. I have a brother-in-law who is general manager to a Mr. J. Mark." He then gave me a card, "J. Mark and Son, Warnford Court, Throgmorton Avenue, E. C." I arranged to meet prisoner on Friday near the post office, at London Wall, I think it is called. I don't know much about the City. I met him in a place called "The Talbot," a monstrous great place. Prisoner was very ill on my meeting him. Afterwards a Mr. Harry Wilson, prisoner's so-called brother-in-law, came, supposed to be general manager to Mr. Mark. Prisoner introduced him to me as such. Wilson said to prisoner, "Your sister has been inquiring for you; if you don't consult a specialist she is very angry." Then he said to me, "My brother-in-law has told you the case of this business, has not he?" Then prisoner went out, followed by the other man. Later on prisoner came back and the other one came just after. He said, "It is no good, Charlie, the guv'nor will have £10." I had previously said I had only £4 10s. on me. He went on, "This man is a man of straw and has not got it; it will go to Token, house Yard." This was referring to a horse and trap that was supposed to be worth £50, and I was to pay £10 deposit—£20 in all. I said, "I can get it, but it will take three days." Prisoner then said, "Nonsense, man, you can get it in an hour by telegram for a few pence." Then I said that I should have to go back to Plaistow for my book. I and prisoner went there, and I got my book. Afterwards I went with my brother-in-law (Mr. Stott) and prisoner to the Plaistow Post Office. I told the postmistress that I wanted to draw £20 out for a horse and van. She said I could only draw £10 by telegram. She wrote the paper out for me and I asked her to make it payable in a few days. Then Smith whispered that I should have to wait two hours before I could get it, "Come up to the Throgmorton Post Office." So I asked the lady to make it payable at Throgmorton Post Office. We waited till after six o'clock and then I got the £10, which I took into the "Talbot" and counted out the 10 sovereigns into prisoner's hands; then the latter tilted them into Wilson's hands, who swept them into a bag full of Bank of England notes. Then the latter said, "Charlie, you are not in a fit and proper condition to finish this business to-day." Charlie was collapsing proper, in a fit. I had all my trouble to look after him. Next night, about eight, prisoner came to me and showed me a letter from the National Plate Glass Insurance Company about people complaining that they had not received their policies. He said he would meet me at the "Talbot." When I saw him there he was collapsing.

I said, "My dear fellow, you will have to have a drop of brandy." He was showing the whites of his eyes and hanging on to me with fingers as stiff as a poker. My brother-in-law then came in and said he had just seen Wilson. Just then a man came in and put a letter in my hand, then vanished. The letter (produced) was as follows: 'The guv'nor has found out we have backed the horse after it had won. He says he will give you in custody for fraud. He has sent for the police and says he will charge me if I don't give him your address. He had me watched yesterday because Charlie came to the office. He said he thought something was wrong by Charlie calling. Keep away from here as I am being watched and they will take you if they see you. Tell Charlie to get away at once because somebody accuses him of being in it. Will see you soon as I can get to you safely. I will not give him your address, not if I get 10 years. "—(Signed) H. Wilson." I said, "You scoundrel! Was this the horse and trap you were selling me? Trap right enough, but no horse." He then dropped in an awful fit; I thought he was going to die. He said, "Let me draw a mouthful of fresh air." I let the poor fellow do so, and then he ran like a greased horse. I ran after him, caught him, and said, "You come back and show me this office. Show me the gentleman." After a lot of coaxing he came with me, and he marched me round and round the City, bringing me back to where we started. He kept on doing this, and said to me, "Let me go; you are taking me along like a convict; you don't know the nature of that letter." I said, "Come along with me and not so much of it." Then some boy led us amongst the throng to this little Court where Mr. Marks's office was. I had been shouting out because prisoner was messing me about so. Mr. Marks's representative came and I told him the nature of my business, saying, "You have a general manager, I believe, called Wilson?" I had hold of prisoner all the time. The man asked me what I wanted." I said, "Well, he has £10 of mine as deposit for this horse and trap you have to sell." He said, "You get outside; I don't sell horses and traps." Then I said to prisoner, "Now, you will have to come to the police-station with me," and I marched him to a policeman and charged him. He was taken to the station.

To Prisoner. I have found out that Wilson is called by three different names. On the first day you took me to the City you took me to a great many places. We went to the "Talbot," in London Wall, I think. We did not go into the "Crown and Cushion," nor any other public-house; we stuck to the "Talbot" like leeches. I had never seen Wilson in my life before. How you can make fun of it after robbing people—I am ashamed of you. You never mentioned a word of betting till I arrested you. I pay money in purchasing things without a receipt; it is the usual thing in our line. You were not a stranger to me. I was trusting to the reputation of your firm. You said they employed a thousand clerks, and I found they were two men in a top garret in Great Eastern Street. I got no receipt from Wilson; you gave me nothing; you did a bolt. On the Friday right you came round to my place, but you were helpless drunk;

that was about 11 or 12, and we had a difficult job to get you out of the house. (His Lordship said that this line of cross examination was merely wasting time.) You may have come to see me a good many times. I never gave you a drink when you came on the Friday. My other brother-in-law who was there might have given you one. I do not think you were capable of drinking; you were collapsing. It was raining very hard that night, but I did not lend you an umbrella; I would not trust you with one.

RICHARD WEAVER STOTT , naval signalman, brother-in-law of prosecutor. The first time I saw prisoner was at 130, Queen's Road, Plais-tow, on May 29, Friday. He came there about 3.30 p.m. with Knight. The latter told me he was going to buy a horse and cart. We then went to the post office to get £20 out. The postmistress said we could not get more than £10 unless we gave a day's notice, so Knight said he would have the £10. He was going to have it telegraphed to Plais-tow; he said that the simplest way would be to have a cheque payable in five or 10 days, so that he could stop it if the horse and cart were no good. Prisoner told him he could make it out at Throgmorton Post Office, so he telegraphed for it to be sent there. I went with them to the post office in the City. The telegram had not come at first, so we went into the "Talbot." We went back to the post office and my brother-in-law got the money and counted it out into prisoner's hand. We then went back to the "Talbot," and another man came in who was said to be a general manager to Mr. Marks; he said so himself. Prisoner gave the £10 to this man—Wilson. I understood it was for a horse and cart. Prisoner said so. Wilson Said to Smith, "You are not in a condition to do any business today; I will see you all in the morning." We then separated. Next day I went up again to the City, and just outside the "Talbot" I saw Wilson come out. This was about between 10 and 11 in the morning. He said to me, "Good morning, go in and have a drink; I will be in in a minute." I had not been inside two seconds when a letter came in (produced). Knight read the letter out and prisoner nearly fell down; he was bad. Knight said to him, "You take me round to this man." Before this he said, "Is this the horse and trap? Trap right enough, but no horse." Prisoner took us through about 10, 000 streets, I should think. He took a lot of persuading before he would go. When we got to this Mr. Marks's office Knight asked me to go in to see if such a man existed. I went in, and after something had passed prisoner was given in charge by Knight.

To Prisoner. I think we went twice to the post office to inquire if the telegram had come. I was there when Knight got the money; it was in gold. I did not notice what Knight did with the money; it did not interest me. I did not actually see Knight get it. I saw him give it to you, and you gave it to Wilson. Directly the money was paid I went off. I saw you next on the Saturday. (His Lordship again reminded prisoner that his cross-examination was irrelevant and a waste of time.) I do not remember any conversation between us in the "Talbot" relating to myself. You were not going to do anything for me.

GERALD FARR . I am employed by J. Mark and Son, stock jobbers, Warnford Court, Throgmorton Street. The card produced is nothing like ours; there is no other firm of that name. We have no employee named Wilson, nor ever had.

Police-constable GEORGE DEAR , 427 City. On May 30 I was on duty in London Wall, about 12.30 p.m., when prosecutor came to me with prisoner and said, "This man has obtained £10 from me by means of a trick. I want you to arrest him." Prisoner said, "This is only a betting transaction." I told him he would have to come with me to the station. He said, "I am willing, but do not hold my arm." In reply to the charge he said, "This gentleman (prosecutor) has told a lot of falsehoods. I am quite willing to be tried."

Cross-examined by prisoner. I do not remember you saying anything else at the police-station. You said nothing about any receipt respecting the £10. The sergeant told me to take down what you said in reply to the charge.

(Friday, June 26.)


WALTER CHARLES SMITH (prisoner, on oath). I introduced Knight to Wilson for the purpose of betting. They arranged together to rob Mr. Mark by putting money on after the horse had won. They were to work it without any money at all. Knight made out a bet £10 each way on a horse which won at 5 to 1. It was arranged that the winnings were to be divided between us. Wilson took the bet and went to his guv'nor. He came back in about half an hour and said it was no good, that we had got to find the money. Then Knight agreed to go with me and get some money, which he did. I went with him to Plaistow and got his savings book. We went to the Post Office at Plaistow and ordered £10 to be drawn out made payable at Throgmorton Avenue. We met Wilson at five o'clock and Knight gave him the money. It was arranged we should meet the next day, Saturday, to share the winnings. I met Knight next at London Wall at half-past 11 and had several drinks. Then Wilson come. He said he was just going to the office and he expected the guv'nor would give him a cheque. He then went away, and Mr. Stott, the sailor, came in. We were waiting for the cheque, but Wilson never turned up. Somebody brought a letter—a rough-looking fellow—and asked for Knight. The letter was the one which has been read. Then Knight turned round and accused me of robbing him and one thing and another. He said, "Show me the man who has got my £10." I was lost and did not know where to go to find him. I said, "You have got the card, go there." I had previously given him the card. We went to find the office, and after a considerable time a small boy showed us where it was. It appeared that no Mr. Wilson worked there. Mr. Knight made a long statement about buying a horse and trap, and the gentleman told us to get out-side, else he should have us locked up. Then Mr. Knight gave me in charge. I was willing to go to the station.

Cross-examined. I had known Knight for about three weeks. I did go to him to insure his plate glass. He had no conversation with me about a horse and trap. I asked him on the 26th, when I called, if he could do with some money; I said it was a bit of a swindle. I told him that Wilson worked for a stockbroker and bookmaker named. Mark, and that Wilson had asked me if I knew anyone who had a bit of money, as it would do us all a bit of good. I told Knight it was to back a horse after it had won. He asked me how much money was required. I said I did not know. Then I met Wilson on Thursday, the 28th, and asked him how much was required. Wilson gave me the card which was produced, and said that no money was required, he only wanted somebody with a reference or banking account. Then he made arrangements to meet Knight on the Friday at the "Crown and Cushion," London Wall. (Prisoner was cross-examined as to whether he could explain the betting transaction which he alleged was to take place.) All the transactions I had had with Wilson were betting ones. It is true that I was very ill on the Friday; I had been drinking all day. The letter which came to the "Talbot" said I was to get away sharp or I should be prosecuted; that is why I ran away. Knight never gave me the £10. It only took about a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes to find Mr. Mark's office.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.


(Friday, June 26.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-30
VerdictGuilty > pleaded part guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

MARSHALL, Frederick (70, plumber) ; indicted for feloniously shooting at Martin Betteridge and Frederick Betteridge, with intent to kill and murder them, pleaded guilty on each indictment to a common assault.

Mr. Ricardo prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton appeared for prisoner.

The prosecution accepted prisoner's plea.

It was stated that on May 15 Martin Betteridge and Frederick Betteridge, acting under the authority of a person to whom prisoner had given a bill of sale, placed a man in possession of prisoner's house at Greenwich. They subsequently went to the house for the purpose of removing the furniture which had been seized. The glass panel of a door was broken, and prisoner fired twice at Martin Betteridge, one of the bullets smashing a pipe in his waistcoat pocket and striking two pennies, which were bent. Frederick Betteridge then forced an entrance through the front door, and prisoner fired at him, a bullet passing through one of the sleeves of his coat.

Mr. Eustace Fulton said that the prisoner had unfortunately got into financial difficulties in his old age, with the result that the bailiffs were put into his house. A man was actually in possession when the Betteridges went there with a van to remove the furniture.

The hour they selected for their visit was shortly after midnight. Finding the house locked up they proceeded to break in the door. The prisoner, an aged man in a bad state of health, considered they were not justified in forcing an entrance in such circumstances, and, losing his head under this great provocation, he acted in the manner which had been described.

Evidence was called to show that prisoner had an excellent reputation as a quiet, respectable man.

Mr. Justice Ridley said that, having regard to the age and ill-health of the prisoner, and to the consideration which had been urged by his counsel, he felt justified in allowing him to go without a sentence of imprisonment; although, if other people came before the Court charged with using revolvers upon those who were executing the law, they must not expect to be dealt with in such a lenient way.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in the sum of £20 to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-31
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

MASON, Richard Cogan, and SOPER, John James Arnsby ; both being trustees on an express trust, created by an instrument in writing, of certain property, to wit, the sum of £173 4s. 2d., for the use and benefit of Jessie Davidson Robertson, on April 30, 1906, unlawfully and with intent to defraud did convert part of such property, to wit, the sum of £145 1s. 2d., to their own use and benefit.

Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Graham-Campbell, and Mr. Bigham prosecuted; Mr. E. G. Palmer defended Mason; Mr. W. R. Warren defended Soper.

Mr. F. G. FRAYLING, from the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions, produced the fiats granted by the Attorney-General (under the Larceny Act of 1861) authorising these prosecutions.

Miss JESSIE ROBERTSON , 29, Alexandra Street, Southend. I am the youngest daughter of James Robertson, who died intestate on July 8, 1903; my share of his estate was £494 2s. 7d. Prisoner Mason and my brother John were my trustees. Beginning in September, 1905, from time to time I received monthly payments of £2 until I came of age in March last, totalling to £58 10s.; and since I came of age I have received a further sum of £93 5s. 7d.

To Mr. Warren. When I called at defendant's offices at 18, John Street, Bedford Row, I invariably saw Mason, not Soper.

I. N. EDMUNDS , clerk at the Birkbeck Bank. I produce what is a correct copy of the account of John Robertson and R. C. Mason. On or after April 30, 1906, there was no payment into that account of a sum of £173 4s. 2d.

To Mr. Warren. This is a deposit account; any person could pay money into it without any formality.

RALPH E. ATTEHBOROUGH , 15 and 16, Chancery Lane, solicitor. In April 1906, acting on behalf of Mr. Sweeting, I completed the purchase of 26, Acacia Road, Beckenham. I now produce the conveyance. The completion took place at the office of Mason, Soper, and Wood, and was attended to by Mr. Wood. I handed him the sum

of £173 4s. 2d., in notes and coin. Neither of the defendants was present.

ALBERT F. SMALES , cashier at the Union of London and Smiths Bank, Bedford Row branch. I know the handwriting of the two defendants. I produce what is a correct copy of the account of Mason, Soper, and Wood with my bank. It is called the "Office account"; either of the three partners could draw on it. On March 30, 1906, there was a credit balance of £7 4s. 3d. On April 30 there was a payment in of £173 4s. 2d., on May 1 drawings again commenced, and on July 1 the account was overdrawn. Between May 1 and July 1 there was never a balance of anything like £173 4s. 2d., so that apart from that sum the account would always have been in debit.

To Mr. Warren. The firm had banked with us at least 12 years.

To Mr. Palmer. There had been, while the account existed, several overdrafts, from £300 to smaller amounts. The firm had other accounts with us; the manager might be influenced in allowing an overdraft upon one account by the fact that the others were in credit. From April to July, 1906, Wood had a separate account with us.

WILLIAM REGINALD WOOD . I was admitted as a solicitor in 1885; in December, 1898, I entered into partnership with the two prisoners. I produce the declaration of trust under which the estate of James Robertson was administered by John Robertson and the prisoners; it sets out the share of Jessie Robertson as £492 2s. 7d.; it states that an account had been opened at the Birkbeck Bank in the names of John Robertson and Mason to the credit of Jessie, and declares that the trustees hold the properties and moneys and the income thereof in trust for Jessie. On November 2, 1903, there was executed a mortgage of 26, Acacia Road, part of the trust property. On April 30, 1906, the house was sold to Mr. Sweeting; I prepared the deed and attended the completion. I received the purchase money—£173 4s. 2d.—in notes and coin, which I at once paid into the firm's office account at the Union Bank. On the same day I told Mason that I had completed the purchase and I gave him a statement of the figures and asked him to pay the money, after deducting costs, into the Robertson trust account at the Birkbeck. Two or three days later I spoke to Soper and told him that Mason had not transferred the money, and he said he would speak to Mason. In June, 1906, I had conversations with the two prisoners about the state of the firm's accounts; I told them that this £173 4s. 2d. ought to have been paid over to the Jessie Robertson account. I do not remember what they then said. In August I prepared a statement showing Jessie's trust money and the money of Harriet Robertson and money of another client which appeared from the ledger to be in hand, and Mason said that he and Soper had spent those three sums. My statement also showed that there were debts due to the firm—£1, 034, not all good; then it showed that Mason's drawings to the end of 1905 had been £2, 276 7s. 4d., and Soper's drawings £2, 195 16s. 6d., or, together, £752 3s. 10d. more than

my drawings, and set out that I was to have a charge on the business for half that amount—£376 1s. 11d.—with interest at 12 per cent. Prisoners accepted my statement, and it was signed by the three of us, and the partnership went on until June. 1907, when it was dissolved. Soon afterwards I communicated the facts as to the Jessie Robertson trust and other matters to the Law Society. Between April 30 and the end of June, 1906, the firm's office account shows that Soper drew 24 cheques, totalling to £124 10s. 3d.; Mason drew 20 cheques totalling to £432 13s. 5d.; I drew five cheques, totalling to £33 1s. 11d. None of the cheques drawn by prisoners was on account of Jessie Robertson.

Cross-examined by Mr. Warren. Mason has been in practice since 1884 and has taken out his certificate right down to and including. this year, having now offices in Chancery Lane. The firm's offices in John Street comprised five rooms, the rental being £140 a year; each partner attended to the business of his particular clients, but all the firm's books were accessible to each partner. We did very little litigious business, mostly conveyancing and family work. When I entered the firm I brought in certain money; I did not promise to bring in more later. On the dissolution most of the books and papers came into my possession. (Witness was taken through the various cheques drawn between April 30 and August, 1906, by Mason, and admitted that the payments appeared to be on account of clients or for office expenses, petty cash, etc.)

Mr. Justice Ridley pointed out that the only question in the case was whether the defendants had used this money for purposes other than those of their cestuis que trust.

Cross-examined. There was a common cheque book to which all three partners had access; I could see at any time the cheques that had been drawn. On April 30, 1906, when I paid in this £173 4s. 2d. I did not know the then condition of the firm's account; I had no reason to suppose that there was anything wrong about it until early in May. On April 30 I knew quite well that the £173 4s. 2d. (less £8 3s. for costs) belonged to the Jessie Robinson account, and that there was that account at the Birkbeck Bank. I paid the money into the firm's account in the ordinary course of business; I had no instructions to pay it into any other account. The proper course of business is for solicitors to pay any money received in such a case into their own bank, otherwise there would not be the proper entries in the books. I deny that the first time I spoke to Soper about the £173 4s. 2d. was in August, 1906. On the dissolution of partnership I signed a document containing these words: "All the assets of the firm to belong to me, and Messrs. Mason and Soper to reasonably assist me in obtaining the same, and I will pay the debts of the firm of which I know, and take no further proceedings on my judgment as long as Messrs. Mason and Soper carry out their part of the agreement. And I undertake to pay me moneys owing by Mr. Meson and Mr. Soper or the firm to Miss Harriet Robertson and Miss Jessie Robertson, and Mrs. Effie Mason."

Cross-examined by Mr. Palmer. There is no specific direction in the trust deed to pay into the account at the Birkbeck any moneys received on account of the trust. My statement that I had conversations with Mason about paying the trust money into the Birkbeck rests only on my recollection; I have no notes. I think it was three or four days after April 30 that I told Soper the money had not been paid in. I agree that from May to August, 1906, the moneys coming in to the firm in the ordinary course were sufficient to meet the outgoings of and to run the business; I believed that that was so, and I can suggest no reason why that should not have been the state of belief also of Mason and Soper. I had a separate account at the Union Bank, and the balance to my credit there on April 30 was £1, 065. There was also an account of the firm at the London and South-Western Bank, Charing Cross. It was open to me to draw a cheque on the account at the union Bank, for some days after May 5, for this £173 4s. 2d., provided that an overdraft had been allowed, but I certainly should not have asked the bank to allow an overdraft. The reason I did not myself pay in the cash to the trust account I have already explained; I did not consider it my business to do so. No proper balance-sheet of the firm's business was ever prepared, apart from the statement I prepared on August 11, 1906; that statement shows that at that date the assets of the firm exceeded its liabilities. It is the fact that so recently as February 23 this year I received a letter from John Robertson contending that as I had personally received this money I ought to make it good. (To Mr. Warren.) As to whether Soper was or was not an acting trustee, I should not like to express an opinion. (To the Court.) When I spoke to Soper about this money he did not tell me that he was not as acting trustee.

Re-examined. My private account at the Union Bank had nothing to do with the firm. On April 30, 1906, the joint effect of the two office accounts, at the Union Bank and at the London and South-western Bank, was that they were both in debit.

CECIL E. GREENWOOD , ledger clerk, London and South-Western Bank, Charing Cross branch, produced copy of the firm's account there between January 1, 1906, and July 18, 1907. On April 30, 1906, there was a debit balance of £10 5s. 8d.; there was never, subsequently to that date, a credit balance of anything like £173.


Mr. BAERSELMAN , a retired colonial merchant; Mr. WILLIAM BAUEE , shipping and insurance agent; and Mr. JOHN PRATT , who had all had considerable business relations with the two defendants over a number of years, said they had always found them upright and honourable men.

(Monday, June 29.)

JOHN JAMES ARNSBY SOPER (prisoner, on oath). I was admitted a solicitor in 1884, and have held my certificate down to and including this year. I was (and am) one of the trustees of the Jessie Robertson fund; Wood acted a solicitor for the trustees. I did not know until

some time afterwards that this sum of £173 4s. 2d. had been paid into the firm's account on April 30, 1906; I think August 11, 1906, was the first time it was called to my attention. In May I was drawing cheques on the account in the ordinary course; I should regard all the moneys in that account as belonging to the firm, subject to the firm being accountable for such moneys as belonged to particular people. There were a considerable number of clients dealing with the firm, and our ordinary receipts averaged £200 or £300 a month. I never interfered with any drawings made by Wood or Mason, and never inquired. It is not true that a few days After April 30 Wood told me that this money had been paid into the firm's account, and that Mason had not paid it into the trust account, or that I replied to Wood that I would speak to Mason about it. I had no conversation with Wood on the matter until about 10 days before August 11. Nothing was ever said in my presence by Mason about his having spent the money. As to the cheques drawn by me on the firm's account after April 30, only one amount, £2 10s., went into my pocket; all the rest was for ordinary business purposes. Up to the present moment no application has been made to the firm by Jessie Robertson or anyone else for repayment of the £173 4s. 2d., but applications have been made to Wood. At any time in 1906 the money would have been forthcoming from the resources of the firm had it been applied for. Wood had promised to bring money into the firm. At the dissolution it was arranged that Wood should take over all the assets, and amongst other liabilities meet this particular liability. Although Wood says that he communicated all the facts to the Law Society, I have at no time had any communication from the society about the matter. I have never had any intention to defraud Jessie Robertson or deprive her of her money.

Cross-examined. When the assignment dated April 30 was brought to me for execution I should just glance at it; that is all. Wood had prepared it and I had implicit confidence in his carrying out the business in a satisfactory manner. In the deed the vendors acknowledge receipt of the purchase money; I still say that until shortly before August 11 I was unaware that the money had been paid. When I drew cheques I simply looked at the pass book and cheque book to see how the account stood; I did not inquire as to where specific sums had come from. I believe none of the cheques drawn by me actually went for the purposes of Jessie Robertson. When I say that in 1906 this money would have been forthcoming, I mean, from the costs currently due to the firm.

To the Jury. The cash book of the firm was kept generally by Wood; until the last three or four years our accounts were audited by an auditor. No financial statement was drawn out after, at any rate, 1905. I suppose I must have seen this £173 4s. 2d. noted in the pass book, but I made no inquiries about it.

RICHARD COGAN MASON (prisoner, on oath). Of the amounts I drew on the firm's account after April 30 only £8 were for my personal use; the rest went for the purposes of the business. Wood's statement that at an interview in August I told him that I and

Soper spent the £173 4s. 2d. is not true. The statement of August 11 was prepared by Wood; I did not check the figures; Wood had promised to bring in some more money, and I knew he would not do so unless I signed the statement; that was part of the arrangement under which I signed it. He did, in fact, not bring in more money.

Cross-examined. I knew within a few days of April 30 that this money had been paid into the firm's account. I might have drawn it out and paid it into the trust account, but there was no direction to me to do so as a trustee. The trust account was opened originally to receive the income of the trust; it was never intended to pay any capital into that account. I see that in September, 1905, a sum of £135 was paid into it; true, that was capital, but there was no investment ready for it at the time. I do not know what investment there was for this £173 4s. 2d.; I do not know why it was not paid in; we were never asked to pay it in; it was waiting for investment. It was not till August that Wood asked for the amount to be transferred to the trust account. It is, unfortunately, true that I have been struck off the rolls.

Alderman Sir WILLIAM VAUGHAN MORGAN was called by Mr. Warren (as a witness to character), but did not answer.

Verdict, Guilty.

There were other indictments in respect of fraudulent conversion of trust moneys; these were not gone into.

Sentence: Mason, five years' penal servitude; Soper, three years' penal servitude.


(Friday, June 26.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-32
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > directed

Related Material

HOLT, Frederick Guy Harold (21, draughtsman) ; inciting Albert Justice Hill to steal a piece of paper, the property of D. Napier and Son, Limited, his employers, and having received and being entrusted with certain property, to wit, 19 sheets of paper for certain purposes, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the said property to his own use and benefit; on June 1, 1907, stealing three sheets of paper, the property of D. Napier and Son, Limited, his employers, and feloniously receiving the same; on March 21, 1908, stealing 16 sheets of paper, the property of D. Napier and Son, Limited, his employers, and feloniously receiving the same. The "pieces of paper" comprise drawings, calculations, etc., relating to the engines of the "Napier" motor-cars.

Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., and Mr. Rooth prosecuted; Mr. P. E. Smith, K. C., M. P., and Mr. Symmons defended.

HUBERT CLARKE , chief draughtsman to Napier and Son, engineers and motor-car builders, Acton Vale. The "Napier" car has engaged in a great many competitions. Some 30 or 40 draughtsmen are employed

in the drawing-office of the motor-car department, and 1, 200 or 1, 500 men are employed in the works generally. The work of the drawing office is directed to making improvements in different parts of the engine and chassis. A design for an improvement having been drawn, the engine is made on those lines, and steps are then taken to test the improvement. The testing is a matter of very great importance, and lasts a considerable time; I have known them to last several months. During the tests the engine is run night and day for a considerable period, and modifications are made as from time to time seem advisable. If the idea for the improvement turned out to be well founded, steps would be taken to protect it. Blue prints on ferro-prussiate paper are made of different parts of the design, and different parts of the engine are worked upon in different parts of the works, the men being supplied with blue prints of the various sections. These sections contain all particulars with regard to measurement, and every precaution is taken to prevent these becoming public. The prints are kept in the drawing stores. They are signed for in the morning, and when the men return them the receipts are give back to them. The prints are not necessarily returned the same day, but on completion of the job, but they are always returned on Saturday. Prints of the complete engine or general arrangement would only be required for the final operation of putting together. There is a copy in each of the drawing stores, but they are only used for occasional reference. No one is allowed to take these blue drawings off the premises under any circumstances. Mr. Hill is in charge of the printing operations; he keeps the tracings and they are filed under his custody, and to obtain a copy a written order is required on the form produced, which has to be signed by one of the senior draughtsmen. Prisoner, as a junior draughtsman, would work under the direction of one of the seniors on such work as getting out details from the larger drawings. The exhibit produced, "A, is a general arrangement drawing of a 40 h. p. engine of the type known as E 4 which has only been put on the market quite recently, and was not is use in prisoner's time. Exhibit "B" is a general arrangement of a two-cylinder engine designed for a cab which is not on the market at all. The testing of this engine went on for three weeks and in volved a considerable expenditure of money. Prisoner, in his position as junior draughtsman, had no authority to obtain blue prints or diagrams without an order, whether drawings or parts of drawings Prisoner had no legitimate reason for requiring the possession of exhibits "A" and "B." In 1907 two men, named Sharratt and Crowther, were employed in the drawing office with prisoner. at the same time there was in the employment of the prosecutors a man named Scharfe, whose duty it was. to test engines, and would therefore be in possession of information as to the results of tests. The men are not allowed to wander about from one department to another, and therefore any man who wanted to speak to a man in another department would have to get permission from his own foreman and the foreman of the other department. On February 10 my attention was called to the fact of prisoner having been in communication with

Scharfe, and I interviewed prisoner in my room, and said to him: "I understand you have approached Scharfe in the testing shop asking him to communicate information to Sharratt," and I told him it was a very serious matter to do that sort of thing. He said he had done it without any wrong intent; that he had been asked by Sharratt to convey this message to Scharfe, and that he had not conveyed any information outside at all. After I had reprimanded him, I told him I should let the matter drop, provided he was of good behaviour in the future. That ended the matter then. In March I received further information through an employe named Griggs, and on March 20 through an employe named Hill. At the time I spoke to him about Scharfe I had no knowledge of the Griggs incident. On March 21. I had prisoner brought to my room and told him I understood he had been attempting to obtain drawings to which he had no right. He made no reply, but appeared to be very confused. I further said I had also heard he had made approaches to Griggs, another draughtsman, in connection with the advertisement of another firm in the "Autocar," the recognised organ of the motor-car industry. He made no reply to that at all, had nothing to say for himself. I then discharged him without notice. He made no application to me the previous evening to sign any order. At both interviews he had every opportunity of giving any explanation. I have seen the papers contained in Exhibit D (taken from prisoner as he was leaving). The exhibit comprises a number of notes and sketches apparently made by prisoner of pieces of mechanism belonging to Messrs. Napier's racing cars. Such information would be valuable to a rival manufacturer. There are blue prints and sunory tables. This (indicating) is the standard sizes of certain parts which we make and there are particulars of the weights. There are also two note books containing memoranda and figures regarding our practice. To a very large extent they refer to the same racing car as the table of weights. With regard to Exhibits E 1, 2 and 3 (found at prisoner's house), E 1 is a general arrangement, a copy of drawing 4139, giving particulars of a friction clutch of the latest type used with an 80-h. p. car; E 2, drawing 4688, is the latest type of carburetter which has only just been put upon the market; Exhibit E 3, drawing 4656, is the crank shaft of our latest 80-h. p. car. These drawings give the fullest possible detail of every measurement.

Cross-examined. The duties of assistant draughtsmen differ from those of senior draughtsmen in that they have rather less important duties to perform. They are not confined to details. The size and importance of the various jobs vary very much, and it might be that a junior might get a comparatively small job out entirely by himself. The difference in pay of the two classes is anything between 40 and 45 per cent. Promotion is a question of proficiency and knowledge. Even assuming that there was no improper use of the plans, I should object to a junior draughtsman obtaining blue prints to read so as to improve his skill with a view to promotion, because he would have access to the original tracings if there were any necessity for him to see them, but if he was not engaged on that particular

work at the time he would be wasting the firm's time. Of course, you would not expect to have everybody walking in and examining our drawings. There is a large number of junior draughtsmen, and it would not suit our purpose at all. I should object to it, and regard it as more or less an offence—a slight offence. There are printed rules for the guidance of the workmen, but none for the junior draughtsmen. There is nothing in the rules which tells our draughtsmen that they are not to keep blue prints. I am not prepared to say that I told prisoner when he came into the firm's employment, or any other junior draughtsman, that he was not to touch or look at or study designs which he had not prepared himself. Since this case a change has been made in the method of ordering the blue prints. Instead of using the green slips as order forms, we use a book in which entries are made. There has been no change in regard to exacting a promise or undertaking that they shall not deal with them blue prints. Though the green slips have to be countersigned there is no space for the counter-signature, the only signature required being that of the person authorised to make out the ticket, who simply does it as a bit of clerical work. The statement as to countersigning is really an error. The ticket only requires to be signed. It arose in this way. It became a practice for the person making out the ticket to initial it simply for the purpose of identification. The only signature really required is that of the senior draughtsman, who is authorised to send for the print. I did not explain that at the police court. I do not accept the suggestion that it is an entirely exceptional thing for these orders to be countersigned. The slips were kept by the draughtsman until the prints were returned and then destroyed, receipts being given for them on their return. On the return of the prints the slips ceased to be valuable documents. I heard. Hill state at the police court that he had supplied prints without any counter-signature, but he also stated that it was only in the case of small parts that he had done so, but if there was such a practice it was carried out without my knowledge or consent and was contrary to Hill's instructions. I am not prepared to say it was not carried out equally by other departments. I cannot say when I gave Hill instructions that the slips were to be countersigned. It was two or three years ago, but I am confident that I did so. I told him that he was to demand one of these green slips for every print that he gave out from the stores, and get the signature of certain persons to it. If Hill has sworn he never had such instructions I am quite sure he is wrong. I also gave instructions to the various draughtsmen, who were empowered to sign. Is case of changes taking place Hill would not accept a fresh signature without notification from me. I cannot tell without reference to books how many senior draughtsmen were entitled to countersign, but every senior would be who had charge of a large job, any man who got more than 45s. or 50s. a week. I authorised them by word of mouth. When new men came in and I gave them their work I told them they would have to sign for the prints. I did not say at the police court that Hill told me he had been asked by Sharratt to

take a message to Scharfe. I suppose it did not strike me. I simply answered the questions I was asked. I cannot say whether I informed the prisoner's legal adviser of it, but I think it likely I told him everything I knew about the case. I am quite certain that he said it. On March 20 Holt came to me himself and said: "I believe you want to know who went to see Scharfe from the drawing office?" I had told Snodgrass to send him to me. He did not come spontaneously. I think Holt said, "I am the man." On the first occasion when I overlooked the matter I suspected very strongly that Holt had been acting dishonestly. The impression I formed was that he had been led into it by somebody else, and that having been seen about it he would not offend again. With regard to the designs of the clutch, carburetter, and crank shaft found at prisoner's house, presumably the study of them would be of assistance to him in his profession as a draughtsman. Assuming he did it honestly it would be a useful thing for him to master it; it would make him a better servant. As far as I know, none of the blue prints were drawings made by prisoner himself. As to the drawings prisoner himself had made, I make complaint of his having those at his house because they were not his property, and he had not permission to remove them. It has never been a practice for our draughtsmen to take away the tracings they had made themselves after they had been photographed. The tracings are in constant use; they are our originals; we could not get on without them. I have known of a case of a person taking away tracings he had drawn himself. I have never issued printed instructions that they were not to—or even verbal instructions; it was an understood thing. A person in a situation usually understands that he does not take away his employers' property. As to whether I complain of prisoner taking away these books with the calculations, I complain of his taking the calculations; I cannot identify the books. As to the section showing the working of the piston, as far as my recollection serves me there was no occasion for him to make that calculation. Of course, he might make it to improve himself if he did it in his own time. In a piece of mechanism like that the actual proportions are of vital importance. As to whether the knowledge so acquired would make him more efficient, I do not think this would be of any particular use to him in designing another piston. Probably if he had another one to do the conditions would be quite different.

Re-examined. Apart altogether from the question of the green slips, prisoner had no right at all to the possession of the blue print of the 40-h. p. engine or the general scheme for the two-cylinder engine. He did not require it in any shape or form. If draughtsmen in our employment were allowed to take our designs to other competing firms it would not be possible for us to carry on business long. The statement in my proof that prisoner said that Sharratt had asked him to convey a message is quite correct. With regard to Hill's statement that he would have given out a blue print without the green slip being countersigned I should have wanted to know what it was for, and if he had told me it was for use of his department I should have been satisfied.

To Mr. F.E. Smith. I cannot say that for three months, May, June, and July, prisoner was at work on the 40-h. p. engine.

HAROLD GRIGGS . draughtsman to D. Napier and Son. I remember Sharratt and Crowther being there and working in the same room where I and Holt used to work. We used to meet together at lunch time. Sharratt and Crowther left in November, 1907, and I heard they had gone into similar employment. My special work had to do with the testing of engines, and I knew all the results of the tests. I remember at the end of last year prisoner asking me questions with regard to testing and the results obtained. He did not say for what purpose he wanted the information. I gave him such general information as would be valueless to anybody. I had instructions from my employers as to the importance of the results being kept secret. About December 17 he came to me with a copy of the "Autocar" containing the following advertisement: "Draughtsman wanted for London. Permanent position with a company. Good opening for three capable men accustomed to high-class touring car designing and supervising construction of same. Apply by letter only, stating past experience, salary expected, to Mr. Selbach, 38, Russell Square, W. C." He said, "This looks like something that would suit you." He also said I could obtain it if I liked. I asked him for particulars, and he said that Mr. Selbach was the working manager of a syndicate formed for designing racing cars for the season of 1908. He also said that if I would let him know at once he would wire to Crowther, who was a draughtsman in the employ of Selbach, and let him know of my acceptance. Crowther was then at Portsmouth. Prisoner said it would be a better situation than I had then; it would be a lift up. The designs of the new car, he also said, were to be made in London, but the car would be built in Newcastle. I said I should like time to think it over, and he asked me to let him know later in the week. Besides Selbach, he told me Messrs. Warwick, Rice, Moore, Brabszon, Huntley Walker, and Lee Guinness were in the syndicate, and the new car was to be designed particularly to compete against Mr. Edge, who uses the "Napier" cars. Later on I communicated what had taken place to my superiors.

Cross-examined. When prisoner asked me for these particulars it was not the first time we had talked about our work together. We were constantly in touch with one another concerning the business of the drawing office. Knowledge of the method of testing engines would be a proper thing for prisoner to know, but it would not be a necessary thing for him to know. People, of course, get on by finding out how things are done. I am principally concerned with testing. I do drawing when there is nothing else to do. I was at this time testing an engine for a racing car. The engine was successful, and is now in use. Sometimes an idea has to be abandoned People in the draughtsmen's office would no doubt be interested in knowing if a test was successful. I and two others would know the result of a teat, the superintendent in charge of the testing shop and the actual tester. If the design came back to the draughtsmen's office for alteration or improvement that would be known all over the

draughtsmen's shop, which is about 100 yards from the testing shed. I read the advertisement and noticed that it had reference to a touring car. It seemed to be an advertisement to attract everybody capable of designing cars, and to get as many replies as possible. I do not remember having said anything about Crowther before the justices, or about wiring to Portsmouth. The case was not then so extensively dealt with. Prisoner certainly said it would be a better situation. I do not remember him saying that if I were to get double the salary it would not be worth my while to leave Napier's; that would be absurd on the face of it. Persons present at the tests would know the horse-power of the engines. The number of persons having knowledge of the results of the tests would certainly not be more than seven. I cannot remember whether I mentioned before the justices that the new car was to be built at Newcastle. It was about five weeks after Holt spoke to me that I reported the matter. I thought it distinctly strange, even wrong, according to the regulations. I did not tell him so; it was hardly my place to do so. My position is different from his; not superior. I said nothing about the members of the syndicate before the justices; it was not pressed upon me.

Re-examined. My position in the testing shop was that I had to take readings of the instruments used in testing, and subsequently to calculate the horse-power which they were giving, making notes of their performance and general characteristics. Another person is in charge of the driving and manipulation of the engines. It takes several persons to carry out tests; and duties are assigned to each. Scharfe actually drives the engine. Prisoner came to the testing shop on March 10 and asked me to point out Scharfe. Having examined my written statement I am sure prisoner mentioned about Crowther and Portsmouth.

KARL SCHARFE , second tester at Napier's testing shop. A man named Draper is the foreman in control at my shop; anybody wanting to speak to someone there would get sanction from him. I remember Holt speaking to me in the testing shop about the middle of January last, between a quarter past five and six in the evening. He said, "Do you know Sharratt?" I said, "Yes." He asked me if I knew where he was employed. I said I thought he was working at the Speedwell Company. Then prisoner told me he had started with a syndicate which had been formed in Russell Square for the purpose of competing against the "Napier" in the flat-racing and hill-climbing competitions of the season of 1908. He told me Sharratt would be outside the gates after we left the works to try to get some information concerning our motors, especially with reference to the stroke, the bore, and the compression. After he had gone I spoke to Mr. Draper, who is at the head of my department. I was rather taken aback by Holt's conversation.

Cross-examined. I know prisoner had Draper's permission to come and speak to me. When he told me Sharratt would be trying to get information he put me on my guard in more than one way. I said

before the justices: "If I had met Sharratt I would not have told him anything." At that time I only knew prisoner by sight; I did not know his name.

Re-examined. I remember quite well being asked a question by prisoner's solicitor about prisoner putting me on my guard.

FREDERICK DRAPER . I remember prisoner asking me on or about January 13 whether he could speak to Scharfe. It would not be right for him to speak to anybody without communicating with me; we do not allow people to go walking about. I saw him speak to Scharfe, who made a statement to me, which I communicated to Mr. Snodgrass.

Cross-examined. This was about half-past five. They knock off at six. As to whether outside the employe's speak to each other, I suppose they may do as they like when they get outside; we have no control over them then.

DONALD GARDNER SNODGRASS , senior draughtsman to Napier and Son. I remember the occasion when Draper, the foreman tester, drew my attention to a matter connected with prisoner. On the morning following I saw prisoner in the drawing office, and accused him of not having acted in a straightforward manner towards the firm. He appeared to be taken by surprise, and to hardly know what to say. He promised to have no more dealings with the two men who had previously been in the employment of the firm. I communicated the facts to Mr. Clarke. On March 20 it came to my knowledge that he had been applying for a print of the cab, and I again communicated with Mr. Clarke.

Cross-examined. I did not say to prisoner, "You were a d—fool to speak to him (Scharfe) at the works. You could have spokes to him outside if you had wanted to." As to whether he said is reply: "I only warned him that the man (Sharratt) would try to get some information out of him," I believe he did use the word "warned," but it did not strike me that he spoke in that vein at all.

ALBERT JUSTICE HILL , photographic printer, in the employment of D. Napier and Son. The practice is to give out blue prints of sections of the drawings in exchange for green slips like those which have been produced, signed by a senior draughtsman. I recollect prisoner coming to me in the beginning of March last. He asked me if I would make him a print of E 4 engine. I told him it was very risky, and I should not like to do it. He said, "I will make it all right for you." The conversation ended there. We were alone. Somebody came up and he went away. He came to me again a day or two before he left, and asked me if I could make a print of the cab engine, a new engine not yet on the market. I explained to him again that it was very risky, and I should not do it, but before that he said he would bring the tracing up about six o'clock. He again said he would make it all right for me. I spoke of the matter to Mr. Daniel, my superior. If I had done as prisoner asked I should have had to use the firm's sensitized paper, and there would have been the time and the light. About 10 minutes to six he brought

me the tracing. Mr. Daniel, who had followed him in, said, "Why is not the thing countersigned?" referring to the green slip. Mr. Holt said he would get the d—d thing signed and seemed very annoyed, and walked away and did not come back. I was afterwards spoken to by Mr. Clark about the matter.

Cross-examined. I should have given the blue print to prisoner if he had handed me a green slip without being countersigned without making inquiries if I had thought it was for the firm. Whether I should have given it to him if he had said he wanted to use it would have depended upon what he told me he wanted to use it for. I have let him have blue prints before, not general arrangements but only detailed parts. I have also made blue prints for other persons without the green slips being signed. Prisoner could have made a tracing, being a skilled draughtsman, without asking me for a blue print in working hours, because there is always someone about, and he could not have taken it home at night without it being missed. Prisoner did not make any secret of coming with this alleged guilty object in the presence of Mr. Daniells. The tracing is about 3 ft. square.

Re-examined. When he brought the tracing it was rolled up, I believe. Daniells and he came up together really; Daniells was just behind him. Daniells was not talking to me when prisoner came up.

JOHN DANIELLS . I remember on March 20 the last witness making a statement to me with regard to prisoner. There is a counter dividing the printing department from the office, and as prisoner was going down to the counter I went down after him. I saw him present a slip or order for a drawing to be printed. I looked at the slip and asked him why it was not countersigned. That particular drawing would have to be signed for by Mr. Clarke, the draughtsman. He seemed to be very worried over it, and said, "I will get the d—d things signed," and took the slip away with him.

Cross-examined. There would be from 30 to 40 people in the drawing office, and prisoner could not have removed the drawing without being seen. When I followed prisoner into the printing room I do not think he knew I was there. I do not remember him looking round. There was, of course, a good many people in the printing office working at fixed benches. The blue prints are not to be found lying about for days together when they are being dealt with by the draughtsmen. When once the machine is on the market there is no secrecy about it; anyone can buy it and look at it.

FREDERICK JOHN PERRY , orders clerk to Messrs. Napier. The design produced was to have been sent in June, 1907, to Messrs. Jessop, manufacturers, Sheffield. It could not be found, and a fresh one has to be made.

WILLIAM FREDERICK RAINFORTH , manager to Napier and Son. The cost of getting out designs is enormous, and it is very important that the secrets of this business should be kept by employees. In motor-car working the weights of the different parts is a particularly important factor, and has to be arrived at by experiment. The green

slips have to be countersigned by a senior draughtsman in the case of sections, and by the chief draughtsman in the case of general arrangements for the whole engine. In March prisoner was not working on the 40-h. p. engine, and would not therefore require a diagram of that or of any part of it. If he had been working on the cab chassis he would not have required an impression of the general arrangement under any circumstances. On March 21 a communication was made to me by Mr. Clarke, and on the following day (Saturday) I went into the office where prisoner was employed. He was packing up various books and papers. I looked at him, and he volunteered, "Would you like to look at these?" (pointing to the papers). I said, "If you will give me your word of honour that there is nothing there but your own personal property, it will not be necessary to do so." He said, "I give you my word that there is only my personal property there." I noticed the blue paper sticking out of the parcel, and in his portfolio I found several blue prints. I opened the parcel and found the things produced in it. He wanted to take them away, but I said I could not allow him to do so without Mr. Napier a permission. The parcel contained the whole of the most necessary facts in relation to our business, and gave away the very reasons we have been so phenomenally successful in competition. The drawings included a synchroniser, a self-starter, which had never been on the market at all, tables showing the size of the nuts, and a number of other things we desired to keep secret from the world. I afterwards identified documents which had been found by the police on his premises, including Exhibit E 3, which had been lost as far back as June, 1907.

Cross-examined. To my knowledge the order clerk made inquiries about a good many things which were missing at that time. Six prints were made of the carburetter, two for the stores, one for the works, two for Italy, and one for America. Those for Italy and America were not used, but they were lying about the office for weeks. We cannot assume that everybody is going to take our drawings away. I do not know that prisoner was employed for three months on various parts of the E 4 engine so that he might have taken some interest in it. I knew the reason for prisoner's dismissal. There was not the slightest concealment about the contents of the portfolio. Many of the things were sketches made by the prisoner himself. Some of the papers found at prisoner's house Were not the property of Messrs. Napier.

Detective-inspector FRANK NELL , T Division. I received a search warrant and warrant for arrest, and, on March 29, saw prisoner in custody at Chiswick Police Station. I told him I was going to search his house for plans belonging to his late employers He said, "I do not think you will find any there." I then went to his house in the Mall, Chiswick, where I found three blue prints, E 1, 2, and 3, two tracings, two pencil sketches, a note-book, and a quantity of memoranda. I showed prisoner the plans, and told him he would probably be charged with stealing them. He said, "I must have taken them home, but I do not know when. I did requisition one

before I was discharged." I found the papers in the room pointed out to me as being occupied by the prisoner.

Detective-sergeant ISRAEL BEDFORD , T Division. On March 29 I followed prisoner from his home in Chiswick Lane. I said, "Your name is Holt." He said, "Yes." I told him I held a warrant for his arrest, and read it to him. He said, "I will go with you to the station." I charged him with inciting to steal. He made no reply when charged.

Saturday, June 27.


FREDERICK HOLT (prisoner, on oath). I was 21 on March 3, and went to school at St.Paul's National Schools, Hammersmith. I left when 14, and went into the employment of the British Workmen's General Assurance Company, where I remained two years and three months, until May, 1903. I commenced at 6s. a week, and when I left I was getting 12s. From there I went to the British Electric Traction Company as junior clerk, and there I began to learn draughting. From there I went, in September, 1905, to Messrs. Lewis Verger and Sons, Homerton, at a salary of £1 a week, an advance of 5s., and was employed as assistant in the purchasing department. I left in the course of four months to take a position with Mr.Frank Leslie, motor engineer, Hammersmith, as draughtsman, at a salary of 25s. a week. I had previously had lessons in drawing at the St.Martin's School of Art, in Long Acre, where I made considerable progress. My employment with Mr. Leslie terminated satisfactorily; Mr. Leslie, closing his works, everybody was dismissed. In June, 1906, I went to Messrs. Napier's, at a salary of 30s. a week, and stayed there until I was discharged, by which time my salary had been raised to 35s. Responsible work was given me. I had the superintending of various jobs in connection with cars, and in making sketches of designs. I have had to design a great number of the blue prints, and I frequently kept tracings which I have made myself. From first to last I was never told that I was not allowed to keep blue prints; I was never told that the green slip had to be countersigned. What Mr.Hills has said as to having on many occasions supplied junior draughtsmen with blue prints without the order being countersigned is correct. I took the blue print of the cab engine from one of the benches at a time when there were 30 or 40 people present. There was no secrecy about my taking it. It had been lying about the office for some weeks, and nobody made any objection to my taking it. I had frequently taken blue prints home, but not tracings.The tracing in question would have taken me three or four hours to copy. I deny that Hill said that making a blue print was too risky. I wanted the print of the cab chassis for my own information. The three blue prints had been in my mother's house for some months before I was dismissed, and I had forgotten all about them. I was always studying them. There was no secret made about my taking them away. I have never communicated any

of the designs to anybody, or attempted to deal with them in any way. As to my apeaking to Sharratt in business hours, there would have been no difficulty in my speaking to him outside the works when we had left. I was told by Crowther that Sharratt was going to try and get information about the bore and stroke of the engines.I mentioned the matter to my mother, who thought the management ought to know about it.I asked permission to speak to Scharfe, and warned him not to divulge any information. All the sketches and sheets of paper taken by Mr. Rainforth were made by myself, with the exception of two, the synchroniser and the self-starter.They were made by Mr.R.F.Smith, who gave them to me when he left. When I went to Mr. Clarke and told him I was the man who had spoken to Scharfe, he said, "You have put yourself in a funny position." I made no reply to that. With regard to Griggs, when I showed him the advertisement in the "Motor-Car" I made the remark that it would not be worth our while for half as much again or double the salary to leave Napiers'. The designs found at my mother's house were old designs. I deny that I said to Hill, "I will make it all right for you." Hill's account is a fabrication.

Cross-examined. I last saw Crowther this morning, at Turnham Green Station. I had not seen him previously for about a month, but before that I had seen him about once a week, and since the prosecution was started. He was a friend of mine.I believe he is now out in the hall. I saw Scharfe last week. He was an acquaintance, not a friend. I knew in December that Crowther and Sharratt were going into the employment of a syndicate formed by Mr. Selbach, who were going to make a motor that was to beat the "Napier," and to destroy the reputation of the "Napier" car, if possible. I knew that the "Napier" car, under Mr.Edge, had gained a long series of victories, and that large sums of money were from time to time spent to improve the engine. I realised how important it was that I should protect the interest of my employers, and that this syndicate should get no information or insight into Napiers' business. It was peculiarly a position where the fidelity of employes was of great importance. With the knowledge that there was a rival firm trying to make a car which should defeat the "Napier" car, I went to Griggs, not to get information for them, but for my own information. He explained to me about the dynamometer with which the tests were taken. Crowther and Sharratt had then left, so if they wanted the information it would have to be got dishonestly from someone inside. The first I heard of the syndicate was in December from Crowther, who thought Griggs would be a good man for the syndi-cate, and wanted me to try and induce him to leave, with a view to improving his position. Griggs was a friend of mine. I was not anxious with regard to his career. When I told Griggs it would not be worth our while to leave Napiers' for double the salary we were getting I was rather warning him in order to protect Napiers'. I deny Griggs's account of the conversation. When I showed him the advertisement I at the same time advised him not to go.I did not say I could get him the position. Nothing was said about

telegraphing to Crowther at Portsmouth. I knew Crowther was then at Portsmouth, and he is outside now. According to my version I was successful in preventing Griggs conveying information to the syndicate. I spoke to Scharfe with the same object, to warn him, knowing that he and Griggs worked together, and thinking he might be tempted to give information. I told Scharfe that Sharratt was in the employ of Mr.Selbach. I asked no questions about the bore and stroke of the engines. I hardly thought it was necessary to approach Crowther on the subject of suborning people in our employment. I knew from Crowther that Sharratt was going to try to get this information, so I thought it only my duty to warn Scharfe against giving it. I did not tell Crowther it was a very wrong thing to do, and have remained on friendly terms since that time. It occurred to me to inform my superiors, but I thought if I did so Scharfe might have been discharged, or might have got into trouble in some way.I did not offer Mr.Clarke any explanation, simply because he instantly dismissed me.Immediately I was discharged I rang up Crowther, at Selbach's.

Re-examined. I told Mr.Clarke exactly what had happened when I approached Scharfe. That explanation differs in no way from the explanation I have given to-day. When I say I took the prints for my own use I mean that if I could study them and get the mastery of the idea that would benefit me in getting out any clutch or carburetter or crank shaft that I might be ordered to design.

The Recorder observed that there were very important questions of law in this case, which nobody had raised, but which were pressing very hardly upon his mind. On me first two counts of the indictment the charge against prisoner was that of indicting to steal a piece of paper the property of his master. What evidence was there of that? The evidence was that he incited Hill to make a drawing or print of the 40-h.p.engine end of the cab engine.

Mr.Gill pointed out that the use of sensitised paper belonging to the prosecutors was necessary to that process.

The Recorder asked, with regard to the counts charging prisoner with stealing sixteen pieces of paper and three pieces of paper, whether it would not be necessary to satisfy the jury that prisoner intended permanently to appropriate them. If he took them away for the purpose of making copies of them or giving information to this rival firm without the intention of permanently appropriating them, would that be sufficient under the recent Act?

Mr. Gill: My case is that he is not entitled to convert to his own use these drawings, which are the property of the prosecutors.

The Recorder did not quite follow. Would it come within the Larceny Act of 1901 if prisoner intended only to convert them to his temporary as distinguished from his permanent use? Must it not be, under this Act, as it would be in the case of larceny? Of course, it was quite well known that a man could not steal the use of thing.

Mr. Gill: I say that when he took possession of those sixteen sheets of paper, and had them in his possession, he had converted them to his own use, and that when he was taking them away from the place at the time he was discharged he had already determined to convert them to his own use, and that with regard to those that were found at his house he had converted those to his own use.

The Recorder said that was a question of fact for the jury. Supposing the jury should be of opinion that he never intended to permanently appropriate these sixteen and three pieces of paper, but merely took them to his house for the purpose of acquiring the information which they would convey to him for the purpose of passing it on to this rival firm, but with the intention of returning them when he

had done with them to his master's portfolio, then could he be properly convicted on these four counts?

Mr. Gill said, in dealing with property belonging to an employer, the question of what the intention was was a question for the jury in every case. If the proposition were to be put forward that prisoner, having got possession of these documents, intended to study them and get the contents of them, he would say that such a contention would not apply at all in the present case, because the things had in fact been converted by prisoner to his own case.

The Recorder said he had only put the matter forward in order that the Court of Criminal Appeal might see that these things were really appreciated here. Nobody had brought the matter forward in the course of the case, and it appeared to him to be important.

Mr.Gill was certain that on the shorthand note the matter would be quite clearly brought out.

Mr.F.E.Smith said that the proposition of law was extremely familiar, that there must be intention of permanent appropriation. With regard to prisoner having asked Hill to make him a print of the tracing, he thought it equally necessary that there should be a direction to the jury on that part of the case. There the question of the intention of permanent appropriation would equally arise.

The Recorder said he did not think so. Prisoner was charged with inciting Hill to steal the sensitised paper, which was the only paper upon which a photograph could be produced. It he incited him to do that, that was quite sufficient. But Hill did not do it. The question of permanent appropriation, he thought, did not come into that. He wished counsel to bear in mind that in case of appeal these were points which would have to be met.

Verdict, Not guilty.

(Tuesday, June 30.)

Mr. Rooth stated that both Mr. Gill and himself had on Saturday overlooked the fact that there were two other indictments upon which a verdict of the jury must be taken.

The Recorder observed that, prisoner having been acquitted, it was not right that the indictments should remain on the file.

A jury was accordingly sworn, and a formal verdict of Not guilty returned.

Mr. Symmons said he had been asked by Mr.Rooth whether he had any objection to the documents, admittedly belonging to prosecutors, being handed over. There could not be an order made by the Court, but so far as Holt was concerned he was perfectly willing that they should be handed over.

The Recorder said they could do as they pleased. He had no power to make any order.


(friday, june 26.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-33
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

LANGSTON, Archibald (17), pleaded guilty of carnally knowing Maud Lilly, a girl about the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years. He was released on his own and his father's recognisances in £10 each.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-34
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties; Miscellaneous > sureties; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FREEDLAND, Myer; HARRIS, Moss; and BARRETT, William (25, shoemaker) ; all unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin. Freedland and Harris pleaded guilty.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted; Mr. L.S.Green appeared for Freedland and Harris.

Barrett was tried on a charge of conspiring with Harris.

HYMAN BEANSTOCK , 25, Newcastle Place, Whitechapel, costermonger. I have known Barrett for four months and Harris about six years. One day last month, I cannot remember which, I was talking to Harris in Newcastle Street. Barrett came up and asid he had got some coin. I said I would have nothing to do with it. I then introduced Barrett to Harris, and went off to my stall in Petticoat Lane. I heard Harris say to Barrett, "If you have got a couple on you I shall change them at my sister's public-house; she will not lock me up." I next saw them together at the Derby race. Harris told me he was changing a few coins. I saw Harris again on Friday at the Oaks. I also saw Barrett by himself. On the Tuesday following I was talking to Barrett at the corner of Castle Street when Harris came up and said he had got locked up over a five-shilling piece which he had left from Epsom races. Barrett said, "Why didn't you give it me back?" Harris said he forgot. He said that he had been taken out of bed.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I did not go to the Derby with you and Harris. On Oaks day I went with you to the gambling club. I did not come home with you from Epsom that day; I came home with my brother. You were in the same carriage but we were not together. I was not with you on the Saturday. You did go to my mother one night and ask her to mind £2 10s. for you. I do not know if it was on this Saturday. I went to prison before Easter for passing bad coin. I was discharged by the magistrate.

MOSS NATHAN . On Saturday, June 6, I was in Whitechapel Road, about four p.m., with Mick Freedland, when Moss Harris stopped us, and gave Freedland a five-shilling piece, telling him to be back in an hour's time. Harris promised him 1s. if he got rid of it. I then walked away with Freedland as far as his door.

The Common Serjeant said that this evidence had nothing to do with Barrett.

To Prisoner. When Harris stopped me and Mick you were not in our company. You are quite a stranger to me.

MOSS HARRIS , gilder. I was arrested on June 9 on this charge, being let out on bail. I went to the police station, where I made a statement. I know Barrett. I met him first about a week before the Epsom Races. I was talking to Beanstock in Whitechapel when Barrett came along, and I was introduced to him by Beanstock. The latter said, "Would you like to pass some counterfeit coin—dollars? You have a good character, and if you ever fell that character would get you out. Look at me; I passed 20 within an hour and I got out of it all right." I said I did not mind doing it. Barrett said, he had not got any at present, but if I would meet him at seven the next evening he would get some. I did not keep the appointment.

Beanstock called on me about four, and I went to the top of Castle Street and met Barrett, who asked me to go for a walk. We went down Mile End Road, and he gave me a bad half-crown and 2d., saying, "Go and get yourself some sweets." I then went into a shop and put the half-crown on the counter, asking for a pennyworth of sweets, but the man would not change it. He looked at it and said, "This is no good." I went over my pockets and brought out a penny. He gave me back the half-crown, and I went back to Barrett who was standing in the road, a little way up. I told him it was no good, and that this didn't seem a good job. He had previously told me to raise my cap on coming out if I had changed it He said, "A bad beginning will make a good ending." I still kept the half-crown. Presently he said, "Go and get a couple of oranges." At the corner of Osborn Street there was a man with a barrow of oranges. I asked him for two, which were 1 1/2 d., and gave him the half-crown, but he said it was bad, so I gave him back the oranges. I afterwards went into several tobacconist's and passed a few. Barrett put the first half-crown I had had in his pocket and gave me another one. I passed three or four. At places they were passed, and at others they were broken. I bought "Woodbines" at the tobacconist's. I passed four bad crowns the same day; they were handed to me one by one by Barrett. We walked down Mile End Road, through Grove Road, and into Bethnal Green Road. Barrett was with me all the time. We parted at Brick Lane. He gave me about 6s. when he left. As I changed the money I handed it all to Barrett. He said, "If I get any more I will come round and let you know." On the Friday or Saturday of the same week I saw him again in Whitechapel. I was standing at the corner of Wentworth Street or Middlesex Street. He said, "I have brought a lot of dollars; they go quicker, and you can earn more money by them." We went round the City, but none were passed. I do not remember whether I tried to pass any. He gave me a bad 5s. piece, and said, "Go and get a penny notebook." I said, "I do not feel like it, Bill; I do not think I will touch any more. I haven't got it in me. "He told me to go to several shops, but I said it was no good. After walking round for about an hour I left him. I had given him back the dollar. On the Monday, I think, I went with him to Stamford Hill, where I passed about eight half-crowns. I had no crowns that day. Barrett gave me 4s. for myself. He said, "I have got some more; I will see you this afternoon." I saw him again towards evening. He gave me one, but as we were going along Whitechapel we met some of his friends at the corner of Vallance Road. I knew one of them. This one asked Barrett where he was going, and what he was going to do. Barrett said he was going out with me, so the other man said, "Can I go?" Barrett looked at me, and I said, "Well, Bill, he has got to get his living, so he may as well go with you." Then I said good-night and walked away. On that day—I think it was at Stamford Hill—Barrett asked me if I would like to go to the Derby with him. I agreed to go. On the way down he gave me some bad five-shilling

Pieces, which I passed. He paid my expenses down and gave me 10s. I passed about five or 10 crowns. Beanstock went down with us. Barrett attempted to change a coin with a bookmaker, but the latter told him to go away, or he would have him "pinched." On Thursday, the next day, I was down on my own, but passed no bad coins. I stopped there overnight, and on Friday, as I was watching the horses coming along, Barrett came up with Beanstock.Barrett asked me if I would like to pass any. I said, "Well, I have got no money, I don't mind." I passed one, and he save me a shilling, with which I backed a horse and won; then I did not wish to pass any more. I did pass another, and got a bad two shillings in change. I refused to pass any more. Barrett said, "You are independent when you have got a few shillings." I went away and did not see him any more that day. On Derby day Barrett had given me two bad coins which had gone black, and I put them in a card-case so that they should be out of the way. Later on Barrett, who bad lost a lot of money, asked me for these crowns, which I gave him. He wetted his finger, put it on the ground, and rubbed it on one of the five-shilling pieces. He then asked me to change it. I said, "Bill, I think I have had enough; I do not feel like changing any more." He promised that that would be the only one, so I took it.and changed it. Then he asked for the other coin, and did the same to it, asking me to change it. I declined, and he tried to persuade me. He wanted to make me, so I thought the best way would be to rush right home. I went to the station, took a ticket for London Bridge, and went home. When I went to Epsom on Thursday I left the coin at home in one of the pockets of my other clothes, and when I changed my trousers I found it there. On the Saturday I was standing at the corner of Castle Street when I saw Freedland and Nathan. I gave the five-shilling piece to Freedland. When I was let out on bail I saw Barrett the same evening, the Tuesday after Bank Holiday. I was talking to Beanstock at the corner of Castle Street, when he called Barrett over, and said, "Here, Bill, he says he has dropped," meaning that I had been taken to the police station. They asked me what it was for. I said that I had attempted to pass the five-shilling piece which Barrett had tried to make me pass at Tattenham Corner. I did not want him to know that Freedland had any connection with me. Beanstalk said to Barrett, "I have been told that a fellow named Freedland, from Downs Road, Hackney, has fallen." Barrett said to me, "But your name is not Freedland?" I said, "No, my name is Harris, you know that."

Cross-examined by prisoner. When you were introduced to me it was Beanstock who suggested I should change bad money.

