The Proceedings of the Old Bailey

   

  BUGG, John Joseph (40, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing one postal packet containing 6s. and four penny postage stamps, the goods of   His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

 

  BROOKS, Arthur (25, tinsmith) , stealing one roll of cloth, the goods of   Frederick James Berryman.

Mr. Mark Stebbing prosecuted.

  STEPHEN SCHUSTER , hairdresser, 125, Wood Street, E.G. At 3.15 p.m. on May 23 I went to my door, when I heard voices in the next doorway. I saw a lad standing with a roll of cloth on his shoulder and there was a man with his coat sleeves turned up pointing with a pencil towards an A.B.C. in Gresham Street. I became suspicious and sent one of my men for a policeman. I saw the man give the boy some coppers. The boy then ran towards Gresham Street, leaving the roll of cloth with the man. When the boy had gone about 10 yards the man said to me, "That silly boy—he has gone too far; I shall have to be after him." I said, "Not with that roll of cloth." He said, "What am I to do with it. Will you take care of it?"I put it inside my doorway and returned to see the man turning round the corner. I followed him and saw him dodge between two vans; I lost sight of him in Gutter Lane. On returning to my shop I saw the boy there. On the following Monday I identified prisoner without hesitation as the man from 10 or 12 men in a row.

  JOHN RUMELL , porter, F. J. Berryman and Co. I am 17 years old. At 3.15 p.m. on May 23 I was walking along Wood Street with a roll of cloth which I had to take to Stedall's, Limited, Cannon Street, when a man in a doorway stopped me and asked me to fetch a cup of tea for him at the A.B.C. in Gresham Street, saying he could not leave the place as he was the only man there. I said, "Who will mind this roll of cloth?"and he said, "I will take care of it." I left it with

him and I went to the tea shop. He did not give me any money, as he said he had an account there. When I got to the tea shop they would not give me the tea. When I got back the man was gone. The policeman gave me the roll of cloth. I cannot identify the man.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I would not recognise the man again if I saw him; I only saw him for a minute. Excepting in height you are not like him.

Detective   FREDERICK HAYWOOD , City Police. On May 29 I was keeping observation in Nile Street, Hoxton, when I saw prisoner and arrested him for being a suspected person. He said, "You have made a 'bloomer' this time." A man named Cherry was with him; I arrested him also. I did not arrest them in connection with this charge. I took them to Moor Lane Police Station, where Schuster identified prisoner immediately. When charged he made no reply; he refused to give any account of himself. Rumell was unable to identify him.

To prisoner. I had no descriptions when I arrested you. I did not hear you say at the time of the identification, "It is a mistake," but you said so afterwards. From my position in the charge room I must have heard all you said to the inspector.

Police-constable   WILLIAM INGRAM , 406 A. On May 23 I was on duty in Gresham Street, when in consequence of information received I went to 125, Wood Street, when I saw Schuster in the doorway with a roll of cloth. About a minute or two after Rumell came up and I handed him the cloth.

To prisoner. Schuster gave me the description of the man, which I handed in at Cloak Lane.

(Defence.)

  ARTHUR BROOKS (prisoner, on oath). When I was identified as many as 14 boys came round to identify me on another charge and they could not pick me out. One of the boys touched another man. It is a pure mistake; I am innocent of this charge.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the Newington Sessions on March 1, 1910, when he received 15 months' hard labour. Seven previous convictions were proved against him since 1901. It was stated that he was practically an habitual criminal. There had been 50 or 60 cases of similar larcenies in this neighbourhood in May and June.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

 

  SARTORI, Luigi (17, icecream vendor) pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a request for the payment of money, to wit, a notice of withdrawal of £5 from the Post Office Savings Bank and a receipt for money, to wit, a Post Office Savings Bank warrant for £5, with intent to defraud.

It was stated on prisoner's behalf that he had found the Post Office Savings Bank book and had not, as alleged by the prosecution, stolen it from the portmanteau of the man with whom he was occupying a

room. Prisoner had been in England five years, having been brought here from Italy by a padrone who hired his services out.

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

 

  SMITH, John (38, labourer), pleaded guilty of stealing nine pairs of shoes, the goods of   Carter Paterson and Co., Limited.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the Newington Sessions on November 10, 1908, in the name of John Naylor, when he received 15 months' hard labour. Eleven other convictions, for which he had received short sentences, dating from 1891, were proved against him; it was stated that he was practically a habitual criminal. He was of a violent character and an associate of thieves.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.

 

  HANSEN, Christian (22, carman), pleaded guilty of, having been entrusted with the several sums of 7s. 6d. and 9s., fraudulently converting the same to his own use.

Prisoner, who had previously borne a good character, was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

 

  WHITE, James (auxiliary postman), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a chain, a matchbox, 10 halfpenny postage stamps, and 4s. 6d., the property of   His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Prisoner had been in the Post Office since 1902 and was now in receipt of 6s. 9d. a week for about two hours work a day.

Losses had been going on at the post office at which he was stationed since last August. The proceeds of nine other stolen letters were found upon him. He had been for nine years a treasurer at a branch of the Salvation Army. Evidence was called on his behalf as to his previous good character.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

 

  ELLIOTT, Joseph John (28, auxiliary postman and tailor), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a postal order for the payment of 1s., the property of   His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Prisoner had joined the Post Office in January last and had been in receipt of 12s. 3d. a week far four hours' work a day. He had admitted the theft of four other postal orders. Losses had been going on since last April. He was an Army Reservist.

Sentence, Four months' hard labour, the Recorder remarking that he hoped to see the time when the system adopted by the Post Office of employing men for a few hours a day would be discontinued, as it was impossible to see whether such men continued in the other employment which they were supposed to have when engaged as auxiliary postmen.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANTN.

(Tuesday, June 27.)

 

  BOWRON, John Allen (68, merchant),   BOWRON, Sidney (49, merchant), and   KNIGHT, John Loonan (64, wharf manager) , all conspiring together by false pretences to obtain from such liege subjects of the King as might thereafter be induced to advance money to the said J. A. Bowron and S. Bowron and from the   Right Hon. Charles Booth and others divers sums of money and goods and to defraud them thereof; Knight having been entrusted with certain property, to wit, casks containing pelts in order that he might retain the said property in safe custody unlawfully did fraudulently convert the said property to the use of certain other persons, to wit, the said J. A. Bowron and S. Bowron, and J. A. Bowron and S. Bowron unlawfully aiding Knight to do and commit the said misdemeanours.

Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. Roland Oliver prosecuted; Mr. Muir and Mr. Disturnal defended J. A. and S. Bowron; Mr. Leycester and Mr. Oddie defended Knight.

  GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE , messenger, Bankruptcy Court. I produce file in the bankruptey of John Allen and Sidney Bowron, carrying on business at Kirby Street, Bermondsey, and Crayford, Kent, as leather merchants, under the style of Bowron Brothers, and at 14 and 18, Narrow Street, Radcliffe, as wharfingers, under the style of Phœnix Wharfs Company; petition presented by the debtors and receiving order made March 21, 1911.

  DANIEL ERNEST WEATHERLEY , managing clerk to Rock and Sons, Market Street, Bermondsey, skin and pelt factors. I produce consignment note from Bowron Brothers to Rock and Sons of October 12, 1910, for 23 casks marked "Huia," numbers 72-94, and 14 casks pelts marked "Rex," numbers 347-360, ex Rimutaka, on which my firm advanced £630; also landing slip for the same goods. We subsequently sold the goods to a consumer, who duly collected them from Phœnix Wharf.

  PERCY LEWIS , invoice clerk to Fisher, King and Co., Weston Street, Bermondsey, leather factors. I produce consignment note from Bowron Brothers, of September 10, 1910, for 13 casks of linings marked "W.W.", Nos. 45-57, ex s.s. Orari, which were subsequently delivered. My firm advanced £736 upon them. I also produce consignment note for nine casks of linings marked "W.W.," Nos. 61-69, ex Rimutaka, which were received as part cover for an advance. The nine casks were subsequently delivered to our order.

(Wednesday, June 28.)

Detective-sergeant   JOHN MCEVOY , New Scotland Yard. On March 27 I saw Knight at Hornchurch, Essex. I told him I held a warrant for his arrest. He said, "Yes, all right. This is all right to come to this. I have been employed by Bowron Brothers for 20

years. I got the sack last week and have not been paid my week's wages yet. I am only a paid servant." I subsequently took him to Southwark Police Station.

  GEORGE MACAULAY BOOTH , partner in Booth and Co., Liverpool, and 15 and 16, Railway Approach, Bermondsey, skin merchants. Garland and Baxter are the managers of my firm in London. We have dealt with Bowron Brothers for 20 years and it is our practice to advance on the documents of title of consignments of pelts shipped from New Zealand to London; we obtained a delivery note on the Phœnix Wharf and when the goods were landed the warrant was handed to us. The goods consisted of sheep skins (pelts) split into two leathers called "grains" and "linings." They were usually sold in America and after being sorted and treated at Bowron Brothers' factory at Crayford, where about 10 per cent of the skins were rejected, were put again into casks and returned to Phœnix Wharf. For that purpose we handed Bowron Brothers the warrant and received a fresh warrant when they were returned to Phœnix Wharf. On being shipped to New York we acted as agents for the sale, charging a commission of 5 per cent. to include carriage, wharfage, and insurance. A business consisting of 30 to 35 thousand dozens of skins was carried through yearly. We generally had 800 to 1,000 casks at Phœnix Wharf containing 30,000 dozens of pelts. value £37,000, the bulk of which amount we had advanced on the wharf warrants for the goods. I produce letter of January, 1911, from Bowron Brothers: "We confirm the quantities of goods at Phœnix Wharf in your name on our account on December 31, 1911; Fleshers, 4,861 dozens; lamb grains, 1,511 dozens; grains, 40,296 dozens." That is John Bowron's writing. It represents about a thousand casks which should have been at Phœnix Wharf. On March 15 I heard of a judgment against Bowron Brothers and sent Mr. Little, our clerk. to check the goods. Up to that time I had no idea that Phœnix Wharf was the property of Bowron Brothers, which I first learned on the petition in bankruptcy being filed. When goods were returned from Crayford they were always marked "BBN." Letter of November 2, 1910 (produced) is in J. A. Bowron's writing: "Mr. Knight,—Please send me to-day warrant made out in your name. We are going to let Rock's hold it until the end of December. He is invoicing us about £5,000 value in pelts, which we are going to turn into BBN's for Booths as they are wanted for shipment." At that time there should have been a very large number of grains at Phœnix Wharf on which we had advanced money ready to be sent to Crayford to be turned into BBN's for us; Bowrons should have had no occasion to obtain them from Rock Brothers.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I had no transactions with Sidney Bowron—he was the practical manufacturer and was an expert on values. Our financial business was done with J. A. Bowron. All goods sent from Phœnix Wharf to Crayford were held on trust receipt; when they were returned to the wharf we again got a warrant. This was very common some years ago, but of late years the accumulation of sorted goods had practically disappeared and we only got the sorted

goods back just in time for shipment when a further warrant was not made out. In 1907 prices in America were at their highest point; in November, 1907, prices began to fall. The American panic ensued and there was a great fall in the value of skins. We obtained additional cover for our advances by warrants for fresh consignments on goods being delivered to us. Bowron Brothers drew on us for the amounts of the invoices of goods shipped; the bills were discounted by our bank, the goods sold and the bills retired. I did not know that Phœnix Wharf had been closed as a public wharf and was treated as a private wharf for the purposes of insurance. Clancey, the insurance agent, did not disclose to us that it was a private wharf. He certainly never saw me. I did not know that the wharf was put up for public auction in 1905 or that Bowron Brothers were the leaseholders. I would never have entrusted Phœnix Wharf with the goods had I known the wharf belonged to Bowron Brothers.

Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. I never saw Knight—Baxter or Garland attended to the business. Sometimes part of the contents of a warrant were released for the purpose of being sent to Crayford; the warrant would then be endorsed with a statement that part had been released. One and a half years ago we examined Knight's books to see whether the wharf books agreed with our own statement of the goods held by him at the wharf. I do not think I got from Knight any assurance as to the quantities of goods pledged to us being actually upon the wharf.

Re-examined. I have never seen the draft conditions of sale, dated November 6, 1905 (produced), at the time I was in America. Letter (produced) of November 9, 1910, "We shall be obliged if you will advance us £1,400 against margin account," is written by J. A. Bowron. There was usually a margin of value in the goods pledged in our favour,'and that advance of £1,400 was made by my firm as against such margin.

  ARTHUR LIONEL BAXTER , co-manager to Booth and Co., at 15 and 16, Railway Approach. Mr. Garland is co-manager with me. I have been regularly attending to that branch for 10 years. I produce letter of September 8, 1910: "On Monday, September 12, will you oblige by advancing us £1,500 against grains, per Star of Canada and Orari.—Yours faithfully, Bowron Brothers." That was accompanied by consignment note for 10 casks of grain, 778 dozen ex Orari, Nos. 31—41, and 31 casks, 1,293 dozen ex. Star of Canada, making 1,671 dozen, at 18s., £1,504, upon which we advanced on September 12, £1,500 by cheque (produced). All such cheques were signed by Garland or myself, having been endorsed Bowron Brothers, and been honoured by Booth and Co.'s bankers. On September 28, I received warranant, signed T. L. Knight, as manager of the Phœnix Wharves Company. I is also signed "examined and entered, M. J. Jones," and again initialled by Knight. The warrant has printed on it: "This warrant is the only document issued by me as the legal symbol of ownership, and must be produced before delivery can take place." On receipt of the warrant I returned the delivery order. I

produce letter of request by Bowron Brothers of September 16, 1910, to advance £2,000 on 51 casks grains, ex s.s. Orari, similar consignment note and warrant of September 28, and cheque for £2,000 advanced; another request of September 26, 1910, for £1,400, on three shipments of grains with consignment note, warrant and cheque; request of October 3 for advance of £1,000 on 27 casks of grains, BB, Nos. 142—168, together with delivery order, warrant and cheque; request of October 10 for advance of 1,500 on casks ex Urataca. I also produce bundle of 16 warrants, showing similar advances made between March 23 and September 8, 1910, on 598 casks of grains, amounting to £21,270, the cheques being dated from March 17 to August 31. On March 15, 1911, Booth and Co. held warrants for 800 casks of grains, on which £28,670 had been advanced on which no trust warrants had been issued, and the whole of which goods should have been at Phœnix Wharf. Apart from the goods mentioned in those warrants, we had been continually releasing other warrants for the purpose of the goods being taken to Crayford and shipped to New York. I produce statement, showing that 667 casks were so released and shipped from March 23,1910, to March 1,1911. Six hundred and thirteen casks were returned to the wharf as sorted. On March 15, 1911, I sent Little to check the property at Phœnix Wharf. I first heard that Phœnix Wharf belonged to Bowron Brothers when they filed their petition. I always saw J. A. Bowron on financial matters. I used to see S. Bowron about sorting the goods at Crayford and on the practical side of the business. All letters of request and consignment notes are in J. A. Bowron's writing. Except on the first occasion (March 23 1910) we always advanced the full value of the goods. On shipment Bowron Brothers drew bills on Booth and Co., which were accepted at the head office in Liverpool and discounted by our Liverpool bank. The bill was never drawn for a larger amount than the advance.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. Account current (produced) shows a balance due by Bowron Brothers to our London office of £35,259 1s. 1d. on January 1, 1908, and to our Liverpool office of £34,369 8s. 8d.—a total of about £70,000. At the end of 1908 the balance was London office, £23,341; Liverpool, £13,381—a total of £37,000, showing that the indebtedness had been reduced by £33,000 by releasing goods of that value which were in Booth and Co.'s hands for sale. At the end of 1908 prices in America fell from 30 to 50 per cent. Bowron Brothers and others holding large stocks of grains lost very large sums. In making up the margin account we always reckoned the value of the unsold goods lying at the wharf, generally at a higher price than we had advanced. In March, 1911, the amount advanced was smaller than it had been for some years.

Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester." BBN" was the regular marks put on goods exported; "WW" and other marks would be the import marks on the casks before the grains were sorted and repacked at Crayford; they would then be freshly numbered from

1 to 1000, and commence again from 1 to 1,000. Part of the goods on a warrant would be sent to Crayford at times and the warrant would be endorsed accordingly, or the warrant would be released and a trust certificate issued by Bowron Brothers, undertaking to return the goods to Phœnix Wharf. Goods might remain at Crayford for five weeks at the outside. Latterly the goods would be shipped on being returned from Crayford without a fresh warrant being issued. On March 15 Little informed me that only 52 casks remained at the wharf. Little never told me that for 15 years he had known Phœnix Wharf to be the property of Bowron Brothers.' (To Mr. Muir.) October 26, 1910, was the last advance on specific goods; goods of the value of £5,500 were then held by Bowron Brothers, reducing their indebtedness to that amount.

Re-examined. There was an advance of £1,400 on November 11, 1910, on general margin, which was the last advance. The account of £70,000 at the end of 1907 included a large advance on loans—a class of business which afterwards ceased. On March 11, 1911, the balance due to the London office was £37,549; to Liverpool, £4,055—a total of £41,000, while at the end of 1908 the total was £36,000. On December 31, 1909, the Liverpool balance was £8,121; London, £39,439. In March, 1911, there were at the wharf none of the 800 casks which should have been lying there to our order.

  CHRISTOPHER JAMES ARLAND , co-manager to Booth and Co., 15 and 16, Eailway Approach. Until March 15 of this year I had no idea that Phœnix Wharf was the property of Bowron Brothers. Trust certificates were copied from the warrants and supposed to represent the same goods.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I attended at the inquiry when the London County Council were taking over part of Bowron's property in Purbeck Street. It was a factory similar to that at Crayford. I gave evidence, but not as to value so far as I recollect. Our object was to get a part of the award in respect of a sum owing to Booth and Co. The first time I knew the wharf belonged to Bowrons was at the meeting in bankruptcy.

Mr. Muir, on behalf of J. A. Bowron, offered to plead guilty to the first three counts charging conspiracy to defraud. This was accepted by the prosecution and a verdict of guilty on those counts was returned; not guilty on the other counts.

With regard to S. Bowron Mr. Muir submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury.

Mr. Travers Humphreys said he had no further evidence to offer against S. Bowron, and he did not press for a conviction against him: a verdict of not guilty was returned.

J. A. Bowron was put back and the trial was proceeded with against Knight.

  GEORGE FREDERICK LITTLE , commercial clerk to Booth and Co., Railway Approach. On March 15 I went to Phœnix Wharf to check the goods held by Booth and Co. under 21 warrants (produced).

Knight said he could not show me the goods, that Bowrons had had the lot.

Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. Nothing was said in my presence as to the wharf belonging to Bowrons.

  JOHN JONES , 4, Ryland Street, West India Dock Road. I have been employed as clerk at Phœnix Wharf for 22 or 23 years up to March 16, 1911. Knight engaged me and I have always looked upon him as my employer. I have been foreman for 16 years. My daughter has been bookkeeper for 10 years and we had four labourers. I supervised landing of goods and kept landing book produced. Before goods came in I got written particulars from the officer of the wharf. On the casks being landed I entered marks and numbers in the landing book and kept a memorandum book recording where particular goods were stored. I got instructions to deliver from Knight; sometimes from J. A. Bowron; deliveries occurred about six times in a month and were entered in the delivery book. Books produced correctly show all goods that came on to the wharf, where they were stored and who they were delivered to. We sometimes altered the marks on the casks, latterly as frequently as once a week; it was done under my superintendence from particulars I had from the office, sometimes in Knight's handwriting and sometimes in my daughter's. I made a record of it in the delivery book. The original numbers and marks are shown on the opposite counterfoil, the new numbers in the delivery note sent out and its counterfoil.

Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. I was at Phœnix Wharf two or three years before Knight; he has been manager 20 years. The wharf was then owned by Orr and Co. While Knight has been manager business has been carried on in the same way. During the last few years many letters containing my instructions came from Bowron's. I came to the wharf at 7 or 8 a.m.; Knight got there between 8 and 9; my daughter between 10 and 11. I opened the letters coming by the first post; those which arrived later were opened by my daughter. Goods went from the wharf to different firms—Rock and Sons, Fisher, King and Co., Cheverton's; the marks of those firms would be put on the casks. It never occurred to me there was anything wrong in altering the marks. Knight used to go away on Friday and get the wages. I have been to Bowron's once or twice for them. Knight was generally absent on Saturday; he had about a fortnight's holiday every year and was occasionally away for a day or two. On one Friday I went to Bowron's, got the wagee and handed them to Knight at Fenchurch Street Station; he took his pay out of the bag and handed me the balance. I generally described the casks as "Pelts." They were sent to Crayford three or four times a week.

(Friday, June. 30.)

  PERCY HOLLINGWORTH , manager to Stettauer and Wolff, 169, Bermondsey Street, leather merchants. For 15 years my firm has made advances to Bowron Brothers on casks of linings. Letter produced

of September 19, 1910, is a request for an advance of £800 on a consignment note for 51 casks of linings marked HW, numbers 182-232. ex Orari, on which my firm advanced £750 by cheque produced of September 19; on September 28 we received from the Phœnix Wharves Company warrant produced signed by Knight. That warrant was in existence at the time of the bankruptcy. I also produce request dated October 1, 1910, for an advance for £450 against consignment note for 35 casks linings; on October 3 £400 was advanced by cheque produced; on October 28 I received warrant for the goods which we held at the time of the bankruptcy. We then found the goods not at the wharf. I produce similar request, dated October 27, 1910, for £450, which was advanced on 34 casks. We never authorised the Phœnix Wharves Company to deliver those goods.

Cross-examined. Most of the money advanced was on linings and pelts. The goods had to go to Cray ford to be converted into chamois leather, so it is true that we knew the goods had to go to Crayford. It was our practice when receiving a letter of request and consignment note to send to the Phœnix Wharf asking them to issue a warrant.

  CARL STETTAUER , of the firm of Stettauer and Wolff, said it must be about four or five years since they had last advanced money on pelts; that the linings against which advances were made had always been split in New Zealand. Their practice when linings upon which advances were made had to go to Crayford to be made into chamois leather was the same as that of witnesses Baxter and Booth, the only difference being they would have separate trust sheets for each lot, whereas his firm would have one.

Cross-examined. John Bowron signed the trust sheet and was then handed the warrant releasing, not a part, but the whole of a warrant and his firm got no fresh document when goods came back to their premises from Crayford, but a note was made on trust sheet that the leather must be sent back.

Re-examined. When chamois leather came back from Crayford they were not sold on commission for Bowrons, but bought out and out. Some goods in process of manufacture not found at the time of the bankruptcy were held on warrants and some on the trust sheet the proposition being £30,000 on warrant and £2,000 on trust sheet.

  WILLIAM ALFRED SANSON , head clerk and bookkeeper to Wallach and Heuman, hide merchants, 174, Bermondsey Street, said that his firm sent to Knight by registered post on September 28, 1910, a delivery order in respect of an advance they had made on some goods, getting a warrant in exchange; that Bowrons owed his firm at the time of this warrant over £30,000; there were 22 warrants all told, representing his firm's security against the bankruptcy. The warrants were in respect of about 350 casks of pelts and 440 casks of grains. His firm's practice was to give old warrants for new; an old warrant would be exchanged for a new warrant so as to release the old casks; it sometimes happened that the new warrant was of less value than that given in exchange for the old, and another warrant would be given as additional cover to make up the deficiency. His firm endeavoured to keep

themselves fully covered. On September 30 John Bowron came for the purpose of exchanging an old for a new warrant; his firm had never got back the casks nominated in either of the two warrants then produced.

Cross-examined. His firm still held both warrants. Money was lent on grains as well as pelts. Witness had no record of money being lent on linings. He did not know whether goods upon which advance was made had to go to Crayford. It was merely a financial transaction of his firm advancing money on the security of the goods at 5 per cent. per annum and commission, which came together to 12 3/4 per cent. per annum. The reason for the exchange of warrants was that the goods were perishable—not for a further advance of money. There was an arrangement with Bowrons to ensure the goods, and premiums of about 3s. 6d. per cent. were paid by Bowrons. Witness did not know the premium was smaller in the case of a private than of a public wharf.

  SIDNEY SAMUEL LEVIN , clerk to Cheverton and Co., tanners, Birmingham. My firm advanced money on casks of skins, and received a great number of casks from the Phœnix Wharf. On September 16, 1910, we received 14 casks ex Arori, W 193 to 206; on February 15 last we received 14 casks ex Star of Scotland, marked "N.G.F."; on the 13th 8 casks ex Rimutaka and on the same day five casks ex Arori, marked BB 191 and 211 to 214; the casks contained assorted grains. We never gave instructions to the wharf as to the re-marking and renumbering of casks.

Mrs.   MINNIE ISABELLA TERMEHR . For some 10 years up to March 16 last, I (then Miss Jones) was book-keeper at Phœnix Wharf, where my father was foreman. I always got my instructions from Knight; during that time saw John Bowron about half a dozen times and Sidney Bowron but very little. I had charge of a cash book and stock charges book, in the former goods landed at the wharf were entered from slips of paper, which came from Bowron Bros. Bills of landing would be entered in the book as "B. L. received." Goods about to leave the wharf were entered from the delivery book kept by my father. I made out all warrants from a counterfoil book, the pages of which were numbered consecutively, getting the materials for making out warrant from delivery order which had been given by Bowron's to somebody, and reached me through the post. Knight signed all warrants which he verified from delivery orders; Knight told me what system of book-keeping to adopt; he was in the office where the books were kept. On two occasions last year, when I asked Knight about the duplicate warrants made out, his explanation was that there were two kinds of goods in the casks and that one of the two was going to be returned. He also said he would speak to Bowron about it; later he said that Bowron had told him the warrants were being "retired," meaning returned. The warrants got back from Bowrons did not include duplicate warrants. The warrants were dated always on a date subsequent to the arrival of the goods; there would be no means of telling if the various warrants produced were made out on the same

day. When warrants were returned from Bowron Brothers, they were written off in the warrant register. Although for 10 years up to 1910 the dates of the returned warrants had not been entered, I entered the dates after that time for my own purposes; I was not told to do it. Knight could see from my list what warrants had been returned; he took the list (which would show the duplications) to Bowron. When Knight came back he told me that Bowron said it was wrong. No one came after that to check books to see if they were correct. The instructions given to Jones for altering of marks on the casks would come from letters in the office; they would be given to him by me or by Knight. Jones kept the delivery book, into which would be entered goods sent away from the wharf. An immense quantity of re-marked goods went to Chevertons, for which a warrant had been issued to somebody else. When I spoke to Knight about this he made no answer and seemed very much confused. I did not know the wharf was owned by Bowrons. Bowrons paid Knight a sum every week for wages, of which 30s. was paid to me. I entered the amount he got from Bowrons (which was always less £8) in the cash book. Knight may have received £8 a week wages, but there was no entry of that amount. I always treated Bowrons as independent merchants and rendered them monthly accounts of wharfage charges and rent of goods, giving details in the stock charges book.

Cross-examined. There was very little money received at the wharf from other merchants than Bowrons for goods stored at the wharf, the money received sometimes in the form of cheques being entered in a cash book and a ledger. Knight would take the cash or cheques to Bowrons every Friday and bring back an acknowledgment. Previous to his going I would give him a slip of paper with each merchant's name on with the amount received, which he would bring back signed, as I thought, by John Bowron. All expenses and outgoings including rent, rates, and taxes were paid by Bowron Brothers in form of a cheque. On the rare occasions when I went to collect money for this purpose from Bowrons it was given in the form of a cheque, which I cashed at Bowrons' Bank. In face of all this I still say that I did not know the wharf belonged to Bowrons. It was the ordinary practice when warrants had to be issued for goods that the first intimation of it would be a letter from Booths stating they had a consignment note from Bowron Brothers and requesting the issue of a warrant in place of a delivery order. I did not know there was a difference between a delivery order and a consignmen t note. The warrant would be made out by copying from the delivery order. Knight knew the particulars from which the warrants had been msade and when presented to him would simply sign without making any remark; as many as half a dozen at a time would be signed in that way. I cannot be sure that the date upon the warrant is the day upon which it was issued; it might refer to the delivery order, and at other times it might have been the date of the day it was issued. It might be that the three produced were issued on the same day. I discovered that duplicate warrants were being issued. I

could tell from the three warrants produced that they are duplicates, from the marks and numbers being the same. Every warrant issued was signed by Knight. When he took a holiday and was away he left blank signed warrants, particulars of which were filled in by me and of which he generally had previous notice. I never made out a warrant without Knight knowing the particulars beforehand. The warrant book was kept in the safe, of which I had the key. Letters were generally signed by Knight; occasionally by me under his instructions. Goods which came back from Crayford were re-marked under instructions from Bowron Brothers. A number of such notes are on the files.

Re-examined. When goods were taken to Crayford in respect of which warrants were held by merchants I did not know whether the warrant was returned to Bowrons'. I knew that we had not received back all the warrants issued—I could see it at a glance from the warrant book. I did not know Bowrons' were the owners of Phœnix Wharf; I knew they paid the wages and they had something to do with it I received moneys and rendered monthly accounts of the charges.

  JAMES SIDNEY ASKWITH , clerk to Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths, and Co., accountants. I have examined the books at Phœnix Wharf, which enable me to trace what goods were landed, when landed, the warrants issued, and the re-delivery of the goods. On September 23, 1910, 82 casks were landed ex. Orari, which were warranted to Booth and Co. by two warrants. I found that 51 of those casks went to Crayford; 30 were delivered to A. Cheverton and Co., which were altered as to 14 from "BB ex. Orari" to "HW ex. Star of Scotland, 357-370," and as to 16 "WW 45-60." (Witness traced a large number of deliveries under different warrants by the marks, most of which were forwarded to Crayford.)

(Saturday, July 1.)

  JAMES SIDNEY ASKWITH , recalled. Up to September 28, 1910, all casks were sent to Crayford. On and after September 28 some were forwarded to other merchants.

Cross-examined. The first case of duplication of warrants which I found is September 8, 1910. At that time there were not enough casks on the wharf to satisfy Booth's warrants. It requires some investigation to see if it is a case of duplication. In two instances occurring on September 28, where three warrants are duplicated, the marks and number differ, and in one case they are described as "linings" and in to other as "grains." It took me five days of about eight hours a day to make my investigations. Miss Jones assisted me when required. I have only examined the books at the wharf. I have not seen any of the casks. There were half a dozen files, a press-copy, letter-book, and the proper account books for a wharf. The books are properly kept, and enabled me to trace the receipt and delivery of the goods. There were no instance of counterfoils or pages of books or documents being destroyed or torn out. (The witness explained

by references to a large number of entries and documents of title how the despatch of goods was traced.)

Chief Detective-inspector   HENRY COLLINS , New Scotland Yard. (To Mr. Leycester.) The information in this case was sworn on March 27; Knight was arrested the same day, brought before the magistrate the next day, and remanded; the case was opened on May 3, and he was committed on May 4.

  ARTHUR LIONEL BAXTER , recalled. David Little is employed by Booth and Co. at St. Thomas's Street, Bermondsey, where only leather and glace kid is dealt with; he has nothing to do with the business at Railway Approach.

Further cross-examined. Goods pledged to Booth and Co. were sometimes sold in this country by Bowron Brothers to Booth's knowledge; those were always goods which had been returned to the wharf marked BBN, awaiting shipment; we would instruct the wharf to hand them to Bowron's and receive Bowron's cheque; we should send a delivery order to Bowron's, authorising the delivery by the wharf; I did not transact the business myself. Grains would deteriorate if kept long at the wharf; they were some times repickled at a small expense. I have never exchanged old warrants for new ones; it may have been done years ago, but not to my knowledge. This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Leycester submitted that counts four to nine, charging Knight with converting and stealing, were not supported by evidence; Knight was a servant, and was entrusted with the goods by Bowron Brothers, his employers, to whom he delivered them; there was no entrusting by Booth and Co., and no appropriation of property entrusted to him by Booth to his own use.

The Common-Serjeant held that there was ample evidence that goods were entrusted to Knight by Booth, and that Booth held the documents of title within Knight's knowledge.

(Defence of Knight.)

  ERNEST EDWARDS , Browning Road, Manor Park, solicitor's articled clerk, Mayor of East Ham. I have been a member of the Corporation and District Council of East Ham for 20 years. Knight was a member of the District Council up to 1904, and chairman of the Libraries' Committee. He has always borne the reputation of an honest, upright, and straightforward man, and was universally respected by his colleagues.

  THOMAS LOONAN KNIGHT (prisoner, on oath). I am 65 years of age; was a merchant seaman; rose to be master, and left the sea in 1872; led a rough life in Australia and New Zealand for many years; returned to England and was employed as a labourer at the Gun and Shot Wharf, where I became the manager. In 1888 I became manager of the Phœnix Wharf, then owned by Reddaway and Martin. Bowron Brothers acquired part of the premises in 1890; they bought No. 18, built a warehouse and had

a lease of No. 14. In 1905 Bowron Brothers bought the freehold; the, sale was largely advertised. They continued the business under the old name of the Phœnix Wharves Company and I continued manager until the bankruptcy in March, 1911, at a salary of £8 a week, which I have received for about 16 years. I have never pretended to be an independent wharfinger. I have always used the same warrant signed by me as manager. While acting as Bowrons' manager I carried on an independent business at the Mew Sun and Vanes Wharf, Narrow Street, Ratcliffe; I lost my money in it and gave it up in December, 1909, when it was turned into a limited company. I always considered Bowron Brothers as a very wealthy firm; they have done business for many years with Bowron Brothers of New Zealand. I originally settled with the firm what books were to be kept. Some 10 years ago Miss Jones came from school; I showed her how to keep the books and she has continued them. I had nothing whatever to do with Bowron Brothers' business except the wharf. I had no knowledge of their financial affairs. All wages and other expenses were paid by them and all receipts accounted for to them. I received the wages weekly, deducted my £8, and handed the balance to Miss Jones or her father. I had no financial interest or share in the profits. I used to deal with 4,000 to 5,000 casks of pelts a year; at times there was a very heavy stock at the wharf. We formerly received quantities of goods for other people, but for the last four or five years, as Bowrons' business became larger, that was given up. In 1907 we held 2,000 to 3,000 casks; there was a collapse of prices on the American market; the stock was diminished year by year and the imports from New Zealand practically ceased during 1910. On September 23, 1910, we held at the wharf 575 casks; under J. A. Bowron's orders they were sent to Crayford to be sorted. Before goods were landed we received from Booth Brothers a delivery order signed by Bowron Brothers, with a request to issue a warrant when the goods were landed. Delivery order produced is: "Please hold to the order of Messrs. Booth and Co. BB H W 51 casks of grains ex Orari—Bowron Brothers."—sometimes the marks and numbers were not given.

(Monday, July 3.)

  THOMAS LOONAN KNIGHT , recalled. I usually arrived at the wharf at 9.15 a.m. Jones would arrive earlier and open the letters. I usually left at 2 or 2.30 p.m. Miss Jones invariably made out the warrant on written or telephonic instructions from Bowron Brothers, and they were signed by me, details being copied from the delivery order. I took an annual holiday of two or three weeks when I left warrants signed in blank, also bank releases and wharf guarantees, to be filled up by Miss Jones on instructions from Bowron; also memorandums to be given to Cheverton and others as to goods for which they held delivery orders. We received instructions from J. A. Bowron to send goods to Crayford; he would send the motors and telephone what goods were to go. I know nothing of the arrangement between Booth and Bowron; the same practice was followed from the beginning

We never received instruction from Booth and Co. to send to Crayford. Casks were returned to the wharf and were generally re-marked "BBN, "and numbered 1 to 1,000, commencing again at 1 and going on to 1,000. Sometimes we had instructions to put other marks on the casks. We issued warrants to Booth and Co. on instructions of J. A. Bowron, mostly by telephone. On September 27, 28, and 29 I was away from the wharf arranging for a new house with my wife's architect, Mr. Living, at Hornchurch. I went up on the morning of Friday, September 30, received the wages from J. A. Bowron, which I handed to Jones and returned to Hornchurch by 4 p.m., not going to the wharf on October 1. I left warrants signed in blank. On September 30 Miss Jones told me duplicate warrants had been issued. I immediately telephoned to J. A. Bowron; he said it was all right, he was retiring them, he would let me have them next Friday. I repeatedly ask him for them; he said he had mislaid them and would forward them to me. On October 27 I left the wharf to survey property at Portsmouth for the Co-operative Permanent Building Society, and met Jones the next day at Fenchurch Street; he had obtained the wages from J. A. Bowron. I took my £8 and returned the rest to him in the bag. I was away in Portsmouth and Winchester till Wednesday, November 2, when Miss Jones told me that J. A. Bowron had again had duplicate warrants. I at once telephoned him; he said all right, he was attending to it and they would be returned to me. I repeatedly asked for them; he said they had been mislaid and that he had retired them. Miss Jones made lists of the stock at the wharf and of the warrants issued yearly or half-yearly at the request of J. A. Bowron. Such lists were made on September 30, 1910 (produced). In 1909 Little came to the wharf and checked the stock under warrant to Booth and Co. On March 15, 1911, he came with a number of import warrants issued to Booth and Co. He said, "I want to see these goods." I said "You cannot see them, because Bowrons have had them." He said, "Have they had the lot?" I said, "Yes, they have had the lot." He said, "They are not Bowrons' goods; they are ours." I said, "You had better see Bowron about them, then." He then left. Later in the day his brother came with two men. We had 50 or 60 casks marked "BBN," which he asked me to let him have. I said, "No; they are not yours, so far as I know. I must consult Mr. Bowron." Little asked me to let him mark them, which I did. He wished to take them away on a barge. I said I had no instructions; as soon as he got the usual delivery order from Bowrons he could have the goods. In the course of conversation, he said, "I have known this place belonged to Bowrons this ten years, "and that he had told Mr. Baxter. The 50 or 60 casks were subsequently delivered to Booth and Co. on a written authority from J. A. Bowron. On May 6, 1908, Miss Jones wrote letter (copy produced) to the tax collector on my instructions, stating that Phœnix Wharf belonged to Bowron Brothers, of Bermondsey and

Crayford. All transactions, including alterations of marks, were recorded in the books.

Cross-examined. On March 15, 1911, when Little came to check the stock there were, in addition to the 50 or 60 casks "B.B.N." delivered to Booth and Co., about 50 casks belonging to other merchants. I have heard it sworn that there should then have been 3,900 casks for which warrants had been issued. I do not know what number there should have been. In my 30 years' experience as manager I did not allow people to take goods away without producing the documents of title. In allowing Bowrons to take goods I believed the documents were all right; I was told I should have them and received them year after year; I believed the warrants had come back to Bowrons. I agree that merchants treat warrants issued by wharfingers as an absolute assurance by the wharfinger that he has got the goods and holds them to their order. I signed the warrants as "The Phœnix Wharves Company by T. L. Knight, their manager." I had no reason to tell Booth and Co. that Bowron Brothers were my employers and the owners of the wharf; it was generally known. I understood that Booths were lending money on the security of the goods for which they held warrants. The books were kept as if Bowron Brothers were independent people. Yearly accounts were rendered to Bowrons of the receipts and disbursements. Miss Jones also rendered them monthly accounts for rent, etc., as if the Phœnix Wharves Company were independent wharfingers. I did not know that Booth and Co. always endorsed warrants and returned them to Bowrons when they wished goods released. All import warrants were returned to Bowrons, handed to the wharf, and entered by Miss Jones. I looked at the warrant book and asked for retired warrants. J. A. Bowron frequently told me that he had mislaid them and they would be sent to the wharf. I did not examine the stock sheets against the warrants; I never looked upon it as my duty to do so. The accounts were rendered to Bowrons. It is not true that Miss Jones always took her instructions from me and that I communicated with Bowron. It was the practice to forward goods to Crayford as requested by J. A. Bowron; the warrants would be handed to me on the following Friday or posted to the wharf. I thought it was an understood arrangement between Bowron Brothers and Booth and Co. that the goods were to be sent to Crayford without warrants at Bowron's wish. J. A. Bowron told me lots of times that whatever goods he wanted for Crayford he could have and he would give me the warrants when I came over. I did not think there was anything strange about it. J. A. Bowron deceived me. Warrant produced on March 23, 1910, I had not got back on March 15, 1911, because Booths had still got it. I should not as J. A. Bowron for that particularly. I received many warrants from J. A. Bowron; others he said he had retired but had mislaid or lost.

Sir   JOHN HENRY BETHELL , M.P. for Rom ford, and ALFRED BARBER, of Barber and Morrison, manufacturers, of London, Calcutta, and Dundee, gave evidence to character of Knight.

(Tuesday, July 4.)

  THOMAS LOONAN KNIGHT , further cross-examined. The entry of date of goods landed from Ruahine was April 2, 1910; amongst them were 13 casks of pelts, marked "BB "; they had all left the wharf by April 13. With regard to the warrant for 13 casks issued to Booths on April 21, I cannot be sure that a warrant had been issued on that date for goods which all left by the 13th, as there might have been 13 casks of "BB's" out of previous Ruahine stock. The entry in the stock charges book showed that the warrant was issued for these 13 casks, but we might have had instructions to take stock landed by a previous voyage of the Ruahine. I did not take any steps to prevent the issuing of warrants for goods which had gone away; the warrant was put before me to sign and I signed after ascertaining if the book was all right; it was the clerk's duty to see that the book was correct. I cannot say that the manner of keeping the wharf books would make it appear to any merchant that Bowrons were independent people paying the ordinary wharfage charges. I do not know if it was the practice to allow goods to go to Crayford the very same day or the day after a warrant had been issued, for instance, to Booth and Co. for them. Mr. Bowron would probably ask if the goods were landed and, if the motors were there, he would give instructions for the goods to be delivered to the motors, and if I was not there they would be delivered. I was not consulted; it was the bookkeeper's duty to check the books. I do not realise that it was my duty to the people to whom a warrant had been given to see that their goods were kept safe on the premises. I admit that if I had issued a warrant knowing the goods were gone it would be a grossly dishonest thing to do. It might have been my practice to let goods go to merchants who had no right to them; I could not say; I did not deliver the goods: I would not have allowed goods to go if I had known. If over and over again warrants were issued to Booths, Stettauer, and Woolf and Wallach and Herman for goods which had gone to Cheverton's and other firms, the explanation is that I was told that the warrants were retired and I was justified in delivering them to other people. I heard the evidence of Miss Jones, the bookkeeper; it is true that she had asked for an explanation of the duplicate warrants, but I could not say what explanation I gave to her—no further than that John Bowron had told me that he had retired the warrants and the goods were free. It is true that down to September 28, 1910, it was the practice to let goods go to Crayford for which a warrant had previously been issued; that practice, which had been extended after that date to allowing goods to go to merchants other than those to whom they were warranted, was not started with my knowledge, and to a certain extent it continued without my knowledge, at any rate until February. I do not admit that it was an absolutely fraudulent practice; it was more neglect than anything else on the part of myself. I continued in Bowron's service, and continued this practice because Bowron said he would remedy it. I did not have stock charges book before me when I signed warrants, as stated by

Miss Jones. I sometimes looked at the delivery orders before signing the warrants, and it is not true that she called my attention to the fact that any two particular warrants about to be signed were being signed for the same goods. I do not know how John Bowron could know that three different merchants were going to send in requests for warrants on the same date; he would know that he had issued the orders for three lots out of the same ship. Of course I was upset to be told by Miss Jones on returning to the office that she had issued some duplicate warrants. I did not think Bowron dishonest, because he told me that he was retiring the warrants. It would not occur to an employee to ask a master why he was borrowing money without security when the master had said the warrants were being retired, having been with him for 20 years, and having no reason to doubt him. I had not lost faith in Bowron Brothers on September 30 as to their financial position. It did not occur to me to tell Miss Jones under no circumstances to issue any more duplicate warrants. I do not know that merchants advance money specifically for taking up shipping documents. The list made out by Miss Jones to go to Bowron would not show duplicated warrants. I did not ask Miss Jones to make out a list for the purpose; she took her orders from John Bowron. It did not come as a surprise to me at the time of the bankruptcy to find that I was 3,000 casks less than I should have been according to the warrants, because I did not know what warrants were out; I did not collect them; I only got them when delivered to me every Friday. There was an arrangement that Bowron should return to me any warrants he got back during the week, but he often mislaid them; he mislaid bills of lading as well. It is not true that I ever had any instructions to show other goods than those belonging to any particular merchant when he called if the right ones were not there. My relations with the Bowrons were purely business; I did not know them socially. They had lent me money previous to 1907; they had not lent me as much as £10,000, nor £8,000 nor £5,000—it might have been thousands. I did not owe Bowrons at the end of 1900 £4,000 odd; probably I might have received that amount, giving bills in exchange for the loan, and paid off the amount to Bowrons when the London County Council took over the New Star Wharf. Most likely I borrowed money from 1900 up to 1905, but I did not owe £5,471 to Bowron Brothers. I did not mention these borrowings when stating in evidence that I was only a servant getting £8 a week, because I was not asked; the facts have been in the possession of my solicitors all along.

Re-examined. The money borrowed was used in connection with the New Star and New Sun Wharves, and all of it has been paid back. I have never had any money from Bowrons since I gave up the New Sun Wharf. When instructions came for goods to go to Crayford the warrant which had been returned by Booths would not be at the wharf, and except what I knew from Bowrons I would not know what warrants had been returned; that had been the practice for years. Bowrons have not contributed one penny towards the expenses of my defence.

(Wednesday, July 5.)

Mrs. KNIGHT (prisoner's wife),   ROBERT LIVING ,   Mrs. MARSH , and   ARTHUR JOHN MOSS were called to corroborate prisoner's statement that he was away from London on September 27, 28, 29, and on October 28 to November 1.

Verdict (Knight) Guilty.

(Thursday, July 6.)

No evidence being offered on four other indictments (for larceny) the jury were directed to return a verdict of not guilty.

Mr. Muir, on behalf of John Bowron, said he was not a man whose training was such as to enable him to deal with large financial matters; that he had not intended to defraud, but that the frauds had kept the business alive for five years during which, the indebtedness to the various creditors had decreased by about £23,000. The losses of the Bowron family in the business, apart from the capital of John and Sidney, were £131,000.

Mr. Leycester, on behalf of Knight, said he had not made anything out of the frauds, but had lost everything. [Guilty]

Sentences, John Bowron and Knight (each) 18 months' imprisonment, second division.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.

(Tuesday, June 27.)

 

  DELPHIN, Leonce (32, engineer) , feloniously stealing 500 bearer shares of 100 francs each in the Banque Générale de l'lndustrie Automobile et de l'Aviation of the goods and chattels of   Ladislas Duncan Wagner; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an endorsement on a Bill of Exchange for £1,200, with intent to defraud; having been entrusted with certain property, to wit, £500, a banker's cheque for £1,200 and certain bearer shares for certain purposes, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the said property and the proceeds thereof to his own use and benefit; being a director of a certain public company unlawfully and fraudulently taking and applying to his own use and benefit £500, of and belonging to the said company.

Mr. George Eliiott, K.C., and Mr. Wippell prosecuted; Mr. Marshall Hall, K.C., M.P., Mr. Disturnal, and Mr. Orr defended.

  ADOLPHUS GALLACHER , clerk, Crédit Lyonnais, 40, Lombard Street, E.C. Exhibit No. 1. a banker's draft for £1,200, was procured from our agency at 53, Boulevard Hausmann, Paris. It is made payable to Reginald Bodden, and purports to bear his endorsement on the back. It bears also the stamp of the National Provincial Bank, Oxford Street branch. I have examined the books at Lombard Street and Oxford

Street and find that no account has been opened in the name of Reginald Bodden.

Cross-examined. Underneath the signature, "Reginald Bodden," is the signature of Delphin. It is not usual for a forger to write his own name underneath a forgery. As far as we are concerned, the signature of Delphin is totally unnecessary, and we would have paid the draft without it. The draft could have been stopped by the person who bought it in Paris cancelling it—asking us not to pay it.

  LADISLAS DUNCAN WAGNER . At the time of the matter complained of I was managing director of the Banque Generate de l'Industrie Automobile et de l'Aviation, 74, Boulevard Hausmann, Paris, whose objects were to deal in matters relating to automobiles, aviation, motors, etc. In March, 1910, after slight correspondence, prisoner called upon me in Paris. He gave as references his father-in-law, Mr. Beecham, and the National Provincial Bank. He said Mr. Beecham had given him securities at the Oxford Street branch of that bank. We spoke about forming a branch of our bank in London. An agreement was drawn up after we had visited London to confirm prisoner's statements. What we saw of the way in which he was treated in Mr. Beecham's family gave us the greatest confidence. He suggested that he had influential friends who would place at the disposition of the bank a sum of money—the sum was not quite specified—to remain in London as a guarantee of the operation which could be done. On June 11, 1910, he wrote, enclosing bills of Mr. Bodden's for £4,000, saying that Mr. Bodden desired that with the proceeds of the discounting of the bills L. and N.W. Railway stock should be purchased and deposited with bankers in London. They were not to be our property, but were to be deposited in the name of Bodden as security for his own transaction and he was to have the interest on them. With the letter of June 11 he enclosed a copy letter he had written to Mr. Bodden, which he called the contract. Those bills were consequently exchanged for 10 bills of £400, five at three, and five at six months. The three months' bills were due on September 15. Two were sent to our bankers for discounting; they would not give us the money until they had more information about the drawee. The six months' bills were treated in the same manner. I made inquiries through our bankers about Mr. Bodden, as I was not quite satisfied. They objected to our bills. The contract with Bodden was terminated by a letter to prisoner. We had no direct communication with Bodden. It then became necessary to return the bills to Bodden to release him from liabilities. The five bills, in the hands of our bankers we did not mean to withdraw from circulation, and, having faith in what prisoner told us, we thought they were mistaken, and said, "Present them and they will be paid." It would have been detrimental to all concerned if they had been withdrawn in such a brusque way, and we thought to save Mr. Bodden's credit and dignity by giving him the money so that he could retire the bill on presentation. The cheque (Exhibit

1) I purchased on August 13 from the Credit Lyonnais, made it a crossed cheque in Mr. Bodden's name, and sent it to the prisoner with special instructions to remit it to Mr. Bodden so that he should be able to meet his bills when due on August 16. You will see there is a little mistake; we were under the impression they were due on August 16. I wrote two letters on August 13 and in both of them I made the same mistake in the date. I scratched it out and corrected it, but if prisoner received the letter and cashed the cheque on August 14 it would have been a miracle if I sent it on July 14. To the best of my remembrance I received a letter and telegram on the following day to assure me what had been done with the cheque, explaining the difficulties he had to meet Mr. Bodden. We heard no more about the bills till after they were duly presented and dishonoured. I did all I could to get information as to what had happened with the cheque, because I was very much surprised to see these bills crop up months afterwards when I had received assurances from prisoner that he had cashed the cheque and everything was in order and that he had been going all over Wales to do it. I had no right to think he had been telling me lies all the time. I sent strong telegrams and wrote to Bodden, but he preserved silence. The bills were sent back to our bankers and we had to take them up. We have never recovered a cent. We were tried to be drawn into civil proceedings, but we did not want to know anything about it. We have never been indebted to prisoner. He is in our debt now some £10,000.

