Old Bailey Proceedings.
16th November 1909
Reference Number: t19091116

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
16th November 1909
Reference Numberf19091116

Related Material


Vol. CLII.] Part. 901.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]









On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Tuesday, November 16th, 1909, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir JOHN KNILL , Baronet, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir WILLIAM GRANTHAM , one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart.; Sir ALFRED JAMES NEWTON , Bart.; Sir JOHN CHAS. BELL , Bart.; Sir G. F. FAUDEL-PHILLIPS, Bart., G.C.I.E.; Sir J. THOMSON RITCHIE , Bart.; Sir WM. DUNN , Knight; Sir FRANCIS STANHOPE HANSON , Knight; and WILLIAM COOPER , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON , Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir F.K. ALBERT BOSANQUET , K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; His Honour Judge LUMLET SMITH, commissioner; and His Honour Judge RENTOUL, K.C., Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.












(Tuesday, November 16.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-1
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

JOHNSON, John (39, fireman) , pleaded guilty of stealing one watch, one chain, and other articles, the goods of Luigi Destefano, and one lost Post Office Savings Bank deposit book, the goods of His Majesty's Postmaster-General; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, two several receipts for money, to wit, receipts for £10 and £10, in each case with. intent to defraud; he also confessed to having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell Sessions on August 15, 1899.

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

A long list of previous convictions was proved, dating back to September, 1889, including one in 1899 with sentence of three and a half years' penal servitude and three years' police supervision, and another in 1902 with sentence of three and a half years' penal servitude and two years' police supervision; he had been deported, but had returned to this country.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude; recommended for expulsion.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-2
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

EGAN, John (16, labourer) , pleaded guilty of attempting to steal 14s. 3d., the moneys of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, from a telephone box.

Prisoner had previously been convicted of a similar offence and placed for twelve months in the probation of the Court Missionary at Westminster Police Court; a situation had been found for him, which he had failed to keep.

Sentence, Three years' imprisonment under the Borstal system.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-3
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HICKMAN, William James (29, postman) , pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a ring, a brooch, and six penny stamps, the goods of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-4
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WOOD, Francis Augustin (28, postman) , pleaded guilty of feloniously endeavouring to obtain and obtaining by virtue of a forged post letter, knowing the same to be forged, from Arthur Peters, postal orders value £2 2s., and endeavouring to obtain by virtue of a forged post letter, knowing the same to be forged, from the said Arthur Peters, postal orders value £5 15s., in each case with intent to defraud.

Prisoner, a sorter at the Wandsworth sorting office, had an arrangement with Peters, a bookmaker, under which the latter accepted any bet noted in a letter shown by the postmark to have been posted before the start of a race. Prisoner's scheme was as follows: He would stamp an envelope, place it inside another envelope, cut from this outer envelope a square just exposing the stamp on the inner envelope; he would address the outer envelope to himself at an accommodation address at Enfield, and post it for express delivery at a local office; thus obtaining the inner envelope bearing an early postmark, he would, on learning the result of a later race, enclose a letter making a bet in the envelope and slip this in among the letters he was sorting for delivery, the letter thus reaching the bookmaker as though properly posted before the race.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-5
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

RUMSEY, Albert Ernest (35, postman) , pleaded guilty of stealing one postal packet containing a postal order for 1s. 6d., 5s., and four postage stamps value 5d., and one postal packet containing 4s. 6d., the goods and moneys of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-6
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FRANKLIN, George Frederick Andrew (35, postman), and MAYFIELD, William Albert (23, porter) . Franklin on November 3, 1909, stealing 39 postal packets, the property of His Majesty's PostmasterGeneral, he being employed under the Post Office; Franklin and Mayfield, on August 12, 1909, stealing a postal packet containing a postal order for 6s., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General; Mayfield feloniously receiving the said postal order for 6s., well knowing it to have been stolen. Prisoners pleaded guilty .

The facts disclosed that Franklin had been for a considerable period engaged in systematic thefts of letters addressed to Edwards' Harlene Company, who are receiving daily large numbers of letters containing postal orders for samples, etc., of their wares; Mayfield's part was to cash the orders at different post offices.

Sentence, Franklin, 12 months' hard labour; Mayfield, Nine months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-7
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

LINDFORD, Cecil Edward, otherwise George R. Spinks (23, vocalist) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Barclay and Company, Limited, £7 10s., with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque and order for the payment of £20 15s., with intent to defraud.

Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment, second division.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-8
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SMITH, James, otherwise Horace Albert Day (22, labourer), and ROSS, William, otherwise Henry Smith (23, labourer) , pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shop of the Aerated Bread Company, Limited, and stealing therein one pipe, one pipe clip, and other articles, their goods; each prisoner confessed to a previous conviction.

The police proved a number of convictions against Ross and one against Smith.

Sentence, Ross, 20 months' hard labour; Smith, 12 months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-9
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MCKENZIE, John, otherwise Desmond (40, labourer) , pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the warehouse of James Nagle and stealing therein 400 cigars, 1,000 cigarettes, and a clock, his goods. Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction and a number of others were proved by the police.

Sentence, Eight months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-10
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ALLEN, Charles (28, fireman) , pleaded guilty of maliciously damaging a plate glass window, the goods of Ernest Leggatt and another, to the value of £11.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-11
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SMITH, William, otherwise Charles Wright, otherwise Charles William Smith (38, fitter) , pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shop of Richard Redfern and stealing therein a box of 80 cigarettes, his goods.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction, and others were proved by the police.

Sentence, Eight months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-12
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

STEVENSON, Thomas (27, engineer) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Alexander George Spencer Knight £2, with intent to defraud.

Several previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.


(Tuesday, November 16.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-13
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

SMITH, Thomas (27, labourer) , unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

NELLIE ORLANDO TARGETT , money taker, Surrey Theatre, Blackfriars Road. On October 11 at 9.45 p.m. prisoner applied for admission to the pit, which is 6d., and tendered half sovereign produced. I told him it looked a very funny half sovereign—that I had never seen a coin like it before. He said, "Go on, that is all right. I wish I had a sackful of them. I would go to the Derby." He said he had been to the King's Palace boxing and he had put his thumb out. I

gave him 9s. 6d. change and he passed into the pit. I examined the coin and spoke to the check taker, Hall, who fetched the sergeant and prisoner was given into custody.

Cross-examined. Prisoner returned the 9s. 6d. when the officer came. He said, "Take your money, I don't want it."

FREDERICK BENJAMIN HALL , check taker, Surrey Theatre. On October 11 Miss Targett spoke to me and I fetched prisoner from the pit. He had been in about five minutes and had not taken his seat. She said, "This is not a half sovereign, it is only sixpence," and asked for the 9s. 6d. back. Prisoner refused to return it and argued that it was a good coin; he said to me, "If I had you outside I should break you in half." He was sober. I fetched Sergeant Kellaway. He then said, "Take your money. I don't want it," and handed over the 9s. 6d.

Police-sergeant FRANK KELLAWAY, 33 L. On October 11 I was called to the Surrey Theatre and saw Miss Targett and the prisoner. She said, "This man has attempted to change this coin for half sovereign," showing the coin produced. It is a gilded Jubilee sixpence. He then handed her 9s. 6d. I asked him how he came by it. He said, "I got it in some change. I have been on the booze." I asked him where he got it. He said, "I don't know. "I searched him and found no other coin in his possession. I asked him for his name and address, which he gave as "Thomas Smith, 24, Tabard Street, St. George's," which is a false address. He smelt of drink, but was not drunk. He was taken to the station and formally charged, when he gave his address as "Row ton House." He was asked which Row ton House, and said, "Anywhere—whichever district I am in. "Before being charged he said, "This is all right. I have to be at Brighton Races to-morrow."

Police-constable GEORGE JENNER, 206 L. While prisoner was detained at the Surrey Theatre I went to Tabard Street and found there was no number 24 in the street. I told the last witness in prisoner's presence and prisoner made no reply.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, His Majesty's Mint. Coin produced is a Victorian Jubilee sixpence gilded.

The Common Serjeant said the only evidence of guilty knowledge appeared to be that prisoner had given a false address, but he would not take the case from the jury.


THOMAS SMITH (prisoner, on oath). I was in drink at the time and did not know the coin was bad. I went into the theatre, bought a programme and remained there five minutes. I could easily have got away if I had knowingly tendered a bad coin.

Verdict, Not guilty.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-14
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

MENDEL, Moses (32, builder) , uttering counterfeit coin.

Mr. Pickersgill, M. P., prosecuted.

ELIZABETH PAYNE , 4, Sidmouth Street, Mare Street, Hackney, waitress at Lockhart's cocoa-rooms, 265, Whitechapel Road. On October 7 at 9 a.m. I served prisoner with tea, two slices of bread and butter and sardines, costing 3d. He tendered the florin produced; it looked a bad one; I bent it in the tester and returned it to prisoner, saying that it was bad. Lucas, the manager, and the witness Yoael also told him it was bad and he gave me 3d. in bronze. Prisoner ate his breakfast and left.

HENRY YOAEL , 133, Cambridge Road, stevedore. On October 7 at 9 a.m. I was at Lockhart's in Whitechapel Road when the last witness brought prisoner, who was having breakfast there, a two-shilling-piece, said it was bad, and he handed her 3d. Prisoner asked if it was a foreign coin. I told him it was bad money. When prisoner left I followed him. He went into a tobacconist, where I saw the girl in the shop hand him a coin back and the prisoner came out. I followed prisoner and spoke to a constable, who took him into custody.

BESSIE COPE , assistant to Gould, 221, Whitechapel Road, tobacconist. On October 7 at about 9 a.m. prisoner asked for two penny cigars and tendered in payment a two-shilling-piece, which I tried on a slate, found to be bad, told prisoner so, and that I would not take it and returned it to him. He said, "All right; I will take one cigar," and gave me a penny. He then left.

Police-constable JOHN WATTS, 499 J. On October 7 at 9.30 a.m. Yoael spoke to me. We followed the prisoner into Valence Road when I told him I was going to take him into custody for attempting to utter a counterfeit florin in Whitechapel Road. I searched him on the spot and found counterfeit florin produced in his waistcoat pocket and in his trouser pocket 6d. silver and 1s. 4 1/2 d. bronze. I took him to Bethnal Green Police Station; he was charged, and said, "Last evening, about 7, I went into the public house in the Commercial Road opposite Philpott Street and called for a glass of ale. I paid for it with half a sovereign and that florin "(pointing to the coin produced) the barman gave me in change. "The prisoner was identified by Payne and Cope.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, His Majesty's Mint. Florin produced is counterfeit and is a bad imitation, badly cast.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate. "I am a very respectable man, 10 years in this country. I have been about eight years in London. I have been engaged in Mr. Fisher's shop for a year. I worked for six months in the Shepherd's Bush Exhibition. I had a special pass to work every Sunday where there were jewels."


MOSES MENDEL (prisoner, on oath). I am a builder and decorator. On October 6 I changed half sovereign in a public house in Commercial Road, paid 5s. 6d. for my food and the next morning went to breakfast at Lockhart's, where I tendered the florin produced, which I had received in change, thinking it was a good one. Payne said it was bad and I paid the 3d. to her. I went into the tobacconist's, where

I had been the previous evening and had bought tobacco, cigars, and a newspaper, and asked for two cigars. I gave Cope the two-shillingpiece and asked her if it was a good one. She said it was bad and I paid the penny for the cigar.

BESSIE COPE , recalled. I cannot quite remember whether prisoner asked me whether the florin was good or bad.

NANCY KOSKY , 184, Commercial Road, milliner, and JACOB SARGETTI, property dealer, stated that they had known prisoner several years, had employed him, and knew him as a respectable man.

Verdict, Not guilty.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-15
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

MARTINUCCI, William Eugenio Nye (33, engineer) , pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain request for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £10, with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, certain authorities and requests for the payment of money, to wit, exchange forms for the payment of £45 and £25 respectively, a cheque for the payment of £52 10s., an exchange slip for the payment of £54, and an exchange form for the payment of £15, in each case with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain authority and request for the payment of money, to wit, an exchange form for the payment of £20, with intent to defraud.

Previous convictions proved: 12 months' hard labour in 1897; 18 months' in 1899, and three years' penal servitude in 1906, all for forgery.

Sentence, Seven years' penal servitude.


(Thursday, November 18.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-16
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

STRATTON, Arthur Cecil (28, clerk), and GRAHAM, Alfred (24, billiard marker) , both unlawfully sending, knowing the contents thereof, divers letters demanding with menaces of Sidney Neville Noakes divers moneys. (Four indictments.)

Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. Laurie defended Stratton.

SIDNEY NEVILLE NOAKES , Selsdon Park, Croydon, a director of Noakes and Co., Limited, brewers, Bermondsey. About three years ago I went with a woman to a house in Bloomsbury, and on leaving her found that I had lost my watch and chain and a gold pocket knife; a few days afterwards the articles were brought to me at Bermondsey by a man (not one of the prisoners) and I paid him £15 and got the articles back. In November, 1908, the property was again stolen from me; a man (not one of the prisoners) was convicted of the theft and sentenced. (Witness proved the receipt of three letters and a telegram from prisoners; they contained vague threats of disclosing some crime committed by witness with Graham in a room in Stratton's

house.) On September 20 Graham spoke to me outside the brewery; he said, "That chap Stratton is a very determined man and means to go for you, also to write to your brother; if you take my advice, you had better give him some money to keep him quiet; I don't want any. "I refused to speak to him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Laurie. The first letter I received from Stratton I treated as a blackmailing letter, and so called it in my reply.

Cross-examined by Graham. I do not know you at all. I did not meet you one night last year with some soldiers in a public house in Edgware Road; I have never sent you telegrams to meet you. When you spoke to me on September 20 I did not give you £15 to leave London. All the suggestions are false.

EDWARD F. KNAPP-FISHER , Solicitor to prosecutor, proved certain correspondence with the prisoners, and the steps which led to their arrest.

One of the letters from Stratton contained the suggestion that, in consequence of Graham having brought men (including the prosecutor) to his lodgings, Stratton had lost some of his lodgers; three witnesses were called to prove that their leaving had nothing to do with Graham's conduct.

SAMUEL BENNETT , coffee-house keeper, John Street, Edgware Road (his deposition read, after medical evidence that he was too ill to attend). I have known Graham as a customer for about two years and Stratton for about three months. Stratton never came alone, always with Graham. Some weeks ago Graham asked to have his letters addressed to my place. Some letters came, which I handed to Graham.

ADA MAXWELL , an attendant at the coffee-house, spoke to Stratton and Graham being in the habit of using the first-floor dining room, and sometimes writing letters there.

GEORGE PICK . I know both prisoners and have frequently seen them together in Hyde Park, both in the daytime and the evening.

ALFRED SULLENS gave similar evidence.

To Graham: I know a man called Jack Morris; it is not true that I asked him not to go and see you in Brixton Gaol.

Detective GEORGE HADLOW. On September 25 I was keeping observation on Bennett's coffee shop and saw the two prisoners enter the dining room. Later I was present when they were arrested. I found in the fireplace scraps of writing; on their being pieced together they proved to be drafts of two of the letters written to Mr. Knapp-Fisher.

Detective-sergeant ALBERT MERTON. On September 25 I took Graham to the police court; on the way he said, "This trouble is all through Stratton; I did not want to do anything further in the matter, and should have let it drop, but he kept forcing my hand to write the letters, and this is what has come of it."

Chief Inspector ELIAS BOWER. On September 25 I went to the coffee shop and saw both prisoners. Addressing Stratton, I said, "Stratton, you know me"; he replied "Yes, I don't know your name for the moment; I know who you are; I have been expecting

this. "I said "What?" He replied, "I know what it is about: it is about that fellow Noakes, who has been slandering and libelling me, after having made a convenience of my house, 10, Little Queen Street, with Graham; I have been trying to get him to take this step, so that I may expose him and recover damages, if possible, and clear myself of the charge which he has made in one of his letters that I was the leader of a gang. "I said, "You have not heard the charge yet. "I then told him the charge; he said, "I have tried to make him do this, as he won't apologise, and I am not in a position to take action for libel and claim damages. "He was taken to the station; there he said (in the presence of Graham), "The first letter I wrote on behalf of Graham under a misapprehension as to the relationship between him and Mr. Noakes. "I then produced the letters; Stratton picked out those which he said he had written, and Graham said the others were his. Stratton further said, "I received a reply from Noakes insulting and slandering me; I made inquiries and I found out the true facts of the case and the true relationship between those two; I prefer not to go into that here; in consequence of Mr. Noakes visiting my house the house has received a bad name; several lodgers left in consequence; a letter from Noakes fell into my young wife's hands and caused me great trouble at home; I was determined to expose the author of it. I considered that Graham was only the victim of Noakes, as Graham was hard up and Noakes had plenty of money and tempted him. I admit I threatened Graham and told him he would have to come forward if Noakes dared to take the steps I wanted him to take; altogether I am extremely pleased this has taken place, in order to stop the pranks of people who go about manufacturing criminals." In reply to the formal charge Stratton said, "I deny having demanded money by menaces, and, as for having no cause, I had ample cause for every step I took. "After the remand, Graham sent for me and I saw him in the cell. He spoke about some furniture he had, and added, "It is no good Noakes saying he has never been to Little Queen Street with me, although it is my shame for me to say so, but I was hard up and wanting money; he left his gold pocket knife in my room; perhaps he did not tell you he gave me £15 to get it back. "At the next hearing I gave evidence of this statement; Graham said to me, "That statement that you said I made is false; I said Noakes gave me £15 before he went to Scotland."

To Graham. I know that you went to South Africa in 1901 and did not return till February last; therefore you could not have had anything to do personally with the theft of the knife three years ago; but I am certain you did tell me that Noakes gave you £15 "to get the knife back."


ARTHUR CECIL HANSON STRATTON (prisoner, on oath). I went to live at Little Queen Street in August, 1908. The first I know of Graham was in July last, when he had a room in my house. In conversation with him he led me to believe that there was a gentleman

with whom he was very friendly, who had promised him a situation and was helping him with money from time to time. He showed me a gold pocket knife; he said he had failed to pawn it for the amount he wanted, and handed it to me as security for something I advanced to him. I kept it for two days, when he said he had received a telegram from his friend making an appointment in order to hand back the knife. On July 18 I wrote the first letter complained of; it was written at Graham's request; at the time I believed that everything it contained was true; I meant it simply as an appeal on Graham's behalf and in no sense as a threatening letter. In reply Noakes wrote to me, saying, "If you or any of your gang annoy me in any way whatever I will instantly place the matter in the hands of the police. "I was greatly annoyed; my wife got hold of the letter and it led to great trouble at home. I showed the letter to Graham and asked for an explanation; he made certain statements to me which led me to take a different view of his conduct. I did nothing further in the matter until September 16, when I called at the Bermondsey brewery to see Noakes to get the name of his solicitors. I wanted an apology and had some idea of a civil act for libel. I never saw the letters which Graham wrote to Noakes in the meantime. After getting into communication with Mr. Knapp-Fisher all my negotiations were with him.

Cross-examined. I have never made any imputations against Noakes. When Graham says that I was the author of the scheme and forced him to write the letter at my direction he is lying. It is true that Graham and I have been in Hyde Park together and also at the coffee shop. Noakes is not telling the truth in saying that he was never at my house; I have seen him there at least three times.

(Mr. Gill elicited from the witness, who answered before he could be stopped, that in August he had just come out of prison. Mr. Laurie objected that the question should not have been put. Mr. Justice Grantham said he thought the statements made by witness reflecting on the prosecutor were not sufficient to justify the question, and he should tell the jury to pay no attention to the question and answer. This his Lordship did in his summing-up.)

ALFRED GRAHAM (prisoner, on oath) read a long statement. He adhered to his story that Noakes had on several occasions been to his room; that after Stratton had written to Noakes, Noakes telegraphed to witness to see him; that they met on September 20, when Noakes said he was going to prosecute Stratton and that Graham had better get out of the way, and gave Graham £15 for the purpose.

JACK MORRIS , called by Graham, said that he had seen Graham and Noakes in a public house, followed them when they left, seen them go into the Little Queen Street house, and seen them together in Graham's room. Graham had shown witness a telegram from Noakes, saying, "Meet me Marble Arch Tube Station, 9 p.m." Graham had also shown him a gold pocket knife with Noakes' name on it.

Cross-examined. I am a waiter; I have been out of work for three months, two of them in the infirmary. I have seen Sullens in Hyde Park.

Verdict, Guilty; the jury adding that they considered that Graham had been led on by Stratton.

Stratton confessed to having been convicted at North London Sessions in May, 1907, of larceny, receiving 15 months' hard labour; he had also been convicted at the same session, in March, 1905, of housebreaking, receiving 12 months' hard labour. The two witnesses Pick and Sullens are police officers who are told off to keep observation on suspected persons.

Sentence, Stratton, Five years' penal servitude; Graham, three years' penal servitude.


(Thursday, November 18.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-17
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

GARITTA, Virgilio (26, liftman) , pleaded guilty , at the October Sessions, of stealing a Post Office Savings Bank deposit book, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain authority and request for the payment of £15 with intent to defraud; and forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a receipt for the payment of £15 with intent to defraud.

In the preceding volume, page 741, he is wrongly reported as having been sentenced. In fact, judgment was respited.

The prisoner was now released on his own recognisances in £25, and his brother Ernesto in a similar sum, an undertaking being given that prisoner should start this evening at 8.45 for his home in Milan.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-18
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

FAYRER, SIDNEY ARTHUR (28, clerk), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order purporting to be an order from Arthur Edward Wilson for the payment of £2, and unlawfully falsifying certain accounts belonging to the said Arthur Edward Wilson, his master, in each case with intent to defraud.

Prosecutor has a shop for the sale of bicycles and accessories in High Street, Peckham, and prisoner had been in his employ for three years as salesman and clerical assistant. On receipt of moneys prisoner would enter the correct amount in the cash book and ledger and deduct from the sum paid into the cash register. The defalcations which the accountant was able to discover amounted to £47 11s. in the present year and £25 10s. 2d. in 1908, but many of the weekly sheets were found to be missing, and the estimated loss to prosecutor is put at

£300. While the business done continued the same the cash showed a constant falling off. Prisoner asked to be dealt with leniently, pointing out that his wife and family would suffer by any punishment he might receive. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-19
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BARNES, William Thomas (61, clerk) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Glyn, Mills, Currie, and Company, in the months of February, May, August, and November, 1908, eight valuable securities, to wit, four banker's orders for the payment of £17 9s. 2d. each and four banker's orders for the payment of £40 14s. 8d. each, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Travers Humphreys (who prosecuted) stated that prisoner entered the employment of prosecutors in 1867 and, for the past 19 years, had been head of the coupon branch of the business in Lombard Street, the coupons being payable in respect of foreign loans. Amongst other loans was one of the Republic of Uruguay in respect of which Messrs. Glyn, Mills, and Co. paid to coupon holders in this country £120,000 a year. Prisoner defrauded by entering false names on the list of coupon holders, in respect of which he was chargeable with forgery, and also by withholding part of the full payment due to holders. The cheques drawn in favour of supposititious holders he paid into his own banking account. The indictment related solely to 1908 and the amount to which prisoner had pleaded guilty of appropriating was £232. Early in 1909 suspicions were aroused and, by reason of changes in the office, it was no longer possible for prisoner to do as he had done in 1908. Investigations showed that this system of fraud had been practised since 1893 and the total amount of the defalcations was £2,900. All the money was said to have gone in Stock Exchange speculations. It was with the greatest possible regret that Messrs. Glyn, Mills, and Co. found themselves compelled to take proceedings, prisoner having been a very trusted servant. His salary was £330 per annum and he would have been entitled to a pension.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-20
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BROWN, William (63, labourer) , pleaded guilty of maliciously damaging by night one plate glass window, the goods of William Robert Witt and another to the amount of £10:

Prisoner had four times been convicted of a similar offence. On the occasion of his last conviction he said that he did not intend to do any work and that when he came out would do the same thing again.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-21
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

JUDD, Margaret (41, charwoman) , pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Samuel Wiltshire, her husband being then alive. Prisoner's husband has been several times committed to an asylum.

The Recorder, thinking no great harm had been done, passed a sentence of three days' imprisonment, entitling prisoner to immediate discharge.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-22
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WILKINS, Harry (23, traveller) , pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Adelaide Savill, his wife being alive.

Detective Albert Draper stated that prisoner in the first instance married a Guernsey woman, a Miss Hutchison, who kept a boarding-house in Bayswater. The following day he left her saying he was going out to make a small purchase, taking £50 which had been given her by her mother as dowry and the money she had put by for rent and rates. A few weeks afterwards he was arrested for stealing from a fallow lodger in Fitzroy Square. The inquiries made brought the matter to the notice of his wife, and when he came out of prison he went back to live with her. After a few months he left her again and then made the acquaintance of the second woman, who was barmaid at a public-house in Finsbury Pavement. Prisoner entered the house as a customer and represented that his father was a Scotch laird, the Cameron of Lochiel, that he himself was partner in a shipping firm in Basinghall Street, and that in consequence of a legacy he had received from an uncle, he was under no necessity to continue working, so had decided to give up his partnership and be a gentleman. They were subsequently married by license, he describing himself as a bachelor. They left London to go to Paris, but made a stay at Folkestone, and after they had been there four days he went out to make a purchase and never turned up again, having neither given her any money nor paid the hotel bill. The young woman came back to London and, prisoner's whereabouts being discovered by accident, she went to live with him, again believing that she was his wife. Within five days he was arrested for a series of frauds which he had been carrying on for some months, and was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour in consecutive sentences. While in custody he disclosed the bigamy and expressed a wish for the whole, thing to be cleared off. He was in consequence brought up on Home Office order to Marylebone Police Court and committed here.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude, to run concurrently with the sentence of 16 months.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-23
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

DONOVAN, Michael (64, carpenter) , pleaded guilty of attempted burglary in the dwelling-house of Sidney H. Ash with intent to steal therein, and attempted burglary in the dwelling-house of Edith Frydell with intent to commit a felony therein.

Prisoner has been frequently convicted since 1878, has had terms of seven, five, three, three, five, and three years' penal servitude and, at the time of arrest, was on ticket of leave with 293 days to serve.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-24
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

WILLIAMS, Joseph (21, clerk) , indicted for forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £6 2s. 6d., with intent to defraud, pleaded guilty of uttering.

Prisoner is a native of Durban and, it appearing that an offer had been made by the Salvation Army to arrange for his return to South

Africa, sentence was postponed until next Sessions, with a view to the arrangement being carried out.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-25
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WESTON, Percy Charles (28, postman) ; obtaining by virtue of certain forged instruments, to wit, forged post letters from Arthur Peters, certain valuable securities, to wit, postal orders, value £3 2s. 6d., and £1 2s. respectively, in each case with intent to defraud. This was a case of alleged fraud on a bookmaker, the fraud consisting in getting an envelope stamped at the post-office before a race was run and subsequently filling in the names of winning horses (not unlike the method adopted in the case of F. A. Wood, reported at page 2).

Mr. Forster Boulton, M. P., prosecuted; Mr. J. Duncan defended.

ALFRED RILEY , overseer, South-Western District Post Office. On October 15 I saw prisoner coming out of the post-office at 2.15 p.m. He came off duty at 1.9 p.m., and there was no necessity for him to be on the premises. In the ordinary course of things he would come on duty again at one o'clock next day. After I had seen him come out of the post-office I went across to the Wandsworth Dispatching Office and examined the Wandsworth "road," which is a long counter or table on which all the letters for Wandsworth are placed. I there found the letter (produced), which is in prisoner's handwriting, addressed to Mr. A. Peters, 37, Steerforth Street, Wandsworth. The postmark upon it was 12.15 p.m. That letter should have gone out by a previous delivery, either at 12.40 p.m. or 1.9 p.m. The letter was dispatched by the 2.29 p.m. delivery to Mr. Peters, but the letter does not bear the time of the dispatch. Prisoner would be in the office at 12.15 and could have had access to the date stamp. Prisoner would have been able in the course of his duty to put a letter on the Wandsworth "road"; it is accessible to anyone. The table where the 12.15 p.m. stamp is kept is in another part of the same room where the letters are turned out when the collections come in. The letter having been stamped should have been placed on the proper "road" for delivery by the 12.40 p.m. or 1.9 p.m. dispatch. There would be nothing to prevent a post-office servant, after the stamping, putting the letter in his pocket and keeping it until the 2.29 p.m. dispatch. It would be no part of prisoner's duty to have possession of the letter after it is postmarked; it is against the Post Office Act. No one seeing prisoner on the premises would know whether he was on or off duty unless he was under observation.

Cross-examined. It is within my experience that letters are sometimes delivered late, when they have been missorted and placed upon the wrong "road" or counter. The Wandsworth district includes" Balham, Tooting, and Putney, and the counters for the four districts are near to each other and very often a letter intended for Wandsworth might be put on the Balham table. I should not say that so large a proportion as 3 per cent, of the letters get mis-sorted; probably 1 per cent, is nearer the proportion. In the case of a letter being mis-sorted, the mistake should be discovered at the time and the letter be put on to its proper counter. A dispatch might be lost in that way. I could not say whether this particular letter was put upon a wrong counter. I have sometimes seen letters lying on the floor and in stray

places. I did not recently see a picture postcard lying in the dust bin with a bloater upon it. If prisoner said such a thing occurred I cannot dispute it; it might possibly have been swept up. The floor of the post-office is often littered with loose papers and labels, but I have never known a genuine letter or postcard mixed up with them. Quotations for coal that are sometimes put in one's letter-box do not resemble our labels. The labels we use are made of brown paper. Certainly postcards or letters would lose time if they were found in the dusthole. I know nothing about horseracing and never backed a horse in my life. If a race was run at half-past one and the letter was posted by defendant before half-past one, of course no fraud would have been committed. I know prisoner's handwriting sufficiently well to be able to identify it. Obviously the letter in question should have gone by the 12.40 or 1.9 dispatch.

Re-examined. When the letters are taken out of the letter boxes they are all mixed together, London and country. Before they are sorted they are all stamped. If this letter had been mis-sorted it would have gone by the 12.15 or 12.40 dispatch.

SAMUEL JAMES JONES , Sorter, South-Western District Post Office. It is part of my duty to make up and dispatch letters for Wandsworth after they are postmarked; tie them up into bundles and dispatch them. I was on duty on October 15. The letter produced, being stamped 12.15 p.m., should have been dispatched at Wandsworth either by the 12.40 p.m. or the 1.9 p.m. I made up the 1.9 p.m. dispatch myself. I made a clear dispatch, that is to say, there were no letters left. I have to do with mis-sorts. How long it would take a letter to get into its proper bundle would depend upon where it was mis-sorted to. A letter mis-sorted in the office should be in time for the 12.40 dispatch. If this particular letter had been mis-sorted, it would have borne a further stamp showing the time of dispatch. A letter mis-sorted to Fulham or to Hammersmith would not, I should think, get back in time for our 2.20 p.m. dispatch.

Cross-examined. I do not think a letter mis-sorted at 12.15 would come back in time for dispatch at 2.15, which is two clear hours. I know that delivery in London can be effected in an hour or less when the delivery is near the office at which the letter is posted. No further letters are stamped after the collections have been made; any letters subsequently posted would be kept for the next delivery. The same applies to late fee letters; none are taken from the boxes after the collections have been made. I cannot say that it is possible for a letter to go to Wandsworth and come back again within two hours. If a postman found a wrong letter in his bundle he would probably bring it back again, but that would be a most exceptional case; I cannot suppose such a thing; I cannot imagine a man having a wrong letter in his bag for delivery. I cannot say what a postman would do with a letter under such circumstances. I have not been a postman and I do not know the routine with regard to the return of mis-sorted letters. I cannot imagine a man making such an error as taking a mis-sorted letter out.

ARTHUR PETERS , turf accountant, 37, Steerforth Road, Wandsworth. I have been betting with a man calling himself "C. E. Weston," and believe prisoner to be the person, for six or seven months. I have lost money to him. He has been finding the first two winners every day and you cannot win very much like that. I reported these transactions to the Post Office. I let it run a certain time. Of course, you cannot tell these things in a month or two. It is my practice to pay on winners if the letter containing the name of the winning horse bears a stamp which shows the letter was posted before the race was run. The envelope now produced bears the date stamp "October 15, 12.15 p.m." It is marked "5.30" by myself. I always mark the time I receive such letters. The bet contained in that envelope would be a good bet for a race starting at 1.30. The envelope contained a betting slip making bets on Briolet and Wiseacre, which were winners. There was also 2s. on Venture, and if Venture had won there would have been a further 2s. to go on Briolet, which was backed 2s. each way. The result was that prisoner had to receive £3 2s. 6d., that sum including 7s. stake money. I sent a post office order for the amount to prisoner. The results of the races are known in the streets a few minutes after the races are run.

Cross-examined. I always receive postal orders with the betting slips. I should not take the bets without. I know I am not bound to pay my bets at all, but I have paid them for 25 years; they are debts of honour. Prisoner never backed losers but twice. Those bets were posted at 9.30 in the morning. Prisoner may have also backed losers late in the day, but if you have two winners to start with you cannot possibly lose on the day if you put a shilling or so afterwards on a losing horse. I am not aware that prisoner has been in the Post Office for 17 years and has a good conduct badge. It is not my. pleasure to see him standing in the dock; I am sorry to see him standing there, but he and several others are stopping my business, and that is the only reason I have had to take this matter up. Weston wrote once to say he had not received "postals" on a certain date, but he wrote the following morning to say he had received them in the meantime. I have that letter at home.

JOHN CROMPTON , clerk in the Secretary's office, General Post Office, I saw prisoner on November 4 and cautioned him before asking him any questions. I then showed him the envelope and enclosure spoken to by last witness and said to him, "You were off duty on October 15 at one o'clock. You were seen leaving the South-Western Post Office at 2.15 p.m., and this letter and enclosure was found on the Wandsworth 'road' about 2.20 and contains winners of one o'clock and 1.30 races run that day. The envelope has the date stamp 12.15 p.m. In the proper course this letter should have been dispatched at 1.9 p.m. What explanation have you to offer?" He said at first, "I do not remember this letter"; afterwards "I put it on the table about mid-day." I said, "You wrote the letter and received the money in payment of the bets." He said, "Yes." I then said, "Have you got any letters on you now date-stamped?" He said "No." I. said,

"Do you mind turning out your pockets?" Post Office constable Alexander was present. Prisoner turned out his pockets and as he did so Alexander handed me a letter addressed to Mr. Peters at Wandsworth. That bore the 12.30 p.m. mark of that very day. It was about 1.20 when we had this conversation. The flaps of the letter was stuck down lightly and could have been lifted very easily. It was opened in court by Mr. Curtis Bennett, the magistrate, and contained a blank sheet of notepaper simply headed with prisoner's address. I retained possession of the letter. Prisoner said, "I can explain. I did not intend to post it." He could not properly have had such a letter upon him, as it having been stamped it was in the possession of the Postmaster-General. I afterwards gave prisoner into custody.

Cross-examined. I had to go down to the South-Western office in Howick Place to inquire into the matter. I could not say when I was first instructed about it. I saw Mr. Peters several times about it and also about another fraud in a different part of the district. I know nothing of any complaint by prisoner of £2 10s. 6d. in "postals" sent. to him by Peters having been lost in the Post Office.

(Friday, November 19.)

JOHN CROMPTON recalled, further cross-examined. The flap of the envelope was slightly stuck down. I could not tell you in which pocket it was. I should not think the touch upon the gum would be consistent with sweating in the inside pocket. The gum on the outside edge of the flap was not touched at all about one-eighth of an inch from the edge of the flap; there was just enough to keep it fixed down. I do not think I have ever carried envelopes in my inside pocket. I have not found an envelope get stuck down through carrying it in my pocket. The blank sheet inside had the date upon it, 3/11/09. I do not know that it is lady's stationary and I am not aware that C.E. are Mr. Weston's wife's initials. (To the Court.) If the envelope had not been stuck down at all he would probably have been stopped if he had been stamping it, because he would have been seen stamping a letter with the 12.15 stamp and the letter not fastened down, whereas, being fastened, if he had been challenged, he would have thrown it down at once as a proper letter going away. If the Post Office people found a letter with the envelope open it would be dealt with by the inspector on duty, who would see whether there were any valuables in it and say whether it was to be registered or not, and fastened down. (To Mr. Duncan.) I have to deal with a large number of these cases, and naturally I understand a little about horseracing. I believe the racing fraternity do wait till the last moment before having what they call "a bit on." There is no offence in his having a letter in his pocket containing a postal order for 2s. and holding it and not posting it, but he should not have stamped the letter 12.15. If at 12 o'clock he gets a tip from his friend and immediately posts his letter there would be an offence, because postmen are not allowed to bet. I am aware that if you put a letter on the table it can be posted half an hour later than if put into an ordinary pillarbox.

If he put the letter on the table just before 12.15 no offence would be committed. Re-examined. It would be an offence for him to take the letter back into his possession after it was stamped. A letter once posted is not allowed to go back to the sender. If a letter is found in the post unsealed it would be examined to see if it contained valuables, and then it would be officially sealed and dispatched.


PERCY CHARLES WESTON (prisoner, on oath). "C. E." are my wife's initials. I could only explain the letter stamped 12.15 being found on the table in the Wandsworth office by saying that it must have been mis-sorted. It was left on the counter just after 12 o'clock. I admit leaving it on the counter before 12.15. This letter could not have been put with the Wandsworth letters. It was put with other letters that go to different railways, and it might have been sorted up to them by mistake and then transferred to the local letters, and then re-sorted. If this letter was wrongly sorted up after being brought in it would be put on the right-hand side and perhaps lie there for some time before being transferred down to the local sorting. I think it is nearly an impossibility for a letter stamped 12.15 to go by the 12.40 dispatch. (To the Court.) If this letter had been mis-sorted and put in amongst the North-Western, or the Great Western or the Great Eastern, or any other railway company's letters, it would have missed the 1.9 dispatch. If it was not mis-sorted there would be nothing to prevent it going by the 1.9, but plenty of them are mis-sorted. (To Mr. Duncan.) It might not take very long to get re-assorted into its proper bundle, but it would have lost its proper dispatch and lie there till the next one. The reason I had the letter in my pocket was because the day previous to my arrest I started writing a letter with the intention of meeting a friend on my way to duty from whom I obtained these tips at times. I was on duty that day at 1.10, not one o'clock, as has been stated. I left home earlier than usual with the intention of meeting this friend, and I obtained a postal order for 2s. on my way. I did not see him that day, and therefore that letter was not posted on the 3rd, and I had it in my pocket all the time, which might account for the flap being stuck. On the 4th I looked out for my friend, but did not see him all the morning. I felt sure I should see him on the 12.30 collection, which would be my last collection, as 1 was off duty that day at one o'clock. The stamp on that letter is 12.30, November 4. That letter was in my pocket when I was arrested at one o'clock. The reason I had that stamped letter in my pocket was this. It had been in my pocket since the day previous when I did not post it, and, thinking I should see my friend on the 12.30 collection, before leaving to make my collection I must say I foolishly stamped it. I did that without any intention of defrauding. It was because I thought if ray friend gave me a tip for an early race I should have been in time for it. You can sometimes save forty minutes by posting

a letter on the table. If a man wanted to write a very important letter in the office he could do so and post it immediately. We are not allowed by the rules to go outside when on duty. I do not think there is any mention in the rules about being able to write a letter inside and post it on the table. There was a race on that particular day, which started, I believe, at one o'clock, and I thought if I received a tip for the one o'clock race I should have been in time for it. It would have been quite impossible for me to have known the name of any winner at that time. I did not intend to post that letter on the 4th, as I did not see my friend, and I had already written a postcard to my wife, which I had in my pocket, saying that I intended to call on my way home at a sale at East Putney. (To the Court.) I did deny having the letter in my pocket. Mr. Crompton asked me if I had any letter on me now and I said no. He asked me to turn out my pockets and the letter was found and also the postcard to my wife. That letter bore the 12.30 stamp and had a blank sheet of paper in it, and, as I said before, not seeing my friend there was no occasion to send the letter and I meant to destroy it. Before I took up my 12.30 collection it was my intention to get a stamp for this postcard that I had in my pocket and forward it to my wife, and destroy the letter, but in my haste with my collection I forgot about it. I considered the letter dead. (To Mr. Duncan.) I had no intention of waiting for the result of the race and then posting the letter; it was my intention to go home immediately. I have never sent off a letter backing a horse after I knew the result of the race, and I can swear as to these two letters that I did not know the result. It is correct that I once failed to get £2 10s. 6d. from Peters and I wrote and asked him what hid become of it.

Cross-examined. I have been in the Post Office some time. I know it is against the rules for an official to bet. When I denied to Mr. Crompton that I had any stamped letters in my pocket I did not realize that I had been arrested for that, and the only answer I can give is that I intended to destroy the letter. (To the Court.) I considered I was in custody before this letter bearing the 12.30 stamp was found upon me. Mr. Crompton cautioned me that I need not say anything: unless I liked. (To Mr. Forster Boulton.) Overseer Riley told me before I was arrested that I was wanted in the postmaster's room. He went with me. I did not say to Riley on the way to the postmaster's room that I wanted to post a letter; I told him I wanted to get a stamp to post a card to my wife. You know he did not allow me to post it. I now know it is against the rules to have a poststamped letter in your possession. I admit it was an indiscretion now, but I did not think so myself at the time. I stamped the letter myself, but I did not know that was an offence; there is nothing to prevent any official using the stamp. I swear that, if I had a letter I wanted to post I should not think I was doing anything wrong in putting the stamp on it and putting it among the letters to be sorted. I admit I did wrong in putting the letter in my pocket instead of putting it among the letters to be sorted.

ALBERT C. F. POLLEY . I am engaged in the Judicial Department of the Privy Council Office. I have known defendant from 25 to 27 years. I am 37 and he is 38. He has been in the Post Office for 17 years, I think, and before that he worked as an indoor servant. He has always borne the character of a thoroughly respectable man. He never mentioned to me that he was given to betting.

LORD ROBERT CECIL . I first knew defendant towards the end of 1899. I only knew him for the six or eight months he was in my service 1900. as odd man. He was an additional postman at that time and was 1901. able during part of the day to come into my house and help in the 1902. ordinary domestic work. I believe it is one of the rules of the Post 1903. Office not to employ these extra postmen unless they have some other 1904. employment as well. Defendant left my service early in 1900. While 1905. he was with me he gave complete satisfaction, and, as far as I know 1906. was perfectly honest, straightforward, and truthful. I have made 1907. inquiries and I believe that to be his general reputation. I have been 1908. shown a letter from Lady Cecil, my wife, to the defendant to the same 1909. effect.

JOHN CROMPTON , recalled. After October 15, the date I have spoken to, the prisoner was seen date-stamping letters when he should not have been doing so. On October 26 he was actually seen putting a letter down at 2.30, when two winners were in, which was date-stamped 1.30. As far as I know it has been almost systematically going on for about three months. I am told £20 or £30 have been paid out.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT. (Thursday, November 18.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-26
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

POLAK, Mary , pleaded guilty of maliciously publishing a certain defamatory libel of and concerning Thomas Mitchmson.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted.

Prisoner, having promised not to repeat the offence, was sentenced to one week's imprisonment, and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-27
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

WAUGH, Algernon (36, clerk) ; embezzling and stealing a certain valuable security, to wit, a cheque for £20 4s. 6d. received by him for and on account of the inhabitants of the united parishes of St. Margaret, Lothbury, and St. Bartholomew-by-the-Exchange, his employers.

Mr. Bray, for the prosecution, stated that the prosecutor, Canon Ingram, had regarded this as a civil rather than a criminal matter, but the prisoner had gone straight to the police and made a confession. The money had been entirely refunded and he did not propose to offer evidence.

With the approval of the Common Serjeant, the Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-28
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JARVIS, William (69, secretary), PALMER, William (33, manager), and WEBSTER, John Alfred (24, milk carrier) ; all unlawfully conspiring and agreeing together and with others unknown to pervert and defeat the due course of law and justice upon the hearing of a summons against the North-Eastern Dairy Company, Limited, and to sell and cause to be sold a certain article of food, to wit, milk which should not be of the quality demanded by the purchasers and to obtain from such of the liege subjects of our Lord the King as should thereafter purchase milk from the North-Eastern Dairy Company, Limited, divers large sums of their moneys and to cheat and defraud them thereof. Jarvis committing wilful and corrupt perjury. (Refer to trial of these prisoners reported in preceding volume, page 864).

Mr. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K. C. and Mr. Leycester defended Jarvis; Mr. J. H. Watts defended Palmer and Webster.

The indictment for conspiracy was first tried. WILLIAM GEORGE HOBBS, clerk at North London Police Court. On May 7, 1909, I acted as clerk when a summons, dated April 17, 1909, against the North-Eastern Dairy Company was heard for selling, on April 2, milk not of the substance and quality demanded by the purchaser. The company appeared by their solicitor, Mr. Steel. The sale and the analyst's certificates were admitted, showing 6 per cent, of added water and the defence of warranty was set up. Webster was the first witness; Palmer and Kirby were also called. Jarvis went into the box, but gave no evidence; the summons was adjourned to May 14, when Jarvis gave evidence and the summons was adjourned to May 20 when, by arrangement, it was further adjourned to May 26; Kirby, Webster, Palmer, and Jarvis gave evidence and the summons was adjourned to June 11, when Albert Henry Cobb was called as a witness for the prosecution. The company were fined £100 and £21 costs. I produce my notes of the evidence given by Webster, Palmer, and Jarvis. Two labels produced were referred to by Webster and Palmer. Correspondence produced was referred to and put in by Jarvis. It includes the contract between Jarvis and Mrs. Daval for new milk warranted whole with all its cream supplied to Durham Road.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. My notes are not an exact record of the question and answer, but are usually the substance of the reply. I cannot say what the question was to Jarvis's reply, "We use no separated milk"—I am sure the word "now" ought not to be added to that. I did not notice that Jarvis was deaf. If the word "now" had been used it would be in my note. I do not recollect the question put by Mr. Bramall, but from my note and from my knowledge of his conduct of the case, I am sure the word "now" was not used.

The notes were not read over to Jarvis or signed by him, but they were read over to him on May 26. The statement, "We do not use separated milk" was not read over to him on the day it was made. Cross-examined by Mr. Watts. On May 7 Palmer said, "Egging-ton's was sold in the shop"—I do not remember the question being put. On May 26 Palmer suggested my note was wrong about that. According to my recollections the labels were produced by Palmer. I have at note to that effect, "These labels were on then—I took them off." I cannot say that my note contains the exact words used by either of the prisoners in all cases. In some cases they are the exact words. I am sure Webster said, "I was frightened for my position"—I remember him saying it. He also said, "I have made a mistake"—that was in saying it was Palmer who gave out the milk. I do not think there are any other words in Webster's evidence that I could say were his actual words. With regard to Palmer's evidence, I will not pledge myself to any of the note of May 7 being his exact words. I am sure that he said on May 26, "I had been in bed a fortnight before April 2"; "If it was my business I would not do it"; "If I said that Eggington's milk was sold in the shop it was not true—some was sold in the shop"; "I did not want to have anything to do with the separated milk"; "I seldom let my books go a day"—I do not think I can say that anything else was his exact words. My note is generally the result of the question and the answer.

Re-examined. I noticed no signs of deafness in Jarvis on May 14. Palmer produced two books, one of which showed the disposal of the milk, which was brought into the dairy, and which I have before me. It mentions the receipt of milk from Eggington—" 5 1/2 barns from Eggington." The words, "entered them here" were said in reference to the book showing the delivery out of the milk to the carriers.

ALBERT HENRY COBB , 6, Bedford Terrace, Durham Road. I have been employed at the dairy carried on at 52, Durham Road since 1886. It was then carried on Enderby Hansley. Ten or 11 years ago Jarvis took it over and carried it on as the Callow Park Milk Company, until 1903, when it became the North-Eastern Dairy Company, Limited. I looked upon Jarvis as my master until I left this year. Palmer has been manager since 1907. Webster was carman and carrier; he fetched the milk from the station and afterwards went on a round. The company bought separated milk from the West Surrey Dairy, Eggington and Arnold; Arnold also supplied new milk. From the West Surrey Company it came to Crouch End and from Eggington to Finsbury Park Station; it arrived at the dairy about 5.30 a.m. Either I or Palmer used to mix the separated with the new milk. I usually receive written instructions from Palmer, of which a number are produced, how the milk was to be mixed. One is "W S. (West Surrey) in large pail under shelf You will have to wait for the W. S. There is about four and a half barns of Evan's milk. Did you add any W. S. this morning, if so, add no more"; another is" All milk in dairy is coloured and ready for sending out. The milk in pail—20 quarts Eggington add four quarts to a churn—

three quarts to each of Daval's churns and mix Daval's milk with the others. "The colouring is done by adding about a spoonful of annatto to a churn to make the milk look richer. Another is "All milk in dairy is coloured. B. g.(barn gallons) of S. (separated) up from Eggington. Add six quarts to a churn; I think you will find it very good. W.P." (Palmer). Another is, "All milk in dairy is coloured—no milk in shop. Please well plunge and taste all milk. Give Daval 1900a to Arlein, Webster, Garner, Kite, and take Daval yourself. It is quite sweet, but tastes of the feed. There are two churns of Daval. "Another is, "Cobb. Milk in dairy is coloured and ready for sending out. S.(separated) in small pail. Well plunge all milk. I think a new farmer starts to-night. Smith I have stopped. Do not give Smith to either Buss or Howard." (Other similar documents were read.) We used to do the mixing in the yard of the dairy quite openly in the presence of all the carriers. On April 2, 1909, Webster brought the milk to Durham Road. I mixed the separated milk with the new milk before 6 a.m. Palmer was not there. I gave Webster his milk to take out on the round between 6 and 6.30. On the second round at 8.30 to 9 a.m. I gave Webster his milk—it was either Daval's or Shipman's. I heard that a sample had been taken, and in the afternoon Palmer asked me whose milk I gave Webster. I told him. He asked me how much Eggington (separated) I put in it, and I told him. I was not asked to come to Court on the summons until the last hearing, when the magistrate sent for me. I was not asked to give evidence in support of the defence of warranty. On April 2 the milk was dealt with as had been usually done for some months before, except that on that occasion I added rather less separated milk. I do not remember whether I had written instructions from Palmer on that date; if I had I should carry them out. I cannot identify any of the papers produced as being the one I received on April 2.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I had no conversation with Jarvis with regard to this matter—none of the instruction slips are in his handwriting. I arrived at the dairy at about 5.30 a.m. and should go on a round at 9.15. Jarvis would not be there; he had nothing to do with the yard or with the taking in or sending out of milk; he attended to the books; sometimes I did not see him for a week or a fortnight. I have known Jarvis 14 or 15 years. He has greatly changed in the last two years. I did not consider him fit for his work for the last 18 months; he was getting deaf.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watts. I was milkman to this dairy; I have been there 23 or 24 years. I have now left and am on my own account doing a round which I made myself and which I took away when I left, the profits of which belonged to the company up to the time I left; there were frequently no profits. I had to pay in for the milk I delivered, though the customers had not paid, and frequently took only 5s. or 7s. and sometimes 9d. on Saturday. I was secretary to a slate club and to a Saturday night club, and so could make ends meet. I left Jarvis's services after giving evidence in this case when the borough council put the

brokers in for the £120 fine. The fine was paid and the business is now carried on under a different name. While I was with the Dairy they were summoned many times—it may be 12 or 20 times; I was summoned twice, once when the company were summoned first; that was dropped and I was proceeded against personally and fined £5 and 5s. 6d. costs, which the company paid—it was their duty to do so as it was their milk I was selling. When I left on the round I took a sample of the milk and left it in the box with the manager. My milk was on one occasion sampled by the inspector, found to be deficient in fat, and they said that the sample I had left was all right. If my sample did not correspond with the sample taken by the inspector I should say it had been tampered with. I sold the milk on my own account to the customers of the Dairy Company. If I had added water I should have made more money—I did not do so. I distinctly remember giving out the milk on April 2. At first I could not remember until I was told by another carrier, Kite; then Palmer asked me what milk I had given him. I had had no trouble with Palmer. One day he said the milk was two gallons short and that he would have to pay for it. I told him I could not account for it. I do not think he thought I had it. This occurred after I was proceeded against personally. If Palmer had thought I had had that milk he would not have let me continue to give the milk out. Why did he not stop me? I did not want to do his job. We never had any cross words. We did not always add separated milk to new milk; it was only when milk was dear. We sold at 3d. a quart and 3 1/2 d. in the winter. I had to do what my governors told me. I received instructions from Palmer; I had nothing to do with Jarvis. I was paid £1 a week and commission of 2d. per barn gallon, equal to about 2d. in 2s. I had to account out of my money for all the milk I took. I sold about 60 or 70 barns a week, on which the commission would be about 6s. I was treated fairly by the company. I delivered the milk to Webster on April 2. I swore at the police court it was Daval's milk on the first round—I afterwards found that was a mistake; it was Daval's on the second round. I remember distinctly putting separated into Daval's milk on that morning. There were 43 or 47 gallons new milk left from the previous day. It might be that I put separated milk into that—that was better milk than Daval's. We should mix all the milk together. I cannot swear that I put separated into Daval's—I should follow my instructions; I cannot say what they were that morning.

Re-examined. I entered in book produced milk given to carriers. On April 2 there "Webster 3 bls Shipman 601; Webster 6 barns Daval 1,770"; that means that I gave Webster Shipman's milk on the first round and Daval's on the second. "1,770" is the number on the guarantee label of one of the churns received from Daval on April 2. I left the North-Eastern Dairy Company on a Saturday in June. The next morning their barrows were sent out with a printed label on, "Manor Park Dairy Company." The company took proceedings to prevent my selling milk on my round—they were not successful. I was fined £5 and costs in respect of summons. (produced)

for selling milk from which 14 per cent, of fat had been extracted; the firm paid the fine. I have had no quarrel with Palmer and have no ill-feeling against him. We have used separated milk since Palmer came and we had it several years ago when Jarvis was proprietor; I had nothing to do with the mixing at that time.

JAMES HOWARD . I have been employed as milk carrier by the North-Eastern Dairy Company at Durham Road for about 11 years. Since January, 1909, I have seen separated milk arrive which was mixed with new milk at about six or eight quarts to the churn of eight barn gallons. I have seen it done in the dairy by Palmer and Cobb. A gallon of new would be taken out of the churn and a gallon of separated put in. Webster was a milk carrier—he has been present when the mixing was done. I have told Palmer the mixed milk was not satisfactory to take out to serve. He said it was not his fault. He said it was great cheek on the part of Mr. Dowse to have the separated milk sent up from the country in his (Palmer's) name. There was no secrecy with the milk carriers about the mixing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watts. About April Palmer had been ill; some mornings he came down and gave out the milk; other mornings Cobb did it. I could not say who served it out on April 2.

WILLIAM ALEXANDER STUART , clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House. I produce file of the NorthEastern Dairy Company, Limited, registered December 31, 1903. The memorandum and articles of association, par. 16, states as one of the first directors "William Jarvis, of 170, Stapleton Hall Road"; and that he is to be the first secretary to the company; paragraph 17 states that he is to be the managing director and secretary so long as he shall be willing to act and that he is to receive £200 a year; and by paragraph 18 he is to hold his office so long as he shall live or until he become bankrupt or a lunatic. There is an agreement of December 13, 1903, between William Jarvis and the company reciting that the business has been carried on by William Jarvis and transferring it to the company. The capital of the company is £6,000, divided into 6,000 £1 ordinary shares. On the return of March 14, 1904, Jarvis is shown as holding 1,000 ordinary shares; on April 28, 1905, he is shown as holding 568 preference shares. On February 11, 1904, there is a registration of 40 debentures, of which Marion Dewar Jarvis holds two debentures of £25 each. On March 22, 1909, William Jarvis was appointed receiver for the debenture holders, the notice being given by Thomas Francis Bryen.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. In Jarvis's appointment as receiver the word "manager" is struck out. There is no notice of appointment of a manager. The actual appointment is not filed, only the notice under the Act.

ALFRED ARNOLD , 233, Seven Sisters' Road, dairyman. I have supplied both whole and separated milk to the North-Eastern Dairy Company from about nine months ago. On March 22, 23, and 24, I supplied one churn of separated each day; on March 22 I supplied one churn of pure milk at 1s. 7d. per barn gallon. I charged 2s. for eight barn gallons of separated—that was an exceptionally low price because

I was overstocked. I could not give the market price of separated at that time, as I do make a business of selling it. I had it by me because I had too much new milk.

ALFRED COXON , Union Street, Burton-on-Trent, accountant. I am secretary and manager of Eggington's Dairy Company, Limited. In April, 1909, we supplied separated milk to Jarvis, 52, Durham Road. Letter produced of March 31 is from Jarvis directing us to send six barns of separated daily to Finsbury Park Station, "to be charged to me at this address." Twelve imperial gallons a day were sent on April 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5—that is part of a churn. On April 4 Jarvis wrote to Locker, manager of my company, stating that he had had an stopping the order. We charged 3 1/2 d. per imperial gallon. A barn gallon contains 17 pints.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. We sell a very large quantity of separeted milk. Jarvis took a very small proportion of our daily supply. (To the Judge.) Separated milk has more taken out of it than the old-fashioned skimmed milk. Somersetahire, part proprietor and manager of the North-Eastern Dairy Company My company supplied separated milk to the North-Eastern Dairy Company, commencing in October or November of 1908. From December 21, 1908, to £109 19s. 2 1/2 d.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. We have dozens of customers for separated milk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watts. We send separated from Wincanton to adjacent places, and to Ramsgate, Margate, Hastings, Brighton, and Dover—all over the country. Our trade is selling cream and separated milk to dairies. We very seldom send both to the same dairy. We have also a few customers for new milk. A great many of the large milk companies in London get separated milk—it is a common practice.

Re-examined. Our separated milk is usually lebelled "Sep"; new milk is marked "New milk." The price charged averages about 2 1/2 d. per gallon. The price varies because we pay the carriage to the customer's railway station in different parts of the country.


WILLIAM JARVIS (prisoner, on oath). On April 2 I lived at 170, Stapelton Hall Road, Stroud Green. I was by training an accountant, and about 1890 was engaged as accountant to the dairy trade, and became secretary to the West London Dairy Company, Limited, for six and a half years. I was auditor for a great many milk firms; among them for Mr. Hallett, who carried on business as the Callow Park Milk Company. I then bought a part of his business. George Arthur Dowse was Hallett's manager. In December, 1903, I formed share of the Callow Park Company, the other portion of that business

going to Hallett's brother. I held 1,000 Ordinary and 169 Preference shares. For some years, until my illness, I paid all the dividends and creditors regularly. It was supposed to be a cash trade carried oil in the poorer London districts, the milk being sold at 3d. a quart in the summer, sometimes at 2 1/2 d., and 3d. and 3 1/2 d. in the winter. T.f. Bryen and George Arthur Dowse were directors. I was managing director and secretary until October 15, 1906, when my health broke down and I gave up the management, only keeping the books. I took no part in the management after that date. From January until May 10, 1909, I received 25s. a week for keeping the books. Dowse Acted as manager, receiving £2 10s. a week, together with £1 a week which he was allowed by the articles. I had nothing to do with receiving or sending out the milk. Dowse superintended and directed the local managers of the different depots, Palmer being manager at Durham Road for the last two years. Webster was with me as a boy, when I started the business; later on he became carman; then he left, and was afterwards taken on by Palmer as carrier. Since September, 1906, I usually attended the office from 10.30 or 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. About 1900, when I bought the business from Hemsley for £5,000, I found the business was losing, and with great reluctance felt I must do the same as others in the same class of trade, and I made an arrangement with Edwards and Company to supply a small quantity of separated milk. We put four to six quarts to each churn of new milk, having frequent samples taken to see that the milk did not fall in quality below the 3 per cent, of fat and not less than 8.5 per cent, of milk solids required by the Board of Agriculture. It is possible to add separated milk to new milk without going below the quantities permitted by the Board. (Sale of Food and Drugs Act, Sect. 4 subsection 1, referred to.) From January, 1904, the price of milk having fallen, I entirely discontinued the use of separated milk until October, 1907, when Dowse had the sole management, until I was appointed Receiver on March, 22, 1909, at a salary of £3 a week. On March 31 I wrote to Eggington Dairy Company ordering a supply of separated, arid on April 4 I wrote stopping the supply, and stating that I had yesterday an inspector's sample taken, and I did not want to take any more risk. I felt that as the milk had fallen below the standard it would be better to give up the use of separated.

(Friday, November 19.)

WILLIAM JAR VIS (prisoner, on oath), recalled. Further examined. On April 4 I received analyses of the inspector's sample and the sample of the milk sent out from the yard, which were identical. The practice was for each carrier to deliver in a sample of the milk taken cut by him, which in case a question arose could be sampled by our own analyst, Mr. Bryant. Bryant's analysis shows 8 per cent, deficiency in fats, 8 1/2 per cent, added water. The sample was taken on April 2. I should receive it on the morning of April 3; it would be sent to Bryant, and I should get his analysis on April 4. As April 4 was Sunday I must have received it on April 5, and written my letter

on that day, misdating it the 4th. On no consideration whatever should I have written a business letter on Sunday. The analysis of Mr. Tee, the public analyst, is identical with that of Bryant. The defence to the summons was put in the hands of our solicitors, Francis, Miller, and Steel. Bryen happened to come into the office that morning; I gave him the summons and directed him to take it to Mr. Steel. I did not direct him to raise the defence of warranty. I told Bryen I believed the milk was all right, and we should defend on the warranty. on May 7 I attended the police court, but was too late to give evidence. On May 14 I was called and produced correspondence and contract with Daval, and stated that the milk on April 2 was supplied under that contract, and that I had no knowledge of deficiency. That referred to deficiency of fat. The analyst's report only stated that water was added. I believe I said, "We use no separated milk. "I may have said, "We are not using separated milk" I cannot recollect the form of the question, but I answered it conscientiously. It was true—we had given up the use of separated milk for several weeks past; we had certainly given it up at Durham Road from April 7. I then thought the charge was the use of added water. If I had been asked, "Did you use separated milk last month," I should have replied that we did. I said that separated milk had been bought and taken to Durham Road, and that it had been bought from Edwards', in Staffordshire. I said: "I have seen accounts from time to time for separated milk. The account went on for a week or two and then I stopped it, as I would have no risk. It is not possible if it is on the premises to prove that it was not used." In re-examination I said, "It is perfectly openly bought. "My hearing has not been very acute for several years. On May 14 with my left ear I could not hear my watch tick. About three months before May 14 Dr. Craig syringed both my ears; the hearing was better for a time, but gradually the left ear got worse again. I was quite deaf in the left ear on May 14. I was in Court when Palmer and Webster gave evidence but paid no attention to it, and had seen no note of it; I had no communication from them as to what they had said. As an ordinary thing I knew, of course, that separated milk was used, but the quantity was so small that it would not bring the quality below that allowed. The analyst's certificate led me to believe the complaint was the addition of water. My usual time to reach the office was 10.30 to 11 a.m. I may have seen Cobb on April 2 at about two o'clock, after his return from his second round. No communication was made to me on April 2 with reference to this matter.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watts. It is perfectly ridiculous to suggest that I ever conspired with Palmer and Webster to defeat the ends of justice; I most emphatically say that I had no conversation with them as to what they should say.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I gave no written instructions for the defence of warranty; if my asking Bryen to take the summons and instruct Mr. Steel made me responsible then I am responsible; I took no further part in it at all. I visited Steel after the

second hearing with Palmer on May 19; I only visited Steel once. I then learned that Palmer and Webster had given untrue evidence, and the object of the visit was to decide what Palmer should say the next time he went up to the police court. My recollection is that Palmer tacitly admitted that the evidence he had given was not true—that he was not in the dairy on the morning of April 2 as he had stated. I have a very imperfect recollection of this interview. I cannot charge my memory whether I heard that Palmer had given false evidence at Steel's office or whether it was on May 26. I have no notes. The object of going to Steel was to say what evidence Palmer should give at the next hearing. The first time I knew that Palmer and Webster had given false evidence was when the magistrate pressed me about it. I distinctly remember telling the magistrate that I did not know it. I do not know if it was on May 14. I saw Steel on May 19 at his request, and we discussed what Palmer was to say the next time. I have not the slightest recollection what we decided. My memory is very treacherous. Palmer said he could not recollect whether he was at the dairy on April 2 or not. On May 20 Mr. Steel sent word that he could not attend, and there was no hearing on that day. I had no notice to produce the account with the Edwards' Creamery. I cannot say when. Notice produced is I dated May 19. I suppose I was asked to produce it on May 20. Bryen was employed partly as manager of one of our depots, and he had a laboratory on my company's premises where he mad analyses for various firms. In his certificate, dated April 3, he alleges 8 per cent, deficiency of fat. I saw that certificate and wrote letter dated April 4 to Eggington. No doubt I suspected then that too much separated milk had been put in. I should no doubt have spoken to Palmer about it. Palmer knew that four or six quarts of separated milk had been used to the churn on April 2. Cobb had told him so. I have not the slightest recollection what explanation Palmer gave me. Separated milk was supplied by Eggington's to a dairy at Hornsey kept by my wife. We put in as much as we believed would give the police milk far above 3 per cent, of cream. Samples I had taken showed me that we were giving milk equal to milk commonly sold at 4d. My wife has another business at Walthamstow. We used a small quantity of separated milk there. I say most emphatically I never wrote a business letter on Sunday—the letter to Eggington must have been written on Monday. My son was secretary and manager to the Manor Park Dairy Company, which took over the business of the North-Eastern Dairy Company. I believe they have been fined for adulteration. The solicitors to that company are Francis, Miller, and Steel. The directors are George Arthur Dowse, who was a director with me of the North-Eastern Dairy Company. Thomas F. Bryen was sometime ago a director of the North-Eastern Dairy Company, and, I believe, a director of the Manor Park Company before they took over the business of the NorthEastern. George Payne was a large creditor of the North-Eastern Company and was one of those who appointed me Receiver. My letter of April 4 to Eggington's is, "I will wire you to-morrow morning

to have Monday night's supply transferred somewhere, as I am anxious after this experience. I hope at the end of September to come to you again for the winter—" It was then my intention to use separated milk for further mixing; I have not done so. I had sold the dairy, but I was speaking about my wife's business. We are not using any separated milk at all now. (To the Judge.) It is my wife's business, but I say "we" because I carry on all the correspondence for her and did so previous to April 2. She pays me a salary. (To Mr. Muir.) I handed to T. F. Bryen the summons for him to take to Steel. He is not here. I say the defence of warranty was a true defence. The only false evidence that I knew Palmer had given was in saying that he had given out the milk on April 2. I saw Bryen last Tuesday or Wednesday. I did not ask him to come here and explain how it was he set up the defence of warranty. When I gave my evidence I had no idea that the defence of warranty had collapsed. I said, "It is not possible if it (separated milk) is on the premises to prove that it has not been used." I know the defence of warranty requires proof that the milk is sold in the same condition as it is received. On May 14 I knew that we were mixing separated milk with new milk. I may have been very unwise in setting up the defence of warranty, but I did it in good faith, although I was using separated milk. On December 10, 1907, I believe we used separated milk. I do not know that on that day we were summoned, pleaded warranty, and the summons was dismissed on payment of costs—I had no part in the management at that time. I do not know that on February 25, 1908, we were summoned, pleaded warranty, and had the summons. dismissed. The summons produced of March 4, 1908, was at Westminster, for 5 per cent, of added water; I do not know whether warranty was proved and the summons dismissed. During all that time I was in bad health, was only keeping the books, and had nothing to do with the summonses. Dowse would be responsible. I have no recollection of a summons on April 3, 1908, at Marylebone, for 8 per cent, deficiency in fat; warranty pleaded; summons dismissed with costs against the prosecuting council. I know nothing about and had nothing to do with those summonses at all—I do not know what steps were taken. That applies to the whole time since I was ill, three years ago. No doubt at the Thames Police Court there were about 12 summonses. The magistrate was satisfied that we were victimised by a man who had been adding water and buying separated milk on his own account. I did not plead warranty—I am not prepared to answer for the sins of other people. (To the Judge.) I knew separated milk was being used because I had the accounts before me. (To Mr. Muir.) I was still a director of the company. I wished two years ago to resign, but the bank manager, who had always been very friendly to me, said I must not do so as long as we were indebted to his bank for so large an amount. I told Mr. D'Eyncourt I had resigned my "directorship" two years ago—it should have been "managing directorship." There was no intentional deception; and none when I said, "We use no separated milk." I have no doubt Mr. Bramall, the solicitor to the

borough council, has great experience in conducting these prosecutions. I thought he was asking me if we used separated milk on May 14. I went on to say, "It has been bought and taken to Durham Road from time to time when milk was short. It was done in my time when proprietor"—that was from before January 1, 1904, to when I practically ceased to be managing director in September, 1906. Dowse bought separated milk in 1908. The account that I said "went on for a week or two" was Edwards's account after I was appointed receiver. (To the Judge.) I had separated from Eggington's for five days up to the day when the milk was sampled. Then I stopped it, as I would take no risk. I was having it from Edwards in the beginning of April. Edwards's was the account I was speaking of to the magistrate. I told the magistrate that I stopped Edwards's because I would have no risk. Really I had not stopped it till after the sample was taken. (To Mr. Muir.) Edwards's was not delivered at Durham Road. They were the principal firm we bought from. Edwards's separated milk was supplied to the other depots down to April 17. My defence was that the milk was sold under a warranty. I did not feel ashamed of it and I do not now, because it is my honest belief the farmer watered the milk before it came to us. I do not admit my statement was untrue—it was given to the best of my belief and recollection at the time. I knew that what Palmer and Webster had said was untrue. I sent them to Mr. Steel to give him all the information—I suppose I was a party to the defence of warranty. Again I say I was very deaf. I only went to prove the letters between myself and Mrs. Daval—that is, the warranty. Mr. Cox Sinclair appeared to watch my case at the request of my solicitors. I did not ask for a counsel to be there.