Sergeant HERBERT TAYLOR . I arrested Barrett at 7.30 a.m.on the 10th of this month. I was with Harris and another officer, and went to 79.Ernest Street, Stepney. The woman prisoner was living with opened the door and let us in. When we got in Barrett said, "Who is it?" The woman said, "It is the Jew boy whom you went to the races with last week." When I told prisoner what I should arrest him for he said "I don't know what you are talking about; tell me."

I then said that a man named Moss Harris, who was charged with uttering a counterfeit five-shilling piece, had made a statement, in which he said that he (Barrett) had given him the coin, and also a lot of others at Epsom and in London. Prisoner said he should like to see that statement. I said that he could when we got to Hackney. I took him to Hackney Police Station, and there I read Harris's statement to him in the presence of Inspector Divall and another officer. I had taken the statement down from Harris. I told Barrett that Harris bad said that morning that he saw Barrett and Bean stock last night, and the former had advised him to keep his month shut. Barrett said, "Well, I can see there is no getting out of it; I cannot get away from that; I shall plead guilty, but he ain't quite so innocent as he makes out." He said nothing when formally charged. On the way to the Court he said, "I hope people won't think that I induced him to change them. He came to me, not me to him. "

Cross-examined by prisoner. I searched your house, but found nothing relating to this charge.

EDWARD THOMAS CHARLES GARDNER , 62, Downs Park Road, Hackney, tobacconist and gunmaker. On June 6, between four and five p.m., a man came in and asked for a penny packet of Player's "Weights," tendering a bad five-shilling piece. I told him I should retain the coin (produced), which I did, and handed it to the police ultimately. (Freedland wat brought up and identified, as the man.)

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , H. M. Mint, proved that the coin in question was counterfeit, a fairly good specimen.

Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "Harris has just admitted he has made a false statement. When the police searched me and the place where I was living they found nothing; I plead not guilty."

WILLIAM BARRETT (prisoner, not on oath). I know nothing about giving Harris bad money to change. Harris admits he made a false statement towards me at the North London Police Court, when the magistrate committed us for trial. Harris said, "I am very sorry to think that I have made a false statement against Barrett, and am pleased to think that I am helping the police in this case," or something like that.

Harris's statement at the police court was read as follows: "I am very sorry I did not make a truthful statement at first, but I am pleased to think I am doing my best to assist the police."

Verdict, Guilty. Four previous convictions for larceny, house-breaking, etc., were proved. It was stated that Freedland and Harris had hitherto been respectable lads, and no doubt were led into the matter by Barrett. Freedland was released on his recognisances, and those of his father, Nathan Freedland, in £20. Harris (on June 30) was also released on his recognisances, and those of his brother-in-law, William Lewis, in £20 each. Barrett was sentenced to 15 months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-35
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

COUSINS, Arthur Frederick ; obtaining by false pretences three vases and other articles from Henry A. Pullen, with intent to defraud; stealing the said goods.

The prosecution offered no evidence, and a formal verdict of Not guilty was returned.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-36
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

CORNER, William Henry (43, traveller) ; embezzling the sum of £10 10s., received by him from account of O. Comitti and Son, Limited, his masters.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. Warburton defended.

Mr. Warburton said there would be an argument as to jurisdiction. It was difficult to say what the proper course would be to quash the indictment, because the indictment was good on the face of it. His argument would be that the facts as proved disclosed no offence which this Court could try in London.

The Common Serjeant said that unless counsel on each side were agreed on the facts, he could not decide the question of the jurisdiction until the facts were proved. Meanwhile, the prisoner must plead. A plea of Not guilty would raise the question of whether he had committed an offence within the jurisdiction.

GEORGE JAMES BARKER , secretary to O. Comitti and Son, Limited, barometer manufacturers, 51 and 53, Mount Pleasant, Holborn. Prisoner has been in our employment for the last seven or eight years. His salary was 10s. a week and 12 1/2 per cent. commission on all he obtained. It was his duty to account for all moneys reorders ceived to the head office. He principally received payment of accounnts in cheques; small sums would be paid in cash. He had to remit weekly, or he might wait a day or two longer, according to when his journey sheet finished. He did not deduct the money due to him from the.amounts collected. On March 9 a list was sent to him of accounts that had to be collected. The list produced is a copy. There are 18 names on it. That was sent to Patricroft, Manchester, where he was living. In the ordinary way that list would take from a week to ten days to deal with. On April 4 we got the letter, produced, from prisoner, from Bradford. It is in his writing. It includes the following sentences: "I have been unable to see Bush, except momentarily, or Mrs. Hall, who is indisposed. I shall have to come back Monday, as I cannot afford to miss Bush, and also I shall have to see Bland." We received no money in respect of Bland and did not know that he had paid. About April 11 we wrote prisoner to send the Bradford cash-sheet by return. No notice was taken of the letter. On April 24 we wrote again asking him to send the cash-sheet, now long overdue, without fail. We got two postcards and a wire from him (postcards produced). The first postcard is on May 5, "Letter with order-sheets and cash-sheets by later post." The next is dated May 13, "Am sending order-sheet, £20, and C.S. later post; too late to catch this." Not being able to obtain this cash-sheet a representative of the firm went to Manchester. On May 25 we received a letter (produced): "I desire to express my profound regret for what has happened, and ask for your clemency. If you will

grant me time I will repay every penny I owe you," etc. On May 26 instructions were given to our solicitors to apply for a warrant.

Cross-examined. Prisoner paid his own expenses. We paid him irrespective of any money he had in hand.

Mr.Warburton said he did not dispute the facts.

Witness. We have never received a detailed account of this tour of his in Yorkshire. I do not know how often prisoner saw Bland. I do not know the date of prisoner's last visitation regarding that list. I think he should have finished his Yorkshire tour at the beginning of April. Though the prisoner was in Yorkshire on April 10, I believe he went back there on a second visit. We should expect the cash-sheet immediately he had finished his tour, certainly by April 14.There was no commission owing to prisoner.

Re-examined. Besides going to Bradford to collect money, it was prisoner's duty to go there to obtain orders. If he was at Bradford on April 10 it would probably be for the purpose of obtaining orders. ROBERT BLAND , 2 and 3, Pennybank Chambers, Bradford, jeweller. On March 31 prisoner called on me to collect an account due to Messrs. Comitti, and I paid him 10 guineas in gold, for which he gave me the receipt produced.

Cross-examined. I saw prisoner a day or so after I paid him the money. He wanted me to go and look at his samples, but I did not want to buy any more stuff, so I did not go. I did not see him alter that.

Re-examined. I do not know that prisoner has represented anyone but Comitti's.

Sergeant JOHN BISSELL , E Division. On May 30 I arrested prisoner at Eccles Police Station, Lancashire. On reading the warrant to him he said. "I admit I have had the money and spent it." I took him to London, and when charged he made no reply.

(Saturday, June 27.)

Mr. Warburton now addressed his Lordship on the question of jurisdiction. He said that the law up to the time of the decision in Reg. v. Rogers (1878), 3 Q. B. D.)28, did not seem to have been clearly defined as to where cases of embezzlement should be tried. From the decision referred to it seemed, he thought perfectly clear that a person could be tried for embezzlement firstly in the country is which he did embezzle, and secondly, if he had to account to some other place and he sent to that place a false document which misled people, he could be tried there. In Reg. v. Rogers it was held by Kelly, C. B., Field, Lindley, and Manisty, J. J., that the receipt of a letter in Middlesex was sufficient to give jurisdiction to try the prisoner in Middlesex.

The Common Serjeant. That is in accordance with the old cases, is not it, that if a man has to remit money received in one county and he does not do so, but sends a letter which is intended to and does reach his employers in another country, pretending in any way that he has not got the money, or in any way concealing the fact, that is sufficient? Does not it come back to the whole question whether the letter which prisoner wrote on April 3 was intended to conceal the fact that he had seen Bland and got the money?

Mr. Warburton. That will be exactly my argument.

The Common Serjeant. There will be the same question as to venue as to the main point.

Mr. Warburton said he was anxious to differentiate this case of Reg. v. Rogers, because there the judges all went on the ground that mere non-accounting would not bring the case within the jurisdiction; obviously no part of the crime in that case would be committed in the second county, so to speak.

The Common Serjeant said that he would leave it to the jury to say whether the omission of the item by prisoner and what he wrote on April 3 was a fraudu-lent pretence that he had not received the money; if they found so, then prisoner would be guilty of a crime in this jurisdiction.

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Friday, June 26.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-37
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

ASKEW, George (17, labourer) ; feloniously shooting with a loaded pistol at Charles Dorsett, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm; and feloniously shooting with a loaded pistol at George Etherington, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Warburton prosecuted.

Inspector JOHN HOW , K Division. Soon after nine o'clock on April 29 Etherington was brought into Bow Police Station shot in the knee, and he was taken straight to the hospital. I produce a revolver handed to me by Harry Douglas. There are six cartridges, of which three have been fired, two have misfired, and one is undischarged. Askew was brought in, and charged with shooting Etherington. He said, "I can prove where I was at half-past eight; I was in a coffee-shop with Puddifoot."

FELIX MCCAULAY . I was near the, Gladstone statue at Bow at 10 minutes to nine on April 29, and saw the boy Etherington fall down. There was a street fight between the Globe boys and the Bow boys.

Police-constable JAMES PAYNE . I was in Lefevre Road on April 29, at about 8, 15 p.m., and saw about 25 boys rushing about and pushing people off the footway. On seeing me they ran away.

Police-constable JOHN BAKER , 14 K R. About a quarter to nine on April 29 I was in Fairfield Road, Bow, and saw a lot of youths rushing about, swearing, and making a disturbance. When they saw me they ran into Bow Road. I saw Askew taking part in the disorderly conduct.

HENRY LOWE . On April 29 I was outside my shop at about 9 p.m., and heard two pistol shots fired. I saw Etherington lying on the ground, and heard him call out, "Oh, my leg!"

THOMAS COX . At 8.50 I was in Bow Road, and saw about 20 boys. I was one of the Duckett Street gang and we were going to have a street fight. Askew pulled a six-chamber revolver out of his pocket, and said it belonged to Frank. When I got to Gladstone's statue there was a gang there, and Askew stepped into the road and fired. Etherington was shot in the leg, and we all ran away. Only one shot was fired. I saw Askew again on May 4, and he said, "The police are after you; if they catch you, don't say who fired the revolver."

The revolver produced is the one. Etherington was not with the other gang.

FRANK KAUFFMANN . The revolver produced is mine. I bought it in Mile End Road for 3s. two months before this boy was shot. On April 29 I took it out with me to try and sell it, but saw prisoner in a coffee shop and he asked me to lend it to him. I knew it was loaded. He fired one shot in the ground and a boy shouted out, "Oh, my leg!" and then they all ran away and I walked back. There were about 30 boys there. I was with the Globe gang and Askew was one of them. I did not see prisoner again. I had told prisoner the revolver was loaded.

HARRY DOUGLAS . I picked up the revolver produced in the Fair-field Road on the morning of April 30 and gave it to the police.

HARRY FRANCIS NOYES , house surgeon, London Hospital. I exa-mined Etherington on the night of April 29. There was a bullet wound in the right knee and no exit wound. I extracted the bullet, which fits the revolver produced. The bullet which I extracted might have previously penetrated another body, but I do not say it had. Etherington was in hospital from April 29 to May 19.

Police-constable HENRY BROWN , 230 K. On April 29, about nine o'clock, I was in Bow Road. I heard a shot fired, and saw a boy fall. A lot of boys then ran away. I did not see who fired. I only saw Dorsett fall.

GEORGE ETHERINGTON . On April 29 I was talking to a boy named Dorsett near the Gladstone statue. I saw a gang of boys come from Bow Bridge way. There were about 20 boys near me. I saw the flash of a pistol and was hit, and called out, "Oh, my leg." My leg was bandaged, and I was taken to the police station and then to the hospital. I did not know who had shot me. I thought I heard two shots, but did not know Dorsett was hit till I was at the hospital.

CHARLES DORSETT . I was talking to the last witness near a gang of boys. I saw the other gang come along on the opposite side of the road. I heard two pistol shots. I felt something hurt my leg and I fell down. I did not see Etherington shot.


GEORGE ASKEW (prisoner, on oath). On April 29 I was walking down Bow Road when a gang of Globe boys came along. I was a few yards the lead of them when I heard a shot fired and saw a boy fall in the road. I looked round, and saw the Globe boys running towards me. After that they ran away down Fairfield Road. About five minutes afterwards, while a policeman was taking in one of the boys to the station, a gentleman took hold of my shoulder, and said, "Come along; I am going to take you down to Bow Police Station." He left me there and walked out.

Cross-examined. I had nothing to do with the shooting. I did not have a revolver or borrow one. I had known Kauffmann for a few days. What he has said is untrue; he has been put up to it to get Puddifoot out of it. I was with the Globe gang, and we were going to have a fight. I had not been pushing people about. What

the police said is untrue. When the shot was fired I was not with the gang, I was in front of them. I do not know who fired.

Police-constable BAKER , recalled. The prisoner was brought into the station by a private gentleman, who did not leave his name.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawfully wounding.

Sergeant NORRIS. Prisoner's surroundings are very bad. He goes about with a rough gang who are a nuisance and danger to the neighbourhood. Last Saturday he was cautioned for disorderly conduct in the street.

Sentence, 15 months' imprisonment, Borstal system recommended.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-38
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

THOMAS, John (55, labourer) ; incurring a certain debt and liability, to wit, on November 8, 1906, to the amount of £100 to Charles Harvey, did obtain credit by means of fraud; obtaining by false pretences on January 27, 1907, the sum of £5 from Charles Wimhurst; on May 26, 1906, the sum of £51 from Jane Mitchell; on December 19, 1906, the sum of £50 from Joseph Philip Sawen; on February 10, 1907, the sum of £10 from Jacob Matrabes; and on February 19, 1907, the sum of £50 from John George Turl, in each case with intent to defraud.

JOHN GEORGE TURL . I am a traffic inspector for the Great Western Railway. On February 10, 1906, I called on prisoner at his request. He asked me to lend him £50. At that time I had known him about 27 years. He told me he wanted the £50 to make the £950 which he had into £1, 000. He did not say what he wanted to do with it. On February 19 I lent him £50 at 10 per cent. interest. He gave me as I. O. U., but I never received a penny back from him.

Mrs. JANE MITCHELL . Prisoner called on me in February, 1906, and asked me to lend him £5, for which he would repay me £6 in a few days, which he did. About a week or so later he borrowed £6, saying he was short of money, and would give me £1 interest. In March he borrowed £50, saying it was to do some business, and he would like to do me a little good; he would give me £3 a month for the £50 as interest. He said he would repay the £50 in 12 months' time. I only handed him £40 in cash, as he owed me £7 and gave me £3 as a first instalment. He gave me a receipt for £50. On April 14 he paid me £3, and on May 19 another £3; he then said if I let him have another £50 he would give me £6 a month. He said, "You need not be afraid, you cannot lose it. It is quite safe." On May 26 I gave him £44 in cash to invest in the business, which was £50 less one instalment of £6. He gave me a receipt for £50. Between August 18, 1906, and March 2, 1907, he paid me £33. In June, 1907, he came to me in Ascot week and told me he had lost my money on a horse, and asked me to let him have another £50. I said I had not got it. He has paid me nothing except the £33. He showed me a life policy which he said would be my security if anything happened to him, and gave me a letter to that effect. When I lent him the money I believed he had a business, and had some money of his

own invested. I never asked how the business was getting on as I was quite satisfied when he paid me money.

To Prisoner. I have not had firemen lodging at my house who have abused you. I have not owed money for 30 years which I have not paid. My cat's-meat shop is in my own name. I did not know you were using this money to work a betting system, and you did not tell me you were.

CHARLES WILLIAM HARVEY . I am an engine-driver on the Great Western Railway, and have known prisoner about 30 years. He was till March, 1905, foreman of locomotive department at Westbourne Park. In April, 1907, he borrowed £7 from me, saying he had not received his money from the sinking fund and dividends from different shares which he had. He repaid that £7 in the following June, and offered me 10s. interest, which I did not want to take, but he left it on the table and went away. At the end of October, 1906, he asked me to lend him £50, which I did on November 8, for which he gave me an I. O. U., promising to repay me £55 on November 8, 1907. The paper also said if anything happened to him I was to be paid out of his Prudential insurance policy. On June 8, 1907, he again came to me to lend him another £50. I let him have £3 on account, and then £47, which I drew from the P. O. Savings Bank. He gave me a paper promising to pay me £4 a month, but I have received nothing. I believed what he told me, that he was a man of money. I did not know at that time that his insurance policy was worth £8 only.

JOSEPH PHILIP SAWEN . I am in the employ of the Great Westers Railway, and have known prisoner about 27 years. On December 17, 1906, I met prisoner by appointment; he wanted to borrow £50 to go into partnership with a Mr. Phillips, a greengrocer, at Hampstead. I consulted my father, and prisoner came to see him, and on December 19 I lent him £50, and he gave me an I. O. U., promising to pay me £4 every four weeks for my £50. He paid me £4 a month in January, February, March, May, and June—£20 altogether. On June 27, 1907, he borrowed £5 of me, which he said was to pay his landlady, as he was short and his money was not quite due. I have received no money from him since, and have lost £35.

To Prisoner. You told me you had lent Phillips £100 and he would pay you back.

JOSEPH ALFRED SAWEN , father of the last witness. I have known prisoner about 30 years. Prisoner called on me by appointment in December, 1906. He said that he wanted to borrow £50 to put into Mr. Phillips's business. I said, "Where is your own money?" He said he had sunk it, and was getting 30s. a week for life. He said he would pay £1 a week and give 10 per cent. interest, making in all £60. He showed a life policy for £200, and said he had made arrangements for the money to be repaid out of that in case of his death. I thereupon advised my son to lend him the money.

To Prisoner. You had your policy with you or I could not have got the number. You did say you lent Mr. Phillips £100.

HENRY PHILLIPS . I opened my business as a greengrocer at Hampstead on December 8, 1906, so it had not progressed very far on the

19th. Prisoner has never lent me £100, or any other sum, and I have had no dealings with him whatever. Nothing was ever said about his coming into partnership with me.

WILLIAM CHARLES WIMHURST , engine-driver, employed by the Great Western Railway. I have known prisoner 10 or 15 years. He called on me January 27, 1907, to borrow £5, which he said he wanted to pay as deposit on a greengrocer's shop at Harlesden. The following Sunday he showed me two empty shops at Harlesden, and said he was going next morning to arrange terms. He told me his own money was not due till the March quarter, and he would pay me then. On January 28 I lent him £5, for which he gave me an I. O. U. I have received no money back. When I lent him the £5 I believed he had money invested on which the dividends would be paid in March, and that he was in negotiations about the house. I have made several applications for the money.

HERBERT COLLEY TURNER , principal clerk of the Loan Department, Prudential Assurance Company. On November 21, 1901, prisoner insured himself for £200. On February 25, 1907, my company advanced him £50 on the security of the policy. We received notice of the assignment of the policy to Mr. R. W. Moore, of Swansea, in October, 1907. On November 1, 1907, the policy lapsed through nonpayment of premiums, the surrender value at that time being £58. Prisoner already having borrowed £50 on it, the actual value was £8, less £1 14s. 1d. for interest, making a net value of £6 5s. 11d.

Detective-sergeant WALTER HAMBROOK , X Division. I arrested prisoner at 10 p.m. on May 15 at 3, Denham Road. When I read the warrant to him, he said, "I have been expecting it for some time." On the way to the station he said, "Surely Harvey is the last one that would go against me. I had money when I left the Great Western Railway, but everything is now gone." When I searched him I found 4s., two racing calendars, and a newspaper relating to horseracing. I afterwards went to his address and searched his lodgings. The place was poverty-stricken. I found 22 pawntickets, of which the first date was June 27, 1907, for a gold albert pawned for 30s., the dates of the other tickets extended up to the time of his arrest. There was also a racing calendar and a pack of cards with the names of different horses running last year on the cards. I was present on May 21 when further charges were made against the prisoner, in reply to which he said, "Yes, that is true; I have had the money, but I did not intend to rob them."

To Prisoner. You never asked me any questions at all, and I never questioned you at all. All you said was voluntary. I did not commence by saying, "I suppose you expected this, did you not?" I cautioned you in the ordinary way.


JOHN THOMAS (prisoner, on oath). I produce my character from the Great Western Railway, where I have been for 36 years. I left

in 1905. I rose step by step, all except the last one. It was my turn to get that rise, and not getting it I left, as I felt I was entitled to it. When I left I had some money. If I had had none I should have knuckled down and should not have been here.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sergeant HAMBROOK, recalled. Since prisoner left Great Western Railway three years ago, he appears to have been going up and down the line, even as far as Swansea, obtaining money on false pretences from employees. He appears to have lost money at horse-racing. He still owes his landlady a considerable sum for board and lodging.

Sentence, 12 months' imprisonment, second division.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-39
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

HUNT, Gertrude Alice ; maliciously publishing a certain defamatory libel of and concerning Eliza Frances Evans.

Mr. Huntly Jenkins prosecuted; Mr. Lawrie defended.

FRANK EVANS . I am a member of the Bar, and live at 71, Coleherne Court, Earl's Court. On December 17 last prisoner entered my service as temporary parlourmaid. She had to sleep at 11, West-gate Terrace, as we had no room in the house. On December 28 she handed me a letter (produced) which she admitted having written, laying she was advised that I was responsible for a burn on her hand. I am insured against Injury to my servants. I made a claim on the office for compensation, and they said I was not to make her any offer. Another letter (produced) in her handwriting was addressed to my wife, saying that if her rights were not complied with she would make a criminal charge against her for obtaining her services under false pretences, and forging Dr. Ramsden's name with intent to defraud her. She then brought an action for slander against my wilt and me, which was dismissed with costs. I did not institute these proceedings until after her action for slander was settled.

Cross-examined. My daughter engaged prisoner, so I do not know the circumstances under which she was engaged. I do not know when she burnt her hand, and I made no inquiries. The first notice I took of the injury was when she handed me that letter on December 28. I never looked at her hand. The insurance company sent a blank form of doctor's certificate, which I handed her to get filled up. She left on December 30. I went to one place to make inquiries about her myself.

Mr. Jenkins took objection to this line of cross-examination; if Mr. Lawrie was going to justify the libel he must do so in the proper way.

Mr. Lawrie said he proposed to show by the surrounding circumstances that this was not the kind of libel which the Act was passed to prevent.

The Judge said the question whether it was a libel was for the jury. Mrs. ELIZA FRANCES EVANS , wife of the last witness. Prisoner entered my employment on December 17, and I discharged her on the 30th. I received the letter of January 29 from prisoner; it is in her handwriting. I did not obtain her services under false pretences. I have never forged Dr. Ramsden's signature.

Cross-examined. I engaged prisoner at a registry office, and there was no time to get any references. I first heard of this accident the morning after she entered my service. She asked me to pay her wages and let her go. I said, "No, it would be most unfair, as I could not get anyone else, but I would help her as much as possible." She then asked if I was insured, and I said I would speak to my husband. I examined her hand, which was not burned very badly. It was getting on nicely 10 days' later. I did not inquire how she came to burn it with the matches. I did not know she was going to write the letter to my husband. She got a certificate from a Dr. Ramsden. I gave her notice to quit on December 30, and she left that evening, refusing to take her wages. Her leaving had no connection with making a claim for compensation. Her engagement was for a fortnight. I know nothing about the address on the certificate being wrong; it was nothing to do with me. I think she filled it up in my presence. It was not brought to my notice till she charged me with forging Dr. Ramsden's certificate. She never informed me that the address was wrong. I offered her wages, 30s., and 3s. cab fare, and she would not take it. I avoided her as much as possible. I was very sorry I had not made inquiries about her character. I have never spoken evil of her to the neighbours, or made statements derogatory to her either before or since. She commenced an action for slander against us in March, or April. I wanted to prosecute her for libel from the beginning, when she accused me of forging Dr. Ramsden's signature. I first took steps to bring these proceedings this month at the West London Police Court. I did not bring proceedings in December, because my husband did not want to. She hung about for three months up and down the staircase and constantly accosted my husband and myself. I had to take legal proceedings to stop her; it was not in consequence of the proceedings she took against me. I have been to the agency from which I engaged her, and read the worst letter to Mrs. St. George. I have read the letters to two or three people to get them to use their influence to stop her writing. Mrs. St. George was impudent when I saw her.

The Judge ruled that the conversation with Mrs. St. George was irrelevant.

EDWARD BARRETT . I served prisoner with a summons on June 5 charging her with libel. She replied, "I know nothing about it."

Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about prisoner's character, which is beyond reproach. She is spoken of highly by everybody she has come in contact with as a religious woman and well conducted.

Re-examined. I find she has written letters to several other people, including Dr. Ramsden and a solicitor.


GERTRUDE ALICE HUNT (prisoner, on oath). I have references extending over eight years, mostly as temporary parlourmaid. On December 17 last I left Mr. Hanson's service, and I went to Mrs. Evans. I was to be there a fortnight or three weeks at 15s. a week.

The accident occurred on the 18th, in the morning. I was lighting a match when the box exploded and burnt my thumb and finger very badly, disabling me from December 18 to March 17. On December 18 I told Mrs. Evans about it, and said I did not know if I could do my work. I did not ask her for anything, but she suggested that I should claim compensation from her husband, which I did, and that is the letter Mr. Evans had here. I have been paid nothing as compensation. Mrs. Evans asked me to stay on, but on the 30th asked me to resign, stating that as I was claiming compensation it would be better that I should be out of employment. We were on the best of terms. She gave me no reason for my dismissal. She said she would pay my wages next morning, as she had no money until Mr. Evans gave her some. The next morning I was treated as an impostor. The certificate said that the accident took place at the residence of my previous employer. I commenced an action for slander, but did not go on with it for want of money. When I wrote the letter, the subject of the present charge, I was suffering from a bad burn of the thumb and finger, and also an internal displacement and mental anxiety. When I wrote that letter I meant that I intended to prosecute her.

Cross-examined. I have no witnesses to prove what I said in that letter. I do not suggest that Mrs. Evans forged Dr. Ramsden's signature; the certificate produced was given me by Dr. Ramsden. I was going to make a criminal charge against prosecutrix because she was persecuting me. I have not been in the habit of writing to professional people. I wrote to Dr. Ramsden and to a solicitor when I thought they did not act properly. I wrote to a Mr. Grobell. I wrote to Mrs. Evans saying if £50 compensation was not paid me I would go to the L. C. C.

Re-examined. The letters put to me are subsequent to the letter which is the subject of this charge.

Mrs. CHARLOTTE LAWES . I am landlady at 11, Westgate Terrace. I remember prisoner burning her hand with a box of matches, and her hand being bad for a long time. Mrs. Evans did not come to inquire about how she burned her hand. Prisoner bore a very good character while in my house.

Verdict, Guilty, the jury adding that they considered that the prisoner did not realise the seriousness of her conduct in writing the letters.

Prisoner was released on her own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.


(Saturday, June 27.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-40
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

GERHOLD, Alfred, and GERHOLD, William; feloniously forging and knowingly uttering a certain accountable receipt for goods, with intent to cheat and defraud; committing wilful and corrupt perjury; conspiring and agreeing together by means of a forged accountable receipt for goods and certain false and perjured testimony to defeat the ends of justice.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Purcell and Mr. H. D. Roome defended.

HARRIETT KNOWLSON , 15, Shrubland Road, Dalston, widow. In October last my son Benjamin, with a Mr. Bright, was running a moulding business at 17, Angrave Street, for which purpose I lent them a moulding machine. I saw Alfred Gerhold about it, and had a signed agreement with him (copy produced). The original was lost at the police court. It was witnessed by Charles Bright. The agreement is that the machine shall be in no sense part of the freehold, and that B. Knowlson and myself may at any time remove it, making good any damage. My son was at Angrave Street for about three or four weeks. When he left I went there and asked for my machine. I saw Alfred. He said that I could not have it as there was a week's rent owing in lieu of notice. He was allowing other men to use the machine and was receiving money from them. I could see it myself through the window. I told Alfred Gerhold that I was willing to refix his machine and put the place in order if he would allow me to have my machine. There was a useless machine of his which had been moved to make room for mine. I saw Alfred several times about my machine. The last time was on a Saturday. He would not let me have it, so I had to go to North London. Before that, on November 23, I got a letter, as follows: "As regards workshop, 17, Angrave Street, Haggerston, we are very much surprised how we have been dealt with since October 21. After the first week we received a letter from Mr. Bright stating he is not liable for any damage after the first week, as he has had some dispute with Mr. B. Knowlson. Then the matter is left for a week, then Mr. Knowlson starts again, and then he is done; then it is left another three weeks, then your eldest son calls on us, and says we must take the rent and damages done to the premises by weekly instalments," etc. After that I consulted my solicitor, Mr. C. V. Young, who took out a summons against Alfred Gerhold for detaining my machine. On December 16 I went to North London Police Court and gave evidence. Alfred Gerhold also gave evidence. The magistrate made an order that the Gerholds should deliver up the machine, in default thereof to pay to me £10, the value. After that I sent my son Chris, who took several others with him, to the Gerhold's place. The same evening my son fetched me round. When I got there I saw William Gerhold, my son, Bright, Bull, and Thomas Knowlson, my nephew. Alfred Gerhold was not there. I went to the workshop which my son had rented at 25s. a week. William Gerhold said to me, "You must sign for the machine, Mrs. Knowlson, because you may say you have not had it. "I put my glasses on to see what I was going to sign. On the receipt, which was in a book, were the words, "Received my own spindle machine." I was going to sign under those words, but William told me to sign lower, where it said "Signed," which I did, but I was very particular what I signed for. (Receipt produced.)

The words, "And I agree to replace new iron frame to broken spindle and refix spindle machine as before," were not there. The signature only is in my writing. When I signed my son, nephew, Bull and Bright were present. The machine was taken away after I had signed to my place, 85, Hoxton Street. After that I sent a man three times to put the place in order. I had offered to refix the Gerholds' machine if they would let me take mine away before the police court order. On December 24 I got the letter produced, signed A. Gerhold: "Dear Madam,—I am very much surprised you have not kept your accordance in regard to our saw-mill. I must inform you are causing us to lose a lot of money through you not keeping your agreement. When you took your machine away, and you know what you said to the magistrate that you would put the place right, but you have not yet done so. Your son came round with a man who looked in the saw mills on December 18, and he said he would come in the afternoon to start it, but he has not done so. Will you kindly let me know by return?" etc. The magistrate said I had no need to refix the machine. I did not answer that letter. I sent a man three times to put the place in order, but they would not let him in. I had another letter from Alfred, which I have lost. I cannot remember what was in it; I think something about, "You do not even answer my letters." On March 6 I got the County Court summons produced, and the particulars annexed. The Gerholds there claim £46 14s. 4d. for refixing iron frame to machine and other things. The case came before Judge Smyly. Alfred Gerhold gave evidence first, and said that he had written the receipt which was produced, and which I had signed, and that he was present at the time it was signed, but he was not. I do not remember that he said what was on the receipt. The words were on it which are on it now, but they were not when I signed it. William Gerhold also gave evidence. Then I gave evidence, also my sons, Benjamin and Christopher, and Thomas Knowlson, Bull, and others. The judge gave plaintiffs judgment for £4 and two guineas costs.

Cross-examined. I do not know whether the Gerholds' machine was fastened to the ground. My son could not work it; that is why he was not satisfied with it. It was a useless machine. I do not understand much about the machines. Their machine had to be taken up in order to put mine in. I did not give my son any reference, nor say that the money would be all right. The Gerholds knew the two young fellows. They had known my son for two years. They had known me a very little time. They may have seen me in the shop on Saturdays. My son lived with me. The Gerholds have done work once to a stove of mine; that was just before Christmas. The reason my son could not go on with the work at the workshop was because there was no gas. I had not seen the premises before my son took them. I believe there were other machines in the workshop as well as mine. The Gerholds' spindle machine was standing in the corner when I went to receive mine. I do not remember the Gerholds saying that I could not have my machine until I had refixed theirs. I would not like to swear they did not. I told the magistrate

that Alfred said I could not have the machine because there was a week's rent in arrear. Before I put my machine in the Gerholds' shop they agreed not to distrain on it if rent was in arrear; my friend arranged that—my son's governor. If Gerhold had refused me my machine because of rent owing it would have been in flat contradiction of our agreement. It was only business that I should sign the receipt for the machine. My son and several of the others had seen the receipt before I signed it; there was no need to show it to them. I may have done so. They were all standing there; they could not help seeing it. My son Chris. said it was all right to sign, and I put my glasses on to make sure. I looked at it carefully because I was suspicious. I had called in a friend before that, and he said he did not see why they should want me to sign beforehand. My suggestion is that after I signed the receipt and it had been seen by Christoher, by my nephew, and Bright and Bull, one of the Gerholds added the words after, "Received my own spindle machine." I do not know whether the Gerholds are sane or not; I do not know anything about them. I had offered to refix their machine before I got my own back. I do not know that the iron frame of their machine was broken when it was removed to put mine in. I have not answered any of the Gerholds' letters. I did have a registered letter from them; I do not know whether it was the one which has been read on December 28. When I first called for the machine I saw Alfred. I certainly did not strike him. He sent for a policeman so that I should not take my machine away. I do not know Sergeant Bartlett, but I saw him outside here. When I signed the receipt Alfred was not at the door; he was not present. He did not hand William the receipt book. I do not know whether Alfred swore that he was there.

(Monday, June 29.)

BENJAMIN KNOWLSON , 15, Shrubland Road, Dalston, son of the last witness. I and Charles Bright rented a workshop at 17, Angrave Street, last October, from Alfred Gerhold. My mother had an agreement; I had not. We were to have the use of a moulding machine and a drilling machine. The moulding machine was in a shocking condition. I told William it was no good, and asked him if I could borrow one from my mother; he said, "Yes." I borrowed a machine from my mother. I stayed at the place about a month, and left with-out giving a week's notice. After that I went to get my mother's machine. I saw both Alfred and William; they said I could not have it as they wanted a week's rent.

Cross-examined. There was a difference in starting between my mother's and the Gerholds' machine, but not in the working. In order to put in my mother's machine the Gerholds' machine had to be moved, for which purpose a crowbar had to be used. After I gave up the premises I went on the Saturday afternoon with my mother, Thomas Knowlson, and, I think, a man named Lawrence. My mother was quite calm and cool. The Gerholds did not tell us that we could not have the machine because it was in use. Nothing

was said about damage to the premises or to the machine, and nothing was said about replacing the machine or putting the place in order. On that occasion a policeman was sent for because my mother told me to take the machine up. The machine was not in use at the time. It was before that occasion that I had looked through the window and seen them working the machine. I did not see any desire on my mother's part to strike Alfred Gerhold. When the policeman came Alfred did not complain about damage to the machine. My mother did not say that the would pay for the repair of the machine by instalments. I cannot remember whether my mother said she would refix the Gerholds' machine. I was not present when my mother signed the receipt.

Re-examined. The spindle of the Gerholds' machine and the striking part at the bottom were broken. It could have been remedied; I do not know how much it would cost. I, Bright, and William Gerhold moved the Gerholds' machine and fixed my mother's in. No damage was done to the former machine. William did not complain of any damage.

CHRISTOPHER KNOWLSON , another son of Mrs. Knowlson, moulding machinist. On December 17 I went to 17, Angrave Street with Thomas Knowlson and met Bright outside. We saw William Gerhold, who said, "Where is Mrs. Knowlson? I want her to sign a receipt for a machine." I said, "I do not think it is necessary. If you like I will sign it myself." He said, "Oh, that won't do; we want Mrs. Knowlson to sign it." So I went to Hoxton Street and fetched my mother. This was about four or five p.m. When we got back there was Thomas Knowlson, Bright, and a man named Bull, who worked upstairs. My mother said to William, "I want to see what I am signing for." William produced a common receipt book and showed it to me first. It was simply a receipt for a spindle machine. I said, "Mother, it is all right; you can sign it." She signed it with a lead pencil. She was going to do so underneath the words of the receipt, but William said she was to sign at the bottom; that that was the right place. We shifted the machine soon afterwards. The words on the receipt, "And I agree to replace new iron frame and to refix spindle machine at before," have been added. Alfred was not there when the receipt was signed. I saw him at the commencement of the afternoon, soon after two, before I fetched my mother. I next saw the receipt at the County Court, When I recognised that it had been altered

Cross-examined. I cannot say whether Alfred was present when the receipt book was produced. The receipt was signed on the machine. (The witness marked the place on a rough plan.) It was near the door. I am not sure whether Thomas Knowlson saw the receipt before it was signed, but he saw it afterwards. Bull and Bright also saw it after it was signed. I noticed that the word "Signed" was at the bottom, where my mother signed. I had heard one or two little things about the Gerholds from different people which made me very careful. I told the County Court judge that there was a space before the signature and suspected something

might be written on it. There is a door very near where the receipt was signed leading from the workshop into a courtway. When I was standing at the machine my face was not necessarily turned away from the doorway. I saw the receipt at the solicitors a few days before the County Court case. The receipt was signed in the book before it was torn out.

THOMAS KNOWLSON , 5, George Square, Hoxton, nephew of Mrs. Knowlson. I went with Bright on December 17 to 17, Angrave Street. Tweed came over and opened the gates. Christopher Knowlson was also there. (Witness corroborated the others as to what took place at the signing of the receipt.) I did not see Alfred Gerhold that afternoon. I should say the workshop is about 16 or 18 ft. one way and 12 or 14 the other.

Cross-examined. There is another shop 300 or 400 yards away where the writing part of the business is done. The receipt was signed in the workshop; I believe it was done on the saw-bench. We were all of a bunch and looked over Mrs. Knowlson's shoulder. I saw the receipt before it was signed. I did not look at it after it was signed. There was a doorway not far off. We were about 6 ft. from it. I cannot say whether we were facing the doorway; I should say we were, to get the light; there is only one doorway. William brought in the receipt book. I said before the magistrate that I did not see William bring in the book, but I supposed, as he had it, he must have brought it in. It would not have been imposable for Alfred to have come to the door and handed William the book. I next saw the receipt at the County Court on May 7, I think. Mrs. Knowlson had told me when it was produced at the solicitors that some words had been added. I was asked at the solicitors if I could remember what was on the receipt; I said that I could. Bull and. Christopher were there at the time. I had been doing a little work at that time in the Gerholds' shop and also another shop in Rappley Place, Bethnal Green. I had a boy in my employ about a week before this, and he would not start work for me on the Monday. I do not know if the Gerholds interfered about it. I was convicted four or five years ago for receiving a stolen van and got three months.

CHARLES BRIGHT , 109, Bridport Place, Hoxton, machinist. Last October I took a workshop, 17, Angrave Street, with Benjamin Knowlson, from Alfred Gernold. Mrs. Knowlson lent us a moulding machine, which was fixed up in the workshop. I witnessed an agreement between Mrs. Knowlson and Alfred Gerhold (produced). (Witness described what took place at the fetching of the machine and the signing of the receipt, corroborating the other witnesses.)

Cross-examined. Mrs. Knowlson looked at the receipt first; we all looked at it after it was signed. Christopher looked at it after his mother before it was signed. I was not near enough to see it when Mrs. Knowlson was looking at it. I was about as far away as Bull. We were all together in a bunch. Mrs. Knowlson showed me the receipt after she had signed it. I cannot remember when I

was first asked about this proceeding; it was after the County Court. Alfred was not at the workshop when I went first with Christopher on the afternoon referred to. It was quite impossible for Alfred to have been at the doorway while we were looking at the receipt. We were all turning sideways to the door. (Witness indicated the position.)

ALBERT EDWARD BULL 53, Greyhound Road, Tottenham, cabinet maker. I cannot read very well. On December 17 I was present when Mrs. Knowlson signed the receipt. Thomas Chris, a man named Bright, and another man were there. I had known the prisoners for some weeks. William was present.

Cross-examined. The receipt was handed to Mrs. Knowlson. We were all standing together. I only saw a small piece of writing on the top. I was keeping my eye on the transaction. We were all in a bunch, just round. Bright was there; I believe he was as close as I to the receipt. No one told me to look at the document; I saw it myself. I saw the receipt after it was signed. I saw Mrs. Knowlson sign it. I went to the premises by myself. The bunch that was standing there was in the position of a half-circle, with their faces to the door. My memory was first recalled to this affair two days before the county court business. Before that I didn't think no more of it.

Re-examined. On the receipt produced there was all space on the lower part.

CHARLES VERNON YOUNG , 65, Stoke Newington Road, solicitor. I acted for Mrs. Knowlson on the hearing of the summons on December 16 against Alfred Gerhold for detention of a moulding machine. On that occasion an agreement between Mrs. Knowlson and Alfred Gerhold was put in evidence. Alfred Gerhold gave evidence and admitted the agreement. The agreement I produced in court, but never had it back, though I made a copy of it; that copy was put in at the police court, but disappeared somehow. The copy produced is a correct one. On December 16 an order was made by Mr. Fordham that the machine should be given up forthwith, with two guiness costs, in default£10, the value of the machine. No claim was then made by Alfred Gerhold against Mrs. Knowlson. The only thing he wanted was the rent which was owing by one of the sons and Bright. Nothing was said about replacing an iron frame. On March 17 Mrs. Knowlson next consulted me. She brought a plaint note and the particulars in the County Court action, and instructed me to act for her. I applied for further particulars, especially concerning the alleged agreement. I obtained further particulars of that agreement (produced), showing how their claim of£46 was made up. On May 7 the County Court action came on. The defendants, the then plaintiffs, were represented by Mr. Moore, solicitor. The agreement of December 17 was as follows: "Received my own spindle machine, and I agree to replace new iron frame to broken spindle and refix spindle machine as before." Alfred Gerhold was the first witness, and was duly sworn. He produced Exhibit 3, on which they founded

their claim. He said it was in his handwriting except the signature, which had been signed by Mrs. Knowlson in his presence, and that of Christopher, Benjamin, Bright, and Bull. I think he mentioned Thomas Knowlson also. The question was put in cross-examination as to whether when Mrs. Knowlson signed the document all it contained was, "Received my own spindle machine." He said no, the whole of the writing was there at the time. Judgment for £4 was given to the plaintiffs. William Gerhold was also called, and said that he had handed the document to Mrs. Knowlson, who had signed it in his presence, and that it was in the same state then as it was when she signed it. At my request Exhibit 3 was impounded by the Judge.

Cross-examined. The Judge disregarded the agreement because he found there was no consideration. Alfred said that he, his brother, Christopher, Thomas Knowlson, and Bright were there when the receipt was signed.

EDWARD POLEHAMPTON MAYHARBD , Wick Road, Homerton, said that he assisted the prisoners to fix some machinery into 17, Angrave street nearly two years ago, among which was a moulding machine is a very bad condition. (Witness described the state of the machine.) The last time witness saw it was when a young gentleman named Stone had it, about the latter end of last July. He did not see the machine properly then.

Cross-examined. The damage to the machine when I saw it two years ago would cost about £6 to make good. A small bracket was produced in the County Court which had been broken off the machine and which would cost about 2s. to replace. I was sent for to go to the police court by a detective. I did not know him before. I have known the Knowlsons since childhood. I know the Gerholds also.

Re-examined. I gave evidence at the County Court.

THOMAS TWEED , wheelwright. I am doing odds and ends for myself. I was working for the Gerholds up to last March, for 10 years on and off. I left them because I could not get my money off them. Last December I was working at 17, Angrave Street. I recollect taking a lot of machinery into Angrave Street; I daresay that might be two or three years ago. There was a moulding machine there which never was no good. I would not chance working it; the knives used to fly out; I did not like to go near it. One afternoon in December last Alfred Gerhold gave me the key to let some people in Mrs. Knowlson and two others I didn't know. I was then working at 62, Angrave Street, on the other side of the road, about 100 yards or feet off. William followed the people in and sent me over to No. 62. Alfred was there, working on the forge all day. William came to No. 62 later on with a book in his hand. Alfred looked at the book and said, "Now I'm done 'er"; then Bill burst out laughing. Then they spoke in German, which they generally do, so that I can't understand. The next day they told me to go and straighten up the place so that they could repair it—cement it. Then they were

going to put the moulding machine in the corner, and Bill picked up the sledge hammer and gave the machine a slight crack, knocking off about 8 in. Bill pointed to me to go over in the corner to get out of the way. I asked him what he had done it for. He said, "Mind your own business." Alfred said, "We mean to have another machine out of her as she has got house property."

Cross-examined. Alfred spoke in English when he spoke about, the house property; it's a sort of gibberish we've got; I don't understand English myself. On the 17th Alfred only left No. 62 once, to get a bit of lunch; he didn't go to No. 17. On the 16th he was working at 62. We had a week in one shop clearing up the vans they had got planted away. I don't know about having a friendly feeling for the Gerholds; they was always up to some game. I wouldn't tell a lie to save them. I tell a lie often; so do you. I have been in trouble through them, because they would not pay weekly wages to my wife. I got two months from Mr. Cluer for breaking the peace. That was for an insult on my wife. I couldn't get my money of these two villains. They have kept me waiting about the street and I have had to go to Stamford Hill sometimes for my money. I was bound over to keep the peace and broke it the next day. Another time I was fined 10s. for pawning a tool, but I didn't steal it. Bill used to get three-parts "knackered"—what I call drunk—and he got me to pledge his tools in my name. I don't know who brought me here. I went up to Shoreditch County Court one afternoon; I often do if I have a day off; I thought there was something on about this; and two young chaps, the Knowlsons, came up and asked me about it, so I told them.

Re-examined. It was seven or eight years ago when I was fined 10s.

Sergeant DAVID LEWIS , J Division. On May 20 I saw Alfred Gerhold outside Old Street Police Court. I had a warrant for his arrest. He said that he had heard so and had come to give himself up. On reading the warrant to him at the station he said, "I am not guilty of that." The charge was for forging an accountable receipt. The case was heard at the police court and on June 3 a summons was applied for against William, which I served on him on June 10. He put it in his pocket. I said, "Aren't you going to read it?" He said, "I can't read it." I then read it to him. He said, "All right; it is all lies."


ALFRED GERHOLD (prisoner, on oath). I carry on business as a wheelwright in partnership with William. I have been in business for 12 or 13 years and have never had any charge brought against me before. In October, 1907, Benjamin Knowlson became tenant of the saw mills at 25s. a week. At that time we had a spindle machine which was in working condition. It had been used before that by a Mr. Stone. Sometimes we used the machine ourselves. Before

taking the premises, Benjamin, Bright, and Chris tried the machines. Ben said he was not used to a treadle machine and asked if he might put one of his mother's in. I said we should not mind as long as he put our machine back when they took their own away. Bright and Ben moved our machine, for which I lent them a crowbar and hammer. I was not there when it was done; there was a boy named Pizzy. Afterwards I noticed the frame was broken and said to Ben, "You have broke the machine." He said he was sorry; they could not help it, but it would be all right—they would have it repaired. On the first Saturday Ben paid the week's rent, and on Monday Bright said to me, "I am going to turn it up; I have the hump of Ben; I have had a bit of dispute about 2s. he tried to do me out of." Ben came after and said, "Well, I will let it stand and see what I am going to do. I don't like to be on my own; Bright has turned me up." I said it had nothing to do with me. Then he said he would give it another trial and went on for a week, at the end of which he said he would turn it up, and he went away. On a Saturday morning Ben and Mrs. Knowlson came for their machine. I said to the latter, "Your son has broken my machine; I want my machine repaired before you have your own." She said, "I admit my son has broke it, but it shall be done; I want my machine first. You have it done and I am willing to pay you by weekly instalments." I said that wouldn't suit me. There was a sledge-hammer beside the sawbench, and she wanted to get hold of it, saying, "I will have the first blow at the concrete and pull it up." She was just going to get hold of it when I said, "You must not do none of that here." Then slie punched me in the chest and knocked me right over the bench. I said, "I thought you were a lady; I'm surprised you doing that; don't you hit me again or else I shall throw you out." Her son Ben then said, "I have something in my pocket will soon quiet you." I said that if he talked like that I would have to send for the police. A policeman did come in and told her to go out. On December 17 Thomas and Christopher Knowlson came for the machine, followed by Bright and Lawrence; Bull was not there. I told Chris I wanted the mother's signature and he fetched her. William was there also. Mrs. Knowlson came. Before that I went to the other shop to write the note, and as I was coming back I met my brother at the door, and handed him the book. (Witness marked on a plan where he was.) I stood at the door and looked at them; there was Chris and Mrs. Knowlaon together. I had written in the book, "Received my own spindle machine and I agree to replace new iron frame to broken spindle and refix spindle machine as before." As true as God is my Judge I wrote that out at the time. I stood at the door because I didn't like Mrs. Knowlson after the affair when she punched me. Mrs. Knowlson looked at the receipt and showed it to Chris, who said it was all right, "That's fair; it's only fair that we should do it." Thomas and Bright were unbolting the shafting and counter-shaft. There is no truth in what Tweed says about what happened afterwards. Before they took the machine away the mother said, "I will

send a man to-morrow at once to look at the machine." A man came next day, I think he gave the name of Boothby, and looked at the machine. He said he would see Mrs. Knowlson and come again, but he never did. Then I wrote on December 24 the letter which has been read, but got no answer. I wrote again on the 28th. I then entered proceedings in the county court as has been said. After the proceedings I gave myself up to the officer outside the police court. I swear that I added nothing to the note after I handed it to my brother.

Cross-examined. I did not tell the mother that if the machine was broken she would have to be answerable for it; that was to Chris., when he came and tried the machine. Our machine has never been repaired; it has always been in good working condition. Maynard did not look at the machine; he saw it when we were fixing it down. It was in the same condition then. Maynard's evidence is quite untrue. He is always with the Knowlsons. He had a sawmill near ours, and he was sold up; he never liked us. He has worked for us. Trade jealousy would account for his saying what was untrue. Our machine is the latest style; the Knowlsons' was the old style. The foot lever is easier to start. Ben said he preferred his because he had worked on it all his life. When they were fixing their machine I was not present. A little boy, Pizzy, came over to the forge and said that when they were putting the crowbar under the machine he heard something go click. There was only Bright and Ben and Pizzy there. When the boy came and told me that I went over. Ben admitted they had had an accident with the machine, but said they would put it right. I told Mr. Moore about this before the County Court proceedings. I told the magistrate when the summons was heard that they had broken our machine in putting it up. He said that was for a County Court Judge to deal with. I told Mr. Fordham I was stopping the machine because my machine was broken, not because they owed me rent. Mr. Fordham said, "Why don't you come to some arrangement?" When I say in the letter of November 23 that I was out of pocket over the matter, I mean by the damage done to the premises. Mrs. Knowlson agreed to make good the damage done to the premises—any damage done, the machine and all. If the machine had to be put back to where it had been she would have to make it good. When the policeman came she said, "I am willing to repair the machine." I understand that repairing the machine is not the same as making good the place from which it was moved. Mrs. Knowlson said she would see that our money would be all right, but did not wish her sons to know it, as they would not work if they did. My grievance was that they broke my spindle. We were willing to take £5, because we knew what trouble we would have with her. I did not know then what the engineer was going to charge for the frame. To put the floor in order would cost about 7s. 6d. There was a boy present in the mill when Mrs. Knowlson said she was willing to pay by instalments for the repair of the machine. When I was standing at the door on the signing of the receipt everybody in the room could see me. William

kept the receipt book till they had gone and we went to the other shop. I helped them to push the barrow through the doorway. I turned Lawrence out, and he stopped outside. We could not let the premises because their machine was in the way. There was no damage to the premises while their machine was fixed there. When I wrote on December 24 that I was surprised Mrs. Knowlson had not kept her accordance as regards the saw-mill I meant the machine as well as the flooring. Mrs. Knowlson never answered a letter. When Boothby came and saw the machine, he said, "That means a big job."

Re-examined. It was after I had been before the magistrate that I knew how much was required to repair the machine. The damage to the floor would be a mere trifle. Damage to the machine would be almost inevitable in moving it to put the other down.

WILLIAM GERHOLD , brother of last witness, corroborated his brother generally. I got the receipt book from my brother as he was coming through the doorway. I then gave it to Mrs. Knowlson. I could not read what was in it. There was only Chris aside of Mrs. Knowlson; the others were a little way off picking up the machinery—Bright, Ben, and the tall Knowlson. After the book was signed I kept it under my arm till they took away the machine; then I locked the door. Then I and my brother went to the other shop. My brother was at the edge of the door when the receipt was signed. The others must have seen him when they went out of the door. Tweed was not there when we got to the office; there is not a word of truth in his story. He was working out of doors.

Cross-examined. Bull was not present at the signing of the receipt. (Bull was brought into Court.) I swear he was not there. I have only seen him about three times, when Thomas Knowlson had our shop upstairs. I cannot read at all. I watched Mrs. Knowlson when she signed the receipt. My brother helped them to put the machine on the barrow. I told the County Court Judge that the receipt was in exactly the same state then as when it was signed. I told him I could not read. Mr. Moore asked me whether I saw the same words on it, so did the counsel.

Re-examined. I could see that the document had the same number of lines on it.

THOMAS WILLIAM FOSTER , 28, Laburnum Street, Kingsland Road, baker, and ANDREW KLEINS , 29, Blackstone Road, London Fields, cabinet maker, spoke to the prisoners' good character, having known them for over 20 years.

Verdict, both Guilty.

(Tuesday, June 30.)

Sentences: Alfred Gerhold, Nine months' hard labour; William Gerhold, Six months' hard labour.


(Saturday, June 27.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-41
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

CANTER, Benjamin ; feloniously wounding Samuel Maizals, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

SAMUEL MAIZALS , 84, Garrick Street, Soho, greengrocer. On May 28, about nine o'clock a.m., prisoner came up to me; we had an argument about 28s. I asked him for; he used very bad language to me; I pushed him in the shoulder and went back into my shop to my work. Afterwards he came with a policeman and they took my name and address. At a quarter to ten prisoner's missus came and started rowing with me; she had a key in her hand and she struck me in the face. Prisoner came at the back of me and hit me on the ear with an iron punch; I was laid up for 17 days.

GEORGE ROBINSON . On this morning I saw prisoner's wife corns up and strike prosecutor with a key; prosecutor's wife came out and the two women were rowing in the road; prisoner came up and struck prosecutor in the ear with some black thing he held in his hand.

GEORGE MATTHEWS , 5, Levering Street, Bloomsbury. I was in my yard on the morning of May 28 when I heard shouts of "Stop him!" At the same time something hit the wall and fell on the top of the w. c.; I went there and picked up the shoemaker's punch (produced).

HENRY BARNES . I work with prisoner. On May 28, at 20 to nine, he came into the shop and took up this punch.

To Prisoner. I work at the same bench with you; when you took up the punch you simply walked away.

Dr. PERCY JAMES EDMONDS , 5, Great Marlborough Street. On May 28, at a quarter to ten, I saw prosecutor at the police station; he was suffering from several small lacerations to the left ear, and one deeper cut nearly an inch long, close by the orifice of the ear; also a very small wound upon the palm of the right hand; there was no fracture of the base of the skull. The injuries might have been inflicted with the punch produced.

Police-constable GEORGE HILL , 294 C. About 9.30 on Msy 28 I heard shouts of "Murder!" in Poland Street; I saw prisoner running with another man after him, who was bleeding from the ear. I gave chase and caught prisoner. Prosecutor said, "He has struck me in the head with something, and I believe I am dying"; prisoner said, "He was rowing with my wife and I struck him in the ear with my fist." On being charged at the station prisoner made no reply.

Dr. PERCY JAMES EDMONDS , recalled. The injuries could not have been caused by a blow with the fist; a suggestion was made at the police court that it might have been done with a nail. I think that is extremely unlikely.


BENJAMIN CANTES (prisoner, on oath). I am a Russian Pole boot and shoe repairer. On May 28, about half-past eight a.m., I

went to the shop to work; it was closed, and I was standing outside with another man named Davis. Prosecutor came up and asked me for 14s., some money that he said was due to Lewis. I said, "It is not your business. If I owe Lewis money I will pay him." Prosecutor at once struck me twice in the teeth. Davis saw that assault. I went in search of a policeman, and the policeman went with me to the shop and got prosecutor's name and address. I wanted to go and get a summons, but I had not got 2s. with me. I asked Davis to lend me 2s. He had not got it. I returned to ask my wife for 2s. She was not at home. In the meantime she had been told that prosecutor had struck me, and my wife went. I suppose, to have a row with him. Not finding my wife at home I returned to the workshop. Outside the shop I saw prosecutor's wife striking my wife. Prosecutor ran over to the two women and got hold of my wife's hand. I came to him and struck him with my fist. I struck him with my hand, and just hit him with my thumb in the ear. I clenched my fist with my thumb out. When I ran away it was to fetch a policeman.

Cross-examined. I did not go into the shop to fetch a punch. What Barnes says it untrue. I did not throw away my punch, as people were running after me; they would have seen it if I had. This punch is not mine; it belongs to my governor, Harris; it had got lost, and the day before this occurrence a workman was looking for the punch and it could not be found in the place.

DAVIS WEISCALLER . I am a Russian Pole, working at same place as prisoner. On this morning I was standing with him outside the workshop. Prosecutor came to him and said, "Why don't you give those few shillings to Lewis?" Prisoner said, "What is it to do with you?" Prosecutor said, "I want you to give me those few shillings now." Prisoner said he would pay Lewis himself. Then prosecutor struck him twice in the face. Prisoner immediately went for a policeman and I went into the shop. Ten minutes later prisoner came in and asked me to lend him 2s. to take out a summons; I told him I had not got the money, and he then went out to ask his wife for it. That is all I know about the matter. In our shop we had only one punch. About two days before this occurrence I was in need of the punch; I looked for it all over the place and could not find it, and had to use some other instrument.

Cross-examined. I know Barnes. He is wrong if he says that prosecutor didn't strike the prisoner. Prisoner was the only man belonging to our shop who was out on that morning.

Mrs. CANTER . On this morning I was with my child in the street and was informed that my husband had been struck by prosecutor. I went to prosecutor and said, "Why did you hit my husband?" Mrs. Maizals came near me and the two of them started hitting me; the woman got hold of my hair and tore it out; I had my child in my arm, so I could not do anything. I had a key in my pocket, but never in my hand; I never hit Maizals.

GEORGE MATTHEWS , recalled. Directly I heard something fall on the water closet I went there and picked up this punch; it could not have been found there the day before.

Police-constable GEORGE HILL , 294 C, recalled. It was about 300 yards from Maizals' shop that I arrested prisoner. In running away prisoner would have had to pass the shop where the punch was found; he might have thrown it away before I caught him.

Verdict. Guilty of unlawfully wounding, but with a certain amount of provocation.

Prisoner, upon his promising not to have any further quarrels with the prosecutor, was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-42
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

PROBETTS, John (26, labourer) ; feloniously breaking.and entering the counting house of the London and South-Western Railway Company at Southfields Railway Station with intent to steal therein; and stealing the sum of 1s., the moneys of the Postmaster-General.

Mr. Forster Boulton, M. P., prosecuted.

GEORGE CLARK , porter at Southfields Railway Station. At five past one on the morning of May 30 last I left the station all securely locked and bolted up. The telephone call-box in the waiting room was also securely locked, and the automatic machine on the platform at the back of the ladies' waiting-room on the up side was in perfect condition when I left.

Police-constable WILLIAM FISH, 361 V. I was on duty in the neighbourhood of Southfields Station on the night of May 29. Just before four on the morning of the 30th I heard a noise in the booking-hall of the station. I gained access to the platform through the station master's garden and saw prisoner. I knew him and called him by name. He turned round and faced me and at once ran off. He had a bar of iron in his hand, which he threw away. I ran after him but he escaped. Prisoner used to live with his father, but for some time has had no fixed abode.

To Prisoner. You were not arrested until a week afterwards because you kept out of the neighbourhood.

JOHN KIRBY , station master, Southfields Station. I was called to the station about five a.m. on May 30. I found that the padlock of the gate had been forced and that the telephone call-box bad been broken open and the cash taken out.

ARTHUR CHARLES STEWART , collector in the telephone department of the General Post Office. I cleared the telephone call-box at Southfields Station on May 29 and set the register.

WILLOUGHBY WILTON WALMSLEY , clerk in the telephone department of the General Post Office. On May 30 I went to Southfields Station. I found that the cash in the telephone call-box had been removed. The register showed that 12 pennies had been taken.

Detective HERD , V Division. I arrested prisoner on June 7 in High Street, Wandsworth. He said his name was Smith. He made no reply when charged.


JOHN PROBETTS (prisoner, on oath). On May 29 I went indoors at my father's house, 36, Hazlitt Street, Garratt Lane, Wandsworth, at 10 o'clock at night, and never moved out until 11 o'clock next morning. I deny that I am the man the constable saw at the railway station.

Cross-examined. I slept in the back room in one bed along with my father and brother. There is a back window. I said my name was Smith as a joke when I was arrested; I knew that the officer knew my name was Probetts, and he did not need to ask.

TRYLUS PROBETTS . Prisoner is my brother. I am a greengrocer's assistant. I got home at 11 o'clock on May 29 and woke up at six next morning. My brother was fast asleep in bed when I got home and he was still fast asleep when I left in the morning. My father and my brother and myself slept in one large bed. I do not think my brother could have got up in the night without my knowing it.

Cross-examined. I had been at work from six that morning till 11 at night.

To Prisoner. My father could not come here because he would lose his job.

Verdict, Not guilty.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-43
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WHITING, Charles (27, labourer) ; feloniously causing grievous, bodily harm to William Kerswell.

Mr. Boyle prosecuted.

Police-constable WILLIAM KERSWELL , 76 L. At 12.40 a.m. on, June 9 I was on duty in Camberwell Road, Westmoreland Road junction. Prisoner was there with 14 or 15 others creating a disturbance and using obscene language. I requested him to go away quietly when he struck me a violent blow in the right eye with his fist and threw me to the ground several times, and kicked me in the lower part of the stomach and legs. A private individual came to my assistance and blew my whistle, and seven other officers came eventually, and we got an ambulance and took prisoner to the station. The divisional surgeon examined me, and as a result of my injuries I was off duty for 13 days.

To Prisoner. I was perfectly sober. There was a man there selling whelks and cockles on a stall. I did go up and tell him it was time he packed up and went away. I believe you had a plate of cockles. I did not tell you to put it down and get out of it if you did not want to go down the road. The private individual who helped me could not come here because of his work, and not because he found out that I had caused all this trouble through exceeding my duty.

Police-constable ALBERT SHADBOLT , 284 L. At 12.45 a.m. on June 9 I heard a policeman's whistle in the Camberwell Road. I went there and saw prisoner struggling with last witness. I went to his assistance. I saw prisoner deliberately kick him in the lower

part of the stomach. I closed with prisoner, and he threw me to the ground violently twice and kicked me on the left arm. Other officers then came up and we took prisoner to the station on an ambulance. I was on the sick list for four days in consequence of my injuries.

Cross-examined. I did not see last witness go to kick you when you were on the ground and shout "That's me." I was sober.

Police-constable JOHN CATTEL , 52 L. I went to the assistance of the last two witnesses. Kerswell was on the ground. I saw prisoner knock Shadbolt down and kick him. I closed with him and he threw me down. We got more assistance. It took seven of us to get prisoner to the station.

CHARLES PINEL GALLIE , divisional surgeon of police. I examined Kerswell and Shadbolt, and as a result of injuries they had received put them both on the sick list.


CHARLES WHITING (prisoner, on oath). On Bank Holiday night at half-past 12 o'clock I went to Westmoreland Road and had a plate of cockles. The constable came up and told the man with the barrow to pack up and get out of it. He turned round to me and said, "It is time you got out of it too"; and I said, "All right, can't a man have what he has paid for?" The constable walked into the middle of the road, and I said to the man with the barrow, who was a friend of mine, "Good-night, Jim, you lucky old dog." The constable must have mistook what I said, because he caught hold of me by the throat and shouted, "I'll teach you to call me a rotten old dog," and he wouldn't leave go, and was strangling me, and I was compelled to strike him to make him loose his hold. Other constables came up and I was knocked to the ground and kicked in the head and chest till I became unconscious. That is why the ambulance was sent for. Cross-examined. I did not strike the officer first. I did not kick anybody. I did not complain at the police court that the officers had ill-treated me. I did not strike or kick Shadbolt.

Verdict, Guilty.

Police-constable STEPHEN FOSTER , 50, L R. I was present at South London Sessions on January 9, 1907, when the prisoner was sen-tenced to 12 months' hard labour in the name of Charles Smith for assaulting the police. Previous to that, in 1898 he was sentenced to one month's hard labour for unlawful possession; one month's hard labour February 10, 1902, assaulting police; three months' hard labour March 27, 1902, as a suspected person; August 27, 1903, one month's hard labour, drunk and disorderly; April 5, 1904, one month's hard labour, assaulting police; November 28, 1904, drunk and wilful damage, fined 27s. 6d.; February 27, 1905, three months' hard labour as a suspected person; June 26, 1905, six months' hard labour, assaulting police; April 2, 1906, 2s. 6d. or three days, drunk and disorderly.

Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.


(Monday, June 29.)

AINSWORTH, William (16, labourer), found guilty last Sessions see page 144) of indecent assault upon a young person under 13, was now handed over to the Court missionary (Mr. Scott-France), by whom it was stated a home had been found for prisoner.


(Tuesday, June 30.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-45
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

PARSONS, William ; manslaughter of James Murphy.

Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Ernest Charles defended.

Police-constable HARRY WOODLAKE , H Division. I produce plan, to scale, of a portion of Whitechapel Road. That road, opposite St. Mary's Street k 51 ft. 6 in. from kerb to kerb.

HENRY KNOX , 20, Digby Walk, Bethnal Green. On the evening of May 20, about a quarter past seven, I was going along. Whitechapel Road with another man pushing a barrow; we were going East, and were on the St. Mary's Street side (north). I saw Murphy pass the front of my barrow, as if he was looking for a tram, or possibly meant to cross the road. There was a tram going towards the City and another coming down. A motor omnibus coming from the east shot right across to pass the tram that was going east. Murphy put up his hand and shouted, "Stop, stop!" and almost immediately the front of the 'bus struck him and wheeled him round and stopped on his leg. Prisoner, who was driving the 'bus, locked his wheel so as to get it off the man; we then lifted him up and took him to the hospital. At the time Murphy stepped in front of the barrow the latter was about 2 ft. from the kerb.

Cross-examined. There was heavy traffic walking along on the opposite side to where this happened. The road was being repaired just at this part, and a portion was railed off by trestles. I am certain that Murphy put up his hand and cried out, "Stop, stop!" Prisoner pulled up very quickly indeed, almost instantaneously, I think; the wheel of the 'bus did not go over the man's leg; it just squeezed the calf. I am no judge of the rate at which the 'bus was travelling; it did not give the man a chance to get out of the way, certainly.

HYMAN MENDLEBAUM . On the occasion in question I was walking along Whitechapel Road, on the north side, going from west to east. Just to the west of St. Mary's Street I saw Murphy walk down from the pavement to cross the road; a motor 'bus was coming out from the west in a slanting way near the kerb, slanting away from the other traffic I suppose. As the motor came out Murphy was about two yards from it. Some of us started halloaing and he stopped; he

was apparently frightened and wanted to run back on the pavement; the omnibus knocked him down; at that moment his head was about a foot away from the pavement. I did not pay any attention to the trams.

Cross-examined. When Murphy heard the halloaing he gave a turn and evidently wanted to get back to the pavement. I did not hear him say anything or see him put up his hand.

JOSEPH LEOINE . I was on the footboard of a tram, which was going from the City eastwards along Whitechapel Road. I saw Murphy step off the kerb and pass a barrow which was about two feet from the kerb; at that time the horses of my tram were practically level with him; the tram was going very slowly. The man gave a brief glance towards the tram and then looked down. Up to this time we had seen nothing of the 'bus, but as Murphy slightly moved forward the 'bus came in front of the tram horses on their off side, and before the man had time to go forwards or backwards he was thrown down by the 'bus. I stepped off and helped lift the man on to the barrow. The accident occurred eastward of St. Mary's Street. I saw some blood on the stone in the middle of the road where he had been lying. It would be about 5 ft. from the kerb to where the man was when he was knocked down.

Police-constable FRANCIS SANDELL , 14 H R. On this evening I saw a crowd near St. Mary's Street; the motor 'bus prisoner was driving was standing at the corner; by that time the deceased man had been sent to the hospital. I made some inquiries of the crowd and took names and addresses. I went to the hospital, and shortly afterwards returned to the scene of the accident. In the road opposite 149, Whitechapel Road, at the corner of St. Mary's Street there is a manhole, and on the stone of the manhole I found blood. The manhole is 5 ft. from the kerb. There were posts and poles about 32 yards below, to the east of where the accident happened. On June 11 I charged prisoner with manslaughter. His reply was "Yes."

Cross-examined. The accident happened at the west side of St. Mary's Street; the 'bus was standing on the spot when I arrived. I am not aware that it had been backed away.

ELIZABETH MURPHY , widow of Thomas Murphy, said that he was 73 years of age; his sight and hearing were good, and be was a strong, healthy man.

ANGUS WILSON , house surgeon at the London Hospital, said that Murphy was admitted on the evening of May 20 and died in the early morning of the 21st. Witness described the man's injuries, which were consistent with his having been run over by a 'bus.


PHILIP PARSONS (prisoner, on oath). I am 35 years of age; I have been in the employ of the London General Omnibus Company since February 12, 1907. I was licensed as a metropolitan 'bus driver in

1890. I had at no time any accident with any horse bus I was driving, and since driving a motor 'bus, with the exception of having had one side slip, which injured no one, I have not been in any sort of accident. I have never had a summons from the police nor been cautioned by them. On the occasion in question here, the accident happened at the east corner of St. Mary's Street. I was going along towards the west. The road was up just there; on the other side there were posts and trestles. In the same direction that I was going there was a walking van traffic. When I got by the New Road, where the rails and poles started, I pulled out from behind the line of traffic and went along by its side. I had nearly got to the end of the line; I thought I should be able to get by the end of the traffic before the tramcar came along; but it came up before I could get clear. I then went to case back into the line of heavy traffic and the carman would not give way, so I pulled out in front of the car to the off side. I was going about five miles an hour. When I got to St. Mary's Street Murphy came out from against the barrow—in fact, I though he was with the barrow—he came right in front of the 'bus, right on to the corner of the 'bus. I did my best to stop and, in fact, did stop without the wheel running over the leg of the man.

Cross-examined. There was about 200 yards' length of the road tressled off. The walking traffic going my way was on the up line; coming in the opposite direction there was not a single thing in sight. I was about 10 ft. from the kerb when I tried to get back into the line of traffic. The car coming in the opposite direction did not obstruct my view of the barrow and the old man. When I first saw him I was right alongside of him, within three or four feet.

WILLIAM LA RIVIERE , assistant surveyor to the Metropolitan Borough of Stepney. In the spring of this year repairs were being executed to the carriage-way on the south side of Whitechapel Road, and, on May 20, although the work had been finished, the road was not thrown open. On that date the whole of the south side of the road, with the exception of two feet, was shut to traffic, so that traffic going west would have to go along the tramlines. Under those conditions there is only room for one line of traffic on the track going west, but carmen occasionally pull out over the track going east on to the northern part of the road, so passing the walking line on the other side of metals. This is a very busy road, and there is plenty of traffic.

Cross-examined. I have seen carmen draw out of the line of traffic at this place and go right over to the north side of the road to within five feet of the kerb in order to clear the trams coming eastward, and so as not to make a block on the slow line of traffic. In fact, that is sometimes of great help in assisting blockages. I have seen motor omnibuses doing the same thing, but I do not suppose they would do it unless the other track was fairly clear at the moment.

THOMAS WELLER . Just before this accident happened I was in St. Mary's Street. I noticed the barrow coming along and I saw Murphy

pass the handles of the barrow; he was running past trying to catch a tramcar, I should think, or else to get across the road. The motor 'bus came along and he did not have time to get to the car and he was knocked down; it all seemed to happen in a second almost. The accident happened at the west corner of St. Mary's Street.

FREDERICK MOORE . On this day I was a passenger on the outside of prisoner's 'bus, sitting on the front seat on the off-side. We were going at about five miles an hour. When we got by St. Mary's Station I heard somebody halloa.out; I looked over the top of the 'bus and just saw the 'bus go over the man's leg. It stopped absolutely dead on the man's leg. There was a long line of very slow traffic going our way—I should think it would be about 250 yards when the driver drew out from the line to go up on the off side. It was at the west corner of the road that the man was knocked down.

At this point Mr. Justice Ridley expressed his opinion that, although prisoner was in the wrong in getting out of the line of traffic and going on his wrong side, this was not a case in which he could properly be found guilty of manslaughter. However, it was for the Jury to express their view.

After a few minutes' deliberation, the Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

His Lordship intimated that, in his opinion, this was quite a proper charge for the Commissioners of Police to take up; a motor 'bus could not be allowed to travel along in the streets of London at whatever pace it chose; it must have regard to the other traffic.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-46
VerdictMiscellaneous > no agreement

Related Material

OVERTON, Elizabeth (43) ; feloniously using an instrument upon Esther Grover, with intent to procure her miscarriage.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

The Jury disagreed, and prisoner was put back till next Sessions.


(Tuesday, June 30.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-47
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HART, Harry Herbert Sidney Francis (52, no occupation) ; maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Ellen Hart.

Mr. Fausset prosecuted.

GEORGE HEALEY BRADLEY , 64, Wingham Road, East Dulwich, clerk. Mrs. Hart has lodged at my house for four years. Prisoner has frequently visited his mother, Mrs. Hart—I should say once or twice a day for about three years. On April 8 I arrived home from business about 20 to six and found Mrs. Hart on the floor in great pain; almost in a state of collapse. I put her on the chair with the assistance of Miss Neal, and she fainted. I bathed her head with eau de Cologne and gave her some brandy. When I went out for the brandy I saw prisoner about 50 yards from the house; he was

absolutely intoxicated. After the accident to his mother prisoner's visits ceased. He was on bad terms with his mother; they had been quarrelling on the Monday and Tuesday previously. My wife told me so, and prisoner's mother also. Mrs. Hart occupied one room.

WILLIAM JOHN CHARLES KEATS , medical superintendent, Camberwell Infirmary. Mrs. Hart is now a patient at the infirmary; she was admitted on April 11 last. She is about 74.years of age. On April 11 I saw her. She was suffering from severe shock, a fracture of the left wrist and of the left femur. The injuries might have been caused by a fall. I should say the fractures were then of a few days' standing. She is still dangerously ill.

(To the Judge.) Within the first few days the patient appeared to be dying, in consequence of which a magistrate attended and took her depositions. Since then she has rallied, but she remains bedridden and slowly dying.

Sergeant ALFRED DUKE , P Division. On April 12 I received a communication from Dr. Keats and went to see Prisoner at 38, North Cross Road, East Dulwich, about 4.15 p.m. I cautioned him and said I was going to take him to the police station, where he would probably be charged with causing grievous bodily harm to his mother by striking her and knocking, her down. He said, "I know nothing about it; I haven't seen her for days; I had better say nothing." I then went to see the injured woman, who made a statement. I returned to prisoner at 8.30 and read the woman's statement to him. He said, "It must have been done by the door when I went into the kitchen, but I don't remember anything about it. I admit I was drunk when I went to see my mother." When the charge was read over to him, he said, "I don't remember doing it; I know I was drunk." I served a notice on prisoner that his mother's detposition was going to be taken before a magistrate. He was present with me when it was taken on April 13 at the Infirmary. Mrs. Hart's statement was read, in which she said that, on the Tuesday last, her son came about 20 past six p.m. to see her. She opened the door and went into the kitchen to hide from prisoner, who was too drunk to open the door. She was very frightened and stayed in the kitchen while prisoner was asleep. Prisoner came to the kitchen door, and when she opened it he knocked her down with all his force, saying, "Mrs. Hart, you have no business in here; you are doing what you ought not to be doing." Deponent fell down with all her force and broke her arm in two places. She was unconscious for some little time. When it happened nobody else was in that part of the house.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. Deponent said that he had been a cruel, bad son to her, but it did not matter, she would soon be gone.

Before the magistrate, prisoner said, "I am not guilty of striking her."

Prisoner, in addressing the Jury, read a long statement, in which he said he was very intoxicated when the affair happened, and in

going through the kitchen he may, in putting out his arms to steady himself, have struck his mother, but with no intention of doing so. He said his mother had been very feeble on her legs, and on two or three occasions had taken more stimulants than were good for her. He read several letters which had passed between his mother and him self, according to which his mother appeared to wish to exonerate him.

Verdict, Guilty, while under the influence of drink.

It appeared that prisoner was the illegitimate son of Mrs. Hart and a very wealthy gentleman who was now dead. He had not done any work for 25 years, and had occasionally received money from his father. He had assaulted his mother on previous occasions when he had been drunk. His mother had pawned practically everything to supply him with money. He had been fined once for being drunk.

Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-48
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

PIERCE, James (30, labourer) ; unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

Mr. Beaumont Morice and Mr. Egerton-Warburton prosecuted; Dr. Counsell defended.

MILLIE ARMSTRONG , 7, Sunderland Road, Forest Hill, tobacconist. On June 13, at 5.30 p.m., prisoner came into the shop and asked for a penny packet of Woodbines, for which he put down a 2s. piece. I took it up, looked at it; it felt rather light, and had a peculiar slippery, greasy feeling, so I had my suspicions about it. I examined it carefully and rang it; it sounded all right, and I put it in the till, giving prisoner 1s. 11d. change. After prisoner had gone I had another look at it, and carefully examined it. I weighed it with another 2s. piece, but it wanted 6d. more to make it level. I noticed the date was 1900 (produced). I noticed it had a little piece rubbed off the edge. I put it on the mantelpiece in the shop parlour. At about 11 I saw a policeman passing and called him, showing him the coin. He took it away. On the following Monday I saw prisoner at Greenwich Police Court and picked him out from about a dozen.

Cross-examined. I thought the florin rang true. I am positive prisoner came to the shop. He didn't appear to be deaf. When I put the bad florin into the till there was another two-shilling piece there. The coin didn't ring true. The coin that you now ring seems to me to ring true. I identified the prisoner because I remembered him by his general appearance. I had never before received had money. I think I am a judge of money. I had never seen prisoner before to my knowledge. I didn't get a chance of complaining sooner to the constable. There were a number of people in the shop between 5 30 and 11. I did not think to ask them to call a constable; I thought it was my business.

Re-examined. I was alone in the shop at this time. I gave a description of the man to the policeman.

ROSE DRAGE , assistant to William Davis, baker, 387, Brockley Road, Brockley. About six p.m., on June 13, prisoner came into the shop and asked me for two halfpenny rock cakes, with which I served him, for which he tendered a 2s. piece. I then called my employer, thinking the coin was bad. He told prisoner it was a bad 2s. piece. Prisoner said he had no idea it was bad; it was just as he had taken it. Mr. Davis gave the florin back to prisoner, who then paid for the cakes with a penny.

Cross-examined. When Mr. Davis spoke to prisoner he put his hand to his ear; he had no difficulty in hearing.

Re-examined. I do not know where Sunderland Road is.

WILLIAM EDWIN DAVIS , 387, Brockley Road. In consequence of a communication from the last witness, who brought me a 2s. piece, I went to prisoner, and showed him the coin. I tried it in front of him, and weighed it in the scale with a good one. I then told prisoner he must have known it was bad. He was rather doubtful, and put his hand to his ear. He told me he had taken it in the streets selling strawberries. Prisoner took the coin from my fingers as I was showing it to him, and gave me a penny for it. I told him to get out of the road. He went out and I saw him meet two other men outside. I asked for my cap, and followed them down the road for about a quarter of a mile. The three were all talking together, prisoner in the middle. When I got as far as Braxfield Road I met a constable, and informed him what I was doing. They then turned round and saw the constable, and separated. I walked on the other side of the road away from the constable. Presently I saw prisoner go into Mr. Lepper's shop. When he came out I went into the stop and asked what prisoner had done. They told me he had bought two scones with a 2s. piece. Prisoner was standing outside at the time; he could not hear me. The young lady in the shop took the silver out of the till and there was only one 2s. piece. I should say I could identify the coin. The constable took the florin, and brought the prisoner back, after which they went to the station.

Cross-examined. I did not put any mark on the coin. The black mark has been put on since. The coin did not sound bad when I rang it. It was very light and greasy. The date of it is 1900. I did not really intend that prisoner should get the coin back when I first had it. I did not return the coin to him. I did not say, that I am aware of, at the police court that I returned the coin to the prisoner. He did not snatch it out of my hand. I had no idea of following prisoner till I saw him meet the two other men. He was never out of my sight. It would be about three-eighths of a mile from my shop to Mr. Lepper's. I told the constable there were three men going down the road trying to pass bad money. I did not point the men out to him. I told him the middle one had tried to pass a bad coin. I did not want the men to see me talking to the constable as I had no charge against them then. I told the prisoner to get out of the road because I have a fellow-feeling for the neighbouring tradespeople. Prisoner could not see me following because there is a good shelter of trees very close together. When prisoner went into

Mr. Lepper's shop one of the other men stood at the corner of Wickham Road facing the shop; the other man stood close to the milliner's, just past Lepper's shop. As prisoner came out of Lepper's shop I pointed him out to the constable, who was opposite. Miss Lepper emptied the till because I particularly asked whether there was another coin, but there was none. I believe you could see the till from this side of the counter. Prisoner started eating one of the rock cakes while he was in my shop. When he was going down the road he was apparently eating. I believe Miss Lepper gave the coin to the constable; either she or the postmistress. I cannot say whether I did, in the confusion. I cannot swear that I said I kept the coin and gave it to the constable.

ETHEL LEPPER . I am assistant to my father at Brockley Road, who is a baker and confectioner. On June 13, about 6.15 p.m., I was in the shop when prisoner came in and asked for two penny scones, for which he paid a florin, which I put in the till and gave him 1s. 10d. change; he went out and Mr. Davis came in. In consequence of what he said I took the coin out of the till and showed it to him. There was a lot of small silver as well in the till, but no other florin. There was nobody else in the shop when prisoner came the first time. Mr. Davis asked me to test the florin. Then he called a constasble, who came, and then went after prisoner, bringing him back and searching him. He was then taken to the station and charged by my father.

Cross-examined. The constable came in two or three minutes after prisoner had got his change, and it was about two minutes after that when prisoner was brought back—five minutes altogether. Prisoner had eaten one of the scones when he came back. He said he had taken the first coin out of his pocket, and did not know it was bad. The officer did not find any other 2s. piece on prisoner. He did not show me what he had found. Prisoner gave me a shilling and two sixpences instead of the florin.

(Wednesday, July 1.)

Police-constable ALBERT SHARP , 214 P About 6.30 p.m., on June 13, I was in Brockley Road, when Mr. Davis pointed out prisoner to me, and I followed the latter, who was alone. I saw him go into Mr. Lepper's shop. I went a few yards past the shop and stood opposite till prisoner came out. I then followed him about 50 yards along the road and stopped him. I said, "Did you go into the baker's shop up the road?" He said, "Yes, I did." "What did you go in for?" "I bought two cakes." "What money did you tender?" "A two-shilling piece." I then said, "Will you come back to the shop with me?" and I took him back. At the shop Mr. Davis handed me the coin (produced). I asked prisoner if it was the coin he tendered. He said it was. He said he didn't know it was bad. I searched him and found 4s. silver and 5d. bronze, good money—two separate shillings and four sixpences. I told prisoner I would take him into custody for uttering counterfeit coin. He

made no reply. I took him to the station, and when charged he made no reply.

Cross-examined. Mr. Davis pointed out prisoner at the corner of Braxfield Road. The former did not say there were three men and that prisoner was in the middle. When prisoner came out of Mr. Lepper's shop he was eating one of the scones. He did not run away. I saw Rose Drage on the next morning. I did not know Mr. Davis before. I never lost sight of prisoner.

Re-examined. Mr. Davis told me at the station that there were three men.

ROSE DRAGE , recalled. I am quite certain prisoner is the man who gave me the two-shilling piece. I specially recognised him by what went on in the shop.

Police-constable ALFRED JONES , 591 P, produced a counterfeit florin which he received from Millie Armstrong at 11 p.m. on June 13.

Sergeant JOHN BLACKMORE . At 10 a.m. on June 15, Monday, prisoner was placed with nine other men of similar appearance, when Miss Armstrong readily identified him. I then told prisoner he would be further charged with uttering a florin to that lady. He made no reply. When formally charged he said, "That is a lie"

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , H. M. Mint. The two coins produced are counterfeit; they are about 40 grains lighter than a good one. They are not very well made. The antimony makes them ring well, which might deceive an ordinary person.

Cross-examined. Both coins are from the same mould and dated 1900. Running the finger round the mill and the ringing are not sufficient tests. It is possible prisoner might have been deceived by the coin.

ALBERT SHARP , recalled. Millie Armstrong's shop it about half an hour's walk from Mr. Davis's. The latter shop is about five minutes from Mr. Lepper's.


JAMES PIERCE (prisoner, on oath). I did not go into a shop on June 13 only Mr. Lepper's. I could not say whether I was in Sunderland Road, Forest Hill. I did not buy cigarettes. I do not smoke. I never saw Miss Armstrong till the Monday, June 15, at the police court. I bought two penny scones in Mr. Lepper's shop, for which I gave a florin. I waited outside the shop for five minutes eating. The constable was there all the time. I did not know the florin was bad. I never saw Rose Drage till at the police court. I never saw Mr. Davis till he came up with the constable. I had been out that day since 5.30 in the morning selling flowers. I never said that I sold strawberries. I was by myself all day.

Cross-examined. At six on the evening in question I had just sold the last portion of flowers to an old lady in Brockley Road, who gave

me a shilling. I gave her 8d. change. A little afterwards I went to Lepper's shop. I might have been in Forest Hill about half-past five. On the Monday morning I was with several other men when Miss Armstrong came up and put her hand on my shoulder. I deny all the story told by Mr. Davis about the coin. The constable found on me two separate shillings and four sixpences, also fivepence. When I went in the shop I had a florin, a shilling, three sixpences, and a penny. I put my hand in my pocket and pulled out the florin.

Re-examined. I gave two separate shillings to the lady in Mrs. Lepper's shop instead of the florin.

MILLIE ARMSTRONG , recalled. I looked at the coin and examined it most carefully, put it in the till, and after the prisoner had gone took it out again, weighed it with a good two-shilling piece, and when I found it was bad I took it inside and put it on the mantel shelf. There was another florin in the till at the time.

Verdict, Guilty. Many previous convictions were proved against prisoner—for larceny, burglary, assault, etc., dating from December, 1895, when he would be 17 years old. It was stated that he had been continually in the company of two coiners, though he had not previously had a coinage conviction.

Sentence, Two years' hard labour.


(Tuesday, Jane 30.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-49
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > lesser offence; Not Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JACKSON, George (55, currier); FISHER, Edward (52, dealer); AUGER, Alfred (62, steward); AUGER, Annie (52, dressmaker); forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £160, with intent to defraud; conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from Charles Woodman Smith divers of his moneys with intent to defraud.

Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., and Mr. J. p. Grain defended Fisher; Mr. Warburton defended Alfred Auger; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended Annie Auger.

ALFRED JAMES HAYWOOD , district messenger from the Chancery Lane office. On May 9 I was sent by the office with another messenger boy, Donaldson, to 75, Great Russell Street, about half-past 10 a.m. I saw female prisoner outside that house. She gave Donaldson a letter, and told him to take it to Parr's Bank, Sloane Square. I remained with her for 30 minutes. She said when the other boy fetched the answer back I was to take it to the address on the envelope she gave me. Donaldson came back in about an hour and three-quarters. He had an envelope with him. I told him what prisoner told me, and I put that envelope in the envelope that I had, which was addressed to C. C. Smith, 6, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square.

I took the letter there, but they said that there was no one of that name there. I took the letter back to the office.

To Jackson. Two detectives went with me to 6, Charlotte Street.

JAMES DONALDSON , messenger boy, District Messengers' Office, Chancery Lane. I went with Haywood on May 9 to 75, Great Russell Street. I saw female prisoner outside there. She gave me Exhibit 5, which I took to Parr's Bank, Chelsea, and handed to the cashier, and he gave me a letter to take back, Exhibit 1. I took it back, and gave it to Haywood outside 75, Great Russell Street.

To Jackson. We were rung up by someone on the telephone to go to a certain address; the name of Jackson was given. I asked female prisoner if her name was Jackson, and she said, "Yes."

CHARLES SMITH , chief clerk, Parr's Bank, Sloane Square. On May 9 a messenger boy called with a letter containing cheque, Exhibit 4, for £160, signed Charles Spinks. I saw at once that the cheque was a wrong one. Mr. Spink has an account at our bank, and I at once communicated with him, and in consequence of that I made up a bogus letter and addressed it to C. Smith, Esq., 75, Great Russell Street, and handed it to the boy to take back. I than communicated with the police. The cheque was the last of a 25 cheque book issued to a Mrs. Thorn in 1905.

To Jackson. Mr. Spink signs his cheques, "W. Charles Spink" We have no customer who signs his cheques "Charles Spink" The signature is a forgery.

WILLIAM CHARLES SPINK . I have an account at the Chelsea branch of Parr's Bank. The signature on the cheque produced is not mine. I never authorised anyone to sign that cheque for me. My trade name is Charles Spink, but I always sign cheques W. Charles Spink. About three months ago I received a letter which I was suspicious of, so I got my daughter to sign it in my trade name, "Charles Spink," and the signature on the cheque is an imitation of my daughter's writing.

MABEL THORN , The Willows, Heacham, Norfolk. I used to have an account at Parr's Bank. In January of this year I ceased to keep my account there. When I left London I destroyed my counterfoils, and I thought I had destroyed my cheque books. I never gave anyone a blank cheque out of my cheque book.

To Jackson. I have never seen you before.

CHARLES PEARSON , clerk, District Messengers' office, Chancery Lane. On the evening of May 9, between six and seven, I received a telephone message, asking if I had a letter there addressed to C. C. Smith, 6, Charlotte Street. I said, "Yes." Later on I received another telephone message, and in consequence of the instructions I got I sent Beacock with the letter to 32, Gloucester Crescent, Regent's park.

JOHN HENRY BEACOCK , district messenger, Chancery Lane office. On May 9 I took Exhibit 1 to 32, Gloucester Crescent. I went in a taxi-cab with Detective McAvoy. He got out at the top of Park Street and I went on in the cab and delivered the letter to a woman servant, and got her receipt. She paid me 1s. 4d.

To Prisoner Jackson. I only saw one man looking into the cab when I got to Gloucester Crescent. Nobody came out with me after I delivered the letter.

EMILY SCOTT , 32, Gloucester Crescent. On May 9 prisoner Auger took a bedroom for a week in my house and paid a deposit of 2s. 6d. He gave the name of Charles Smith.

To Jackson. My servant took the letter in; I was not there. No. 40 is to the right of my house.

CLARA ATKINSON , a servant of last witness. On May 9 prisoner Auger took a room in Mrs. Scott's house. He then went away, but came back shortly and said lie expected a letter and asked me to receive it. He came back after the letter arrived and I handed it to him.

Inspector ALFRED WARD , B Division. On May 11 I went to an address in Russell Square with Sergeant Barrett and Sergeant Besley. I remained there from four till about eight. Female prisoner then entered with another woman. I found nothing relating to the charge, but I found a photograph of male prisoner Auger. Female prisoner said it was a photograph of her husband. I told her she answered the description of the woman who had handed a messenger boy a forged cheque to take to Parr's Bank. She commenced to cry, and said that last Wednesday week Granday (Jackson) and Ted Fisher came to her house; that on Saturday, the 9th, Granday handed' her a letter and told her to go to Great Russell Street, where she would find a messenger boy and to tell him to take it to Parr's Bank, Sloane Square, and return to her with the answer; that later Granday gave her a second envelope to hand to a second messenger boy and to tell him to wait until the first boy came back with the answer, and that he was to put the answer in that envelope and take it to the address on it. She said she then went home, because they said she bad better not be seen in it. The house in Great Russell Street was. Edward Fisher's. It is a beautifully-furnished flat.

Cross-examined by Mr. Eustace Fulton. Annie Auger has never been in any trouble before.

Detective-sergeant BARRETT , B Division. On May 9 I saw the three male prisoners at Albany Street Station. Jackson declined to give his name and address. Fisher gave his name as Edward Fisher, 27, Gloucester Crescent, Regent's Park. Auger said he had no fixed abode. I afterwards told them that they would be charged with forging and uttering a cheque for £160 on Parr's Bank. Jackson said, "Do you say we had anything to do with forging the cheque?" Auger said, "I got paid at one o'clock to-day, and I was walking round with them." Fisher said, "I had nothing to do with it" There was some money on the prisoners which I directed to be handed back to them and asked for receipts. Jackson wrote the name of Jackson on the receipt and said, "I will give you a name if you want one. I can do any kind of writing"

Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. Fisher, according to the statement of the occupier, had not lived at 27, Gloucester Crescent since the last 18 months.

Detective-sergeant JOHN MCAVOY, B Division. At eight o'clock on May 9 I went with Beacock in a taxi-cab to Gloucester Crescent. I got out of the cab at the corner of Park Street and proceeded up Gloucester Crescent. I saw prisoners Jackson and Fisher standing together opposite No. 40, and Auger standing outside the gateway of 53 and a fourth man inside on the doorsteps. I concealed myself in the garden of 42 or 44. When the motor-cab approached Jackson and Fisher walked down in its direction and both looked into the cab. The messenger boy went into No. 32 and came out again with a woman, who spoke to the taxi, driver. When the cab and the boy had gone one of the four men (I thought at the time it was Jackson) went to No. 32 and subsequently left there and they all walked in the direction of High Street, Camden Town. When they got about half way between High Street, Camden Town, and Arlington Road all four stood. Jackson opened the letter and showed it to the others. They all appeared somewhat amused at the letter. They retraced their steps to Gloucester Crescent. I obtained the assistance of three constables and arrested the three male prisoners. The fourth man ran away. As I was handing Jackson over to the constable he put his hand in his pocket and pulled out Exhibit 1 and threw it away. I picked it up and I said, "This is what I want" Jackson said, "I know nothing about it; you must have put it there yourself" The prisoners were searched. I found upon Jackson an envelope addressed to C. C. Smith, 6, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, and also the writing upon the piece of paper, Exhibit 3.

To Jackson. I did not arrive at Gloucester Crescent after the letter had been fetched away. At the first hearing I swore it was you that went in to No. 32 to fetch the letter, but I admit I was mistaken. I subsequently found out that it was prisoner Auger.

Detective ALFRED BESLEY , B Division. I took prisoner Fisher to the police station on Sunday, the 10th. He said, "I cannot understand why Peters said I did not live with him at 27, Gloucester Crescent, because I always stay with him when I come to London. I live at Brighton. I do not see how you can connect me with Jackson and Auger. I admit I was in the crescent, but I never got the note from the woman"

Cross-examined by Mr. Warburton. No charge has ever been made against Alfred Auger before to my knowledge.

GEORGE JACKSON (on oath). The name of Jackson has been forced on me. My proper name is Charles Granday. In the beginning of March last year I formed the acquaintance of the fourth man in this case, whose real name is Smith, an outside broker, who I understood had a place at Eastcheap and was living at Gloucester Crescent. Some four months ago he told me that bankruptcy proceedings had been instituted against him. On that occasion he had a crossed cheque for £10 and asked me if I would cash it for him through my bank. This I did, and as I had no complaint I argued that the cheque was good. Shortly after that he told me that he expected a cheque for £160 or £170, and asked me if I would endorse the cheque

for him. He explained that his affairs were now in the hands of the Pulblic Receiver, and he feared that if he went with the cheque himself to the bank, where the bank knew that he was in a state of bank-ruptcy, and where the bank was not friendly with him because he had considerably overdrawn his account, the bank might retain the cheque and communicate with the Public Receiver. He thereupon asked me to endorse the cheque and pass it through my bank for a commission of 5 per cent. I did not like to do it under the circumstances, not knowing whether the Bankruptcy Court could or could not claim the amount of the cheque, and thus involve me in loss. So I looked about for other means of cashing the cheque, and I mentioned the matter to Fisher, and he said if his sister-in-law took the cheque to the bank they would probably not ask her any questions, so we arranged that she should take it. He assured her it was all right. Fisher asked me, "I suppose you know the man well?" and I said, "Of course I do; I have had numberless cheques from him, and can trust him perfectly" That was about three weeks before I got the cheque. Some few days after I introduced Fisher to Smith at the Law Courts. Smith called me aside, and said he expected to have the cheque on Saturday morning, May 9, and I arranged to meet him at Chancery Lane Tube Station that morning. He said he had got the cheque, and I said I could get it cashed. I then said to Smith, "Supposing they ask me in the bank," From whom did I receive that cheque, "what shall I answer? Can you refer me to anybody?" He said he would not, because of his bankruptcy, and that was why he wanted me to pass it through my own bank. This answer decided me not to send Mrs. Auger with the cheque to the bank. I then said to Mr. Smith, "Will you put the cheque in an envelope and enclose it with another envelope addressed to No. 75, Great Russell Street?" He did that. I then went to Mrs. Auger, whom I found in Oxford Street, and said to her, "Will you go to 75, Great Russell Street? You will find a messenger boy there. Hand him this letter, and ask him to take it to 14, Sloane Square, Parr's Bank, and bring an answer back to you" I went back to Holborn Restaurant, where I had left Smith, and told him what I had done. He was very much annoyed when I told him what I had done, and said the bank was sure to ring up the drawer sending a messenger-boy like that with the cheque, and he made arrangements with me to leave the letter at No. 6, Charlotte Street, and gave me an addressed envelope. He arranged to meet me at half-past five at the Grosvenor Hotel, Victoria, and pay me my commission. I went back then to Mrs. Auger, a second time, and said, "When the messenger-boy returns see that the letter is put in this envelope, and tell him to deliver it at No. 6, Charlotte Street. About half-past one I met Fisher and Mrs. Auger in Oxford Street. Mrs. Auger said, "I have done what you told me. I am now going home to get my husband's wages and do my shopping" We made an arrangement that Mr. Auger, that is Fisher's brother, should meet us at Portland Road Station at three o'clock. We met, and made our way towards Victoria, where I saw Smith on the opposite side of the road to the Grosvenor

Hotel. He said, "No letter has come to 6, Charlotte Street" I said I was certain it had been sent, and I telephoned to the District Messengers' office, and they replied that the letter had been sent to 6, Charlotte Street, but that there was no one of the name of Smith there, and it had been brought back to the office. I told Smith this, and asked him for the money he owed me, and told him I was not going after his letter. He said if I met him in Gloucester Crescent at 8.30 that night he would settle with me. I then went to my home in South Kensington. While my meal was preparing I took out a piece of paper and began to pencil out a letter which I intended to send to the Messenger office about Smith's letter, but it was only a draft, and no such letter was sent. I met Smith, Fisher, and Auger near Camden High Street Station, about 8.30. Fisher and Auger were the worse for drink. Smith said to me, "I have sent for the letter to Chancery Lane, and I expect it will be over in Gloucester Crescent by now" I understood he meant in his own place, at No. 53 or 55. He said to Auger, "Run and see if the letter has arrived." Auger went and we followed on to Gloucester Crescent. Smith said he had asked Auger to take a room at No. 32 so that the letter could be sent there, as he did not want to have a receipt signed for it from his own address because he did not want the receipt to be used against him. By this time we had got to 32, Gloucester Crescent. I did not know then that that was the number. Auger then returned with the letter. Smith snatched it out of his hand and opened it. He threw the envelope away and I picked it up to see if it was from the bank. Then Smith threw the letter away and said, "Dash it, all this trouble for nothing; as I expected the bank will not pay the money," and walked away. I ran after Smith and followed him as I. thought into the gateway of No. 53. At that moment McAvoy rushed up and arrested us. McAvoy stooped down and picked up something and said, "This is what I want; you threw that away" I said, "I threw nothing away, and you put it there" I expect he did and that he picked up the letter that Smith threw away, and so knew all about the case. At Albany Street Police Court we were searched and the envelope was found in my pocket, and also the piece of paper with the writing on it. On the following Monday I was charged. McAvoy then swore that I went into No. 32 and fetched the letter out, and at the next hearing when I had got two witnesses in court to prove that that was a falsehood he rushed into the witness-box, and when the magistrate was examining some papers, he leant over the rail and said, "I find I was mistaken; it was Alfred Auger who went in and fetched out the letter; not Jackson" I also asked that Smith should be arrested.

Cross-examined. I had no suspicion about the cheque. It did not occur to me before giving Smith the money to pay it into my bank and ask them to specially clear it. I had always found Smith straightforward. I bank at the London and South-Western Bank, Fleet Street branch; I am not overdrawn; I paid my wife a cheque while in prison; I will telephone to my bank now if you wish me to do so. I admit that I wrote the draft letter. I did not intend to

sign it Charles Smith; it was only a draft; I put Charles Smith because the letter was addressed in the name of Smith. It was the draft of a letter that I wanted to send, because I was responsible to Smith to get the letter back from the messenger office. I seriously say that McAvoy was not at 32, Gloucester Crescent when the cab arrived otherwise he could not have made the mistake that he saw me go in to fetch the letter, and he would not have said that he saw a lady at the door; the messenger boy says there was no lady at the door; everybody contradicts McAvoy. I ordered the boy to go to 75, Great Russell Street. It did not put me on inquiry when he said the bank would ring up the drawer. Why should I doubt him? I did not throw away the letter from the bank. The letter was thrown down by Smith; that was at the corner of James Street and Gloucester Crescent. It is not true when McAvoy says he saw me throw that letter down; he evidently picked it up and then ran alter us and Smith escaped. The envelope was found in my pocket; I picked it up when Smith threw it down. I refused my name and address at the station because I did not want it in the paper. I was not assisting Smith to defraud the Official Receiver. Smith told me that this cheque was nothing to do with his assets at all. It was Smith who made the arrangement with the messenger people to send the letter to Gloucester Crescent. (By the Court.) I am forced to put all this on Smith. I am a Dane and a courier. I take parties round to see the sights of London. These letters will show you what I do. (Handing in a bundle of letters.)

ALFRED AUGER (prisoner, on oath). I live in Harrow Road, Queen's Park. I am a painter, and I am employed by Vere Brothers. I have been there for 14 years. Smith asked me to take the room at 32, Gloucester Crescent in his name to have a letter sent there. I did not think there was going to be anything wrong in the least. I took no part in concocting the fraud on the bank. I never saw the letter at all. I knew nothing about its contents until it was all over. I am a thoroughly respectable man, and had no knowledge of any fraud or attempted fraud to be perpetrated here.

Cross-examined. I did not ask Smith why he did not take the room in his own name. To tell the truth. I had had a glass, and I did not take any notice whatever. I took the room. I said my luggage was coming. That was not true. I went and fetched the letter and gave it to Smith. I took no interest in it after I gave it to Smith. My wife never told me that she had been asked to send the letter to Parr's Bank. When charged I did say that I had no fixed abode. That was because I did not want my firm to know about this. I had never seen Smith before that day. Fisher is my brother; our name is Fisher-Auger. I had never seen Jackson before that morning.

Fisher having withdrawn his plea of not guilty to the conspiracy indictment, the charge of forging and uttering was not proceeded with against him.

Jackson was found Guilty.

Fisher was found Not guilty of forging and uttering, but Guilty of conspiracy to defraud.

Alfred Auger was found Not guilty.

Annie Auger was found Not guilty.

Chief Warder Cook, of Brixton Prison, proved previous convictions against Jackson of two years' hard labour for conspiracy and obtaining money by fraud; and 20 years' penal servitude for demanding money with menaces, and threatening to murder; and (two days afterwards) 7 years' penal servitude for possession of a forged bank bill of exchange, the two sentences to run concurrently.

Warder FOSTER proved previous convictions against Fisher of nine months' hard labour, 18 months' hard labour, and four years' penal servitude for forgery; also fined for keeping a gaming house.

Sentence. Jackson, Four years' penal servitude; Fisher Eighteen months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, July 1.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-50
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SALE, Arthur William (42, clerk) ; having been entrusted by Alexander Thomas Phillips with £100 in order that he might retain the same in safe custody, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit. Being an undischarged bankrupt, did obtain credit for £100 from Alexander Thomas Phillips, without informing him that he was an undischarged bankrupt.

Mr. Frampton prosecuted. Mr. Wildey Wright defended.

Mr. Frampton, after opening, said that having regard to the fact that in a previous case his Lordship, after consultation with Mr. Justice Phillimore, had held that where a person deposits a sum of money to secure his honesty, and the custodian used that money for his own purpose or the purpose of his business, it does not bring the offender within the section of the Larceny Act under which prisoner was indicted, he would not rely on that count, but on the obtaining credit as an undischarged bankrupt. The question, therefore, would be whether prisoner himself was really the Legal personal Rights society, as treasurer of which he obtained the money, and whether he did so without disclosing the fact of his being an undischarged bankrupt.

The Common Serjeant said he could not rule on the counts until he had the facts.

ALEXANDER THOMAS PHILLIPS , "Cliftonville," Radcliffe Road, East Ham, engineer. In November last I was looking for employment, and saw an advertisement on November 26 in the "Daily Chronicle": "Responsible person, lady or gentleman, as local agent, salary £104 and bonus, must deposit £100 as security, honesty most essential. Secretary, Honor Oak Rise, London, S. E." I replied to that, and received a letter from a Mr. Blackburn, in consequence of which I called at the offices of the Legal Personal Rights Society, 11, Buckingham Street, Strand, on December 5, where I saw Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Sale, the prisoner. The latter told me I should have to take

names and addresses that would be supplied to me by the secretary and call upon the people to receive money which they promised to the society. I was to receive a bonus on the money I collected. I was quite willing to deposit £100 after reading the agreement which was drawn up. Prisoner said the society was in a very flourishing condition. They had the agreement already drawn up. I signed it, as also did prisoner, and I handed over a cheque for £100 (produced), which is endorsed "Arthur Sale, for the Personal Legal Rights Society"; it is also endorsed by Blackburn, and paid on December 7. In about five days I commenced my duties. I was furnished with some paper with my name and address at the top, also "The Personal Legal Rights Society, 11, Buckingham Street, Strand," and was given a directory of East Ham, sent by post. I had instructions to copy names and addresses and send a letter with a pamphlet (produced) asking for subscriptions. The pamphlet sets but the objects of the society, which are very many, in regard to helping people, especially poor people, in conducting their cases, criminal and otherwise. I got no subscriptions in answer to the letters, and never received a penny on behalf of the society. I got my salary for nine weeks, but was three weeks without it. I then gave a month's notice, and applied for the return of the £100. I got a letter of March 30: "Dear sir,—With reference to your application this afternoon, I must refer you to the treasurer, Mrs. Blackburn, Honor Oak Park, S. E." Before that I called on prisoner, and asked him if he was going to pay my salary and return my money. He said, "No, I haven't any money; your money has been spent on the work of the society." I asked him if he would show me how, and he refused to. I have not been to see him since. On April 3 I instructed my solicitor to write to him demanding the return of the money, which they did (letter produced). After that letter had been written I was served with a writ, in reference to a claim for damages for breach of agreement and slander. My solicitor entered an appearance for me, but I never heard any more about it. I did not get any portion of my £100 back. I did not know before I paid the £100 that prisoner was an undischarged bankrupt.

Cross-examined. The replies to the advertisement were, I think, to be sent to the private house of Mr. Blackburn. Two or three days before I paid the money I had an interview with Blackburn alone, at 11, Buckingham Street. I was working for the society for two or three months. At that time I had no doubt that a legitimate business existed. Except for the non-return of the £100 I have no reason now to think otherwise. There was only one man connected with the society as far as I know. I would not have parted with my money had I known there was no society but Sale. I should say that what prisoner said about the treasurer was untrue; he said that Lady Blount had plenty of funds belonging to the society. I had a letter with Lady Blount's name on as treasurer, but not from her. I and not know that Lady Blount attended meetings of the society. Blackburn did not introduce me to Mr. Harry Wilson, my solicitor. I went to him myself. I have heard that some other agents have been repaid their deposits, some in full and some in part. I know prisoner

was anxious to get in subscriptions. I never saw prisoner for more than five minutes at a time, when I went for my money.

Re-examined. I know there are some other agents who never received any money back. I should not have parted with my money if I had not believed the society was a legitimate one. Mr. Blackburn told me he had called a meeting to present a petition to Mr. Sale to know why we had not received our wages. I got the information about the society before I parted with the £100, from Mr. Sale. The statements that the society was flourishing in funds are fibs. I only saw prisoner once a week.

WALTER BLACKBURN , 1, Honor Oak Perk, Honor Oak Rise, school-master by profession. I am now sales manager to tea and coffee merchants. In October last I replied to an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" for an organiser to a philanthropic society, after which I saw prisoner at 11, Buckingham Street. As a result of the interview I was appointed organiser to the Personal Legal Rights Society. I was to receive commission on the receipt of subscriptions to the society; afterwards it was to be salary, supposed to be £3 a week, but I did not get it; it was irregular. I put an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" on November 26, at the direction of prisoner, and received a reply from Mr. Phillips and several other people. I wrote to Mr. Phillips and saw him at the office; I introduced him to prisoner and was present when Mr. Phillips handed prisoner cheque for £100. I remained with the society till about the third week in January. I worked at 11, Buckingham Street. Mr. Sale was in charge there. I used to see one or two clerks there, and a solicitor, who came pretty well every day. I think I saw two or three of the committee at different times. There was a black man called Williams and a white man called Walker. There was another man, but I can't remember his name. I did not know what their business was. My wife is seriously ill. She was never secretary of this society. The letter produced is in prisoner's handwriting, dated December 2. My wife was asked by prisoner to act, and did act as treasurer to the society for a short time. She had a banking account. (The letter of December 2 was read: From Arthur Sale, secretary, to Mrs. E. Blackburn—" In reply to your letter I have to thank you on behalf of the society for kindly consenting to act pro tem, as treasurer. I am expecting that Lady Blount will shortly be able to take up the same interest in the society's work as heretofore, and then we shall be able to release you from the position you kindly agreed to take up.") The cheque, £100, from Phillips was handed by prisoner to my wife. It is endorsed by her, and paid into the London and Provincial Bank. My wife's account is at Farrows' Bank. On December 6 prisoner applied to my wife for £25, setting out different expenses which it was to meet. On the 12th he wrote for another £25, sitting out the expenses, and on the 19th he wrote for £20, also giving a list of the expenses. Then on December 26 he wrote for £11 9s. 11d. for expenses. The letter produced of January 11 is from my wife to prisoner: "Thanks for receipt re cheque drawn for you today on the society's account, £13 7s. 7d., but I notice you have written the name Blackwell, and I am afraid the receipt is no good on that account.

However, we can rectify little irregularities of this kind when closing the account. Please note you have now drawn £95 17s. 6d., and that there now only remains£4 2s. 6d. to the credit of the society, and I should prefer to be released as treasurer when balance is drawn." On January 17 prisoner wrote acknowledging the receipt of the amounts making up£100. The cheques produced are drawn by my wife on Farrows' Bank.

Cross-examined. I have not been a schoolmaster for 15 or 16 years. I have been for about 14 years organising in the grocery and provision trade, holding exhibitions throughout the country in connection with local trades associations, and raising funds for carrying them on. I thought my commission from this society was fairly liberal, but it did not realise anything. I forget the amount of the commission. It may have been 50 per cent. on the first£1, 000. When I left prisoner I got him to give me a testimonial. He asked me what I would like, and after making one or two attempts he asked me to write what I thought. To satisfy him I said, "You might write so and so." I made a draft. I cannot say that prisoner was an honest man. I think his honesty with regard to myself was genuine; with regard to his business it is a different matter. I do not know that I have been getting servants or agents who have to make deposits of money. The object of the prisoner is to defame my character and to unseat me at my office; they have been poking around there and talking to the clerks. I have got four agents for my employers on deposit. I cannot say from memory that that is the first time I have done so. I might have. In February, 1904, I had something to do with the Pier Pavilion at Southend. I was manager to the exhibition there. It is possible that I inserted an advertisement for a stage manager to some show on the pier. I don't recollect for the moment. Probably somebody answered the advertisement. I have a very vague recollection. I cannot recollect whether I asked the person who replied for a premium of£50, and afterwards said I would take£25. At Southend I had a number of young men who paid£25; the conditions of their engagement were fulfilled. I do not know that the£25 was required to be paid back. I have not done so in the case you are speaking of. The young man did not come to me and say that I had no right to offer him the engagement. The case was in the hands of a local solicitor, and it was dropped. I was not charged with fraud in obtaining the£25. We had the same solicitor acting for us both. I do not remember whether the solicitor told me in the other man's presence that I had no right to keep the£25 or whether he induced the other man to drop his action and me to drop, an action for slander I was bringing. I do not remember whether judgment was obtained against me. I remember Mr. Read's name as the man at Southend whom you are speaking of. There has been no secret about my movements; it is a strange thing he has not approached me. I do not remember that I gave Mr. Read a cheque for£25 postdated a month. I will not swear I did not. From Southend I went to Brighton, and had an account at the Capital and Counties Bank, through which many twenty-five pounds went. Why was I not followed there if there

was no money at the Southend bank to meet the cheque? I did not receive a brass farthing out of Phillips's £100, besides my salary. The money I received at Buckingham Street was £2, £2, and £4—not £1 a week for the time I was there. It is possible I gave a receipt for £1 16s. for moneys I had expended out of my own pocket. I have heard of a gentleman named Latham; he has brought an action in the County Court against Sale, myself, and wife, to recover the amount of a deposit—a most contemptible action. I have heard that it was alleged on my behalf that I mistook the day of the trial, and that I am going to apply for a new trial. I do not think I have done so.

Re-examined. I have had nothing from the society beyond what is shown on Sale's letters to my wife. Haynes paid £100 deposit to prisoner; he has since tried to get it back, but I do not think he has succeeded. When I went to Buckingham Street in October there was a man there named Dadson, who, I learnt, had paid £50 deposit to prisoner.

WILLIAM HENRY DADSON , printers' reader. In August last I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" for an assistant treasurer to a philanthropic society, to which I replied, and afterwards had an interview with the secretary, the prisoner. I entered into an agreement with the society, dated September 21, 1907, under which I was to get £2 a week salary, and I had to deposit £50, to be held during the term of the agreement, and to be repaid on the expiration of the notice. I remained seven weeks with the society. Prisoner was the principal person at the offices. Several writs were made by Ladv Blount. There was another assistant there, Mr. Cade. I chiefly did the correspondence at the dictation of Sale. I only got my salary by instalments. When I left, October 11, it was £4 10s. in arrear. I never got my deposit back. Mr. Blackburn came about a week or fortnight before I left.

Cross-examined. While I was there there was a society in existence. I understood Lady Blount was the treasurer. I was never introduced to the committee; I only knew them by hearsay. When I left I issued a writ in the High Court against the committee and the secretary for my deposit. I only got judgment against prisoner. The members of the committee denied having any connection with the society. I was present at a meeting at Ilford, at which Lady Blount spoke in her capacity as treasurer, and to whom I was introduced. There were no other public meetings while I was connected with the society.

Re-examined. As assistant treasurer I had no funds to look after; only 5s. passed through my hands.

WALTER BLACKBURN was recalled, and said that he knew Mr. Read, who was now produced in court.

HENRY STORR BERRY , one of the Examiners at the Bankruptcy Court, produced the file relating to Arthur Sale's (the prisoner) bankruptcy. The receiving order and adjudication were dated November 5, 1904. The statement of affairs showed liabilities £134 2s. and net assets £344 9s. Nothing was realised from the assets and

there was ultimately a debit of 18s. 8d. No discharge has been applied for or granted.

Mr. BLACKBURN , recalled. The society were supposed to have an account at the London and South-Western Bank, but I never saw any cheques connected with it, nor pass-book.

Mr. DADSON , recalled, corroborated, this.

Detective-sergeant ALFRED COLLINS . I arrested prisoner on May 18. I went to 445, Strand, where defendant had an office; he had left 11, Buckingham Street. He was described on the door as "Arthur Sale, accountant." When told the charge he made no reply. I found an agreement relating to the taking of the premises at 11, Buckingham Street, also a letter-book starting from October, 1907. Prisoner was taken to Bow Street and charged, but made no reply.

Cross-examined. The Strand office is within a stone's throw of 11, Buckingham Street.

Mr. Wildey Wright submitted that there was no evidence on the charge of obtaining credit as an undischarged bankrupt to go to the Jury, and that the evidence showed that there was a society and the money was paid through the secretary.

The Common Serjeant said that he could not stop the case.


ARTHUR WILLIAM SALE (prisoner, on oath). I left 11, Buckingham Street about April 4 last; since then I have been carrying on business at 445, Strand as an accountant. About March, 1907, the Personal Legal Rights Society was formed. It was for the purpose of helping prisoners who were unable to defend themselves and to find the funds for supplying legal aid. Lady Blount was the president and treasurer. She appeared at a public meeting at Ilford. The committee consisted of Mr. Silvester, barrister; Mr. Richard Penn, of Ashford, near Staines; the Rev. Williams, of Bermondsey Mr. Dixon, a printer, of Hackney Road; and Mr. Seaman, of King's Cross. I believe he is on the Islington Council. I was appointed secretary by the general committee. I organised the committee. I got deposis from different agents: Cade, £20; Dadson, £50; Fielding, £50; Phillips, £100; Latham, £100; and Payne, £10. Cade paid about July last, and the last one, Latham, in February this year. Cade has been repaid his £20 with 10s. interest and 5s. expenses. Dadson has received £10 back. Fielding has received back all his £50. Haynes and Phillips have not been paid Latham has received £30. Payne got all his £10. I was not paid a salary as there were no funds coming in. Cade paid his deposit because he was going to be assistant treasurer and collect subscriptions, but there were so many cases to be investigated that his time was taken up that he did not collect much. Dadson came in to take the place of Cade, but although many letters were sent no money was received as subscriptions except 5s. I thought that the money would come in sufficient to provide funds all round. During this time the society took up several cases. Sergeant Doughty's case

was before the society Started. The Davenport case was one; that was where a poor woman murdered her child at Chelsea, and we succeeded in getting the woman acquitted. Mr. Blackburn stated that there would be no difficulty in repaying the money, and if there was he was a man of position and his wife had property and would find the money. The subscriptions that came in only amounted to £8 4s. 6d. for general purposes. For special cases the public subscribed £13 15s. I found £70 or £80 out of my own pocket, partly before the deposits were paid and partly after. I may have had a few pounds for myself when Phillips's money came in as I had paid so much away; at other times I had to go to my sister for money. I have expended about £110 and received back about £30. Blackburn received £3 6s. 1d. and four £5 notes out of Haynes's deposit. It would be impossible for me to say how much of that was expenses, because he would never render a statement. He could not possibly have spent £5. Out of Phillips's £100 Blackburn received £20 or £25; none of that was for expenses. He simply stated what amounts he wanted, and as his wife held the money they were masters of the situation. The cheques were sent to me, but it was arranged that Blackburn should have so much on Saturday. I have had nearly £200 from my sister this year. Part of it went to Blackburn. I have lived on part of it. Some of it I have paid for the society's expenses—about £40 or £50. I believe I had the first of that money on January 5. The last amount I had was £25, a fortnight before I was arrested. After the money from Phillips was spent I had to pay the expenses of the society in wages and expenses of cases, etc. I and Blackburn appointed his wife treasurer Lady Blount had resigned because she could not attend the offices. I never made any profit out of the society. I took the deposits from the agents because it was necessary to have security for their honesty, as they were going to handle a lot of money.

Cross-examined. I did form the society, and I got the committee. I did not make all the appointments nor handle all the money. Lady Blount handled some of the money, because at the Ilford meeting Mr. Fielding paid her the £50 instead of me. Part of it was handed to me, and when the £50 was returned she sent it back. I did not tell phillips that the society was in a flourishing condition and that Lady Blount was treasurer. She was not then. I did not interview Phillips. That was left to Mr. Blackburn. I did not ask Phillips for a deposit of £100. I might have written him a letter on December 4, at the dictation of Mr. Blackburn possibly. The amount of Mr. Cade's and Mr. Dadson's deposits was offered to be returned to them, but they would not take it. Mr. Dadson left after a few weeks. I got his money without the help of Mr. Blackburn. I do not know that the committee denied having anything to do with the society when Mr. Dadson sued them. Lady Blount complained that I had got her name on the door. She wrote on September 24, saying she was sorry I had not kept my promise and taken the name off. That was in September or October last. She also wrote complaining that I had not paid Mr. Fielding. I could not paint the name out

because I had not Mr. Williams's authority, as he was chairman of the committee. It is true, as Lady Blount says in her letter, that when she was at my office I promised to paint her name out next day, and said I would see Mr. Williams about it, but I could not see him. That was a fortnight before her letter of October 10, complaining that the name was still up. The name was crossed out of the memos. at the end of September. The Rev. Herbert Williams was a member of the committee; I could not say when he resigned. It is true he wrote me on October 31: "Sir,—I wish my name removed at once from your papers." Phillips and Haynes never received any money back. Mr. Payne has charged me with obtaining£128 from him. I have worked for him for 18 months, and I have been almost financial adviser to him; I have kept him out of bankruptcy. I have paid money and everything on his behalf. That was not in connection with this society. That was in connection with the Davenport case. I have been twice a bankrupt. I got £30 from a Mr. Barker; that was a loan to the society. He had about£20 in salary what he was with me. He was a clerk. There is an account that I have made while in prison of the moneys I have paid on behalf of the society. My books are with an accountant, and I am unable to get them because I cannot pay his fees. His name is Watson. My solicitors did not know that. One cannot do everything one wants when one is in prison. I have had £13 15s. from people for their own cases. I have had several ladies come to me to consult about matrimonial troubles. There was one lady whom I told I wanted £4 for expenses. She brought me £8 18s., which she said was all the money she possessed. I told her the bank was closed, and I could not cash the cheque, but would send her on the difference between it and the £4, which I did, with the exception of £2. I did not send her £2 and say that the rest had gone in expenses. I said I should keep £2, as the solicitors had advised that certain proceedings should be taken, and I asked if I should do it. She said "Yes." The society had not a banking account. I think there was only one deposit paid by cheque.

Re-examined. Out of Phillips's cheque I think I had £4, £2, and £3. I kept books for the society, but not a proper set, because Blackburn was going to arrange for that. Before he came I kept accounts. Mr. Watson has them. I have done various things for Mr. Penn is the last two years in connection with his financial troubles, and expected to be paid. (To the Judge.) In December, when I got the money from Phillips, besides myself the society consisted of Mr. Silvester Williams, Mr. Penn, and Mr. Dixon. Mr. Blackburn was the organiser, and Mrs. Blackburn was going to be the treasurer.

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


(Wednesday, July 1.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-51
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

WILOWSKI, Harris (25, hairdresser) ; unlawfully and carnally knowing Dora Plodska, a girl above 13 years old and under 16 years old.

Mr. Wimpfeiner prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.

Counsel for the prosecution proposed to put in evidence, to prove the age of the girl, a Russian birth certificate and an English translation thereof (duly sworn to by the interpreter in England), which was stated to have been obtained from the Crown Rabbi of the Russian. Government when the parents left Russia, but his Lordship held that it was not admissible in evidence, and as the mother could not prove the age of the prosecutrix, directed the jury, as the age had not been strictly proved, to return a verdict of Not guilty, which they accordingly did.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-52
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

WALKER, John (29, labourer), and SHADE, Ellen (33, jam maker) ; robbery with violence upon Henry William Barton, and stealing from him £1, his moneys.

Mr. Colin Smith prosecuted.

HENRY WILLIAM BARTON . I am a civil engineer, living at 25, Harvey Street, Leyton. On June 5, in the afternoon, I was passing along Suffolk Street, and passed the prisoners. Walker pulled me up by saying, "Hullo, guv'nor, how are you?" I turned round, and thought that I knew his face. There was another man with him, who kept back. I was just leaving a friend of mine, and said to him that I was going to the "Skinners' Arms" to have a bitter, and I assume, as the prisoners stood near, that they heard what I had said. They followed me to the public-house. When there I paid for a drink for them. Probably I paid for it by a half-crown, I do not know. I may have pulled out some more money. I had some silver and a half-sovereign in one pocket, and a sovereign in the other pocket as a reserve. I had no occasion to pull out the sovereign. I had business in the direction of a public-house called the "Old Justice," and left, thinking I had got rid of the prisoners, but they followed me, Walker saying when he got there, "I must go in and see my sister." I thought if I gave them another drink I should get rid of them. They followed me in, and Walker said, "This is my sister," and as I went to turn round, he collared me by the throat, back and front. I had already put a shilling down for a drink, and found myself held very tightly. Someone then took hold of my hands, and two hands went into my pocket, and I then realised what was happening. With that I struggled to the door; the other man got away, but I held Walker till I got assistance. When Walker said, "This is my sister," Shade got off the seat. I assume she held my right hand, but I cannot prove it. By this time I had struggled outside, holding Walker, when a constable came up and secured him. * I then went for the other man, but by that time he had disappeared. I missed the sovereign, and as near as I can judge 6s.

To Walker. I only had one drink in the "Skinners' Arms." I may have treated the landlord; I usually do, because he is a friend of mine. I did not change the sovereign there; it was the half-sovereign. I put down a half-crown for the drink, but I changed the half-sovereign later on. I gave the other man 2s. because you told

me you were hard up, and had lost all your money at the Derby, and to get rid of you I gave the 2s. You then said, "You have given him 2s., serve us both alike," and with that I gave you 2s., thinking that I should get rid of you. I did not give him 4s. to back a horse called Bracelet; I have nothing to do with racehorse. I did not go into any other public-house till I got to the "Old Justice." I did not go into the "Duchess"; I do not know it. You did not come up to me and give me my hat; I say you struggled with me.

Prisoner Shade. He gave me a glass of beer in this public-house, and I left him with the two men, and came out.

Police-cons able WILLIAM BRYANT , 122 M. About 2.15, on June 5, I was in Southwark Bridge Road, and saw Walker and the prosecutor struggling outside a public-house. I also saw one man run away. That aroused my suspicions. I ran towards them and the prosecutor told me that Walker had held him by the throat while another man took a sovereign from his left-hand trousers pocket. I said to Walker, "Did you hear what this gentleman said?" and he said, "Yes; didn't I put your hat on? If I had the quid I would have run away." I took him into custody. On the way to the police station Shade came along, and prosecutor said, "This woman is also in the case," so I arrested her as well, and told her that she was accused of being concerned with the male prisoner. She said, "I don't know those men." When charged, the prisoners made no reply. No money was found on Walker.

To Walker. You were not standing talking to the landlord of the "Justice" with the prosecutor's hat in your hand. I did not say to the landlord, "What is the matter?" and he said, "I think there is a man being robbed." You were struggling with the prosecutor. You appeared to be trying to get away from him.

ALBERT EDWARD DYKE , landlord of the "Old Justice," Southwark Bridge Road. On June 5 I saw prosecutor and the others in the bar. They were served with beer. I did not know the others. I heard a scuffle in the bar, and immediately went to see what was the matter. I heard prosecutor call out, "I have been robbed of my money. I walked round from behind to the public bar and prosecutor ran out after another man and Walker. I saw him to the door. When I got to the door prosecutor ran back, and said he had lost the other man, but he said, "This is the one that seized hold of my throat." With that there was a little "conflab" between them outside, when the constable came up, and the prosecutor said to him, "I have been robbed of my money; this man held me by the throat while the other man went round my pocket and took my money." He then said he would charge him. The woman remained there; she made no attempt to get away. I did not actually see a struggle, but they had hold of one another.

To Walker. I do not say that you put your hand in the prosecutor's pocket. You made no attempt to run away; there was nothing to prevent you from getting away.


JOHN WALKER (prisoner, on oath). On June 5 I was walking down Suffolk Street when I was tapped on the shoulder by prosecutor. I turned round and he said, "Hullo." I said, "Hullo." He said, "Don't you recollect me?" I said, "I have not the slightest recollection of you." He said, "I am 'Mr. So-and-So' "—mentioning some other name than Barton; "I used to keep an oil shop in Union Street.'" He asked me to have a drink. He was accompanied by another man. We went into the "Skinners' Arms" and there had several drinks. He asked me what I fancied for the Oaks. I said I did not do much in horse-racing, but if I was going to do anything I should have done Bracelet. With that he changed a sovereign over the bar, and gave the other man 4s. to back the horse, and then the other man went away to find a bookmaker. Prosecutor then proposed we should go and have another drink, and we went to the "Duchess," and he got into conversation with two or three women there. I told him I was going home, and he came out. We then went to the "Old Justice," and had a drink there. Prosecutor sat on an old barrel and slipped on to the floor, his hat rolled off, and I went to get his hat and heard a scuffle. When I came round the bar the prosecutor was running out of the door. I went as far as the door and a constable came up. He asked what was the matter, and the landlord said that a man had been robbed. Prosecutor came back and then gave me into custody for stealing the sovereign, which I can prove he changed in the "Skinners' Arms."

Cross-examined. I do not know the name of the other man; he was a perfect stranger to me. I thought the other man was in his company, and apparently prosecutor thought he was in mine. Prosecutor did not give me 2s. and the other man 2s.; he gave me nothing. I am in want of money every day, but was not particularly in want of money that day; no money was found on me because I had not been to work. I did not see this friend of his try and rob him. I did not introduce the female prisoner to the prosecutor as my sister. I did not see the prosecutor pull out any more gold in the "Skinner's Arms"; he changed silver each time to pay for drink.