(Wednesday, June 28.)

  LADISLAS DUNCAN WAGNER , further examined. The Monoplane Hanriot Company was formed subsequently to and under the control of the Banque Générale and had its registered office at 143-145, Great Portland Street, W., which was also the office of the branch of the Banque Générale. Its object was to push in England and all over the world the Monoplane Hanriot. I was vice-chairman of the company. Prisoner was a director. He was in Paris about three days at the time the agreement with Wolstenholme was discussed and on May 31 the board advised him to enter into an agreement with Wolstenholme to make a special branch of the Monoplane Hanriot for England and the Colonies, and afterwards power Was sent to him to settle an option, which he did, and received £500 from Wolstenholme. Towards the end of May we discussed what would be done with the £500 when it would be in his hands and he suggested that an account should be opened at the National Provincial Bank, Oxford Street, so that the Monoplane Company should have an account in London. We accepted that idea. He was to pay in the £500 in the name of the Monoplane Company without deduction. Shortly after he sent me a signed copy of the option I saw him in Paris. He said the £500 were going to be received by him and that he was going to open the account in the name of the Monoplane Hanriot Company. He afterwards told us the

account was opened and he directed us to make use of that account by making payable in that bank the bills we had on the Monoplane Company, and he himself directed our chief accountant how to do it on one bill, as we did not know. That bill was dishonoured on presentation and prisoner was in my office when it was notified., He said there must be some mistake about the address of the branch, that probably the Banque de Roma had presented it at the head office and if we asked the Banque de Roma to re-present it it would certainly be paid. He dictated in my presence a letter to the Banque de Romand to Mr. Wood, the manager of the Oxford Street branch of the National Provincial Bank. He went out through a side door to the typewriting department and took the letter to Mr. Wood from the young girl, saying he would deliver it himself; otherwise the letter would have reached Mr. Wood and we would immediately have known all about it. The bill came back again dishonoured. I then wrote to prisoner and Mr. Wood. I received a telegram in reply from prisoner. The telegram is an excuse; it has no foundation whatever. Macintyre is a man in the salary of prisoner, whom he uses to sign accommodation bills for him, of which you can see a large batch which are all unpaid, We were under no liability to Macintyre. After other correspondence we instructed Mr. Pottier, a very celebrated avocat, to proceed to London and see prisoner. We got no satisfaction from him. Prisoner wrote on October 19 that he had applied the funds to the wants of the Automobile Bank; I dare him to show anything to support that. We had no communication from him after October 26. Wolstenholme brought an action to recover the £500 against the Monoplane Company and Delphin on October 10. As to the third case, the 500 shares, it was understood between prisoner and myself that he had somebody wanting to buy 500 shares. He wanted to sell and make money out of them. He bought previously 500 and paid for them 5,000 francs in bills, the only bills which were ever met. On July 6 he arranged to buy from me 50,000 francs' worth of shares, a second 500 shares of 100 francs each. He gave five bills for them, payable at different dates. My chief accountant and Mr. Lusani were present. There was a letter written on July 6 confirming our verbal agreement that he should keep the shares and not dispose of them before paying the bills. I saw those same shares in the hands of the Swiss Bank, 47, Rue Hausmann, Paris, and attached to the shares were the bills which had been made for the purposes of change, because French bankers, even with bearer shares, if they have not perfect confidence, want to know how the shares pass possession, so they asked Mr. Delphin to prove those shares. He attached those paid bills to these shares to show his property in them, the bills for the first transaction. The three bills for the second transaction due end September were presented and dishonoured.

Cross-examined. When the bills were given I promised to renew them if prisoner wanted it. If he had the slightest intention of carrying out the transaction he would have asked me and shown me the scrip in his power, but as I have seen the scrip in the power of other people I knew I was done, and it was finished. The letter of July 6 is not

sending me the bills. There are two letters done at the same moment. My letter means that there is nothing more to pay. It was not an out and out sale; he undertook not to dispose of them until he paid the bills; he had to give them back if he did not pay the bills. As he disposed of them he could not give them back. I was the general manager of the bank. It is in liquidation. The liquidator is prosecuting. I do not know if he is paying for it. I am paying for the prosecution in my own case. The suggestion that I am angry with prisoner because his father-in-law won't pay up is a bad one. The reason is that he presented himself to us as an honourable man of means, a man of good family and connections, and took us to the home of his own people to instil confidence in us. He abused that confidence. His suggestion that I have ruined him is cowardly. I should like to see the slightest proof of it. He has had from our bank large sums of money which he has not repaid. The National Provincial Bank perhaps had reasons for giving him a satisfactory reference. I say the manager of that branch gave very wrong references of his position and the manager ought to have known his position was not good. I do not keep two sets of letter books. The arrangement with Bodden was that he was to put £4,000 in bills that we were to discount, the proceeds to be used in the purchase of L. and N.W. Railway stock. When we had discounted £2,000 worth we did not use the money immediately. Having sent the bills to our bankers we saw that Bodden was not the man that he was represented to be and we cancelled the transaction. The record of bills discounted of the Automobile Bank are in Paris. It is a sheer impossibility to bring all our books here. I most emphatically deny that I discounted Bodden's bills for my own use. The subpœna served on me to produce books as well as to give evidence was a trick, as you knew very well. I know that two gentlemen, Mr. Clark, of Messrs. Purchase, and Mr. Bursey, went over to Paris to inspect what accounts related to Mr. Delphin, but they wanted a roving commission through all our books and all our business, and knowing we had to do with a man who was our adversary we had nothing shown him except what was his business. I did not see either of them. If the defendant's books are any good they will show that he owes us money and that we do not owe him any. Prisoner was general manager of the branch in London, I was general manager of the bank. I could do what I liked in Paris under the control of all my officials. I did not know that prisoner had for many years been carrying on business in London as agent for the Motorbloc Company. I know he has been mixed up with a lot of companies and been very unfortunate in the motor trade. If we had not been anxious to extend our business we would not have had a London branch. The power of attorney gave prisoner the power to do all that was inside the law, not to act outside the law. We did undertake to discount his bills to the extent of 65,000 francs a month. We would not have done that unless we had received the most excellent references as to his position. Before the agreement was entered into he was so hurried for money that he immediately sent us batches of these spurious bills. We were not

anxious to get into touch with him, but he was very anxious to get into touch with us because he got money and we got worthless bills. I bad been rather a successful financier until I met him. The company I formed with Mr. Dehart was a sporting concern in which I took small part. I became bankrupt in 1904. The creditors got nearly all their money; it was settled out of court. I then went into the service of the Banque Automobile, a prosperous bank. I resigned to run the Banque Générale. It was not a rival business. The name was as distinct as possible from that of the Bank Automobile. I suppose prisoner would have liked very much for us to open a separate account on a bank in London. He never used his own private account for us He had nothing to pay for us. He would have liked to have an account on our bank so that he could have drawn on it. He may have told us that he was using his private account. It was one of his constant aims to get us to open a bank account in Paris so that he could have a lot of money at his disposal. Your questions are always framed in such a way as to distort the facts against us. Delphin wanted to have a banking account in his own name in London. He has never been doing anything else. You can see that by the Bodden cheque, which he immediately made use of, and by the Monoplane £500. It is a lie that he was forced to use the £1,200 because wo would not settle up with him. We had nothing to settle up with him. We authorised him to buy furniture and we paid for it. We sent £400, which he applied to himself. He never paid anything on account of the furniture; he let us be sued and we paid the rest and he was all the time owing us money, when he would send us over a batch of these bills of which not one has been met. The same day he telegraphed, "Send me money." We never owed him one penny. I do not remember if I answered his letter about opening the account, but I told him often about it; our directors did not find it advisable at all. We did not send the 50,000 francs mentioned in the letter of August 26. We never finished that operation. I seriously say he used the £1,200 cheque for himself. He did not pay for us £700 to Mr. de Viguerie. We have nothing to do with Mr. de Viguerie. He is a man who has been robbed of £2,000 by Delphin. Delphin took from him 50,000 francs in securities and sent them over to us in his own name and had them sold and applied the money for his own purposes. Mr. de Viguerie has already declared it in Court. I did not promise to open a separate banking account in London. I meant by my letter of August 5 that he could open of his own accord any account he wanted to, but what we did not want to do was to open an account of our own. We would not enter into the Mann and Overton business he proposed on August 10. We judged it was not good. He never deposited any securities with us. The deposit of £2,000 security was done according to the contract. They were sent by his own order to Parrat and Cohen, bankers, in Paris, and deposited with them as security against bills which were discounted on his behalf by them. I can prove it by documents here. They afterwards realised those securities and that is why Delphin is only owing us to-day £10,000. I will not read the letter of September 26; it has never been

sent to me. I call that a criminal act. It is made up to produce an impression on the jury. It is shameful. I do not know whether the Bodden bills for £4,000 came by post or by Delphin's hands. They were handed to me. The drafts enclosed in Exhibit 3 were other drafts. We have already proved that the first drafts were changed for the ten £400 bills. We affixed the French stamps on the Bodden bills. We are obliged to do so immediately, even if we do not make use of them. We received them on June 13. I knew the ten bills were sent for an express purpose. We did not discount them immediately. We wrote Delphin asking him supplementary terms. Five of the bills were not negotiated at all; they were not even stamped. The 3, the subject of the £1,200 fraud, were sent to our bankers, who did not like them. They made inquiries and told us they were on a very honourable gentleman, who had no means to subscribe bills for such amount, and we at once put ourselves in contact with Delphin. We had signed the agreement; we had no money to send over, and the only thing we could do was to return the bills to Bodden and cancel the agreement, which we did. I cannot show you anything in writing to Bodden, but you have seen Delphin's letter to us saying the agreement is cancelled practically. If we had not sent the bills to our bankers we should not have known that Bodden was not what we thought he was. You cannot ask why we did not buy L. and N.W. Railway stock with the proceeds. If the bills had not been met they would have had the securities. We smelt a rat and would not do it. In the Swiss Bank Verein we had 600,000 francs as security. We did not want to tell them what had happened, so we said we would take the bills up at maturity. We had a current account with them. The £1,200 draft was to enable Bodden to take up the three acceptances of £400 each, which I then believed matured on August 16. Delphin would have been justified in handing it to Bodden if he had sufficient confidence in him, and if he had done so we would have been relieved of all obligation to Bodden; that is why we made the cheque in Bodden's name. It would have been better for him to have done so than to forge Bodden's name and apply the money to himself. As to it being unwise for him to have handed the cheque to Bodden, I told you our information about Bodden was that he was not rich but honourable. If he had only given the money to Bodden everything would have been arranged. Delphin never told me that he had used the £1,200 for the purposes of the bank in London, or that he had paid it into his bank. You suggest that my correspondence books are not genuine; they are here; look at them. He did not tell me that the bills would not be met on September 17 out of the £1,200 we sent, and that we must find other funds. You will see by the correspondence he was writing about other things. As to promising to send him 70,000 francs worth of bills to negotiate for that purpose, here we have come to something tangible. At that moment he more or less confessed to me his difficult financial position; he told me he was a lost man as all those Macintyre and other bills were trash and that a large batch of bills had come from Italy protested. I did not promise to give 70,000

francs worth of securities to negotiate. I gave him 70,000 francs worth of acceptances, because he gave me his solemn word that with that money he would recall at the end of the month a large amount of these spurious bills, and that would tide him over and help him to save himself. They were not given to enable Bodden's bills of £1,200 to be met at maturity. I did not know on August 23 that they had not been met; I only discovered the forgery a long time afterwards. The 70,000 francs bills Delphin. took to the Swiss Bank at Lille for discounting. I afterwards explained to them the circumstances and asked them not to do it. On September 19 I telegraphed, asking Delphin what had happened with the Bodden bills. He did not meet them and I had to pay them. He had got 30,000 francs from the bank at Lille. He wrote and telegraphed on September 16 asking us to send funds to meet the bills. I do not know what I replied. I had already told him verbally that he must make an effort and meet the bills. I learned that £1,200 had been paid into Court in interpleader proceedings after criminal proceedings had been taken. At the time the warrant was granted that had not been paid. He went to Switzerland. We did not apply for extradition. I know Mr. de Viguerie, but not well. I telegraphed Delphin to see his friends and family or the matter would be deplorable. That was after a long conversation with him when I told him he was a lost man. I wanted to help him, but I wanted other people also to do so. We had no understanding that we would renew ordinary trade bills which Delphin sent over for discounting as long as a certain amount was paid off each time. When our bankers found out they were renewals they wanted to know how it was. They got information that all these men were practically worth nothing, and told us they would not take any more. We were under no obligation at all. There was no balance in Delphin's favour when I saw him in Paris. His account was in a pitiable condition. After we tried to tide him over we sent him bills and sent him regularly money for those bad bills. When I was before the magistrate I did not remember if there was a balance in his favour, but when I went through the account there was not, and immediately afterwards all these unpaid bills came in. We were naturally anxious to exploit the Hanriot monoplane. The business did not go off through the default of the monoplane people. The machine was a great success. It did not break down at Brooklands. Some unlucky experiments were made at Lanark. He has not given it back. The motor was worth 30,000 francs. If he had used Wolstenholme's £500 in the monoplane business he would not have said: "I have used it for the Macintyre bills." I know Wolstenholme has brought an action to recover the £500. I put in a defence.

(Friday, June 30.)

  REGINALD BODDEN , Hough Green, Chester, estate agent. In March last year Delphin and I discussed the question of opening a branch of

the Banque Générale in Manchester. After several meetings I signed the agreement the terms of which are set out in the letter of June 10. On August 16 the agreement was cancelled. I had given 10 bills of £400 each. On August 16 I received back from Delphin five of the bills at 143, Great Portland Street. He told me then that unfortunately three of the other five had been put in circulation, but he was prepared to pay the £1,200 into my account when they became due, and the other two would be withdrawn from circulation. He did not say that he had got a cheque on the Crédit Lyonnais in my favour for £1,200. He did not pursue me all over the country to get my signature to the draft. There was no necessity. I took his letter of August 16 as a final settlement of the business. We spoke of the matter several times on the telephone. I sent him a prepaid wire from St. Helens on August 15. He replied on the 16th, "Doing the necessary in London, Delphin." On the 17th I wired, "Pay £1,200 to credit of my account, Chester, at Glyn's Bank, London," etc. Before sending that I had seen my bankers and ascertained that the bills had not been met. He rang me up on September 20. He said the matter was all right, he was arranging it, and that he wanted me to write to the French people stating how annoyed I was. He had not then told me he had a cheque for 1,200 in my favour. I next had a wire from Paris asking what I had done with the £1,200 sent in my name. I must have known something about what it meant because it was a figure that had something to do with the bills, but where it was I did not know. I had not received it. One cannot say much on the telephone, so I wired him, I believe, on the Monday stating I would not do anything till I saw him. We met at the L. and N.W. Hotel, Crewe, on Monday night, at 8.25. We were together till early in the morning. After a lot of talk he said he had placed the £1,200 to my credit with the Crédit Lyonnais, Lombard Street. He suggested I should write to Paris. I said the only thing I could say to them was that I had not received it. He said they had been doing him out of money and that after saying they would not discount my bills they had put them in circulation and had the proceeds, and that there were still £800 worth of bills outstanding which I should be liable to meet. I was very annoyed, and as banks were financing my property it was a serious matter to me. Delphin and I drafted the letter of September 21. It did not state that I had not received the £1,200. I wanted the £800 bills returned and was prepared to hand over the money to the bank. Delphin went back to London. I returned to Chester. I never started the Manchester branch. The letter was for Delphin to show his people how annoyed I was and to strengthen his hands in getting the bills back and to get the whole thing squared up. I left the matter in his hands, giving him time to go to Paris. In the meantime the money was to my credit. I was very busy at the time and thought no more about it. He wrote from Paris that he could come to no settlement with the French people. My bank manager inquired if the Credit Lyonnais had any money to my credit, and they replied in the negative. On October 14 I met Delphin at a foreign restaurant in

London. I told him Mr. Pottier had been over and had said this money was sent in my name. I told him if he put the money in the National Provincial Bank in our joint names and it was earmarked and I got the bills back I should be satisfied. He said the matter could be settled all right, would I go and see Mr. Clark, of Messrs. Purchase, his solicitors, who could explain the whole thing. I said the thing had gone so far I should have to have my solicitor. I got to know from my family solicitor who to advise me and went to see Field, Roscoe and Co., and Mr. Medley came with me to Purchase's office. Delphin did not turn up. After a lot of trouble I got into communication with him and said I was determined to have the matter settled, and should be at his office every day till he did come. He turned up next day. He told Mr. Medley he was authorised to sign my name on this document. He looked through a lot of letters and gave Mr. Medley a letter purporting to give some authority from me to sign. Mr. Medley said it was no good at all. I had given no authority. I could get no satisfactory explanation as to the money that was supposed to be deposited at the Credit Lyonnais, and that made me insistent on getting at the bottom of it. Mr. Medley demanded the money from Delphin. We never got it. I did not take up the bills.

Cross-examined. I am a shareholder in my family's cotton-spinning business. On June 10 I was quite willing to undertake the responsibility and become manager of this branch bank. As far as I could do it I had put an end to the agreement on August 13. About this time my wife was seriously ill. About the 15th he asked me to come to London; I do not remember if he said what it was for. I came with great reluctance. He might have said, "I have got this French business settled up; come along and we will square the matter up," or it might have been anything. He did not say he wanted to see me about my bills, which were falling due. I was in the office at Great Portland Street at 11 a.m. on the 16th. I left Chester at 6.45 a.m. The urgency was to get back to Chester. It had nothing to do with the cheque. I believe the one topic of conversation was the bills. I said I was not bothered about the matter because they were not due till September. I had heard then that the bank had discounted the bills and was very indignant. If they discounted them the agreement was that the proceed should be invested in gilt-edged securities. I have four of the bills at my hotel. The fifth has been destroyed or mislaid. I believe I took one to show my bankers in Chester. I do not know if it had been discounted. At the time I got the letter cancelling the agreement I did not know that Delphin had received the £1,200 to meet the bills. I said before the magistrate that I took it for granted he had. He might have had £20,000 for all I know. I took his word for it. If he promised at that time to pay me £1,200 at a future date I was perfectly willing to accept it. I should not think it unreasonable for him to retain the money till the bills became due. I did not know the head office; I only dealt with Delphin. Dolphin

telegraphed me on August 18, "Have bills been presented or not? Wire instantly." I replied, "Bills not presented agents Glyn's Bank, Chester"—it should be Glyn's Bank, London. It is addressed to me c/o Motorbloc (Delphin's London office). I had arranged for somebody at Chester to wire me as to whether the bills were presented. I may have shown that to Delphin. You had better ask your client what was the object. I thought they would not be presented and that if they were the mistake was on their part, and it did not matter to me whether they were or not. The object was that if they were presented they might be taken up with the £1,200 which Delphin had. Between August 19 and September 15 we met twice in London. I knew on August 16 that the £1,200 bills had been discounted. I knew unless they returned the £800 bills to Delphin and carried out their obligation to him and me that that would be a matter for which I should have to look to them. I took Delphin's undertaking for the £1,200 and the £800 worth of bills and relied on him. Delphin would not let me meet £800 worth of bills. I knew he was going to do his very best for me.

  CHARLES DOUGLAS MEDLEY , of Field, Roscoe and Co., solicitors, Lincoln's Inn Fields, W.C. I was present at an interview which took place on October 18 at Messrs. Purchase's office. I was acting for Bodden. Delphin was present. Delphin suggested that he had authority to endorse the £1,200 cheque. I asked if it was in writing. He said "Yes." He produced a letter which, in my opinion, contained no authority at all; it did not appear to me to refer to the matter. I told him so. He then suggested he had authority in some other way. I wanted the £1,200 paid over. I asked where it was and he said it was in his bank.

  JEAN DE VIQUERIE , 139, Leinster Square, Bayswater. In August, 1910, I had been for some time secretary to the English branch of the Banque Generate. I had a conversation with Delphin in October at Gamborino's restaurant. Pottier had had an interview with him and had returned to Paris. Delphin was afraid Pottier was going to prosecute him on account of some money swindled from him and he asked me to take some proceedings in a civil court to prevent a prosecution, as the bank had asked him to return £1,200. He told me he intended to ask Mr. Bodden to make application in the High Court of Justice. He said the same about Wolstenholme, to claim back £500. He paid me £700 on August 16, when I became secretary of the bank. Delphin asked me to give him £2,000. I had only £1,000, in Canadian Pacific shares. I gave him those and said I would give the other £1,000 in instalments later. I gave bills for that £1,000 and afterwards gave him £1,000 more in Canadian Pacific Grand Trunk and Mexican Railways. I asked for my bills. He said he had sent them to Paris and they were discounted. He said he would give me a cheque to meet the bills. £700 were due August 15. On August 8 he said, "I am very sorry I am hard up for the time and cannot give you the cheque." He said I must renew the bills. He showed me a picture gallery at Mr. Beecham's house, which he said

was worth a million pounds, and said his wife was worth £10,000 a year. He gave me a cheque for £700 and a promissory note to give me £700 when the new bills came to maturity. I have not had that and the bills are dishonoured. It was stipulated he should not sell the shares without my authority, but he sent them to Paris with instructions to sell and put the money in his pocket. He took advantage of the friendship I had for him to rob me and he has left me without a penny.

Cross-examined. I had to give him £2,000 for having the post of secretary. I was paid £3 a week. I did not know Wagner at this time. The £2,000 was sent to the bank as security. I had a right to get my shares back on giving notice to Delphin. I went to see Mr. Beecham. I did not tell him he had better pay £10,000 if he did not want his son-in-law prosecuted. He asked me how much money Delphin owed and I said £10,000. He asked me what I thought was the best thing to do. I said, "You are a wealthy man and perhaps it is better for you and your family not to see this man in the dock."

  CHARLES HAROLD WOOD , manager, National Provincial Bank, Oxford Street branch. Delphin has had an account with us since September, 1909 On August 15 he paid in the Credit Lyonnais cheque for £1,200, and on July 28 a cheque for £500 of Wolsten-holme's. On September 9 we dishonoured a bill for £154 15s. 8d. That was a second presentation; the Bank de Roma was the collecting bank.

Cross-examined. I had no communication from the Banque Générale asking for a banker's reference in regard to Delphin. It is absurd to suggest that I gave a reference which was not genuine. Delphin had a considerable account, with the bank, a turnover of £50,000 in 12 months. He was allowed an overdraft, which was guaranteed by securities of over £10,000. On August 14 the account was not in credit; on August 2 it was overdrawn between £9,000 and £10,000. The account was conducted on the principle of overdraft.

Mr. BODOEN, recalled. Further cross-examined. I produce the five bills which were returned to me. Three of them were then mutilated as they are now.

  HERRERT SIMS , solicitor, 70, Queen Victoria Street, EC. I produce a cheque for £500 drawn by Wolstenholme in favour of Delphin, dated July 28. It was paid in on the same day at the National Provincial Bank, Oxford Street. I have in my hand an agreement between Wolstenholme and the Monoplane Hanriot Company. I believe Wolstenholme is in London. When the case was on at the police-court some one came to our office and asked where he could find Wolstenholme, as his attendance was required. He was then in Paris.

Cross-examined. I am partner in Syms and Sims. We brought an action to recover the £500 and damages for breach of contract. There was no collusion with Delphin in the matter. I do not know that Wolstenholme is claiming to retsain a monoplane until he gets his £500 back. I have been told it is at Brooklands. I understand he

is paying the rent of the hangar in which it is stored, £15 a month. It has been there 12 months.

  GEORGE MABILLOT , 74, Boulevard Hausmann, Paris. I am chief accountant of the Banque Générale. Early in July I was in Wagner's office when Delphin was present. There was a discussion about 50,000 franes. I drew up drafts to pay for the purchase of 500 shares which Delphin had effected on that day. I raised an objection to Delphin having the 500 shares, as the drafts were not yet accepted. Delphin took the shares away. He agreed to deposit them in a bank in London untl the bills were fully paid. Some were due in September and some in October. He was to write confirmation of their deposit in London, but did not do so. I have seen before the Monoplane Hanriot Company's bill (Exhibit 52), dated June 30. Delphin was in our offices when it was returned unpaid. I went to Wagner's room so that he could ask Delphin about its non-payment. Delphin said it was a mistake on the part of our banker, who had probably presented it at the head office instead of at the branch; would we be good enough to hand it to our bank again, and he would do the necessary. He would write the manager, Mr. Woods, and such a thing should not occur again; he was having an account opened in the name of the Monoplane Hanriot, and there was sufficient to pay the draft.

Cross-examined. I said at the police-court the shares were to be deposited until the bills were paid; it may have been left out of the depositions. I said it at the end of my statement. When the confirmation of the deposit of the shares in London did not come I pointed it out to Wagner. I was not questioned before the magistrate about the monoplane matter. (Depositions interpreted to witness.) I never said that. The conversation on September 6 was about the bill of August 31, which was unpaid.

(Saturday, July 1.)

(Defence.)

  LEONCE DELPHIN (prisoner, on oath). I am a Swiss. I have been in England seven years. I was educated as a civil engineer. I was engaged in some important tramway work in Genoa and got a good testimonial from my employers. After that I came to England and entered the employment of the B ritish Westinghouse Company. I then carried on business in Lancashire and became associated with Bodden. I married Mr. Beecham's daughter after being engaged four years. In 1907 I acted as English agent for the Motorbloc Company, of Bordeaux, who make motor-cars, and formed a small company, the Motorbloc Syndicate. Bodden was a director and subsequently became chairman. I was managing director and chief shareholder with £4,000 shares. We sold a large number of cars, chiefly as agents. In connection with that business it was necessary to arrange financing. We had to take bills from the agents and renew them until they had disposed of them and been paid. Those

bills were discounted to enable us to pay the manufacturers. We were also selling Felix engines. The bills we took in payment of those were not discounted but sold out and out. There were exceptions. We were carrying on that business when I came in contact with Wagner about March, 1910. They inquired into the nature of the business we were doing, and as to whether I knew the business before they entered into the agreement. They gave me power by that agreement to negotiate bills of their customers up to 200,000 francs a month, and undertook to discount bills connected with my private affairs up to 68,000 francs a month. The bills I sent them never exceeded the limit. None of them were spurious bills. The large bulk of them have been met, £11,000 out of £16,000. Most of Macintyre's bills have been met. He is now carrying on the agency for the Motorbloc; he has all the north of England. Thomas has all the South of England. I sent the Banque Generate no more bills after August 16 as they refused to renew. I was undertaking with our agents to renew their bills and when their bills were presented they refused payment on that account, and the Banque Generate debited me, so that I was in the position of having delivered cars, not able to get the money from the customers, and having to stand the debit against me. Del Poggio was our agent for all Italy for Felix engines. His transactions amounted to between £3,000 and £5,000 every three months. A large quantity of his bills were duly honoured. In September the bank held a lot of his bills. He died and £3,000 worth of his bills were returned protested. They were ultimately paid by his executors, who asked for time to enable them to do so. That created great confusion with my finances. As part of the arrangement with the frank I deposited with them £2,000 worth of their own shares, which I paid for. I sent later on £1,900 in Canadian Pacifics and Grand Trunks. They have still the benefit of those securities. Our agreement was that their commission on discounting should not exceed 5 per cent.; it worked out at 10 per cent. I was to have 50 per cent of the profits. They had no account with an English bank. I was endeavouring to arrange to open one. I had to use my own account for the business of the bank. That mixed up my affairs with theirs, which was bad for me. The letter Mr. Wood produced yesterday I brought to him myself. I delivered no other letter to the bank. I gave the Banque Générale £2,000 bills for the purpose of discounting and opening an account in England with the proceeds. It was understood an account was going to be opened, and from time to time they were going to send me money. I understood they, were not very flush of money. That was the reason I gave them the bills to negotiate and send me the proceeds. They never sent them. They instructed me to furnish offices. This was done by the people who supplied my own offices. They sent me £400 towards the payment and left me to be sued for the balance. I brought them in as third parties and recovered judgment against them. There is no truth in the suggestion that the rescission of Bodden's contract came about from Paris. They had got £4,000 worth of Bodden's bills. By the agreement they

ought to have sent the proceeds of those bills to England to be invested in gilt-edged securities. They did not send any proceeds. They did not return the bills. Bodden repudiated the agreement on June 16. I did not know at that time that they had discounted any of those bills. I was told they could not discount thorn. When I got their letter of August 13 I was surprised to learn from it that some of the bills had been discounted. At that time they had £2,000 worth of my acceptances, the proceeds of which they have not remitted. I was a very considerable creditor of theirs at that time. My accounts have been properly kept. I have no record of Bodden's £1,200 bills. They were made out in Paris and aceepted by Bodden and sent back to Paris. I did not know when the bills became due. I knew Mrs. Bodden was seriously ill. On August 15 I telephoned Bodden at Chester, saying I had received a cheque from Paris, and could possibly cancel his agreement with the Banque Générale. I told him I had the money to take up certain bills which were put in circulation by mistake, and I wanted him to come up to London immediately. I was told in the letter of August 13 that the £1,200 bills fell due on the 15th. I believed that was so. I thought with the cheque I would take up the bills and release Bodden from his contract. I told him the draft was in his name, and as he was not certain he could come to London, he told me to do the necessary. This was all on the telephone. That same day I ascertained from Glynn Mills, who are the clearing-house for the Chester Bank, that Bodden's bills were accepted on the Bank of Liverpool, Chester, and I sent and told them I was representing officially the acceptor of the bills. If I gave them the money they would hand me the bills. Later in the day, while I was at Messrs. Purchase's, I got a telephone message from my office that the bills were at Glynn Mills's, or that they had advice of them. The only way to take them up was to get cash. I had left the cheque in my desk since I received it. I sent a person with my private keys to open the desk, and he brought the cheque. It was close on four o'clock. We had just time to pay it in so as to be able to draw on it next morning and take up the bills. One of my employees endorsed it with my authority, and I added my signature. I had no reason not to show what I was doing. Bodden came to town next morning. I gave him his bills. We discussed the matter. I said I was sorry they had been discounted, and I found the French people had not kept faith with me. I said, "You want to get out of the contract, and I am able to give you an official notification that your contract is cancelled." I told him I would do the necessary thing to take up the other bills, or expected to get them taken up to hand back to him. If I missed them in London I could present them in Chester, and if he lets me know they are in Chester I can pay them and say it is for the credit of Mr. Bodden of Chester to meet certain bills. Bodden did not tell me they did not fall due till September 16. He rang up from my office to his bank at Chester, asking if his bills had been presented. The two documents were signed and exchanged between us in my office on August 16, releasing him from his contract. There is a telegram from Bodden, instructing me to pay the Crédit Lyonnais

cheque into Glynn Mills, or from his banker to him when he was in london I wrote Wagner that I had gone to Chester. That was not true. I wanted to take credit for doing much more than I had done. I Knew he had made a mistake as to the date of presentation, and thought I had got him out of a difficulty. That was very foolish. I first ascertained in Paris on August 24 that the bills fell due in September. On August 19 the bank owed me money. They had my bills and securities. I pressed them to send it daily. At this time I was negotiating with Mann and Overton a business which would have mount a turnover of £6,000 every three months. We got as far as exchanging drafts of the agreement approved by both solicitors. The bank put a stop to that business. If the bills for £1,200 had come in as expected or within a few days I should have met them with the money received from Paris. I was in funds all the time up to the 19th. When I saw Wagner on the 24th I told him the bills were not due. I met him on good terms and chaffed him about the mistake. He said in his letter it was by a mistake of accountancy the bills were put in circulation and that he had given an order to withdraw them, but the accountant had not done the necessary and they went into circulation. I said I had got the £1,200 and had used £900 of it in the bank's business. That can be seen by the pass-book The letter Bodden wrote accepting the cancellation of the contract was written on blank sheets of paper, although dated at Chester, Wagner said, "That is not from Chester." I said, "I did not go to Chester, Mr. Bodden Came down." During that afternoon inquiry was made, and we got to know that the bills were not due till September 16. That was why they were not presented in August. Wagner told me I ought to have kept the money. I said, what was I to do: was I to advance money out of my own pocket for the bank's business? Then it was understood he was to send me for September 16 the £1,200 to take up Bodden's bills I returned to London and the matter was at an end. In corresponding with Wagner anything important I was to send him in my own hand-writing I would enclose it in an envelope sealed, which I sent down to enclose in the mail bag going to Paris. I saw Wagner in Paris on September 13. We had a tiff. He said he could not keep his promise to send the £2,000 on the 16th. He put it that it was my fault, that I had not business to use part of the money. I said I could not help it, that Del Poggio's bills had come back protested and that I could not help the man dying. I went for him and said, "If you had not discounted Bodden's bills in breakage of your agreement and if you had sent the proceeds of the bill back nothing of this would have occurred." I said, "What about my own bills. Where is this £2,000 you were going to send for opening an account in London?" We cooled down after a time. By Del Poggio's death my personal account were very much, disturbed, and I said to him, "Now this thing has occurred I must have the whole balance you owe me. He said I was always the one owing money, they owed nothing to me. We made a rough balance-sheet showing £2,300 in my favour. If he had been able to find the money he would have

sent it. The suggestion came that he was going to give me a certain number of their own acceptances which I could discount to provide funds to meet the obligations on the 16th. He gave me acceptances for £2,800. I told him I was sending them to the Banque Populaire Française de Lille asking them to send me the proceeds in London. This was between September 13 and 15. He stopped them, discounting the bills. When I communicated to him the letter of the Lille bank I asked him to wire the money in the name of Genee, which was the name of my cashier, as I was going to be away. As he did not wire the money I could not take up the Bodden bills. I saw Wagner again on the 27th. Lusani came over to London before that and Mr. Pottier afterwards. On the 27th I was faced with ruin. Wagner told me it did not matter what I did, he had got me, and if I made any fuss he would break me and have my skin. I told him I would go to the chairman of the board in Paris. He said he did not care twopence. My whole trade was ruined, the bank had done no business, I had been working in London three or four months getting business, giving all my time and energy to develop the thing. It brought me nothing. After investing £2,000 in that bank and after handing them the shares which were handed to me by de Viguerie, I was faced with nothing. Bodden was claiming the £1,200 and the bank were claiming it. I initiated interpleader proceedings and an order was made under which I was to bring the £1,200 into court so that Bodden and the bank might fight out the issue. I went to Paris to get the money. I had money at the Swiss bank. I found that the Banque Générale had put a stop order on my account there. I raised the £1,200. I could not return to England if I did not. I transmitted the £1,200 to my solicitors in England in January in order that they might pay it into court. I came back voluntarily to meet this charge.

(Tuesday, July 4.)

  LEONCE DELPHIN , further examined. Soon after I became associated with the Banque Générale Mr. Wagner introduced to my attention the Monoplane Hanriot Company. That was an English company controlled by the Banque Générale. The Hanriot Company acquired certain rights in and were going to manufacture and sell the Hanriot monoplane. I was asked to quauify as a director and took 200 £1 shares. I paid for the shares, but never got them. They offered to give me another 200 shares for services rendered. I never got those. Wagner was the moving spirit in the company. I was present when a resolution was passed in Paris on April 23, 1910, that the registered offices of the company should be transferred to my offices, 143, Great Portland Street. After that date all the business of the company so far as England was concerned was conducted from my offices by myself and my staff. I was trying to find a financier to buy the Hanriot Company out and out. I arranged that the monoplane should be exhibited at various meetings. I engaged a hangar at Brooklands, paid

the carriage of the monoplane; we had to have four mechanics and an aviator. I paid all those expenses. I have not been reimbursed. I also spent £200 in buying parts for the monoplane. After a good deal of negotiations I got into touch with Mr. Wolstenholme, who came with me to Paris to see Wagner. They wanted to get some other English directors. Wolstenholme requested the company to give me a power of attorney so that when he had formed his circle of friends I should be ready to sign with him. He was to pay £500 for an option. It was arranged between Wolstenholme, Wagner, and myself that Wagner was to send an aviator to give demonstrations in England and Wolstenholme had to form a company on certain lines. I did not discuss with Wagner what I was to do with the £500 when received. The branch here was to be the banker of the Hanriot Company. We thought there was going to be a big business done. No steps were taken by the directors of the Hanriot Company to open a banking account in England. I could not have opened an account in their names without a resolution of the board. I received the £500 from Wolstenholme and paid it into my bank. The option was signed and we had a conversation as to giving demonstrations. Nothing was said by Wolstenholme as to the cheque. We had to put the monoplane at his disposal for a certain time and he was to use his best endeavour to find us some demonstration place, such as Lanark, where there were meetings, and Wolstenholme was to bring his principal shareholders. This thing was badly done and that is why we lost the business. We had no competent aviator. We had accident after accident. They were bad engines. I wrote them that Wolstenholme insisted on having a competent aviator to show the machine before signing the option. They sent a man and afterwards we got a wire to stop him flying. It was an absurd business. Wagner drew the bill before he got my letter sending him the option and long before he knew I had the £500. The only letter written to Mr. Wood by the typist in the office of the monoplane company was the one with reference to opening a banking account for the Banque Generate, which I brought myself. I did not dictate any letter about opening an account for the monoplane company or bring any such letter to England. I was not in Paris on September 6, so the conversation Mabillot mentioned could not have taken place. I was not in Paris between August 24 and September 13. Wagner's evidence about me saying the bill must have been presented at the wrong branch is all untrue. Bankers do not make mistakes. Thomas was the man who introduced me to Wolstenholme. He had all the management of the monoplane and attended the meetings. I had to pay him for his services. I sent the Monoplane Hanriot Company an account for £155 12s. 11d., with the original vouchers. In a letter of August 17 I submitted a number of questions to Wagner in reference to the banking account. I asked what was the balance at the bank, to which he replied, "We do not see our way to reply to this question, which does not concern the public. We are the bankers of the Hanriot Monoplane, hold their current account, and do not consider we have the right to communicate their private affairs to strangers." The questions were put for the purpose of satisfying

Wolstenholme, who wanted to know what they had to sell. There is a balance against me on the monopiane account of £130 1s., if you do not take into consideration the shares. There is no truth in the statement that I took possession of the monoplane. Wolstenholme brought an action to recover his £500. It was not a collusive action. With regard to the purchase of £2,000 worth of Banque Générale shares, Wagner wanted me to be on that board. I had to hold £4,000 worth. He said it would make a favourable impression on the board if I took further shares. I told him I could not. He said, "The English branch is in your hands, you expect it is going to be a very good thing." I said, "Certainly." He said, "You expect to make more than £2,000." Of course I did. He said, "If you make that profit there is no reason why you should not buy more shares." Then he brought that scheme for me to pay in bills, and he undertook to renew those bills every three months up to 12 months, and I was to have the option at the end of that time of keeping the shares or he would take back the shares and cancel the bills. I understood the bills were to be discounted, and they would have got the money. The arrangement was embodied in three letters. No one else was present at that interview. Mabillot came to take the bills when I had to accept them, and handed me the shares. I had paid for the shares when I gave the bills. They wanted £2,000 accommodation at the time, and that was a way of getting it. There was not one word said about not parting with the shares until I had paid the bills. Some of the bills were due in September. They were never presented to me. If they had been I should have asked for a renewal. I had no communication whatever about them. The shares were bearer shares. I placed them in the Swiss Bank in Paris. I borrowed no money upon them. They are still there, with the stop order of the Banque Générale upon them. I never attached any bills to those shaers. The Banque Générate seized the furniture, for which I was sued, and I understand they took it away to Paris. Lusani and Pottier came over. I answered their questions about the affairs of the bank. I had no conversation with de Viguerie as to the disputes between me and the bank. He fixes it at a time when I was abroad, which you can see by the correspondence. I did not ask him to make an application in the courts.

Cross-examined. Wagner and Bodden were my friends: de Viguerie was in the office as secretary, he had nothing to do with the bank in Paris. He was appointed by me, he would not be financially prejudiced in my favour. I sent his shares to Paris and they were sold against my instructions. He blames me. I got Bodden out of his contract, with the bank, otherwise he was going to be made bankrupt. If I had left Wagner and Bodden to fight it out it would have been much better for me. I have no benefit either way. Bodden is furious against me for introducing him to the sharpers. I did not convey to Wagner in my letters and telegrams that I had paid Mr. Bodden the cheque. I explained to Wagner in Paris on August 24 that I had not taken up Bodden's bills. Wagner's telegram of September

19 asking how I had employed the 30,000 francs cheque to Bodden is after he had stopped the money in Lille and after he had made up his mind not to send any money. I had good reason for not replying." I told you already I never applied that money for that purpose and you know you agreed to give me more money to meet them." At the interview of August 24 Wagner was anxious that the matter of the Bodden bills mistake should be kept back and not dealt with officially. He was making up this case then. I wrote him a private letter which he says he has not received. If some of my letters are quoted I want all to be. They would explain the whole thing. It is like the books they will not produce. He was not anxious that the explanation should go before the directors. We have not seen the directors here. Wagner said there were two sets of bills to exchange. Bodden said there were not, and there were not. I remember the visit of Mr. Lusani. In the whole of this case there are two sets of letters, and that is on what the case turns. If Wagner did not wish to conceal the discounting of Bodden's bills from his directors why did he not bring his book to show where the money went? He wished to conceal it from everybody. I gave Bodden the five bills, but did not give him the cheque. My instructions were to withdraw the bills. Wagner wished me to help him to conceal the transaction and I was foolish enough to consent. No doubt the letters I was sending to the bank gave them a false impression, and that lands me here. I could see by the drift of Wagner's letters that this was something which might come up at some time, and I wanted Bodden to make an independent claim and force Wagner to settle properly. This is why I went to Paris, and immediately I wrote Bodden saying I had failed. I do not owe the bank a penny. They have all my securities, and the only loss is £3,000, not £12,000, if there is such a loss. On September 16 I had to meet Macintyre's bill, £400, which I met with Hanriot's cheque. That was the only money I had. I was liable to renew it. On August 16 the bank owed me about £6,000, assuming my bills were good. As the bank did not carry out Bodden's agreement he was perfectly right in terminating it. Two or three days after he signed the contract he wrote that by reason of family affairs he would not be able to carry it through. Being an official of the bank I did not want to speak definitely. I do not know that it can be put that he was annoyed at the way he had been treated by the bank. I kept writing the bank that they were in the wrong and that they had to send us the proceeds of the bills or return them cancelled. I wrote them cancelling the whole contract and that Bodden had a right to damages. I telegraphed Bodden on September 16, "Am doing necessary in London." As I did not get the funds from Lille I immediately wired Wagner to send £1,200 next morning in the name of my manager. That is what I mean by saying I was doing the necessary to pick up the bills. I told Bodden I had received a cheque on the Credit Lyonnais. When I saw Bodden on September 21 at Crewe I told him I had not got the money from Lille and I was afraid I was being let down by the French people.

I asked him to join hands with me. I thought by him forcing his case forward he would compel Wagner to come to terms. I did not tell him I had paid the money into his bank. I would never pay money into anybody's bank unless I got the bill back at the same time. That is why I arranged to get the thing done in London. I think Mr. Bodden is making a mistake in that. He knew I had got the money, he knew the cheque was made in his name. On August 16 I paid de Viguerie £700. That was an obligation of the bank. I asked them to return de Viguerie's bill and they did not. De Viguerie was to pay me £2,000, of which £1,000 was scrip. That went into my pocket. The other £1,000 was three months' bills accepted by him, discounted by the bank. I wrote the bank to return the bills. I was their creditor for a considerable sum. They did not do so, but debited me. I had to use part of the bank's money to renew the bills under my personal contract with him I did not know Bodden's bills were due on September 16 until I went to Paris. I can show I had never much in hand to take up Bodden's bills. I could have paid de Viguerie's and Bodden's if I had wanted. My balance on the 16th was £17,748, as against £8,795. Wagner was bankrupt five years before he knew me. Thomas was acting as manager for the Hanriot Company. The bank was the banker of Hanriot, and they were financing. The cheque for £60 was for wages in connection with the Banque Générale. The £50 was paid to Monk who fitted up the installation of the bank. The total is £900. They debited me with the £700, which you do not agree about. All Mr. Wagner's letters are cleverly written for one purpose, and you will notice his account starts after August 16. I kept his private letters in my desk which they took to Paris. I had £1,800 in the Swiss Bank in September. The stop was put on in October. There is £1,200 there to-day. As far as I can trust my memory they have about £800 worth of Del Poggio's bills which ought to be exchanged with the executor. I was prevented from recovering from customers in England because they refused to renew. Del Poggio's bills were drawn by the Felix Engineering Company, my own business. They protested £820 of those on his death, which has since been paid by the executor.

(Wednesday, July 5.)

  LEONCE DELPHIN , further cross-examined. Mr. Clarke, of J. B. and F. Purchase, Regent Street. In giving evidence at the police-court about the discounting of the bills, Wagner said the books in Paris would show. In consequence of that my firm wrote to solicitors for the prosecution asking for the production of the books for inspection. We have never been able to obtain inspection of the books or accounts.

  STANLEY HOWARD BURSEY , chartered accountant. I went to Paris for the purpose of inspecting certain books of account. I also inspected Delphin's books, which are properly kept. I have taken out

an account between Delphin and the bank as of August 15, 1910. On that date the bank are in debit to Delphin, after crediting Bodden's cheque, which was received on that date, £4,304 8s. 4 1/2 d. On September 16 I find a balance in his favour of £2,287 10s. 6 1/2 d. I understand part of the business done by the Motorbloc Syndicate was discounting bills for customers, with an undertaking to renew, provided a certain amount was paid off the capital sum. I find about £16,000 worth have passed to the Banque Générale from Delphin. Of those the total amount returned as unpaid is £5,283. (To the Judge.) Delphin could not have opened a banking account without a resolution of the directors. I have seen the account of the monoplane company. They are credited with Wolstenholme's cheque for £500. The balance appears to be in favour of the monoplane company on August 15 £228 14s. 4d., on September 16 £160 17s. 0 1/2 d., and on January 31 £130 1s. 0 1/2 d. I do not think the claim for shares appears in the account.

Verdict, Not guilty.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.

(Wednesday, June 28.)

 

  SEPP, August (23, wrestler), was indicted for and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of   Ah Ling, otherwise Sea Heng : also indicted for feloniously wounding   Lee Fong, with intent to murder him, or with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Roome defended.

Police-constable WAYLIFF, 12 KR, proved a plan for use in the case.

  FLORRIE PHILLIPS , factory girl. On the night of May 6 I was walking in West India Dock Road with Catherine O'Shea and Emma Goddard. We turned into Pennyfields, and outside No. 5, which is a Chinese boarding-house, we saw three or four Chinamen, who addressed us and followed us up the street. Lee Fong was talking to O'Shea. Three foreign sailors came up and began insulting the Chinamen. Then one of the foreigners, a fair man, rather thick build, struck Lee Fong; I cannot recognise this foreigner. I tried to separate the men but could not, and I ran for the police. I afterwards saw the body of Ah Ling; I did not know that man; he was not one of the men who followed us up the street. On May 7 I went to the Scandinavian Home and saw a number of men; prisoner was not amongst them; there was no one there resembling the foreign sailor I saw. On May 9 I went to the police station and saw a number of men; I picked out prisoner as resembling the man I saw fighting with Lee Fong.

  CATHERINE O'SHEA . I was walking with Lee Fong when three foreign sailors, who were behind us, said something rude to him; he said, "What for do you call this; I never speak to you nothing." I afterward saw the tallest foreigner of the three strike Lee Fong.

I did not see the faces of the men; the man who struck Lee Fong was as tall as prisoner; that is all I can say.

  LEE FONG said that he identified prisoner as the man who stabbed him in the chest, he picked him out from a number of men at the police station because he was wearing a blue suit and a felt hat. Witness denied that he was walking with O'Shea.

  WE LING said he was walking with Ah Ling when they noticed a quarrel between some other Chinamen and three sailors. One of the sailors struck at Lee Fong, and the same man aferwards stabbed Ah Ling; that man was prisoner. Witness said a lot of men paraded at the Scandinavian Home on May 7; prisoner was among those men; but witnss did not point him out because he was afraid. On the 9th, at the police station, witness picked out prisoner and another man.

CHOOHOW gave similar evidence.

  JOSEPH B. HIRSCH . I live at 8, Pennyfields, which is opposite No. 5 About 9.15 p.m. on May 6 I saw a small crowd coming down the street; there were several Chinamen and three foreign sailors. I saw Lee Fong strike one of the foreigners, and blows were struck on both sides Prisoner is about the size and build of one of the sailors I saw. I do not recognise him by his face.

  WILLIAM HART spoke to seeing Phillips trying to separate some men who were fighting; he could not identify anybody.

  HARVEY BORG , porter at the Scandinavian Home, identified prisoner as one of three men who came in hurriedly about 9.30.

Inspector   ALBERT YEO , K Division. Being informed of this occurrence on the night of May 6 I took steps to ensure that no one left the Scandinavian Home that night, and on the following morning the lodgers were paraded, 65 in all. The witness attended but failed to identify anyone. On May 8 I arrested Sepp and Horden. At the station when Sepp saw Horden he said, "On Saturday night I was out with him walking around and talking to some girls." Horden said, "Yes, that is right; I should know the other man we were with; I do not know his name; he is one of the shipwrecked sailors." I then arrested Wasili Wali; Sepp and Horden recognised him as the man they were with.

Cross-examined. On searching Sepp's room I found no weapon of any kind. His linen and clothing were quite clean.

Mr. Bodkin said he had no further evidence of identification.