ALFRED WALTER STOKES , Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry, of the Chemical Society, and of the Society of Chemical Industry, Public Analyst to the Metropolitan Boroughs of Paddington, Hampstead, and Bethnal Green. I have had 30 years' experience in milk analysis and have given evidence in a number of cases, mainly for the prosecution. The result of analysis of milk where water has been added is quite different from that where separated milk has been added. The analysis of Dr. Tee shows the addition of 6 per cent, of water.

Cross-examined. It is possible to have a sample of milk showing both deficiency of fat and added water. The state of things described on Dr. Tee's certificate could be created by the addition of both separated milk and water.

RICHARD BODNER , Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry and of the Chemical Society, Public Analyst for the Boroughs of Bermondsey and Southampton. I have had 25 years' experience in analysing milk. The figures stated in Dr. Tee's certificate could not have resulted from the addition of separated milk alone; it might result from the addition of water and separated milk.

SAMUEL HORNER CRAIG , L. R.C. P., L. R.C. S., 124, Stroud Green Road. I have medically attended Jarvis and his family. On May 29 I found his ears were plugged with wax, which I removed by syringing

and then found he had catarrh in the ear. He complained of being deaf, which would no doubt be caused by the wax.

Cross-examined. I did not test his hearing, except by finding I had to speak louder than usual to him. He did not tell me that three days before he had been giving evidence in the police court and explain some of his answers on the ground that he had been deaf.

MILLIE ADELAIDE JARVIS , daughter of prisoner Jarvis, nurse at the Children's Hospital, Shadwell. I returned from Italy on May 1, after being away four months, and noticed my father was quite deaf. He had been complaining before I left. I syringed his ears, but his hearing did not improve. On May 23 I syringed his ears again by the advice of my friend Winifred Farey, and my father arranged to consult Dr. Craig.

Cross-examined. Before I went to Italy we had to shout to my father. He was particularly deaf in the right ear—that was the one I syringed. He could hear me if he knew I was speaking to him. He was equally deaf on both sides. He could hear me across the table if I spoke as I am speaking now. He was a little better after he went to Dr. Craig.

WINIFRED FAREY , nurse at the Children's Hospital. About the end of May or beginning of June I visited the prisoner Jarvis. I noticed that he was deafer than when I had been there a year before.

Cross-examined. My visit was after May 26. I cannot be absolutely certain about the date. '

FRANK ALBERT EDWARD MANSELL , caretaker to Elliott, Son, and Boyd, 15, Cavendish Square. On September 2 I visited Mrs. Daval's farm at Bradley, Alton, Staffordshire, and examined the refrigerator. I found there was a crack in the left part of the body, which in cooling the milk would allow the water that was used to mix with the milk. It was an old crack. I called Mrs. Daval's attention to it. It had been mended in several places.

Cross-examined. I examined it for about ten minutes. I did not measure the amount of water that would go through in 10 minutes. I could not judge whether a teaspoonful or a gallon would go through in an hour.

HENRY JOHN BURGESS , Incorporated Accountant; JOHN FREDERICK WEBB, cattle salesman, Cattle Market, Islington; THOMAS MEAN, representative of Lehman and Co., Monument Street, E. C., condensed milk manufacturers; JOHN SCOTT WILSON, 45, Stapleton Hall" Road, stockbrokers' clerk; Sir JOHN KIRK, director Ragged School Union; FREDERICK HORNE, 20, Myrtle Grove, Acton, dairy agent; and WILLIAM RAWLES, cambridge Road, Bethnal Green, provision merchant, spoke to having known Jarvis for periods of 15 to 47 years, as bearing the reputation of an honourable and respectable man. In cross-examination all admitted that it was not honest to mix separated milk with whole milk and sell the mixture as pure milk (excepting J. F. Webb, Who said it would depend somewhat on the price at which it was sold).

WILLIAM PALMER (prisoner, on oath). I have been local manager of the North-Eastern Dairy Company, 52, Durham Road, for two years. It was my duty to be up at 5 a.m. to receive the milk. I have been ill with bronchitis and was unable to come down in the spring of 1909, so I got a carrier named Cobb to measure the milk out to the carriers. He would do that for the first round two or three times a week. I was generally down by 8 a.m. On May 7 I stated in evidence that I measured the milk out on April 2. I was mistaken and was reminded by another carrier that Cobb had done so. I had a few words with Cobb, but no real quarrel until while he was in charge the milk began to get short—on one occasion there was two gallons short and I complained to him. He said he could not make it out—he had done his best. I was not exactly blaming him, but he was responsible for receiving the milk, and I told him I should have to make it good. Cobb would generally leave about £1 or £2 due on his book owing by him to the company. I could not say if on some occasion he had only 9d. to take home. Had he told me so I should have lent him 10s. I found by referring to the book that on April 2 that the milk given out was in Cobb's handwriting, which showed that he had measured it out. I said that I had done so, thinking it was true. I know now that warranty was pleaded. I do not know who gave instructions, except from the evidence I have heard to-day. I had no conversation with Jarvis about the warranty. We had customers who asked for separated milk, and if Eggington's was mixed with the new milk it would be sold over the counter. Some was sold in the shop. There is not a word of truth in the charge that I have conspired with Jarvis or Webster to defeat the ends of justice.

Cross-examined. I entered the service of the North-Eastern Dairy Company in September, 1907. Six or eight months afterwards we had separated milk. The separated milk came in my name, although I had never given any orders for it. I used to take my orders from G. A. Dowse, the managing director. I cannot say who else had an interest in the business. Dowse told me there would be some separated milk sent and I was to mix it six or eight quarts to the churn. I was too frightened to say anything, because I expected if I had refused to do it I should lose my situation. Conscientiously speaking, I do not think it is right. I continued to use it until they stopped sending it. It came from the West Surrey Dairy Company until they stopped sending it. It came from the West Surrey Dairy Company until they refused to send it, I believe, owing to non-payment. Then we had some from Arnold, and afterwards from Eggington. It went on practically continuously for about 18 months down to April, 1910. I knew it was not right, but I dare not refuse to obey my 1911. orders. When I was ill and unable to get up early I left written instructions 1912. overnight on papers (produced) for Cobb to deal with the 1913. milk. I was sampled once as a milk carrier when with the Hope 1914. Farm Dairy Company, and once while with the North-Eastern Dairy 1915. Company. Daval's milk was much poorer than that of other farmers. 1916. When Webster was sampled I told him what I thought he would be 1917. asked at the police court, and referred to the books to see how much

milk he had had. On May 7 I knew that, there being a defence of warranty, the milk would have to be traced from the time it left the railway station to the time it was sampled. By looking at the book produced I could tell who had delivered out the milk, and that on April 2 Cobb had done so to Webster. I had not looked at the book on May 7 to see who had delivered it—I never gave it a thought. Cobb had been measuring out for some time before April 2. I might have known that when giving evidence. Cobb was not asked to give evidence for the defence—I do not know why. When I gave evidence I had just recovered from a nervous breakdown and had not given sufficient thought to the matter. I will not swear that when I gave evidence on May 7 I did not know that Cobb had given the milk to Webster. I may have said to Cobb, "What milk did you give Webster?" and he may have told me it was Daval's—I cannot remember. I may have asked Cobb, "How much Eggington's milk did you put in?" I cannot swear he did not tell me on April 2. I do not remember saying to Webster, "You must not bring Cobb's name into it"—I will not swear I did not. I remember being called into the office and seeing Jarvis about the sample—that was when I was to go and see Mr. Steel. I may have told Jarvis we had the summons. (To the Jury.) I received 25s. a week wages and my rooms, eggs, and milk, and shortly afterwards I got a rise of 5s. a week. I was told I should have a rise if the trade increased, and it did so long before we were using separated milk. I got no presents of any kind. If I had used a ton pf separated milk a day I should not have got a halfpenny more. I used it because I was obliged to keep my situation.

(Saturday, November 20.)

JOHN ALFRED WEBSTER (prisoner, on oath), 58, Andover Road, milk carrier. I am 29 years of age, married, and have five children. I have been employed 13 1/2 years by the North-Eastern Dairy Company, at Durham Road. It was my duty at 5 a.m. to go to Finsbury Park Station, get the milk, and deliver it to the man in charge of the dairy. Palmer would be in charge, or, if he was not there, Cobb would take it. For some time past Cobb took charge of the milk more frequently, Palmer having been ill. On April 2 I delivered the milk to Cobb, who measured out my milk for the round, and I left about 6.15 a.m., returning from the round about 7.30 and going out on the second round at about 9 a.m. On April 2 I did not see Palmer at all. He might have been in the dairy without my seeing; him. About 12 noon I was sampled and reported it on my return from the round. I mixed no water with the milk—it was in the same condition as I received it. On May 7 I told the magistrate that Palmer served the milk out to me. Palmer told me to say that. It was false. On the second occasion I told the magistrate that I had delivered the milk to Cobb.

Cross-examined. I desire to tell the truth now. On May 7 my evidence was. true down to, "I took them" (five churns) "to

Durham Road. I stopped nowhere. I got there at 5.30. "—"I hand them to Mr. Palmer, our manager," is false. On April 2 I took the sample into Palmer. Cobb was there, paying in his money. Palmer said to Cobb, "What milk did you give Webster?" Cobb said, "Daval's. "On the Saturday following I asked Palmer how the sample was. He said, "We are sure to have a conviction, and you must say that I was up that morning to receive the milk from Finsbury Park Station and that I served you out with the milk that morning. Do not bring Mr. Cobb's name into it at all whatever, because there have been two previous convictions at the same police court against Cobb. "I went to Mr. Steel's office with Palmer before giving evidence, and Palmer told the clerk he was up that morning and served the milk out. After giving evidence the second time I went again to Steel's office with Palmer. Palmer told me that I ought to have stuck to the lie and we should have been all right. I went to Steel's office four or five times. About the fourth time Jarvis was there. I was not allowed into Mr. Steel's room, but when we came away Palmer said, "Mr. Jarvis has made a fool of himself and if we had stuck to the lie we should have been all right. "I had no conversation with Jarvis about this matter. In my evidence on May 7, "I loaded up with Daval's milk—the manager told me so," is false—Cobb told me that.—"I took a sample and handed it to the manager," is false—I gave the sample to Cobb. On May 6 I asked Palmer what they would want to know at the police court. Palmer did not produce his book and show it me—he told me there were only two churns from Evans, two from Daval's, and one from Eggington. When I said, "I do not know if we have skim milk," it was false. It is true that I have never been sampled before. My evidence on May 26 is true. I knew the Eggington's milk which I brought from Finsbury Park was separated milk. Before I went into the witness-box the second time I had made up my mind to tell the truth. I cannot call to mind that I said that to anybody.

WILLIAM PALMER (prisoner, on oath), recalled. I did not say to Webster he ought to have stuck to the lie and we should have been all right. I did mention Jarvis—I said, "If Mr. Jarvis had not been such a fool as to plead a warranty we should not have been in all this trouble. "I may have told him Cobb had been convicted before.

Mr. Muir claimed the right of a general reply, the charge being one of conspiracy. evidence being called by one defendant affecting the others, and Mr. Watts having examined Jarvis. Held that counsel for the prosecution was entitled to reply.

Verdict: Jarvis and Palmer, Guilty— Palmer strongly recommended to the mercy of the Court; Webster, Not guilty.

The indictment for perjury against Jarvis was ordered to remain on the file.

Sentence: Jarvis, Eight months' imprisonment; Palmer, three months' hard labour, to run concurrently with sentence of three months' imprisonment given last Sessions for perjury; Webster (for perjury), released on his own recognisances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.


(Thursday, November 18.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-29
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WEILER, Paul (23, merchant) ; stealing two pieces of paper, to wit, two forms of bankers' cheques, the goods of Henry Cohen and feloniously receiving the same; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of £15, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Turrell defended.

SIDNEY H. DENCH , grocer, 167, Brockley Road, Brockley. On September 14 prisoner came into my shop with a cheque for £15 upon the London and South-Western Bank, Mile End branch, which purported to be signed by Henry Cohen. I had known him as a casual customer. He handed me this cheque and asked if I would mind passing it through my bank. I said I would and he could have the cash when the cheque was through. He said, "I am rather short of funds just now, there are one or two little things I want to meet; would you mind me having £5 advance upon it?" I said, "I do not care about it; however, you can have the £5. "He had the £5 and, after a little casual conversation, he left. On the following day I paid in the cheque. Prisoner came in that evening and said as he stood in the doorway, "Has the cheque gone through?" I said "No, I only put it in this morning; it cannot possibly go through; I shall not get the money before about Thursday afternoon or Friday." He said, "I suppose not. I am going away on Thursday night to Holland and I shall not be back till Monday; would you mind me having another £2 or £3 upon it? The balance can then stand over till I return on Monday. "I somewhat demurred; however, I thought to myself as a business man, "he is practically lending me £7 till Monday, he may as well have the other £3," so I advanced him another £3. On the morning of the 17th I received the cheque back from the bank with the words, "Signature differs" upon it. I made inquiries and afterwards saw prisoner on the afternoon of September 20, at 15, Gabriel Road. I said to him, "You have not come down for the balance of your account?" He said, "No, I was going to call this evening. "I said, "Well, I suppose you know that cheque has come back. "He seemed surprised and expressed himself so. I said, "Well, without mincing matters, I have seen Mr. Cohen, who says you stole that cheque from his book last Monday or Tuesday, that, you had forged the cheque, and that the whole thing is a fiasco as far as I am concerned; now what are you going to do?" He expressed a lot of indignation and said he would enter an action for slander, damages, and all the rest of it, against Mr. Cohen. Then he said, "I will see Mr. Cohen at once and call in before six o'clock and settle the matter with you." I said, "What did Mr. Cohen give you this cheque for, because he denies knowing anything about it?" He said, "He gave it to me as commission for goods that I have sold for him." I said, "Did he? He says you never sold any goods for him. When did he give you the cheque?" He said, "He

sent me that cheque in a letter." I said, "When?" He said, "Last Tuesday. "I said, "Show me that letter and I shall begin to think there is something the matter with Cohen. "He hunted about—he had an old basket with waistcoats and things in it—but could not find the letter. On September 21 I received a letter from prisoner, "Will call upon you to-morrow before midday to settle the matter. I have seen Cohen, but I do not know what to make of it. "I then communicated with the police. On the 23rd I gave him into custody.

Cross-examined. I know prisoner had lodged with a customer of mine nearly 12 months. I have known him on and off about two years. Up to this transaction I regarded him as a man of good character. If it had not been for this cheque I should now regard him, in my ignorance, as a respectable man. What I know against him I am not allowed to say here. I have never had letters from him. I have cashed perhaps five cheques for him. I only know his handwriting by the endorsements on the backs of the cheques I have received. I looked at the cheque when he brought it. I said, "This is your writing on the front of this cheque." He said, "Yes, I often fill up cheques for my customers, but, of course, they sign them. "I say the cheque is in prisoner's writing. I looked at the signature, I did not know that signature. It appears to me that the signature is in a totally different handwriting. I drew prisoner's attention to the handwriting. He said it was his. As to prisoner admitting the signature was also in his writing, I am a business man and, do you think for one moment he would suggest such a thing? He said, "Of course, they sign them. "Prisoner endorsed the cheque, not with his own address, but with an address that he had not lodged at for a year previous. I knew his address at that time and was able to communicate with him. When the cheque came back I went to see him; he never came to see me.

HENRY COHEN , coffee roaster, 224, Jubilee Street, E. On September 13 prisoner came to my shop. He said he represented a cocoa manufacturer in Holland and wanted me to give him an order. He was in the shop about two hours. He was in the office. I generally keep my cheque book on the desk. He came there the next day and stayed about an hour. I did not draw a cheque from my cheque book on the 13th. I drew a cheque on the previous Sunday night, but dated it for the Saturday, the 11th. I did not use the cheque book during the Jewish holidays. On the 18th I drew a cheque, and I then knew that cheque forms had been abstracted from my book. I found that out on a Friday, when Mr. Dench came; that would be the 17th. The two cheques handed to me purporting to be signed "H. Cohen" were not signed by me. These cheques have come from my cheque book. I did not authorise anyone to sign this cheque. I have never sent a cheque through the post to prisoner or drawn cheques to him. I have not seen him since September 13 or 14.

Cross-examined. Sometimes the counterfoils are filled up by myself and sometimes by a boy who does my correspondence. I do not always write out my cheques. Prisoner has never filled up any for

me. I always do my own signing. I have known prisoner about a year. I knew him as an agent travelling for a respectable firm. When he came to see me my wife was in the shop serving. I am quite sure the cheque book was not fetched from the safe. Prisoner did not ask me to lend him money. I did not hand him two cheques in blank. I did not tell him to fill them up so that the amount of the two did not exceed £15.

Sergeant JOHN BLACKMORE, P Division. At three o'clock, September 22, I saw prisoner at 15, Gabriel Street, Honor Oak. I told him I was a police officer and I should arrest him for forging and uttering this cheque and defrauding Mr. Dench of £5 on September 14 and £3 on September 15. I showed him the cheque. He said, "I had better not say anything at present. "Then immediately he said, "I know I filled up the cheque and had the money, and if Mr. Dench had waited till to-morrow I would have paid him." I took him to the station. When charged he made no reply.


PAUL WEILER (prisoner, on oath). I have been in England nearly five years. When I went to see Mr. Cohen I had just started business for myself. Previously I had been employed by various people, some just over a year and others just over six months. I came here to make my living. No charge has ever been made against me before this. I remember going to see Mr. Cohen. I did not obtain two blank cheque forms from Mr. Cohen, only one. Mr. Cohen handed it to me. I saw him first on September 13; he was very busy and I could not properly speak to him about what I wanted to see him. I saw him next day, Tuesday; I had written him a letter on Monday asking for a loan of £15; so I mentioned the matter, and after some persuasion he handed me the cheque. It was blank. He told me to fill it up. He said, "Do not fill it up for more than £15; I shall see the bank and see it right. "The whole of the cheque is in my handwriting. I know Mr. Cohen's signature. This signature is not an imitation of Mr. Cohen's. The signature on this cheque appears to be in a different handwriting from the body, but it has been done in a hurry. The whole of the cheque was done in a hurry. Of course, you always make signatures somewhat different to Ordinary writing. I took the cheque to Mr. Dench the same day. What he has said is quite correct. The address I endorsed on the cheque Mr. Dench knew. He knew both my addresses. I can always be found at that address. I told Mr. Dench that Cohen gave me the cheque for commission because I did not want to tell him it was money lent.

Cross-examined. It is untrue that Mr. Cohen did not give me a cheque. He gave me plenty of cheques before that cheque. He gave me the cheque in the presence of his wife, with the authorisation for signing it. It is an invention of his that it was stolen out of his cheque book. He gave me the blank cheque and told me to fill in any amount up to £15. I signed it, "H. Cohen." He said he was going to see it right at the bank. I could not ask.

him why he did not make it out himself because he was called to the back of the shop. I was not there two hours. His wife will tell you I was not. I was not there longer than 40 minutes. I did not go again on the Wednesday. I saw him again in Greenwich Police Court. I saw him the Monday I came back from Amsterdam. The signature on the cheque is the same handwriting. I cannot say it is written in a different way to the body of the cheque. I did not make it deliberately different. This cheque was written in the library. It was written in a hurry. I did not write the signature to make the bank believe the body of the cheque and the signature were different handwritings. I knew Mr. Cohen's signature. I told Mr. Dench that Mr. Cohen sent me that cheque in a letter. That was a lie. I did not want to tell him that the money was lent. I told Mr. Dench that lie on the top of the first lie, that it was commission. I wanted him to see Mr. Cohen to find out whether I had a title to the cheque. I do not know what Mr. Cohen's object is in saying he never saw me on the Monday. I had left the address I gave on the cheque six months. On all cheques Mr. Dench cashed for me I filled in both addresses, as I was to be found there. I could not positively give a reason for not putting both addresses on this particular cheque. Mr. Dench knew both my addresses.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sergeant BLACKMORE, recalled. I have made inquiries about prisoner. From correspondence I found on prisoner and at his lodgings. I have been able to visit several firms in the City, and have ascertained that his business relations with them have been very unsatisfactory. There is correspondence pending between this country and Odessa in respect to the forgery of a £200 draft. No previous charge has been brought against him. He is a native of Germany.

Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-30
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MARROTT, Arthur (27, clockmaker), and BEAUCHAMP, William (65, dealer) ; both breaking and entering the warehouse of Charles Maas and stealing therein 10 pipes and other articles, his goods; Beauchamp, feloniously receiving 10 pipes and other articles, well knowing them to have been stolen; Marrott, feloniously receiving one cigarette case, one tube, and one pipe, well knowing them to have been stolen.

Mr. Cohen prosecuted.

HARRY G. BURTON , manager to Charles Maas and Co., 13, Jewin Crescent, pipe manufacturers. On October 12, about 10 past seven p.m., I locked up the premises. Everything was quite safe. About 11 p.m. I returned to the warehouse, having received a message from the police. I found the padlock bar had been wrenched off our door. The police were guarding it. I went to the warehouse with the inspector and found the utmost confusion, boxes strewn about. I missed property to the value of about £200, mostly calabash pipes. The pipes produced are our property.

Detective-sergeant THOMAS HOWARD, N Division. On October 15, at 10.45 a.m., I was with Detective-sergeant Davis at the corner of

Chestnut Road and High Road, Tottenham, and saw prisoner Beauchamp. He lives at 31, Chestnut Road. He had that bag with him; it was full and bulky. I told him I was a police officer and said, "What have you in the bag?" He said, "Stuff for the market. "I said I should like to see it. He said, "All right. "We went into the police station at Tottenham. I there opened the bag. Amongst other articles I found three calabash pipes in cases and 16 cigarette tubes in cases. I searched Beauchamp and found on him the cheque book produced on the London and Westminster Bank, and this little vesta-box. They belong to Maas, Limited.

H. G.BURTON, recalled. The cheque book belonged to the firm. The vesta-box was in the private desk of one of the firm and was a present from a relative. The lock had been forced.

Detective-inspector ERNEST HAIGH, N Division. About half-past nine a.m. on October 15 I went to Beauchamp's house, 36, Chestnut Road, Tottenham. I found a large quantity of pipes, cigar and cigarette tubes, broken silver, amber mouthpieces, this overcoat, a brass rule, and eight skeleton keys, some of which would open half the doors in a parish. Early next morning I went to Marrott's, 117, Tottenham Road, Dalston. I was there about 20 minutes before Marrott came in. I admitted him. I told him I was an inspector of police and that I was making inquiries about certain pipes, cigarette tubes, etc. ', stolen by warehouse breaking on the 12th. I said, "I believe the material was brought here on Tuesday by a man named Beauchamp, whom you know, and who is in custody, and I want to know all about him." He said, "I know nothing about any pipes or other things whatever; I have never seen them. "I said I was not satisfied with his explanation and took him to Tottenham Police Station. He told me he knew Beauchamp. I took a statement from Beauchamp before I went to Marrott's. I wanted to know how the stuff came into his possession. He said, "I bought a lot from a dealer in Petticoat Lane. He keeps no stand that I know of. I don't know his name. He asked £6 10s., but I gave him £5 10s. I have bought odds and ends of him before. He told me it was a lot bought under the hammer. "Later I had him taken to Moor Lane, where he was charged. In answer to the charge he said, "They can charge me with what they like. I bought them yesterday afternoon. I know nothing of breaking and entering. "I said to Marrott, "I understand these things have been found in your possession and I must ask you to account for how you got them, as they are part of the proceeds of a warehouse breaking." He said, "I shall reserve my" statement."

Cross-examined by Beauchamp. I found the overcoat in your room. You told me about it. Howard had possession of the chequebook when I got to Tottenham. You may have given it to him with the vesta-box.

Cross-examined by Marrott. I searched your place before you arrived. I saw your wife and explained to her. She said you would be in in a few minutes and I waited. I went through the cupboards in the room and found nothing. You did not say, "I know nothing

about the pipes being stolen. "You and your wife denied all knowledge of the thing.

Detective-sergeant H. DAVIES, N Division. On October 16, at 1.30 a.m., I searched Marrott's house. I found in his pockets six new cigarette cases, part of the property stolen from Jewin Street. I was with Mr. Haigh.

Cross-examined by Marrott. You had no opportunity to dispose of the things if you had been so inclined when you came off the tram. One officer was in front and one at the back wherever you went.

Marrott. The things were found when I was searched at Tottenham Police Station. I produced the coat at the Guildhall.


WILLIAM BEAUCHAMP (prisoner, on oath). I am a general dealer, On Tuesday afternoon, about 2.30, I was in Whitechapel Road. I there met the man I bought the goods of. He is a casual acquaintance I sometimes meet in Caledonian Market, a dealer like myself. He told me he had a line of goods that might suit me; if I would like to see them at night time he would bring them down to the "Bell" in Petticoat Lane, between 8.30 and nine, as he was then going to clear the goods from the saleroom. He did not say what sale. I left him and went home and waited outside Earlsmead School, Broad Lane, Tottenham, for my boy. I told him to go to the Palace at night as I should not be home till 10 or 10.30. The Palace is a cinematograph affair. I then went back through Mile End looking on what they call the waste to see if I could find any goods to buy for myself, and passed the time away till about eight, when I went to the "Bell. "I stood outside there till about 8.50, when the party came up. He told me he had got some pipes and cigarette tubes and asked me if I would buy them for £6 10s., and I gave £5 10s. for them. I then went to Marrott's place with them in my black bag. I told Marrott I had bought a line of goods. He said, "Could I look over them?" I. said, "Certainly. "That would be very near 10 o'clock. I asked him if he would go to the Tottenham Palace of Varieties, not the Picture Palace, and if he would meet my little boy and if I could stop there the night. He agreed. He was to bring the boy to Tottenham Road, Dalston. When he came back with the boy we were having some supper, which I gave Mrs. Marrott money to buy. I left next afternoon with my boy to go home. This coat was part of the things I bought. I did not notice anything in the pockets till the next night, when I found this cheque book and vestabox.

Cross-examined. The signature on the statement made by me is mine. There is a mistake in the statement. I did not give any time when I bought the goods. I bought them on the Tuesday night. The man I bought them from made an appointment with me to buy pipes and smoking goods. Nothing was said about an overcoat then. The overcoat was a prize. It was not referred to in any way at the interview at the "Bell." I went to Marrott's place because my place

at home is very uncomfortable, on account of the landlady. I could walk from Marrott's to my place in, say, 35 minutes. I was with â party in Petticoat Lane 20 minutes to half an hour. We had one drink. I went to Marrott's to look over the stuff again. I was not aware I left any at Marrott's. When I was stopped by the police with this bag I was going to Caledonian Market, where I've been in the habit of going some time past. Fridays is open market. I meet this man as a rule on Friday in Caledonian Market or Petticoat Lane. Had I been outside I could have got him here, but I have been kept in prison. He is a Russian Jew, commonly called "Ginger"; he has ginger complexion and red hair. Dozens of people in Petticoat Lane and the Cattle Market answer the same description. Now and then in the summer time he has a stall in Caledonian Market, but I've never known him to have a stall in the street.

ARTHUR MARROTT (prisoner, on oath). About seven o'clock on the Friday evening following the Tuesday when the burglary was supposed to have taken place I left home to go to my mother's house, about a quarter of an hour's walk away. I have been in the habit the last 12 months of going there every Tuesday night to fetch a parcel of washing, which my wife does for my mother, and taking it home every Friday. And on that particular Friday I had left home just after seven with a parcel of washing to take to my mother's, and stayed there about an hour. I came away and arrived home about 8.30. That is on the particular Tuesday when the burglary was supposed to have been committed. I've got witnesses to show that. On the Friday evening after I got home me and the wife sat down for about an hour, and were just thinking about going to bed—on the Tuesday I should say. Beauchamp knocked at the door, it may have been half past nine or a little later. He is in the habit of calling there now and again. As a matter of fact, he has half my stall on the Kingsland waste. I am a musical instrument and clock maker. I stand out there on a Saturday, and he called and asked me if he could have the stall, as usual, for Saturday. If he is not there by a certain time I sometimes let it to somebody else. He asked me if I would mind him running his stuff over, as it was a job line. It is nothing unusual to him; he has diamonds and all sorts of stuff entrusted to him. The truth of it was, he said, "I will pay for a bit of supper." He said, "Would you mind me stopping at your place all night, as it is getting late? He gave me a couple of shillings and asked me if I would mind running down to Tottenham Palace, as he had arranged to meet his boy there. I brought the boy home, and Beauchamp had the stuff on the table, pricing them for the Friday's market. At the side of the table in our kitchen there is a little green box in the corner. Some of the articles were spread out on the box. Between the box and the wall was a rail, about an inch wide, which keeps the top of the box from the wall. In spreading the stuff out these three articles fell down behind that box. When the wife was cleaning out the room next day she found this broken pipe. I put the articles in my pocket and kept them till the Friday, and went to Caledonian Cattle Market as I know Beauchamp takes a stand there. I intended

taking them to Beauchamp. I spoke to the man at the stall. He said Beauchamp had not arrived. I still had them in my possession when I was arrested. I did not know Beauchamp had left them.

Cross-examined. I have known Beauchamp about nine months. I see him about twice a week. He is not a partner. I pay for the hire of the stall and can let part of my stall if I please. Beauchamp would come to my place in the morning, afternoon, or evening sometimes. He has never stopped all night before. He always carries a bag. He has often asked me if he could get the things out. When he set the stuff out I may have said, "You have got a good lot" or "a good haul." He did not call my attention to it any more than saying he had bought a job line. I don't think he said anything about the overcoat. I cannot say I saw it. Having the boy to meet, if he wanted to stop to look the things over he could not fetch the boy. He did not go home that night as he said it would be nearer for him in the morning. He is in the habit of going to Hatton Garden. He thought the boy could stay with me, as Beauchamp has no wife. I think I was in the other room when my wife found the three articles. She called and gave me them there and then. That was on the Wednesday.

ANNIE MARROTT . My husband left home on the Tuesday at 7.15 p.m., to fetch the washing from his mother's and got home again about half-past eight. He did not go out again. About 9.30 Beauchamp called. He said he had bought some things and would like to look them over with my husband. The little boy was fetched as it was getting so late. We had supper together. Then went to bed. The stuff was taken away next day. I am positive it was Tuesday. I found the three articles on the floor next day and gave them to my husband to return to Beauchamp. I did not see anything more of them after that. They were behind the box at the side of the table. I suppose they slipped down from the table the stuff was on.

Cross-examined. I could not say how long my husband has known Beauchamp. I have not known him very long. He has been to our house occasionally, but never on business. Perhaps he would come twice a week, sometimes not at all. He may have come later sometimes than on this Tuesday, perhaps about 10 o'clock. He never stayed any other time. I remember the officers coming to arrest my husband. I let them in. They asked me where the stolen property was. I said I knew nothing about them. I do not think Beauchamp's name was mentioned before my husband came in. They told me Beauchamp had been there on Tuesday night and that he was in custody for stealing these things. I did not tell them that Beauchamp had brought a lot of pipes on the Tuesday. He had never brought such a lot of pipes before. It did not occur to me to tell them that Beauchamp had been.

Mrs. MARROTT. On the Tuesday my son called at my place for my washing between seven and eight p.m., and left at eight. He lives about half a mile away. I heard of his arrest late on Friday, before he was charged, I think. He did not tell me Beauchamp had called.

Verdict, Beauchamp, Guilty of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen; Marrott, Not guilty.

Beauchamp confessed to a conviction at the Guildhall on March 8, 1906.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-31
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WILSON, Harry (22, fireman) , pleaded guilty of stealing one pair of socks and one handkerchief, the goods of Ernest Beaumont, and four handkerchiefs, the goods of Mary Hammett.

Numerous previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Two terms of 12 months' hard labour, to run concurrently.


(Friday, November 19.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-32
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ROM, Klara (31, no occupation) , pleaded guilty of feloniously using a certain instrument upon Gertrude Branch, with intent to procure her miscarriage.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour; recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-33
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

LYONS, Edward (21, labourer) , pleaded guilty of committing an unnatural offence with another male person, and of committing an act of gross indecency with the same person.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-34
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

THOMAS, Arthur (31, traveller) ; maliciously wounding Norah Rogers, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Fox-Davies prosecuted.

NORAH ROGERS . I am a married woman living apart from my husband. I have known prisoner since my school days, and have lived with him for sixteen months; his real name is William Quick. (In reply to the Judge prisoner admitted this.) I left him on September 30; I was in drink and we had a quarrel. Next day I met him and we went to a coffee shop in Bow Road. I was again in drink and we got jangling. He had a penknife in his hand, paring his nails. When I got up to go out he pulled me back, saying, "I want an understanding. "I threw the contents of a basin of broth over him; I told him I would not live with him any more. I then felt a blow under the cheek and felt blood running down;. we struggled and I fell down. Prisoner ran out of the shop. I went first to a chemist's and then to the police station, where my wound was dressed.

Cross-examined by prisoner. We were over two hours in the coffee shop. I know I was very annoying and aggravating to you. I do not know whether I picked up a table knife and went for you with it; I do not know what I do when in drink. I do not think you intended to injure me; it was accidental.

VIOLET MEE , daughter of a coffee house keeper in Bow Road. I remember prisoner and prosecutrix coming in about half past two. About ten to four, when I was in the kitchen, I heard the woman scream; I went upstairs to the shop and saw prosecutrix lying bleeding from a wound in the neck; I saw prisoner running away.

ARTHUR C. DORNFORD , Divisional Surgeon, Bow, said that he examined Norah Rogers about 4 p.m. on October 1. She had an incised wound below the lobe of the ear, extending deeply into the tissues, about five inches in length, severing the sternomastoid muscle on the left side and several large blood vessels. Witness sent her to the hospital. For a time she was in a critical condition.

WILLIAM KERR , house surgeon, London Hospital, said that when prosecutrix was admitted she was in a very critical condition; the sternomastoid muscle was completely cut through and the artery of the neck was exposed about two inches. She did very well indeed and was discharged from hospital on October 20.

Detective-inspector ALFRED BALL, K Division. On October 19 I saw prisoner at Kennington Lane police station. I said, "I am going to charge you with attempting to kill and murder Norah Rogers by cutting her throat with a knife at a coffee shop at 243, Bow Road"; he said, "All right; I done it; I've got a good heart and must take the consequences." To the formal charge he made no reply.


ARTHUR THOMAS (prisoner, on oath). On the afternoon of October 1 about two o'clock we went into a coffee shop in Bow Road to partake of refreshments. The girl was evidently under the influence of drink, but we seemed to be quite friendly and social, until the girl said, "Where did you stay last night?" I told her I stopped at her uncle's, where we had been staying several weeks. She said, "I don't believe you." "Well," I said, "if you don't believe me, probably you will believe your uncle." I tried my utmost to induce her to come and see him, so as I could satisfy her curiosity, but all my endeavours were useless; in consequence, she used offensive expressions, abused me, challenged me to fight, and threatened to throw the contents of a basin of rabbit broth over me. Under these unpleasant circumstances I concluded it was no place for me and I went to go; but the girl said, "You go out of here without me and I will follow you and show you up wherever you go. "I said, "You cannot do that, but I shall be only too pleased to be in your company if you will keep quiet and make yourself friendly and don't be so troublesome." She submitted, and we became very friendly; in the meantime I took out of my pocket a pocket knife to cut my finger nails, simply to pass away the time. The pocket knife the woman actually sharpened herself to cut her uncle's tobacco with, but unfortunately her uncle never used it, therefore it was practically like a razor. Had I known that, on no consideration would I have used it. I had no intention whatever of hurting or doing any harm; indeed, I did not think that there would be any more quarrelling, as we seemed to be on very friendly

terms. After staying about two hours in the shop I called for another cup of tea for myself and a cup of cocoa for her; I wanted to pay for them, but she would not let me and would insist upon paying, and she took from her bosom a pocket handkerchief, which had a few shillings tied up in one of the corners. I asked her where she had got it from; she said, "What is that to do with you?" "Well," I said, "it is a lot to do with me and I wish you to give me a satisfactory answer to that question." She deliberately turned round and told me that she had been with other men, and that if she had the opportunity she would do the same thing again. She kept continually ringing that into my ears for a matter of half an hour, and I said, "Well, if that is the case, I shall never live with you any more. "With that remark I went to go out. As I did the woman instantly made a mad rush at me with an ordinary table knife. Had I not been on the alert I should have been stabbed actually in the back, and probably a dead man. I put my left arm up to avoid the blow and I admit that in the heat of the moment I stabbed at the woman, without any intention of hurting her. I really acted in self-defence, although it was done quite accidentally. As for murder, murder has never entered into my mind. Some four years ago the woman stabbed one of her old lovers with a hatpin and so seriously injured him that he is ruined for life. Some eight years ago she was married. After being married four months her husband was convicted and sent to prison for 21 months. During that period he received information to say that his wife was leading a bad life; the man actually went mad; he was transferred from the Scrubs to an ex-convicts' lunatic asylum; he is still away and probably dead. If he is not dead, he is another poor fellow ruined for life.

Cross-examined. Prosecutrix and I have had little tiffs before this, but never a serious quarrel. The pocket knife I have lost; it fell out of my pocket the same night.

Verdict, Guilty, "but the jury consider that the act was done without premeditation and under provocation."

Prisoner confessed to a conviction at North London Sessions on October 30, 1906, in the name of William Brown, and the police proved other previous convictions for burglary, housebreaking, and assault on the police. Prisoner was stated to be one of the most despicable characters in the East End of London. He was associated with a gang of men who terrorised publicans in the district by committing burglaries and poisoning watch-dogs. He had several times threatened the prosecutrix.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-35
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

KIDNEY, Nellie , feloniously using a certain instrument upon Florence May Wendle, with intent to procure her miscarriage; a second indictment for using certain means unknown upon the same person with the like intent.

Verdict, Guilty, "with a strong recommendation to mercy, as it appears to have been done as an act of friendliness, there apparently being no mercenary motive."

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

BEFORE THE RECORDER. (Friday, November 19.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-36
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WHELAN, James Fenton (29, clerk) , pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, three transfers for £210, £154, and £46 respectively of capital stock in the Burma Railways Company, Limited, in each case with intent to defraud (three indictments); being clerk to the Burma Railways Company, Limited, unlawfully falsifying and making and concurring in making false entries in a book, to wit, a share and stock register belonging to his employers, and by false pretences inducing Walter Home and the said Burma Railways Company, Limited, to execute certain valuable securities, with intent in each case to defraud.

A previous conviction was proved.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-37
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

JOHNSTON, William (28, porter), SULLIVAN, Frederick (19, newsvendor), and ELLISS, Frank (22, billiard marker) , breaking and entering the shop of Alfred Jerrold Nathan and stealing therein four cigar and cigarette cabinets and other articles, his goods.

Johnston and Elliss pleaded guilty of the larceny, not guilty of breaking and entering.

Mr. G. Tully-Christie prosecuted.

Police-constable ROBERT HASTEAD, 185 L. On October 17 at 9.30 p.m. I was on duty in Kennington Park Road and saw the prisoner Elliss looking very bulky about the chest, also some white tissue paper protruding from his pocket. I stopped him and asked him what he had under his coat. He replied "Nothing." I asked him to undo his coat. He did so and I found this cigar and cigarette cabinet. I asked him where he got it from. He said, "I found it in the West End about four o'clock this morning. "I then called a tramway official to my assistance. Police-constable 405 L arrived and arrested Elliss and Sullivan. None of the prisoners attempted to get away. They were taken to the station. On the way Johnston said, "I may as well tell you that we done the job ourselves, as we are out of work; we have only got about four quids' worth of stock on us." He was searched at the station and these two cabinets, cigarette case and calabash pipe were found on him. This tobacco box was found on Sullivan. On Elliss, in addition to a cigarette cabinet, was found a glass cutter for opening a window, two metal spoons, table knife, piece of chalk. At the station Elliss said, "We have stolen the pieces from a shop in Ludgate Circus."

Johnston. I made no such statement as "We done the job ourselves. "Sullivan. I was not near the place when it happened. Johnston. It is true he found that box on me. WILLIAM JAMES HALPER. I am manager to the prosecutor at the shop under De Keyser's Royal Hotel. These goods produced are my employer's property. I last saw them in our shop window on Saturday, October 16. The shop is shut up at night. Nobody lives there. I left at 9 o'clock locking up the shop. The value of the goods stolen is £5 4s. 6d. I returned to the shop on Monday, October 18, at 7.40 a.m. My attention was called to a broken window by a constable. I b. found goods missing. The window is covered at night by a canvas c. blind hung up, hooked at the bottom, and padlocked. Four block d. amber briar pipes are still missing.

Cross-examined by Johnston. The window looked as if it had been smashed by a brick or a foot. The hole was about one foot square.

Detective-inspector HERBERT HINE, city Police. On October 17 I was with Detective-sergeant Ferguson and Sergeant Wise at Kennington Lane police station and saw the three prisoners. I said to them, "We are City Police officers and we are going to take you to the City, where you will be charged with breaking a window and stealing there from various articles. "Johnston said, "It was at Blackfriars Bridge. "Sullivan said, "I know nothing about it. "Elliss made no reply then. They were taken to Bridewell police station, I taking Elliss. On the way past the Royal Hotel, Blackfriars Bridge, Elliss pointed to the window and said, "That is the place. "He also said, The window was broken. "They were taken to the station and charged. I noticed on the second and third fingers of Johnston's right hand there were slight cuts, as though recently cut by glass. In answer to the charge Sullivan said, "I was nowhere near the window. "I subsequently examined the broken window and blind. I found the corner of the blind was cut clean off. The window had apparently been cut with a glass cutter and then broken.

Cross-examined by Sullivan. I first mentioned the window being cut with a cutter at the police court about nine days afterwards on the second hearing. I was not asked to give evidence the first day at the police court; if I had have been I should have spoken of it.

Cross-examined by Elliss. I did not say you had cut the corner of the blind; I said I found it had been cut with a knife. A knife was found in your possession.

To the Recorder. I certainly did not invent the story about the blind being cut after the remand when the knife was found on Elliss.

Detective JAMES FERGUSON, city Police. On October 17 I went with the last witness to Kennington Lane police station, where the three prisoners were detained. I took Johnston to Bridewell police station. When crossing the Thames Embankment by the Royal Hotel he said to me voluntarily, "We are now passing the scene of action; that's the window. "He was taken to the station and charged. Johnston. I did not make that statement.

Police-constable WILLIAM FAREBROTHER, 147 City Police. On October 17 I was on duty and at 3.15 a.m. I noticed the window of 2, Royal Hotel Buildings was all right. At 3.40 I found the corner of the blind cut and some glass was lying on the footway. The window was in disorder. It was a windy night.

Cross-examined by Johnston. I formed the opinion that the window had been cut with a glass cutter.

Johnston's statement before the Magistrate. "I plead guilty to taking the articles out of the window, but not the breaking of the window. As I was going by the window at three a.m., the time stated, I saw the window had already been broken. I was out of work and had no money and I was tempted to take the articles out of the window. There was a watchman there at the time and he can prove it was already broken. The policeman was only about 10 yards away, and if I broke the window he would have heard me do it."

Sullivan's statement before the Magistrate. "I was walking along the Embankment on the Saturday night and I saw the prisoners coming along. You are only too glad to speak to anyone when you are walking about all night, so I spoke to them and walked with them, and Elliss said, 'We picked these up out of a window; we are going to sell them to get some money and William Johnston holds this for me."

Ellis's statement before the Magistrate. "I plead guilty to taking the things, but not the breaking the window. I should not have taken them but for being out of work 12 months and having two nights out in the rain and having nowhere to go. Seeing the window broken I was tempted to take the things and sell them to get some money for a night's lodging and something to eat."


JOHN COSTER . I am a watchman and was at William Street, Blackfriars, watching things for my employers in the street. I was there on October 16 from five p.m. to six a.m. I did not know that any glass window was broken before the constable came round to ask me to lend him a broom and shovel. I know nothing about this robbery.

Sullivan. Johnston told me to hold this box on the Embankment. That is all I know about it.

Elliss. If we broke the window and if the watchman had been asleep it must have woke him up. Verdict, all Guilty of breaking and entering. Sullivan confessed to a conviction of felony at Lambeth on June 19,. 1909; Elliss to a conviction of felony at Newington Sessions on January 15, 1908.

HERBERT HINE (recalled). There is no conviction against Johnston. I find he has been employed by the quartermaster of the Sixth Battalion King's Royal Rifles Reserves for the last six years for ten months each year as a mess room and hospital orderly. He has borne a very good character. His officer speaks very highly of him. He would be called upon to rejoin very shortly. He was out of employ on

October 17. Sullivan has been twice convicted. Elliss has had employ ment at various places; he has been described as honest but very lazy.

Detective CRONK, M Division. Elliss was convicted on February 19 1908, of felony and bound over. A previous conviction was proves against him then, when he was also bound over. He has had work but left owing to laziness.

Sentences: Sullivan, Two months' hard labour; Elliss, Three months' hard labour; Johnston, released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.


(Friday, November 19.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-38
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JACKSON, George (40, labourer) , pleaded guilty of committing wilful and corrupt perjury.

Sentence, One month's hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-39
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > fine

Related Material

THOMSON, Isabel Florence (52, no occupation), maliciously publisting and causing to be issued certain obscene and scandalous books and obtaining certain obscene and scandalous books with intent to publish the same.

Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted.

Prisoner pleaded guilty of selling, which plea was accepted by the prosecution. Sentence postponed to Monday, prisoner to remain in custody.

(Monday, November 22.)

Sentence, Fined £25; to be imprisoned until the fine be paid.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH. (Friday, November 19.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-40
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SHIRLEY, James (27, valet) , pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a request for the payment of £30, with intent to defraud; stealing one overcoat and 4s. 6d., the goods and moneys of Raymond; Oliver; stealing one watch, one chain, and other articles, the goods of Alfred Strudwick.

Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted.

Detective JOSEPH DAISY, Manchester Police, proved a conviction for larceny on March 11, 1909.

Detective CECIL BISHOP, E Division. For the last six weeks prisoner was employed at the "Castle" public house, Clerkenwell. On November 24, 1904, he was sentenced at Aldershot to two months, and two months consecutive for stealing clothing. On June 19, 1906, 12

months' hard labour at Northampton Assizes for stealing silver knives and forks belonging to the officers' mess of the 6th Lancers. He has worked at the Reform Club. He is a man who has tried to work. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-41
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

WILLIAMS, Walter (17, carman) , pleaded guilty of stealing a quantity of harness, the goods of William Henry Skinners; committing acts of gross indecency with Frederick Metcalfe, a male person.

Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted.

Sentence, Four months and one month in second division, to run concurrently.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-42
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WANNELL, Robert, otherwise Warroll (22, newsvendor) , maliciously wounding Robert Dolan.

Mr. White prosecuted; Mr. Macdonald defended.

ROBERT DOLAN , Licensed porter. On October 9 at nine p.m. I was in Aldgate with a friend, George Ayres. He left me to go into "The Still and Star," in Harrow Alley, Aldgate. I then went to make water down Harrow Alley. Two men came behind me and one said, "Hullo, Patsy." Not knowing them, I did not wish to speak to them. The other man is prisoner. Prisoner struck me in the back. I turned round and looked. He said, "Who the f—g hell are You?" I said, "Oh!" He said, "Have a fight?" I sparred up and struck him. I did not knock him down. Ayres then came up and said, "What is the matter?" I said, "This man has struck me and called me abusive names and I have struck him back." He said, "That will be all right," so we left it. Prisoner walked on in front; I followed in about half minute. I lost sight of them. I was outside Barnett's, the butcher's, looking at prisoner's friend, when prisoner came on my right side and struck me with a knife. I ran away and he ran after me behind a motor 'bus with a knife. I got on one side of the motor 'bus, which was travelling, and he on the other flourishing this knife. After receiving the blow I put a handkerchief to my neck. I do not know who "Patsy" is. I struck him two blows.

Cross-examined. At the police court I said, "I was accosted by two men, of whom prisoner is one. One said, 'Hullo, Patsy,' and struck me in the back. "Part of my answer was left out. When the man said, "Hullo, Patsy," I did not answer; then prisoner struck me in the back. It is also a mistake in the deposition that it was I who said, "Who the f—g hell are you?" The deposition was not read to me. I was asked to put my name. I never read it when I signed. I did not go to the public-house with Ayres. I do not drink. My statement to the inspector was that he struck me with something like a knife in the shape of a steel, it was the width of a steel. I did not chase him. I was losing blood and felt faint.

ARTHUR BARNETT . I have a butcher's shop in High Street, Aldgate, at the corner of Harrow Alley. The "Still and Star" is about 30 yards away. On October 9 I was serving outside the shop when one or two women started screaming. I turned round and saw prisoner 10 yards away with my knife in his hand. This is the knife.

I did not see prosecutor then. When I saw him he was alone almost in the middle of the road. A motor-'bus was passing at the time. I had been using the knife. It was brought back by someone I do not know. I looked for it and saw it had gone.

Cross-examined. The knife is my property. I did not claim it when I saw it in prisoner's hand because I did not like to go up to him. I was surprised to find the knife was not on the block. It is not customary for butchers to have their knife at their side; it is the steel they have there.

Police-constable WILLIAM WHITE, 764 H. I arrested prisoner in Aldgate High Street at 9.30 p.m. on the Saturday. I said, "I am a police officer and shall detain you on suspicion of having stabbed a man about half an hour ago. "He started to make a rambling statement. I stopped him, telling him I should take it down, and he had better wait till he got to the station, when he could tell the inspector all about it. On the way to the station he put his hand in his left hand coat pocket, took out the piece of glass which has been produced, saying, "This is what one of my pals gave me to defend myself with. It is a broken whisky glass." At the station he was put up with eight men of similar appearance and was picked out when prosecutor came back from the London Hospital. Prisoner said, "I have never seen this man before in my life. "He showed me his lip and a little wound over the eye and said prosecutor had done it. He was not intoxicated, but had been drinking.

Cross-examined. I did not tell the magistrate when I arrested prisoner that blood was flowing from the wound on his eye. It had bled, but had been washed and dressed. Prisoner did not say anything about striking prosecutor with a glass.

Detective-sergeant JAMES BROWN. On October 10 I saw prisoner at Minories Police Station. I asked him if he would give me names and addresses where I could make inquiries, or if there were any witnesses I could warn on his behalf. He said, "I do not know what I done it with, whether a glass or knife." I told him if he wished to make a statement he could. I then took him to the back of the station, where he made a statement. It was read over and he signed it.

FREDERICK WEST , Engineer's assistant, Morrison Buildings, Commercial Road, E. On October 9, a few minutes after 9 p.m., I was standing at the corner of Harrow Alley. I saw prisoner strike prosecutor on the neck. I did not see what it was done with. I then saw them running behind a motor-'bus. Prisoner was following prosecutor, who held a handkerchief to his neck. After that I saw prisoner with a knife in his right hand. I do not know prisoner or prosecutor.

Cross-examined. I was two or three yards away when prosecutor was struck. I was ten yards from the motor'-bus when the two ran. I saw the knife when prisoner ran round the corner of the motor-'bus. Where I was, two yards away, it was dark. He had not the knife in his hand when he struck the blow.

Dr. LOFTON, receiving officer, London Hospital. I dress prosecutor's wound on October 9. It was about three inches long on the right side of the neck, running downwards, outwards, backwards. There was a small wound about half an inch above the larger one, running in a parallel direction. It was not serious. If it had been half an inch nearer the middle line or half an inch deeper it would have been very serious indeed; it would have cut the main artery of the neck. Either the knife or the glass could have caused such a wound. It was probably caused by a right-handed man.

Cross-examined. If a man used any force in striking another man it would not be bound to penetrate the throat and cause immediate death; it would depend on the direction in which the knife is going. If he struck him in the neck the point might not enter the throat. It might only cut the skin. There was no blood on the knife when I saw it at the police station.


ROBERT WANNELL (prisoner, on oath). I hawk newspapers. I went into the "Still and Star" to have a drink. Ayres came in—I did not know his name then—and nodded all round and called for a drink. Crocker, my witness, and I drank our drink and walked out. I saw prosecutor standing opposite the door. I went to make water. Crocker addressed prosecutor. I do not know what he said, but I heard Patsy. I said to Crocker, "What did he say?" Before I got the words out he punched me on the eye and sent me to the ground. I picked myself up and went straight to him and asked what it was for and received two more blows, one on the mouth knocked my tooth out, and another making my nose bleed. I fell over the kerb, and while I was down someone stepped between me and prosecutor. As I was getting up he said, "What's the matter?" It was Ayres. He lifted me up. I said, "He done it on me for nothing at all; he has knocked me about, punched on the face and rlbs." Now I come to think of it, I must have hit myself as I fell on the kerb. He put one hand behind me and said, "Go on, kid, you had better go to the hospital. "I am going down the court. Near the bottom a fellow comes up and says, "He is going to do it again; get hold of this." He put it in my left hand. I did not know what it was then; I found afterwards it was glass. I was standing between a man and a woman—there was a lot of people round the butcher's shop—I dashed between them and ran one side of the motor-'bus and prosecutor the other. While I was standing there a constable came up and said, "You have stabbed a man; where is the knife?" I said, "I have no knife." He said, "Yes, you have. "I had no knife. The handkerchief I had in my right hand I put in my left, and putting up my hands like that, I said, "He has been knocking me about like Tom Burns." He said, "It looks like it; you had better have it done up." I walked towards Aldgate East. A fellow comes up and said, "He's running away." I says, "A good job too," and go to a public-house holding the

handkerchief to my head and started to wipe the blood off my face. He said, "If I was you I should shove something on it first, not go up to the hospital like that; come up to the 'Star and Garter.' "They done it up for me there. I come out. Constable White stopped me. He says, "Someone has been stabbed, what do you know about it?" I said, "I do not know whether I stabbed him or not." He said, "You had better come and tell the inspector all about it. "On the way to the station I told him this was the glass they gave me, and put it in his hand. I made a voluntary statement. There is nothing in it about using a knife. I did not use a knife; I never saw a knife.

Cross-examined. Crocker and I were selling papers all day in the City. I had four or five drinks. I said I had been drinking. The sergeant wrote it down. He put down, "Intoxicated." My memory was not affected. I did not have a knife in my hand that evening. The sergeant asked me how it was done. I told him I had the glass. He said, "Where did the knife come in?" I said, "I do not know about the knife." He said, "The knife is here and people saw you stabbing with the knife."

HENRY CROCKER , newsvendor. I was with prisoner on October 9. I have known him a few years. About 9.30 p.m. we were coming out of the "Still and Star" when Dolan came along. I passed the remark, "Good night, Bob; how is Patsy?" Dolan passed a dirty remark. He did not quite get it out of his mouth before Dolan struck Wannell's left eye. He knocked him down three times. I went to the public-house and then in Aldgate I see Wannell with a police officer, who was taking notes. I told Ayres in the public-house there had been a row. He came out and separated them. It was not a free fight; Wannell never had a chance of striking. Nobody struck prosecutor at all.

Cross-examined. I went to tell Ayres his mate was struck. Prisoner was struck three times before I went. I do not know that we were affected by the few drinks we had. I did not strike prosecutor.

GEORGE AYRES , Licensed fish porter, 23 Mile End Place. Prosecutor and I work together. On October 9 I asked him to have a drink. He said, "No, I will wait for you." While waiting for this drink somebody called me outside the public-house. I saw prisoner's eye cut and bleeding. I asked what was the matter. Prisoner said, "He. has done it on me. "I said, "What for?" He said there had been a bit of an argument or something. I said, "Why not let it drop and go home?" I then went inside the public-house again, Prosecutor said prisoner had punched him in the rlbs. I prevented prosecutor hitting prisoner again. I went away after that. I do not know why I have not been called by the prosecution.

Police Constable PAUL LANG, 980 H. I spoke to prisoner. I had had information. I saw a crowd. I stopped prisoner and said, "I bear you have been flourishing a knife, where is it?" He said, "I have not, guvner, search me." I felt in his trousers pockets, but could not find a knife or similar weapon. There was no complaint of

anyone being injured while I was there. Nothing was said about a glass. I thought it was a Saturday night brawl and he had been flourishing a knife about and had a drop of drink. I went away in the opposite direction. The fight was over when I got there. Prisoner had a cut over his left eye.

Verdict, Guilty, but with provocation. Several previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-43
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown

Related Material

EDWARDS, Francis Henry, otherwise Priseman (45, traveller) , feloniously marrying Frances Sitch, his wife being then alive.

Mr. Davey prosecuted; Mr. Leycester defended. Sergeant ALFRED BESLEY , B Division. At half past five on October 13 I saw prisoner at 59, Lupus Street and a woman who answered the name of Mrs. Edwards, but who afterwards said her name was Priseman. I asked prisoner if his name was Edwards; he said, "Yes. "I said, "I shall arrest you for feloniously marrying one Eliza Jane Donisthorpe, on November 16, 1908, at Islington Registry Office." I then showed him the certificate of the marriage. It was the only case I knew of at the time. He said, "That is quite right." I said, "Your lawful wife was then and is now alive." Mrs. Priseman, who was in the room, said, "Who are you?" I told her who I was. She said her name was Edwards. I then showed prisoner the certificate of the 1883 marriage in the name of Priseman. He said, "That is right. "Both women were in the room. He said, "Yes, I did marry both these women." I said, "I have reason to believe you married another woman named Sitch in 1889, and who divorced you in 1893." He said, "Yes." I then took him to Gerald Road Police Station, where he was charged with the offence of marrying Miss Donisthorpe. I was at the back of the police court when he was charged with marrying Frances Sitch; he said, "That is right." Subsequently prisoner and the woman who passed as Miss Donisthorpe signed certain documents. I told them the purpose for which they were' signing them. He said he should be glad to get it over, and I told him that would be the only reason for doing it, as the one witness was dead who could prove the first marriage. I told him it was impossible to prove the first marriage unless he assisted us, and he rendered us every assistance.

WILLIAM GREEN , 138, Great Portland Street, parish clerk, All Souls, Marylebone. I produce the parish register. It contains an entry purporting to show the marriage of Francis Henry Priseman with Louisa Flitt. I know the signature of the curate, "R. H. Walker." He left before I became parish clerk.

Cross-examined. I was not present at the ceremony. The curate is in Uganda at the present time.

FRANCES EDWARDS , 22, Boundary Road, Clapham. I went through a form of marriage with prisoner on March 7, 1889, at St. Pancras Registry Office. I was single. Prisoner described himself as a bachelor. In 1897 I obtained a divorce. I have one child by him living.

Cross-examined. In 1892 I was separated. I think the divorce was in 1897. Miss Donisthorpe was the co-respondent. Under the deed of separation he was to allow me 10s. a week. He did not keep up the payments and I made him bankrupt.

Mr. Leycester submitted that there was not sufficient technical evidence of the first marriage for the case to be allowed to go to the jury.

Judge Lumley Smith held that, the certificate being shown to the prisoner in the presence of the first and second wives and they both saying "That is all right," it meant that they were the people who went through the ceremony, and he could not with draw the case from the jury.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner was then charged with feloniously marrying Eliza Jane Donisthorpe, his wife being then alive.

Sergeant ALFRED BESLEY, 8 Division. On October 13, about 4.30 p.m., I went with Miss Donisthorpe, whom I had known as Mrs. Edwards, to 59, Lupus Street. I saw prisoner there; Mrs. Priseman was with him. I said, "Are you Edwards?" He replied, "Yes." I said, "I shall arrest you for feloniously marrying Eliza Jane Donisthorpe on November 16, 1898, at Islington Registry Office. "I then showed him a copy of the marriage certificate. He said, "That is quite right." Miss Donisthorpe said her name was Edwards. I said, "I believe you to be his lawful wife." She said, "Yes. "I showed him a second marriage certificate, and both replied, "Yes, that is quite right." I said to prisoner, "I also believe you married another woman, Sitch, who divorced you." He replied, "Yes." He was taken to the police station and charged, when he said, "That is quite right."

Cross-examined. I made a good many inquiries before I went to Lupus Street. I have ascertained since that his first wife could not have left him more than five years.

WILLIAM GREEN produced register containing entry of the marriage of Francis Henry Priseman and Louisa Flitt on November 22, 1883.

ELIZA JANE DONISTHORPE , 32, Chancellor Road, Southend, Prisoner is my husband. We were married on November 16, 1898. He represented himself to be divorced. I knew of the divorce suit. That was with the lady who was Frances Sitch. I was not aware that he had been married in 1883. I knew him in 1894. He used to visit me every day. He never told me of the marriage in 1883, I never saw his wife until he was arrested. I left him in 1900.


FRANCIS HENRY EDWARDS (prisoner, on oath). My real name is Francis Henry Priseman. In 1883 I married Louisa Flitt. I was

then under 19. I lived with her two or three years. She left me in 1866. She came into some money, and said she was going her own 1867. way and I was not to trouble her any more. I did not know where 1868. she went to. I did not see her again until 1902. At the time I 1869. married last witness in 1898 I had not seen my wife since 1886.

Cross-examined. I went through a form of marriage with Frances Sitch in 1889. I had known her about 15 months. I did not inform her I had been already married, because my first wife was a woman that drank. I did not inform Donisthorpe that I had been married. She registered the marriage herself. I was not in a very compos mentis state of mind at the time. In 1898 I thought my first wife was dead because I had never heard of her. I met her in 1892 in Junction Road, Holloway, near the "Boston Hotel." She spoke first. She said, "Who would have thought of ever seeing you?" I said the same. I then made a full statement to her of everything that had taken place. She said, "Well, under the circumstances, as it is my fault, I will forgive you. "She asked me after that if I would go back to her. In a month or so I went back. I have lived with her ever since. I swear I never heard anything of her between 1886 and 1898 and never saw her. She did not tell me what she was doing, except that she had been to Wales and other places. I gave up making inquiries a year or so after she left me. That was when I married the second lady. When my wife left me she was 22 or 23. I am living with her now on very happy terms. She is not here to-day. She went to my solicitor and made a statement.

Verdict, Not guilty.

Sentence in respect of the first charge, Two months' imprisonment, second division.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-44
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

KELLY. James (26, sorter) . pleaded guilty of feloniously causing grievous bodily harm to Bryan Fleming, with intent to do him. grievous bodily harm.

Mr. St. John Macdonald defended.

Dr. DYER, medical officer, Brixton Prison. This man has been under my observation since October 20. His relatives tell me that some two or three weeks previous to that he had been very curious in his manner and his memory was very defective. He was in the Post Office and had been working hard to get promotion. He suddenly gave up the Post Office, had sleepless nights, lost his memory, wandered about for hours in the streets, and suddenly discovered himself miles away from where he thought he was. While under my observation he was dull, stupid, and very depressed. In my opinion, he is suffering from an early form of melancholia. He did not know the nature or quality of the act he committed and requires to be under a come control. I take rather a serious view of this case.

Sentence was postponed till next Sessions.


(Saturday, November 20.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-45
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SAUNDERS, Thomas (30, engineer) ; feloniously wounding Maud Saunders with intent to murder her; second count, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm; two other counts for shooting at her with the like intents. Mr. J. H.B. Fletcher prosecuted.