Verdict, both prisoners, Not guilty.

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-53
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FIELDS, William ; feloniously causing grievous bodily harm to Elizabeth Burton.

Mr. G. St. J. McDonald prosecuted.

ELIZABETH BURTON . I live at 56, Shandeer Road, Custom House, and am the wife of Thomas Burton, but live apart from him. I was living with prisoner from Easter till June 11. On the morning of June 11 he told me to clear out of his f—ing house. I went round to my mother's with the washing, and he met me in the evening between 3.30 and four and said, "If you go there I will kill you," meaning his house. I said, "Let me go with the face you found me with, so that I can work for my own living the same as I done when you first met me"; he said, "I will kick your face so that people will not recognise you"; he had also said that in the morning. He

was standing at the corner of the street with a birdcage under his arm. He dropped the birdcage and knocked me down with his fist, and kicked me in the face and under the breast. I do not remember any more; I lay there in a pool of blood. He also hurt my wrist. People bathed my face and I went home and was taken to the hospital. Nothing else happened. I gave him in charge. I suffered from spitting of the blood for a whole week. I still suffer from the blow; my eye is painful and bloodshot; I can only see out of a corner of it. I was asked a question at the police court by the prisoner, and there said that I told him, "If you have half-starved me don't murder me. "For three weeks he never fetched in a penny, and my mother kept us; I pawned everything I had, even my clothes off my back.

To Prisoner. I do not say you followed me to my mother's house. We left your house together. When you asked me at the police court if you kicked me I said, "No"; the reason was you sent a letter asking me not to go against you. I have not got the letter. You sent to your pals, and got me to take the bandage off my face and not go to the hospital any more, and go down to the peafield so that I should not come up and give evidence against you, and I did that because there is such a rough lot of them.

MARY ANN BOWYER . I live at 78, Martindale Road, Custom House, and am a single woman. I know prisoner by sight and the prosecutrix. On June 11 last I was standing at the corner of Frederick Road and saw prisoner near by with a birdcage under his arm. He ran across the road in the direction of prosecutrix. I went across the road and saw the woman bleeding from the nose and mouth lying on the ground. I picked her up and said, "What is the matter?" She said, "He kicked me"; then I handed her over to two women and they took her into a house and bathed her. I have never seen her since. I saw prisoner walk away with the birdcage under his arm.

To Prisoner. I could not say how far I was away from you at first. I never saw you hit the woman. I did not look in that direction at the time. When she said you kicked her you were there.

WILLIAM SAMUEL HEARNE , house surgeon at the Seamen's Hospital, Custom House. On June 11, about midnight, I saw prosecutrix. The outside of her face was very much swollen, her eye was almost closed, she complained of great pain over those parts and in her chest. I examined her chest; there were no ribs broken, but there were bruises immediately under the right breast. She also complained of great pain on her left wrist, but the wrist was not swollen. Her injuries could have been caused by a kick. I have examined her since and find a bone in her face has been broken, the bone surrounding the eye. I do not think the wound under the right breast is dangerous. The bone in the face has united, but there is some deformity. It may not spoil her looks, but I think she will be permanently deformed.

To Prisoner. I do not think the woman's injuries will cause any cancer to grow.

To the Judge. She spit blood; that was probably due to an injury to the lung.

Police-constable CHARLES WARREN , 439 K. On June 11, about 10.10 p.m. I arrested prisoner. I told him I was going to take him into custody for assaulting a young woman. He said, "That's right." I took him to the station. He was charged and made no reply. He was quite sober.

To Prisoner. When I arrested you I said nothing then about causing bodily harm, only assaulting.


WILLIAM FIELDS (prisoner, on oath). About eight months ago I took up with prosecutrix. Last Christmas everybody in the house got the worse for drink, and the landlady came and spoke to her and they had a fight and she blacked the landlady's eye and another lady's eye and we had to leave. Every time she goes round to her mother's house she gets the worse for drink and she got a black eye herself. On the morning in question I said to her, "Liz, you had better clear out of this house. "She never said nothing, but started crying. I went out and met some friends. I heard someone call out and saw the prosecutrix. She said to me, "Aren't you ashamed to walk with me like this here with my boots like this?" I told her to go round to her mother's and stop there. About half an hour afterwards I was laughing at something one of my friends had said when I heard somebody say, "This is something to laugh at," and she showed the bottoms of her boots. I said, "Why don't you go home?" I walked back to my friends and she followed me. I walked up to her again and she started shouting out "Starver" and other words. I walked away and she followed me. I turned round, as I did not want her following me, and stood at the corner. She stood about 50 yards away. I walked away and she followed me. She continually did this. I lost my temper and I rushed across the road and hit her with my fist. I said, "Get up." She would not. I never kicked her, but hit her once with my fist. I am sorry for hitting her, but I never kicked her. If I had been charged with assaulting her I should have pleaded guilty, but I did not cause her bodily harm.

Cross-examined. I have assaulted her before through losing my temper. I say she got her black eye through fighting a young woman. I say I only hit her on this occasion with my fist. I did not see she was bleeding. I did not kick her.

MARY ANN BOWYER (recalled). By the Judge. She was bleeding from the nose and mouth, but not from her eye.

Verdict, Guilty of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

Detective JOSEPH BAYNE, K Division. Prisoner was sentenced on August 7, 1907, to four months' hard labour for stealing bread. At that time there were two convictions against him and four summary convictions. I have never known him do any work. I have not known him go to sea.

PRISONER. I have been to sea and have been shipwrecked 25 miles from Cape Town. I have the freedom of Cape Town for saving seven Chinamen's lives.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.


(Monday, June 29.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-54
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

CADE, Joseph (coal merchant); obtaining by false pretences from the Guardians of the Poor of Mile End Old Town certain valuable securities, to wit, bankers' cheques for the payment of £607 9s. 1d. on April 11, 1899; £541 3s. 6d. on July 11, 1899; and a number of other amounts on various dates, in each case with intent to defraud; also inducing Harriett Lilley and other guardians to sign their names to a piece of paper with the intent that it might be dealt with as a valuable security.

The Attorney-General (Sir William S. Robson, K.C., M.P.), Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Mallinson defended.

WILLIAM THACKER , Marlborough Road, Woodford. Till within the last few months I was clerk to the guardians of Mile End Old Town, who are possessed of an infirmary, workhouse, and other places in which coal is required. I have for many years known prisoner, who was at one time himself a guardian, perhaps 14 or 15 years ago. He became coal contractor eight or nine years ago. In regard to the coal supplied, the practice of the board was to issue advertisements and printed forms of tenders, in the pattern form supplied by the Local Government Board, in which the quality of coal required to be supply was specified, and also the probable quantity required. Tenders were received by me as clerk, and on the appointed day were put before the board. The practice was to read out the names of the tenderers. There were a good many tenders, amongst others from such well-known firms as Charrington, Sells, and Co., Ricketts and Cochrane, as well as local people. From 1898 prisoner has been the contractor for all kinds of coal and coke. His tender was not always the lowest. Orders were sent him week by week on printed order forms specifying the quantity required for each of the institutions. It was the practice for the contractor to send a delivery note with each lot of coals delivered, stating distinctly the weight. Steam coal was always delivered in bulk, and weighed at the weighbridge, at the entrance to the workhouse. If any question arose as to the quality or weight of the coal the engineer at the workhouse would report to the master, and the master to the board; at the infirmary the engineer would report to the steward; and at the Scattered Homes the superintendent would report. The delivery notes were kept by the porter at the various establishments. The contractor would send in weekly invoices, and these having been compared

with the delivery notes, would be entered by the master in the day book, and by the steward and the superintendent. The weekly invoices were checked by the assistant clerk, and then filed until the end of the quarter, when it was the duty of the contractor to send in an account specifying in detail the kind of coal, dates and weights delivered throughout the quarter. That account would also be checked, and if found correct would be recommended for payment by the finance committee. The cheque would be signed by three members of the Board, and countersigned by myself. I have here the accounts, cheques, and contractors' receipts from Lady Day, 1899, to Lady Day, 1906. It would be the duty of the engineer to see that the coal delivered was of the kind contracted for, but the master would actually be responsible. The master would not necessarily have any knowledge of coal; he would act upon the engineer's opinion. At the workhouse there was boiler plant for the purpose of generating the heating steam. There was machinery at work, and we made our electric light. I hesitate as to whether there may not have been some change in the mode of conveyance of the steam, but with the exception of small details I do not think there was any considerable alteration. At the time prisoner became contractor for the steam coal, as distinguished from house coal, two kinds were determined upon, English steam coal and Welsh. His first tender was at the end of 1898, and upon that a contract was entered into for the supply of 230 tons "Babbington hard steam coal, thoroughly screened, and to be delivered in bulk, and not in sacks," at 17s. 6d. per ton, in all, £201 5s. Under the head of "Welsh Smokeless Coal," prisoner contracted to supply British Rhondda at 19s. per ton. He afterwards wrote: "I understand that it is the 'Nixon's Navigation Coal' that you are wanting, which I have not tendered for. I shall be pleased to do so at 22s. 6d. per ton. "The Board resolved that the letter form part of the contract. I have not the slightest idea how that letter came to be written. I might have made a statement as to the Nixon's navigation coal being required in the ordinary course of things, but I could not have done so before the seal of the tender was broken. At the meeting of the Workhouse Visiting Committee on March 2 I called the attention of the committee to the fact that prisoner was sending in and charging for Babbington steam coals in place of Nixon's more expensive coals, and it was resolved that Mr. Cade's attention be called to the matter, and that he be informed that he must supply the coals as ordered and not send in substitutes for the same. I accordingly wrote to him the following letter: "It seems that when Nixon's coals are ordered another kind of coal is supplied, and on this being mentioned to the Workhouse Visiting Committee on Thursday last they expressed their surprise that this should have been so. Please see that Nixon's best steam navigation coal is supplied, and none other, for the boilers." In October, 1899, the South African war broke out, and in November there was some correspondence between the Board and prisoner. Prisoner wrote on November 21 stating that he had great difficulty in getting a supply of Welsh coal owing to the

Government having had a great quantity and the railway company having had a blockage on their line, and he would esteem it a great favour if the Guardians would kindly arrange to accept best steam in lieu of Welsh while he was so short. I was directed to write accepting the suggestion. Prisoner replied that he was proposing to send the best steam coal from the Charity Collieries. At a meeting of the Guardians on November 28 it was resolved to ask prisoner whether, subject to his letter, he would content to his present tender remaining in force until Lady Day, and Charity Collieries coal at 20s. 6d. per ton was to be substituted for Nixon's Navigation and Babbington Hard. At the Board meeting on January 16, 1900, the following letter from prisoner was considered: "I wish to point out that coal has become very much dearer—also difficult to get, and I wish to ask you if I may deliver during the present crisis coal that I can get from other best steam collieries. I also wish to ask if you will make the price for me 22s. 6d. per ton, which is rather a low figure still. "I was directed to write prisoner notifying the Guardians' consent. The arrangement up to Lady Day, 1900, having expired, the question of the supply of coal as from Lady Day, 1900, to Lady Day, 1901, was discussed by the Board, and I was directed to write to prisoner asking if he could supply steam coal at the present prices for another year, as the markets were still in an unsettled state and likely to continue so. Prisoner in reply wrote: "I respectfully beg to inform you that many of the collieries will not contract this year for best steam coal, which makes it very awkward. The price will be very heavy from the mines, as the trade of the country is likely to be very good for some time. However, I shall be pleased to supply the coal for 12 months at 26s. 6d. per ton and coke at 14s. per chaldron." This offer for the 12 months the Guardians accepted. In the summer of 1900 there were complaints of smoke nuisance from the boiler shafts and furnace shafts by the Officer of Health of the London County Council. On June 11 I wrote to prisoner stating that the end would be that the Guardians would be proceeded against for penalties, adding: "I have directions to request you to supply the very best steam coal obtainable so as to remove all cause for complaint, and as Nixon's Steam Navigation coal seems to be the only coal which can be relied on to meet this requirement, I have to request you to send this description of coal instead of the coal which you are sending." On the 13th prisoner wrote that he was short of this kind of coal, owing to the closing of the pits many days on account of the Whitsuntide holidays, but now had a contract with the Nixon Colliery to send up 44 tons per week to supply the Guardians. On June 22 I forwarded to prisoner a copy of the report of the Works Committee recommending "that Mr. Cade be informed that he must supply the Guardians with Nixon's Steam Navigation coal entirely, as this seems to be the only coal which will keep the Guardians free from the complaints referred to." Up to Lady Day, 1901, the arrangement went on under which prisoner, without any formal contract, supplied coal to the Guardians. In March, 1901, further tenders for the ensuing year were invited and prisoner tendered for the supply of Babbington Hard

steam coal, at 20s. 11d. per ton and Powell Duffryn at 26s. 2d. a ton. That tender was accepted and sealed. On March 19 I received the following letter from prisoner: "I respectfully beg to inform you that during the year which has just ended I supplied the Guardians with best Hucknall Hard Steam in the place of Babbington, as this was agreed upon. I might say that this coal is far superior to that of the last-mentioned and could supply it about 9d. per ton more if you consider it best. Re Welsh coal. I have tendered to you Powell Duffryn at 26s. 2d. per ton, and might add that last year it was agreed to accept Nixon Merthyr, as it was very satisfactory for your purpose, and if you require this coal again I can supply it at the same price as the former, viz., 26s. 2d. per ton." I do not know whether he mentioned the name of Hucknall at the time the substituted coal was supplied. I cannot say at what time it was agreed to accept Nixon Merthyr in lieu of Nixon's Navigation. On April 2 prisoner wrote stating that, as prices had dropped, he was now enabled to quote as follows: Best English steam coal at 19s. 11d. instead of 20s. 11d., Welsh steam coal 24s. 11d. instead of 25s. 3d. On March 12, 1903, a new contract was entered into under which prisoner was to supply 1, 000 tons of Babbington at 18s. 11d. per ton and 1, 000 tons of Nixon's Navigation at 21s. 10d. a ton. That tender having been accepted, prisoner wrote that he would see that the contract was carried out in such a manner as to give entire satisfaction. In the contract for the year 1904-5 Babbington Smoke-less Hard Steam was tendered for at 18s. 9d. and Nixon's Navigation at 22s. 2d. It appears from the minutes that in September, 1904, there was some complaint with regard to the quality of the steam coal supplied. On November 3, 1904, the following note was added to the official order forwarded to prisoner: "Report was made to the Guardians yesterday by members of the Workhouse Visiting Committee that some of the coal lying in the yard for use in the boilers was rubbish." That was followed by a letter from prisoner stating that he had gone well into the matter and thought there might have been a waggon of coal up from the colliery which was not quite so good, as the waggons did vary a little sometimes, and giving the assurance that the Guardians were having a splendid coal and would not have cause to complain as he was looking well after it. On March 9, 1905, prisoner tendered for the supply of 1, 300 tons of Babbington Hard Steam coal at 18s. 6d. per ton, for which was substituted in red ink in brackets "Second-class Hard Steam at 17s. 6d. This coal was to be delivered in bulk and not in sacks, "as being supplied," the words "as being supplied" being written in in manuscript either by Cade himself or his clerk. The second item in the same schedule was for Welsh smokeless steam coal, the following varieties being printed in the tender: (a) British Rhondda, (b) Dowlais Merthyr, (c) Nixon's Navigation (as being supplied), (d) Penrikyber, (e) Powell Duffryn. Nixon's Navigation was the variety selected, and prisoner tendered to supply 1, 280 tons at 21s. 8d. In this class also there was written in in red ink, "Second-class Welsh steam at 20s. 11d." In the early part of 1905 I received two letters from Mr. Smallwood, the agent of the Babbington Collieries,

neither of which I answered. Subsequently I received a visit from Mr. Smallwood, and in consequence of what he said I communicated with prisoner stating that I had been informed that the coal supplied by prisoner to the Guardians under the name of Babbington was not so in fact. Then, I added, "It seemed to me that you should know of this and that for your own protection and in justice to the Guardians you should in future when sending in your quarterly account also send a certificate from the owners of the collieries that the description and quality of coals you have contracted to supply have been actually supplied. This will, of course, apply to alt kinds of steam coal contracted for and also to the house coals. Such a precaution seems to be absolutely necessary having regard to the statements which were made to me this morning." I wrote that letter on my own responsibility and had no reply to it. I did not see prisoner about it nor did I report the visit of Mr. Smallwood to the Board. At the meeting on April 6 it was resolved that there be laid on the Board room table Nixon's Navigation coal certificates as issued to Mr. Cade, the contractor, for steam coal by Nixon's Navigation Company, Limited, during the past 12 months. I think the question was raised by one of the Guardians. On April 7 I wrote to prisoner asking him to furnish the Guardians with the usual trade warrants or documents obtainable from Nixon's or their agents, certifying that the coal supplied was of the quality and description contracted for. Prisoner replied that when first he tendered for the supply of Nixon's Navigation he found that this company was unable to quota a price as they had already arranged for the sale of the whole of their output; he therefore placed this matter before the Guardians, explained his position, and they allowed him to obtain a suitable coal. He also wrote that the Nixon Navigation coal was several shillings more per ton than that supplied. There is no record on the minutes of the matter having been brought before the Guardians. I have no personal knowledge of the Nixon Merthyr coal being supplied to the Guardians, nor had I previously heard of the name of the Cwmaman Company. Prisoner's letter was read to the Board on April 11, and on April 22 I wrote to prisoner with regard to his letter: "The information contained therein gave rise to much comment, seeing that in your tenders for the years 1903-04 you quoted prices without any qualification or conditions whatever for coal specified by the Guardians, accepted it was for the same description of coals that the Guardians accepted you tender on the 9th ult. It is therefore absolutely necessary that you should supply the steam coals designated as Babbington and Nixon's Navigation respectively, otherwise you are openly ignoring the contract." The matter was considered by the Workhouse Visiting Committee, and I was directed to inform prisoner that they considered the most satisfactory course would be for the contract to be annulled so far as the Nixon's Navigation was concerned, and fresh tenders sought for the supply of coals coming under the designation of Welsh Smokeless Steam Coal; but that if the contract should continue in its entirety the Guardians could only recognise the supply and delivery of Nixon's Navigation coal as complying with the contract. In midsummer, 1905, the Board resolved that

there should be a fresh tender for the Welsh coal, Nixon's Navigation or otherwise, thoroughly screened, to be delivered in bulk, and not in sacks and in such quantities of either of the following descrip-tions that might be from time to time required, viz.; Nixon's Naviga-tion, Cwmaman Fforchwen, Best Gellyonen. These were respectively tendered for by prisoner at 24s. 6d., 21s. 8d., and 20s. 3d. Eventually Cade's tender for Cwmaman Fforchwen was adopted against some 10 or a dozen other tenderers. It was proposed that the names of tenderers should not be read out, but only numbers, so that the Guardians should not know who the tenderer was. That was negatived by 13 to five. The number of Guardians of Mile End Old Town is 24. On July 14 I wrote to prisoner: "If you are not already doing so you must take care to describe all the coals delivered according to their actual quality and description on every delivery note, invoice, and bill sent in by you." Prisoner acknowledged that letter on the 18th, saying that these matters would have his strict attention. In consequence of some complaint I wrote a note to prisoner on August 10, to which he replied on the 14th: "We are sending in the new Hucknall Bentinck coal only, and cannot understand your cause for complaint." The complaint had reference to house coal supplied to the Scattered Homes. On August 25 I wrote: "The Guardians have resolved that you furnish them with colliery advice notes as proof that you are supplying the coals contracted for, and are properly describing in your delivery notes, invoices, bills, etc., the coals so supplied. This requirement to apply to house coals as well as to steam coals." With reference to the contract from Lady Day, 1906, to Lady Day, 1907, on November 8, 1908, I wrote to prisoner that the Guardians had employed an expert to look into the expense of working the boiler-house and engine-house departments, whose opinion was that the coal supplied was very friable, and contained a large proportion of small, which was in reality, waste, as it had no heat-giving qualities for the production of steam, and that the inference to be drawn from the remarks of the expert was that prisoner was not supplying coals from the best workings, and that as a consequence the Guardians were not having the quality and description contracted for. I produce a large number of accounts rendered by prisoner quarter by quarter from Christmas, 1898, to March, 1905, the cheques paid in discharge of such accounts, and prisoners receipts for the same. The amounts, of course, vary, but there is no instance in which the amo✗t is less than £500. All the accounts have been placed in the hands of Mr. Philpot, of the Local Government Board, who assisted Mr. Willis at the inquiry in the course of last year. In addition, all Cade's tenders were put before him. Without any material change in the workhouse or infirmary, the amount consumed sprang from 500 tons in 1899 to 1, 770 tons in 1901, 2, 200 tons in 1904, and just over 2, 000 tons in 1906. Complaints were frequently made of the inefficient working of the boilers and engines. It was repeatedly stated that they were consuming more coal than they ought to, a great deal more. The probable amount required of English Steam coal, according to the tenders, was only a fraction of what was actually paid for.

I think I ought to mention, however, that, for electric-lighting purposes, the Guardians dispensed with the accumulators, and worked the boilers day and night, so that the boilers were working practically all the year round. I do not know whether that might account for any extra consumption. The attention of the Guardians was drawn to the steady increase in the consumption of coal, and hence the reference to the Local Government Board and the engaging of the services of an expert to inquire into the matter. In every single instance prisoner's tender was substantially above the lowest tender. The Guardians favoured Mr. Cade because he was a local man. There were other local men, but his place of business was in the hamlet, and the others were just outside it, and a kind of feeling prevailed that the money should be spent in the hamlet. For municipal purposes the hamlet is part of the borough, but for Poor Law purposes it is quite a separate jurisdiction. The people in the hamlet only pay rates on their own local assessment. The rate would be levied over the whole borough for Poor Law purposes, but the Mile End rate would be on the Mile End valuation, and so with the others. As to Welsh coal, with the exception of the first three months of 1900, and the 12 months ending Lady Day, 1901, when there was an informal contract, one kind of coal or another was specified in each contract. With one exception, the coal specified was Nixon's Navigation, and that exception is Powell Duffryn in 1902. With one exception, Cade's price for Nixon's Navigation was either the same or higher than the lowest price in the other tenders. That exception is 1904. In 1905 and 1906 there was no other tender than prisoner's for Nixon's Navigation. I do not remember any occasion on which Cade came before the whole Board and explained his position, and there is no minute to that effect.

(Tuesday, June 30.)

WILLIAM THACKER , recalled. Cross-examined. I have known prisoner from 25 to 30 years. I cannot say how many years I knew him as a member of the Board of Guardians, but probably three. I think he has lived in the district nearly 50 years, but I do not know that of my own knowledge. During the time I have known him he has always borne the reputation of being a highly respectable man as far as my knowledge goes. Apart from the question which the Court is now trying I have never heard the slightest suggestion against his character. He employs a large number of men. I myself was Clerk to the Guardians during many successive Boards, and was familiar with the persons who from time to time constituted that body. I know from experience that Cade was very popular with different Boards, and in my judgment that popularity or esteem was quite independent of any improper influence. I followed the Local Government Board Inquiry with great interest. The ratepayers were represented by Mr. Elvy Robb, solicitor. There was no suggestion that Cade had been guilty of bribery or corruption, but there were a great many suggestions of bribery and corruption against other people. The fact that Cade was a local tradesman or merchant carrying

on business within the limits of the hamlet considerably influenced the Guardians in their debates and discussions respecting these various coal contracts. There was an idea that it would be beneficial to the hamlet that the money expended upon the coal contract should be distributed within that area. Before the year 1898 we had had considerable trouble with our coal contracts, relative to the supply of the description of coal. There was difficulty in getting the coal that had been contracted for delivered, and that applied to more than one firm. Cade first appeared upon the scene as a contractor in November, 1898. I did not know in December, 1898, that Nixon's Navigation coal was practically monopolised by Messrs. Cory and Sons. If prisoner had had to purchase Nixon's Navigation coal to fulfil his contract he would have had to purchase it from Messrs. Cory. I think Cade stated in one of his letters that at the time he tendered he did not know that was so. I cannot say how soon it was after Cade had tendered for the Nixon's Navigation coal that I reported that he was not delivering Nixon's Navigation, but it appears from the correspondence that I called his attention to it on March 6, 1899. I do not recollect that after I had written that letter Cade came to see me. Apparently I had no answer in writing. If Cade says he called upon me in relation to that letter and explained that he had not been able to get Nixon's Navigation coal because Messrs. Cory had the monopoly, but he would supply the best he could, I am not prepared to say that is not true. I cannot say he did not say that he would continue to supply Welsh coal, but he could not supply Nixon's Navigation. I notice in his letter of November 21, 1899, prisoner says that he had a difficulty in getting "Welsh coal," not in getting "Nixon's Navigation." No reference is made to Nixon's Navigation. I think Cade said at the inquiry that though he had contracted to supply Nixon's Navigation at 22s. 6d. per ton, he had been paying more than that sum for the coal he had, in fact, delivered, and that he had been a loser and not a gainer by the contract. Any communication I received from Cade in relation to coal contracts I should, in some way or other, communicate to the Guardians. Any important matter would appear on the minutes, but an unimportant matter might be omitted. I might consult the chairman informally about matters likely to come before the meeting, but that would not happen often. I should be constantly in communication with different persons having business with the Guardians which would not necessarily be formally recorded, though brought before the Board. In some cases I had to act upon my own responsibility. By the minute of November 28, 1899, it was clearly recognised that Nixon's Navigation was not to be supplied while the temporary arrangement lasted, and that the best steam coal from the Charity Collieries was to be supplied. Although that was the arrangement there was no alteration, either in the tender or the contract in force. The cheques, which were paid quarter by quarter, were paid upon documents which represented the original state of things, although there was a substituted arrangement. I do not know that after some four trucks of coal from the Charity Collieries had been delivered it was found unsuitable

to the boilers, and New Hucknall was substituted, but I will accept that if you have it on record. In January, 1900, I was conscious that Cade was endeavouring to carry out the arrangement to deliver hard best steam coal, and was asking permission to get it wherever he could, no longer under the arrangement limited to Welsh coal. I do not know that after that date the coal supplied was, in fact, New Hucknall. I can only say it from the letter Cade wrote, saying that it was so. I do not know of my own knowledge that the invoices kept up the same description as formerly, but from the records it would appear to be so. I have heard New Hucknall described as first-class English coal. If it was stated at the inquiry that the engineer was thoroughly satisfied with it that would be so. I cannot say whether there were only three complaints in the five years. Whatever complaints there were are represented on the records and correspondence. I suppose if there were only three complaints in five years the record would be considered favourable. I do not know that while New Hucknall was being supplied there was no complaint at all. During the temporary arrangement, which started on November 28, 1899, and went on for about fifteen months, the names and descriptions in the tenders, invoices, delivery notes, etc., were never charged, and there was nothing on the face of the documents to indicate that a totally different kind of coal was being supplied. As to whether I think it strange that there should have been no change in the description, I think the records explain the circumstances.

The Attorney-General pointed out that during the 15 months (described as the non-incriminating period) there was no tender. With regard to the delivery notes, invoices, etc., prior to 1904, he was instructed that they had been destroyed.

The Recorder. This witness has been careful to guard himself. He says, "I cannot carry all these things in my mind. If you have it there, and it is a matter of record, I accept it."

The Attorney-General said there might be evidence forth coming as to these documents, but this must not be put to the jury as if it were common ground.

The Recorder. Mr. Elliott may be able to establish it by producing duplicate invoices or something of the kind, but at present it must not be taken as admitted that any such documents are in existence; that is all.

Cross-examination continued. The documents referred to were destroyed in the ordinary way. We have a mass of documents and cannot keep them for ever. Five years is the usual limit. Counterfoils of orders accumulate in great numbers, and might perhaps be destroyed once in three years. That would be done without the authority of the Guardians, following a uniform practice. Books of record, such as minute books and ledgers, are kept from the commencement of the administration. Invoices would not be kept long. If Cade during the period I have mentioned says that invoices and delivery notes were sent in under the same description as before, I

am not prepared to contradict that. For the period from March, 1900, to March, 1901, there was no tender; things went on in precisely the same way. When I wrote on June 11 that complaint was being again made of the smoke nuisance from the boiler house, I was conscious that the Board had entered into a firm contract in the previous March for 12 months, and that prisoner would be entitled to supply the best hard steam coal, which was English. I only wrote the letter because of the difficulty which arose with the local authorities as to the smoke nuisance. I was probably told by our engineer that Welsh smokeless coal was the only coal that could possibly enable us to meet the difficulty. The letter was, of course, written by the direction of the Guardians. It was not in any way a complaint of Mr. Cade having broken his contract, but a condition of things had arisen which required immediate attention. I did not suggest in that letter that Cade was not supplying a coal which he had arranged to supply. He was in fact supplying a coal which gave rise to too much smoke. When Cade replied in his letter of June 13, "The reason the coal has been a little more smoky than usual, is because it has been another kind for the last week, but I now have the old kind, and I think it will be all right when burnt with coke"; by "old kind" I understood the best hard steam coal that he was then supplying. When I wrote prisoner on June 22, 1900, enclosing the report of the Works Committee, I knew that the arrangement under which Cade was working was to last for 12 months. I did not say I did not have an interview with him about that time, in which he suggested that although the Guardians wanted Nixon's Navigation, Nixon's Merthyr was a more suitable coal for their boilers. I do not know that prisoner did supply Nixon's Merthyr until the end of the twelve months. I do not know that during this period Nixon's Navigation coal was over £2 a ton.

The Attorney-General. This gentleman is not an expert.

Cross-examination continued. I did not write a letter contradicting the two suggestions that there had been that agreement, if there is no copy of it. With regard to the tender of March, 1901, when Cade tendered for Powell Duffryn at 26s. 6d. a ton, and wrote that he was prepared to go on supplying Nixon's Merthyr, I see by the minute book that there was a very close division on the question whether his tender should be accepted, and the matter was decided by the casting vote of the chairman, Dr. Reilly. The tender having been accepted, there was no obligation on Mr. Cade to lower his prices, as he did by letter of April 2; that was entirely voluntary. I notice that the descriptions given in that letter are best English steam coal and Welsh steam coal, and that there is no mention of Nixon's Navigation. I have no knowledge of whether the reason he gave for lowering the prices when he had a firm contract was that the Guardians had met him in times of difficulty, and he was willing to meet them, seeing that prices had dropped. The supply of coal went on till March, 1902, the tender still containing the names of Nixon's Navigation and Babbington, though Cade in his letter spoke only of "best English steam coal." I knew that best Hucknall had

been supplied instead of Babbington for a long time. With regard to the delivery notes and invoices, I do not know that although Powell Duffryn was supplied the name of Nixon's continued to be used. I occasionally might have seen the delivery notes, but I should not examine them critically. I see by the account produced for the period when Powell Duffryn was being supplied that there is no mention of Powell Duffryn, but the coal is described as "Nixon's Navigation" all through. I cannot say why no comment was made on that when the accounts were passed and paid. The procedure with regard to the accounts was that they would come before the Finance Committee to be carefully examined and certified as correct. Cheques would then be drawn. (Accounts for the period 1901-2, in which the Welsh coal was invariably described as Nixon's were produced and handed to the jury.) The Finance Committee would probably look more to the money part of the bill than to the description of coal. I do not recollect Cade telling me that he had tried to get some Nixon's Navigation, but could not get it, and that he had tried Cwmaman Fforchwen with the boilers. I do not know that not a single ton of Powell Duffryn was ever supplied, although the tender was in that name. I do not remember a small quantity of Cwmaman Fforchwen being sent to be tried. It would not be a matter that would come under my notice. It would seem from the exhibits that Cwmaman Fforchwen was supplied during the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905, and 1906. With the exception of the complaint in November, 1904, there had been no complaint of the coal supplied from the Cwmaman Colliery. I know that the engineer spoke very highly of it. The expert employed by the Guardians recommended four kinds of coal as suitable for use in the boilers—Nixon's Navigation, Cwmaman Fforchwen, Penrikyber, and Powell Duffryn. The Guardians decided to try a week of each kind of coal. The engineer reported that the Cwmaman Fforchwen supplied by Cade was an excellent coal, but of the two he thought Nixon's Navigation was better. When in March, 1905, Mr. Smallwood called on me and complained that although Cade was under contract to supply Babbington coal he was not having any Babbington, I did not know that we had not been having any Babbington for years, but had been having Hucknall as English coal and Cwmaman as Welsh. I say that, not with standing the letter of March 19, 1901. The arrangement of 1901 was not a permanent one. When Cade wrote.that he was supplying a "best hard steam coal" I really thought we were having Babbington. I did not notice in the bills that the coal was described as "best hard steam," not as "Babbington." "Babbington" in "best hard steam." Of the two letters written to me by Mr. Smallwood previously to calling I had taken no notice. When he called I remonstrated with him for having written and told him I thought it was a very improper thing to write to the Clerk to the Guardians at the time they were receiving tenders, and that if I had written to him the Guardians might have looked upon it that I wan trying to influence the tenders. I communicated to Cade the fact that Smallwood had called upon me. I think I ought to say that before that we had had a

long conversation as to the different kinds of Babbington, and it had been a great surprise to me to learn that in one pit there were three different qualities of the coal. The real quality the Guardians were supposed to be buying was Babbington Rifler, which is the best seam in the pit. I told him the matter must be reported to the Guardians, but as there were several technical questions involved I would rather not make a verbal report and I would prefer that he should write to me a statement so that I might submit it to the Guardians, and he left me with that understanding; but I believe that subsequently some arrangement was made with Cade; that letter was not sent and the matter dropped. There was a new board in 1904, who would be elected after the March tenders. There was a meeting in May, 1905, to consider this subject of Cade tendering for one class of coals and supplying another class, and the matter was referred to the Workhouse Visiting Committee, but when they brought up their report on May 18 they made no suggestion that Cade should no longer be allowed to supply coals, nor implying any censure upon him nor imputing to him criminal conduct. (Mr. Elliott proceeded to read shorthand notes of the proceedings at the meeting, the accuracy of which was admitted by witness.) When the fresh tenders were invited for June 15, I by that time knew beyond the possibility of error that prisoner had not been supplying Nixon's Navigation. Not with standing that, when he tendered again, putting the right description of the coal he had been supplying, and intended to supply, namely, Cwmaman Fforchwen, the Guardians accepted his tender with complete knowledge of the circumstances. It was because I was particularly anxious that the various documents, delivery notes, invoices, quarterly accounts, and so on, should properly describe the coal which was being supplied that I wrote to prisoner on July 14, asking him to take care to describe all coals delivered according to their actual quality and description. To that he replied that the matter should have his strict attention. In all the letters written to me he always told me what he had been doing, whether that was right or whether it was wrong. I, myself, gave evidence at the inquiry. After the tender for Cwmaman Fforchwen had been accepted, I think the trouble was practically ended, so far as difficulties about description were concerned. Until the questions were raised by the inquiry, I had no more trouble personally in connection with the matter, and Cade went on supplying coal down to Lady Day this year.

Re-examined. When I say that Cade was popular, I mean that he enjoyed the personal acquaintance of many of the Guardians. They visited him and he visited them. Having known Cade so many years, of course I knew him intimately, but there was not friendship between us in the sense that there was between him and the Guardians. I did not know him in private life. There was no suggestion at the inquiry that Mr. Cade was amongst those who were alleged to have bribed the Guardians. He was called to the inquiry solely with reference to these coal contracts. I cannot remember that his tender was ever the lowest, and in that respect local influence may be said to have operated very powerfully. I should not think there was generally

any difficulty in buying Nixon's Navigation, and, in fact, the Guardians had on previous occasions been in direct communication with Cory's for the purchase of their coal. I strongly advised the Guardians to accept Cory's tender for Nixon's Navigation because Cory's had a very good reputation, and the Guardians would have a guarantee of what they were getting. I never had any doubt that prisoner could get Nixon's Navigation on paying a proper price for it. I have no recollection of Cade telling me, between March. 1898, and March, 1899, that he could not get Nixon's Navigation coal. I had no authority to vary the sealed contract of the Board for coals. If the Board chose to contract for a particular class of coal I had no right to relieve the contractor from the obligation to send in that coal. Between March and November, 1899, I had received no information from prisoner that he was not supplying the contract quality of coal. I had never authorised any departure from the terms of the contract. It would have been a very improper, as well as a very unusual, thing for me to have interfered in that way. With regard to the letter I wrote in June, 1900, demanding Nixon's Navigation, I had never told prisoner he need not send in that coal, and I certainly should not say that after writing him a letter to do so. After writing that letter I was never instructed by the Board to let Mr. Cade send something else than Nixon's Navigation. He never said a word to me about having purchased Nixon's Merthyr. If he had made a statement to me that he was going to supply Nixon's Merthyr in place of Nixon's Navigation, it would have been my duty to report the matter to the board. I have no recollection, and, to my knowledge, there is no record of my having done so. The accounts sent in claimed the advanced price of 33s. 6d. as for Nixon's. So far as I know there is no foundation for the suggestion that the permission which had been given in November, 1899, up to June, 1900, to supply other coal was continued after June, 1900, when the Board made a demand for Nixon's. The records seem to be quite to the contrary. Mr. Jenner was the engineer throughout. I never agreed with prisoner that he should send Hucknall in the place of Babbington. When he wrote on March 19, 1901, we were still running under the arrangement varied by the letter of June, 1900, there being for the year ending Lady Day, 1901, no formal contract. After the letter of June, 1900, I never at any time agreed to accept Nixon's Merthyr in place of Nixon's Navigation. Prisoner is not right in stating that it was agreed that up to 1901 he might if he liked supply Nixon's Merthyr in place of Nixon's Navigation. It would not be right as a continuing process. With regard to the contracts which began again in 1901 for the supply of English coal (Babbington) and Welsh coal (Powell Duffryn), I never authorised prisoner to supply anything else but the contract coal. It may be taken that I give the same answers with regard to Powell Duffryn as with regard to Nixon's Navigation. For the years 1903 and 1904 the contracts were for the supply of Nixon's Navigation and Babbington. In neither instance

did I authorise anything inconsistent with the contract. I was never told by prisoner that he was delivering coal other than that contained in the contract. I do not recollect having ever heard of Cwmaman Fforchwen before it was contracted for in 1905. I am not aware of any reason why these high-class coals should have been inserted in the contracts, unless it was intended that the guardians should get them. As in March, 1901, Cade's was the highest tender for English coal it is not surprising that the division upon its acceptance should have been close. When his tender was reduced to 19s. 11d., it was still 6d. higher than the lowest tender, that of Messrs. Ricketts, Cochrane and Co. With regard to his tender for Powell Duffryn in March, 1901, for 26s. 2d., other tenders were 25s. 6d., 24s. 3d., and 25s., so that there again his tender was very much the highest, but when he afterwards reduced to 24s. 11d. he did not supply the coal which was the subject matter of the tender at all; he supplied something else.

The Recorder. What was the ruling price of Nixon's Navigation at that time?

The Attorney-General. It would be very difficult to say. There are three prices for a considerable proportion of the output, on the standing of three months, six months, and 12 months. They keep a certain proportion of their output, sometimes only one-third, in hand, and the amounts sold from day to day are sometimes higher and sometimes lower than the contract price. You do not buy from hand to mouth at the same price that you buy for your contract. If there is any little extra demand you put up the price, but that is no indication of what the coal is selling at under the contract.

Re-examination continued. When prisoner wrote on March 9, 1905, "We respectfully wish to point out that we have noted on Tender Forms the coal that has been supplied previously," I had no reason to doubt that he had been supplying Babbington and Nixon's Navigation. He had never, so far as I can remember, said a single word inconsistent with having supplied those two qualities of coal. This was, of course, long outside the period of the temporary arrangement. It was in April, 1905, that I wrote to Cade that the Guardians would in future want to have certificates that each coal had come from the collieries from which it purported to come. The Guardians had begun to suggest that they should have the usual trade warrants and it was not until August 14 that Cade wrote, "We are sending in the New Hucknall Bentinck coal only, and cannot understand your cause of complaint." Until I asked him for the certificates of origin I had no idea that he was sending in New Hucknall. Although all this came out the guardians contracted with prisoner again. I do not think it is for me to express an opinion as to whether that was a tribute to his popularity. With regard to prisoner's letter of April 11, 1905, it is not correct to say that the Nixon Company were unable to quote him a price for Nixon's Navigation, because they had already arranged for the sale of the whole of their output. I knew nothing of that and had written to him in March 1899, telling him

he must supply Nixon's Navigation. From beginning to end, whether after or before the temporary arrangement, he had not supplied the coals named in the contract.

To the Court. Whatever might have been the practice up to June, 1900, from that time he was ordered to supply Nixon's Navigation.

JAMES JOHN SMALLWOOD , representative for the London District of the Babbington Coal Company. Babbington Hard Rifler is the best hard steam coal of the Babbington production. Coal classed as Babbington is well known on the market and persons professing to deal in coal would know exactly what it meant. I being the London agent orders for the supply of the company's coal would come through me. Some orders, of course, might be sent by post to the colliery. I am on the Exchange twice a week, Mondays and Fridays. I knew Cade well and should constantly see him on the Exchange in the years from 1899 and 1895. In 1899 I supplied to him 192 tons 15 cwt. of the company's coal.

Mr. Bodkin explained that 506 tons were paid for by the guardians in that year of which 300 tons, roughly, were not Babbington coal.

Witness. In the years 1900, 1901, and 1902 I supplied prisoner with about 700 tons of Babbington coal, a negligible quantity. In 1903 I sold him 76 tons 3 cwt. out of a total supply of 1, 770 tons. In 1904 I supplied 226 tons out of a total supply of 2, 216 tons. In 1905 I supplied 210 tons out of the total supply of 2, 214. About February, 1906, I met prisoner on the Coal Exchange. I am not sure whether I had previously written to Mr. Thacker, but I knew prisoner had contracts with the guardians. I told him I had heard that he was taking contracts for our coal with the Mile End Guardians and supplying a cheaper coal. He said, "I know all about that. I cannot buy your coal, because it is too dear. "I replied, "Do you mean to tell me you are going to take contracts for Babbington Hard Rifler, and put in what you like?" He said, "Yes. I can do what I like there." I said I would take thundering good care he did not do as he liked, and told him I thought what he was doing was nothing less than a fraud. He closed the conversation by saying that if I was going to make any fuss about it he would have the name of our coal taken off the guardians' list and another coal put on. He did not say how he was going to manage that. It would be a most unusual thing for a contractor to be able to control what coal the guardians should put upon their list. I wrote twice to Mr. Thacker. March 6 was the date of the first letter. I got no reply to either. After I had seen Mr. Thacker I saw prisoner on the Coal Exchange on March 17. He came across to me and asked me to book him 1, 300 tons of Hard Rifler for the Mile End Guardians. I took the order, and he asked me to write a letter saying he had bought the coal, so that he could show it to the guardians. He said, "I hear you have been round there," meaning the Mile End offices. "Leave things alone. Do not stir them up any more." I replied that I should make no terms as to what I should do, and there we left the matter. I wrote the letter as requested. In July I supplied him with 439 tons more, making 1, 739 tons out of a total of 2, 082 tons supplied. I know

the coal quoted as Exhall on the Exchange. It is of two kinds, and both are less in price than the Babbington Hard Rifler. The Old and New Hucknall are both top hard coals. If they were hand picked there would not be much difference in price between them and the Babbington Hard Rifler. If it was cobbles or second seam it would not be so valuable as Babbington Rifler. Bolsoner coal is not so good as Babbington; the Digby coal is cheaper, and the Shirebrook is much the same as the Bolsoner. Although the price of other coals may be about the same as Babbington the latter is better suited for boilers.

Cross-examined. The question of what coal is suitable for particular boilers is largely left to the engineers. One class of coals is suitable for one class of boilers and for another class something entirely different. I know Mr. Brewis, of Brewis Brothers, St. Pancras; Mr. Williams, of Lloyds' Avenue; and Mr. E. Warwick, of the Coal Exchange, as gentlemen of respectability and credit. At the interview on the Coal Exchange with prisoner I do not think either of us lost our tempers, but a little plain speaking was going on. I have had thirty-five years on the Exchange, and have never had a man tell me that he should take contracts for our coal and put in what he liked. It rather nettled me. I was informed that other coals were being put in for the contract, Exhall for one, as to the price of which I inquired at the time of the Local Government Board inquiry. In the case of the hand picked Hucknall, the difference of price would not be great. I should be surprised to hear that at the time when Mr. Cade was under contract to supply Babbington he was supplying New Hucknall at 5d. a ton more than Babbington was quoted on the market. I have not known of cases where more has had to be paid for New Hucknall than for our own coal. I have never said that there have been times when our colliery could not fulfil its orders.

Re-examined. I had never had such a conversation with a coal contractor before or been told by a coal contractor he could do what he liked with his principles. The conversation being of an unusual character, I am certain I have told you the substance of it. In the five years from Lady Day, 1901, to Lady Day, 1906, there would be no difficulty in my company supplying 2, 000 tons of Hard Rifler a year. For a year or two after the breaking out of the War things in the coal trade were rather unsettled. The price of Babbington coal, of course, fluctuates from time to time, and when such coals as the Exhall, Digby, Bolsover, and Shirebrook rise in price the Babbington rises as well. I do not remember any occasion in the period referred to when the coals mentioned were of more value from the point of view of people giving a better price for them than for Hard Rifler.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Leycester proceeded to read extracts from the shorthand notes taken at the inquiry.

(Wednesday, July 1.)

The reading of the shorthand notes was concluded.

REGINALD JAMES SPELLER , secretary to W. Cory and Co., Limited. A large proportion of the firm's business is with Welsh coal and they

are sole agents in London for Nixon's Navigation. That coal has no connection with the pit from which Nixon's Merthyr is taken, and is a hard steam, smokeless coal. It is regarded as satisfactory for use in boiler furnaces, and the Admiralty use it in practically all their trials. When a concract is entered into the contractor estimates the amount likely to be required and we enter into a contract to supply it. In each of the years under consideration that coal has been obtainable by coal merchants in London from our firm. There would be a certain amount of free coal always upon the market, but this coal is commonly sold under contract. A prudent contractor contracts as long in advance as he reasonably can and so gets a better price than he could if he bought from hand to mouth. The price of Nixon's Merthyr is not so good as that of Nixon's Navigation. In the period 1899-1906 it has varied from 1s. 6d. to 3s. 6d. per ton less. At the end of 1898 my company supplied prisoner with 39 tons 2 cwt. The price at the pit would be 12s. 6d. a ton, there is 1s. for waggon hire, and the purchaser would have to pay 7s. 8d. per ton for carriage to Old Ford. That would make the price to the merchant 20s. 2d. in December of 1898 and January, 1899; four tons were supplied on January 7 and 12 tons on the 12th; in all about 75 tons. From that time onwards until October, 1899, there was no difficulty in supplying Nixon's Navigation to anybody in London who wanted it. It is not correct to say that in the beginning of 1899 my company were unable to quote prices for Nixon's Navigation, as they had already arranged for the sale of the whole output. I have no knowledge of prisoner's subsequently seeking a price from us or endeavouring to obtain Nixon's Navigation coal. In 1900 prices had risen by reason of the South African War, to 21s. 6d. at the pit, and with the 1s. for waggon hire and 7s. 8d. railway charges, the price in London was 30s. 2d.; by Lady Day, 1903, it had fallen to 22s. 8d.; Lady Day, 1904, 21s. 9d.; 1905, 21s. 3d.; Midsummer, 1905, 20s. 3d., or practically the same as in January, 1899. In the interregnum period the price went up to 37s.

Cross-examined. The prices I have quoted are without the merchant's expenses. I do not think the merchant in order to make a profit would have to add 4s. for expenses. I may have said before the magistrate I should be surprised if the figure came out at 4s., but it would depend on the man.

The Recorder asked how this helped the matter. It was matter of speculation.

Mr. Mallinson said he was going to show the jury presently the actual profit Cade made.

The Recorder. He may have made a bad bargain, but because he makes a bad bargain he is not justified in substituting another coal in order to convert it into a good bargain.

Mr. Mallinson said they were not discussing the question of civil liability, but the question whether prisoner had any intention to defraud.

The Recorder. If you can satisfy the jury he had no intention to defraud he must be acquitted.

The Attorney. We show the motive, the reason he was substituting this poor coal; he was losing money.

Mr. Mallinson proposed to show that prisoner was not making any large sums out of this contract.

Cross-examination continued. The prices I have given include our own profit or loss. The price of Nixon's Navigation in September, 1900, was 37s. 6d. I have never bought any Powell Dufiryn myself, and cannot remember having sold any. I believe that Nixon's Merthyr sometimes varied in price from Nixon's Navigation as little as 6d., but I should think it very unlikely that it was sometimes 6d. higher. It would not be fair to say that 3s. was the average difference in the price.

JOHN DUNLOP , Hove, near Brighton, colliery agent. In 1899 I was agent for Messrs. Evans and Company, of Cardiff, colliery owners, who were supplying the coal known as Nixon's Merthyr. I supplied prisoner with that coal in 1899 and 1900, and up to Lady Day, 1901. Between January 6, 1899. and October 23, 1899, the quantity I supplied him with was 930 tons 2 cwt., the prices being 11s., 11s. 3d., 11s. 6d., and 12s. coal and waggon. Then there would be 7s. 10d. to be added for the railway, so that the price in London varied between 18s. 10d. and 19s. 10d. On July 6, 1900, I entered into a contract with Mr. Cade to supply Nixon's Merthyr, and that contract ran till March 31, 1901. The coal had risen considerably and was 19s. per ton coal and waggon and 7s. 10d. for the railway, making 26s. 10d. I had a later contract with prisoner in October, 1900, for the supply of Nixon's Merthyr, under which I supplied 522 tons 2 cwt. The seam was not worked out in 1901. Messrs. Evans and Company's lease ran out, I think, in March, 1903. The colliery belongs to the Marquis of Bute.

Cross-examined. There was not stoppage between March and September, 1901. The pits were going all the time. I have known Mr. Cade close upon 20 years on the Coal Exchange in the way of business, not as a personal friend. His reputation on the Exchange is a very good one for fair dealing and honesty, and he is respected on the market. I never heard anyone say a word against him. I do not know what average per ton the coal merchant has to pay before he can make a profit. As an agent that does not interest me. The price of Nixon's Navigation would be about 1s. to 1s. 3d. above that of Nixon's Merthyr. The latter is a very good coal for stationary boilers, like that of the Guardians, but not a first-class coal.

To the Attorney-General. I can express no opinion as to prisoner's action in charging 33s. 6d. for Nixon's Navigation and supplying Nixon's Merthyr, costing 26s. 10d., as I do not know what the circumstances were.

ISABELLA HARRIETT LILLET , Bancroft Road. I have been a guardian since 1893. I attended the meetings regularly from 1899 onwards

except one winter, when I was away on account of my health. So far as I can remember there was not much discussion about prisoner's contracts, but they were passed pretty quickly. They would come directly before the board without the tenders being previously examined by a committee. I know of no arrangement or understanding by which Cade was to be allowed to send in some other kind of Welsh coal in lieu of Nixon's Navigation, except during the Boer War, nor by which he was to supply English coal other than that mentioned in the contract. In the period from 1899 to 1906 complaints as to the coal were fairly frequent. From time to time I signed cheques, with two other guardians, in payment of Cade's accounts, and when I did so I naturally concluded that the contract had been carried out. I did not personally examine as to the correctness of the accounts, but merely signed as one of the guardians. (Witness identified her signature to a cheque.)

Cross-examined. When I signed the cheques the accounts had been passed by the finance committee; I took that as a sufficient guarantee. I have known Mr. Cade by reputation, not personally, for about fifteen years. He has always had a high reputation as an honourable tradesman and merchant. He never made to me the slightest suggestion that I should support him in an improper way, nor was the slightest inducement to befriend him held out to me.

To the Attorney-General. I do not move in business circles, but I do a great deal of other work in Mile End, and have heard Cade spoken of as a very kindly man. I naturally believed that everything had proceeded strictly in order.

EDWARD HENRY KERWIN , secretary to the Tower Hamlets Mission. I was a guardian from 1886 to 1889, and from April, 1901, to the present time. I know of no arrangement between prisoner and the board by which he was to supply coals different from the coals named in the contract. I signed the cheque produced (Ex. 76) in payment of prisoner's account from March to June, 1902, the amount being £911 4s. 6d. I should not have signed it if I had known that the coals supplied were not the coals named in the contract.

Cross-examined. I have been connected with Mile End for 40 years, and have known Cade for 25 years, during which time his reputation as a tradesman and merchant has been most honourable. He is not connected with my mission in any way. I have known him only as a public man. In relation to his contracts I have always taken a perfectly independent line. Cade has never tried improperly to induce me to support him. By virtue of my office of vice-chairman I was on the Finance Committee, but never attended. I gave all my attention to the Scattered Homes Committee. I, of course, signed the cheque under the impression that the account was correct. I have no recollection of various letters from Cade in relation to the coal contracts being read to the board.

To the Attorney-General. I think it is quite likely that on May 18 I moved that Messrs. Cory be asked to supply Nixon's Navigation

as it could not be supplied by anybody else, and that Mr. Newport seconded the motion.

The Attorney-General read a minute to the above effect and also a minute of an amendment by Mr. Hirst, seconded by Mr. Stammers, that Cade be asked to supply the coal. On a division the amendment was carried by 13 votes to 9.

Reexamination continued. The question of steam coal has always been one of great controversy at our Board. I have always believed that Cade was a man whose word might be relied upon. He has never attempted to improperly influence me.

HENRY DRAPER , boot manufacturer, Mile End. I became a guardian in 1904. I went on to the Finance Committee and attended regularly and also the meetings of the Board. I attended on days when contracts were given out, but not in 1904. I did not go on to the Board until after the contracts had been issued. I was also on the Infirmary Committee and noticed the coal heaps from time to time. They comprised a quantity of dust and dirt, and complaints were made about them. I several times had conversation about the coal with the engineer. With regard to the complaint in November, 1904, I agree in the description that it was "rubbish." I understood that Nixon's Navigation was the coal we were to have and I know it was inserted in the contracts from time to time. It was at the meeting of April 20, 1905, that I first heard of the suggested arrangement under which other coal was to be substituted for Nixon's Navigation. gation. A discussion arose upon the question. I wanted evidence of the understanding or arrangement, but no document or minute or resolution of the Board was ever produced. I was present at the meeting on May 18 when the report of the Workhouse Visiting Committee, to whom the matter was referred, was discussed, and voted for Mr. Kirwin's motion that Messrs. Cory be asked to supply Nixon's Navigation direct. I remember that were outvoted on that; it was such a frequent occurrence. The objection made by certain guardians to Messrs. Cory supplying the coal direct was that if we had it through a local man the local man would get the profit. I objected to that as it would be at the expense of the ratepayers. I signed cheques from time to time for, amongst others, Cade's account in the belief that the coal mentioned in the contracts had, in fact, been supplied by him. The cheque produced dated July 14, 1901, bears my signature.

ROBERTSON FOSKETT , clerk to the Poplar and Stepney Sick Asylum District Board. In April, 1901, the managers of that institution contracted with prisoner for the Supply of Welsh steam coal and the contract was renewed up to the year expiring April, 1906. I gave evidence at the inquiry before Mr. Willis, having previously gone through all prisoner's bills and accounts and taken out the totals of the coal supplied. He supplied "Best Aberdare" in 1902-3-4 and "Aberdare" in 1905-6. In the latter year we also had 44 tons of second-class steam coal. There is no distinction between "Best

Aberdare" and "Aberdare," but that is how the coal was described in the contract. During the year ending Lady Day, 1902, prisoner charged for and received payment altogether of 900 tons of Welsh steam coal. In the year ending Lady Day, 1903, the amount was 1, 200 tons; in 1904, 1, 164 tons; 1905, 1, 335 tons; and in 1906, 1, 176 tons, making a total of 5, 775 tons.

THOMAS GEORGE STACEY , clerk to the Stepney Board of Guardians, proved that the prisoner supplied coal as follows: Year ended Lady Day, 1902, 412 tons; 1903, 841 tons; 1904, 419 tons; 1905, 378 tons; 1906, 65 tons; total, 2, 115 tons.

THOMAS PHILPOT , Richmond Road, Ilford. I am an officer in the service of the Local Government Board, and assisted Mr. Willis in the inquiry into the affairs of the Mile End Guardians last year. I had before me prisoner's tenders and a number of his books and invoices, covering the period from Christmas, 1898, to Lady Day, 1906. Amongst the books I obtained were his truck books, which show that he received during the period 10, 838 tons of Welsh coal. The invoices for Welsh coal during the period amount to 10, 766, but there may well have been an invoice or two missing, which might bring the amount up to the amount actually in the truck book. I have gone through the bills sent in by Cade to the Mile End Guardians, and taken out from them the amount of Welsh coal for which the guardians have paid him, and I find that in the period the guardians have paid him for 3, 624 tons more coal. Taking the figures proved, that in the same period 5, 775 tons of Welsh coal was supplied to Poplar Asylum, 2, 215 tons to Stepney, and adding the Mile End figure of 3, 624 tons, I arrive at a total of Welsh coal, for which Cade has been paid, of 11, 614 tons. Deducting from that figure the 10, 838 tons which appears from the truck book to have been delivered by him I find that there is an excess of 676 tons for which he has been paid over and above that which he has received. That is substantially the result of my investigations, without saying there may not be an error of one ton or two tons here and there. I find no trace in any of his books of that 676 tons. (Witness also gave particulars of coals supplied in substitution of the class of coal mentioned in the contracts and the differences in price in favour of prisoner.)

Cross-examined. I have made up my figures entirely from prisoner's books, which were freely and voluntarily offered for my inspection. Every possible assistance was offered me in going through the books. So far as I can tell there was no attempt to conceal anything from me. In the figures I have given nothing has been allowed for establishment charges. I have simply given the price at the pit's mouth and the through to London. "London" may mean a railway siding or a canal wharf, quite remote from where it is delivered to the original purchaser. Cade, looking at the matter from a commercial point of view, would have to consider what his establishment charges would be and add them to the amount of the purchase price at price at pit's mouth and the freight to London before he could ascertain what the cost to him would be of any particular delivery. I have had no opportunity of considering what would have to be added to the pit mouth cost

and freight for establishment charges. I should not be surprised to hear that, taking these costs over the nine years' trading, they averaged something like 4s. 3d. per ton, sometimes as high as 6s. 9d. and sometimes as low as 2s.

Evidence of shorthand writers who took notes at the inquiry before the Local Government Board inspector last year was then given respecting the accuracy of the transcripts.

Detective-Sergeant HERBERT SAUNDERS . On April 3 I went with another officer to the Coal Exchange, having in my possession the warrant for prisoner's arrest. I said to him, "Are you Mr. Cade?" He said, "Yes." I said, "I am a police officer, and hold a warrant for your arrest. Would you mind coming out into the corridor, where I can explain it to you?" In the corridor I read to him the warrant for obtaining one of these cheques by false pretences. He asked as to the amount, and I said, "£1, 010 12s. 3d." He said, "£1, 010! I never had 10s. more than I ought to have had. I have had nothing from the Guardians, and they have had nothing from me, not even a drink. The report looks black enough, I admit, but they have made a mistake. I have been perfectly honest with the Guardians. The only thing I did was to put in different names, and that the Guardians allowed me to do." On the way to Bethnal Green Police Station prisoner said, "Where is Calcutt? Has he been taken? He or the others might have had something. I did not." When charged prisoner made no reply.

To Mr. Elliott. He went quite peaceably, and I had no trouble with him.

(Thursday, Jury 2.)

JOSEPH CADE (prisoner, on oath). For 40 years I resided and carried on business in the coal trade in Mile End; eight years ago I went to live at Snaresbrook; 12 or 15 years ago I was myself a member of the Board of Guardians; I think, but am not sure, that Miss Lilley was on the board while I was there. Before 1898 I had never applied for any public contract, and I had never had dealings with Welsh coal, only one waggon, and have had very few dealings with English steam coal. I am a large ratepayer in Mile End; I employ a good many men in the hamlet; I have taken considerable interest in local matters there, and believe I have always been popular. I have never paid visits to Guardians, nor they to me; I have newer been to Mr. Thacker's house in my life, nor ever had a drink or anything else from him. I have never bribed or attempted to bribe any of the Guardians. During all my life I have never been charged with anything fraudulent, and never been sued for a debt. In December, 1898, I first sent in a tender and got the contract. I then first began to inquire about Welsh coal. I wrote into the country to Nixon's Navigation Company for their prices; they replied that they had sold the whole of their output to Cory's. I get three or four waggons from them, but their price

was too big for me. I went to Thacker and told him I could not get Nixon's Navigation from the colliery. I cannot say exactly the date of that interview; it was soon after the contract commenced. I explained the position to him; he said, "It's a monopoly if Cory's have the whole of the coal to sell"; and he added that he would put the matter before the Guardians. On March 6 I got the letter from him saying, "Please see that Nixon's best steam navigation is supplied and none other." Upon that I am sure I must have gone to see him again. At that time I was, in fact, supplying Nixon's Morthyr. I told Thacker that I had found a coal called Nixon's Merthyr, and that I had made inquiries about it, and from statements I had got on the Coal Exchange, these coals would suit the bailers. My contract was also for Babbington coal; for the first three or four months I got Babbington coal, but then I found difficulties and I was put in a corner. I again saw Thacker and he told me to get a coal that would suit the boilers. I then got New Hucknall. For that coal I had to pay 5d. a ton more than I had paid for Babbington, and I think it is considerably better than Babbington. I had nothing to do with making out the invoices or sending in the coal; I confined myself mainly to buying coal. Just after the breaking out of the War in November, 1899, I found a difficulty in getting Welsh coal at all, and I wrote to Mr. Thacker about it. I got a small consignment of Charity Colliery coal, but that was found unsuitable and then I returned to the New Hucknall. That coal cost me 2s. a ton more than Charity coal, although it is inferior to Charity. In June, 1900, my firm contract with the Guardians was to send in what I liked of the best English steam coal. I wanted to satisfy the Guardians and I sent them in New Hucknall. On June 22 I had a letter saying that they wished for Nixon's Navigation, but nothing was said about the price. I went to Mr. Thacker and told him the difficulties and I went before the board once at this time and explained to them; I remember one of the things that was said. I explained to them that I was losing money on the contracts; they sympathised with me and one man said, "Let the poor devil have a little extra money." I am not sure of the date of this interview; it was about June, 1900. In March, 1901, I secured a new contract and I went on supplying "Welsh steam coal" (not Nixon's Navigation) and "Best English steam coal." I made a trial with the Cwmaman Fforchwen coal, and as it was satisfactory I entered into a contract for that and went on supplying it; I went to Thacker and told him of the change. Things went on until 1905, when I had a conversation with Smallwood on the market. He came to me in a rage and said, "There are other coal merchants taking contracts for Babbington coal and not selling it "; he charged me with fraud and I got very angry. Thacker sent for me and told me someone had called on him from the Babbington Coal Company (I knew in a moment who it was), and said I had not been supplying Babbington coal; I replied to Thacker quite frankly, "Why, you know I have not; I have been supplying New Hucknall all along." He said they were making a bother about it; there had just then been a new Board

elected. At this period another contract was entered into, and on my tender I wrote the words "as being supplied"; by that I meant that if we had been supplying Hucknall we should supply Hucknall again. On April 11, 1905, I wrote the letter saying that I had been unable to get a quotation for Nixon's Navigation, as the company had arranged for the whole of their output. That was perfectly true; Cory's bought the whole output. I again went before the Board of Guardians about May, 1905; there were a lot of new members present whom I did not know; they put to me the names of different coals, Babbingtons and Nixon's Navigation, and I told them there and then, as I had said in my previous letter, that I never had supplied Nixon's Navigation, and ever so many of the Guardians present said they knew it. I made a loss on these contracts; true, I renewed them year after year, but I did not know exactly how the figures stood until the accountants had gone into them. In connection with the Local Government Board Inquiry I voluntarily gave access to all my books and papers, and on my arrest I gave every assistance I could to the authorities. From beginning to end of my contracts I have never concealed or misrepresented the quality or description of coal actually supplied, and I have never had the slightest intention to defraud the Guardians or anybody else.