Mr. Justice Darling expressed the view that there was nothing like enough evidence to justify a verdict of guilty, and asked the jury whether they desired to hear the case further. The jury replied that they were not prepared to act upon this evidence, and returned a verdict of Not guilty. Upon a further indictment for feloniously wounding Lee Fong, no evidence was offered, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered.

BEFORE THE RECORDER

. (Wednesday, June 28.)

 

  MURPHY, William (35), pleaded guilty of unlawfully writing and publishing and causing to be published a defamatory libel of and concerning   John Otter Stephens.

On the prisoner expressing his contrition and undertaking not to repeat the libellous statements, which he admitted were without ground, he was released on his own recognisances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.

 

  HOPKINS, Charles (52, labourer), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shops of   Henry Lesser and others and stealing therein one claret jug and one teapot, their goods.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the Newington Sessions on February 23, 1909, when he received three years' penal servitude. A large number of previous convictions dating from 1876 were proved.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude, the Recorder remarking that there was no doubt that prisoner was a habitual criminal.

 

  SCHOENFELD, Willy (24, chef) , stealing one bag and other articles, the goods of the   London and North-Western Railway Company, and feloniously receiving the same; stealing one bag and other articles, the goods of the   South-Eastern and Chatham Railway Company, and feloniously receiving the same; stealing 13 serviettes, the goods of   James Conchie, and feloniously receiving same.

Prisoner pleaded guilty to the first and second indictments. This plea was accepted by the prosecution. It was stated that he came to England some five years ago. It was urged on his behalf that he had only previously been guilty of a minor offence in Belgium, whence he came, and that his downfall had been due to gambling.

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

 

  ABBOTT, John (32, painter), and   BERRYMAN, John (29, painter) , stealing a ring and other articles, the goods of   Charles Austin; stealing three rings and other articles, the goods of   Paul Schieckel; stealing four rings and other articles, the goods of   Charles James Smyth; and BERRYMAN, John, stealing two chains and other property, the goods of   James William Glover, and stealing a watch and other articles, the goods of   Barrington Whitlow.

Berryman pleaded guilty to all the indictments and Abbott to only the Glover indictment, but he, not having been charged with this, was tried on the Smyth indictment. Mr. Hinde prosecuted.

  MARY SMYTH , wife of Charles Smyth, Abbot's House, Lyonsdown Avenue, New Barnet. On May 8 at 2.30 p.m. everything in my bedroom was all right. On going there at 5.20 p.m. I missed £47 worth

of jewellery from different drawers. These are the only articles that I have recovered (two bangles, three rings, two lockets, and one chain). On that afternoon I was in the garden with my two children. The thief must have climbed up the rain pipe in front of the house leading to the maid's room, the window of which had been left open. There was no building work going on next door.

  LESLIE ARNOLD , pawnbroker, 213, Kentish Town Road. This ring and this opal bangle were pledged at about 6.30 p.m. on May 8 by a woman giving the name of "Maud Gurney "; I advanced 12s. on the ring and 15s. on the bangle.

  FRANK TUCKER , assistant, G. W. Thompson, pawnbroker, 234, Kentish Town Road. In the evening of May 8 this ring and this bangle were pledged by a woman giving the name of "May Milton "; I advanced 8s. on the two.

  EDWARD BONNEY , assistant, G. Fish and Son, pawnbrokers, 10, Fortess Road. About 5 p.m. on May 8 this diamond ring, this gold necklet, and these two lockets were pawned with us by a woman; I advanced £1 10s. on the ring and 12s. on the other articles.

  GRACE DELL , wife of William Dell, 263, Hornchurch Road. Berry-man's wife is my step-sister. On May 8 I was at his house doing the house work. Abbott came in with him between 4 and 5 p.m. and remained till about 8. Berryman showed Abbott this jewellery (produced). He asked me if I would pawn it. I took it and pawned it at Fish's, Arnold's, and Thompson's. I returned and gave the money to Berryman. I did not ask him why he did not pawn it himself; he told me he had got it from the auction rooms. Abbott took no part in the conversation. They were both talking together very quietly, but I could not hear what they said; they were valuing up what the jewellery was worth. This was before I went to the pawnshops. They divided the money equally. Berryman gave me 4s. for my trouble.

Detective-sergeant   FRANK PAGE , T Division. In consequence of instructions received on May 1 I kept observation on 7, Stanley Terrace, Holloway, Berryman's house. I saw him and Abbott almost continually together until May 17, when Berryman was arrested; Abbott visited him nearly every day. They were together on the afternoon of May 6. On May 8 I saw him go into Berryman's house with Berryman between 5 and 7 p.m. On the 17th they both came to the area railings. Apparently they noticed something because they walked quickly away; we were in possession of the basement at the time. Abbott was wearing at that time a heavy black moustache. On June 4 I was at 2, Atherstone Road, where he lives, when I saw him looking out of the top-floor window of the front room: he was then clean shaven as he is now. With other officers I went up, but found he had escaped by climbing down the rain pipe of the back window, which was open: there was no other way he could have escaped.

Detective-sergeant   CHARLES GOODCHILD , T Division, corroborated the previous witness's evidence as to Berryman and Abbott's movements

on May 17, and added: About 8 p.m. I assisted Inspector Neil to arrest Berryman in Fonthill Road, Holloway. Abbott, who was wearing a black moustache, was on the other side of the road; he had a child of about three years old. He placed it on the pavement and ran away. At 9 p.m. on June 4 I was keeping observation on 2, Atherstone Road, when I saw him at the front window. On getting there we found he had escaped by the rain pipe, which he could do quite easily. At 10 a.m. on June 18 I went there with other officers. I saw him there and told him I should arrest him for being concerned with Berryman in stealing jewellery from Barnet on May 8. He said, "I admit I went there with Berryman to buy some old clothes on the date of the robbery. I was coming round to the police station this morning to give myself up. I done you last Sunday week when you came for me; I got away over the back wall. What's a man to do?" I took him to the station, where he was identified by Dell; as she was walking towards him he shook his head at her. I said he would be charged with this theft, and he said, "What evidence have you got against me?" I read him out a list of jewellery and said, "The witness Dell has identified you as one of the men that gave the jewellery to her to pawn." When charged he said, "Yes." (To the Court.) It is about half-an-hour's journey on the tram from Stanley Terrace to Mr. Smyth's house at New Barnet.

  JOHN ABBOTT (prisoner, not on oath). At 4.10 p.m. on May 8 I met Berryman in Barnet Road; I had just had a deal in clothes and I had a big parcel of them on my back. On the way home he asked me if he might have a look at a few, and he chose a costume for his wife. We called at his place on the way down and he invited me in. I put the costume on his bed, and I saw him looking at something in his hand. I asked him what he had got, and he said, "Only a few articles of jewellery," and that he was going to get rid of them. I asked him what his idea was and where he had been, and he said, "I have been out to Barnet." He gave the woman the articles to pawn, and when she had gone out he asked me if I would mind making out that I was with him and taking half of the money she brought back because he did not want his wife to know how much money he had really got. I said I would not mind. The woman returned with the money, and he gave me half. He then sent her out to get something to eat. When she had gone he told me to give him the money back, which I did, and he then gave me 4s. for myself. The same thing happened on three occasions.

Verdict, Guilty.

Abbott confesssed to a previous conviction of felony on January 15, 1900, Berryman confessed to a previous conviction of felony at Cler-kenwell Sessions on December 19, 1905. A number of previous convictions were proved against Berryman since June, 1900, for the last of which he had received three years' penal servitude for causing grievous bodily harm to a police-constable; he had feigned madness with a view to his sentence being shortened; he was sent to the Colney Hatch Asylum, but his ruse having been discovered he was not released till

April 28 of this year. Between May 6 and 16 there, were five indictments against him for stealing jewellery to the total value of £274. A number of previous convictions, dating from February, 1904, were proved against Abbott. On January 15, 1900, he received seven years' and three years' penal servitude, to run concurrently, for possessing house-breaking implements and wounding. He was released from his last sentence in November last. He was stated never to have done any work and to be the most dangerous thief in the north of London.

Sentence (each), Six years' penal servitude.

 

  BEALES, John (17, porter), pleaded guilty of robbery with violence upon   Beatrice Herkner, and stealing from her one hand-bag and certain money, her goods and moneys.

Prosecutrix's wrist was hurt and her ribs were injured. Prisoner received a good character; he had been in constant employment since leaving school. He attributed his downfall to the fact that he had been keeping bad company.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour

 

  RUSBY, George (63, grocer), pleaded guilty of feloniously setting fire to a dwelling-house, the property of   James Arthur Farmer.

  SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , Medical Officer of Brixton Prison, stating that he was prepared to certify prisoner as insane, and that he would take the necessary steps to have him put in an asylum, the Recorder formally respited judgment till next Sessions.

 

  HORNEY, George (35, labourer) , stealing one watch, one chain, and one case, the goods of   Caroline Fenn; stealing two rings and 10s., the goods and money of   John Bedford; and stealing one bangle and other articles and 5s., the goods and money of   William Pallant.

Prisoner pleaded guilty to the Fenn indictment. This plea was accepted by the prosecution, no evidence being offered on the other indictments.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at this court on November 10, 1908, when he received three years' penal servitude. Eleven previous convictions, in all of which he had received short sentences, which were proved against him. He had still 279 days to serve from his last sentence.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

 

  DATE, Frederick William (33, clerk), pleaded guilty of feloniously forging a receipt for the sum of 1s. 6d., with intent to defraud and uttering it knowing it to be forged, and of feloniously forging and uttering, knowing them to be forged, three several receipts for the sum of 1s. 6d. each, with intent to defraud.

Prisoner (who, it was stated, had previously had a good character) was released on his own recognisances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.

 

  BISHOP, Alfred (31, fitter), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £12, with intent to defraud.

It was stated that up to the commission of this offence prisoner had borne a particularly good character and that he was a clever engineer. The forgery was a very skilful one; he had stolen the cheque from a house of which his wife, a charwoman, had been left in temporary charge. His downfall had been due to drink.

Sentence, Eight months' hard labour.

 

  HALEY, George (23, tailor) , feloniously breaking and entering the shop of the   Crown Emporium, Limited, with intent to steal therein.

Mr. May prosecuted.

  RADFORD WOODWARD , night watchman, Copestake, Crampton and Company, Cheapside, On the morning of April 22, hearing a noise, I went across the road to the Crown Emporium Company, where I saw prisoner just disappearing through the fanlight, which he had broken. I got hold of him by the heels and, after a struggle, pulled him down. I asked him what he was doing there, and he said, "Well, I was in there to see what I could get." He had a knife in his right hand and I found in his pocket this padlock and chain (produced). I asked him where he had got them from, and he said, "Next door." I found they came from the next door but one, Benetfink's. I held him until the police-constable arrived.

Police-constable   HARRY MARTIN , 190 A. At 2 a.m. on April 22 I saw the last witness with prisoner outside the Crown Emporium, Limited. I found the glass of the fanlight in those premises practically all knocked out. I asked him what he had been doing in there, and he told me he was going in there to get something. The padlock and chain handed me by the last witness I found came from Benetfink's premises. When charged he said, "I suppose I shall get the same as I got before."

  GEORGE PENDANT , manager, Crown Emporium Company, Limited. On the evening of April 20 I left the premises all right. Access can be obtained through the fanlight to the shop, in which there was jewellery and fancy goods.

  GEORGE HALEY (prisoner, not on oath). All I have got to say is, before I done this job I was out seven months and was starving. I tried my best to get a situation. When I came out the last 18 months I was promised a situation by the Prisoners' Aid Society, but they said they could do nothing for me, and I was left on the streets.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the Newington Sessions on September 21, 1909. Several previous convictions were proved, and five summary convictions for drunkenness. Prisoner had stated that he was more comfortable in prison than in the workhouse.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.

 

  SMITH, Frank Edward (26, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a postal order and 21s., the property of   H.M. Postmaster-General.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

 

  BOYNE, Leslie (34, editor), pleaded guilty of unlawfully and maliciously writing and publishing a false, malicious and defamatory libel concerning   Edwin James Neville.

On prisoner undertaking not to repeat the libels he was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

 

  LEHR, Franz Loder (33, engineer), pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from   Arthur James Gosling, two motor-car tyres and tubes, the goods of the   F.I.A.T. Motor Cab Company, Limited, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from   Reuben Tillyer two motor-car tyres and tubes, the goods of the F.I.A.T. Motor Cab Company, Limited, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from   Mary Ann Knight, one motor-car tyre, the goods of   James White Franklin, with intent to defraud.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the Sessions House, Newington, on November 2, 1909. Prisoner was first convicted in 1906. Convictions followed in 1907 and 1909. He had been expelled from the country twice. He was now awaiting trial at the Nottingham Assizes for a similar offence, to which he had pleaded guilty. In 1906 he had been certified as insane, but was afterwards discovered to be a malingerer.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude. The Recorder remarked that it was not necessary to again order prisoner to be expelled, as he understood the Secretary of State had intimated to the officers of the court that a prisoner who had twice been expelled could be dealt with without any such order.

An order for restitution was applied for by counsel appearing for the F.I.A.T. Company, on the ground that where a prisoner had pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with false pretences, and the evidence pointed to the offence being one of larceny by a trick, as was the case here, the Court had power to make such an order. (R. v. Walker, 65, J.P., 729).

The Recorder refused the application, stating that the property had been sold out and out to bona fide holders for value.

BEFORE, THE COMMON-SERJEANT.

(Wednesday, June 28.)

 

  PALMER, Herbert (29, clerk),   PALMER, William George (40, clerk), and   MEADOW, Charles (48, clerk), pleaded guilty of unlawfully falsifying, making false entries in and omitting certain material particulars from certain books, to wit, cash book and debt books, the ledgers and accounts belonging to   Clement Keevil and another, their masters, with intent to defraud; conspiring and agreeing together, and with one   James Coulston to commit the said misdemeanour and to feloniously and fraudulently embezzle divers sums of money received by them for and on account of the said   C. Keevil and another, their masters.

Sentence (each), 18 months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Wednesday, June 28.)

 

  HOPE, Wynton (42, secretary), pleaded guilty of stealing two several sums of £85 each, the moneys of the   Universal Picture Theatres, Limited, his masters; having received cheques amounting to £525 for and on account of the   Universal Picture Theatres, Limited, his masters, unlawfully did fraudulently convert them to his own use and that of others.

Sentence was postponed till next Sessions.

 

  KING, Percy (30, salesman) pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from   Arthur John Brook two dressing cases, the goods of Robert Wadman Stiby, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from   George Tookey six shirts, the goods of Henry Tucker Greenlaw, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from   Francis Herbert Nash one dozen collars and other articles, the goods of   Henry Claud Buckingham, with intent to defraud.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction on December 21, 1909, at the Mansion House Justice Room, for obtaining goods by false pretences.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

 

  JONES, Harry (24, baker), pleaded guilty of stealing bicycles on May 19 and 23, 1911, the property of   P. C. Hobart and   W. Robinson.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted of felony, at Marlborough Quarter Sessions, on October 19, 1909.

Sentence, Six months' imprisonment, second division.

 

  SCOTT, Henry James (22, laundryman) , attempting to carnally know   Rosina Mundy. a girl under the age of 16 and over the age of 13 years.

Verdict, Guilty of indecent assault.

Prisoner (who was given a very good character) was sentenced to three months' imprisonment in the second division.

 

  BAISLEY, William Joseph (28, painter), pleaded guilty of stealing one bracelet and other articles, the goods of   James Sherlock; stealing three rings and other articles, the goods of   William Nicholls; stealing one watch and chain, the goods of   Thomas Davies.

Sentence, Six months' imprisonment, second division.

 

  McGIE, Daniel George (35, machinist), pleaded guilty of stealing £1, the money of   Lydia Campbell, and of stealing £1, the money of   Annie Jenkins.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction at this court on February 2, 1909, for obtaining money by false pretences. He was described as a clever swindler and as having committed about 50 or 60 offences.

Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.

 

  ROBERSON, Walter (32. machinist) forging and uttering, knowing the same io be forged, an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £10 10s., and the endorsement thereon, in each case with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from   Eliza Jones £10 10s., the moneys of   Joseph Norman Jones, with intent to defraud.

Mr. R. 8. Nolan prosecuted; Mr. Gregory Fisher defended.

Detective-sergeant   ALBERT CHATT , R Division. On April 22 I went to Walham Green Police Station and saw prisoner detained there. I told him that I was a police officer and should arrest him for forging and uttering a cheque on April 1 and obtaining £10 10s. from Mr. Jones, of the "Star and Garter" public house, Park Street, Greenwich. He replied that he knew nothing about it. I took him to Greenwich. Before he appeared at the police-court he made a voluntary statement, which he amended the next morning in court. He was warned before doing so. This is the first statement: "I wish to make a voluntary statement. No inducements or threats have been held out to me to do so. The man who the police want is named Bogie, and another man named Marsh, one of whom had my cheque-book. Marsh resides at 9a, Anselm Road, North End Road, Fulham. I do not know where Bogie lives. I have never forged or uttered any cheques whatever." Just before going into court next morning he said he wanted to alter that statement. He then said: "Marsh about six weeks ago asked me for a blank cheque, as he had a friend who could get some money if he had one. I gave him one on Harrod's Stores Bank. The following day he (Marsh) said to me, 'You had better let me have that cheque-book as there may be an inquiry which will make it awkward for you. You had better write to Harrod's Stores and say you have lost your cheque-book.' This I did not do, but let him have my cheque-book. The man known as Bogie engages the boys to take the cheques and get them cashed. Description of Marsh and Bogie: Marsh, 35; 5 ft. 8 in. or 9 in.; complexion, pale; hair and moustache, brown; stoops when walking. Bogie, age 40 to 45; 5 ft. 4 in. or 5 in.; complexion, pale; hair and moustache, dark, turning grey. The document with the address 9a, Anselm Road, Fulham, is in the handwriting of Marsh." That is a document I found at the house referring to some transaction. Prisoner was placed with 10 men and identified, but I took no part in that.

Cross-examined. I have not known prisoner prior to this. I am stationed at Greenwich; I have not seen him there.

  JAMES HENRY STEPHENS . I am 14, and live at Greenwich. On April 11 was in Trafalgar Road, Greenwich, at 8.30 p.m. outside a grocer's shop, when prisoner gave me a letter to take to the "Star and Garter" public-house, Park Street, Greenwich. At that time I was looking at a Boys' Brigade that was passing by. This is the envelope.

It is addressed to "Mr. Jones, 'Star and Garter,' Park Street, Greenwich." I took the letter there. I saw Mrs. Jones, who opened the letter and read it. She gave me 10 sovereigns and one half sovereign, told me to count them before I went away, and wrapped them up in paper. I took the money to prisoner, who was waiting in Trafalgar Road. He gave me 2d. On April 22 I saw prisoner at the East Greenwich Police Station with other men, and picked him out.

Cross-examined. I told the magistrate that Mrs. Jones gave me 10 sovereigns and 10 half-sovereigns. I was muddled. It was three weeks after I first saw the prisoner that I identified him. I saw a good many people in that time. I identified him by his face and his moustache. He has a sandy kind of face. When I first saw him I was very much interested in the Boys' Brigade that was passing by, but they had gone when he came to me. I was just standing there. I was about three minutes identifying the man at the station. The others were not all clean shaven. Prisoner had his moustache off then; there were no signs of whiskers; if he had not been shaven for three or four days it was not noticeable. I had never seen prisoner before.

  DR. JOSEPH STRICKLAND GOOD ALL , Middlesex Hospital. I do not know the boy Stephens. I never employed him to cash a cheque for me. I did not address this envelope to Mrs. Jones. The letter says this: "80, Annadale Road, Finsbury Park. Dr. Strickland Goodall would esteem it a favour if Mr. Jones would kindly send cash for enclosed cheque by bearer." I did not write that. Inside is a cheque dated April 1, 1911, drawn upon Harrod's Stores, Limited, Banking Department, 87 to 135, Brompton Road, S.W." Pay to Dr. Strickland Goodall or Order, £10 10s.," signed "Spencer Payne." It is indorsed" J. Strickland Goodall." I know nothing about it.

Cross-examined. I do not know the prisoner.

  ELIZA JONES , wife of licensee, "Star and Garter," public-house, Park Street, Greenwich. On April 1 I was in my bar when Stephens came in, bringing this letter with this cheque inside, purporting to be drawn by Spencer Payne, indorsed "J. Strickland Goodall." I gave the boy 10 sovereigns and a half-sovereign. Dr. Goodall has attended my husband for about four years; we were very friendly, and I wished to oblige him. I never saw prisoner before the police-court proceedings.

  JOSEPH NORMAN JONES , licensee "Star and Garter," Greenwich. I received this cheque from my wife, and paid it into my bank. It was returned, marked "No account."

Cross-examined. I have never seen prisoner before.

  HENRY JAMES JOB , cashier, Harrod's Stores Bank. I know prisoner. He had an account at our bank, opened on December 4, 1906. The last cheque was drawn August 10, 1910. The account was then overdrawn £1 8s. 11d. The account has since been operated on by cheques which have been returned. The first cheque returned was on April 3, 1911. Four cheque-books have been issued to prisoner. This cheque bears a number amongst those of the last cheque-book issued to him. Nobody of the name of Spencer Payne has an account at our bank.

Cross-examined. I do not know the writing on the cheque. I do not recognise it as prisoner's handwriting, nor the indorsement.

(Defence.)

  WALTER THOMAS ROBERSON (prisoner, on oath). On April 1 I was nowhere near Greenwich. I had never been there till I was taken to the police court. April 1 was Boat Race day. At 8.30 I was in bed at my house, 2, Effie Place. I went to bed shortly after one o'clock, having had too much to drink. Three or four people came to the house who saw me in bed. Two of my witnesses have gone to Canada since April. My wife's sister also knew I was in bed then and her husband. I neither forged nor uttered the cheque, I had nothing whatever to do with it, nor the letter.

Cross-examined. My brother-in-law and his young lady went to Canada two or three weeks after my arrest. The police court hearing was on April 24 and adjourned till June 1. I did not mention that my witnesses were going to Canada. I think they went on June 6 or 7. The matter was left to a solicitor in Greenwich who turned out to be no good, and I had no money to go on with. I gave a blank cheque to Marsh to take to a friend who would change it; the cheque would then have come back to me when I had the money to cover it. This was the only cheque I handed over. Marsh said I had better let him take care of the cheque. I was drinking very heavily at the time. I handed him the cheque-book. What I said just now is not untrue; I was asked if I had given him any other cheque; the book contains several cheques.

Re-examined. From April 1 till my arrest I had not left the neighbourhood of my house. I had no reason to suspect the police were after me. I went out as usual every day. At the police station I asked to see the cheque. I examined it and then made the statement. My object was to clear myself and to tell them whose writing the cheque was. I knew the writing. It is Marsh's on the front, indorsed by Bogie." If I had wanted 10 sovereigns I could have got them from a publican with whom I spend my money.

  LOUIE ROBERSON (prisoner's wife). I live at 3a, Effie Place, Wal-ham Green. I remember April 1 because it was Boat Race day and my sister was confined the previous Thursday. I told the detective when he came where my husband had been that day. I said from 11 to 1 I did not know where he had been, that he came in after that and never went out again that day. He went to bed about three o'clock and stayed there. Several relatives came in and saw him there.

Cross-examined. My two aunts who came in are not here. They are in service and are very busy. I remember April 1. I do not know where my husband was on March 23 nor April 7 nor April 23. I have been terribly upset: I do not remember these dates. On April 1 I said to my husband, "Why don't you go and see the Boat Race?" He had been drinking for some time. I know Marsh, but

not "Bogie." I knew my husband had an account at Harrods. I do not know what state it was in in August last. My husband was not wanting money at this time because money was coming to him. We had to sell our home for the rent.

Re-examined. I sold some things to raise money. I had furniture or other valuables that I could have realised if I had wanted.

  LEONARD THOMAS HARBOUR . On April 1 in the morning I was at business. I usually go for a stroll on Saturday afternoons. I remember Boat Race day. I left home about 2.30 and got back about five. I was celebrating the birth of a child and I have no recollection of what happened that day. I did not call anywhere to my knowledge. I was not in a helpless condition, but getting on that way. I have no recollection of seeing my brother-in-law (prisoner) that day.

Verdict, Guilty of uttering.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at this court on November 17, 1902, in the name of Walter Roberson.

Warder REYNOLDS, Brixton Prison. On November 17, 1902, prisoner was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour for receiving stolen property and upon other charges. Forgery was one of them.

  ALBERT CHATT , recalled. Prisoner pleaded guilty to receiving stolen property; the forgery charge was not proceeded with. When liberated he was employed at a ladies' club at Knightsbridge; they gave him a very good character. I do not think prisoner would be here to-day if it had not been for Marsh and "Bogie." We have endeavoured to arrest them, but there is only prisoner's evidence against them, There had been a number of these cheques forged and uttered in a similar way, but we have not been able to find the boys. Prisoner has been giving way to drink.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.

(Friday, June 30.)

 

  McGAN, John (39, labourer), was indicted for and charged on the coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of   Paul Zdanowitz.

Mr. E. C. P. Boyd prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

  RICHARD ALEXANDER , shoeblack. I have my pitch at the Railway Approach, near London Bridge Station. About half-past seven a.m. on June 16, I saw the prisoner go up to Zdanowitz and strike him twice, knocking him down. A policeman came up; he asked Zdanowitz whether he would charge prisoner; Zdanowitz said no, because he had a wife and children, but he did not want him to keep on molesting him for money. The two then walked off in opposite directions.

Cross-examined. I did not see prisoner and Zdanowitz in conversation before the blows were struck. I did not see Zdanowitz strike prisoner; they fell together.

  ARTHUR FIELD . I am employed at Wilson's Wharf, where Zdano-witz worked. On this morning I had just got out of the Tube Station at London Bridge, when I saw Zdanowitz with others over the road. Zdanowitz called to me and I went across; he said, "Field, get a policeman." I said, "What for?"; before he could reply prisoner said, "I'll give you policeman," and made to strike Zdanowitz; I got between them to prevent him, and Zdanowitz and I fell to the ground. Prisoner went away and came back with a policeman; he told the policeman that he and Zdanowitz had been fighting. At this time I did not notice much the matter with Zdanowitz, except that he was agitated and shivering. We went to our work at the Wharf. About 8.30 Zdanowitz got bad; his face went black and blue and his throat was very much swollen. He went off to the hospital.

Cross-examined. Zdanowitz and I were just at the corner of the kerb, and we slipped off the kerb into the road.

Police-constable   CHARLES JOHNSON , 297 M. I saw a small crowd just opposite the Tube station and went up to it. Prisoner said to me, "You are wanted there"; Zdanowitz, who had just got up from the ground, was very excited and trembling; he said, "This man (prisoner) has just hit me and pulled me over in the road "; I asked him if he was hurt; he said "No"; I said, "Do you want to give the man in charge?" He said, "No, I do not want to have anything to do with him"; he said that prisoner had often stopped him in the street asking for money. As the men knew each other and there was no charge, I took no further steps and they went away.

  FRANK MARTIN , superintendent of Wilson's Wharf, said that about 8.30 he met Zdanowitz in Tooley Street, going to the hospital; he was very black in the face and his neck very much swollen.

  GEORGE HERBERT HUNT , house physician at Guy's Hospital. I saw Zdanowitz about 11; he was very blue in the face and very short of breath; I treated him and he improved for a time; later on he collapsed, and he died on the following morning. At the post-mortem examination we found an aneurism of the aorta, which was adherent to the vein near it; the partition between the two had given way. The violent excitement of a blow or a fall might cause that rupture. Deceased was about 60 years old.

Cross-examined. I found no bruises on deceased; only a very slight graze of the skin on the left ear. A blow which would knock the man down would certainly have left a bruise.

Mr. Justice Darling suggested that upon this evidence the jury could hardly be expected to find prisoner guilty of manslaughter, as the rupture might have been caused when deceased and Field fell together. Mr. Boyd agreed, and the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty; a similar verdict was returned on an indictment for causing grievous bodily harm.

 

  MURPHY, Margaret (38, flower-seller), was indicted for and charged on the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of   Gertrude Elizabeth Murphy.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Stanley Crawford defended (at the request of the court).

  ALICE MURPHY . I lived with prisoner (my mother) at 60, Ely Place, Shoreditch; father is dead. We had two rooms. I slept with my baby-sister Gertrude, seven months old. On the morning of April 20, about eight o'clock, mother came into my room and took baby. Ten minutes later my sister Margaret came in with baby; there was a lot of white stuff coming from its mouth. I went into mother's room and found her lying on the bed. unconscious; on the table was a bottle of spirits of salts (produced).

Cross-examined. There were six children altogether. One sister is in service; my brother Michael goes to work, but is not in regular employment. Mother had been fined for not sending me to school; she had got into arrears with the rent and the landlord had threatened to put her things into the street. She was always very kind to us children and very fond of baby. She was a sober woman. We have had at times to go short of food.

  MARGARET MURPHY corroborated.

  HENRY BENNETT , oilman, Hoxton Street, deposed to selling to prisoner on the early morning of April 20 a pennyworth of spirits of salts in the bottle produced, which he labelled "poisonous."

Dr. ALBAN DIXON, 176, Hoxton Street. About 8.30 a.m. on April 20 I went to 60, Ely Place. Prisoner was lying on the bed unconscious; the baby was crying; its' lips, in and out, were blistered and burnt and covered with froth; this would be caused by spirits of salts. I sent the baby and prisoner to the infirmary. The home was a very poor one indeed.

  GEORGE ERNEST FROGGATT , medical superintendent of Shoreditch Infirmary. Prisoner and the baby were admitted about 9 a.m. on April 20; both were suffering from corrosive acid poisoning and the baby died on April 22; it had been very poorly nourished; it weighed only two-fifths of the normal weight. Prisoner was suffering severely from corrosive acid poisoning; she remained in the infirmary until June 24; she is now quite recovered.

To the Court. While under my observation prisoner was very ill and depressed, but I should say that she was in her right mind; she showed no signs of hysteria.

Detective-inspector   WILLIAM BOWMAN , G Division, proved arresting prisoner, who said, in reply to the formal charge, "That is right; I will not say anything."

(Defence.)

  Dr. SULLIVAN , medical officer, Holloway Prison, who had had prisoner under observation since June 24, was called in support of the defence of insanity, but his "considered opinion" was that prisoner was not insane at the time of the act, though she was to some extent emotionally unbalanced as the result of mental stress and the influence of monthly periods.

Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.

Mr. Justice Darling pronounced sentence of death, but stated that the jury's recommendation would be supported in every way by himself, and he had no doubt would receive the consideration to which in his judgment it was most strongly entitled.

 

  TITLER, William (32, milkman) , feloniously wounding   George William Davis with intent to murder him; second count, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Muir. Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. Swann defended.

  GEORGE WILLIAM DAVIS . I am licensee of the "Baker and Basket," Ormside Street, Old Kent Road. I have been married nearly seven years. I have known prisoner about 12 months. On May 26 my wife left me; she came back on the 29th and confessed that she had been away with prisoner. That night prisoner came and asked to speak to me. I refused to speak to him and he was turned out of the house. On June 12, about five p.m., I was alone in the bar-parlour, when prisoner came into the bar; I did not recognise him; he had shaved off his moustache, wore blue spectacles, and had his cap over his eyes. He called for a glass of ale; directly I had served him I recognised him. I rushed into the parlour and told my wife I thought there would be trouble; prisoner lifted the counter-flap and rushed into the parlour. I seized him and we both fell on the stairs; I heard two pistol reports and felt a shot and I dropped. Prisoner rushed up the stairs; I got up and followed and there was a struggle in the bedroom, where another shot was fired. The potman came to my assistance and took the pistol from prisoner. The police came in; prisoner was arrested and I was taken to the hospital.

Cross-examined. I was not aware before May 29 that prisoner and my wife were unduly intimate; I do not know that they were unduly intimate before that date and June 12; I do not know that my wife wanted to go away with him. I have heard that prisoner attempted to commit suicide. He made no attempt to strike me or to shoot me until I tried to stop him from going up the stairs. I believe his intention was to shoot my wife and afterwards to shoot himself.

  HERBERT WALLACE , the potman, spoke to assisting Davis and taking the revolver from prisoner.

Mrs. ALICE MARY DAVIS. On May 26 I left my husband and went away with prisoner; I returned home on the 29th; that evening I saw prisoner when he came in, but I did not speak to him. I next saw him on the night of the shooting.

Cross-examined. Prisoner appears to be very fond of me; he has told me that if I would not go away with him he would kill me and that life was not worth living without me.

Sergeant   ALBERT BARRETT , 118 P. On June 12 J was called to the public-house. Davis was bleeding from a wound in the neck. Wallace gave me the revolver, which he said he had taken from prisoner. Prisoner said to me, "All right I did it, guv'nor; I will go quietly; I have had my revenge." To Davis he said, "You dirty, rotten bastard.

"He told me that he had bought the revolver and cartridges on June 8. On the way to the station he handed me the following written statement: "June 9. To all it may concern. I, the undersigned, wish it to be clearly understood that no blame is attached to any relation whatever for this terrible act which I am about to commit. The sole reason is brought about by a man named Davis, whose wife I dearly love and long for, he well knowing the fact, and also being the instigation of my being fond of her. I have told him distinctly what would surely happen if ever he tried to stop me seeing her, especially after telling me twice to take her away, which I did, and the result was after giving her all I had she left e to face the world alone.

I hope all will forgive me, but I am too full to bear the terrible feeling any longer; for one I loved has lived with me and I was happy; now she has parted with me in life she must unite with me in death." At the station, in answer to the charge, prisoner said, "I never intended to murder; I only intended to frighten him; if I had wanted to murder him I could have murdered him long ago." On prisoner I found a gun license dated May 29.

Inspector   BAGSTER , P Division. The revolver was loaded in two chambers and had four spent cartridges.

  ROBERT N. FORDER , medical superintendent, Seamen's Hospital, Greenwich. Davis was brought in on June 12. He had a bullet-wound on the left side of the head, an inch and a half behind the ear; I extracted the bullet which had passed backwards close to the bone. Davis was discharged from hospital on June 20. I think he will completely recover.

Cross-examined. There was nothing to indicate whether the shot was accidental or intentional.

Verdict, Guilty of wounding with intent to murder.

Sentence, 10 years' penal servitude.

 

  POWER, John Flateau (54), and   POWER, Rose Flateau (47), feloniously threatening to accuse   William Schofield Cronshaw of an infamous crime, with intent to extort money from him.

Sir Edward Clarke, K.C., and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. Muir appeared for prisoners.

Against John F. Power the prosecution offered no evidence and a verdict of Not Guilty was returned. Rose F. Power pleaded guilty, and was released on her own recognisances in £100 to come up for judgment if called upon.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Friday, June 30.)

 

  CLARKE, James (27, bricklayer), pleaded guilty of feloniously wounding   William Reedman, with intent to resist the lawful apprehension of himself the said J. Clarke, and of wounding him with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at Maidstone on June 26, 1907.

Medical evidence was given that Reedman would not be fit for duty for some months, the injuries being of a very serious nature. There being a committal against prisoner for a burglary committed at Totteridge, Herts, he elected that this should be taken into consideration with his sentence. On June 26, 1907, he had received five years' penal servitude for the burglary, and had only been released in March of this year. Other convictions were proved.

Sentence, Seven years' penal servitude.

 

  VINCENT, Richard (32, labourer),   BOWEN, Walter (29, labourer), and   HUMPHREYS, John (25, stonemason), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the warehouse of   the Co-operative Society, Limited, and stealing therein 26 yards of cloth and two suits of clothes, their goods, and VINCENT also of breaking and entering the shop of   Herbert Downes and stealing therein 760 lb. of tea and other articles, his goods, and of stealing two geldings, a set of harness, and other articles, his goods.

Vincent confessed to a conviction of felony at the County of London Sessions on October 13, 1908; Bowen to a conviction of flony at this court on February 8, 1904; Humphreys to a conviction of felony at the Clerkenwell Sessions on December 22, 1903. As to Vincent, 10 previous convictions were proved against him since 1893; Humphreys, 10 previous convictions since 1894; Bowen, four previous convictions. They were stated to be three of the most dangerous men the police had to deal with in the East-End of London.

Sentence (each), Five years' penal servitude.

 

  O'BRIEN, John (44, porter), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, the endorsement on a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £2 8s. 7d., with intent to defraud; embezzling £2 8s. 7d. and 19s. 6d., received by him for and on account of   Mary Taylor, his employer.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at Bow Street Police Court on February 11, 1907, in the name of John Eastwick. Two other convictions were proved. He had refused all information as to himself. He was stated to be an associate of thieves.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

 

  ORMES, George, otherwise Going (28, barman),   DOUGLAS, Edward (48, dealer), and   KEYSELL, Frederick (28, labourer) , all stealing 22 bottles of whisky and two bottles of brandy, the goods of   Richard Hawkins, the master of Ormes, and feloniously receiving the same; Ormes conspiring and agreeing with   Frederick Percy Ashlin by false and fraudulent representation to induce and persuade   Frederick William Press to take the said Going into his employment as a head barman and to falsely pretend to the said F. W. Press that Going had been hired as a servant to Ashlin; Ormes stealing 24 bottles of brandy and other articles, the goods of the said F. W. Press, his master.

Orines pleaded guilty to the first and second indictments. The third indictment was not proceeded with, and he was formally acquitted. He had no previous conviction against him.

Sentence, On the first indictment 12 months' hard labour, on the second indictment three months' without hard labour; to run concurrently.

(For the trial of Douglas and Keysell, see p. 342).

 

  HAMILTON, Thomas (26, engineer) , stealing one bicycle, the goods of   Gwendoline Roome.

Mr. Davies prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

  GWENDOLINE ROOME , 35, Ickburgh Road, Upper Clapton. I am aged 13. At about 1.40 p.m. on May 24 I came home from school on my bicycle, which I left against the hedge in the front garden. Returning for it about 10 minutes later I found it gone. Its value was about £6 10s. I gave information to the police. I have not seen it since.

Cross-examined. You cannot see into the garden from the outside. I placed my machine about a yard in from the gate.

  MARGARET WEBB , 33, Ickburgh Road. At 2 p.m. on May 24 I was coming up my road towards home when I saw prisoner running towards me on the same side. He opened the gate of No. 35 with some little trouble; I was then about five doors away. He went in and came out with the bicycle, which I knew belonged to Miss Roome. He got on it and rode down the road. I went and told Miss Roome. I had a good opportunity of seeing prisoner's face. On May 29 I saw him with a lady's bicycle in Clapton Passage. I spoke to father, who was with me, and he went up to him and said, "Is that your bicycle?" He said, "It's my young lady's." I said to him, "Did not you steal a bicycle from Ickburgh Road?" and he said, "This is not the bicycle from Ickburgh Road." Father asked him to go to the police station to verify it and he said, "I am not going to the police station," lifted the bicycle and threw it at my father. He then ran down the road and father ran after him, calling out, "Stop, thief!" I next saw him at the police station. I am quite certain that prisoner is the man I saw take the bicycle. On May 24 he was wearing the same clothes as he was wearing on the 29th, and as he is wearing now. The trousers were of the same stuff as the coat. He had black canvas and rubber shoes on on both occasions.

Cross-examined. I had never seen him before May 24. He "nipped" up the bicycle as quickly as he could and then went with it the same way as he had come. On May 29 I recognised him by his suit, his shoes, and the fact that he had a lady's bicycle with him, but I saw enough of his face on the 24th to be able to swear to it, and I identified him by that as well. I had an opportunity of seeing his face twice, once when he went in and once when he came out. The bicycle that he had on the 29th was not Miss Roome's. My father did not ask him if he had stolen it from Ickburgh Road. On my father asking him to come to the police-station he did not say, "Yes, if you will come with me first to Clarence Road, I will come back with you and go to

the station." Father did not say, "No, come with me at once," and he did not say, "Who are you?"Father did not catch hold of the bicycle, and prisoner did not try to pull it from him. Father did not strike him in the mouth with a stick. It is true father had a stick.

  GEORGE SUTTON , housekeeper, Clarence Mansions. I am a retired police-constable, and have been recalled for 21 days' service. About 8 p.m. on May 29 I was standing outside the mansions, which are about a mile and a half from Ickburgh Road, when I heard cries of "Stop! Hold him!" I saw prisoner running as fast as he could along the top of the square. I ran after him and shouted to a friend of mine who was outside the "Duke of Clarence" to stop him. Prisoner then doubled and ran down Clarence Mews. There was a mechanic turning a motor up, and I shouted to him to stop prisoner. The mechanic went up to him with a spanner, and prisoner stopped and picked up a large stone. Before he could recover himself I seized him and wrenched the stone out of his hand. He said, "I did not take it," and struggled. I twisted his hand behind his back, and then he came quietly to the station.

Cross-examined. I gave my evidence at the police-court as I have given it to-day; I cannot help the clerk not putting down that I said the prisoner took up a stone.

Detective   JAMES FORD . At 9.20 p.m. on May 29 I saw prisoner detained at Hackney Police Station. I told him I was a police officer, and should take him into custody for stealing a lady's bicycle from 35, Ickburgh Road, on May 24, about 2 p.m. He said, "Not me, guv'nor." I took him to the Stoke Newington Police Station, where he was charged, and he made no reply. I asked him how he had become possessed of the bicycle found on him, and he said, "It belongs to my young lady, Miss Hammond, at 64, Abbot's Road, E. Ham." His young lady does not live there; we cannot find to whom the bicycle belongs.

Cross-examined. Miss Roome's bicycle has not been found yet. I myself did not go to 64, Abbot's Road; the officer in charge of a case of unlawful-possession is not allowed to make inquiries; he was then charged with unlawful possession, but that charge was not dealt with.

Detective-sergeant   ERNEST BROOK , N Division. On May 29 I went to 64, Abbot's Road, when I saw Mrs. Frances Smith; I have never found a Miss Hammond. We have not been able to find the owner of the bicycle which prisoner had with him.

Cross-examined. I learnt on the morning of May 30 at the police-station that Frances Smith lives with prisoner at 8, Queensland Road, and that her mother lives at 64, Abbot's Road. Miss Smith gave me that information herself without my asking her. On that evening I went to 8, Queensland Road, where I saw her, and asked her about this bicycle that prisoner had been found with, and she said, "The bicycle belonged to me; I sent my young man yesterday to get it repaired. He took it away, and I have not seen it since." I never made any inquiry as to whether she ever had a bicycle.

Re-examined. Miss Smith has never come to claim the bicycle as far as I know.

  JAMES FORD , recalled. The claim would be made to the officer in charge of the station, who would acquaint me. I have heard of no such claim. 8, Queen's Road, is a common lodging-house.

Miss ROOME, recalled, stated that the bicycle which prisoner had was not hers.

(Defence.)

  THOMAS HAMILTON (prisoner, on oath). I have been living at 8, Queensland Road, with Frances Hill. My real name if "Brace Gunn"; I have been known as Thomas Hamilton for two years. I did not steal Miss Roome's bicycle on May 24. I stayed in bed at 8, Queensland Road, until between 5 and 6 p.m.; my young lady was indoors the whole day; I could not go out as a lot of clothes were stolen from me, including my jacket ana vest. In the evening I sent Frances to my mother to get a jacket and vest that belonged to me. On her return we went to a picture palace. I remember seeing a Mrs. Chamberlain at Queensland Road that evening. On May 29 I was in Clapton Passage with a bicycle which belonged to Frances; I was going to take it to a bicycle maker in Clarence Road to have it repaired. A man stopped me and said, "You stole this bicycle from Ickburgh Road." I said, "No, it does not come from Ickburgh Road; it belongs to my young lady." He said, "Will you come with me to the station and verify the statement?"I said, "Yes, if you will come with me to Clarence Road first; I'm going to have this bicycle repaired; I will leave it at the cycle maker's and come back with you." He then said he wanted me to come to the station at once for stealing the bicycle. I said I did not know anything about it and went to push the bicycle along, when he caught hold of it. As I went to pull it away he struck me in the mouth with a brown walking-stick he had. I showed my mouth and handkerchief all smothered in blood at Hackney Station. I then said, "If you won't let my bicycle go I will soon fetch someone to make you." I then ran to see if I could find a policeman. As I turned into Clarence Mews I saw a man, who said, "Come here." I was going up to him, when Sutton caught hold of me. The suit of clothes I have on now I bought of a tailor named "Our Joe Lyons" at 218, Mile End Road, on May 26. On the day I was arrested 1 was wearing indiarubber and black cloth shoes, which I had bought at a shop exactly opposite Clarence Road in Mare Street on May 27.

Cross-examined. I told the magistrate about Webb making my mouth bleed. I did not throw the bicycle at him. I ran away in order to fetch a policeman. I did not hear cries of "Stop thief!" behind me. The reason why I went down Clarence Mews was because I saw a policeman there; it was not because I saw a man coming towards me. Sutton is telling a lie when he says I took up a stone; every word about that is untrue. I did nothing all day on May 24; about 14 or 15 of us, including Mrs. Chamberlain, were in the back kitchen. It was Mrs. Chamberlain's birthday and we were all keeping it up. I lost my clothes on the 23rd.

  SIDNEY WEBB was here interposed by the Court. He corroborated the evidence given by Margaret Webb and added: At the station prisoner made a statement to the effect that I hit him in the face with a stick, which I at once denied. There were no marks whatever on his face.

Cross-examined. I had a stick with me. I had absolutely no reason for striking him.

  FRANCES SMITH . I was living with prisoner at 8, Queensland Road. Mrs. Chamberlain also lives there with her husband. Her birthday was on May 24 and she, I, prisoner and Mr. Chamberlain with others were in the kitchen celebrating it. Prisoner and I did not go out that day until about 5 or 6 p.m. I stopped at home to do the washing. We had our clothes stolen and I washed a shirt, which he put on when it was dry. We went out in the evening. It was only our underclothes and collars and things like that that were stolen. When we went in the evening he was wearing a dark blue suit, which he had had far some time.

Mr. Purcell stated that after the evidence of this witness he did not think it right to persist in the defence, and prisoner, having taken his advice, pleaded guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at the North London Police Court on July 22, 1909, in the name of Bruce Gunn; five other convictions for which he had received short sentences were proved against him. In 1899 he had been sent to an industrial school. Police evidence refuted prisoner's statements as to Sidney Webb having struck him in the mouth. It was urged on prisoner's behalf that there was no conviction between 1905 and 1908. He was never known to have done any work.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour, the Recorder stating that the sentence would have been more severe had prisoner not withdrawn his plea.

 

  RUSSELL, Albert Edward (34, oilman) , stealing a quantity of eggs and butter, the goods of   Emerton's, Limited; stealing three bundles of linen, the goods of   the Wood Green and Hornsey Laundry, Limited.

The second indictment was proceeded with.

  ALBERT RADLEY . On April 29 I was in charge of a van containing laundry in Ridge Road, Hornsey. I left it about four minutes, and on my return a lad made a statement to me, in consequence of which I spoke to a policeman. I saw a man running away and I followed him, but lost sight of him. I saw two parcels of my laundry at the corner of Gladwell Road. The value of the linen is about £4. I did not identify the man I saw running away.

  JOHN THURBBOOK . About 3.15 p.m. on April 29 I was in Ridge Road when I saw prisoner get into a van. He got out with some bundles

in a basket and a bundle over his back. He ran along Ridge Road and down Gladwell Road, at the bottom of which he dropped the basket. I chased him and lost sight of him. On June 21 I identified him at Highgate Police Station.

  HENRY BANNISTER . About 3.20 p.m. I was in Princess Park when I saw prisoner running down the road with two or three bundles under his arm and a parcel in a basket. Two or three minutes after a constable and Thurbrook came running after him. I ha dan opportunity of seeing his face; he was about two or three yards away from me. On June 21 I identified him at the Highgate Police Station.

Police-constable   ERNEST ROBERTS , 168 Y. I arrested prisoner in Ridge Road after having followed him from the Broadway, Crouch End; he had a basket on his arm. I asked him whom he was employed by and he replied, "No one; I work for myself." I asked him what he had in the basket and he said, "Eggs." I asked him where he had got them from and he said, "I bought them from a man in Hornsey Lane—a dealer." I then told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of being in the unlawful possession of them. I took him to the station where he was charged with that. He was remanded for a week. In the meantime he was identified by the witnesses in this case for stealing the linen and also by another witness as regards these eggs.

Police-sergeant   ALFRED GROVE , Y Division. I was present when Bannister and Thurbrook identified prisoner on June 21; they did so without hesitation from eight men of similar height and description.

Prisoner, called upon for his defence, handed a statement to the Court, which was read. In it he explained how he had become possessed of the eggs which had been found in his possession when arrested, and stated, as regards the indictment on which he was then charged that at the time he was supposed to have stolen the linen he was helping his brother to pack on the occasion of his moving from a provision shop in Stoke Newington; that having a stiff toe he could not have outrun his pursuers, and that it was a case of mistaken identity; he added that he had previously borne a good character and that the reason he had no settled abode was that he was separated from his wife, from whom he wished to conceal his address.

Verdict, Guilty.

The indictment relating to the eggs was not proceeded with and was allowed to remain on the file.

It was stated that prisoner had refused to give any information about himself; he had once been an oilman, but having taken up street betting he had got into low water. Nothing was known against him.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

(BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.)

(Friday, June 30.)

 

  RICHARDS, Thomas James,   FREED, Sam (23, tailor), and   FREED, Hyman (18, draper's assistant), stealing and receiving six boxes and a quantity of dress trimmings, the goods of   W. Williams and Son, Limited, the masters of Richards.

Richards and Hyman Freed pleaded guilty. No evidence was offered against Sam Freed, and the Jury found him Not guilty.

Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K.C., and Mr. L. Green appeared for Hyman Freed.

Evidence was called to show that Hyman Freed had been a respectable honest man.

Sentence, Hyman Freed, Four months' imprisonment, second division. Judgment on Richards was postponed till next Sessions.

 

  STONE, John (37, clerk) , obtaining by false pretences from   Thomas Andrews two hundredweight in weight of mixed caramels and other articles, the goods of   Nathan Baras Walters, from   William Mason, a quantity of confectionery, the goods of   Simon Flatto, and from   Henry Joseph Barnes five hundredweight in weight of confectionery, the goods of   Thomas Handyside Limited, in each case with intent to defraud: attempting to obtain by false pretences from   Frederick Charles Wimble a quantity of chocolate, the goods of   F. L. Cailler; from   Walter George Scott a quantity of chocolate, the goods of   Jean Bear, and from   Frederick Nettleton one ton of cocoa shell powder, the goods of   Frederick Nettleton and others; (forging and uttering and publishing as true a certain writing purporting to be a business reference from   Jacob Mehlburg, with intent to defraud).