MAUD SAUNDERS . I was married to prisoner in February, 1904, He treated me badly, and we separated several times;. first in December, He threw up his work and suggested that I should go out on the streets and hand to him the money I made. This I did; I was compelled by threats of violence; before I lived with him I had been perfectly respectable. In February, 1907, he was sentenced to three months' hard labour for assaulting me. On one occasion he tried to strangle me with the strap off my dress basket and also to strangle himself. On September 30 last I was leaving my flat to go to a dance at King's Hall, near the "Elephant and Castle"; prisoner followed me in there; I noticed him watching me from the balcony, and he kept touching the pockets of his coat. I left the hall about 11; as I was leaving, a gentleman with whom I had been dancing said he was going in the same direction as I was and asked if he might walk with me; I said, "Certainly, but you must look out for trouble, as there is someone here who has been following me about." Prisoner came up and said to the gentleman, "What are you doing with my wife? She is a married woman, and I advise you to leave her alone. "The gentleman replied, "I know nothing about this lady; I thought she was a single woman," and he walked away. I got on a 'bus going to Oxford Circus; prisoner also mounted it and sat behind me; he left the 'bus and got on another which passed my flat; I walked from Oxford Circus to my flat in Upper Marylebone Street. As I got to my door prisoner came up to me and said, "Are you going to take me in with you tonight?" I said, "Certainly not; I will show you what I will do with you to-morrow." As I went to open the door prisoner ran up the steps, put his left arm round my neck, took a revolver from his coat pocket, placed it against my left temple, actually touching me; I threw my head back as he fired, and the shot struck me on the cheek. I fell down the steps; I saw prisoner running away. Assistance came and I was taken to the hospital.

Cross-examined by Prisoner. It is not the fact that when you first knew me I told you that my sister and the man she was living with were forcing me to lead an immoral life. I was leading a strictly moral life; I was in employment, at a rifle range. I lived with you for a week previous to our marriage; you did not marry me because I told you I was in a certain condition; it would be by you if anybody. I deny that I was ever intimate with a man named Moore, and that it was in order to live with him that I got you sent to prison. On September 30, when I was leaving the Hing's Hall with a gentleman, it was not to accompany him for an immoral purpose; I believe

he did say to you, "She represented herself as a single girl. "When you spoke to me outside the flat, just before the shot was fired, I did not say to you, "You have done me out of £5 to-night, you bastard."

ARTHUR PASSMORE and WILLIAM BURROWS, two men who were in Upper Marylebone Street at the time of the shooting, spoke to chasing prisoner and helping in his arrest; the latter said that prisoner pointed the revolver at him.

Police-constable GEORGE PAUL, 309 D, said that he arrested prisoner, who had the revolver in his hand. On the way to the station prisoner said, "I am very sorry for her, I hope she is not hurt." On being searched, twenty live cartridges were found in prisoner's pockets.

Police-constable FERGUS MUIR, 383 D. I was in Upper Marylebone Street and heard the report of firearms and saw prosecutrix fall; on going up to her she said, "Oh dear, he has shot me." I said, "Who?" She said, "It is my husband." I gave chase to prisoner, who was running with the revolver in his hand; he pointed it at me, but did not fire.

Detective-inspector JOSEPH SIMMONS, D Division, spoke to examining the revolver; it contained five cartridges, one of which had been recently discharged. Upon prisoner was found a letter addressed by him to his sister, speaking of his troubles with his wife and the man Moore; stating that he had spent £90 on trying to get him back to her, and concluding, "The only thing for me to do is to take the law into my own hands. Tell the girls not to think too bad of their brother and that I send them my last. love."

ROBERT WALTER BIDDULPH , house surgeon at the Middlesex Hospital, to which prosecutrix was taken, described her injuries; when admitted she had lost a considerable quantity of blood, and had a bullet wound on the left side of the face, just below the eye; witness thought that the revolver could not have actually touched the face, because there were powder marks on the neck. The bullet had not been extracted when witness left the hospital.

HAROLD JOSEPH FARDEN , house surgeon, Middlesex Hospital, produced X-ray photographs locating the bullet as about three inches in the skull. It is considered too risky to remove the bullet. Prosecutrix would not suffer permanently, except possibly in her hearing.


THOMAS SAUNDERS (prisoner, not on oath) read a long statement repeating the charges against his wife suggested in his cross-examination of her. He had latterly been drinking heavily, and must have been mad for three weeks previous to this occurrence.

Prisoner then said that he would like to swear to his statement, and he was sworn. In reply to Mr. Justice Grantham, he admitted that he had been convicted on February 27, 1908, of living on the earnings of his wife's prostitution.

Verdict, Guilty of feloniously shooting with intent to murder.

Detective-inspector SIMMONS testified to a very bad record of the prisoner.

Sentence, 20 years' penal servitude.

BEFORE THE RECORDER. (Saturday, November 20.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-46
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

JAMES, Charles, otherwise James Sinclair (26, stoker), and SMITH, William, otherwise William Taylor (21, cook) , both stealing two blankets, the goods of Frederick Saunders and others. James pleaded guilty .

Mr. Tully-Christie prosecuted.

Police-constable WILLIAM EMERY, 676, City. At half past 11 on the morning of October 21 I was on duty in Old Change, off Cheapside, with Detective-constable Smith. We there saw prisoners James and Smith acting very suspiciously crossing and recrossing the road and looking into various vans. We followed them down Old Change into Cannon Street and afterwards down Queen Victoria Street, to the corner of Bread Street. They remained there a few minutes and prisoner Smith then got up into a van belonging to Messrs. Saunders and Co., contractors. He picked up the bale (containing two blankets) which I now produce and handed it over to prisoner James. I arrested James in possession of the bale, and Detective Smith gave chase to Smith, who, however, got away. As the result of inquiries I went the following morning with Detective Smith to the Shuttleworth lodging house, White Lion Street, Islington, where we found prisoner in bed. We woke him up and told him we should arrest him on the charge of being concerned with the man already in custody in stealing a bale containing two blankets. He made no reply. We took him to the station, and finally to the Mansion House, where he was remanded till the 27th. During the examination he made no remark.

Detective WALTER SMITH, city. At half past 11 on October 21 I was with last witness in Old Change. We saw the two prisoners loitering and followed them as described by last witness. I am sure Smith is the man who was with James and took the bale out of the van. I followed Smith as far as Huggin Lane, where I lost him in the turnings. (Witness also gave evidence as to the visit to the lodging house.)

Prisoner James. I know nothing about the parcel. I am not the man who took the parcel.

Witness. I say you are.

JAMES WILLIAM SAUNDERS (Saunders and Co., railway carriers and contractors) identified the bale, the value of which was 16s. 11d.

Verdict, Smith guilty. Both prisoners have been repeatedly convicted and the Recorder expressed himself satisfied that they both belong to a dangerous gang of young thieves.

Sentences, James 20 months' imprisonment; Smith 18 months.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-47
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WOOD, Benjamin (19, dealer), and BAILEY, William (25, florist) , both stealing one watch, the goods of James McGurk, from his person, and feloniously receiving the same.

Mr. Godson Bohn prosecuted; Mr. C. W. Kent defended Wood.

Police-constable JAMES MARTIN, city. On Sunday, September 26, I was in Middlesex Street about midday and saw the two prisoners in company with three other men not in custody all pushing people about and acting suspiciously. I saw Wood place his right hand inside prosecutor's jacket in the direction of his vest pocket. Bailey and the others were pushing behind the prosecutor and kept on pushing till they got through to the end of the crowd, a matter of about 15 yards or 20 yards. They then left prosecutor and came back through the crowd with another gentleman. Altogether I was watching them for three-quarters of an hour. I got the assistance of two other officers and handed prisoners over to them. I then tried to get a third man, but was unable to do so. They were taken to the Bishopsgate Street Station, where I told them they would be charged with frequenting Middlesex Street for the purpose of picking pockets. Prosecutor's watch was found upon Bailey. I asked him how he accounted for it, and he said, "I bought it off a stall in the Lane for 16s." The watch is rolled gold. Just at that time prosecutor came into the station and reported the loss of his watch. He identified it by his name being on the dome inside, and said he had lost it in Middlesex Street half an hour before. Middlesex Street is better known as Petticoat Lane and it is always very crowded at that time on Sunday morning.

Cross-examined. Prosecutor did not identify either of the prisoners. The crowd was very thick and it was necessary to push to get through some parts of it. I do not know all the criminals in London; I know several. My attention was directed entirely to these five men and I say that prisoner Wood was one of them. I think he was dressed in dark clothes, but I do not distinctly remember, and he had on a grey cap. (Prisoner Wood. It was a green cap.). Some people might term it grey and some green. These five men would occasionally walk out of the crowd, have a conversation, and go back. There are stalls on both sides of the road, and at some they sell old china, old candlesticks, and things like that. I know that Wood's father is a respectable tradesman at the West End of London and has three antique shops. I do not know that prisoner Wood goes down on Sunday mornings to pick up bargains in the shape of old candlesticks and things like that.

JAMES MCGUBK , wine and spirit merchant, Gateshead-on-Tyne. I identify the watch produced. On Sunday, September 26, I was making a visit to Petticoat Lane, of which I had heard. I lost my

watch and went to the police station and made a complaint. The watch is a "Waltham" and is worth, I think, three guineas. I signed the charge sheet charging prisoners with stealing it.

Police-constable SEARLE, 250, H. On Sunday, September 26, I was on duty in plain clothes in Middlesex Street. I saw the two prisoners with three men not in custody at the corner of Goulston Street conversing together and standing in a heap. They parted and mixed with the crowd, going towards Bishopsgate. I saw them pushing, but beyond that I did not see them do anything. Bailey was there working on the right or at the back of the person they were hustling. Then he would stand with his hands in his pockets to see if anybody was watching them. These people have a peculiar whistle which they make use of if they find they are being watched. Bailey whistled. I then left the crowd and went to get assistance.

Cross-examined. I saw prisoner Wood there. I did not hear him whistle; I heard Bailey whistle. I first saw the men at about 10 minutes to 12, and it was about 20 past 12 when I went away to get assistance. I had the whole five under observation most of the time. They kept within a yard or so of one another. I had seen prisoners together before and in company with others whom I know to be thieves. I do not say that pretty well every other person to be seen in Petticoat Lane on a Sunday morning is a thief. I do not know that Wood was on proper business in Petticoat Lane. I saw him and Bailey together. I have seen them together on week-days outside Aldgate East Station and Aldgate Station and down Whitechapel.

To prisoner Bailey. I saw prosecutor in Petticoat Lane. You were standing close behind him, about a yard and a half away.

Police-constable WILLIAM DEATH, 409 H. On September 26, I was in Middlesex Street in uniform about 12. I saw the two prisoners there. Shortly afterwards I was called on to take Wood into custody. He was being detained and I took him to the station.

Cross-examined. He was charged first with frequenting. He said to Martin, "You say you saw my hand in prosecutor's pocket?" Martin replied, "No; I saw it underneath prosecutor's coat. "I did not hear Wood say, "You must have made a mistake."


ERNEST WILLIAM WHITEWICK , Messrs. Price, Whitewick and Co. ", wallpaper merchants. I have known prisoner Wood about three years. His father is a decorator and his son comes to me for wallpaper. I have always looked upon him as a straightforward lad.

MARK WOOD , chester Terrace, Eaton Square, and Morton Street, South Belgravia. I am a house decorator and sell antiques. My son Benjamin assists me in the business, in which his elder brother is a partner. He never goes out in the middle of the week.,

WILLIAM LEWIS , Surveyor, Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus; WILLIAM GOODRICH, portmanteau maker, Elisabeth Street, Buckingham

Palace Road; and CYRIL JAMES LANGLEY, commercial traveller, also gave prisoner Wood a good character.

BENJAMIN WOOD (prisoner, on oath). I am in business with my father. I sometimes go down to Middlesex Street on Sunday to buy old china and pottery, old brass articles, and antiques generally. I also go sometimes to Caledonian Market and have picked up a few old bits of Stafford and Dresden in different markets. I have heard what the constables have said about me being in the company of Bailey on the morning of Sunday, September 26; it is not true; I do not know Bailey. I was alone that day. It was a fine Sunday and the place was crowded. I did not buy anything. I wanted to buy something but they did not have what I wanted.

Cross-examined. It is not correct that I put my hand inside prosecutor's coat. In a crowd like that you may sometimes put your hand on a man's shoulder, because they are all pushing behind; you cannot keep your hands in your pockets. How could Martin see a man's hand inside another man's coat in a crowd like that where people are on the top of one another? It is impossible. I said at the station that it was a mistake.

WILLIAM BAILEY (prisoner, on oath). I wish to deny complicity with this watch, either by stealing or by receiving it, knowing it to have been stolen. It was put into my pocket by three other men; or, rather, one of the three. I had that morning bought a watch in Petticoat Lane. Two of the men I had known when I was in the Service, and the other was a stranger to me. I was in the Royal Field Artillery at Secunderabad and was invalided home. One of the men belonged to my battery and one I met on the boat coming home.

Cross-examined. The police are not right in saying that there were five of us in company together, because I do not know Wood. It is not true to say we were all in deep conversation together. It is true that I told the police officer that I had bought the watch in the Lane that morning for 16s. I do not know for certain whether the watch that has been produced is the watch I bought or not. (Prisoner was shown the watch.) This is not the watch I bought. I was showing the watch to these men and my defence is that when the police came they took the watch I had bought and thrust the watch found on me into my pocket. The two watches were the same colour. As I was showing it one of the men shouted, "Billo, here's Martin. "I was lighting a cigarette at that very minute, and instead of them putting my own watch back into my pocket, it was this one.

Verdict, Wood, Not Guilty; Bailey, Guilty. Bailey confessed to a previous conviction, and other convictions were proved.

Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.


(Saturday, November 20.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-48
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

FOSTER, Richard (35, journalist) , pleaded guilty . Committing acts of gross indecency with Henry Thick, William Buck, and Joseph Ramson.

Sentence, One month's imprisonment, second division.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-49
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

GRAHAM, Gerald, otherwise Gerald Daulton (65, commission agent) . Being a person adjudged bankrupt did make certain material omissions in a certain statement relating to his affairs, to wit, did omit the names of certain creditors from his statement of affairs: In the City of London obtaining by false pretences from Catherine Sheffield £25, and a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment and of the value of £18; from Florence Westwood £100 and £150; from Emmeline Worrall £15 and £10; from Mildred Smith £25; and from Mabel Louise Smith £25, in each case with intent to defraud. Mr. Cecil Fitch prosecuted.

Mrs. CATHERINE SHEFFIELD, 62, Seymour Place, Bryanston Square, W. In September, 1905, I saw an advertisement in the 'Daily Telegraph. "I cannot find it. I-answered it and received the following reply on September 8: "Traders' Association of London, agencies in, principal provincial towns. In reply to yours, I am consulting chemist to the firm, and as I have had a medical training you need not hesitate to discuss the sanitary towels with me. "It also made an appointment, which I kept, at 93, Leadenhall Street. We discussed my taking half a share in a sanitary towel that could be easily burnt, which, he said, he was the inventor of. He said he was a chemist and had walked the hospitals. The article could be used for medical bandages for hospital use. He said sales would go better if a lady represented the thing. He did not mention a Mrs. West wood at any time. He undertook to make trade samples, provide office accommodation, printing, advertising, etc. He was going to take offices in Whitechapel, engage girls and women to make the things, and send out travellers. He also bound himself to repurchase the half share he sold to me or find a third party to do so. I believed his statements and thought he could carry them out as he had £25 from me. I afterwards gave him £18 to take out the American patent. I never saw any work going on; no factory was obtained and no people engaged that I know of. He wrote me a letter saying the Americans would not accept the patent, but that they had particulars of the trade mark. He returned neither the £25 nor the £18. Exhibit 9 is what he showed me as a pattern of the invention.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I paid you £20 for half a share. Your going to different places for me was nothing to do with this matter. You did not patent the article according to the agreement. I cannot swear you sent the money to New York for the American patent. I have not had the article analysed.

Mrs. FLORENCE WESTWOOD, 31, Mecklenburg Square. I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph. "I have not got it. I answered it and received a reply. I then went and saw prisoner by appointment. He said he was Charles Gerald Graham and was an analytical chemist. He showed me an article similar to Exhibit 9. He said it was a valuable invention. He said it had been very much used and was in use at Princess Christian's Home. He said he wished to patent it in foreign countries as well as Great Britain and Ireland and to start a business with it. He said there would be thousands of pounds profit attached to it. On November 6, 1905, I paid him £100 and £150 on December 16. By the agreement he agreed to buy my share back in three months. If I had not believed his statements he would not have had my money. I suggested the name "Violetta Diaperette" for the article and three violets for the trade mark. The latter was my daughter's design. A few days after he obtained the £100 he told me he had been speaking to his wife about it and they had agreed it was not sufficient to get out all the patents and take premises. I then advanced him the £150. When I thought the whole thing was a fraud I went to the patent office to see if I could find whether any patent had been filed. I could find none. A provisional protection had been applied for, but it had been abandoned. No premises were taken. Nothing was manufactured nor any printing done that I know of. I never got any of my money back. I had the article analysed by a Mr. Soane. (Analysis read.) I have been unable to find this analyst.

To Prisoner. The half share was bought for my daughter. She does not appear in this case because she never did any business with you and she is an invalid. I did not know Mrs. Sheffield had bought the other half share. The agreement says you have the other half. The reason I did not institute this prosecution before was that when I went to the police at the end of 1906 they told me they could donothing unless I could find somebody else who had been defrauded, so I dropped it until I found Mrs. Sheffield and the other ladies. I heard that a Graham with a different Christian name had been made bankrupt and as I could not find you I came up to see whether it was you or not, and I immediately filed as a creditor, thinking it was the correct thing to do. I did not claim for money lent. You sold my share to other ladies. I could not prosecute you until I knew it had been sold. I have found some money towards this prosecution, and other ladies have found the rest. The trade mark has not been filed. You made an application and paid 5s. There was no trade mark in the records of the Patent Office when I was there. They told me it was abandoned, the same as the patent.

Mrs. MABEL LOUISE NASH, 177, Keswick Road. In July, 1906, my name was Mabel Smith. I then saw an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle." Through that I got into communication with prisoner about a sanitary towel. He told me his name was Daulton, that he was the inventor, was a chemist, and had been connected with the Women's Hospital, Soho. He said it was not etiquette for him to deal with this patent and that was why my name was to appear

in the provisional; he did not want his own name to appear, but. 1 insisted on it. He wanted me to advance money. He was to advertise, to find another person to buy this, that he was to create a third share. I was not to do any of the work or advertising, and this money was to pay for that. This was put into the agreement produced. I believed his statements. At that time I had never heard of Mrs. Nash or Mrs. Westwood. He showed me one of the articles. Exhibit 9 is the same kind of thing. After I paid him £25 he sent me the provisional application and papers and wrote me various letters saying he had advertised and had got people, but they never came to anything. I took proceedings and got judgment in the High Court, but I did not recover anything. I did not know of the bankruptcy proceedings. I did not know his name was Graham.

To Prisoner. I did not go into this as a speculation. I thought it was a good investment. You told me you had been at the hospital for women in Soho for some years.

Miss EMMELINE WORRALL, 40, Certes Street, Greenwich. In December, 1907, I answered an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" and got a reply from Gerald Daulton. After that I got a letter enclosing a circular, of which Exhibit 11 is a copy. I had an interview with prisoner at 93, Leadenhall Street. He wished me to invest money in a sanitary towel of which he was the inventor. He said he was a chemist. I never knew him by the name of Graham. In February, 1907, I parted with £15, and in March £10, believing the statements he made and those contained in the agreement. I did not hear at that time of Mrs. Smith, Mrs. Nash, Mrs. Sheffield, or Mrs. Westwood. I did not know of his bankruptcy or that there was a petition preferred against him. I took action in the County Court and got judgment, but that was all.

To Prisoner. There was no working agreement with me. I did not go into this as a speculation. I was to have my money returned if the thing fell through. I can swear this article is exactly the same in appearance to the one you showed me. I did not have it analysed. I received something which came from the Patent Office about filing.

Mrs. BRISCH, 20, Portland Road, Battersea. In March, 1909, my name was Mildred Smith. I got into communication with prisoner through an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle." He said he was a chemist and wanted me to go in with him because he wanted a lady to help him. He was going to patent this article and I was to be manageress of the warehouse he was going to take in Clerkenwell or Battersea. Exhibit 9 is similar to the article he showed me. He said they were in use at Princess Christian's Home and he could get rid of large quantities there because he knew the head nurse. He said he would rather have had someone older than myself. I was not advised by anyone before entering into the agreement with him; he did not want me to mention it. I paid him £25 on March 29. I have never had that money back. I never got the position of manageress and finally I was unable to see him. I did

not know there was a petition in bankruptcy against him. I did not know him as Graham. That name was not up at the office.

To Prisoner. You did not say you had got works; you were going to have works. You said I was to start in a fortnight or three weeks. I have not discussed with other witnesses what should he said. You put great stress on the fact that you knew the head nurse at Princess Christian's Home. I did not go into it as a speculation; I wanted employment. The position of manageress is mentioned in the agreement. I did not have the article analysed. The one you showed me is the same as the others to look at.

(Monday, November 22.)

ROBERT TASKER BURNELL , ripston, New Southall. In October, 1906, I saw an advertisement for a sleeping partner with £30 to take a share in a patent with half profits, for which £280 would be paid on resale. I saw prisoner at 93, Leadenhall Street and entered into the agreement produced of October 29, 1906. The invention was a weld less chain. He said the process of making it was known only to himself. The agreement says the patent is to be filed in the name of R. T. Burnell, and Daulton binds himself to prepare all documents, etc., and in the event of a resale not taking place within a period of three months Daulton binds himself to repurchase. It mentions the invention is improvements in chains and chain cables, and that 6. Daulton is the inventor and proprietor. I believed those statements. I paid £30 on October 29, 1906, and £10 on January 8, 1907. He said he wanted to advertise the chain in the "Morning Post," "Times," and "Telegraph" if I could find him £10 to do it. I take the "Telegraph" every day, and went to the library to look at the other papers, but never found the advertisement. I have never got any of my money back. I had no idea of prisoner's bankruptcy. After the three months had elapsed I tried to see him, but did not succeed. I wrote to him and he finally replied that he was not able to pay me.

To Prisoner. I looked at the newspapers for an advertisement in connection with the chain, an advertisement similar to the one I had answered. You sold me a share in a chain. The chain you showed me was brass. The iron chain handed to me is not the chain I saw.

PETER JOHN MURRAY , clerk in the Patent Office. I produce the file of provisional applications for patents. Documents are sent out as receipts when a provisional application is received. When an application is filed the specification is examined to see that there is some material invention foreshadowed, and if the Comptroller is satisfied that that is so what is known as the acceptance of a provisional application is sent to the applicant. The complete specification must be sent in within six months with a fee of £3. Then there is another fee for sealing the patent. The fee on the application for the provisional is £1. I have the application forms in regard to Miss Smith, Mrs. Sheffield, Mrs. Westwood, and Miss Mackenzie. They are applications

for provisional protection, not for a patent. I sent out receipts for them. Complete specifications were never filed; they all lapsed. The total sum paid on each one was £1.

To Prisoner. There are about 30,000 applications for provisional patents a year. Inventors are not entitled to stamp anything patent until the complete specification is issued. The object of the provisional specification is to give the applicant time to work out the details of his invention. There is protection for six months, during which time the specification is not allowed to be seen by anyone.

FREDERICK GLOO , analytical chemist, 126, Clapham Road. I knew prisoner first as a customer 14 or 15 years ago. He then told me he had an idea for making certain bandages used by ladies easily inflammable, and he wished to know if I could give him anything to accomplish that end. I made up a solution. He did not suggest the ingredients. As far as I know he did not know what they were. I had nothing to do with putting the solution on the material. The first lot I supplied was in March, 1895; it was experimental. Since then he has had seven bottles supplied—quart bottles. It was a solution of saltpetre. There is nothing novel in it. It might be used for novel purposes. I gave him a note saying the solution was for the purpose of rendering fabrics highly combustible and was quite free from any injurious matter and would not hurt the most delicate skin. He said a gentleman was really interested in the invention, and it was very important that he should be able to say it was not injurious, and as prisoner did not know what the solution was I thought it right to give him that information. I made no analytical report and do not state that it is one. The chemical name of the solution is nitrate of potash. Chlorate of potash would do the same thing.

To Prisoner. You asked me to make up the solution for a particular purpose. I do not know that anyone else has applied it in the same way. I cannot swear that no person having a knowledge of chemistry could improve on that solution. I do not know what happened to the solution after it left me. I gave you that particular solution because it was suitable for the purpose. Other things could be used, but they would not be So suitable.

PAUL SPENCER MILNES , messenger, Bankruptcy Court. I produce the file of the proceedings in the bankruptcy of Ronald Gerald Graham. The date of the petition is February 7, 1907; adjudication May 3. The petitioning creditor was Christmas Waterman. Statement of affairs was filed on August 3 by R. G. Graham, showing unsecured creditors £817 17s. 6d., assets nil. There were eight creditors, none secured. The names of Burnell, Mabel Smith, Emmeline Mackenzie, or Mildred Smith do not appear as creditors. There is no mention of any valuable patents at all, the property sheet is filled in "Nil." (Counsel read extracts from prisoner's examination in bankruptcy to show that he admitted that the article was not patentable.)

To Prisoner. Miss Smith's name is not inserted in the list of creditors. I cannot say if a bankrupt is supposed to keep the Bankruptcy Court informed of his movements.

CHRISTMAS WATERMAN , general dealer, 53, Brunswick Street, S. E. I was petitioning creditor in prisoner's bankruptcy.

To Prisoner. I came to you and paid £25 in relation to an agreement in 1903. I lived at Eltham. Since then I have lived at Walthamstow, St. Paneras, and Brunswick Street. The Bankruptcy Court issued the warrant for your arrest and said I should have to assist them in trying to find you. You were arrested in the office of Gerald Daulton and Co., 93, Leadenhall Street. I served you with a writ in the Mayor's Court in 1906. It was not for money lent, it was money obtained. I have no recollection of writing you that I would have my revenge. I put an execution in your wife's house. I think affidavits were sworn that the goods were not yours. The case was referred to Master Wilberforce by the Sheriff. It was decided that the furniture belonged to your wife. I was ordered to pay Mrs. Graham's costs, and in the Mayor's Court you were ordered to pay mine; neither of us obeyed.

Sergeant ALFRED COLLINS, £ Division. I arrested prisoner on July 12 on a warrant in connection with the bankruptcy offence, as he failed to appear to the summons at Bow Street. I saw him outside Bow Street Police Court, told him I had a warrant for his arrest. He said, "I hope you will not forget to mention that I wrote and said I should be here to-day, so that I have surrendered myself to you." He was charged and made no reply.

To Prisoner. I had the case in hand since May. You have appeared on every occasion at Bow Street. I had difficulty in finding you; you had left your address; therefore the warrant was issued.


GERALD GRAHAM (prisoner, on oath). I have been engaged in patent work for a great number of years. I have sold a great number of patents for other people and I have sold a great number of my own. Some have been successful and some not. There has never been any trouble until this case came up. In 1903 Mr. Waterman went into a matter with me in connection with a patent medicine. There was some stock, a lot of printing and a trade mark. He suddenly disappeared from 1903 till 1905 or 1906, when he wrote asking me to send him the stock, and this, that, and the other. I have written him on many occasions and got the letters back. As he has admitted, he had been at different addresses and I could not find him. When he came to see me I told him what stuff there was had gone, because I had not heard anything of him. In 1906 he served me with a bankruptcy notice; in 1907 I was made bankrupt, and all these people have been scheduled. (Judge Lumley Smith. There is the evidence that four were omitted.) Mr. Gloo's evidence is greatly in my favour. The great point in the matter is in regard to these towels. These inventions were taken out by me with different people and in every case there was a different solution. I went to Mr. Gloo as an analytical chemist to see if I could corroborate my own ideas in getting him to prepare a solution of some kind for this particular

purpose. He made up certain bottles of this stuff, to which I added other things, and there were amongst them various preparations: nitrate of potash, chlorate of potash, boracic acid solution, sulphate of zinc, lavender essences, verbena, aromatic spices and liquors. All these things were different. The idea of the whole thing was to get a big price for the article when it was perfect and pay off all these people. Now, my lord, I do not think I am a coward. I have faced it all the way through. I am suffering from diabetes and hemorrhage of the stomach. For the last two years I have been unable to do anything hardly at all. I have had my wife dying with cancer. I have nursed, her for 18 months day and night and she died six weeks ago, or else I should have been able to clear some of these things off. I have been out on my own recognisances from May 5. I should like to express my deep gratitude to the magistrate and Sergeant Collins, of Scotland Yard. I have received more kind-hearted sympathy from them than from anybody connected with this case. The way these ladies have come up, although they have lost their money, like a show to gloat over my miseries while I have been in agony of mind the last six months is hardly consistent with decency. A great deal of prejudice has been brought in with regard to the name of Daulton. At the end of that book you will see references to people that can be applied to. I have taken out over 700 patents for other people, some for myself. With regard to being a chemist, I am always experimenting. I am not a qualified chemist. I am well up in mechanics, though not a mechanical engineer. I am a good musician, though I do not call myself a professor. With regard to Princess Christian's Home, I have taken out some patents for a lady there for folding bedsteads and various things of that description, and it was her wish that I should make some of these things and send to her, but I should have them made with very fine silk and impregnate them to send to Princess Eleanor and members of the Royal Family, to whom these things could be introduced. I mean. to say these have been genuine matters and there has been no intention on my part in any shape of intentional fraud. I did hope I should be able to clear all these things off through my bankruptcy. Mr. Waterman has hunted me year after year and left me no peace. The magistrate said he did not think the case was very strong and allowed me out on my own recognisances.

Cross-examined. I first met Mr. Waterman in January, 1903. I got £25 from him for a half share in a bolt. I was not to patent it, but protect it. It was to be patented if a third party came along. I was to return the amount at the end of three months. I did not do so. I could not get a customer for it. He lent me the money to do that. On February 19 I got £100 from him for a patent pill; that was to be returned at the end of three months. It was not returned. I got £100 afterwards in connection with the Marine Restaurants. I may have described myself in the agreement as the sole proprietor because Mr. Waterman and I were going to start that together. There were, no restaurants. Waterman first put £25 into this bolt, then he put £100 into the restaurant business, then he put the other

money into the pill. Waterman was going to find the money to start the restaurants and he agreed to let the patents and the other things lapse and put the whole of the money into the pill. I have only sold a share in a bandage or a sanitary towel to half a dozen people since 1905. One lady went abroad. She had her money back. I know her name, but I cannot think of it. I sold a Mr. Herbert William Case a half share in a menstrual pad, a different thing altogether. I sold about half a dozen different preparations of this. I do not recollect a Mr. Dobbie. Some of them had their money back. One was Mr. Northmore, of Bath. I did not sell him a menstrual pad. I did not patent any of the towels. There was no occasion to mention that I was selling a provisional application for a patent. A person entering into an agreement is supposed to take reasonable precaution. I offer the article and they inquire. The agreement does not say the patent is to be filed in England. It says, "The invention shall be filed in the Patent Office." I told Mr. Burnell I was endeavouring to get sufficient money to clear all these small matters off and put the thing on the market. I meant the purchaser of the half share to understand that I would carry through all the patent work when all I was going to do was to fill a provisional specification until I could find a buyer. The solution I got from Mr. Gloo is not the solution I used from 1905 to 1907. I bought it as a foundation for other things. I had not used it between 1905 and 1907. Mr. Gloo is wrong in saying I bought anything of him between 1905 and 1907. What I bought of him was in the 'nineties. I wrote to him to have some solution prepared. I used it with other conditions. That is my defence. I used chlorate of potash. It has not the same effect; one is for burning the other is explosive. Mr. Gloo did not give me chlorate of potash. Mrs. Sheffield and Mrs. Westwood had a half share each in the same patent. It is not that absolutely. There is a difference in all of them. I was not selling the same half share to each lady. Mrs. Westwood and Mrs. Nash were equally the same. I intended them to have half share in the same patent.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Twelve months' imprisonment, second division, and one week's imprisonment, second division, to run concurrently.


(Monday, November 22.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-50
VerdictsNot Guilty > no evidence; Not Guilty > unknown

Related Material

BLACK, Mary (47, no occupation) , was charged on the coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Laura Melvin; the Grand Jury having thrown out the bill, the prosecution offered no evidence, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered . She was indicted for feloniously and unlawfully using an instrument called a sponge-tent upon Laura Melvin with intent to procure her abortion.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. W. B. Campbell defended.

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Monday, November 22.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-51
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MOSS, William, otherwise Williams (48, dealer); GOODWIN, Thomas Henry (53, grocer); GASKELL, William (43, licensed victualler); and BROWN. Thomas otherwise Bayliss (27. labourer) . Moss stealing one Ralli car, the goods of Waine and Company, Limited, and Moss and Gaskell feloniously receiving the same; Goodwin stealing one sewing machine, the goods of the Singer SewingMachine Company, Limited, and feloniously receiving the same; Brown stealing 23 tins of preserved meat and 100 glasses of preserved meat, the goods of Augustus Robert Carpenter, and Brown and Goodwin feloniously receiving the same; Moss and Brown stealing onegelding and one set of harness, the goods of Thomas Ward, and Moss, Brown, and Gaskell feloniously receiving the same; Moss and Brown stealing two geldings, one cart, and three sets of harness, the goods of Nathaniel Mash, and all feloniously receiving the same.

Moss pleaded guilty . (At the October Sessions (see preceding volume, page 838) Moss pleaded guilty of stealing, and Gaskell and Goodwin were convicted of receiving a horse, harness, and rugs, the property of Albert Edward Johnson.)

Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. W. Marsh prosecuted; Mr. H. J. Turrell appeared for Moss; Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. Eustace Fulton defended Gaskell; Mr. Daniel Warde appeared for Goodwin.

(Charge of stealing horses, etc.)

Mr. Travers Humphreys announced that the prosecution did not propose to proceed against Goodwin on this indictment.

WILLIAM WHITE , carman to Nathaniel Nash, greengrocer, 30, High Street, Clapham. Mr. Nash keeps his horses and traps at a railway arch. On the night of Tuesday, August 31, I locked the stable doors about half past six. There were in the stable at the time four horses, three sets of harness, three carts, and two vans. I went to the stable next morning about four o'clock to get ready to go to market at five o'clock. I found the stable door still locked and opened it with my key the same as any other morning. Two of the horses, a chestnut gelding and a bay gelding, had disappeared, also an ordinary greengrocer's cart and the three sets of harness. Within three minutes I gave information to the police. There was no sign of the place having

been broken open barring a sack being down off the fan-light at the back of the stable. It was possible for anybody to get through the fan light. I should think entrance must have been made with false keys, but when one has once got in it is very easy to get out, as the big door is bolted from the inside. I always enter the stable through the little door in the big door. If the thieves had entered by the fanlight it would have been easy to get out the same way after the horses and other things had been taken out through the big doors. On September 6 the police took me down to Macclesfield. I there identified the two horses, the bay and the chestnut, which were in the custody of the police in the greenyard; also the two sets of harness which were at the police station. The cart and one set of harness were brought back to Mr. Nash by the London police.

Cross-examined. Mr. Nash had had one of the horses three months and the other about 11 months. One was about eight years old and the other eleven or twelve.

Detective-inspector JOSEPH MADIGAN, new Scotland Yard. I know the handwriting of prisoner Moss. The signature on the consignment note produced, dated September 1, is in his handwriting. The three letters produced, signed "Goodwin's Friend," are, in my opinion, also in Moss's handwriting. The original of the telegram directed to Gaskell, Bull Hotel, Macclesfield, "Goods coming, cart to follow," is also by Moss; also the original of the telegram dated September 3, "Did you get goods all right. Send money what they are worth. "That telegram is not signed. It was handed in at Walworth Road Office. The letter of September 1, signed "Goodwin's Friend," in my opinion, is in the handwriting of prisoner Moss.

NATHANIEL NASH , greengrocer, High Street, Clapham. The value of the bay cob was about £25. I had had it about two months. I used it daily in my cart. The chestnut cob was worth £10 or £11, and of the two sets of harness which came back from Macclesfield, one was worth £7 or £8 and the other about £4. The third set was only worth a few shillings and was worn out. I suppose that is the reason it came back with the cart. My name was on the cart on two boards that screwed on and had been recently written. When I got the cart back from the police the boards had been unscrewed and taken off and the name on the shaft had been blackened over with grease.

Cross-examined. I bought the bay cob for about £21 and the other one for £10. They had got into better condition; I do them well like I do myself. I do not know prisoner Brown at all.

HENRY GEORGE NICHOLL , 19, Marlborough Road, Old Kent Road. There is a stable attached to 17A, Marlborough Road, next door. On the morning of September 1 I was awakened by what I took to be a van or cart going in next door. This was about ten minutes to five and it was quite light. I got up to dress to go to work. There was a window facing the stables in the bed-room where I sleep, and looking through it I noticed two men and two horses there. One of the men I identified at the police station as prisoner Moss, and the other one as prisoner Brown, or Bayliss. I saw Moss come out of the stable with something in his hand and praise a bit of brass off the blinker.

Then be stooped down and picked up something on the ground and rubbed over the leather. There is an old horse tram up the far end of the yard and he went behind the tram and brought back a piece of wood. After that he brought two pieces of board and broke them with a stone. Then he got several handfuls of shavings, which he lighted and burnt the boards with prosecutor's name on. Brown was standing looking on. I went downstairs to wash and get ready to go to work. I opened the door, as I generally do, to let my dog out. when the two men and the two horses came by. Brown was riding one horse and leading the other, and Moss, who was walking at the side opened the gate to let the horses out. He shut the gate again and went out by the wicket. That is the last I saw of them. They left the cart behind. I was about 6 feet away and had a good view of the two men. I was watching them about half an hour and am sure Brown is the man.

To Prisoner Brown. I had never seen you in my life before I saw you with these horses. At the identification I at first touched the wrong man and said I was not sure. Then on turning round I saw you and said "No, this is the man; I have made a mistake."

PERCY WELLS , Loading foreman, Euston Railway Station. I remember on September 1 two men bringing two horses to the station at half-past six in the morning. I afterwards identified one of these men as prisoner Moss; the other man was much younger and slightly taller; I cannot swear to him. The horses had harness upon them and on the consignment note they were consigned "To Gaskell, Macclesfield," the name of the consignor being signed "J. Jobson, East Street, Croydon." They went off by the 7.10 a.m. train to Macclesfield.

Detective DENNIS SPROSON, Macclesfield Borough Police. Defendent Gaskell was the licensee of the "Bull's Head Hotel" in that town. It is a biggish house, the second largest hotel in the town On September 4, in consequence of information received, I went to the hotel to see him. I said to him, I have called to see you, Mr. Gaskell, respecting two horses and two sets of harness which were consigned to you from Euston Station, London, on Wednesday last." He replied, "Yes, I did receive two horses and two sets of harness. I have sold one to Tom Cal ton for £7." He said that he had received the horses from a friend of his named Goodwin, a grocer, of Kingston Road, Surrey. I asked him to show me the other one I went into the yard with him, and in the stable I saw a bay gelding, also two sets of harness, which I recognised to be the property alleged to be stolen from the description given to the police. I said to Gaskell, "What correspondence have you respecting the horses and harness?". He went into the hotel and shortly returned with several documents (produced). I said to him, "Is this the only correspondence you have received?" He replied, "Yes, except a letter Í received from a man whom I do not know, but who I have since found out is named Bayliss, of 309, East Street, Walworth, in which he asked me if I could do with a greengrocer's turnout. "On Wednesday

last I received the two horses instead of one. I wrote to him to say I could do with it if it was all right." I then said to him, "Have you ever had any transactions with Bayliss before?' He replied, "No. I do not know the name. He signs himself 'Goodwin's Friend. I have never had any dealings with him before." I said, "What price are you going to pay for these horses?" He replied, "I do not know. I wrote him a letter last night and sent him a remittance of £5 in £1 postal orders, and I have asked him to make arrangements for me to meet him in London on Monday, the 6th, and then we can arrange about price." I then asked him if he had any other goods in his possession which he had received from the same source. He said, "No; this is the only business I have done with him." I took possession of the horse and the two sets of harness, and shortly afterwards I went across again and went into his private room and took this verbal statement from him: "William Gaskell, Licensee, 'Bull's Head Hotel,' Market Place, Macclesfield, says: I have been acquainted with Mr. J. H. Goodwin, grocer, of Kingston Road, Wimbledon, Surrey, for some years, and he has said that he could introduce me to a friend who was a sheriff's officer. On the Saturday or Sunday, August 28, I received a communication from him asking me if I could do with a cart, harness and cob, a turn-out that had been used for a greengrocery. I wrote him about Monday, August 30, that if it was all right I could do with it. On September 1 I received a telegram saying, 'Goods coming, cart to follow, will write; Bayliss,' and on that night, September 1, instead of one horse I received from London by the Northwestern Railway, addressed to me, two horses, one a bay horse, and the other a chestnut horse, and two sets of brass-mounted harness; also on Wednesday morning, September 1, I received a communication that cob had arrived safe from someone who signed himself 'Goodwin's Friend. On Monday, August 30, I received a letter from Bayliss, 309, East Street, Walworth, which I have destroyed, saying he would not send the cart as he was going to take the wheels off. I also received a telegram from him on Friday, September 3, saying, 'Did you get goods all right? Send money what they are worth. Wire back. On Friday, September 3, I sent £5 in £1 postal orders by registered letter, and told him I was coming to London on September 6 and would then arrange with him about price, and asked him to make an appointment with me. I have sold the chestnut cob for £7 to a Mr. Tom Cal ton, and have given possession of the two sets of harness and the bay cob to Detective Sproson on September 4 instant and also all the communications I have received. "In our previous conversation he had made reference to the sheriff's officer.

Cross-examined. The harness was in the stable cleaned up and polished as if for sale. Gaskell afterwards gave me the brass fittings that had been taken off. He said he would make a search and see if he had any more documents relating to the purchase, and I believe others were found on him when he was apprehended, but I will not be sure. I did not understand that the horses had been purchased as the result of a forced sale. I found the statement as to the sale to

Calton to be correct. Calton is a greengrocer in Macclesfield and has a stall in the market place and had the horse with him.

Re-examined. Prisoner Gaskell knew very well that-1 was a police officer.

Sergeant FREDERICK STEVENS, W. On September 5 I went to Macclesfield and saw prisoner Gaskell at the "Bull's Head Hotel "about 10.30 a.m. I said to him," I am a police officer from London. During the night of August 31 a stable was broken into at Clapham and two cobs, three sets of harness and a cart stolen. The two cobs and two sets of harness have been found in your possession and I shall arrest you for receiving them, well knowing them to have been stolen." He said, "Yes, but I did not know they were stolen. I got them from a man named Goodwin, at Wimbledon, whom I have known for about 20 years. He told me he could introduce me to a friend of his who was a sheriff's officer and very often grabbed horses, and so could let me have some horses cheap." I told him then that Goodwin was arrested, also a man named Bayliss, and a man named Moss for stealing the horses. To that he said, "That is the only stuff I have ever had from Goodwin—what you have got. I do not know either of the other men; in fact, I have never heard but of that one, that is the sheriff's officer. "I do not think he mentioned the name of the sheriff's officer. I took him to Macclesfield Police Station, where he was detained. He subsequently made a statement as to other property he had received from the same person. I had previously found in the stable other stolen property, two black cobs; in the passage five sets of harness, and three rugs in the back parlour. With regard to these he said, "I will tell you the truth about it. I got those from the same source as the others, 'Goodwin's Friend." I asked him if he had any receipts for this property as I was going to. search his place for this correspondence. He said, "I never gave nor received any, but I always registered letters when I sent money away." I found some documents in his possession, amongst others a telegram signed Bayliss, a letter of August 28 signed "Goodwin's Friend," with the heading, "Bayliss, 309, East Street, Walworth"; a letter of August 30 signed "Goodwin's Friend"; a letter of September 1 signed "Goodwin's Friend"; also a telegram of September 3, "Did you get goods all right? Send money what they are worth. Wire back." I also found five counterfoils of postal orders, numbered 879, 520-4 inclusive. They are not filled up.

Cross-examined. I knew that the last witness had been there on September 4 and that Gaskell had made a statement to him. I had no warrant. After I had taken him to the station I searched his premises and found the documents in various places, some on his bill file, some in a little writing case by the side of it, and some were found on Gaskell himself.

TOM CALTON , greengrocer, 21, Fowler Street, Macclesfield, gave evidence of purchasing the chestnut cob for £7.

Cross-examined. I was going across the market when Mi. Gaskell stopped me. I went with him to the hotel and saw the horse and made the bargain.

Detective-sergeant CHARLES. GOGGINS, W. On September 1, at half-past 11 a.m., I went to the rear of 17a, Marlborough Road, Old Kent Road, and found there a two-wheeled cart, which was identified by prosecutor. On the early morning of September 5 I went to 309, East Street, Walworth, about 3 a.m. I knocked at the door and said, "Open the door; we are the police." Getting no answer I forced the door, and as I entered I heard the noise of somebody going out at the back. I searched the house first with a view to finding prisoner Brown, but failed to find him. After searching for about half an hour in the back yard adjoining the next house I saw prisoner behind a heap of wood. He said, "I am Thomas Bayllss." I said, "I shall arrest you for being concerned with a man named Moss in stealing two horses from some stables at Clapham on the morning of the 1st." He made no reply. I said to him, "I am going to search your premises to see if you have any letters from a man named Gaskell. He says "Gaskell. Who is he? I do not know him. "I then took him to Brixton Police Station and told him he would be detained while inquiry was being made. He said, "lam going to give the name of Brown, not Bayliss. "I said "Your name is Bayliss. "He replied, "I do not care; I am going to give the name of Brown. "When I mentioned the name of Moss to him he said, "I do not know anything about Moss or the horses; you have made a mistake."

In answer to prisoner witness said that in all about seven officers visited prisoner's house; there were two in uniform at the back, two plain clothes officers accompanied him into the house, and two other plain clothes officers remained outside.

FRANK FREDERICK HOLLAMBY , clerk in the Accountants' Department of the General Post Office, gave formal evidence as to the postal orders and telegrams.

Sergeant WALTER GOODE, M stated that he knew the handwriting of prisoner Brown and believed the signature "T. Bayliss" upon the five postal orders cashed at Walworth Road on September 4 to be his; also the signatures to two receipts for registered letters which were signed "E. Bayliss."

To prisoner. I am not an expert in handwriting, but I have your signature in a book.

Prisoner. I have never written myself "Bayliss" in my life.

Detective-inspector ALFRED WARD, W. I was in charge of this case at the time prisoner was charged. Brown made no reply. Gaskell said, "I wish to say I did not steal; I did not know the articles were stolen, and I have never seen the cart that is charged there."

Prisoner Brown made a statement in defence to the effect that a man whom he had never seen in his life came to him and said, "May I have a letter addressed to your place?" Prisoner replied "Yes, but you had better address it in my name or else my old woman won't take it in. "There were about three letters came; he signed for two of them and his wife for one. All he knew about the letters was that

about a fortnight after he asked this man to lend him 2s. and the man then asked him to change two postal orders, which he did, signing them in his own name.

Verdict, Gaskell and Brown guilty. The other indictments remain on the file.

Moss has undergone three terms of penal servitude and various terms of imprisonment. With regard to Gaskell it was stated that the proceeds of four separate burglaries had been found in his possession. Brown has never been convicted, but has twice been arrested for van stealing, once with Moss.

Mr. Humphries reminded the Court that on the last occasion Goodwin gave evidence, and as he put his character in issue, there was put to him a list of the names and addresses of carmen employed in the City found in his possession, many of whom had been discharged for dishonesty and others convicted; also threatening letters asking for money on account of previous dishonest transactions. Apart from that there was no evidence against him except the facts relating to the indictment. Inquiries had made it quite clear that Goodwin was a receiver from van thieves.

Detective-inspector ALFRED WARD said that some 20 years ago Gaskell was employed by prisoner Goodwin and afterwards by Messrs. Teetgen and Co., the well-known firm of tea merchants in the City. In November, 1908, in consequence of some unsatisfactory business transactions he was given wages in lieu of notice and the books marked with the reason for that course being adopted. Since then he had been at the public-house. No doubt his character was satisfactory when he took the "Bull's Head," or the license would not have been granted. No doubt he was approached by Goodwin and tempted into embarking on this course of receiving in the hope that Macclesfield, being so far away, the dishonesty would not be detected. The receiving appeared to have commenced towards the latter end of last year. Four horses have been traced to him, nine sets of harness, and two traps, all dispatched early in the morning after the robbery in the name of "Jobson." Goodwin had occupied his premises in Kingston Road for 20 years and about 200 yards away was a stable in which he stored goods, and goods from Pink's and Robinson which had not been supplied to him were found there.

Sentences, Moss, five years' penal servitude; Goodwin (who the Recorder had no doubt had engineered the whole of these robberies through Moss, and had tempted Gaskell by telling him that owing to his high position in Macclesfield he was not likely to be caught), three years' penal servitude; Brown, twelve months' hard labour; Gaskell, nine months' hard labour; the sentences to take effect from the first day of last sessions. Mr. Travers Humphreys asked for an order of restitution. Mr. Curtis Bennett said he was instructed to say on behalf of Gaskell that there would be no objection to the restitution of the property found in his possession.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-52
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

GOODSWIN, Walter (48, traveller) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Percy Heath two cases of whisky; from William Cottell one case of brandy and one case of whisky; from Frederick Russell one case of whisky; and, in the City of London, from John Brenchley one case of whisky and one case of port wine, in each case with intent to defraud.

Prisoner, it was stated, was for a number of years a dealer in spirits with an off-license, and as such became acquainted with other members of the trade, and knew the persons whose names he adopted for the purpose of these frauds as the customers of various firms. There was therefore nothing extraordinary to these firms of wine or spirit merchants when persons who were apparently their customers telephoned to them to have cases of wines or spirits sent to the cloak rooms of various Metropolitan Railway stations. A porter being despatched with the goods, prisoner represented himself to be the customer who had ordered them, and, of course, the porter could not dispute his identity. The value of the goods so obtained was about £16, of which the greater portion was recovered on information supplied by prisoner.

JOHN WYATT , accountant, 106, Leadenhall Street, and SIDNEY SCOTT, advertising contractor, 86, Church Street, Camberwell, who have known prisoner many years, gave evidence to character.

Sentence postponed until next sessions.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-53
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

LYONS, Harry (21, cook), and CORFIELD, Henry (21, fishmonger) , both pleaded guilty of stealing one case containing 80 dozen ties, the goods of Godfrey William Seys and another and feloniously receiving the same.

The case of ties was left about five o'clock in the afternoon of October 22 on the ground floor in a passage in Alderman bury Buildings, having been consigned from Staffordshire and delivered by the Midland Railway. Mr. Seys signed for them and they were left in the passage at 5.45. In the morning they had disappeared. At seven o'clock the same evening, between seven and eight, Mr. Gold, a wholesale job buyer of drapery goods in the Whitechapel Road, was visited by prisoners, who offered him the ties at 6s. per dozen, and eventually took 5s. per dozen, and Mr. Gold resold them at 6s. 6d. per dozen. The ties being the first consignment of a particular pattern could be easily identified.

Inspector DIGBY stated that Corfield since he left school had been employed by his father and uncle, but for two months had been associated with Lyons. Lyons was a dealer in job lines and sometimes kept a stall in the Roman Road. On March 25 he was charged at the Guildhall with stealing and receiving a box of ladies' collar supports, but was discharged.

The father of prisoner Lyons and Archibald Campbell, commission agent, gave evidence in favour of the respective prisoners.

Sentence, Both three months' imprisonment, second division.


(Monday, November 22.)

RUSSELL, Joseph (27, labourer) and HAYNES, William (26, baker) . Both breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Thomas Littlefield and stealing therein one dozen knives, one carver and other articles, his goods; Haynes burglary in the dwelling-house of William Brough and stealing therein one watch, other articles and 3d., his goods and moneys; Russell breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Richard Charles Wright and stealing therein one pair of boots, other articles and certain English and foreign coins, his goods and moneys; Russell stealing one pair of trousers, other articles and 2s. 7d., the goods and moneys of the West Ham Gas Company; Russell burglary in the dwelling-house of Ernest Meeks and stealing therein one purse, one pair of boots and 10s., his goods and moneys; Russell stealing 2d., the moneys of the West Ham Gas Company; Haynes burglary in the dwelling-house of Martha Potter and stealing therein one coat, one brush and one brooch, her goods; Haynes burglary in the dwelling-house of David Pallant and stealing therein 10 keys and one ring, his goods; Haynes stealing 6s. 7d., the moneys of the Gas Light and Coke Company; both breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Frederick Charles Pearce and stealing therein one pair of boots, one handkerchief and other articles, his goods; both stealing 6s. 8d., the moneys of the West Ham Gas Company; both breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Alexander Hayes and stealing therein one watch, one chain, and other articles, his goods. Mr. St. John Morrow prosecuted.

Russell pleaded guilty to. all the charges except those relating to Ernest Meeks, Alexander Hayes, Thomas Littlefield, and Richard Charles Wright; Haynes pleaded guilty to all charges except stealing 6s. 7d., the moneys of the Gas Light and Coke Company, and the charges respecting Alexander Hayes.

Russell confessed to having been convicted of felony at West Ham Quarter Sessions on August 3, 1906, in the name of Joseph Crosthwaite. Haynes confessed to having been convicted of felony at Clerken well Sessions on December 12, 1907.

Russell was further indicted for that he is an habitual criminal (under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908), to which he pleaded not guilty.

Detective-sergeant ALFRED VANSTONE, East Ham, produced the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions and proved the service of notice on the prisoner.

Detective-sergeant GEORGE READ, K Division, stationed at Canning Town. I first knew Russell in 1899, and was present when he was sentenced to six weeks' hard labour on April 5,'1899, for attempting to steal from a shop. On September 30, 1899, he was sentenced to three months' hard labour at West Ham Police Court for larceny; on February 24, 1900, to three months hard labour at West Ham Police Court for larceny; on October 22, 1900, twelve months' hard labour

at this court for stealing money; on April 3, 1903, eighteen months' hard labour at West Ham Quarter Sessions for housebreaking; on December 16, 1904, eighteen months' hard labour at West Ham for receiving stolen goods; on August 3, 1906, at West Ham Quarter Sessions four years' penal servitude for burglary. He is now out on ticket-of-leave, having been liberated on September 17, 1909. The crimes to which he has now pleaded guilty have been committed within about a month of his liberation. On September 11 Russell went to Shields for about four or five days. He has never done any work to my knowledge.

Police-constable CHARLES WARREN, 439, K Division, Canning Town. I have known Russell as an associate of thieves and as a trainer of young thieves. For the past eight years that I have known him he has never been in any employment to my knowledge. I have known him to get lads from school to go and break open gas meters while he stood at the corner of the street and watched.

JOSEPH RUSSELL (prisoner, not on oath). When this constable says he has known me for eight years and has seen me getting young fellows away to go thieving, why did he not take me up? I could prove I had been working. I have been in the Army in 1882. I have been working at the Trinity Wharf on the Trinity boats under Mr. Fuddles—of course, it was only an on and off job. I have been trying to lead an honest life. I went down to Shields to see my grandfather to see if he could get me a job, and someone had written to him and, of course, he would not have anything to do with me. I wrote to the Church Army; they wanted me to go into a labour home, and I have a letter, which I hand up. (The Judge asked if prisoner wanted the letter read.) It is not necessary to read it. Verdict, Guilty of being an habitual criminal. Convictions proved against Haynes: July 25, 1902, West Ham, one month, for stealing money; April 27, 1903, at this Court, five years' penal servitude, for burglary; September 10, 1907, North London, 12 months, for burglary.

Sentence, Russell, Three years' penal servitude, to be followed by five years' preventive detention; Haynes, five years' penal servitude.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH. (Monday, November 22.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-55
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

WALLACE, Robert (37, agent) , embezzling and stealing divers moneys amounting to £2 19s. received by him for and on account of the Provident Clothing and Supply Company, Limited, his masters; unlawfully falsifying a collecting book, with intent to defraud, also making a false entry with intent to defraud in the said book, the property of the Provident Clothing and Supply Company, Limited, his masters.

Mr. Huntly Jenkins prosecuted; Mr. J. A. Hawke defended.

JOHN WILLIAM MORTON , Secretary Provident Clothing and Supply Company, Limited. I engaged prisoner as canvasser and collector. He

was paid only by commission. For the last 52 weeks his earnings averaged £2 1s. a week. Every member he got was provided with a card and when he received payments he had to enter the amounts paid and initial the card. He was provided with a book in which to enter the amounts received. That is called the collecting book. The collecting book and the cards should correspond. He should account for the money he received at the general office at 58, Camden Road on Tuesday in each week. On September 15 he was dismissed. The accounts were investigated, and a warrant applied for on October 20. Members get checks which enable them to go to a shop and make purchases to the amount of the checks. When they pay 4s. they can get goods to the amount of £1 from certain shopkeepers who have an account with my company. The balance is paid by 1s. a week to the collector. Old members can have more than one check, Dot new ones. When a man becomes a member he pays 4s. or whatever the amount is, according to the shares he wants, and he ought to get a receipt from the collector. A counterfoil of the receipt should be kept by the collector and handed to the district manager. The subscriber then gets a card from our head office with a number corresponding with the receipt. If the member does not continue his subscriptions the agent should return his card to the district office. It is then cancelled. It should not be used by anybody else. Collectors are instructed to that effect verbally by the district manager.

Cross-examined. I know all about the business and its management. I saw prisoner immediately after his engagement. He was appointed first to the Kilburn branch. He had excellent references. We ascertained that he had had previous experience with an insurance company and kept the accounts of his own agency. It is stated on his own application. When he started with us he had no connection. He started in 1906 and remained with the Kilburn branch till May, 1907, by that time he was collecting a little over £10 a week. He was then transferred to Camden Town. By Christmas, 1908, he was collecting £24 or £25 a week. A good many members have £1 shares and some have £3, £4, and £5 shares. Some pay as much as 10s. a week. He would then be collecting from 300 to 350 people. I should say he has paid in £1,500 during the time he has been with us. If a person wants a £1 cheque before he has made eight payments he can do so by paying 1s. poundage, so that in all he pays 21s. The poundage should not be put in the collecting book. When the collector calls on a member and does not receive payment he puts in his collecting bock a cross. The inspector would see that when he goes round to examine the cards. The collecting book is handed to the district manager once a fortnight; he keeps it three days, but not collecting days. The canvasser has to be canvassing and delivering his cheques on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. The company do not allow collections to be made, if they know it, after Tuesday night. The district manager cannot see the whole of the cards every fortnight, nor every month.

WILLIAM ROWE , 26, Roderick Road, Gospel Oak. I am a member of the Provident, etc., Company. This is my card. On June 12 I paid 3s: to prisoner on behalf of the company, and he initialled the card in my presence. I also paid him 3s. on June 26 and 3s. on September 14.

Cross-examined. I took three £1 shares. The last payment 1 made is initialled with a different signature. That was after prisoner had been dismissed. I made the first payment myself. A man named Gale made the second or third payment. That was the one he paid, for poundage. It is not on the card.

ELIZABETH GALE . I have a sister who is a member of this company. This is her card. On May 22 I paid 4s. to the prisoner on her behalf, on June 5 2s., and on September 4 2s. Prisoner initialled those payments. I think I paid him one week for Mr. Rowe.

Cross-examined. I remember the dates of payment because I have since seen the card, and that brings them back to my mind. The initials were always made in my presence when I paid them.

LUCY MACDONALD . I am a-member of the Provident Clothing Company. On May 6 I paid prisoner 4s. and on July 3 2s. Prisoner signed in my presence.

Cross-examined. I have made many other payments. On May 8 I paid 4s. 2s. was poundage and 2s. was contribution. We wanted a fresh check. On the card prisoner has entered two amounts of 2s. There is only one week, where the cross is, that he did not get paid.

Re-examined. I did not have a slip for poundage; all the receipt I had was on the card.

Mrs. ALICE STEWART, 129, Weedington Road. In the beginning of July I paid prisoner 2s. on account of a £1 cheque; on the following day I paid him another 2s.; 3s. was on account of the check and 1s. poundage. I asked him when I was to have my check; he said on Friday morning. I never got the check or a card. He told me the inspector had called and there was no such name as mine known. Prisoner said he would get the money back from the company, which he did.

Cross-examined. I live at 48, Dalby Street. I have lived in Cattle Road. I was living with my mother at Weedington Road when I paid the money. I had rooms in Castle Road, but not exactly on the date I paid the money. The payment was made at Weedington Road. He told me I was not known at Weedington Road. I had rooms then at Castle Road, but as my husband had been out of work I was staying with my mother.

Mrs. MARIA CRUIKSHANK, 13, St. James's Gardens, Kentish Town. On July 101 paid prisoner 5s., on July 17 5s. He then gave me this card and initialled the payments. Every week up to September 4 he signed for 5s. On that day he told me I should have my check next week. On July 24 the name of William Cruickshank was on the card, written as it is now.

Cross-examined. I did not have two cards running at the same time. I had previously been a subscriber. Once or twice I paid

prisoner at his house. He would come to me one day a week, and if I had not the money he would initial my book, and I would pay him afterwards at his house. I don't remember him having a collecting book when he called on me. I never saw it. I paid him on Saturdays, if I had the money when he came.

ERNEST SIMMS , manager, Provident Supply Company. It was prisoner's duty to account to me on Tuesday evening for all the moneys he received on the Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday. On June 15 he did not account for 3s. which he received from Mrs. Rowe on the 12th. He puts a cross on that day. That signifies that she made no payment. On June 29 he did not account for 3s. received from Mr. Rowe. He puts a cross. On May 25 he accounted for 2s. instead of 4s. On the 8th he accounts for 1s. instead of 2s. received from Margaret Mitchell on the 5th, and does not account for 2s. received from her on the 4th. He has entered a cross. He did not account for 4s. received from Lucy Macdonald on May 8; he enters 2s. On July 6 he accounts for 1s. instead of 2s. received from her. On July 3 he brought a counterfoil receipt for 1s. paid by Mrs. Stewart. He brought no counterfoil, receipts for moneys received from Mrs. Cruikshank. Between July 10 and-August 28 he paid in no sums of 5s. received from her. On September-14 there is an entry of her name under the heading "Date of entrance. "I did not give prisoner the card (Exhibit 8) for him to hand to Mr. Cruikshank. I did not call at Mrs. Stewart's house or authorise anyone to do so, or tell the prisoner she was not known there. On September 10 I informed prisoner that the assistant would be going round with him next morning to check his agency. I asked him to accompany him. He refused point blank. He gave no reason beyond saying he did not wish to be shown up in front of his members. Prisoner called at my private house next day and said he had made up his mind to go with the assistant on Monday morning, and would come to the office at 9.30 a.m. He did not come.

Cross-examined. Prisoner has been in my department about eighteen months. He has worked very hard indeed for the company. He was not very good with his accounts. He had difficulties with them. Since last Christmas he had worked up to £26 a week. I took away some of his customers because I thought his work too much. Since then he has got it up to very near the old figure, not quite £28. I have been informed he is suffering from illness. I have had his book every fortnight for three days a week. I have no recollection of his telling me he was afraid he was getting muddled with his accounts. I did not know months ago that he was getting muddled with them. I received a letter from the head office about checking prisoner's and other agents' books. I did not show it to prisoner. I do not know how he knew I had received it. Prisoner saw me on August 6 checking another man. I did not tell him at that time to get his books ready as quickly as possible. He did not tell me he had trouble in getting his accounts balanced. I know he did have trouble. Some weeks he has paid the company more than he ought and some weeks less. Some men collect all days of the week. I have no reason to

believe that prisoner did not. I have never seen him collecting. I said before the magistrate that prisoner did not collect on other than the recognised days. All there is to indicate anything different is that he enters up payments under particular dates. A condemned street is a street in which an agent is not allowed to book business. Castle Road was condemned. That was not why he had to pay that money back to Mrs. Stewart. I did not tell him to pay her. There were no counterfoil receipts in the case of Cruikshank; there should not have been unless the previous card had been mislaid. In the event of a card being required when an old card is filled up an agent has to make out a counterfoil and get a new card. The 2s. poundage is not shown on Macdonald's card at all. The check was issued on the card. I ought not to have a receipt for that money.

CHARLES WALKER , clerk at head office of the Provident Company. On July 7, having received counterfoil (Exhibit 6) I made out the card (Exhibit 8) in the name of Thomas Stewart, 129, Weedington Road. The numbers correspond. I sent it to the Camden Town office. The card handed to me, having the name "Wm. Cruikshank," is not in my handwriting. I authorised nobody to write it. I made it out in the name of Stewart. I did not receive a counterfoil in respect of Cruikshank's £5 share, or issue a card for it.

CHARLES A. ROBINSON , assistant manager to the company at Camden Town branch. On July 8 I received from the head office the card (Exhibit 8) in the name of Thomas Stewart. I handed it to prisoner on the 9th. I did not alter it into the name of Cruikshank. On July 23 prisoner reported to me that Mrs. Stewart was unable to keep up her payments and wished the money to be returned. I gave prisoner the shilling paid, and entered it in the refund book. To the best of my knowledge that was the only sum paid by Mrs. Stewart. Prisoner ought to have returned the card to the office, but did not do so.

Cross-examined. The cards are never used again. Prisoner did not ask me to keep an eye on his accounts. He did not ask me to keep a particular eye on the balance-sheets. It is my duty to check the balance-sheet over to him. There may have been mistakes in additions, but they are rectified at the head office.

Sergeant CHARLES BOUCHARD, Y Division. I arrested prisoner on October 25 at his address. I read the warrant to him. He said, "How much do they say I have embezzled?" I said, "The warrant is for 9s., but the amount is said to be about £40." He said, "I have been to Belfast and Glasgow and returned on Saturday last. I was going to give myself up. I was expecting somebody to call for me." On November 11 he was charged with embezzlement and falsification of accounts. He said, "What is the use for you to keep on charging me like this? I wanted to plead Guilty last week, and clear the whole matter up; I told you so from the first."

(Tuesday, November 23.)