Cross-examined. Before tendering in 1896 to supply Nixon's Navigation, I believe I took no steps to ascertain whether I could obtain that coal. After I found that I could not get that coal direct from the Nixon's Navigation Company I never intended to supply it at all; I always go to the fountain head for my supplies, and object to being compelled to go to monopolist agents. It is not correct to say that I did not go to Cory's because their price was too big. I cannot say whether I told Thacker that the coal I intended to supply in place of Nixon's Navigation was cheaper; I am sure I was frank in whatever I said to him. When Thacker agreed, as I say, to accept Nixon's Merthyr instead of Nixon's Navigation, I assumed that he did so with authority from the Guardians. After the altered arrangement had been agreed to the weekly orders continued to specify "Nixon's Navigation," but I did not see the orders until long subsequently; nor did I see currently the delivery notes and amounts, which also had the description "Navigation." When Thacker wrote pointing out that I was not supplying "Navigation," and that the Workhouse Committee insisted upon having it, if I did not write and say, "Why, you know I am not supplying Navigation," I must have seen him and told him so; as he denies this, he must have forgotten. In those early days I knew nothing about Welsh coal, and did not know the difference between "Nixon's Navigation" and "Nixon's Merthyr." I suppose I knew that Merthyr was cheaper; I must have known. I put my working or establishment expenses at 4s. to 4s. 3d. a ton; at times they are considerably more. It is true that some of the later contracts show, comparing the price I paid and the amount I received, a margin of only 2s. 4d. for establishment expenses; it is not unusual to take a contract even at a loss, with the more view of keeping men and horses employed and the depots

at work for a time. As to the Babbington coal, the reason I did not supply it was that it was not suitable; the engineer did not like it. Mr. Thacker knew this, and he asked me to supply a coal that the engineer liked and that was suitable for the boilers; I had also difficulty from time to time in getting deliveries of Babbington. I do not think I told Smallwood that the reason I did not buy Babbington was that it was too dear. I was actually supplying New Hucknall, which was a better coal that cost me more; the accounts still denoted "Babbington" as being supplied, but I left the accounts to my men; I did not know what they were putting on the tickets. At the interview with Smallwood on the Coal Exchange I was very much annoyed when he used the word "fraud"; I do not know whether I told him that I could do what I liked with the Guardians; that I could not in fact do so is proved by a number of the Guardians often voting against me. I am sure I did not say to him, "Don't stir things up"; he told me not to stir things up. It is true that after he had accused me of fraud I gave him an order for 1, 300 tons; I am very forgetful and forgiving; I suppose I thought no more of it after a few minutes. Perhaps I was influenced by the fact that the Guardians were then insisting that I should produce evidence that I really bought the coals specified.

(Friday, July 3.)

Re-examined. I am 64 years of age. I never had one day's schooling in my life. I went to work when I was seven. I know nothing of keeping books or accounts; until I was 21 I could not write. All matters such as orders or delivery notes or invoices I left to clerks. I did all the business on the Exchange. My two sons assist me in the business.

GEORGE HENRY LAWRENCE , incorporated accountant, Gresham House, E. C., said his firm audited prisoner's accounts from 1895 to 1903. The accounts relating to the Devonshire Street depot showed, for the year ending March 31, 1900, a profit of £1, 038 16s.; for 1901, a profit of £1, 315 7s. 7d.; for 1902, a loss of £1, 259 12s. 4d.; for 1903, a profit of £153 3s. 6d.

OXBORROW , another accountant, said he audited prisoner's accounts from 1904. In that year the Devonshire Street accounts showed a loss of £47 15s.; for the year 1905, a profit of £500 7s. 5d. He also took out the average working expenses of that branch; in 1901 they were 6s. 6 3/4 d. per ton; in 1902, 5s. 11 3/4 d.; in 1903, 6s. 0 1/2 d.; in 1904, 5s. 7 3/4 d.; in 1905, 4s. 11 1/4 d. He was unable to state the profit or loss on the particular contracts in question.

JAMES CADE , jun. I have gone into the figures given by the last witness. Part of the Devonshire Street business was trolly wort; excluding this, the working expenses per ton were, in 1900, 4s. 3 3/4 d.; in 1901, 4s. 1d.; in 1902, 4s. 1 1/4 d.; in 1903, 4s. 2d.; in 1904, 3s. 10d.; in 1905, 3s. 3 1/2 d.

Cross-examined. My father's contract in 1905 only left him a margin of 2s. 4d. for working expenses; he did not sufficiently allow for expenses. I told him so more than once. His reply was that the men and horses and plant had to be kept employed somehow in the summer.

FRANK TALLOCK , clerk to prisoner for ten years, produced the truck books recording the actual deliveries of the various coals and showing the prices paid for same.

GEORGE FISHER , carman in prisoner's employ, produced the form of delivery note under which the coal was delivered daily. He would every day see the engineer to the Guardians, or his representative, ascertain what coal was required, and deliver it. He invariably put "Nixons" on the delivery notes when he supplied Welsh coad of any sort and "Best hard steam" in the case of all English coal.

GEORGE BREWIS , of the Tyne Main Coal Company, St. Pancras. I have been 35 years in the coal trade. I am frequently engaged in arbitrations and so on as an expert witness or as arbitrator. I have known prisoner for 25 years; he has always borne a good reputation as an honest and straightforward man. he is a man who had no commercial training in his youth. It was on my advice that he employed someone to audit his accounts. I have personally never under-taken any contracts with Boards of Guardians. I would not have one. I think the general tendency of such contracts is vicious. I know the prices at which they are taken, and if they are carried out honestly they must generally result in a loss. I consider 4s. 1d. or 4s. 3d. per ton not an unreasonable.sum to put down as establishment expenses.

Cross-examined. I call these contracts vicious because they are generally taken at a knock-out price, just to keep men and horses going, regardless of whether a particular contract itself pays. I do not say that contracts with public bodies are frequently dishonest, but I have my own opinion. Thirty years ago things were worse in this respect than they are to-day. By "dishonest" I do not mean that different coal is supplied from that which is tendered for; I do not want to charge the trade with deliberate fraud.

JONAH WILLIAMS . 5, Lloyd's Avenue. I have had 25 years' experience as a colliery agent and coal merchant. In my opinion New Hucknall "Top Hard is an infinitely better coal than Babbington Rifler and the former costs more. Bolsover Top Hard and Exhalls are every bit equivalent to Babbington Rifler. I have known prisoner for a good many years; he has always borne the reputation of an honest and straightforward man. I think 4s. 3d. to 4s. 6d. is not an unreasonable figure for establishment expenses.

Cross-examined, witness was closely pressed as to the comparative qualities of the various coals, but adhered to the view he expressed in chief.

THOMAS EDWARD GRAY , another colliery agent, said he had known prisoner as a straightforward, honourable man for 37 years. He agreed with the last witness as to the qualities of the coals and as to establishment expenses.

THOMAS AITKEN , for 30 years on the Coal Exchange, and in 1900 and 1901 agent for the Cwmaman Colliery, said he considered Cwmaman Coal equal to Powell Duffryn. He had known prisoner for 30 years, and always had the highest opinion of him—in fact, Cade was always called on the Exchange "an honest old duffer."

JAMES OLIVER , coal agent; Rev. JOHN FLETCHER PORTER, Primitive Methodist minister; and WILLIAM BARROW MURRAY, London City Missionary, gave evidence to Cade's excellent general character.

(Saturday, July 4.)

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Monday, July 13.)

23rd June 1908
Reference Numbert19080623-55
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation
SentencesMiscellaneous; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > fine; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > fine; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > fine; Miscellaneous > fine; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > fine; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > fine

Related Material

GOULD, Thomas; KEMP, John Edward; LOFTUS, Jonathan Edward; RIDPATH, Archibald Walter; STAMMERS, James Frederick; HIRST, Rowland; TROTT, Walter; WARREN, John George; GILSON, Joseph; and GILDER, Samuel (all members of the Board of Guardians of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town); conspiring and agreeing together, between January 1, 1900, and December 31, 1907, with James Calcutt, Francis W. Bryan, Charles Allen Grimes, and with other persons unknown, unlawfully, by false pretences, to obtain from the Guardians of the Poor of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town divers of their moneys and valuable securities with intent to defraud; conspiring and agreeing together, between January 1, 1900. and December 31, 1907, with James Calcutt, Francis W. Bryan. Charles Allen Grimes, and other persons unknown to contravene and set at naught the provisions of the Public Bodies Corrupt Practices Act, 1889, to wit, unlawfully did conspire, combine, confederate and agree together with other persons aforesaid, that they and the said Francis W. Bryan and Charles Allen Grimes, then being members of a public body as in the said Act defined, to wit, of the Board of Guardians of the Hamlet of Mile End Old Town, should by themselves, and in conjunction with one another, unlawfully and corruptly solicit, receive and agree to receive for themselves gifts, rewards and advantages from the said James Calcutt as inducements to and on account of them, and Francis W. Bryan and Charles Allen Grimes, so being members of the said public body, doing certain things in respect of proposed matters and transactions in which the said public body then was concerned, to wit, causing and procuring the said public body to accept tenders from the said James Calcutt for building and repairing work to be done for and on behalf of the said public body, and causing and procuring the said public body to enter into contracts with the said James Calcutt for the doing of such work, and as rewards for and on account of them and the said Francis W. Bryan and Charles Allen Grimes, so being members of the said public body, having done certain things in respect of actual matters and transactions in which the said public body then was concerned, to wit, having caused and procured the said public body to accept tenders from and enter into contracts with the said James Calcutt; all conspiring and agreeing together between the same dates and with the said James Calcutt and Francis W. Bryan and Charles Allen Grimes and other persons unknown to contravene and set at naught the provisions of the said Act, to wit, unlawfully did conspire, etc., that they the said defendants and the said Francis W. Bryan and Charles Allen Grimes, then being members of the said public body, should by themselves and in conjunction with one another unlawfully and corruptly solicit, receive, and agree to receive for themselves gifts, rewards and advantages from the said James Calcutt then being an appointed tradesman to the said public body, to wit, a jobbing builder, as inducements to and on account of them, the said defendants and the said Francis W. Bryan and Charles Allen Grimes so being members of the said public body doing certain things in respect of proposed matters and transactions in which the said public body then was concerned, to wit, causing and procuring orders to be given to the said James Calcutt from time to time for work to be done at divers Scattered Homes and at the Infirmary and Work-house of the said public body, and causing and procuring the bills rendered by said James Calcutt to the said public body for such work to be paid as rendered and as rewards for and on account of them the said defendants and Francis W. Bryan and Charles Allen Grimes, so being members of the said public body, having done certain things in respect of actual matters and transactions in which the said public body then was concerned, to wit, having caused and procured such orders to be given and such bills to be paid as hereinbefore last stated; all conspiring and agreeing together between the same dates with the said Francis W. Bryan, Charles Allen Grimes and other persons unknown, unlawfully, and by false pretences to cause and procure money to be paid and valuable securities to be delivered to the said James Calcutt by the said Board of Guardians, with intent to defraud; all unlawfully aiding and abetting James Calcutt to obtain by false pretences from the said Board of Guardians certain valuable securities, to wit, a banker's cheque or order for the payment of £225 13s. 2d. on April 13, 1905, and divers other cheques in the years 1905 and 1906; each, as hereinafter set forth, by himself did unlawfully and corruptly receive for himself, gifts, rewards and advantages from the said James Calcutt, as inducements to rewards for and otherwise on account of them, so being members of the said public body, doing and having done certain things in respect of matters and transactions, actual and proposed, in which the said public body then was concerned, to wit, the things above stated in charges Nos. 2 and 3 to wit, (a) Gould, Trott, Stammers, Loftus, Ridpath, and Kemp, in the months of April, July and October, 1904, January, April, July and October, 1905, January, April, July and October, 1906, January and April, 1907, certain gifts and rewards of money; (b) Gould, Gilder, Hirst, Stammers and Kemp, on divers dates certain advantages, by Calcutt doing work for them at small cost; (c) Gould on March 27, 1905, a gift and reward of a gold chain; (d) Gilder on February 25, 1905, a gift and reward of £10; (e) Gilson on March 25, 1905, a gift and reward of a diamond stud; (f) Hirst on February 27, 1906, an advantage by selling certain land at Herne Bay to Calcutt and building a house for him thereon; on December 23, 1905, a gift and reward of a diamond and ruby pin; on divers dates gifts and rewards of a diamond stud and a pair of gold sleeve links; (g) Trott on an unknown date a gift and reward of a great coat; (h) Warren on December 9, 1905, a gift and reward of a gold cigar case; (i) Stammers gifts and rewards, on June 28, 1904, a mirror, on May 29, 1906, a masonic charm, on July 12, 1906, £20 in money; (k) Loftus on September 19, 1904, a gift and reward of a china clock; (l) Ridpath on February 6, 1907, an advantage in purchasing certain land at Leigh from James Calcutt, in each case with intent to defraud; Warren receiving from another person, to wit, the said Francis W. Bryan, gifts and rewards as inducements to reward for and otherwise on account of him, the said Francis W. Bryan, a member of the said public body doing and having done certain things in respect of matters and transactions actual and proposed in which the said public body then was concerned, to wit, the things above stated in charges 2 and 3, to wit, the said defendants Gilson and Warren received payment from the said James Calcutt for goods supplied by them to the said Francis W. Bryan at the request of the said James Calcutt, and the defendant Warren received £6 in money from the said James Calcutt for the said Francis W. Bryan; Warren committing wilful and corrupt perjury at a public inquiry held before E. J. Willis, Esq., an Inspector of the Local Government Board, under and by virtue of the Poor Law Board Act, 1847.

The Attorney-General (Sir William S. Robson, K. C., M. P.), the Solicitor-General (Sir S. T. Evans, K. C., M. P.), Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Rowlatt, and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Coumbe defended Gould; Mr. Frampton and Mr. Bryan defended Kemp; Mr. Cecil Fitch defended Loftus; Mr. Curtis Bennett defended Ridpath; Mr. A. J. David and Mr. D. T. Davies defended Stammers; Mr. Vachell, K. C., and Mr. J. A. Hawke defended Hirst; Mr. Bray and Mr. Sydney Edwards defended Trott; Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. Bigham defended Warren; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Sydney H. Lambdefended Gilson; Mr. Mallinson defended Gilder.

JAMES CALCUTT , 34, Grove Road, Stepney. I am 35 years of age, and am a builder. I am by trade a plumber and gasfitter, and was in the employ of Mr. Crowe, a builder. About 1899 Crowe retired from business. At that time he had some work in hand for the Guardians, and I got their permission to continue it for the last six months. It was a contract for plumbing and glazing for the Infirmary and Workhouse. At the time I started I had about £200 saved and I carried on the work up to the end of that contract. Since that time

I have done a very considerable amount of work for the Guardians. In the spring of this year I was prosecuted at the police court and pleaded guilty to obtaining by false pretences from the Guardians a cheque for £225 13s. 2d. in respect of work done at some of the Scattered Homes. I pleaded guilty, and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, from May 17. Towards the end of my work as a plumber I employed about 20 hands, but when I was busy I had as many as 50 or 60. Apart from contract work which I did for the Guardians, I did jobbing work, accounts for which were sent in quarter by quarter, and about three weeks after they were sent in I received my cheque, which I paid into the bank. I was in the habit of drawing from my bank large sums of money in gold, which I kept in a safe at home. When I first started work for the Guardians they had no Scattered Homes, but when they began to acquire these I did the repairs to them. From time to time, in addition to the jobbing repairs work, I obtained contracts with the Board, for wh✗ I tendered with other people, and from the time I began to the time I ceased to work for them I have had about £24, 500 from the Guardians in various kinds of work. In my business I employed a man named Hewart, who looked after my books. I am a very bad scholar. Amongst my books I kept a rough book, in which I put down the daily work. There were time-sheets for the men I employed, and the time-sheets were entered in the rough book, also the person to whom the work was to be charged. When a bill was made out it was put into a bill book and from that it was fairly copied to give to the customer, so that the bill which went to the customer was what was in the bill book entered daily. I used to keep separate books for the Guardians. I had some of the books at the time I was brought before the Inspector at the Inquiry; some of them I had burnt before the Inquiry started in July, 1906, and some during the Inquiry. I used to keep the time-sheets for about six weeks, then they were destroyed whether they were for private work or work for the Guardians. At Christmas, 1906, I started a fresh set of books, and continued to do work for the Guardians up to March of this year, and I have got those books. I heard that there was going to be an Inquiry about six months before it came off, and I knew that there was an objection to one of my bills; that was in respect of work at the Infirmary, which work was done under a schedule of prices. I was the only one who tendered. There was no price included amongst the items for indestructible paint, but in consequence of orders I got from Mr. Knight, the Surveyor, I used a quantity of indestructible paint varnish, and I charged for 7, 881 yards of this paint at 1s. 6d. per yard. Some of the prices that the Guardians put on Mr. Knight would not allow. I got orders to do work for the Guardians from Mr. Thacker, the Clerk, direct from the Board in writing. Sometimes I got orders from Knight, and sometimes from Mr. Cooper, the Superintendent of the Scattered Homes. Sometimes Knight gave me verbal orders and sometimes written orders. My bills were sent in to Knight.—Froom time to time Knight would send for me to discuss the items in a bill, and if he wanted to strike items off which I did not agree should be

struck off I used to see the Guardians and tell them about it. With regard to the Scattered Homes, the bulk of that work was jobbing work. In making out my charges to the Guardians my clerk would copy off the time-sheet into the rough book and then into the bill book, and then the bill used to be made out from the bill book. The first defendant I knew was Mr. Gould; he is an electioneering agent and a feather merchant. I was introduced to him at the "Salisbury Arms," Bridge Road, by a man named Wade, about six months after I started doing work for the Guardians. I told Gould who I was and that I was doing work for the Guardians. He said I was a young man and he should like to see me get on. I got very friendly with him shortly after and I used to meet him either at the "Salisbury Arms" or at the "King Harry." From time to time I had occasion, to borrow money in order to pay wages and buy materials. I used to ask Gould to lend me money and I paid him 10 per cent, interest. Sometimes I paid him in gold and sometimes by cheque. The four sums—£33, £11, £44, and £33—are repayments of loans which Gould had lent to me, the round sums being £30, £10, £40, and £30. At one time Gould told me that he was a bit short of money; things were bad with him, and he could do with a bit of mutton; and he said he would do me all the good he could, meaning he would vote for me for the Guardians' work. I had done a lot of work for the Guardians, and he said he would vote for me and help me to get things passed. Some weeks after that I went to his house and gave him £5. After that I gave him several sums of money, mostly after I got my money from the Guardians, but I think I have made him one or two payments before. I have never given him more then £20 at one time. I began with £5, then £10, then £20. When I gave him the money he always said he would do the best he could for me, and sometimes he would say, "We had a rare job to get your account through this quarter." Altogether, I should say that I have given Gould a lot over✗ £300. I think the last time I gave Gould money was early in 1906, when I got the cheque for the big Infirmary job. Whenever I was going to put in for a job I used to go round and see Gould and tell him, and he would promise to help me. Then when Knight made a fuss about my account I used to see Gould about it, and he would be on to Knight. I also used to see the others as well. Knight never took much off my bill for the Scattered Homes, but he did for the Workhouse and Infirmary. I used to do work as a builder for Gould. One bill came to about £50 or £60, and when I sent in the account I put "paid" to the bill, so that he could show anyone the receipt. He knew that I was doing the work and that I was not going to charge him. He only paid me one cheque, and that was for Strauss's boards to put election literature upon. Strauss was a Parliamentary candidate. I have been out driving with Gould out Kent way, and one time I took him and his wife to a place down through Woodford. On one occasion Mr. Warren came with us. After Gould was knocked down and robbed I gave him a gold chain, which I bought from Tewson's, in Burdett Road, for £10 or £12; I gave it to him as a present and told him I was much obliged to him for always voting

for me. I used to do some work for the Stepney Guardians, and he helped me to find sureties. On one occasion Mr. Gould and Mr. Warren were the sureties. That was a sanitary job at the Stepney Branch Asylum and I believe it was for about £200. At Christmas time I used to give Gould a turkey or whisky or cigars. The next Guardian I became acquainted with was Warren; he keeps a grocer's shop in Rhodeswell Road. I got to know him through Gould. I called upon him and introduced myself, and he said that Gould had told him all about me and he would do all he could for me; and with that I ordered tea and groceries, and I continued to do so right up to the Inquiry. There was a Guardian named Bryan, a gardener. I used to send him tea and groceries—£1's worth at a time—of what Mr. Warren used to sell. Bryan always voted for me. I asked Warren to send him groceries and he would send in the bill to me. Bryan was a very great friend of Warren's and on one occasion. I gave Warren £6 for Bryan, as he was very ill and not able to work. Warren told me that Bryan had voted for me; that was the reason I used to send him the tea and groceries. I remember another Guardian, Grimes; he was a cheesemonger. After he got on the Board Warren said, "Now that Grimes has got on the Board, I think we had better split the difference and halve your custom, and give half to me and half to Grimes." After a time Mr. Warren became Chairman of the Board, and after that he used to support me when I tendered to the Board. On one occasion I gave Warren a present of a gold cigar case, which I purchased from Harris, at Mile End Road, for about £20 odd. I had Warren's initials engraved upon it. I had a bill sent in for it with other things on it besides; I cannot say what the exact amount of the bill was, but it was receipted by Harris. When I gave it to Warren I went round to his shop with his Christmas present as well—I think a Turkey and some cigars—he was not in, and I left it with his wife. Afterwards when I met him I asked him whether he received the cigar-case, and I told him that it was for past favours in voting for me, but I never saw it in his possession. Just about the time of the Inquiry I saw Warren about the cigar-case. Warren asked me what I was going to say about it. I said, "I don't know what I shall say about that if they ask me"; he said, "You had better say that you were acting as a kind of agent for me and you bought it for me." But at the Inquiry they never asked me about the cigar-case. During the Inquiry a packet was left for me at my office; it was a cardboard box and contained 25 sovereigns. My clerk said it came from Warren, and I went to see him about it and asked him what he gave me money for. He said I had better have the £25 back again, and not say anything about the cigar-case. He told me I had better keep it until the Inquiry was over; he has never had the £25 back. Just before I was prosecuted I had a visit from Mrs. Warren at my house at Southend, and the same evening I had a talk with Warren at Leigh Station. He asked me if I had burned everything belonging to him in the shape of bills, and I said, "Yes, I have finished burning with the exception of one or two things that I had not burned,

but this afternoon my wife finished burning them." He told me he was sure there was going to be a prosecution. "Why," I said, "how do you know?" He said he had got it from a very good authority, but he would not tell me where he got it from; so I said, "Who are they going to prosecute?" "Well" he says, "I have been told that they can lay their hands on you and Mr. Cade, Mr. John Knight, the surveyor," and I think he said five or six of the Guardians. He said it was for thieving. The names he mentioned were Stammers, Ridpath, Trott, and Grimes. I do not remember the other, but I know it was six he mentioned. I said, "What about Mr. Hirst?" He said, "Well, if they take him"—and then he said something about cleaning or whitewash; he did not think Mr. Hirst was cleaned or whitewashed, some name like that; I cannot remember the exact names myself. I remember seeing Hirst on one occasion with a cigar-case in a public-house; that was after I had given it to Mr. Warren; he was showing it to one or two customers in the private bar. There were several persons in the public-house, amongst whom was Harris, the man that had made it for me. I recognised it as soon as I saw it and Harris recognised it. Among the books. I burnt were some of Warren's grocery bills.

(Tuesday, July 14.)

JAMES CALCUTT , recalled. Shortly after the Guardians election in 1904 Warren spoke to me about land belonging to the Guardians at North Weald; he said there was to be a coach outing to that place and some of the new Guardians were going, and he thought it would be a chance for me to get an introduction to some of the new members. As an excuse for my going he suggested that I should bid a price for the land which was to be sold. Lloyd and Haseltine, two other contractors, also went. Ridpath, Gilson, Draper, and other Guardians went. In that way I got to know some members of the new Board; we were all drinking and enjoying ourselves together. In returning we stopped at Hirst's public-house, "The Eagle," at Snaresbrook. I had got to know Bob Hirst, his brother. In 1901 I tendered for my first big contract at the Infirmary; it was about then that I was introduced to Hirst. I used to meet all the defendants except Warren at "The Three Crowns." in Mile End Road, one of Hirst's houses. After the meetings of the Board there was usually an adjournment to "The Three Crowns"; I have met nearly all the Guardians there, but not all at one time. On days when contracts were to be given out I used to go to "The Three Crowns" and ask Hirst if he would vote for me; then in the evening we would go over to know whether we had got the contract or not. There was any amount of refreshments; I paid for some and other contractors paid. Sometimes I would spend £2 or £3 in refreshments, as much as £5 on contract nights. We had champagne and 6d. cigars. I do not think Hirst ever treated me, but I have treated him. When I was going to put in a price for a job, I would go and talk to Hirst and the others about it first. After I got the big Infirmary contract in

1901 I bought a diamond stud for £3 or £4 and gave it to Hirst. I told him it was a present for him for voting for me. He said he would always vote for me if everything was straight and above board. He took the stud, and from time to time after that I gave him other things. The tie-pin, the gold sleeve-links, the gold penknife, the umbrella, and travelling rug (produced) I purchased of Harris and gave to Hirst. I bought a governess cart at Gilderson's for £48, also a cob from Trigg, of Southend, for £30. I had a set of harness made by Judd, of Southend, for 13 guineas. I kept the cob and trap at Trigg's stables, at Southend. Ridpath and Trott used to take it out for a drive. On one occasion I drove Hirst in the governess cart from "The Three Crowns" to another tavern of his at Woolwich. He said it was a very nice turn-out, and I lent it to him for a few weeks. Then I asked him if he would give me £50 for it. He said he could get a customer for it at snaresbrook for £50. It had cost me altogether £94, and I told him I would not sell it for £50 to anybody else but him. Afterwards he agreed to buy it for £50, but I took horses in part exchange. Some years ago Hirst invited me to Herne Bay to a land auction sale, and I there bought six plots for £60. Subsequently, in 1906 Hirst, who also had property at Herne Bay, asked me to build two houses on my plots, and I agreed. Then one night he suggested that as my plots were a little too far from his farmhouse I should buy three of his plots. I agreed, and paid him the price, £55. Two houses were to be built on the plots, and Hirst undertook to build them for me at a cost of, roughly, £400. The actual builder was a cabman and carpenter named Budd. From time to time I gave Hirst money for the building—in all, over £600. I also paid Budd for odd work upon the houses; also I had to send my own men down to finish them. I went down and lived in one of the houses myself. Hirst told me he had bought some furniture from the "Bank of Friendship" public-house, and as he did not want it I bought it of him for £30 odd. I could not very well refuse Hirst, although I had quite sufficient furniture of my own. I stayed at Herne Bay all the summer. Most of the Guardians used to come down; the children from the Scattered Homes were camping at Herne Bay that year. Lloyd and Condy, two other contractors, also had houses built on Hirst's land. Hirst suggested that as Budd had built the houses very cheap, I and Lloyd and Condy should make him a little present. He suggested it should be a gold watch. Hirst himself bought the watch of Harris, but I paid for it. An inscription was put upon it, and it was presented to Budd (watch produced). At the election of Guardians in 1904 I was in Hirst's public-house with Haseltine. Haseltine asked we how I got on with the new Guardians. I said, "They are very hot." He said, "My word, they are hot." Hirst said that they were blood-suckers, and that he thought some of the new members had only come on the Board for what they could get out of the contractors, but he thought that they would not carry much weight. I have supplied carriages from time to time for Hirst's election. I used to get carriages from Bush's or Webster's, paying about 25s. a day for each carriage. Hirst told me he did not think he stood much chance of getting in

that time, and he asked me, as I was well known to the Jews there, to do what I could with them. I spoke to Mr. Dacosta, Mr. Barnett, and Mr. Lazarus, and then ordered the carriages. After the election I gave £10 to Dacosta, £3 to give to Barnett to give to Lazarus, and I did up Barnett's house-front for nothing. Hirst has a good many little houses, and I frequently did repairs to them without sending in any account. He would say, "Will so much be enough?" and I would assent, though it was not nearly enough. From time to time at Christmas time I bought various things from Hirst—turkeys, spirits, and cigars—some of these were for my own use and some presents for the Guardians. Hirst personally knew what I was buying them for. On one occasion I said to Hirst. "What about Knight? Can he do with a turkey?" Hirst said, "Well, he would not accept one off you; you had better say it has come from me," so Hirst's card was put on the turkey and sent to Knight, but it was paid for by me. Knight never spoke to me about it. Warren and Stammers had a turkey but never any whisky. On one occasion Stammers said the next time I gave him a turkey I had better give him a fatter one because the other one was too thin. Ridpath, Gilder, Kemp and Gould had turkeys or cigars. I do not know whether Trott had a turkey, but he had gifts in money. Warren used to give my wife a Christmas present, and once Mr. Gould gave me a goose. Loftus has had turkey, whisky and cigars from me, and he has had turkeys from other contractors. Altogether, I have paid Hirst in the course of our dealings £974. When I spoke to Hirst about the burning of my books, he said, "I am telling you for your own good, if you have not burnt your books and they find them it will make it very bad for you." I said, "You can take it from me I have burnt them." Then he said, "Well, I think it was a very foolish thing to do; if you had kept your books and taken them to Mr. Willis at the Inquiry they would not have gone right through them; they would only have glanced at them, the same as they glanced at mine." I remember on one occasion doing some concreting work at the passage way of the Workhouse. Hirst told me the price that had been put before the Committee; I sent in a price £2 cheaper and I got the job. As to Stammers. I knew him 10 years ago. Shortly after he became a Guardian, I lent him a sum of money and he paid me back. When he first became a Guardian he said to me, "I am on the Board now, and I want to get in the ring; some of them is getting money out of you and some of the other contractors, and if I do not get into the ring some of you will know more about it." I said, "All right, Jim, you had better get into the ring," and he did get into it. From time to time I gave him sums varying from £1 or £2 up to £20 at a time. I also did work for him—about £47; I did not send in an account, but he wired me for the account just before the Inquiry came up. I then took it round to him myself. He said, "You had better make out an account as if you had had some spirits, and he wrote me out an account for some bottles of whisky that I never had at all; he never paid me anything, although I receipted the account for the work.

I have given Stammers money in "The King Harry"; he used to take me down to the cellar, saying, "Come and look at the waterpipe," and in the cellar I would give him money. He has been in my house lots of times, and I have paid him there also. Once he said to me, "If at any time the Guardians tell you I did not vote for you, you may take it from me there has always been enough there to support you without my vote." On one occasion Summers complained that I did not use his house as much as I did Hirst's; I said, "All right. Jim, I will use your house a bit more," and I think I did. Once a man named Wallace brought me a note from Stammers asking for £20; I got £20 from the bank in a bank bag which had "South-Western Bank" on it; this I took round to Stammers, and he took me into the cellar as usual, and I paid him there. The next day he said, "You want to be more careful, Jim; suppose I had took that bag down to the bank yesterday afternoon with the money in it, the bag might have had a mark on it, and the bank people would have known the money came from you." Besides giving Stammers money I have given him a Dresden china mirror and a mesonic charm purchased from Harris; when I gave them to him I told him they were for his help on the Board. After I burnt the books Stammers said to me, "It is a very good job for some of us you have burnt your books; they would have shown the game up properly." As to Loftus, he was a tailor; I knew him before he became a Guardian; once I gave him a clock; I do not know whether he was a Guardian then. He came to my place at Southend with his wife for a week, and one day we went to Margate and I paid the expenses. I paid him several sums for voting for me on the Board; he warned me not to pay him in front of his brother Sam, because Sam had got a long tongue. On one occasion Trott and I were together in Loftus's shop. I said to Trott, "You can do with an overcoat?" He says, "What ho!" I said to Loftus, "You can do with the order, Ted." Trott was measured for the overcoat, and I paid for it. I have known Trott for years; he is a greengrocer, and I have dealt with him off and on; when he became a Guardian I dealt with him regularly. When I lived at Southend Trott used to send me greengroceries down from London; Warren, Gilson, and Grimes also sent me articles down. In addition to paying Trott for greengroceries, I began to give him other moneys as soon as he got on the Board. Some time before he got on he told me that if he got on he was going to hold his hand out and get some money. I said that would be all right. The first money I gave Trott was £5. After that I have given him £10 every quarter day. He has been to my house and I have given him money there. Sometimes I had the money in my pocket and sometimes I sent my wife upstairs to the safe for it. After my arrest I had a conversation with Trott in the "Salisbury Arms" (I was then under remand). Trott asked me if I still intended to hold out and not to spring. I said, "Of course I shall hold tight; I am not going to say anything." As to Gilder, he is secretary to a friendly society. He used very often to come to my house and I have done jobbing work for him. When the Inquiry was coming on

he told me to hurry up and send in my bill for the work before the Inquiry came off. I delivered the account, but have never had the money. On one occasion after I was prosecuted I was with my wife and my brother-in-law, Smith. I met Gilder, and we went to a public-house and had a drink. He said, "I have come to see you; I hear you are going to give the whole show away; if you are not going to give it away, I hear your wife is." I said, "Who is them that told you that? it don't look like it," and I showed him a paper containing the amount which it was going to cost for my solicitor and counsel. He said, "If you stick you will be all right; what about your wife; will she say anything about that £10?" I said, "Oh, no, that will be all right, she won't say nothing." The last words he said to me were, "Stick tight, Jim; you will be all right." My brother-in-law was present at this interview. My brother-in-law said, "It is all very fine for you Guardians, but who is going to assist? Who is going to spend money?" Gilder said, "I have got no money." My brother-in-law said, "No, we have not asked you for anything, but at least some of you could come down and Sympathise with him." As to Ridpath, I knew him before he was on the Board. After he got on I did various work for him. I would render him accounts. He would pay by cheque, and I used to give him sometimes £10 back for his support on the Board. Besides money back on these accounts I used to give him £10 on quarter day. In giving him the money I always used to thank him for what he had done for me on the Board, and he said he always used to do his best for me; as a matter of fact, he always did vote for me. On one occasion I agreed to sell Ridpath some land at Southend for £60. I parted with the deeds, and some time afterwards I said to him, "What about settling up for that?" He said, "Well, I am doing all the good I can on the Board. We will have the deed made out for £60 and you have £30." I said "All right," and the deeds were made out for £60. I did not get any money. Ridpath and I went to my solicitor, Mr. Forbes. I told Forbes what I had done. He said, "It looks all right, but have you got the money?" I said, "Yes, that is all right," although I had not been paid. Afterwards, at the "Grafton Arms," Ridpath fetched me £30 in a bank bag. Stammers was there at the time. He said to Stammers, "It ain't the contractor giving the Guardians money this time; it is the Guardians giving the contractor money." The £30 was all I got for the plot of land, which was worth about £130 or £140. As to Gilson, he is a butcher, and I used to deal with him. I told him to supply Bryan with meat, as much as he wanted. Gilson said, "He always votes for you." I said, "I know he does." Bryan used to get the meat and the bills were sent to me and I paid. One week the account for meat came to £2. I thought it was too much for private use for one family and I told Gilson to stop it. I used to have various talks with Gilson as to Guardian matters. On one occasion I asked him to go down and vote for me. He said he was very busy and I should have to send a cab for him if I wanted him, so I sent and paid for the cab for him to go and vote for me. I once made Gilson a present of a diamond stud, purchased from

Harris for £12; in giving it to him I said, "There is a little present for you, Mr. Gilson; that is for voting for me." He took the stud and said, "Oh, that will be all right. I will always do the best I can for you." Later on he said to me, "Now the Inquiry is on you had better take the stud back." I said, "I do not want it back. I shall not say nothing about it." He said, "I would rather you took it back." I said, "Very well, if that's your wish"; and I took it. After I had been arrested and was on remand Gilson asked me if I was going to give the show away. I said, no, I was going to keep it to myself. He said he had burnt the books in which the meat was entered. One Sunday he came round to me and said he was so much worried about the Inquiry that he would go and drown himself. My wife was present. We advised him not to drown himself, that he would be all right, and he went way very much worried. I never gave Gilson money; he never asked me. I wish they had all been like him; we should not have been here. I knew Grimes, a provision dealer and Guardian. One day I met him in the "King Harry," and he said, "My shop is open." I said, "All right, I will give you an order," and after that I always dealt with him. Some time afterwards he said, "I am doing you all I can on the Board. I can hold my hand." I gave him £5 and continued to give him money every quarter day. The most I gave him at one time was £50. I think I gave him two fifties. On one occasion when I paid him money I told him to make it last because there were other people to be studied besides him. He said, "I am doing you the most good." "Well," I said, "won't £30 do you this quarter?" He said, "No, I must have £50," and I had to give him the £50. Of course, when I had to give the Guardians these big amounts I had to make out my bill accordingly; that is what I suppose you would call thieving. Grimes must have had a lot over £300 from me. Kemp is a builder. I had known him and his father and uncle. After he got on the Board, I met him in the "Prince of Wales." He said he was on the Board and could do with some money. I said, "Very well, I will come round and see you," and I did. Afterwards I paid him £10 every quarter day; he never had more. He did not have nearly so much as some of the others did. He had a turkey and whisky at Christmas. Once I bought a horse for £30; Kemp liked it, and I agreed to sell it to him ostensibly for £25, as his father was present, but with the arrangement that I was to give him £10 back privately, which I did. For two or three years I did repairing work for him. I did not send any bill until the Inquiry was coming on. I have never been paid. Kemp had presents at Christ-mas time, but nothing in the shape of jewellery. In December, 1904, tenders were invited for a new Nurses' Home. I did not want the contract myself, but I knew two men named Barker, father and son. I did tender, but I did not want the job, and it was arranged that I should not have it. There was a meeting at Spooner's public-house. Stammers, Ridpath, Loftus, Briant, and Kemp were present. They asked whether I was going to put in for the job. I said Barker, senior, was on the Board, and I did not want to run against the son, and, besides, the job was too big for me. I told them I had seen

young Barker and that he had arranged with me that he would give them all a bit. They said to me, "How much is the job worth?" I said, "I don't know," and they said they wanted £300 or £400 for themselves. They asked me to see young Barker, and see what he was going to do. I left and went to Barker, senior. Thinking I was doing his son a bit of good, I said, "It is all right, Mr. Barker, the job is your son's; they want either £300 or £400." Barker, senior, said he would not let his son do it; it was scandalous. Afterwards I saw Barker, junior, and told him what his father said. He said, "Oh, that will be all right. I will see them separately." I introduced him then to Trott. After he had talked to Trott he said to me, "My God! Calcutt, they are hot!" Eventually Barker's contract was accepted, and there was a champagne supper that night, young Barker paying most of the bill. There were present several of the Guardians who voted for him, nearly all except Gilson and Warren; Warren never was at these meetings; he is a teetotaler. As to the indestructible paint incident in 1905. I had charged 1s. 6d., and Knight had said 1s. was enough. I went and saw all the prisoners, I think, except Gilson; I told them I would not accept 1s., and wanted 1s. 6d.; Hirst would not have it; he said it was too much; the others said they would try and get me the 1s. 6d.; I was rather surprised when I heard afterwards that Ridpath did not vote for me.

Cross-examined by Mr. Coumbe. I have borrowed a lot of money off Gould. When I first started I had no banking account. Up to October, 1901, I received altogether from Gould £166, and that I repaid. I got money from him in cash as well as in cheques; any cash I borrowed I repaid within a day or two. The difference between his cheque payments to me and my repayments represents 10 per cent. interest; the odd cash advances have nothing to do with it. I do not remember any dispute or row between myself and Gould in 1904; I never had a row with Gould in my life. There was no quarrel on the occasion of his not voting for me as to the indestructible paint. There was a suggestion that I was not paying a man trade union rates; Gould came down and examined my books; I was not angry about it; it was only a blind. It is not true that I was angry because Gould refused to advance me money between 1904 and 1907; whenever I asked him for money he always lent it to me. I did not on March 16, 1907, implore and beg of him to lend me £50 because I was hard up; I never borrowed except as a matter of business. He lent me £50, and I paid him back £59; the £9 was not interest for a great number of past loans. I did say at the Inquiry that Gould never gave me any interest; that was false, and what I am now saying is true; at the Inquiry I said untrue things to screen the Guardians and myself; if the truth had come out at the Inquiry we should all have been prosecuted before. I look at the bill produced, receipted on October 10, 1900, for £6 10s., for work done by me at Gould's house; I do not remember him paying that; I daresay I receipted it to oblige him and to deceive people. The same applies to a bill on October 10 for £12s.; it was a mere sham. On June 26, 1901, there is a cheque of Gould's for £17 10s.,

with my signature endorsed; I remember nothing about the cheque; it may have been for borrowed money; I don't think it was in payment for work done on painting and pointing Gould's house front. There is a bill receipted by me on November 1, 1902, for £9; that is another sham; so is another receipted bill dated September 22, 1903. for £12 18s. A further cheque from Gould to me of £6 19s. 8d., February 12, 1906, probably relates to boards for Strauss's election.

(Wednesday, July 15.)

JAMES CALCUTT , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Coumbe. I did not allow any discount on any of Gould's bills. I remember that at the Inquiry I swore that Gould had paid all his bills; I swore a lot of things there that were not true; you might think I am swearing a lot of things to-day that are not true, but I am not. I do not remember swearing at the Inquiry that Gould actually paid two accounts on October 10, 1906, together, at one and the same time. I do not remember the cheque for £17 10s. being paid. With regard to the gold watch chain that I gave Gould at the time he was knocked down in Stepney and robbed, I had received assistance from Gould at different times in connection with preparing my assessment returns and my rating returns, and later on, as I got more prosperous, the question arose about the income-tax payable, and I went to Gould for details to fill up my income-tax returns. I did not give Gould that gold watch chain as a present for the particular help that he had given me in these matters; I gave him that chain for his support at the Board of Guardians only; I will swear to that. I cannot say now whether I ever gave him anything for helping me with the assessment and rating, and things of that sort. At the present time I have, I should think, about 16 or 17 houses in Mile End and Bow and two in Herne Bay, and six plots of building land. I never had 20 plots. Concerning the rating and assessment, Gould never touched the 16 or 17 houses; he only did one or two; the others still remain as I got them. I can prove that Gould came down to Southend when I was there some years ago; he came down with his wife and I drove him about, but he never joined in the champagne luncheons. Gould has called at my house in Grafton Street dozens and dozens of times; Christmas, 1905, when he sent me round a goose, was not the first time that he had visited me; he came a lot of times before that, and when he did not come to the house he used to send a potman from the "King Harry" for me, and say that Mr. Gould said he wanted to see me over the way at the pub. He never gave me a pair of pheasants, but he had a hare sent from Mr. Strauss and he sent that to me. I used to meet him at the "Salisbury." It was his custom to go over there at half-past 11 in the morning for a glass of ale, but I do not suggest that the meetings were prearranged. My trap used to be outside and Trott used to see it and came down there too. The "Salisbury" is Stammers's house. We used to talk about matters concerning the Guardians because as a Guardian it interested him, and because if I was in a difficulty with the Board

of Guardians over certain matters, it was interesting to me and interesting to himself, too, because he was reaping the benefit of it when he was getting money. I do not think he called upon me with regard to the troubles threatened by the Inquiry; I think he called upon me just before the Inquiry, and I called upon him several times. I saw him after the Inquiry, and discussed the matter with him; that I swear to. It is not true that he absolutely refused to see me after the Inquiry, because of the way in which I had deceived the Guardians; he did see me and I can prove it. I was in Mr. Gould's front parlour one day when Mr. Strauss's new election agent came round, a man named Hitchin; Gould bundled me out of his parlour into the downstairs breakfast parlour. This was after the Inquiry, when I went round and asked him what he thought of things. It is incorrect to say that the only presents I gave Gould were the turkey, a box of cigars, and spirits; he had presents several times. I gave him a turkey, cigars, whisky, and port wine several Christmases, and my man has been with me to take them round. Whilst the Inquiry was on I took Mr. Gould's cheques round to him and asked him what he was going to say about them, so that when Mr. Willis questioned him he was quite prepared for him. In the years 1902, 1903, and 1904 I was getting to be rather a prominent local man, and to be known as a very prosperous man in Mile End, and Gould was a very strong politician on the Liberal side. He was an election agent, and he rather wanted my help in regard to the election; for instance, he wanted subscriptions to the election fund. He had one £10 for Warren, which I gave him. He also had carriages from me. The reason for his intimacy with me was certainly not a political one and the expectation of getting help from me. One day when the election was on he told me he wanted someone to get in and the more carriages I gave him the better it would be for his man to get in. The suggestion that he wanted my help in politics and not money from me is certainly not correct—in fact, I do not know what politics I am. I am neither Conservative nor Liberal either. I am for what I can get—in fact, Mr. Gould told me to be sure never to discuss whether I was Liberal or whether I was Conservative, and then I should not offend either side. It is wrong to suggest that I never supplied carriages to Gould at the Election of 1904 and 1906, and that the carriages arrived late and were sent back about five o'clock because men were drunk. Gould knew that I was hiring carriages. I knew it was illegal, so I should not ask Gould for any money so as to keep their tongues quiet. I used to give them 5s. out of my own pocket so that the coachman should be satisfied, because if a coach-man does not get a tip he is a bit upset about it. Gould knew where they came from, so it is no use saying that he knew nothing whatever about my having paid for these carriages. They came from Websters and Bushes. It is true that the reason why Gould supported me in the first place was because there was a feeling in the locality in favour of giving local work to local men, and I was one of the local men. That was one of the reasons, but the tip-top reason was the money—the brass. Gould knew that I was employing the unemployed

and I may have told him as well, but that was no motive for Gould voting for me; he did not care whether I gave the work to the unemployed, so long as he was getting a bit. A good deal of feeling arose in Mile End about people paying Trades Union rates. I always paid Trades Union rates, unless I had an inefficient man; then I used not to do it. Gould knew I paid Trades Union rates. He came to my place to examine my books, but he never did so; he just opened a book and said that was all right. When the question of the rate of pay for whitewashing at the Infirmary came up I made a suggestion to the Committee before whom I went that I had to do a lot of work in moving the furniture from one ward to another, but that did not induce them to vote in the way they did, and to pass my bill against the views of Knight. Gould knew he was going to vote for it before he went there, because I went and saw him upon the matter. I think Gould was in the chair. With regard to the difference in my evidence now and my evidence at the Inquiry, I changed round because all the ratepayers looked on me as if I had had all the money. I pleaded guilty and opened out everything I knew, for myself and against myself. I told the Treasury everything, and they came down into prison and they took it down in shorthand. But before that I told everybody that the Guardians had had money besides me. I do not say that the Guardians had had it all, you know. I am to blame as well as they, and, don't forget, Mr. John Knight is worse than me. I wanted to prove that to the ratepayers if I possibly could, and that is what I am trying to do now. I want to prove to the ratepayers that I am not the only one who has had the money; that the Guardians have had the money as well; and that the Guardians they sent there to look after their interests were looking after their own interests and not that of the ratepayers; that is why I am telling the tale about it. The police never suggested that I should get a light sentence if I turned round; it is entirely wrong and false. I do not know what opinions my wife holds; I have not had any conversation with her. My wife did threaten to come and say things if I did not. The suggestion that I have given money to other women, and, having to account to my wife for being short of that money, have told her that I gave it to the Guardians, is foolish. I never gave any money to women. (Four slips of paper handed to witness.) Looking at the names on these slips of paper, I still deny having given large sums of money to these women—never. "Barmaid at the 'King Harry.' "I never gave a barmaid money. What do I want to give a barmaid money for?" Servant by whom you had a bastard." I deny having had anything to do with this—certainly not. "Miss Patrick." I do not know them. I think she lives five or six doors down below my place. I know Miss Patrick used to use the "Salisbury Arms." She was a drunken woman. I came to know her through Gould. I asked Gould, "Who is that woman?" I might have stood the girl a drop of gin in Stammers's, but as to giving money—ridiculous. I should not have known her but for Gould; he introduced me. As to "Mr. Stammers's wife" here, it is a shocking suggestion. I am going to instruct my Counsel at once about this bastard child of mine, if I can. It is not true. I deny everything.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. I knew Kemp before he became a member of the Board; I have known his father and his uncle. He comes of a very old and good Stepney family. I think he was a member of the Board on the retirement of his uncle or father in 1904. I was on friendly terms with a number of the Guardians besides those to whom I gave money, and I from time to time used to ask them for their support. I think the suggestion that Kemp should support me came first from him, not from me; it may be that it came about when I was congratulating him upon his election. I think he only came to my house at Southend. I will not be sure that he came with the others to Herne Bay. I cannot swear how many times I paid him £10; I cannot give dates; I cannot mention any living person who saw me pay him. I do not say that each of the prisoners knew that I was bribing the others; Hirst knew one or two of the names, though perhaps not the amounts. With regard to the horse I sold to Kemp for £25 in April, 1907, the £10 I gave him back was a gift; it is not the fact that he told me he had tried to insure the horse for £25, that the veterinary surgeon said the horse was not worth it, and that I gave back £10 as a rebate. With regard to the repairs I did for Kemp in 1906, I did not send in the bill until just before the Inquiry started, but there was no reason why I should not have done so; I do not think Kemp asked me just before the Inquiry to send in the bill. As to part of the bill, he repudiated the liability as the work was done not on his but on his father's and mother's accounts; as to the work done for him amounting to £11, he disputed the amount and paid £9 in settlement. As to the Barker contract, I do not know whether Kemp was present when I talked it over with the others. On the matter of the indestructible paint charge, I did tell Kemp that I ought to have 1s. 6d., because I had had to do the work while the patients were in the wards, and also because I had had to employ some of the unemployed, and upon that it was that he said he would help me, but it was also on condition that he had a bit; it was at the Beaumont Club that he said he must have £10 out of it. I cannot say on how many occasions Kemp had Christmas presents; it was more than once.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. I knew Loftus's father for 10 years before his death in 1903; prisoner Loftus I have known from his boyhood. On his wedding I gave a clock as a present to his wife, whom I had known then for several years. I have from time to time done repairing work for Loftus, which has been paid for, and he has done tailoring work for me. With regard to the coat made by Loftus for Trott, and for which I paid, it is not the fact that the alteration in Loftus's book was made by Sam Loftus (prisoner's brother) at the instigation of myself and Trott. I will not be certain how often Loftus has been to Southend on my invitation. On the occasion he and his family spent a week with us there his baby died; I was very much upset, as I was fond of the child; it is not the fact that the £10 that I gave him about that time was to pay for the child's burial.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. I had been on friendly terms with Ridpath for some time before he became a Guardian. He was a house and estate agent, and I did work for him and his clients. To get my accounts he frequently called to see me; he paid in full by cheque for all the work I did, but I used always to give him some back, not by cheque but in gold; these payments, as well as the bribes I paid him, were usually made in his office, no third party being present. In September, 1906, Ridpath ceased to give me work. I am not certain whether I gave him more than one turkey; I gave him one at Christmas, 1905; I did not give him one at Christ-mas, 1906. As to the plot of land at Leigh, it is not true that I first offered to sell it to Ridpath; he first offered to buy it of me; although I said before Mr. Forbes, my solicitor, that I had had the purchase price of £60, I had not had it; I repeat that I only had one sum of £30. All the payments I ever made to Ridpath were in cash, with nobody present.

Cross-examined by Mr. David. Stammers was the first of these defendants that I knew. I have been very friendly with him and his wife, and a regular customer at his house, the "Salisbury Arms"; there would be nothing corrupt or out of the ordinary course of friendship in he and his wife visiting me at Southend. I remember in 1889 borrowing £10 from him; I repaid him, and he charged no interest. I have afterwards lent him money, but never at interest. I repeat that besides the loan transactions I paid him sums for voting for me; I cannot point to an occasion when anyone else was present. I did order several quantities of wines and spirits from Stammers. When I took him my account for work done for him it is not the fact that he took exception to the items; a man does not take exceptions when he knows he has not got to pay; neither did he say that I had not paid for the hampers of wines and spirits that I had had. I paid for all I got soon after I had the stuff; it is false that I agreed to deduct £26 from my bill on account of wines, etc., that I had had and not paid for.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. I knew Bob Hirst before I knew his brother Rowland (prisoner); it was Bob who asked me if I was going in for the Infirmary contract. Shortly after that contract I began going into prisoner's house, the "Three Crowns." He was at that time a very leading man in Mile End. He had been Mayor of Stepney three times. He is a man of property as well as position. He had at the "Three Crowns" an office where he transacted business connected with his property. The house was always conducted by managers. Hirst never served. I have never taken the liberty of addressing him as "Rowland." I have always addressed him as "Mr. Hirst"; he used to address me as "Calcutt." The "Three Crowns" was only 300 yards away from the Board of Guardians' offices, and would naturally be used by the members. Hirst on ordinary nights would leave the house just after nine to go to Leytonstone, where he lived. For some time before I knew Hirst I had been in the house and had champagne and other liquors. Hirst seldom stayed till closing time. He rarely stayed after eleven, and usually left just

after nine. I do not think he has ever been to my house in Mile End. On the occasions I have spoken of when some Guardians met at other public-houses. Hirst has not been there. Once or twice he has been to the "Salisbury Arms" at some meeting of the Tower Hamlets Philanthropic Society. Soon after I knew Hirst I asked him if he would do his best for me, or something of the sort. I asked that of nearly all the Guardians. Hirst said he would, "if it was fair and above board." He always said that. I am certain it was to him that I gave the diamond stud. I cannot say the date of the gift. With regard to these presents, I used to say to him, "Here is a small present for you, Mr. Hirst. I am very much obliged to you for voting for me," and he used to say to me, "Oh, that's very good of you, Calcutt. You had no occasion to do that. I would always vote for you if everything was straight and above board." He never asked for a present. He had the presents of my own free will. According to the depositions the words I swore to before the magistrate were, "Here is a little present for your kindness to me." I meant kindness in voting for me. I did use the word "voting."

(Thursday, July 16.)

JAMES CALCUTT , recalled, further Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. After I sold the governess pony and cart to Hirst I may have bought a horse and four-wheeler; that was about 18 months, perhaps, afterwards. I gave £38 for the four-wheeler and £25 for the cob. The gold penknife was a very small one, as far as I remember. I do not know that I should know the knife again. I think I got it at Mr. Greaves's. I do not remember what the repair was to the knife which Hirst gave me to have repaired. Mr. Hirst first suggested I should build houses at Herne Bay. I was buying houses where they were cheap—in London, not Herne Bay. Mr. Hirst induced me to buy six plots; then a considerable time afterwards he suggested that he should build two houses for me on the six plots of ground; that he could build the houses with "this man" (Budd)cheap. My wife used to dissuade me. Some time after I said that I would have the two houses built on my plots. A little while later I was round at "The Crowns" one night and Mr. Hirst said, "I have been thinking, Calcutt, your plots are a little too far away from my farmhouse; you had better buy three of my plots." Finally, he said he could let me have the three for £55. I do not know that my six plots were spoken of as the site for the building. My plots were not down a side lane. I know the Blackburn Road; I suppose you would call it a road; it is laid out, but not made up. My land was in Coldwell Road, I think turning out of Blackburn Road. I think Mr. Hirst's site was only slightly more valuable than mine. It would not have been for me to have told Mr. Hirst that I did not like building on his site. I might have said before the magistrate that I said to Hirst, after I had made up my mind to build, "I will get you to build two houses, Mr. Hirst." I did not tell him I would like to have two, because I thought it would be lonely for the wife. I did not ask him to undertake to

build them. Hirst did mention that Budd had been doing work for him, but I do not remember him showing me a pencilled plan. I have seen another drawing at the police-court. I visited the houses several times while they were being built with Mr. Hirst and Mr. Franklin. Budd was a builder and carpenter and cabman also. He used to drive us all over the place. The estimate of £400 for the houses was exceeded. I do not remember saying anything to Hirst about it. I never kept an account, only on the cheque book. I never made a complaint to Hirst; it would not have done. I occupied the houses before the workmen were out. I paid for everything on the houses at Herne Bay—all the extras. I cannot swear that the houses cost what I paid for them; I say they are not worth the money. Labour and materials are very cheap there. The man worked on it himself. I did not propose that £20 should be given to Budd—20s. would be a lot. I never told Budd about it, because I did not know about it till Hirst suggested it. I know Fenton; they made him ill with booze when they took him down. I never told him that I wanted to give Budd £20. I don't remember Hirst saying that £20 would spoil Budd. I used to praise the latter in front of Hirst and Hirst thought a lot of him. I think I praised Budd when Hirst was not there, because everything I said went back to Hirst. I think Fenton was present when the watch was presented. I do not remember telling him that to have built the houses myself would have cost more than I could get them done for. I know it would not have paid me to go to Herne Bay to build them. It was Hirst who said that he thought the furniture at the "Bank of Friendship" would be suitable for the Herne Bay house. Of course, I agreed with him—every time. I did not know whether the furniture at the time I saw it belonged to the tenant, or whether Hirst had already bought it. Hirst would say, "This sideboard is 10 guineas," and so on, and so on, and I would agree. I did not think in my own mind that the furniture would suit my house at Herne Bay. I only had one house furnished; the other remained empty. Hirst would not let me let it. Budd got me a customer once—a greengrocer. I don't know where Hirst got his turkeys from. I don't know whether I first asked Hirst to sell them to me. I had a good private business after I commenced to work for the Guardians, but I did not send my customers turkeys. I said that I did at the Inquiry and in front of Hirst and his friends in the bar. I would say, "They are from my private customers," to let them think they were not from the Guardians. I could not say how many turkeys I had. I did not hear anything from Mr. Knight about the turkey which was sent him through Mr. Hirst. I do not know whether Knight knew it came from me. I always saw Hirst himself about buying the turkeys. I bought whisky, wine, and cigars at Christmas from the manager at the "Three Crowns," but Mr. Hirst saw them packed. I entertained at first on a small scale, then on a large one. I have entertained Mr. Hirst's family. The photo produced represents one of my parties I only had one party at Christmas. I said before the magistrate, "Parties went on for some days; my own relations stopped,

strangers went home; they were not all teetotallers." I must leave the dates to you of the elections when I supplied carriages to Hirst; it would not be so far back as 1901. Mr. Hirst said, "I can do with as many carriages as you can let me have." I could not tell you if that was said in anybody's presence. Hirst ran in conjunction with Miss Lilley and Mr. Andrews. I only cared about the people voting for Hirst. I know there were a good many other carriages at the election. I don't think I took a part in the election, canvassing or bringing up voters. I think I paid Da Costa £10 for the use of carriages; I also gave him £3. I did not tell Hirst, but I told him that I had employed carriages for him. On the night of the election in 1904 I saw Hirst in Da Costa's presence. I do not know whether anyone overheard our conversation. Hirst did not know he had got in on that night, but somebody may have congratulated him upon getting in. At this election I engaged carriages for other candidates, but not so many. In 1907 I sent Hirst some carriages. I do not know whether I said anything to him about them before the election. On election night I did—in the bar. I think Mr. Beard was there. The men who had been driving the carriages were in the other department. They would not hear unless they were listening. Hirst asked me about the men, and I said it was all right; I had seen to them. He gave me 5s. and said I was to give them 5s. of my own. His 5s. was black, because he carries a bag of sulphur in his pocket as he suffers from rheumatism. I have done buildings and repairs for Hirst; that was chiefly on a house on Lord Tredegar's estate. I lost money on the job. The surveyors were very strict. The repairs were ordered by Hirst in the ordinary way—sometimes verbal, sometimes written. I did not always give a price beforehand; only when he wanted one. My wife would make the bills out before I had a clerk. The bills were all paid for the full amount. I did not tell Hirst I was charging less than I was entitled to. He knows for himself. For some houses in Bancroft Road I did not send in a bill—not for the big job. I could not say whether I got £30. I think Hirst asked me once or twice for the bill. He asked me how much the houses came to. I said I didn't know, I had not made the bill out. Then we went to his office, and he suggested so much. There was a contra and the balance came to £30, I think. I told my clerk when I went back and he made a remark about it. I think I got a cheque, but I cannot remember the amount now. I did not tell Hirst that I would get the bill nor go and look at the books and tell him the amount was £30 odd. It would be no good looking at the books, because I could never find where my clerk had got it. I might have said before the magistrate, "I may have said (to Hirst) I would go away to find it out." As regards the whitewashing job, I think I had a difference of opinion with Knight before the Board met. It was referred to a Committee. When I saw Hirst with Knight, the latter said. "I can't pay all this amount of money, Rowland; what are we going to do about it?" Hirst said, "Cannot you take this money, Calcutt?" I said, "I cannot take off so much as Mr. Knight requires me to take off." So Hirst said that I had better go before the Committee, and I did so. I do not think

Knight said anything to the Guardians while I was in the room. Later in the day I saw Hirst at the "Three Crowns," and he said, "If you had stuck out you would have had another £30." There was on one else present. Only Haseltine was present with me and Hirst when the conversation took place as to the new Guardians being hot When I told Hirst that I had burnt my books I cannot remember anyone else being present. I will make a note and see. I do not know that Mr. Barker, sen., is very deaf. He speaks very loud. No one else was present at the conversation with Hirst about my putting in for £2 leas for the "master's entrance" contract. I do not think there was anyone present when I asked Hirst what Knight thought of the Inquiry. I remember pretty well the exact words in the conversation when Hirst spoke of my character. As far as I know, our meeting with Hirst at the "Ship and Turtle," when he gave a dinner to Ridpath and me, was an accident.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bray. I knew Trott many years before he was a Guardian. I don't know that he was a friend of my wife's. He supplied me with vegetables before he became a Guardian, and to a bigger amount afterwards. He has not worked for me in carting sand. I have bought a few loads from him. He has supplied horse carrots. My wife usually paid Trott's accounts to a little boy who came round with the order on Saturday. Trott would call at christmas time, when there was a big order, and that only twice, I think, and I might have paid him then; that might amount to £5. When at Southend Trott continued to supply me with vegetables. All those were legitimate transactions. I shouldn't have given Trott such big orders if he had not been on the Guardians. He always supported me. Trott did not wear such a good overcoat as the one produced. I cannot say if that is the one he had. I suppose he wore an overcoat; every man does. He did not ask for the overcoat. He did not say in Loftus's shop, "I never wear an overcoat." Loftus said he could do with the order. I was doing it to oblige them both. In regard to the 1s. 6d. for the paint, I called on Trott before the Finance Committee had approved of it. I got him to vote for it. I don't know what Committee he belongs to. There may have been a Finance Committee on this occasion; they may have considered this price of mine. Trott knew I was employing unemployed labour; he sent me some round. I told him that I had trouble in moving the patients, so that he could tell the others. That made a difference to the price. Some wards were done with the patients in the wards. I cannot give the date of my call on Trott about this paint. It was in the parlour opening out of his shop—a breakfast parlour. He used to shut the door when I was there so that the assistants should not see me giving him money. I went there on several occasions to give him money. Trott was at one time chairman of the Mile End Philanthropic Society. I have contributed to that society. I did not take the money to Trott. I belong to two societies, the "Salisbury Arms" and the "Horn of Plenty." I may have given one or two subscriptions to Trott in the "Salisbury Arms," perhaps half a sovereign. Trott once visited me at Southend; once before the Inquiry and once

afterwards. The first time he rang me up and told me to come at once. I did so. Mr. and Mrs. Allen and Trott and his wife were down there. They had tea at my place. I drove Mr. Allen to Hockley. There was nothing corrupt on that day. I think Trott only visited me once at Herne Bay. That was when all the Guardians came to visit the Scattered Homes. I don't know whether I gave Trott a turkey; he had whisky and cigars at Christmas. He was at a champagne entertainment once at the "Holborn," after one of the Guardians died. There was nobody else present when Trott spoke of holding out his hand. I could not tell you the date of that. I knew that Trott had tendered for contracts, but he never obtained any. I introduced him to some of the Bromley Guardians, but it didn't come off; the Guardians promised, but never voted. Grimes also said he would hold out his hand; I think he held out his hat. Trott and Grimes were always together. Poor old Trott used to be led by Grimes, because he is not quite so educated. At the time when Trott said, "Stick tight, Jim," etc., Mr. Cockle, the butcher, and the cab proprietor at the corner of Campbell Road, Bow, were there. I do not know the name Gidney; he may be the cab proprietor. He could hear what was said. Trott knew Barker before I introduced him, but not in the way he knew me, in the way of giving bribes. I heard something about the resolution to exclude relatives or sons of Guardians from contracts, but I did not hear that Trott voted for it. I think my wife was present once when I gave Trott money. It would be after one of the quarter days. He had £10 regularly every quarter day, and he asked for a bit more, but did not get it. I asked Trott in the "Salisbury" if he did not have £16 at the "Freemason's" from me. He said, "No, the most you gave was £10." That was since I was prosecuted. I think I have told Trott that I have had to put a bit on. I said, "It is all very fine for old John Knight to take this money off. You know what I have to do with some of them." He said, "Yes, Jim, and I know you are giving more to some than you are to me." I said, "You be satisfied with what you are getting."