Mr. Walter Frampton and Mr. Roome prosecuted; Mr. E. H. Coumbe defended.

Mr. Coumbe objected to the indictment as charging a number of separate misdemeanours followed by two counts charging forgery and uttering; the prosecution should be put to election as to which count they go upon.

Judge Rentoul said that he had some doubt as to including the last two counts; evidence of similar acts of obtaining by false pretences could always be given even where not a part of the indictment; the first eight counts were unobjectionable.

The last two counts were struck out.

  FREDERICK CHARLES WIMBLE , assistant manager to F. L. Cailler, 4, Upper Thames Street. On March 6, 1911, I received letter (produced) from "J. Stone, tobacconist and confectioner, 69, Allen Road, Stoke Newington": "Dear Sir,—I have for some time dealt with Nestlé and Co.," ordering a quantity of sweets and giving reference to Bond and Co., 110, Matthias Road, and Bloom Stores, Brick Lane. I wrote the letter (produced) of March 11, stating that on receipt of cheque the goods would be forwarded. On March 13 prisoner telephoned, saying that he was surprised at receiving a pro forma invoice, and asking if the references were satisfactory. I told him the references were satisfactory, but they were not in our

trade, and as it was his first transaction we should prefer to have a cheque. He replied: "There is no difficulty about that. I will send you a cheque, but I must have the goods on Wednesday morning without fail." That was on Monday at 11 a.m. After 4 p.m. I received letter (produced), post-marked "2.15 p.m.," containing cheque for £10 1s. 6d. The following morning I had the cheque specially presented; it came back dishonoured. I wrote expressing surprise and stating that on receipt of the cash the goods would be forwarded. I heard nothing further from the prisoner.

Cross-examined. My firm is a member of the Confectioners' Alliance, whose solicitors appeared at the police-court. We did not prosecute, but I appeared as a witness.

  WALTER GEORGE SCOTT , chief clerk, chocolate department, Nestlé's Anglo-Swiss Milk Company, owned by Jean Bear. On March 6, 1911, I received letter produced from prisoner ordering goods and referring to Bond and Co. and the Bloom Stores; I forwarded pro forma invoices of £7 1s. 9d.; prisoner sent cheque, which was returned marked "R/D." I wrote expressing surprise and heard nothing further. I did not part with the goods.

  NATHAN BARAS WALTERS , 122, High Street, Poplar, manufacturing confectioner. On March 15 I received letter produced from prisoner ordering sweets to the value of £5 11s., which I sent with invoice, when the carman brought me cheque produced, which has been returned marked "R/D." I informed prisoner, who wrote that it was owing to a cheque of £8 9s. 10d. paid into his account being dishonoured and stating he would write when we could present it again. I have not been paid.

  THOMAS ANDREWS , carman to N. B. Walters and Co. corroborated.

  HENRY HANDTSIDE , managing director of Thomas Handyside, Limited, 166 and 167, Holloway Road, manufacturing confectioners. On April 3 I received letter produced from prisoner ordering goods. I wrote with invoice stating the goods would be delivered for cash, on April 6 sent them by my carman and received cheque for £4 14s. 6d. produced, which has been returned marked "R/D." I informed prisoner, applying for the money and received no answer.

  HENRY JOSH. BARNES , carman to Handyside, corroborated.

  SIMON FLATTO , trading as the Anglo-Russian Confectionery Company, received similar order, sent goods and received cheque for £5 2s. 4d., which was returned marked "R/D."

  WILLIAM MASON , carman, corroborated.

  FREDERICK NETTLETON , of Nettleton and Morris, 8, Colonial Avenue, E.C., confectionery merchant. On April 19 my firm issued a circular recommending cocoa shell powder to confectionery manufacturers; it is an article only of use to manufacturers. On April 24 I received letter from prisoner asking for quotation, which we sent, and on May 2 received letter produced ordering one ton and giving references to Bond and Co. and to J. Mehlburg, of 193, Whitechapel Road (to whom we had sent a circular). I wrote to both references and received

letter produced purporting to come from J. Mehlburg stating that prisoner was good for £20 credit.

Mr. Coumbe objected to the evidence as embarrassing to the prisoner and as tending to bring in the charge of forgery.

Judge Rentoul held that this evidence was admissible as evidence of false pretences.

(Examination continued.) I believe the letter from Mehlburg to be genuine, but after making other inquiries wrote prisoner offering to send the goods on receipt of cash. On March 17 I received letter with cheque for £10 (produced), which was paid into my bank and returned marked "R/D." I paid the cheque in again with the same result. I wrote prisoner asking for an explanation, but received no reply.

Cross-examined. I do not know J. Mehlburg and have had no dealings with him; my circular was sent to him as his name appeared in a list of confectioners.

  JACOB MEHLBURG , 193, Whitechapel Road, confectioner. I have known prisoner seven or eight years; he was a clerk to a solicitor and used to collect money and write letters for me. About seven or eight months ago he opened at Allen Road and had £3 worth of goods from me for which he paid. On Saturday, March 11, he asked me to change a cheque for £10 for him. I said if he would call on Monday morning if I had the change I would do so. On the Monday he called, but I had not the money. He said could I get the bank to change it. I said no, he had better open a small banking account. I then introduced prisoner to the London Provincial Bank, Whitechapel Road, where he opened an account and received a cheque book. Prisoner used to call on me once or twice a fortnight. I do not know Nettleton and Morris, have never written to them or authorised anyone to do so. I did not write letter produced or ask anyone to write it for me. It is written on my notepaper.

Cross-examined. I have been 11 months at 193, Whitechapel Road, and formerly carried on a confectioner's business at 14, Vallance Road. My wife and family assist in the business when I am out. I am an Austrian and have been 12 years in England. I occasionally deal in job lines in confectionery; I have bought three lots from prisoner for which I produce receipts: April 8, £9; March 31, £6 12s.; March 21, £8 0s. 3d. I did not buy goods to value of £4 9s. 8d. from prisoner in May. I have had no dispute with the Confectioners' Alliance. I had no occasion to buy through the prisoner from Nestlé or Cailler—I have bought direct from those firms. Cocoa shell powder is of no use to me, as I do not manufacture. I do not know what it is good for. I never told prisoner I would buy some from him. I take about £140 a week in my business. I deal wholesale, buying from manufacturers and supplying small shops. I do not owe prisoner any money for goods supplied. I do not know who wrote the letter to Nettleton produced. Prisoner may have written letters for me years ago. I always sign my letters myself.

Re-examined. Prisoner has visited me at Vallance Road. Letter produced is written on Vallance Road notepaper and is signed, "J.

Mehlburg." I always sign "Jacob Mehlburg." It is not my brother's or my traveller's writing.

  DAVID WETTMAN , Wettman and Co., 19, Osborn Street, E., wholesale confectioners. In May last I received an order from a Mr. J. Stone for 4 cwt. of sweets, coming to £4 19s. 6d. I have mislaid the order. They were to be delivered to his place, Allen Road, Stoke Newington. My carman took them and brought back a cheque for the amount of the bill. This is it, signed J. Stone, and dated May 12. I paid it into my account, and it was returned. I went to see the prisoner, and his wife told me to pay the cheque in again, the money was there. I paid it in again, and it was returned. Prisoner kept a little shop; I did not see any of my stock there. I have received nothing for the goods. Mr. Coumbe said he did not challenge any of the deliveries.

  JULIUS EARET , J. Karet and Co., 38, Bridge Street, Mile End, wholesale confectioners and manufacturers. We received this latter, dated March 21, from J. Stone, Allen Road, Stoke Newington: "I have been dealing with the British Confectionery Company, and on recommendation wish to give you a trial. Please forward 2 cwt. of French nougat, 1 cwt. of chocolate nougat, 1 cwt. of nougat cubes, 1 cwt. of Jap desserts. Please advise when you are delivering." I told my clerk to book the order, and mark it "C.O.D." I delivered the goods on March 23. They came to £4 6s. The carman brought the goods back as there was no cash to meet them. On March 24 I received this letter from Stone: "Dear Sirs,—I regret I was not in when goods arrived. Kindly deliver to-morrow, Saturday, and oblige." I sent them, and the carman brought back a cheque on the London and Provincial Bank, Whitechapel, for £4 6s., signed "J. Stone." I paid it into my account, and it was dishonoured. I went to the prisoner's place and saw a woman I believe to be Mrs. Stone; she insulted me. I have never had my money nor the goods back. It was a very little shop there.

  RICHARD WILLIAM HUMPHREY , clerk to London and Provincial Bank, Whitechapel Road. We have a customer named Jacob Mehlberg. On March 13 last he brought Stone to the bank. Prisoner opened an account with a cheque for £10 13s. 9d., and signed the signature book. These cheques (Exhibits 1, 5 to 13) are all signed by Stone. The cheque prisoner opened the account with was returned dishonoured; it has not been paid. The cheque was never paid in again. Our cheque-book was not returned; we applied for it.

  WALTER FREDERICK SISMAN , clerk to London and Provincial Bank, Limited, 167, Whitechapel Road. I produce a certificated copy of the account of J. Stone, Allen Road, Stoke Newington. It was opened on March 13 by a payment in of a cheque for £10 13s. 9d., and a cheque-book containing 24 cheques was handed out on that day to Stone. The account is debited with 2s. for it. The cheque for £10 13s. 9d. was returned dishonoured on March 17. On that date a cash payment was made of £2. A cheque was drawn against that on the 20th for £1 10s. The next payment into that account was on March 20 by a cheque for £8 19s. 10d. It was returned dishonoured

on the 24th. It was paid in again on the 24th, and returned again dishonoured on the 28th. That was the last payment in. The only effective payment in was £2. At the last there was 6d. to the credit. On March 14 there was a cheque in favour of Cailler's British Agency, resented for payment for £16 1s. 8d., which was dishonoured. On the 15th one in favour of Nestlé's for £7 1s. 9d. There were sixteen other cheques presented for payment in favour of different people, all of which were dishonoured because of no funds to meet them. There was an effective payment into the bank to the credit of the account of £2, against "which cheques for £96 13s. 7d. were drawn. On April 3 a letter was written to Stone, asking him to close his account and return the unused cheques. They were not returned, so far as I know. The cheque-book contained 24 cheques; 19 were drawn.

Cross-examined. We should not hear whether any of these cheques had been taken up by him.

Detective-sergeant   ERNEST BROCK , M Division. I arrested prisoner on a warrant at 69, Allen Road, Stoke Newington, on May 23. I read it to him. He made no reply. He was charged and made no reply. I searched the premises. There was no telephone there. The telephone number on the billheads, "1212 Dalston," is at a public-house next door.

(Defence.)

  JOHN STONE (prisoner, on oath). I am 37 years old, and have been a solicitor's clerk practically all my life. Of late I have been managing clerk to Mr. G. Edgar Mew, practising in the East End. I first went to him in 1907, and left in September, 1910; his practice was not particularly successful, and he gave up. I then went to Mr. Richards, 1, Great James Street, Bedford Row, and was there for about six months. While with Mr. Mew I became acquainted with a Mr. Winfield. He wanted to sell a shop, and I bought it for £10. My wife looked after it. I was occupied in legal business right up to the time of my arrest. The confectionery business took from £7 to £10 a week gross at first, and then it fell off to about 30s. a week. At first I always paid spot cash for goods supplied for the business up to March this year. About the beginning of last March I was not in regular employment. I had known Mehlberg for years through doing legal business for him. He knew I had taken this shop. I told him I wanted to get further stock cheap, as the takings had gone down, and he said he could give me the names and addresses of firms where I could get cheap goods and credit, and give his name as a reference. I went with him to the bank and opened an account. Early in March I had a good deal of money owing to me from Mr. Nunn and Wilson's Electric Empires, Limited. Mr. Nunn is managing director of Wilson's Electric Empires. I have done a lot of work for him and for the company as secretary and confidential clerk. My belief in March was that I was going to be paid, and I should then have money. Cailler's and Nestlé's names were given to me by Mehlberg. He said to me, "If you pay

cash terms you get a good percentage, 10 or 12 1/2 per cent., and I can afford to give you a very small profit, and then can resell again and get my profit over you. If you give these first orders you can get a month's credit, and then you will get a certain amount of discount." This was in the middle of March. In consequence I wrote the letters to Cailler's and Nestlé's. The cheques to them were sent on the day I opened the account. I fully anticipated the cheque for £10 13s. 9d. being met. As to the £23, if I had received these goods I would then have arranged with Mehlberg to buy them at a profit, and I should have immediately paid that money into the bank. Even if my cheques had gone back I could have gone to the payees' banks on the following morning and have picked them up. I say that Mehlberg's denial of any such contract is a deliberate untruth. What I wrote to Cailler's is perfectly true, that I had for some time dealt with Nestlé's. I had not dealt direct with the firm, but with their goods. As regards Walters, Handysides and Flatto, when I knew the £10 13s. 9d. cheque had been dishonoured I saw Mr. Nunn, and he said, "You must hold that cheque over." I fully believed the cheque for £8 19s. 10d. would have been met. At that time I was expecting daily to receive £45, and acting on that belief I ordered these goods. As regards the other goods during March and April, Mehlberg had arranged to pay me, bat he did not do so promptly. I received some money from him, and paid current accounts. The cheques drawn to the Stoke Newington Borough Council and Metropolitan Water Board I tore up and paid cash instead, out of the moneys I received. If I had received sufficient cash from my debtors I should have picked up all these cheques and should have had a balance in hand as well. That was absolutely my intention from the beginning. The three firms dealt with in May were all well known to Mehlberg. He said to me, "You will get the goods from those people, I will buy them from you and you can pay them in to meet your cheques," which I was going to do. I let him have the goods I received from the Maple Confectionery Company. He owes me the money for them to this day.

(Saturday, July 1.)

  JOHN STONE (prisoner) recalled. On May 15 by a friendly arrangement a receiver on behalf of a debenture holder was appointed of Wilson Electric Empires, Limited. My claim was sent in then for £47 19s. 10d., of which £38 was a preferential claim for arrears of salary and admitted. Mr. Wilson is at Bath at present. The reference sent to Messrs. Nettleton and Morris came from Mr. Mehlberg. He requested me to write to them and order a ton of cocoa shell at the price quoted in a circular he gave me and he would give me a sovereign profit, the arrangement being that if I got that they would then give me credit and I could get five tons and he would be able to sell it. The letter from Mehlberg's looks like his brother's writing. I do not think he can write Englsh. I have written many letters for him and signed his name to them. Other people have done so as well. I wish to make

an offer to assign to a trustee, on behalf of the prosecutors' debts owing to me amounting roughly to about £72. I say the total of the goods I have had delivered to me is about £33 or £34. The thought never entered my mind of defrauding any one of these persons of their goods or their money.

Cross-examined. I have been a solicitor's clerk for 23 years and according to my circular the proprietor of a legal agency, but there was very little in it. I know from my legal experience that Criminal Courts will not listen to such a suggestion as I made as to paying these people, but it was a suggestion of mine. The evidence they have given (excepting Mehlberg) I agree is true as to my ordering the goods, but I do not say it is true they wanted cash for them. I left my cheque book at home signed, and if they asked for payment when delivering the goods they were to be asked if they would accept a cheque. I anticipated the delivery of the goods on the usual terms, one month. I say I had a perfect right to draw on the bank. Whether I had or not, unless there was money there to meet the cheques, is a matter of opinion. Many people draw cheques in anticipation of getting money in time to meet them: that is finance. This is a question of finance: I anticipated money. I did not wish the people to believe that money was at the bank at the time nor that I did not have a farthing there; I always had something. I never had more than £2 in the account. With the exception of that £2, against which 30s. was drawn a few days afterwards, and 2s. charged for a cheque book and two dishonoured cheques I received from Wilson and Nunn, I have unfortunately not paid a farthing into my account. When you asked whether when I applied to Messrs. Cailler and Nestlé for goods I mentioned that I was dealing with a rival house you are putting it very broadly. I said to Cailler's that I was dealing with Nestlé's and to Nestlés that I was dealing with Cailler's. Mr. Nunn used to call himself Wilson. I have known him for seven or eight years. He is an undischarged bankrupt. He obtained credit far over £20 without disclosing the fact, was prosecuted and acquitted. He brought an action for malicious prosecution, which he lost. He has not paid any of the costs. I was a witness and managing clerk to his solicitor. I knew his position early this year. I acted for him in a matter of rates. That is the gentleman whose cheque I was accepting to open an account at my bank on March 17. I certainly thought it was going to be met. It was not a shock to me when I found it dishonoured; I have had a good many dishonoured. Although it was that day I drew cheques for £16 to Cailler's and £7 to Nestlé's I had every wish to meet them.

Re-examined. Mr. Nunn has an action against the Bioscope Company still proceeding for breaches of agreement in which he claims £1,200. I know they made him an offer of £100 and costs, which he refused and then he brought the action for malicious prosecution.

Mr. Frampton. That action has been discontinued.

Mr. Coumbe. We do not know that. (Evidence continued.) Wilson has paid hundreds of pounds to big firms in the picture business, but his expenses were very heavy.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.

(Saturday, July 1.)

 

  SYME, John (39, clerk) , feloniously sending, knowing the contents thereof, a letter threatening to kill and murder   Alfred Reed.

Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Graham-Campbell, and Mr. Montague Shearman, jun., prosecuted.

(On June 28 prisoner applied for leave to call Mr. Winston Churchill (Home Secretary), Mr. John Burns (President of the Local Government Board), certain members of Parliament, Sir Edward Henry (Chief Commissioner of Police), and a number of members of the police force, alleging a conspiracy between the Home Office and the police authorities to prevent him obtaining justice. Mr. Justice Darling refused to order the attendance of these witnesses (except as to Chief Inspector Shervington), on the ground that the conspiracy alleged, even if proved, would afford no justification for the sending of a letter threatening to murder. His Lordship offered prisoner the services of counsel; prisoner said that he preferred to conduct his own defence).

  ARTHUR PETERS , in the service of the Parliamentary Labour Party, 28, Victoria Street, S.W., proved the receipt of Exhibits 1 and 2, which he handed to Mr. MacDonald.

  JAMES RAMSAY MACDONALD , M.P., Secretary of the Parliamentary Labour Party. On June 13 I received from Peters Exhibit 2; that is a letter from prisoner dated June 2, relating to his grievances in respect of his dismissal from the Metropolitan Police Force, and asking the assistance of the Labour Party in the House of Common's to secure an inquiry into the case. It contained the following passage: "Mr. Churchill has intimated to several members of Parliament that he knows I am in the right and Sir Edward Henry wrong, but he refuses any redress except an acceptance by me of Sir Edward's unjust punishment. London is now filled with visitors, and I intend exposing Mr. Churchill's injustice, and, if necessary, will compel Mr. Churchill, as I did on a previous occasion, to arrest me. If rumour be true a certain Cabinet Minister shot a political opponent in Paris some months ago. Must I kill my opponent with my own hand in order to force a crisis? I can assure you I am not afraid to face the consequences of even such an act, and would cheerfully allow my fellow-countrymen to decide on my justifiable provocation." On July 14 I replied by Exhibit 4, in which I said: "I am very sorry you put the threat against Churchill in your letter. You put me in a position in which

I was compelled to inform him. Pray do not think of such a thing. Be a man through it all. You and I are Scotch and of a calm, rational people who do not kill but argue in order to get our wrongs redressed. Buck up and put the devil behind you." I then received the letter the subject of this indictment (Exhibit 1), dated June 15; prisoner, after thanking me for my "kindly meant advice," proceeds: "Mr. Churchill need not fear for his own skin. I had no intention of touching him, because I have too healthy a contempt for a coward who would stab in the back as he has done. I have no desire to do anything wrong, and in spite of my two years' worry and trial I am perfectly cool and do not write in any impulsive or rash temper. Those who know me can assure you of this. I am, however, firmly resolved to overthrow this cursed officialdom, which is slowly ruining our country, and I repeat now calmly and with full knowledge of the consequence to myself that if the members of Parliament will not do their duty, and if I am unable by any other legal means to obtain justice, I am quite prepared to kill Mr. Reed with my own hands and leave the judgment with my countrymen."

Cross-examined by prisoner. You had been in communication with me with regard to your case since the beginning of this year and previously with Mr. Barnes, my predecessor as Secretary of the Labour Party. (A mass of correspondence was read between prisoner and various members of Parliament, prisoner explaining that his defence was that Exhibit 1 contained no threat, but was a continuation of prolonged and persistent endeavour to obtain a Parliamentary inquiry into the circumstances of his dismissal from the police force.)

Sub-Divisional Inspector   FREDERICK OLLETT , New Scotland Yard. Exhibits 1 and 2 and Exhibit 3 (envelope covering Exhibit 1) are in prisoner's writing.

To prisoner. I knew you for more than ten years at Scotland Yard; you were never of a quarrelsome or spiteful disposition.

  ALFRED REED . I have been in the force 24 years. In 1909 I was sub-divisional inspector at Gerald Road station, S.W.; prisoner was there as an inspector (the next grade below that of sub-divisional inspector). Part of the duty of an inspector in charge of the station is to take charges brought in by subordinate officers, and in cases where he declines to take charges he has to enter particulars in the "Refused Charge Book." On the night of August 17, 1909, two men, who had been making a disturbance by knocking at the door of a house in the district, were brought to the station by two constables; prisoner, then on duty as inspector, refused to take the charge on certain technical grounds, and discharged the men. Particulars of the refused charge were entered by him in the "Refused Charge Book." In the discharge of my duty I saw the entry and asked prisoner to submit a report in regard to the circumstances, which he did. I communicated with Superintendent Shervington, my immediate superior, who saw prisoner and the two constables. The whole matter was reported to Scotland Yard; the authorities there held that it was not desirable that prisoner should continue at Gerald Road

station, and he was transferred (still holding the same rank) to North Fulham station. In October, 1909, prisoner brought a charge against myself and Shervington that, in regard to the incidents of August 17, we had suggested to the two constables to manufacture evidence and to trump up a charge against the two men. An inquiry was held before the Disciplinary Tribunal at Scotland Yard; the charge was held to be unsubstantiated and prisoner was reduced to the rank of station sergeant. Prisoner appealed to the Commissioner, who upheld the decision of the Commissioner. Prisoner then intimated that he would seek the assistance of members of Parliament; he was told that if he desired to seek political assistance in his case he could not remain a member of the Metropolitan Police Force, and as he refused to accept that position, he was dismissed. Except for what I did in the ordinary course of my duties I took no part whatever in the proceedings which had this result. I am the "Reed" referred to in Exhibit 1.

Prisoner cross-examined at very great length as to the details of the occurrences of August 17, 1909, and the subsequent inquiries.

Mr. Justice Darling pointed out that the sole question here was whether prisoner wrote a letter threatening to murder Reed, and whether he did that maliciously. The question of the rightness or wrongness of prisoner's being reduced in rank and eventually dismissed the force had no bearing upon the issue in this trial.

  EDWARD HOWARD MARSH , private secretary to Mr. Winston Churchill. On June 13 I received from Mr. MacDonald Exhibit 2, which was forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

To prisoner. You have been in communication with Mr. Churchill upon this subject for more than 12 months. You had an interview with him in April, 1910, when you were offered reinstatement as a station sergeant; you refused the offer on the ground that you should either be an inspector or not in the force at all. Since then you have frequently written to him, and he has declined to discuss the matter further.

Inspector   GEORGE RILEY proved arresting prisoner on warrant on June 16.

To prisoner. I have known you since 1891; you never had the reputation of a quarrelsome or spiteful man. When I arrested you I found on you no weapons of any kind, not even a walking-stick.

(Thursday, July 4.)

(Defence.)

  JOHN KEMPSTER , editor and proprietor of the "Police Review." I have known prisoner intimately for about 18 months. I wrote the introduction to a pamphlet that he published setting forth the facts of his case. On June 13 I had an interview with him and advised him not to entertain any further the course of threatening people; I received this letter from him, dated June 15, in which he says: "I

will wait patiently." During my communications with prisoner he has never referred spitefully or abusively to Reed or Shervington.

Cross-examined. I had heard of his threatening people; he intimated to me that he was going to do something that would rouse further public attention. I told him that that would be wrong, and that no wrong was ever righted by doing wrong. Exhibit 1 is directly contrary to the advice I gave prisoner; it bears the same date as the letter I just produced. I did not until it was produced in court know that prisoner had written Exhibit 1. His manner did not suggest to me that he would carry out his threats. I know that he says in Exhibit I, "I am not a man given to idle threats"; I think he wrote that simply to give an impression, but that he would not act upon it. I cannot say when prisoner's pamphlet was written. There are libel actions pending against me by Reed and Shervington.

Chief Inspector   SHERVINGTON (to prisoner). In the inquiry before the Disciplinary Tribunal you were what is technically called a "defaulter" this enabled you to call witnesses. I do not know that you desired to call 147 witnesses and actually called 22. Those you did call, being still members of the force, would, of course, be men of good character. I was not present during the whole of the inquiry.

  JOHN SVME (prisoner, on oath). My pamphlet was issued on March 22, 1910; it was written for the purpose of being sent to members of Parliament. Exhibit 1 and the letter produced by Kempster I posted at the same time on June 15.

Cross-examined. I wrote a letter on July 9, 1910, to Mr. Churchill, which had the following passage: "I am firmly resolved to force the question under public notice even if I am compelled to make an attack in public on the person of His Majesty the King." Four days later I wrote to Mr. Churchill, withdrawing what I had said about the King and stating, "I will do nothing illegal." The explanation of that withdrawal is this. I wrote the letter of July 9 for the purpose of obtaining publicity. The same day I was sent for by Mr. John Burns; he pleaded to me to withdraw the letter and leave the matter in the hands of my parliamentary friends; so that my hands were tied. I do not now recognise that my reference to the King was grossly improper. I had to threaten someone of consequence to obtain the necessary publicity for my grievance.

Mr. Justice Darling. Did you intend that people should believe your threats or not?—Well, I think that bluff is sometimes necessary even for diplomats and ministers, and I intended to force their hands. I had to make such a strong threat that they dare not ignore it; that was my sole reason; I had no intention of attacking the King—never had. I was brought up at Bow Street in connection with that letter, and the passage referred to was read and published all over the world; so that I did obtain the publicity I desired.

Prisoner then addressed the jury (not upon oath). He went at length into his grievances. He reiterated his contention that Exhibit 1 was not a real threat with felonious intention, and concluded: "I leave it to the jury to decide whether I am a spiteful man, threatening

and intending to murder, or whether they accept my explanation that all my efforts have been to bring enough publicity to get members of Parliament to break down this officialdom and to get an inquiry into my case."

Mr. Justice Darling, in summing up, left to the jury the following questions: (1) "Is the defendant guilty or not guilty of maliciously sending the letter threatening to murder Reed?" (2) "Did he intend to murder Reed, or was the threat 'bluff,' and made in order to call attention to his grievances?" The jury, having deliberated upon these questions for a considerable time, were sent for by his Lordship, who asked them to answer the following question: "Did the defendant send the letter of June 15 with the intention of so alarming Mr. Ramsay MacDonald as to the safety of Reed's life that Mr. MacDonald and his friends would support the defendant's claims against the Home Secretary and the police authorities?"After further deliberation the jury brought in the following: "We are of opinion that the defendant wrote the letter of June 15 with the object of pressing Mr. MacDonald and his friends to support his claims against the Home Secretary and the police authorities; we are further of opinion that he did not intend to murder Reed, and that the threat was 'bluff,' and made in order to call attention to his grievances."

Mr. Justice Darling held, as a matter of law, that this amounted to a verdict of Guilty of maliciously sending a letter threatening to kill Alfred Reed, and sentenced prisoner to six months' imprisonment. His Lordship, however, said he would at once grant a certificate that this was a fit case for appeal against the conviction, on a ground involving a question of mixed law and fact, namely, whether prisoner could be said, within the words of the statute, to have done this "maliciously."

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Saturday, July 1.)

 

  MATHIESON, Jane , taking charge of a lunatic for payment, in an unlicensed house; having charge of   Eugenie Blackley, a lunatic patient, did wilfully neglect her.

Prisoner pleaded guilty to the first indictment. The second indictment was not proceeded with.

It was stated that Miss Blackley was found in the basement of the defendant's house in a very dirty condition and amid dirty surroundings. She had made over to the defendant an annuity of £260 to which she was entitled.

Mr. Curtis Bennett, in mitigation of punishment, said that the defendant did not become aware that Miss Blackley was of unsound mind until December last. These proceedings had resulted in defendant's ruin and she had made over the £260 annuity Miss Blackley

had mortgaged to her to an authority to decide who was entitled to receive the money.

The Recorder said that, having regard to the defendant's age, he should not send her to prison, but would fine her £50. She would remain in custody until the money was paid.

 

  GOODLIFFE, John Francis (24, valet) , feloniously wounding   William Kent with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Fisher prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

  WILLIAM KENT , dealer, 2, Lavonia Street, W. On May 2 I saw prisoner, my wife, and another young lady in Fitzroy Street. I pulled my wife away and prisoner and I had a few words. I struck him, but did not knock him down. He then went away with the young lady and I went home, but not with my wife; I am separated from her; I left her because we cannot agree. I had never seen him before. I next saw him on May 4 at the "Grafton" public-house in Grafton Street; my wife was there also, but she was not with him. I was sitting with my face towards the bar and had been there about five minutes, when he came behind me and gave me a blow on the face with a glass and ran out. They carried me out and I fainted. I was taken to the hospital, where I had nine stitches put in my wounds. I was an out-patient for about three weeks.

Cross-examined. There is no other witness as to what happened on May 2 and May 4. On April 20 I came out from prison, having served a sentence of four months' imprisonment for burglary. When being sentenced the police did not state that I lived on my wife's prostitution; it is not true that I do so. I only struck prisoner one blow on May 2. He did not become unconscious as the result and I did not when he had recovered say, "The next time I see you in the "Grafton" I will glass you, you dirty b—." I do not know the prisoner was taken to the hospital, where his mouth and nose were dressed. It is not true that I am not well received in the public-houses in the neighbourhood. I once ordered my wife out of the "Red Lion" and as a consequence they would not serve me there. Since I have been out of prison I have done nothing else 'but dealing in eggs and poultry. For the last two years I was working as a betting man in the street. On May 4 I did not go up to him in a threatening manner.

Detective   ALFRED DEWAR , D Division. At 10.30 p.m. on May 15 I arrested prisoner at the "George and Dragon" public-house, Cleveland Street, for wounding William Kent. He said nothing. On the way to the station he said, "I have consulted a solicitor and was going to give myself up." At the station the warrant was read to him and he made no reply; I had the warrant since May 6, but had been unable to find him. His associates call him "Jack, the ponce."

Cross-examined. He has never been charged with living on the prostitution of women. The same character is not borne by the prosecutor; at one time the prosecutor was assisting a street bookmaker, and since he gave up business he has been assisting his brother in selling goods which he sends up from the country. Prisoner has been in England 18 months; he went with Dr. Cook on his expedition to

the North Pole as a steward. I have heard nothing to his detriment from the police.

Re-examined. I have seen him in company with prostitutes frequently in the "Grafton" public-house.

  DR. TREVOR BURGOYNE DAVIES , house surgeon, University College Hospital. At 9.15 p.m. the prosecutor was brought to the hospital. He had an incised wound over the lower jaw on the left side, extending on to the cheek, three inches long, which required three stitches; a deep wound in the ear which required three stitches, and other smaller wounds on the neck. I detained him a short time, and then he was treated as an out-patient for three weeks. The wounds have now healed. I found a piece of glass in the hair. The glass must have been used with considerable violence to have inflicted such wounds; it is possible that they were caused by prosecutor's running on to the glass which was held by prisoner, but not probable. The prisoner must either have been at the side standing at right angles to prosecutor or behind prosecutor, but he could not have been standing in front.

Cross-examined. The injuries were all consistent with their having been caused by one blow.

(Defence.)

  JOHN FRANCIS GOODLIFFE (prisoner, on oath). This is the first time that any charge has been made against me. I returned to this country from America 16 months ago, and have references from my employers in America. It is a lie that I am living upon the prostitution of women; I have been living on my savings I brought from America. The first time I met prisoner was about a year ago in the "Red Lion," where he was having a row with his wife. On May 2 I was with his wife, who is known as Kate Hurley, and Annie Stewart, with whom I live. Kate Hurley had asked me to put her up for the night, as she had nowhere to go to. Prosecutor came up behind and hit me on the mouth and nose, and I was knocked a bit senseless. When I recovered consciousness he said the next time he saw me in the "Grafton" he would give me a glass. I went to the hospital. About 6 p.m. on May 4 I was in the "Grafton" by myself when he came forward to strike me with his fist. I stood up, "and to prevent myself from getting the blow I pushed out my hand with the glass in it and it cut him.

Cross-examined. I have done one month's work since I have been here; I have been on a holiday. My former employer in America has sent me money from time to time. Prosecutor's account of what happened is not true. It is not true that I kept away from the neighbourhood after this.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Six months' hard lalbour.

 

  SMITH, William (48, carman) , committing an act of gross indecency with   Morton; and   MORTON, Alfred (12, schoolboy) , committing an act of gross indecency with   Smith.

Smith pleaded guilty. No evidence was offered against Morton, and he was formally acquitted.

Sentence (Smith), Twelve months' hard labour.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.

(Monday, July 3.)

 

  PATEMAN, George Baron (33, gardener), was indicted for and charged en the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of   Alice Isabel Linford.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

  DAVID WARREN , with whom prisoner had lodged from September, 1910, to April last, identified Exhibits 4 and 14 as the blade and broken handle of a razor with which prisoner used to shave himself.

  SARAH COLE . I am employed as cook at Ryhope House, Finchley; Alice Linford was parlour maid there. On April 23 I saw prisoner waiting outside the house. On April 27 Linford went out at 7.30 p.m. At half past 11 I was in the kitchen, when I heard a sound outside as of someone rushing away; Linford came in and I noticed blood on her clothes. I fetched Mr. Carr.

  ROBERT GALE CARR , Ryhope House, spoke to being fetched by the last witness and seeing Linford lying in the kitchen with her throat cut.

  ROSE LINFORD . On the night of April 23 I was out walking with my sister Alice, when we met prisoner, to whom she was engaged. Prisoner said that he had come to wish a last good-bye and that he was going to cut his throat. Prisoner always had a hasty and bad temper.

Cross-examined. Prisoner and my sister were very fond of each other. My sister was reluctant to leave him in the state he was.

  GEORGE MORRIS PATEMAN (prisoner's father). I saw Alice Linford about 10.40 p.m. on April 27 near Ryhope Lodge; she was joined by another person. I cannot identify the person; cannot say whether it was a man or a woman.

Cross-examined. My wife has for a long time been unable to take care of herself; she is not in her right mind. One of prisoner's cousins is in an asylum; another has to be taken care of by her sister. When prisoner was 12 months old he was thrown out of a cart on to his head in a hard road; as a boy he was always a trouble to us, as we thought there was some weakness. After he joined the Navy he had a bad attack of fever in Sierra Leone and sunstroke in India. Prisoner was exceedingly fond of Alice Linford.

Re-examined. My father lived to the age of 72; my mother to the age of 90; they were both of sound mind; there were nine children in all; nothing was the matter with them. Besides prisoner I have another son and a daughter; they are all right in mind.

  CLIFFORD WOOTTON . I am married to prisoner's sister; he stayed with us from April 24 to 28; on April 27 prisoner went out about 8.30 p.m., telling us not to sit up as he might be late. I lent him my overcoat (Exhibit 8); it had then no bloodstains on it. He came home just after midnight; I did not notice anything strange about him; he was wearing Exhibit 8.

Cross-examined. I was in the Navy with prisoner. I know that he was invalided home from Singapore. He always struck me as a "funny" man; I mean, he would be larking about one moment and the next very depressed. I have always thought that he was not right in his head.

Mrs. WOOTTON (prisoner's sister) corroborated the last witness as to prisoner's manner; he always appeared to be suffering from delusions; he had threatened to take his own life.

  CHARLES MCWHIRTER . I worked with prisoner at High Barnet. On April 26 he spoke to me about his marriage arrangements having been broken off. I saw him about 9 p.m. on April 27; he seemed quite rational.

Cross-examined. Twelve months ago prisoner told me that owing to some trouble he had taken oxalic acid.

Police-constable   WILLIAM DICK , 441 S. On April 27, about 11.30 p.m., I went to Ryhope House and saw the body of Alice Linford. I followed traces of blood on the path outside the kitchen and picked up the razor blade and handle, Exhibits 4 and 14.

Detective-inspector   GEORGE WALLACE On May 3 I handed to Dr. Willcox an overcoat (Exhibit 8) and a jacket, shirt, and handkerchief (Exhibits 9, 10, and 11), which I took from prisoner.

Cross-examined. I was with Brooks when prisoner was arrested. Re was rather peculiar in his manner, with a glaring look in his eyes: 1 thought he might become violent and I directed an officer to go to the other side of him. He was not at all in drink.

Detective-inspector   HENRY BROOKS . On April 28 at 4.15 a.m. I went to prisoner's lodgings at High Barnet. He was asleep. On being awakened and told that he would be arrested for the murder of his sweetheart, Linford, he said, "I do not know anything at all about it." At the station he made no reply to the charge. The articles of clothing we took from him (Exhibits 8,9, 10, and 11) were all bloodstained.

Cross-examined. He was aroused from sleep with some difficulty; I could not at first make him understand that I was a police officer, In his room I found over 200 letters from Linford to him, and in her room I found 173 letters from him to her.

  W. STANLEY ROOKE , M.R.C.S., Finchley. On my being called to Ryhope House I saw Lin ford's body; she had her throat cut and had been dead some few minutes. I had attended her some time previously. She suffered from anaemia; that is a disease of the blood in which the red colouring matter is below the normal quantity.

  ROBERT P. FRENCH , Divisional Surgeon. On April 28 at 8.10 a.m. I saw prisoner at the police station; there were bloodstains upon Exhibits 8, 9, 10, and 11, which he was wearing.

Cross-examined. I examined prisoner three or four hours after his arrest; he was morose and sullen, and very tremulous; his eyes were glaring; he did not seem normal.

  BERNARD SPILSBURY , Professor of Surgery and Pathology, St. Mary's Hospital. On April 29 I made a post-mortem examination of the body of Alice Linford. She had a wound in the neck, inflicted by some sharp cutting instrument. The cause of death was heart failure due to loss of blood from that wound.

  WILLIAM HENRY WILLCOX , M.D., Senior Scientific Analyst to the Home Office. On May 3 I received Exhibits 8, 9, and 10; they had extensive blood stains; on analysis the stains proved to be stains of mammalian blood. To the stains on the overcoat and jacket I applied the special test for human blood and am able to say definitely and positively that they were human blood stains; further, the stains were remarkably pale in character, different from the stains of normal blood. I subsequently examined articles of clothing worn by the woman at the time she was killed (Exhibit 12); they were saturated with blood, and the blood corresponded in its distribution to that of a person wearing the clothes having had her throat cut while in a standing position. The stains were paler than those of normal blood and exactly matched the stains on the clothing of prisoner; it was the blood of a person suffering from anaemia. [Mr. Justice Darling, in his summing up, referred to the fact that this was the first occasion upon which, in a Court of Justice, medical evidence had gone so far as to differentiate (specifically) human blood from (generally) mammalian blood.]

Police-constable   JAMES BLUNDELL , 697 S, spoke to taking from the body of deceased the articles of clothing, Exhibit 12, and handing same to Dr. Willcox.

  SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , medical officer at Brixton Prison. I have had prisoner under observation since April 28 and have heard his family history. I have not been able to discover any delusions or hallucinations or any definite symptoms of insanity, or any indications that he was insane at the time this crime was committed.

Cross-examined. There is no doubt insanity is in his family; there is a possibility of that malady affecting him; it might affect him temporarily without leaving unquestioned discoverable traces. He told me that he had no recollection of what occurred on this night. With regard to George Pateman's evidence, prisoner told me that he had never had sunstroke; there is nothing about that in his (Navy) medical sheet; it speaks of malaria and Mediterranean fever, but of nothing that would have affected his brain.

(Defence.)

  ROBERT HENRY COLE , M.D., M.R.C.P., Lecturer on Mental Diseases at St. Mary's Hospital. I had an hour's interview with prisoner on July 1 (having known nothing of him till then). I found him somewhat sullen and morose, careless, and disinclined to answer any questions.

He told me that he had suffered from venereal disease while in the Navy. I asked him what he had been doing on April 27; he told me that he had been gardening, that he went home to tea, and that he remembered nothing further except that he went out for a walk. He told me that he shaved at odd times of the day and that he frequently, when staying away, carried his razor in his pocket. I spoke to him about a letter that I had been told he wrote to Alice Linford as to having secured a situation at the Hotel Cecil; he absolutely denied any knowledge of it. I asked him about his life since he had left the Navy; he said that he had been extremely depressed from time to time: that he had frequently thought of suicide; that he had once made an attempt and had frequently thought of cutting his throat. Although I do not discover in him any present indications of insanity, he may have temporarily suffered from insanity without it leaving any signs behind it.

Cross-examined. He denied that he had had syphilis; his medical sheet has reference to venereal disease of another kind, which is not so closely connected with insanity. He had been treated by Dr. Nunn for sexual impotence; such a condition might lead to a certain amount of depression. The symptoms of insanity to which I point are: loss of memory; a certain indifference (he said that life was not worth living); he had lost his faith in God; he is a man of deficient feeling; that is one of the common symptoms of insanity.

Mrs. TURNER (prisoner's cousin) produced a postcard written to her by prisoner on April 16, stating that he had got a berth as porter at the Cecil Hotel.

  GEORGE PATEMAN (prisoner's brother). Before prisoner went to sea and for some time afterwards he was a happy, well-disposed fellow. On his return from China, five years before he left the Navy, I noticed a peculiar change in him. He would suddenly change from a very lively manner into a morose and gloomy attitude. Many people have remarked about this peculiar change and said they thought there must be something wrong in his mind. He told me that he suffered from bad headaches, which he considered must be through a touch of sunstroke; I have also heard that he had sunstroke when a boy.

  JOHN W. NUNN , M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Barnet. I first saw prisoner about eight years ago. In September, 1909, he came to me complaining of sexual impotence. I saw him last week and spoke to him as to what had happened on April 27; he said he remembered going out for a walk and meeting Alice Linford and that they had some words; that was all he remembered. He did not seem to realise his position; he seemed utterly indifferent to what was going to happen to him.

Verdict, Guilty of wilful murder.

Sentence, Death.

BEFORE THE RECORDER. (Monday, July 3.)

 

  RATHBONE, Charles (42), and   PAGE, William (29, commission agent) , being in the shop belonging to the   Farmers' Union Direct Supply, Limited, feloniously stealing a safe and the sum of £83 16s. 6d., their goods and money.

Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.

  HARRY DAVIES , manager, Farmers' Union Direct Supply Company, Limited, butchers, 216, Well Street. At 1.30 a.m. on May 14 I locked up the premises, leaving everything secure. There was a locked safe in the shop-parlour containing £83 16s. 6d. in cash. At 9.30 the following morning I entered the shop and found the safe had gone. The door, which was locked with a key, was in the same condition as when I left it. The safe had been torn out of a recess in the wall. I found some cleavers and choppers, our property, lying about, they had apparently been used. I gave information to the police and on the afternoon of the following day at the police-station I saw the safe with the side torn open and the contents removed. I have known Rathbone a few weeks by sight; he used to come up to speak to one of the men. I last saw him on Saturday morning, May 13. I do not know Page. The whole of the premises belong to us, but the top part is unoccupied. Anybody upstairs could have come into the shop after I had gone. I left by the side door, which leads into the shop-parlour. The parlour leads into the shop. I had no occasion to go upstairs on the Sunday and, as far as I know, there was nobody up there when I left.

Cross-examined. Rathbone is not a customer. On the Saturday morning one of our "chaps" asked if Rathbone could have a leg of lamb, and I said that Rathbone could have it, but that I would book it up to our "chap," as I did not know Rathbone.

  CISSIE ASHARD , cashier, Farmers' Union Direct Supply, Limited. At 12.20 a.m. on May 14 I was speaking to. a customer outside the shop, when at the side door I saw Rathbone speaking to somebody else. I heard him say, "That is all right." I had seen him once before. At 12.30 a.m. I left, leaving them there.

  ELIZA CROSS , wife of William Henry Cross, 24, Arthur Street, Well Street. At 3 a.m. on May 14 I was in Pool Road, Hackney; my husband had had a drop too much and he had locked me out. I was quite sober. I saw Rathbone looking round the corner, watching me. The side door of the Farmers' Union Direct Supply premises is in Pool Road; Rathbone was standing close to it. I have seen him about for about 18 months, but I did not know his name. I walked towards the bottom of Well Street and on turning round I saw a greengrocer's van come down Pool Road and pull up at the side door. Two men got out, one of whom was Page; I have known him by sight about three and a half years; I know his wife also by sight. They left the man who was driving on the van and went in the side door with Rathbone. I was about six yards away at the time. They brought out the safe and I

was still standing in the same place. They put the safe on to the van and shut the door behind them. The van drove off and the three men walked up Arthur Street. At the top Rathbone stood watching me. I walked away in the other direction. On the morning of the 16th I identified prisoners at the police-court.

Cross-examined. These men deliberately committed this robbery under my very nose. They could see me quite easily. I thought it was a dishonest transaction. I walked about the streets till 7 a.m. and I told Mr. Frankel's daughter about it at 9.30. I did not see a policeman after three o'clock. I was too frightened to go to the policestation, because I knew the men would molest me; they were watching to see whether I would put them away. I never spoke to a policeman about it until Detective-sergeant Smith came at 11 a.m. and asked what I knew about it; Mr. Franklin has 'phoned to him. I know Page is known as "Weedon." I gave the police Rathbone's name, but not Page's, because I knew Page longer than Rathbone.

  HARRY AINSWORTH , 14, Park Place, Hackney. I am employed by Mrs. Smith, a greengrocer, who has stables in Morning Lane; I drive the van taking out orders for coal. On the night of May 14 I had supper and then I went to her stable at the back of the premises. This was a little after 1 a.m. I slept there as I had often done before. I was woken up by a noise, and in the stable where I was I saw a square thing covered over with a sack. I saw four men, two of whom were the prisoners; I have known them both a good many years. I had tied up the gate of the stable as best I could with a bit of rope, but anybody could get in. I got up, walked down to the bottom and sluiced my face. They took the safe across the yard and put it into another stable which was empty; the sack fell off and I saw it was a safe; it was quite all right then. I then heard hammering and clinking. I have since seen the safe, and the side has been pulled open. One of the strangers came up to me and told me not to say anything about it. I said I would not, and went and had breakfast at a coffee-shop. It would be about 7.15 when I was woken up. About 10 a.m. Page came to me and said, "If anybody asks you anything, say nothing about it; say you do not know," and he gave me 2s. Subsequently I pointed out the safe in the empty stable to the inspector.

Cross-examined. Page works for Mrs. Smith as well as I. I sometimes clean his horse and harness for him. It was on the Monday that he asked me to do that for him, saying that he was going to a funeral. The 2s. that he gave me on the Sunday morning was not for work that I had done for him; it was to keep my mouth shut. I did not intend all along to tell the police; at about 2.30 they took me to the station with the safe. I there made a statement. I was getting a bit frightened then because I thought that they thought that I had something to do with it. They kept me in the charge-room till 1 the following morning, but I do not know why.

Re-examined. On the Monday Page gave me 2s., and I gave his missus a shilling out of it, keeping a shilling for cleaning the horse and trap.

  ALFRED CLARK , schoolboy. At 7 a.m. on May 14 I was delivering milk at Valette Buildings, which look over Mrs. Smith's stable-yard. I was looking over the balcony when I saw four men lift a safe from one stable on the left to another stable on the right. Two of them were Page, whom I know as Weedon, and Rathbone, whom I also know. I knew Page as working for Mrs. Smith. I was afterwards taken to the police-station, where I identified them.

Cross-examined. The only person I told about this was a boy. The police first came to me on the Tuesday when I was at school. They spoke of "Rathbone" and "Weedon" to me, so that I knew who the men were that they were after. I knew their names when I saw them with the safe and I told the police I had seen them when they asked me if I knew anything about this safe and if I knew any of the men. They asked me their names and I told them.

Police-constable   FREDERICK NELSON , 522 J. At 10.45 p.m., on May 14, I was in Well Street, when I saw Mrs. Cross; I did not know her before. About 3 a.m. I was in Valentine Road, which is a turning out of Well Street, when I saw the head of somebody looking over the railings of No. 16, but I was too far away to discern whether it was the head of a man or woman. I went there to ascertain if all was correct, and I saw nobody there at all. At 4.30 a.m. I saw Rathbone come up Pool Road from the direction of the Farmers' Union, and enter No. 16.

Cross-examined. I did not know him before.

Detective   WILLIAM WOOD , G Division. At 12.30 p.m., on May 16, I was in company with another officer in Morning Lane, when Page drove up in a trap. I told him I was a police officer, and should take him into custody for being concerned on the Sunday morning with others in stealing a safe from the Farmers' Union. He said, "Yes, all right; I heard all about it." He had been drinking. I took him to the Hackney Police Station, where he was detained.

Cross-examined. On the way to the station he said, "You know this is not my game, Mr. Wood," or something to that effect. I believe what he was referring to was that he earned his living by making a book and there was no necessity for him to steal safes.

Detective-inspector   ERNEST HAIG , G Division. At 10 a.m. on May 14 I went to 216, Well Street. Hackney, where in the shop-parlour I was shown a place in the wall where this safe had been; there had been a clip at the back of the safe which had been built into the wall and which was torn away. At 3 p.m. on May 15 I went to Mrs. Smith's yard and I searched the stables and sheds. One shed was locked with a padlock which I forced off. In there, covered with manure, I found a safe with the side torn off containing papers and the usual safe linings. Ainsworth was in the shed and I sent him with an officer to the station, as I thought I could deal better with them there. I took a statement from him and detained him while it was being verified. At 11.45 p.m. on the same day I was keeping watch at Pool Rood, when I saw Rathbone being led along by another man; he was very drunk, and could not have walked unsupported. I told him that I was a police-officer

and that I should arrest him. He did not understand what I was saying because he made some rambling statement asking whether he had killed the man. I took him to the station, where he was detained until next morning. He was identified by the witnesses and then charged. He said in reply, "I have had enough trouble lately from gout; I could have done without this." The prisoners were then taken to the court and when there Page called me on one side and said, "I do not see why I should take all this on myself. There were three others in it. I do not know their names, but if I get out on bail I think I can find them for you." I there and then put down that statement in my pocket-book. I told him that I should have no objection to his being bailed if reasonable sureties were forthcoming. He was bailed the next day.