ROBERT WALLACE (prisoner, on oath). I have never been to school. I learnt to write a little in the Army. Until I joined this company in 1906 my employment had been chiefly looking after horses. When I started with the company I had no connection. I had a collecting book and collected all days of the week. The company knew this. I did not have my book Wednesdays, Thursdays, or Fridays. I gave it up on Tuesday night every week for over twelve months. Up to February last Miss Bray, who lodged at my house, assisted me in making up my accounts. The names of many of the people in the collecting book are in my wife's writing. The previous books were in Miss Bray's. I have never consciously failed to put down moneys that have been paid. I sometimes found I was short in my accounts. I have told Mrs. Ward, Mr. Robinson, and Mr. Sims of this. I would pay it in out of my own money. My wife has found money to do so from her people. With regard to William Rowe, Mr. Gale paid me 3s. for a £3 check. I applied that for poundage. It does not appear in the collecting book; it is paid over the counter. I must have made a mistake over the other 3s., which appears on the card and not in my collecting book. Amounts initialled by me have probably been received by me. I did not in all cases receive the money before I initialled the card. A lot of people would send round to the house and ask if I would kindly mark the card and they would send the money later. Mr. Rowe paid; he never sent the money. For weeks I would never see some of the cards; they trusted me; I have never purposely omitted entering moneys in the collecting book. We have to rush all day Saturday, Monday, and Tuesday, and Mr. Sims wants the money paid in by 7.30, Tuesday night, so we have not time to look into the collecting books when we are collecting. If I have not accounted for moneys it must be a mistake. I have made these mistakes before, but have always rectified them. Mrs. Stewart paid me 1s. on Wednesday morning. I believe she brought 3s. round to the house after I went to the office. She paid me another time, and I applied for the card. I handed in the receipt to Mr. Sims. The 3s. was handed in at a different time. Mrs. Stewart gave me the address, 129, Weedington Road. I found out her real address was 20, Castle Road. I called Mr. Sims' attention to it on Friday morning when he gave me the card. He told me not to put it through. I returned her money on the Tuesday. This is not my writing on Mrs. Stewart's card. If I had done it I would not have thought it any harm. I handed that card to Mrs. Cruikshank and she paid 5s. a week afterwards. With regard to the cross on her card on July 24, perhaps she did not send round in time. I used to mark the card on Saturday. If the money did not come on the Tuesday before I went to the office I could not enter it, and if not paid a cross would be put in. the book. I found out I had made a mistake. According to one of the books I paid the. company

too much for Mrs. Cruikshank. I must have sent the counterfoil receipt for Mrs. Cruikshank's first payment; if you apply for a new card you must do it. The old card is sent to Bradford and a new card is sent back.

Cross-examined. I was doing nothing when I went to this company; I had only applied to the insurance office for a situation. I did not make my own application out. It is signed by me. I had my collecting book on Saturdays, Mondays, and Tuesdays. I cannot say if I received the moneys in respect of which I am charged on a Saturday, Monday or Tuesday. If I did not get them when I called I had to go back again, sometimes on Wednesday. The cross against Rowe's name on June 12 signifies that no payment was made. I think I left the collecting book at home that day to have names put in it. There are a great number of entries in my book for that date. I do not dispute having had these sums of money. If I have not paid them over I have made a mistake not putting them in the book. My method of bookkeeping was complained of 1st year when the inspector came up. Mr. Sims reported to Bradford. I have been always complained about queries coming through. I was always willing to admit I was short the last six months. Since my book got over £3 I have always been making mistakes. I sometimes found I had as much as the book the following week and if I found there was a mistake made or 5s. over. I had no call to tell anybody that. I would search I put it down. I have never used these moneys for my own purposes. I used to hand all the company's money to my wife. The cards and counterfoil receipts ought to correspond in number. I never took notice of that. Bradford made a mistake with Mrs. Stewart's card, they marked 8s. in it. I do not dispute the Cruikshank card; I do not remember it; it was not wilfully done. It is not my writing, but I may have got it done. I knew there was a mistake in that card. It was going to be paid on the following Tuesday I came away. I told Mr. Sims I had made a great mistake hi that card. I have made a mistake like that before and paid the money in and nothing has been said about it. As soon as I found out it was not in my book I put it in. That was September 10. I was going to pay it in on the 11th. I had no cause to disclose to the company that I had a member of the name of Cruikshank. Mr. Sims spoke to me six months ago about the accounts. He told me in July he should require me to go round. When he asked me on September 10 to go round I declined as I wanted a week to get my book squared up. He would not give it. I did not make an appointment to be at the offices at 11 o'clock on the Monday. I went to his private house because he was backwards and forwards to my house to see where I had gone to. I told him I would see what I could do on Monday. I went collecting by myself on the Monday. I collected £2 1s. He refused to give me my collecting book to enter it. I went to Hatfield that day. On Tuesday I went to the office to pay the money in. He would not give me the book. On the Friday I paid my rent with the money. I remember Sergeant Goodchild coming to me. The first I heard of the charge was when I came home from Glasgow. I did not know the nature of

the charge; he told me it was for embezzling 9s., but the full amount was £40. I said, "It cannot be that. "I always said it was a mistake. I asked him what was the best thing to do. He said, "The best thing is to own up to 9s." I wanted to get it settled for my wife and children. I never owned to it; I never will own to it—wilfully taking it off the company. I would have done anything to get over the 9s. I said at the court I was not guilty; I knew they could not give me much.

Mrs. WALLACE. I have helped my husband occasionally with his accounts. I remember a card with "William Cruikshank" on it, I do not remember whether it is this particular card. I think it looks like my writing. Miss Bray has done my husband's books. He often had difficulty in balancing his accounts. People would promise to bring the money to the house and we did not always get it in time. When Miss Bray left I helped him as much as I could. Most of the names in his book are in my writing. During the last few months he has been short and had tried very hard to get. it together. I have supplied money of my own in order to make the accounts balance and then I could not make them right. I do not know if he has ever paid in too much. A great many people used to call and pay me. He has waited many a time for the money to come and has not got it until after the book has gone in.

Cross-examined. My husband always gave me his money when he came in. I kept it in a drawer My husband and I counted it. I do not know if he had too much on occasions because I did not always do the balance-sheet. Sometimes he has had money over. I would give him that the next week It always goes to the company. I put the money in a bag till the next week. I know he pays in all the. money he has.

Miss ROSA BRAT, 79, Glenwood, Harringay. I lodged with Mr. and Mrs. Wallace. I was in a laundry and used to do their books at home. I also assisted prisoner with his books. He used to send in a weekly balance-sheet with his money on Tuesday evenings. I copied all his new book out for him. The names were on one side and he put what he collected in little spaces. 'He did not always have his book when he was out collecting. When he used to come home he had to think of the names and put them in his book. He never brought in any memo, or paper showing what he had received to my knowledge. When he has entered up sometimes he has been short and sometimes he has had more money than he has booked. I never counted the money. Mrs. Wallace always kept the money in a bag.

Cross-examined. I did not make entries in the collecting book. I did that on the slips that went to Bradford. He made his balance-sheet out from his book; then he would bring it upstairs to me. The figures were put down, but not reckoned up. I used to add it up on Tuesday evenings.

CUTHBERT WILLS , 3, College Road, South Hampstead, and RUPERT SCOTT, 2, Ely Street, Kentish Town, testified to prisoner's honesty, industry, and sobriety. Verdict, Not guilty.


(Tuesday, November 23.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-56
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

THOMSON, Frederick .Samuel Hahnemann (55, no occupation); maliciously publishing certain defamatory libels of and concerning Leopold Albu and George Albu.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; solicitor and counsel were assigned to prisoner by order of the Court, but Mr. Purcell, having advised prisoner that he had no defence in law, took little part in the proceedings.

Prisoner called upon to plead said: I wrote the letters complained of and am advised that in law I cannot justify them, and am willing to undertake not to repeat them.

Mr. Muir said the first count of the indictment charged prisoner with having published a libel in these words: "Messrs. Albu (meaning Leopold and George Albu) and their confederates still ply their occupation unabashed of swindlers and thieves. "This passage occurred in one of a series of letters written to Mr. Thorne, secretary to a number of mining companies in South Africa, with which Messrs. Albu are connected. In another letter, the subject of the second count, prisoner wrote: "I have expressed to you from time to time that the shareholders have been fleeced and robbed by the Albu brothers and their confederates, who pay for this puff, as per herewith, in a paper styled the Capitalist. It is almost certain that it is run by the meanest race of people in this world, the Jews. A Jew may be hung in Glasgow in a fortnight's time for murdering an old lady I knew. He had intended to rob her of her jewels, but the old lady being unyielding and troublesome he murdered her on the principle that dead men tell no tales. This man's other mode of obtaining money was from the prostitution of women. Glasgow is pestered with German Jewish women,' as London is also, who trade as prostitutes in alliance with German Jewish men. These men and women have the oily, deceitful tongues characteristic of the Jews. They are all liars and thieves. The Albus and their confederates are the same. They have dipped their hands deep into the pockets of the British public. They have been as truly murderers as this Jew lying in Glasgow prison condemned to death. They are as deserving of death. I should say much more deserving of death. There are other ways of killing people besides cutting the throat, and the Albus by ruining countless people have been the means of sending very many to premature graves. "Another letter in a similar strain was the subject of the third count. In it prisoner wrote: "I disapprove entirely of the dishonest methods of the Albu Brothers and their confederates, decreasing and increasing the capital at their own sweet will, always thereby plundering the shareholders and enriching themselves. If the searchlight of experts could be directed to the Albu Brothers' transactions, what a revelation of jobbery and thieving there would be. No honest man would rest under the charges I bring

against the Albu Brothers, but, cowards as they are, they do. "Mr. Thorne with admirable good sense and discretion (said counsel) treated the letters as the evapourings of a lunatic, and kept them to himself and did not show them to Messrs. Albu at all, but on receipt of the last letter he deemed it his duty to write to Mr. Herbert Smith, the solicitor for the companies, and Mr. Smith thought the matter too serious to keep to themselves. The letters were accordingly submitted to Messrs. Albu, who at once took advice upon the subject and applied for process against prisoner, who, before being summoned, was given the opportunity of apologising and retracting, but absolutely refuted to do anything of the kind. He was subsequently arrested on a warrant, brought to London, and committed for trial. Application for postponement were made on his behalf in the first place because he was in hospital suffering from erysipelas, and, secondly, that he might put his plea of justification in proper form, And for that purpose he was assigned solicitor and counsel by the Court; but they returned him his papers, and prisoner had sent forward a document in which he repeated the libellous statements, and asked that that document should be treated as a plea of justification. Not only in law was the plea bad, but on fact, if every statement of fact—apart from epithets of abuse, which were plentiful—contained in this document were true, no justification whatever of the libels could be shown, complying with Section 6 of the Libel Act of 1843. All that prisoner had thought fit to say was that he was advised that in law he could not support his plea; that was neither retraction nor apology, though at this stage the value of retraction or apology would be nothing at all, and so far as aggravation of libel could be committed prisoner had done everything he could to aggravate the gross libels he had published concerning the prosecutors. Since 1895 Messrs. Leopold and George Albu had carried on their business under the title of the General Mining Finance Corporation, Limited, and their fellow directors were gentlemen of the highest standing in Europe. The company was formed for the purpose of promoting and financing other companies. The total capital of the five companies with which Messrs. Albu were connected was, in round figures, five and a half millions, and the remaining companies in regard to which prisoner alleged certain facts in his plea of justification had a total capital of £2,231,000, and were either in course of development or awaiting more favourable circumstances for the raising of capital. Prisoner had put in a few hundred pounds and, because his expectations as to dividend had not been satisfied he chose, not to write to the papers and complain, not to attend meetings or send communications to meetings, but to write to Mr. Thorne with a view to his communicating the contents of his letters to Messrs. Albu in private, under circumstances which, he would submit, was nothing but blackmailing of the most patent kind. This was no attempt to redress a grievance common to himself and other members of the public. Mr. Thorne had had no complaint of improper dealing by the managers of these mines from any individual at all except prisoner. One of the companies in which prisoner was interested to some small extent was the "George Goch," now reconstructed

as the "New Goch." With that company the General Mining and Finance Corporation, Limited, had originally nothing to do. It came under their control at a later date, and had been systematically developed by them, with the result that it was now producing profits of from £12,000 to £14,000 a month, or, roughly speaking, £150,000 per annum. The capital originally raised being insufficient money was raised by debentures or loan from the General Mining Finance Corporation, Limited.

The Recorder observed that one of the difficulties in this case was that the original subscribers, who, no doubt, thought they were acquiring a property which would be a dividend-paying property, had got nothing. All that they had subscribed was swallowed up by the new method of raising money. He did not say it was in any way dishonest, but the whole of the money was swallowed up. Mr. Muir. That may be so in some cases; it is not so here. The Recorder. I understood you to say that debenture-holders had to be called in to assist the development of the company, and the effect of that is that by degrees it is likely to become a dividend-paying company.

Mr. Muir. Certainly.

The Recorder. Then the original shareholders do not get anything. Mr. Muir. Yes, they do; they get the profits. The Recorder. In front of them there are all these debentures and other things. However, that is quite outside the question of this libel. I do not suggest that under any circumstances a person is justified in publishing such documents as these. These are not letters so far as I have read them that come into the category of blackmailing letters. The man appears to be inflamed by a desperate hatred of the Jewish race and particularly of the Messrs. Albu, who are, I am informed, of the Jewish persuasion and are alleged by prisoner to have swindled a great many people. He does not say, "If you give me back my £200 I won't do it any more"

Mr. Muir. What was his object in writing these letters at all to the secretary?

The Recorder. I think probably the view Mr. Thorne took of the matter was nearer the mark, that prisoner had allowed his mind to dwell on these grievances. He is a Scotsman, and probably not over plentifully supplied with this world's goods, and he lost what must have been to him a large sum of money.

Mr. Muir. He has not lost a farthing. He will get it all back again, and more. The shares are all saleable at this moment for as much as he gave for them.

Mr. Purcell said he had written to prisoner asking that he should come and see him before the commencement of these Sessions. Prisoner did not take that advice, but this morning he had had an opportunity of speaking to him, and he at once showed himself to be a reasonable man and adopted the course suggested to him.

Prisoner, asked, if he had anything to say, said he had not the slightest idea this thing was a crime, and it was not criminal proceedings, but law proceedings he had anticipated would be taken against

him, a civil action in Scotland; and he never had a greater surprise. in his life than when he was arrested and brought to London. If he had known he was committing a crime he would not have written these letters and involved himself in a criminal prosecution.

The Recorder said he was glad to hear prisoner say that. Of course, if prisoner were to repeat these libels it would be a very serious matter and he would have to be seriously dealt with. He was rather inclined to think that prisoner had been brooding over the matter. So far as publication was concerned, it was not an aggravated form of publication. What was the amount of money invested?

Prisoner. About £500; and, when you remember that at compound interest money doubles itself in 15 years, the loss comes to be something more.

The Recorder. I am told by the gentleman who appears for prosecutors that the shares are saleable; you can get your money back.

Eventually sentence was postponed until next Sessions, prisoner to remain in custody.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-57
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

CHADWELL, Charles (53, engineer) ; indicted for attempting to obtain by false pretences from James Trace £34 6s.; obtaining by raise pretences from Emil Meuli £5; from Francis Clifford Austin the several sums of £4 and £10 10s. respectively, and from Harry Pollard £3 2s. 7d., three pairs of boots and one pair of boot trees, in each case with intent to defraud; and unlawfully conspiring and agreeing with Frederic Pope in attempting to obtain by false pretences from James Trace £34 6s., from Emil Meuli the sum of £5, from Francis Clifford Austin the sum of £10 10s., and from Harry Pollard £3 2s. 7d., three pairs of boots and one pair of boot trees, in each case with intent to defraud, pleaded guilty to certain of the charges and the plea was accepted by Mr. J. P. Grain, appearing for the prosecution.

Prisoner is an undischarged bankrupt and the class of crime was attempting to obtain money on worthless cheques. The Recorder, considering that there were indications in the case that prisoner had been unfortunate and was not a man habituated to crime, sentenced him to Three months in the second division.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-58
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LOWDEN, John William (53, labourer) ; feloniously marrying Isabella Howell Pyrke, his wife being alive.

Mr. Herman Cohen prosecuted.

ISABELLA HOWELL PYRKE . I am a single woman and live at Pelham Road, Knowle Park. On May 31 of this year I went through the ceremony of marriage with prisoner at St. Mark's Church Knowledge Park, he describing himself as a widower in the marriage certificate. He was living in my mother's house. I had known him about 10 months before, we went through the form of marriage. He was working at the. tram terminus as a stores labourer, I believe. I lived with him as his wife for five months and a week. We still lived in mother's house, prisoner taking the house over from mother. He treated me well in every respect. On November 3 a woman came to the house and made a communication to me. As the result of that I told prisoner

that the woman said she was his lawful wife. He said it was impossible; he did not know he had one. He said that because he thought she was dead. I told him that she was in the house, and ultimately I fetched her into the room. They recognised each other and seemed to be on very bad terms. I believe he told her he thought she was dead. I think he said it was four years since he had seen her. The interview lasted about three hours. I believe the writing on the envelopes (produced) to be that of prisoner, but we never had any correspondence till I had a letter from him from Briston Prison. The writing of the letter written to me from Brixton does not look exactly the same as that of the letters in the envelopes. I have ceased to live with him as his wife. I had no improper relations with him before marriage. The furniture in the house is my property. We let one room to pay part of the rent. I work for my living at home as a machinist.

ROSETTA LEWIN , wife of a railway servant, living at 34, Marlborough Road, Bowes Park. I have known prisoner twenty-seven years. I was present on June 28, 1882, at Trinity Church, Cloudesley Square, Islington, when prisoner was married to Mary Ann Arnold. (Mrs. Lowden was called into Court and identified by witness.) I was in touch with them after the marriage now and again. It is about five years since they separated on account of his drinking.

Detective-Sergeant HENRY MCKENNA, J. I arrested prisoner on November 9 at the house of the prosecutrix at Wood Green. I had no warrant. I told him I should take him into custody for committing bigamy. He replied, "I am very sorry." I took him to Dalston Police Station, where the charge was read over to him. He said, "I must plead guilty. I did not know my wife was alive. "I have compared the signature on the second marriage certificate with the register. It tallies in every respect. His real wife came to the station and made complaint and I arrested him, believing that I had reasonable ground for doing so without a warrant.


JOHN WILLIAM LOWDEN (prisoner, on oath). Five years ago from the 25th of last April my wife left me. She had a van and took her own furniture, and as much of mine as she liked. In September, 1905, I wrote a letter to her, and also to my son, with the result that she came and saw me. She did not compliment me very much for writing to her, but we walked as far as Finsbury Park from Tottenham together, that being the road towards home for her. I offered her my hand then, but she refused it, and turned round and walked into the tram. From that day, till I think it was the 4th of this month, I had never seen or heard of her. I did not try to; it was a promise that I should not annoy her, and I kept that promise. In 1907 I had an illness, and in the spring of 1908 I obtained employment at the tramway depot, Wood Green. One Monday I was walking back to my lodgings at New Southgate and I met an old mate who had worked at the same station with me. He stopped when he saw me, and said,

"Hallo, Jack, are you alive?" I said, "I am alive." "Well," he says, "I thought you was dead and the old woman and all." There was no more said on the subject. I also heard that my wife was dead from a woman who accosted me in the street.

The Recorder. It is not sufficient for a person to accost another person in the street and say that he believes his wife dead. If you had wanted to ascertain whether she was alive or dead you ought to have made diligent enquiry in the neighbourhood in which she lived, and ascertained by those diligent enquiries if she was in fact dead, or was believed to be dead; then you might have had some ground for marrying this other woman.

Witness. I was going to tell you that it was rumoured about.

The Recorder. That is not sufficient. It would be intolerable if a man, his wife having left him under such circumstances, as we hear she left you, could then go and marry another woman, and represent to her that he was a widower upon such flimsy evidence as this.

Witness. That was a long time before I thought of marrying again.

The Recorder. So it might have been, but do you suppose that this respectable woman, Miss Pyrke, would have married you if she had supposed that the only evidence of the death of the woman is what you are now telling us?

Prisoner. No, I do not suppose she would.

Verdict. Guilty; the Recorder remarked that there was not a rag of defence to the case.

Sergeant MCKENNA, recalled, said that when prisoner was married he held a very good position as head porter at King's Cross, but through drink he was reduced to be a porter and sent to Bowes Park. From there he was discharged on account of drink, and then appeared to have led a very roaming life. His wife said that he used to get drunk very often, and for that reason she eventually left him. Since he had got his job at the tramway company, and lodged with Miss Pyrke and her mother, who were most respectable people, he had been of more abstemious habits, and the tramway company, for whom he had worked eighteen months, gave him an excellent character. When the prosecutrix and he were walking together he used to attend various churches in the neighbourhood.

Miss PYRKE, recalled, answered in the affirmative a question of the Recorder whether she, being the injured person, was willing to recommend prisoner to the merciful consideration of the Court. Sentence, Three months' hard labour.


(Tuesday, November 23.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-59
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HUNT, George (51, bricklayer) ; carnally knowing Clara Ellen Hunt, a girl of the age of 15 years.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, six months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-60
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

COOMBES, William (49, dealer) ; feloniously, and without lawful authority, having in possession certain moulds adapted and intended to make the apparent resemblance of a side of the King's current silver coin, to wit, a sixpence. Mr. Myers prosecuted.

Detective JOHN BEARD, L Division. On October 27, 1909, at about five p.m., in consequence of a telegram I received I went to 5, Cleaver Street. I searched the back room and found in a cupboard large bag of silver sand, saucepan with metal in it not quite cold, and small jar containing grease and lamp black; on a shelf in the scullery I found two moulds for sixpences, each bound up with a piece of tape, and a piece of glass (for making the moulds). With Inspector Eustace I kept observation in the premises, when prisoner came in. We took him to Kennington Police Station. He was charged and said, "That place belongs to me that is where I have lived." He was searched and 1s. 10 1/2 d. in bronze and two small packets of tobacco were found upon him. I afterwards returned to 5, Cleaver Street, and obtained the shovel produced, which was given to me by the prisoner's daughter. In the room where the articles were found the fire was burning.

Inspector WILLIAM EUSTACE. On October 27 I arrived at 5, Cleaver Street, at about 6.15 p.m., and saw prisoner. I said, "We are police officers; do you keep the house?" He said, "I occupy the ground floor, not the front room." I said, "We have found two moulds for the manufacture of sixpences, some metal and other implements for making counterfeit coin." He said, "Then you have brought them here and put them in this room." He was taken to the station and the things were spread out in front of him. He pointed to the plaster of paris and said, "That belongs to me. "When charged he said, "That is all right—where I live is quite correct. I have been out selling flowers all day."

ALICE COOMBES , daughter of the prisoner. I have lived at 5, Cleaver Street, Kennington Road, for about six months with my father, mother, two brothers; we occupy three rooms, one on the ground floor, and two on the first floor. The shovel produced is my mother's and belongs to the kitchen—our living room.

Cross-examined. Detective Beard found the shovel in the kitchen fireplace. Outside Kennington Lane Police Station Beard grumbled at me. He said he had got a boy littler than me four months. I said, "What I have said is the truth." Prisoner was out at five p.m. He had been out some time. He was out when my sister came home from school. I last saw him that day at about 3.30.

Re-examined. I made a statement—

The Common Serjeant held that the witness could not be cross-examined by Mr. Myers.

JOSEPH COOMBES , Son of the prisoner. I have occupied 5, Cleaver Street, for about seven months and I let to the prisoner two rooms on

the first floor, the kitchen on the ground floor (which we also use), and the washhouse.

Cross-examined. I saw prisoner go out with a pair of boots at about three p.m. He was out in the morning.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, His Majesty's Mint. Two moulds produced are single moulds for the manufacture of counterfeit sixpences dated 1906 and 1907. They have both been used. There is some molten metal in a saucepan such as is used for making counterfeit coins. Part of a guet, silver sand and plaster of paris, piece of glass (for making a mould) marked with plaster of paris, a pot containing grease and lampblack (used for toning coins). Waistcoat (produced) is smeared with plaster of paris.


WILLIAM COOMBES (prisoner, on oath). The plaster of paris is mine and has been used by me during the last 11 months for making images; I have been working on the Queen's Memorial. I have had it some months.

Cross-examined. I know nothing about these moulds and never saw them until I was at the police station. I am not working on the Queen Victoria Memorial now. I have been selling flowers the last week or so. On October 27, at nine a.m., I took my little daughter to school and then went out selling flowers. I have never seen that silver sand before. I bought some solder and melted it to wipe a joint with—that is the only metal I have ever used. The jar contains blacklead. With regard to the glass, if the detectives had looked they would have found 30 or 40 pieces of glass like that in the yard. It was used for the window in the scullery, which the landlady employed me to do and I had 30s. for doing it. I do not know how the saucepan containing metal and the two moulds with the piece of glass could have got into the house. When I said the police had put them there, I did not know what I was saying, because they arrested me for a thing I was innocent of.

Verdict, Guilty.

Convictions proved: December 11, 1909, South London, six months' hard labour for warehouse breaking; April 9, 1902, Westminster, four months' for larceny from a van; February 13, 1907, two months' hard labour for unlawful possession; October 14, 1907, Westminster Police Court, two months' for attempting to obtain money by false pretences (by uttering coin). Stated to be an associate of and related to coiners.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.


(Wednesday, November 24.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-61
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

GARNHAM, George (39, caterer), and SOUTER, Henry (39, builder) ; Garnham obtaining by false pretences from Bernard Bahr the sum of £25; from William Francis Norton the several sums of £4, £5, and £16; from George Brewster the sum of £25; from Henry Bellinger the sum of £25; and from Granville Fowle the sum of £25, in each case with intent to defraud; having received the said several sums sums for and on account of the said Bernard Bahr and others did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit; both conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from Archibald Charles Lugar the sum of £10, his moneys, with intent to defraud, and having received the said sum of £10 for and on account of the said Archibald Charles Lugar did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Henslowe Wellington prosecuted; Mr. Martin O'Connor defended Garnham.

Garnham was tried on the charge of obtaining by false pretences.

BERNARD BAHR , 4, St. James's Road, Watford, chef. I have had 12 or 13 years' experience as a chef. In November, 1908, in reply to an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle," "Man and wife wanted to manage coffee and dining rooms, "I went to 74, Praed Street, and saw Grove, who was acting as manager for the prisoner. He said that I should have to pay £25 as security before I could enter into the business, because the prisoner would be responsible. Three or four days afterwards I saw prisoner and Grove at Grove's house at Bushey. Grove said that he had taken up another man's references who could not find enough money to pay the security, and if the other man did not find the money he could put me into the business at 74, Praed Street. Garnham said, "If you do not get this place at 74, Praed Street, I have seven or eight other shops in London, one of which I can put you into." He gave me the address of one at Willesden Green, which his brother was managing temporarily, and asked me to go and see him. I went there and saw his brother, who said that he was not going to leave the business. I afterwards saw the 74, Praed Street shop again advertised, saw Grove and prisoner at Grove's house at Bushey, and ultimately I went to 74, Praed Street, paying £25 to Grove. He showed me books of the takings, showing profits of £5 or £6 a week, and drew an agreement, dated December 12, 1908, which I signed, stating that I was to receive 12s. a week, half the profits, and the use of three rooms; prisoner agreeing to return my £25 on my leaving. I went in on December 17, 1908, and kept book (produced) showing the receipts and expenses. The first week I received about £6, which I paid over to Grove, after deducting £2 12s. 6d. and other outgoings: the balance was about £3. The takings were large, it being Christmas week. I remained till the end of March. The business done did not pay expenses. Garnham told me I must make the money by letting the rooms for improper purposes if I could not make the shop pay. I declined to do this. At the end of March the landlord put the bailiff in for the rent. I then gave prisoner written notice to terminate the agreement and demanded the return of my £25 and a sum due for expenses. The money was not paid. I took proceedings at Marylebone County Court and got judgment for £25 with costs. I have not been paid.

Cross-examined. Had the business continued as it did for the first ten days I should have been satisfied. I had had no previous experience in keeping a coffee house for working men—I had been chef at an hotel. I consider the business could have been made to pay. Prisoner told me that if I could not make the shop pay I was to let the beds—that was all he said.

WILLIAM FRANCIS NORTON , 18, Queensberry Mews, South Kensington, restaurant keeper. In May last year I answered prisoner's advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle," "Wanted a manager for a coffee house," and saw prisoner with Grove at the Globe Dining Rooms, Willesden. They asked me as to my capabilities, stated that I must pay £25 as security—which I did—and that I was to open a shop at 74, Praed Street, Paddington. Prisoner said he had seven or eight other places of. business and represented himself as a man of substance. He said 74, Praed Street had been a coffee house before and it was sure to be a good house under proper management. I opened the house on April 25, 1908, having spent a fortnight in getting the place ready. I signed agreement (produced) dated May 25 to take the coffee house as manager at a wage of 12s. a week and half the profits; my £25 to be returned at the termination of the agreement. I remained there three weeks and the house was doing very well when prisoner gave me a week's notice. I told him a week's notice was absurd as I was entitled to a month's notice under the agreement. At the expiration of the week, prisoner, his brother, Grove, and a hired bully came and asked me whether I was ready to go. I refused to go without my money. They then attacked me, the bully struck me; then they carried me out and threw me on the pavement outside. Two policemen were outside whom the prisoner and Grove had brought with them. I begged the policeman to let me go back and protect my wife. They said if I went back they would arrest me. Before I received the notice Garnham said, "If you cannot take money enough downstairs you must take it upstairs" (meaning to let the bedrooms to disorderly characters). I sued prisoner in. the county court. The prisoner defended the case and I obtained judgment for £15. I have received no money back. During my three weeks the takings were increasing and in a short time the coffee house would have paid.

Cross-examined. If I had been two months there I could have made the coffee house pay £3 a week profit. A great deal of the takings was paid by me for utensils, tablecloths, etc., which prisoner undertook to supply. I employed a waitress named Coyne, who was called as a witness by the defendant in the county court. I believe my solicitor took out a garnishee order, but he got nothing.

GEORGE BREWSTER , 1, Gowanlea Parade, High Road, Willesden. I have been 10 to 15 years a coffee-house keeper. On January 17, 1909, I answered an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" for a man and wife to manage a coffee-house, and saw prisoner at 230, High Street, Harlesden. He said he had several shops to let on management, and that he required £25 as security. He took me to, a shop at Stonebridge Park, Harlesden, showed me the house at Gowanlea Parade, and told me he had a shop at Praed Street, Paddington,

which was doing a good business, but he had a manager in there. He said the Willesden Green shop was taking £16 to £18 a week, and that I could manage that if I paid £25 security. I signed agreement produced; I was to receive a weekly wage of 12s. and half profits, the £25 to be returned at the expiration of the agreement on a month's notice. I went in on January 25 and remained about five or six weeks, when the brokers were put in for rent, gas, rates and other debts. The takings were from £6 to £8 a week. I afterwards took the shop from the landlord at a reduced rent. I applied to prisoner several times for my £25; sued the prisoner in the county court, but the summons was never served on prisoner as he could not be found.

Cross-examined. I am now carrying on the business and am taking about £8 a week, which pays expenses and keeps me, but not my wife and family. I wrote to prisoner on March 10 offering to buy the business and the fixtures. I tried every possible means to get my money. I offered to accept £35 if he could sell the business—that was my £25 and £10 for tie trouble I had had in working it up. I complained to prisoner a fortnight later after I went in that the takings were nothing like £16 or £18 a week.

HENRY BELLINGER , 5, The Terrace, High Road, Kilburn, billiard marker. In July, 1908, I answered an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" for a man and his wife to manage a coffee and dining rooms and saw prisoner at 230, High Street, Harlesden. He told me the coffee-house at Gowanlea Parade, Willesden Green, was taking £16 to £18 a week. He said he had several houses—seven or eight places in all, which were doing well. I agreed to take the coffee house at Gowanlea Parade. He said the manager, Charles Knight, was letting the trade down so badly that he was having a change all the way round. I entered into agreement (produced) of July 8, 1908, paid £25 for the fittings and utensils and agreed to pay a weekly rent of £3, the rent, rates, taxes, gas and coal to be paid by me, terminable by one month's written notice, when the £25 was to be repaid to me. I entered on August 1 and remained there about three months. At the end of the first week I told prisoner I was dissatisfied with the takings. During the three months the gross takings averaged £6 to £7 a week and after paying £3 a week rent it did not pay expenses. I complained also to Grove. After I had been there six or seven weeks I said I could not pay the rent—I could not go on any further. I saw prisoner and Grove at 73, Glanville Road when I paid my deposit—that is the only time I saw them together. I left on October 28 and asked prisoner for the remainder of my deposit—that was the £25 less six weeks' rent £18. He told me he could not settle up, that I had better clear out as I was trespassing on his property, and I left that evening. I have several times asked prisoner for my deposit; he always said he had no money. I did not take any further steps as I heard it was no use to try. I have lost everything I had—about £45.

Cross-examined. The business could not pay on' takings of £5 a week. Without the rent it might pay at £6 to £8 a week—at £8 a week there might be a £1 profit. The takings never

went up to £8. I went over the premises and saw Knight. I did not ask him what business was being done.

GRANVILLE FOWLE , 19, Glanville Road, coffee-house manager. About two years ago I saw prisoner's advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" and saw Grove at 18, Nitherwood Street, Kilburn, a coffee-house which I took over at a salary of 12s. a week and half profits. I deposited £25 as security for carrying on the business in a proper manner. The shop was opened by me on January 3, 1908, and I remained six months. I found no trade was to be done there and gave prisoner notice. I asked for my money back two or three times, afterwards took proceedings, but have not been repaid the £25.

CHARLES WILLIAM TOLLORET , 83, Britannia Street, Hoxton, scale maker. My father is owner of the Gowanlea Parade. I let the place to prisoner from September 29, 1907, at a rent of £65 per annum on a three years' agreement; there is now £32 10s. rent owing. I received cheque (produced) for £32 10s. from prisoner, which has been dishonoured. I then put the brokers in for the two quarters owing and I got paid one quarter.

Detective-sergeant ARTHUR TRITTON, X Division. Prisoner made and signed written statement produced (same read).

Verdict, Guilty on the third and fourth counts (the false pretences to Bellinger and Fowle, that the trade was £16 to £18 a week); Not guilty on first and second counts.

On the indictment against Garnham and Souter for conspiracy no evidence was offered, and the Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

Mr. O'Connor asked for a certificate of appeal on the fourth count on the ground that there was no evidence for the Jury thereon.

The Common Serjeant said that he should not increase the sentence which would be imposed on the third count in respect of the fourth count.

Sentence, on Count 3, Six months' hard labour; on Count 4, One month's hard labour, to run concurrently.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-62
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

MILLER, Charles Frederick (54, manager) ; embezzling and stealing divers sums of money amounting to £6, or thereabouts, received by him for and on account of John Robert Wildman, his master.

Mr. Ricardo prosecuted.

JOHN ROBERT WILDMAN , Somers Town, coal merchant. Prisoner applied in answer to my advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph" for a man to sell coal, and I engaged him to sell coal and collect the money at a salary of £2 a week and expenses, the amount of which was not settled. After a few weeks prisoner began charging up excessive expenses; I told him that they were too heavy, and that he must limit himself to 7s. 6d. a week; he complained that it was not sufficient, and I ultimately agreed to allow him expenses up to 10s. a week, making £2 10s., of which he has since regularly received. Three receipts to Mrs. Hudson dated March 13,1909, for £12s. 6d.; May 10,1909, for £1 0s. 6d.; and June 17, 1909, for 16s. 4d. (produced) are in prisoner's handwriting. I showed them to prisoner, and he said he had received the money. He said he would look in his pocket book, which he did. He then said he had no entry of them. He has never accounted for

the money. On the same day I sent for Detective Butters and charged prisoner.

Cross-examined. I engaged prisoner as traveller and collector—not as manager. I wanted him to sell coal. He was not engaged to buy. He went on the coal market to inquire prices, which he reported to me, and I signed the contracts. He occasionally bought a few wagons of coal for me on the market. He did not buy all the coal. It is not true that the Wingfield Colliery would not deal with me, and that prisoner bought for me in his own name. Prisoner worked the trade up to 500 tons a month at a loss—he made a great many bad debts. I have seen prisoner drunk. I think he used the money which he appropriated for drink. I wrote letter of March 23, 1909, requesting him to collect a number of accounts and stating that he was responsible for them.

(Thursday, November 25.)

JOHN ROBERT WILDMAN , recalled, further cross-examined. Prisoner bought small lots of coal on my instructions. I partly understand the custom of the London coal trade. I have paid for my experience. My supplies were stopped by the Wingfield and Silkstone Colliery; they have not held my wagons as security.

Re-examined. Prisoner bought coal for me which I paid for. He had no authority to collect money and pay it away for coal; he never did so. Until I was short of money owing to his embezzlements, I have always paid by my cheque; he never paid—the accounts are owing now. All the money he received he ought to have handed over every day to the wharf clerk.

DAISY SPINKS , 10, Marchmont Street, cashier to the prosecutor. I have paid prisoner every week his wages of £2 and expenses 10s.

Cross-examined. Prisoner on several occasions has told me the expenses were very heavy.

ARTHUR BLAND , 34, College Place, Camden Town. Up to July, 1909, I was employed by prosecutor as wharf clerk. I saw prisoner daily. It was his duty to give me the orders he had received for coal and to hand over all money he had collected. He has not paid me or accounted in any way for the sums mentioned on the three receipts (produced).

Cross-examined. Prisoner was employed as manager.

SARAH HUDSON , 258, St. John Street, wife of Charles Hudson. Three receipts (produced) were given to me by prisoner in return for the amounts named thereon.

Cross-examined. Prisoner has paid for a drink for my husband on several occasions. On May 17 my husband met with a; accident, and was in hospital until the middle of July.

Detective FREDERICK BUTTERS, Y Division. On September 3, at 6 p.m., I was called to Marchmont Street, where I saw prisoner and prosecutor. Prosecutor showed prisoner some receipts similar to the

three produced. Prisoner looked at a book, and said, "I have no entry." Prosecutor then gave him into custody. I told him I should take him into custody for embezzlement. He said, "Yes, I received the money and spent it in the business. I should think it is about £30. "He was taken to Somers Town Police Station, was charged, and said, "I never had a penny myself."


CHARLES FREDERICK MILLER (prisoner, on oath). I have never used one penny piece of the money that I am accused of embezzling. The money from my customers that I have used was absolutely necessary to do the business. When I went there there was no business doing at all, and I had to establish one. Prosecutor's sidings Would have been taken away by the Midland Railway but that I undertook to do 500 tons a month. In a little over six months I had sold for prosecutor 3,033 tons. To work up the business it was necessary to give the railway porters coffee money of 1d. and sometimes 2d. a ton. Prosecutor refused to allow me for that. I have frequently spent 5s. in treating the men, and the 10s. a week allowed was utterly insufficient for the necessary expenses of a traveller. I justify my utilising the money of my customers by the fact that I was held entirely responsible for everything; I treated the business as my own, and worked it as such. The letter of March 23 from prosecutor states that I was responsible. I promised prosecutor I would make for him £500 profit the first year, and I should have done it very easily had he not taken these proceedings. I have had money in advance from the cashier, as I explained to her that the 10s. a week allowed was insufficient. Account produced shows the amounts I received. I have spent about £30 of monies received from customers in order to extend the business for the benefit of the prosecutor.

Cross-examined. I was short in my rent on one occasion, and prosecutor kindly paid it for me. I also had to pay a moneylender £1 a month. I entered in a book all the money received, and accounted for it to the cashier. I have in my book on May 10 an entry in my private eypher of the £1 0s. 6d. received from Hudson. When charged by the prosecutor I could not find the entry at the moment, and said so. I do not see any entry for the other two amounts. I produce my pocket book. (A large number of entries were examined.) I was responsible for and would have accounted for all sums owing. Prosecutor would know that accounts have been paid to me by applying to the customers for the money. I do not know if he has seen my book—he has never asked to see it. I did not report to the office the receipt of the amounts in question.

Verdict, guilty.

Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment, second division.


(Wednesday, November 24.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-63
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentencesMiscellaneous > sureties; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JONES, George (60, dealer), and ROBERSON, Sydney (33, agent) ; both conspiring together and with others unknown by false pretences to obtain divers sums of money and valuable securities from such of the liege subjects of our Lord the King as might be induced to entrust them with moneys and valuable securities for investment, and to cheat and defraud the said liege subjects thereof, and obtaining by false pretences from Alexander Pearce £55, from Ernest Grinstead £20 and an order for the payment of £150, and from Edward Meyer £100, in each case with intent to defraud; both conspiring together and with others unknown by false pretences to cause George Arthur Penner and Jonathan Fenner to execute and make a certain valuable security, to wit, a paper containing evidence of the title to an interest in real estate, and by false pretences causing and inducing the said George Arthur Fenner and Jonathan Fenner to make and execute the said valuable security with intent thereby to injure and defraud; Jones obtaining by false pretences from Edward Walter Jackson £60 with intent to defraud.

Roberson pleaded, guilty.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Trevor Bigham prosecuted; Mr. Purcell and Mr. Eustace Fulton appeared for Roberson.

EDWARD WALTER JACKSON , salesman, 35, Milton Avenue, Chiswick Lane. In October, 1908, I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" applying for a manager and salesman in a furniture business at 93, High Road, Chiswick, the name given being Jones Brothers. I wrote in answer to the advertisement and received a reply, asking me to call at 93, High Road, Chiswick, at nine o'clock in the evening, which I did. I saw prisoner Jones and had conversation with him. He told me it was an old-established business, and he had got a private house at Riverview Grove, two shops in Thames Road, and stables at Whitehall Gardens, all in Chiswick, and a shop at Holloway. All these he told me were his own property. He showed me the business I was to manage, and asked me if I was prepared to put down a cash security of £60. I asked him about the takings. He said, "I won't say £20 a week, but £10 a week sure." The terms he offered were a salary of £1 a week, free apartments, and 5 per cent, on all gross sale; 5 per cent, was to be paid on the £60. I asked him what security I was to get for my money, and he told me that I should have the shop fully stocked; he would attend sales every week, and fill it full of furniture, and I was to treat the business as if it was my own. I believed every word he told me on that occasion. On October 22 I went to 93, High Road, Chiswick, and deposited the £60. An agreement was signed in the terms I have mentioned, and on the back of it there was a receipt for the money. On October 26 I began business as manager, and I remained ten months. I did not get my salary regularly. For the first two weeks I got it regularly; after that I had great difficulty

in getting it. I used to get 3s., 4s., and 5s. at a time. The average takings in the shop were £2 10s. per week. The book (produced) was kept by me and shows what the sales of furniture were during the time I was there, from November to July. The whole of the sales for the ten months amounted to £106. I several times spoke to Jones about the business, and told him I did not think it was going on in a satisfactory manner. He said it would be all right, and that he was trying to raise a mortgage on the property. On one occasion he said to me, "Never mind, Jackson. Whoever else I do, I will be straight to you." I gave him a month's notice on July 31 of this year. The deposit was to be returned at the termination of my engagement, but I have never had it back nor have I had the interest paid on it. I left the service on August 14. He would not allow me to stay the full month because, he said, "You have been here a fortnight and have not taken a farthing. I shall be living here myself. You had better look for something else. "I said he would have to pay me whether I stayed there or not. He said, "Yes, I will settle with you on August 28"—which was a Saturday. I asked for my wages, and he told me he had not got anything; he said I was better off than he was, and told me to get out of the shop. When I left £4 10s. was due to me for wages. During the time that I was at 93, High Road, the brokers were in six times for rent and rates. I saw prisoner Roberson there on several occasions. Exhibit 40 is in the handwriting of Jones. It is a notice from him to the bailiff that some goods taken by the bailiff belonged to him. Exhibit 45, relating to the Farringdon Street premises, is also in the handwriting of Jones.

Cross-examined by Jones. In addition to what I have mentioned I was to have 1s. per ton on all coal orders taken in the shop, but no coal business was done. The coal book (produced) is in my handwriting. Every item put down in it was at your dictation to try and sell the business. The entries are not all in my handwriting. Some you put in yourself. The entry of 11 tons 8 qr. with the cash for the month of March was dictated by you. It is true that you moved me from Highbury, but the horses and vans were on hire, though you told me they belonged to you when I deposited my money. I said in my sworn information," Jones said, I am the proprietor of this business. I do a very large trade here. If you become my manager I will stock the shop to the value of at least £100. Jones did not attend sales during my employ and he did not stock the shop as he said he would do." You did not attend one sale all the time I was there and the shop was never stocked after I had deposited my money. It was fully stocked when I deposited my money, as I said before the magistrate. The shop was all set out for me to go in there. I should never have deposited that money if I had not listened to your lies. I also said in the information, "Jones now owes me, in addition to the £60 deposit, £4 10s. salary, 12s. commission, and 10s. interest on my £60." That is true. I make up the commission from the furniture sale book. I gave notice on July 31. By your request it was to expire on Saturday, August 28. The average takings while I was there were £2 per week You told me you were taking £40 a month.

The stock at High Road was entered in a book. I cannot say what the value of it was. There was one man employed in the furniture business besides myself. I cannot tell how many horses and vans you kept; I was employed as furniture salesman. I consider it was a bogus affair. I agree that it would be an expensive business to keep horses and vans for nothing. According to the agreement I was to pay all money over to you and take your signature for it. I did not always get a signature for it. There was little or no coal business at the shop. I want the Jury to know you hawked coal on your rounds yourself and dictated the entries at the shop. It suited you, that book did. Whether all the entries in the furniture book were initialled by you or not, you received all the money that was taken in the shop. As to the dessert service sold for 7s., it was sold for 7s. because you priced it at that sum, although it is entered in the stock book at 16s.

The Foreman expressed the opinion of the Jury that all this had nothing to do with the case.

Prisoner. It has to do with whether this man is telling the truth or not.

Judge Lumley Smith. To a certain extent you are right.

Further cross-examined. The "gent. 's easy chair, £1 5s." was sent to your home. I did not get a receipt for it, because you would not give me one. I cannot say the total amount I received from you during my employment.

Re-examined. I had nothing to do with selling coals, and none of the entries in the coal book represent transactions in which I was in any way concerned. The entries were made all at once at the end of the week. Prisoner told me he was going to dispose of the coal business and that was the reason the entries were being made. I believe they were all false entries. I should say the value of the stock when I went there was £80 or £90. No more was bought while I was there. It gradually went to Crofton House, Chiswick (Jones's residence), and I afterwards discovered it was on hire. People would sometimes come into the shop and ask for what ever they wanted to buy and, after getting the order, Jones used to make arrangements to buy the furniture wanted. The horses used in the business were kept at Whitehall Gardens. He never told me to whom they and the vans belonged. I never received any money on account of the business for which I failed to account.

ERNEST GRINSTEAD , brewers' traveller, 19, York Road, Maidenhead. In January last I was out of employment and answered an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph. "I received an answer from Sidney and Co. (Roberson), Kew Bridge Road, saying that they had an opening that would probably suit me. I replied to that letter asking the nature of the work expected of me in addition to office work, if there were any debts outstanding, and what security I could have for my money, and stating that I was a capable bookkeeper and clerk, and could furnish bankers' and other reliable references. Sidney and Co. replied that they had the very billet for me and requested an interview. They told me it was a coal and coke and furniture business and it would suit me down to the ground. All the debts would be cleared

off before I entered the business. I think the letter mentioned that the goodwill was £600. I wrote on February 1 to Sidney and Co., "Gentlemen, I am in receipt of yours of 30th ultimo and fall in with your views re interview," etc. I afterwards went to the address given by Sidney and Co., where I saw a person I afterwards identified as prisoner Roberson. He told me that the proprietor of the business (Mr. Jones) was a wealthy man and owned several houses, including the house in Riverview Grove, where he was residing, and the two houses next to it. He first of all mentioned £3 a week as my salary, but the figure was afterwards reduced to £2 10s., and finally, with my consent, to £2. Roberson also told me that Mr. Jones had too much in hand to attend to it all himself, and, besides, was not in the best of health. On a second occasion I went to Kew Bridge Road and then saw Jones. He had a couple of books with him. He told me that he wanted a man to go into partnership with him and to put down, if possible, £250. He told me he thought I was a man who would suit him if I would work. I asked him what security I should get for my money. He said, "I am a well-known man in Chiswick and I have a lot of property here and the furniture in the shop belongs to me and the horses and vans. I have any amount of houses and sundry other things." He also said the business would pay us at least £2 or £2 10s. a week each and that there would be-profits to divide after every quarterly stocktaking. The turnover, he said, in respect of the furniture business was never less than £10 a week and the profits of that business were about 50 per cent, on the purchase price. I looked at the coal book and, after making a rough calculation, said that the sales shown there were not sufficient to pay us £2 a week each. I afterwards went to 93, High Road, Chiswick, accompanied by both prisoners. I saw a shop very well stocked with furniture, which I was told by Jones himself was all the property of Jones. I believed what he said to me and took him for an honest man. An arrangement was made that I should come in and I paid a £20 deposit. Jones in the first instance wanted me to pay £250. I told him I could not do it. Then I eventually agreed to pay £170. He asked me if I would agree to pay more at a later date. I told him I had no. further prospects. Later I received a draft agreement (Exhibit 3), which I signed. Afterwards I went again to Riverview Grove and saw Roberson and went with him to Crofton House, which Jones told me was his own property, and that the furniture and everything there belonged to him. From there we went to 2, Whitehall Gardens. I think there was one van in the yard at the time, but the yard was locked up and I could not very well see. Roberson told me that Jones rented the yard and that the horses and vans belonged to him. We then went back to Kew Bridge Road, where I paid Roberson the £150 (cheques and receipt produced). There was no schedule to the receipt as when Roberson and I went to take stock Jones was not there. After that I took up my duties. I went to reside at Riverview Grove with prisoner Jones,' paying for my lodgings. My duties consisted in the superintendence of the coal and coke business, looking after the horses and seeing the men in and out. I think I was there 10 weeks. From the point of

view of profits the business was absolutely no good at all. I found that out before I had been there two or three weeks and wanted toget out of it. I was paid my salary of £2 a week. I kept the books, till Jones told me I knew nothing about it: he could keep them better himself. I told him to get on with it. I was not allowed to have anything to do with the furniture business. I wanted to see the books at the furniture shop, but Jackson, the manager, would not let me see them. He told me Jones would not let me have anything to do with them. Roberson asked me for six guineas in respect of the agreement which, he said, was half my share of the transfer. He told me that included a guinea for stamping at Somerset House. (Receipt for £6 6s. produced.) I was not satisfied with my position and spoke to prisoner (Jones) about it several times. I asked him if I could get out of it. I said if he would give me £100 back I would go out and he could have the £70. That was within a month after I went into the business. I was heartily sick and tired of it. He told me he would get another man in my place and let me out as soon as he possibyl could. He told me he would let me have £100 back and that as a matter of fact I should not lose anything at all. He several times told me, "You will get out all right; you will not lose anything; don't worry." I never got anything beyond the salary I was paid. I ultimately ended it by putting the. matter in the hands of my solicitor. As to the volume of the coal business, I do not suppose that when I went there it was more than 60 tons a month. That was in the very best part of the year, and gradually it dwindled away.

To Jones: I admit you always sold the best coal, "Derby Brights," and always gave honest weight to the public. I do not know anyone named William Treherne. I do not know that I ever met him at your house. I do not know Owen Treherne. I do not know Percy Treherne, unless you are Percy Treherne. I do not know that the three Trehernes you have mentioned are brothers. You never wrote any letters to me. 'I gave £100 for the half share of the goodwill and stock of this business, the other £70 to be used for the purchase of stock and plant. You had two men working for you in the coal yard when I joined. Jackson was employed at the shop. I had nothing to do with that. I believe the men in the yard were paid regularly. On Saturday nights after the men were paid there did not remain a balance of sometimes £5 or £6, sometimes of £8 or £9; sometimes I have not seen as much as 5s. or 6s. I have never seen £5 there in my life. I never saw Jackson paid. I never heard his wages provided for. Jackson never mentioned to me the fact that he was not paid his wages. I believe you had a man working in the garden two days out of the three months I was there. I did not see either a carpenter or a builder employed by you. No repairs were done to my knowledge at Crofton House with the exception of the painting of the greenhouse outside. There were repairs done to the stables at Whitehall Gardens on two or three days to my knowledge. The mason or bricklayer complained to me that he was not paid his wages. I have seen coal at the shop in bags, and have dumped it there myself. I cannot say that we ever got any orders from Jackson by post to deliver coal. You or

your wife made such a rush to the door that I never could see whether any letters came. We got orders by post from people once in a while. People may have called at the door and given orders for coal to the extent perhaps of 1 cwt. per week. I cannot say whether the book (produced) is in your handwriting. I did not see it at the shop; I saw no books at the shop. The manager (Jackson) prevented me by your instructions. To my knowledge no book was kept of the orders coming, by post or left at the shop. I never saw any cash paid in. You had two rounds when I joined. I have seen the roundsmen bring in as much as £4 on a Saturday and as little as 4s. on a weekday. I kept the books for five or six weeks until I got dissatisfied. I could not tell you off-hand the amount received in those five or six weeks. I have seen as much as £16 a week for coal, or it may have been £18. I do not think it was ever any higher. I admit the entries in the coal book, from March 1 to March 6, £20 6s. 11d.; from 8th to 13th, £18 14s. 2d.; from 15th to 20th, £18 5s. 5d.; and from 22nd to 27th, £19 11s. 2 1/2 d., but these figures include a lot of removals. I do not know that in the same period orders to the extent of £14 or £15 were taken at the shop. I cannot say that such sales did not take place. The figures of these sales of these four weeks amount to £76 10s. 8 1/2 d.; orders amounting to £15 from the shop would bring the figure to £91, and £10 worth of orders received at the house to £101, but I do not admit that the amount was anything of the kind. I do not know that a man named Gregory was paying £1 per month for stabling accommodation. I do not know that a Mrs. Ferguson was paying 9s. a week for a let-off at 93, High Road. I cannot say what was the profit on the coal. It was bought at any price from 18s. 6d. to 21s. It was sold at 1s. 4d. per hundredweight, but you did not get a profit of 6s. 8d. on every ton; on some you only made 4s. 6d. There was also a charge of 1s. per ton for unloading. I do not admit the profit on the coal in March was 30 per cent., but you can have 20 per cent. 20 per cent, on £80 would be £16 6s. 8d. I cannot tell what the removals would amount to, and have seen you go three weeks without getting a job. If they amounted to £4 a month that would be additional profit. I suppose the profits on a secondhand furniture business are 50 per cent. This was entirely a secondhand business, with the exception of some fireirons and fenders. The profits from the shop have, of course, to be added, but I do not admit that the total profits, in March were £30. After a time there was another horse bought and another man engaged, but you sacked him because you found he did not do enough business. He was there a week, perhaps a little longer. There were then three rounds, but the third produced very little. The intention was to increase the business when I joined. I should say that putting a third man on a fresh round was a reasonable way of trying to do so. I do not know that you did any cartage, but if you did that would be all profit, but whatever there was is included in the coal sales. I certainly dispute that the takings of this business during March and April were £300. The partnership in this business has been dissolved by the High Court of Chancery on my application. A receiver and manager, a Mr. Fincham, was appointed

on my petition. I cannot say whether his remuneration was at the rate of £500 a year. After his appointment I went to Whitehall Gardens, on Friday, June 11, with Mr. Webster, solicitor, a policeman, and a locksmith. We found Whitehall Gardens locked up and broke it open, by order of Mr. Fincham. We found two vans loaded with coal for the Saturday morning delivery out. I do not admit because there were three tons of coal there that the business was in working order. By Mr. Fincham's orders I locked the horses in the stable. They were there perhaps three weeks and were supplied with food and bedding. The inspector of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals did not, to my knowledge, interview Mr. Fincham. No business was done during the three weeks and at the expiration of that time the horses and vans, harness, etc., were sold. They realised about £50. I do not know what became of the money. I do not know why the business was not carried on for three months as ordered by the Court. I do not think the goodwill of the business was worth anything at all—not worth twopence. I paid you 15s. a week for board and lodgings. I occasionally go to race meetings. I cannot tell whether you offered the Receiver £100 for the assets which were sold. I believe you formerly had a diary and provision business in Thames Road. I have heard of a man named James. What he did for you I do not know. I do not think I ever complained of Jackson's conduct of the management at 93, High Road. I told you it was unnecessary to keep him there. When I first went to the shop in High Road it was full of stock, but it gradually dwindled away. Some of it was yours undoubtedly. On June 11 there was only a heterogeneous collection of dust and stuff. It was not a large premises, a very small premises for a furniture shop. It had a 22 ft. frontage. The shop was decently fitted, but had not a decent appearance. It was a double-fronted shop, and one side was devoted entirely to the sale of coal; there were baskets of coal in the window.

Re-examined. The business never did show a profit. The sales of coal in the four weeks in March amount to about £80, and that would give a profit of 20 per cent., but prisoner has not taken out the wages and the keep of horses, nor Jackson's wages. It is what is called gross profit; there was never any net profit. I said he was Percy Treherne because I have seen letters addressed to him in that name at Crofton House. There was a regular order used to come for Percy Treherne for one ton of coal. The name was also on one of the vans used in connection with the business. Mr. Fincham, the receiver and manager, was on the premises for some little time, but found it was absolutely useless to try and carry on the business, so he just took the horses and vans, which was all there was worth taking. He did not take everything he could get, but left what furniture there was in the shop for the landlord. I have never seen the coal book, which is in the handwriting of Jackson. I had nothing to do with executing any orders that were taken in the shop; I believe there were such orders, but very few. It was by gross representation on the part of both Jones and Roberson that I was induced to part with my money. Sidney (Roberson) said he knew the business thoroughly and was certain it

was a good opening for me. I believed that everything, including Crofton House, was Jones's property.

FRANCIS CHARLES HERBERT BRAZIER . I am a blind maker by trade and in July of this year was out of employment. I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" giving the address of "Crofton House, Chiswick." I wrote to that address and in reply got a letter from Sidney and Co. (Exhibit 31) asking what cash I was in a position to deposit. I replied that I was prepared to deposit any amount up to £20. I received a further letter addressed from Kew Bridge Road and called there. I there saw prisoner Roberson, who said he was a house and estate agent and agent for Jones Brothers, of Chiswick, who wanted a young man to keep books in a coal and coke business situated at Chiswick. He said Jones was a man in a good position, who had a turnover of about £2,000 a year. He also said that why Jones wanted a cash security was because one of his former employees had absconded with £2 10s. I said I would let him have the money. Nothing more passed at that interview. The next thing was that on July 16 I received a letter from Sidney and Co., "Referring to your interview with us, will you please call here on Monday morning next at 10 o'clock. We think you had better bring deposit with you." I went as arranged, taking the deposit with me. I saw Roberson again and he gave me a fuller account of the business, telling me it was situated at 93, High Road. He told me the salary I should receive would be £1 per week for the first four weeks, and after that it would be 25s. per week and 5 per cent, commission on all orders. Roberson told me the people who bought coal would have to pay me their accounts each day the coal men delivered coal. I paid £5 on Friday, July 23, to Roberson at 60, Kew Bridge Road, and was introduced to Jones on that morning. He came in and said, "Good morning." He asked me if I could keep books and I said, "Yes, I think I could manage that satisfactorily." He asked me where I had been employed. I told him and why I left. Jones never spoke about the deposit at all. I paid the balance on Saturday, the 24th, and signed an agreement (Exhibit 33), which is in the handwriting of Roberson. The agreement provided for the termination of the engagement by a week's notice and the £20 deposit was to be returned when the engagement came to an end. Roberson said he was the accountant of Jones Brothers and went through the books once in three months. I received a receipt for the £20, "such sum to be returned as per agreement now signed." I started work on Tuesday, July 27, at 60, Kew Bridge Road. I was to start there so that he might get me into the way of keeping Jones and Co. 's books. I kept no books at all and did practically nothing, beyond writing out a few forms of agreement for Sidney and Co. I did not go to 93, High Road till after I had left. I remained at Kew Bridge Road three weeks. For the first two weeks I got my salary. It was I who gave notice. I never went to Whitehall Gardens. I spoke to Mr. Jones about going to 93, High Road, Chiswick, and he made the excuse that it was not convenient for me to go there yet. I gave notice on August 14, stating that I had been offered a better appointment. I wrote on the

same day a letter to Sidney and Co. informing them that I had given notice to Jones and reminding them that my £20 cash deposit would be due back to me by August 21. I had not, in fact, got a new situation, but I gave that as a reason for leaving as I saw that the business was a fraud. I afterwards mentioned to Roberson that my money would be due back on the 21st, and he said he would let me have it. He did not let me have it, though I kept an appointment at Crofton House, his private address. I do not think Jones was living at Crofton House at that time. I went there on August 21 and saw Mrs. Roberson, who informed me that Mr. Roberson had just gone out. Then I went to Jones at 93, High Road, and an appointment was made for Monday between the three of us. That appointment was kept. Roberson excused himself by saying that Jones had only given him a week's notice on the previous Friday and he could not possibly repay me until the following Friday. He had got my notice, but had not got Jones's. He said he would pay me back for certain on August 28. On that date I went to Crofton House and Roberson gave me two £10 notes, Nos. 42716 and 42717, May 15, London, 1908. That was the last I had to do with them.

To Jones. All the correspondence was done by Sidney and Co. I cannot say that the money paid by me to Roberson ever passed into your possession. I have said that I was employed by you, but I have not given your name as a reference to my present employers. I mentioned your name because they asked me what I had been doing.

Re-examined. At the time I was asking for my £20 back, Jones never repudiated his responsibility, or that he had had the money.

EDWARD MEYER , clerk, 58, Stonedale Road, Hammersmith. In August last I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle"—"Partnership in lucrative business offered young man with £100," giving the address of Crofton House, Chiswick. I wrote in answer and received a letter, dated August 14, from F. H. Roberson, stating that he required a young man in his business of estate and business transfer agent, guaranteeing 30s. weekly, but stating that the actual amount would be more, and that the writer would like to have an interview with me. In consequence of that letter I went to Crofton House, where I saw prisoner Roberson. He stated that the turnover of the business was £1,200 a year and that last year he had sold 120 businesses. He also said he required my £100 to extend this business. He showed me a passbook on the London and South-Western Bank showing some large amounts, which he said were money paid in respect of businesses he had sold. Other correspondence ensued and I ultimately agreed to join Roberson in his business. That was on August 23, and on that day I paid him a £20 deposit in sovereigns. On Wednesday, August 25, I paid the balance of £80 in five £10 notes and £30 gold. The notes included the Nos. 42716-7 (the notes paid to last witness in repayment of his deposit).

To Jones. All this business was done through Roberson. Your name was never mentioned to me. I was with him four days. I was invited by the police to institute proceedings. I was at 93, High

Road on each of the four days and saw you there. There was some furniture in the shop.

(Thursday, November 25.)

FRANCIS C. H. BRAZIER , recalled, stated that both Roberson and Jones were present when he signed the agreement at Kew Bridge Road.

THOMAS WARD , estate agent, 65, Farringdon Street. I remember Jones calling upon me in June last with reference to renting a third floor at No. 65. He came to see the premises several times and ultimately made me a verbal offer, but I said he had better sit down and make a written offer. He accordingly wrote an offer for the premises for three years at a rental of £25, payable quarterly, the tenant to pay for cleaning and lighting, the business to be carried on that of general accountant. It was also stated that the business would be carried on by prisoner's son. I told him I wanted references and he gave me the names of two people, Mr. Percy Treherne, 11, Riverview Grove, Chiswick, and Messrs. Sidney and Co., estate agents, 60, Kew Bridge Road. Ultimately I referred him to the landlord's solicitors, Messrs. Taylor, Willcox and Co.

HERBERT STANMORE PREECE , clerk to Taylor, Willcox and Co. The landlords of No. 65, Farringdon Street are Messrs. 6. A. Fenner and Jonathan Fenner. At the end of July of this year I received a communication from Mr. Ward, the last witness, sending me the two references. I, in consequence, wrote a letter to Mr. Theherne (Exhibit 46) and also to Messrs Sidney and Co. (Exhibit 40). Mr. Percy Treherne" replied saying that we should find Mr. Jones "a most satisfactory tenant in every way and your rent will be paid." (Letter proved by Jackson to be in the handwriting of Jones.) The letter from Sidney and Co. (in the handwriting of Roberson) stated that they found Mr. Jones in every way satisfactory. An agreement for the tenancy was signed at the end of June and Jones entered into possession a few ways afterwards. Roberson came to the office with Jones one day in July. The landlords acted under the advice of my firm. We believed the two references to be genuine.

CHARLES WEAVER , certificated bailiff. On August 18 I was placed in possession of 60, Kew Bridge Road for rent owing to the landlord and left a man in possession. The next morning Roberson called upon me at my office, accompanied by the prisoner in the dock. Jones asked me if I could help them out of their trouble by accepting £3 and allowing the balance to be arranged. He spoke of the office as "our" office; £9 15s. was due. I said I could not do that; the goods were worth more and they would have to find the whole of the money or I should have to take them for sale. The only name I knew was that of Sidney and Co. Jones said he hoped I would help this young man (Roberson) out as he had been having very bad luck. He said also he was his father-in-law and had occasionally helped him along week by week to keep things going, as things were not very grand. Next day I called at 60, Kew Bridge Road and again saw Jones. He made no remark to me, but my man in possession told me that he had a

communication to make. Next day I received a letter from him claiming certain of the furniture and asking that he might have delivery of it. I did not take any notice of that, but sold the furniture, which realised £7 6s.

To Jones. The claim comprised the bulk of the furniture with the exception of a roll-top desk. There were also a counter and a partition in the office which were tenant's fixtures and had been fixed up for business purposes.

EDWIN HARVEY , manager, Surrey Estates Office, proved the letting of 93, High Road, Chiswick, to prisoner Jones on June 17, 1908, on a yearly tenancy at a rent of £80. The rent was paid, but not regularly. The landlord had to distrain for rent on one or two occasions. In June, 1909, they distrained for £18 15s. The money was not paid, as at the request of Mr. Jones it was agreed to let the matter stand for a little while. On June 30 there was another distress for £40 in respect of which £9 5s. was paid and the distress was with drawn. Subsequently they had notice from Mr. Fincham that he had been appointed manager and claimed an interest in the tenancy under the orders of the High Court. Execution was again put in, and about a fortnight later there was another notice from Mr. Fincham disclaiming liability under the tenancy.