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I knew Warren quite early in my connection with the Guardians. I first met him at his shop. I saw a good deal of him. He is a very nice man, indeed. He has been very kind indeed to me. He would do anybody he thought well of a good turn. I knew him, I think, before he was Chairman. He was a member of Stepney Borough Council, also an Alderman, and on the London County Council, the London Alien Immigration Board, and other things. Warren supplied me with groceries. He never got a farthing for anything else. I used to do a lot of work, and took the goods out for money. I bought a lot of goods from Harris and Tewson. Neither of these are Guardians, but they are very thick with them. I subscribed to the fund got up for Bryan before his death—I believe, £6. I got a circular from Warren about the administration; everything was done straightforward. (The circular was read.) Warren gave Bryan the £6 right enough. When I took Warren for a drive there was Gould and Wallace with us. Warren paid his

share. He is a teetotaller. I gave Gould £10 for Warren's election expenses. Gould asked for it, and said he would subscribe it in the name of a friend. Warren did not know from whom it came. I do not remember the date when Warren was my surety for my contract with the Stepney Sick Asylum. It may be two or three years back. When I presented the gold cigar case to Warren I knew he was a nonsmoker, but he liked his friends to smoke. He did not use the cigar case to my knowledge. I took the case round to Warren's house and left it with Mrs. Warren. I next saw Warren, I think, a little after Christmas. I mentioned the cigar case and thanked him for past favours on the Board. I am not sure about "the Board." I would not like to swear I said anything about the Board. I do not think Warren had anything from me except the orders for groceries, the groceries for Bryan, the £6 for Bryan, and the gold cigar case. Knight stopped a job after I had started and got my scaffolding up; I think that was the dining-hall job. I think he gave the reason that it would cost over £50 and he would have to advertise for tenders. I think I was asked to tender; I did so. All the Board knew my price before it was advertised. My tender was accepted, though it was not the lowest. (The Solicitor-General said that this job had not been put to the witness at this Court.) In regard to my accounts, sometimes I added a few feet of boarding, etc., and sometimes a higher price. In regard to labour, I put on so many hours. I only put on an ordinary profit for myself. I started these additions when Gould got his first £5—a little after. When I started with the Guardians my charges were reasonable; as they demanded more money I had to make the bills heavier. Warren never asked me for a farthing. The rough book contained the right entries and the bill book the false ones. After they were entered in the bill book I might meet one of the Guardians and I would say, "Well, £30 would do you this quarter?" He said, "Oh, no; I must have £50." Then I would instruct my clerk to put on £20, and in doing that it would show something had been put on; that is why I had to burn the books. The bill book was one which was intended to be shown to anybody. I do not remember Mr. Knight asking to see the books. I think he asked once or twice to see my time sheets, but he never pressed for them or I should have had to give them to him. When he asked for them I would be satisfied with what he took off, then he did not want to see them. That would be towards the end of my dealings with the Guardians. I think I have heard that Mr. Knight complained to the Guardians that he could not get my time sheets. I believe that was twice. He may have asked to see my invoices. I never refused to show anything to Knight, nor instruct my clerk to. I made up my mind to destroy the books when I heard there was going to be an Inquiry. I told Heward what books to destroy—the rough books and hill books in particular. I told Heward why the books were to be destroyed. He used to write out the cheques and would say, "Good God, guv'nor, more cheques going to the Guardians." The principal books were burnt about a fortnight before the Inquiry. There was a fire of two or three odd books about the end of 1906. The chief

fire took place at Southend. Heward knew I was going to give evidence at the Inquiry, but he did not know when or what about. I told the Inspector that I had all my books for years back; I referred to the ones I had kept. The next day I corrected that and said that the other books were destroyed with other papers at Christmas time. I told the Inspector that the only books I ever had which recorded the transactions with the Guardians were the bill books, and that they were an exact copy of the bills. That could not be true because I said nothing about the rough books. I said at the Inquiry, "If I had mentioned the rough book I should have given the whole show away." So I should. (Several articles of jewellery were put to witness as having been purchased by him.) I do not think I am extra-vagant. Harris used to tell me that diamonds would become dearer, and I bought them as an investment. The gold cigar case was not extravagant; it was a jolly good present. I know a friend of mine, a Mr. Moore, who stood bail for me, who has a splendid gold cigar case, which he has had for years. That is the only other man I know with a gold cigar case. I asked Harris what he thought was a suitable present for Warren; he suggested a cigar case. Harris's bill for £231 ranges over five years. £56 for a diamond and pearl pendant is not extravagant; diamonds are always diamonds. I do not accept Mr. Murray's evidence about the materials for the paving of the yard at Caxton Street. He has left out other materials which were there. I did not overcharge to the extent Mr. Murray says. In regard to 483 and 485, Mile End Road, there was not an overcharge to the extent that Mr. Murray says. I could not say how much the overcharge was. At 8, Caxton Street, the same thing would apply. I never multiplied the time by 6 or anything; I just put on three or four hours. I have never seen Mr. Murray measuring the stuff and do not know what he measured. Mr. Knight knew I was making overcharges to recoup myself. I am sure of it, and my clerk knows it too. I was not asked about that at the police court or Inquiry. I have discussed the matter with Knight in his back office. My clerk can tell you the exact words that were used.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. It may have been about the end of 1898 that I first knew Gilson. If you mention the dates I will agree to them. When I came in touch with the Board Gilson was a Guardian. I was introduced to.him by Kemp's father. Gilson had been in Mile End practically all his life. He is a man of considerable means—I should think a £30, 000 or £40, 000 man. He never asked me for a farthing. He had a shop and premises in Stepney and a splendid house at Southend. He would pay his share with me at any time. He only had the diamond pin from me. He never asked me to do any repairs; if he had he would have paid. He never suggested anything wrong to me. I kept the diamond pin for 12 months before I gave it to Gilson. I did not tell him I was going to give it to him. His conduct was just the same after I gave it to him. I am sure it did not influence him. His beginning to supply meat to me might have been a little while after I came to know him. He was a Guardian then. He did not suggest I should go to him for

meat. He did not charge any more than others. After a time I halved the meat orders with Kemp. That was Gilson's suggestion. Kemp, I think, was apprenticed with him. Gilson and I knew Bryan was a poor man; we felt sympathy for him. Gilson was a kindhearted man; he has helped Bryan. All the old ladies in Stepney like Gilson. As soon as I grumbled at the amount of Bryan's bills for meat Gilson agreed to stop it. The meat which we took down to Southend was done in the regular way of business. Gilson, when he lived at Southend, caught the 7.20 or 10.10, and on Saturday, I think, he caught the midnight train. He is a jolly hard worker. He did not stop at my house at Southend. He was awfully worried and distressed about the Inquiry. I remember his telling me he had burnt the books relating to the meat sent to Bryan. That might have been a little penny account book. I do not think he had a ledger. When we were at "The Crowns" at the time Gilson was going to pay the £20 he said, after I had mentioned that none of them had offered to stand bail, "You knew where my shop was. If you had only sent I would have come in a minute." I believe he would have stood bail if I had asked.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. I think Gilder became Guardian is March, 1904. I did not ask him to vote for me, nor did he say, "If all things are equal, I will." I gave his wife £10. That was just after I offered to pay Smith and Hills £10, which they would not accept. Gilder asked me for the £10, I believe, at Hirst's. There may have been others present, but he would not let them hear it. I paid him the next morning. His wife opened the door. I did not know he had 12 children; I did not see them. This was about half-past 10. I cannot say that Gilder supported me all the time. I do not know whether I started working for him before I paid the £10. I know Gilder had a man named Nash. I do not know that the former said Nash ought to have paid Smith and Hills and had not. It was arranged that I was to pay Smith and Hills £10 to settle. Gilder had a few houses—more than half a dozen—which were in bad repair. He said, "You are doing jobs for Mr. Hirst, ain't you?" I said "Yes." I may not have mentioned that before. It was arranged that Gilder was not to pay me for my work. I did not destroy my books with regard to that account. It was in the book with my private customers. My clerk did not know when I started that I was not going to charge Gilder. Gilder did not say when the dilapidation account came along that if the houses were repaired he would sell or mortgage and pay me every farthing. He got a renewal on the top of my head and left me with it. At the time of the Inquiry he said he would like to sell the houses to me, so that he could tell Inspector Willis he had settled me up. I may have done a little work for Gilder after he was a Guardian, but very little. I shall have to think whether Gilder had any carriages from me at election time. Just before the Inquiry he asked me for an account, not before that. I am not sure whether he asked me for a receipted bill. I think he said, "What about my bill? What about receipting it?" I was going to post him on a receipted bill. (Witness here objected to Mr. Mallinon shouting.)

I collected the rents of Gilder's houses after the work was finished. I had appointed a friend of mine to collect (a Mr. Clancy). I have an idea Gilder said something to show that he thought Clancy was not acting fairly. At the time Gilder met me after I was arrested he did not say he had come to see me about Clancy. He mentioned something about Clancy and said, "I will tell you after the case is all over." He said, "You are all right; you have got a surveyor's certificate, and so have we." I suppose he was sympathising with me. In regard to the £10, he first said, "I shall say nothing about that," then, "I know nothing about that." I used to go to the public-house about 5.30 or 6.30, or seven in the evening. The Guardians would come in when the Board had finished. Gilder would come in. He did not stay so long as the others. The Guardians did stand me drinks at times, but very little. I would not like to swear that Gilder didn't pay for as many drinks as I did. He often used to give me a cigar. (Some of the witness's evidence at the Inquiry was put to him, which he generally confirmed.) I said I thought I was getting about £2 a week from Gilder's property. Of course, I said a lot of things to screen a lot of people. The quarter before I was in prison I paid out £7 from my own pocket. In regard to the drains at 264, Antill Road, that is more Mr. Knight's business. I could not measure the work if it had all been done.

(Friday, July 17.)

JAMES CALCUTT , recalled, re-examined by the Solicitor-General. There is no truth in the suggestion that inducements were held out to me by the police to turn round and make a clean breast of the facts with regard to the Guardians. I made no statement to the police except in the presence of Mr. Sims, of the Treasury. No statement was taken from me on behalf of the Treasury until after I had pleaded guilty. People from the Treasury came to the prison and saw me—Mr. Sims, Inspector Kane, and a gentleman who was a shorthand clerk. As to the jewellery which I purchased, my wife has got some and Mr. Hirst and the Guardians have got the other. I am under the impression that the bill produced, dated 10-8-1900, from me to Gould is in my wife's handwriting. I think the signature, "J. Calcutt," is in my wife's handwriting because I never put a date down like this. (Witness identified other accounts.) As to Gould assisting me with the assessment of my houses, I should think that would not take him more than two or three minutes, as he knew how to do it. He helped me with the income-tax return, I should think, twice. I paid him nothing for that and never made any suggestion that I did so until the day before yesterday. There is no doubt that Gould did visit me at Southend with his wife. We drove out with a Mr. and Mrs. Wallis. It was before the inquiry that I took to Gould the four cheques for £33, £44, £11, and £33. He said, "I will say those sums are little loans you have lent me." I saw him two or three times during the Inquiry at his house and at the "Salisbury Arms." At the "Salisbury Arms" Trott and Stammers were present. I think

there was some conversation with Stammers about the burning of my books. With reference to my statement to Mr. Frampton that some of the Guardians knew I was bribing others, I might have told them, but not how much. Hirst knew I was bribing, because me and Haseltine told him. Hirst said, "It is a shame; they are bleeding you; it is scandalous; it cannot do you any good." Trott knew I was bribing Grimes, and other Guardians might have told one another they were being bribed. With regard to the horse I offered to Kemp at a reserve of £30, it was a splendid horse, and Kemp was working it up to the time I went to prison. With regard to the profit on the indestructible paint, Kemp said he must have a bit out of that. The £10 Kemp had in April, 1907, was to pay hit men with. I used occasionally to go round to the Beaumont Conservative Club. I have met Grimes, Trott, Loftus, and Kemp there. Hirst was a member, but he was never there. I was also a member of the Liberal Club. The clock I gave to Loftus in 1904 was only a cheap one. Loftus and his wife stayed with me at Southend, and I remember taking him to the "Ship Hotel" to lunch. We met some friends of Loftus and I could not take the whole lot home, so we had a champagne lunch at the "Ship." I recollect Loftus's child dying. Loftus said nothing at the time to make me think he traced the illness of the child back to the time we had been at Southend. Loftus is the tailor from whom I got the coat for Trott. With regard to the turkey I gave to Ridpath, I adhere to the statement that I gave it into his hand as he was coming up the steps. It was in an ordinary wicker basket with a skewer through it. His son was with him, and he remarked, "I thought you were not coming; you are rather late; I thought you had forgotten me. I have got to catch my train." I paid Ridpath £10 on one occasion out of a cheque cashed for me by Mrs. Keys. In November and December Stammers told me he was pressed for money and had to meet an account with his brewers and I let him have £20. I never had a hamper of wines and spirits from Stammers as a gift. Stammers used to have part of the contents of the hampers when he came down to the races. The charge of £22 9s. for the bath is not a big charge considering the work done. My bill against Stammers was for £46. As to the governess cart, which I afterwards sold to Hirst, I offered it to Beard, who, I think, contracted for hosiery, for £45. I paid Hirst £400 in respect of the houses at Herne Bay. I did not complain to Hirst; it would not have done for me to complain. It would have upset Hirst. With regard to the furniture I obtained from the "Bank of Friendship," Hirst made his own prices and I agreed to them. On the night of the Da Costa election, for which I found carriages, there was a supper at my house. I think I paid Trott money on two occasions in my own parlour when my wife was present. With regard to the work done to the dining hall at the workhouse, my tender being £98 and the lowest £45, the only reason I can give for my tender being accepted was that I had to give the Guardians something out of it. I had my scaffolding up, but it would have paid the ratepayers better to pay me £5 to go away rather than accept my tender. With regard to the £70 or £80 of work I did

for Gilder, my suggestion was that when the property was sold or mortgaged Gilder should pay the account.

To Mr. Cecil Fitch. It is not true that a Mr. Fisher paid for the champagne at the lunch at the "Ship." He may have paid for one bottle. He cannot afford to pay for champagne. He is only a working man.

ELIZA CALCUTT , wife of last witness. We have been married about 13 years and have five children. I have not been in Court while my husband has been giving evidence. When we were first married my husband was doing jobbing work for Mr. Crow, and when Mr. Crow gave up work my husband began to do work for the Guardians. I had known Mr. Trott previously, but neither he nor any of the Guardians had been to our house. Since my husband began to work for the Guardians, Stammers, Loftus, Gould, Trott, Kemp, Gilder, and Bryan have been to the house. Gould generally came on Thursday evening after Board meetings if there was anything on. He has been a good many times. Kemp did not come often. Loftus and Stammers used often to call. Trott used to come on a Monday. I have been present when the Guardians have been talking to my husband, but I have not taken much notice of what they have been saying; it was about the contracts. There have been occasions when several Guardians have been there together, but I should not like to say who they were. I used to keep the key of the safe in the bedroom and have sometimes had as much as £200 there. The safe was for the purpose of keeping cash. It was not used for the house, but I may sometimes have taken a sovereign or two from there if I have been short. My husband used to ask me for such sums as £5 and £10 sometimes when Guardians were there. On one occasion I gave my husband £10 and he put it on the table by the side of Mr. Trott. I left the room and did not see Trott pick it up. On another occasion brought down £50 for a man named Grimes. My husband used to give me the money after the cheques had been passed through. In 1905, when we were staying at Southend, Stammers's wife stayed a day or two with us and Mr. Loftus and his wife came down and had meals with us, but did not sleep at our place. Mr. Trott came down and had lunch with us. There were eight present at the champagne lunch at the "Ship." I paid for the goods supplied by Warren to Bryan. My husband did so at first, but he did not want to be bothered with the accounts. My own things were entered separately so that I could check them. Bryan's were simply put down, "To goods." and the amount was £1 or £2. I do not remember there having been an odd amount, such as £1 3s. 8d. I saw Mrs. Warren at Southend a fortnight or three weeks before the Inquiry. After that I finished burning Warren's bills. I also dealt with Gilson. Meat supplied to Bryan was put down in my bills. I drove out with some of the Guardians when I was at Southend. I recollect Stammers sending an old man to my husband for £20. My husband got it from the bank. Stammers stayed some few days with us at Southend, also Mrs. Stammers and Willie and Jack. I saw the gold cigar case with the initials "G. J. W." upon it. Gilder came down to Southend when we

had lodgings there. He had not then long been a Guardian. I remember on one occasion having a conversation with him in Mile End Road. He said he knew very well that Mr. Calcutt was doing work for other people, Hirst one, and I said that, as far as I knew, Mr. Hirst paid for what he had done. Gilder replied, "Oh, yes, I know all about that." Then he added, "I have got property, too." I recollect that, on another occasion, when we were going to the "Bromley Hall." Gilder said to my husband, "I hear you are going to give the whole show away, Jim." My husband said, "What are you talking about?" He took some papers from his pocket and said, "Look here, that does not look as if I was going to do it," and Gilder said, That's right, Jim, stick tight." My brother-in-law said, "It is all very fine for you. None of you gentlemen have rubbed round to help him. Where do you think the money is coming from?" Mr. Gilder said, "You know I have not any money." My husband afterwards said to Gilder, "What about the £10 I gave your wife?" Gilder replied, "Not a word. She will not say anything about it." My husband said, "But you know she had it?" and Gilder answered, "That is all right." That was not long before my husband had been arrested. I have been once or twice to Mr. Gilson's house at Southend, with Mr., Mrs., and Edith Grimes. I do not remember Mr. Hirst calling on us at Southend. He has been to the house at Herne Bay. As to the Christmas gifts, I know Calcutt used to send the Guardians round a turkey and whisky and cigars, and he used to give Mr. Hirst some jewellery each Christmas. My husband bought the turkeys of Mr. Hirst. I used to pack them up and tend them away. One Sunday evening Gilson called and was very much worried about Bryan's meat and said he thought he should drown himself. My husband used to give me presents of jewellery, and I am prepared to tell about any of the articles he gave me. I did not want to go to Herne Bay. I did not like the place. I did, in fact, live at Herne Bay for some little time. I afterwards went to Yarmouth, where I saw Mr. Loftus. With regard to my husband burning his books and papers, I saw some burned at Southend and some at Grafton Street. That was about the time of the Inquiry.

Cross-examined by Mr. Coumbe. My husband at one time never receipted a bill, but always used to bring them to me. I used to keep my husband's books. We used to keep a very rough book—simply wrote out the bills and put the figures at the bottom. That was practically all over the book, but we could find anything by turning over the page. My husband did work for a few private people. I should think we kept the same kind of record for Mr. Gould as we did for other people, but I cannot say for certain. When we wrote some of the bills out Mr. Calcutt would say he was not particular and he did not want to keep any records and he wanted me to take it down. He would say, "Just get a billhead and write it down quick and receipt it." Then there was no record kept. In other cases it would be put in the book. As to whether the various sums of money that different people owed my husband were put in the book and the sums of money that Gould owed my husband were put in the book in the same way, I

do not remember all this time after. This is several years back, but I kept the books in a very rough way. I cannot remember whether I treated Gould's account differently from any of the others. There are no numbers on the bills corresponding with the folio number. I did not keep a cash book. When an account was paid we struck it off the book as "Paid." I have no recollection whether, when I scratched the accounts off the book, I received the money or not. I used to write out some of the bills and Mr. Clancy used to write out others. Mr. Clancy used to write out the quarterly account for the Guardians, and he used to come for a night or two to write out other bills. I could not say whether Gould had done work for my husband to the amount of £17 10s. Gould often came to the house. He would tap at the window and then my husband would go out to him. I do not think I have seen him in the house more than once or twice. He was on one occasion at Southend. My husband and I and Mr. and Mrs. Wallis went for a drive with him and we called at the "Crown" at Rayleigh and the landlord allowed us to go on to the Mount. The money in the safe in the bedroom was not for the payment of wages or for the house. As a rule, it was kept for Mr. Calcutt's purpose—for what he wanted for the Guardians. I have no separate property. As to my jewellery, I have a horseshoe pendant, a heart pendant with a glass at the back, and another long pendant with a pearl in it. One pendant has diamonds with a pearl and another a diamond. I have also three bracelets and a pair of diamond earrings, two chains, an albert and a long gold chain, a watch, two marquse diamond rings, a diamond ring with two stones, a half-hoop diamond ring, and one blue half-hoop ring and a brooch with rubies. I can bring all the articles here barring one bracelet I have lost. My husband was very much upset and worried about the Inquiry both before and after it had commenced.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. I remember that Loftus was down at Herne Bay about a week. I have some recollection of going to the doctors with one of my servants, who was anaemic. I cannot say whether I also took one of the children. Mrs. Loftus thought that her child that died caught an illness while staying with me, but I do not think it was so. I remember that at the luncheon at the "Ship" Mr. Fisher paid for one bottle of champagne. When in town I very seldom saw Mrs. Loftus. I used to go to their house now and then and I have an idea we went to the Tivoli or the Oxford together. She sent me round a bonnet for my last baby. There was no regular time for Loftus to call. It was generally after a Board meeting.

Cross-examined by (Mr. David. I should think I have known Stammers about seven years. I can remember a visit from him just before we went to Southend. Stammers forced his way into the scullery to me, the girl, Lillie Matthews, having told him that Calcutt was out. I do not think Mrs. Stammers has ever been to Grafton Street. Stammers often used to come and see my husband after he got on the Guardians, but I do not think he did so before that. I think I once brought whisky and water to Mr. Stammers when he was sitting with my husband when he was ill. The bills have been written out while

he has been ill, and the Guardians have come to see him about them. I do not know who invited Mrs. Stammers to Southend. I know my husband told Mr. Stammers not to let her come, because there was a jealousy as to Loftus. I will not say I did or did not invite her to come on any occasion; I do not remember inviting her. It is not the fact that she came to stay with me at my urgent request for a day or two because I was unwell. We had no convenience for visitors to stay there. Mrs. Stammers had all her meals in the house while she stayed there. She did not one night provide supper or pay for any of the things that came into the house. I do not remember that she gave me 10s. for the children when she went away. I think, when Mrs. Stammers went away, she did not have any money to give, because I think Mr. Calcutt lent her money to buy a dress with and she sent it on. Wines and spirits used to be sent to us from Stammers's house. I remember that on one occasion some port was sent especially for me. I think that would be about 15 months ago. It was after my last baby. Then again I was very ill.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. It is a long time since I saw Kemp. I have not seen him very often. I remember him coming to the house one Sunday with his father or uncle. I do not know that my husband had a horse which had bolted. There was no horse of my husband's that I was afraid to ride behind.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bray. As a rule, when my husband wanted any cash from the safe he asked me to get it. He always used to say what he wanted it for. I did not hear the conversation which took place when Trott had the £10. We were at Southend from April to October, 1905, and this incident was after we came back. It would be after my husband got the quarter's money, because I had a large amount there. I should think it was the Christmas quarter. I have dealt with Trott for fruit and vegetables, but never to a large amount. About the year 1904, after he became a Guardian, my orders to him were considerable. He used to send the bill in once a week, and either he or his boy would call for orders or for payment. My husband did not interfere with my private affairs and what I thought proper to pay for. On one or two occasions I have met Mr. Trott at Southend. One was after the Inquiry. I do not remember meeting Mr. and Mrs. Trott on the front and inviting them back to tea.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. The amount paid Warren in respect of Bryan was sometimes £1, sometimes £2, but that was not every week. The payments extended, I should think, over seven or eight months. Mr. Bryan had been ill before he died and was living in considerable poverty. Warren used to send a ham at Christmas and 5s. for the girls and boxes of biscuits or chocolates for the children. He also used to send us free tickets for theatres.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. I do not know how long I had known Mr. Gilder before he ceased to be a Guardian in 1904. I recollect four of us being in a public-house while my husband was under remand. Gilder told me my husband was going to give the whole show away. Gilder was inclined to sympathise with him when he thought he was going to stand his ground, retain counsel, and fight

the case. I did not hear all that took place. I went and sat on the seat with the baby. I did not hear anything about Clancy. When the £10 was mentioned Gilder said, "The wife won't say a word. She does not know anything about it." The visit of the Gilders to Southend was not an invitation. Gilder mentioned that he was coming down, and Calcutt went out so that he should not see him.

Re-examined. The money from the safe was never used to pay the weekly accounts. The £10 to Trott was not for greengrocery. I used to pay Trott myself. It did not matter how long the account went. My husband never interfered in the management of the house. If he bought anything for the house he used to consult me. I do not remember whether I was consulted as to the furniture which was brought to the Herne Bay house.

GEORGE CHARLES WALLIS , sheet metal worker, 97, Westferry Road, Millwall. I have known Calcutt for a number of years and have been on friendly terms with him. I know all the defendants by sight. I did not know any of them except through Calcutt. I have seen them all with the exception of Warren at the "King Harry," the "Three Crowns," and the "Salisbury Arms." I made the acquaintance of Warren through going out for a drive with him and Calcutt and Gould to Farningham, in Kent. I think I have seen all the Guardians in the "Three Crowns" of an evening except Gould. Warren, and kemp. I have seen them having refreshments and conversing with Calcutt. I have seen Hirst the other side of the bar. Calcutt used mostly to pay for the refreshments and cigars. I have also seen Trott, Gilder, Loftus, Ridpath, and Stammers at Calcutt's house. On those occasions we have generally gone for refreshments to a neighbouring hostelry. I recollect upon one occasion being under engagement to go down to Chatham with Calcutt. I think that was in July, 1906. two days before Calcutt's "beano," to which I was invited. For some reason Calcutt was unable to go to Chatham. I afterwards went out with him. He had money in a bag and we went down to stammers's house. Stammers was behind the bar and his wife, and I believe there was a barmaid there, but I am not quite certain. We had refreshments, and after that Calcutt went inside and had a conversation with Stammers. After that Calcutt and I went to Calcutt's house in Grafton Street. On the way we called at a baby linen shop in the Mile End Road, where Calcutt bought two pelisses. On an other occasion I remember going with Calcutt to the shop of Greaves the jeweller. I did not go in with him, but when he came out he showed me a gold cigar case like that produced, which was handed to somebody at a public-house to take care of. I have been to Calcutt's house at Herne Bay and remember some of the Guardians being there for the summer time, amongst them Trott, Hirst, and Gilder. I can not say for certain any of the others. I recollect some indestructible paint being talked about at the end of 1905 or beginning of 1906. I was with Calcutt fairly often about that time. On one occasion Calcutt went into Mr. Grimes's shop, remained there for some little time, and then rejoined me. I have been down to Southend. Gould was there with his wife, and we went for a drive then with

Calcutt. I have not noticed any of the other defendants down at Southend. I know the defendant Ridpath. I recollect being asked on one occasion to go with a cheque of Calcutt's to the bank from the "King Harry" to get cashed. I did not, however, get the money as the cheque had not been endorsed. Calcutt afterwards got Mrs. Keys, the landlady, to cash it. I cannot say the amount of the cheque. We three afterwards returned to Calcutt's house and had champagne.

To Mr. Frampton. I should think it was five or six years since Kemp went for a drive with us.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. I knew that Ridpath was an estate agent. I knew that Calcutt had been doing builder's work for Ridpath for some years. I should think the time when I was sent to cash the cheque would be about three years ago from now—some time in the summer of 1905. I do not accept the suggestion that the cheque was drawn to Mrs. Keys to pay Mrs. Keys a certain sum. I handed the cheque back to Calcutt when I came from the bank. Nobody went again to the bank; it was too late. I went with Calcutt and Ridpath to the "King Harry" about three o'clock in the afternoon. I suppose it must have been somewhere about six o'clock before I left them. Calcutt and Ridpath went away to catch a train to Southend.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. Hirst nearly always left the "Three Crowns" about half-past nine. I have been there when the Guardians have been there after attending meetings.

To Mr. Mallinson. I do not know that on the occasion when I saw Mr. Gilder at Herne Bay he was the guest of Mr. Hirst.

ADA SMITH , wife of Percy Smith. 57, Teviot Street, Bromley. I am the sister of Mrs. Calcutt and have been in the habit of visiting the Calcutts at Grafton Street. I stayed with them in 1905 when they were in lodgings at Southend. I know Loftus, Stammers, Gilder, and Gilson. I have seen Stammers at Grafton Street calling to Calcutt over the railings. I have seen Loftus at Southend and at Yarmouth and also at Calcutt's place in London. I have known Gilder some time and have seen him at Grafton Street and at my house. I have also seen him at Mrs. Allen's house at Southend. I saw him at Calcutt's house in Mile End about a fortnight before Calcutt pleaded guilty. On one occasion he came to my house when my husband was out with Mr. and Mrs. Calcutt. When Gilder saw them coming he went to meet them. I have been to Gilson's house at Westcliff.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. Gilder, his wife, and two daughters were at Southend. We met them on the sands.

PERCY FREDERICK SMITH , brass finisher and husband of last witness. I know all the defendants by sight and a man named Grimes as well. I also know Bryan. I have been to the "Three Crowns" with Calcutt, but not on what you would call special nights. When I visited at Southend I saw Loftus, Gilder, and Grimes, and, I think, Mr. Ridpath. I have also seen Mrs. Stammers at Calcutt's house in Aked Avenue. I was one of the party at Yarmouth. Loftus and his wife were there. I recollect on one occasion going with Calcutt to the bank, when he drew £200 in gold, which he gave to me to carry. In

the evening he went out again with a bag of money and went to the "Bank of Friendship" in Hertford Street. When he came out he had not the money with him, so far as I know. Grimes's shop was about 30 yards away from the "Bank of Friendship." I have been to Greaves's shop with Calcutt on one occasion. He then bought a single unset diamond. I also remember Calcutt showing me a cigar case and a pin the shape of a cube. It was a peculiarlooking pin and he said it formerly belonged to the Marquis of Anglesey. I also knew Gould. I remember Calcutt being arrested. A few weeks after that I remember being in the "Bromley Hall Tavern," Brunswick Road, Poplar, with Gilder and Mrs. Calcutt. Calcutt said, "Well, Gilder, what do you think of things?" "Oh," he said, "my boy, you're all right. You've got the Governor's certificates to work on the same as we have." He said, "What do you intend doing?" Calcutt laid, "What do you mean? What do I intend doing?" Gilder said, "Oh, I've heard a very funny remark today, that is, that you intended to give the show away, and if you did not do it Mrs. Calcutt would." Calcutt jumped up and said, "Give the whole show away, and I have retained these people!" With that he pulled some papers out of his pocket. One was typewritten and one was an oblong piece with something on it with reference to counsel. He said, "Do You think I should give the show away when I have retained these people?" So Gilder said, "That's all right, my boy!" I said, "That's all Very well; it looks to me as if Jim is fighting the case for himself and the Guardians. Where is the money coming from? Not that he is asking anybody for anything, but I think the least they could have done was to come and see him in his trouble." Gilder said, "I can't help you, my boy, I wish I could, and I don't know who can." After that Calcutt said, "Gilder, I should not think your wife would say anything about that £10?" Gilder said, "What £10?" Calcutt replied, "You know very well what." Gilder said, "Well, I am not going to say' Yes." With that we drank up and went out. Gilder did not say anything about his wife. He simply said, "Oh, she won't say anything about that." As we parted Gilder said. "Goodnight, Jimmy; stick tight, you'll be all right." I went down frequently to Southend. I have taken down meat and vegetables to Southend. I used to find them in the cloak room at Stepney Station, more often than not. The parcels used to have labels, which had on the names of Grimes, Warren, Trott, and, of course, Gilson. I assisted in the distribution of the Christmas fare, the turkeys, and all that sort of thing, and I have delivered such things at the houses of Gould, Stammers, Trott, Gilder, Loftus, and also Grimes.

To Mr. Coumbe. I delivered a turkey at Mr. Gould's house once.

To Mr. Curtis Bennett. I knew Ridpath was living at Leigh. I knew that Calcutt and Ridpath had been friends for a number of years.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. I saw Gilder once at Southend with his wife and daughters. We met accidentally. Nothing was

said about Clancy in my presence. When the £10 was mentioned Gilder said he knew nothing about it. He said his wife had had it, but he was not going to say "Yes."

To Mr. David. I have never been to Stammers's house when Mr. and Mrs. Calcutt were there. As to whether 1905 was the heyday of the prosperity of the Calcutts, I do not understand those big words.

LILY MATTHEWS , 8, Bartlett's Buildings, Holborn Circus. I used to be domestic servant in the employment of the Calcutts. I recognise Trott and Gilder as having called at Grafton Street. Grimes also used to come. I have seen Gilder there very often.

HAROLD TEWSON , pawnbroker and jeweller, 101 and 103, Burdett Road, said Calcutt had been a customer of his for some years, and he remembered selling him an 18-carat gold albert chain on March 27, 1905, for 12 guineas. He believed the chain produced to be the one.

(Monday, July 20.)

Mrs. SARAH CATHERINE JONES , 121, Mile End Road, baby outfitter, carrying on business in the name of Hart. I remember Calcutt coming to the shop with two ladies and a gentleman on a Thursday (early closing day). I sold them some baby's clothes (two pelisses) just at closing time. I cannot fix the date.

CHARLES HARRY HARRIS , 115, Lower Road, Rotherhithe, manager for the executors of Mr. Greaves, jeweller, Mile End Road. I know Calcutt and I have known Hirst very well for about 15 or 16 years. My house is about 150 yards from the "Three Crowns"; I went there almost daily. I know nearly all the prisoners. When Calcutt bought things he paid either by cash or by cheque. When he did not pay at once I entered the things in a book. Cash transactions would be entered in the daily sale book. (The witness spoke to the following articles as having been bought by Calcutt: A diamond stud, £12, March 25, 1904; a china mirror, £5 15s., on June 28; on September 19, 1904, a clock, £2; on January 14, 1907, an 18-carat gold-mounted umbrella, £3; on November 9, 1905, gold cigar case, £20 15s.; on December 23, 1905, a diamond pin, £10 (formerly belonged to Marquis of Anglesey); on May 29, 1906, 15-carat gold masonic charm, £2 10s.; on December 20, 1906, a lamb's wool travelling rug, £2 15s.). On January 15, 1907, Hirst ordered a gold watch with an inscription: "Presented to Richard Budd by the Mayor of Stepney, R. Hirst, Esq., and Messrs. Calcutt, Lloyd, and Cordys, in appreciation of work executed at Herne Bay, 24th January, 1907." It was handed to Hirst and charged to Calcutt. I believe the understanding was that Calcutt should pay two shares and Lloyd and Cordys one each. I could not say who instructed me to charge it to Hirst. Calcutt was doing some work for me at the time, and it was paid by contra account—on August 17, 1907. I was present when it was presented. I know Warren—he has been a customer of mine. He bought some things, for which he paid cash. I saw him at Hirst's house just before the Inquiry. He told me then that he desired to present a cigar case to a very

dear friend of his. I think he mentioned that fact to Calcutt, who suggested that Warren should come to me and purchase it. Warren then asked Calcutt to purchase it, which Calcutt did. Warren said he would pay Calcutt for it, and a suggestion was made about my giving him a receipt. I agreed to do so, and I think I posted him one. (Receipt produced.) That does not represent any real transaction. I sent it because Warren asked me. About the end of the Inquiry Calcutt called on me and pointed out the awkwardness of the entry in the book of the gold cigar case under his account and asked me to talk to him privately, which I did, in the kitchen upstairs. He asked me if I could give him another receipt, putting something in it to equal the amount of £20 15s. in place of the cigar case. He then burnt the original receipt in my presence. The total of the account was £55 2s. 3d. At the end of November, 1907, I received a letter from Warren, dated from the Scottish Union and National Insurance Office, asking me to call at the Library, 'Bancroft Road, in reference to a presentation to Mr. Thacker on Monday morning at 11.30. I went to the Library and saw Warren. He asked me the price of something which was likely to be given to Mr. Thacker. He suggested, as the entry in Calcutt's account was very awkward, in view of the Inquiry, the erasure of it and putting another entry under his (Warren's) name. He offered me the money in a bag, purporting to be the amount originally paid for it. I declined to entertain the suggestion of altering the entry. Warren then put the money in his pocket. On May 7 last, after Calcutt's conviction, Warren brought a watch for repair, when we casually spoke of Calcutt, and, I think, the purport of the conversation was the lightness of Calcutt's sentence. I do not remember Warren asking me about the production of books. I have no doubt what I said before the magistrate is correct. I used to go to Hirsts house about lunch time. With the exception of Warren, I have seen all the prisoners there. I was at the Inquiry, I think, on the first and second day. I heard nothing said about the cigar case. I had seen it a few months before at Hirst's house, when he said it had been presented to him the evening before by Warren. He was very proud of it. That would be five or six months before the Inquiry—about November. I occasionally saw Calcutt with the Guardians at Hirst's house; once or twice a week.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cecil Fitch. The entry in my book as to the clock is simply: "19th September, 1904, china timepiece, £2." I cannot identify the clock produced as applying to that entry.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hawke. Hirst's house, the "Three Crowns," was run by a manager. Hirst took no part in the business. He had an office off the saloon bar, and spent most of his time in the office. He made no secret about the cigar case. As to the watch, I knew that Hirst had nothing to do with paying for it. With regard to the pin, its real value would not be more than £3 or £4, but it took a special value from the fact of its having belonged to the Marquis of Anglesey.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. The total amount of Calcutt's purchases from me since October, 1903, was about £480.

ALEXANDER F. MASTERS , watchmaker, 22, Globe Road, E. On October 29, 1906, Warren brought me the cigar case (produced); it then had engraved on it "G. J. W." On Warren's instructions, I put the word "from" before "G. J. W." and "To R. H." on the other side; he paid me 6s. for the work.

JOHN MITCHELL , Harford House, Westcliff, public house broker, identified a stud given to him by Calcutt for services rendered.

ERNEST AYLETT , 54, Bridge Street, Mile End, carman and carpenter. I have driven Calcutt about from time to time, and have been to Stammers's public-house, also to Hirst's three public-houses and private house, and to Warren's house, Gould's, John Kemp's, and Grimes's. I went to these houses at Christmas, about two or three years ago. In 1906 a brown paper parcel was left at Warren's, and at Gould's a case, that had been opened, like a spirit case. Some cases were fetched from Stammers's place. There was a case left at Grimes's also. At Christmas, 1905, pretty well the same thing was done, but at Stammers's a bag was taken in; nothing fetched out. I have seen Guardians come into the yard at Calcutt's, and go up to the office. Gilder, Trott, Kemp, Ridpath, Grimes, and Stammers, and Hirst on one occasion, some time back. Loftus was about the yard but not in it. I have seen Trott and Grimes there together. I may have seen Gilson going to the yard. I took the pony and trap to his shop, which he was going to drive to Yarmouth, I believe. He had it eight or ten days. He afterwards told us it had had an accident and the son brought it home. Trott and Loftus also borrowed the trap. At the "Three Crowns" I have seen all the prisoners, except Gilson and Warren. I once went to Ludgate Hill Station to meet Hirst and a Mr. Beard from the Herne Bay train—about two years ago. I drove them to Hirst's public-house in Mile End Road, where Beard got out; then I drove Hirst to Leytonstone. I have several times seen Hirst in the trap with Calcutt.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bryan. It was only at Christmas time that I left anything at Gould's house—twice. I have worked in Gould's house for Calcutt. I did not know what the cases contained.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. I have seen Kemp in Calcutt's yard several times; it might be 12 or 18 months ago. Once he came there about a horse. I remember Calcutt doing work in a house where Kemp was living; that would be before the horse incident. I went four or five times a week to the "Three Crowns"; sometimes to fetch Calcutt.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sydney Lamb. I was in Calcutt's employ about eight years. I could not say that I saw Loftus at Grafton Street. He had the trap about three times. Calcutt had a better trap than that one. Loftus gave me half a crown or 3s. for the

use of the trap. I think there were some presents taken to the private customers, but I did not take them. I could not say how often I have seen Ridpath. Calcutt did work for him.

Cross-examined by Mr. David. I have seen Stammers at the "Three Crowns" at all times of the day. Besides the Christmas time, I have been to Stammers's for a hamper to take to the Derby or Oaks.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hawke. The "Three Crowns" is quite close to Calcutts yard. The occasion I saw him there was, I think, when Calcutt was making some building alterations.

Cross-examined by Mr. Sydney Edwards. I remember Trott carting sand for Calcutt; whether the latter had bought it beforehand or not I could not say. On these occasions, when his van was in the yard. I do not remember seeing Trott there. I think I had a sack of plaster from Trott. I took the trap to Allen's, the plasterer, and left it there with Trott. Those were my orders from Calcutt. Allen used to take subcontracts off Calcutt.

ROBERT GILDERSON , Ilford, carriage builder. On July 17, 1905, Calcutt ordered of me, and on May 28, 1905, I delivered to him, a governess cart, for which he paid me £46. On November 5, 1906, I did repairs to the same cart on behalf of Hirst.

WILLIAM HENRY JUDD , harness maker, Southend, proved the sale by him to Calcutt on April 28, 1905, of a set of silverplated harness, bearing a monogram of Calcutt's initials, for which Calcutt paid 13 guineas.

OSWALD TRIGG . I keep the "Ship Hotel" at Southend. I have known Calcutt about five years, and he frequently stayed at my place. In 1905 I sold him a cob for £30. I have seen at my house with Calcutt, Ridpath, Loftus, Kemp, and Trott—it may be, separately or together. Calcutt has paid for luncheons, dinners, and wines when those defendants have been at my place as his guests.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. I cannot fix any date when Kemp was at my place with Calcutt.

To Mr. Sydney Lamb. I will not say that Loftus came with Calcutt three or four times; he came frequently.

Mrs. AMELIA ALLEN . I let apartments at Southend. Calcutt and his family occupied my rooms from Easter to October, 1905. Their meat and groceries used to be sent down from London. Trott, Loftus, Grimes, and Bryan frequently visited the Calcutts; once Gilson made a brief call. Mrs. Stammers also stayed for a night or two. All the expenses at my place and for occasional drives were paid by Calcutt.

Mrs. ANNIE WEINRABE (formerly Mrs. Keys). I kept the "King Harry" in Mile End Road from 1904 to June, 1906. Calcutt was a customer there, and I have seen him having refreshments with Gould, Kemp, Loftus, Ridpath, Stammers, Hirst, Trott, Gilder, and Grimes. I from time to time cashed cheques for Calcutt.

GEORGE J. ANDERSON , executor of Bush, jobmaster, Poplar, proved the hiring by Calcutt of six carriages on November 2, 1905, four on March 5, 1904, and 10 on March 28, 1904.

JOHN WILLIAMS , clerk to Webster's, jobmasters, Whitechapel Road, proved the hiring by Calcutt of three carriages on January 17, 1906, and five on November 1, 1906.

WILLIAM KITCHENER , foreman to Webster's, produced account for carriage hire by Calcutt on January 12, 1905, and February 25, 1905, January 17, 1906, and November 1, 1906.

MICHAEL DA COSTA , merchant. At the time of the Guardians' election in 1904 I had a conversation with Calcutt. I was very popular with the electors, having lived in the hamlet for 20 years. Calcutt arranged that I should canvass on behalf of Hirst. He placed six carriages at my disposal on the day of the poll; I used two of them. In the evening about 20 of us had supper at Calcutt's house. During the day I had a talk with Hirst; he thanked me for my hard work and said that later on he would give me a little spread.

JAMES ASH , cashier to Bush and Sons, boxmakers. In the middle of 1905 we were pressing Gilder for payment of an account of £23 5s. 6d. In July Calcutt approached us and offered to settle the debt for £10. We refused. Subsequently the matter was settled for £15, which was paid by Barker.

JAMES PERRY . foreman at Pinchin's lighting Company. Smith, Calcutt's brother-in-law, attended our beanfeast on July 14, 1906.

WILLIAM H. K. FORBES , Mark Lane. I have acted as solicitor for Calcutt. On January 21, 1907, he and Gilder called on me. Gilder had had served on him a dilapidation notice in respect of some leasehold property at Bethnal Green, and was not able to comply with it; Calcutt had agreed to do the work for him, repaying himself by taking the rents of the property; the amount was about £190. I was asked to prepare an agreement embodying their arrangement. Gilder handed me a number of deeds, and I prepared a charge in Calcutt's favour; this was executed by Gilder. folder's lease was a very short one and was practically no security at all. On March 27, 1907, the two again saw me, and there was a conversation as to Gilder getting a new lease. On August 20 Gilder called on me and produced a new lease for 21 years from June, 1907. I asked him, "What about Calcutt's account—are you going to pay it?" He said he thought it would not look well for him to pay it then, as the Inquiry was going on. I said, "If this is an ordinary commercial transaction, nothing would be better evidence of it than you should pay the account at once." I forget what he replied. On February 6, 1907, Calcutt called on me with Ridpath. Calcutt showed me a document relating to the sale by him to Ridpath of some land at Leigh for £60, and asked me whether it was in proper order. I examined the document and told Calcutt it seemed in order. I may have said to him, "Have you had this money?" and he may have said, "That is all right, never mind about that," I cannot remember. No money passed in my presence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. Ridpath did not appear eager about the purchase; my conversation was entirely with Calcutt.

To Mr. Mallinson. The rents of the Bethnal Green property are still being collected by Calcutt's friends on his behalf.

LLEWELLYN F. PHILLIPS , secretary of the Indestructible Paint Company, Limited. I produce invoices showing purchases by Calcutt between October 5 and December 15, 1905, of 41 gallons of our paint and six gallons of thinnings; total amount (less discount). £23 19s. 11d. That quantity of paint would suffice to cover 4, 230 square yards; if Calcutt made a charge covering 7, 881 square yards, the quantity would work out at 170 square yards to the gallon, which would be impossible. I have inspected the places where the paint was used by Calcutt. I estimate that the total cost to him, including labour, plant, and materials would be 4 1/2 d. per yard.

SYDNEY R. GLASSCOCK , clerk in the London and SouthWestern Bank, Bow branch, produced a certified copy of Calcutt's account there from its opening in July, 1901, to May 16, 1908.

WILLIAM R. C. BEVAN , another clerk at the same branch. I have taken out the cheques drawn by Calcutt during the period of his account. The totals are—in cash, £20, 346; in notes, £3, 521. Among the debits there is one on July 12, 1906, of £20. Stammers also banked with us, and I produce a certified copy of his account. On July 13, 1906, there is a debit of £100 and on the same day there is a payment of £20 in gold.

Cross-examined by Mr. David. Stammers's payments in were usually in gold. He was in good credit and was frequently allowed to overdraw, sometimes to the extent of £50.

EDWARD ELVY ROBB , solicitor. I attended at the Inquiry. I remember certain questions being put by me and the Inspector to Warren about a gold cigar case. The invoice produced is one that was then handed to Warren; it now bears a stamped receipt. I cannot swear whether, when I saw the invoice at the Inquiry, it bore a receipt. I do not suggest that the receipt has been added sinece. I have no recollection about it.

EDWARD W. BULL , collector to Barclay, Perkins, and Co., brewers. Stammers has been a customer of ours for some years. On July 10, 1906, I called at his house, the "Salisbury Arms," to collect an account of £277. He was not in. The following day we got from him a cheque for £100.

To Mr. David. Stammers was in pretty good credit with us and we Were not pressing him.

Formal proof was given of the shorthand notes of the Local Government Board Inquiry, and long passages from the notes were read to the Jury.

(Tuesday, July 21.)

CHARLES H. HARRIS , recalled. I produce my daily sales books; there are between September 22, 1902, and July 5, 1906, eight entries when cash was paid on goods sold to Calcutt, the total amount being £28 Is.; adding the £28 to my bill, that made a total of £435.

JAMES RICHARD BUDD , carpenter and joiner, 3, Grand Drive, Westcliff. I have known Hirst about 12 years. He has a house at Herne Bay, and he comes down occasionally for a week or so. About five

or six years ago I started to do some building for him in Albany Drive and Minster Drive; I also did some in Blackburn Road about December, 1905. When I started the houses in Blackburn Road there was only one building in the road—an old farmhouse belonging to Hirst. Hirst said he wanted me to build him a pair of villas in Blackburn Road, and Mr. Wilson, the architect, got out the plans. I made out the quantities of stuff that I wanted for the houses, and I told Hirst I thought the cost of the houses would be about £580. I do not keep any account, and I do not know what became of that estimate. I did not know until the houses were nearly finished that they were Calcutt's houses. The first time I saw Calcutt was at the "Eagle," Snaresbrook. I used to do work in the London district, but I never kept any accounts; I used to reckon how much the men's money came to, and put it down in the book, and I used to show that book to Hirst. If I wanted any money my daughter used to write to Hirst, and he sent it by return of post. I did not keep any of the receipts for the goods that I paid for. I burnt them when I was lighting fires. The big bills I gave to Hirst to pay; I paid the small ones of about 5s. or 6s. Hirst also gave me the orders for the two other houses in Blackburn Road. I did not give any price for them, nor was there any estimate given, as I wanted some money I used to send to Hirst for it. Calcutt only occupied one of his houses, the other is occupied by Mr. Cooper, a schoolmaster, or something, for the Guardians. I never asked Hirst for a testimonial, but when the houses were finished Calcutt said he would give me a present. After that Hirst told me that the gentlemen were satisfied, and they had made me a present of a gold watch. Calcutt was present when he gave it to me. After the houses were finished I gave my book to Hirst.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. I made out my estimates of those two houses for Hirst by working out the prices of the materials, and I told him that I thought it would be about £580. I used to see Calcutt at Herne Bay once a week or once a fortnight. He used to come and look over the houses that I was building for him; he was in a hurry to occupy them, and he took them as soon as the men were finished. Calcutt said that if I would get on with the job and get it finished as soon as I could he would make me a present at the finish. He gave me orders to put in shelves, swings, etc. They did not come from Hirst.

Re-examined. Hirst generally came down with Calcutt to see the houses. There is no separate account for Calcutt's, and Lloyd's and Cordy's houses. I always took the bills to Hirst. I never asked Calcutt for the money.

HENRY DRAPER , boot manufacturer, 40, Globe Road, Mile End. I was elected in April, 1904, upon the Board of Guardians for Mile End and am still a Guardian. I was also a member of the Infirmary Committee and of the Scattered Homes Committee and of the Finance Committee. Every member of the Board is on the Scattered Homes Committee. The Press and the public are not admitted to the meetings of the Committee, but they are at the Board meetings. There

are only a certain number of the Board members who are on the Finance and Infirmary Committees. Three members of the Scattered Homes Committee are deputed each week to visit various houses and I always went when my turn came round. The Committee meetings were held on Tuesday's, the Board meetings on Thursdays. With regard to Calcutt's bills for work done at the Scattered Homes or for the Scattered Homes, the usual way was for Knight first to bring in the bills quarterly at the Scattered Homes Committee and then they were referred to the Finance Committee and finally they were recommended to be paid at the next Board meeting. As a rule Knight was present when the bills were presented to the Committee. Very often there were complaints as to the prices charged for certain work; I often complained myself. Whenever I made complaints I used to be jeered at by some of the other Guardians and abused and told that I knew nothing albout building, or what I was grumbling at. The late Mr. Bryan was my chief opponent, and Grimes, Trott, and Gilder used to oppose me on Calcutt's accounts generally. Calcutt used to be practically unanimously supported except as to about three or four of us. Gould used to speak in favour of Calcutt and was always careful to vote for him. Kemp used to consistently vote for Calcutt, but he was not a frequent attendant. Gould was always present when Calcutt's accounts came up or when there were any tenders to be considered. Loftus always supported Calcutt. Ridpath, too, used to speak in favour of Calcutt and always voted for him; I never knew him to vote against him. Stammers I never knew to vote against Calcutt, and he used to speak in his favour. Hirst consistently voted for Calcutt; only on one occasion to my knowledge did he vote against him; that was when Knight wished to certify for 1s. a yard for painting the Infirmary; Mr. Hirst then voted against 1s. 6d. and in favour of 1s. Trott always supported Calcutt in every possible way. Warren never voted for or against Calcutt while I was a Guardian; he was always in the chair. The Chairman never voted unless it was necessary to give a casting vote. To my knowledge the Chairman never took part in the discussion. As for Gilson, I often wondered why he was a Guardian at all; he never came unless somebody brought him, and I often asked him what he came for, and he has said, "Well, some friends you know wanted me to come and vote for somebody so I just came up to please them." He always voted for Calcutt when he was there and as soon as the voting was finished he generally left. Gilder always supported Calcutt in every possible way. I had an opinion that there was a particular group supporting Calcutt. On one occasion, when I called attention to some work upon the ceiling in the Scattered Homes being charged 12s. 6d., when the price in the schedule was 3s., Bryan said that I did not want to give a man a fair price, and I would let nobody live if it was left to me. When the annual tenders came up.for consideration the whole thing was rushed through, with the result that when there were tenders for any building, Calcutt was almost sure to get it. They all voted for him whether he was the lowest or not. On one occasion when I visited 411, Mile End Road with Warren, Trott, and Grimes, a question was raised about

the ceiling in the dining-room, which in my opinion did not require anything being done to it, and Trott and Grimes said if I differed a vote would have to be taken; of course, I knew what would happen; Grimes and Trott voted in favour of it, I voted against it, and Warren being neutral, of course, the thing was put down to be done. I told Warren I was not prepared to go any further with him at all, as it was useless. It was two to one the whole way round. These men apparently had not come to carry out the Board's instructions to do the little spring cleaning that was needed. They purposed doing every room in every house, and I did not intend to stay. Warren begged of me to stay and said it would be all right directly, and I refused to stay as it was waste of time, and I declined to go any further. In the ordinary course there would have been 25 other houses to visit. The fact that the contractor's bill for that quarter was £600 convinced me as to the amount of work that had been done. Calcutt's bill showed 8s. or 8s. 6d. a yard for sand and 5s. a sack for Portland cement as against 2s. a sack for Portland cement that was being supplied to the Stepney Borough Council. In the next quarterly account of Calcutt's that came up the bills were elaborated for at a certain house and then there was put down "Time and materials" so much, so that I could not see what the quantity of cement was or the quantity of sand or the price. I pointed it out and asked Knight whether he could certify whether the price charged was fair and reasonable, and he said he could not. Mott said, "Every builder makes out his bill in that fashion, it is the usual thing to do." On one occasion Knight came before the Committee and said that Calcutt wanted 1s. 6d. a yard for painting the Infirmary walls with indestructible paint, but he thought 9d. a yard was a fair price, but he was willing to certify for 1s. and he recommended the Board to allow that. Some of the members said that there was a difficulty to get the paint to stick to the walls, and the extra labour involved was worth the 1s. 6d. Upon that the vote was taken and the 1s. 6d. was allowed. No. 1, Bancroft Road belonged to Calcutt and he offered it to the Guardians on a 21 years' lease at £150 per annum and to build workshops at the back of the house; the Board offered £135. I said the place was useless and I said that if it was moved the Board would offer £135 I should lay the whole matter before the Local Government Board; the matter then dropped.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bryan. I believe that Gould used to take a keen interest in Calcutt's accounts. He always voted in favour of Calcutt. The painting of the Infirmary in 1905-1906 was arranged on a schedule of prices between Knight and Calcutt, and then submitted to the Guardians; I was the only one who voted against that; they were iniquitous prices.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. Kemp was not very frequently present when tenders were being considered.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. Loftus was a very frequent visitor, but he did not take a prominent part. With the exception of seven, all the Guardians more or less consistently voted for Calcutt. Mr. Newport, Mr. Hook, and the two brothers Kemp and Mr. Mardle

very often voted for Calcutt, and occasionally Mr. Chapman would vote for him and sometimes against him. Mr. Hannam was not a member when I was there. The view I took of the people who voted against me was that they were people who wasted the public money, and that has been true.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. Before the tenders for the Nurses' Home were opened Mr. Kirwen moved an amendment that it should not be built. Barker's tender was chosen, and I wrote a memorial to the Local Government Board with regard to his having obtained it, and Ridpath signed it. With regard to the indestructible paint, Ridpath voted for the 1s. 6d.

Cross-examined by Mr. David. I cannot remember Stammers ever voting against Calcutt. I do not remember whether he was surcharged with regard to the indestructible paint. I used to know who was surcharged, but I have not troubled about it lately.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. If I did not mention before the magistrate that Hirst systematically voted for Calcutt I ought to have done so. An attendance book is only kept at the Board meetings. Hirst used to attend the Board meetings fairly regularly. Calcutt's tender for the repairs and cleaning of the Scattered Homes just previous to the Inquiry was the highest; Hirst moved its acceptance, but it was not accepted. As to the indestructible paint, I believe Hirst was quite in agreement with myself that 9d. was ample, but as Knight was willing to certify for 1s. we all thought the better plan would be to allow the 1s., saving 6d. that way. I believe Hirst proposed as an amendment that the house in Bancroft Road be rented by the Guardians for £65 per annum without the workshop. There were two workshops to be built, which were to be included in the rental of £150 per annum, but that was not in agreement with my view, as the Board did not require any more houses.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bray. Trott occasionally spoke at the Board of Guardians, but not frequently. I cannot say that I ever knew him to move a resolution. The charge of 1s. 6d. for the indestructible paint was first considered by the Finance Committee, of which I do not think Trott was a member, although he was present, as it was competent for every member of the Board to be present at every Committee, and he could speak, but does not vote. It was at the full meeting of the Board or at the meeting of the Finance Committee—I could not say which—that Trott made the remark to me about doubling the work, using the big brushes and so on I was pointing out to the Board the reason why they ought to vote for 1s.; he did not make a formal speech, he stood up and said, "They will have to get a big brush and drag it up the wall." When it came to the question of voting I was in a minority of three. With regard to the Scattered Homes, I only went into one. It was Trott or Grimes that suggested that the ceiling in one of the rooms at 411, Mile End Road, needed whitewashing; I say that it did not require it, and when the accounts came before the Board I pointed out that the Committee apparently had spent £600 upon those 26 houses for spring cleaning. On the occasion when a resolution was moved to the effect that no relative

or any member of the Board should receive a contract and do work for the Board, I voted in favour of that, but I do not remember whether Trott voted for it or not. To my knowledge I have always voted for the lowest tender, except in one instance, when Mr. Lavender tendered for the supply of boots; I should have voted for anyone higher than the previous one we had. The boots he supplied were simply useless.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I had not been a member of any public body before 1904, nor am I a member of any other public body now. Warren has been Chairman the whole time, and I have no fault to find with the way in which he carried out his duties as Chairman, except that I should have liked him to have been a bit firmer at times, that is all. He devoted a great deal of his time to his duties at Guardian; you could never go without finding Warren there; he would be there the whole of Thursday, from half-past two till the Board rose, also at the meetings of the Scattered Homes, the Infirmary and Workhouse Committees. Sometimes he visited the Scattered Homes, also the Workhouse itself—in fact, every place we had. When he was on the London County Council he used to be late on Thursdays; he would arrive at the end of the business of the afternoon. The names of those attending the Committee were taken by the Chairman or Clerk as they came in, so that whether they arrived early or late their names would appear. Warren did not vote on the question of the indestructible paint, but he stated that he thought 1s. 6d. was too much to pay and that. 1s. was ouite enough. On the Committee there was, in my opinion, a party which was a party of extravagance, and there was a minority who were the party of economy; I was of the party of economy, and I tried to persuade the Guardians that they were being extravagant.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lamb. Gilson was not a frequent attendant at the Board meetings, and when he was there he took very little interest in what was going on. He simply voted, and on the few occasions he did go, apparently he went there at the instance of some other person—it always appeared to me as though he was whipped up for the occasion.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. I never knew Gilder to vote against Calcutt. Sometimes when Calcutt's tender was the lowest I voted for him. I usually objected to Calcutt's accounts and often moved that the cheque be not paid. I do not think that Gilder has ever voted with me in that. I know of no instance when Gilder voted with me for Calcutt's accounts. When any dispute arose between Knight and Calcutt, Gilder generally spoke in favour of Calcutt, and if it was a question of prices I generally supported Knight, as we paid him to look after the Guardians' interests, and we should be guided by what he said with regard to prices. With regard to the Scattered Homes, the Guardians were not very active in purchasing houses after 1904. They may have been before that time. They only bought one since.

Re-examined. At the time of the Nurses' Home contract Gilder made a long speech with reference to my action in opposing the

contract being given to Mr. A. Barker. I knew that he was the son of Mr. George Barker, a member of the Board. I drew up a memorial drawing attention to that fact and gave it to some friends of mine to get signatures, and finally forwarded it to the Local Government Board. Gilder moved the adjournment of the Board in order to raise the question of my conduct, but eventually he withdrew his motion. In July, 1907, Hirst moved the acceptance of Calcutt's tender of £98 10s. for the repairs to the Scattered Homes; the lowest tender was Mr. Hubbard's, £41, but on the vote being taken three voted for Calcutt's and 10 voted for Hubbard's tender.

Miss ISABELLA LILLEY , Oak House, Bancroft Road, Mile End. I have been on the Board of Guardians since April, 1893. I frequently attended the meetings when the tenders were considered; that occurred once a year. I remember Calcutt's tenders being considered. Some of the Guardians used habitually to vote for Calcutt. All the defendants did, and Grimes, Bryan, Barker, and Mardle voted in favour of him, also Mr. Hook and Kemp. There was not much discussion about Calcutt's tenders; a decision was generally come to at once. I have also been present when Calcutt's bills have been considered. I remember occasionally Knight making objections to Calcutt's bills; he used to say that he had the bills but had not had time to look through them; sometimes he would report that he had reduced the accounts and then a certain sum would be paid on account and the bill, I suppose, referred to the Finance Committee. I was at the meeting on the question of the indestructible paint. There was a very heated discussion about the matter, and an observation was made that Knight was always down on Calcutt. Hirst was not in favour of the 1s. 6d., but I cannot say whether he voted. Loftus voted for it, also Stammers and Trott. As far as I can remember, they all voted for it except Hirst and Warren, because he was in the chair.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. I have only sent two people, members of the unemployed, to Mr. Calcutt.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. I could not say for certain whether Ridpath said anything about the charge for the indestructible paint being too much, but my impression is that he supported it. I believe he had left the room before the division was taken, I cannot any about the preliminary voting.

Cross-examined by Mr. David. To the best of my recollection Stammers voted for the payment of the charge for the indestructible paint. I cannot say whether he was one of those who was not surcharged in respect of that transaction.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. At the beginning of 1904 Hirst, Mr. Andrews, and myself were put forward as being of the same shade of opinion. I had been on the Board at that time about 12 years. I cannot say how many years Hirst had been on, but several. At times he was opposed to Calcutt and opposed him both by argument and vote.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bray. I was not present at the Finance Committee when the question of the indestructible paint was considered;

I was not a member of the Finance Committee, to I could not tell who was there. I know that the Committee recommended the payment of the 1s. 6d. It was the custom of the Board to support the recommendation of their Committee, as a rule. I could not remember who moved the payment of the 1s. 6d.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. The accounts went before the Committee first of all; that was done once a quarter; afterwards they would go to the Board. They were considered by the Establishment Committee in the afternoon of the Tuesday, and in the evening of the same day they would be referred to the Finance Committee. The bills were passed round the Committee, and each of the Guardians would sign or initial them. It was very seldom that any exception was taken to them before the Establishment Committee. As I was not a member of the Finance Committee I cannot say what they had to do with the accounts. There was no discussion about Calcutt's bills either before the Committee or before the Board.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. Before the magistrate I mentioned the names of the Guardians who voted for Calcutt; I do not remember whether it was Gilder I left out; I was told I had left out a name, but I do not remember which name it was.

Re-examined. I know now that the name I left out was Gilder. I am quite certain he was amongst them. From what I noticed on the Board at those meetings Gilder was a person who voted systematically for Calcutt. When the accounts came before the Departmental Committees the practice was to allow a quarter of an hour for each Institution, so that it does not give very long; and I do not remember an occasion when we had time to read through a single item of calcutt's bills.

(Wednesday, July 22.)