Cross-examined. He did not say, "I do not see why it should all be put on me; there were three strangers in the yard. If I get bail I will try and find them for you," or anything like it.

(Defence.)

  CHARLES RATHBONE (prisoner, on oath), meat market porter. I live at 16, Valentine Road, with a woman named Haycroft, having as lodgers a Mr. and Mrs. Harvey. I was out with Mrs. Haycroft and the little girl on Saturday night, May 13, from about 9 p.m. We returned home at about 12.10 to 12.15 a.m. on Sunday morning, and I did not go out again until 6.30 a.m.; I am accustomed to getting up early. I went for a walk round Hackney and as I was passing Mrs. Smith's yard I saw the stable gates open. I am always up and down the yard so I walked up there; this would be about 7.30 a.m. I had a cup of tea at Mrs. Smith's. She was a friend of mine. In the stable I saw Ainsworth lying on some boards. Page was feeding his horse and I asked him what it was that was lying down there, as Ainsworth had a sack over him. Ainsworth then jumped up. I have seen Mrs. Cross out several nights when I have been going to work. I knew Ainsworth as I used to have a pony and trap at a stable up the same yard. I saw Mrs. Cross at about 8.10 a.m. as I was going home to breakfast. I only live about 20 yards off the Farmers' Union shop. When I was arrested I had no idea that it was for a safe robbery; I asked the detective if I was had up for manslaughter, because I had had a fight a fortnight previous and I heard that the man was dead. I was not sober, but I was not drunk.

Cross-examined. It took me an hour to walk from my place to Morning Lane on that Sunday morning; I did not hurry myself. It was quite a chance that I went into the stable. If anybody had brought in a safe whilst I was there I must have seen it. The evidence that Ainsworth, Clark, Mrs. Ashard, and Mrs. Cross have given is all false. It is true that I was at the Farmers' Union on Saturday morning, but I was not there at half-past twelve at night. Nelson's evidence is also untrue. I do not believe that Mrs. Cross knows me quite well, although it is true she lives opposite me. I was not more than five or 10 minutes talking to Page in the stable.

  ESTHER HAYCROFT . I am a married woman and live with Rathbone. At 9 p.m. on May 13 I went with him to the Picture Palace and returned home about 12.10 a.m. We had supper and went to bed. He did not go out until the following morning at about 6.30

Cross-examined. I and my little girl went with him again to the Picture Palace on the following Monday night. He had had a drop to drink, but was not drunk. It is true that on the Saturday nignt after leaving the Picture Palace he could have got to the Farmers' Union shop by about 12 30, but he did not do so; I was with him all the time. I was at the police court, but I was not called as a witness. One day last week Rathbone asked me to come here and give evidence. I do not sleep very soundly. When he ame back on the Sunday morning from his walk he told me that he had seen Page at Mrs. Smith's yard.

  WILLIAM HARVEY . I am a lodger at Rathbone's house at 16, Valentine Road. I first heard oi this burglary on Tuesday, May 15. On the Saturday evening before that I remember being at home. Rath bone and his wife came in about 12.20. I did not speak to him, I was having my supper. I heard them bolt the door.

Cross-examined. I did not see them. I heard them come up to their bedroom, which is on the first floor. I am on the second floor. I heard no one go out in the night. At 6.30 a.m. the following morning I looked through the window and saw him going down the steps. He asked me a month ago to come and say what I knew. Nobody else would go in the house but he and his wife.

  AGNES HARVEY corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

Cross-examined. This is the first time I recollect his ever coming in after 12 o'clock and I have known him about eight years. I did not ask him what he was doing out so late, as it was not my business. There are only me and my husband in the house besides them. Nobody asked me to come and give evidence; I found my way here because I know the neighbourhood well. He asked me to come and say what I knew about what time he came in that night. I never heard any more until half past six the following morning. I am a very light sleeper and I believe my husband is also.

(To the Court.) I have never seen Page before. I did not go to the police court.

  WILLIAM FREDERICK PAGE (prisoner, on oath), 40d, Stockmar Road, N. I am manager and carman to Mrs. Smith at 10, Morning Lace, and am also a commission agent for a betting man. At 10.30 p.m. on May 13 I was in the "Devon Arms," Morning Lane. I left there and went to the "Brunswick Arms," where I stopped till closing time. I then went to a jellied eel stall and had some jellied eels; and from there I went to Mrs. Smith's shop, where I remained till 1 a.m. They keep open till that time, as on Saturday nights there is a busy trade. From there I went to a chandler's shop, where I had some cheese and biscuits. I then went home and reached Stockmar Road at about 1.40. Thre was a bit of bother there and I stopped talking to a sweep named Yatton until about 2 a.m. My wife opened the window

and asked me if I were coming in, and I went into bed. The following morning I got up at about 7.10 and went to the stable to see if the pony had been fed, as it was usual for me to do. I saw Ainsworth there. I saw three strangers there and I asked them what they were doing up there. I have not seen them since. While I was in the stable and Ainsworth was lying on the boards asleep Rathbone came in. At about 11.30 I gave Ainsworth 2s. for the work he had done for me during the week; I always give him money, as he does odd jobs for me. I gave him a shilling the next day to clean a pony and trap for me to get ready to go to a funeral. I was arrested and on the way to the station I said, "You know what I do; I do not do safe robberies; you know different to that." At the court I said to Detective-inspector Haig, "Could you give me bail? I saw three strange men up the yard. If you give me bail I will try and find them for you and if you find them I will try and identify them."

Cross-examined. I know Mrs. Cross quite well and she knows me well. She is saying what she knows to be untrue, but I cannot suggest any reason why she should do so. I got to Mrs. Smith's shop on the Sunday morning at about 7.20 a.m. and I had not been there many minutes when Rathbone arrived. The three men were at the top of the yard when I got there and when I left they were still there. I could not see anything they had with them. I have known Ainsworth a long time as he worked for me when I had a shop once; I have never had a quarrel with him. His evidence is all untrue, but I cannot suggest any reason why he should tell falsehoods. Clark knows me quite well. I have had no quarrel with him. He is mistaken in his evidence. Rathbone sometimes comes to the yard, being a neighbour in the parish. When I made the statement to Inspector Haig he did not take it down in writing; this account of what I said is false.

Re-examined. I saw Mrs. Cross at 3.40 p.m. on the Sunday and she never said a word to me about what she had seen.

  MARGARET PAGE , wife of prisoner. At 10.45 p.m. on May 13 my husband finished his business in Morning Lane and gave me my money and I went shopping. I met him again at the "Brunswick Arms" and had a drink with him. We then went round to Mrs. Smith's. I left him there and went on home. I got indoors about 10 minutes in front of him. I arrived home past one. I looked out of the window and saw him talking and then he came to bed. He went out next morning at about 7.30.

Cross-examined. I got home at about 1.40. My husband stood talking to Mr. Yatton about an hour before he came in. I was at the police court, but I did not give evidence.

  HENRY DAVIES (recalled by the Court.) I left the side door ajar on the Saturday night and I suppose somebody got in and must have hidden himself before I locked up.

Verdict, Guilty.

Against Rathbone, a previous conviction on October 9, 1895, for stealing beef, three months' hard labour was proved. It was stated

that he had been getting bis living as an unlicensed market porter, but had of late become much addicted to drink. Page had been several times proceeded against for street betting.

Sentences: Rathbone, 20 months' hard labour; Page, 18 months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH. (Monday, July 3.)

 

  GOLDBERG, Samuel (25, draper) , attempting to carnally know   Mary Elliott, a girl above the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years; indecently assaulting the said   Mary Elliott.

Verdict, Not guilty.

 

  PRITCHARD, Richard Robinson (30, fitter), pleaded guilty of feloniously uttering, Knowing the same to be forged, a banker's cheque fcr the payment of £10, with intent to defraud.

A previous conviction was proved.

Sentence, Eleven months' imprisonment.

 

  JONES, Charles (35, fitter) , attempting to carnally know   Louisa King, a girl under the age of 13 years.

Verdict, Guilty; the jury recommended that the state of prisoner's mind should be inquired into.

Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Monday, July 3.)

 

  BAINBRIDGE, John (40, cook) , stealing and receiving 675 tie-pins, the property of   Sydney Reuben Aaron.

Dr. E. P. S. Counsel prosecuted; Mr. H. W. Wickham defended.

  SYDNEY REUBEN AARON , importer and exporter of fancy goods, 19, New Union Street, E.C. These goods handed to me are my property. The value of 675 pins would be about £17. These goods arrived on May 19 or 20, and I missed them on May 26. I next saw them at the police-station. They had not been sold. They were quite new goods. They were stolen.

Cross-examined. I identify these pins because I have been importing them for years. Nobody else imports them into England; I am a friend of the manufacturer, and his only customer in Europe. They come from America direct to me. No cheap pins similar to these could be bought on a stall. Five pounds would not be a good price for them. The cost price is 7s. a dozen, $1.75. I do not know prisoner. These are assorted patterns. I ordered these designs. It is

absolutely impossible for them to be anybody else's goods. They cannot be the proceeds of a previous consignment, because these designs have not come from the maker for 15 months. These boxes in which they are are shoe-boxes; they are not mine.

  SYDNEY EDWARD LETWYCHE , manager to Elkin Solomon, 75, Golden Lane, Finsbury. These feathers now produced to me are mine. They were last in my possession on May 18 in stock. They disappeared. They are worth 18s. each, that is, £5 8s. in all.

Cross-examined. I identify them by the printed tickets on them. The price I have given is the wholesale price. If an ordinary man gave 5s. each for them he would not think he was giving a fair price. A feather this size would be bought for 6s., but not this quality. I said at the police court that it would take an expert to tell the difference in value, and it would.

Inspector   WILLIAM BURNHAM , G Division. On May 27 I went to 27, Rising Hill Street, prisoner's place, two rooms on the ground floor. I saw a parcel there, which I opened and found these six ostrich feathers. Prisoner was not there then. I asked his wife where he was and she said he was out. Sergeant Laing, who was with me, went out and brought prisoner in. I said to him, "Bain-bridge, we have found these six feathers here, can you tell me where you got them from?" I did not caution him then, I did not think it necessary. He replied, "Off a man in the City."

Mr. Wickham objected that this evidence could not be given, as the prisoner was not cautioned. Dr. Counsel submitted that the prisoner was only asked for an explanation. Judge Rentoul said he thought the evidence could be given.

Examination continued. I did not know whether the things were stolen or not. If prisoner had given me a proper explanation there would have been an end of the matter. When he said that he bought them in the City, I said, "Who is the man?' He said, "I don't know, that is your business to find out; I take full responsibility for what is in this room; I wish the people who gave you information had fallen down dead when they gave it to you." I also found these two boxes containing tie pins and brooches. I said to him, "Where did you get these from, Bainbridge?" He said, "I am not going to say anything about them; it is your business to find out."He knows me well. I further searched the room and found the jemmy and two cold steel chisels, sharpened very much, a bottle of aquafortis, and some jeweller's weights and scales.

Cross-examined. I do not know that prisoner is in the second-hand business as a traveller. He did not tell me he had bought these things in a market at Aldgate or Duke's Place. I swear that.

Police-constable   JAMES LAING , G Division. On May 27 at about 10.45 I went to 27, Rising Hill Street, with last witness. I saw him find these feathers and tie pins and brooches. I went out to the "Waterman's Arms" beerhouse and fetched prisoner away. I said to him, "You know me?" He said, "Yes." I said, "I am going to take you to the station, but before taking you there I am going to take you to your address, as I have been there and found some property." He

said, "I am responsible for all you find there; what have you found?" I said, "Some ostrich feathers and gome fancy tie pins and brooches." He said, "Oh!"I took him there.

Cross-examined. He did not tell me he had bought them in a public market, Duke's Place. I told him his wife had said they belonged to him.

(Defence.)

  JOHN BAINBBIDGE (prisoner, on oath). I bought these ostrich feathers in the Caledonian Road Cattle Market the Friday previous to my arrest. I gave 6s. each for them and 2s. extra for the man's friend. They cost 38s. altogether. To sell I could not get more than 8s. each. I told the police I bought the pins; when they asked where I said, "You must find out, they give no receipts in open market in Duke's Place, Aldgate." That is a place where mock jewellery is sold. No receipts are given. I bought them as a job line. I gave 5s. a dozen for the best ones. Some of these you can buy at any penny bazaar for 1d. or 2d. each. I gave £5 for 24 dozen of these others and I reckoned I could sell them at 5s. a dozen. I travel about selling these things.

Cross-examined. I do not know from whom I bought any of the things. It was in open market; there are many stalls there with these kind of goods exhibited. I gave £6 for 12 dozen; I did not say before £5; and for the others £1. I have seen the man I bought them of at the place on many Sundays, but I could not produce the man; there are so many there. I thought I gave a fair price for them. The police officer asked me who is the man I bought them off of; I said, "You must find it out, I cannot tell you." I had no receipt for the goods and I could not tell him. I had not the least idea these goods were stolen. You can buy them at any bazaar. I have nobody here with whom I have dealt for goods; I have only recently been so dealing. I bought them in the boxes just as they are now. I dispose of these goods by going round and selling them.

  SYDNEY REUBEN AABON , recalled. I value the goods I lost at £17, but these found with the prisoner are worth a little more than half, about £9.

Verdict, Guilty of receiving, knowing the goods to have been stolen. Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at Clerkenwell Sessions on February 19, 1901, in the name of John Goldsmith.

Detective-sergeant   ARTHUR GITTINGS , N Division. At North London Sessions on February 19, 1901, prisoner, in the name of John Goldsmith, was sentenced to four years' penal servitude for larceny from the person. He has been convicted a number of times, including once at the Old Bailey in 1892 for burglary, when he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. He has not been convicted since 1904, except for a small offence of loitering for betting. Prisoner has been a

receiver for some considerable time, and is connected with a dangerous gang of burglars.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

 

  BALE, Edward (19, newsvendor) , stealing and receiving a bicycle, the property of   Reginald Harold Bolam.

Mr. E. Henderson prosecuted.

  REGINALD HAROLD BOLAM . On June 10 I was at the Phœnix Swimming Baths at three o'clock and put my bicycle in the enclosure before going into the baths. I came out at four o'clock and found the cycle gone. It was worth £6 6s. This is it.

Police-sergeant   BECKS . On June 11 I went with other officers to Club Row, Bethnal Green Road, in consequence of information received. I saw prisoner there; he was pointed out by Nye. He had this bicycle in his possession and attempted to mount it as I went towards him. I rushed towards him. He then turned the bicycle broadside, lifted it by the handles and deliberately threw it at me, causing me to fall. He ran away and was caught. He was taken to Marylebone Police Station and charged. He made no reply.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I say you deliberately threw the bicycle at me. You did not merely drop it.

By the Court. I was not in uniform at the time; he would not know I was an officer; he immediately ran away when I went towards him, otherwise he had no reason to run away.

  EDWARD NYE , 292, Uxbridge Road, West Ealing, mnager at a furniture shop. On June 11 I took the police officers to Club Row, Bethnal Green, and pointed out prisoner to them. I have known him as selling bicycles for some time. I am not connected with the police; I have had a bicycle or two from prisoner. They were found at my place and taken away. I have lost the money I gave for them.

Detective FINIS. I went on June 11 to Club Row with Becks and Nye. The latter pointed out prisoner to us. Becks went to arrest prisoner, when he deliberately threw the bicycle at the officer. Prisoner ran away and I caught him. He was taken to the station. When charged he made no reply.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I reserve my defence."

Prisoner, called on for his defence, handed a statement to the Court: "I have used a cycle market called Club Row for over 12 months and always sold cycles for a cycle dealer on commission, but did not know any of them were stolen. I sold the witness Nye two for £6 12s. 6d.;. and I made 12s. 6d. on them. Then I sold him another for £4 7s. 6d. and made 7s. 6d. on that. I sold him another for £2 2s. 6d., and made 5s. on that. I did not steal them; I only sold them for a cycle dealer down Club Row."

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

 

  LUCID, George William, otherwise George W. Leslie (39, traveller) , obtaining by false pretences £50 from   Mary Jackson and £3 10s. from   Annie Sutton Gresswell, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Symmons and Mr. Montague Shearman, jun., prosecuted.

  MARY JACKSON , waitress, 12, Caxton Grove, Hammersmith. In September, 1909, I saw this advertisement in a paper called "Cupid's Chronicle": "Gentleman, house and estate agent, with small income besides, age 35, tall, dark, widower, no children, income about £200, wishes to meet a lady up to 45 years of age, good, true, and affectionate, other qualifications immaterial, with £100 or less, view matri mony. Advertiser is strong, healthy, energetic, good-looking and smart, and of cheerful disposition. Write 2423, care of Editor." I answered the advertisement, and on September 18 received from prisoner a letter the purport of which was that he was anxious to meet me with a view to matrimony. He concludes by saying, "I am tall, well-built, strong, healthy, good-tempered, of temperate habits, and you will find me endowed with a stock of good common sense. Other things when we meet." In it he asked me to meet him at Brighton. I did not go there, but answered his letter. I received another letter from him and eventually met him at Victoria Station. He then told me his position and he asked me mine. He told me that he had had reverses, that he had lost a lot of money when the Licensing Bill came into force, that he was a house agent—he repeated all that he had written in the letter, but chiefly he asked me my position and how I was situated. He said he was a widower. He did not on that occasion ask me for money. The understanding by the letter and by the advertisement was that we were to get married, of course; it was implied. I received other letters from him, one in October asking me to lend him money. In one he told me he was involved in a mortgage for £600 and that if he could get £65 it would save him from a loss of £300, at the end saying, "He gives doubly who gives quickly." When I received that I believed his statements about the mortgaged property. I did not give him any money until I was very mch pressed for it. I first gave him some on April 22, 1909. In between October when I received that letter and April 22 I had corresponded with and met him. At those meetings we used to talk about how he was going to furnish the house, etc., when we were married. On April 22 I handed him £30 and asked him for an I O U, as I did not know what might happen to him, and he gave me one. I thought the money was to help him to pay off the mortgage on his property. On October 18 I handed him another £20, and he gave me an I O U for £50. Afterwards I told him I had not returned him the first I O U, and he said it did not matter. On both these occasions I believed that he was in a position to marry me. I firmly believed all his statements. I have seen him write and I can say that these letters are in his handwriting.

Cross-examined by prisoner. It was part of my savings I handed you. I suppose I am well posted in business matters; I do not know that I am keen on business; I am only a woman, and they are not generally very keen on business matters, not where men are sharper. I am 45 years old. I am not accustomed to part with my money. I suppose I should not part with my money unless to a certain extent

I got some good return for it. I hold shares in two companies. You made some inquiries in respect to one company. You introduced me to a broker. I asked you asmy future husband to make these inquiries for me, because I thought it would be to our mutual benefit. There was nothing mentionedabout future husband and marriage when I did these transactionswith you because it was an understood thing. None of it was business. We were supposed to get married on St. Patrick's Day. I do notknow about laughing and saying "Absurd" when the subject ofmarriage was talked of in a general way. I certainly did not look uponyou as a business man for me or as an agent who would be ofuse to me. You never acted as an agent for me. When I handed youthe money you did not offer to pay me from 7 1/2 to 10 per cent. forthe use of the money. I am not a little bit of an actress; I am agenuine, true-hearted woman. At the time I parted with this money I was about to invest some money in shares. It was after I parted with the money, when I was worrying about the shares, that I wrote and asked you to see to the matter for me. You put me in communication with a broker. I told you that as I had lent you the money Icould not help my poor brother who was dependent on me as a cripple, and I asked you, if you had any influence, to use your influence to get him employment. I never had £300 to invest; I did not possess such a sum. At the time I parted with my money to you I was ashareholder in two companies. You told me you wanted money to pay off a mortgage at Clifton, near Bristol. Nothing was mentioned about interest at all. Why did you give me a ring if it was simply a matter of business? Marriage was mentioned between us upon pretty well every other occasion we met. In the sworn information you were charged with obtaining only £20 by false pretences, because that was only the last transaction. On one occasion I volunteered to letyou have some more money because you said you were in difficulties. At the police court I was not coaching Miss Gress-well as to the evidence she should give; we were sitting together and sympathising with each other. I do not know that all this money that happened to be due to me would have been paid on the 16th of last month if you had not been deprived of your liberty; how could it be when it was to be paid in four months?I did not tell you, to my knowledge, that I wassubject to hallucinations. I have no idea that this prosecution will be a good advertisement for me in the matrimonial market; I have not thought anything about it. I asked you once when you were going to marry me or give me my money; that was when the time had passed; you put the marriage off three or four times. I do not knowthat I ever threatened you with County Court proceedings. I am not vindictive. I considered you treated me very cruelly.

Re-examined. I thoroughly believed what prisoner told me up to the time Iparted with my money. He went away without giving me any address; that, of course, made me mistrust him. I went to the police without anybody suggesting it.

  ANNIE SUTTON GRESSWELL . I am a single woman living at Castle Street, Grantham, and am a cook. 1 made prisoner's acquaintance in September, 1908. I advertised in the "Birmingham Post" and received an answer from him, which I destroyed. In it he told me he was a widower with two children and that he was a land and estate agent. At first there was a break in the correspondence, but it was afterwards renewed. In December I received a letter from him from 30, Grenville Place, Brighton, December 8, 1908, in which he says, "I am a poor judge ofthings relating to myself, but I may be able to give you a little idea. I have just looked at the mirror, where I find—I am not certain—something like this: A man, tall and well built, agedabout 29, complexion fresh and hair rather dark, eyes blue, looks rather happy and cheerful." I rceived another letter from him dated February 14, 1910, but in the meantime I had met him at Brighton. He then said he was a land and estate agent, he wanted to settle down, that he had a mortgage affair in Bristol and Cornwall, and asked me if I could help him. I then parted with some money to him, a few shillings. He talked to me about marriage and settling down. He askedme to marry him and he agreed. I parted with £3 10s. in all to him. I believed what he said, that he was a single man and about his position at Brighton.

To prisoner. I do not owe you any money for services rendered. You did not help my father to recover some money; you wrote a letter giving him instructions as to how to proceed, but it came too late. You helped me to get some situations in London; I did not promise to pay you a commission for that. You told me you wanted money for your mortgage. I wanted to go to Australia, but I did not tell you to deduct what wasdue to you from the £3 10s. and advance me any balance. You wanted more money than I had. I looked upon you as my future husband.

  MILDRED ALICE RANSOME . I am unmarried and live at "St. Denys, "Connaught Avenue, Chingford. I know prisoner. On uly 19, 1906, I was present at Emanuel Church, Compton Gifford, Devon, when he was married to my mother. She is still alive. This is a copy of the marriage certificate.

To prisoner. I think you have not seen my mother for two years. Re-examined. That was at Bristol, I think. They were married in July and he left her the following January.

Police-sergeant   WILLIAM SPARKS , Brighton. I knew prisoner in Brighton from March, 1909, to about March, 1910. I have made inquiries, but do not find his name amongst the house and estate agents. I first knew him as Leslie and afterwards as Lucid. I never knew him to have any property.

To prisoner. I did not know your full name was George William Leslie Lucid. I did not know you were doing house agency work on your own account; I did not think you did.

Re-examined. I did not know he was a traveller representing a Birmingham firm.

Police-sergeant   GEORGE BIRNIE , F Division. On May 9 about 7 p.m. I arrested prisoner at Latimer Road, Kensington. I read the

warrant to him which was for obtaining £20 from Miss Jackson by false pretences. He said, "There is some mistake; I did not get the money by any false pretences; what were the false pretences?" I said, "First by saying that you were a widower; secondly, that you were a house agent; and thirdly, that you had house property in Clifton." He said, "I never obtained any money on these conditions." On the way to thepolice station he said, "I cannot understand how you can make this charge. I did not obtain the money by false pretences. I am a widower, and marriage had nothing to do with it." He was charged at the station about Miss Jackson. He said, "There is somemisunderstanding somewhere; I deny the charge." Miss Jackson has made a complaint to me, and on May 1 I followed him to 42, Regent Square. I saw him enter the house with a latchkey. After his arrest I went there, and in a bedroom on the first floor I found two photographs of him. I made inquiries, and in consequence went to 56, Liverpool Street, the key of which was upon prisoner when he was arrested. There I found a copy of "Cupid's Chronicle" containing the advertisement which has been read.

To prisoner. I should call the room an office; it was almost full of old newspapers. You were remanded a number of times. It was some trouble to get the witnesses to give evidence. They did not require a great deal of persuasion; the difficulty was to select them. I found everything in order at your apartments in Regent Square. I must confess that I expected to find more than I did. I found nothing, except what I have mentioned.

(Tuesday, July 4.)

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner was then indicted for feloniously marrying   Ethel Selfe, his former wife being then alive.

  MILDRED ALICE RANSOME , recalled, repeated her evidence.

  ETHEL SELFE , 76, Lichfield Road, Bow, typist. I first met prisoner in September, 1909; he stayed in the name of Lucid at the same boarding house with me. He made love to me; I do not know that it was quite an engagement; we were married on May 10, 1910. Prisoner is described in the certificate (produced) as "George Lane, bachelor." He said that owing to his business arrangements he could not be married in the name of Lucid. He represented himself as a widower. to me. (To the Judge.) Inever lived with prisoner as his wife. He married me because he knew I was going to have a baby.

  GEORGE WILLIAM LUCID (prisoner, not on oath). I say that I have not committed bigamy, but I cannot go into details to explain how it 1s. At the time of my second marriage to Kate Ransome my first wife was living, although I was not aware of it at the time. I have no witnesses to call.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner denied having been convicted of felony at Reading on November 9,1892.

Detective-inspector JAMES B. ANDERSON. I was present at Reading on November 9, 1892, when prisoner, under the name of George William Moran, was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for stealing money orders. He was serving as lance-corporal under that name in the Royal Berkshire Regiment.

To prisoner. I am not mistaken. I produce photograph of you taken at the time, on the back of which are your finger impressions.

Sergeant   WILLIAM BELBY , finger print office, Scotland Yard. I have compared the finger impressions of prisoner with those on the back of photo produced; they correspond absolutely.

To prisoner. While at Brixton Prison your finger prints were taken three times; a second set was taken in my presence in order that I should be able to swear to them; they were blurred and I had them taken again.

Prisoner declared that he had never been convicted before.

Verdict, Guilty.

Inspector  TAPPENDEN stated that 1,000 letters were found at prisoner's place, showing a correspondence with 77 different women who had forwarded £288, the letters referring to many other payments, the amount of which were not specified. Prisoner's name is Patrick Moran, born in 1870 at Clonmel, Tipperary. At the age of 18 he joined the Army and in 1889 he married Louisa Monahan at Devonport, who died in 1898, in which year he was released from prison. He was stated to haveobtained £1,500 from Mrs. Ransome and from 1898 to 1908 to have obtained £1,100 from 10 different women.

Sentence, for bigamy, Seven years' penal servitude; for fraud, Four years' penal servitude; to run concurrently.

Prisoner declared his innocence of all the charges and stated that the Court would hear further of the case.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.

(Monday, July 3.)

 

  BANKS, Charles Henry (61, tutor) and   DOUGLAS, Nellie (34) were charged on the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of the male child of   Susan Sarah Hallock, otherwise Robins ; each prisoner pleaded "Not guilty." Banks was indicted for the manslaughter of the same child; he pleaded "Notguilty."

Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Adrian Clark prosecuted; Mr. A. S. Carr defended Banks (at the request of the Court).

At the sitting of the Court Mr. Muir mentioned this case, which stood in the list after one which would certainly occupy the whole of the day. He said that the learned magistrate had dismissed the case as against the woman altogether, and dismissed it against the man except as to manslaughter. The woman was still in custody, and, inasmuch as it was proposed to offer no evidence on the coroner's

inquisition at all, it would be advisable that that should be disposed of at once and the woman released from custody.

Mr. Justice Darling assented, and the two prisoners were put in charge of the jury upon the coroner's inquisition for wilful murder.

Mr. Muir: I offer no evidence upon that charge.

Mr. Justice Darling: Gentlemen of the jury, the defendant Nellie Douglas is charged with wilful murder. The case has been very thoroughly considered, and I quite agree that there is no reason why she should be put upon her trial for murder. No evidence is offered against her by the Treasury, who prosecute, and therefore you will return a verdict that she is not guilty. The same with regard to Banks; there is another charge against him, but on this charge no evidence is offered against him, and you will say also that he is not guilty of murder.

The jury returned a verdict of Not guilty of murder. Douglas was discharged; Banks was put back.

(Tuesday, July 4.)

Banks was brought up for trial upon the indictment for manslaughter.

Before the jury were sworn,

Mr. Carr said the prisoner desired to put in an additional plea. Prisoner handed in a written document, after perusing which Mr. Justice Darling said: Prisoner pleads Not guilty and autrefois acquit. The Clerk of the Court will take that plea.

The jury were then sworn to try the issue whether prisoner had already been acquitted of the offence of manslaughter.

  HENRY KEMP AVORY , Clerk of the Court. I produce the indictment for manslaughter; also the coroner's inquisition upon which prisoner was chared, with the woman Douglas, with wilful murder; I have no doubt the child referred to in the indictment is the one referred to in the inquisition. Prisoner was arraigned upon the inquisition for murder and pleaded Not guilty; no evidence was offered on the part of the prosecution; he was given in charge to the jury, and under the direction of his Lordship the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

Cross-examined: Upon the arraignment for murder, when no evidence upon that charge was offered, it was stated in the hearing of the jury that there was another charge against this prisoner. I entered the verdict as one of "Not guilty of murder" only.

To Mr. Carr: The word "only" does not appear upon my note. Mr. Carr submitted that on the charge of murder prisoner had been in peril of conviction of manslaughter, and that, when the verdict of not guilty was given on the charge of murder, that operated as an acquittal of man-slaughter. (Cited Chitty's Criminal Law, vol. 1, p. 163): "Upon this (coroner's) inquisition the party accused may be tried without the intervention of the Grand Jury; and if an indictment be found for the same offence and the defendant be acquitted on the one, he must be arraigned on the other, to which he may, however, effectually plead his former acquittal."

Mr. Justice Darling: "For the same offence." You have to show that he has been tried for and acquitted of the manslaughter of this child.

Mr. Carr cited from Hale's Pleas of the Crown, vol. 2, p. 246: "If a man be acquit generally upon an indictment of murder, autrefois acquit is a good plea to an indictment of manslaughter of the same person, or converso. for murder and manslaughter differ only in degree, and the fact is the same." That this was not out of date was shown by the fact that it was cited in Archbold, 24th edition, p. 178, the note there being "An acquittal upon an indictment for murder may be pleaded in bar of another indictment on the same facts for manslaughter; because the defendant might have been convicted of manslaughter on the first indictment." After referring to a number of cases, he again cited Archbold (p. 159): "It is usual when a bill of indictment for the offence charged in the inquisition has been ignored, to offer noevidenceon the coroner's inquisition, but it is occasionally found convenient to proceed on the inquisition, and cases have occurred where this was done and the defendant was convicted. If a true bill is found, the defendant is arraigned on both the indictment and the inquisition at the same time (1 East P.C., 371). If the bill is ignored the defendant must still be arraigned on the inquisition. Where a defendant is arraigned and tried upon one only and acquitted he must afterwards be arraigned upon the other; to which, however, he may effectually plead autrefois acquit."

Mr. Muir argued that the defendant had never been put in peril on the charge of manslaughter. The course adopted yesterday was taken merely in order to get thewoman at once discharged from custody. He limited his application to the charge of murder, and pointed out that there was the indictment for manslaughter upon which it was proposed to try Banks. The cases cited by Mr. Carr were cases in which the facts were placed before the jury and the jury gave a finding upon the facts. It is an element of every decided case that the facts must be the same upon both charges. Assuming the factshave been put before the jury, the jury have the right upon those facts to acquit the defendant of murder and to exercise their discretion to acquit him also of manslaughter. But here no facts were put before the jury at all, and the verdict was distinctly limited, by the question put by the clerk of the court and by the direction of his Lordship, to the charge of murder alone. In these circumstances it could not he said that defendant had been put in jeopardy of being convicted of murder. Further, all the authorities referredto were anterior to the passing of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, whichin section 4 (1) provides against any miscarriage of justice where there is no substantial grievance. Mr. Muir submitted that there was no case to go to the jury upon this plea.

Mr. Carr, in reply, contended that, the prosecution having chosen to give the prisoner in charge upon the inquisition, the legal effect was that if evidence had been offered and the jury had been of opinion that the charge of manslaughter was substantiated, they might have convicted of that charge.

Mr. Justice Darling held that there was no evidence to go to the jury that the defendant ever was tried upon an indictment in circumstances which put him in peril of being convicted of the offence for which he was now indicted. It must be established that there was evidence that he had been in danger of being convicted upon the very charge upon which he is subsequently arraigned. This defendant yesterday pleaded not guilty to an indictment of manslaughter and also to the coroner's inquisition charging the offence of murder. Counsel for the prosecution stated that he offered no evidence upon the charge of murder, and especially at the time mentioned that there was another indictment, that of manslaughter, which would be proceeded with Defendant was there upon acquitted upon the inquisition of murder. Upon that inquisition, no doubt, had evidence been offered the jury might have refused to convict of murder and convicted of manslaughter. But defendant never was in any "peril "of being convicted of the charge of manslaughter, which was not preferred by that name in the inquisition, and which was not preferred because counsel for the prosecution mentioned that he did not then proceed with the charge of manslaughter for the simple reason that he had got another indictment in which that offence was specifically charged.

The jury then, under the direction of his Lordship, returned the verdict that the defendant had not been already acquitted on this charge. He was then put in charge of the jury on the indictment of manslaughter.

Prisoner, who had been known for some years in the neighbourhood of King's Cross as "Doctor" Banks, but was not a registered medical practitioner, had attended the woman Hallock in her confinement; a child was born, and some witnesses spoke to having heard it cry. Prisoner's defence was that when he was called in (and he only attended because he was urgently sent for and there was no time to fetch a qualifiedmedical man) the child had been still-born. The case for the prosecution was that the child had in fact had a separate existence, and that its death resulted from criminal negligence on the part of the prisoner amounting to the crime of manslaughter.

(Wednesday, July 5.)

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner, who had a bad police record, was sentenced to Eighteen months' imprisonment.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Tuesday, July 4.)

 

  HAGER, William (26, builder) , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, the endorsement on an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £1 10s. with intent to defraud.

  JOHN EDGAR MANN . In October last year I was living at 20, Ingrave, Battersea, where prisoner was a lodger with me. In that month I separated by agreement from my wife, but I still remained the tenant of that house, and I left all my furniture there. I know now that a distraint was put in, and my piano was taken for rent. There was a balance due to me on the sale of £1 10s. This cheque (produced) for £1 10s. is not endorsed by me, and I know nothing about it. I never authorised anybody to receive that money for me, and I never received any of itmyself.

Cross-examined by prisoner. The detective asked my wife how the piano was taken away, and she said the broker had taken it for rent, but previously she had told me that your brother had taken it away to have it done up out of kindness because she had kept you for four months without your paying anything. The first one who ever told the truth about it was your wife.

  LIONEL RICHARDSON , certificated bailiff. On April 10 I put a distress into 20, Ingrave Street, and took a piano. It was sold and realised £7. The balance due after deduction for rent, £4, and 30s. for expenses, was 30s. On the morning following the sale, April 24, prisoner came and said he had called from Mr. Mann for the balance of the sale. I told him to call back again, and on his doing so I gave him this cheque, payable to "Mr. John Mann, "and which now purports to be endorsed by Mann. It was crossed. Later that day he returned,

and said, "I have brought the cheque signed by Mr. Mann. Will you give me the money?" I said, "No, the cheque is crossed; it must go through somebody's account."

To prisoner. I remember when taking the piano you said that you would get the rent from your brother, and I said you had better go and get it. I do not remember Mrs. Mann saying that if her husband came to the house and found it gone he would kill her.

  ROSE BEAVIS , wife of Robert Beavis, auctioneer, 588, Wandsworth Road. On April 24 prisoner, whom I had seen on the evening of the sale, came to my place with this cheque, and asked me to cash it. It was endorsed "John Mann" at the back. Seeing that it bore the signature of Lionel Richardson, whom I knew well, I cashed it.

Detective   CHARLES EASTLAKE , V Division. On May 19 I went to 20, Ingrave Street, and saw prisoner. I told him I was a police officer and was making inquiries about this piano. He said, "Yes, the piano was taken by Mr. Richardson, the bailiff, for £3 14s., rent due. I signed my name with Mrs. Mann and her daughter Lilly as witnesses to it. I went to Mr. Richardson on April 24. He gave me a cheque for 30s., which was the balance out of the £7 which the piano fetched, made payablein the name of John Mann. On the same day I went to the Beavis auction-rooms at Wandsworth Road. I there saw Mrs. Beavis, and asked her if she could cash a cheque for me. She said "Yes, "and asked me to sign it. I signed "Mr. John Mann, 20, Ingrave Street. The 30s. I gave to my brother, Frank Selhurst, whose address I refuse to give." Next day I was in company with the prosecutor, when I saw the prisoner. I said, "I am a police officer, and Mr. Mann is going to give you into custody for forging and uttering a cheque." He replied, "All right, "and said to the prosecutor, "You can have your 30s. ifyou wait till Monday." On the way to the station he said, "This is done; it cannot be helped." At the station he was told he would be detained on a charge of forgery, and he replied, "That is all right."

To prisoner. Before seeing you first I had been round to 20, Ingrave Street, and Mrs. Mann told me that you had told her that the piano had been taken away byyour brother to be done up. The first person from whom I learned the truth was the woman with whom you were living. He told me that the piano had been taken away by the bairf, but to keep it from Mr. Mann he was to be told that your brother had taken it away. When I asked you to give me your brother's address and why you had given him the 30s., you said, "You will get nothing from me; I am going to fight this case on my own." You did not make anyattempt to run when I arrested you; you could not have done so if you had tried.

Prisoner being called upon for his defence, handed up a statement, which was read. In it he pleaded guilty to the charge, and hoped he would be lightly dealt with for the sake of his wife. He stated that it was his first offence and would be his last. He went on to explain in detail the circumstances under which the piano was distrained upon. He stated that Mrs. Mann had given him authority to endorse the

cheque. On it being explained to him that his wife's condition was not such as to make it advisable to call her, he refrained from doing so. He did not call Mrs. Mann, stating that he did not wish her name to be brought into it.

Verdict, Guilty.

It was stated that prisoner's real name was William Selhurst, and that since the beginning of 1909 he had been living on his wits.

Sentence, Three months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Tuesday, July 4.)

 

  PEARSON, James (42, butler) , robbery with violence upon   Frederick Colley and stealing from him one watch and chain, his goods: feloniously assaulting the said   Frederick Colley with intent to rob him of his watch and chain.

Mr. W. G. Coarthope prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.   FREDERICK COLLEY , 52, Gloucester Street, Bloomsbury. On May 27 at 3 a.m. I was walking along Gray's Inn Road. I had had a lot of drink and someone asked me for 2s. I said I had not got it. I got knocked down or something. I was drunk. I had been on the drink for a fortnight. I had a black eye.

Cross-examined. I believe I drove in a taxi to a club in Great Ormond Street and asked someone to pay the driver 2s.; that the driver demanded 6s. and I asked the same person to pay it; that be drew me away and asked me for the 4s.; as we were walking along I spoke to two policemen, who advised me to get home. Prisoner may have known me at theclub. I may have threatened prisoner with a stick, upon which he may have struck me. I believe prisoner is a man of excellent character, that for four years he has rented a house at £75 a year, and that he has been for seven years and four years in good situations.

Sergeant   WILLIAM TEPP , E 51. On May 27 at 3 a.m. I was standing in a doorway in Great Ormond Street. Prisoner and prosecutor were standing in theroadway. Prisoner said, "Go on, give us a couple of bob." Prosecutor said, "I do not know you—go away. Get away and let me get away"—attempting to pass on. Prisoner got in front of him, I with another officer, kept them under observation. They walked down Great Ormond Street into Lamb's Concluit Street. Prisoner got in front; prosecutor turned to go back; they walked separately into Theobald's Road and tothe corner of Gray's Inn Road. I crossed the road and spoke to prosecutor. They proceeded 200 yards along Gray's Inn Road; prisoner stood with his back against the wall, prosecutor was coming along towards him. I hid in a doorway, prisoner dealt prosecutor a blow in the face with his fist and struck him several times about the bady andface, knocking him down. I crept quietly across the road. I saw prisoner put his hand on prosecutor's watch chain, let

it go, and take out the watch. I seized prisoner by the collar and pulled him off, the watch falling back on to prosecutor's vest. The chain was so fastened that the watch could not be taken off without pulling a portion of the inside pocket away. When I arrested prisoner he looked at me and said, "Oh, God." He was taken to the station, charged, and made no reply. Prosecutor's face was greatly swollen, but he declined to receive medical treatment and went home; he had evidently been drinking. The blows prisoner had given were very severe indeed.

Cross-examined. I never spoke to the prisoner before his arrest nor did the other officer in my presence. I was not with the other officer the whole time. Prosecutor had a large greyhound with him, also a stick and an overcoat on his arm. There is a club in Great Ormond Street, which, so far as I know, is respectable—it is about a hundred yards from where I first saw the two men.

Sergeant   HARRY SPRINGTHORPE , 24 E, corroborated.

(Defence.)

  JAMES PEARSON (prisoner, on oath). I have occupied 22, Bessborough Gardens, Westminster, four years, the rent being £75 a year and rates and taxes. My father, Charles Pearson, was a well-known contractor at Smithfield Market. Upon his death in 1891 I carried on the business for a short time, when it was sold. I was with William Darling and Son, Poultry Market, Smithfield, for 10 years, and for seven years with James Fortescue, Smithfield Market; during that time I had a smallprovision shop at 37, Page Street. I sold that business and afterwards for four years had a shop at 30, Carlisle Road, Lambeth. I have since resided at 22, Bessborough Gardens, which is carried on by myself and my wife as a lodging house. This is the first charge of any kind thathas been brought against me and I have always borne the highest character. I go to a club in Great Ormond Street, where I have frequently seen prosecutor. On May 27 I had a drink with him at 1.30 a.m., when he said, "I have a taxi outside, Jim." I said, "Do not leave it outside, it looks so bad this time of the morning." He said, "I have a dog here; will you go and pay the taxi driver for me? Give him 2s." I said, "With pleasure." The driver demanded 5s. 4d. I told prosecutor, and he said, "Very well, give him 6s." Prosecutor was not sober. There was afterwards some trouble between prosecutor and another person in the club. I said to him, "Fred, come away, old chap, I have treated you well, I have paid the taxi for you, you do not want to have any trouble, come out." We then walked towards Southampton Row, when I saw the two sergeants, one of whom was speaking to the man prosecutor had a row with. Prosecutor said to the sergeant refering to the other man, "I do not want to have anythingto do with him." We walked on and I said, Fred, I have paid the taxi for you, you gave me 2s. and you owe me 4s." With that he told me he did not want to have anything to do with me, and called to the two sergeants and said, "I do not want to have anything to do with thisman." They said, "You see the man does not

want you, why do you not get off home?" I walked on, prosecutor walking the same way in the middle of the road with his dog and his coat on his arm. In Gray's Inn Road prosecutor overtook we, when I said, "Fred, I have been a good friend to you, I have helped you out of trouble and paid the taxi. Give me my 4s." He said, "I do not want to have anything to do with you" and raised his stick. I do not know whether he meantto hit me, but I struck him and sent him about 10 yards off. He holloaed out and before you could count ten the two sergeants came up and arrested me. I made no attempt whatever upon his watch. I did not fall on him—I knocked him as far as that partition. I wastaken to the station; the two sergeants had a quarter of an hour's talk before they came back and charged me. I struck prosecutor to prevent his hitting me with his stick.

Detective-sergeant   JOHN KENWARD, E. Division. Nothing is known against prisoner's character, and the employments which he has stated are perfectly true. He has been tenant at 22, Bessborough Gardens, for four years. The only point is, his wife told me that during this year she had had only 10s. from him. Prisoner lives there.

At the close of the summing up the Jury said they would like to hear evidence as to whether prisoner was a friend of the prosecutor.

  ARTHUR SMYTHE , professional billiard player. I am a member of the club in Great Ormond Street. I have seen prosecutor there on several occasions; prisoner is also a visitor. I have frequently seen them together drinking at the bar.

Verdict, Not guilty.

 

  LEVY, Moses (23, attendant), and   PATTERSON, William (26, painter) , both stealing one purse containing £1 8s. 4d., the goods and moneys of   Cradoch Reston, from his person.

Mr. John Harris prosecuted; Mr. Campbell defended Levy; Mr. Purcell defended Patterson.

  CRADOCH RESTON , 78, Churchfield Road, Acton. On June 5 at 10.45 p.m. I was on the platform at Liverpool Street Station with two ladies and another man holding two portmanteaus; Miss Bancroft was behind me; as the train was coming in I felt a pressure behind me, the guard called out, "Mind your purses." I felt for mine, which contained a good deal of silver, and found it was gone. I seized the two prisoners who were standing close behind me and accused them of taking it. Patterson said we couldsearch him, Levy said nothing. Afterwards he said that he did not know Patterson. A railway official came up and I gave them into custody. I said could I have them searched, he said not till I gave them in charge. When I had done so Levy started fumbling about andsaid, "Somebody put this in my pocket," and handed me my purse (produced). It contained 28s. 4d. At the station Patterson said he did not know Levy or else Levy said, "I do not know him."I cannot remember which it was.

  NORA MAY BANCROFT , 22, Chatsworth Gardens, Acton. On June 5 I was at Liverpool Street Station when prosecutor's purse was taken. As the train was coming in four men, two of whom were the prisoners, pushed us, one of them twisted my arm round, pulling me away from

prosecutor, when the two prisoners crept immediately behind him and stood together. An official called out, "Mind your purses," when prosecutor dropped the bag which he was carrying and called out, "My purse is gone." I did not see the purse stolen. When prosecutor seized them Patterson said, "I was standing by you, lady," pointing to my mother. The platform was very crowded.

  ROBERT BARRETT , station foreman, Liverpool Street Station, Metropolitan Railway. On June 5 I was called to the lower platform where prosecutor had detained the two prisoners. He said, "One of these men have got my purse." Patterson said he had not got it, he would like to be searched. I said, "I cannot search you here," and to the prosecutor, "You had better charge the men and have them taken to the station and they can be searched there." Prosecutor said he would charge them. I sent for aconstable. Levy produced the purse from his pocket and said, "Somebody has put this in my pocket."

Cross-examined. The platform they were on is a double one on which trains stop coming westward and also pass through going westward. A passenger might get out of a train which stopped and cross the platform thinking he could go on to Aldgate from the other side.

Police-constable   HENRY LINJEY , 305 City. On June 5 I was called to the platform when prosecutor said he had lost his purse, he felt sure that the prisoners knew something of it and he wanted them searched. Patterson insisted on being searched there. I said I had no power to search them until they were given into custody. Prosecutor decided to do so, when Levy immediately produced the purse from his right-hand jacket pocket and said, "Look here, someone has put this in my pocket," They were taken to the station, charged, and made no reply to the charge. Each prisoner denied knowledge of the other—each said, "I know nothing of thisman." I found on Patterson £1 16s. 6 3/4 d.; £1 2s. on Levy. As I took Levy out of the railway station he gave up a ticket. Patterson said he was a passenger from Moorgate Street to Liverpool Street.

Cross-examined. When Levy gave up a ticket it was not challenged. At the police-station Levy said he had been to Hurst Park races and was coming from Aldgate to buy some salmon for his mother.

(Defence.)

  MOSES LEVY (prisoner, on oath). I live at 209, Brook's Buildings, and am an attendant at a theatre. On June 5 I had been to Hurst Park races, and came from Aldgate to Liverpool Street, where I was going to buy some salmon from Gow's. There was a crowd on the station, and as I was coming out a man with a brown suit pushed me, when I heard prosecutor say he had lost his purse. He caught hold of Patterson and me, and I said, "That man is a perfect stranger to me." Prosecutor told a porter to fetch a policeman, and we were taken into custody. As I was going away I felt something in my pocket. I said to prosecutor, "Someone has put this in my pocket," and gave him the purse. I had on me twohalf-sovereigns and three shillings.

Cross-examined. I had got out of the train which prosecutor was about to get into. I had won money at Hurst Park races. I had come home from Shepherd's Bush to the Bank, taken a 'bus to Aldgate and then come by the Underground Railway to Liverpool Street. I do not know who put the purse in my pocket.

  WILLIAM PATTERSON (prisoner, on oath), 24, Fleming Street, Globe Road, Mile End Road. On July 5 I took a ticket from Moorgate Street to Aldgate and got into a train which stopped at Liverpool Street, when the guard said, "All change." I got out, walked across the platform and asked a man if that was the train to Aldgate; he said, "I do not know." I went toask a porter, when I found myself behind a man with a straw hat on who accused me of stealing his purse. I denied it and said, "I am just going home." He said, "Do you wish me to search you?" I said, "Certainly, search me as much as you like." He sent for a constable, Iwas taken to the police-station and told the inspector I was innocent. At first he said there was not sufficient evidence to charge me, and I was told to sit down. He said, "I do not know whether totake this charge or not." They then sent for the young lady, who said that she saw me by the size of Levy. I said I did not know Levy.

Gross-examined. I never saw Levy there—he is a perfect stranger to me. I had no friend with me. This is the third time I have been on that railway, and I should nothave been on it that night only it being Bank Holiday the 'buses, were not running where I wanted to get to.

Verdict (each), Guilty.