CHARLES POULTNEY , salesman to Messrs. Simmonds, Rezin, and Son, furniture dealers, 231, Euston Road. I produce a hiring agreement between ray firm and prisoner Jones, dated June 25, 1908, for the hire of furniture of the value of £104 1s. 9d., the consideration being the payment of £10 down and £4 a month. Jones was there described as of 93, High Road, Chiswick. The furniture was not supplied for furnishing a shop, but for household purposes. The goods were delivered at 9o, High Road, Chiswick, and Jones paid down the £10, but not the first instalment of £4. Permission was given for some of the furniture to be moved to Crofton House. We went to Crofton House on several occasions and went on July 15 with the intention of clearing all the goods. It was then found that the greater part of the goods had been removed. I saw a gentleman called Mr. Talbot (prisoner Roberson), who said he had taken the place over from Jones and we were trespassing. I agreed to put the goods back if he would indemnify me and he gave me an understanding that he would not allow the goods to be removed without notice to the firm. I then went to High Road, Chiswick, where I saw some more of our goods, the greater part of them, as far as I could see. There was a pier glass in the window exposed for sale, and I warned Jones that it would be a criminal offence if he sold that. Some of the goods had been returned to us. I told Jones we had come to clear the goods. He asked me not to do so and said he would get some money the next day. The furniture was seized about August 20 this year, having been in his possession at one premises or another from June, 1908. There was stock there in addition to Messrs. Simmonds' furniture. We got all the furniture back with the exception of about £24 worth.

WILLIAM JOHNSTON SCALES , solicitor, managing clerk to Hewlett and Co., Raymond Buildings, Gray's Inn. My firm are solicitors for the

owners of Crofton House, Chiswick. On October 21, 1908, prisoner Jones called upon us with a proposition to purchase that house, and it was agreed that he was to pay £360 by December 16, 1908, he being entitled to a 99 years' lease at a ground rent of £6 5s. He paid £10 down and required immediate possession, and, after consulting with our clients, we agreed to give him possession on condition that he signed an agreement that he held as a weekly tenant. He never completed the purchase. Exclusive of the costs of the action to recover possession he paid altogether £40 15s. 6d. On November 13 we gave him notice to quit because he had not paid the second deposit. We issued a writ and obtained judgment on December 31. We refrained, however, from entering into possession at his request. We put in the sheriff, but he was with drawn on payment of further money. Jones remained in possession until after he was arrested.

To Jones. Fifty pounds was paid altogether, including the costs of the action. I am not aware that you built a brick wall 30 ft. long and 7 ft. high on the property or that you put a glass verandah the whole length of the back of the property. I do not know that you spent over £120 on this property. I am aware that you have made attempts to obtain money on mortgage, but it has never been practically settled. A fresh conveyance has never been submitted to me. I know nothing of the reason why this matter was not completed. The Portman Chapel were willing to make an advance of £300. You told me you had other property that you were trying to include in the mortgage.

WILLIAM READ , clerk, and owner of the stabling at 2, Whitehall Gardens, Chiswick. In August, 1908, my agent let the stables to prisoner Jones at a rent of £10 per annum. A quarter's rent was paid in January and also in March, but nothing has been paid since then.

To Jones. I am now in possession of the stables from the receiver. I obtained possession about a fortnight ago.

FRANK MARCHANT , manager to Long and Sons, sheriff's officers, High Street, Hounslow. On February 4, 1909, I received a writ of fi. fa. to execute at 93, High Road, 1, Riverview Grove, 2, Whitehall Gardens, and 4, Thames Road, in respect of a judgment against Jones, but I afterwards had instructions not to levy at Thames Road. I left a man in possession at the other three addresses, but in consequence of claims made upon the furniture and goods he with drew. I entered again on June 22 of this year in respect of another judgment for £57 12s. I was again met with claims which were handed to me by Jones himself.

WILLIAM RANDS , clerk in the employ of Daniel Cremmens, omnibus builder, Kentish Town. In February, 1909, we were in negotiation with prisoner Jones for the hire-purchase of two vans and an agreement was ultimately entered into for the sale of them for £60, £20 to be paid immediately and the balance quarterly, £15 on June 1, £15 on September 1, and the third and final payment of £10 on December 1. Prisoner gave two cheques at the time of the agreement, one for £15 and a post-dated cheque a week later for £5. The £15 cheque was

paid. Prisoner wrote and asked us to keep the other cheque over from Saturday till Monday, but that was never met, although it was presented three times. The vans were taken away on March 4. I took the vans back on September 2.

To Jones. Mr. Cremmens has a good reputation as a business man and a builder of vans. He told me he had known you 20 years ago and had not seen you since. This was quite an ordinary business transaction. Many people do not own their own vans; they hire them. Both these vans were fitted for a pair of horses, but one was larger than the other. I believe you wrote a letter stating that one of the vans had broken down the first time it was loaded through the breaking of the axle, and we put the axle right at the time. I believe you also wrote complaining about the small van, saying that the first time it was loaded with a ton weight two of the wheels collapsed, but I cannot see how you call it collapsing as I brought it back from Chiswick to Kentish Town. There was no warranty given with the vans, and I consider you had value for money. You bought secondhand vans and you could not expect to get new ones.

CHRISTOPHER WILLIAM SMELT , manager Chiswick and Kew Branch, London and South-Western Bank. Roberson had an account at that branch in the name of Sidney Roberson, trading as Sidney and Co., 60, Kew Bridge Road. The account was opened May 25, 1908, and closed April 10, 1909. I produce a certified copy of the account taken from the books of the bank. Under date of February 17, 1909, there is a payment in of £150 (Mr. Grinstead's cheque), payable to Sidney and Co., drawn on the Natal Bank, Limited. I cannot say whether the endorsement "Sidney and Co. "is in the handwriting of Roberson. A week afterwards, on February 24, £107 10s. was drawn out by cheque. The name of the payee will appear in the pass book, but not in the bank book.

ERNEST VIVIAN TILLEY , manager Kew Bridge branch of Barclay's Bank. Jones had an account at that branch in the name of George Jones, 93, High Road, and 1, Riverview Road. He told me at one time he was trading as Percy Treherne. I produce a certified copy of the books of the bank showing a payment in under date of February 24 of £108 16s., comprising a cheque drawn by Sidney and Co. for £107 10s. and the rest in cash. The cheque for £107 19s. was upon the London and South-Western Bank at Kew Bridge. On February 18, a week before this cheque was paid in, Jones's account was overdrawn by 7s. 10d.

To Jones. The account was in your own name. You told me you were Percy Treherne one morning when you came into the bank. I think you indicated a van outside with that name on. I could not say without going through the book that £200 passed through your bank in cheques endorsed by Percy Treherne. I swear you told me you were Percy Treherne. As to whether I have ever seen Percy Treherne, if you are Percy Treherne, yes; if you are not, no. (To the Court.) I have never seen any other Percy Treherne. The credit balance was never very large. The amount paid through the bank was £929 5s. 10d.

Re-examined. Of that £929, £158 consists of cheques either drawn by Sidney and Co. or somebody named James, and I find payments totalling £75 9s. in favour of Roberson, James, or Sidney, and £199 9s. 3d. payable to Percy Treherne.

EDWARD CLAUDE POOLEY , clerk Fleet Street branch, Parr's Bank. Roberson had an account at this branch. Exhibit 16 is a certified copy of the account. The account was opened by a payment in of £20 on August 27, £10 in gold, a Bank of England note for £10, No. 42714, dated May 15, 1908 (received from Myers). On September 2 there is a payment out of £5 by means of a cheque payable to Jones forming part of that payment in. When the account was opened Roberson gave a reference to Percy Treherne, 93, High Road, Chiswick, who wrote that he could with confidence say that the bank would find him most trustworthy in every way (in the handwriting of Jones).

JOHN RICHARD GIBBONS , clerk Southall branch, Barclay's Bank. Roberson had an account at the branch in the name of Sidney James. The account was opened on April 7, 1909, with a cheque for £10 drawn on the Kew branch of the London and South-Western Bank. The account remained open till September 30 and during that period cheques to the amount of £30 odd were drawn in favour of Jones.

ALFRED SLOAN , clerk, employed by the "Daily Chronicle," proved draft advertisements brought in by prisoner Jones and another man he did not identify relating to the address at 65, Farringdon Street, together with a letter requesting the transfer of the transactions of Sidney and Co. at Kew to Jones Brothers at 65, Farringdon Street.

(Friday, November 26.)

Detective-sergeant THOMAS HALL, T Division. I arrested Roberson on August 31 and I was present when Sergeant Eve arrested Jones at 93, High Road, Chiswick. I heard the warrant read by Sergeant Eve to Jones, the warrant being in respect of the case of Jackson. Jones replied "All right." On the way to the police station Jones said, "I have been expecting this for some time. We have been going too fast. I did not think Jackson would have done this. I have not got £60 to pay him with." I assisted in searching, his premises at 93, High Road, Chiswick. I found a number of county court summonses and writs in action totalling £577 and extending over a period of a little more than 10 months. I also found unreceipted accounts rendered amounting to about £225. I found the furniture sale book and the call book, and also the book showing the moneys received by Grinstead. After I had searched the various rooms and was looking under the counter in the front shop Jones said, "What do you want now? What are you looking for?" I said, The books showing the daily sales of this shop. Can you tell me where the books are?' Jones said, "At my lawyers'." I asked who his lawyers were and he said "I do not know." I produce a list of the documents I seized at 93, High Road (exhibit 69). I afterwards searched 65, Farringdon Street and produced a list of the documents (exhibit 70) I seized there. Amongst them was a copy of Meyer's agreement with

Roberson and a copy of Jackson's agreement with Jones, some more summonses and accounts rendered for small amounts, and a packet of pawntickets. I know Roberson's handwriting. The agreement between Jones and Grinstead is typewritten, but there is Roberson's handwriting upon it. The writing on the stamp "Sidney and Co. "on the receipt for six guineas paid by Grinstead is in the handwriting of Roberson, as are the letters from Sidney and Co. to Brazier and Brazier's agreement. The agreement purports to be signed by Francis Charles Brazier in the presence of S. H. Roberson, clerk to Sidney and Co. The writing on the stamp on the receipt for £20 is in the handwriting of Roberson. The letter purporting to come from S. H. Jones concerning the takings of the premises in Farringdon Street is in the handwriting of Roberson. (Witness also gave evidence as to the handwriting of Roberson on cheques.)

Detective-sergeant ALBERT EVE, T Division. I arrested Jones, Sergeant Hall being with me. I searched him at the station and found upon him 2 1/2 d. At 93, High Road, I found half a sovereign. I heard Detective-sergeant Hall say to Jones, "Can you tell me where the book is showing the sales of this shop?"Jones said, "At my lawyers'." Hall then said, "Who are your lawyers?" Jones replied, "I do not know." On the way to the Court on September 1 Jones said to Robertson, "Where is that book which was in the office wrapped in brown paper?" Roberson replied, "The police have taken everything."

To Jones. I did not see a parcel at 65, Farringdon Street lying on the table tied up with brown paper. I swore an information along with Jackson. In it I said, "I have made inquiries into this matter. A number of similar complaints have reached the police that money deposited has been lost. "You are charged here with five cases—Jackson, Meyer, Brazier, Grinstead, and Pearce. (No evidence was offered as to Pearce.)

Prisoner Jones pointed out that Meyer paid his money to Roberson, that Brazier had his money returned, and that Grinstead was a partner.

EDWARD WALTER JACKSON , recalled, gave further evidence as to Jones's handwriting. The letter from Percy Treherne to Parr's Bank giving the reference for Roberson in August, 1909, was in Jones's handwriting.

The following witnesses on the depositions were called at the request of prisoner Jones.

ALEXANDER PEARCE , printer, examined by Jones. I know a person called Deardon. He called at your office many times. I remember you bringing a clock and pair of ornaments to the office and setting them on the mantelpiece. I was supposed to be the partner of Mr. Roberson. Deardon's business at Richmond Bridge Road, East Twickenham, was sold in the name of Jones. I remember you bringing some fireirons and a fender to Kew Bridge Road, last spring, and a man from Isleworth bringing some chairs and a table.

Jones said that he put this evidence in because it had been suggested that the claim he made was fraudulent.

Mr. Leycester said he had said nothing about the claim being fraudulent. He put in the evidence as to the claim to show the connection between the two prisoners.

Witness. I saw Hicks at Kew Bridge Road about three times. I know nothing of any arrangement for the transfer of the business to him.

THOMAS WILLIAM OSWALD HICKS , company registrar. In April, 1909, I entered into negotiation for the purchase of the business of Sidney and Co., and paid £5 deposit, but the matter was never carried out.

To Jones. I was at Kew Bridge Road about four times altogether. I saw you twice on one day, but I did not know you as Jones. Pearce was in the office at the time; he did not say, "This is Mr. Jones." If he said anything at all, he said, "This is Mr. James. "You did not ask me what was my business there; you knew all about it apparently. You took me outside on the landing, and I showed you a roll of bank notes, and said there was £95, or something to that effect. I had come to pay the money over if certain details had been complied with. The £5 had previously been paid by cheque. The negotiations had been going on for some time, having commenced on March 26. You did not say you knew nothing about the transaction, and tell me to put my money in my pocket. What you said was that I was getting the business a good bit too cheap." You said that I should not have the business, but you also added, "at that price"

Re-examined by Mr. Leycester. I knew Jones by the name of James. Roberson told me Mr. James was one of the executors of his father's will. I do not remember who it was introduced me to Jones. Verdict: Jones, Guilty on count 1 relating to the general charge of conspiracy; Not Guilty on count 2 relating to Alexander Pearce; Guilty on count 3 relating to Ernest Grinstead; Not Guilty on count 4 relating to Edward Meya, the money in that case having been obtained by Roberson; Guilty on counts 5 and 6 relating to the Farringdon Street premises.

Detective-sergeant HALL, recalled, said that Jones was born in South Wales in 1868, and came to London about 1886 as manager of a shop at Kentish Town. In 1887 he went to Ireland, near Dublin, and from that time until 1899 nothing was known of him. Between 1899 and 1901 he lived at Portsmouth and left suddenly one night very greatly in debt. In 1902 he was living at High Street, East Ham, where he defrauded two men whom he had induced to invest £50 in his business. By giving false references he obtained several shops and opened an office in Hoi born. No genuine business was done and no rates were paid or taxes. At one of the shops the manageress brought her own furniture in and it was distrained upon for rent. In 1904 he was sentenced to 15 months' hard labour at this Court. Soon after his liberation in June, 1905, he went to Newport, where he incurred debts in respect of some of which High Court writs had been produced: In 1907 and 1908 he was living in Chiswick, where he incurred debts in respect of which the present charges are brought. The police regarded him as an able and clever swindler and a number of cases had been

brought to their notice where he had been concerned in obtaining from people residing in Chiswick and the district furniture for sale on commission, and these people had never been able either to get their furniture back or money for the goods sold. With regard to Roberson, he came of very respectable parents and no complaints reached the police until the case of Alexander Pearce, which happened some time before Roberson's connection with prisoner Jones. In 1906 Roberson carried on business as a tobacconist in Kentish Town Road and the statement prepared by an accountant on behalf of his creditors showed that he was indebted to the extent of £753. He was not made bankrupt, but signed jointly with his wife a promissory note for £219, but the note was never met. In June, 1907, Roberson did pay a sum of £19 1s. 9d., representing a first and final dividend of 6d. in the £. Roberson was known to the police as having been engaged in one or two other matters of a shady character.

Mr. Purcell called a number of witnesses to the character of Roberson, and Mr. George Shepherd, of Bermondsey, by whom prisoner was employed some years ago as barman, undertook to find him employment on his release and to become surety for him.

Judge Lumley Smith allowed prisoner Roberson to be bound over, with Mr. Shepherd as surety, and sentenced Jones to 15 months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, November 24.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-64
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment

Related Material

PAYNE, William (39, dealer), SMITH, Frederick (29, carman), and DIGGIN, Ernest Alfred (19, butcher) . Burglary in the dwelling-house " Hatherleigh," Pope's Grove, Twickenham, and stealing there in one spirit flask and other articles, the goods of Bertha Jane Carter. Smith and Diggin pleaded guilty .

Mr. St. John Macdonald prosecuted; Mr. Schultess Young defended Payne.

HARRY MATTHEWS HARRIS , jeweller, 82, Union Road, Rotherhithe. On October 11, about tea-time, Payne came into my shop and asked me if I bought old silver. I said, I did, and asked how much he had. He said, about 7 pounds. I said, "Let's have a look at it." He said he would call later in the evening. He called again with another party whose name I have since found out is Smith. Smith carried the silver in a sack. This would be about 7 or 8 p.m. I said, "I have no time now to have a look: leave it and call to-morrow." After a long persuasion they left it. I asked Payne when he first called what he wanted for it. He said, "It is worth about £20." When they left it, Smith said, "Give me something to go on with." I said, "What do you require?" He replied, "Half-a-sovereign." I said, "I am not going to give you half a sovereign there might be coals in the sack; I have not seen it." He said, "Have a look." I said, "Time won't permit: call round to-morrow." He said, "We want something to go

on with to have a drink." I gave him 2s. 6d. They wanted more, and I would not give it. It was arranged to meet the following day about 2.30 for the final settlement. In the meantime, finding it was goods which required police attention, I informed the police. Smith arrived next day by himself. I asked him where his friend was. He said, "Up the road minding the pony and trap." I said, "It is best to do the deal with the two of you, kindly go and fetch your friend." In about twenty minutes he returned, saying his friend would not come. I asked the reason why, and he said the horse was restive and could not be left. Finding I could not get the two, I adjourned with Smith into my shop parlour with the idea of going through the sack bf goods, and whilst so doing the police, who were in hiding, made the arrest. Smith was questioned by the police, whilst the police in hiding went up the road to arrest the other prisoner. It was previously arranged that I should give the signal for them to make the arrest. After having a chat with Payne we were coming towards my premises, he said, "Why, what is the matter: is there anything up?" I said, "No." I gave the signal and the arrest was made.

Cross-examined. I do not know why Smith should come to me with stolen goods. I have not seen the police about this matter since. Smith and Payne came together with the goods. When I went to see the horse there was no sign of restiveness. Smith never left the shop: he was left in charge of two officers. I asked Payne to come in the shop. I do not remember Payne saying, "I have nothing to do with it." Payne did not come to the shop on the occasion when I saw him with the pony. I was not exactly taken to the station to identify Payne. I simply went to repeat the statement which was made in my shop. I was not requested to point out Payne. He was there with the officer, in front of my eyes. I had nothing to point out.

Detective-sergeant THOMAS GALE, M Division. I arrested Payne shortly after three on October 12. I was keeping observation with Detective Morris. I saw Smith and said to Mr. Harris, "Is this the man that brought you this stuff, pointing to the silver plate. He said, "Yes." I said to Smith, "Can you give me an account of where you got it from?" He said, "I do not know anything about it. My mate down the road with the pony and cart knows all about it." I left him there in charge of two officers and went to the corner of Prospect Place and Union Road, where I saw Payne. I told him I should arrest him for being concerned with a man named Smith in a case of burglary at Twickenham. He said, "I do not know anything about it." He was taken to the station by Detective Morris. He made no reply to the charge.

Cross-examined. He may have said to another officer at the station, "I know nothing about it." He said that to me when I arrested him. I was not anxious to convict him out of Smith's mouth.

Detective WILLIAM MORRIS, M Division. I was with Sergeant Gale at the time of the arrest. I took Payne to the station. He said, "I do not know anything at all about the burglary. I was not here last night; I can prove where I was. "I told prisoner I had a witness, to prove he offered the articles for sale. He said, "Smith asked me

to move the stuff down here for him. I offered them right enough, but I did not do the job. "Gale said to Smith at the station, "Tell him what you said about this man," pointing to Payne; he said, "He does not know anything about it. "They were charged and both made no reply.

Cross-examined. I do not remember saying before the Magistrate, "Payne did not know Smith's pal's name. "What I forgot to say to the Magistrate was that Sergeant Gale said to Smith," He says he does not know anything about it at all. "I was speaking from memory, without my book. I finally brought it out. I did not caution prisoner; I did not think it necessary; he knew we were police officers. I did not cross-examine him at all. I did not want him to make a confession. I did not write down what he said till I got to the station. I read it to him. He always denied the burglary or anything connected with it.

Mrs. BERTHA JANE CARTER, Hatherleigh, Pope's Grove, Twickenham. I left Hatherleigh a fortnight ago. On October 7 I went to bed about 10 o'clock. I did not close the doors, but as far as I know they were closed. I heard a noise between 11 and 12; it was the noise a cat would make running up and down stairs. I went down next morning to get letters I expected. I found them on the mat and the front door open. The dining room door, which had been shut, was open, also my dressing room door. The place was utterly dismantled, sideboard drawer out, fruit left lying on the floor, the blinds, which had been up, were tied to a lamp to keep them down, and a candle which had been lighted to save lighting the electric lamp was left on the table. The stuff mentioned in the indictment was taken away. I should say it is worth £50. All the property I lost is not there.

Detective-inspector ALFRED NICHOLLS, M Division. I saw Smith and Payne detained at Rotherhithe police station. I first spoke to Smith. I showed him two challenge cups produced here and said, "How do you account for the possession of these?" He said, "I got them with all the other stuff from a house at Twickenham. The other chap was not with me when I got it. I asked him to bring it over here in his barrow. He knew what the stuff was." The other chap I understood to be Payne. I asked Payne why he had tried to sell it, as I believed he was the first man to speak to the jeweller about buying it; he said, "I did not know where it was got. I knew what was in the sack. Smith asked me to drive it over for him. I did not speak to the jeweller first; we both went in together." These notes were made at the time. I then sent for Mr. Harris and asked him to point out the man who first spoke to him about buying the property, and he at once pointed out Payne. Payne made no reply to the charge.

Cross-examined. I did not know what Police-constable Gale had said about "another chap." They were at the station before I got there. I did not hear that Diggin had said he observed Smith burying this property, or that there was another chap that was not Payne. He did not mention Payne's name as having known all about it; he said, "The other chap was not with me when I got it. "Diggin was arrested by officers in another division the next day. I asked Harris to point

out the man. Only Smith and Payne were there. I took it for granted, as Harris was the cause of this man's arrest, it would be useless putting a man up like that for identification.


WILLIAM PAYNE (prisoner, on oath). I was admitted to bail. I have been living in Chiswick all my life and am well known as a man of good character. I have never been in trouble with the police. I knew Smith three years ago; he worked under me for Mr. George, carman and contractor. I had not seen him since till he came and asked me to do a job. At seven or eight p.m. on the Saturday, the day of this burglary, I was lying on the sofa when Francis, a witness, came and said, "Are you aware your pony has gone out?" I said "No." I went to the stable with him, found it was gone, went and had a drink, came back and stopped there. I returned about 12 p.m. Then my wife and Mrs. Neale came down and we stopped there till three in the morning. I was having a cup of coffee with my missis at Turnham Green. I said I shall not wait any longer. Next day my pony was found in the street. On the Monday Smith came to my house and asked the miss is where I was; she said, "Down at the stable." He asked me if I wanted to earn 10s. to take some old silver up for two chaps. I said "Yes. Did you have my pony? It was a fine cheek; I was going to the police station about it." He went and fetched the silver and put it in the cart, and I dare say the stuff was in the cart 2 1/2 hours before we went away from the stable. He wanted the pony and cart to himself, but I prefer to drive my own pony. I hire it. We stopped on the road and had several drinks and a bit of food. About seven o'clock he said, "Stop at the corner public-house"; this was near the jeweller's shop. When we got there there was another man about 50, shorter than me. They both went together, and asked me to wait on the opposite side of the road with the pony. They comes back and we have a drink. The third man is not a man that is here to-day. If they had asked me to take the stuff in to the jeweller's I might have done it simple enough, but I did not go in. When they came out they said they had got 2s. 6d. This was about seven o'clock. It was 11 when I got home that night.

Cross-examined. The pony was missed, and my wife and I waited for it eight solid hours. I made two or three attempts to go to the police about it. I wish I had gone. Francis did not tell me who took the pony. It quite upset me. I did not think the stuff was stolen. It only struck me there was something funny when Mr. Harris came up with the detective and tried to kid me into his house. It is a tidy step to Rotherhithe, 12 to 14 miles. I have been there hundreds of times. I thought they had a shop to take it to where they could get more money for it. I could not stop near the shop, because there was some traffic. I stopped on the opposite side of the road. I then went and had a drink where they told me to. If I had known it was stolen I should not have come back the next day. I was to have 10s. the first day and 5s. and expenses the second day. I had no other work

to do. My wife told me my place was searched on Monday. I was not at home. If it was searched on Monday night, why did not they come down to the stable to me?

Mrs. PAYNE. On Saturday, October 9, Francis came to my house and asked if my husband was indoors. I said, "He is asleep; shall I wake him?" He said, "Yes." When my husband woke Francis said, "Do you know your pony is took out?" He said, "No." He went with Francis to the stables, and me and Mrs. Neale followed afterwards. About 2.30 on Sunday morning me and my husband came home. I never saw anything of the pony and trap.

Cross-examined. Francis came about eight or nine on Saturday night. We live a quarter of an hour's walk from the stable. Francis did not tell me who had taken the pony. I did think it extraordinary, and that is what made my husband go down. It had never been taken before.

FRANCES MILLS . On October 9 I was indoors when Mr. Francis came and asked me which house Mr. Payne lived in. I said, "Next door," and I went in with Mr. Francis. I heard him say to Payne, "Somebody has taken your horse out of the stable," and with that Payne went with Francis to the stable, and shortly after me and his wife followed. We had a drink, and waited there till 11, waiting for the persons to come back with the horse, which they did not return. I went home by myself. I left them waiting for the pony at 11 o'clock.

THOMAS FRANCIS . On Saturday night I went to the stable and found Payne's pony and cart was missing. I asked Grimsdale if he knew where it had gone to; he said, "No, I do not. Go and see if Payne's got it." I went to his house, saw his wife, and asked her if he was in. She said, "He is lying on the sofa." She woke him up, and he came down to the stable with me. I stopped with him till past 11. I left him, Grimsdale, and Mrs. Payne together.

ABRAHAM GRIMSDALE . On Saturday, October 9, Payne left word that nobody was to take the pony out. That is not the usual practice. When I come back the chap come to find me. He said, "Somebody's took the pony out." I said, "You had better go to Mr. Payne and ask him whether he has took the pony out." Mr. Payne come, down and stopped at our place all the evening, right up to 12.20, waiting for the pony. I stopped with him. He was very much put out about it. The pony was found in the street in the morning by one of my sons, and he put it in the stable.

FREDERICK SMITH (prisoner, on oath). I have pleaded guilty to committing this burglary. Payne had nothing to do with it. He did not know the things he took down to Rotherhithe were stolen. The man who went with me into the jeweller's was another man, a native of Rotherhithe, as far as I know. He took me there. I had never been there before. I should not have gone there if I had not thought it was a safe place.

Cross-examined. Diggin and another man were with me on the night of the burglary. I do not know the name of the other man. I was in a public house at Twickenham when this man told me he knew where there was a place. We went to get the stuff and come out; the

pony was gone. I never see the pony any more. Me and Diggin put the stuff in a field. The house we went into was open when he took me; the back door was wide open. I do not know how this man came to be driving Payne's cart. I met Diggin and this man together. There was a name and address on the cart. I do not know why this man went off with the pony and cart. He stopped outside to look after the pony while me and Diggin went in. The door was wide open and we walked in. When we went to Mr. Harris's shop I went in first. I spoke to Harris. He said there was too many in the pie; I could not exactly tell you the words now. He told me to leave the stuff and he would look over it in the night. I went in the shop myself next morning; then I come out and went in again. Payne was down the road with the pony, more than 20 yards away. If he says he was in front of Harris's shop he must have moved up there when I went in. The swag was not in Payne's house before he drove to Rotherhithe. It was not left in Payne's stable for any time. I went and fetched it out of the field. I asked Payne if he would take it to Rotherhithe. He would not let me take the pony myself. He did not look into the bag that I know of. I did not tell him how many pounds of silver there was. I could not tell you exactly what I said; it is a long time; I have forgotten. I am telling you the truth, as much about it as I can. Payne did not know anything about it till the Monday, when I asked if I could have his pony to go to Rotherhithe. I told him I was going to sell this stuff. He did not ask me where I got it from.

ERNEST ALFRED DIGGIN (prisoner, on oath). I have pleaded guilty. Payne had nothing to do with. I do not know the other man. Smith called him "mate."

Cross-examined. I have not seen Payne before, except at the police court. There was another man with us when we committed the burglary. I do not know his name. I had never met him before. This man met me in Twickenham. We began talking about work. He said, "My mate will be back in a minute; he has gone with a servant's box. "He came back; we all got up in the cart and drove to this house. Then the short man says, "That's a likely place for a job there." The two of us went in; he was supposed to wait outside with the cart. We got the stuff, looked out of the door and there was no man or cart there, so we put the stuff over a wall till the next morning. The same two men came back with a different cart and took the stuff away and promised to let me have some money. I did not get a farthing.

Mr. JAMES CLEMENTS, haulage contractor, 83, Lower Thames Street, and Brentford. I have known prisoner 11 or 12 years. To the best of my knowledge and belief he has always borne a good character.

Verdict: Payne, Guilty of dealing with stolen property, with a recommendation to mercy on account of good character.

Diggin had been convicted for being found on enclosed premises in 1908 and sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour.

Sentences: Smith, 21 months' hard labour; Diggin, 18 months' hard labour; Payne, Four months in second division.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-65
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

LEWIS, Arthur (26, salesman), and DOYLE, Thomas Henry (54, clerk) , pleaded guilty of: Lewis obtaining by false pretences from Lydia Barnett £50, forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £50 and a promissory note for £80, in each case with intent to defraud; Doyle obtaining by false pretences from Lydia Barnett £30, forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a promissory note for £50, in each case with intent to defraud; both conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from Lydia Barnett £50, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Curtis Bennett, who appeared to prosecute, said that Mrs. Barnett carried on business as a moneylender at 49, Old Bond Street. In July last Doyle called there, giving his name as Thomas Henry Doyle, of 51, Elgin Crescent. He said he had lived at that address 12 months and had a three years' lease, was a clerk in the Exchequer and Audit Department at a salary of £300, that the furniture at Elgin Crescent was his own property and was worth £700. He called again on July 16 and repeated the same false pretences and said he desired to borrow £30. Instead of being a clerk in the Exchequer and Audit Department he was an ex-convict. The manager lent him the £30. On September 13 he called again, accompanied by Lewis, and introduced him as his colleague in the Exchequer and Audit Department. Lewis gave the name of Lee. Lewis said he had been in that department 12 years, had a salary of £550, was living at 414, Fulham Road, and had a great quantity of furniture, £300 or £400 worth, all of which was his own. All those statements were untrue. Believing those statements, the manager gave a cheque to Lewis for £50. Both prisoners forged promissory notes. Doyle has been conspiring with a number of persons to obtain money from prosecutrix. Warrants had been applied for in respect of six cases, all of which were introduced by Doyle.

Sergeant BROADHURST. Lewis bears an exemplary character. Doyle is an habitual criminal; he has served terms of six months, nine months, fifteen months, three years' penal servitude; the latter was for defrauding moneylenders. The name of a gentleman at the Admiralty was used by him on several occasions, and that gentleman was afraid to go into a West End shop as the proprietors referred to their books and said he was a wrong 'un.

Sentences: Doyle, Three years' penal servitude. Lewis was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-66
VerdictGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

RAINSFORD, Walter (23, dealer), PETERS, Henry (26, greengrocer), and DANIELS, Charley (22, labourer) feloniously causing grievous bodily harm to Frederick Barber, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm; all unlawfully inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Frederick Barber and assaulting him, a peace officer in the execution of his duty; Rainsford unlawfully inflicting certain grievous bodily harm upon >Frederick Hadrill, and assaulting the said Frederick Hadrill and James Kennedy, peace officers in the execution of their duty.

Mr. Boyd prosecuted; Mr. St. John Macdonald defended Rainsford; Mr. Bircham defended Peters.

Police-constable BARBER, 793 B Division. I was on duty with Police-constable Hadrill in York Road. I saw Rainsford and two other men drunk, shouting and using filthy language. We cautioned them twice. In Lithgow Street I went to arrest Rainsford. He struck me in the face and knocked me off my feet. As I went down so he stumbled over me and kicked me in the head. As I was getting up Daniels rushed from the pavement and struck me in the head and knocked me down. I received other blows. I only recognised those two men.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. I am absolutely sure Rainsford kicked me in the head.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. I know Peters, very well. He is a greengrocer. I did not see him that night. I do not remember the whistle being blown I did not manage to give any blows, because after I was knocked down the first time I was held up by two men with my arms behind me, so I was absolutely powerless.

Cross-examined by Daniels. I do not know if you picked me up.

Police-constable HADRILL, 74 VR. About half past 11 p.m. on August 29 I was with Police-constable Barber on patrol duty in York Road, Battersea. I saw Rainsford with two other men. They were drunk and causing a general disturbance in Wye Street. I cautioned them as to their behaviour. They moved to the roadway and Rainsford said, "I suppose I can f——g well stand in the road now." One of his companions took him by the arm to Lithgow Street, where they continued their behaviour. Police-constable Barber and I went towards them to effect their arrest. Barber went to arrest Rainsford and they both fell to the ground. As they got up I closed with Rainsford and I was carried away to Thibet Street by the violence of the prisoner and the crowd that was there. Rainsford knocked me to the ground and I was kicked on the right hand by him. I was held down on the broad of my back and eventually he was dragged off me. I went to look for Barber; he was on the ground unconscious. After making a slight search far the other two that Barber said had assaulted him he was taken to the station. I was then With Police-constable Kennedy." About 12.45 a.m. on the 30th I saw Rainsford come out of a house in Thibet Street. I said, "Come on, Hoppy, we have been looking for you." He threw himself on the ground and kicked the other police-constables that were with me.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. There was a crowd there; no free fight. I cannot speak to what happened when I claimed Rainsford; I was on the ground and a big crowd on top of me. I was carried from one street to another. There were two others with Rainsford. Barber and Rainsford fell together. I did not see them wrestle. I do not know that Rainsford is paralysed; he is crippled in

one foot; he bends it over at the ankle. He walks in a peculiar way. I have seen him run. On occasions I have chased him. I did not see Rainsford strike Barber. I was only about a yard away. If he had struck him I should have seen it. I could not swear he did kick. I do not know that the other two were drunk. I never struck Rainsford; I had no chance. The blow I received on the jaw rendered me so far insensible I fell on the ground. He struck me with his left arm. I should be surprised to hear that he is paralysed on his left side. He kicked another policeman, Kennedy.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. I know Peters very well. He is an honest, respectable man as far as I know I have known him 17 years. When the fight began I was dragged into Thibet Street. I got up, went back to where Barber was, and then heard a police whistle blown. Barber was then lying on the ground. A lot of people were there. He was not being assaulted. I did not know Mr. or Mrs. Hurst until the case was being heard at the police court. They may have been there, also Mrs. Ward.

Cross-examined by Daniels. I did not see you there. The first tiling I saw was Barber and Rainsford falling to the ground. I could not see whether that was from a blow from Rainsford or not. As soon as Rainsford got to his feet I claimed him. I was carried across to the other street. Rainsford struck me on the cheek. There must have been more than two; there was a crowd round there. I was held on the broad of my back with my arms down. I got the kick on the back of the hand when I was on the ground in the first instance, on the right-hand side.

(Thursday, November 25, 1909.)

Police-constable FRANK HADRILL, recalled. I was examined by the doctor about 12.15 a.m. on August 30. I was off duty about three months.

Dr. KEMPSTER, Divisional Surgeon of Police. Police-constable Barber was brought to the station on an ambulance on August 29. He was unconscious and remained so for a quarter of an hour. He was violently sick. He was suffering from concussion of the brain in a severe form. His head was severely bruised. It was due to direct violence, not to a fall. On the left side of the lower jaw there was a severe bruise. On his right wrist and fore arm was a contused wound. He has been under my charge ever since. He has had many epileptic attacks. Those might have been brought on by the injuries. He has got worse and has been discharged from the force in consequence of his injuries. He will get his full pay as pension. Between twelve and one o'clock I saw Police-constable Hadrill. He was dazed and stupid and vomited, showing that he had had a slight concussion of the brain. He had a bruise on the right side of the lower jaw, a severe bruise on the right hand, and a finger bone was broken. The injury to his hand was consistent with his having been kicked. I saw Rainsford when he was brought in at 1.40 a.m. He was then recovering from the effects of drink. In my opinion, not having thoroughly examined him, I

thought him a rather violent man; he was throwing his arms about. He walks with a limp. I concluded he had some infantile paralysis in the leg, which would not affect the upper part of the body. He had a black eye. On the same night I examined Police-constable Kennedy. He had bruises on the left shin and his thigh. They were consistent with his having been kicked. Hadrill cannot shut the palm of his hand. Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. Hadrill's injuries were consistent with his having given a blow to a man's skull. He could have broken his finger that way.

LIONEL THOMAS KIPLING , 104, Ingrave Street, Battersea, potman. About 11.20 on August 29 I was going along Wye Street. That leads into Lithgow Street, where I saw two men I knew. They were singing. One was Rains ford and the other was Davis. Two constables approached them. One said something to the two men and pushed Rainsford with his hand. Rainsford fell to the ground. Almost immediately Daniels rushed from a house; he struck Police-constable Barber. Barber went to close with Daniels as if to arrest him. Peters then rushed from the opposite direction and struck Barber several blows from the the back I 'do not know Peters. I know Daniels by sight. Peters came from Thibet Street. Daniels came from the house opposite Thibet Street. Barber was struck three or four times; he fell to the ground. I never saw Hadrill after he went down the court in the first instance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. I did not see Rainsford strike Barber. I did not see Rainsford at all. If he had been there I must have seen him. In the first instance only two persons were present, myself and an old man, when Daniels and Peters assaulted the policeman. The policeman did not fall on top of Rainsford. Rainsford was taken away. I do not think Hadrill went away. I think he went after somebody else, not Rainsford. In 30 or 40 seconds there were between 30 and 40 people there. I went away to fetch assistance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. It is a roughish neighbourhood. I am positive nothing was going on before I was there. Barber and Rainsford did not fall over together. There was no crowd when Peters rushed out. I did not see Mrs. Hurst, Mr. Hurst, or Mrs. Ward. Barber was 25 to 30 paces from Wye Street when he was knocked down, as near as possible the centre of Lithgow Street.

Cross-examined by Daniels. You came out in your shirt sleeves. As far as I recollect, your feet were covered; I could not say whether it was boots or socks.

ELIZABETH HURST . 2, Lithgow Street. On August 29, between 11 and 12 p.m., I was indoors. I heard screaming. I came out. I saw half a dozen men fighting a constable. He fell down. I called out, "You lot of cowards!" Peters and Daniels both kicked him. Daniels was pulled indoors and I took hold of Meters by his shirt sleeves, saying, "Don't kick the man to death. "I stooped down and found it was Police-constable Barber. Somebody said, "Blow the whistle. "I blew it once. A man named Glbson came out. He blew it about four times. I saw Barber taken away. I know Rainsford, but I never saw him at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. I first told the police I had seen Peters there when I was fetched to the station the following sunday week. I live in the same house as Mrs. Ward and my son. We were all there. We have not talked this matter over. After the assault Peters assaulted me. I never used bad language to him. A policeman came up and told him to go away. I did not see anything of that constable because I did not want to be fetched into it. When I blew the whistle all the half dozen ran away. There was a crowd when I came up. Peters was quarrelling with my son after the assault on the police. I was bound over the other day on a summons for assaulting Mrs. Peters. She struck me. I ought to have summoned her. Some time ago I had a few words with my daughter by his stall. He did not push me away because I was interfering with his trade. I had no words with Peters or his wife. I did not say, "All right, Doggie, I will get my own back."

Cross-examined by Daniels. I never told your mother I never saw you.

Mrs. SARAH WARD. 2, Lithgow Street. On August 29, between eleven and twelve p.m. I was indoors. I heard screaming. I went out. I saw five or six men fighting with another. I did not go close to them. Peters and Daniels punched him. He fell, and as he fell he was kicked by Peters, Daniels also Blade a kick at him, if he did not catch him. His people took him indoors. As they did so I heard him say, "Let me go, I will kick the f——g bastard's brains in. "Mrs. Hurst took Peters by the shirt sleeves and said, "For God's sake, Mr. Peters, do not kick the man to death." She blew the whistle. A neighbour came out and she handed him the whistle to blow. Whilst looking at the constable on the ground I saw Police-constable Hadrill crawl from Thibet Street. He was coming across to help. I knew Peters and Daniels before this night. I see Peters every Saturday morning. I did not see Rainsford at all. I knew him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. My son assaulted Mr. Butler a little time ago. Peters interfered. He did not say to him. You ought to be ashamed of yourself for striking a drunken man. "He said, "Hold up," and put himself in a fighting attitude towards my son. I live with Butler and with the Hursts. We have not spoken to each otter about this affair. When we went towards the constable all but two had run away"; there was no crowd, barring the few standing at Daniel's door.

JAMES HURST 2, Lithgow Street. I was indoors on August 29 between eleven and twelve p.m. I heard screams. I went out. I saw half a dozen men punching a policeman. I recognized Peters and Daniels as two of them. The policeman fell to the ground. Peters kicked the policeman. Daniels made an attempt to kick him. When I first saw the policeman he was standing up. Peters remained there until my mother took him by the shirt sleeves and said, "Do not kick the man to death." I have known Daniels and Peters two years. I could not say if they had been drinking.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. I know nothing about a few words my mother had with Peters about a quarrel between her and my

sister. I have not talked this matter over with my mother and Mrs. Ward. We. talked about it in the ordinary course of events now and then, but not with Mrs. ward.

Police-constable JAMES KENNEDY, 445 W. About 12.45 a.m., on August 30 I went to Lithgow Street and joined Constable Hadrill. Soon afterwards I saw Rainsford. He came from 13, Thibet Street. I said I should arrest him for causing grievous bodily harm to Police-constable Barber. He became very violent, threw himself on the ground on his back and started kicking out in all directions. He had had some drink. He told me he would kick my f——g balls out like he did the other policeman. He then kicked me on the inside of the leg several times. Other constables arriving, he was taken to the station and charged. He made no reply.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. I was standing outside No. 13, Thibet Street waiting for Rainsford to come out. The door was open. It was not my place to go in and ask for him. Hadrill was three or four yards away. I did not say anything to Rainsford about his having assaulted Hadrill. Hadrill was there when I arrested prisoner. I did not tell prisoner I should arrest him for assaulting Hadrill. I used my discretion. It was not because Hadrill had not been injured. I could see he was injured by his face. His right hand was injured. Hadrill told me that he and Barber had been assaulted. He did not tell me anything about a crowd gathering. When I arrested Rainsford I caught him by the shoulder. He threw himself on the ground. I fell down. I did not fall on top of him. I fell over him on to the flagstones on my two hands over his legs. He pulled me down. He kicked me severely inside the left leg with all his might. There was only Hadrill and I there when Rainsford was on the ground. He was on his feet when the other constables came. I never struck Rainsford.

Cross-examined by Rainsford. I do not know Peters or what character he bears.

Inspector HENRY WINTER, V Division. At 1.45 p.m. on September 6 I went to 4, Thibet Street. Peters opened the door. I told him I should arrest him for causing grievous bodily harm to Police-constable Barber on August 29. He replied, "I was there, but I know nothing about it. I heard a police whistle blown and I went out to see what the row was about. I did not kick the policeman, but Mrs. Hurst took hold of my arm and pushed me away. I had referred to Mrs. Hurst. She swore the information. He said I had been drinking that evening and did not know what did happen. I heard you were after me and am glad you have caught me. "I took him to the station: he was charged and he said, "Am I bound to say anything now?" I said, "No, not unless you wish."

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. I did not caution Peters either at his house or at the station.

Sergeant JOHN PARKER, V Division. On September 7 at midnight I went to 7, Lithgow Street. I saw Daniels in bed. I told him I had a warrant for his arrest for the assault on Police-constable Barber and he replied, "I was there, but I had no boots on; Doggie Peters did

all the kicking and punching; I did not kick the copper. "I took him to the Battersea police station. When charged he made no reply.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. I do not remember Daniels saying before the magistrate, "I was not there "when the policeman was being kicked about. "I know Peters. He is not dangerous or quarrelsome. It was through an anonymous letter that I got on Peters's track.

Rainstord's statement before the Magistrate. I was going down the street and a constable came and shoved me. I fell on my head and rolled over. As I got up the other constable arrested me. Being a cripple I fell down, with' the constable on top of me. My people came up and pulled the constable off me and I was dragged in my brother's house."

Peters's statement. "I am innocent of what I have been accused of."

Daniels's statement. "I was not there when the policeman was being kicked about. I had no boots and stockings on. I have witnesses to prove I was not there."


WALTER RAINSFORD (prisoner, on oath). I went in the "C. D.S. "about ten o'clock on this night. I had several drinks, but not many. I was talking to my friends outside for about a quarter of an hour. I left with another man and walked towards Lithgow Street. We were singing and the constable cautioned us. We shut up. I walked down Lithgow Street. Then the constable came up and shoved me. I fell with my hands out like that and my head went underneath. Somebody came up and punched Police-constable Barber, but I do not know who done it. I rolled over. People rushed up and collared me all of a bunch; I was dragged in my sister-in-law's house and there I stopped. I said at the police court, "The other constable fell over me when he tried to arrest me. "I believe that was Hadrill. He got me on the ground. I asked him to let me get up. Then I was dragged to my sister-in-law's and stayed there about an hour and a quarter, I should think. I did not strike Police-constable Barber. I was shoved from behind and fell to the ground. I got my black eye when I was taken off my sister-in-law's door. I started to go home a little after one. When I got to my sister-in-law's door the constable said, "Now, Hoppy, I have got you. "They knocked me down. They caught hold of me and hit me on each side of the face, let go of me and let me fall to the ground. When I went to my sister-in-law's house I had not a scratch on me. On the ground I begged of them to let me go quiet. They would not; they kept on paying me. Kennedy did not fall over me nor Hadrill. I may have kicked Hadrill by accident. I used no filthy language; I was charged with kicking Kennedy or Hadrill at the police station. I swear I never kicked Barber. Next morning Police-constable 174 brought my tea to the cell. I was laying down on the board. He said, "I will give you 'f——g policeman,'" and kicked me in the stomach.


Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. I have not mentioned that incident to anybody else before. I was spoken to once in the street soon after leaving the public house. That would be 11.15. We were singing, but not making so very much noise. I had been a teetotaller a long time and it acted on me a bit quick. I will not say I was sober. When I was pushed down the policeman was not trying to raise me. I did not strike the policeman in the face or kick him. When I got up Hadrill closed with me and I disappeared off the ground. I did not fall beside Barber. I never see Barber after I was pushed down. All I saw then was the men rush up. They let out with their hands and struck Barber. As far as I know he never fell. I did not strike Hadrill on the jaw or kick him on the hand. I struck at nobody. I cannot kick. If I stand on my leg I fall like a baby. To use my hands I should have to stand up against a wall. I was a bit dizzy at the station. I was not waving my arms about. I was doing up my coat. When they arrested me I did not know what it was for. I may have kicked Kennedy as I fell down, but not intentionally.

Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. I am paralysed on the left side. Both my legs are withered. A little boy could push me over. I am not capable of hitting anybody with my left hand. I was born like it. he Jury.)

ROSE TURNER , 11, Thibet Street. Rainsford is a stranger to me. On this night three men came down the street. At the bottom of the street they separated. Two policemen followed behind them. A policeman—I think it was Barber—knocked Rainsford down and kicked him. Rainsford fell on his face. The two men that came down the street with prisoner rushed on to the police and in the scuffle Rainsford was hustled into his sister-in-law's house. Hadrill crawled on his hands and knees to the end of the street. Rainsford never struck one blow. He had no earthly chance whatever. I do not know where the people came from who pulled him away. In a moment the place was crowded. Rainsford was hustled into his sister-in-law's house. I went in and shut the door. Prisoner saw no more, no more did I, of the assault on the police. My husband went to bed and I sat reading. When I went to bolt up I happened to look out and saw three policemen in my sister-in-law's house. I heard Rainsford say "Good night," and before he could get out of the house he was pulled off by the police and most shamefully beaten. I saw one policeman hit him in the face and say, "We will give you the same as you gave our mate, Hoppy." Rainsford did not use disgusting language. He begged for mercy. He said, "Let me go alone; I will go straight." I cried out, "There is only one against six of you. "One put a rolled-up cape into my face and said, "What do you know about it? Do you want to come, too?" I said, "The man is willing to go straight. Why do not you let him?" I cannot say I saw Hadrill fall on top of Rainsford. The first assault on the police would be when they were trying to rescue him. He is a stranger to me; it does not matter to me if he gets 10 years.

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. When prisoner was arrested none of them fell down, I am sure. He was held up by the police. I first saw Rainsford coming down this street with three men. They were not kicking up any noise; there seemed to be no disturbance. I lost sight of his companions. That one crossed the road. I could not say I know them. The other people followed Rainsford to the corner. I was watching Rainsford. Barber kicked Rainsford, I am sure. I did not see him strike as well, but only the push done. Rainsford did not strike the officer. He never kicked. I did not say the other officer struck or kicked Rainsford. I am not sure Hadrill did not close with prisoner.

SUSAN RAINSFORD , 63, Thibet Street, sister of the prisoner. Soon after eleven on Saturday night three lads came down the street singing. Two constables followed them. One went straight over to the lad on this side. The lad was neither of the prisoners. The other constable gave him half a dozen pushes and they both fell. The constable deliberately kicked Rainsford after he fell. He was pushed into my house. I saw Rainsford from the very beginning to end. I did not see Rainsford strike or kick the constable. He did not kick him. Rainsford remained in my house until past one. As he reached the door to go home he said, "Good night, good night. Oh!" That is when the constables crossed to him off my doorstep. I said, "He is taken." If Rainsford had said anything to the constable I should have heard it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. We had been having a little jollification. I do not think we had anything to drink. Mr. Peters, Mrs. Peters, my husband and I were in the kitchen. We had been talking. Mr. Peters had said "Good night" when we heard the three men singing. Peters did not run up when the constable pushed over Rainsford. I never moved off my door. I did not see anybody strike Barber. The constable deliberately struck Rainsford.

HENRY PETERS (prisoner, on oath). I have lived in Battersea 37 years. The police have never had any fault to find with me. For ten years I have had a greengrocer's stall in the street. When I first heard about this row I was at supper. A whistle blew and I came out of my house. I think it was 20 minutes past eleven. Five or 10 minutes before I said "Good night" to Mrs. Rainsford I said "I am going home to have my supper," and went to go. I left my wife talking to Mrs. Rainsford. When I heard the whistle I went up to the top of the street to see what was the matter. I saw a crowd of people. I looked round and presently I saw a policeman come up like out of the crowd and walk to Daniels's house. On my oath I did not kick or strike either of these constables. I saw Mrs. Hurst that night. Not before the assault. I heard her say, "f——g old Mother Peters." I said to her, "You seem to be always picking her about; what is the matter? You cannot leave her alone. "She started holloaing and shouting. "Missus," I says, "come on, she will hang you; come down home." A constable came up, asked what was the matter, and I said, "It is her making all the row." He shoves her indoors and I went home. Two years ago, on a Saturday night, she and her daughter

had a quarrel outside my stall. I said to her, "Why don't you knock off and get further away? I have my living to get here. "People could not get to the stall. Before she went away she said, "All right, Doggie Peters, I will get my own back with you." Then we had some trouble about her soldier boy knocking a drunken man down. I said, "He ought to be ashamed of himself."

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. made up this story. She seems to have a grudge against me. I went to Mrs. Rainsford's house about five past 11. I did not stay there five minutes. I did not see Rainsford and the other two men coming down the road. I went home to supper. It is not true that Mrs. Hurst pulled me away, I did not say to Inspector Winter, "I was there, but I know nothing about it," or "I heard a police whistle blown and went out to see what the row was about," or "I did not kick the policeman, but Mrs. Hurst took hold of my arm and pulled me away." She did not say to me, "For God's sake do not kill the man. "I was not there. I did not say to the inspector, "I had been drinking that evening and did not know what did happen. I heard you were after me and am glad you have got me." He said, "I suppose you are drunk. "I said, "No, I had a drink." I do not know Rainsford well. They live opposite and I might happen to drop in once occasionally. I know nothing about young Hurst. If the truth was only found out I should think they have told him to say the story he has.

ELIZABETH PETERS , wife of prisoner Peters. On the night of August 29 I was talking with Mrs. Rainsford and my husband. I heard three young fellows singing. I saw two constables come down; one claimed a chap named Davis and the other claimed Rainsford and they both fell to the ground. Several people run from Thibet Street. Rainsford got away, but not before the blows struck. I did not see her husband come out of Thibet Street. I heard whistles blown. Then everybody ran out of their houses.

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. I did not give evidence at the police court. I was too late. I know the Rainsfords well. Only one constable fell to the ground. That was when he arrested Rainsford. I saw nobody kicking the constable or the constable kicking anyone. After the constable fell to the ground there was a kick given by a man named Davis. I told Inspector Parker this when he came and arrested my husband. I did not see Mrs. Hurst go out. I saw her when she took the whistle from the policeman's pocket. I did not see Mrs. Hurst pull my husband away from Barber or pull anyone. I did not see young Mr. Hurst run out. I did not see him later. The policeman laid there two or three minutes before Mrs. Hurst blew the whistle. Mrs. Hurst's story is not true. She was not there at the time.

MARTIN CRAWFORD , 14, Lithgow Street, labourer. On August 29 I went to bed about eight o'clock. Down Thibet Street there was a sing-song. I listened to this singing while I was in bed. I fell to sleep. I was aroused out of my sleep to hear screams. I looked out of the window and saw three women, saying, "Mr. Charles Daniels, come in; you don't want to have anything to do with it." I was

looking through the window then while they were getting him in. They shut the door. A body fell across the road. What it was I do not know, whether policeman or civilian. Presently three men run across the road after this body and started kicking. I put my head out of the window and said, "Stop beating him you dirty b——s; let the man get up and have a fair fight. "They took no notice. I put the top window up and opened the bottom. I shouted out the same Words, "Leave off, you dirty b——s." With that the three men run off round Lithgow Street. I heard the whistle blow afterwards. I was then putting on my trousers. I looked out and saw a woman leaning over a policeman trying to blow the whistle. Peters was not there. Peters did not come up until after the constable had been took off the ground into Mrs. Daniels's house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. I know Peters. I have not spoken a dozen words to him in two years. I saw Daniels being taken indoors. After that I saw a body fall from the corner of Thibet Street into. Lithgow Street. I do not know Mrs. Peters. Mrs. Ward used to live next door to me. I did not see Ward, Mrs. Hurst, or young Hurst run up. After I shouted the last time through the window they run away. The police whistle blew; the constable was lying en the ground, but nobody was there until such time as I saw this lady bending over the policeman. I did not see anyone pull anyone away from the policeman. I was 20 feet from the place of the assault. It occurred in front of my door.

EDITH DANIELS , sister of prisoner Daniels. I was on the doorstep of No. 9, Lithgow Street. I saw this row and what happened. I did not see Peters there at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. There was not a considerable crowd round the policeman at first. I did not see Rainsford arrested. I was there at the beginning. I saw a constable push Rainsford. He fell over and my brother picked him up. The constable fell also. Mrs. Hurst did not catch hold of Peters. She was not there. I did not see Mrs. Ward. Mrs. Hurst said, "Now is the time to get your own back. "I have never said that before. She said it to herself.

CHARLEY DANIELS (prisoner, on oath). On this night I left the "Duke of Westminster" at half past 10 o'clock. I went straight home, took my boots and socks off, and asked my mother for a piece of bread and meat. While she was cutting it a fire engine bell rang, and I ran up to the C. D.S. in my bare feet. I was running back and see Rainsford and Davis singing. Two policemen came across to Rainsford and told him to shut up. Rainsford caught hold of Davis's arm and persuaded him to go home. We were all a little under the influence of drink. Me, Rainsford, and another man walked into Lithgow Street. The constable followed behind. I left Rainsford with the other man and went and sat on a doorstep. Barber came up and felled Rainsford to the ground. I picked Rainsford up. Police-constable Hadrill was not to be found after Barber arrested Rainsford. I was dragged indoors. I never kicked or struck the constable.

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. I saw no one strike the constable.

Mrs. JESSIE FIRMINGER. I was just going to bed when the row commenced. I heard singing and then screaming. I looked out of a window and saw a crowd of people at the corner of Thibet Street, and a policeman came staggering from the corner. He fell down just outside my window. Peters followed and kicked him. Mrs. Hurst ran. up, knelt down by the man, and blew his whistle. Then she gave it up to another man. Then the constable was taken to Mrs. Daniels's house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. The constable could not have been unconscious when he was knocked down in the other street. He staggered right across Thibet Street. Then some man gave him a kick, put his hands in his pockets, and strolled away. Then two more came up and gave him kicks.

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. I saw no man pulled away from the policeman. I saw Charley Daniels's mother push him in the. door. Mrs. Hurst caught hold of Peters. He had been away and came back again. She caught hold of his arm. Mrs. Hurst was at the corner of Lithgow Street, at the other end, when the kicking was going on.

MARGARET FIRMINGER . I live next door to the last witness. I looked out of the window, as I heard screaming. I saw Mrs. Daniels and her daughter pulling Charley Daniels indoors. Then I saw a policeman stagger from across the road. Three, men kicked him. One was Peters. One man is not here. Mrs. Hurst tried to blow the whistle Then another man came up to try and blow it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bircham. When the constable was kicked he seemed to fall on his back. He was between the next door window to me and the next.

Cross-examined by Mr. Boyd. I saw Daniels's mother pulling him indoors. He was wearing no boots. I only heard him say, "Let me alone. "He tried to kick out to get away from his mother. It seemed as if he wanted to get back to the row. I do not know Peters. Peters kicked the constable. Hadrill is not the man I saw stagger across the road. The man I saw seemed darker than Barber. It was Barber I saw kicked.

Verdict: Rainsford, Guilty on the first, third, fourth, and fifth counts; Peters and Daniels, Guilty on the first and second counts.

Detective-sergeant JOHN PARKER, recalled. Rainsford has only been convicted once for assaulting the police; that was on August 17, 1906, for which he received 14 days' hard labour. Daniels was sentenced to one month's hard labour at the South-Western Police Court for assaulting a ticket collector. Rainsford is a flowerseller; he is hardworking, but in his spare time he gives way to drink, and then he does not seem responsible for his actions. Peters is a hard-working man, but when he is under drink he is of a quarrelsome nature.

Sentences: Rainsford, Nine months' hard labour; Peters, 15 months' hard labour; Daniels, 12 months' hard labour.


(Thursday, November 25.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-67
VerdictsNot Guilty > no evidence; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WILLIAMS, George John (44, cab attendant) was charged on coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Ernest Sharpe; the Grand Jury having thrown out the bill, no evidence was offered on the charge, and a verdict of not guilty was entered. Prisoner was indicted for an assault on Ernest Sharpe, occasioning him actual bodily harm. Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted.

GEORGE THOMAS TALBOT , cab shelter assistant. On October 12 I was on duty at the cab shelter in Piccadilly. Sharpe was a cab attendant there. He came in about one in the morning, and shortly afterwards prisoner entered; high words arose between the two about a woman; prisoner threatened to strike Sharpe, saying that he would break his jaw. I ordered both men out of the shelter, and they went. Shortly after that I was called outside; I saw Sharpe being lifted out of the gutter; he was unconscious and bleeding. Eventually he recovered consciousness; a gentleman paid for a cab and he was driven away.

To prisoner. I have known Sharpe to have had several rows and fights.

JAMES COMERFORD . I was in the shelter when Sharpe and the prisoner were rowing; when they went out I looked through the window and saw prisoner strike Sharpe on the face, knocking him into the gutter; Sharpe was not in a fighting attitude; only that one blow was struck, and prisoner walked away.

To prisoner. I did not see Sharpe strike you; I should have seen it if he had done so.

EDWARD EDWARDS , cab driver, said he was on the Piccadilly rank when Sharpe and the prisoner came out of the shelter. He heard prisoner say to Sharpe, "I am going to do it on you." Prisoner struck Sharpe two blows; Sharpe fell and prisoner walked away; witness said to prisoner, "Be a man, George, and pick him up. "Prisoner replied, "F——him, let him lay there."

Police-constable JAMES PAWLEY, 148 C. I was called to the cab rank. I saw Sharpe lying on the footway. He was conscious, but a bit dazed; he was bleeding from a small cut on the back of the head. I asked him to go to the hospital. He refused, saying, "I'm all right." He went off in a cab. Twenty minutes later prisoner came up to me. He said that he and Sharpe had been to a public-house and afterwards to the shelter; that they were ordered out of there; that Sharpe had quarrelled with him about a woman; that the woman had threatened to have the rank covered with his (prisoner's) blood; that Sharpe had said that when his arm was better he would go for prisoner. Prisoner added that he was very sorry that he had hit Sharpe.

To prisoner. I asked Sharpe if he would prosecute you and he refused, saying that he was all right.

JOHN STEPHEN DAVIS , cabdriver. On the day in question I was on the Piccadilly rank, about 1.15, and saw the man Sharpe lying on the pavement. Some men were bathing his head. I afterwards drove him to the hospital. Some gentleman gave him half a crown to pay his fare. I drove him to St. George's Hospital, but he refused to go in. He seemed to be all right then. I then drove him on to Walham Green, in the direction of his home. I set him down in Fulham Road, about 12 yards from the Broadway. He opened the cab doors and said he did not want to go any farther. He could walk, but seemed tottery. I do not know whether the blow made him dazed, or whether it was through drink. I did not like to see the man go away like it, but he refused to go any farther.

To prisoner. He wished me, "Good night," and I left him there. He said he was all right. I went to the Walham Green rank. I waited there about three minutes and got a fare. I looked inside my cab, but found nothing. I saw no blood there. Sharpe refused to give me any money out of the half-crown that had been given to him. I did not press him for it.

Police-constable ROBERT LORD, 672 B. About two a.m. on October 12 I was on duty in Effey Road, Walham Green, I saw a crowd, and on going there I saw a man lying on the footway with his head about the centre of the footway. I picked him up. There was just a stain of blood where he had been lying. He smelt of drink, and I naturally thought he was drunk. I took him to the station. Having recovered consciousness he walked there. He was examined by the divisional surgeon, who certified him to be drunk. He was taken to a cell. He made no statement. He gave his correct name and address.

To prisoner. I searched him at the station and found on him a box of matches, but no money.

Police-constable CHARLES WHITCOMBE, 67 B. On October 12 last I was with the last witness. I heard a loud thump and saw the man Sharpe lying on the pavement. There was blood there. He was picked up. He was inclined to be violent and wanted to free himself, as if he wanted to fight a man. I corroborate the last witness in the rest of his evidence.

To prisoner. I did not see him searched. I was about 60 yards from him when I heard him fall. I did not see him fall. It is possible he might have been knocked down two or three times and., robbed. I understand nothing was found on him. I was at the station when you came in 24 hours later. That was the first intimation I had of a brawl having happened in Piccadilly.

Inspector JOHN ELLIOT, B Division. I was on duty at Fulham Police Station on October 12, at about 2.10 a.m., when Sharpe was brought in. He was seen by the divisional surgeon and certified to be drunk. He was afterwards sent to a cell, and at the suggestion of the surgeon a constable was sent to watch him. At 5.30 I was spoken to by a constable and sent for the doctor again. Sharpe was examined by the doctor and sent to the infirmary. At 2.45 the following morning prisoner came to the station in a cab, about 25 hours

after Sharpe had been brought in. He made this statement to me: "About 12.45 a.m. on the 12th inst. me and Ernest Sharpe both came out of the pub and went into the cab shelter, Piccadilly. We were both the worse for drink and we commenced to quarrel, and the attendant of the cab shelter ordered us both out of the shelter. We went out. Sharpe hit me on the body and I struck him on the left side of the head with my right hand, and he fell on the ground. He fell on his back in the gutter. Somebody picked him up and he seemed all right, and I walked away to the other side of the rank. I afterwards heard from one of the people round about that someone gave him half a crown and put him in a cab to go home. This is all I know about it till this morning, when I heard from someone on the rank that he was dead. I went to the infirmary to verify it and came straight on here in a taxi-cab."

WILLIAM HALLEY , divisional surgeon. On the morning of October 12, between 2 and 2.30, I was called to the South Fulham Police Station and saw Sharpe in the charge-room. I examined his head, and found a small scalp wound at the back of recent origin, which was bleeding slightly. It might be described as a Y-shaped wound, an inverted Y. It was a superficial wound, and did not extend to the skull. He appeared to be in a dazed condition, though he was able to sit upright in a chair in the charge-room when I first saw him, and was able to give his correct name and address. He smelt very distinctly of alcohol, but in addition to his other symptoms I noticed that his pupils were unequal in size. This is an important diagnostic sign, and generally means compression of the brain. I thought it advisable to place him in a cell under the care of a constable. I was called to the station again about six and found the man had had a convulsion; he had stentorous breathing and was comatose. I then was certain that he was suffering from compression of brain, due in all probability to cerebral haemorrhage. I ordered his removal to the infirmary, which was done on the ambulance.

To prisoner. He had had a fit, and I was told had been very violent and had removed the bandages I had previously put on the head. I forgot to mention just now that there was a slight abrasion on the left side of the upper lip and one of the incisor teeth was missing—it had obviously been either recently extracted or knocked out. If the man had had a second fall on the back of his head he might have fallen precisely on the same spot. The wound that I saw was 1 1/2 inches long in its longest point. The wound had been washed, and we noticed at the time at the station that there was very little haemorrhage. It was an open wound, but not bleeding as much as one would have expected considering the nature of it. I should have expected blood to be found in the cab which conveyed the man if he was supporting the back of his head on the cushion of the cab; if he was lying on the side of his head there would not be any blood.

JOHN STEPHEN DAVIS , recalled; to prisoner. I stated at the coroner's inquest that when I drove the deceased along Piccadilly he was lying in the corner of the cab on the side of his head, when I looked down the trap.