ALFRED REWARD , 84, St. Paul's Road, Mile End. I was clerk to Calcutt from February, 1904, to his arrest. The business was carried on at No. 2, Grafton Road and No. 1, Bancroft Road. Calcutt is a man of very little education. I kept his books for him, showing the accounts rendered. I had time sheets kept by the men on the job, which they gave me weekly. They were entered on rough sheets and bills made out and entered into a bill book, from which the accounts were made out. The time sheets were destroyed after a week or two. The bills of the Guardians were made out quarterly. A cheque would come in about three weeks after on account and sometimes in full. I collected the cheques as a rule from the Guardians' office and took them to Calcutt. He or one of the family paid them into the bank. I have rarely paid them in. During the last 18 months a good many of the cheques were drawn by me, and I think between 1904 and the beginning of 1907 Mrs. Calcutt drew a good many. On drawing a cheque I would hand it to Calcutt to sign. I paid the wages on Saturday mornings. Besides the wages, the cheque would include money for household expenses. They were drawn on a Saturday. I should say about £90 would be the biggest and the

smallest about £40. There were other cheques for considerable sums drawn in the course of the week for other purposes—perhaps for £15 or £20 or £30. I never got money from the bank in respect of cheques other than wages. There was no purpose connected with the business so far as I know which required the drawing of those cheques. They were drawn more frequently at certain particular times soon after the quarter's account went in. There was a safe in the office used for purposes of a peculiar kind, to which I had access. I only had the key when he asked me to open it. There Were large sums placed in the safe which were surplusages brought in by Calcutt and it would remain there two or three days. I have seen another safe in Mr. Calcutt's bedroom. I have not seen money put in it. I never talked with Calcutt as to what became of the money obtained for those cheques other than wages cheques. The cash was got by "cash," "bearer," or "self" cheques. I remember an occasion when Grimes came to the office when money was in the safe, and I left him and Calcutt in the office together, as I was asked to leave by Calcutt. Grimes was a frequenter of the office. Their conversation would be as to matters which had come before the Board. I know Gould, one of the Guardians, and was fairly intimate with him as a neighbour. I have only seen him in the office on one occasion when there was a dispute between Mr. Knight and ourselves as to drainage accounts at the workhouse, and I think Mr. Gould tried to make the matter easier with Mr. Knight, and I showed him the accounts by Calcutt's instructions. He merely said, "Very good, thank you," and went out. I have seen Kemp about the business premises of Calcutt. Loftus came in once or twice during my time to the office. There was a friendliness between Mr. Calcutt and Mr. Loftus. He was a tradesman of Mr. Gould's. They did not have conversation in my hearing. The whole of this statement after the word "Loftus" is in my handwriting. Loftus called at the office on one or two occasions after the quarterly accounts had been paid. I have seen Ridpath at the office. He came mostly about repairs to his house. We were doing up his property. I know Stammers, for whom Calcutt did work. The account of March, 1907 (produced), is in my handwriting. It amounts to £49 17s. It ran from May, 1904, to February, 1907. It was running all that time and not paid. I rendered the account upon the instructions of Calcutt. At the foot of it is written, "Paid James Calcutt." No payment was made out of that £49 17s. to my knowledge. Stammers kept the "Salisbury Arms." I have been there lately with Calcutt, and there I have seen Stammers and Trott. I remained probably an hour. It would be before Calcutt's conviction. I have many times been to Hirst's house, the "Three Crowns," with Calcutt. I went with him merely as a companion. We had refreshment. I sometimes saw Hirst there. I went there with Calcutt on the Monday after his arrest, I think. Gilson came in while we were there. I remember work being done by Calcutt for Hirst upon two houses in Bancroft Road, in 1906, I should think. I was never instructed to make out a bill for that work. I believe I signed a receipt.

having made out an account. Calcutt took the receipted bill away with him. He arrived at the figure of £15, and asked me to put, "Work done as per contract." The receipt was found on Hirst. I had no knowledge of any payment of that kind. I have not seen any of the previous accounts. Calcutt fixed the prices of the items. The scale of charges for work done for Hirst was lower than for similar work done for the Guardians. There might be a difference of 15 per cent. The item at the beginning (£1 s.) is for some account renfared. I did not see the latter part of the work at Herne Bay. I saw the governess car and cob and harness spoken of. I cannot now tell you the cost. It was sold to Hirst. think the remark was made between Calcutt and myself that the value of the whole thing was £85. I should say the value at the time it was sold to Hirst was about £80. I have no knowledge of any gifts passing either from Calcutt to Hirst or from Hirst to Calcutt. I know of spirits, cigars, etc., being supplied from Hirst to Calcutt. I do not know what became of them. I have seen packages made up in the office at Chrismas time, not knowing where they were intended for. I did not look at the labels. I could make out the accounts, if I had the pass-book, showing the cheques debited to Calcutt in favour of Hirst. I made out the cost to Calcutt of the two houses in Herne Bay at £680. This document made out by me amounts to £740 6s. 9d.; the last item is 18 2s. paid to Budd for small matters and the cost of finishing £58; that is to send from London, and deducting that would bring it near the amount I gave you, £680. Trott has been to my office twice or more. I did not hear conversations between him and Calcutt, as I believe I was asked by Calcutt to leave the office. He came once about borrowing a pony. I never saw Warren at the office. I do not think I have seen him with Calcutt. Mrs. Calcutt and myself met him at Southend recently. He asked Mrs. Calcutt after her health end the child, and if she was staying there. The prosecution of Calcutt was then on, I believe. Nothing was said about the prosecution by anybody in my hearing. I do not think he could have talked to Mrs. Calcutt without my hearing. I had this postcard (produced), dated May 7, 1908, from Warren: "Dear Sir,—I shall be glad if you will call when next passing." I had not personally had any business with Warren. The date of the postcard is the date Calcutt pleaded guilty. I did not go to Warren in pursuance of that request, and have had no communication with him. I have had two letters from him since my examination, which I handed to the Treasury solicitors. One, dated May 14, 1908, states: "A friend of mine is talking about removing to Southend. If you happen to know a nice little house near the sea, I shall be obliged if you will let me have Particulars." I did not know of any houses near the sea. I do not live at Southend. I did not answer the letter. There was a conversation between Gilson and Calcutt at the "Three Crowns"; I did not hear what was said; they moved to another position in the bar. On another occasion I was asked by Mr. Calcutt to get a cab and go to Oxford Street and pick up Gilson. It was on a very foggy night I went, but Gilson had left previously. I think the business then on

hand was about the indestructible paint. Gilder and Calcutt had connection with the property. We did the repairs for his house in Bridge Street, Granby Street, Oxford Street, and I am not sure it was not Jamaica Street. There was an account spoken of for work amounting to £70 or £80 in the case of Gilder. That was entirely distinct from the other job—the rents. The work was spread over two years and begun, I think, in 1904. I made out an account in respect of the work. It might be six months previous to the Inquiry or about the time of the Inquiry. It was added to from time to time. It was £70 odd, I believe. I could not say when it was delivered. As far as I know no payment has been made in respect of that account. I should know in the ordinary course, and it would be scratched off the bill book. After the Inquiry I had a conversation with Calcutt about it. Gilson often came to the office. I do not know what the conversations were between him and Calcutt. They went out together. I remember a small parcel being left at the office for Calcutt. I do not know by whom. It was about three inches by three inches. I handed it to Calcutt. It was a small box, I should imagine, and might contain £25. It might have been early in 1907. I first heard there was likely to be an Inquiry into the affairs connected with the Guardians about February of the same year. We destroyed the books in January, 1907, at Bancroft Road. Previous to that, when I shifted from the office, I had another clear out of all old papers and books previous to 1904. Calcutt was not present when they were destroyed. He gave me the instructions. I began in 1907 to keep a new set of books, and the books burnt in 1907 contained the entries of the accounts of the Guardians. The old, rough book would have shown some matters of cost, but very rough. Alterations were made before they were copied into the bill book. On destroying our sheets to go into the bill book, and previous to making out the account, the items were increased, as a rule—generally in red ink.

Cross-examined by Mr. Coumbe. I was Calcutt's clerk. My hours were from 6.30 a.m. till 6.30 to 7 p.m. I had a dinner hour from one to two. I used to measure up the Guardians work at times with Mr. Knight. I should say it was within the last two years that the question was raised by Mr. Knight as to the time sheets. I believe Calcutt was not in when Gould called at the office. There was a Trade Union clause in the contracts. I showed them to Gould. He examined them without making a comment. I was not there in 1903. I saw Calcutt regularly before and after the Inquiry. He was very much worried before the Inquiry and after. There was nothing extraordinary about him and he went about his work in the ordinary way.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. I did not often see Kemp on the premises. At one time he came about purchasing a horse, I believe, and, probably, about repairs to his mother's house. Calcutt had a permanent staff of about 20 workmen, increased to 50 or 60 during the busy time. They would be paid in cash from the bank. I do not know of any time when the cheque for wages on a Saturday was over £90 or £100.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. Loftus came once or twice. I think it is wrong that I said before the magistrate, "I do not remember seeing him at the office." I cannot fix the dates. I was a confidential friend of Calcutt's and visited him at his private house. I knew Mrs. Calcutt and have seen her since his arrest and done what I could to help her.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. I never habitually used the "Three Crowns." I used to go there with Calcutt soon after I entered his employment. It was usually in office hours. I am a builder's estimating clerk. I did not inspect the repairs after they were done. I was in Calcutta employment in 1904. In regard to excavation, the longer the drain the more excavation. We do not, as a rule, charge anything else than 1s. a piece for kitchen paper unless specified by the customers. This item refers to 25, Bowdon Street, October 5, 1907. It is leading out of Bow Road. It is 6d. a piece for paper and 6d. a piece for hanging. To an ordinary customer I would charge about 10s. 6d. I do not know what the paper cost. It would be necessary in many of these cases to see the work and what had been done in order to see whether the charge was usual or not. I have had no experience in buying, selling, or valuing horses, carts, or harness. The cob I took to be in good condition and the governess car was practically new. I made no deduction for wear and tear. Calcutt bought another vehicle soon after he sold the cob and governess car.

Cross-examined by Mr. Edwards. Trott at one time supplied Calcutt with sand.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I have gone to Southend every week to see Calcutt since he has been in trouble and spent a week there last August. I have heard that Warren has gone to live there. I made alterations in the bill book of the same character as those in the rough book—adding on to items. The bills sent into the Guardians were exact copies of the bill book. If the bills contained entries of materials as being supplied which were never in fact supplied, such entries must have been taken from the bill books. The bill books were made out by me through Calcutt's instructions. There were no entries, to my knowledge, of materials not supplied. I must have known it. The books were destroyed because Calcutt said, owing to alterations made from time to time in them, it was best for them not to be in evidence, and I destroyed them on instructions, knowing the reason for doing so.

Cross-examined by Mr. Matlinson. Gilder spoke to me on occasions about his account, which may have been early in 1906. When Knight went round measuring he had not a copy of my bill book to check. My account was rendered quarterly.

Re-examined. The alterations in the books were dishonest. Calcutt gave me a reason for making the alterations.

By Mr. Bodkin. This paper is a correct list of the cheques payable to Hirst, which appear debited in Calcutt's pass-book under that name. Other than the Herne Bay cheque, the amount is £276 4s. 1d. and the Herne Bay cheque £656 4s. 9d.

BENJAMIN CATMUR , 21, Cottage Grove, Bow. I have been clerk to the Mile End Guardians for 10 years. I know all the defendants. The elections are triennial and the whole Board goes out of office each three years. Bryan, Gilson, Gould, Hirst, and Warren were the only ones who were Guardians in 1901. In 1904 they were members of the Board for the period ending 1904. For the period ending April, 1907, there were Bryan, Gilder, Gilson, Gould, Bridens, Hirst, Kemp, Loftus, Ridpath, Stammers, Trott, and Warren. At the election of 1907, of the ten forming the present Board there are of the defendants Gould, Bridens, Hirst, Kemp, Loftus, Ridpath, Stammers, Trott, and Warren. Bryan resigned in 1906 and died the following November. His place was not filled till 1907. The majority of the Scattered Homes were acquired rather later that 1899. Up to 1899 Crow was employed to do jobbing work for the Guardians and in connection with him I got to know Calcutt, who succeeded Crow in doing that work. Up to July, 1903, there was no fixed scale of prices for jobbing work. Mr. John Mackenzie Knight was in the employ of the Guardians as architect and surveyor to the Board. He had been in the service of the old elected Mile End Vestry. His remuneration was a percentage of the net amounts paid to the builder. He was not precluded from private work. In addition to three sets of premises—the Infirmary, the Workhouse, and the Scattered Homes—the Guardians acquired land at North Weald, Essex, which was vacant land in 1904, except the building on it which was used as a farmhouse for another purpose. Also there were 24 houses purchased or rented by the Guardians. One of them, 5, St. Helen's Terrace was leased from Hirst in November, 1902. The houses are used as homes for pauper children of Mile End. From 1899 up to Calcutt ceasing to work for the Guardians, Calcutt did all the jobbing to the 24 houses. The total amount from Michaelmas, 1899, to Lady Day, 1907, paid by the Guardians to Calcutt was £24, 580, which includes besides jobbing work for the Scattered Homes, work done at the Infirmary and Workhouse. Certain work was done to the Homes which were not placed to revenue, but were treated at capital account—as loans on which interest would be debited to the Guardians' account, representing £1, 540. £950 was the purchase money of 46 and 48, Grove Road—ground rent £4 10s. each; £189 per annum is cost of repairs. Of the 15 houses in the table the average rent per house is £57 and the amount of repairs £52 per annum each house. There are many instances each in which the amount expended in repairs exceeds the amount of rent. I remember identifying eight of Calcutt's bills from April, 1905, to January, 1907. They total £2, 801 1s. 1d. They were put before Mr. Knight, the Establishment Committee, the France Committee, and the Board. Knight checked off in the aggregate £36 12s. 7d. The bills represent work done in the Scattered Homes from 1905 and 1906. Between 1899 and Michaelmas, 1907, there was paid to Calcutt on account of contract price £3, 618 and for extras £555. Advertisements were inserted in the newspapers for tenders

and the tenders were opened at a Board meeting. On January 29, 1903, the Guardians were contemplating building a disinfecting home. The tenders were opened and read, the lowest being £196 and the highest £429; Calcutta was £276, and that was accepted. In September, 1903, there was the question of whitewashing the Infirmary, for which Knight certified £371. A committee was appointed consisting of Andrews, Barker, Gould, Hirst, Kemp, Warren, and Mr. clark Hallam. On October 22 the Committee reported that, having had before them Knight, the architect, and Calcutt, the builder, and having gone very fully into the matter, they came to the conclusion that fairness would be shown all round by allowing Calcutt 4 1/2 d. per yard on the walls and 5d. on the ceiling. This was adopted without devision, and £442 6s. 5d. was paid to Calcutt in respect of that account. On the same day a report was ordered to be made to the Local Government Board that £442 had been paid to Calcutt on the certificate of the architect. In September, 1904, the new Board would be in operation. On September 22 there was a question of repairs to the Workhouse dining-hall. There were present at the meeting Warren (in the chair), Bryan, Draper, Gilder, Gilson, Gould, Grimes, etc. The whole Board of 24 were present, including the defendants. Calcutt's tender (£98 15s.) was accepted and sealed. On the same day the question of the bathrooms in Tredegar Square Was discussed. The tenders were: Calcutt, £398 10s.; Herd and Co., £348; W. J. Brown, £370; J. and W. T. Inkpen, £419. Calcutt's tender was accepted. On November 2, 1904, teners were considered for painting the Infirmary. There were 11 tenders, ranging from £315 to £515; Calcutt's for £365 was accepted. On December 22, 1904, tenders were considered for painting outside of Workhouse, etc.; there were four tenders, from £240 to £69; Calcutt's for £136 was accepted. For removing the partition at waiting room Calcutt was successful at £98, against the lowest at £85. On the same day for painting the interior of Infirmary Calcutt was accepted at £149 against Barker £185, Richards £113, and Johnton £119. So that on that day Calcutt's three tenders were in the aggregate £116 higher than the lowest. On the same day there was the question of erecting a new Nurses' Home. There were 15 tenders ranging from £7, 276 to £8, 955. Barker tendered at £7, 536 and Calcutt at 7, 667. Barker succeeded on this, and Calcutt's tender was not even moved. George Barker was a bunder, and W. A. Barker acted as clerk to his father George, who carried on business at Settle Street, Whitechapel. The Local Government Board refused their sanction to the erection of the Home. On December 22 the Guardians passed a vote of censure on Mr. Knight on the way the work was done by him. A dinner was given to him shortly after in the old ladies' tea room at the Workhouse. On April 6. 1905, there was a question of alterations to the stone-breaking shed, for which there Were three tenders—Crisp, £62; Syrmes, £72; and Calcutt, £78, and the latter was accepted. On January 9, 1906, the question of varnishing the Infirmary walls, and the price to be paid for indestructible paint, came before the board. To the proposition to pay Calcutt's

charge of 1s. 6d. a yard an amendment was proposed to pay only 1s.; three voted for this amendment and nine against. Those who voted for the amendment were Draper, Kirwen, and Miss Lilley, and those against it Bryan, Chapman, Gilder, Gilson, Grimes, Hook, Loftus, Mardle, Trott and Valentine. The Guardians who voted for the 1s. 6d. a yard were surcharged with the sum of £197 0s. 6d., representing 6d. per yard on 7, 881 yards. That gave rise to the Inuiry and the report of the Inspector. On March 9, 1906, there was a report from the Dispensary and Infirmary Committee recommending that the Infant Block in the old school premises required to be washed and cleaned and recommending that the whole of the work be done by the inmates of the workhouse under the superintendence of the handy man—i. e., for nothing except for material. It was discussed by the Board and it was moved that the report be received. Later, Grimes proposed an amendment, seconded by Bryan, that the words, "that the work will be done by the inmates," be omitted, when five voted for it and 11 against. A further amendment was proposed by Gould that the clause be referred back to the Committee to ascertain what the cost of the work would be on the basis of the prices submitted by Calcutt; this was seconded by Trott; eight voted for it and 10 against. On February 14, 1907, a letter from Calcutt was read at the Board offering to do some granolithic paving at £29 10s. It was moved and adopted that he should do the work. The same day the painting of the Isolation Hospital was considered, and Calcutt's offer to do the work for £38 10s. was accepted after discussion and amendments. I do not think it was then known that there would be an Inquiry. On the same day tenders were considered for repairs at 64, Tredegar Square; Calcutt's tender was £68 15s., Brown's £65, Luton's £59. Calcutt had a majority of 11. Luton's was the lowest except Brown's. On July 18, 1907, tenders were considered for repairs to Scattered Homes. Hubbard tendered at £41, Jarvis at £44 10s., Hartley £47 10s., Cal-cutt £98. Only three voted for Calcutt and 10 for Hubbard; that was four days before the Inquiry. On the same day tenders were considered for the whitewashing of the Workhouse; Richardson tendered at £33, Harford £35, Calcutt £48; eight Guardians voted for Richardson and one for Calcutt.

To the Court. It is very difficult to say, with regard to the Board elected in 1907, whether they were acting on orders or were frightened by the arrival of the Inquiry, or whether it was new blood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Coumbe. Gould was always on the Finance Committee, also on the School Visiting Committee and the Work-house Visiting Committee in 1904. He was on the Workhouse and Finance Committees from 1904 to 1907. The names of those voting were not taken on Committees. Warren, Hirst, Gouta, Bryan, and George Barker were on the Finance Committee. The bills finally came before the Board, the members of which, knowing they had been considered first by the Establishment Committee, and subsequently by the Finance Committee, would ordinarily pass them without question. There is a record of the attendance

of members of the Finance Committee, but I think not as to other Committees. I think Gould took a fair interest in matters. I was usually present at different debates in regard to getting tenders, etc.; members would be influenced in voting for Calcutt and others because they were local men. Tenders were always opened before the full Board. I believe it was generally understood that Calcutt employed the unemployed and that influenced, I suppose, the votes of many Guardians. I never heard Gould say, concerning Knight, "Why did not you read it to Calcutt?" or "Why did not Calcutt get the order?" or that "We do not want law," and "We could get out of it by paying." I remember Gould saying, "I will not have Mr. Knight coming here and dictating what shall be put on our minutes. We can put what we like on our minutes."

Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. I think a Mr. Chapman came with Loftus and asked me to take out the details in their presence when Calcutt's contracts were being considered. I think this is the paper. On March 15, 1906, there was a question of the acceptance of tenders from a Mr. Grove and a Mr. Joseph. There was a proposal that no son, or near relative of any member of the Board should receive a contract, in favour of which Loftus voted with Mr. Draper, Miss Lilley, and Mr. Steadman. The Guardians belonged to different political parties.

(Thursday, July 23.)

BENJAMIN CATMUR , recalled. Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. There was a report of the Scattered Homes Committee on September 8, 1904, and, on coming before the Board, there was an amendment, proposed and seconded, that no houses be taken under the said recommendation. I have no recollection as to who proposed the amendment.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bryan. The Arbitration proceedings respecting Calcutt's charges took place in September, 1903; the Mr. Kemp who was on the Committee was not Kemp the defendant. The latter was not a member at that time; he did not join the Board till 1904. I have no recollection that Kemp was one of those who moved that the Nurses Homes should not be built, neither have I any knowledge that he voted against Barker.

Cross-examined by Mr. David. Stammers was one of those who were surcharged in respect of the indestructible paint. I cannot say off-hand whether he was present when the vote of censure was given. He was not present at the Board meeting. I cannot tell from memory whether he has not on several occasions voted against Calcutt.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. I have seen the Scattered Homes; they were in most part old houses, and the greater number of them required a considerable amount of repair. There was a visitors' book kept there in which the visiting Guardians made any remarks they had to make on the condition of the house or repairs that were considered worth while. Hirst visited the homes fairly frequently from 1901 to 1907, but I have no knowledge of what repairs he recommended. No. 5, St. Helen's Terrace, belonged to Hirst. I cannot say whether he recommended

any repairs to that house, but that would appear by the minute book. The schedule of prices was adopted in July, 1903. I cannot say whether Hirst voted on that occasion; he was there some time during the meeting; he used to leave early in the evening. The division lists show that besides the defendants and Mr. Bryan, many Guardians, against whom no suggestion would be made, voted on the same side as the defendants. There are some occasions upon which Calcutt's tenders, which were accepted, were the lowest. In July, 1907, some tenders were before the Board for repairs to the Scattered Homes, and there was a motion that Calcutt's tender should be accepted. It was known at that time that there was to be an Inquiry and that Calcutt's tender would be one of the subjects inquired into. It was generally considered that the systematic adoption of Calcutt's tenders was going to be inquired into. Calcutt's tender that was proposed to be accepted was ridiculously in excess of anybody else's. His tender was £98 10s. and Hubbard's, the accepted tender, was £41.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bray. Trott was present at the meetings on October 5, 1905, September 7, 1905, and July 13, 1906. There was an occasion in 1903 when Knight took exception to some things in Calcutt's charges, when there was an arbitration. Knight took Calcutt's bills and occasionally made corrections. If Calcutt accepted there was no further discussion. There were only two occasions when Calcutt took exception to the corrections. They were the only occasions when it was drawn directly to the attention of the Board. I do not know whether Trott voted for the 1s. 6d. for the indestructible paint or not. In March, 1906, Mr. Peacock proposed a resolution that no relative of any member of the Board should receive a contract to do work for any member of the Board. Trott voted for that; nine voted for it and 12 against.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bigham. On April 6, 1905, there were 20 members present when Calcutt's tender was considered, which, on that occasion was higher; eight of them were these defendants and Bryan and Grimes. On another instance, September 22, 1904, there were 23 in all; nine defendants and Warren and Grimes and Bryan. On one occasion a resolution was passed with reference to the giving of orders without specific instructions from the Guardians. I think the general impression was that Knight had given the order for the indestructible paint without the permission of the Guardians, and, as a result, it formed part of the report.

Cross-examined by Mr. Lamb. Gilson was a very infrequent attendant at the Board meetings. When he was there he rarely took part in the discussions before the Board.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. At this distance of time I cannot remember who was present or how they voted, except as recorded on the books. If any Guardians was dissatisfied, one Guardian was sufficient to demand a division. The Board would sit till eight or nine or even later on occasions. The Guardians preferred to give out work within the district. There was a great deal of distress at

the time of the indestructible paint incident, and there were deputations waiting upon me to urge the Guardians to find work for the starving people.

Re-examined. On the resolution of March, 1906, that no son or relative of a member should receive a contract to the Board, Bryan, Chapman, Gilder, Gilson, Grimes, Hirst, Hook, J. E. Kemp, Mardle, Stammers and Valentine voted against Barker.

EDWIN HENRY KIRWEN (a witness on the depositions) put in formally for cross-examination.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. I was a Guardian continuously from 1900. I have not attended constantly the meetings of the Board; I generally used to attend the afternoon part of the meeting. I mentioned before the magistrate that there were certain persons who always voted for Calcutt. With regard to Hirst, I made the proviso that he did not always vote. With regard to the indestructible paint, Hirst objected to the 1s. 6d., but I cannot say now whether he voted or not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. When any voting took place upon any matter, and a division was asked for, the division would be taken directly after the voting took place.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bray. When Warren was in the chair he seldom took part in any discussion; he very seldom voted.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. I have no knowledge of Knight, being ordered to give a certificate for that which he had disapproved of with the exception of the indestructible paint. The architects' certificate would be presented to the Finance Committee, the Finance Committee would probably report to the Board, and consequently I should take the Finance Committee's report. By virtue of my office I was on the Finance Committee, but I never attended it.

Cross-examined by Gould (in the temporary absence of his counsel). I have known you about 25 years. I have been Chairman of the Mile End Progressive Executive for a great many years. You were the hon. sec. for about 20 years and you were in charge of the election office for Mr. F. N. Charrington and Mr. Hollington at their election on the London County Council in 1902 and 1905; you were also in charge ol the office when Mr. Strauss and Mr. Siegel were elected in 1898 and 1901. You were also in charge for Mr. Strauss, who was elected in 1904. You were election agent for the late Mr. Goddard Clarke for Parliament in 1900; also hon. agent to Mr. Strauss in 1906. I suppose during that time you have had large sums of money in your possession; I do not actually know. I believe the returns you made have always been honest and true. You have also been Secretary of the Progressive Club for 10 years up to 1900. I never heard Knight at any meeting of the Board say that he was allowing more for work that was done than he should, or had any right to allow. I never heard him inform the Board that he was allowing for work that had not been done; nor do I remember that he ever suggested to the Board that he was being forced by any member to allow any more than he ought to allow. I heard you say that knight had no right to come and dictate to the Board as to what

should be put on the minutes; that was on the night when the indestructible paint was discussed. I am not aware that you did not vote for the indestructible paint; I differ with you. You did vote. I do not know that I heard you say to Knight, "We do not want law—we can get out by paying."

Re-examined. When the 9d. for the indestructible paint was suggested instead of 1s. 6d. I made an observation to the Board that the London County Council were doing the same work for 6 1/2 d.

JOHN KINSEY KNIGHT , civil engineer, Wanstead. I have been for 23 years surveyor to the old Vestry of the Hamlet of Mile End New Town. I was architect to the Mile End Board of Guardians 20 years ago; after an interim of 10 years. I was reinstated in 1899 upon the terms that I might take private work, and after 1903 I was paid by a percentage. Shortly after my appointment I learned that the Guardians were acquiring some premises for Scattered Homes and in 1906 or 1907 I surveyed some of those Homes; that was after the whole lot had been acquired. I was never required to survey or report upon any of the houses they acquired. I only reported upon those they did not acquire. There were two that they did not acquire. Nearly all the work for the Scattered Homes was done by Calcutt; I will not say all. I was never consulted beforehand as to whether work was necessary. My part was the giving of the orders for the carrying out of the alterations by Calcutt. The accounts were rendered quarterly; they came before the two Committees before going to the Board. Very frequently I received the account on the morning of the meeting. Sometimes I had it two or three days before. I had to see that the work had been done and to see also that the prices were in accordance with any schedule there was and to call attention to any overcharge. I then reported to the Committee and called attention, to certain items marked in the margin and which I considered were excessive charges. I always complained about the shortness of time allowed. I used to say, "I only got this account this morning, how is it possible for me to say whether it is a proper account or not?" In reply to that the Committee would say, "Well, give him something on account." Gould always would insist on a payment on account being made. The sum they suggested on account was always higher than what I suggested. Then I went through the work and reported at the next Committee. I was not always able to check the charge, as much of it was "time and material." I could get no time sheets. I reported that to the Scattered Homes Committee and on one occasion when I reported it to the Board the Chairman (Warren) said, "The time sheets have been destroyed." In the result they were put to the Committee and passed. It was in the early part of 1900 that I first began to criticise Calcutt's charges. I then told the Guardians that the charge was excessive and I wanted to let him sue them. That was for work done at the Scattered Homes. That was the time that I first reported to the Board that I could not get any time sheets. Gould was present at that meeting and said. "We do not want any law—we know very well we can get out of it now by paying. If we go to law it will cost a lot more," and the account

was passed. In October, 1903, an alteration was made in the method of dealing with Calcutt's accounts. In July, 1903, tenders were invited for a schedule of prices; up to that time there was no schedule to regulate the prices of the jobbing work. I called the attention of the Board to that fact, and, in consequence, tenders were asked for. In the case of any other employer, municipal or private, the tenders would be sent to the architect, and I should have been able to check whether the prices were reasonable or not, but when the tenders came up I was not asked to look at them, neither was I present when they were dealt with. I knew nothing about the list of prices before the resolutions were passed accepting them. The particular complaint immediately preceding the advertisement in July, 1903, was the charges for time and material. There had been some work done at the Infirmary, some whitewashing and washing down; the price charged, I told the Guardians, was £132 more than it ought to be and I certified the quantities to be correct; the Board then agreed to accept my figures and drew a cheque for £150 further on account without any certificate; after I had gone they cancelled it. The cheque was drawn for the amount I had certified. The cheque was ultimately paid. It went to the Committee and the Committee made a compromise—paid £400. Gould was Chairman of that Committee, and the compromise did not come from me. Grimes became a member of the Board in 1904. He did not allow me to take my own course as the architect. He told me to speak when I was spoken to—to sit down. Gould used to complain that anybody would think I was a Guardian dictating to them what I should put on their minutes. Ridpath was very prominent in declaring that I ought not to be allowed to say anything. With one or two exceptions the defendants' attitude was favourable to Calcutt's accounts and not to me. One exception was on the charge of £132; there Hirst to a very great extent upheld me, and so he did on the item of varnishing at the Infirmary. The indestructible paint was never contemplated, so was never put in the schedule of prices; neither was the varnish for walls included in the schedule; I never thought of varnishing the walls. When the order was "To paint two coats and varnish," Calcutt put some copal on; he put it on over pale green; of course, copal is a yellowy brown varnish, and it turned the green a livercoloured green; that was the reason why I ordered the indestructible paint. If an ordinary man was putting on indestructible paint varnish I should not think of paying him more than 6d. a yard; but, taking into consideration the fact that this work was supposed to be done to provide work for the unemployed—I have had some experience of the unemployed—and allowing for waste of time and for the fact that probably more varnish would be used by them than if an ordinary man did it, I told the Guardians that 9d. was ample. After discussion, they ultimately said that 1s. 6d. must be certified by me and paid. I said I must have that put upon the minutes, and the Chairman (Gould) said, "We shall put what we like on our minutes; we are not going to have you dictating to us what we shall put on our minutes." Barker said at the Committee, "You ought to support Mr. Knight when he

is trying to do his duty, in lieu of abusing him in the way you are doing." When it went to the Board I opposed it again, and I was supported by Mr. Kirwen, Mr. Draper, Mr. Hirst, and by old Mr. Barker. I had no idea it would be carried; I thought there would be sufficient strength on the other side. The Chairman (Warren) turned to me and said, "You will now please certify at the rate of 1s. 6d., the Board having resolved that he be paid at that sum." I then requested that that be placed on the minutes. Warren said I was entitled to have it put on the minutes; I then gave the certificate. I have frequently been ordered out of the room. Grimes and Ridpath were the two who persistently objected to my being present. Trott has objected to my being there. Hirst was the landlord of the "Three Crowns," and some four or five of the Guardians would go round there after the Board meeting—Grimes, Trott, Loftus, Kemp, and I have known Warren to be there, and I have seen Stammers there, but not very often. On one occasion, when I was in a train with Hirst, I said to him, "Mr. Robb wants to know whether I cannot get him evidence that money has passed between these people and Mr. Calcutt," meaning the Guardians, who persistently supported Calcutt—Chapman, Gilder, Grimes, Hawke, Kemp, Loftus, Marrable, Trott, and Valentine. Hirst replied, "I should not think he would have much difficulty in proving that."

Cross-examined by Mr. Bryan. I do not say that all the defendants were present at the meetings when I made my complaints, but that they were all present at one time or another. I made my complaints once a quarter. I have only to deal with accounts once in every quarter. Kemp never opposed me.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fitch. When I took up my position in 1899, Calcutt was already the jobbing man for the Guardians. Soon after I took up my position, I came to the conclusion that he was charging too much, and I complained. I complained of the £132 in writing, but I did not complain in writing about the time sheets. My certificate states that so much money is due to him, but not that the charges are fair and reasonable. I complained that I received the accounts on the morning of the meeting sometimes. I believed it was part and parcel of the scheme to get a payment on account of as much as possible before I could look at the accounts or check them. Some of his bills have taken me a week or more to check; one took me a month to measure up. If I had not checked the bills by the next meeting I should say so and put the bill back. In the first instance, I was always asked to certify for something on account, having only seen the bills that morning; on the second occasion it would have gone before the Committee and the Committee would have decided as to what items were to be allowed without my certificate at all, and then I certified upon the decision of the Committee Repairs were necessary on September, 1904, to the dining-hall at Nos. 46 and 48, Globe Road, and it was not until after the scaffolding had been put up that I discovered that the cornice was defective and that the repairs would cost over £50 and that tenders ought to be

obtained for the work. The only work that was done before the tenders were sent for was taking down the defective part, and that cost at the outside, including the scaffolding, £4.

Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. Until my certificate was placed on the bills no cheques were sent out except cheques on account. It was the Clerk's duty to see that my certificate was on the bills before they were paid over. I should have stopped Calcutt's accounts until I had the time sheets if the Guardians had supported me. I did not press for them because I was told they were destroyed, although I did not, and do not now, believe it. I always thought there was something wrong going on between Calcutt and the Guardians, as they were always opposing me when I said the charges were too much and supporting this man. I did not resign my position because I could not afford to. It could have gone on, and would have gone on, without my concurrence. He would have had the work without any supervision at all. The chances are it would have been ten thousand times worse. If I had resigned he would have got the money without any certificate at all, and there might, or might not, have been another Surveyor.

Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. It is ridiculous to say that I had an interview with Calcutt and Hirst at the "Three Crowns" before the Committee came to a decision over Calcutt's bill for whitewashing the Infirmary; there was no such interview at all. Mr. Hirst was present at the Committee meeting on October 13, 1903, about the wall paper; it was accepted by the Board on October 22, 1903, and I was present on both occasions. I cannot say whether Hirst was present at the Board or not. I cannot say whether Hirst agreed that the paper ought to be charged 4d. and not 6d.; I think it very likely he did. Calcutt never told me that he had bribed any of the Guardians, or that he had to make out his bills for an excessive amount in order to reimburse him for the moneys he spent on the Guardians. He would not be likely to tell me that or have dared to tell me that. If he had given me one chance of reporting him I would have done it. I could not report the fact that he said he had to treat them, as I did not think treating amounted to bribery.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bray. I do not remember Trott taking exception to anything I had done. I never heard that he had reported to the Guardians that Barker had taken the sand, the property of the Guardians, for the reconstruction of the schools. I was not summoned to the meeting of the Board to give an explanation; I was sure to attend whenever they met, and the question raised was what the arrangement should be with regard to the sand, whether Barker should be allowed to dig it or not. I did not authorise Barker to take it, neither was I censured by the Board over the matter. I remember a resolution being passed by the Board that no person should remove anything belonging to the Guardians without their consent. I never authorised the digging of the sand; it was Hirst. as Chairman of the Infirmary Committee. He wanted some gravel for his paths. He instructed Barker to dig some gravel and they came on sand. I suggested that Barker be called upon to pay

for it, and, what is more, I fixed the price; I said the price to be charged ought to be 5s. a yard. I measured the quantity taken out and it did not quite amount to £100, and I so reported to the Committee. I had estimated that it would come to £100, instead of which it came to £90 and something odd; they wanted £100 and they had it. I do not remember Trott objecting to my being present when the matter was discussed. I never said that Calcutt was charging for materials he had not used; that would have been slander unless I could have proved it; neither did I say he was charging for labour that had not been done. My complaint was that it was excessive for some reason or other, or the charge is too much.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. During my 40 years' experience as a surveyor I have never known any surveyor employed on the same lines as I was by these Guardians. I agree that it would seem that on such terms of payment my duties and my interests would conflict. I never reported to the Board that Calcutt was charging for materials that had not been used; but I put it the other way, that the prices charged were excessive—too much, that is for time and labour. When I asked Calcutt for his invoices he said he would produce them to me, but he never did; I have never seen them. When I passed the work of the indestructible paint I certified 7, 881 yards as having been done, and that was agreed between other surveyors and myself. The Guardians would be justified in allowing upon my certificate for the number of yards put on. On several occasions I wrote to Calcutt about not doing work which he had instructions to do, and he took no notice of my letters, and then a resolution was passed by the Board (on December 22, 1904), as a vote of censure on me, for not doing my duty, to make me the scapegoat instead of Calcutt; it is a most unjust thing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. I have had considerable experience in fighting builders on their accounts, and I have never fought a jobbing builder's account that I have not lost. If he can produce his time and materials it is hopeless. The way these Homes are carried out is conducive to dilapidations; they do an enormous amount of scrubbing, and the paint is rubbed off soon after it is on. The stairs are scrubbed down every day as part of the training of the children.

Re-examined. Calcutt never told me he was giving the Guardians bribes. The word "bribes" never passed between us. He told me that he never met them but what he had to treat them. It is some time ago now since I first thought there was something wrong; I was certain of it in 1903 when I made that special report about the sum of £132. They appointed a Committee, and that Committee wiped me off, as it were. I was certain there was something behind the scenes that I did not know anything about. If I had disclosed to the Guardians what I suspected they would have called upon me to resign.

ARTHUR HENRY WORSLEY , 14, Wallington Avenue, North Kensington, architect and surveyor to the Local Government Board. In the course of last year I was asked to examine a number of the Scatttered Homes belonging to the Mile End Guardians, and I had eight bills

of Calcutt's from Lady Day, 1905, to Christmas, 1906. Where possible I went through each job as charged for, and arrived at what I thought was the proper charges for the work described in them. At the Inquiry I gave evidence, and I also gave evidence against Calcutt on his prosecution. My evidence on that occasion was confined to one bill, April 13, 1905, £225 13s. 2d., to the obtaining of which by false pretences he pleaded guilty. Calcutt was paid £94 18s. 9d. for tiling work to the Scattered Homes. I went through the jobs and put fair prices upon them, including a good profit for the builder; and my estimate based upon that examination was £49 8s. 2d., as against Calcutt's charge of £94 18s. 9d. On another occasion he charged £194 10s. 9d., while my estimate of fair charges including profit was £118 13s. 2d. On another occasion he charged £105 4s. 2d. for time and materials, and my estimate with fair profit was £55. (Witness gave several other instances of these overcharges. He also produced an analysis of Calcutt's accounts for work done for Hirst; these, in witness's judgment, were rather low generally.)

Cross-examined by Mr. David. To examine these accounts as I have done would require some experience, such as an ordinary Guardian would not have.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mallinson. I have never had any experience in giving evidence in References. I should not think that different architects going over the same work differ very considerably in their figures, if they had had any experience. I refused to measure the painting work; it was put down in the bill, but it was not there.

JOHN MURRAY , architect and surveyor, 11, Suffolk Street, Pall Mall, said he also had gone through Calcutt's bills, and agreed with the views of the previous witness.

(Friday, July 24.)

ARTHUR HENLEY WORSLEY , recalled. Cross-examined by Mr. Vachell. I examined the properties on which Calcutt had executed repairs for Hirst on July 10, 1908. The houses I inspected were, generally; smaller houses than the Scattered Homes. I cannot say what the quality of the work was because the repairs were executed some years ago. With regard to 32, Queen's Road, I could not get inside, so I only took an estimate for the outside painting, for which there is a charge of £7; my estimate is £9 6s. 6d.

Re-examined. It is a usual and recognised thing for a builder to charge the list price for baths and get his profit on the trade discount; the baths listed at £7 10s. were charged £8 5s. The porcelain baths were second-class baths and charged as first-class baths, which would make a difference of £3 or £4 per bath. In saying that the charges for the work on the small houses were low, I made allowance for the class of work.

JOHN KINSEY KNIGHT , recalled. Cross-examined by Mr. Coumbe. Crowe, who preceded Calcutt on the jobbing work, was a plumber who lived nearly opposite the end of Bancroft Road. There were other contracts besides the ones that were given to Calcutt, amounting

in all to about £10, 000. If I had had any direct evidence that there were any wrong proceedings between the Guardians and Calcutt I should have called attention to it. Information was sent to the Local Government Board by the Guardians; I did not communicate with them. There were 23 members of the Board of Guardians, and there was some difference of opinion among them; some were in favour of giving local work to local men, some were influenced by trades union questions, others by questions of economy, and others by the desire to make work for the unemployed. There have been occasions on which the Guardians have appealed to me as an expert for advice as to whether or not work could be done at the price of the tenders, but there have been a great many better men passed over and the work given to Calcutt at his own figure. With regard to the Infirmary contract, there was a dispute between me and the man who did the work as to what was the proper amount to be charged, and ultimately it was referred to an Arbitration Committee, who had Calcutt's price of £503 and my price of £370 before them, and they decided that about £70 more than my price should be paid, which I think was too much. I do not suggest that there was any direct corrupt pressure made upon me by these Guardians, but there was indirect pressure, and they made very rude and insulting remarks to me. With regard to the payments on account, I do not say that Mr. Gould insisted on them in regard to Calcutt's bill only, but if it had not been done I should have got the account at the proper time. I made no complaint because it was an act of the Committee; my certificates were not given until after the Committee had passed the bill. I went through all the different items in the bills, and told the Committee what I objected to; then they directed them to be passed for a certain amount, and then I certified. I did not think the final amount arrived at was of such a character as to require me to bring it up to the Board. In the case of the indestructible paint and the whitewashing I did think it was necessary to take it to the Board; it was not till after that that these things went to Committees. In a general way the Guardians would be justified in relying on my certificate as to the work done; or any member of the Finance Committee; but my certificate was not given until after the Committee of first instance, I will call them, had fixed the amount. In 1895 changes took place in my office by reason of Gould's action, but I was not damaged by them; as a matter of fact, I profited to the extent, of about £40 a vear, because they took over a clerk to whom I had been paying £102 a year and they had only been allowing me £75. I had no grudge against Gould in connection with that matter. As to the method on which I was paid, on a percentage, although many of the bills were inflated I did not think it was my duty to return any of the money; my son measured up the work with Calcutt's clerk.

Chief Inspector KANE , Scotland Yard. On May 20 last I received a warrant for the arrest of the ten defendants. I saw Gilson at this shop in the afternoon, and told him tha I held a warrant to arrest him for conspiring with Calcutt and other persons to defraud the Mile End Guardians. He said, "Yes' I understand," and he was

sent to the police station. I went on to the Stepney Borough Council Chambers, and sent in a message to Hirst and Gilder. They came down to me in a private room. I told them who I was, and read the warrant to them. Hirst said, "I am surprised; I have not done anything wrong." Gilder said, "I want to know what it is all about; I have done nothing." I went on to Warren's house, and told him who I was, and that I had a warrant. He said, "Yes, I understand the meaning of it." Later on I went to Bethnal Green Police Station and saw all the defendants except Stammers and Kemp. I read the warrant to them, and asked if they understood the charge. They said, "Yes, we understand it." Some keys were taken from Hirst. I said to him, "I am going to your office to look for the book which Budd sent you up from Herne Bay a couple of months ago and a cigar case presented to you by Warren." He said, "I think you will find the book there, the cigar case I think is at my private house." I went to the office and there found the book which has been produced and shown to Budd, and a number of documents, the accounts by Calcutt to him. I showed an umbrella to Hirst at the police station afterwards, and he said, "Yes, that is a present from Calcutt, he gave it to me one Christmas; he also gave me a pair of sleeve links which I have had recently engraved with my initials. He also gave me a travelling rug and a small diamond pin, which I one day put in my coat and have never seen since. Did you find a gold cigar case?" I said, "No." He said, "I think I was mistaken when I told you that it was at my private house; you will find it, I think, in the safe at my office. It is locked, but I will show you the key." He gave me the key, and I got the cigar case which has been produced in evidence. Later at the police court Hirst produced the pin which he said he had received. That is the dieshaped pin which Mr. Harris identified. After Gould's arrest, at about midnight, I went to his house, where I saw his son and wife. After some conversation I went upstairs, and in my presence Mrs. Gould unlocked a roll top desk in which I found the gold curb chain which has been identified, the gold watch attached to it, and another chain. When Gould was at the station he was wearing a silver watch and a yellow metal chain. While the entry was being made of the property found on Gould, I produced in his presence what I had found at his house, and said to the inspector, "This is property found elsewhere." Gould said, "That is not mine. I am wearing my watch and chain; if you would like to make me a present of it, I don't mind." I said, "Before you repudiate the ownership of these articles, let me tell you I found them in a locked desk in your house at 146, Burdett Road; your wife unlocked the writing desk for me." He said, "Why did you not tell me that before? Will you tell me by what right you went to my room?" On the night of May 20 I went to Stammers' house and found the Dresden china mirror which has been produced, and the badge which was given me by Mrs. Stammers. When I arrested Warren he produced three books and said, "These are the only books I have got relating to my business." I have made careful inquiries and searched for the man named Grimes, who was included in the

warrant, but have been unable to find any trace of him. He had a grocer's shop at Bridge Street, in the neighbourhood of Burdett Road, out he had disappeared about six weeks before.

Detective-sergeant DAVID WILLIAMS . I arrested Loftus on the afternoon of May 20 at Mile End Road. I told him I was a police officer and held a warrant for his arrest for conspiring with James Calcutt and others to defraud the Mile End Guardians. He said, "Very well; is it urgent?" Can I send for my brother, who is in partnership with me?" I said, "Yes." He then said, "What is the wording of the warrant?" I read a portion of it and said, "I am going to take possession of the Dresden China clock." He said, "He gave me that before I was on the Guardians as a wedding present. He knew my wife; she was on visiting terms with Mrs. Stammers, and she is Mr. Stammers's niece." I took him to Bethnal Green Police Station. I then went to the "White Horse" public-house and saw Ridpath outside. I told him who I was and that I had a warrant for his arrest. He said, "You can write down what I tell you; I never had one farthing from anybody." Afterwards he said, "I can name the four wrong 'uns. Have you got Rowland Hirst?" I conveyed him also to Bethnal Green Police Station, where he was charged. On May 21 I saw Stammers at the back of Thames Police Court and he said, "I wish to surrender." I afterwards saw Kemp at Bethnal Green Station; I read the warrant to him, and he said, "I came up from Margate to see if I was wanted."

Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. When I arrested Ridpath I had a good deal of conversation with him. I put down all that related to the charge. The two sentences, "I can name the four wrong 'uns" and "Have you got Rowland Hirst" were consecutive.

Detective-sergeant HERBERT SANDERS . On May 20 I arrested Trott at his house in Burdett Road. I told him who I was and read the warrant to him. He said, "I do not know what you mean by me conspiring with Calcutt. I have never done it in my life." I was searching through a pile of receipts in the room and I said to him, "I am looking for a receipt for an overcoat which you had from Loftus." He said, "I never had a receipt; there it is on the door." Later that night I was present when Inspector Kane brought in the two chains and the watch which he had found in the room. Gould said, "That chain is not my property." Kane replied, "Before you repudiate the ownership of this, let me explain to you where I got it and how I got it." Then he told him, and Gould asked what right he had to go into his room without his authority.

Detective FREDERICK READ . On May 20 I arrested Gould at his house. I told him I was a detective, and he said, "I heard there was a gentleman here to-night and I was going to Arbour Square Police Station to give myself up." He asked if I had a warrant, and I told him that Inspector Rane had got one. He said, "We will wait." At about 9.15 he said, "I think we will go," and he went to Bethnal Green Police Station, where he was detained.

This closing the case for the prosecution.

Mr. David submitted on behalf of Stammers that there was no evidence against him on the conspiracy count. It must be shown by overt acts that there was some Community of intention between Stammers and some of the others.

The Attorney-General: The charges against the individual defendants are all charges of overt acts in the conspiracy.

Mr. Vachell, for Hirst, made a similar submission, and the further one that there was no evidence against Hirst of false pretences.

Mr. Muir for Warren, and Mr. Elliott for Gilson, and Mr. Mallinson for Gilder, submitted that there was no evidence against those defendants on any of the counts.

Mr. Justice Phillimore ruled that there was evidence for the jury to consider with respect to every one of the ten defendants, although he would have liked, could he have seen his way, to stop the case as against Warren. Upon a point raised in the argument as to whether, where several defendants were properly joined in one indictment, it was necessary that the case should stop immediately on completion of the evidence for the Crown, if there was not evidence against any one particular defendant, his Lordship added: The rule of law in the case of civil actions, which I do not think is often to be found in the text books, but which I received from Mr. Justice Cave who had the tradition from a very high authority, is that where there are two defendants in a civil action, if there is evidence to go to the Jury against either, the case is to be stopped against neither, because the one against whom there it evidence may in his evidence make the case against the other, and I am not certain that the rule of law is not the same in criminal cases, and at any rate in cases of misdemeanour. I am well aware it is the practice one always, or almost always, adopts in favour of the prisoner to stop the case after the conclusion of the evidence of the Crown when there is no evidence against that particular prisoner, and to release him, but I am not certain that there is any duty in Law for a Judge so to do, it is rather partly a convenience because the case for the Crown is generally nearly exhausted, and partly in benevolence in favour of the prisoner.


Mr. CORRIE GRANT , K.C., M.P., Chairman of the Police and Sanitary Committee in the House of Commons. I have known Warren intimately since 1887, at which time I went to live in Limehouse. I lived there until September, 1891, and from 1891 to 1900. I was in touch with the parish because my brother was representing it on the County Council, and I was in touch with Warren because he and I were working together in some political matters. Since 1900 I have not seen so much of him. His reputation during the time I knew him was that of an honourable, upright man.


THOMAS GOULD (prisoner, on oath). I was born at Dover in 1836; I came to London in 1859 and worked from then until 1879 at the London Docks. I started in the West India Dock at 2s. 6d. a day; I rose from that to be principal ganger at £3 10s. per week. In connection with that work I had to take on many men and pay them, and I never had any disputes or suggestions as to dishonest conduct in regard to money. In 1879 I left the Docks and started in business with my wife as an ostrich feather dyer, which I have carried on up to the present time. I have been a member of the Tower Hamlets Liberal Association since 1867; in 1887 I was appointed Registration

Agent and continued in that position until 1907; I was also honorary secretary of that Liberal Association during that time, with the exception of about 12 months, and no question of my honesty ever arose in connection with that. I was first elected on the Mile End Vestry in 1893 or 1894, and remained on until the Borough Council was formed, when I was elected on the Borough Council. I was Chairman of the Valuation Committee during the Quinquennial year and received letters of thanks for my services. I was also Secretary of the King's Coronation Dinner Fund in the South-East Ward, of which the accounts were audited by the Borough Council Committee, and no question was ever raised against me in connection with that. I have never been in trouble in any criminal or police matters before in my life. The statements that Calcutt has made, that he has regularly paid me sums of money to influence my vote are false. He has never given me any money except to repay loans which I had advanced. My voting has never been influenced by a corrupt motive; I have always kept what I believe to be the best interests of the ratepayers and the locality at heart. I have never conspired with the other Guardians to get money in any way improperly. During the last 20 years my average income has been about £140 a year, about £60, from the ostrich feather business, and about £80 from my political work. In 1899 I had £150 in the bank and a few pounds in hand; that was the sole amount of money that I had. In the year 1900 when Calcutt said I told him I was hard up, the balance that I had at end of June was £19 8s. 9d.; during the second six months of 1900 I paid in £220 11s. 2d., and the balance at the end of December was £82 6s. 1d. I always had a balance at the bank. About the year 1898 I bought the house, 146, Burdett Road, for £400; I was allowed £10 for repairs; I paid £90 cash and left £300 on mortgage. That house is still mortgaged to Mr. Harris, of 7, High Street, Cardiff. In 1907 I bought the house next door, 148, Burdett Road; it cost me altogether £235, of which £100 is on mortgage with the City and Midland. The cost of the house was £226, and the remainder is expenses. I am still paying on that mortgage. In connection with political work, as Parliamentary Agent, I received in 1892 £120, £100 for the Parliamentary election and £20 for the County Council. In 1895 I received £50 at the General Election, and £15 for the County Council. In 1900 I received £50 as Election Agent; in 1905, £30 at the bye-election; at the County Council Election in 1892, £20; in 1898, £20; in 1901, £20, and 1904, £20. Then for registration work for 11 years I received £30 a year, and for ten years £50. I received nothing as Secretary of the Association or of the Club. With reference to my loans to Calcutt, the first is £30 on February 12, 1900. Calcutt came to me and told me he had been borrowing money, and the interest he had to pay was very excessive; he said, "If you have got a few pounds you can lend more out of friendship than anything else, I shall be very pleassed." I said, "Well I have not got much money, and such being the case; of course, I should expect to have it paid back every time you get anything either from the Board or any other work." He said, "Yes,

I will promise to pay you if I possibly can every month or every two months." I had known Calcutt's father for about 30 years, and had been on intimate terms with him. I became friendly with Calcutt through political work. My father was a very strong Conservative, and when I was about 15 years of age a complaint was made by the curate of the parish that I had not put my hand to my cap to him in a respectful manner, and my father nearly killed me. As soon as I got better I left home, and it gave me a strong bias in political matters. That £30 which I lent Calcutt was repaid, I believe, on March 12, 1900. The next loan was £54 on May 3, 1900, a week or two afterwards he came and borrowed £2. and I put that on the counterfoil, making £56 in all. The next was £20 on September 14, 1900; £50 on November 23, 1900, and £10 on March 2, 1901, amounting altogether to £136, or with the previous £30, £166. He repaid that, £122 in cash, £33 by cheque on July 15, 1901, and £11 by cheque on October 25, 1901. The cash he paid me in various sums of £20 or £30 at a time when he could. There is no truth in his statement that he also gave me for myself sums of £10, £20, and £30. Up to that time, October, 1901, I had never received a single penny for interest. I kept the accounts of Calcutt's loans in a diary of the Patent Victoria Stone Company along with other memoranda. I have produced the one for 1906, which I used for 1907, the others have been destroyed every year. I have also found the one for 1904, and sent it to the Inspector, Mr. Willis. On February 13, 1902, I lent Calcutt £40, £2, and £1 17s.; he repaid me with a cheque for £44, and I gave him 3s. to make it up. The next loan was on March 20, 1903, £25. When he came to me I told him I could not go on like this. He said, "Well, I will give you something for it when I pay you." He repaid the £25, and he gave me £8 for my trouble and expense in lending him £229 altogether. Then the next is in March, £13, repaid in April, 1903. September, 1903, £30; that has been repaid at some time, but I do not know when. The next is £50 on June 30, 1904; that was repaid on July 23. In September, 1904, I again lent him £50 and £1 10s. Those amounts were repaid some time in that year. During 1905 and 1906 he wanted some more, but I refused to give him any. I told him he was a great deal better off than I was, and he had no right to want to borrow. He said that he was often hard up for cash because of the mortgages on the property that he had bought. Then on March 16, 1907, I lent him £50, and on March 31 £1. I said, "Now, I have lent you £130 and you have borrowed other money off me, and I have come to this conclusion, that I cannot afford to go on like this." He said, "Well, if you will lend me the £1 I do not think I shall ask you for any more; I will pay you £9." He paid me £60 for the £51, which, of course, covered £180 really. With regard to the suggestion that it is rather curious for a man in my position to lend money without interest, I have lent sums of money to other people without interest. I lent Mr. Algar, the Chairman of the Progressive Club, £45; I lent Mr. Palmer £20 to buy his furniture; Mr. Reynolds, of Burdett Road, over £30, and also the beer-shop keeper opposite—I used to lend him money at

various times—all without interest. In this Victoria Stone Company's Diary for 1906 I altered the dates so as to use it for 1907. On March 16, I have an entry, "Thursday, 14th, £50, Mr. Calcutt," and there is a line drawn through it showing it is paid. With regard to my meetings with Calcutt, where he resided was on my way to the club, and I met him very often, but I was never in his house more than about four times—once when I took the goose, once or twice when he was ill, once I took him a couple of pheasants, and once a hare. In addition to that I have called at the house on several occasions. Twice I knocked to get Calcutt to come in and repair the gas up at the club; another time I went into the "King Harry" and asked the lady there whether he had been in; she said, "He has just gone in," and the potman went across to fetch him; I then told him the water had come into my rooms at 146, Burdett Road, and he promised to bring the ladder and see to it in the morning. Those are practically the only times I have knocked. With regard to the bills that I receipted, I have paid the whole of those in cash except two cheques, one for £17 10s. for pointing the side and some part of the back of the house. They were paid to Calcutt himself in my house. With regard to Christmas presents, Calcutt sent me a turkey in 1905, and in 1906 a turkey and some spirits. I did not receive them with any corrupt motive. There is no truth in the suggestion that I went down to Southend in 1902 to meet him; it was an accident altogether. Calcutt's statement that he paid me £10 in connection with Warren's election is also false. There is no truth in the suggestion that when I met Calcutt in the "Salisbury Arms" and other public-houses he endeavoured to influence me with reference to the Guardians; and we never made appointments to meet. I was never keen to meet him, because he always wanted something off me. I may have said to him when he asked me to support him, "I will support you if you are the lowest or thereabouts, but I won't without." The reason I have voted for him when he has not been the lowest is because he was a local man, and employed local labour, and he paid, to the best of my knowledge, the union rate of wage. I have a list of a number of contracts in which I voted for Calcutt, although his tender was not the lowest. The first is, "Painting and whitewashing the Infirmary, £549"; Calcutt's tender was £594. Mr. Jackson, of High Street, Ratcliff, was lower, but I voted for Calcutt because he was a local man. The next is, "Painting and whitewashing Nos. 447 to 449, Mile End Road, £295 10s. "In that case Calcutt's tender was also £295 10s. Then "Whitewashing and papering the Infirmary," £316 was the lowest and Calcutt's was £365. I cannot remember why I voted for Calcutt in that case, but I think Ball had never done a job of this sort at that time, and I thought he was not able to do it; the other was a Poplar man. The next important one was 64, Tredegar Square; £58 was the lowest, Calcutt's was £68 15s. In that case I voted for Calcutt because he employed local labour, and the other man did not. In the case of the Workhouse dining hall, £48 was the lowest and Calcutt's was £98. That was started before the

tenders came in. There was some danger apprehended from the coping inside, and Calcutt had orders to do it. When the scaffold was first put up Knight did not think it would come to more than £50; when he found that it amounted to more than £50 it had to be put out to contract, but, at the same time, he gave it to Calcutt because he had started it. For the disinfecting chamber the lowest tender was £183, and Calcutt's was £276 10s. Knight's estimate was £250, and he said he did not think it could be done in a proper manner for £183. The reason I voted for Calcutt was that he was usually the lowest, and on one job he did he had lost £300. The reason I preferred paying £276 instead of £183 was that I thought it could be done properly for that money, and was afraid that the contractors might scamp the work. As to those contracts in which I did not vote for Calcutt, there is one for painting the outside of the Workhouse, Calcutt £136 and the lowest is £69. On that occasion I went away at five o'clock in the evening and did not vote for either. There are three others on the same day. Then "Bathroom accommodation, 31 and 32, Tredegar Square," the lowest was £172 and Calcutt's was £298. I did not vote for that; I was not there. With reference to the public-house conversations, from the end of 1900 to 1903 I never went inside Hirst's house; I was not good friends with Hirst at that time. On one occasion Calcutt sent some carriages for use in an election, I think it was the London County Council election in 1904, and I refused to have them because the drivers were drunk, and I felt sure by their uniforms that they were hired carriages. I was on friendly terms with Calcutt up till about 1903; after that, although he was borrowing money, we were not so friendly as we had previously been. At what we call the Arbitration Committee we had taken 12 1/2 per cent, off a bill that he had sent in; a few days afterwards I met him and he said, "It was a thundering shame to take that off." I said, "Well, we all thought it was very fair both to you as well as to the ratepayers." He said, "Well I do not think so, and some of my friends tell me that I could have got more money if I had liked to have stuck out for it." After that we were not so friendly. I never went to any of the public dinners that were given in the Board Room, but I believe some of the Guardians did. From 1901 to 1904 I was on the Workhouse Committee, the School Visiting Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Scattered Homes Committee; from 1904 till 1907 I was on the same. I was not on the Infirmary Committee. The question of the indestructible paint came before the Infirmary Committee, so I was not present, but we had been talking about it, and what was done on the Infirmary Committee was placed on the Finance Committee. My attendance at the Scattered Homes Committee was very bad, my last attendance was in the year 1904. I did not make any recommendations with regard to the dilapidations. I attended the Board meetings fairly regularly, and my relations were generally friendly with all the officers except Knight, and I do not think I ever said anything out of place to him. I never said to him, "We don't want any law—we can get out of it now by paying," and I never heard it said. Knight's statement that I told him with regard to

the Infirmary Committee to certify for 1s. 6d. a yard on Calcutt's bill is false. With regard to the whitewashing of the Infirmary in 1903, I was Chairman of the Arbitration Committee, and Calcutt made the statement before the committee that, previously to going into any of the wards his men had to take out, in some cases, beds, furniture, and the patients, and place them in another ward before they could start; then after they had finished that ward they had to assist in returning them to the ward again before they could touch the other wards; that is the reason we gave more than Knight certified for in that case, and that was unanimously passed by the Board. With regard to the indestructible paint, I did not vote on the full Board, and I know nothing of the Finance Committee, because I believe it never came before them. If I had voted for it, I. should have been surcharged the same as the others. I thought it was an exorbitant price, and I told Calcutt so. With reference to the Nurses' Homes there was a public agitation against the building of them. My name was on the bill to protest against the building of the Homes, and I was also down as a speaker on that occasion. It was not an agitation against giving Barker the contract. On the question of the interpretation to be placed on the words "nett" and "gross" in contracts, that came on before the Arbitration Committee, and the statement was made that it would be very unfair that the nett charge should be paid. The man who had to go and match the paper would have had a good deal of work in connection with it, and Calcutt was not to receive a single penny for that work, which it would take a man half a day to do. That is why I voted in favour of the term "nett" being construed as "gross"; and that was passed unanimously on October 22. When the accounts came before the Committee or the Board, Knight was usually present and advised us on them, and no money was ever paid without Knight's certificate. I have never heard Knight complain of not being able to get time sheets. On the question of my arrest, I was arrested at nine o'clock in the evening and taken to the Bethnal Green Police Station; after remaining there for about three and a quarter hours, I was taken in by Inspector Kane, and he read the warrant over. As he read the warrant over, somebody said, "Mr. Gould has not been searched," so they searched me and took the silver watch out and put it back. Then he said to me, holding the watch and chain in his hand, what he told you this morning, and I did say exactly what has been said by Mr. Kane; but, I am shortsighted, I had not my glasses on; if I had, or if it had been placed in my hands, I should have known whether it was mine, but he held it in his hands four feet away. I did not say it knowing it was mine and intending to deny it.

(Monday, July 27.)

THOMAS GOULD (prisoner, on oath), recalled. Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. Before Mr. Willis at the Inquiry I was asked what financial interest I had with Calcutt in his business, and I

said "None at all, in respect of his business." Then I was asked, "In respect of financing his business?" and I said, "£50, and nothing more." I meant for that year, but I did not put it in. I thought they were with respect to the year 1907. The reason why I said I had only lent him £50 was that Calcutt had £50 for that year, and I thought I was answering, like, the same question. I do not know whether Calcutt stated that the £50 I had lent him that year was the only £50 I had ever lent him. I cannot say whether the Inspector had before him a pass book and was reading items from it. It is not true that when I saw the Inspector with Calcutt's pass book I admitted to making the further loans. I had taken up the whole of my returned cheques from Calcutt to hand to Mr. Willis. I had the whole of them in my pocket and gave them to him. I was not present when Calcutt gave evidence and I cannot say that I read the evidence afterwards. I did not say that I meant to give the same evidence as Calcutt or to confirm him. What I said was that in connection with the £50, when he had stated that I had lent him £50, I thought it only applied to the present year and not to any previous year. I had a print of the evidence sent to me every day. I think I gave my evidence on November 13, 1907. I cannot say whether I read the print of Calcutt's evidence between the time he gave his and I gave mine. I have not very much doubt but what I should have read the evidence, but I can assure you I went through it in such a way—I was so excited over it—that I really do not know what I said and what I did. I gave the same answer as Calcutt that the £50 was all I had ever lent him. I thought I was only speaking of the year 1907. It is true that there is no reference in the questions put to me, or Calcutt, to any particular year. I ought to have said "this year," because if I told the truth that is all he had in the year 1907. I tried to tell the truth and I thought I was telling the truth for the one year. I was not talking of the previous years—in fact, I thought they were so far back that they would not have that brought in at all. I only saw Calcutt once between July and November, 1907. I swear I did not discuss with him again and again these questions about the loans. When the Examiner read from Calcutt's pass book what he had paid to me, I then produced the cheques for the money I had lent him, but I had them all right for him as soon as ever he asked me for them. If I had known that the Examiner had Calcutt's pass book it would not have made any difference about handing over the cheques to Mr. Willis. I lent him the money as I wanted to see him get on, the same as I have other people, without interest. Other persons to whom I have lent money without interest have not paid me back larger sums than they borrowed. I would only do it to a friend. I may say I was doing the best I possibly could for my party that I belonged to, and I did not lend money to anybody else who was not one of our supporters. Calcutt did not belong to any party, but I was trying to bring him into the liberal Party. I got £50 a year as Registration Agent and my business was worth £60, apart from what I got at General Elections. I bought my own house 10 or 11 years

back. It was valued at £400 and there was £300 of that lent on mortgage, and he allowed me £10 out of the £100 that I paid for repairs, so that really I paid him £90 and the expenses. I am now paying him £15 a year as the interest on the £300. It was an eight-roomed house. I was in debt when I lent money to people without interest and paying interest on my mortgage. I bought a house in July, 1907. The only house I have bought since I have known Calcutt is the one next door to me, which I bought last year for about £235; £100 of that is on mortgage with the City and Midland. My pass book shows to-day that I have not got £20. I started in 1901 or 1900—February, 1900, was my first loan. I know in 1903 Calcutt voted for my party and that he had help from some of those he employed. My friendship slackened with him at the end of 1903. After the Arbitration Committee and the matter had been referred to the full Board and they had decided that it was fair to pay £440, I met him in the road. He said, "If you had stuck out, Mr. Gould, I could have got more money than what you gave me." I never went into his house from that moment. He came once or twice to me for money; he had two fifties in 1904. When I had ceased my intimate friendship in the end of 1903 I still went on lending him money and became surety for him on his contract. I did so because he asked me for the money. He had been buying some property and it was all mortgaged, and he had not any ready money to go on with or to pay the heavy interest. He mentioned the name of Barker, a builder who, I believe, was a moneylender as well. When I first knew him he was a man in a very small way. I was not aware, till afterwards, that Crowe had done some small jobbing work for the Guardians and that Calcutt had been what is called a plumber's mate as his assistant. I knew, before I lent him money, that he had been trying to borrow elsewhere from moneylenders. The loans I made him involved a certain amount of risk and a certain amount of sacrifice, because I was doing it without interest. I only took an I. O. U. for the exact amount that I lent. My confidence in Calcutt was not misplaced; he always paid me and he does not owe me a penny to-day. He had a banking account. He did work for me to the extent of about £60. I did not pay him an cheques because I knew when he was coming for the money and I got it for him. I do not bank my money as I receive it. I kept an account of what I paid out in cash. I had a sort of diary, but, of course, that is all torn up now. It is not a business in which I take much ready money, but being connected so much with the different Associations I had always money in my possession to pay away at different times. The private book I referred to before the Inspector was a diary. I meant to have said "diary." When I got home I searched for all those diaries and found that everyone of them was destroyed except one, and that, what was left of it, I sent to Mr. Willis.