Patterson confessed to being convicted on September 15, 1903, at Worship Street, receiving three months' hard labour for larceny from the person. Ten other convictions were proved against him, including 23, 12, and 12 months' hard labour, and six convictions of three months for frequenting, etc. Levy was stated to have a good character and to have never beenconvicted. Judge Rentoul remarked that if Levy had put his character in issue he would probably have been acquitted.

Sentence: Patterson, 12 months' hard labour; Levy was released in own recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING. (Wednesday, July 5.)

 

  SADLER, Annie Marion (43, midwife), pleaded Guilty of feloniously using an instrument upon   Dorothy O'Connell, otherwise Dolly Dorris, with intent to procure her miscarriage.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Clarke Hall appeared for prisoner.

To another indictment (County of Surrey) for using an instrument upon   Amy Florence Dowling with intent to procure her miscarriage

prisoner pleaded Not guilty. The prosecution were content to take the plea of guilty in the O'Connell case. Prisoner was tried last session for a similar offence and acquitted (see page 197).

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

 

  SMITH, Thomas (20, labourer), pleaded guilty of unlawfully and maliciously wounding   Charles Hicks and   Sarah Tuvey. To a further indictment of feloniously wounding   Charles Darville with intent to murder him prisoner pleaded Not guilty; the prosecution accept the plea to the first indictment.

Mr. Sidney Clarke prosecuted; Mr. Roome appeared for prisoner.

It appeared that prisoner while under the influence of drink had gone through the streets firing indiscriminately from a toy pistol which had been given him by another boy and which he said he believed to be a dummy weapon; it was in fact capable of inflicting serious wounds and even of causing death. Prisoner expressed his contrition and declared that he had nointention of hurting anyone. There was no criminal record against him. He was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Wednesday, July 5.)

 

  FREEMAN, Charles Ernest (49, clerk),   FREEMAN, Rose, the elder (43),   FREEMAN, Rose, the younger (18, blousemaker), and   BEECH, Catherine (23) , all conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from the   Singer Sewing Machine Company, Limited, and in pursuance of such conspiracy obtaining from the said company certain sewing machines, with intent to defraud; C. E. Freeman and R. Freeman, theelder, forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain acquittance and receipt for £4 4s., with intent to defraud; C. E. Freeman and Beech forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain acquittance and receipt for £11 15s., with intent todefraud; C. E. Freeman and Beech, forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain acquittance and receipt for £4 15s. 6d., with intent to defraud; R. Freeman, the elder, obtaining by falsepretences from   John Knight £1 10s., with intent to defraud; Beech obtaining by false pretences from   John Knight £2 10s. and £3 10s., in each case with intent to defraud; all conspiring togetherto steal from the   Singer Sewing Machine Company, Limited, certain sewing machines, with intent to defraud; all con-spiring together to obtain by false pretences from   Richard Langlands £2 5s. and £3 10s., the moneys of   John Knight, with intent to defraud.

Mr. H. H. Lawless prosecuted; Mr. I. P. Oliver defended Beech.

Charles Freeman pleaded not guilty of conspiracy, guilty of forging and uttering two acquittances; Beech pleaded guilty of uttering. Mr.

Lawless stated that the prosecution were prepared to accept those pleas, and that, the other two prisoners being the wife and daughter of C. E. Freeman and greatly under his influence, he did not wish to press the charge against them; a verdict of Not guilty was returned.

Sentence: C. E. Freeman, 12 months' hard labour; Beech was released on her own, Mrs. Beech's, and Mr. Siver's recognisances in £20 each to come up for judgment if called upon.

 

  SIDERMAN, Isaac (37, boot fitter) , attempting to procure   Leah Siderman to become a common prostitute within the King's Dominions; assaulting the said   Leah Siderman.

Mr. Symmons and Mr. Montague Shearman, jun., prosecuted.

Verdict, Guilty on the first count.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour; recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING. (Thursday, July 6.)

 

  BARTLETT, Samuel (32, baker) . Feloniously wounding   Kate Peters with intent to murder her or with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Tully-Christie prosecuted.

Station-Sergeant   LEWIS BUCKNILL , F Division. On May 28, at 10.30 p.m., I was in charge of Kensington Station when prisoner came in and said: "I have killed my girl; I stabbed herfour times on the neck with this knife," which he handed me; he added, "This is all through jealousy; I have been going to do this for some time." He gave me the address atwhich I should find the girl, 1, Tracy Mews. I went there and saw Peters; she had been stabbed or cut. Returning to the station I formally charged prisoner. He said: "I never said I was going to do it forsome time; I had no intention; I said I killed her "; further he said, "She is the cause of it all; she has been out with someone else before me; she is taken away, I suppose." Prisoner wasperfectly sober.

Cross-examined by prisoner. You did not say that you stabbed her twice; you said four times.

  WILLIAM F. BARTLETT . Prisoner (my son) lives with me at 1, Tracy Mews. On May 28, about 10 o'clock, he brought a woman in and I heard some words between them and saw him struggling with her. I went out to fetch a policeman; when I got back I saw Peters bleeding and beginning to die. Prisoner said, "She is dying and I will give myself up."

  MEREDITH TOWNSEND , Divisional Surgeon. On May 28, about 11 p.m., I went to 1, Tracy Mews, and saw Peters; she had a slight punctured wound between the breasts and another in the back; those were trivial cuts, also an incised wound about 1 1/2 in. deep on the

left side of the lower jaw, and another incised wound on the right side of the neck 1 1/2 in long, cutting through the skin and some of the tissues below. The penknife produced might have caused these wounds; considerable force would be required. Peters was sent to the infirmary.

  KATE PETERS , housemaid. I have known prisoner two years; I did not know until I was in the infirmary that he is a married man separated from his wife. On May 28 I met him in High-street, Ken-sington, about 10 p.m., and he wanted me to go up to his home. I went with him; his father and mother were present. He said, "I know where you have been; youhave been with somebody else." I said I had been home to see my people; he said, "If you talk to me I will knock you down "; he struck me and threw me down. I got up to go downstairs, when hestruck me a blow from behind. I fell, and knew no more until I saw the doctor and the policeman. I remember seeing prisoner go to the mantelpiece to get a razor.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I done it in a temper, for jealousy."

Prisoner, called upon for his defence, said that he had no razor; what he did it with was the penknife. He also denied that there was any struggle with Peters.

Verdict, Guilty of wounding with intent to murder.

Sentence, Ten years' penal servitude.

 

  PRICE, Frederick (31, labourer) . Feloniously wounding   Mary Price with intent to murder her, or with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

  MARY PRICE , 51, Fleet Road, Hampstead. Prisoner is my husband. On June 13 he came home about 4.45 p.m. He had been out of work for a fortnight. I said to him, "Boozed again." He accused me of taking a tobacco-box out of his pocket on the previous night. I said, "It's a lie." He said if I stood there telling him lies he would cut my throat; he was having hisdinner at the time and had a table knife in his hand; he jumped up and drew the knife across my throat. I was taken to the hospital.

Cross-examined. We have been married 12 years; he has always been a thorough good husband to me; we have five children; he is very fond of them. He is the only means I have of support. At this time he was much upset by being out of work. I do not think he really intended to hurt me.

  GEOFFREY HOLMES , house surgeon, Hampstead General Hospital. Mrs. Price was brought in suffering from a wound on the right side of the neck about 5 in. long; it was not a dangerous wound; it was not deep enough to touch the main arteries and veins. She was in the hospital four days.

  P.C. BRYAN SMART , 725 S. When I arrested prisoner, he said, "All right, sir, I will go quietly; it was a pure accident"; he had been drinking, but was not drunk.

Detective-Sergeant   GEORGE MILES , S Division. On June 13, at 8 p.m., I saw prisoner at the police-station and told him I should

charge him with attempting to murder his wife by cutting her throat with a table knife that afternoon. He said, "Do not say that, Mr. Miles. I have been out of work since last Monday week. I was away drinking to-day till about 5.30, when I went home; I was having my dinner; my wife began nagging me; I jumped up to push her away; I had the table knife in my hand; the blade caught her throat and cut it."

(Defence.)

  FREDERICK PRICE (prisoner, on oath) repeated the statement made to Miles. He said he was very sorry for what occurred; he had no intention of harming his wife.

Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding, with a strong recommendation to mercy.

There was no criminal record against prisoner; the police gave him the character of a decent, well-conducted man. Mrs. Price asked the Court to let him come back to her. He was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Thursday, July 6.)

 

  ELLERINGTON, Henry (29, chauffeur, and   ALLCORN, Henry, (29, engineer). Ellerington embezzling £1 17s. 6d., received by him for and on account of the   General Motor Cab Company, Limited, his masters; Ellerington, on November 17, 1909, unlawfully making and concurring in making certain false entries in and omitting and con-curring in omitting certain material particulars from certain accounts, to wit, a taximeter and a driver's sheet, with intent to defraud his said employers; Ellerington having received certain property, to wit, £1 17s. 6d., for and on account of his said employers unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit; Ellerington, on June 25, 1910, unlawfully making and concurring in making certain false entries in and omitting and concurring in omitting certain material particulars from certain accounts, to wit, a taximeter and a driver's sheet, with intent todefraud his said employers; Ellerington on September 16, 1910, unlawfully making and concurring in making certain false entries in and omitting and concurring in omitting certain material particulars from certainaccounts, to wit, a taximeter and a driver's sheet, with intent to defraud his said employers; both conspiring together with one   Thomas, George Scott,   Isaac Upcraft and other persons unknown to defraud the   General Motor Cab Com-pany, Limited, of certainmoney, being the earnings of their trade; both attempting to conspire with   William Gibbs for the like purpose.

Ellerington pleaded guilty.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. Wickham appeared for Ellerington; Mr. Du Parcq defended Allcorn.

  HENRY ELLERINGTON (prisoner). I first drove a taxicab for the General Motor Cab Company in March, 1908. I made the acquaintance of Allcorn soon after. I had cab L.C. 932 then, in February, 1909, L.N. 1101. I came out of hospital and my brother George told me to see Allcorn; I met him and he told me he had got the meter arranged for and put it onthe cab; the old Bell type. By pulling the flag right down and bringing it back nearly level it would register on the front and not on the back and I could have the tuppences. It could be done on five out of every 10 meters without tampering without them. I paid Allcorn 7s. or 10s. I had it four or five months; it was changed; the mileage number at the back went wrong and I reported it. Thomas took it off—another taxi-fitter. He asked me how much I paid Allcorn for it andsaid he would put on one just the same for half a sovereign. I pawned my watch for half a sovereign and when I came back to the garage Thomas had put the taximeter on the cab; it remained on till the annual overhauling in Februry, 1910. I drove L.N. 1072 for two or three days; it had the old type meter on which I was able to work in the same way. I had cab L.N. 1247 with the same type of meter for one day; coming out of the garage Allcorn said to me, "Don't pull themileage up as we have had two or three reports in the office about the cabs; defective mileage has been reported." If I had put the mileage up on the totaliser they would have known about it in the office because theday previous another driver had it and had not put the mileage up. Then I had L.N. 1108 with the same type of meter; I could trap the 2d.'s. I got back my own cab with another meter fitted by Allcorn on Thomas's instructions; a "Dreadnought." I could not trap any money. Thomas altered the flag so I could get the 8d.'s a few days after; he said if I gave him a sovereign I could have an oldmeter on. The "Dreadnought "was only on a few days when an old type was put on by Allcorn on Thomas's instructions. With that I could trap the 2d.'s; it remained on till the latter end of June, 1910, and then went wrong. I had another old type meter put on by Allcorn, but it was rejected by the police as being too fast; then another was put on by Allcorn or Thomas at Belvedere Road. Icould not tamper with it; it remained on until the car went in for its annual overhauling. The flag was moved by Allcorn in my presence so that I could get the 8d. It remained on till February this yearwhen I reported it, and it was taken off by Allcorn and another put on—a "Dreadnought." I did not port it in the ordinary way. I left a letter for Allcorn. I waited for him till half-past 12 that night and told him I wanted my meter to be put right, as I was afraid sincemy father was arrested; he was a driver inthe same company and was arrested and convicted; it was taken off and another put on; that remained on till the annual overhauling. I know Upcraft, adriver. I had seen Allcorn and Thomas together. I have not seen Allcorn do anything to the mileage with a large pin; I have seen Thomas push the mileage numbers up. I drove Allcorn to Chatham and Upcraft took him on to

Gillingham in his cab. We came back to London; Allcorn did not. My meter only showed 8d. on the totaliser; but more coming back. Upcraft's meter was not working. That was June 25; Allcorn said he would put me on another meter if I would drive him to Chatham, and I agreed. I know Scott; I did not introduce him to Allcorn. Scott knew my brother. Inever had a meter that answered to the five turns of the starting knob. I heard about an inquest on the "Dreadnought," that theyhadtaken one home; Thomas and Allcorn both told me. It was said that on account of the old type meters being taken off they would have to hold an inquest on the new type to find out what they could do with them.

  HENRY ELLERINGTON (prisoner), further examined. At the end of November or beginning of December. I left a note at the garage for Allcorn, asking him to put my machine right, because I was afraid on account of my father being convicted. I met him; he said he had not received it, but he had put the meter all right. I drove the cab—the meter was not altered at all. The meter shortly afterwards was taken off; he told me he took it offhimself. I said, "'Was there a tumble?'" (had the company found it out) and he said "No."He had owed me 10s. from last June, but he could not pay me. I have often been in the fitter's shop and seen Allcorn doing repairs to meters.

Cross-examined. I was in the employ of the company before going into hospital; I went back in February, 1909; I was up to then an honest driver; a few weeks after"February, 1909, I became dishonest. In August, 1910, my father had an accident at Reigate. I was accused of it. I saw Mr. Wilson in November. I told him I wanted to "shop" my father, as he hadaccused me of something I had not done I would accuse him of something he had done. I said that my father had been in the habit of going to Hookwood two or three times a week with Kay, that hisstar-wheel was always disconnected. I said, "I am a long-headed fellow," my father had given me away and I gave him away. I admit my dishonesty extends back to February, 1909—soon after I hadthe first defective meter put on. The ratchet wheel was reversed on the Dreadnought meter so that they did not register. I defrauded with the old type of meter by getting the flag three-quarters down or not quite down and raising it up till it was nearly level. Those were meterswhich honest drivers can use honestly. What I saw Allcorn do was to take the flag off and put it back again, but I have since learned that he reversed the ratchet; it was near the fitter's shop at 12.30 to one a.m. I made no report of misconduct against Scott. I accused Kay of buying one of the firm's livery overcoats from my father.

Re-examined. When I saw Mr. Wilson nothing had been found out about me, but I thought there was. He gave me a verbal promise that he would not prosecute me. He asked me what my father had been doing. He told me to tell him everything and he would not prosecute me, and I told him everything concerning my father and I told him about Scott. I did not tell him ofany offence that I had committed.

  GEORGE SCOTT , driver, General Motor Cab Company. In September 1910, Ellerington introduced me to Allcorn. As I was passing the "Victoria" public house he called me in, asked me how I was getting on; I told him very badly. He asked me why I did not have the arrangement he had. I said I had never been dishonest yet, and I did not want to start. He said, "Oh, you are a fool"—he would introduce me to Allcorn and geta meter put on for me. Three weeks afterwards I saw Allcorn near the garage. I said, "Hullo, Curly, how are you getting on?" He said, "All right—going to have a cup of coffee"—he seemed notto want to speak to me. I said, "Harry (Ellerington) told me to see you." Then he came round to me and said, "What do you want—a meter?" I said, "Yes." We went towards the coffee-stall and he said, "I could let you have a meter, but only to let you take theeightpences." I said, "That does not matter as long as I get my petrol money back. How much will it be—a dollar?" He said, "No, has not Harry told you?—it is 6s." With that I paid the 6s. and asked himwhen he would have it done. He told me I was to report the meter that night. I reported my meter "Clock slow." The next morning I found it had been broken off. That night I asked Allcorn when it would be ready for me. He said, "It has got to go to the police test tomorrow and when it comes back I will work it all right for you so that you get the eightpences." The next morning I found that if I turned the button five times I could bring the flag down so that the eightpence wouldshow on the face, but would not show on the back. Allcorn told me how to work it. On November 2 the flag stuck and I reported it. Allcorn put another meter on and it went on till November 15, whenthe flag got stuck again. I went to the Fare Register Company in Belvedere Road and another flag was put on. That did not show the eightpence properly in the front. I showed it to Allcorn. He said, "Iwill soon make that all right for you." He got a duster, pressed the flag down and hit it with a big pair of shifters three or four times, which made the eightpence show properly. I paid Allcorn moneyon each of these occasions—6s., 2s., 4s., 1s., and another time 6s. On January 26 or 27, 1911, I saw Wilson—I had an accident with my arm and went to him about the insurance money. On January 30 I telephoned to Wilson; he came to my house in Beresford Street, Walworth; I drove to the solicitors of the company and from there with Mr. Gaylor to the Fare Register Company, Belvedere Road, where Mr. Critchett joined us and we drove to the garage in Brixton. My flag was down, but only 1s. 2d. appeared on the register. The next morning I found my meter had been removed and another put in its place without any report from me. I saw Allcorn at the "Hanover Arms" and asked him why it had been taken off. He said it had runout of date. I said, "How do I stand for another one?" He said I could have one on the usual terms and that I must report it that night. He also said, "I think they are after me. Why were you seen up at Wilson's office and why were all these taxi-meters taken up there." I said, "Wilson wanted to know if I could do the wire trick, that is all." He said, "I think they are out

to have me." He said he was short of money and I gave him 5s. He promised to put the meter on that night. I then reported the meter for "Broken glass." On the Thursday he asked me one or two questions and I said." When are you going to do my meter for me?I gave you the money last Monday and you promised to put me an old meter on." He said, "I will trywhat I can do with it to-night," and told me to report it for broken glass. I then broke the glass with a spanner, reported it, and a fresh meter was put on. I found the next morning it could not bemanipulated, but on Friday morning I found it could be. I then saw Wilson and told him the 8d. only came half-way down, but the extras could be punched up without showing on the register. I worked it onWilson's instructions on the Sunday, when the flexible tube broke. On three occasions Allcorn told me he thought they were out to trap him. I said it was nothing of the sort. He said the Cabdriver's Unionwere after him. The last occasion on the Thursday I went to Plumstead to see Allcorn, told him I wanted the taxi for a wedding for one of the W.G. drivers on the following Sunday and that I wouldintroduce him to a new client. He appointed me to meet him at the "Surrey Arms," near the Oval, just before 12. When I got there the house was closed and we went to the "Hanover Arms." I had justcalled for a drink for him when Gibbs came in. I said this was the new client. They sat down together and talked. Gibbs said, "How much did you say?"I said, "Half-a-sovereign. That is right, is not it?"to Allcorn. He said, "Yes." Allcorn wrote something on a piece of paper forGibbs, who paid him four half-crowns. I was there by arrangement with Gibbs.

Cross-examined. I have been employed by the company since February, 1910. I was always an honest driver till Ellerington spoke to me. He told me about the wire trick. Kay took the flag off my meter and Ellerington put in a piece of wire so that we could defraud the company. This was in August, 1910. I did not defraud the company with this. I wanted to inventsomething which would prevent that being done. I reported the meter three days afterwards and it was taken off. On August 10 Ellerington suggested to take a trip to Hawley. I went with Upcraft, Kay, and afourth man. At Sutton, as I was coming home, I found that they had taken the star-wheel off and nothing was recorded on the meter. I have never taken the star-wheel off myself.

  ISAAC UPCRAFT , driver, General Motor Cab Company. Aboutthree weeks after I drove cab No. 9,497 Ellerington asked me why did not I have a faked taxi-meter; he would introduce me to Allcorn, the fitter—which he did. Allcorn said he would put me one on; that he could not put me an old clock on, but he would put me on a Bell so that I could get the 8d.'s and that I must pay him 5s. I reported the meter "Mileage excessive." About a weekafterwards I found I could get the 8d.'s by pulling the flag down gently, which showed the 8d. to the fare but not on the totaliser. I worked this Bell meter for about a month.

  WILLIAM GIBBS , driver, General Motor Cab Company, from June 1907. On February 4, 1911, I saw Mr. Wilson and afterwards Scott.

On February 9 I saw Scott and Allcorn at the "Hanover Arms. Scott said, "I have done that," meaning he had made arrangements with Allcorn. I gave Allcorn four half-crowns. I asked him how I should get rid of the meter. He told me to report "Excessive miles recorded." I told him I did not know how to write it down, and he wrote the words down on an envelope (produced). I then went to the reporting office, where the clerk, Green, wrote it on the report form. I then saw Allcorn; he said, "Do you think Scott is straight, because I have heard the Union is out to catch me. Scott came round to my place this morning. What is in it?"I said, "I do not know what you mean—get on with the job you have got to do." The next day I found the paint knocked off the flag; there were scratches on it. After that date another driver drove my cab.

  CHARLES DISCOMBE , washer General Motor Cab Company, Brixton Road garage. Scott has asked me to take notes and messages to Allcorn. One night Scott said his clock was wrong. Allcorn said he would put it right for him and asked me for a pair of shifters. I did not see what he did with them, as I was taking the plugs out of Scott's cam.

  LEO FRANCIS GREEN , night-repair report clerk, Brixton garage. On February 9 Gibbs reported his meter to me, which I wrote down on report produced. The repair is done by "A. T. Allcorn," who has signed it.

  HENRY FENN , driver, General Motor Cab Company. On February 10 I asked Gibbs to let me use his cab, which I did from 1.30 p.m. until 11p.m. I met Gibbs in the Brixton Road and he looked at the meter which recorded the extras properly.

  JOHN F. ENOCH , taxi-meter inspector, National Physical Laboratory, Teddington. I produce card relating to meter 32, 788. It was last sealed on May 17, 1909, and would become due for resealing on May 31, 1910. If any repairs had been required on it, it would have been sent back to the laboratory to be resealed.

Police-constable   ARTHUR FAIRMAN , 226 CO., I am employed at New Scotland testing taxicabs. On November 1, 1910, I tested cab No. 1,419, the meter of which was No. 650. It was passed and a police seal put on. On November 4 I tested the same cab with meter No. 27 and passed it.

  ALFRED LONG , clerk, Metropolitan Fare Register Company, Limited, 80, Belvedere Road. Allcorn is a mechanic employed by my company who worked at the General Motor Company's garage, Brixton Road. Since October, 1910, he has been on night duty. His duty was to repair slight defects in meters at the garage. If he could not rectify the defect he would replace the meter by another and send the defective meter to Belvedere Road. Thomas was on similar duty from three years ago. On October 10th, 1910, taximeter 2,129 was fixed to cab 9,419; on October 27 it was reported "glass broken," taken off by Allcornand meter 1,639 put on. On Octo-ber 13 that meter was reported as not recording sufficiently, removed by Allcorn and No 650 put on. On November 3 Scott reported something

thing wrong with the flag; 650 was taken off and No. 27 put on. On November 15 the flag of No. 27 was refittted at our works. On November 26 Scott complained the flag was wrong; No. 27 was replaced by Allcorn with meter No. 1,902. On November 29 that was reported "not recording sufficient." It was removed by Allcorn and No. 517 put on. On February 1,517 was removed because the seals were out of date and No. 475 put on. On February 9 Scott reported "Glass broken"; 475 was removed by Allcorn and 737 was put on. On February 13 that wasreported by Scott, "Flexible gone," removed by Allcorn and replaced by No. 373; the meter was repaired by Allcorn. Gibbs's cab was No. 1,314. On January 14 meter No. 2,071 wag put on at Belvedere Road. On February 10 the flexible was adjusted by Allcorn and on February 14 the meter was removed by Mr. Pollard and replaced by meter No. 272 on a report by Gibbs, "Recording miles excessive"; the repair "Mileage flexible adjusted" is done by Allcorn. On August 11, 1909, Ellerington's cab, No. 1,101, was fitted with an E. or Bell meter, No. 32,919—removed by Allcorn on August 11, "not recording sufficient," replaced by old type meter No. 12,035; that wasreplaced on October 4 by old type meter, No. 10,499; replaced October 7 by meter No. 12,113 by Thomas. That meter was tested by Thomas on October 8, 1909, and February 4, 1910, and found correct; removed by Allcorn during the annual renovations on February 21 and on March 2 replaced by "Dreadnought" meter No. 743; on March 4 the clock was rectifiedby Thomas; on March it was removed by Allcorn and an old type meter, No. 12,154, put on. On June 27 that was removed and No. 12,167 put on, tested by the police on June 28, and replaced atour works by "Dreadnought" meter. No. 1,755, replaced on June 29 by No. 1,355 by Thomas. On July 1 Ellerington reported "Flag broken"; repaired by Thomas; on July 28 reported "Flag gets stuck," repaired by Thomas. On December 12 No. 1,355 was removed and No. 617 put on by Allcorn, rejected by the police and No. 1,489 put on at our works; that was removed on January 17 during renovations, replaced on January 25 by "Dread-nought" No. 364. Upcraft's cab, No. 9,497, on April 14, 1910, was fitted with "Dreadnought" meter 1,252, which was then replaced by Allcorn by a bell meter, 32,788. On August 19 that was replaced by Thomas with "Dreadnought"No. 2,169. On September 24 that was removed during renovations and on October 5 No. 679 put on by Allcorn. On October 26 Allcorn refitted flag.

Cross-examined. Allcorn was working under Thomas until Thomas left. The "Dreadnought" meter was introduced in October, 1909; for some time old meters continued to be used.

  JOHN EDWARD SEARS , M.A., A.M.I.C.E., assistant at the National Physical Laboratory. Meters are sent by the Metropolitan Fare Register Company to my laboratory, tested, and sealed if correct. On March 7, 1911, I received meters Nos. 517 and 737 (Scott's) and No. 2,071 (Gibbs's), which I tested in the presence of Mr. Wilson, manager, and Mr. Gaylor, solicitor to the cab company, Mr. Critchett and Mr. Matthews, for the Fare Register Company, and Mr. Pritchard,

solicitor for Allcorn. The seals of 737 were intact. On turning the button five times I found that the flag could be moved partly down so that the 8d. would be disclosed without the 8d. being registered on the totaliser; the flag could be raised without touching the control button. The proper method of operating the meter is to turn the control button three times when theflag goes down; the bell rings and the amount of the fare registers on the totaliser. This meter, although it can be used to trap the 8d. if used honestly, records properly so far as that point is concerned. Ifound that the pawl which engages the flag control ratchet wheel was rounded off in some of the teeth so that it didnot properly engage after the nob had been turned five times, causing it to jump someof the teeth. The object of the control button is to prevent the operation of the flag taking place too rapidly and to ensure that the fare recorded on the face should also appear on the totaliser. I also found the extras' mechanism did not work properly owing to the imperfectionin the teeth, so that the 2d.'s might be registered against the fare and not on the totaliser. In my opinion these defects could not have been caused by fair wear and tear. Meter No. 517 had the seals intact. The flag was removed and I put on a new flag. It could be operated without using the control button. When five turns were given the effect was similar to No. 737. By raising the flag gently the 8d. isnot totalised; if moved a little harder the 8d. would totalise. This motor could be operated honestly or dishonestly. The teeth of the pawl are rounded off; this might have been done by a violentmovement of the flag against the ratchet teeth, some of which were broken and the pieces of which I found inside the meter. Meter No. 2,071 had the seals intact. The flag was not tight. The extras lever required ahard push in order to totalise them; by working it gently extras could be shown to the fare without being totalised; the extras lever is rather loose, enabling the 2d. to be shown on the front and not on the back. The date of the last sealing was January 11, 1911—it wasquite a new meter. Ellerington's meter, No. 1,355, was examined by me on February 27 in the presence of Wilson, Gaylor, Matthews, and Critchett. The flag was entirely under control: the 8d. could betrapped by putting a piece of indiarubber like that produced between the flag and the bell.

Cross-examined. The meters I have spoken to have not been used since I examined them. The looseness of the flag in Gibbs' meter (No. 2,071) is not greater than is frequently found, and might be due to the softening of the leather-washer, or to wear; it might have been used honestly by an honest driver. In 737 the teeth might have been broken off by manipulating the flagagainst the ratchet wheel. I could not say if it could be done by striking the flag with a pair of shifters. Ellerington's meter (No. 1,355) has not been injured by violence; the flag has been taken out and the rachet wheel reversed, so that the wrong sets of teeth werepresented to the two pawls.

Chief Inspector   ALFRED WARD , New Scotland Yard. On February 14, at 1.30 p.m., I arrested Allcorn on a warrant, charging him with conspiring to defraud the General Motor Cab Company by tampering with

meters. I read the warrant to him. He said, "Conspiracy to do what?"I said, "In connection with the meters, the taxi-cabs, and the drivers." He said, "I never had any money. One of the men came to me with some once and wanted me to tamper with the meter, and I treated it as a joke. I know a number of the drivers endeavoured to get up a huge conspiracy tocatch me, but they have failed." I arrested Ellerington the same day. I found in his waistcoat pocket a number of pieces of india-rubber (produced).

(Tuesday, July 11.)

  MARK EMDON , pawnbroker, Camberwell New Road. On October 4, 1909, a watch was pawned with me for 10s. in the name of "Ellard, 11, Carew Street," and redeemed on October 6.

Inspector JOHN KILLICK, Metropolitan Police, Public Carriage branch, New Scotland Yard. On June 28, 1910, I inspected taxi-cab L.N. 1,101, meter 12,167 (Ellerington's) over a three-mile measured course, and reported it unfit.

  EDWARD WILLIAM BRITTEN , driver, General Motor Cab Company. On June 28, 1910, I took taxi-cab No. 1,101, meter 12,167, to be tested by the police; Inspector Killick found it registered too quickly. I drove it to 80, Belvedere Road, and the meter was replaced by No. 1,755, which was tested, passed, and sealed by the police.

  ISAAC UPCRAFT , recalled. I took a journey with my cab to Maidstone and Chatham from London; Ellerington drove the same journey with his cab. At Plum stead Ellerington picked up Allcorn. On arrival at Chatham Allcorn asked me to take him on to Gillingham, which I did. My star-wheel was disconnected. I drove back to Chatham; my metermiles was notworking. Driver's sheet (produced) of June 25 records 17 travelled, for which I paid in the money on June 26. I believe that was the date of the Journey.

  WILLIAM STONSHAM , wheelwright. On June 25, 1910, I drove in Upcraft's cab to Chatham. At Plumstead we picked up Allcorn.

  JOHN WHITE , retired coachman. I went with Ellerington and his father on a ride to Chatham and Maidstone in June last year. When we got to Plumstead we picked up another passenger.

Chief-Inspector   ALFRED WARD , recalled. On February 25 I drove to Chatham and Maidstone in a taxi-cab; on the outward journey the meter registered 31 1/2 miles; on the home journey 30 1/2 miles.

  GEORGE WILLIAM WILSON , claims superintendent, General Motor Cab Company, Limited. Scott drove cab 9,419 from October 15, 1910. On January 30, 1911, I had a telephone message from him, and went for a drive with Mr. Gaylor and Mr. Critchett to 80, Belvedere Road; we then returned to Brixton Garage; the meter (No. 517) registered nothing; it was removed on February 1. I found when the flag was down in apparently the normalrecording position nothing registered. Scott then raised the flag while I looked at the totaliser, and I found the 8ds. came to one less; the 8d. was not totalised, and no twopences were totalised. I found onturning the button control five times the

flag went down almost to the recording position; the shutters opened, and the fare could see the 8d., but the 8d. did not totalise, and the flag could be put back again into the stop position. Scott explained to me the five-turn trick. Meter 737 was put on and worked normally. I saw it on Friday and it answered to the five-turn trick. It was sent to be examined by Sears.(Witness corroborated with regard to the various meters dealt with).

Cross-examined. Allcorn was not my company's employe, but he would take orders from us in regard to the work he had to do. He was supplied by his company with a number of meters, many of which were of the old type which continued to be used until there wasa full supply of new type meters. An examination of taxi-meters at the Brixton garage was made on February 14. A large number was found defective. We had also garages at Chiswick and at Palm Lane, Walham Green, the meters for which are supplied by the Fare Register Company. An investigation wasmade of those—I do not know the result of it.

  WALTER JULIAN CKITCHETT . I am general manager Metropolitan Fare Register Company.

Cross-examined. Allcorn has been in our employment since January, 1908; he was previously at the Royal Laboratory, Woolwich, which he left with an excellent character. We have had no reason to complain of his conduct. He began to work at the General Motor Cab Company three years ago, he was then on day work under Thomas, attending to transmissiongear, but occasionally assisting with taximeters under Thomas's instructions. In October, 1910, he commenced night duty. My company supplied Allcorn with a stock of meters. He could fit the older types on tocabs if they were operative. The "Dreadnoughts" were introduced on October 1, 1909, and were gradually supplied as they could be manufactured and the older types withdrawn, but Allcorn was quite entitled to put on any taximeter if it was sealed and in proper working order. If a meter had its seal out of date it would probably be due to an omission of our official at Belvedere Road. Inmy opinion it would be impossible or extremely difficult to break the teeth of the rachet wheel by hitting the flag with a spanner; it would probably split the rachet and break the case. (Witness produced a working model and explained the gear.) Allcorn wouldhave no knowledge of the internal mechanism of a taximeter: it was not part of his work. Any defects other than immediately remediable would be sent to our works.

Re-examined. I am not an engineer, but I understand the working of a taximeter.

(Defence.)

  HENRY ALLCORN (prisoner, on oath). My name is Henry Edward Allcorn. I live at Plumstead and am 29 years of age. Before entering the service of the Fare Register Company in January, 1908, I was a labourer at Woolwich Arsenal for 11 years, for which I have

good discharge papers. I was employed at the Brixton garage at first under Thomas on transmission work, doing day work only until October 1, 1910; I used to change a meter under orders from Thomas. If a meter had serious defects it was sent to Belvedere Road to be repaired. I have no knowledge of the inner working of a meter and have never seen one out of its case. Very few meters would be reported at the garage during the day time, asthe drivers would take them to Belvedere Road to be repaired. When on day work I started at 6 a.m.; Thomas started at 12 midnight and remained at the garage until he had finished his reports. He lefton October 1, 1910, and I took his place on nightwork, my duty being to fix taximeters on and to make slight adjustments. For about 12 months we had both the "Dreadnought" and two old types ofmeters in use. I have received tips from drivers—6d., 3d., or 1s., and on one or two occasions 2s. 6d.; this was for expeditiously repairing or adjusting meters which had been reported, so that the men could get to their work quickly. Many drivers preferred the oldertype meter because they found that in the "Dreadnought" the flag frequently got stuck, which would compel them to return to the garage and lose time. I have known as many as 30 return in a day with flagsbroken, fixed, or strained. I received 2s. 6d. from Upcraft; 1s. 6d. from Scott, similar sums from Ellerington—all for services rendered in doing repairs quickly. I have never been asked by any driver to fake a meter. I have heard banter between the drivers in the yard about "wangling" meters—playing tricks with a meter. It is untrue that in June or July, 1910, at 12.30 midnight I banged Ellerington's flag with a pair of shifters, I was on day work at that time. Inever did such a thing. Ellerington never manipulated the flag so as to trap the 8d.'s in my presence. I deny his evidence. I never used shifters for repairs—I might borrow them in order to take adefective flag out. Scott was not a friend of mine. On one occasion he told me that he might pick me up as I lived at Woolwich and ask me for my address, which I wrote down in his book. In February, 1911, he came to my house about 3 p.m. I was then in bed, as I was doing nightwork. He said, "I am in a bit of a trouble. I have been on the accident list with my arm, and Mr. Wilson accuses me of having something to do with receiving or stealing an overcoat. He showedme a statement made by Ellerington accusing me of it." Scott asked me if I had ever been to Chatham with Ellerington and I said "Yes." He said, "Was the fare properly recorded on the clock?" I said, "Yes, as far as I know"—7 as I had not come back with him. He told me that he was going to lay information against Ellerington. He asked me to meet him at the "Surrey Arms," near the Oval, at half-past 11 or a quarter to 12; I did not understand what that appointment was for, and I did not keep it. I went to Bleep in the train and went on to Charing Cross. I came down by tramover Westminster Bridge and saw the breakdown car. This was February 9. He intercepted me between Kennington Church and the "Hanover Arms." He said, "You did not turn up there," meaning the "Surrey." I told him I had slept in the train and had just come down on the breakdown car. He then

followed me into the "Hanover Arms" and then started talking about this overcoat and Ellerington and the Chatham job. He said, "Are you sure the money was on the clock?"I said, "Yes, when I left him the money was on the dial." I said, "Why are you worrying me for this information?"He said Mr. Wilson had promised not to take proceedings against himproviding he could gain information to get the conviction of Ellerington. Then Gibbs came in. I know him by sight and have spoken to him in the telephone room when I have been sitting there. He was known in the garage as Luney Gibbs. He is eccentric; talks to himself; he will go into a public-house and call for a cigar and a glass of water. Gibbs said, "Curly, I think those milesrecorded with the flag down were going too fast." Scott did not hear that. I said, "Make out a report in your book." He said, "How shall I report it." I said, "Recording mileage excessive." He said, "Ishall never remember that, write it out on this envelope." I wrote it. Then Scott and Gibbs had a conversation and told me a yarn about a man that had gone from our garage to W. and G., who wasgoing to get married and they were going to do the wedding job. Scott went over to the counter; Gibbs put 10s. in my hand and then joined Scott, who was talking to some cabmen. He said, "That will beall right," and went out. I did not know what the 10s. was for; there was nothing I could do to warrant him giving me 10s. I thought he was taken with a fit of madness. I told my colleague Lucasabout it, and expected Gibbs would come after it. I did not do anything to Gibbs's taximeter; I had no occasion to; it was recording mileage excessive; I had just to release the flexible, which wasthe recognised thing; I did not advise Scott to break the glass. It became obvious to me, I think it was the next day, when I was considering about this 10s. and what Scott had said and the way hewas pestering me in the garage and talking about this coat, that it was my name that had been mentioned and not Ellerington's. I began to think it was a trap. My conscience was quite clear on that and I thought it Would finish in finding out they had made a mistake andthere would be an end of it and I would be 10s. better off. Scott's meter glass was broken at the time he speaks about. I substituted another meter. The night after the conversation with Gibbs I had afurther conversation with Scott. The result of changing his meter would cause the cab to go up for a police stop. It was part of my duty to examine the transmission to see if there was any such thing asbreaking flexible going, which the police failed it for: and there was an arrangement between our company and the taximeter company that they should be charged half the average earnings of thecab for the day. When I went to examine Scott's cab he was standing there. This was the next night. After examining Scott's I went to another on the other side of the bay. Scott followed me andsaid, "I have to go up in the office to-morrow about that coat." He seemed so much worried about it that I told him if I was him I should go to Mr. Cohen, the managing director, and tell him all the circumstances, and I had no doubt Mr.

Cohen would forgive him for it. I then walked away from the bay; he followed me and I told him he had better get off. That is the last conversation I had with him. I do not remember receiving a letter from Ellerington asking me to put his meter right as he was afraid now that his father had been convicted. If I received a letter it was certainly not worded in that way or Ishould remember it. It was hardly a thing he would ask me to do. I have never knowingly put on a meter that had been faked. I have received twopences, threepences, and sixpences fromdrivers. The cab yard exists on tips.

Cross-examined. Before October 1, 1910, I have removed meters on Thomas's instructions. I drove in Ellerington's cab to Chatham. The meter was working, the part I could see, the dial. I drove from Chatham to Gillingham in Upcraft's cab. To the best of my recollection his meter was working. It is only a matter of three-quarters of a mile to one mile. I did not payeither of them anything. The only other occasion I made a journey to Gillingham was with a man named Morgan, cab 1,280. That was from Plumstead. He was driving two gentlemen to Dartford andpassed me on the road. He asked me to jump on the front. I was invited to continue the journey with the passengers. On the way back, coming through Shoreham, the driver hit a milestone with his wheel and the lorry had to be sent by the firm to bring it home. When I leftthere was between £2 10s. and £3 recorded on the clock and it was paid in. If the cab was found with nothing on the clock it would be bad for the driver, but there would not want to be £3 on theclock for a distance like that. I went to Gillingham several times last year at week-ends. I did not go with other drivers than those two. I have seen that Ellerington's meter 1,355 has no control at all. If I had examined it I should have found that. I took that meter off for flag action defective. I did not find that it had no control. It was jammed up a bit. (The witness gave a demonstration with the meter.) I did not touch the control button; I only pulled the flag up straight. I was not aware of the condition of the meter when I' took it off. I thought the flag was jammed right up. When I removed it I found it jammed, as we have just seen. I removed it for that defect. Ifitted a meter to Upcraft's cab 32,788 on April 14. It was no fault of mine that it remained on till August when it expired in May. Upcraft reported bis meter for mileage not recording. I took it off and hadto put on another. He said, "Put me on one of the old type if you don't mind." I put one on and received 2s. 6d. for doing it. He is wrong in saying 5s. The reason he gave was that the drivers andthe company were losing a lot of money owing to not being able to raise the flag from the stop position on the new meters. If I had old type meters it was in my discretion to put them on. Gibbs's meter was all right. He reported it "mileage excessive." I did not remove it. It was on when I was arrested. I adjusted the flexible. I did not test it for mileage excessive. It could be found out whether it wasright or wrong that the meter was recording mileage excessive. To adjust the flexible is a matter of pulling the flexible quick. That would not make it go wrong. I do not

remember when I wrote the address in Scott's book; it certainly was not a year ago. He told me that sometimes he set a fare down at Woolwich and asked me what time I came up. I said 10.30 to 11 p.m. He said, "If I am down there I will drive you up on the front." He made use of that address to visit me only once; that was a week or a fortnight after I hadwritten it. He also wrote a letter-card once; I do not know the date; I do not keep letters; it said he wanted to see me at the garage that night; it was only a few words. It did not say, "I will see you all right"or "I have got another." I did not tell Scott the union were trying to trap me; it might be the cab company, not the union. I did not say to Gibbs, "Do you think that Scott is straight?"He did notsay, "I do not know what you mean; get on with the job you have got to do."I did not say, "I have heard the union is out to catch me" or "trap me." I did not say, "I cannot make out that Scott" or "Hecomes round to my place this morning; what is in it?" He stood me a drink in the "Hanover Arms." He did not ask how he should get rid of his meter. I did not say, "Report excessive miles recorded." He might have complained that his miles with the flag down were recording. He told me to write it down. He gave me four half-crowns. I did not do anything to his flag or to the lever of hisextras; I did not touch the meter at all. I borrowed shifters from Scott when his washer was there. That was for an adjustment of the star wheel. I do not know what date that was; I attend to 40 reports a night. I did not put a duster on the flag and hammer it with the big shifters. I did not know George Ellerington before this case. Ellerington's account of his first meeting with me is wrong. Idid not say I had got the meter that had been mentioned by his brother. I did not put on a fresh meter in Henry Ellerington's presence. I did not get the letter he says he sent after his father's conviction. He did not meet me outside the garage the same night and tell me what he had said in the letter. What all these men have said against me is false. I have had no quarrel with any of them. (The meter was again handed to witness, who was asked if he could make the flagstick again without touching the button. He could not.)

(Wednesday, July 12.)

Verdict (Allcorn), Guilty.

Sentence: Ellerington, Eight months' hard labour; Allcorn, Nine months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.

(Thursday, July 6.)

 

  WYATT, Thomas (49, fitter), and   EDWARDS, William (32, porter) , both unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same; Edwards feloniously possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same. Edwards pleaded guilty.

Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., prosecuted; Mr. White defended.

Detective   ALBERT BOREHAM , H Division. On May 8, about 8 am., I was in Mile End Road, accompanied by Sergeant Dessent. We saw prisoners and another man at the corner of Harford Street and Mile End Road. They were evidently examining something. They went down Harford Street and returned to Mile End Road. They walked along about a quarter of amile, then turned down White Horse Lane into Ernest Street, where we missed them. We returned into Mile End Road, and there saw Wyatt and the man not in custody at the corner of Harford Street. They went down Harford Street and joined Edwards. We came to the corner of Harford Street; they evidently saw us and hurried down Harford Street, into Skidmore Street. As they turned into Skidmore Streetthey turned round. When we got to Skidmore Street theyturned into Ducket Street. We missed them there. We afterwards returned to Mile End Road and got on a tramcar. We thought we had lost them altogether. As we were passing Stepney Green, goingtowards Aldgate, we saw prisoners walking along Mile End Road. We got off the car a little further on and waited for the prisoners to come along. As they saw us they separated. I stopped Edwards, toldhim we were police officers and suspected them of having counterfeit coin in their possession. He made no reply. I searched him, and in his left-hand waistcoat pocket I found a counterfeit florin, dated 1896, in his left-hand trousers pocket eight half-crowns, dated 1910, 19 florins, dated 1896, five shilling pieces, dated 1910, and six sixpences, dated 1910, all counterfeit. I said to him, "These are counterfeit," I was present when Wyatt was charged. He did not sayanything.

Sergeant   HENRY DESSENT , H Division. (After confirming Bore-ham's statement as to the movements of prisoners). When prisoners separated after we left the tram I stopped Wyatt. I told him whom we were. I said, "We suspect you of having counterfeit coin in your possession." He said, "We saw you at Harford Street. I am just going to my work down at themarket." I said, "You have been having a funny run round to get to the market. Who do you work for, and what market were you going to?"He commenced to laugh, and said, "Don't make me laugh, governor." I then searched him. In his waistcoat pocket I found one half-crown, dated 1910, one shilling, on sixpence, and 3 1/2 d. bronze, genuine money. On taking that money from his pocket hesaid, "You won't find anything on me."

  SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. I received from the police the exhibits in this case now before me. No. 1 is a counterfeit florin, dated 1896, No. 2 is eight half-crowns, 20 florins, five shillings, and six sixpences. The eight half-crowns are dated 1910, the florins are dated 1896, the shillings 1910, the sixpences 1910, They are all counterfeit. The genuine half-crown is dated 1910 and is the pattern piece which has been used to make the eight counterfeit half-crowns.

(Defence.)

  THOMAS WYATT (prisoner, on oath). I live at 9, Stanley Road, Stratford. I met Edwards between Charrington's Brewery and White Horse Lane. I have known him a week or 10 days. On the Saturday previous to the arrest he told me he had possibilities of earning a few shillings and if he had five shillings he could get on with it. I said, "I have five shillings youcan have the use of if you like." He said he might give it me next week. I met him on Monday by accident. I was going to Covent Garden Market, where I buy flowers now and again. He said, "Iam going as far as Harford Street and if you could come with me it is quite likely I may be able to give you half-a-crown." At Harford Street he gave me the half-a-crown, which was found in mypocket. I did not know that at that or any other time he had any counterfeit coin in his possession. I did not see the officers in Harford Street. I did not know either of them.

Cross-examined. I gave the police no address because the people at home had been in great trouble. I came to know Edwards by seeing him up Cambridge Heath Road amongst some of the lads that knock about there. I only spoke to him casually. On the Saturday afternoon I saw him at the corner of Grove Road with this third man. I do not know who he is, Edwards asked me to give him a drink, and the conversation about the 5s. came up.

  WILLIAM EDWARDS (prisoner, on oath). I have known Wyatt about 10 days. What he has said about my borrowing this money is correct. I will take my oath he is absolutely innocent. He did not know what I had in my possession. I know who the third man was, Wyatt does not. I gave him back the half-crown that was found in his possession on Mondaymorning.

Cross-examined. I never examined anything in Wyatt's company on Monday morning. I met him by accident. We did not see the police. It is not true that we hurried away.

Re-examined. I do not know Boreham or Dessent. They do not know me.

Verdict (Wyatt), Not guilty.

Edwards confessed to a conviction for felony at this Court on March 31, 1908.

Edwards was further indicted for that he is a habitual criminal. Detective ALBERT BOREHAM. I served the statutory notice on prisoner on June 6. He replied, "Very well." He was last released from prison on March 25 last. When he was charged at the Thames Police Court I asked him where he had been working. He replied, "You will know soon enough." On November 24, 1904, he was sentenced to six months' hard labourat the Mansion House in the name of William Thomas for stealing a bicycle. The certificate has been put in.

Warder   WILLIAM REYNOLDS proved the following convictions: March 31, 1908, four years' penal servitude, uttering counterfeit

coin; May 21, 1906, 12 months' hard labour, uttering base coin, in the name of William Thomas.

Several other convictions were mentioned.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude on the felony indictment, to be followed by five years' preventive detention; no sentence was passed on the misdemeanour indictment.

 

  MAHMOUD, Omar Beni (35, labourer) , robbery with violence upon   Emily Cooper and stealing from her the sum of 5s., her moneys.

Mr. Pasmore prosecuted.

Police-constable   GEORGE PROSSER , 226 G. On June 15 I was on duty in plain clothes in Oxford Street at 1.30 a.m. I saw prosecutrix and prisoner there. I heard the woman scream and looked in the direction. Prisoner got hold of her by the arms and swung her round. She fell to the ground. As she was on the ground prisoner kicked her in the back with the flat of hisfoot and knelt down by her side. She was screaming all the time. I ran up as he was running away and caught hold of him. He commenced to struggle. I twisted his arm round his back and some money fell from his hand on the pavement. There were no people about at the time. There were 20 or 30 there after I got assistance. I picked up 4 1/2 d. in coppers. I did not see anybody else pick up anything. I only saw him kick her once. Before the assault I saw themspeaking for two or three minutes. I did not think it necessary to watch them. He was perfectly sober.

  EMILY COOPER , charwoman, 21, Macklin Street, Drury Lane. I was in Oxford Street at 1.30 a.m. on June 15. Prisoner came up and gave me one push. I fell and he gave me a kick. Then he put hit hand in my pocket and took my money. It was in a handkerchief. I got 4 1/2 d. back. As I tried to get up the officer came to my assistance. He said, "You must come to thestation with this man." There were a few people about when the robbery took place; not many.

  OMAR BENI MAHMOUD (prisoner, not on oath). I never saw the woman except at the police station. I did not know whether the man who arrested me was a policeman or not. I never took any money out of her pocket. I cannot speak the language, therefore I could not speak to her. During the time I have been in London I have always worked and earned my livinghonestly. I have not robbed anybody and never strike a woman. By the law of Mahomet it is not allowed to strike a woman and I would not do it for the reason that I am in a foreign countrq.