THACKERAY PARSONS , medical superintendent, Fulham Infirmary. Sharpe was admitted there at 7.5 a.m. on October 12. I saw him about 9.30. He was unconscious. I found there was slight bruising about the upper lip on the left side, and inside the mouth there was a slight wound on the same lip. The tooth just beneath that wound was missing; it had been recently removed. At the back of the head there was a Y-shaped wound, shaped like an inverted Y about two inches long in the widest limbs. Three were no other injuries on the body. The man was unconscious; there was slight paralysis on the right side of the face. The pupils were unequal. He grew worse during the day, the paralysis extended, and the man died at 4.50 on October 12. I made a post-mortem examination the same day and found the same superficial injuries I have described, and beneath the wound at the back of the head there was a blood clot which extended right over the top of the head as far as the forehead. On removing the scalp I found there was a fracture in the upper part of the skull. The fracture consisted in a separation of the two sides of the skull. In front the bone itself was fractured. There was a little blood between the skull and the external membrane of the brain. There was a large blood clot covering the whole of the surface of the brain, and especially large in front. The lobe of the brain in front was slightly lacerated; there was no other injury to the external brain.

To prisoner. Presuming the deceased had been knocked down and robbed at Walham Green, the second blow might have caused his death. The more serious part of the injuries might have been due to that.


GEORGE JOHN WILLIAMS (prisoner, not on oath). I had known the deceased for a great number of years. A woman he used to live with had been seen coming up Piccadilly night after night this last eight months threatening me in his company. I have several times begged of him to keep her away. The night in question we came to blows over her. He struck me and I struck him once, and he slipped off the kerb into the gutter. It was not a spiteful blow at all. I walked away and two men picked him up. I came back, and he seemed all right and got in a cab. The man on the rank told me some gentleman had given him half a crown for a cab home. The next day I was told of his death. I was extremely distressed. By taking a taxi-cab to the infirmary I found out that it was true, and then I went to Walham Green Police Station, where I told the police all I knew about it. I was very grieved, as we had been friends for years. I have not had a single complaint against me the whole of the time I have been on the rank.

Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner was given a good character. Sentence, Three months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-68
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SMITH, William (40, piano repairer) , assaulting Albert George Somers, with intent to commit an unnatural offence.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-68a
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

FLETCHER, Nathan Turner (39, labourer), pleaded guilty of feloniously sending to Nathan Turner, knowing the contents thereof, a letter demanding money of him with menaces and without any reasonable or probable cause.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-69
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

RUSSELL, John (33, cabdriver) , pleaded guilty of feloniously wounding Lily Ward, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Doughty prosecuted; Mr. W. B. Campbell defended.

LILY WARD . I was rather bad on November 1 and 2, when the police court evidence was first taken, but I feel quite well now. The wound in my back is quite right and I feel no evil consequences from the injury. The prisoner and I lived together for some considerable period before November I as man and wife. During that time he treated me very well indeed, and found everything I wanted in the way of money and clothing. He was fond of me and I of him. I gave him cause for jealousy about another man. He found me in a public-house with him. When I came out of the public-house the prisoner committed the assault upon me. It was done all of a sudden. I recommend him to the merciful consideration of the Court with all my heart.

Sentence, Three months' hard labour.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-70
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

FISHER, William (23, labourer) , rape on Amy Evans. Mr. Oliver and Mr. Hughes prosecuted; Mr. Gorell Barnes defended.

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Thursday, November 25.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-71
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

GRANTHAM, Alfred (21, baker) , carnally knowing Margaret May Dickinson, a girl above the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years, and unlawfully taking the said Margaret May Dickinson, a girl under the age of 18 years, out of the possession and against the will of her father, with intent that she should be carnally known.

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

(Thursday, November 25, and Friday, November 26.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-72
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

WADE, Arthur (34, coach painter), and SUATT, Emma (33, dressmaker) , both unlawfully taking Rosetta Suatt, an unmarried girl under the age of 18 years, out of the possession and against the will of her mother, Eliza Ann Suatt, with intent that she the said Rosetta Suatt should be carnally known by Arthur Wade.

Verdict (both), Not guilty.


(Friday, November 26.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-73
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

BRUHAN, Louis (24, hairdresser) ; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain receipt for money, to wit, a Post Office money order for the sum of £3 19s. 2d., and did feloniously steal the said order.

Mr. Cornes prosecuted.

ANTOINE BRUAN , waiter, 29, Belper Mansions, Grosvenor Gardens.

On October 4 I lived at 4, Bennett Street. I have a brother in Switzerland named Romano. I wrote to him to send some money, which he did on October 4. I never received it. He wrote that he had sent it. On October 7 or 8 I went to the G. P.O. to make enquiry. They told me it was cashed. I have the document that was cashed. The signature on it is not mine. I have not received letters at 4, Bennett Street before, but I have received some since. I do not think I have missed any. I went to the police. I afterwards found prisoner in the street. I asked him to sign something. He did so. (Two documents handed to the jury.) I was not present when he was arrested.

Cross-examined by Prisoner. When the order did not arrive I did not complain to the landlady; I wrote to my brother. When he replied I did not complain to her. I went to the money order office after asking the landlady if letters had come for me. She said, "I think I gave it to the other in mistake. "After you wrote down your name I gave you in charge. I do not think I received any letters before addressed the same as the money order. I admitted in the police court I had received two or three letters. I do not think I told you I received letters on October 12. I said in the police court I received two or three letters in September. Your name was very similar to mine. I think I always received my letters.

MARY ROCHE , lodging-house keeper, 4, Bennett Street. Prisoner stayed with me from the middle of September until October 11. He spelt his name to me B-r-a-u-n. He said, "Take the name Brown, but later on I give you another name." On October 7 I gave him a letter and a card. The name on it was Bruan. The reason I gave in the letter was that he had not given me his real name, and I made a mistake. The prisoner's wife left my house on October 8. He left October 11. He has not been back. He owes me nothing. He has received letters at my house. This envelope is exactly like what I received.

To Prisoner. I gave this letter to you in mistake. The postman asked me if I have the same name in my house as you.

Prisoner. I never received any letter since October 2. Judge Rentoul. You say she did not hand you this letter?

Prisoner. Certainly. I never saw it.

Sergeant THOMAS CASE, P Division. In consequence of what prosecutor told me I accompanied him to 40, Foley Street, and saw prisoner in the front parlour. Prosecutor identified him. I told

him I was a police officer and that he was accused of stealing this money order and of cashing it. He said, "I never had a letter from the landlady since I had a registered letter a fortnight ago. She is telling lies. "Prosecutor had told me that the landlady had given this letter to prisoner. I saw the landlady, and she said, "Yes, I have; I am positive I have." (To the Judge.) The envelope produced is only a sample envelope which the Post Office supplied. The magistrate asked what sort of envelope it was, and asked me to request a copy from the Post Office.


Louis BRUHAN (prisoner, on oath). I have never received this money order from the housekeeper of Bennett Street, and I have not cashed it, and I do not know anything about it at all. My wife left on October 7, an invitation, which I show that postcard to the magistrate, a written invitation. She went away for a week-end with her sister, and I left on Monday and we took another lodging. I left there for a good reason. I only moved a little further along, and passed the house three or four times a day. On October 27 or 28 I passed the house and witness and prosecutor asked me to come in the house. Witness said, "I must have given this money order to you in mistake. Will you please put your signature down, your handwriting, and compare it with the signature on the money order. "I have done it, and my wife, too, willingly, and after I have taken prosecutor to my lodging and showed him my papers and my passport and everything, witness said, "I do not think that is your name, but you have given me that name." (To the Judge.) My name is Bruhan. I have received two letters and one postcard, and prosecutor several letters as well.

Cross-examined. My wife left on October 7. I left on Monday, the 11th. She received the postcard, I believe, on the 6th to go down to her sister. I showed that very postcard to the magistrate. It was left in court. My wife took her things with her when she went away. The landlady knew she was not coming back. I complained a week before to the landlady that bad language was going on. She said it was the people next door, and I was to knock on the door when there is bad language. I did not tell her my address, 48, Poland Street. I told her on Friday I expect a situation in Liverpool or Brighton as an excuse for going away. I spell my name B-r-o-h-a-i-n.

Verdict, Not guilty.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-74
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown

Related Material

CUNNINGHAM, Florence (30, charwoman) , indicted for feloniously marrying John Benedit Tuckey, her husband being then alive, and that, having the custody of Frank Walter Cunningham, a child under the age of 16 years, to wit, of the age of two years, she did wilfully neglect him in such a manner as to cause him unnecessary suffering and injury to his health, pleaded guilty of bigamy, not guilty on the second indictment.

Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted.

ANNIE BROWN , 167, King's Cross Road. On June 14 last prisoner asked me to take charge of her little boy Frank, two years and four months old. Her husband promised to pay me 2s. 6d. a week. The child was in very bad condition, badly nourished. His head was sore and verminous. I kept the child until September 6. He was then in beautiful condition as now. He had only the mark of the burn on the wrist caused by the mother on June 14. I saw it again on October 2. It was in a shocking condition. His head wad sores, his body was sores, also his feet, and the inflammation almost ran as far as his knee. I could not say the cause of the sores unless it was want of cleaning.

Mrs. HUBAND. In February last prisoner brought this child Frank for me to look after. She promised to pay me 4s. a week. It was dirty and verminous. I had it for seven or eight weeks. I only received 7s. altogether. The prisoner fell ill during the time. I was not aware of it. I found out where she was living and took the child to her, as my husband fell out of work.

Mrs. MOORE. On August 20 I let a room to prisoner and Mr. Tuckey. On September 6 she brought a child. It was in a nice clean healthy condition. While in our house, so far as I could see, she kept the child clean. She brought the child to my house the day she married, a week after she took the lodgings. She was mostly the worse for, drink. I had the child left on my hand for 3 1/2 days During that time I fed and washed the child. Its head was in such a dreadful state that I contracted its complaint and had to go to a hospital. When prisoner left the child on my hands she said she was going to pledge some laundry and would be back in an hour. I went in search of her next day. I found her in a public-house and she said she would come the next morning and fetch it. She did not come. I went again in search of her and said, "If you do not come and fetch the child I shall take it to the workhouse; it wants medical attention." She said, "Take it to the workhouse; George Cunningham is the father of that child, and let him keep it. "It was in a very bad condition when she went away on September 29. It could not stand on its little feet, they were sore, and its head was in a terrible state.

JOHN DANSEY , Inspector of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I examined the child on October 2. I found its head one mass of sores, hair matted, verminous. I found sores on different parts of the body, feet much swollen, and painful to the touch. The child could not stand. The clothing consisted of combinations, a lady's vest, thin cotton jacket. They were very dirty and foul smelling. I called in the doctor.


Mrs. LUMLEY. I have known prisoner four years. She lived at my house nine months. She then came back again and brought a little baby, four weeks old, from the infirmary. She stayed then

until October. Then she went into the workhouse to ask for maintenance from her husband. While she was with me she kept the child most clean. She was a most devoted mother, not only to her own but to my child when I lay on a bed of sickness. I can honestly say I only once saw her the worse for drink.

ETHEL CARTHRY . Eight months ago I lived in the same house with the prisoner. The child was clean all that time. She was there about six months. All that time the child was clean. She never got incapably drunk. She always knew how to look after her child.

GEORGE CUNNINGHAM , husband of prisoner. I consider the position prisoner is in now is brought about by bad companions and drink. We were married on June 6, 1903. We separated last October 12 months. I lived with her five or six years on and off. It is my child. She was always a good mother to the child while it was with me and also a good wife, very industrious, with the exception of the time when she was drinking.

FLORENCE CUNNINGHAM (prisoner, on oath). My child was not a full-time child. I separated from my husband because of his ill-treatment. I have had two separation orders from him. I have always been a good wife and mother. He has been a good husband, but he could not keep his hands off me when I had drink.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Twelve months in the second division.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-75
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

TROWBRIDGE, William (60, labourer) , carnally knowing Maggie Louisa Trowbridge, his daughter, a girl aged 14 years; carnally knowing the said Maggie Louisa Trowbridge, a girl under the age of 16 years, well knowing her to be under the age of 16 years, and indecently assaulting her.

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


(Friday, November 26.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-76
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

NICHOLLS, Alfred Ernest (19, labourer) , feloniously wounding Charles Nicholls, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Mahaffey prosecuted; Mr. H. J. Turrell defended.

CHARLES NICHOLLS , labourer, Carrington House, Deptford. On September 11 I was living at 13, Aldeburgh Road, Greenwich. Prisoner is my son. On that night I had trouble with my wife. I came in about a quarter to 12, and there was a disturbance inside the house. I had had my supper and went upstairs to go to bed. My wife started to abuse me, and used bad language. I lost my temper at the words she called me and rushed down the stairs after her, and outside the front door on the pavement I struck my wife. Then I turned round and went back into the house. When I went down the passage after my wife prisoner was not in the passage. When I got

to the first room I heard my son say, "I shall leave this place," or something to that effect. I went into the room and said, Take off your things; it is all over now," and with that he removed his coat and his jacket. After that I went from the passage to the front door. Seeing my wife cross the road I asked her to come back into the house. Just before I reached my wife I felt something stinging sharp-like go into my back. I turned round sharply and see my son standing at the back of me, and I see something glittering in his hand, but I was not able to distinguish what it was. I felt blood trickling down my back. I was wearing two shirts at the time. I went to the man who lives next door and asked him if he would go with me to the doctor. He took me to the doctor, and I was afterwards taken to the hospital on an ambulance.

Cross-examined. I am not aware that I am a very violent man when in drink. I was not in drink on this night. My wife left me to go up to bed. I was not very angry because she left me downstairs with my supper. I did not accuse her of going out of the house and going with other men. My daughter, Mabel Dixon, was there, and no doubt heard what took place. I did not strike my wife or daughter in the house. I have a daughter called Elsie who is 15 years of age. Prisoner did not ask me not to strike her, because she was ill. I did not say I would kick her backside. I did not say I would kick her guts out. I did not smack her face. I was not so drunk that I did not know what I was doing. I may tell you that from the time I left work at 12 o'clock in the morning till the time I returned I had only drunk five or six glasses of ale. That was a matter of 12 hours. I do not know when I struck my wife where my fist went. I saw when she came to see me in the hospital she had a very black eye. I agree that the effect of the blow was to knock her down into the gutter. I was not going to give her another blow when prisoner struck me with the knife. I was crossing the road to my wife to ask her to come in and make no more row, but before I could get to her I was struck in the back. I was not pursuing her with the intention of striking another blow, but prisoner possibly might have thought I was. I had no intention of striking her again. I did not know before I attended before the magistrate that my daughter was married during the time I was lying in hospital, expected not to live. She never left the house in consequence of my violence towards my wife. I did not threaten to strangle prisoner nor seize him by the throat.

ALFRED THORNE , labourer, 54, Aldeburgh Road. On September 11, towards midnight, I was standing outside No. 13, Aldeburgh Road. I saw prisoner with a knife in his hand. I had been talking to some friends, and saw a crowd of people there. Then I saw two or three people holding prisoner. I went behind him and took the knife away from him.

Police-constable ALFRED HONEYBUNN, R Division. On the morning of September 12 I went to Dr. Price's surgery at Woodpecker Road, Greenwich, where I saw the prosecutor. Afterwards I went to 13, Aldeburgh Road, where I saw prisoner held. I said to prisoner, "Is jour name Alfred Nicholls?" He replied, "Yes." I said, "I am

going to arrest you for stabbing your father quite recently in Aideburgh Road. "He made no reply. On the way to the police station prisoner said, "He tried to strangle me and mother. "At the station he said, "Father was rowing with mother; mother was screaming. I got up and went into the street. Father caught me by the throat and pushed me into the front room. I then took the knife off the table, ran into the street, and went behind father and just touched him on the shoulder with the knife, about half an inch. "I received the knife produced from last witness.

MABEL DIXON , wife of George Dixon. I have been married since the occasion of my father being stabbed.

Cross-examined. Over three years ago I left the house in consequence of my father's violence. He is a violent man when in drink. I was at the house that night. Mother brought my father his supper and put it on the table, and then she went to bed. He called her down and asked her what she had gone to bed for. Upstairs he made accusations against her of going out with other men. She said she had been out with Elsie. He did not strike mother in the house. He went to strike my little sister, and she screamed. Then he ran after my little sister and tried to kick her, but she missed the kick. I pushed mother out into the street. Before that he had said to her, "Do not scream. If you scream (using a word) I will kick your entrails out. "Immediately after that my mother and sister went out into the street. He followed them and struck mother in the face, knocking her down and giving her a black eye. She got up and attempted to get away from him. He ran after her, and was just going to strike her again when my brother inflicted this wound upon him.

Judge Lumley Smith. How do you know he was going to strike her again?

Witness. Father has always been the same. He is never satisfied with giving mother one blow.

Cross-examined. When my sister screamed my brother ran out from his room and said, "Father, you must not hit her, leave alone kick her, because she is not very well. "With that father turned round and said, "Don't you take her part. I will strangle you," and with that he caught prisoner by the throat in the passage and threw him into the front room.

EDWARD COOMBER HOBBS , medical practitioner. On the morning of Sunday, September 12, I examined Charles Nicholls at the Miller Hospital at Greenwich. He was in a state of collapse and bleeding from an incised wound inside the left shoulder blade. The appearance of the wound was consistent with it having been caused by the knife produced. The wound was 1 1/2 inches deep and about a quarter of an inch long; it was a stab, not a cut. The knife produced is very sharp pointed and a dangerous weapon. I thought the condition of Nicholls was very serious, and that it was desirable to have his evidence taken as that of a dying man. His evidence was accordingly taken on Monday by Mr. Hutton, the magistrate. Nicholls left the hospital on October 24, and no doubt will be all right in a short time.

To the Court. He will be able to do his work all right in a month or two.

Cross-examined. It would not require very much force to cause the wound.

Detective-Sergeant FRANK BEAVIS, R Division. I saw prisoner at Deptford Police Station, and said to him, "I have seen your father, who is detained in the Miller Hospital suffering from a severe wound in the back. I shall therefore charge you with unlawfully wounding him by stabbing him in the back with a sheath knife early this morning." He said, "Yes, I understand; he has been asking for it for many years. He has acted very cruel to mother and all of us; we never get any peace. When in drink he accuses mother of doing things we know she is not guilty of. He was rowing with mother, and I could not stand it any longer. I am sorry I used the knife; I thought I only just touched him with it." When the charge was read over he made no reply.

Cross-examined. I also saw the wife; she had a very bad black eye. I know prisoner. He is a respectable man, employed on the railway as a platelayer. From inquiries I have made. I have reason to believe that prosecutor is a very violent man when in drink.


ALFRED ERNEST NICHOLLS (prisoner, on oath). Up to this moment no charge has ever been made against me. I remember my father coming home on the night of September 11. He was not much in drink; he had had his share, that was all. I did not see him having his supper, but I heard him rowing with mother in the bedroom. I was in bed and got up. I heard my little sister scream and rushed downstairs. I saw my father hitting my sister on the head. He said if she screamed any more he would kick her entrails out. I told, him not to hit Elsie, because she was ill at the time. Without saying anything he caught me by the throat, held me a little time, and then pushed me into the front room. Father came in to me afterwards and told me not to go out. I said, "I have had enough of this; I want to go out." He said, "You do not want to go out; it is all over," and with that I heard some shouting outside. I did not hear what was said; they were arguing with one another. Mother was shouting at father and father was shouting at mother. Father was in the passage and mother was in the street. Father then went out of the house and made a dash at mother, and hit her and knocked her down. My sister helped her up. My mother was sober that night. She ran across the road with her hands to her face. I saw my father run after her again, and as I thought he was going to strike her again, I struck him in the back with the knife. Then I was held by the crowd and the knife taken from me. The knife belongs to one of my fellow-workmen. I had had it in my possession about three weeks. He used it for mending boots with, and gave it to me to mend my boots with or to cut leather with, and I have used it for that purpose. I thought it necessary for my

mother's protection to interfere with my father, and I had no other means of interfering with him except by using the knife. It would have been useless to attack him with my fists.

ADA NICHOLLS , wife of prosecutor. I remember my husband coming home on September 11. He was in drink. I got him his supper and then went to bed. He called upstairs to know why I went to bed and I said, "I always go to bed when I am not feeling well. "He did not finish his supper, but came up after me and started making use of abusive language. He made a charge against me with regard to other men. That is always the subject—the first thing and the last. I am not guilty of it. I told him I had been down the Lower Road to get him his supper with little Elsie. He started abusing me. Then he came downstairs again and I followed him. Downstairs he struck me and little Elsie screamed. He said if she screamed again he would kick her entrails out. After that he made a rush at me. My daughter opened the door for me to go out. He said, "Shut that door." I saw my husband holding my son by the throat. I screamed and Elsie also screamed. Then he came out into the street and struck me in the eye. I do not remember much afterwards.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding without felonious intent and under great provocation.

Detective-sergeant BEAVIS (recalled) said prisoner had been employed for the past three years at the South-Eastern Engineering Works and bore an excellent character. He was a life-long teetotaler and a highly respectable man. He had been discharged from his employment on account of stabbing his father and it was doubtful whether the company would take him back. Prisoner was still living with his mother, and his father had not been home since the occurrence. The mother, he understood, had got to clear out of the house because she had not paid her rent; the father had gone to a lodging-house.

Judge Lumle'y Smith said he did not know whether a prisoner had ever been let out on recognisances in such a serious affair as this, but all the same he was going to bind him over in this case. Prisoner had been telling them that his father was very violent, but prisoner himself had shown great violence, and the knife produced was a dreadful thing to strike a man with.

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


(Saturday, November 27.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-77
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

HESSINGER, Albert (53, interpreter) , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £44 13s. 7d; obtaining by false pretences from Dan Chapman a certain valuable security, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment and of the value of £44 13s. 7d., in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Tully-Christie prosecuted.

DAN CHAPMAN , licensee of the "Wheatsheaf," Goldhawk Road, Shepherd's Bush. Prisoner came into my house on March 29 and asked me if I would cash a cheque that he had received from a bookmaker for £44 13s. 7d., signed in the name of "Tom Newsman. "I took he cheque and gave him my own cheques in exchange. My cheque was paid by my bankers and the cheque prisoner had given me was returned marked "No account. "I know prisoner's handwriting and the endorsement on the cheque I gave him is written by him. I next saw prisoner riding on a 'bus some time in October. I ran after the 'bus and told him I should like to speak to him, and after some little chat he came down to me. I then said to him, "What are you going to do about this cheque?" He said he was very sorry, but he was very hard up at the time; he owed so much money he was forced to draw this cheque, but he was willing to pay 10s. a week off the amount. I asked him to accompany me to a constable and give his name and address. I then gave him in charge. He admitted writing the name himself, but said that as it was a fictitious name he thought he ought not to be charged with forgery.

To Prisoner. I am aware that you had business relations with a bookmaker named Walsh, because I have cashed other cheques of his for you.

WILLIAM GEORGE ABBOTT , builder, 138, Brighton Road, South Croydon. I had an account with the London and Joint Stock Banking Company last December, which I closed in February. I gave a blank cheque out of my cheque book to a man named Bailey. I do not know prisoner.

GEORGE BAILEY , 13, Bayonne Street, Hammersmith. Last Christmas I was visiting friends of mine where prisoner had boarded. He asked me if I had such a thing as an old blank cheque. I said I had not and asked him what did he want it for. He said, "To have some fun with some friends concerning a football sport. "I said, "Well, if that is all you want it for I daresay my governor, Mr. Abbott, will give me one. "I asked Mr. Abbott for one, explaining to him what it was for. He gave it to me and I gave it to Mr. Hessinger, thinking that Mr. Hessinger was a trustworthy gentleman and no wrong would come of it. It was not filled in when I gave it to prisoner. This was about three weeks after Christmas, as near as I can remember.

CHARLES JAMES ALLEN , cashier, Holborn branch, London Joint Stock Bank. Mr. Abbott had an account at the bank which was closed some time ago. We returned the cheque produced marked "No account. "We gave the cheque book produced to Mr. Abbott on December 19. I do not know prisoner.

Detective-sergeant BENJAMIN ALLEN, T Division. On October 4 I saw prisoner detained at Shepherd's Bush Police Station. I told him the charge. He replied, "How can I be charged with forgery when

the person whose name is on the cheque does not exist? I found the cheque in an envelope in the street. I wrote the whole of it. I was hard up and wanted the money. "I then charged him. He made no reply.

Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction in 1901.

Chief Inspector JAMES STOCKLEY. I was present at this court when prisoner was sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude by the Common Serjeant on February 4, 1901, for uttering a forged order on a bank. At that time a conviction of three months at Leeds Assizes on December 3, 1898, for fraud in the name of Hicks was proved against him. Prior to his arrest in February, 1901, I saw him in prison in Brussels, where he was serving a term of two years' imprisonment for a similar offence. At the expiration of that sentence he was brought to this country and tried in respect of a series of forgeries committed with his brother. It was for that offence he received a sentence of 10 years. His brother was indicted about 18 months before. He also received a sentence of 10 years' imprisonment, but died in prison. For some years prisoner was engaged in carrying out a series of forgeries with his brother and two other men. After his release he failed to report to the police and since then I had not seen him until I saw him in custody on this charge. The police regard him as a most dangerous forger, and some of the forgeries have been of such a nature that they must have taken months to concoct.

Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-78
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

MOSS, Clement George (39, commercial traveller) , having received certain property, to wit, divers moneys amounting to £84 10s. 7d., for and on account of Batey and Company, Limited, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Mr. H. J. Turrell prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.

WILLIAM THOMAS CHADNEY , director of Batey and Company, 99 and 101, Farringdon Street. On September 15, 1908, the agreement produced was entered into with the defendant and signed by him. He then became traveller for the firm, and it was his duty to collect moneys and to remit them to the firm. From time to time accounts of moneys were sent by him. Down to September 1 of this year all went satisfactorily. On that day we received an account dated August 31, showing £24 12s. 1d. due to the firm with the note, "Money order to follow." That money never came. I afterwards went to Newcastle and saw prisoner. On October 30 a letter was written suspending him, and after that date no sums were paid to him for commission. I think his last cheque was sent on September 12. When he came into our employ we had a guarantee from the 13. Fidelity Deposit Company. When we found he was short in his 14. accounts we reported the matter to them, and they required this prosecution 15. to take place under a clause in their bond. When I saw 16. prisoner in Newcastle on October 15 I spoke to him about being short 17. in his money. He said, "I have collected £80 odd, moneys belonging 18. to the company, and not turned them in. About £60 of this

amount I have disbursed"—or "distributed" I think, the word was—" among the trade in secret commissions to grocers or special discounts to the assistants, or, rather, in secret commissions to grocers' assistants, and special discounts to the grocers. "He also said, "About £20 I have had to spend since you have cut off my remittances during my sickness. I have been an ass, and if you could possibyl overlook it nothing of this sort will occur in future. "He appeared to be in great distress and suffering both mental and physical. He said his conscience would keep him awake at night. I told him if he had called our attention to his difficulties earlier we might have been able to assist him, but the matter was in the guarantee company's hands and we could not act. I advised him to write to the company stating the exact condition of his accounts to enable us to put them in order, and he said he would do so. I think on October 20 we received from him an account similar to the one of August 31. All the accounts were in his handwriting and signed by himself. None of the money mentioned in that account has ever been paid to my firm. I never authorised or in any way consented to the application of that money in any other way than is provided for by the terms of the agreement.

Cross-examined. When we took him into our employment we had a very high character with him. I think there were two references, and there was further investigation by the Fidelity Deposit Company. His business was all in the North of England. He was only entitled to give a cash discount, and he should have remitted the exact amount collected. It is true that when he started he only had two customers, and he very soon obtained a remarkably good connection. I wrote and congratulated him upon the business he was doing, and month after month he properly accounted for his moneys. The proper discount for him to allow was 2 1/2 per cent. At the interview in October he told me he had given as much as 5 per cent., and in a few instances 7 1/2 per cent. That would no doubt make people very keen to deal with prisoner, but what he did was not authorised. Since his suspension we have been written to in one instance to do business on the same terms, which we have refused to do. Prisoner has not in a single instance falsified his accounts, and we can tell exactly from his accounts what business he has been doing. We did not furnish him with any commission account after January 1, when we. arranged to send him a cheque weekly for £5 as a sort of guarantee. Prisoner was perfectly aware that he was not earning the amount we paid him, but he did not obtain it by fraud or misrepresentation. He wrote us on October 15, "At last I am able to sit up long enough to let you have particulars of amounts collected by me, some of which you have already had particulars of, but in order to facilitate matters I am sending you full particulars of all amounts collected with discounts. I may say in passing I have not used one penny of this amount for my personal use, but it has all gone in paying special discounts and allowances to customers on my ground. If I had not been taken ill I could have arranged matters, but after my weekly allowance was stopped I was powerless. "His allowance was stopped, I think, on

September 12. "All I have to say is that I place myself in your hands, not wishing in any way to try to vindicate my action in. allowing these discounts and allowances, but I would respectfully draw your attention to the fact that if you decide to take extreme measures it will cause a serious scandal in the grocery trade, as I am in a position to prove that I have paid in cash these discounts and allowances out of the amount which is now short. I blame no one for this state of affairs but myself. "If we had had the explanation earlier and had not been forced by the guarantee society, we might have looked at things in a different light. I believe he did business to the amount of £2,200 in ten months.

WILLIAM EBBUTTS , clerk in the employment of Messrs. Batey and Co. I receive collecting sheets from travellers. None of the sums mentioned in this account (amounting to £84 10s. 7d.) have been paid.

Detective-Inspector ANDREW TATE, Newcastle police. On October 29 defendant came to the police station at Newcastle and said, "I wish to give myself up." I said to him, "For what?" He replied, "I have embezzled £85, the moneys of my employers, Messrs. Batey and Co., of 99-101, Farringdon Road, London. I am troubled in my conscience over it, and cannot get to sleep at nights. I want it settled and done with." I detained him and wired to the Assistant Commissioner of the Criminal Investigation Department, New Scotland Yard, and on the following day we received a reply to liberate prisoner at once. A summons which had been granted in London was served upon him.

Cross-examined. I have made enquiries about prisoner. He has always borne the highest possible character. He has been just fourteen months in England, during most of that time in Newcastle-on-Tyne. He has lodged in two different places, and the people there give him a character for keeping regular hours and leading a quiet life. Abroad he has held very good employments in Durban, Cape Town, and New Zealand.


CLEMENT GEORGE Moss (prisoner, on oath). No charge of any sort has ever been made against me. When I was abroad I had the handling of money in most of the positions that I held. I started at Batey's with two customers, and in ten months I worked the connection up to £2,200, notwithstanding the fact that I was very ill last winter. I admit that to an extent I did break the rules and regulations of my agreement. The conditions on which sales were made were 2 1/2 per cent, discount in ten days and half the cost of package. In most cases my customers got 5 per cent., without any charge for packages. In some cases I gave 7 1/2 per cent. That was not known to my employers. I paid the extra discount out of the moneys I collected for the firm. It was not money that went into my pocket, except to the extent of £15 or £20 when my cheque was stopped. I had £5 a week, and out of that I had to pay my travelling expenses.

I became ill and was unable to continue my business, and in the last few weeks I was unable to get out at all.

Cross-examined. I said before the magistrate, "I admit taking £84 10s. 7d. and using it for purposes to which I was not authorised to apply it. "If I had not been ill I should have replaced the money. I did not apply the money for my own purposes. By giving these special discounts and these allowances I was increasing the output for Batey and Co. I cannot say definitely what amount I applied in paying these discounts and allowances. Mr. Chadney told me he had received a letter from one of my customers asking them to execute an order on the same terms that they had from me. He knew then that I had been giving these discounts, and it was for that reason he came to see me at Newcastle. The result is that these were payments by the firm of which they knew nothing. I built up my connection in what I regarded as the soundest possible way. If I had not given these percentages I should have done less business.

Judge Lumley Smith. The result is that you have built up your connection and the firm lose £80.

Prisoner. They have regained it in the big connection I built up in ten months.

Verdict, Not guilty.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-79
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MASKELL, Arthur (18, labourer) . Attempting to procure the commission of an act of gross indecency with another male person in Hyde Park.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Two months' hard labour.


(Saturday, November 27.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-80
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

GREENSLADE, William Henry (42, butcher), and GREENSLADE, Elizabeth (39, no occupation) , both feloniously causing grievous bodily harm to Hubert Ellis, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. A. H. Pocock prosecuted; Mr. J. Oddy defended.

HUBERT ELLIS , 30, Marston Road, Hackney, bricklayer. I have been lodging with the prisoners. On October 19, 1909, at 6 to 7 p.m., I was outside the house with the male prisoner. He had a dog which he had found, and which I offered to show to the landlord of a public-house three doors away to see if he would buy it. I took the dog into the public-house, and when the door was opened it ran away. Greenslade said, "Now you have lost my dog." I said, "What a bad job"—I was glad the dog was gone. He said, "Can you fight?" I said, "No, and I do not want to." He took his jacket off, invited me across the road, and struck me. Of course, I struck him back and knocked him down. He went indoors. I followed him into the passage and we kept fighting; he knocked me down; a

number of pictures were broken; then Mrs. Greenslade set on me and I felt a sharp pain in my arm. They pushed me out into the street and I asked for my coat; a daughter of the prisoners brought me two coats. I picked out mine and she kept the other. I then became faint and was taken to the infirmary. (To the Judge.) I asked Greenslade if I could show the landlord the dog—I wanted to help him to sell it. I was glad he escaped, because he had been kept in and I was glad he should have his liberty. After prisoner struck me I kept striking him back. When we were in the passage my arm seemed to give way—to drop, and when I got out I felt the blood running down. Mrs. Greenslade told me to get out of the house.

Cross-examined. I am a bricklayer and ordinarily carry a trowel. I had not one on this occasion. I changed my jacket at 9 a.m. and put the trowel upstairs behind a clothes box, as I was going to work the next morning. I had a small pocket knife in my waistcoat pocket. I had not been indoors during the day. I met both prisoners about 5 to 5.30 p.m. and had two drinks with them. I was on perfectly good terms with them. I had had a few drinks, but I was sober. I had had something to eat in the public-house before I went for the dog. The male prisoner was excited, but not drunk. When prisoner found the dog he told me he had a market for it. The landlord of the public-house wanted to look at it because he had a dog exactly like it. If prisoner had sold the dog he might have given me something out of it. I did not try to find the dog when he ran away—I had all my work to do to protect myself. I said I could not fight, but I had a go at him and knocked him down; we were fighting outside about two minutes. I followed him into the passage; both of us fell down together. There was falling glass—the glass fell over me. I do not see how the glass could have cut me. When I got up I found the blood all over my arm. After the job had happened Mrs. Greenslade was trying to push me out of the door—I did not see a knife or any other instrument in her hand; I do not remember seeing her at all before I was asked to get out of the house. Two or three bits of glass fell out of my trousers afterwards. When I was standing outside a constable came; I must have told him about it; I hardly know what I said to him. I do not say it was a drunken row.

Re-examined. The dog ran away from the public-house. There was a crowd outside while the fight was going on.

Police-constable FREDERICK ELSON, 522 J. On October 19, at about 7.30 p.m., I was called to Marston Road and saw the prosecutor. The female prisoner came to the door of No. 30; prosecutor said, "That is the woman, the man is inside. I was having a struggle in the passage, we struggled and fell, and the woman fell on top of me. I felt a pain here—what it was done it I do not know. "The female prisoner was jumping about, swearing and carrying, on like a lunatic. Both she and the prosecutor were not sober. I went into the house with a police sergeant and found the male prisoner sitting in the kitchen. I took him to the station; he was charged and said, "It is a serious charge." He was drunk; they

were all three the worse for drink; they were not incapable, but they were drunk—they knew what they were doing. I went back to the house and found in the table drawer knife produced, which is stained; it looked to me bloodstained.

Cross-examined. I went back to the house about an hour afterwards and found the knife after searching. There was no congealed blood on it. I did not arrive at the conclusion that that was the knife, but I brought it for the doctor to examine, as it was the only knife I could find which was stained. The kitchen is very close to the passage. When I went there the first time I did not notice any glass; the second time there was glass in the back yard—the passage had been swept up.

Sergeant ARTHUR BROWN, 63J. On October 19, at about 8 p.m., I was in Mars ton Road. The female prisoner was at the door; prosecutor said, "Yes, that is the woman; we have all been fighting. I have been fighting with her and her husband, and one of them stabbed me. "I saw the male prisoner taken into custody, and assisted the prosecutor to the station. When we reached the road the female prisoner came up and said, "He ought to have cut your throat instead of your arm, you dirty cur," and struck him a violent blow which almost knocked him down. When charged the male prisoner said, "That is a very serious charge. I am sorry. Can I have bail?" All three had been drinking.

Cross-examined. The woman was very excited when she spoke to the prosecutor. She followed us until we met another constable, when I asked him to bring her to the station. When I arrived there the man had been arrested, but had not left the house—he was in the kitchen. There was a crowd of people as we went to the station. We did not take the female prisoner at first as we had not sufficient assistance. I 'made a search for a knife or instrument which might have inflicted the wound, but found nothing. There was glass in the back yard. The prisoners were searched, but no knife or instrument was found upon them.

JAMES HENRY TURTLE , divisional surgeon. On October 19, at about 8 p.m., I examined prosecutor at Victoria Park Police Station. He had an incised horizontal wound at the back of the right upper arm just below the shoulder two inches long, and another wound two inches long at the back portion of the armpit or axilla; three inches that the chest was wounded slightly and superficially. I think the wounds were caused by one blow, the instrument going through the axilla of the upper arm into the arm-pit and the point of it striking the chest below: I was shown a coat and waistcoat which were both very much bloodstained under the arm. I examined them, but could find no cut in them. It appeared as if the knife had gone through the arm, from the depth to which my probe went and the direction of both wounds. The shirt was very much bloodstained, and had a cut upon it of the same length as the wound in the upper arm. It is not now a serious injury—I think the man will recover. There was a risk of blood-poisoning, and the vicinity of the large blood-vessels running underneath the arm made it a serious wound.

In my opinion the injury could not have been caused by the prosecutor falling on or striking against broken glass; it could have been done by some sharp instrument like the knife produced. I believe the injury was inflicted by one blow; the distance between the wounds would be about 3 1/2 inches and the instrument must have been about six inches long. I have not microscopically examined the knife, and nave no opinion as to what the stains upon it are. The blow must nave been struck with considerable force.

Cross-examined. I am not prepared to swear one way or the other as to whether the stains on the knife are from vinegar. All I can say is that an instrument like the knife produced might produce the injuries I found. The knife may be stained with both vinegar and blood. In my opinion the wounds were caused by one blow; therefore both prisoners could not have done it. I should call the knife a very dangerous one. It is very difficult to say what might occur in a struggle. The prosecutor had certainly been drinking. Although the prisoners had been drinking it is quite possible that one of them could have struck the blow. In my opinion it is impossible that the wound could have been caused by the prosecutor falling on broken glass.


WILLIAM HENRY GREENSLADE (prisoner, on oath). I live at 30, Marston Road, South Hackney. The prosecutor was one of my lodgers. On October 19 we, with my wife, were drinking together for about two or three hours. I went indoors, where I had got a dog. Prosecutor said, "I will take the dog out and sell it." We put a leader on the dog, and prosecutor let the dog go. I said, "Don't do that; you have lost it." He turned round in a nasty temper and started swearing. I said quiet, "Be matey. "He fired out again; we had a fight, he knocked me down and I knocked him against the railings three or four times. Then my missus come up and pulled me into the passage. The prosecutor followed and started banging me. He let fly and I let fly and he knocked me down, hit me against the door and he fell with me. I got up; of course, we had a fight again. He took off his coat and said, "Oh, I can fix you up," and we fought again for about five or six minutes, and as we were fighting we knocked the pictures down at the side of the wall. My wife was pulling me away. At the finish she said to prosecutor, "Go on, hop out of it," and pushed him out of the door. Of course I thought it was all over, went into the kitchen and was going to bed. My wife never went away while the scuffle was on. My daughter threw prosecutor's coat out and swept up the glass in the passage. The police came in about a quarter of an hour afterwards. I do not recollect what the constable said and know nothing about the knife being found. It is stained by a pennyworth of pickles that we had that day, and the knife was thrown into the drawer without being cleaned. It was not used in the scuffle. I used no knife or any kind of instrument. Prosecutor never complained or said that he felt a

sharp wound. I have never had any trouble with the prosecutor before, and have always been on good terms with him.

Cross-examined. After prosecutor followed me into the passage my wife was there the whole time. Prosecutor said he had a trowel when I saw him in the hospital. When Sergeant Brown says my wife rushed at prosecutor and said, "He ought to have cut your throat instead of your arm," that is false evidence. I am sure no such words were used. Prosecutor knew what he was doing—he was as right as I was.

Re-examined. I was not present when prosecutor was assisted to the station. I did not hear my wife say anything. I know prosecutor had a trowel in his possession in the afternoon in the public-house—it was taken away by a constable. Prosecutor had the trowel in his side pocket—I saw it while we were fighting and he might have fallen on it. There were four or five pictures broken.

ELIZABETH GREENSLADE (prisoner, on oath). On the afternoon of October 19 we were all three out drinking together, a thing I have never done before. Prosecutor insisted on taking the dog out and lost it; that caused a little disturbance. Prosecutor pulled off his coat to fight; my husband came into the passage and prosecutor followed him. They punched each other, fell down, and smashed the pictures. Prosecutor did not complain of any pain. He walked out of the passage. I said, "Do not fight again," and I shut the door. I was surprised when the constable came back and I learnt he was cut—I am almost sure it was by the glass; I had no knife and none was used either by me or my husband. That morning I bought a bottle of pickles at the public-house, used the knife produced, wiped it, and put it back in the basket. There were no bloodstains on it. My little girl swept the glass up in the passage and put it in the back yard. Prosecutor lived with us on good terms. We had all had enough to drink.

Cross-examined. Nobody used a knife or instrument—we are both quite innocent of anything of the kind. I did not hear prosecutor say, "That is the woman"; the constable said nothing, only went in and took my husband. Prosecutor said he was cut; he did not say that I had fallen on top of him. When prosecutor went away with the constable I pushed him. I did not say, "He ought to have cut your throat instead of your arm"—I deny anything of the kind—I am quite innocent.

Re-examined. I remember pretty fairly what happened, but we had all had enough to drink. I suppose I was excited.

JAMES HENRY TURTLE , divisional surgeon, recalled. In my opinion a bricklayer's trowel could not have caused the injury. Both wounds were about the same length. If a triangular instrument had been used that would not happen.

JAMES EUSTON , 24, Marston Road. I am 12 years old. I am not related to the prisoners in any way. On October 19 I saw the male prisoner and the prosecutor fighting. They went into the passage and knocked each other down. Mabel, prisoner's daughter, came home and went into the kitchen. I saw the pictures knocked down

and the male prisoner hit prosecutor and knocked him down again. Prosecutor got up and went outside. He had no coat on; Mabel brought his coat out. While he was waiting outside the beer shop a policeman came up and asked what was the matter. He said, "Oh, we have only had a fight. "The policeman said, "Where?" Prosecutor took him to the house and took off his coat and showed him his arm. The policeman knocked at the door; Mrs. Greenslade opened it, and the police-constable went in and took Mr. Greenslade to the station. I did not see all of the fight in the passage. I saw no knife produced; neither of the prisoners used a knife. Prosecutor did not say he had had a cut; he seemed all right as he stood outside until the police came.

Verdict, both Not guilty.


(Monday, November 29.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-81
VerdictMiscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

CROSLAND, Thomas William Hudson , maliciously publishing a certain defamatory libel and defamatory words of and concerning Henry Frederick Walpole Manners Sutton.

Mr. George Elliott, K. C., and Mr. Storry Deans prosecuted; Mr. Valetta, Mr. Wing, and Mr. Horace Samuels defended.

Mr. Valetta submitted that the prisoner was entitled to be discharged. On September 8 the recognisances were enlarged by the Recorder in order that a plea of justification might be filed, and which was done on October 5. On October 15 a replication was filed, and on November 16 a demurrer to the plea of justification was filed. The prosecution were therefore to be assumed to have admitted the facts stated in the plea of justification. [Archibold, p. 1,126; Lord Campbell's Act, 1843, sec. 6; R. v. Brown, 3 Cox, p. 127; Bailey v. Baker, Dowling N. S., 891, 60 Geo. III. and 1st Geo. IV., c. 4, sees. 1 and 9.]

Mr. George Elliott stated that the prisoner had not until to-day pleaded to the indictment or filed his plea of justification. At the suggestion of the Recorder that there might be a demurrer, alternative documents were drafted and, for convenience, copies were handed to the clerk of the court and defendant's solicitors. He was at liberty now to file either the replication or the demurrer.

The Common Sergeant held that the pleas were not really completed; the record would stand on the pleas of not guilty and justification. Mr. George Elliott then put in the plea of replication.

On affidavits that a material witness for the defence was in America the case was further adjourned to February 9,1910.


(Monday, November 29.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-82
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

GOLDSMID, Joseph (27, salesman) ; incurring certain debts and liabilities to the several amounts of £36 19s. 2d. to Charles Morris Simons and others, £57 15s. to W. Dennis and Sons, Limited, £67 11s. 11d. to Henry Gaspard Fient, £51 3s. to Samuel Isaacs, £17 5s. 6d. to Dilnot Dilbey Pankhurst, £14 12s. 4d. to Francis Rodley Ridley and others, £44 18s. 2d. to Arthur James Adam and another, £22 9s. 6d. to Richard Joseph Grant and others, £17 19s. 10d. to Fred William Brown and others, and £17 3s. 9d. to M. Isaacs and Sons, Limited, did obtain credit in each case by means of fraud; obtaining by false pretences from Charles Morris Simons and others 81 cases of apples, from W. Dennis and Sons, Limited, 120 boxes of apples, from Dilnot Dilbey Pankhurst a quantity of fruit, from Francis Robert Ridley and others a quantity of fruit, from Arthur James Adam and another 107 barrels of grapes, from Richard Joseph Grant and others 54 barrels of grapes, from Fred William Brown and others 19 barrels of grapes and other articles, and from M. Isaacs and Sons, Limited, 29 barrels of grapes and other articles, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Walter Frampton and Mr. Gilbert Beyfus prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett defended.

JOHN JACOBS , manager to Messrs. Garcia Jacobs and Co., fruit brokers, Covent Garden. On Wednesday, October 6, I saw prisoner's representative, a man named Myers, and sold him 100 cases of apples at 9s. per case, and there was also a charge of 1 1/2 d. for case for porterage. The apples were "Newtown Pippins," and the cases bore the mark "Navacovich and Stolich" a Sclavonian firm. Prisoner's buyer went to the office and paid for the things by cheque.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner in business for twelve or fifteen months. He has had a great many transactions with my firm, but I have nothing to do with the cash department, and do not know whether his transactions have amounted to £620. In some cases the buyer goes to the office with a blank cheque and leaves the amount to be filled up, and I believe it was so on this occasion.

Re-examined. When I sold the goods I believed prisoner could pay for them.

HENRY THOMAS PRESTIGE , cashier in charge of the sales department of Messrs. Garcia Jacobs. On Wednesday, October 6, prisoner's buyer asked for a delivery order in respect of some "Newtown Pippins," and I gave it him in return for prisoner's cheque, which I filled in for £36 19s. 2d. When I gave the delivery order I believed the cheque would be met. I should not have given it had I known prisoner's account at the bank was in debit. I paid the cheque into the account of the firm and it was returned marked, "Refer to drawer."

Cross-examined. My firm have had a great number of transactions with prisoner, amounting in all to £500 or £600. None of his previous

cheques have been dishonoured. The cheque was paid in on the following day.

WILLIAM HARRUP , rostrum clerk to Messrs. Dennis and Sons, Limited, James Street, Covent Garden. On October 6 I saw prisoner's representative. He bought from our sale room 120 boxes of apples, for which I afterwards issued a delivery order in return for his cheque for £57 15s. I filled in the amount. When I received the cheque I believed it to be a good one. I should not have issued the delivery order had I known prisoner was overdrawn. The cheque was handed to me at about five o'clock and I gave it to our head cashier the following morning. It was returned, Refer to drawer."

Cross-examined. My firm have had considerable dealings with prisoner, but I could not say whether they totalled £1,200, and as far as I know his cheques have always been honoured.

To the Court. It is frequently left to the discretion of the buyer how much and at what price he shall buy.

Precisely similar evidence as to purchases by prisoner's buyer and of the giving of delivery orders in exchange for dishonoured cheques was given by GEORGE WILLIAM SCHOFIELD, salesman to Messrs. Dilnot Brothers, fruit salesmen, Covent Garden; HENRY EUGENE FORRESTER, salesman to Messrs. Ridley, Holding, and Co., Covent Garden: THOMAS LEONARD BYLES, salesman to Henry Gaspard Fient, trading as George Fient, Covent Garden; and ALBEERRY RALPH, employed by Samuel Isaacs, trading as Isaacs Brothers.

EDWARD EMMANUEL , fruit salesman, living at 35, Queen's Block, Stoney Lane, Hounsditch. I knew prisoner's shop in Spitalfields. I was there on Friday, October 8, between five and six o'clock in the evening. I did not see Sergeant Gillard there, but I saw a rush made upon the shop. I went there to draw my stuff, which I had bought earlier in the day. There were several persons there. I spoke to the salesman (Myers) and he said, "You can come back presently and take the stuff away. "I had bought £109 worth and paid £40 deposit about two o'clock to prisoner; not by cheque but all in coin. He put the money in a bag and put it in his pocket, saying, "There is £40 more for Katey." "Katey" is his wife. I returned about seven o'clock with three vans and paid the balance of £69 in cash to Solomons or Myers, prisoner's brother-in-law, who gave me the receipt produced, I took the goods away. They were found on my stand late at night, barring 18 cases of apples and two of grapes, which I had sold. I went there on the Saturday (October 9) at five o'clock, when the market opened, to sell the goods, but the police stopped me selling them. My stand is known as Moss and Emmanuel's. Prisoner came round to me about eight o'clock on Friday evening and asked me if I had got the remainder of the money, so I told him I had given it to his brother-in-law. He said, "Why did not you give it to my old woman?"

Cross-examined. This is the first occasion I have mentioned about prisoner coming round to me. It slipped my memory. I say the receipt for the balance of the money is a true receipt. It is not true that the whole of the money was paid at one time and that the words,

"Balance £69," have been added. As a rule, we do not give receipts in the market. I applied to Sir Albert de Rutzen to have these goods handed to me, but he made no order. It is not true that I bought the whole of them of Solomons after the rush or scuffle had taken place. I do not know that Solomons disappeared altogether; he has been about the market since, he was there the day after. I do not know where he can be found. I do not know where he lives. When I went to prisoner's place in the afternoon I saw a considerable quantity of stuff there. When I went at six o'clock a good deal of it had been cleared away.

WILLIAM HENRY KEEPING , managed, Covent Garden branch, London City and Midland Bank. Prisoner had an account at the branch, of which I produce a certified copy. The account was opened in June of last year with a credit of £48 8s. 9d. The most the account has been in credit is, roughly, £130, taking it from last June. On October 1 the balance was £7 19s. 10d. There was a cash payment in on the 2nd of £29 10s., and the account was then £32 10s. in credit. That was reduced to £26 8s. 7d. on the 4th and to £14 16s. 1d. on the 5th. There was a payment out by cheque of £10 9s. 8d. on the 6th, and finally there was left a debit balance of £13 5s. 2d. Nothing has been paid in since then. Cheques were presented to the amount of £366 between the 7th and the 9th; all were dishonoured.

Cross-examined. Prisoner has been in the habit of paying in money to meet cheques coming in. I stated at the police court that the turnover of his account had been between £5,500 and £6,000 in the last two months, and he has issued several hundreds of cheques which have always been met. On October 8 or 9 a communication was made to him by telephone. He replied to my cashier that he had a large consignment of apples which he wanted to pay for, and that he would pay in his takings, as he ordinarily did on the Friday evening or Saturday morning. I do not know that Mr. Myers, prisoner's father-in-law, has paid into his account on different occasions substantial cheques in order that prisoner's cheques should be met. Two of Mr. Myers' cheques produced are for £70 and £100.

WILLIAM WATSON , foreman of Messrs. Garcia Jacobs and Co. On Friday, October 8, I went with Detective-Sergeant Gillard to Spitalfields Market. We arrived there about half-past five. Prisoner was in his shop sitting at his desk. I saw some goods on the premises that had belonged to us and some that had belonged to Messrs. Dennis. I counted 70 crates of apples. When I went into the shop I said to prisoner, "Joe, I have come down to count what apples there are of ours here. This is Mr. Gillard, who has come down to arrest you." He said, "Yes, I know Mr. Gillard." took some books and papers, which he handed to me, and asked me if I would oblige him by taking care of them. I proceeded to wrap them in paper and put them on a half bushel basket. A whole crowd of people came into the shop just about that time; I suppose there must have been between 40 and 50. In consequence of what Gillard said to me I went out to find some police, leaving the books on the basket. When I

came back they were not there, nor prisoner either. I returned to prisoner's shop between half-past six and seven, after I had been to the police station. By that time the shop had been cleared of the goods and there was nothing there. Later on I went to Brushfield Street to a stand occupied by Moss and Emmanuel. I did not find any apples that night; they were covered over with a tarpaulin. I went down to Spitalfields with the detective between one and two o'clock in the morning and stayed there till daylight almost. We found 102 cases of apples at the stall, of which the detective took possession.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner since he was quite a baby, and up till this time had always looked upon him as a highly respectable merchant, a man who always carried out his obligations, met his cheques, and so on. Sergeant Gillard took some of the books from the desk and went to take some from the drawer, but prisoner resisted and said he had no right to take them. I did not hear prisoner ask where Gil lard's warrant for searching the premises was. At the time the mob of 40 or 50 people rushed in prisoner was talking to Gillard. They hustled the detective and hustled me. I had never experienced such a thing before; it was pretty rough. When we went to Emmanuel's stall Emmanuel did not in my presence produce any receipt.

Detective-sergeant JOSEPH GILLARD, E. On October 8 I was entrusted with a warrant for the arrest of prisoner, and went with last witness to Spitalfields Market, where we arrived about 5.45 p.m. I knew prisoner by having seen him in Covent Garden Market. I said to prisoner, "You know me, Mr. Goldsmid. I have a warrant for your arrest. "I read the warrant to him and said, "I am going to take possession of your books and papers." He said "Yes, I know you, Mr. Gillard, but you are not going to take possesssion of me or of my books and papers. "I proceeded to take possession of the books on his desk and handed them to Watson. There were five or six other persons in the shop. Prisoner twisted; he hummed and had in order to gain time, a whisper went round, and in a moment or two 40 or 50 roughs came rushing in.

Judge Lumley Smith. A whisper went round.

Witness. A sort of general nod that I can understand, probably an inexperienced person would not, but I understood it, and within half a minute the sale room was flooded with 40 or 50 men; it looked to me like a preconcerted plot. I requested Watson to get help. I had not actually placed hands on prisoner. It was not necessary; I knew him perfectly well, and I had read the warrant to him, which is an arrest. As I was taking possession of the books the crowd rushed in towards the back of the shop, where I was standing, surged round me and rushed me towards the front of the shop, and I did not secure my prisoner. The books mysteriously disappeared during this rush, because they were not there a minute later. I went to Commercial Street Police Station to get proper assistance to carry out the remaining part of the business that was to be done. I got back to the sale room about half-past six; there was not anything there; everything

had been moved within the space of about half an hour. At nine o'clock that night I saw prisoner at 22, British Street, Bow, where he lives. Accompanied by another officer I gained admittance to the house. We found prisoner lying on a sofa in the kitchen. We had previously been told he was not there by the person who answered the door. I said to prisoner, "It is needless for me to say what I have come for this time," or something to that effect, and I told him in the usual way he was still under arrest. He said, "It is a good job you have got me now; I was going over the water tomorrow. I am very sorry I have caused you so much trouble. I was led away by the others." A little later on, on his way to Bow Street, he said, "The stuff you want is now at Moss's stand outside the Market House, Brushfield Street, Spitalfields. I do not want to suffer for what they have done and the profits go to them instead of to my old woman." At the station he made no reply to the charge. He was searched; 5s. 11d. was found upon him, a counterfoil cheque book containing the counterfoils of the cheques given on October 6 and 7. No blank cheques remained in it.

Cross-examined. Prisoner did not hand me his books. I took possession of them. When I found prisoner at his own address I do not recollect that I said to him, "I hear that you are going abroad." It is quite possible that some of the crowd that rushed in were not above removing things that did not belong to them.

Mr. Curtis Bennett submitted' that there was no case to go to the jury.

Judge Lumley Smith declined to stop the case.

Mr. Curtis Bennett said he had a number of witnesses to character, but as it was agreed that there was nothing against prisoner before this it was unnecessary to call them.


JOSEPH GOLDSMID (prisoner, on oath). I have been in business for myself about 12 or 15 months. Before that I was for some years in the employ of my mother, who took over the business of my father, who is a carman and contractor in Covent Garden. During those 12 or 15 months I have been trading in Covent Garden Market, and until this occasion none of my cheques have been dishonoured. I gave my buyer blank cheques with discretion to buy anything he thought cheap. I used to reckon up at night what I had bought and provide accordingly, allowing three days for the cheque to go through. If I had not enough money of my own I used to borrow of my father-in-law. When I sold the goods I would pay in the cash. On October 6 and 7 I had no intention of defrauding the people of whom I was buying. On Friday, October 8, I suppose I had in my shop at Spitalfields stock of the value of £300 or £400. As you have heard from Mr. Keeping, I had some conversation on that day as to what was to be done with the cheques. I told him about six months ago I was working with a very small sum and I might not always have the necessary amount at the back of the cheques, and I asked

if he would telephone me in that event and I would try and raise it. It is true, as Mr. Keeping has said, that I had a lot of stock and would send the takings to the bank as soon as I had sold it. I have known Detective Gil lard for some time, being at Covent Garden and sometimes going into Bow Street. Watson has known me from a child. Between half-past five and six on the afternoon of Friday, October 8, Mr. Watson came into the shop with Sergeant Gillard. I was sitting at the back turning some accounts out. He said, "Joe, I have got a very unthankful job. "I said, "What is it?" He said, "There is a detective outside who has got a warrant for your arrest. "I said, "What is it for?" Gillard said, "You have been buying goods at several places and some of your cheques have been dishonoured. "I told him that unless he read the warrant he would neither take me nor my books. He then went across to my desk and took the books, which Watson wrapped in paper. Up to that time I had received no notification that my cheques had been dishonoured, or I would have endeavoured to meet them or tried to sell the stock. I sold nothing to Emmanuel that day and he did not pay me £40 at two o'clock. In the evening I was advised to go back to the shop. Passing through Brushfield Street I saw some vans unloading my stock. I asked Emmanuel whom he had bought them of and he said Solomons. I said, "Did you pay Solomons or did you pay my brother-in-law?" He said, "I paid Solomons. "So I said, "Do you know whether he handed the money to my wife?" He said, "I do not know anything at all about what was done with the money or anything at all about your wife. I know your wife was in the shop. "With regard to the money, he said, "I paid it to Solomons; I know no more about it, and I have got a receipt here for it." I said, "Can I see the receipt?" He said, "I cannot bother. I have got the receipt; he has got the money; I have got the things." I said, "If you do not give me satisfaction I shall stop you selling the goods. "When I got home Gillard came to me and said, "I heard you were going abroad. "I said, "This is the first I have heard of it. "I made use of no such expression as, "It is a good job you have got me now; I was going over the water to-morrow. "Gillard said, "I heard you were going abroad," and Inspector Smart, who was with him, said, "I heard you were going to Manchester. "I never had any of the money myself for the sale of these things. I know nothing of this mob of 40 or 50 persons. I could not understand them coming in at all. I was completely taken by surprise. When they came in I went out. I came back again in a few hours and afterwards went home.

Cross-examined. It was the practice to make out cheques in the name of certain firms with my signature and leave the amount to be filled in. I intended it to be believed that these were good cheques, and that they should supply me with the goods in the belief that I was going to pay for them. My account had not been overdrawn before last October. I knew my account was in debit to the extent of £13 when I drew the cheque. I asked Mr. Keeping to advance me £25 cash until Saturday on my private account. I have had no

chance of examining the account, as I have been in prison for seven weeks. The most I had drawn previously in one day since July was £78. I accept the figures of the amounts drawn: July 7, £32; July 12, £78; July 13, £31; July 14, £70; July 19, £53; July 21, £39; July 22, £40; July 26, £25; July 27, £30; July 28, £27, etc. On all these occasions there was money in the bank to meet the cheques. On October 6, when I knew my account was not good for £25, I was giving the cheques for £360, because I was buying goods to meet these cheques on the Saturday, the usual thing that I have always done. If you turn back to this time last year I think you will find I was laying out the same amount in the same way, but I was not then overdrawn. I did not expect the cheques would come back before the 9th. I had a telephone message from the bank on the 7th informing me that my cheques were being dishonoured. I heard Watson swear that I resisted Gil lard taking the books. It is true that at that point some 40 or 50 persons came rushing into the shop. I have no idea what they came there for. Watson went to fetch police assistance and I disappeared. My brother-in-law was in the shop. Both my brother-in-law and my buyer are named Myers. My buyer is no relation to me. I do not understand my brother-in-law signing Emmanuel's receipt. He had no authority to do so. When I came back about seven o'clock I was very much surprised to find my shop empty. The Commercial Street Police Station is 10 minutes from my shop. I did hot go down there and lodge a complaint against the persons who had robbed me. I supposed that my brother-in-law had sold the goods and handed my wife the money. My wife's name is "Katey." I asked Emmanuel to whom he had paid the balance of the £69, and he said he had paid it to Solomons. I did not ask him why he had not paid it to my wife. Solomons is the proper person to receive it. I never had any idea at all of crossing the water. I gave myself up. I do not know who answered the door when Gillard called upon me. I am not aware that the servant told Sergeant Gillard that I was not at home. I had given no instructions that I was to be denied to anyone. I did not tell the detective that the stuff was at Emmanuel's and that I did not want the profits to go to them instead of to my old woman.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Three months' imprisonment in the second division.


(Tuesday, November 30.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-83
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

DUNCAN, Woolmer James Victor (38, engineer), ERNST, Louis (37, engineer), and PAMINGTON, Arthur (38, engineer) ; Duncan stealing six cell testers and other articles, the goods of the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, Limited, his masters, and feloniously receiving the same; Duncan embezzling and stealing the several sums of £10 12s. 4d., £5 15s. 10d., 9s. 6d., £20 9s. 6d., £7 14s. 10d., and £4 19s. 9d., received by him for and on account of the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, Limited, his masters; Ernst and Pamington stealing six cell testers and other articles, the goods of the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, Limited, and feloniously receiving the same.

Mr. Muir and Mr. A. de W. Mulligan prosecuted; Mr. Leycester defended Duncan; Mr. Hugo Marshall defended Ernst; Mr. G. St. J. McDonald defended Pamington.

WILLIAM PRESTON CAMPBELL-EVERDEN . I am a director of Kappa, Limited, and also of the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, Limited. On March 28 prisoner Ernst came to see me. He informed me that prisoner Duncan desired to convert his business into a limited liability company and asked would the Kappa Syndicate undertake it. Terms were discussed and he said he would require for himself one-third of any profit made upon the transaction. A day or two later he brought along Duncan and we had a long interview. In the result it was agreed that the Kappa Syndicate should purchase the business as it then stood as a going concern, so that a limited company might be formed by the Kappa Syndicate, and to that limited company the syndicate would sell all the assets of the business as a going concern in exactly the same form as they purchased it and take their remuneration in shares and debentures. Nothing was said about any commission being payable to Ernst. A draft contract was prepared and submitted to Duncan. He took it away because he said he had to consult his trustees before he signed it. The draft agreement provided that the syndicate was to form a company for the purpose of taking over the business; that the vendor, Duncan, was to sell and the syndicate was to purchase as a going concern and free from encumbrance all the plant, machinery, stock-in-trade, implements and utensils, outstanding credits and accounts, and all other assets of the business: that the consideration was to be £7,000, payable as to £3,000 in fully paid shares in the capital of the intended company and as to £4,000 in fully paid debentures; that the intended company should assume the liabilities of the vendors up to £550. Clause 6 provided that the syndicate was to re-sell the business, stock-in-trade, etc., to the intended company for £13,000 in shares and debentures, and the syndicate was to retain the difference between £13,000 and the £7,000 which Duncan was to get. In clause 7 there was an agreement for further assurance and clause 8 provided that the syndicate should retain possession up to completion and carry on the business in the meantime as a going concern. By clause 11 the vendor was to have the right to be elected a director of the intended company and to be manager, and to devote his whole time to the business for three years. That agreement was executed by both parties under seal. I then procured a company called the "Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company" to be formed. I produce the certificate of incorporation dated May 13. Between April 7 and the incorporation of the company Mr. Duncan purported to carry on the business and from time to time remitted certain moneys that he said he had received to the Kappa Syndicate.

On May 14 Mr. Duncan executed an agreement produced with the Foxcroft, Duncan Engineering Company (produced) in the terms of the previous agreement with the Kappa Syndicate. Ernst received shares and debentures for his commission. Duncan was appointed a director and also manager. When Ernst brought the business to us he was merely acting as commission agent and when the preliminary agreement of April 7 was signed he was asked to go down to the works, and look after things on behalf of the syndicate and the company to be formed at a salary of £2 per week. Duncan continued to act as manager until the middle of September, when, in consequence of certain matter which came to our knowledge, he was suspended from his; managership, but not formally displaced as a director. For the purposes of the company it was necessary that a balance-sheet should be prepared, and for that purpose that the stock should be taken and a valuation made of the assets. Duncan and Ernst certified certain stock and plant sheets on August 19, as follows: "We the undersigned hereby certify that we have made an inventory of the furniture, plant, and fittings of the above-named company, and, in our opinion, their value on April 13, 1899, was £1,458 11s. 6d. We hereby certify that the stock-in-trade of the above company as at April 30, 1909, was taken by us or under our supervision, that the value thereof in the stock sheets was at or under cost, depreciation having been allowed for all old or damaged stock, and we certify that to the best of our knowledge and belief the total value is not less than £2,477 10s. 3d., and we further certify that we have made a careful estimate of expenditure oil uncompleted contracts and that, in our opinion, the value of the work completed at April 30, 1909, was £400."

Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. That was after the company had been carrying on business for three and a half months, during which time goods had been supplied to customers in the proper way, the details being in the invoice book. We were told that accurate stock sheets were in existence, but I never took the trouble to look at them. The accountants said they must have a certificate from the manager as to the amount of stock, but the stock sheets were not checked on our behalf by any independent person before the company was formed. At the time we took over the stock and the plant we had no documents showing what it was we were taking over. We accepted the representations of Duncan and Ernst. At the time Duncan was brought to us by Ernst he was a stranger to us. We had had talks with Ernst about business, but had never done anything. I have had considerable experience in promoting companies. Duncan's solicitor took no part in the promotion of the company. When Duncan first came to us he did not say he was in financial difficulties and was wanting money for the purposes of the business; on the contrary, he said there was a lot of money to come in. What he told us was that he was not able to manage the business as it ought to be managed, and he thought it would be better now he had lost his partner, who had gone out, that other persons should be interested in it. He did not complain when he saw the draft agreement that it contained no provision for finding capital for the working of the business. There was

no arrangement at the first interview that he was to have £2,000 in cash. He asked for some cash; I think it was £1,000. We told him we should not entertain the business on those lines. I did not tell him that he would be able to sell his shares or debentures for cash and that would do instead. There is nothing about Ernst's commission in the agreement. There is nothing in writing to which I can point showing that Duncan knew of Ernst's commission from me at the time the draft agreement was signed, but there is a letter of May 11 which shows that he knew of it. Four thousand of the ordinary shares were to be reserved for the provision of working capital. Of the 7,000 debentures Duncan was to have 4,000 and the Kappa Syndicate and Ernst 3,000. The Kappa Syndicate paid the expenses of registration. Of the 6,000 ordinary shares Duncan was to have half and the Kappa Syndicate and Ernst the other half. We were not liable to find any money; we were not contracting to find any, but intending to find it out of a desire to assist in the development of our joint business. We were not to find the money out of our own pockets, but we had several negotiations to find the money, which would, of course, be repaid out of the sale of the 4,000 shares. I think that is a paragraph in the agreement. Paragraph 14 of the agreement provided that if the company should not be registered within a month from April 7 either party might give to the other seven days' notice in writing sent by registered letter, and then the contract was to be null and void, each party to bear their own expenses. The vendor also covenanted that he would not be concerned or interested in the business of electrical or mechanical engineer or permit his name to be used in that way within 200 miles of London. I maintain that the stock-in-trade ceased to be the property of Duncan on April 7. That is the whole essence of the agreement. It then became the property of the Kappa Syndicate for the purpose of conveying it to the intended company. I am not aware that some of the charges against prisoners were dismissed by the magistrate. The magistrate merely said that with regard to things taken after May 13, in his judgment there should be no question, but there might be a question about the things taken in the interval between April 7 and May 13. The Kappa Syndicate is a limited company. It was formed for a purpose that was not carried out, and ultimately it drifted down to my office at Suffolk House. I was a chartered accountant for many years and ceased to be so on February 13 in consequence of a receiving order made against me. I was adjudicated bankrupt in March, 1907, my liabilities being nominally £17,000 and assets nil. My discharge was suspended for four years. There were 26 bankruptcy petitions against me; they pursued me with great vigour, but 90 per cent, of my creditors were represented by counsel and asked for my immediate discharge as being in their interests. I had no hostile creditor but one for £80. In April, 1903, I formed the Empyrean Trading Corporation, Limited. It was formed for the purpose of carrying on the business of traders' merchants, financiers, capitalists, and general promoters with the nominal capital of £10,000, in £1 shares. Of these 9,993 were allotted to myself and in February, 1904, all these shares except one were transferred to a company called the

London Banking Corporation, Limited. Seven shares had been allotted to the signatories. The office of the Empyrean is at Suffolk House. The Banking Corporation is in New Bridge Street. I am a director of both companies. Mr. Brown, who is one of the secretaries of the Empyrean and is also secretary of the Kappa Syndicate, was appointed secretary of Foxcroft and Duncan, Limited. I think the capital of the Kappa Syndicate is 1,000 shares of 1s. each, of which seven have been issued in the ordinary way to the seven signatories. That does not fairly represent the value of its assets; all this is mud. When the debentures of Foxcroft and Duncan, Limited, were issued the Empyrean was made trustee for the debenture holder and the whole of the debentures are under the control of the Empyrean. Mr. Jenkins was a director of Foxcroft and Co. and also of the Kappa Syndicate. We found out that towards the end of April the bailiffs were in at Duncan's premises for rent, and that there were several judgments against him. It may have been part of his original object in coming to us that money should be found for his liabilities, but he did not so tell us. I did not know that he had certain liabilities which he wanted to get cleared, but had not got the cash to do it with. Duncan told us, I think, that there were about £300 of ordinary trade liabilities and £250 bank overdraft. I think when we found the bailiffs were in we suggested that we would not go on with the business. When he found we were not going to form the company he said he would consult his aunt and get some assistance. She provided £150, which was repaid by giving her £200 worth of the debentures of the company. Part of that money was used to pay the landlord out. During the period from April 7 to the formation of the company on May 13 Duncan was supposed to send every penny of the takings to the bank of the Kappa Syndicate, the London Banking Corporation, Limited. The account in respect of the Foxcroft and Duncan Company was opened on April 7 or 8, immediately the first moneys came in. That arrangement was made when the contract with the Kappa Syndicate was signed. Disbursements were to be paid out of the bank. Wages ought to have been drawn out of the banking account, but there was not enough remitted to make the payment, and so the Kappa Syndicate supplemented what there was with its own moneys and the whole amount was fetched by Mr. Duncan or one of the employés. There were some weeks in which wages were not paid at all. Duncan was frequently summoned by his men. Duncan had not a private dwelling house, but was living with his aunt. The electric power at the works was cut off and a warrant was issued for the electric rate. I do not know that on May 20 the accountant was sent to fetch away the books and that after that time Duncan had to keep his accounts on slips of paper. About the time Duncan was suspended Miss Duncan's solicitor had been writing to the Empyrean about the interest on her debentures, the interest on which was to be payable quarterly. I know nothing of what was found at the works after Duncan was suspended.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall. I certainly contend that the property in the goods of Foxcroft-Duncan had passed either to the Kappa Syndicate or to the new company on April 7 and the Kappa

Syndicate in turn transferred them to the company. The effect of the arrangement was that Ernst and the Kappa Syndicate were to take half of Duncan's business. I believe the goodwill was of value and there was besides the plant and considerable stock. We only got paper for it to represent our half; the company got it all; we did not get anything. As to the reason why Duncan should give to the Kappa Syndicate and Ernst half of his valuable business, he should have considered that when he made the bargain. I cannot tell you what was in his mind. I did not go down to the works until after the police court proceedings had started; it was not my duty. Duncan was trusted by us to carry on the buiness as he had done. I understood that Mr. Foxcroft, Duncan's partner, had gone out; I do not know under what circumstances. Mr. Duncan handed us a direction to allot the shares and debentures to himself and his nominees, which was done. The agreement by which Ernst was appointed to act as agent for the Kappa Syndicate at £2 per week was not in writing. He was asked to go down and look after things and promised to do it. The fact that Ernst signed as agent on the two certificates of valuation is, in my opinion, corroborative evidence that he was agent for the Kappa Syndicate to protect the goods of the Kappa Syndicate. If he thought that in August how much more must he have thought it in April. He was there to see that Mr. Duncan did carry on the business as a going concern pending the time when we could register the company and have the whole of the assets conveyed to it. Miss Duncan's money was paid in two cheques of £100 and £50, and every penny of it was applied for the purposes of the business of Foxcroft and Duncan, paying out the brokers' men and paying wages, and that is all duly accounted for. Part of it may have been spent in the formation of the new company, in stamp duties, and so on. At that time I had no interest in the Kappa Syndicate. When I acquired an interest in the Kappa Syndicate and what interest I acquired is a question I will not answer. Mr. Jenkins has not an office at Suffolk Lane, but I believe he sits there. There is no clause in the agreement defining Duncan's duties as manager, except that he was to devote the whole of his time to it for the term of three years.

Re-examined. Miss Duncan was to be repaid out of the first moneys available for the purpose, but it was subsequently agreed that she should take the debentures in satisfaction. No undertaking by the Kappa Syndicate with regard to these agreements remains unfulfilled. The syndicate did not agree to provide any money, but they have, in fact, provided about £475, which has been expended solely for the purposes of the business. The wages were left unpaid because the money did not come in. The cause of my bankruptcy was—well, spite. In the course of my business I received plenty of money from people to be applied for the purpose of advancing whatever business might be moving and I treat them as creditors because I have to give them some return for their money, and as I say by spite a man to whom I owed a very small sum forced me into bankruptcy. No sort of reflection was made upon me in the course of the proceedings. My discharge was suspended for four years because the Registrar said I

had been, indulging in speculation which as a chartered accountant I ought not to have done, and he rather severely penalised me for that. There was no other reason than my bankruptcy for my ceasing to be a chartered accountant; ipso facto, a receiving order takes you off the list of chartered accountants. I was also a member of the Institute of Directors and I think I may say I was highly respected and that helped me in my trouble. I have receipts in my office for over £14,000 and I am paying off my indebtedness almost every day. The Foxcroft Duncan Engineering Company was principally concerned in manufacturing and, of course, selling. Prisoner Duncan would do what buying had to be done. The selling, I suppose, was done by correspondence; there were no travellers. I consider the goods at the works were the property of the company. If he had sold the things prisoners are charged with stealing and receiving the invoices in the ordinary course, of business would have been copied in the invoice book. There are no entries in the books with regard to these particular goods and the things were found on costermongers' barrows. Duncan made out invoices to Ernst for about £60 worth of things and gave them to him as commission.

WILLIAM BURKETT LISLE , electrician, in the employment of the Foxcroft Duncan Engineering Company. I was in Duncan's employment for some four years previously to the turning of this business into a company. On July 15 I received written instructions to make six cell testers, which are used for testing accumulators. Each instrument is identified with a number. The entry in my order book is "Six cell testing volt meters, gravity type, reading 8 to 10 volts. Agent's stock. "I made the instruments, which were finished on July 28, and numbered consecutively 7,038 to 7,043. They are identical. The numbers are at the bottom of the card dial. (Witness identified the instruments produced.) I wrapped the instruments up when I had finished them and took them to Duncan's private office. In the ordinary course instruments would be left in my room where Duncan would look at them and pass them on to the shop. Goods sent out would be entered in the parcels book (produced), which is kept in the office. The clerk makes the entries, or Duncan might; I have on occasion made entries. There is no entry in this book, or in the invoice book, of the six cell testers going out. The next I saw of them after putting them in Duncan's office was at prisoner Pamington's warehouse in Newcastle Row, Clerkenwell. On July 15 I also received an order from Duncan to make up six motor-car volt meters. These were finished on July 29 and numbered 7,532 to 7,537. I packed them and took them to Duncan's office by his instructions. Some weeks later I saw two of them, Nos. 7,534 and 7,537, on Pamington's stall in the Farringdon Road. There is no entry in the parcels book of these instruments going out, or in the invoice book. On July 15 there was a further order to make two ampere meters and a volt meter. The ampere meters were numbered 7,530 and 7,531 and were taken into Duncan's office by his instructions on July 17 and the volt meter on July 21, as appears by the instrument order book. There is no record of the sale or disposal of the articles in the invoice

or parcels book showing how they left the premises. Some weeks afterwards, accompanied by Mr. Chinn, the present manager of the company, I saw one of the ampere meters at Pamington's stall in Farringdon Road. Mrs. Pamington was there and introduced prisoner Pamington as her manager in the name of White. Mr. Chinn asked Pamington where he had bought the articles, and he said at Stephenson's auction, in Covent Garden. The list price of the cell testers is 25s., subject to a discount of 25 per cent, to the trade; that of the volt meters 16s., with a 10 per cent, discount; and of the ampere meters, £2, with 35 per cent, discount. The letter produced addressed to Pamington is in Duncan's handwriting, "Dear Sir,—We find that we have the following ironclad switches in stock for 15 to 25 amps, and 50 amps. We want 3s. each for the 15 to 25 amps, and for the 50 amps. 5s. each. We shall be glad to hear if you can do with these"; signed by Duncan for the Foxcroft Engineering Company, Limited; 18s. is the proper list price for the 15 to 25 amp. switches and 25s. for the 50 ampere switches, with a discount of 25 per cent. A letter in pencil (produced) addressed to Mr. L. Ernst, April 29, 1909, is in Duncan's handwriting. It gives a number of articles forwarded to Ernst by way of commission, amounting to £57 5s. 6d., and there is a further list amounting to £32 12s.

(Wednesday, December 1.)

WILLIAM BURKETT LISLE , further examined. In the list produced yesterday the first item is "One polarised 'Bell' line tester, £3 10s. "

Mr. Leycester objected that this item did not refer to any count in the indictment.

Witness. In the stock sheet the polarised Bell tester is priced at £20. "Bell" is the name of the inventor of the telephone. The instrument is used in connection with the field telephone service and the name "polarized 'Bell' line tester" is the name given to it by the War Office. I saw it upon Pamington's stall. The next item, "One leakage indicator for mine testing work, £3 5s.," was in the testing room as stock on April 28. I have not seen it since. The next item, "One combined galvo (galvonometer) and battery, £1 12s. 6d.," I saw in stock before April 28 and have not seen since. The fourth item, "One portable volt meter, 0 to 150 volts, £2 7s. 6d.," was in stock before April 28 and was found on Pamington's stall. The fifth item, "One ditto ditto moving coil, 0 to 500 volts, £5 10s.," in stock before April 28, was found on Pamington's stall. The sixth item, "One ditto a meter, centre, 0 to 150 volts, £4 17s. 6d.," in stock before April 28, was found on Pamington's stall. The instrument is for measuring amperes. As to item 7, "Two portable gravity volt meters, 150 volts, 50s. each equal £5," in stock before April 28, one was found on Pamington's stall. As to item 8, "Two 3 in. dial brass case volt meters, £3 19s.," in stock before April 28, I have not seen those since, and the same as to item 9, "Two ditto ditto, not complete, 30s. each." As to item 10, "Twenty motor meters at 12s. 6d.," in stock before April 28, I have seen some of them since. Those 20

were out of a batch of 50 sent to Ernst at Camberwell New Road; some have been returned at various dates and made up. They were in stock previously to April 28. I saw two on Pamington's stall that I had previously received to put into working order; 14 were found at his warehouse, unfinished, as they were sent. Item 11, "One double pole circuit breaker, net £7 10s.," in stock previous to April 28, I saw at Pamington's warehouse. The last item, "One single pole ditto, net £5," in stock before April 28, I saw on Pamington's stall. The articles are correctly priced. The second list includes two 6 in. iron case instruments, £3 6s.; two 6 in. brass case instruments, £2 17s. 3d.; nine 3 in. brass case meters, 20s. each, £9; two "Bell" testing volt meters of the gravity type, £2 10s., and 25 2 in. motor meters, 12s. 6d. each, £15 18s. 9d. The 25 motor meters would be part of the 50 that went away on April 28 and were in stock before that date. I have been through the books without discovering entries relating to the articles enumerated. After the batch of 50 2 in. motor meters had been sent away we had several orders for these instruments and as we had none in stock, Mr. Duncan got some back from Mr. Ernst. The first one was returned on May 5. On May 21 one dozen was ordered by United Motor Industries. I asked him about those and he said he would get them; 13 were returned on May 22 and 11 more on May 27. The value of the goods seized at Pamington's stall and warehouse was £70, and the average discount on them would be 25 per cent. I have seen Pamington at the company's works on two occasions since May 14. I can fix the date by the instrument order book, which shows the date when I finished the instruments. The first time would be a day or two either side of June 15 and the second about a week later. On the first occasion he took instruments away on a barrow and on the second occasion a dynamo. I can find no entries of the things he took away in the books. I cannot say whether the books were taken away by the accountant or some other person, so that no entries could be made. My wages were from time to time overdue. I have seen Ernst at the works since the company has been in possession; he was invariably there from May 14 right Up till August. I could not say what he was doing; I never saw him do any work. He would generally be in Duncan's office.

Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. I am employed in the works and the office does not concern me at all. The only books I had to do with were the instrument order book, and the parcels book occasionally. No particular person kept the parcels book. I imagine the clerk would look after it. Mr. Duncan would make most of the entries in it and when he did not the person responsible for sending out the parcels would make them. In every case the parcel is signed for by the carrier who takes it away. There would be an entry if a parcel was delivered by hand instead of by the carrier. Where a parcel has been taken away by a boy I have seen him given a slip to sign instead of the parcels book. If a customer took away a parcel himself that would not appear in the parcels book. In every case in the book the parcels are entered as taken away by the London Parcels Delivery Company, Carter, Paterson or by one or other of the railway com-panics.

The two lots of goods sent to Ernst were taken by the London Parcels Delivery Company. I was present when they were despatched. I did not see the carman sign for them. Where the word "pass. "occurs the goods have gone by passenger train. The writing in the invoice book is that of Mr. Barber, who left in June. If some of these meters had been brought in to be callibrated and finished, if anything was charged for doing the work, it would appear in the invoice book. The invoice to Pamington is in the name of "White." "Testing and repairing small dynamo, 3s.," is not entered. That was the dynamo he took away about June 15. If he took it away himself he should have signed for it in the parcels book. That was not the occasion when he took away the dynamo in a barrow. I did not see him take away any "scrap." The instruments he took away were good instruments and had only just been made. There were some telephone receivers found at Pamington's. He might have taken those when he took the other things. I priced the receivers at the police court at 5s. I said in cross-examination, "I did nothing to the telephone receivers. They were not scrap; they were stock. If anybody was silly enough they would buy them. There is no sale for them to a sensible person. I saw them put on a barrow. There might have been old metal on the barrow. It might all have been sold as scrap." The polarised "Bell" line tester was in good condition. It was worth more than £1. I do not think the list entry, "Polarised 'Bell' line tester, £20," is intended to represent 20 secondhand instruments. We had no other polarised "Bell." I do not suggest that it was worth £20, and the price of £3 10s. put down for it was a proper price, and that it would be subject to discount. It is not a stock thing; we have no sale for it and it does not appear in any of our catalogues. The other articles sent to Ernst are catalogued. The price of the ironclad switches referred to in Duncan's letter to Pamington would be 13s. 6d. and 18s. 9d., with the discount off. A switch (produced) was found on Pamington's stall. It is not an old pattern and unable to bear a high voltage. It is the only pattern we make and you can break 500 volts with that at a current of 50 amperes. We last sold one like this a few weeks back for the same current. The meters said to have been stolen on July 17 are capable when incomplete of being turned either into volt meters or into ameters. The brass cases are made in the shop and brought into the testing-room, where they are put into stock and when an instrument is ordered it is completed, an inside is put to it, the wire is put on, the pointer adjusted, and the scale made out. The scales upon the one produced is a cardboard scale; we have never had an engraved scale on this type of instrument. In converting volt meter into an ameter a portion of the inside has to be taken away and different wire and terminals substituted; half an hour's work would turn it from one to the other. With regard to the cell testers, all I had to do was to complete them. The cases had been in existence not more than 12 months. The price of the cell testers would be about £7 10s. I do not know that the cell testers were sent to Ernst in exchange for the things he returned. Between June 5 and June 10 a 2 in. motor meter, returned by Ernst,

was completed and supplied to Messrs. Rawlings Brothers, Limited, and also an ameter. That entry appears both in the instrument order book and in the invoice book. On June 19 one 2 in. brass-case motor meter was completed and invoiced to Heap and Johnson, being one of the same lot returned by Ernst. As it was sent by parcel post, that would not appear in the parcels book. We should have a receipt from the post-office if we wanted one. Another meter of the same kind was invoiced to Heap and Johnson on June 25. That one was returned, the reading being too high, and they had a lower reading meter. On June 29 a similar meter was supplied to Rawlings, and on June 30 two more. Messrs. Walker and Hut ton, United Motor Industries, Limited, Messrs. Wright and Sons, Dover, and Mr. Fowler, Windsor, are other customers who were supplied with meters returned from Ernst, and some are still in stock. I have been in the service of the company over five years, and until it was turned into a company I looked upon Duncan as being my master. After the company was formed, he continued to perform the same duties as before, until he was suspended. I took my orders from him and got my wages from him—sometimes. I had a telephone message from Jenkins to take my orders from Duncan. The works were shut up about a fortnight ago. None of the plant of the firm has been taken away. A gas engine was taken away in September, but that was not part of the plant of the firm; it was used when we were in a different place, and has been lying there idle for a year or two. There have also been taken away an alternating current generator, a number of large circuit breakers, a stock of arc lamps and carbons, a number of arc lamp covers, about one dozen instruments, all the old stock of pulleys, telephone magnetos, all on or about September 22. Nothing was taken away that would stop the works. None of the articles enumerated appear in the parcels book, nor, so far as I know, in the copy invoice book.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall. I am in what is called the callibrating room. I received all the instruments returned from Ernst to calibrate, but there was other work to be done. Calibrating is marking on the instrument the exact point to which the pointer swings. I had nothing to do with where the instruments came from. There would be a book in the office which would show whether the instruments were handed over by someone from outside the works. We do not receive incomplete machines from other manufacturers. Our machines are made entirely inside our own works. The meaning of the entry, "Agent's stock," is that instruments would be made up and sent to an agent for him to sell. I disagree with your suggestion that the reference to agents' stock means that they did not pass out of our stock into my hands to callibrate. Of the 50 2 in. motor meters that went to Ernst, I think you will find that 25 were returned. If Duncan gave these 50 to Ernst I should not expect Ernst to give them back without something in exchange. I could not say whether it was the 26th or 27th, and not April 28 that the goods were sent to Ernst. It did not come within my duty at the moment to see that the carrier who took the things gave a receipt in the parcels book. The responsible person was a man named Storer. The things were sent

away quite openly. We took our orders from Duncan, and if he had said the goods were to be sent to some other place, they would have been so sent. I did not see Mr. Everden at the works at all. I do not see people who come to the works unless I happen to be in the office. I never saw Ernst do any work, but he used to come into the calibrating room sometimes. I have seen Jenkins at the works three times. I cannot recall anything to show when this new company took possession of the works, but Duncan told me the new company was taking the business over. My wages were not always paid to date; five weeks is unpaid now. I was paid 7d. per hour, or an average of 30s. per week.

Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. I said in my evidence at the police court, "About June 15 I saw Pamington's assistant take some telephone receivers and six 3 in. brass case roll meters. Duncan told me to wrap them up. They were taken to the shop, and Pamington's assistant took them. I saw the telephone receivers at Pamington's store. "Pamington did not himself take them, but they were taken by his directions. I first knew of the formation of the company some time in May. One week our wages were not forthcoming, and when we asked Mr. Duncan about it he said he would get the money during the week. We waited during the week, but it did not come off, and later on he said there had been some little "fluke" in matters, and the company had not definitely taken the concern over, but we should have our wages on the following Saturday. On the following Saturday they did not come down. A board was put up changing the name from "Foxcroft and Duncan" to "Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Co., Ltd.," but I could not say the date. One cell tester was found on the stall and six at Pamington's warehouse.

Re-examined. The telephone receivers are what are called spoon receivers: they are not modern. I remember using the expression that people might buy them if they were silly enough. I meant by that that they are rather old-fashioned and could not be used on up-to-date instruments. I am in a position to say that one of the 3 in. brass case ampere metres which has been recovered was never in the possession of Ernst. I keep the incomplete instruments in my own department in a box and, as nobody else goes to it, I know exactly how things always stand. When this one was ordered I took it from the original wrappings in which it came from the shop and made it up. I am able to say that this cell tester never went to Ernst, because I took it from the stock in the shop in its original wrapping and made it up. The same observation applies to the other six. With regard to those which did come back from Ernst I made a rough note in the old instrument book. Thirty-one were returned in all, not 25, though I have no record of six of them. The one dozen motor metres which were sent to the United Motor Industries were completed from those that came back from Ernst. With regard to the plant which was taken away in September, the gas engine and the pulleys, none of it was in use nor had been for years. I do not know what was done with it after it was taken away. The company has agents for the sale of their goods, about half a dozen. None of the things entered as

"agents' stock" went to any of those agents. I should say the board outside the works with the name of the concern on was changed in June.

HENRY ARTHUR CHINN , Southcote Road, South Norwood. I have been the manager of the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, Limited, since September 9. On September 24, in consequence of information I had received, I went with Lisle to Pamington's stores. Mrs. Pamington was present first of all and Lisle identified certain articles. Pamington subsequently came up and Mrs. Pamington introduced him as her manager and buyer in the name of White, and gave me a card with that name on. I asked Pamington where he had got the articles which Lisle had identified. He said from Stevens in Covent Garden. After that he told me I could know nothing further. I was present when Ernst was arrested by Sergeant Smith at 82, Camber well New Road. Ernst said that these goods were given to him by Duncan, in payment of moneys due to him, and produced an invoice. Ernst was asked if he had had goods since the business was turned into a limited company and said "Yes." He also said he was hard up at the time and was ill. As to the disposition of the goods he said he was walking about the streets and saw Pamington and asked him if he bought this class of goods. Pamington said Yes, and he sold them to Pamington for £4 and some odd shillings. I gave him in charge. I was also present when Sergeant Wright arrested Pamington in his warehouse in Clerkenwell. Sergeant Wright first spoke to him in Farringdon Road at his stall. Pamington said, "I will tell you the truth. I bought the goods from a man named Ernst, who lives in Camberwell New Road. "I remarked to the officer in the hearing of Pamington, "That man was in the employ of the firm." We then went to the warehouse, where Pamington produced a lot of other instruments, the six cell testers being amongst them. He said that he bought them from Ernst; he had one deal with him and bought all the instruments, which he pointed out. He produced a receipt for £4 signed by Ernst. He also produced the letter from Duncan to Ernst referring to the iron clad switches. Sergeant Wright pointed out that this letter was on the company's notepaper and told Pamington he must have known that Ernst was in the employ of the firm. Pamington denied that he knew it. Asked as to pencil marks upon the letter, "Bennett, 316, Kennington Road, and Clarke, 298, Brixton Road," Pamington said they were the names and addresses of pawnbrokers and that he purchased the tickets for electrical instruments pledged with them with the other goods from Ernst. He also said he had redeemed the goods. Pointing out the telephone number, "Dal. 1744," Sergeant Wright said it was the telephone number of the firm and Pamington must have known that Ernst was employed there. The sergeant added, "The price you paid was quite inadequate, and I shall take you into custody." He was then arrested. The price of a secondhand polarised Bell line tester would be somewhere about a sovereign. The works have been closed since I have been in attendance here because having so many of my men in attendance here there would have been no supervision. They will be reopened at the con-elusion

of this trial. Since I have been manager there have been sales of some old stock and new stock has been sold in the ordinary course of business.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall. My salary of £3 per week has always been paid up to the present. There is a balance due to Lisle. I have satisfied myself that all the goods invoiced to Ernst left the premises on April 26 and 27. I have heard that the company was not actually formed until May 13.

(Thursday, December 2.)

THOMAS CHARLES WATERS , 13, Boston Road, Walthamstow. I am in the employment of the Duncan Engineering Company, Limited, as an instrument maker and I was in Duncan's employ before the business was turned into a company. I was employed on piecework in the manufacture of certain goods supplied to the War Office. I drew a certain amount as weekly wages and when the job is accepted by the War Office we draw the balance. On Saturday, September 11, I had conversation with Duncan with regard to wages in connection with the War Office business. Referring to the items in the stock sheet, "20 single duplex switches, £8 10s., they were in stock three or four years ago; it may be five or six years ago.

Mr. Leycester objected that this matter had no bearing upon the indictment.

Mr. Mulligan said his object was to show that articles were included in the stock sheets which had long since been disposed of.

Detective-sergeant GEORGE WRIGHT. In consequence of certain instructions on December 24, about 3.30, I went to Farringdon Road and there saw Pamington at a stall. I said to him, "I am a police officer. Certain articles which have been pointed out on this stall have been identified as stolen from the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, of Hackney. How did you become possessed of them?" He said, "I can prove how I got them, but it will take me three days to do so." I said, "Who did you buy them from?" He said, "I do not know the man's name." I said, "Where does he live?" He said, "I do not know. I have a receipt." I said, "Where is it?" He said, "That is my business; you can know nothing." I said, "The onus lies upon you to give a reasonable explanation of how you became possessed of this property. If you do not give me any particulars I shall be bound to take you into custody." He then said, "I have the receipt at home, but it will want finding." I said, "All right, I will come and assist you. "We then went to his address in Newcastle Row. On the way there he said, "I bought the things of a man named Ernst, of Camberwell New Road." The witness Chinn was present and said, "That man worked for the firm." At prisoner's address in Newcastle Row the witness Lisle identified six cell testers and other articles. I asked Pamington where he got these. He said, "From the same man. I had one deal with him. I have a receipt if I can find it. "I then assisted to search among the papers and I found the letter from the

Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company which has been produced. I then asked him, "Have you been to this firm and had dealings with them?" He said, "No, I have not been there. Ernst came here and said could I do with certain things. I received that letter. I did not know that Ernst was agent for the firm." We continued to search the premises and found a receipt signed "Ernst. "After looking at it he said, "There you are. There is my receipt. That is what I paid for the goods." I asked him what the writing in pencil referred to. He said he bought two pawntickets from Ernst relating to some volt metres pledged. I also pointed out the firm's telephone number and said, "It is clear you must have known Ernst was employed there. The price you have paid is inadequate and I shall take you into custody for receiving these goods. "I conveyed him to the police station, where he was detained until the arrest of the other two prisoners. I arrested Duncan at one a.m. on the early morning of the 25th, as he was about entering his address in Pembury Road, Hackney. I was with Sergeant Smith. I said, "We are police officers. We have arrested two men named Pamington and Ernst for stealing and receiving certain volt metres, etc., from the firm of the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, Limited. I shall now arrest you for being concerned with them." He said, "Oh! oh! All right." I found the postcard produced addressed "Mr. L. Ernst," dated May 4. Pamington said he found it amongst the pledges which he took out of pawn. I also found an invoice relating to a small dynamo at Pamington's address made out in the name of Mr. White.

Detective-sergeant SMITH gave corroborative evidence as to the arrests.

Mr. Leycester, for Duncan, submitted that there was no evidence to go to the Jury in support of the indictment. The evidence of what occurred at the time of the finding of the goods in Duncan's absence was, of course, not evidence against him. Also the evidence as to the price, possibly inadequate, at which the goods were transferred from Ernst to Pamington was no evidence at all that they were stolen by Duncan. One had exactly the same evidence, for instance, in bankruptcy cases where men obtained goods on credit and disposed of them. The prosecution had proved no act amounting to larceny. The mere fact that the things were returned to the premises of the prosecutors to be made up would not make them the property of the limited company. The finding of certain of the articles on Pamington's stall was no evidence of larceny.

The Common Serjeant held that there was evidence for the Jury.

Mr. Marshall made a similar submission on behalf of Ernst, stating that he had endeavoured all through this case to find in what way the prosecution sought to show that Ernst had taken these goods away or had received them, or that they had at any time been in Ernst's possession.

The Common Serjeant said that with regard to Ernst, he would like to hear what, counsel for the prosecution had to say.

Mr. Mulligan said there was primary evidence that Ernst was constantly about the works and, for the most part, was in Duncan's office; that was the evidence of Lisle. There was also a postcard dated May 4 in Duncan's handwriting, "Dear sir,—Do not forget to bring along the 2 in. brass case meter to-morrow. "That showed he was in possession of some of these 2 in. brass case meters and that Duncan was getting them from him. It showed the connection up to that date. Then there was the admission to the detective-sergeant, "The goods were given to me by Mr. Duncan, the manager, as commission for services rendered before the company was formed. "He further said, in answer to the question, "Have you had goods from Duncan since it has been a company?" "Yes, I was hard up at the time and ill and wanted money." That was clearly an admission that he had two lots of goods, the goods in April before the company took over the business, and the other goods in July. There was also the receipt signed by Ernst on May 25, after the company was formed, which showed that he was parting with goods to Pamington at a ridiculously low price.

Mr. Marshall asked the Common Serjeant to find as a point of law that under the two agreements until completion, which was fixed at the earliest at May 11, all these goods belonged to Duncan.

The Common Serjeant. Assuming that they were in point of law Duncan's goods, of course, he was in such a position then that he had no right to be disposing of them for his own benefit without the company got the benefit of it, but they were not the goods of the company until the company came into existence.

Mr. Marshall. That would be impossible. If on April 28 the property in those goods belonged to Duncan alone, it did not matter twopence what became of the proceeds; he had a right to dispose of these goods, although it might be that as between himself and the Kappa Syndicate, or as between himself and the company, he might have to account, but he would have a perfect right to give a title to them to Ernst either as a gift or as commission. If Duncan was in a position to give Ernst a good title to them, it did not matter to the prosecutors or anybody else in this world what he did with them, and their being found on Pamington's stall did not affect the matter.

The Common Serjeant held that there was evidence that Ernst took part in stealing them, or, if Duncan had stolen them, receiving them knowing them to have been stolen. He was there to watch the company's interests, and he said, "After I was there to watch the company's interests—really to watch the manager—the manager gave me the things because I was hard up, and I went out and found a costermonger to buy them. "The point was that he knew the position of Duncan.

Mr. McDonald submitted there was no case against Pamington, inasmuch as he was charged with stealing. With regard to the charge of receiving the goods knowing them to have been feloniously stolen, he submitted that the transaction between Pamington and Ernst was an absolutely bona-fide one. The fact that Ernst sold these goods to

Pamington for £4 did not affect the question that Pamington knew that they were stolen property.

The Common Serjeant declined to with draw the case from the Jury.


WOOLMER JAMES VICTOR DUNCAN (prisoner, on oath). Four years ago Mr. Foxcroft left the business, and since that time it has been my own. Till these matters arose no charge of any kind was made against me. In the spring of this year I was in financial difficulties, and could not complete one or two big contracts I had, and I had one or two county court summonses in as well. I had a substantial amount of plant and stock upon my premises of the value of £2,000 or £3,000. I had book debts owing to me to the amount of about £50 or £60, and for these reasons I was desirous of getting more capital put into the business. I consulted a Mr. Murphy about it, and he introduced me to Ernst about the middle of March. Subsequently Ernst introduced me to Mr. Campbell-Everden at Suffolk House. I told him I was desirous of turning the business into a company as I wanted more capital. Everden said he was open to do it. I asked for 2,000 debentures and £2,000 cash for my debts amounting to about £250 to be covered. Everden said he could not entertain the proposition as to cash. A few days afterwards I came to an arrangement with him that the debentures should be increased to £3,000, and that the debts should be taken over at £550, that including £300 overdraft at the bank. It was Everden's proposition, and I did not close with it at once. The offer was afterwards increased to 4,000 debentures and 3,000 shares, and the debts up to £550 as appears in the written agreement of the 7th of April. I said I wanted working capital because I had at the time a War Office contract for about £600 that I could not carry on. I was tied up for want of cash. Everden said there would be no difficulty in selling shares to provide working capital. I do not know in what capacity Ernst came down to the works. I believe Mr. Jenkins was the instigator of this. I did not pay Ernst any salary at all. I sent the takings to Jenkins. He said the debts had got to be covered, and I was to put in all the cash I could to cover them. The syndicate sent down a certain amount for wages, but nothing else was paid. I provided the petty cash and things went on in that way up to the signing of the agreement and the formation of the company. In the meantime I had provided £150 by borrowing from my aunt. At that time there was a man in possession for rent, the amount being, I think, about £70, and there were some judgments against me amounting to £20 or £30. The suggestion that I should borrow the money from my aunt came from Jenkins, as he said they could not form a company without the title was free. My aunt handed me a cheque in the first place for £100, which was payable to the Kappa Syndicate. I gave it to Mr. Jenkins, who paid out £20, I believe, to the landlord's man the same day for the brokers to go out. He also paid the expenses of one or two judgments, and I believe the wages were paid for that week now

I come to think of it, about £8 I think it would be. On April 26 I got this letter from the secretary of the Kappa Syndicate: "Dear Sir,—The £50 balance of the £150 must be forthcoming to-morrow in order to settle pressing creditors, so as to remove the present obstacles to the transfer of the business to the company. Immediately on this being done the company shall be registered as all the papers are ready for lodging with the Registrar. Miss Duncan may be assured that she shall be paid out of the first moneys available after the formation of the company. Please give this attention at once, as otherwise we fear the whole idea will collapse as far as you are concerned." Accordingly on April 27 I obtained another cheque of £50 from my aunt, payable to the Kappa Syndicate. As to what was done with the money I only know that it was got out of the bank by Mr. Jenkins and put into his pocket. The cash book of the company shows these cheques from Miss Duncan to be entered under date of August 31. An entry on the other side accounts for the expenditure of the £150, including £39 2s. 9d., the expenses of registering the company, wages £19, and so on. On May 14 I signed an agreement with the new company, to which, so far as I know, the Kappa Syndicate was no party at all. On May 15 a debenture trust deed was executed by which the debentures were invested in the Empyrean Trading Corporation, Limited, as trustees for the debenture holders, the Empyrean Company to get £50 a year for acting as trustees. On May 17 there was a further agreement by which the Empyrean were to provide offices and secretaries for £100 a year—at least, so I have ascertained since, but as I was never advised of any directors meeting I do not know. I never received any official intimation of being appointed a director. I never had notice of board meetings and never attended any, and it is a deliberate mis-statement of the witness Ever den when he states that I did. They kept me out of it as much as they possibly could. I was told that the salary of a director was to be £100 a year. I had a telephone message from Mr. Jenkins that I was to receive £3 a week. The other directors besides myself were Everden, Reynolds, and Jenkins. I could not say who was chairman. I believe it was provided by the memorandum and articles of association that each director was to have a salary of £100 a year and the chairman £150. I kept books in connection with my business in addition to the instrument order book and the invoice book. They were taken away by the accountants somewhere towards the end of May. I was not asked for a balance-sheet of the business before the company was formed nor for any stock sheet. The stock sheets which have been produced were made out, I believe, during the period from May 14 to August 19. Before the latter date nobody saw them but myself and Ernst. After the books were taken away I had to keep my accounts in the best way I could, partly in a memorandum book, partly in the copy invoice book, and on slips of paper. When I was suspended these materials were left in the drawer in my office. Up till the time of the agreement of April 28 I believed that the stock belonged to myself and not to the Kappa Syndicate; the purchase had not

taken place and I had received no consideration whatever for parting with it. Previous to April 7 I had a verbal arrangement with Ernst that I was to pay him £100 for his introduction if the deal came through. As I did not get any cash from the company, as I had expected, I gave him goods to level the amount. He wanted a settlement of the amount because the company had gone on the way and he was hard up, so I told him I had a lot of surplus goods, and if I could get rid of them I should be pleased to let him have them. None of the goods I handed to him were included in the stock sheets. The invoices of the two lots of goods were left on the premises when I was suspended. They included some goods found at Pamington's, as to which I am not now charged. I supplied to Ernst 11 ft. 3 in. brass case metres at 20s. each, incomplete. In that state they are not saleable except as old metal. That applies also to the 20 motor metres appearing in the invoice of April 28, and the 25 2 in. motor metres appearing in the invoice of April 29. On July 15 Lisle had an order to make up three ampere metres and six motor-car metres. The ampere metres were returned by Pamington to be completed. I knew at that time that Ernst had disposed of some of the goods to Pamington. The 3 in. ampere metre produced, No. 7,531, had a card scale. It is usual to have a card scale on the 3 in. dial, but not on the 2 in. The cost of finishing was very small, about 2s. each. I did, in fact, charge Pamington that sum for finishing it, and the money was paid on the spot. I put it into petty cash, and entered it in one of the memorandum books, which were left in my desk when I was suspended. The six motor metres which Lisle completed came from Ernst. I do not know the exact date, but they are among the lot that he brought back at different times, and they were finished for Pamington, who paid 1s. each for them and took them away. At this time Ernst was still about the works, and was getting no salary payment, which had ceased about the beginning of July. He was supposed to be an agent going about trying to sell things. Everden had stated that he was an agent, and I entered it as an agent's order to distinguish it from the orders that went out to other people. If I had wanted to cover up these deliveries I should not have entered it myself. I could easily have given instructions to have these finished without entering them in the book. When the motor metres had gone to Ernst—there were in all 45—there were none left in stock, with the exception of one that had been returned. When on May 21 I received the order from the United Motor Industries for one dozen motor-car metres I got one dozen from Ernst and gave them to the witness Lisle to complete, as appears in the instrument order book of that date, one of them being the one in stock. On the 24th there was an order from Messrs. Walker and Hutton, of Scarborough, for two 3 in. brass case gravity metres. We had none of the instruments in stock, so I communicated with Ernst and asked him to let me have two. In exchange for the things he returned I let him have the six cell testers. I afterwards obtained orders from other people for motorcar meters, which were supplied out of the meters I got Back from Ernst, and in each case I let Ernst have other goods in exchange for

the motor metres that he brought back. Pamington came to the works on two occasions, about the middle of June and about the middle of July. The telephone receivers he took away I bought at a sale when I started business ten years ago, and I had had them ever since; I could not get rid of them. Speaking from memory there were six or eight. They were absolutely unsaleable, and Pamington gave 6d. each for them, and £1 for some old metal. I put the money into petty cash, and I was not receiving any, and entered it in my memorandum book. On Pamington's first visit he asked if we had any switches in stock, as he thought he might be able to place an order for about 50 of them, but he could not place an order without having a sample. I gave him instructions for the iron-clad switch to be finished off, and he took the sample away with him on his barrow. I wrote to him giving him a quotation for about 50, but when he took it away he said he did not think that under present regulations they would pass the corporation requirements. Such switches are used for switching off the electric supply in buildings. The case was an old design, which I designed myself some three or four years ago: in fact, I designed all the instruments which are produced here. The corporation engineers require something more now than they used to, and the consequence is that the working parts of the switch are much too near the case. The corporation engineer has the passing of all installations in his district, and sends down a man before they put on the supply. We have consequently had to cut away the partitions in the top of these cases to get the switches sold at all lately—you might say they have had to be more or less faked up to get rid of them. This is one of the switches I offered to Pamington for 5s., and that is a fair price for it as it stands now. I have a lot of them in stock, perhaps 30, speaking from memory. The whole of these transactions with the other prisoners were carried out quite openly, without any concealment, and the prices at which I invoiced the things to Ernst were the full list prices. I got as much out of it as I could. He had no goods which are not in the invoices unless he had other things in exchange. I could not have expected to get them back without giving him something in exchange for them. The cheque for £7 14s. 10d. which I received from United Motor Industries, I used for paying accounts in connection with two switch contracts I had in hand at the time, which I could not finish otherwise. All the money was expended on things at the works. I did not appropriate any of it for my own pocket. I was paying out petty cash right away from April 7 and never got a penny from Suffolk House. Money is still due me on account of petty cash and wages, something like £70. I had to pay for materials more quickly than I used to because when the company was formed the people who used to supply me on credit made inquiries as to the Suffolk House people, and they would supply me no longer. As to the cheques for £10 12s. 4d. and £5 15s. 10d. from the War Office, which I paid into my aunt's accounts, at that time the rating department of the Corporation had already summoned me, and the electricity department had put in a distraint at the private house, where I was living with my aunt, for power supplied for running the works, which was the com-pany's

debt, the company having taken over my liabilities. I had no cash of my own to pay it with at that time. The supply had been cut off some fortnight or three weeks previously, and the works consequently stopped. I wrote to Suffolk House every two or three days about it, but they took no notice of it. I expect I communicated with Mr. Jenkins, as he was to the fore in all these matters. The Town Clerk was informed that I was responsible for it. A distress was also put in at my aunt's house for rates at the works. There was due for the electric light £12 5s., less the deposit of £5. I sacrificed the deposit, and paid £7 5s. by cheque of my aunt, and there was also a payment of £4 1s. in respect of the general rate. I never endeavoured to conceal the fact that I had received postal orders for £20 19s. 6d. and 9s. 6d., and I accounted for payments for wages and other things in respect of them amounting to £20 14s. 8d. I paid the wages because the men were threatening summonses, and, in fact, they did go up to the police court. I had discharged some of the wages before I got the postal orders, borrowing money for the purpose. The statement that I said that the book debts amounted to £600 is a gross misstatement. Why should I want a company to be formed if I had got £600 coming in a few days? Speaking from memory I do not think I mentioned any figure for the book debts; there was possibly £50 or £60 outstanding.

(Friday, December 3.)

WOOLMER JAMES VICTOR DUNCAN (prisoner, on oath), further examined. The £550 liabilities which were to be taken over by the company more than included the whole amount of my liabilities. Those liabilities have not been discharged. A judgment was obtained against me on November 16 in the High Court at the suit of a Mr. Dixon for a debt incurred before the company was formed. The writ is endorsed for £53 8s. 10d. and £7 10s. costs. Claims are being made against me in respect of other liabilities. The bank overdraft is still unpaid and about three weeks ago I had a letter from the bank manager wanting to know when it was going to be cleared off.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mulligan. I had carried on the business before April of this year for about 10 years, for the greater part of the time in conjunction with a gentleman named Foxcroft, who retired about four years ago. His son was afterwards assistant in the business and ceased to be so at the latter end of last year. I cannot tell the date when Murphy introduced me to Ernst. At the interviews before the signing of the agreement Everden did not tell me that Ernst was getting one-third of whatever profit the Kappa Syndicate was making as commission. I certainly did not understand all the agreement with the Kappa Syndicate. I did not understand about the debentures which I understand have now been increased to £10,000. I understood that the syndicate was purchasing my business for £10,000, but as my plant and stock were only worth about £4,000 I did not want £10,000. I am not up to all the company promoting terms. I understood I was to have £3,000 in shares and £4,000 in

debentures. I understood that the business was to remain my property until it was taken over by a company, and I did just the same as I did before. Jenkins told me the company had been registered at a certain date. I made inquiries and found it was not so. I certainly suggest that the company agreed to supply me with cash as manager, not for the purchase of the business, but they undertook to clear off the liabilities. Mr. Everden said with regard to working capital there would be no difficulty in selling 4,000 shares. I never suggested that those shares should be subscribed for by the public; I was not a company promoter. I never suggested that advertisements should be put in the public newspapers for the purpose of getting subscription for these shares. I was works manager; that was all. The draft advertisement produced is not an advertisement for subscriptions; it is an advertisement for two premium pupils they wanted to get. I do not know that Ernst was at the works representing the Kappa Syndicate. I do not know who paid his salary between April 27 and May 14. When the second agreement was executed on May 13 I became manager for the company. There was another draft advertisement in my handwriting, stating that the prosperous business of the Foxcroft Engineering Company had recently been formed into a limited company with the object of extending its already widespread business. Mr. Jenkins suggested that something like that should be done. After I signed the agreement of April 7 I purported to account to the Kappa Syndicate for sums of money I received. I did not, in fact, account for all the sums. I cannot at this date say whether I accounted for everything except what was necessary for petty cash. The Kappa Syndicate did, in fact, send down sums from time to time to pay wages, but only to the amount I sent up to them. The Kappa Syndicate paid a judgment summons of £11 odd out of the £150 lent by my aunt. They also paid the rent out of the money. They only paid what we gave them the money to pay. As to whether I suggest that the £100 was expended in any way except in paying off judgment and other debts of the company, I do not know where it went to when Jenkins got hold of it. I do not know that £200 debentures of the company were allotted to Miss Duncan in satisfaction of her advance of £200; she is holding them as security. I wrote on May 12 to the Kappa Syndicate: "Dear Sirs,—Mr. Ernst tells me you are arranging with him for his commission, and as I have agreed to give him £500 of my debentures out of my £2,000 he had requested me to inform you of the fact, so that there will be no misunderstanding, and you can then arrange among yourselves as to the disposition of these debentures." I knew at that date that Ernst was getting commission from the Kappa Syndicate, but I cannot now remember all these details. I certainly did not disclose to the Kappa Syndicate or to the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company that I had already given Ernst goods representing £100 for commission. At that time (May 12) I was in sole charge of the works; I had not handed it over. Under my control I had to carry on the business as a going concern properly. On April 26 and 27 I gave Ernst, approximately, £100 worth of the stock in trade, which I had a perfect right to do. As to whether I

had a perfect right to give away the whole lot, if I had not a debt to that amount, it is not likely I should have done so. I could not have said to Ernst, "I will give you £3,000 commission. Take the whole of the stock for it. "I seriously suggest that I gave the £100 of stock to Ernst for commission for inducing the syndicate, or whoever they were, at Suffolk House, to form the company. If a company was not formed Ernst was not to get a penny. I only paid Ernst for one fortnight in August. That was because I wanted somebody to take charge of the works while I was away. He had been about there a little bit and knew something about it. I was not paying him on behalf of the company, but I paid him out of the company's money, because I was not getting any money myself. I think he was paid by the company occasionally down to July or August. The £500 debentures to Ernst was not commission but a presentation for assisting me in the works and in various ways. I had a perfect right to deal with my debentures as I liked. I did not understand that he was representing the company at all; he came there really as a friend of mine. I had no suspicion that he was representing the Kappa Syndicate. I did not know he was in touch with them. Of the £475 said to have been advanced by the syndicate I only recognise one or two items as being liabilities of mine. The syndicate, of course, had to pay the expenses of the flotation. I say I never attended any board meetings, I was not at a meeting on July 3. (Minute book, with prisoner's name entered as present, produced.) I admit that between May, 1908, and May, 1909, I practically kept no books. The books were there, but had not been made up. After April 7 till the tune I left in September the invoice book was at my disposal except for a period of, perhaps, two or three weeks, when the accountants took it away. No one but myself and Ernst saw the stock sheets before August. I got the information contained in the stock sheets from the works and from previous stock sheets. It is not a fact that the plant and stock sheets are in the handwriting of Foxcroft, jun. The telephone receivers are priced in the stock sheet at £5 3s. 6d. I cannot say whether they are the same as I sold to Pamington for 6d. each. There was any amount of old stock there, a room full. Three double pole merged contacts in iron cases are priced at £1 17s. 6d., which I suppose is the list price. In the certificate we stated that depreciation had been allowed for old and damaged stock. The 50 ampere iron clad switches are put down at 12s. 6d. apiece. The polarised "Bell" line tester is priced at £3 108: in the invoice to Ernst. In the stock sheet it stands at £20. I think the figure 20 is intended to indicate that there were 20 of them. They were a lot of old ones that I bought from the War-Office about five years ago when they came from South Africa and they have been on the shelf ever since. With 10s. or 15s. of work. upon them they would be worth £3 10s. Of course, when I buy things from the War Office I do not give inflated prices for them. The certificate states that they are at cost price, but I do not accept the suggestion that this was not an honest valuation according to the certificate. There may be other items in the stock sheet which are inaccurate. In a stock of this amount it is impossible to certify every

item. I cannot say whether there are not items which are undervalued. With regard to the item 20 single and duplex switches, £8 10s., I cannot say whether it is a fact that they had been supplied to the War Office months before. In 1906 I had an order for 20 or 25 and I made up the number to 50 for stock. It is impossible for me to say whether these 20 are identical with those. It is not true that they were never in stock at all. "Agents' stock" or "agents' order" is a phrase constantly used throughout the instrument order book, and it is used to distinguish agents' orders from the orders of customers. When goods go out to agents it is for the purpose of their selling them. In the case of the six cell testers given to Ernst in exchange for the volt meters he returned it was not necessary to put Ernst's name against the entry. The words "agents' stock" opposite the entry does not necessarily mean that the cell testers were still the property of the company. If I had wanted to cover up this deal I should not have made the entry at all. I had not to account to Lisle for them leaving the premises. With regard to the volt meters that went to Ernst when I got the order from United Motor Industries, I had only one in stock. I received the cheque produced for £7 14s. 10d. dated July 20, 1909, from Motor Industries, Limited, and returned it with a request for a fresh cheque not marked "a/c payees only," as the amount was not to go through the company's books, they not taking over until June. They struck out "a/c payees only" and returned the cheque, which I gave to Ernst, who cashed it. With regard to the statement that the company did not take over until June, my view was that the company did not purchase the business till they gave me the debentures, which was not till June 16. I believe the amount is marked off in the invoice book and it is entered in the small memorandum book I used as a cash book after the accountant had taken the proper books away. The expenditure was on slips of paper. The iron clad switch I gave to Pamington on June 15 was a sample. The switches I wrote to him about on June 24 offering them at 3s. and 5s. each are presumably those entered in the stock sheets at 10s. 6d. and 12s. 6d. each. I cannot swear whether since the company was formed I have represented to customers that the value of the iron clad switches was the figure given in the stock sheet. I might have done so if a voltage installation was in contemplation. I did not tell the company of the receipt of the War Office cheques until the matter of this prosecution came up. I did not think the receipt of the cheques was a matter that ought to be brought to the notice of the company employing me under the circumstances, but I thought it right a few days later to inform the company of the receipt of the postal orders for £20 9s. 6d. and 9s. 6d. and to enclose an account showing how I had dealt with those moneys. One was expenditure for the company and the other was not. If the company had paid out those distraints it would not have been necessary to use their cheques.

(Monday, December 6.)

WOOLMER JAMES VICTOR DUNCAN (prisoner, on oath), further cross-examined by Mr. Mulligan. There were originally 50 single duplex

switches. Thirty of them are referred to in the invoice to the War Office of July 7, 1904. By July, 1906, there was only one left in stock. There were other switches of this type made—lots; I have made these duplex switches for years, ever since I have, been in business. We made practically all of them for the Ordnance Stores. At the time when Ernst was looking after the business for me in August I was away with the Territorials on Salisbury Plain. I have belonged to the Volunteer force for twenty years and am brigade artificer. I did not consult with Ernst as to the disposal of the postal orders. Directly after I came back I received instructions to kick him out. In the account I rendered to the company is an item, "Self, £4." The explanation is that the company deducted £2 from, my salary on July 17, £1 on July 24, and £2 on July 31. I was simply taking it back; their own sheets show it. The average weekly wages at the works were between £13 and £15. That did not include Ernst. Except on the one occasion when I was away I had nothing to do with the payment of Ernst. The company crossed out the £4 in red ink and put £3. I did not give a receipt for wages; the money was sent down to me in cash from Suffolk House by the typist. I did not at the time of the signing of the agreement of April 7 tell Mr. Everden that the War Office owed me £600. I should not have gone to the syndicate to form a company if I had had £500 coming in in a few days from the War Office. I said the contract for £600 was half finished and I wanted another £60 or £70 to carry it through. The syndicate said they were going to give me the money in a week or so; they kept on saying so every week. I complain that my liabilities of £550 have not been discharged. The syndicate say now they were under no obligation to discharge my liabilities; that is where they did me. They did, in fact, discharge a liability to Messrs. Alabaster, Gatehouse, and Co., but they got £150 to pay it with. They would not have done it if I had not found the money. The judgment of Dixon against me was in respect of brass, copper, and gun mountings. I did not supply a list of liabilities to the accountants; they took them off the file. They asked me to give them the books and files and receipts. From April 8 to September 6 I accounted to the directors for receipts amounting to £42 6s. 4d., according to their cash book, for which I do not vouch. I did not account for Walker and Hutton's cheque for £3, which I received on July 28, nor for a cheque for £4 19s. 9d. drawn by Emmanuel and Sons.

Mr. Leycester objected that Emmanuel's cheque was entirely fresh matter. A large number of issues had been introduced which in point of law were absolutely irrelevant and the time had come when his lordship, in the exercise of his discretion, should prevent the introduction of any new issues. He had already to defend Duncan in respect of six different items of larceny, five different items of embezzlement, allegations with regard to the stock sheets, and matters of that kind, and if issues were to be multiplied in that way it necessarily embarrassed the defence.

The Common Serjeant observed that it embarrassed everybody, but that was not a reason for leaving this matter out.

Further cross-examined. I passed the cheque through my aunt's bank, and did not account for it to the company. I received the cheque on September 3. I made no reference to it when I wrote to the company on September 7 with reference to the postal orders. The cheque from Motor Industries was in payment of 12 2 in motor meters, 11 of which I had received from Ernst. I did not give him the cheque from Motor Industries to cash and keep the proceeds because I was selling his property, but because I had not received a penny for petty cash right away from May 14, and I was all that out of pocket and more. Walker and Hutton's cheque was in payment for four of the instruments which Ernst had returned. I think I first met Pamington on June 13. He was brought to the works by Ernst. I did not know that under the alias of White he acted as manager for his wife. The invoice to "White" does not appear in the invoice book so far as I can remember. We had our money's worth out of the dynamo we repaired for him; we used it for nearly a month for charging accumulators. I am confident that I have not got value for transferring my business to the company, and that the Kappa Syndicate have not carried out their part of the bargain; I have not got any working capital and I have not got my liabilities paid. I still say that the valuation contained in these stock sheets as at April 30 is approximately correct I cannot go over every item, and they have absolutely nothing to do with the formation of the company. As to whether the plant sheets are exactly identical with those of 1903, with the exception of a 23 ft. bench, 2 ft. 6 in. wide, there is hardly likely to be any material alteration of plant during six years. Three Cushman's chucks charged at £1 17s. 6d. in 1903 are charged at £1 17s. in 1909—six years afterwards. In the 1903 sheet there is an item of 9s. for a pair of couplings, in 1909 the figure is £1 2s., but I do not know that the article is the same. The item of £1 0s. 3d. charged in 1903 in respect of 13 ft. 6 in. 1/2 in. shafting is advanced in 1909 to £1 9s. 3d., after six years' wear and tear. Other items altered are: One 9 in. pulley, 4 guineas in the old sheet, £5 8s. in the new; and 12 1 in. slip. pulleys, £1 8s. in the old sheet, £1 17s. 6d. in the new. I did not get this sheet out; it was done by various people; one room was done by one man and the shop was done by another. The figures are put in by the clerk we had in the office at the time. In the old sheet there are two 4 1/2 in. lathes put at £9; in the new sheet they are £15. The lathe shaft is put at £1 in 1903 and at £2 in 1909. According to the new stock sheet there should be 11 lathes, but I do not know how many lathes there are I take the figures from the stock sheets. I did not go round and count them.

The Common Serjeant. I do not understand what your certificate was worth if you do not know things were there, and did not look into values.

Witness. I cannot look into the value of every article in £3,000 or £4,000 worth of plant and stock, besides. The matter was rushed through by Mr. Jenkins. We sold one lathe in December of last year for £2 and one in January for £3. Of course, the man we ought to have had here is Jenkins. He advised us to do all this. He has been

at the back of everything; he pulls the strings, and he deliberately told us to make the valuation as high as we possibly could. I have not, in fact, transferred to the company all outstanding credits and accounts as provided by the agreement of May 14, because their part of the agreement has not been fulfilled. A three months' bill for £100 given me in respect of goods supplied was disclosed to the company, but I did not assign it to the company because it was in respect of a personal obligation. The drawer simply used the premises and it was a matter that had nothing to do with the company. I made complaint that the Kappa Syndicate had not carried out their part of the agreement before I was dismissed. I was making complaints every week. They supplied me with no petty cash and they would not carry out the War Office contract which I wanted £60 or £70 to finish. They kept telling me week after week that it was going to be done and they never did it. It is not the fact that the Kappa Syndicate could not get the working capital because I had misrepresented the value of the business. They did not have the stock sheets until August 14. The £100 worth of goods to Ernst was in satisfaction of a debt. There is a record of the exchanges of goods in the instrument order book. I did not represent to the promoters that the business was a prosperous business. It is so described in a draft advertisement I drew up at the suggestion of Mr. Jenkins, "Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, Limited, manufacturers of all kinds of high-class electrical instruments, ace lamps, search lamps, etc. This prosperous business has recently been formed into a limited company with the object of extending their already widespread business. "The letter of September 8 from the secretary of the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company with reference to the post-office orders of £20 9s. 6d. and 9s. 6d. asked me to attend a meeting at Suffolk House on the following day to give a personal explanation of ray conduct. I did not attend to "face the music." It was the first intimation I had received that there had been directors' meetings. It is true that I had not accounted for four or five cheques. I applied some of the money I received from Motor Industries in completing two switchboards I had in hand. I made a record of that expenditure. It is not true that no such records can be found, because I did not keep them. If the syndicate had wanted a balance-sheet when they proceeded to form a company they could have had one. They formed the company without a balance-sheet and without wanting to see the stock sheet or anything at all; that shows what it was. I was only informed over the telephone that I had been appointed a director.

Re-examined. Of all the cheques that have been mentioned I put no part of the proceeds in my pocket. I can show by the total amount of my petty cash that every penny of them was used for the purposes of the company. I last saw Jenkins somewhere about the end of August. He has appeared neither at the police court nor here in the course of this prosecution. Though copies of the invoices of the things given to Ernst are not in the copy invoice book, the draft invoices were found in my drawer in the office and they show that the things were given to him.

ALEXANDER FERGUSSON , from the Accountant's Department of the Hackney Borough Council, gave evidence of the issue of a summons in June for electric light and power supplied to Foxcroft and Duncan. The summons had reference to the March quarter. After the summons there was distraint in the first instance at the works and afterwards at the house where prisoner Duncan was living.

The following witnesses were called to character: JAMES CRAIG, engineer, HENRY FREDERICK STANLEY, accountant and auditor, and THOMPSON BLYTHE, coal merchant.

Louis ERNST (prisoner, on oath). I first met Duncan some time in March. It was put to me by him that his business was short of capital, and could I do anything to assist him. I made efforts to obtain fresh capital, going first to the Brown Engineering Company and afterwards to Mr. Jenkins at Suffolk House. I had known Jenkins for about six months in connection with a motor business. I explained the position to him and to Mr. Everden. I told them in the first instance the liabilities of the business were £200. I do not remember whether the bank overdraft was mentioned at the time. At the subsequent interview, at which Mr. Duncan was present, Jenkins said that he had a man who was prepared to put £2,000 into the business at once. The actual amount required to run the business I do not think was mentioned, but various points were discussed. It was said either by Jenkins or Everden that there would be no trouble in finding the necessary working capital. Duncan first of all asked for £2,000 cash and a share consideration of 3,000 fully-paid £1 shares. Everden said he would not consider the question of cash at all, and that he was prepared to draft an agreement for Duncan's consideration. Duncan had previously agreed to give me £100 for the introduction. As regards Jenkins and Everden I stipulated for one-third of the promotion profits and Jenkins and Everden were also to have a third each. There is no truth in the statement that after the agreement of April 7 I was to go down to the works to look after the interests of the Kappa Syndicate. Why I signed the certificates concerning the stock and plant as "Agent" was because I arranged with Jenkins to be agent for the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company when registered. By "agent" I understood representing them and selling goods, and in August I was employed in that position. With regard to Duncan giving me goods instead of cash for my commission, Duncan, of course, did not get any cash in the promotion, and at the time he sent me the goods there was a doubt whether the new company would be formed at all, but when Duncan's aunt advanced £150 for the discharge of the pressing liabilities I felt sure the business would go through. I probably would let the matter stand over, but at that time I was very short of money myself, and I rather pressed Duncan for my commission. He said he could not get any cash consideration at all, but would not mind letting me have some of his surplus goods if I thought I could do anything with them as an equivalent. I believed that the goods still belonged to Duncan, notwithstanding the agreement of April 7 with the Kappa Syndicate: they could not, in my opinion, possibly belong to anyone else. The goods were sent to me quite

openly; there was no question of any concealment. He selected a number of goods, put them on the floor, and took a memorandum of them, and the same with the goods contained in the second invoice. In the early part of May I made an effort to dispose of the goods contained in the first lot. I pawned two of the cell testers for 7s. 6d., and later I pawned the portable volt meter, put down at £3 7s. 6d., for 2s. 6d. At various times I went about London trying to find a purchaser for some of these goods. I called at a number of engineering places and people having the handling of electrical instruments. They all said the goods were worth practically nothing to them, as if they received an order for an instrument that instrument would have to read from a given figure to a given figure.

(Tuesday, December 7.)