To the Court. I can only say in reference to that book, in which I said I found I had been paid back £11, that I had no book in my possession in 1907; I must have had in the year 1901 my diary where this was paid, but this was March 2, 1901, £10 cash, paid

back October 25, 1901. When I said in 1907, when Mr. Robb asked me how I came to know what he was aiming at, "Because I found something in my private book," I must have misunderstood the question. I swear I had not in the months which had elapsed since Calcutt gave his evidence been looking up my documents. I never thought about looking up anything before I went up or I should have been much more careful what I said. Calcutt did not come to see me to find out why his cheques to me were in multiples of £11. I have heard Calcutt give his evidence here, but I did not believe much of it. The gold chain he gave me, in my estimation, was for work done for him, and therefore I did not consider it a present. Apparently it was in consequence of being knocked down and robbed. I suppose he had a bit of feeling for me. Just previous I was knocked down and my watch and chain taken from me. I knew in 1907 that I had a gold chain. I was arrested at nine o'clock and taken to Bethnal Green Station. I remained there until half-past 12, when we were called into a private compartment. There was not much room there, and Mr. Kane, of course, read over certain things to us. He then turned to his desk and picked up a watch and chain and said, "Is this yours?" I put my hand innocently to my pocket and found that I had not got my watch there, and I said, "No," but I never had my glasses on so that I could have seen what it was. I do not think I should have answered "No," but you must recollect that he went to my place at half-past 12, or 12 o'clock, three hours after my arrest. I think it is rather unfair on the part of the detective officer to try and catch a man like myself. What I mean was that he could have said, "Now, I have been to your house and I have got so and so, is that yours?" I should have said, "Yes" directly. I knew that somewhere I had a gold chain. I did not know that Mr. Kane was putting forward as belonging to me property found elsewhere than on my person. When Kane says I said, "That is not mine; I am wearing my watch and chain," it is true, and I think I said, "If you like to make me a present of it I do not mind." It shows that I had not the slightest idea that it was my property when he was showing it to me. I had no idea he had been to my place and got it there. I thought it was something else he was showing me just as a sort of feeler to see if I would own to it or not. I have two other watches and chains. Mr. Kane took two chains. While I was advancing Calcutt money I did not tell my brother Guardians that I was lending him money to make up his wages. I was not going to tell the other Guardians my private business—they do not tell me theirs. I know nothing about what they do. I do not think it was necessary for me to tell them that Calcuttt was a man; who had to borrow money to make up his weekly wage sheet. It might have been foolish, I am afraid, but for a man to be foolish does not mean that he is criminal. I was asked by the Inspector whether I had ever received a farthing interest and I denied it. I told Calcutt I did not feel inclined to go on any longer and he said, "Well, if you like to lend me this £25 I will give you something for your trouble and expense and time for the

whole of the £229," which he did. He gave me a cheque for £33, which meant £8 for my trouble and so on and for lending £229 for short dates.

To the Court. I said, "I have never had any interest from you." He said, "No, that is quite true. If you will do that I will give you, when I get my money, a cheque for £33, making £8 for your trouble and expense." I do not consider that that is interest, because I never had interest paid to me each time that that loan was made, and when he promised that £8 I had never expected to get a single penny. I say £8 was not interest.

To the Attorney-General. I mean by being put to expense in lending, I had to follow him about once or twice on purpose to get money from him. At the very start it was very hard to get it returned. I have certainly not made up the conversation I have related. I can only say that to ask me certain questions at the Inquiry and to expect me to be able to answer, off-hand, all those questions, I was not able to do it; but when I get home and sit down and think, I am able to find out what the real meaning is. I was on the Board when it was determined to institute the system of Scattered Homes, and was on the Visiting Committee at first. I was Chairman of the Assessment Committee one year. I know a large proportion of the Scattered Homes was purchased from the Guardians, or their relatives or connections, and some were leased. There was no independent valuation, and some of the houses were purchased at a very exorbitant value. If I had known it then I should have gone against it. The bills for repairs were sent in quarterly from Calcutt. I knew there had been no report on the houses, and that the work was not being done on any schedule of prices until June, 1903. I was not one of those who used to go round with the Rota Committee and recommend work to be done. I have only had three days on the Rota Committee during the whole seven years. I was on the Board, it is true, and for some time on the Visiting Committee. I accepted the certificate of Knight in every case, and voted for that certificate. I never had the slightest idea that the repairs of these houses were in many cases far in excess of the rent. The Local Government Board have a great deal to answer for, because their Inspector would come down and order a certain thing to be done—that each one of the houses must have a bath-room, and so on, all of which cost money. More than once I have objected to certain amounts that have been recommended by the Rota Committee, and amongst those who spoke very bitter against me because I have not been round was Mr. Hook. More than once he took me to task because I said, "Well, I don't think this work should be done; I don't think it is required." He would say, "Why don't you go round yourself and see? I say it is required, and you have no right to come and object to this expense being incurred without you go round and see for yourself." I was not aware until the Inquiry that the average amount for repairs of 28 and 32, Tredegar Square, which were purchased for £600 each, and were worth only £300, was £70 a year on 28 and £83 a year on 32. I take it we paid Knight to do certain work, and paid on that certificate. I

have heard him say he could not get time-sheets. I never heard him ask for them. I believe Knight had asked for time-sheets since the Inquiry, though I was not there perhaps at the time, but previous to the Inquiry I never heard him ask for them. He asked for them at the Board. As a rule he would come in and say he had taken off so-and-so, and he had made out the certificate for the amount he considered to be fair and proper. Then that certificate was agreed to. Sometimes he did not sign it till after it went to the Finance Committee. I think, as a rule, it was agreed to by the full Board. He used to go to the Finance Committee to be paid, and then he would sometimes come to explain. I think I always accepted his judgment except on one in September, 1903. When the Arbitration was hold Calcutt wrote and stated he refused to accept the amount Knight thought was right, and his reason was the extent of work he had to do. Then the full Board agreed that there should be a Committee formed to go through it and Knight should go; also Calcutt. They all attended, and after we had been through the statements made by both parties they asked Knight, "Will you certify for this amount?" and I feel sure he said, "Yes." This afterwards went to the full Board on October 22. There were only three of the present defendants at the full Board and it was passed by the full Board unanimously without any objection at all. The claim by Calcutt was £503 and the certificate of Knight was £371. Knight had measured up the work; they had to move the furniture out. I did not take the responsibility of altering Knight's certificate. They put me into the chair in the so-called Arbitration and I said, "Now, Mr. Knight, will you certify for this £440?" and he said, "Tea," and he did. I did not inquire at the Infirmary whether it was true or untrue about the patients being there when the men came to whitewash, but don't forget this is five years back, and you ask me whether I have done this or whether I have done that. I really cannot say whether I did or did not, but I do say that the Arbitration Committee, on the evidence we received, agreed to the amount. The evidence brought before us satisfied us that a great deal of extra work had to be done. I can only recollect Knight and Calcutt being called before the Committee. I forget the whole of the particulars. I assumed the Infirmary people had done their duty and I take it the patients were all carefully moved before the men came to white-wash. I should not think there was any difficulty in moving Infirmary beds. No doubt almost everything had to be turned out and replaced. I think the whitewashing took from July to September. I have told you as far as I can why we gave Calcutt £72 in addition to the £370 which Knight certified for. The full Board passed it unanimously. Why not blame Miss Lilley and all them for doing it? We took 12 per cent. off the original cost and we thought we were doing very well with what we had done. I never looked to see how much Calcutt was claiming for moving the furniture. Calcutt gave his explanation and Mr. Knight accepted it. I cannot explain the difference between the £371 allowed and the £503 claimed. I do not knew whether it was after I sat as arbitrator between the contractor and the architect that I took the gold chain. I can only

say that after 1903, wherever any question came up before us and there was anything between the contractor and Knight, I always voted for Knight's certificate. The architect certified for £442 ultimately. The Board agreed that the word "gross" should be substituted for "net." The paper was for the different Scattered Homes. Calcutt was working under a schedule of prices after July, 1903. I had not a record, at the time of the Inquiry, how I voted. I know I voted for 13 in this list. I collected this report from the printed evidence given at the Inquiry and also from the minutes. I also had to rely a good deal on my memory. I have gone through the evidence very carefully since the Inquiry. These questions are headed. "Contracts, when I voted for Calcutt's tenders," and then follow Calcutt's tenders, and then follows a list of tenders not Calcutt's. Brown, a local man, tendered for £240. I really cannot say why he should not have been given a chance. I cannot answer all these questions. I was not present after 4.30 on December 22, 1904, because on that particular date there was a "share out" I had to go to. For painting the Workhouse Calcutt's tender was £136. The lowest was £69. Calcutt's was accepted. Then, for removing a partition, Calcutt, £98. The lowest was £85. Calcutt's was accepted. Painting Infirmary, Calcutt, £113, a difference of £36. Calcutt's was accepted. I was not there. I did not record any vote. I must have known the tenders were coming on. They would be on the printed agenda. I never voted for the contract for Barker. I was not there, and my name appeared on the bills protesting against the building. I never heard afterwards that Calcutt had got all these contracts with tenders so much higher than others. Minutes are not printed, and if you are not there at the time you don't know what happened. In August, 1905, there was whitewashing and other work at the Infirmary, for which Calcutt was paid £3, 629. When the account for whitewashing was presented there came along with it the account for indestructible paint. I have heard the evidence of Mr. Catmur, Mr. Knight, and Mr. Kirwen. I have great respect for Mr. Catmur and Mr. Kirwen, and I don't believe either of them would say a word which they did not believe, but on this point they certainly have made a mistake. I was not there. Had I voted I should have been surcharged; but I did not vote. I was gone. I objected to the charge of 1s. 6d. as extravagant. I do not know that it was fair to the people whose money we were administering to run away rather than vote in their protection against an exorbitant charge. Some of the questions that are put to me are very hard to answer, and this is. I have endeavoured to do my duty to the ratepayers as well as anybody else. Perhaps it was not fair. I am not going to say it was. I did not at the time of the meeting of January 9, 1906, say that Warren had received a very handsome present from Calcutt. On March 8, 1906, there may have been a recommendation that the Workhouse Infants' Block should be cleaned and whitewashed and that it should be done by the inmates, and it is likely that I proposed to refer that report back to the Committee in order to ascertain the basis of Calcutt's

charge, because I wanted to ascertain what would be the cost to do it from the inside and what would be the cost from the outside. If you employ anybody inside to do certain labour, then the people outside say you are doing a great injury to them by employing poor people's labour from the inside. I did not intend to put it into Calcutt's hands, and the resolution does not show that I did. It was only that I wanted to ascertain the cost.

Re-examined. I let a room in my house at 5s. a week to a member of the Society of Friends, who has lived with me for 40 years. My income largely depended on the success of the political work of the district. I frequently gave the preference to Calcutt on account of local feeling. I remember this Report of the Commission of October 13, 1903. (Read.) The full Board passed it without comment.

To the Court. My ostrich feather business was ready money. We have been in the business 20 years. There are no books.

JAMES ALGAR , fruiterer and confectioner, 175 and 177, Burdett Road. I have been a member of the Borough Council from its commencement and formerly a member of the Mile End Vestry and Chairman of the Progressive Club for 10 years. Gould has lent me £45 without interest. I have known him for 20 or 25 years as an up-right and honest man.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General. I have been for the last three months a contractor under the Guardians. Gould is a Guardian and an old friend. He is not a supporter of mine on the Board. I have a son at work at the Guardians' as handyman. Gould was not on the Guardians when my son was appointed. I did not receive the £45 at once—it was in £20 and £25, four or five years ago. I did not give security. My contract is for the greengrocery for the Scattered Homes. I have worked for the Guardians for six years collecting and delivering washing at so much a week or the job. I did not consider that a contract. I have also removed furniture for them from one Scattered Home to another and a little cartage. I have been a teetotaler for over 50 years.

Re-examined. I understand "contract" to mean putting in a price and getting it in that way—not odd jobs.

MATTHEW LYON , 616 and 618, Mile End Road. I was a member of the Mile End Board of Guardians from 1883 till I resigned, 15 years after. I did certain official work for the Local Government Board, looking after the business of the parish. I was also a Vestryman on the Old Mile End Vestry for 35 years. I have known Gould for 20 or 25 years, and have always considered him an honest and upright man.

Cross-examined. I am a stationer. I did not hear much of what went on at the Board.

HORATIO WILLIAM CATON , F.R.C.V.S., 413, Mile End Road. I value horses for the National Live Stock Insurance Company, Limited. I valued a bay gelding for Mr. Kemp in May, 1907, for the purpose of insurance with the company for £25. I valued it at £15, but it was insured for £20, I believe. I have seen it this morning, and it is worth less now.

Cross-examined. The horse was practically sound, and about nine or 10 years old, 15 hands—a poor little tradesman's little van horse. I have a record of the transaction in my ledger, but not here.


JOHN EDWARD KEMP (prisoner, on oath). I am 33 years old, a married man with two children. I became a Guardian in April, 1904. My father had been on the Board for many years before—also my uncle and another uncle before him. My family have been connected with the Vestry for over 100 years. My father and uncle were on the Board when I joined. My father died on July 13, 1906, and my uncle on March 25, 1906. They remained members till their death. Before I became a Guardian I got to know Calcutt through his coming to the office of my father and uncle, who carry on business together. I worked for them. They worked on building ovens and altering beer houses. Calcutt worked for them from about 1902 or 1903. I used to go to Calcutt's house with my father before I was a Guardian—not after. I went to his office three or four times. I have never agreed to act in concert with any other Guardian to defraud the poor of Mile End, nor have I received money from Calcutt. I was not supplied with any carriages by Calcutt on my election in March, 1904. I stood for a different ward in 1907. I was not then supplied with carriages by Calcutt. I may have said to him, after my election, "All right, Calcutt; anything I can do for you I will," but never with a corrupt intention. He would come to my house when there was anything on for him to ask me to vote for him if I were in town. My work took me away a great deal. I thought there was nothing improper in his coming to me. He never gave me £10 on those occasions except when he refunded for the horse. It is an absolute lie. The only present I had from him was a turkey and a box of cigars. I think I put in the lowest number of attendances at the Board of anybody. I voted on several occasions for contracts going to Calcutt. I voted against him once when Franks and Simons got the contract, and on several other occasions. When I have voted for him it has never been with a corrupt motive. I relied on Knight, who never complained of his work, and I followed the lead of my father and uncle. I voted for Calcutt's tender for the Workhouse ceiling (£97) when the lowest was £45, as I believe he had already done part of the work before it was advertised. I voted against the Barker contract for the Nurses' Homes altogether, as I did not think it necessary, and I signed the petition to the Local Government Board. I have never been on the Infirmary Committee. On the indestructible paint question Calcutt told me that Knight wanted him to accept it, but he could not as it was costing him more than his copal varnish would. That account came before me on the Finance Committee, after it had been passed by the Infirmary Committee, and I supported it. I made no suggestion that Calcutt should pay me £10 to support him in that, nor did he do so. Calcutt did some work for me personally, when he lent me a plumber on one occasion for four

or five hours to make a sign-board. He charged me £10 17s., and I told him the board was worth about £4. My partners paid him £9 in settlement. The cheque (produced) is dated February 22, 1908. There is no truth in the suggestion that I got Calcutt to do repairs to my mother's house, in which I lived, by way of payment for support I might give him on the Board. I purchased a horse from Calcutt in April, 1907—the one I insured for £20. I said I would give him a cheque for £25 for it, which I did. It was dated April 19 (produced). After I had seen the veterinary surgeon and the insurance company's agent, I saw Calcutt about it and told him the veterinary surgeon said that the horse was not worth £25, as there was something the matter with it, it was very old, and was not worth more than £15. He said, "All right, Kemp; I do not want to fall out with you. If I give you £10 back will that satisfy you?" I said, "That is what will satisfy me; that is what the veterinary surgeon says it is worth." I think a few days after he brought us round the £10 in cash one Saturday night after 12 o'clock. This is the policy of insurance for £20, premium £1 5s. (produced). It is dated May 11, 1907. It is an absolute lie for Calcutt to say that the price arranged for the horse was £15, and that I gave him a cheque for £25 so that my partner should think I was paying £25 for it, and that he gave me back the £10 on the following day. The £10 he handed me was put into the business. There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that the £10 came back to me by way of payment for support that I had given Calcutt on the Board. I occasionally went into the "Three Crowns" for refreshment, not to meet anybody—in fact, from the end of 1904 until, I think, 1906, I never went into the place. I never went to the "King Harry" to meet Guardians. I did pass the "King Harry" on my way to the Board room, and if I felt like having a little refreshment I would call in there and have it. If there happened to be some of the Guardians there, or Mr. Calcutt, I could not help it; and if he was there I generally used to ask him if he would have anything to drink, and pay for it. I have never been to Herne Bay while the Guardians have been there or the children of the Scattered Homes. I have never visited Calcutt at Southend. I have never been into the "Ship Hotel," Southend, but have been to Southend four or five times on business. I have never seen Calcutt or any of his relations there. The present I received from Calcutt was at Christmas, 1904, when I recommended him to a doctor to do some work. I can give you the name if necessary and I got a turkey and a box of cigars with Calcutt's compliments. The work came to about £117 or £119 and I think he was thankful for what I had done for him. I certainly did not think the present was sent to me with a corrupt motive. If I had I should not have accepted it. That is the only Christmas I ever received anything from Calcutt.

Cross-examined by the Attorney-General. In regard to my attendance at the Board, I do not know when Calcutt's tenders were underdiscussion. I was present on the first day after my election, June 22, 1904.

The Attorney-General then put a list of various attendances extending up to February, 1907, at most of which the witness admitted being present and voting. I did not see much harm in Calcutt coming round to me to canvass for my vote on contracts. I have seen on the appointments the canvassing of Guardians is not allowed, but I have not seen it with regard to contracts. I know I had a duty to the ratepayers. It is not always the lowest tender that you accept. When I was appointed on the Board I used my own discretion as to whether or not the lowest tenderer was able to do the work as well as the others. Calcutt had got the respect of all the members of the Board, and Knight had never made any complaint about him. I do not know that the lower tenderers would do the work so well. I gave Calcutt the benefit of the doubt. I cannot specify a single instance where I voted against Calcutt or for him. I have been at work for myself where I have been £10 or £15 higher on a £50 job and the baker has said, "For your reputation, Kemp, we have given you the job; we know what your work is," and that is the way I looked at it with Calcutt. I knew what his work was and if his was £15 more I said, "This is a man we know, we do not know anything against him." I have always heard him well spoken of by all those who knew what his work was. Knight would come into the Board meeting and say, "Well, gentlemen, I have only got these accounts an hour or two ago. I do not know what the amount is." He would turn them over on the back and say, "The amount is £780. I will certify for £600 on account." We would say, "Very well, Mr. Knight," and I would vote for it. Mr. Knigtht never complained, except that he had had the accounts only a short time. In such cases 75 per cent. was allowed on the bill, which is perfectly fair, and which any architect would allow—I do not say without examination. I never heard the Board press Knight.

(Tuesday, July 28.)

JOHN EDWARD KEMP (prisoner, on oath), recalled, further cross-examined. I was present when the indestructible paint was discussed and I was held liable to be surcharged. With regard to Barker's contract for the Nurses' Home, Calcutt said that the contract was too large for him and that he would put in a tender at something more than Barker's tender. I was at Spooner's house one night in December, 1904, with several of the Guardians. I believe Calcutt came in, and I think Loftus was there; Stammers, Trott, Ridpath, and Grimes may have been. I called in there on my way to a meeting of the Conservative Club. I will swear that the subject of the Nurses' Home was not discussed in my hearing that night at Spooner's house. I deny the reference to the £300 or £400 that the contract might be worth to the Guardians if it were given to young Barker. I was opposed to the Nurses' Homes from the start. I never heard from Calcutt or anybody else that old Barker would not consent to £300 or £400 being paid out of the contract profits to the Guardians; I never heard such a thing. On December 22 I

opposed the Nurses' Home; I never voted for Barker. I signed the memorial against the Nurses' Home. I did not hear of Barker's letter withdrawing his tender, or that the Guardians decided to take no notice of his letter, or of the resolution upon the matter by the Board. I was present at the meeting on March 23, 1905, when Barker's tender was again discussed and a letter read from the Local Government Board. I did not form one of a deputation to the Local Government Board to explain the views of the Guardians. I have never been to the Local Government Board in my life. I have never voted for Barker. As to being one of the deputation, the Board often appoint deputations when you are not there. I have been appointed on one or two. With reference to the payment of the £10, I may have telephoned to Calcutt for it. Calcutt may have said to me, "You are in a devil of a hurry; you might give one a chance." It was late on the Saturday night when Calcutt called; it was after midnight. I do not remember telephoning for it. There may have been pressure put upon him, but I don't think there was any unusual pressure. It is not correct to say that it was not more than three days after I paid him the £25 cheque that he paid me back the £10. I do not know that I paid the £10 into our bank, but anyhow, it went into the business and was spent in the business. We have no safe, and my partner and I simply keep the money that we get, and pay it away as occasion arises. We keep an account of how much we spend and how much we get. We have got a private expenses book. I think we only started this year with our private expenses book. We used to settle up with the wages papers. If I got any money out of the bank I should make a note of it and the amount. The £10 would be put down on the Monday on a sheet which was going to be used to set out the wages accounts. That sheet was a loose sheet; we have kept some of them. They were not filed. We destroyed a lot of them this year—at the beginning of this year I think it would be—because we started on the proper books. I knew there was an indictment against me charging me with receiving that £10 as a bribe. I have never looked through my wages sheets to see whether that £10 was paid into the business or not. I cannot say for certain whether I have got our wages sheets or not for that or any other period material to this question of the horse and the £10. At one time my father and mother lived on one side of the street and my wife and I lived on the other. I do not know whether or not Calcutt did any work to my father's house; he did some work for my father. He also did some work in our business—a signboard, for which he charged £9. He also did some work to the house in which my wife and I were living, whilst my mother was there, in 1906, costing about £50, and he has not, to my knowledge, ever been paid for it. He has never asked me personally for it. He has never sent in the bill for it. I do not know that at the Inquiry he said he had done work for me for nothing. I don't know whether he sent the bill to my mother or not. I have not asked her. I was only present at the Inquiry one day. I did not hear Calcutt give evidence about me. I had a copy of the

evidence every morning, but I do not think I looked through it to see what Calcutt said about me. I was away in the country, and I may have been away for a month while the Inquiry was on. I have looked through the evidence at some time, but I did not look for my own name.

Re-examined. During the Inquiry I was travelling about the country on business and I did not get a copy of the proceedings day by day. I do not know whether Calcutt said things about me at the Inquiry. When the voting on Barker's contract took place I either opposed it or else I did not vote for it. I suppose the deputation to the Local Government Board was decided the same night; it would certainly be the same night as the acceptance. That petition was signed by myself, Mr. Draper, and Mr. Kirwen. After the petition had gone to the Local Government Board, a letter came from Mr. Barker, and it was after that that the Guardians decided that Barker be allowed to proceed. I did not go as a member of the deputation. I never knew anything of the £300 being offered for giving the contract to Barker. Whenever I gave my support to Calcutt I did so quite honestly; I was never influenced by any motive.


JONATHAN EDWARD LOFTUS (prisoner, on oath). Before 1904 my father had been a member of the Board of Guardians for many years. He died in August, 1903, and I was approached to take his place on the Board. At that time I was 27 years of age. I was the youngest member of the Board. I am a tailor and for some years assisted my father in his business. I have lived all my life in Mile End. On the first occasion on which I stood as Guardian the gentlemen with whom I stood were, in 1904, Andrews. Barker, Kemp, and Loftus; 1907, Loftus, Miles, Smith, and Stammers, in the same Ward. We were the ratepayers' candidates of the Ratepayers' Union of Stepney. There were nine or 10 who stood against us. It was the Association that was largely instrumental in bringing about the Inquiry, and they took a large part in the Inquiry. Mr. Robb appeared for them. I was instrumental in bringing forward Mr. Poiteau. I helped to get him elected. In 1904 I had known Calcutt for some years. I had done some tailoring for him, he had done some work for me, and our bills were always properly paid by each other. I certainly had no idea in 1904, when I stood for the election, that there was any corruption on the Board of Guardians. I found after I got on the Board that Calcutt was called the appointed tradesman, the builders' tradesman, and I knew no reason why he should not continue to be the appointed tradesman. I never saw one building bill the whole time I was on the Board. I was on the Infirmary Committee, and the Workhouse Committee, and the Scattered Homes Committee. I was on the rota of the Scattered Homes, one rota goes round each week and there are three to the rota, they work out that each rota should visit during the quarter.

I was not on the Finance Committee. During the three years 1904, 1905, 1906, I was on the same Committees; in 1907 every member of the Board was on every Committee. As to the indestruotible paint, a report was brought up by the Committee, and the chairman, in moving the 1s. 6d. a yard, stated that they had had a letter saying he had to shift the beds, and in consequence of the material being more than the tender, we thought 1s. 6d. was right. Mr. Frank Bryan spoke very strongly as to the unemployed, and I thought I was acting rightly, and the Clerk did not say we were doing wrong. Bryan took the view that the unemployed workmen were expensive workmen. With regard to the dining hall, the reason I voted for Calcutt was this: There had been an order given to have the ceiling painted and Mr. Knight gave the order to Calcutt and allowed him to start; wher, it came before the Board be said, "Well, gentlemen, Calcutt has started this work, there is a defective cornice, and this work will cost over £50." I believe he said, "I have got the prices from Calcutt," and told them that has price was ninety odd pounds. They said, "As the man has started the work, we will have to let him do it," and so he had the order, although it was advertised. I have here a list of my attendances when Calcutts' contract came up. Mr. Chapple and I went down at the time the Inquiry was on to see what we had been voting for, and asked for those particulars, and so we are both mentioned there together. There are 13 attendances on contracts, and three annual days. The first two years I was on the Board of Guardians I was very regular in my attendance; after that, I was elected on the Stepney Borough Council and was not able to keep up so good an attendance on the Board of Guardians. It it not true to say that I always voted for Calcutt. I have voted for others on several occaaions; twice for Jackson, once for Pearce, once or twice for Hubbard, and for Franks and Simons. Those are all I can remember at the moment. Mr. Poiteau, who, I think, was elected in 1905, on my introduction, was one of the members who was active for reform. On March 15, 1906, he moved that no son or near relative of the Board should receive a contract. I seconded that, and on September 8, 1904, I moved that no further houses should be purchased for the Scattered Homes. I have always endeavoured to do my duty to the ratepayers, and was never aware that there was any corrupt practice with the Guardians at all. With regard to Calcutt's statement that I used to receive £10 quarterly, I have never received any such payment; and, with regard to the clock, I was married on February 24, 1904, and about a fortnight afterwards he gave us this clock as a wedding present. After I was on the Board of Guardians I continued to supply Calcutt with clothes; I also made clothes for his father, his sons, and some of his workmen to the value of about £78 in four years; I never regarded those transactions as being in the nature of a bribe, and never charged him a penny more than the ordinary prices. On one occasion, I think it was October or November, 1904, he had a coat made for Trott. I did not regard that as in any way suspicious. When the Inquiry was on Mr. Calcutt came to our place when I was out and asked my brother to. scratch

out "Trott" and put in "Self." I knew nothing about it until after it was done. The first bill Calcutt paid with a cheque; all the others he paid in cash. Then, with regard to the visit to Southend, Calcutt was in the shop one day, in August I think it was, we were talking about the holidays, and he said, "Where are you going to spend your holidays?" I told him I thought we were going to Margate for a fortnight, and he said, "Why do not you come down and spend a week at Southend, or spend the fortnight at Southend; I have two servant girls and a nursemaid; the nursemaid can take your baby out with hers, and you can come for a drive with us." I asked my wife, and we went and stayed there for a week in a house two or three turnings away from Calcutt's; we had only one dinner at his lodgings. We had tea there and sometimes supper. I went about with Calcutt, but I paid my share in nearly everything when we were out. On the Saturday afternoon I met a friend and his wife, and Calcutt had a lady and gentleman with him; we had luncheon together, and my friend stood four half-bottles of champagne, for which he paid. We went from Southend to Margate, and as we were leaving Southend one of my children had a bad cough, which we considered she had caught from Calcutt's child; she had the cough all the winter and died the following April. When she died Calcutt went round with me to the Insurance Company, and they paid me £2. Then he said, "How are you going to bury the child?" I said, "In the ordinary way—just the ordinary baby's funeral," and he said, "Why don't you go in for a family grave; I will give you £10 for it." That is what he gave the £10 for; it cost me £35 altogether. I have all the bills here and the receipts. That is the only money I received from Calcutt except what he paid for his accounts. With regard to the visit to Yarmouth, I have been for about 10 different holidays to Yarmouth, and three years out of the four since I have been married. I had no idea that the Calcutts were there on this occasion; we went on the Monday and met them on the Thursday morning. We did not stay with them at all; we went for a ride on the tram, the next day we went to Winterton Lighthouse, and then they went home on the Saturday morning. I paid my share for all of that. At Christmas, 1904, he gave me a turkey and a box of Marcella cigars, and in 1906 he gave me a turkey and three bottles of whiskey. I never regarded any of these things as bribes, or gave a vote for Calcutt because of them. I have my bank books and paying in slips, and my wife's bank book here. Those books show all the payments of any sort, either private or business. I was never paid anything in the "Blind Beggars" or "The Compasses." I was coming away from the Board Room one night and saw Calcutt standing outside his door. He said, "Are you going to have a drink, Ted?" I said, "No, I am going round to the Club." He said, "Come round to Hirst's?" I said, "No, I am going round to the Club and going to meet one or two at Spooner's." He said, "All right, I will come to Spooner's with you," and we went there and saw some of the Guardians, but I never heard any mention of contracts in there. As a matter of fact,

I voted against Barker's contract. I have often been into Hirst's house for purposes of refreshment, but, so far at I know, nothing ever took place there with regard to the contracts which ought not to have taken place. Apart from this case, there has never been any suggestion of dishonesty on my part.

To Mr. David. I never said to Calcutt in the "King Harry," "You bet that Stammers will be sorry that he ever wanted to come into the ring." I never heard of any ring until it was suggested in these proceedings.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General. I have a very good opinion of Draper. I have no objection to his statement that I used to persistently vote for Calcutt and always supported him. Calcutt gave me the clock for a wedding present before I became a Guardian. I never suggested to him that he should give me money, nor did I say, "I want you to give Sam all the orders you can, but don't give me anything in front of Sam, because he has got a long tongue." Up to the time Calcutt gave evidence in this case, he and I were on friendly terms, and the only reason I can suggest for his inventing that story is to get out of trouble himself. I heard Calcutt say that he bought the china clock from Harris, and I heard Harris say that he did not sell him more than one clock, which was on September 19. I still say the clock was given to me about a fortnight after my wedding. With regard to the turkeys, it is quite possible he gave me those presents because I was a Guardian. With regard to Trott's overcoat, it is not an uncommon thing for a customer to come in and say, "Measure my friend for a suit, or a coat, or an overcoat," and I did not think it was because Trott was a Guardian. The alteration in the books was made by my brother at Calcutt's suggestion. I did not instruct counsel to ask the questions about it which he did on the third day. I first heard of the alteration from my brother Sam. He said that Calcutt had been in and told him his solicitor advised him, as he heard I was taking my books into the Inquiry, to alter that name of "Trott." I thought it was wrong to make the alteration, but I do not remember ever saying anything to Calcutt about it. I did not think it was of much importance. I said nothing about it at the Inquiry, because I was never asked about it. This book was never taken up to the Inquiry; I took a copy of the account, and this was copied omitting the word "Trott." When I was asked for the books, I said, "Here they are"; they searched the place and took what they wanted. I said, "Do you want this book?" They said, "No, we do not want that, we only want the order books." This book was in the shop all the time; it has never been produced before because I have not been asked to produce it. All the other copies are accurate except that one. It is not true that Calcutt gave me £10 at the "Three Compasses." He gave me the £10 towards a family grave, and I used it for that purpose; it had nothing to do with his position as a contractor under the Guardians. With regard to the contracts, I never heard of a ring until after the Inquiry started. I never said to Calcutt in reference to Stammers. "I bet he is sorry he ever was in the ring." It was not the usual practice amongst us after

coming from the Board meetings to go into Hirst's house with contractors. What I said about it before the Inspector is quite right, but I did not mean that it was a general practice to meet contractors there. Sometimes one or two of them would be there, and we had general conversation, but we never discussed the contracts. With regard to the lunch at Southend, Calcutt paid for the lunch, and my friend paid for the champagne. With regard to the occasion when Calcutt and I went to Spooners', I remember that Kemp was there, but I cannot remember who else was there. I did not tell Calcutt that there were a couple of Guardians at Spooners' who wanted to have a chat with him about the Nurses' Home; that meeting was not connected with any work for the Board of Guardians. I cannot say whether I was in Hirst's on December 22, 1904, or whether we had champagne on that night. We have had champagnes there at the time of the elections. With regard to the indestructible paint, I heard Knight say he would certify for one shilling; I did not hear him say it certainly was not worth more than ninepence, or anything about stretching his conscience. When I told the Inspector at the Inquiry that I did hear those two statements I meant him to understand that I did hear Knight say it. I voted for the 1s. 6d. because some of the Guardians spoke very strongly about the unemployed. I did not think of the total amount it would come to. I never connected the meetings in the public-houses, the visit to Southend, the Christmas presents, the champagne dinner, or the borrowing of the pony and trap with my Guardianship. I have voted for others than Calcutt, but I cannot give the dates.

To Mr. Vachell. When the Guardians went to the "Three Crowns" after Board meetings Hirst would sometimes take part in the conversation and at other times he was in his office.

Re-examined. I voted for Jackson on October 19, 1905, for the alteration of the Lunatic Ward, and on August 23, 1906, I voted for Franks and Symons for an alteration to the Workhouse. With reference to the clock, I heard Harris say that he could not tell how many clocks he sold in a year, or to whom he sold them. With regard to the alteration of the word "Trott," I had nothing to do with it, and I have never denied it; when the police came to the house the book was in the shop, and they could have taken it if they had chosen. With regard to Hazeltine and Lloyd, my father has made clothes for them for 15 or 20 years. There is no truth in the suggestion that I got any advantage from the contractors. The reason I voted for the 1s. 6d. for the indestructible paint was, first, because of the unemployed, and the shifting of the beds, and then one of the members said that this was equal to two coats of copal varnish which would cost 1s. 8d. When Mr. Newport paid for the champagne it had nothing to do with the contract; I believe it was his birthday.

Mrs. ELIZABETH MARTHA LOFTUS , wife of prisoner. I have been married four years, and three years out of the four I have been to Yarmouth for a holiday; one year we went on a Monday and met the Calcutts on the Thursday, and they returned on the Saturday. We met them quite by accident; they told us they had been there a month,

and were going home on the Saturday. With regard to the visit to Southend, Calcutt came to our place once or twice when he was ordering his clothes, and said his wife was ill with consumption, and he would like us to go down and see her; he told us what time we could catch a train; he met us at the station, and we were down there two or three days. On one day we had lunch with some champagne; I believe it was agreed that my husband and Calcutt should pay for the lunch between them, and our friend would pay for the champagne. I do not know what, in fact, happened. We had one or two teas and one or two suppers with the Calcutts, and dinner, I think, on the Sunday. When we had been there two to three days Mrs. Calcutt told me that her child had got a cough, and she was afraid it was croup; I went with her to the doctor's, and he said it was croup. Afterwards my child had croup, and was never right afterwards till it died in the following April. We thought, and Mr. and Mrs. Calcutt thought, that our child had caught it from theirs, and Calcutt said he had always regretted that we ever had gone to Southend. Just after the child died he came to our house and went round with Loftus to draw the insurance money; then he said he would give us £10 towards burying the child, which he in fact did. I remember him giving us a china clock two or three weeks after we were married.

Cross-examined. It was in our shop that Calcutt spoke of giving the £10. He said he was very sorry that our child should have had the croup, and he said, "I think: I ought to give you £10 towards burying the child." It was said to both of us. Calcutt then left, and I think it was a week after when he gave the money; it was before the child was buried, and we bought the ground with it. I have told my mother and my aunt about the £10; I could not say exactly when, but a long time before the Inquiry. I have never heard from my husband or anybody that Calcutt said he gave that money to my husband for voting for him on the Guardians.

SAMUEL LOFTUS . I am partner of the prisoner Loftus. Calcutt came into our shop one day and said, "Sam, old boy, I want you to do me a favour," I said, "What is it?" He said, "Well, you know I gave, or bought that overcoat for Trott?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Well, I want you to make an alteration for me." I said, "What for?" He said, "Well, you know Mr. Robb might want to see your book as to my receipt; he will make a rare fuss about that." I got the book out and showed him where the name "Trott" appeared, and he said, "Well, do me the favour of scratching it out. Put it as though I had it myself," and I did so. My brother was out at the time, and when he came home I told him that Calcutt had been, and I explained the whole thing to him.

Cross-examined. It would be about an hour after the alteration was made that I told my brother about it. I said, "I have had Calcutt here." He said, "What for?" I said, "He wanted me to alter your book where Trott had an overcoat"; my brother immediately said, "What did you want to alter it for; what is the reason?" I said, "Well, he said that Mr. Robb might want to see our book and

would make such a fuss about it." He seemed very much annoyed at me for altering it. My brother never touched the book. I erased the name of "Trott" with a knife, and put "Self" in. I made the copies of the account that were produced at the Inquiry. I copied it from the ledger. I cannot remember whether I put the word "Self" or the word "Trott" in. I thought Calcutt did not want the inspector to know that he had bought the overcoat. (The witness wrote the words "Cheviot," "Chester," and "Self" on the paper that was handed to him.) The whole of the accounts are in my handwriting. About a week afterwards Calcutt came in and my brother said, "Have you shown Calcutt that alteration you made in the book?" Calcutt said, "I have already seen it." I said, "Calcutt saw it; Calcutt told me to do it, as you know." We all three looked at it, and my brother said, "You know, Sam, you ought not to have done that; you ought to have asked me." Trott has nothing to do with it.

Re-examined. My brother never made any suggestion to me that I should alter the book.

SAMUEL HENRY COOPER , licensee of the "Three Compasses." Loftus has been a customer of mine recently; not before the Inquiry. Calcutt was shown to me in the latter part of last year, and I remembered he had been once with Loftus at my house; that would be after the Inquiry. The "Three Compasses" is not a large house. Mrs. Cooper and I do all the work.

Cross-examined. I usually take one day's holiday a week, but it is not any special day. Mrs. Cooper serves when I am away.

Re-examined. My wife and I know Loftus as a neighbour. My wife has never told me that Loftus has been in the house.

(Wednesday, July 29.)


ARCHIBALD WALTER RIDPATH (prisoner, on oath). I am a married man, aged 42. I have been licensee of the "White Horse" since February last. I was for 20 years a house and estate agent in Stepney, and held a certificate for 20 years from the County Court Judge, Whitechapel, to levy distresses. No other charge has been made against me. In April, 1904, I was invited by the Conservative Association of Stepney to stand as a Guardian for Mile End. I had for eight or 10 years known Calcutt, and also Knight for a considerable time, and some of the Guardians. I was elected. I never heard Knight complain of Calcutt until the indestructible paint question. I knew what Knight's duties were as to bills. Knight complained on occasions of Calcutt's bills being delivered late and would say to the Board, after referring to it, "But I am willing to certify something on account, as the man will want some money." He would, perhaps, suggest £300 on account and that would be agreed. He would then give a certificate for £300 on account, but that would be the only occasion upon which a certificate would be filled up in the room. Then he would take the bills away, as we understood, to

measure up the work. He always had a considerable balance to certify for. Ultimately the bill would come up, at the next meeting perhaps, and he would bring in a certificate filled in for the amount which he considered was fair to be paid to Calcutt. I gave Calcutt private jobbing work as a house and estate agent up to September, 1906. I ceased to do so because I could not get my accounts in time for my clients. I paid my accounts with him in full and did not give him back a portion. Calcutt's statement that he gave me a turkey into my hands at Christmas, 1905, just before I was starting for Southend, is a lie. There was a turkey that I thought came fr om one of my clients, or somebody, and when the Inquiry came along he said he left it or gave me one and told me that was the turkey he left. He said, "You know I gave it you." I said I did not. He has never given me money at any time. There was no meeting of myself and the Guardians at Spooner's to discuss Barker's contract. I remember Kirwen's amendment on October 19, 1905, that the Nurses' Home should not be built. I seconded it. When the tenders for Barker's contract were opened in December, 1904, I moved Gladding. I signed the memorial to the Local Government Board against Barker. I was present when the letter from Barker, jun., was read offering to withdraw. I then wrote to the President of the Local Government Board on February 13, 1905. In September, 1904, there was the dining-hall contract (£98). The order for that was given by Knight to Calcutt, who had started upon the work. Knight said it was a fair price, as he found so much of the cornice would have to come down. In regard to the indestructible paint, I did not speak in favour of 1s. 6d. I was inclined to think that 9d. was sufficient. I did not vote. I had left. With regard to the land at Leigh, I was living near there. Calcutt asked £60. I paid £30 on account in the "Grafton Arms." Stammers may have been present. It was, I think, the Thursday alter Christmas. I paid the other £30 on the signing of the conveyance on February 6. My son was present. As we came away Calcutt said, "I would like my solicitor to see the paper that I have signed to see if everything is all right." I said, "Certainly; we will go. We waited a few minutes until it was convenient for Mr. Forbes to see us. Forbes looked through it and said he thought he should have been consulted. Calcutt said, "Is that all right, what I have signed?" Forbes said, "Yes; that is all right, as far as it goes." So he said, "Is there anything wrong with it?" Mr. Forbes said "No; that is all right. Have you had the money?" Calcutt said "Yes, or I should not have signed the paper." It is suggested by Calcutt and others who do not know that the land was worth much more than £60. I have offered it for less than £50 and can't sell it. It is one of those unfortunate corner plots with 130 ft. depth of paving to pay for and no road made up. I have been in Trigg's public-house on two occasions—once about four years ago and once 18 years ago. I can fix the date by the age of nay son. Reverting to the Barker contract, it is a deliberate lie for Calcutt to suggest that one of the reasons I withdrew my name from the petition was that I had been

black-balled from some Masonic Lodge. I have never been. I moved, and it was seconded by Kemp, that the public should be admitted to the Board Room on November 17, 1904. I also moved that Knight's report should be in writing, in consequence of certain things he said which were different to his former statement. I might say that Mr. Knight has run us into a lot of trouble. As to the bills, we relied on the architect's certificate. If we could not rely on Knight, we could not rely on tailors and publicans. He was paid to measure up the work and got 5 per cent. When I came on the Board I found Calcutt was the contractor who usually did the work, and that influenced me in voting for him. He was working under a schedule of prices prepared by Mr. Knight.

To Mr. Vachell. I used Calcutt's pony and governess cart on two occasions that were afterwards sold to Hirst. The pony went very badly.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor-General. I knew Calcutt before I went on the Board, and became on friendly terms with him two or three years before. We did not remain friendly all the while I was on the Board, because of the difficulty I had in getting accounts from him. I got to know Stammers when I joined the Board. I don't remember Calcutt saying here, "If I could say anything that was true, either in favour of Ridpath, or any of the other Guardians, I would say it." I had cross words with him about the indestructible paint, because I was against the price he was expecting to get. I was under no obligation to vote for him. I do not think I could have been present when the report came before the Board as to the 1s. 6d., or I should have voted, as I thought it was double what it was worth. I did not know what the number of yards was. I think I was leaving the room to catch a train just as the question was being discussed. I pledge myself that I did not vote. I wanted to catch the 7.22 train at Burdett Road. Draper objected to the 1s. 6d. He is a man of position, and I would accept his word in some things. I heard him say that I voted and spoke in favour of the 1s. 6d. It is a mistake. I voted against Calcutt on some bath alterations in the Globe Road shortly after I got on the Board. I moved Jackson to do a job againt Calcutt, to put the floor down in the laundry-hand's dining room, or mess room. I also voted or supported the proposition that Jackson should have the job to do the lunatic ward against Calcutt about three years ago. I also supported Frank and Symons. I have been in the habit of going into Spooner's very often. I was Hon. Secretary of the Stepney Association for many years. I may have been there at the meeting sworn to by Calcutt a few days before December 22, 1904. I never remember meeting or seeing Calcutt there. I remember Calcutt's story about this. There is no truth in it so far as I am concerned. One of my objections to Barker's contract was that G. Barker was a member of the Mile End Board of Guardians and father of the proposed contractor, and also that the plant had the name and address of G. Barker upon it—also, that being Vice-Chairman of the Board, be could attend every Committee of the Board and hear every member's opinion, besides having his voice and vote upon any

item raised respecting the building operations. The letter of explanation removed those objections as far as I was concerned. I remember the meeting of the Board on February 9 and Barker, sen., saying, "It is a fact that all the plant upon the job now belongs alone to me and has my name upon it, but cannot I lend my son the plant?" The job the plant was used for was started months before, and Barker said that from that time his son would be wholly and solely on his own in everything be did, and the plant would belong to his son. The work being done was the Workhouse extension. I have only seen young Barker twice in my life. Draper prepared the petition and he is the man who misstated the facts, at I thought. I do not remember being put on the deputation to the Local Government Board. As to the Nurses' Home contract, I did not think the expense of putting up the scaffolding was equal to the difference between £45 and £98 15s. Reverting to the indestructible paint, I produce the first certificate to Calcutt at 1s. 6d. which Knight was directed to make. I put my initials to it, "A. W. R." I still say I objected to it. Those things are brought before us the same as the cheques, and we sign them. The only thing I objected to sign was one cheque for Jackson. The cheque books are slid round three or four at a time, and when one man gets tired of signing he pushes it on to someone else. He goes on signing without looking at what they are. He may sign one he objected to. I objected to Knight taking part in the discussions on matters outside his own particular position. In regard to cashing the cheque at Mrs. Key's house, the "King Harry," on November 6, I never had a penny out of it or any other cheque. I did not have champagne there—the statement is absolutely false. I had a glass of wine or a glass of whisky. The purchase of the land for £60 was a bona-fide transaction as far as I was concerned. I deny saying to Stammers (if he was there), "This is a question of paying something to the contractor; not receiving anything from him." The conveyance was not executed till February. I did not take any I O U or receipt for the half price I paid. I had the deeds some little time previous. The deeds were at my solicitor's at the time, and I knew at soon as I got the other £30 paid the conveyance would be completed. It was rather irregular. When I have bought land for a client I have always taken a receipt. I produce my Savings Bank book. I drew £40, out of which I paid the £30 balance and gave £10 to my son. I see by this I did not receive it till February 11. I suppose I must have paid it out of other money. I always had plenty. I was under the impression that I got it out before. The money that I paid on February 6 I must have taken out of my safe. My son, when he gave evidence at the police court, was under the same impression that I was. When I said, on being arrested, "I can name the four wrong 'uns," I referred to Knight, Calcutt, Thacker (our late clerk), and one who is now dead. If Detective Williams had not stopped me I should have gone through the whole of the members of the Board.

Re-examined. I gave notice to the Post Office, at the end of January, to withdraw £40 to pay the balance of the land purchase,

and for some things for my son as I intended, but I spent that. I always had money in my safe. The book shows that the £40 was not paid out till February 11. I then paid the £30 back to my client's account, having used the £30, which I must have done from the safe previously. The Scattered Homes Committee proposed taking No. 473, Mile End Road, to let to the Guardians as a Scattered Home. It was practically taken by the whole of the Board at £65 a year, and I objected and refused to have anything to do with it, and some of my co-defendants here supported me. Barker and Knight both spoke strongly in favour of our taking it, and said we were morally bound. It was then, I think, offered to us at £50, but it stood empty for two years. I cannot recall what happened on January 11, whether I voted or not.

ARCHIBALD THOMAS RIDPATH , "White Horse," Baldock, son of defendant. I assisted my father in his business of estate agent for four years. Calcutt often came to our office in Commercial Road with reference to work he did for us, and I have several times been to Calcutt's office with orders. I saw the title deeds relating to the purchase of land at Leigh which he brought, and they were left in my father's possession for some time. Calcutt came on a date I do not remember, and they talked the matter over. It was the day fixed for the conveyance, and my father took some money from the safe and paid him £30. Calcutt then said, "That is right, Ridpath"—or words to that effect—"that makes the balance of the £60." About a week before I signed the notice to the Post Office of withdrawal. When the warrant for the money came my father kept it. My father fetched the money from the Post Office—I had to sign the application.

Cross-examined. My father did not tell me what the additional £10 was for—one or two things were bought for me. When my father got the money from the Post Office he put it in the safe. This was before February 6. He would not put it with clients' money. We did not talk matters over before I gave evidence at the police court. I reckon we sent in the notice of withdrawal about a week before it was paid. I believe I said at the police court that the money did not come from the London and South-Western Bank, but from the Post Office. I was about to make out a receipt for the money when my father, or Calcutt, said, "Never mind the receipt." My father said, "He has trusted me with the deed, surely I can trust him."

Re-examined. I had not thought the matter over until my father told me on his return from the police court that Calcutt had said he had only paid one £30. I cannot say exactly the date the money came from the Bank.

RICHARD CHARLES HARRY , Clerk in Comptroller's Department, G. P. O., Savings Bank Department, produced the original warrants and withdrawal forms relating to Ridpath's account.

CHARLES ALFRED BAKER , Alderney Road, Stepney. I was Secretary up to Christmas last of the Helping Hand Land Society, which had

an annual sharing out every Christmas. In 1906 Ridpath was a member and contributed 10s. a week. On the sharing out I paid him by cash on December 18, 1906, £23 14s. 10d.

GUSTAV SELIGSOHN , Leigh-on-Sea, house and estate agent. Ridpath instructed me to sell a corner plot of land for him about January last and said, "If you cannot get £60, I will take £50 for it." I did not get a purchaser. At the present time it is not worth that price. The pavement has not been made up. It is a 30-ft. road, I believe, and it would coat about 15s. per foot. That would be between £90 and £100 for roadmaking on the side. We may have a purchaser any moment.

Cross-examined. Before I had to do with it, I believe it was put up to auction and withdrawn with other plots.


JAMES FREDERICK STAMMERS (prisoner, on oath). I was a licensed victualler for 10 1/2 years at the "Salisbury Arms," Burdett Road. I left in June last and am no longer a publican. I have taken an active part in local philanthropic work connected with the trade. I have known Calcutt since 1898. He came as a customer every day. His wife sometimes accompanied him in the evenings. We became on familiar terms and my wife and I used to visit them when they went to Grafton Street, and he and his wife would often come to our parlour at the back of the bar. Those visits had nothing to do with the business of the Guardians. The visits have been continued since I became a Guardian in 1904. I never heard the expression that I wanted to "join the ring" till Calcutt used it at the police court. I had no object in joining the Board except to serve my fellow citizens. I have never been associated with meetings at the pubulic-house to discuss the business of the Guardians, nor have I heard of them on the part of the other Guardians. Several of the Guardians were customers of mine before I went on the Board. Calcutt and I never discussed voting. I never told him I had, or might, vote against him. He came to me and said, "Here, Mr. stammers; this is for voting for me," in regard to anything. He has only said, "Well, if I am in the running; if I am all right, you will support me?" and I have said, "Yes, you have got to take your chance." The two presents he gave me, I thought, came in the way that other things had been given to me by private individuals. I have had many presents given to me. I received a turkey in 1905 and one in 1906, I believe. On one occasion he asked me how I liked the turkey. The turkey was a nice bird, but I am a jocular sort of fellow, and I said, "If you call that a turkey, the next time you send me one make it a fat 'un." He showed me a Masonic charm once that took my fancy. I never asked him for it. I called a Hirst's about midday—I cannot remember the date—and me and Calcutt were the only two in his saloon bar. We had a drink, and he put his hand in his waistcoat pocket and said, "What do you think of that?" I said I did not exactly know the importance of it,

and then he opened it and showed it me. When I saw the engraving inside, being a Mason, I knew exactly what it meant. I said, "That's a splendid thing, isn't it?" "Yes," he said, "it is pretty, isn't it?" So he said, "Will you have it?" I said, "No, thank you, I don't; want it, old man, but it is very pretty." He said, "Go on, you have it." I said, "No," but I ultimately had it, and little did I think it was going to turn corrupt. I knew he was a Mason. It had nothing to do with my voting. The next thing was the candelabra or mirror which I received from him. There is not a word of truth in Calcutt's account of that transaction. The candelabra was brought round to my place and taken in by my potman and my youngest son, and when I came home it was pointed out to me and I said, "Where did this thing come from?" They were not quite sure about it. My son said, "I believe it was Calcutt that sent it round. A few days after I said to Calcutt," Did you send that candelabra round?" He said, "Yes, don't you like it?" I said, "Yes, it is very pretty, but what did you want to send it round for?" "Oh," he said, "out of friendship. You know very well you done me a good turn once and I cannot forget it." Calcutt had worked for the Guardians long before I got on the Board. I lent him £10 to pay wages when he got a job for the Guardians in succession to Crowe, and that was the "good turn." He repaid it in a few weeks. In 1904 I borrowed two £20, trade being a bit bad. I happened to mention to Calcutt that I was pinched. There are entries in my pass book of £20 and £21 in repayment, on November 5 and December 17 respectively. I cannot account for the odd £1. The third loan was July, 1906 (£20). It was paid into my bank. There is no foundation for saying it was for voting for him. It was on the same conditions as before. It is still owing. I have offered it to him on several occasions, but he would not accept it. I have employed him for a year or two to do odd jobs for me. I had great difficulty in getting an account. I have also supplied him with goods, for which he has not paid. I supplied him with three hampers worth £5 each. The account produced contains an item of £22 9s. for work he did. I should never have thought it would have come to that amount. We had high words about it. It came to £47 odd, and I called his attention to the set-off I have mentioned. I made him out a contra account and receipted it. No money passed. £21 odd would be the balance, apparently, after deducting my contra account. I have no ledger, journal, or day book. Mine was a tied house. I never had £5 from him on July 15, 1905, or £10 on January 15, 1905, or £10 on October 15, 1905, or £20 in January, 1907. In regard to the charge against me of obtaining by false pretences, on April 13, £225 13s., I was not present at that meeting and knew nothing about what was likely to occur. The same in regard to £142 4s. 2d. In regard to Calcutt's accounts with the Guardians, I never knew of anything being wrong with them till the Inquiry disclosed it. I was on the Infirmary Committee, the Work-house Committee, and the School Committee. I regarded Knight as a reliable man, having regard to his age and reputation. I have

heard the evidence about the meeting at Spooner's. I took no part in it. I was Treasurer of the Tower Hamlets Philanthropic Society and Trott was Chairman. We went round to get a subscription from Mrs. Spooner. I believe one or two Guardians came in. We didn't stop there more than five minutes. Then me and Trott walked out. I did not see Calcutt. I had nothing to do with Barker's contract. I have never voted corruptly for Calcutt or anybody else.

Cross-examined. I heard Calcutt say that I said, "I am on the Board now, and I want to get in the ring." It is a dream. About three local contractors used my house—Lloyd, Calcutt, and Haseltine. Cotterell was a neighbour and regular customer before he became a contractor. Evans is a contractor. There were several contractors to the Board. I had no suspicion, before I became a Guardian, that any of the contractors were getting any money. There is no ground for your suggestion. I took no notice of such suggestions which came from outside sources. When I got on the Board I was a keen observer, and to my mind there was nothing of the kind going on. Members of the Board came to my house regularly at customers. They did not meet the contractors there to discuss what business had been done that evening. When I gave my evidence before the Inspector, and referred to "a ring of contractors," I did not mean to infer that there was a corrupt ring.

Mr. David. The witness has never used the word "ring" at all. It is a term that is put into his mouth by the interrogator, and not his phrase.

Witness. I meant the old hands—the continuous policy of the Board, as I explained.

(The Solicitor-General put a list of Board meetings to the witness, which he was recorded to have attended, from September 7, 1905, to February 14, 1907.) I do not suggest that I voted against Calcutt on any one of those days, and you cannot prove that I voted for him. Many times I did not vote at all. I voted against him when he had the dining hall contract for £96, and voted for the lowest tender. The gift to me of the mirror may have been in recognition of a kindness I had shown him in 1899. I have never had a penny from him except the three loans. In July, 1906, I sent an old man, Brett, since dead, to Calcutt, to come down. He came with Wallace. What he gave me was a loan, not a gift. He further lies by saying that he went down to the cellar to give it me. It was in the passage. It was three o'clock, and nobody else was there. It was a bona-fide transaction. It has not been repaid, as I have explained. Since this prosecution I have lost my business. I have offered it several times. I never had money from him in the "King Harry." He gave me a turkey, I think, on two occasions, and on one occasion he took away three cases of whisky. I think the settlement between us was March 14, 1907, when I had heard of the Inquiry. It did not strike me that the goods he bought at my house were for other Guardians. I thought the "stuff" was for his own use, seeing that he entertained 20 or 30 people at Christmas. I did not complain to Calcutt and say, "You spend more money at

Hirst's than you do at my place; he gets the 'bunce.'" I do not know what "bunce" means. The Masonic apron was presented to me in Hirst's house in 1906. It is false to say when the £20 loan was handed to me in a banker's bag that I said, "You ought to be more careful than to bring the money down in a bag with a name on it." I did not know he had burnt his books until after the Inquiry. I did not say to him, "It is a good job for some of us that you have burnt your books; they would have shown the game up properly." Referring to the two cheques of £20 and £21, I did not say, "If the worst comes to the worst, Jim, I will say I paid that account with those two cheques, so it will appear I have not lent any money at all—do you see?" I did not go to Southend with my wife and child—my son and wife went down. Barker already had a contract in regard to the school building, which amounted from first to last to about £12, 000. The school buildings had been completed and occupied by September, 1905. This bill to Knight for wines of £30 odd does not refer to the school buildings. Until the prosecution Calcutt and I remained on friendly terms. I cannot suggest any motive for Calcutt turning round and inventing these stories against me.

(Thursday, July 30.)

Mr. Frampton handed in Kemp's pass book showing that there was a payment in on April 22, three days after the cheque of the 20th was taken to Calcutt

JAMES FREDERICK STAMMERS (prisoner, on oath), recalled. Re-examined. When I got on the Board I found there were certain contractors who were regularly employed by the Board. In my evidence before the Inspector I said that since I have been on the Board a good many contracts have been given out; the first year I had dealings with the contracts I moved the acceptance of Charrington's tender for coal, because their price was lower, but I was very soon squashed; that was in 1905; and the one thing that weighed with me was that they had been supplying the Licensed Victuallers' Schools. While I was on the Board I tried to apply experience on former Committee for the benefit of the Guardians. I found myself in a minority on other occasions in voting about contracts. I was not upon the Finance Committee at any time.

EDWARD GRIMWOOD , secretary of the Incorporated Society of Licensed Victuallers and of the Licenced Victuallers' Schools. I have known Stammers for nine or ten years as taking an active part in philanthropic institutions connected with the trade. During that time he has been a respected and trusted member of the Committees of those institutions, and has born a good character for integrity and honesty.

Later, evidence to Stammers's character was given by James Holding, fishmonger, 176, Bow Common Lane.

EDWIN RUDGE , borough and sanitary engineer, 264, Burdett Road, Bow. I inspected the work done by Calcutt to a bath and lavatory

Basin in Stammers's house about three months ago. The bath was chipped very badly on the roll; that would affect the value of the bath about 50 per cent. on the original cost. I should think the cost of hoisting that bath from below into its place would be about 10s. The cost of fixing and supplying connections would be about 1s. a foot run for the pipes, of which there is about 10 ft., and 9d. each for three vans—about 16s. or 17s. for the waste; and for the supply, about 27 ft. at 7 1/2 d. per foot; the bath itself is worth about £4. Then to the lavatory basin, there is about 3 ft. of pipe at 1s. a foot, 1s. for the cock, and two vans at 9d. each; that is 6s. 6d. for the waste; the supply pipe is about 7 ft. at 7 1/2 d. per ft.; 9d. each for the two joints, and the basin itself would be worth about 17s.

Cross-examined. I do not know when the bath was chipped. The original value of the bath would be about £4. I should think if all the work charged for in Calcutt's account was done by first-class tradesmen, this charge would still be about £7 or £8 too much.

FREDERICK GEORGE STANTON , builder. In 1905 I was consulted by Stammers about the fixing of a bath which he had in his back yard; it looked as if it had been lying there for some months, and it had a chip off the top rim of the bath. I did the work of the structural alterations of Stammers's house. I did not cut the wall away to get the bath in; we got it through the outside window; we cut a hole through the wall to put the window there. The cost of hoisting the bath would be 10s. or 12s. I was paid for the structural alterations and for putting the bath in position.

Cross-examined. The bath was there in Stammers's back yard when I went to do the other work.

CHARLES SAMUEL NEWSOME , painter. I went to Stammers's house in 1905, where the bath was put up, and did all the painting and decorating. I was paid by Stammers.

ALFRED PALMER , potman. I was in the employ of Stammers from 1902 till the end of 1904, when I left him; I returned about May, 1905, and remained with him until 1906. About two or three days before Christmas, 1906, I took two cases and a broken case of spirite to Calcutt's house. Mrs. Calcutt told me to take it upstairs, and when I got it upstairs she told me to take it downstairs again into the kitchen. I did that in her presence. In 1905 one of Calcutt's men fetched a hamper away in a trap for the races. I remember seeing a bath in the back yard while I was there, and I afterwards saw it fixed.

Cross-examined. I have often seen Calcutt at Stammers's house. I have also seen Gould and Loftus. I have seen all the Guardians there occasionally. I cannot say that I have seen Kemp there; I may have seen Ridpath, but I am not sure; I am not sure whether I have seen Gilder or Gilson there. Just before Christmas, 1906, is the only time I remember taking spirits from Stammers to Calcutt; I also saw the turkey given. I had seen Hirst there, but not with Calcutt.

Re-examined. Calcutt used to call at the "Salisbury Arms" for refreshments, and Trott also. I knew Loftus to be a relative of Stammers. There was no difference between these men and any other customers who came into the house.

Mrs. MARY ANN STAMMERS , wife of defendant Stammers. I went to live at the "Salisbury Arms" in 1898. Mr. and Mrs. Calcutt used to come to the house four or five times a week as customers; in course of time we got on friendly terms with them and visited each other. On one or two occasions I called at Calcutt's house in Grafton Street. I remember the Calcutts going to Southend for a change and Calcutt asked me to go there