Police-constable   PROSSER , recalled. I handed prisoner overto the custody of two uniformed men, who took him to the station. I followed with the woman. She did not appear before the magistrate on the first occasion. I went to the address she had given me and she said she was too ill to attend, but would come next morning. I have no doubt prisoner is the man I arrested. There was found on prisoner four shillings and 2 1/2 d. in bronze. People in the crowd

might have picked up some of the money; they had the appearance of being disreputable persons.

  EMILY COOPER , recalled. The coins I had were one half-crown, one shilling, two sixpences, and some coppers. I cannot quite swear to the half-crown. If four shillings were found in prisoner's pocket some of it could not have been mine.

Prisoner. She saw the money when they searched me at the police station and it cannot be the same money.

Verdict, Guilty of assault with intent to rob.

Sentence, Three months' hard labour.

 

  RANDALL, Edward (32, labourer) , feloniously uttering counterfeit coin.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

  FRANK ALBERT THROWER , barman, "Castle" public-house, High Street, Kingsland. Prisoner came in at 9 p.m. on May 7 and asked for a glass of ale. There were no other customers in the bar. He tendered a florin in payment, keeping his hand over it. I looked at the coin, tried it on the till and found it to be counterfeit I said to him, "I have got you this time," and to the potman, "Stop him." Prisoner then ran outside. He was broughtback and I gave him into custody. I recognised him as a man who had passed one on me a fortnight previous. At the station he said to me, "I cannot get more than 18 months, but I will have you." Igave the coin to the police. The coin passed a fortnight previously I broke up.

Cross-examined by prisoner. You said at the station you had not been in the house before. This was not said in the house. You did not say to me, "If it is a bad 2s. piece you can keep it." The potman caught you 40 or 50 yards from the house.

  HENRY JOSEPH CHILDS , potman. I did not see prisoner come in. I heard him call for a glass of ale. The barman showed me the coin and said, "Stop him!" Prisoner ran out of the house. When I caught him he said, "All right; all right." I marched him back a little way and handed him over to a constable.

To prisoner. I have not seen you in the house before.

Re-examined. When he said "All right; all right," I had said nothing to him.

Sergeant  HORACE HARDING , 3 JR. I saw prisoner rushing out of the house and the potman chasing him. The potman said to me, "Bring this man back; he has been passing bad money." Prisoner said nothing. I brought him back to the house. On searching him I found in his jacket pocket 27 pennies, 14 halfpennies, and five sixpences, in good money. In replyto the charge he said, "All right."

To prisoner. I did not find any money in your trousers pocket; there might have been some there.

  SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. This coin is a counterfeit florin.

(Defence.)

  EDWARD RANDALL (prisoner, on oath). I had been out in the morning to the Custom House; there was no work. I met one or two

friends. I had some money I had won on the previous Saturday over the Jubilee Stakes, which Bachelor's Button won at 40 to 1. We had been drinking. I then went to Stamford Hill. I thought as I had been having a drink extra I would walk home. Walking along Kingsland Road I went into this public-house to have a glass of ale and put my hand in my pocket and handedhim a coin which I thought was a penny. I did not intend giving a 2s. piece. I told him I had never been in there before and if it was bad he had better keep it as I did not want it and walked outof the house. He said to the pot-man, "Stop him!"and I had a feeling come over me that I did not want to get into trouble. I ran away.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction. Other convictions were proved.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Thursday, July 6.)

 

  GARRETT, David (22, clerk) , unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin twice within 10 days; feloniously uttering counterfeit coin. Prisoner was tried for the felony.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted; Mr. Bryan defended.

  ALFRED THOMAS SCOTT , barman, "Artillery Arms," Rochester Row, Westminster. On June 16, about 5.50 p.m., prisoner asked for a pony of bitter, 1d., tendering a shilling, which I found to be bad. The manager asked prisoner where he had got it. He said, "I got it from a bookmaker in Oxford Street." The manager said, "Wait a moment," and went round to the public side of the bar. In the meantime, prisoner rushed out and ran away. On the previous Wednesday, June 14, about 2.30 p.m., prisoner had asked for a packet of Woodbines, 1d., tendering a bad shilling on that occasion. I tested it on the counter and handed it back. He simply handed me the Woodbines back and walked out.

Cross-examined. He was only in the bar a minute or two. I had never seen him before. He was dressed exactly as be is now, wearing a bowler hat, on both days. I am sure he said Oxford Street, not Ascot. I was not excited at all.

  THOMAS NELSON CARLTON , manager, "Artillery Arms." I came into the bar on the 16th in consequence of a communication made to me by the barman. I asked prisoner where he had got the coin from. He hesitated, and I repeated the question twice. He said he had got it from a bookmaker. I said, "Where?"He said, "In Oxford Street." I did not like the way in which he answered me, so I went back through the saloon bar to join him onthe public side. When I got there he had gone. I saw him in the next turning, Willow Street. I

gave chase; a police-sergeant took up the running and I followed till he was arrested.

Cross-examined. I am positive he said Oxford Street, not Ascot. I did not see him on the Wednesday.

Re-examined. He said Ascot at the police-station.

Police-sergeant   ALBERT CLARKE , 16A. I saw prisoner running fast, followed by Carlton. He was stopped by a private individual and when I arrested him he said, "Are you going to lock me up? I was a fool to run away." I found on him one sovereign, two half-crowns, two shillings and twopence in bronze, all good money. In reply to the charge he said, "I was a fool to run away. I got the coin at Ascot from a bookmaker."

  ALFRED JOHN SPARKES , 5, Vincent Square Mansions, Westminster. I was getting my lunch beer in the "Artillery Arms" on June 14 when prisoner came in and asked for a packet of Woodbines. I saw the barman take the coin in his hands and bend it up. I am not positive whether he tendered another coin or whether the cigarettes were returned.

Cross-examined. I did not say at the police-court that he tendered another coin; I said that to the best of my belief he did so. I did not say anything about getting his change. I was not aware that was in the evidence when I signed it. I had never seen prisoner before. I picked him out of eight men at the police-station.

  SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , assistant assayer, H.M. Mint. The shilling (produced) is counterfeit.

(Defence.)

  DAVID GARRETT (prisoner, on oath). I am a bookmaker's clerk. I was at Ascot racecourse on June 14. I arrived there at 2.45 p.m. I met there a chap named Myers, who works on the course, also Detective-sergeants Edwards and Smith. I had bets on Spanish Prince, Hornet's Beauty, and Sun-up. I backed Hornet's Beauty in Rathbone Place, Oxford Street because I thought I could get a better price. The horse won. I got money from there, and I got money from the racecourse, as I backed the same horse at Ascot. I had no idea thatshilling was a bad coin.

Cross-examined. I do not work for proper bookmakers. I work sometimes for one and sometimes for another. I had a conversation with Sergeant Edwards about backing horses.

  WOLSEY MYERS , 48, Cookham Place, Old Nicholas Street, Shoreditch. I am a bookmaker's clerk. I saw prisoner at Ascot shortly after 3 p.m. on June 14. I backed Hornet's Beauty for Garnett in the 4.30 race; I drew half the winnings, and prisoner drew half.

Detective-sergeant EDWARDS: I saw prisoner at Ascot on June 14 at 4.50 p.m.

Verdict, Guilty.

A previous conviction for possessing counterfeit coin was proved.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.

(Friday, July 7.)

 

  SHEMMING, John William (34, bricklayer), was indicted for and charged on the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of   Thomas Hogan.

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

Police-constable DAVID DAVIS, W Division, proved plans for use in the case.

  MARGARET HOGAN . My husband, Thomas Hogan, was 24 years old. In May 14, about 12.45 a.m., I and my husband were going home when we met prisoner with two other men in Mayall Road, Brixton, near the "Windsor Castle." Prisoner shook hands with my husband and said, "Halloa, Tom "; my husband said, "Halloa, Jack, what are you doing up here?"Prisoner commenced using bad language; my husband said, "Ease up, my missus is here." prisoner said, "f——her; how many times have you sworn in front of mine?"My husband said, "Never that I am aware of." Prisoner then struck him. My husband said "Oh, is that what you want—to fight." They took off their coats, went into the road, and sparred up to each other. They fell together by the side of the kerb, my husband on top. My husband got up and staggered to thelamppost, and said, "That man has got something in his hand; he has stabbed me." He undid hos trousers and I saw his inside hanging out. Prisoner had his right hand in his pocket and I said to him, "Giveit to me; you have got it in your right hand." He went across to the two men on the pavement; I went to help my husband and prisoner walked away. I followed him and caught him up in leeson road; I caught hold of his left arm and said, "You have stabbed my husband"; he said, "You mean he stabbed me," and he showed me his right hand which was covered with blood. He said, "I will come back like a man." I fetched him back to Mrs. Rofoins's house, where my husband had been taken in. The two men who were withprisoner took no part in the fight.

Cross-examined. Prisoner and my husband used to go to school together. My husband had been drinking on this night, but he was not the worse for liquor. It is untrue that my husband hit prisoner. first. They fell down only once. There were only the two men present during the fight; other people came up afterwards. The two men stood on the pavement, they did nothustle the two who were fighting. My husband had the nickname of 'Tom Tamer," not 'Tom the Tamer'; his father and brothers have the same nickname; it is not true that he was frequently instreet fights, though he could always take his own part. I do not know anyone in the neighbourhood who would be unfriendly with my husband. I did not see any knife on prisoner, but he had his hand as ifhe was holding something in his pocket.

  FLORENCE HEATH , 91, Mayall Road. I was in my front room on this morning when I heard sounds of quarrelling outside. I went out, when I saw prisoner and Hogan with their coats off; prisoner struck Hogan first; both fell to the ground; Hogan got up and said, "He has got something in his hand; he has stabbed me." Prisoner said, "He has stabbed me "; there was blood on prisoner's hand. I did not see any weapon upon either man.

Cross-examined. Before I went out I heard a voice say, "See that this man fights fair"; I could not say that it was prisoner's voice. There were no men present at the fight except two who stood on the pavement; they did not interfere in any way. Prisoner and Hogan only fell down once.

  ISABEL ROBINS , 40, Mayall Road. Looking out of mywindow I saw two men fighting; they were taking their coats off. I heard Hogan say, "If you want it you can have it; come into the road." They sparred and wrestled, and fell into the gutter together. When they got up Hogan said, "That man has stabbed me." I then went into the street and asked Hoganto come into my house and I would fetch a doctor. I called prisoner a coward, and he said I had made a mistake, the prisoner had stabbed him, and he showed me his hand covered with blood and the thumb cut. I dragged Hogan into my house; he was in a state of collapse

  ERNEST ALRIGHT , 135, Mayall Road. On my way home on this morning I saw two men with their coats off just starting to fight. They both fell; they got up and recommenced fighting; Hogan had prisoner's head in his stomach and was punching his back; prisoner was punching upwards. Then Hogan said, "The coward has stabbed me."

Cross-examined. There were four or five men there besides the two who were fighting, but none of them interfered.

Dr. SIDNEY HUTCHINSON. On the early morning of May 14 I went to 40, Mayall Road, and saw Hogan. He had two stabs on the left ear; also a large wound and two or three smallwounds in the abdomen; a portion of the bowel was protruding. After treating him I sent him to hospital.

  ALEX. KEITH HAMILTON , house surgeon at St. Thomas's Hospital. I examined Hogan on his admission. He had a severe cut on the left ear; two stabs in the left forearm; four wounds in the abdomen, one of a serious nature; part of the small intestine had been pierced. After an operation he appeared to be progressing favourably. In the early morning of the 15th his condition became very serious and another operation becamenecessary; he died about 7.30. He was an exceedingly powerfully-built man. His heart was considerably enlarged; his liver and kidneys were in a condition which is associated with heart disease; there was nothing to show that he had been a drinking man.

  GEORGE F. SCOTT , divisional surgeon. About 2 a.m. on May 14 I examined prisoner at the station. He had a superficial incision on the back of the right hand; a very slight superficial wound on the

right side of the skull; a small contusion on the back of the skull. He had been drinking, but was not drunk.

Police-constable   DAVID THOMPSON , 362 W. About a quarter to one on this morning I went to 40, Mayall Road. Prisoner was pointed out to me; he admitted that he had been fighting with Hogan. I took him to the station.

Cross-examined. Hogan had the nickname of "Tom Tamer," not "Tom the Tamer "; I do not know the reason of the nickname.

Detective-inspector   WM. EUSTACE , W Division. On May 14 I charged prisoner at the station with causing grievous bodily harm to Hogan; he made no reply. On the 15th I charged him with the murder of Hogan; he said "deny it."

Evidence was given by three employees of the Lambeth Borough Council of the finding, in a gully in Mayall Road, on May 18, of a clasp knife and a knife blade.

(Defence.)

  GEORGE LANE , labourer. I knew Hogan from his childhood. On the night of May 13 I met prisoner and Hannagan about 9.30, and we went into several public houses. About 12.30 we were going through Mayall Road towards home. Hogan came up, and he and prisoner commenced to wrangle. Hogan said to prisoner, "I'll fight you, Jack "; prisoner said, "Idon't want to fight you at all." Hogan. took off his coat and rushed at prisoner and knocked him down; he got up and the two closed together; there were 12 or 13 people around; two or three men cameclose to prisoner and Hogan and commenced hustling them; they all fell down together in a heap. After five or six minutes they all got up, and these other men walked away rather sharply towards Herne Hill. I took no part in the scrimmage; I had had a little to drink, but was not drunk. It was Hogan who struck the first blow. I did not see a knife or any weapon upon either man.

Cross-examined. I cannot say that I saw Mrs. Hogan or any woman with Hogan. When the fight started several men who were going along stopped. I think about five men fell to the ground in a heap. I did not hear anything said about stabbing.

  THOS. HANNAGAN , glass-blower. Prisoner and I were in Clapham High Street on this night, when we met Lane. We went into different public-houses. After midnight, in Mayall Road, we met Hogan and his wife. Hogan said, "Halloa, Jack!" Prisoner said, "Halloa; what's the matter"; Hogan said, "Do you want to fight?" Prisoner said, "I don't femdash—well want to fight. Hogan said, "Don't swear in front of my wife." Prisoner said, "How many times have you sworn in front of mine?"With that, Hogan took his coat off and said to prisoner, "We will fight in the road, and after I have finished with you I will deal with those two," meaning me and Lane. Hogan rushed at prisoner and knocked himdown; I don't know whether he made a kind of running kick, but hefell down on top of prisoner. They got up and sparred, and both fell down again. There were two

or three other men trying to separate them. When the two got up Hogan said, "You have stabbed me "; prisoner said, "No, that's not a game of mine." Lane and I had been standing on the kerb. When the fight was over we walked away. I saw no knife or any weapon used. The three of us had been drinking, but we were not "properly drunk."

  JOHN WM. HEMMING (prisoner, on oath). I had known Hogan since he was a boy; we had always been the best of friends. On May 13 Hannagan and I had been out together all day; we met Lane about 9.30; by midnight we had had a fairish drop to drink. In Mayall Road he met Hogan and his wife. Hogan said, "Halloa, Jack, what are you up here for?" I said, "Oh, out for a ramble." He said, "You liar; you have come up here for trouble." I said, "No such thing." He said, "If you want a fight you can have one." I said, "I don't care about it." He hit me and Ifell down; I got up and said, "Well, if I have got to have a fight I shall have to have one." We shaped up and had a bit of astruggle, and I went down again, he being a stronger man. Then the crowd got round and seemed to get mixed up with it. As soon as Hogan got away on the last occasion, he said, "I am stabbed, and youhave done it, Jack." I said, "No, it looks as though I am stabbed," and I showed him my hand. He backed towards the lamp and undid his trousers, and there was a lot of blood; he had been stabbed undoubtedly; but who stabbed him God only knows; I did not; I never had a knife in my possession. I have a scar nowthat I received in the fray; I have no idea how I got it; it was in the struggle; I thought somebody in the crowd did it. I should think there were quite a dozen people there; well, therewere three or four men there; who they were I cannot say. I have never seen the two knives taken from the gullies in Mayall Road. One of them is a knife such as Hogan might have used for cutting cauliflowers on his stall.

Cross-examined. I did not use any bad language in front of Mrs. Hogan; I do not recollect Hogan saying, "Don't swear in front of my wife." I did take my coat off, and I did have a fight with him to the best of my ability. Four or five men tried to separate us, and some of them fell to the ground with us. I don't exactly know when I got the cut on my hand; it was in the course of the fight; when you are struggling like that you don't feel these things. I can give no explanation as to how Hogan came by his wounds, unless it was by somebody in the crowd.

Verdict, Guilty of manslaughter.

A number of previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Seven years' penal servitude.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.

(Saturday, July 8.)

 

  HAY, George Douglas (24) , feloniously wounding   Saul Splitter with intent to murder him or with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Percival Clarke prosecuted. Mr. Symmons defended.

  WM. RYAN , 88, Angel Road, Brixton. Prisoner came to lodge with me on May 1. On June 5 he left saying that he was going to stay with a friend for a week. On the morning of June 7 he returned, changed his clothes, and went out again. He came back on the 8th about 5 p.m., and was arrested.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was not in any business. I knew that he was absolutely destitute.

  ROSE TIDWELL , 41, Market Street, Paddington. On June 4 prisoner came to me and engaged a bedroom. He came in on June 7, stayed that right, and left the following morning.

  THOS. PLANT , cycle maker, Bedford. On June 6 prisoner hired a bicycle from me for two hours. Returning he asked if he could have it for the following day; I agreed to let him have it for 2s. 6d.; he took the machine away that night. The bicycle in the possession of the police is the one I hired to him.

Police-constable COOK proved a plan of the roads in the neighbourhood of Barnet.

  SAUL SPLITTER . On June 7, about 2 a.m., I was on the High Road from St. Albans to Barnet; I was wheeling my motor bicycle; the petrol had given out. Prisoner came along riding an ordinary bicycle and asked me what the trouble was; I told him, and he volunteered to assist me; he said he was in no hurry to get to London. He attached his machine to my handle-bars andso we went on for about an hour. We met a constable; I asked him where I could get some petrol; he said, not till we got to Barnet. A little later, as we got near Barnet, I said to prisoner at it was a big hillup to the town, would he mind going ahead and fetching me some petrol; he said, "With the greatest pleasure." I wheeled my machine to the side of the road and was resting there in the side car. Suddenly I felt something strike me on the head, knocking me out of the car. Prisoner was holding a revolver at me. I started running away; and I felt something strike me at the back. Prisoner got on his machine and caught me up; he stood in front of me, pointing the revolver, and said, "Money or your life; I am very hard up." I said, "If that is all you want you are welcome to it"; I handed him my bag, andas he was taking it I struck the revolver from his hand; we both grabbed at it and he got it; he then struck me in the face, and as I staggered back he shot me three more times. He then got on hisbicycle and said, "You be lucky that I let you off like that"; he rode off in the direction of Barnet. I managed somehow to get to a police station. I had never seen prisoner before this night.

Cross-examined. For some time before the assault I had been walking with prisoner; the road was unfrequented; he might have done anything then and ridden off, as my machine was disabled. My dress at the time would not give anyone the idea that I was a wealthy man.

Police-constable   GEORGE MOYSEY , 626 S. On the early morning of June 7 I was on duty in St. Alban's Road, when I saw prisoner riding an ordinary bicycle towing a motor bicycle, which Splitters was pushing behind. Splitters asked me the nearest place at which he could get some petrol, as he had had to push his machine for 13 miles. I directed him to a man in Barnet. Prisoner said, "Let us get on," and the two went off together. There was nothing in prisoner's demeanour to attract my attention.

Dr.   WILLIAM GEORGE HARNETT . About 3.40 a.m., on June 7, I was called to Barnet Police Station where I saw Splitter. He was very weak and pale from loss of blood. He was taken to the hospital, where I examined him. He had been shot in five places on the head and body; I extracted one bullet from the left top side of his head; another is still in his body.

Inspector   ALBERT WILKINSON spoke to finding a spent bullet at the spot described by Splitter.

  CHARLES ROGERS , manager to George Smith, pawnbroker, Harrow Road, Paddington. On June 8 prisoner pledged with me for 2s. the suit of clothes produced, giving the name of Anderson, 4, Praed Street. I asked him as to some marks on the jacket; he said they were paint stains.

Inspector   GEORGE WALLACE . On June 8, about 5.30 p.m., I went to 88, Angel Road, and saw prisoner. I told him I was making inquiries about a shooting outrage near Barnet, and desired an account of his movements since the previous Sunday. He said, "I have read of the case in the newspapers, and I suppose it is because I have ginger hair that you are here to seeme." He then replied to a number of questions I put to him; as I could not believe his statements I took him to the station. I subsequently went to 41, Market Street, and in a bedroom there found the revolver produced and three boxes of cartridges.

Chief Inspector   ALFRED WARD . On the night of June 8 I saw prisoner detained at Brixton Station. We had some conversation, and he eventually said, "I expected you would run me to earth; I will tell you all about it." He then made a statement, which was taken down and signed by him, fully admitting the offence. On searching him I found in his pocket eight live revolver cartridges and five spent ones; he said, "Those are the cartridges I used on the man." A shirt which was taken from him, had bloodstains upon it; he told me it was blood from the man he hadattacked. In reply to the formal charge of attempted murder, he said, "Very well."

Cross-examined. Prisoner has borne a perfectly good character; there are no convictions against him. I obtained some reports as to his mental condition, which I handed to Dr. Dyer. Up to very

shortly before May 4, when he came to London, prisoner had been a postman in Scotland.

  GEORGE BRENDER SCOTT , Divisional Surgeon, Brixton. I saw pri-soner at 11.30 p.m. on June 8. He had dislocated the little finger of the left hand, and there was a great deal of swelling. He told me that he had experienced practically every sensation; that full knowledge came from experience; that he had never experienced the killing of a man; that he had weighed thepros and cons of what he was going to do.

(Defence.)

  SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , Medical Officer at Brixton Prison. I have had prisoner under observation and care since June 21. I have devoted particular attention to his case, as it is rather unique in my experience. I have come to the conclusion that he is not now of sound mind, and that he was not on June 7. In forming that opinion I have considered not only theconversations I have had with prisoer, but reports obtained by the police from persons who knew him years ago; and I have very carefully gone into the whole of his life's history, which has an important bearing uponhis present mental state. I asked him to write out a narrative of his life history, and I went right through it with him. He seems to me to present a case of impulsive homicidal mania (a very rare condition) with a tendency to suicidal mania. He has the extraordinary delusion technically known as claustrophobia—a morbid dread of confined places, the feeling that the walls of the room inwhich you are are closing in upon you. He is exceptionally well educated, very deeply read, and a man of very refined tastes—altogether a superior sort of man, although self-educated. I think he is a gentleman, perhaps an illegitimate son who has inherited high intellectual faculties. At the age of eight he was placed under guardians who were very harsh to him and he was extremely sensitive. On the death of those guardians he was practically thrown upon the world. He lived in a Scotch village for five years. Beyond going short daily rounds as a postman he never went out of his room, but spent all his time in reading and introspection. He lived the life of a recluse, not being able to tolerate outside contact. He stammers, and that has been a source of great trouble to him. (The witness read extracts from prisoner's narrative, among others the following: In reference to his lifebetween the age of 12 and 14 years he said: "Home discipline intolerably severe. Imprisoned indoors and not permitted to play with other boys. Once attempted to run away with intention to drown myself. Outdoor contact sometimes unbearable. Guardians' treatment unfeeling and harsh. Fall into precocious and morbid religious absorption. Suffer from apprehensions and dreams of hell. Weakly and livelargely on artificial nutriments." Of the period between 17 and 19 he said: "Begin to develop aversion to society and tendency to withdraw into shell. Pass through most unhealthy period of most perfervid religious devotion. Take

special treatment for stammer, resulting in temporary cure. Return of stammer, and consequent sense of something ignominious, quickens my longing for isolation, and I take situation in a tiny remote village." Speaking of the years between 19 and 22 he said: "Become depressed as stammer gets worse. Continue to live in village as much a stranger as I entered. Meditateconstantly on the fatuity of life. Taste in literature passes from superior fiction stage to philosophy, and transcendental imaginings about religion give place to calm but abysmally pessimistic contemplativehabits of mind." Between the age of 22 and 24 prisoner was treated by a specialist for stammering, but the habit seemed to have returned. The history continued: "Soon anatomise my stammer and laybare all my lifelong psychic weaknesses. I understand for the first time what the nature of my nervous dreads and shrinkings really 1s. Devote myself to this elimination. The psychic 'resistances' were terrific, and the internal conflict that ensued during the next few months the direst experience I ever passed through. To subjugate my enemies I had to compel myself through the most agonising mental exercise, the least drastic of all of which was an hour's daily intense auto-suggestion. So excruciating was the nervous tension in the presence of other people that I always now carried a revolver with me. In the conflict of personality it was necessary for me to dominate men absolutely. This was the only test of whether I was succeeding in the internal struggle in killing my psychic fears and shrinkings, and I felt that if I stayed in the presence of any one I should have to kill him or he would surely kill me.") I am convinced that prisoner has not written all that in order to deceive me. It is possible for a man to be conscious that he has mental infirmity and that it is growing upon him.

Cross-examined. I think he was unsound of mind on June 7; I mean, this was a homicidal impulse due to mental disease. I think he had not the slightest idea of committing the act when he met Splitter. I think he knew the nature of the act (because he had had the revolver for eighteen months with theidea of shooting somebody), but he did not know the quality of the act.

Verdict, Guilty, but insane at the time of committing the act, so as not to be responsible in law.

Prisoner was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.

(Friday, July 7.)

 

  STILL, Edward (36, public-house manager), and   TURNER, James (33, cellarman) , both unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin. Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., prosecuted; Mr. Wickham defended   LIZZIE MIDDLETON , barmaid, "Pineapple" public-house, St. George's Road, S.E. On June 14 between 4 and 4.15 p.m. prisoners came into my bar. They had been using the houseabout a fortnight.

They had been in that morning; I served them. When they came in the afternoon Still put a sovereign on the counter and asked me for change. I took the sovereign and placed it through the gold changer (produced) and got half a sovereign and four half-crowns. I handed Still the change. He rang each coin separately. He then asked me for change for half a crown, 6d. coppers. I gave him two shillings and 6d. coppers. Then he asked for change for a shilling and I gave him two-sixpences. Turner then left the bar, Still having given him a pawnticket and some money. Still then called to a man in the public bar who was dressed as a butcher. He came and spoke to Still. Then Turner returned. Stillcalled for two bitters, placing the bad half-sovereign on the counter. I noticed it was bad before I picked it up. The potman was standing close by. I called his attention to it. I said, "Look what thisman has given me for half a sovereign; he thinks I am going to take it." Still did not hear that. The potman placed it in the changer; the drawer would not act. We pressed the top button and itrolled out here, which all bad coins will do. Then the potman tried it with his teeth and said it was no good. I then took it to the mistress; then I brought it down and gave Still the mistress's message. I said the mistress said, "Do you think we do not know a good half-sovereign from a thing like that." Then Still said, "It is the one you have just given me." I said, "It is not the one I just gave you; it was far different from this." I then called the mistress. As I did. so Still handed Turner some money and he left the bar again, Still saying, "Go and do that for me."

Mrs. PAGE, licensee "Pineapple." The last witness made a communication to me when I was in the kitchen on the first floor. She showed me the bad half-sovereign. I tried it with my teeth and told her to take it down. I went down and saw the two men there. I asked Still where he had got the half-sovereign from. He said, "Your barmaid has given it to me in change for asovereign."I said, "Oh, o, I know what half-sovereigns were in the change and they were good ones." I told the potman to fetch a constable. Still at once handed Turner several pieces of money and he left the bar quickly. Still said to him, "Go and get that." The constable came and Turner followed him in. I told theconstable what had happened, and he asked Still to go to the station. Still refused and said to me, "We do not want any fuss over this; we will let it drop."The constable said, "No; you had better comedown to the station and report it with me." He would not go, so the constable sent for another constable. Still then said he would go. The constables led him out. I told the constable when hecame in that Turner had left the bar and taken money from Still. I noticed Turner had a piece of card in his hand. I have had the gold changer in use three years.

  GEORGE STEADMAN , potman. Miss Middleton showed me the bad half-sovereign. I put it through the gold changer and found it would not act. I then bit it and found that it was very soft. I told her to take it up to her mistress. I was sent to fetch a constable.

Police-constable JOHN WELLS, 59 L. At the request of Steadman I went to the "Pineapple." Still seemed very excited. Turner followed me in. Still said, "Constable, this is the change I have got out of a sovereign," showing me the half-sovereign and the silver. The landlady was in the bar but said nothing. I told Still he would have to come to the station; he said, "I refuse." Isent for another constable. When Police-constable 169 came Still said, "I wish you would let it drop." I said, "You will have to come to the station with me." I told Turner he would haveto come. Turner willingly came; he said, "I went to fetch a policeman." He handed me then a pawnticket saying, "I was going out of the bar to get that out; I was sent away." It was an out-of-date pawnticket for a fountain pen, pawned for 1s. 6d. The address of the pawnbroker is Islington, Essex Road, a long way from St. George's Road, which is by the "Elephant and Castle." Still wassearched by the inspector; I do not know what was found on him.

Inspector  CLARK . I was at Kennington Lane Police Station when prisoners were brought in. I searched them. On Turner I found 6d. and 3d. silver, 4d. bronze, and a pawnticket for a fountain pen; on Still £1 gold, three half-crowns, one shilling, two sixpences, and 3d. bronze, £1 9s. 9d. in all. When charged Still said, "I had £2 when I started and someodd coins. Of course I paid the taxi."

  SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. I examined this coin and found it to be counterfeit.

(Defence.)

  EDWARD STILL (prisoner, on oath). On the morning of June 4 I received £4 from Mr. Norris, King William Street. I mentioned his name and address at the police court so that the prosecution could hear it. I live at Temple Street, near the "Pineapple." On June 4 Turner had left a bicycle at the "Pineapple." I was with him then. After being in the "Pineapple" in themorning I went to Westminster to get the ticket for the fountain pen from Mr. Sandford. I then took a taxi to the "Pineapple" to get Turner's bicycle for him to get the fountain pen out at Islington. I did not trouble to look to see if I had enough change to pay the taxi. I asked the driver if he would have a drink. He refused. I went in the "Pineapple" to ask for change for a sovereign. She gaveme a half-sovereign and four half-crowns. I asked for change for a half-crown, some coppers, to enable me to pay the taxi. I asked again for two sixpences for a shilling. Turner took the money fromthe counter and went outside and paid the taxi. He came back and I called for two bitters and tendered the half-sovereign I had just received. We had drunk the beer. We had been there seven oreight minutes. When Turner came back from paying the taxi the change was on the counter. The barmaid is right in saying I pushed a half-crown towards her. She was away with the half-sovereign seven oreight minutes. She did

not ring it on the counter to see if it was good. She said nothing while she was taking it to the potman or while they were testing it. The door was open and I could have gone out if I had seen anything suspicious. I went on sipping my beer. When the coin was brought back I said, "I have only just got it from here." I said, "I want the change"; the woman said, "You cannot have it." I said to Turner, "Go and fetch apoliceman." He went and came back with one. The proprietress came down then. I asked the policeman to take particular stock of the coinas I had just received it from the house and they refused to change it again. I said, "Here is the change I got; will you search me andsee what money I have got." I had then £1 9s. 9d.; the beers had not been paid for. I did not refuse to go to the station. I have had five public-houses of my own and managed eight. I amconversant with gold changers. I should not try to pass a bad coin; I know the instrument would refuse it.

Cross-examined. When I received the change from the barmaid I gave Turner no money whatever. I told Turner to pay the taxi driver 8d. and he took 9d. off the counter as the money lay there.' I allowed him to take 9d. I had then in my possession three half-crowns, one shilling, and 3d. bronze. I then called for two drinks, value 4d. The reason I tendered the half sovereign is that I did not know what silver I should require. Another reason is I was going to give Turner money to get the fountain pen and also give him a few shillings to take home to his wife. She was in avery delicate condition at the time and he was out of work. Only 2s. would be required to redeem the pen with interest. It is untrue that when the landlady said to the potman, "Go and fetch a constable," Ihanded Turner some money. I did not say to him, "Go and get it." I handed him no money whatever. I make no suggestion against the landlady. I say what she says is untrue. It is untrue that Irefused to go to the station. I have heard that the constable sent for another constable. I do not know why he should have donethat. I did not say, "Let the matter drop." That is an invention. I told Turner in the morning that I wanted him to go for the fountain pen. While I was at the bar I intended him to go. I was not going towait till his return. I was going somewhere else. I told him I would be at the "Pineapple" in time to meet him. The reason Turner was going to redeem the pen was that he had his bicycle andcould have gone there quicker than me.

  JAMES TURNER (prisoner, on oath). I went to the "Pineapple" with Still. I had left my bicycle there. I went with Still to Westminster Bridge Road. Still interviewed somebody in a house in York Road and returned with a ticket for a fountain pen. We went in a taxi to the "Pineapple" to get my machine for me to go to Islington to get the pen. While Iwas there Still had somewhere else to go, and I was returning after getting the pen and meeting him at the "Pineapple." I have been inthe public-house line all my life. I know the routine of the gold changer. I paid the taxi and came back. Still ordered two bitters. The half-sovereign was on the

counter. He collected the silver and handed the half-sovereign to the barmaid, asked the barmaid for two bitters and went on jawing to me. I said, "What about the money?" He said, "Wait a minute till I get the change and I will give it you." I could not say what the barmaid did with the coin. She said it was bad. Still said, "It is the one you have just given me." He told me to go and fetch a constable. Eventually I saw one and told him, "You are wanted inside," and followed him in. Beforethat I had been back and Still said, "Have you got him?" I said "No"; he said, "Go on, get him." I went out again. When I first went out I told a boy if he saw a policeman at the top to sendhim to the "Pineapple." When the constable came in the mistress was standing in the public side of the bar raving to Still to the effect that he had never had the half-sovereign there. Theconstable said, "You will have to come to the station with me." Still said, "Certainly not; I can recover this with a civil action." Still showed the constable the bad half-sovereign bent up and the remainder of hischange on the counter. He asked the constable to take a note; the constable refused and we went to the station. Still had no silver when he entered the house.

Cross-examined. (Prisoner demonstrated the filling of the gold changer and suggested that Mrs. Page had not filled the trays properly.) I have had a large experience in the licensed trade. No one with a guilty knowledge would attempt to do what we are charged with. I had seen this gold changer many times. I was not looking when the change was handed over. Idid not hear the landlady ask the potman to go for a constable. When I went out I went to get a constable by the orders of Still. I didnot hear Still say, "Let it drop." He never said it. The story of the landlady and constable is altogether wrong. Still did not say, "Go and get it"; he said, "Go and get him." He did not hand meany money. He handed me the pawnticket after the argument in the public-house. I have never said he handed me money. I told the constable, "I was going to get that out." Still gave me thepawnticket while the girl had gone to get change for the half-sovereign. Still did not give me the good half-sovereign he received from the barmaid. I first went out to fetch a constable; when I came back heasked if I had not got him and I went again.

Mrs. PAGE, recalled. I made up the trays in the gold changer at 2 o'clock. I put a half-sovereign in three of them and £3 on the sovereign side.

Verdict: Still, Guilty; Turner, Not guilty.

The following conviction was proved against Still: October 20, 1908, Surrey Quarter Sessions, nine months' hard labour, stealing £31 5s. from a till in a public-house bar.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Friday, July 7.)

 

  DOUGLAS, Edward (40, dealer), and   KEYSELL, Frederick (28, labourer) , stealing 22 bottles of whisky and two bottles of brandy, the goods of   Richard Hawkins, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Leycester and Mr. Adrian Clark prosecuted; Mr. St. John McDonald defended Douglas; Mr. Oliver defended Keysell.

(Refer to R. v. Ormes, p. 260.)

Police-constable   FRANK BAYLIS , W Division. On May 22 at 5.5 p.m. I was near the "Castle" public-house in Tooting Broadway; I saw Keysell pass Defoe Road and stand at the corner of the Broadway afterwards entering the public-house. I did not see him again. I went off at 6 o'clock. I had seen Keysell on the Tuesday and Friday of the previous week. I did not seehim come out.

Police-constable   FREDERICK HOBBS , W Division. On the morning of May 22 I was on bicycle patrol duty in Balham High Road. I saw Keysell get off a tramcar near Streath bourne Road, a quarter of an hour's walk from the "Castle." He walked up Streathbourne Road, returned, went along Balham High Road up Ritherdon Road; I went round the other way and saw Douglas and Keysell walking along together; Douglas was carrying a large kit bag. I stopped them in Fox-bourne Road and asked what was in the bag; Douglas said he did not. know; he was going to take it toCarminia Road, a man had asked him to carry it for him. He did not know the name of the man or the house. Keysell said Douglas had asked him to show him Carminia. Road. I took them to thestation; there were 24 bottles of spirits in the bag. They were charged with unlawful possession.

Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. I searched Douglas; a tram ticket was on him, dated the 22nd. He said he came from Westminster to the Broadway and there a man asked him to carry the bag. He bad a piece of paper with "Ritherdon Road. G. H. Ormes, the 'Cas,' "written on it; he said he had to go to Carminia Road. Douglas asked me to go to CarminiaRoad to see the man.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oliver. Keysell was alone when I saw him; I did not see them meet.

Detective   JAMES HARVEY , W Division. Having made inquiries I went to "Castle" public-house with another officer on May 29 and arrested Ormes; all three were then charged with larceny.

To Mr. McDonald. When the charge was read over to them they made no reply.

  RICHARD HAWKINS . I took possession of the "Castle" on May 17; Ormes was barman and cellarman; he was up at 4.45 in the morning. On the 22nd he was downstairs by himself. On the 23rd I took stock and found a shortage of 66 bottles; the bottles found in the bag are similar to mine. There is a back and front door to the house; both doors can be seen from the opposite side of the road.

Statements of prisoners before the magistrate. Douglas said: "I was never in the 'Castle' Hotel in my life." Keysell said, "I was walking along the Balham High Road when Douglas came across the road and asked me whether I knew where Carminia Road was; I told him I was going that way and would show him when the constable came along and asked him whathe had in the bag and he said he did not know as it had been given to him to take to Carminia Road and when the constableopened the bag a look he told him he would have to go to the station with him. That is all I know with regard to this case."

(Defence.)

  EDWARD DOUGLAS (prisoner, on oath). About 20 past 5 on the 22nd I went by tram to visit some friends at Mitcham; I got off at Tooting Broadway; in the Broadway a gentleman said, "Would you like to earn a shilling? Take this bag as far as Carminia Road, Bal-ham." I said, "I don't know Carminia Road"; he said, "we will got on this tram"; I got inside the tram; hegave me the paper with "Ritherdon Road" on it. I got down; he did not get off the tram; I walked along Ritherdon Road and met Keysell; I asked him if he knew Ritherdon Road; he said hewas going in that direction, and would show me; then the constable stopped me and asked what the bag contained; I said I did not know. Before we went to the police-station, I asked the constable to goto Carminia Road, but he refused. I have never been in the "Castle"; Ormes is a perfect stranger to me. To Mr. Leycester: I do not know what became of the gentleman; I took it be got on the tram; from hispersonal appearance he was a gentleman. I looked at the paper in the tram, and saw "G. H. Ormes" on it; it looks like two different handwritings; I do not know either; it is not like my own.[Prisoner wrote on a piece of paper, "Ritherdon Road; G. H. Ormes."] I am usually out early in the morning. My friends at Mitcham are named "Thompson"; I do not know their address.

  GEORGE H. ORMES (barman): My proper names is George Goring. I was employed at the "Castle," and have pleaded guilty to stealing two dozen bottles of whisky. I never saw Douglas in my life until in the dock; I do not know any man of that name. The detectives said to me Douglas had given me away; I guessed they had got the proper man, and said I did not know Douglas. I never gave this man here the stuff.

To Mr. Oliver: I know nothing about Keysell, except that he used the house.

To Mr. Leycester: The man was a dark short fellow; I object to say how he was dressed. Keysell uses the "Castle." I told the detectives I do not know Keysell, I know Douglas well; they said Douglas had said something about going down to the cellar; I said they will have to prove it. I reallydo not know what I did say, I

was so flurried. I pleaded guilty to using a false character. I have never seen the paper with "Ritherdon Road" on it. [The witness wrote down "Ritherdon Road; G. H. Ormes."] The paper was not written by me; I have never seen it before.

To Mr. McDonald: I thought the man I gave the bottles to had given the name of "Douglas," that is why I said I knew him.

  FREDERICK KEYSELL (prisoner) on oath. [Prisoner wrote on a piece of paper, "Ritherdon Road: G. H. Ormes."] I went into the "Castle" on the 22nd; I have been in the habit of calling there in the early morning on my way to the Common where I used to get a job golf club carrying.

A Juryman handed a note to the Judge, stating that if he bad not heard Orme's evidence at his trial, when his statement was different, he might have believed him now. Mr. Leycester stated that his recollection was that there was practically no difference between the two statements, and that he had on the previous occasion said nothing to involve either of the two prisoners. Mr. Oliver and Mr. McDonald said that Mr. Leycester's statement was quite satisfactory to them.

To Mr. Leycester. I do not know anybody of the name of Douglas. I sometimes go by the 4 o'clock tram to the market and get back at 6 o'clock. That morning I was going to the Common. I do not suppose there is a difference of a few yards going by either Ritherdon Road or Foxbourne Road to go to Carminia Road.

Verdict, Guilty.

A previous sentence of three months for uttering and possessing counterfeit coin was proved against Douglas in the name of Edward Robson. Several previous convictions were proved against Keysell. It was stated that he had done no work for four years and was a pest to the neighbourhood, inciting boys to steal and being a trainer of juvenile thieves.

Sentence: Douglas, Nine months' hard labour; Keysell, 12 months' hard labour.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Wednesday, July 12.)

 

  SUTTIE, John William (33, gasfitter) , carnally knowing   Bessie Kearney, a girl under the age of 13 years, and indecently assaulting her.

Mr. G. Moseley prosecuted; Mr. J. Lister Drummond defended.

Verdict, Not guilty.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Tuesday, July 4.)

 

  HOGG, Charles Edward (58), and   BUTT, Thomas Henry (38, agent) , Hogg being a director of a public company called the   Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, Limited, unlawfully did fraudulently take and apply to his own use and benefit part of the property of the said public company, to wit, banker's cheques for £800, £100, £125, and £99 3s. 8d. respectively and those sums in money and £386 7s. 6d. in money, and to the use and purpose of Butt's banker's cheque for £125 and the sums of £125, £259 12s., and £386 7s. 6d. respectively; Butt being a public officer, to wit, secretary of said company unlawfully did fraudulently apply for a use and purpose other than the use and purpose of the said company, to wit, for the use and purpose of Hogg, part of the property of the said public company, to wit, banker's cheques for £800, £100, £125, and £99 3s. 8d. respectively, and those sums in money and £386 7s. 6d. in money, and to his own use and benefit a banker's cheque for £125 and the sums of £125, £259 12s. and £386 7s. 6d. in money respectively; Hogg being a director and Butt being a public officer, to wit, secretary of the said public company unlawfully did fraudulently take and apply part of the property of the said public company for uses and purposes other than the uses and purposes of the said public company, to wit, for the use and purpose of a public company called the  Contractors' Financial Corporation, Limited, banker's cheques for £800 and £100 respectively,   Rosalie Alice Hogg, a banker's cheque for £125 and £125 in money, for the use and purpose of one G—  Clarke Barber £259 12s. in money, and for the use and purpose of   Rosalie Alice Hogg and   Beau-champ Hogg a banker's cheque for £99 3s. 8d., and £99 3s. 8d. in money.

Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Graham-Campbell and Mr. Montague Shearman prosecuted; Mr. Rawlinson, K.C., Mr. Valetta and Mr. E. J. Purchase defended Hogg; Mr. Eustace Fulton and Mr. J. L. Myers defended Butt.

Mr. Bodkin opened the case.

(Wednesday, July 5.)

  ARTHUR PECKOVER , superintendent, office of Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House. I produce file of the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, Limited. It was registered on January 9, 1907, with a nominal capital of £300,000, in £1 shares. The chief object of the company was to acquire and work copper mines in Huelva, Spain, the vendors being the Spanish Copper Company. The consideration was £175,000, £165,000 in fully-paid shares and the balance in cash. Hogg was made a director on April 14, 1908. The registered office was first at 4, Broad Street Place, and then 1, London Wall Buildings. An order for compulsory winding up was made on January 18, 1910. I also produce file of the Contractors' Financial Corporation, Limited. It was registered on January 8, 1908, by H. A. Sims, Solicitor, with a nominal capital of £100 in shilling shares.

The capital consisted of 47 shares, of whch £2 7s. was paid; 40 of these were held by Sidney Riden, but the latest return shows that the Vaal River Goldfields now possess the whole 47 shares. Hogg at no time held any shares, and his name appears nowhere on the file. On January 14, 1908, Edgar Allan Robinson was appointed sole director, his place being taken on February 2, 1910, by Frederick Gartside.

Cross-examined by Mr. Rawlinson. So far as I am aware Hogg had nothing to do with the original purchase from the Spanish Copper Company. There were six co-directors with him in April, 1908, all men of good position. On November 20, 1909, there was a resolution passed at a meeting at which he was chairman to wind up voluntarily. No public money was subscribed to the Contractors' Corporation.

  FREDERICK BAILEY , clerk, Bank of England, produced and proved the Bank of England notes referred to in the subsequent evidence.

  ALFRED SPEEDY ANDREWS , chief clerk, London County and Westminster Bank, Berners Street. On April 3, 1908, an account was opened with us by Hogg in his own name, and another in the name of the Contractors' Corporation; cheques on the latter account were to be signed by one of the directors and countersigned by Hogg. I produce certified copies of the two accounts as between April 21, 1908, and December 31, 1910. On the morning of September 8, 1908, Hogg was in credit £2 2s. 10d.; and the next morning there was a payment in of £50. On November 20, 1908, Hogg opened with us an account in the name of the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, to be operated upon by himself as director and T. Butt as secretary. Exhibit 8 is a copy of this account; it was closed on November 10, 1909, by the withdrawal of the balance of £99 3s. 8d. In opening this account Hogg sent us Exhibit 9, which purports to be copy of a resolution of the board; it reads: "At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, Limited, duly convened held on November 24, 1908, it was resolved that an account be opened at the London and Westminster Bank in the name of the company," etc. This was stated to be "Extracted from the Minutes "; it is signed" Charles E. Hogg, chairman," and "Thos. H. Butt, Secretary." On December 17, 1908, a cheque for £800 was drawn in favour of the Contractors' Corporation, and was credited to the company's account on that day, the credit before the payment was made being £177 15s. 11d. On December 23, a cheque to bearer for £300 was drawn on the Corporation and cashed into five £50 notes, Nos. 29,605-9, dated February 17, 1908, five £5 notes, 71,051-5, January 3, 1906, and the balance in cash. On December 31 a cheque for £500 in favour of the Vaal River Goldfields was drawn. In Exhibit 8 there is a debit of £100 to "Selves" on February 15, 1909, which was transferred to the credit of the Corporation. There is also a credit entry, "Cash, £200," which consisted of two £100 notes, Nos. 30,926-7. The debit of £99 3s. 8d. on November 10 was cashed into five £10 notes, Nos. 1,429-37, one £5 note, 29,749, and the balance in cash.

To Mr. Rawlinson. The Corporation account on September 8, 1908, was in credit £358 2s. 9d. The turnover of Hogg's private account was some thousands a year in 1908 and 1909. We have

never been defrauded as regards any of the three accounts we opened. To Mr. Fulton. In February, 1909, the Anglo-Spanish account was in credit £29 3s. The next payment in was £200 on June 23.

  WILLIAM MEAD , assistant to Henry Davidson, pawnbroker, 148, Strand. As shown by this memorandum of deposit (Exhibit 15) Hogg on September 8, 1908, was lent £200 on a diamond ring. It was redeemed on December 23, 1908, by notes, which were paid into Mr. Davidson's account.

To Mr. Rawlinson. Hogg has on occasions purchased jewellery from us. It is a daily occurrence for us to give loans on articles bought from us.

  WHITFIELD JOHNS , assistant manager, Lloyd's Bank, Law Courts branch. Henry Davidson has an account at our bank. On December 24, 1908, three £50 notes, Nos. 29,607-9, were paid on.

  WILLIAM HAROLD WRIGHT , late Cox's Bank. Whitehall Court, Limited, kept an account at my bank. On December 24, 1908, a £50 note, No. 29,606, was paid in.

  GEORGE OSWALD FAIR . I am manager of Hanover Court, which is the property of Whitehall Court, Limited. Hogg rented a flat between March, 1908, and May, 1909. At about Christmas, 1908, I changed a £50 note for him, which I paid into the account of the Whitehall Court, Limited.

  CHARLES FRANCIS WOODS , cashier, Capital and Counties Bank, Finsbury Circus. The Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, Limited, kept a general account and several call accounts. I produce a copy of the general account (Exhibit 35) as between March 9, 1908, and January 3, 1910. It shows on March 2, 1909, this debit entry, "Butt, £125," and on that day, according to Exhibit 36, the following notes were paid over the counter for it: one £100 note, No. 85,848, January 18, 1908, and four £5 notes, 15,259-62, March 14, 1908. Exhibit 37 is the cheque itself; it is dated March 2, and it says, "Pay Mr. T. H. Butt (on Remittance Account) or order, £125," and is signed "Charles E. Hogg, Fred. Gartside, directors," and countersigned, "Thomas H. Butt, secretary." It is endorsed "T. H. Butt." On May 7, 1909, one £500 note, No. 83,068, August 9, 1908, and one £50 note, 36,899, July 17, 1908, were paid in. I have been unable to find any remittance of £125 to Spain on or about March 2, 1909. At the end of that day the account was in credit £162 5s. 7d., £350 having been transferred from a call account.

To Mr. Rawlinson. On March 1, 1909, the general account was in credit £375 12s. 6d.

  SEPTIMUS WARD , cashier, Capital and Counties Bank, Oxford Street. This certified extract (Exhibit 38) shows that on March 3, 1909, one £100 note, No. 85,848, was paid in for remittance to the credit of Mrs. R. A. Hogg at our branch at Horsham.

  PERCY EDWARD KILPATRICK , clerk, Capital and Counties Bank, Horsham. Alice Hogg had an account in her own name and a joint account with Beauchamp Hogg. Exhibit 39 shows that on March 4, 1909, her own account was credited with £100, received from our

Oxford Street branch. Exhibit 40 shows that on November 26, 1909, there was a payment in to the joint account of three £10 notes, Nos. 1,433-5. Exhibit 41 is the payment in slip.