LOUIS ERNST (prisoner, on oath), further examined. On May 3 or 4 I heard from Duncan that he had an order for some of the 2 in. meters and he asked me to return some of them, which I did, he saying that anything he got from me he would exchange for something equivalent. The company had then been formed. I also returned several 3 in. brass case instruments at different times. I first met Pamington at his stall, I think, on May 23 and on May 29 sold to him for £4 5s. certain of the goods I had received from Duncan. Pamington asked me how much I wanted for them. I said, "I should think at least £20" He laughed at me and said it was too much and he could not think of it; I should have to come down. I told him it was absolutely necessary I should sell the goods. They were occupying a room in the house and did not belong to us. I said I must have some money and would take £10 for them. He said it was impossible and gave reasons. For one thing, he said, a lot of the stuff was worth nothing, except to scrap, as they were only empty cases or unfinished instruments. Pointing to the circuit breakers he said they were worth just what copper there was in them, as he might have them for years before he could dispose of them. I asked him to make me an offer. He said, "Well, I am ashamed to make you an offer. The goods are not worth a penny more than £4 to me. "I accepted the offer and included the pawntickets for the instruments I had pawned for the extra 5s. I also sold to him the instruments I received from Duncan in exchange for what I had returned. For the two 6 in. iron case and two 6 in. brass case meters I got 5s. a piece; for the 3 in. brass case instruments 24s., and for the cell testers 30s. At the time the exchanges were made Duncan apparently was in authority at the works. I took no part in making the valuation of the stock. I took part in the preparation of the lists of stock and plant. The preparation of those valuation lists in no way affected the price that was to be given to Duncan for his business.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mulligan. Duncan told me the stock was worth about £2,000 and the plant and fixtures between £1,200 and £2,000. I do not remember whether any figure for goodwill was mentioned. "Uncompleted contract, £600"—that was the War

Office contract, and there were a few small orders. Duncan explained afterwards that £60 or £70 was required for the War Office contract. I told Duncan I was to get one-third of the profits of promotion just before the registration of the company. I was constantly at the works from April 15 or 16. I did not, in fact, receive £2 a week from Suffolk House. Mr. Everden loaned me £1 at one time and 10s. at another as a matter between ourselves. I never disclosed to anybody at Suffolk House that I was receiving £100 commission from Duncan. After April 7 I was asked by Jenkins to go down to the works and see Duncan, ask him for the keys, take charge of everything in the place and look after the business. I absolutely refused. I believed that the business belonged to Duncan until such time as he should sell it to the company and that so long as it belonged to him he could naturally do what he liked with it, but the question is put rather too broadly; there was no occasion for him to give me the whole business. When I sold the things I considered I was selling my own goods. I was, of course, not agent to sell the company's goods for a twentieth part of their value. All the people I went to explained that their orders were always for specific readings and it was of no use for them to buy promiscuously instruments which they might have in stock for years. I did not check the stock sheets. Jenkins telephoned that he wanted the stock sheets signed for the purpose of the balance-sheet. I rang up Mr. Jenkins and told him I could not swear to the accuracy of the sheets and therefore I did not want to sign them. He replied, "It is only a matter of form; sign them. "In the stock sheet of 1907 a Jandus lamp and a Pilsen lamp are put down at 10s. for the two; in 1909 they are valued at 10s. each. I think many of the discrepancies between the two periods can be explained. In 1909 the stock sheet was written by a clerk whose handwriting, as appears by the invoice book, is practically unintelligible. Mr. Duncan asked me if I could get the stock sheet copied; I took it home and my wife copied it. With regard to the plant sheet I certified, I did not check it, nor could I have done so; it would have taken me months and months. I do not know that there are numerous articles in the stock and plant sheets upon which from 20 to 100 per cent, more value has been put since they were taken in 1903. If I had been selling the goods I sold to Pamington on behalf of the company I should have expected to get the list price less discount. I should not have had the power to sell them for less. I do not remember whether, when I was arrested by Sergeant Smith, he told me Pamington had been found in possession of instruments the property of the Foxcroft and Duncan Engineering Company, Limited, of Hackney, amongst them being instruments which the firm alleged were not made until June or July last. I handed him the invoice, as has been stated. The officer then asked whether I had had goods from Duncan since the business had been turned into a company and I said I had. When I sold the things to Pamington I certainly did not expect to get the full market value or the list price, less 25 per cent, or 33 £ per cent. A lot of the things were invoiced to me at the full list price, although they were secondhand goods and a lot of them merely empty cases. I suppose Duncau

put in those things to bring up the amount to £100 as quickly as possible. I was not familiar with the goods and therefore could not judge. As to the preparation of the plant and stock sheets, Duncan had them prepared in rough and asked me if I would get them copied as he was busy looking after the other work. I accordingly took them home and had them copied. That is all that I have had to do with their preparation. I took no part in taking the stock. When the lists were copied I added up the columns. With regard to the two circuit breakers included in the invoice of April 28, I do not know whether they were new instruments or secondhand. I naturally looked at the articles I was getting at the time, but I am a mechanical not an electrical engineer, and that is where I got "left. "I only know the value of these articles from the lists. I do not know that the double one is worth £7 and the single one £5. They were invoiced at that price to me; that is all I know. With regard to Miss Duncan's advance, I have heard that she was to have £200 Debentures to hold as security until the money was returned. With regard to the cheques that came in after April 7, I only know of the one for £7 14s. 10d., which Duncan asked me to get cashed. I do not remember the endorsement, but it must have been correct, otherwise it would not have gone through. I cashed it with Mrs. Maiden, a butcher's wife, and gave the proceeds to Duncan. Duncan wanted the money to get material for the completion of some switch boards. I know nothing pf the real value of the goods I had from Duncan. I had considerably more than one deal with Pamington. I know from Pamington's own explanation that he went by the name of White. As nearly as I can remember he told me that he and his brothers carried on business under the name of White Bros, at one time, and the name had stuck to him ever since, but that his right name was Pamington and his wife is now doing business under the name of "E. Pamington," as I understand. It can hardly he said that I introduced Pamington to Duncan as a dealer in scrap metal. After I had sold Pamington the first lot of goods I said to Duncan, "I have got nicely left on these goods." He asked me whom I had taken them to. I said a dealer in Farringdon Road, and he said, "Humph. "Sometime after that Duncan asked me if that dealer of mine sometimes bought scrap metal. I said I did not know, but I would see. I went to Pamington and asked him if he dealt in scrap metal. He said he did, and wanted to know where it was. I told him, and he said he would come down and look at it. He came down to the works and I introduced him to Duncan. I believe he bought some scrap. I know nothing about iron-clad switches beyond what I have heard in Court. I am aware that the 20 motor meters, given by me to Duncan, were sent to be callibrated. As to whether it ever struck me that if I had taken these goods to the Kappa Syndicate I might have got a better price for them, it is very questionable whether I would have sot anything from the Kappa Syndicate.

Re-examined. I did not know at that time that the Kappa Syndicate had not got a shilling, but I knew they were financially strong. I was not at that time aware that the subscribed capital was 7s. When I had the circuit breakers they were not polished up as they are now.

They were quite rough looking and had verdigris on them. Pamington told me when he came to look at them that they were practically worth nothing except for the copper that was in them, as he might have them in stock for years and years before he could sell them; they were not a saleable article. I did not retain a shilling for myself out of the cheque for £7 14s. 10d. which I cashed for Duncan. As regards the dealings between Duncan and Pamington, I had no part of the scrap metal sold to Pamington or any of the proceeds. I simply introduced Pamington to Duncan. After the company was formed I had nothing belonging to the company except what I took in exchange for the articles which were returned at Duncan's request. Although the motor meters came from me I received none of the money which the company charged their customers for them.

ARTHUR PAMINGTON (prisoner, on oath). I am not a costermonger, but an electrician, and have been in business on my own account. In the first place I was at 114, Oakley Street, Westminster Bridge Road. When those premises had to be pulled down I moved to 117, Oakley Street, and whilst there I had also a shop in Kennington Road. Finally I went to Westminster Bridge Road, where I failed. At that time I went by the name of White Bros. I did not become a bankrupt when I broke up the business, because I could not pay my rent, or the business broke me up. The business in Farringdon Road is my wife's; I am her manager and buyer. She gives me £1 a week pocket money. I remember when Chinn and Lisle visited my wife's stall. We have all sorts of people stop and look at the stalls, and a lot of people ask impertinent questions about where we got this and where we got that, and so on. I do not tell everybody where I got my goods from. The business would not last long if I did that, as people would know as much as I did. I was in business in Westminster in all between 14 and 15 years. At the last place but one I paid £42 a year, and I moved out of that into a place of £120 a year, and that is where I got broke. On the occasion of Chinn and Lisle's visit my wife called me and said I was wanted. Chinn said to me, "Where did you get them articles?" pointing on the stall. I said, "What business is that of your's? If you want to know anything they come from Stevens's. Then Chinn said, "What is your name? Do these stalls belong to you?" I said, "No, they belong to my wife. I am manager and buyer," so I handed him a card. He said, "Is this your name at the bottom?" referring to the name "Wright. "I said, "Yes." He said, "lam interested in these goods that you have got on the stall here. I am Foxcroft and Duncan's manager," and then he walked away before I had time to answer him. Lisle did not say a word. I had seen him before at the works. As a matter of fact there were goods I have bought at Stevens's on my wife's stall, including some goods manufactured by Messrs. Foxcroft and Duncan, engraved with their name and address. I bought these on February 5, 1909. There were also other articles of Foxcroft and Duncan's manufacture on the stall which I had got from Ernst. Chinn and Lisle afterwards came back with the detectives. The detectives were in plain clothes, and I did not know who they were. Wright spoke to me. I do not recollect him

saying that he and Smith were police officers, and at the time I had no reason to believe they were. I began to think they might be police officers when Wright said to me, "You have got certain articles on that stall which are the property of Foxcroft and Duncan and have been stolen," or something to that effect. I said I had a receipt for them, and I think it was Chinn who asked were it was. I said, "It is round home. It might possibly take me a day to find it. "Then he said, "We will go and see if we can find it." I believe something was said about taking me into custody. We then proceeded towards my house. It occurred to me as we were going along that Ernst was the man I had bought them of, and I explained to the officer that I bought them of a man named Ernst, at Camber well New Road. I did not use the words "I will tell you the truth. "I do not remember saying anything like it. I believe the account given by the officer is right, but I do not remember everything, my memory is so bad. I do not recollect saying when asked where I got the things from "That is my business; you can know nothing." I had no reason to say it. At that time it had not dawned on me that Wright was a police officer. I may have told him at first that I did not know where the man lived that I bought the things of. It was when the detective said, "The onus lies upon you to give a reasonable explanation how you got these goods. If you do not give me any explanation I shall be bound to take you into custody," I realised that he was a police officer. It was then I said I had a receipt. We went to the warehouse. As soon as I opened the door Chinn said, "This is one of our instruments" referring to the double pole circuit breaker which was lying on the floor. I said, "I got it from the same man that I got the other things from. "We then searched for the receipt, and finally found it, and he drew attention to the pencil writing on it. The volt meters found were in the same condition as they now are, that is to say, not complete. I took the telephone number of Foxcroft and Duncan because Ernst said he could get the instruments calibrated for me.

(Wednesday, December 8.)

ARTHUR PAMINGTON , recalled, further examined. I did not tell the detectives I had had no previous dealings with Foxcroft and Duncan. How could I say such a thing when I was known to the witness Lisle? I produced to them the invoice of the repairs to the dynamo and I was there when Lisle was testing it. The statement must have been taken down wrongly in the depositions. The first time I went to the firm was after Ernst came to the stall and asked me if I bought scrap metal. I told him I did and he told me Duncan had some to dispose of. I told him I would go and see it and did so. Before that I asked Ernst if Duncan could test my dynamo as it had no plate and I did not know the output of it. I went to the works and saw Ernst. He introduced me to Mr. Duncan, who showed me the old metal and I bought it there and then. At the same time Duncan offered me the old telephone receivers and I made him an offer of 4s. for them, which he accepted. I should think there was a dozen of them, a job lot.

They were of several different patterns and right out of date, and you would never see them in use. I agree with Lisle that nobody but an idiot would buy such things. When I went after the old metal Ernst asked me if I could do with six 3 in. volt meters and ammeters, and as he did not know the value of them he asked me to make a price and I offered him 4s. for them, which he accepted. There was no secret about the transaction. I was not doing it like a burglar. I would have had nothing to do with it had I thought there was anything suspicious about it. I went to the works a second time in July about some more scrap metal and saw Ernst there. Ernst in the meantime had been to the stall and informed me there was another lot. I believe that I sent my man for the dynamo. The iron-clad switch was in the first lot. I noticed the switch and asked Duncan if he had got a quantity of them. He said "Yes," and I asked him to let me have one as a sample, with the lowest quotation for cash, as I thought I might be able to find customers for them. It was in connection with this matter that I got the letter of June 27 from Foxcroft and Duncan. I certainly did not tell the detective that Ernst was working for the firm. I did not know what he was. He certainly appeared to have something to do with the firm. When Ernst came to me on the first occasion on May 23 or 24 he asked me if I bought electrical instruments. I said, "Yes, anything appertaining to electricity." After I had seen the goods I told him that £20 was a ridiculous price and that only a few weeks ago I had bought some of the same sort of instruments at Stevens's auction rooms and told him the low price I paid for them. I told him most of the things were only fit for scrap and asked him, did he know anyone who could callibrate them for me. He mentioned the name of Duncan and gave me the telephone number of the firm, which I wrote upon the receipt. I asked Ernst if the things were his property, seeing the name on the instruments, and he produced a receipt dated April 28, which convinced me the things belonged to him, and I never bothered my head any more about it. I did not think I was getting a bargain when I bought the things. I have learned since that the first lot of instruments was invoiced at £57, but I did not have all the instruments mentioned in the first invoice. These portable volt meters are never used now. I have had 20 years' experience of this kind of business and put my own valuation upon the goods. In the parcel I received from the pawnbroker I found a long envelope containing a price list and also a postcard from Duncan to Ernst. I keep a lot of stuff in the warehouse. Your valuation and mine might differ, but I put the value of it at £200 or £300. I cannot, of course, keep everything on the stall. If customers ask me for anything I run across to the ware-house and fetch it. That occurs three or four times a day. We have in stock motors weighing 3 cwt. or 4 cwt., and engines and boilers weighing half a ton. We cannot expose those on a stall in the street. I shall have been working in Farringdon Road two years next January and I am there every day except Sundays. The goods in the warehouse can be seen when the warehouse door is open. I have never attempted to hide anything. With regard to many of

the instruments, if the police had been two or three days later they would have been scrap metal. I was just making up my mind to break them up. I buy lots of goods to break them up for metal; the turnover is quicker than waiting for the sale of the instruments. Metal is always ready money. I break up a number of General Post Office instruments and Gower-Bell telephones. I realise more by breaking them up than by keeping them for sale. I have broken upthousands of new lamps for the sake of the platinum. Buying such things is all chance work as regards sale. We cannot realise the fancy prices Lisle has spoken of for them and experience guided me in offering the figure of £4. The figure sounds small, but I have bought far more valuable things than these instruments for less money. In fact, we have an apparatus in our stores that cost £62; I gave 3s. for it; it is an electric light bath. We are asking £20 for it. I do not buy things unless they are at absolutely bottom price, because I have to make a living out of them. Pocket volt meters have taken the place of the portable meters carried with a strap; you would sell 100 pocket meters to one portable. As I have said, the circuit breakers I bought are now practically useless, as there are so very few private installations of electricity, whereas years ago all the biggish firms had their own installations. As to the polarised "Bell" line tester which Lisle spoke of I think 5s. would be a lot for it. I have bought at auctions instruments similar to those I bought of Ernst for the same price as I gave him. I believed Duncan to be the owner of the business. I knew nothing of the formation of the company. I say that Detective Wright did not caution me and say that he was a police officer. If he had said who he was in a proper manner I would have explained everything to him. I bought these things perfectly honestly and would not have touched them if I had had the slightest suspicion of them. The things had the name of the manufacturing firm on them and I should not have been such a fool as to expose them for sale if I had thought them suspicious.

Cross-examined. I repudiate the suggestion that I am a costermonger; I am an expert electrician with over 20 years' experience. The things I bought were not new things; some of them were not even made up. Pamington is my proper name. I used to trade as Wright Brothers. My brother assisted me, but the business was mine and he never had anything to do with it. I am known now as "Arthur Wright, manager to Mrs. Pamington." I have been known as Arthur Wright for years and years. I have never been known as "White." I do not know how it comes about that the invoice for the dynamo is made out in the name of "White"; I suppose it is a mistake in the spelling. I may possibly have told Duncan that I had a market for the iron-clad switches. I say all sorts of things to do business. I had had a customer inquiring at the stall for some high voltage ironclad switches; these of Mr. Duncan's are low voltage, which are not much used. I have disposed of some of the articles I bought of Ernst at a profit of a few shillings.

FRANCIS M. GORTON , representative of Messrs. Stevens, 38, King Street, Covent Garden, produced the firm's books and proved the

purchase at auction by prisoner Pamington on February 5, 1909, of ampere and volt meters, manufactured by Foxcroft and Duncan. The prices he gave for the instruments were similar to the prices paid by him to prisoner Ernst. Pamington had been a buyer at the auction rooms for years. Witness considered that the prices at which Pamington bought were reasonable, but as there was no reserve the things were, of course, disposed of to the highest bidder. Witness was not in a position to judge of the value of the cell testers, but in his opinion it would not be more than a few shillings each. The buyers attending such sales were mostly dealers, but when amateurs put in an appearance prices might be a little better. Pamington never bought very expensive goods.

WILLIAM EVERETT GLBSON , representing Percy Huddlestone, spoke to electrical instruments being purchased at auction by Pamington on April 6 at prices corresponding to those paid by Pamington to Ernst. The cell testers, he thought, might realise at auction 5s. or 6s. A fair price for the 3 in. brass case motor meters at a sale would be 2s. 6d. or 3s. The smaller ones would probably find no sale.

(Thursday, December 9.)

Verdict. All prisoners, Not guilty.

Mr. Mulligan stated that the prosecution would not proceed upon the other indictments and a formal verdict of "Not guilty" was returned.

The Common Serjeant, addressing Pamington, said the jury had been satisfied with his explanation in this case, but he would advise him to be careful in future about buying bargains from people actually engaged at a manufactory. Buying bargains at a low price at a sale was a different thing from buying bargains from a place where business is being carried on.


(Wednesday, November 24.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-84
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

CHAPIN, Alice (45, no occupation) ; unlawfully and without due Authority interfering with a certain ballot box then in use for the purpose of a certain Parliamentary Election for the Parliamentary Division of Bermondsey, by introducing into the said ballot box divers liquid chemicals; second count, unlawfully and without due authority attempting to destroy a certain packet of ballot papers then in use for the purposes of the said election; third count, unlawfully assaulting George Thorley and thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm; fourth count, unlawfully and maliciously inflicting upon him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., and Mr. H. A. McCardie defended.

GEORGE THORLEY . I am & schoolmaster, living at Acton. On October 28 I was one of the presiding officers at the Boutcher's School polling station, Grange Road, Bermondsey, on the occasion of an election for the Bermondsey Division. The poll opened at 8 a.m. and polling commenced at once; about 80 voting papers had been handed in by 11 o'clock. At that hour defendent entered the room, walking; from the door towards me; I stood up and bent forward to ask her her business; instead of stopping when she reached me she took another step, which placed her in front of the ballot box; she raised her hand and brought it smartly down on the mouth of the box; there was a slight crash as of broken glass, and I felt on my face and in my eye a splash of some liquid; I felt a burning sensation in my right eye and on the cheek and neck. I was attended to temporarily by Dr. Marshall and then went to Guy's Hospital. I am still receiving medical attention. My sight was slightly blinded, but the doctors say it is improving. The coat I was wearing (produced) has holes burned in it in several places, from the fluid splashing on to it.

Cross-examined. At the police-court I said that I was quite satisfied that the injury to myself was purely accidental and that the defendant had no idea of hurting me; I made that statement quite voluntarily and without having been approached in any way on behalf' of the defendant. The first thing I did on receiving the splash was to go to a cupboard in the polling-room where there was some 800 ammonia, used for chemical experiments in the school, intending to apply it to my burns. One of the polling clerks tried to dilute it for me, but I found his solution was too strong to use. The ballot-papers are sent to the presiding officers in perforated books of fifties; as each elector comes up he gives in his name and number on the register, a paper is torn out of the book and handed to him, and he himself places it in the box; there is no "packet" of papers in the box itself.

Re-examined. I did not use the ammonia on my face and none of it went on my coat.

HAROLD WALTER STEVENS , who acted as polling clerk under Mr. Thorley, spoke to saturating his handkerchief with some diluted ammonia and handing it to Mr. Thorley; the latter declined to use it, as it was too strong.

JOHN OLIVER NEWTON . I was acting as polling clerk on this day. I saw defendant enter the room; I heard a little crash of glass, and saw on the top of the ballot box some dark fluid. I picked up from. the floor the remains of the glass test-tube, from which the liquid had come.

P. C. EZEKIEL GREENAWAY spoke to picking up the rubber stopper of the test-tube.

WILLIAM HAYES , High Sheriff of the Borough of Southwark. I acted as Returning Officer at the Bermondsey election. On receiving a communication I went to the Boutcher's School polling station about 11.15. I found the top of the ballot box was nearly covered with a sticky brown, fluid, with some pieces of glass. I sealed up the box, and it was not opened until the counting that night. It was found to

contain 83 voting papers; most of them were stuck together in a mass, but they were all decipherable.

REGINALD PRIM MARSHALL . I am Divisional Police Surgeon at Grange Road. I happened to be at this polling station at the time Mr. Thorley was injured, and saw him immediately. I found the conjunctiva of the right eye was excoriated, the eyelids were injected, the eye was suffused with tears, and the pupil was contracted. The injuries were such as would have been caused by some corrosive irritant, an acid or an alkali.

Cross-examined. I noticed no smell of ammonia about the eye.

CYRIL ALBERT FRANCIS , and ARTHUR WILLIAM ORMOND, opthalmic surgeons at Guy's Hospital, described the injuries received by Mr. Thorley, confirming the evidence of Dr. Marshall. The conjunctiva was now healed; there was only a little redness, which would pass away. There was a mark on tie cornea, one-third of an inch long; this was healing, but there was still a slight haze. Mr. Ormond was of opinion that there might be a slight permanent effect.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Gill submitted that there was no case to go to the jury on count 2, on the ground that the injury done was to individual ballot papers, not to a "packet"; and that there was no case on count 1, on the ground that the ballot box itself was not itself "interfered with" in the sense contemplated by the Statute.

Mr. Justice Grantham overruled both objections.

Mr. Gill further submitted that there was no case on counts 3. and 4, as no intent to injure had been proved; on the contrary, Mr. Thorley himself stated that he believed the injury to have been caused accidentally.

Mr. Justice Grantham ruled that the case must go the jury.

Mr. Gill, in his address to the jury, disclaimed, on the part of the defendant, any intention to injure the prosecutor. Her only object was to obliterate some of the ballot papers, in order to call public attention to the views of herself and others on the question of woman suffrage.

Verdict, Guilty on count 1; Not Guilty on counts 2 and 4; on count 3, Guilty of a common assault.

Sentence postponed until the conclusion of the following case.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-85
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Imprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

NEILAN, Alison ; unlawfully and without due authority interfering with a certain ballot box then in use for the purposes of a certain Parliamentary Election for the Parliamentary Division of Bermondsey, by introducing into the said ballot box divers liquid chemicals; second count, unlawfully and without due authority attempting to destroy a certain packet of ballot papers then in use for the purposes of the said election.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Leycester prosecuted.

Mr. Muir said he proposed to ask for a verdict only on the first count.

The circumstances were identical with those in the previous case, except that the offence was committed at a polling station in Laxton Street, and that the fluid used did no personal injury. Two ballot papers out of 80 had been rendered undecipherable.

The facts having been proved, defendant addressed the jury (not on oath), contending that she had not been guilty of any act which could be construed into a crime, but had merely acted in protest against an unjust and tyrannical political system.

Verdict, Guilty on count 1; Not Guilty on count 2.

Mr. Muir said that Neilan was convicted at Marlborough Street Police Court on January 30, 1908, and fined 40s., with the alternative of one month's imprisonment, for ringing the door bell at Mr. Lewis Harcourt's house in Berkeley Square—no doubt with the same motive as in this case. On October 28,1908, she was convicted at Westminster Police Court and fined £5 or one month's imprisonment for obstructing the police in the execution of their duty—also, no doubt, with that motive.

Sentences, Chapin, for interfering with the ballot box, three months' imprisonment; for the assault, four months' imprisonment; to run concurrently; Neilan, three months' imprisonment; in each case the imprisonment to be in the second division.



(Thursday, November 18.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-86
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

GASCOIGNE, Annie (28, domestic servant) , pleaded guilty that having been delivered of a certain female child she did by a secret disposition of the dead body endeavour to conceal the birth thereof.

The Recorder considered that prisoner had been sufficiently punished, and sentenced her to three days' imprisonment, equivalent to her immediate discharge.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-87
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MCIVER, Thomas (28, carman) , pleaded guilty of burglary in the house of John Osborne, at Forest Gate, and stealing therein one pair of pince-nez, his goods.

There are a number of previous convictions.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH. (Thursday, November 18)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-88
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MERRITT, Thomas (27, fireman) and JOHNSON, Robert (23, labourer) . Stealing one watch and other articles and £1 12s., the goods and moneys of Felix Magellan Lane, and feloniously receiving the same.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted.

FELIX MAGELLAN LANE , medical officer, s. s. Argentina. On November 7 the Argentina was lying in Victoria Docks. I went to my bunk about 3 a.m. I could not lock the cabin door, but locked the saloon. The only way to reach may cabin is through the saloon. At that time my property was safe. At six o'clock the steward and watchman woke me up and showed me my uniform waistcoat, which was found on deck, and they asked me if other articles had gone. I missed a pair of trousers, waistcoat, overcoat, some money, an umbrella, a watch, a gold toothpick and a leather pocket case. I have since seen the property (same handed to witness). These trousers do not belong to me; they belong to a passenger, and were in his cabin.

WILLIAM PASSINGHAM , assistant to Mr. Hallam, pawnbroker, Barking Road, E. On November 8 I took in pledge this pair of trousers and vest from Johnson. I advanced 4s. I have no doubt about Johnson. I picked him out from a number of men at the police station.

Cross-examined by Johnson. I did not ask if they belonged to you. I did not remark that they were too big for you.

Detective JOSEPH PAYNE, K Division. I arrested Merritt on November 9, at 10 a.m., at Gibraltar Chambers, Tidal Basin, a common lodging house. I saw a pair of trousers under his pillow. I told him I was a police officer, and asked whose trousers they were. He said, "They are mine. "I said, "Where did you get them from?" He said, "A man gave me them on Sunday morning at Connaught Road." I said, "Who is the man?" He said, "I am not going to tell you, so don't ask." I took him to Canning Town Police Station, where he was subsequently charged, and he made no reply.

Detective-sergeant FREDERICK STEVENS, K Division. I arrested Johnson on November 9 at 10 a.m. at Gibraltar Chambers, in a different room. I said, "You know me, Johnson. You are wanted for stealing some goods from a ship's cabin between Sunday night and Monday morning." He said, "Not me." I said, "You answer the description of a man who stole the goods." He said, "I don't know anything about it. "He then asked if he might have a wash, and whilst drying himself he put his hand in his hip pocket and threw these keys into a basket. I said, "Who do these belong to?" He said, "I know, I was minding them for another fellow," pointing to a man in the kitchen. That man said, "That is right; they belong to me." I have tried the keys on the saloon door. This one will open it: the other is a master-key for opening doors of ships. I took him to the police station and told him to sit down. Payne went in front with Merritt. Johnson said to Merritt, "Say you don't know anything about it. "He was placed with eight other men and at once identified by the pawnbroker. When he went to sit down he said to Merritt, "That's b—d it altogether," meaning that he was identified.

Cross-examined by Johnson. You said to Merritt, "Say you know nothing about it." I have said I heard the man say the keys belong to him. The key that unlocks the saloon also unlocks the doctor's cabin.

THOMAS MERRITT (prisoner, on oath). At 4.45 a.m. on Sunday I was coming from North Woolwich to Tidal Basin when I was accosted by three men, who asked me for a match. One of them said, "Have you been walking about all night?" I said "Yes." He said, "Will you have a cup of coffee?" I said "Yes." Whilst drinking the cup of coffee one of the other men said, "Here is a shilling, that will get you something to eat to-day. "The man who gave me the cup of coffee then said, "They are a bad pair of trousers you have got on there." I answered, "Yes, I should like to get a pair. "He then said, "I have two old pair of trousers and a waistcoat here you can have if they are any good to you." I answered, "Thank you. "I then left the men, making my way to Gibraltar Chambers. I never looked at the trousers and waistcoat till the Monday afternoon, when I thought I would wear one pair as my own were so old and ragged. I then thought to myself, "I only want the one pair of trousers," so I exhibited one pair around the kitchen and asked some of the men there whether they would buy them. None of them was rich enough, so I asked prisoner Johnson to pawn them for me. He asked me where I got them from and I told him they were given to me on Sunday morning. He pawned them on Monday afternoon and brought me the ticket and money.

Cross-examined. I found the pocket book on Monday afternoon in the hip trousers pocket, where it was found by the detective. I put those trousers on because the others were too big. I was standing at the coffee stall; I was making my way from North Woolwich to Tidal Basin. I had been walking about all night, as I had not the necessary money to pay my lodging. I used to live at 37, Charlotte Street, Tidal Basin, with a woman and her mother. Being out of work I did not like to go and live on them. I have not lived there for about four weeks. I did not give that address to the police. I did not know the three men personally, not by name, or not properly by sight. They were absolute strangers to me, but I have seen them knocking about the docks. They were dock labourers, I expect. I did not think it peculiar they should invite me to have a cup of coffee and give me a shilling and two pair of trousers. I did not inquire where they got them. Nothing was said about their being stolen. One of the men said, "I don't want to carry them about, in case the police think I have stolen them." When Payne arrested me he asked who was the man I said had given me the trousers. I did not say I would tell him so he need not ask me. I said, "I can't tell you." He never asked me for a description. He said, "I will give you a golden sovereign if you will tell me who the men are." I said, "I don't know them personally. "I saw Johnson in the kitchen on the Sunday morning after I got the clothes. He came over by the free ferry. It was not stepped because it was foggy. One ferry was running all night. I know the Victoria Dock. I have seen the ship where the doctor lost his clothes. I saw it come in. The place

where I met the three men would be two or three minutes' walk from the ship.

ROBERT JOHNSON (prisoner, on oath). On Monday afternoon I was in the kitchen. Merritt had a pair of trousers and waistcoat there. He asked me to pawn them. I asked him where he got them from. He told me he had them given to him on Sunday morning. I took them to the pawnshop, got 4s. on them, took the money and the ticket to Merritt, and he gave me a shilling for my trouble. That is all I know about the affair.

Cross-examined. I did not say to Sergeant Stevens, "I didn't pawn nothing. "I said, "I know nothing about it." The keys were in the pocket of a pair of trousers which Mike Casey gave me to wash out for him on the Saturday, I think it was. They were in my possession from the 6th till I was arrested. The man was there; he owned to the things himself. I did not know what kind of keys they were. I did not understand that sort of thing. It was foggy on that Saturday. I went out of the lodging-house about seven o'clock and came in about eight. I stopped there till I went to bed about 11 o'clock and got up again on Sunday morning about 11. (Mr. Leary, deputy of the lodging-house, was called to prove Johnson's movements at this time, but did not answer.)

Verdict, both Guilty of receiving stolen goods.

A previous conviction was proved against Merritt for stealing lead. Sentences: Merritt, Nine months' hard labour; Johnson, Six months' hard labour.


(Friday, November 19.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-89
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HARRISON, Henry (42, tailor) , pleaded guilty of attempting to steal 9s. 10d., the moneys of Charles Dale.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted.

Six previous convictions were proved. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.


(Monday, November 22.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-90
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WILLIAMSON, George (26, fitter), and ADAMS, Sarah (22, flower seller) ; uttering counterfeit coin and having in their possession 12 pieces of counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same.

Williamson pleaded guilty .

Mr. Beaumont Maurice prosecuted; Mr. St. John Morrow defended Adams.

CONSTANCE NETHERCOTT , assistant to Frank Coyne, confectioner, 373B, High Street, Stratford. On October 16, 1909, at 10 p.m., Adams bought of me 2d. worth of chocolate, tendering a 2s. piece, which I laid on a shelf by itself; I gave her the change and she left; two or three minutes afterwards Detective Hancock spoke to me, I examined the coin (produced), found it was 'bad, and the manager's brother broke it in the tester; I handed it to Hancock.

Detective JOHN HANCOCK. On October 16, about 10 p.m., I saw the two prisoners together at the corner of Chapel Street and High Street, Stratford, 50 yards from prosecutor's shop. They were talking together, and I saw Williamson take a piece of paper and, after opening it, hand it to Adams, who went into prosecutor's shop, Williamson following. After Adams came out I spoke to Nethercott, who handed me the counterfeit florin produced, which bears the date 1900. I came out and saw the two prisoners hurriedly walking towards the Broadway together. The woman went into the "Blueboy public-house. I obtained the assistance of a uniformed officer and arrested both prisoners. I told them I was a police officer and I should arrest them for uttering this coin at the shop opposite. They were taken to the station and searched. I found on Williamson 12 counterfeit florins wrapped separately in paper; 10s. 6d. good silver; 2s. 5d. bronze, five eggs, a packet of tea, a packet of sweets, a tin of boot polish, and several other small articles. Williamson made no reply to the charge. Adams said she knew nothing about it—she did not know it was bad.

Cross-examined. I could not see what the paper contained. I never found the paper afterwards. I have no doubt the paper contained the coin.

Re-examined. Counterfeit coin is usually wrapped up in separate pieces of paper.

MARY HARRIS , female searcher, West Ham Police Station. On October 16 I searched Adams and found upon her a paper bag of chocolate and a purse containing 1s. 6d. in silver and 2 1/2 d. in bronze.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , inspector of coins, His Majesty's Mint. 13 florins produced are counterfeit. The broken coin and 11 of the 12 others are dated 1900—the broken one is from the same mould as the 11.


SARAH ADAMS (prisoner, on oath). On October 16, at nine p.m., I met Williamson outside the Borough Theatre. I had been living with him previously, but not for the last three months, and had arranged to go and live with him again. I am a flower girl. I gave Williamson 5s. 6d., the proceeds of my stock, to mind for me. That was after we had had one or two drinks. As we were passing a sweet shop I told him I fancied some sweets; he took out some silver in his hand and gave me what I thought to be a good 2s. piece to pay, for them. I saw no paper on it whatever. I went in, bought the chocolate, received my change, and joined Williamson. We walked a

little way on and he said, "You go into that public-house and have a drink—I will be over there in a minute. "I was just going to call for a drink when the detective came and arrested me. I believed the 2s. piece to be genuine.

Cross-examined. I had been living with Williamson for two or three months, but I had been away from him for about three months. I sell flowers in Stratford Market and other places—I get them at Covent Garden. I gave the 5s. 6d. to Williamson to take care of for me till Monday. We went into one or two public-houses on the road and had some drink and were just talking about going back together. When he gave me the 2s. piece he had several coins in his hand. It was just outside the shop. There was no paper. Between nine and 10 p.m. I had bought nothing for Williamson—we had only been in public-houses. When the detective came to me he caught hold of me by the arm and said, "I want you." I said, "What for?" He said, "You will see when we get to the station." He let me have my drink and we came out and I saw Williamson going along with the policeman. He never said, "I am a police officer and I am going to arrest you for uttering a bad 2s. piece at the confectioner's shop opposite"—he never told me what he arrested me for.

Verdict, Not guilty.

Convictions proved against Williamson: April 15, 1901, charged at Thames Police Court with shop breaking in the name of William Cook, bound over; November 18, 1904, West Ham, 10 days' as a suspected person; arrested in 1906 and discharged; February 11, 1908, North London Sessions, 12 months' hard labour for warehouse breaking; July 14, 1909, Williamson and Adams charged with larceny—Adams sentenced to six weeks' and Williamson discharged. Williamson said to have associated with coiners for the past 12 months.

Sentence (Williamson), Three years' penal servitude.

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-91
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > preventive detention; Imprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ROWLANDS, Elizabeth (53, dealer) and WALLER, William (34, decorator) ; Rowlands, making divers pieces of counterfeit coin; feloniously having in her possession two moulds for making counterfeit coin, and uttering counterfeit coin well knowing it to be counterfeit; Waller making divers pieces of counterfeit coin and having in his possession two moulds for making counterfeit coin. Waller pleaded guilty .

Mr. Beaumont Maurice prosecuted.

Divisional-Inspector ARTHUR BALL, K Division. On October 15, 1909, at 4.30 p.m., with Inspector Yeo and some other officers, I raided 74, Scott Street, Canning Town. On the ground floor in the back room I saw Rowlands with a man, and Waller's wife. Rowlands said, "God, bli' me; here they come." I then entered the front room, where I found Waller on a chair by the fire. He had a newspaper on his knees on which were two unfinished counterfeit florins, some pieces of metal, and one unfinished counterfeit shilling. I took the paper from him, and as I did so he threw a counterfeit florin and a sixpence into a saucepan containing molten metal, which was on the fire. One

of the officers with me snatched the two-shilling piece from the saucepan, but the sixpence remains imbedded in the metal. We poured water into the saucepan to prevent the saucepan being melted. Waller said, "You have got me fair I am done. I will not give you any trouble. I will tell you where everything is. The moulds are under the bed. "I took from under a bed, which was in that room, two parts of a mould for making florins and a mould for making shillings, each of which contained a coin. The mould for florins bears the date 1900; I cannot discern the date on the shilling mould. I searched Waller and found on him 1s. He said, "That is the shilling I made the mould with. You will not find the 2s., as I have spent it, and I have broken up the trap" (meaning the mould) "for the sixpence." I went into the back room again, and found the oven shelf marked with plaster of paris; on the table at which Rowlands and the man were sitting was a plate containing lampblack; in a drawer on that table were two pieces of metal, two files with metal adhering to them, a quantity of stripped tin, some antimony wrapped in paper, and two pieces of copper wire (produced). On a dresser fully exposed, was a piece of newspaper containing a quantity of antimony crushed; a hammer was lying alongside the paper. On the corner of the dresser was a tin containing antimony and copper wire, a tin box containing one piece and a paper containing two pieces of cyanide of potassium, a bottle containing fluid, and a paper containing antimony, a piece of bath brick, tin containing plaster of paris, an egg cup of grease, several cleaning cloths, a bag of soda, and two pairs of scissors. In a basket hanging on the wall behind where Rowlands was sitting was a piece of paper containing a quantity of antimony. All those articles are used for coining. They were all fully exposed, so that no one in the room could avoid seeing them. I told Waller, Rowlands, and the other man (who is the son of Rowlands, and who has been discharged at the police court) that they would be charged with being concerned together in possessing the moulds and other implements for manufacturing counterfeit coin. Rowlands said, "It is all right—hang it, you can do what you like with me, but my eon knows nothing. "They were conveyed to the police station and charged. Waller said, "These people know nothing at all of what I was doing. I occupied the downstairs and I packed this woman's things up in our washhouse, as she had nowhere else to go." Rowlands said, "This boy has only been in the house half an hour. He came to me this morning. I was writing a letter to the Home when you came in. "The lamp black, is used for discolouring coins fresh from the mould. It was on the table close to where Rowlands was sitting.

Cross-examined. I know Rowlands has been residing at 74, Scott Street, and occupying the whole of the ground floor jointly with Waller for some time. Her son is, I believe, 34 years of age. She produced a large apron pocket—there was nothing in it except some pawntickets. I learned from the woman who lives as Waller's wife that Rowlands had been living there for some weeks before the arrest. She has no other rooms that I know of. At the police court Waller made a

statement: "I occupy the downstairs and I packed this woman's things up in our washhouse as she had nowhere else to go. "Rowlands was living at another address in the neighbourhood, from which she removed her things to this place, which is a mile and a half from where she was living. There were writing materials on the table where she was sitting with her son. The other woman is 32 or 33 years of age. She has lived with Waller from the time she was 17. I am in doubt whether she is married to Waller.

Inspector ALBERT YEO. I went with the last witness to 74, Scott Street, and assisted in searching the premises. Rowlands shouted out, "God bli' me; here they come." I confirm Ball's evidence as to the articles found. At West Ham Police Court Rowlands was told she would be further charged with uttering a counterfeit 6d. She said to me, "That is right, old man, wrap it up for me and make it as hot as you can. "She made no further reply to the charge.

Cross-examined. Rowlands brought me a basket from the back kitchen where her things were packed. She was searched at the station—not at the house. I did not hear her demand to be searched. I had been keeping observation on the place—I had no conversation with Mrs. Waller. Rowlands had been living there for many weeks. She was formerly living at Stratford. I had her kept under observation by direction of Inspector Ball. She had not been at Scott Street only on that day.

MARY WALSH , wife of Frank Walsh. I live in the upper part of 74, Scott Street. Mr. and Mrs. Waller have occupied the ground floor since July. Rowlands came there a few weeks after and had been living with Waller ever since. Her things were in the wash-house, but she used the other rooms. Rowlands has been there two or three months.

Cross-examined. At about two p.m. on the day of the arrest Rowlands was in bed and I had a cup of tea there. I did not see Mrs. Waller throw a lamp at her husband at a quarter to 11 the night before. Rowlands slept in the washhouse.

GEORGE FRAGER , caretaker to the owner of 74, Scott Street. Waller has occupied the ground floor at 74, Scott Street, for about four months. I have seen Rowlands there about three months; she occupied the washhouse.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , inspector of coins, His Majesty's Mint. Mould produced is for making counterfeit florins; there is a coin in the mould in an unfinished state and part of the guet is there. The mould for shillings has a coin also in it with the guet perfect. There are two counterfeit florins and one shilling in an unfinished state, also a good shilling that may have been used to make the mould. The antimony, plating solution, tin, and cyanide of potassium are used for coining. The lampblack is used for toning coins when ready for uttering. here is a bottle containing silver in solution composed of cyanide of potassium and nitrate of silver. Antimony and tin are ingredients used for manufacturing coin—about 80 per cent, of tin and 18 per cent of antimony are used. All the other articles produced are part of the stock of the coiner.

HANNAH FLORENCE STEAD . I assist my father, who is a greengrocer, at 28, Barking Road, Canning Town. On October 18, at 6.45 p.m., Rowlands purchased 3 lb. of potatoes, 1 1/2 d., tendering 6d. produced. I said it was a bad one. She said, "How can you tell?" I said, "The feel of it is sufficient," bent it in the tester, and returned it to her. She then paid 1 1/2 d. for the potatoes. I afterwards picked Rowlands out from 10 other women at the station.

Cross-examined. The first time I went to the police court I said my mother had had a bad sixpence given her. The inspector did not tell me to send my mother. I was twice at the police court. I only gave evidence on the second occasion. I saw Inspector Yeo and made a statement before giving evidence. I said that Rowlands was put up amongst 20 or 30 others—I had no idea how many there were as they were all in a long passage. Rowlands was not brought out of the cell while I was there—the women were all there when I picked her out. I had not seen Rowlands before she passed the coin to my knowledge.

Verdict (Rowlands), Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.

Waller was then indicted for that he is an habitual criminal (under the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1908), to which he pleaded not guilty.

Detective THOMAS SMART, H Division. I was present at Southwark Police Court on October 1, 1900, when Waller was sentenced to six months' hard labour, in the name of William Page, for stealing a watch from the person. He was released on March 31, 1901.

Cross-examined. I knew Waller before 1900—I have seen him when he appeared to be at work—he seemed dirty.

Detective-sergeant WILLIAM KEMP, New Scotland Yard. On February 12, 1902, I was present at the South London Sessions when the prisoner, William Waller, was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour for burglary from the dwelling house of George Johnson. I produce certificate of the conviction.

Cross-examined. On that occasion Waller did not accuse me of perjury that I am aware of. He was charged with another man, named Valentine. I do not know where Valentine is now. When Waller was charged he was placed in the ordinary charge room, and there was afterwards found a six-chambered loaded revolver in the policeman's coat near by, where he was sitting. I believe the constable gave evidence against him.

Detective-sergeant GEORGE PRIDE, N Division. On October 15, 1905, Waller was sentenced at this Court before the Common Serjeant to five years' penal servitude for making counterfeit shillings and 41 counterfeit sixpences. He was charged with a man named Edward Couchman, who was also sentenced to five years' penal servitude. He had been under my observation for about six months previous. He was then living in a street off White Horse Lane, Stepney, with a man named David James, who was arrested about three months before Waller, and who was also sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Waller was released on July 14, 1909, on license, after three years and nine months' detention. He was arrested on October 28, 1909. For about six months prior to my arresting him in 1905 he was associating with a

very dangerous gang of coiners frequenting Stratford, Bow, Stepney, and Whitechapel, one of whom was David James. Waller got away at the time, but James was sentenced to five years, three months before Waller was sentenced. He was then working in conjunction with Couchman, who also got five years' penal servitude. Since I have known him, from the early part of 1905, he has been persistently leading a dishonest and criminal life.

Cross-examined. Before Waller's arrest in 1905 he was in the hospital for a short time.

Inspector ARTHUR BALL proved the service of notice on Waller at Brixton Prison on October 8.

Cross-examined. I found on Waller a number of pawntickets dated June (before his release) and a ticket for a pair of boots in August. There were about a dozen pawntickets prior to his release.


ELIZABETH WALLER . I have been living with the prisoner Waller for twelve years. I was given to understand I was married to him at the registry office. In 1902 I was arrested with Waller for burglary. Sergeant Kemp was accused by Waller of perjury before Mr. McConnell. Waller has worked for four years at Taylor and Walker's brewery up to 1902. (To the Judge.) I was living with him in 1900. He informed me when I married him that he had done six months in prison—that was at the beginning of 1900 I believe he was then working at the brewery. I could not say if he was sentenced to six months in October, 1900. I was not with him when he got the six months' imprisonment.

Cross-examined. I lived with Waller about 18 months before I was married to him. I have been with him thirteen and a half years, as near as I can recollect. I am 34 years of age. When he was working at the brewery, about 1900 or 1901, is the last time I can speak to his working for anybody. When he was convicted in October, 1905, I had separated from him. After he came out from the eighteen months' imprisonment he was doing odd jobs at decorating for Mr. Bostock, the landlord where we lived. I have been living with him since July, this year, and was at Scott Street when he was arrested. I did not know he was making bad coin, or that the various things which have been found were in the room where I was sitting, or I would never have stayed there. The only things on my table were three cups and saucers and some milk. Rowlands was writing a letter. I did not know the lampblack was on the plate. (To the Judge) I did not know anything about the things being there for making coin. I did not know what. Waller was doing. (To Waller) The landlord gave Waller the job of whitewashing and decorating the premises where we lived. That was before he went away for the five years. Since he was liberated in July Mr. Whiteley has assisted us—he paid our rent for three weeks. Waller has not done any work since his release in July, 1909—I have had to go out with a basket hawking.

WILLIAM WALLER (prisoner, on oath). Until 1900 I worked for J. Johnson and Co., Gould Street, Limehouse, for just over three years in the decorating department. I was dismissed in 1900, without any reason being given. I asked the foreman and he told me it was orders from the office. I had been stopped by a constable, Robert Collins, then attached to the K Division, who asked me if I knew a man named William Hindmarsh—I did not know him. I found that the constable had been to the foreman and told him I had been in trouble—that was why I was discharged. A few weeks afterwards I was arrested, and pleaded guilty to stealing a watch, and got six months. I came out from doing that six months, and went to work for Mr. Benbow, in White Horse Lane, Stepney, house and estate agent. After I had finished his work I went to work for the Penfold Tube Company, Barnard's Walk, Limehouse. After I finished with them I went to work for Robey, an estate agent at Bow; afterwards for Gibbs, of Limehouse, a carman and contractor in a large way, limewhiting and painting the stables. That brings me to Christmas, 1901. I had taken a man to live with me named William Valentine during the Christmas holidays, and on the first Sunday in January, 1902, the detectives came to my place and told me Valentine was detained at Rotherhithe Police Station, and would be brought up on Monday morning. On the Monday morning, instead of going out to my employment, I went over to make inquiries what he was arrested for with that young woman, and they took the two of us, and I was charged with burglary by Mr. Kemp, whom I accused of perjury. I got that 18 months without committing any crime. After I came out I went to work for Joseph Smith, Alma Road. I also went to work for Amos Scott, ship worker. I had an accident, fell and broke my leg. That brings me down to 1905, when I was arrested and I was convicted in October, 1905. I ask you to put me back to next Sessions and let the police see if that is true.

Cross-examined. I worked in 1901; then I was arrested and this miscarriage of justice took place at South London Sessions, and I was sentenced to 18 months for a burglary I never committed. I was released in May, 1905, and in October, 1905, received five years' penal servitude for coining. Elizabeth Waller was not convicted with me. When arrested on October 28, 1909, I had had the coining materials two days; I had got the coining solution that morning. Rowlands was living with me on October 28—she did not utter a bad sixpence to my knowledge.

Verdict, Guilty.

Convictions proved against Rowlands: January 15, 1900, fined 10s. 6d. or seven days at Thames, drunk and disorderly; June 27, 1901, Thames, fined £20 or two months for keeping a brothel; September 4, 1901, North London Sessions, three months' hard labour for brothel keeping; May 20,1902, four months' hard labour and to find a surety in £20 for good behaviour for brothel keeping; January 21, 1901, West Ham, four months and surety in £100 or in default four months further imprisonment, for brothel keeping; August 6, 1904, Thames, fined 10s. and 2s. costs or seven days, drunk and disorderly; March 31, 1906, West Ham, three months; and on July 23, 1908, four months;

and in July, 1908, at this Court four months, for brothel keeping. Known for a number of years as an associate of coiners and thieves. Sentence, Waller, Three years' penal servitude and five years' preventive detention; Rowlands, Four years' penal servitude.


(Tuesday, November 23.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-92
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

BRUSSELL, Robert (30, fireman) ; stealing £1, the moneys of Harry Preston, from his person.

Mr. G. St. John McDonald prosecuted.

HARRY PRESTON , able seaman, 173, Percy Road, Canning Town. On Monday, October 18, shortly after mid-day, I went to the "Albert Victor" public-house and had a drink. I had been ashore since the previous Thursday. As I was walking away towards the "Iron Bridge Tavern," prisoner came up to me and asked me where I was going. I said I was out for the day, and prisoner said, "I will accompany you." I said, "I do not require your company. "He pressed his company on the plea that he would look after me. We went over to Poplar and had drinks at various public-houses. I asked prisoner several times to leave my company, but he would not do so. We returned to Canning Town between eight and nine that same evening. We went again into the "Albert Victor" and had another drink, and when I came out I told prisoner I was going home and did not require his company any longer, but he said, "I won't leave you until I see you safely home." I said I did not require him to see me home. We were neither of us drunk at the time. When I started from home I had one sovereign, two half sovereigns, a two shilling piece, and three coppers. I paid for nearly all the drinks; prisoner may have paid for one or two. While with prisoner I must have spent a sovereign, but I would not say it was all in drink. After I said I was going home we walked across the road into Liverpool Road alongside the fire brigade station, where prisoner started arguing for another drink and I said I would not buy any more drinks. While we were arguing he grabbed hold of my coat and then he dived his hands into my trousers pocket and took out the two half sovereigns, the two shilling piece, and three coppers. We started scuffling around and prisoner says, "Let me go." I says, "No, you will not go until the police arrive." A crowd had gathered and I sang out to somebody to go and fetch a constable, and somebody sang out that there was a constable coming. Prisoner struggled hard to get away, but I held him until the police arrived and then I gave him in charge. He gave me back the two shilling piece and the three coppers while I was holding him. I do not know what became of the two half sovereigns; I never got them back. The crowd came round us while we were struggling.

To Prisoner. Besides the money I spent in drinks I bought mussels, tobacco, cigarettes, and some sweets—no clothing. I had a little over £2 when I met you. We had perhaps eight or nine drinks together. I did not search myself at the station to see if I had the two half sovereigns on me. I cannot be sure that I always had the right change while I was in your company. I found a paper in my pocket with your address upon it.

DAISY JOHNSTON , wife of Arthur Johnston, seaman, 14, May Street, Canning Town. I remember October 18. I saw prosecutor and prisoner on that day about nine o'clock. I saw prisoner with his two hands against the other man's pocket. I cannot say they were inside. They had a bit of a struggle, and I afterwards noticed that the right-hand pocket of prosecutor's trousers was hanging out. Prosecutor then caught prisoner by his two arms and fixed him up against the wall. I heard prosecutor say, "Give me that back. "Prisoner touched him on the arm with some silver and said, "Come along and have this drink," but he did not give him any money back. I then went to Canning Town Police Station for the police, but a policeman had come up before I got back and there was a big crowd round. I should not have interfered, but for the fact that my own husband had been robbed a fortnight before.

Police-constable CHARLES WATSON, 20 KR. On October 18, about 8.40 p.m., I was on duty in Barking Road, when I saw a crowd of people in Liverpool Road. I went to ascertain the cause and saw prosecutor holding prisoner by the coat collar. Prosecutor said, "This man has taken two half sovereigns from my trousers pocket and I wish to give him into custody. "I said to prisoner, "You will have to come with me to the station." He said, "All right. "Both prisoner and prosecutor had been drinking. At the station, when the charge was read over to him, he replied, "Oh, is that so?" He was afterwards searched and 3 1/2 d. in bronze was found upon him.


ROBERT BRUSSELL (prisoner, on oath). I wish to say that I met this man between 12 and one. He asked me for a match. I gave him a match. I was smoking a pipe. He said that he had been in some kind of trouble down in Canning Town and he was going out of it for the day. Walking along he asked me to have a drink. We had several drinks and we stopped together till eight or nine o'clock at night. At the first drink he asked me for the lend of my pipe, a wooden pipe I had in my possession. He kept smoking it until the night time, when I asked him for it. He said he had taken a fancy to it and would not give it back. We might have had 10 drinks together, but we drank nothing but beer, and beer is only 1d. a glass, so that if he had paid for the 10 drinks, it would not have run into 2s., but he says he spent a sovereign in my company. When I left him at night time and asked for my pipe, he put his hand in his pocket and said, "You have got two half sovereigns of mine. "I says, "I

have not," and with that he pinned me against the wall. He said, "I will fetch a policeman if you do not give them back. "I said, "Fetch a policeman if you like; I have not got your two half sovereigns. "With that a policeman came on the scene. I was taken to the station and thoroughly searched.

Prisoner, in a subsequent address to the Jury, argued that if prosecutor had had any objection to his company he would not have been smoking his pipe all day, and also that prosecutor would, before changing the sovereign, have first spent the 3d., then the 2s., piece, and afterwards the half sovereign before breaking into the sovereign. It was also, he said, admitted by prosecutor that he had been drinking.

Verdict, Not guilty.

The Recorder warned prisoner against coming here again, and expressed the opinion that he had been very fortunate on this occasion, because his records showed that he had been almost continually in prison since 1901, having had sentences of three months, nine months, 18 months, three months, three years' penal servitude with two years' police supervision, and finally six months under the Prevention of Crimes Act.

Brussell. I was at sea all last year.


(Tuesday, November 23.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-93
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

CARNEY, Mary Ann (65, no occupation) ; assisting in the management of a brothel.

Verdict, Not guilty.

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

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-94
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

PHILLIPS, William (21, coster), LEMON, George John (21, labourer), and HUNT, Stephen William (21, coster) ; all attempting to break and enter the counting-house of Charles Lea and others, with intent to steal therein.

Mr. Tristram Beresford prosecuted.

Police-constable RICHARD JONES, 176 K. On October 30, about 1.30, I was in the Barking Road, at the corner of Beckton Road. I saw prisoner Hunt on the other side of the road, at the corner of Hermit Road. A few minutes afterwards the other prisoners came out of a shop doorway, and all three of them went towards Canning Town. They turned into the doorway of the Young Men's Christian Association, and remained there two or three minutes. They then proceeded in the same direction, and when at the corner of Liverpool Road Hunt went across to the corner of Lea and Company's coal office, and

remained there about five or six minutes. After that he recrossed the road, and rejoined the other two. They remained there a second or two, and then turned round and walked towards Plaistow. I called to P. C. Greenwood, and went across to the doorway, where I found that the doorpost and the window had been freshly splintered. Knowing that I could not get anywhere near prisoners unless I took my uniform off, I changed clothes with a passer-by. I finally overtook them about three-quarters of a mile further on. I sent P. C. Greenwood round through King Street into Chargeable Lane to head them off. As soon as the three prisoners saw Greenwood they turned round and came towards me. When they got level with me I jumped out and told them I was a police officer, and was going to take them into custody for attempting to break into the coal office at the corner of Liverpool Road. I arrested Lemon and Hunt, Greenwood arrested Phillips, and prisoners were taken to the station. When the charge was read over to them Hunt replied, "This is all right, when you go to a coffee stall to have a cup of coffee." The other two made no reply to the charge.

Inspector JOSIAH HOWLETT, K Division. On October 30 I was in charge of the station. About 7 a.m. I went into Chargeable Lane, Plaistow, which leads out of the Barking main road. I there found this jemmy lying close by the kerb in the gutter. I have compared it with the marks on Lea and Company's door and window, and find that it fits the indentations exactly The place where I found the jemmy is about three-quarters of a mile from Lea, and Company's office. Prisoners were arrested about 12 yard's from the spot where I picked up the jemmy. The spot where prisoners had been standing was pointed out to me by the last witness.

Police-constable JIM GREENWOOD, 616 K. On the morning of October 30 I was with Constable Jones on duty in the Barking Road Prisoner Hunt was standing at the corner of Hermit Road. Prisoners Phillips and Lemon came out of the doorway of 169, Barking Road, which is occupied by a clothing company. They went away in the direction of Canning Town, along the Barking Road, and went into the doorway of 125, Barking Road, against the public hall. Afterwards they all went to the coffee stall at the corner of Liverpool Road. Hunt went round the back of the coffee stall, and went apparently to the window of Lea and Company's office. From the window he moved to the door. The other two prisoners stood at the opposite corner. They were there some five or six minutes. Afterwards they went along the Barking Road. Police-constable Jones changed his clothes with a passer-by, and followed them into Barking Road, and I went through. King Street into Chargeable Lane. The prisoners went into Chargeable Lane, and when they saw me they turned round and went back. They were then stopped by Police-constable Jones. I went up and took Phillips into custody, and Police-constable Jones apprehended the other prisoners. We took them to the station. I searched the three prisoners. On Phillips I found one key, one box of matches, one chisel, one empty box, 8d. in bronze, and one strap. The strap he had round him underneath his trousers. It is easier to carry tools (housebreaking implements) inside a strap than inside the pockets.

To the Court. The coffee stall stands in front of the office. There were no people at the coffee stall.

HORACE WREN , 50, Mayhill Road, Dalston, clerk to Charles Lea and Company. The premises of the firm are at the corner of Barking Road and Liverpool Road. The door is in the Liverpool Road and the window in Barking Road. On October 29 I left the office about 5 o'clock. Everything was then secured. I returned on the morning of the 30th. I found on opening the door that the door post was splintered I also found that the window frame was splintered. The door post was very much cut away.


WILLIAM PHILLIPS (prisoner on oath). I, Hunt, and Lemon were in the "Aberfeldy Arms" till closing time. We walked towards home in Canning Town, which I should say would be about half-an-hour's walk, taking our time. We had cups of coffee at the coffee stall. Hunt said to me, "Are you going to come home with me to-night, Phillips?" I said I would, and we went on continuing our argument. We turned into Chargeable Lane to ease ourselves. When we came out the officers arrested us. I was standing at the coffee stall, but I never saw Hunt go into no doorway.

In answer to questions by Judge Lumley Smith, witness said that what was described as a chisel was used by Hunt for skinning rabbits, which they sometimes sold. The key found on him was the latch key of 15, Godsall Road, where Hunt lives. He knew nothing about the jemmy.

Verdict, (all) Guilty.

Detective-Sergeant CHARLES HUTTON, K Division, stated that prisoner Lemon was convicted at Epsom Petty Sessions on May 27 of this year, and fined 20s. and costs, or fourteen days, for cheating by means of the three card trick. He was a costermonger, and got his living by selling coke. He did try to get a living, and for four months was working at Tottenham Farm Colony for the Distress Committee. He then went up for three weeks' training as a Reservist, and had also worked for a gentleman on a farm in Cambridgeshire. Prisoner Hunt was sentenced to 21 days' hard labour at West Ham Police Court on February 24 this year for attempting to steal money from a till. On April 22 at Epsom Petty Sessions, he had one month's hard labour for gambling and assaulting the police. He also was a costermonger, and got his living by selling rabbits and other things. Phillips on March 14, 1908, was sentenced to two months' imprisonment and ten months' imprisonment, to run concurrently, at Glamorganshire Assizes, in respect of two charges of robbery with violence, in the name of William Hughes. He then described himself as a collier. Since he had been up here, he had been associated with Hunt. The prisoners were not professional thieves, but he had seen Hunt in the company of men that frequent football fields, practising the three card trick.

Judge Lumley Smith said he proposed to vary the sentences proportionately to the previous convictions, because he thought that people

who worked together in this way should not come out of prison at the same time.

Sentences, Lemon Four months' hard labour; Phillips Five months' hard labour; and Hunt Six months' hard labour.


(Monday, November 29.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-95
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

PEART, Ernest Walter (43, dealer) ; having the custody of Florence Peart, Walter Peart, Cecil Peart, Ernest Peart, Jack Peart and Ada Peart, children under the age of 16 years, did neglect them in a manner likely to cause them unnecessary suffering and injury to their health.

Mr. W. Hughes Hughes prosecuted.

ALICE PEART , 12, Chard Street, Canning Town. I have been married to prisoner for 16 years; we have six children living: Florence aged 15 years, Walter 13, Cecil 12, Ernest 8, Jack 3, Ada 18 months. Prisoner is a horse dealer, and attends fairs and sales all over the country. I do not know what he earns; he used to give me 5s. or 6s. a week; I earn a few shillings myself. At 12, Chard Street we have no furniture, only a pair of mattresses; we have been there three months, and there is a lot of rent owing. I was in Leytonstone Union for nine months with four of the children; prisoner took us away from there. I have had tickets for meals from the School Children's Relief Committee; on one occasion prisoner tore up two tickets, saying that he did not wish his children to take them. None of the children, except the eldest boy, have any boots.

To prisoner. I do not wish to punish you; I only want my children looked after. You did use to bring home bacon or fish, but you would eat it yourself.

To Judge Rentoul. We first lived at Stowmarket, where we belong. Prisoner never properly looked after me and the children. He has occasionally given way to drink; he would come home drunk three or four times a week.

RICHARD DAVELL , Inspector to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I visited 12, Chard Street. It is a home of four rooms; in three there was no furniture whatever; in the other there were palliasses. Mrs. Peart having made a statement, I again went to the house and saw prisoner. I said, "I have called to see you respecting the neglect of your children; they have evidently been neglected for a very long time past; it has been stated that you have never yet bought either boots or clothes for them, and that for months you have not contributed more than 5s. or 6s. towards their support; that you come home nearly every night the worse for drink; that free dinner tickets, supplied for the children who go to school, were on one occasion torn up by you; that the society's warning forms sent to you have also been torn up; your house is entirely without furniture; I have

been told you are a horse dealer, so that you cannot be without means to support your family"; prisoner asked for a few days' grace, and said he would do better. I called subsequently and found there was no improvement, and these proceedings were instituted. I have had 40 years' experience of these cases. The conditions under which I found the children living is calculated to do them infinite harm as long as they live.

WALTER JOHNSON , another Inspector of the society, spoke to visiting the house and seeing the children, and confirmed the first witness.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "There is a lot false which has been said to-day; I will speak to the jury; this is not my fault; my wife was silly enough to go away and leave me; I did not know she had gone."


ERNEST WALTER PEART (prisoner, on oath). I get my living by working amongst the horses in the bus and tram yards; sometimes I can get a job, sometimes not. Last year my wife left me and sold the furniture. (Mrs. Peart said she left prisoner because she had been in the streets for ten days, sleeping with the children in a stable; the "home" she had sold for 5s.; she went home to her mother at Stowmarket.) Since she has been back I have been unable to get any work; the introduction of motor buses has ruined the horse trade. I have always had a hard struggle to get a living, but I have always done my best for the children. I always used to come home with a bit of meat or fish for them; I have even sold my coat off my back to get them food. If I have ever come home the worse for drink it has been because I have had drink given to me. I now have employment offered to me, and I want to be back among my children. I have got a good wife; I cannot help being poor.

Verdict, Guilty.

In reply to Judge Rentoul Mrs. Peart said she had no wish to see her husband punished; his being in prison would do her no good. Prisoner said that he would at once get into employment, and would do better in future. He was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.



(Friday, November 19)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-96
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LETARD, Frederick (35, teacher) , pleaded guilty of committing acts of gross indecency with John William Shephard, a male person; committing an act of gross indecency with Leslie Dawling, a male person; committing an act of gross indecency with Paul Loose, a male person.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour; recommended for expulsion under Aliens Act.


(Tuesday, November 23.)

16th November 1909
Reference Numbert19091116-97
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BOULTER, Harry (42, gardener) and WEST, James (34, labourer) ; both being found by night having in their possession, without lawful excuse, certain implements of housebreaking, to wit, one saw, one file, and other articles.

Police-constable GEORGE DRAPER, 525 V, On October 26 I was on duty in Melbourne Road, Merton. At 11.55 p.m. I saw prisoner standing at the corner of Kirkley and Boscombe Roads. I kept them under observation. I saw them examine the backs of the houses in Boscombe and Melbourne Road. They were looking over the fence. They remained there two or three minutes, then crossed the road to a passage that runs between the houses in Melbourne and Boscombe Roads. West went down the passage; Boulter remained in the mouth of the passage, and looked up and down the road. I was standing in a shop doorway 25 yards off, and put my head out and heard Boulter say, "Look out." He apparently observed my helmet as I looked round the corner. I went towards them. I said, "What are you doing here?" Boulter said, "Nothing:" I said, "What were you doing in the passage?" Boulter said, "The other man went down there to make water, and I was waiting for him." I took them back. I found that statement to be untrue. It had been slightly raining, but anyone would have been able to see if anybody had urinated there. West said, "We are just going home to Wandell Road," which is in quite the opposite direction. Police-constable Cook came across the road. He had been watching them for some time. I told prisoners their answers were unsatisfactory, and I should take them to the station. They were searched there. This knife was the only thing found on Boulter. It is sharp and had been filed down. On West I found a saw, matches, pair of kid gloves, a knife, a file, and a picklock. The gloves are to avoid finger prints being taken. When charged Boulter said, "All these tools that you have found belong to West." West said, "That is right, that is what I use for making mats or repairing mats. "I cannot see how any of these tools can be used for that purpose.

Police-constable ARTHUR COOK, 212 V. I saw prisoners on October 26 in Merton Road. I was near the Nag's Head. I knew them. I kept them under observation. They went down Kingston Road into Kirkley Road, and stood on the corner of Boscombe Road. They were there three minutes. They went alongside a fence, looked over it, and then crossed the road to a passage, when I lost sight of West. Boulter

stood at the mouth of the passage. I heard Boulter say "Look up. "Last witness approached me, and I walked across the road. I examined the place. Nobody had been making water there.


HARRY BOULTER (prisoner, on oath). I was at Tooting the night we were locked up. I met West. I told him I had been mushrooming early in the morning and earned 2s. 6d. or 3s., and I thought about going that night. He said, "I will come with you." We had a drink at one or two houses. We got to the Grove coffee stall just after 11, had two cups of tea, and proceeded to go mushrooming. It began to rain hard, so I said, "We had better turn back; turn up this road and go home and come out to-morrow morning. "This policeman had followed us all the while; it did not matter about that; as we were going towards home this policeman says, "Where are you chaps going?" We said, "Going home." He said, "What are you doing in the passage?" West said, "Making water." The constable said, "Come and show us." We showed him. He said, "I cannot see anything. I shall lock you up for loitering. "We says, "All right. "The other constable comes up and says, "Get hold of the other one." He says, "What are you locking them up for?" and the other says, "Loitering." They took us to the station, and charged us with loitering, and after that they charged us with these tools, which are the tools West works for his daily bread, which I am a general dealer, and he has done up chairs, boots, sofas, and other things for me with the same tools.

Cross-examined. We started from Tooting about 11, and got to the Grove coffee stall at half-past, I suppose. We can get mushrooms in the dark; they grow white. We did not go over the same road twice. As we crossed the road, as the shadow crossed, which it was that looked over the fence, not us. The shadow goes before, not behind. We kept walking, did not stop at all, only at the coffee stall.

JAMES WEST (prisoner, on oath). These tools which were found on me I use for my work, and we-had no felonious intent with the things whatever. I mend mats and chairs. I have been working at Merton for Mr. Lawrence on and off for three weeks, and for the "King's Head," Wimbledon. Unfortunately, I did not get a job that day. I forgot these tools when I met Boulter, and had not been home. There was also a lot of twine with the tools, which I use for sewing. I see that is not here. I never use a chisel, what is called a chisel is not a chisel; it is used for making holes in the edge of mats.

Verdict, Guilty.

Each prisoner confessed to a previous conviction for felony, and numerous other convictions were proved.

Sentences, West, Nine months' hard labour; Boulter, Four months' hard labour.

View as XML