To Mr. Rawlinson. Exhibit 1 shows that Beau champ Hogg, prisoner's son, paid them in. I know that Hogg has a large place near Horsham. In 1909 the payments in to Mrs. Hogg's account amounted to about £4,000. The joint account was opened in June, 1909, and it had the same sort of turn-over.

  ERNEST GEORGE JACOBS , clerk, Central Office, High Court of Justice, produced office copies of Orders dated May 4, 1909, in actions between the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, Limited, and Edgar Cohen, the United Investment Incorporation and Albert Reitlinger (Exhibits 23a, 24 and 25), and similar Orders, dated June 21, 1909 (Exhibits 26 and 27), in two actions between the same company and Lazard Weiller and Miscart.

  WILLIAM JAMES YEOMAN , clerk to Ashurst, Morris, Crisp and Company, solicitors, 17, Throgmorton Avenue. In May, 1909, we were acting for Edgar Cohen, the United Investment Corporation, and Albert Reitlinger in an action brought by the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company for calls upon shares. We were bringing cross-actions for rectification of the register. Negotiations with C. W. and S. E. Brown, the company's solicitors, for compromise resulted in these three Orders (Exhibits 23a, 24, and 25). On May 7 we paid in settlement this open cheque of £809 12s. to Messrs. Brown and it has been paid. It is endorsed" The Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, Limited, Thomas H. Butt, secretary." No part of it has ever come back to us.

  FREDERICK CONSTABLE STOBBS , accountant, Parr's Bank, Thread-needle Street, E.C. Ashurst, Morris, Crisp, and Company have an account. Exhibit 34 shows that a cheque of £809 12s. drawn by them was cashed over the counter on May 7, 1909—one £500 note, No. 83,068, dated August 19, 1908; two £100 notes, 30,376-7, September 18, and two £50 notes, 36,898-9, July 17, 1909, and the balance in cash.

  REGINALD JOSEPH WHITBURN , security clerk, Union of London and Smith's Bank, Charing Cross. Hicks, Arnold, and Mozley have an account. Exhibit 29 shows that on June 27, 1909, a cheque drawn by them for £386 7s. 6d. was changed over the counter into two £100 notes, Nos. 30,926-7, September 18, 1908, and ten £10 notes, 38,497-500, March 14, 1908, and 150,301-6, April 14, 1908, and seven £5 notes, 82,461-7, June 5, 1908, and the balance in cash. The cheque bears the endorsement of"Thomas H. Butt," as secretary to the Anglo Spanish Copper Company.

  GEORGE HENRY BARTON , clerk, National and Porvincial Bank of England, Limited, 15, Bishopsgate Street. Butt kept an account from June 24, 1908, to June 13, 1910. Exhibit 30 shows on February 11, 1909, there was a payment in of one £100 note, No. 30,377, dated September 18, 1908. On June 23, 1909, there is a credit entry of £50 made up of the following notes: Four £10 notes, 38,499, March 14, 1908, 15,301-5, April 14, 1908, and two £5 notes, 82,461-3, June 5, 1908.

To Mr. Rawlinson. On June 12, 1909, cheques are paid in of £100 on the Capital and Counties Bank and £1 11s. 3d. on Parr's Bank. On June 18 a cheque was drawn by Butt for £100 in favour of"C. E. Hogg" and it was returned unpaid. Another cheque was drawn in substitution of that on June 19 and that was paid in on the 21st.

  CHARLES WATSON BROWN , of C. W. and S. E. Brown, solicitors, 28, Finsbury Pavement, E.C. On September 29, 1908, I was appointed solicitor to the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, in place of Worthington, Evans, and Co. I continued to act until the winding-up on January, 1910, being paid £50 a month. I was paid by cheques only on the Capital and Counties Bank. I never knew of the account at the London and Westminster Bank. In November, 1908, the company was taking proceedings against shareholders for recovery of calls, and the shareholders were taking proceedings for rectification of the register; there were a great many actions; the litigation then was with shareholders, represented by Spyers and Sons. A consultation with counsel took place on November 16, and a resolution was passed on the 17th for a final call of 4s. a share. This is shown by the minute of that date. The following meeting was on December 10. In May, 1909, a compromise was entered into with Cohen, Reitlinger, and the United Investment Corporation, share-holders, represented by Ashurst, Morris, and Crisp; the negotiations were carried on between myself and Mr. John Crisp. I was handed a cheque for £809 12s. We knew of no sum of £259 12s. to be deducted for commission and costs; we paid no such sum, nor was any part of it paid to us. I did not know of any intermediary being employed of the name of Clarke Barber in connection with it. The negotiations began in December, 1908, when Mr. Crisp called on me and 1s. 3d. a share in respect of the 8s. due. I reported this offer to Hogg, who said we ought to get more than that, but we should be lucky to get anything. I was instructed to try and get more. I eventually was instructed to accept 2s. 9d. a share, and this sum was paid by the £809 12s. cheque. I have known Barber for years as a commission agent; he had no business address at the time these negotiations were going on. I did the whole business in connection also with Salzbach and Adler, Joseph Faure, and Mascart and Weiller, and as far as I know Barber had no connection with it. I know nothing of the deductions for commissions and costs in those cases. One of the terms of the compromise in all these actions was that each party was to pay its own costs, and there was to be a rectification of the register. I thought these were fair settlements in each case, and I did not take into consideration deductions for commission.

To Mr. Rawlinson. So far as I know Hogg had absolutely nothing to do with the original prospectus, the alleged misrepresentations in which were the ground of actions brought by shareholders to rectify the register. I know of this agreement of August 26, 1908, between the company and the Romanera Company by which the company transferred to the Romanera all its assets in Spain; after this agreement the work of the company was confined principally to collecting the calls which were due and dealing in other properties which were

thought necessary for the benefit of the company. I was aware of the existence of the Contractors' Corporation and understood that they were to be remunerated by shares and money for acting as intermediaries and supplying certain fully-paid shares in connection with an action which was threatening or pending against the company, but I was not concerned with that. As to the shares they held they were to be given 12 months' grace in respect of calls. This was the position in September, 1908. At the time of the consultation with Mr. Gore Brown on November 16 there were a great many claims against the company and on the following day, November 17, I suggested to the board meeting, at which Hogg and Gartside were present, that there should be a sum of money set aside as a fighting fund which should be available to pay counsel's fees for which at any time I might become liable. I told the directors that if the company's banking account were attacked by a creditor there would be a difficulty in obtaining money to continue fighting actions and I asked them to place a sum at my disposal to be paid into my account or an account opened in my name. I understood that was going to be done and I think a cheque was drawn, but I never got it. I do not remember Hogg ever having seen the orders embodying the compromises. The total figure of the compromises was never worked out between us. I can vouch this (Exhibit 122) as being an exact copy of the letter of December 17 received from Mayo, Elder, and Company relating to the settlement in Danes, Adams and Company's case; the original is lost. In March I received £52 10s. that they agreed thereunder to pay in settlement and that was the only sum due to the company. In addition 350 shares were to be transferred in favour of a person to be nominated by the company and then the shares were to be marked"fully paid" in the register, but it was never intended that the company should receive more than £52 10s. On January 13, 1909, I received £25 from the company with which I was to register the Waterford Trust as a promoting Syndicate. The right of acquiring the option in the matter was taken in Hogg's name, but I understood it was all Anglo-Spanish business. I think he paid £225 deposit in respect of it; certain payments were made at the time to Cox and Lafone, the vendors' solicitors, but I think Butt had the negotiating direct. I knew of the existence of the Contractors' Corporation and that they were acting as nominees, but nothing more than that. At an interview in Hogg's office Hogg asked Butt for an explanation in reference to a sum of £125 and Butt, who seemed astonished that there should be any question, said he was sure that it would be found to have been sent to Spain.

To Mr. Fulton. Hogg, as chairman, took the predominant part at board meetings. I do not remember being present at a board meeting when the settlements with litigants were referred to. As they were effected my clerk would probably show the orders to the secretary or the chairman and there the matter would end so far as we were concerned. I do not remember telling Hogg the amounts of thesettlements, but I might have done. He must have known of the amounts; it was only a matter of calculation. Office copies of the

orders would be lodged with the company; I mean by the company Hogg as chairman and Butt as secretary. My clerk would take them to the secretary's office, and produce them to the secretary, so that he would see that he had proper authority to rectify the register; and then he might possibly leave them there or take them to file at Somerset House. I never formally discussed with Hogg after the settlements had been made the amounts, but there might have been a passing reference to them. As regards the compromise with Hicks, Arnold, and Mozley, negotiations first began in December, 1908, by Mr. Crisp calling. I understood that a suggestion had been made by an outside party that we should come together; I gave Hogg credit for that. After four months negotiating we finally settled at 2s. 9d. a share; at first they were offering 1s. 3d., and we were asking 5s. I first met Clarke Barber about six years ago, when he was trying to promote a company for selling dry ferment. I have seen him a good many times on and off. I have learnt that we employed him on January, 1909, to search up the register of the Romanera Company. I have possibly seen him once or twice on the company's premises. I assume he was there on business. Early this year there was a discussion between Hogg and Butt about the £125 cheque, at which I was present. Hogg said he understood from Butt that it had been remitted to Spain. Butt appeared to be very sure that it had been so remitted, but he did not know how. I do not remember Hogg saying he had bought it for 125 sovereigns.

Re-examined. There is no mention in the agreement of September 3, 1908, of any sum of £2,000 to be paid by the Anglo-Spanish to the Contractors' Corporation. The object of the Walter's action was to prevent the company from enforcing calls upon shareholders until calls of an equal amount had been made upon the Contractors' Corporation. I was told, I expect by Hogg, that the Corporation were not to be called upon for calls for twelve months. The minute of September 4, 1908, records a letter (Exhibit 87) received from the Corporation, confirming that arrangement, but I can find no document or minute saying that such an arrangement had been entered into. Exhibit 87 is signed with a rubber stamp,"E. Allen Robinson." I think a cheque for £50 was actually paid into my account for counsel's fees, but no account was opened in my name as I suggested. It appears that at the meetings when the compromises were reported the bank passbooks were before the board. I know that certain payments were made to Cox and Lafone in connection with the Water-ford Trust, but they were not made through me. As regards the settlement with Danes, Adams and Co., the £87 10s. would have to be settled by the company in some way, either cash or contra. I never came across Clarke Barber in connection with the company at all, with the exception of employing him to search the register.

(Thursday, July 6.)

  LIONEL GARNETT MOZLEY , of Hicks, Arnold, and Mozley, solicitors, 35, King Street, Covent Garden. In June, 1909 I was acting for

Charles Mascart and Lazard Weiller in an action brought against them by the Anglo-Spanish Company for calls on shares they held in that company. In the course of the litigation negotiations for a compromise were carried on between myself, Mr. Brown, the solicitor for the Company, and Hogg; I think we approached them first. Negotiations went on far about three months, during which time I communicated with only Mr. Brown and Hogg. Eventually these Orders (Exhibits 26 and 27) were drawn up embodying the terms of compromise by which our clients paid in all £386 7s. 6d. The action for rectification was withdrawn and each party paid its own costs. On June 22 I paid Mr. Brown an open cheque, at his request, for that amount and it has been paid by our bankers. We have never received back any portion of it, except £15 towards our costs, which was paid us by Mr. Brown. We had arranged that informally with him.

To Mr. Rawlinson. When the negotiations were going on between myself and Hogg (I saw him only twice in the early part) all that was mentioned was the amount per share that we were willing to offer; we did not add up the total.

To Mr. Fulton. It would be mentioned in conversation with Hogg as to how many shares my clients held. The attitude my clients took up at first was that they would not pay anything because they alleged that they had been induced to take up the shares by fraud. I was getting instructions from my clients by correspondence; they were in Paris. I did not hear that Hogg had been over to see them there. I had some difficulty to get them to accept my advice to settle.

Re-examined. I do not remember ever having heard the name of Clarke Barber.

  HERBERT GEORGE ALEXANDER HOGG , 9, Woodstock Road, Finsbury Park. I am not related to prisoner Hogg. In 1909 I was managing clerk to C. W. and S. E. Brown, solicitors. On May 7, 1909, I received a cheque for £809 12s. from Ashurst, Morris, Crisp and Company. Butt instructed me to ask for an open cheque. I gave it to him.

To Mr. Rawlinson. I also had charge of the Danes, Adams and Company's matter. The only sum to come to the company was £52 10s. It was at Bow Street that I saw Hogg for the first time. As to the Orders of Court my recollection is that I took the originals to the offices of the company, showed them to Butt, and then took them away and filed them at Somerset House.

To Mr. Fulton. I think in one case only was a copy of the order furnished to the company. I have known Clarke Barber since 1899; he has called in to the office to see me on occasions. Being too busy myself on one occasion in January, 1909, I sent him to search the Romanera Company register. He was an outside broker then. I have not seen him for 18 months. He did business in the street. About March, 1909, I saw him in the company's office; this would be about the time of the settlement with Ashurst, Morris, and Crisp.

Re-examined. I have been on tour for the past two years. If I wanted to communicate with Barber I should go to the "Oriental" public-house in Rood Lane. I have also seen him at "The Royal

Mail" in Camomile Street. He never had an office. I have only employed him once. I have never seen this transfer in connection with Danes, Adams, and Company's case before.

  FREDERICK GARTSIDE , director of companies, 63, Bryanston Street. I have known Hogg about 11 years. In October, 1908, at his invitation, I became a director of the Anglo-Spanish Company in the place of a Mr. Parker. I was appointed to form a quorum. Hogg said that the business would be merely to recover calls, and the assets were to be handed over to the Romanera Company when the calls had been paid and the actions settled. I had never heard of the company before. The qualification of a director was 500 fully-paid £1 shares, and these I obtained through Butt, without payment, from the Contractors' Corporation; they were quite unmarketable. I afterwards asked Hogg about the Contractors' Corporation, but I cannot remember what he told me; it was three years ago. I remained a director till January, 1910. My fees have been paid up to July, 1909; there is £150 now owing. I was always paid by the company's cheque on the Capital and Counties' Bank. Hogg and myself were the sole directors till March, 1909. (To the Court. I cannot remember any occasion when I disagreed with the resolutions Hogg proposed as chairman, but if I had done so he would have had the casting vote). Butt attended the board meetings as secretary; he took no part in the discussions. Exhibit 45 is the attendance-book that was kept which we signed. I never heard of an account of the company being opened at the London and Westminster Bank. I have never before seen this letter to the manager (Exhibit 9) opening the account. When I joined the board, Hogg, by the minute of September 30, had been appointed a committee, but I did not know it at that time; I heard afterwards. It did not strike me as peculiar for the board to appoint a committee of one, as there was no very important business to transact. I cannot find in the minute-book any minute on November 24 referred to in the letter (Exhibit 9). I should think the opening of a banking account would be a very important matter and should be made the subject of a minute. It was the usual practice for cheques that were drawn on behalf of the company to be reported to the board for confirmation. I never signed any cheques drawn on the London and Westminster account. I do not remember a cheque for £800 drawn on the account in favour of the Contractors' Corporation ever having been (reported to the board, and I know nothing about it. The same remarks apply to the cheque for £100, drawn to "Selves" on February 15, 1909, and the cheque for £99 3s. 8d., drawn to bearer on November 10, 1909. I see by the minute of March 11, 1909, that Mr. Moratt was appointed a director. At that time I did not know he was the secretary of the Contractors' Corporation. By the minute of January 5, 1909, I was appointed as a committee; I suppose the reason for that was in case Hogg became ill I should be able to take his place; I was never called upon to do anything. I have not the remotest idea of what became of this cheque for £125 (Exhibit 37). No doubt it was drawn to be remitted to Spain. I very frequently, as is the custom, signed blank

cheques, and I have no doubt I afterwards looked to see who had been filled in as the payees. There is no entry of this cheque for £125 (Exhibit 37) having been remitted to Spain. I knew in the spring of 1909 the company was suing shareholders for calls, and that some of those claims were compromised. I have no recollection of seeing at any board meeting the orders embodying the compromise made in Cohen's, Roitlenger's, and the United Investment Corporation cases. Nor do I remember the amount of the compromise, nor if it was reported to the board; I can find no trace of it. I never heard of the name of Clarke Barber, nor did I know of any commission being deductable from the sums paid by the litigants. The same remark applies to the settlements made with Weiller and Maxart. The amount of settlement in these cases should have been reported to the board. In January, 1910, Hogg invited me to become a director of the Contractors' Corporation, and I became the sole director, succeeding E. A. Robinson. Miss Miller was the secretary then. Hogg called himself the financial adviser. There was absolutely nothing to do in the company; I was there merely as a matter of form.

To Mr. Rawlinson. I have lately been ill. I have always had a bad memory, but lately it has become worse. There is no truth in the suggestion that I was a pliant director; I was at that time and am now director of a big company and I have had 12 years' experience of companies. I had full confidence in Hogg. I do not remember a consultation taking place on November 17 about the formation of a fighting fund, but I will not say it did not take place. I remember negotiations were carried on between the company and the Waterford Trust in connection with some Copper mines in Waterford and any expenses connected with those would have to be properly borne by the company. When I was examined by Mr. Fox I was not allowed to refresh my memory from any documents; he so muddled me that I hardly knew what I was saying. I had some memoranda, but I was not allowed to refresh my memory from them.

To Mr. Fulton. No doubt it was discussed as to what we should do as directors if we lost our actions against shareholders for calls, but I do not remember Mr. Brown suggesting that another banking account should be opened as the account of the company might be attacked by the successful litigants; it might have been. I should have known it, however, if it had been arranged. I agree that to enter in the minutes that such an account was opened would defeat the purpose for which it was opened. I have no recollection of the name of the intermediary referred to in the minute of March 31, 1909, being mentioned at all, but there is no doubt that an intermediary was employed with the sanction of the directors and, of course, I should expect him to be paid. The amount of compromises would undoubtedly be made known to the directors at the board meeting on March 30 at which they were reported. I never looked at the cash book, only the bankbook. When looking at the bankbook I never asked what had become of the £809 12s. paid by Ashurst, Morris, and Crisp in settlement of their actions, because I had such confidence in my colleagues that I thought there was no necessity to do so. At all the board meetings the

pass books and the cash balance statement were submitted. I do not remember the details regarding the settlement with Maxart and Weiller, but I remember it being reported that Hogg had gone to Paris to see them. I remember also Butt being sent to various persons all over the country upon the same sort of business and he did extremely well. No doubt other persons were employed by the board for the same purpose, but I do not remember their names. I do not remember the cheque for £125 (Exhibit 37) being drawn, but I see by the minute of March 1 that it was drawn. I am afraid the company's financial condition was rather precarious, but I cannot remember what the balance at the bank was at that time. The proceedings of a committee should be reported to the board and entered in the minutes; there was no separate book kept for the proceedings of the committee. I never asked why Hogg's proceedings as such were never entered in the minute book, as I did not see any necessity to do so; I possibly may have done so, but I cannot recollect. In fact, I did not know of the meetings; he never did anything, as a commitee; there was not much business to transact. Butt had nothing to do with the Contractors' Corporation. Moratt was not connected with that at the same time as I was.

Re-examined. It is very likely that at the police court I gave some names of companies with which I had been connected. Some of them are still existing. (Mr. Rawlinson objected to the witness being asked further questions on the subject, contending that they were by way of cross-examination. Mr. Bodkin stated he would not pursue it further.) I cannot remember any other person but Butt acting in the negotiations for compromises. I should look to Butt to keep a record of the proceedings of Hogg as a committee. I may have asked him as to what Hogg had been doing, but I do not remember doing so. The fact that the £125 cheque is the only cheque dated March 2 which was ordered to be drawn on in the minute of March 1 does not help me in remembering whether I signed that cheque in blank or not. I cannot remember whether the memoranda I had when being examined by Mr. Fox were observations by the Official Receiver. I do not say that I was not perfectly fairly treated by Mr. Fox. (To the Jury.) It is since prisoner's arrest that I have been ill; my heart and memory were affected by it; 25 years ago I suffered from angina pectoris.

  EDWARD VAUGHAN FOX , Examiner, Companies Winding-up Department, Board of Trade. I had the investigation of the affairs of the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company entrusted to me. We had a printed list of a large number of books which are common to all companies. On January 25 this (Exhibit 46) reached me, certified by Butt, the secretary; he is supposed to alter it by crossing out the books that were not kept and adding additional books that were kept; there are no books whatever either disclosed in that list or taken possession of in the department relating to an account kept at the London and Westminster Bank. The minutes disclose the following facts: On January 9, 1907, an account was opened at the Capital and Counties Bank; March 12, 1908, Hogg was appointed a director; he appears among

the directors present on March 19; on July 15, 1908, all the original directors, with the exception of Hogg and Yglesias, resigned and Brooke was appointed; he resigned on October 12 and William Parker was appointed in his place; at the end of August, 1908, Mr. Bramall, the secretary, resigned, and on September 3 Butt was appointed in his place; on September 29 Yglesias resigned and on October 21 Gartside was appointed in place of Parker resigned; in the March following Moratt was appointed a director. I have looked through all the documents and can find no trace of a board meeting on November 24, 1908, nor do I find any records of anything done by Hogg or Gartside sitting as committees of one. Some time in the autumn of last year was when I first traced the existence of the account at the London and Westminster Bank, when I traced £200 of the £386 7s. 6d. paid in notes into that account on June 23, 1909. On consulting the share register I found that on June, 1909, Mascart and Wieller were liable for £1,405 for calls, there being no entry that these shares were fully paid. I communicated with Hicks, Arnold, and Mozley with reference to this and in reply received copies of these Orders (Exhibits 26 and 27) by which the claim was compromised for £386 7s. 6d., the shareholders' names to be taken from the register. There is no entry in the minutes of the completion of these negotiations of compromise and no entry in the cash book of the receipt of the sum. Except in one or two cross-cheque transactions with the Contractors' Corporation, I find that the sums which were paid into the secret account at the London and Westminster Bank were in. respect of calls paid, £1,544. On December 17, 1908, and February 15, 1909, there are cheques for £800 and £100 drawn in favour of the Contractors' Corporation, and in the account of the company I find corresponding credits. I have not been able to find anything authorising those payments or any entry of them in any book of the company. The first time I saw the used cheques of the secret account was at the police court when, I think, Hogg produced them. The minute relating to the company taking an interest in the Waterford Trust is dated two days after February 15. Exhibit 111 is the agreement with the vendors of the Waterford Trust. According to the minutes of March 23, May 7, and July 28, 1909, the position left is that the balance of £100 due to the Waterford Trust should not be asked for and I have not been able to find any reason for the drawing out of the £100 I mentioned. I have never asked prisoners for an account of how this sum was dealt with. Butt explains in his letter of June 4, 1910 (Exhibit 50) that the £200 mentioned in the minute of March 23, 1909, was paid to the Waterford Trust by way of expenses. As regards the cheque (Exhibit 37) for £125 drawn in favour of" T. H. Butt (Remittance Account)," dated March 2, 1909, it is entered as such in the cash-book, but in the ledger there is no entry of it under the heading" Huelva Remittance Account" as there should be; the account has not been systematically posted since March, 1908; I do not think I have asked for an explanation of this. Among the receipts from the men in charge of the mines in Huelva there is none for this £125.

We wrote to Butt asking for an explanation, and in the letter (Exhibit 50) he writes that it was for a cable remittance to Huelva for payment of wages on behalf of the Romanera Company; that the cheque was only made payable to him personally as a matter of convenience, and that he believed the remittance had been made by the Capital and Counties Bank. The Official Receiver wrote him on August 15 for a further explanation and he wrote on the 23rd saying that he believed the remittance had been made through Morrison and Sons, Spanish merchants, and that he did not think the cheque was cashed by him personally but that it was merely endorsed by him. On October 13 I had an interview with Hogg and asked him about this cheque. The same evening I dictated a note of what he had said to a shorthand writer. I subsequently, when the matter was fresh in my mind, looked through it to see if it accurately represented my recollection of what took place, and it does so. I initialled it. (Mr. Rawlinson submitted that the witness was not entitled to refresh his memory from this note, on the ground that a mistake might very easily be made, since the note was a long one. The Recorder overruled the objection.) Refreshing my memory from this note, Hogg said when I pointed out to him that the notes had been traced that it was quite clear he had had the money, that he must have made some mistake in the way he drew the cheque, and that it was probably paid him by way of director's fees or other reasons. I found he had been paid all fees due to him. He said he would go into the matter with Butt. Refreshing my memory again from this note, he said that the Contractors' Corporation was Robinson and he was the financial adviser, and had more influence, he supposed, than Robinson. I said I had seen the file of the company and he said he was not going to be such a fool as to say he was the Contractors' Corporation in view of that company's liability for calls on shares in the Anglo-Spanish. He was invited to send a written explanation of the different matters, and on October 18 he wrote to me Exhibit 53, stating that the matter of the £125 was capable of very simple explanation, and but for the defective memory possessed by the late secretary should have been explained without difficulty; explaining that the Contractors' Corporation frequently financed the Anglo-Spanish Company when in difficulties, and it was evident that £113 10s. of the £125 had been repaid the Corporation for cheques received by them of which he gave details, and stating that in view of the matter being reduced to such trivial proportions he presumed there was no necessity to meet Butt to hear his explanation. On October 20 the Official Receiver wrote to him (Exhibit 55), pointing out that there was no evidence that the company was ever financed by the Corporation and that Butt's statement as to what had become of the £125 cheque could not be due to faulty recollection. He replied on November 1 (Exhibit 57) reaffirming his statement as to the company having been financed by the Corporation, but stating that it was not necessary that the sum repaid by the company should appear in the bank pass-book,

stating that as regards the £125 cheque, having been asked by Mr. Fox not to see Butt on the matter, he had written him and now enclosed copy of his reply, the explanation in which he quite accepted. Exhibit 58 is a copy of the letter Butt had written to him from Clacton, dated October 27, 1910: "In reply to your letter as to the remittance of £125 on March 2, 1909, I have already informed the Official Receiver that this sum was actually sent to Huelva on behalf of and at the request of the Romanera Company. I cannot be expected to remember the details of every remittance made, but in this case I feel sure that the actual cheque was handed over to you in exchange for cash, which I remitted to Spain. I also feel sure that somewhere in the mine accounts received by the Romanera credit is given for this remittance either by Mr. Garrett or Mr. Reynolds." Exhibit 96 is the original of the letter; in it the word "you" in the sentence "I feel sure that the actual cheque was handed over to you in exchange for cash "is altered to "I," and in the margin are the initials "T. B." There is this postscript, "You will be sorry to know that my job at the Palace has come to an end. I shall have to return to London to find something else. T.B."

(Friday, July 7.)

  EDWARD FRANKLIN FOX (recalled). I have found no evidence of the Contractors' Corporation having financed the company. I have never had access to the Corporation's books. The company always had a credit balance at the bank. By the agreement of August 26, 1908, with the Romanera Company the Anglo-Spanish Company were to get at the purchase price of the mines in Spain certain fully paid shares to be distributed to the company's shareholders, the company themselves were to subscribe for certain partly paid shares and to pay in respect of calls thereon about £18,000 in cash by meeting bille which fell due at certain dates. There is a minute of September 17 when the agreement was resolved to be signed and sealed and after that date I find specified various payments by the company to the Romanera Company amounting to something over £2,000, the last payment as recorded in the cash book being £50 on October 27, 1909. By this agreement the company sold all its property in these mines to the Romanera, but there was a difficulty about transferring the title so the company agreed for a time to carry on the management for the Romanera. There is no trace in any books of the company of this £125 being remitted to Spain. Cohen, Reitlinger, and the United Investment Corporation were liable in calls for £2,944 in all, and the compromise of £809 12s. wiped that out. That sum is so entered in the cash book, but £259 12s. is deducted for" commission and costs, "the company therefore receiving £550. I can find no trace whatever of any such commission having been paid. Any sum that Mr. Brown would be entitled to for out of pocket expenses would be very small, and his retaining fee of £50 a month covered his costs. There is no record anywhere of the £186 7s. 6d. deducted from the £386 7s. 6d. paid in settlement by Maxart and Weiller; the £200

was paid into the secret banking account. There is no minute (referring to that amount having been paid. In his letter of June 4, 1910 (Exhibit 50), Butt in explaining the deductions from settlements in cases other than the Lloyd Richardson cases does not mention the Maxart and Weiller case. Exhibit 59 is headed "Statements of Commission paid to Barber for settling claims made in connection with shar olders." The first is an alleged payment of £259 12s. in respect of Cohens and Others' case and the second the £87 10s. in Sulzbach and Adler's case. On October 19 we wrote Butt asking him if he had received any of these large sums which had been deducted. On October 23 he replied saying that he had not; and that as the company was not in a position to recover the full amount it had to take greatly reduced payments or nothing. On October 20 we wrote Hogg for an explanation (Exihibit 55, par. 13) and in his letter of November 1 (Exhibit 57) he stated that the settlements" were entirely arranged by the company's solicitor and under his advice "and that he" understood that 'commission and costs' were the amounts payable to the solicitors who brought about these settlements. The authority, no doubt, would be that of the company." In par. 11 of Exhibit 55 we ask him for an explanation of two sums paid to Butt by the company for services rendered and he replies that these were paid for extra services rendered. From my knowledge of the position at the date when the secret banking account was opened the company was not involved in a large volume of litigation. There are letters from October, 1908, indicating settlements with shareholders individually and in blocks; the Lloyd Richardson litigation, representing 34 shareholders, had been settled. The last litigation was settled on July 28, 1909, and from that date there was no necessity to maintain a fighting fund. I have been able to trace no payments in respect of litigation from this account; it was only just kept open. I can see no reason why the £249 3s. 8d. credit in July should not have been handed back to the company. According to the directors' attendance book (Exhibit 45) Hogg, Brooke Mee, and Yglesias were in attendance at the two meetings on August 31 and the meetings on September 1 and 2, whereas according to the minute Yglesias was not present on September 1 and 2. On August 31 there is a minute to this effect: "It was, therefore, resolved that steps should be immediately taken with a view to terminating all the law suits, and the Contractors' Financial Corporation were requested to continue their negotiations with the Shareholders' Association, which the board understood they had been doing for the past three weeks." The following minute of September 1 is: "The Contractors' Financial Corporation reported that having again interviewed the solicitors for the plaintiffs and other representative shareholders they were in a position to submit a proposal for a compromise which they now did. The board having considered this proposal decided to request the Contractors' Financial Corporation to make it in writing in the form of a draft agreement, and to defer other consideration until this had been done." Then the next minute of September 2 says this: "A letter from the Contractors' Financial Corporation and the draft agreement embodying the terms of the proposed compromise between

the company and the dissentient and other shareholders were submitted, both of which were read and approved subject to further consultation with Mr. Sims (solicitor). The agreement was subsequently ordered to be engrossed as amended in triplicate, and submitted to the board for execution." It is quite clear that Mr. Sims acted for the company in this matter. At the meeting of September 3 he produced the engrossments of the agreement of compromise, which was read and approved, and it was resolved that it be adopted and the seal of the company was affixed. This meeting was adjourned to three o'clock, when the agreement was submitted and finally approved and adopted. Exhibit 60 is the part of the agreement executed by the Reliance Syndicate. It is dated September 3, 1908, and the parties to it are the Anglo-Spanish Company, the Contractors' Corporation, the Reliance Finance Syndicate, and the shareholders in the Anglo-Spanish Company, who signed agreements in the form annexed thereto. It recites the agreement of August 26, 1908, that the company had entered into with the Romanera Company, and under it the Reliance Syndicate were to be paid £1,500 in cash by the company, and £8,000 by the Corporation in shares of the new company to be formed in respect of services rendered by them. The dissentient shareholders on signing the agreement annexed were also to receive certain shares in the new company. There is no reference to the Corporation being paid £2,000. Exhibit 76 is a letter from the Corporation to the company of September 2, 1908, submitting this agreement in draft, and they state as regards the 8,000 fully-paid £1 shares which they were to supply by that agreement to the Reliance Syndicate, "we undertake to provide these shares upon condition that your company will pay us the sum of £2,000 upon the agreement being signed, which amount should also cover the services we have rendered in bringing about a settlement, the value of which cannot very well be estimated by your company, being, as it is, of the highest importance to its life and future financial prospects." It is signed with a rubber stamp, "E. Allen Robinson, Director." It bears no received stamp, as all the other letters of importance did. I can find no reference to it in the letter books or the minutes of the company, except in the minute of September 2. Exhibit 77 is a letter from the Corporation, dated August 31, nominating Hogg to represent them at the forthcoming meeting of the company, at which Exhibit 76 is said to have been considered; it seems to be signed with the real signature of Robinson. I can find no trace of any payments specified as being. on account of the £2,000 to the Corporation, although there are some payments which are claimed to be such. The Corporation were never in a position to transfer 8,000 shares, and I can find no reason for the company paying them £2,000. At this date the Corporation were under a liability of over £10,000 for calls on shares they held of the company. Exhibit 87 is a letter, dated September, 1908, from them, suggesting they should not be called upon for this amount for 12 months in accordance with the terms agreed upon by the board on July 15, 1908. There is not a word about it in the minute. Then followed some litigation by Walter and others, the principal cause of

action being that the Corporation were not included in the request to pay calls. That was settled by the plaintiffs, who included Harschke and Austin, paying £1,447 4s., and the Corporation paying £1,569 12s. representing the balance of the amount which would be payable in respect of the shares held by the group so as to make such shares fully paid. A cheque for this latter amount (Exhibit 72) was found in Butt's possession; it is signed by Robinson only and not countersigned by Hogg, and therefore the bank would not pay it; this would not be known to Harschke and Austin to whom the cheque was made payable and who endorsed it over to the company. I now produce an account showing the daily balances of the company's account in the London and Westminster (Exhibit 124). The £125 alleged to have been remitted to Spain could have been remitted through the company's bank as were the other remittances; there was no necessity to first change the cheque. Danes, Adams and Company agreed to pay in settlement of calls upon their shares £52 10s.; they were to transfer the shares as fully paid to a nominee of the company and the company were to satisfy them that these shares had been fully paid. The Contractors' Corporation, the nominees, paid £87 10s., the balance, a fully paid transfer was executed in the Corporation's favour, and the company returned them on March 3 the £87 10s. I find in the share register these shares are marked as fully paid. The result was the Corporation got the fully paid shares for nothing. The £87 10s. is entered in the company's cash book by Butt as being paid to the Corporation for rent, but it could have had no reference to that as no rent was due. I find in the minutes from time to time payments amounting to the £1,500 which was to be paid to the Reliance Syndicate under the agreement of September 3. The last payment was made a week before the opening of the secret account. The Reliance were to keep the 8,000 shares as their own bonus. (To the Jury.) The posting column relating to the entry of the £125 in the cash book is not filled up at all. I agree that a bookkeeper might hesitate about making entries in the share register because he would not know what entries to make.

  FRANCIS JOHN CUMMING , chief cashier, Credit Lyonnais, 4, Cockspur Street. I have searched the books from March 2, 1909, and can find no record of £125 having been sent to the Anglo-Spanish Copper Mine Company at Huelva.

  ARTHUR BLUMHOFFER , clerk, Credit Lyonnais, 40, Lombard Street, and WALTER HARRISON, clerk, Morrison and Company, 17, Philpot Lane, gave evidence to a similar effect.

Detective-inspector ALBERT FERRETT, New Scotland Yard. On January 25 I saw Butt at 49, Queen Victoria Street, and told him I had a warrant for his arrest. He said, "I am sorry to hear that. What is it for?" I read it to him and he said, "Am I alone in this?" I told him he was not, and he said, "All I can say is that I am very sorry." On February 9 I went to Boulogne, where Hogg was in prison detained on an extradition warrant. On the boat 1 offered to read the warrant to him. He said it was not necessary as

he had heard it so many times before. I gave it to him, he read it and said, "Yes, that's all right." In the train I read it to him, and he said, "Yes; those amounts are nothing. I shall have a full answer at the proper time." He had at no time resisted the extradition proceedings. At 49, Queen Victoria Street, where Butt was carrying on the agency of the Palace Restaurants, I found a great many documents, which I produce. Exhibit 61 is a letter from Hogg to him, dated February 12, 1909, relating to the collection of outstanding calls. Exhibit 62 is a telegram addressed to him in Liverpool from Hogg thanking him for his excellent work. Exhibit 63 is Butt's diary, showing that on March 3, 1909, he left for Liverpool, and that he was there on the 4th and 5th. This banknote, No. 15262, has the stamp "Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool, "upon it, and No. 15621 has part of a name, "uth" upon it; I know there is a woman named "Ruth Riden." Exhibit 64 is a typed document, which appears to be a copy of paragraph 13 of Exhibit 55, which is a long letter from the Official Receiver to Hogg. Exhibit 65 is an unsigned letter from the London Wall Buildings dated "November with, 1910, "to" G. Clarke Barber, Paris, "stating that the Official Receiver was asking that certain payments made to him (Butt) in connection with the settlements made of the claims against the French shareholders should be vouched and asking him to return the accompanying acknowledgment as his original receipts seemed to have been mislaid. Exhibit 66 is a blank sheet of paper to which a penny stamp is affixed across which is written "G. Clarke Barber, May 6, 1909." Exhibit 67 is a letter from Barber to Butt dated January 4, 1911, enclosing a copy of a letter he was posting that day to the Official Receiver for his approval. On the fly leaf there is a copy letter to "—Fox, Esq," headed "Camomile Street, E.C.," stating that having heard that his name had been mentioned in connection with the liquidation of the Anglo-Spanish he proposed calling on him. Exhibit 68 is a draft minute of some company not named, signed by Hogg. Ex-hibit 69 is an extract from the account of the Capital and Counties Bank. Exhibit 70 is a small cash-book of the Corporation. Exhibit 72 is a document headed "Reasons why litigant should compromise." I also found Exhibit 59 (Barber's receipt) and Exhibit 72 (a cheque), which have been referred to already. I also produced a receipt for the cheque (Exhibit 125). Exhibit 59 is a copy of Exhibit 93 except that Exhibit 93 bears a stamp across which is signed." G. Clarke Barber." It is only dated July, 1909.

To Mr. Valetta. Hogg gave us all the assistance he could on the extradition proceedings; he wanted to get back. I know that such a person as Clarke Barber exists.

To Mr. Fulton. I had a letter from him from the Grand Hotel, St. Petersburg, dated June 22. I should not say that Exhibit 68 was in Butt's handwriting. I may have found Exhibit 72 in one of the letter files in Butt's office.

  F. GARTSIDE (recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Fulton). The initials "F. G." on this cheque for £500 to bearer dated January 1, 1909, in Exhibit 48 do not appear to be my own; they serve to open the cheque. The signature is mine. I do not know whether the handwriting in the body of it is that of Butt. The same remarks apply to this cheque of £50 drawn on the same date and in the same manner, and to this cheque of £75 drawn to "Cash" dated February 13, 1909. The initials in no case resemble mine.

Further re-examined. I will not dispute that I was present at the meetings of January 1 and February 17, 1909, and that on January 1 there is no minute authorising the drawing of the cheques for £500 and £50. I have no recollection at all for what they were drawn. The body of the £500 cheque does not appear to be in Hogg's writing. The counterfoil does not appear to have been written at the same time as the cheque; it looks to me like Hogg's writing. I know of no reason why the Corporation should have been paid that £500; there is nothing referring to it in the minute of January 5. The body of the £50 cheque and part of the counterfoil appear to be in Hogg's writing; in the counterfoil the date is in a different handwriting. The counterfoil must have been blank when I signed the cheque, as in the £500 cheque; if I had seen the counterfoil was Contractors' Corporation I should have inquired. I sometimes signed cheques when both the cheques and counterfoils were blank. According to the minute of February 17 the £75 cheque seems to have been in order. It will be seen by the initials I now make (Exhibit 126) that I make my "F's" in a peculiar manner.

To the Jury. I should have done anything Hogg told me to do, as I never had cause to doubt his integrity; Butt had, however, not the slightest influence over me.

  EDWARD FRANKLIN FOX (recalled; cross-examined by M. Valetta). It was not until March, 1906, that Hogg had any connection as a director with the company; his name appears in a letter dated February 9 from Lewis suggesting he should become one. The only litigation then pending was an action brought by the company against the promoters. The litigation with the shareholders did not start till April. Substantially from January 10, 1910, we have had all the books and papers of the company before us, and November 12 was the first date that we got any inkling of the secret account. If in the books we had discovered a reference to some bank not known to us, we should have been put upon inquiry before. I swear in my information that £1, 554 consisted of moneys received from shareholders in respect of calls, but the company's cash-books and ledgers contained no record of any such receipts or payments. It is true that the share ledger (not the ledger) shows certain sums paid by shareholders which I eventually traced into the secret account. Schedule X is a statement sworn to by Brooke Mee, and filed on May 14, 1910, it is a list of items which the accountant found in the share register as having been received which they could not find in

the bank-books or cash-book. I did not inquire as to where those sums had gone until October, 1910, because up to that time, under instructions from Mr. Winearls, I was busying myself with the allegations of fraud which the company were making against the promoters. The company's cash book (Exhibit 42) does not disclose the true financial position of the company, because it only represents the state of the general account and has no regard to the call accounts; I repeat there was no necessity for the Corporation to finance the company at any time. I agree that in November, 1908, there were several large actions pending in respect of calls; the secret account opened on that date was closed in the following November, but as a matter of fact all litigation was over in July. The account remained dormant from June 23. I do not agree that the £894 item refers to any litigation; £500 of this sum was paid by a French firm in settlement of calls, although under English law they were not bound to do so; I do not think the matter ever reached litigation. I know that it is alleged that the £2,000 said to have been paid by the Corporation was made up of items of £250, £450, £800, and £500. In saying to what purposes they were allocated to, I can only go by the books. In the ledger the £250 and the £450 are debited to the Contractors' Corporation, but in the index those words are followed by "Smelter" in brackets. The first four items in the account in the ledger, which is headed "Contractors' Corporation, Ltd.," are to be traced to the cash-book, in which they purport to relate to "Smelter," but items of £250 and £450 relate to "On account." The first four items were in the time of Mr. Bramall; the word "Smelter" in the ledger index against the last two items is in a different handwriting to the title, and in the same handwriting as actual entries in the ledger; I think it is Butt's. The last payment on account of Smelter is June, 1908. I do not know what the £500 on January 1, 1909, was paid for.

(Monday, July 10.)

  EDWARD FRANKLIN FOX (recalled; further cross-examined by Mr. Valetta). Exhibit 88 is an estimate, dated March 12, 1908, from Bowes, Scott, and Western, Limited, to the company for the smelting plant, amounting to £4,120. This document I now produce (Exhibit 88a) is a copy of it, except that it has the heading, "Tender from the Contractors' Financial Corporation," and at the end there is an additional statement to the effect that completion was to be four months from date of order, and then follow a list of payments to be made, the first three of which total up to £3,700. It is signed with a rubber stamp, "E. Allen Robinson." It came into my possession in the usual way with the other documents. (Mr. Bodkin stated that it must not be taken that the prosecution assented to the figures shown thereon.) It was given me by Hogg at the time we were discussing the smelting contract in February, 1910. At the meeting of March 31, at which Mr. Banner was in the chair, this estimate (Exhibit 88a) was submitted and accepted. Exhibit 88a was sent to me by Hogg at my request, and is a copy, with the exceptions I have named, of Exhibit 88, which I had already in my possession. I cannot say that the items of

£50, £500, £100, and £75 in Exhibit 97 were paid to the Corporation in respect of the Waterford Trust business, although it is true that on the other side of the account there are payments to Cox and Lafone of in all £265 10s. in respect of that matter. There is no charge in respect of the £50 and the £75. I cannot contradict Mr. Brown when he says he received £25 for the registration of the Water-ford Trust. Exhibit 103 is a statement of account between Hogg and the company, prepared by Mr. Cash, who is a well-known accountant. I agree that he is entitled to £69 8s. 11d., director's fees as stated therein. That with the sum of £31 10s. alleged to have been paid to Cox and Lafone for costs for which Hogg had made himself personally liable and 10 guineas to Marpole and Marpole comes to £110 9s. 11d., thus leaving Hogg £11 6s. 3d. in credit. He appears in the statement of affairs as an unsecured creditor for £152 15s. 7d., but I do not know whether he has claimed that or not. I do not suggest that any of the £259 12s. or the £186 7s. 6d. found its way into Hogg's possession. Hogg protested on more than one occasion against Brooke Mee's being appointed to prepare a statement of affairs, as he said in February, 1910, that he had had nothing to do with the company for six months; there was probably a discussion as to it early in February between him and myself, but I do not think it was heated; he may have asked me if I had anything more to say to say it in writing, and he would do likewise; on February 10, 14, 17, 21, and 23 it is true letters passed between us. From that interview I do not think I saw him again until October 13. I had been making enquiries of Butt with reference to the £125 cheque, but it is very likely that I did not tell Hogg this on the interview of October 13. I asked Hogg for an explanation and asked him not to consult Butt. I did not refuse to let him see the books. He subsequently wrote the letter of October 18 (Exhibit 53.) At any time if he had asked to see the books, if I had them in my possession, he would have access to them; he necessarily would have to pay for copies. I say Mr. Winearls' statement in his letter to Hogg of October 20 that the company continued to have a credit balance at its bankers down to December, 1909, is justified. It is true that on the evening of October 16, 1908, the account, including the call accounts, was overdrawn £300 odd and on December 2 £2 odd. I do not think Hogg was ever actually required to attend to peruse the statement made by Brooke Mee and notify his acquiescense or dissent; in writing to him the letter, Exhibit 109, we were writing in the usual form. I gave him verbally an opportunity once to swear to the statement of affairs; it must have been in October; I do not regard it as important that he should have an opportunity of doing so, because the statement of affairs does not go beyond what is merely stated in the books. I never asked Hogg if there was any banking account besides the one in the Capital and Counties Bank.

To Mr. Fulton. Butt was appointed secretary of the company on September 3, 1908, when Hogg, Yglesias and Brooke Mee were directors. On September 30 Hogg was appointed a committee and would have very considerable power as such. A committee book was kept up to July, 1908; at the time Brooke Mee was the only member of

a committee who was not a member of the board, so that it would be necessary to keep a book for what was done at committee in order to inform the board. Hogg, as chairman, would have the casting vote and control over the board when he and Gartside alone were directors at the end of September; I find no minutes of committee meetings at which Hogg presided alone, although there should have been. In the company's cash-book in the entries "Contractors' Corporation, Ltd. rent," the "rent" is perfectly plain and cannot be taken to be an abbreviation for "repayment"; it is true as regards the £87 10s., that although described as "rent," it was really a repayment. Butt kept this book. I note by the minutes that the minutes of January 5, 1909, at which Butt was not present, do not appear to have been read at any subsequent meeting and that on January 8, the date of the cheque for £1,569 12s. Butt was not present; Rider signed the receipt for that cheque as secretary. Butt was present on January 1, but no minutes were read on that day. There is an entry in the share register as to the orders made with Cohen and the United Investment Corporation but not with Reitlinger, and in the other, the red, book there are entries as to the orders made in all those three signed by Butt; it would take some time to carry through these transactions by different capital accounts in the ledger, which was shockingly kept. As regards the entries in attendance book as to who were present at the meetings of August 1, September 2 and 3, Mr. Bramall was then secretary. I do not find any cheque drawn on the secret account in Butt's favour, and as regards such cheques in the Capital and Counties account, they were for extra remuneration authorised by the directors or stamp fees. There is nothing to show that he had anything to do with the Contractors' Corporation; during the whole of the time he was secretary his salary and the office expenses were paid By the Corporation. As far as I know the only sums which passed from Hogg's account to Butt in 1909 were £50, £15 6s. 8d., and £38 13s. 4d. No notes, the proceeds of the £125, have been traced to him except one £5 note to an hotel in Liverpool when he was there. The £125 was entered in the cash-book "Remittance Account." I think Hogg's explanation to me on October 13 was that it was due to him for director's fees; I think the first time he ever said that he had bought the cheque for 125 sovereigns was at the police court. I remember now that in the letter of November 1 (Exhibit 57) in which he encloses a copy of Butt's explanation, I never saw the original of the enclosure (Exhibit 96) until at the police court. As regards the original, the initials "I. B." and the word "I" inserted, appear to have been written in lighter ink than the rest of the letter and to have been written with a thicker pen. One would generally suppose that a person who had made a mistake in a letter would simply put his pen through it without initialing it, but this letter was for production to the Official Receiver and that would perhaps make a difference. Hogg produced the original at the police court. I cannot say whether the initials on these cheques of January 1 and on February 13, which were put to Mr. Gartside, are Butt's or not.

When I saw the entries as to "Commission and Costs" I was at once put upon inquiry. In his letter of October 23 Butt says he never received any of these sums.

(Tuesday, July 11.)

  EDWARD FRANKLIN FOX (recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Fulton). At each meeting of the board a statement was submitted showing the financial position. I first noticed the Ashurst, Morris and Crisp amount in October. I do not remember asking Butt any questions about deductions for costs and commission at my interview with him on February 7. My memorandum of the interview with Hogg on October 13 shows that I did not mention the matter. I first heard of Clarke Barber in October or November, 1910; we asked neither prisoner why it was this name was found on certain banknotes. I received a letter, dated January 4 this year, from Barber, promising to attend, but he did not do so; he sent up a messenger twice, who said he was an architect living at Surbiton; he would not give me his name or address, but said if there was anything hanging to it he would be pleased to hand Barber a letter; he did not look like an architect. We did not get an order of the Court to examine Barber because we could not find him; the Court would not have granted the order, anyway, because at that time we could not say that it was for the purpose of recovering any of the estate; the police found him after the case left our hands and then the Court would not dream of making such an order. The matter was in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions at about Christmas, 1910. It would have been a most improper thing to interrogate a man in respect of a matter as to which he might be charged, and the Court would not order such a thing. Directly we found the secret banking account we ceased interrogating the prisoners; this was from October, 1910; the correspondence then ceased. Butt, as is the practice, was the only person, as secretary, who was formally examined by question and answer; this was on February 7.

Re-examined. Our investigation first related to the question of fraud in the original promotion; this continued to August, when I went for my holiday, and then it was resumed for a day or two in October. We got a letter from Clarke Barber to the effect of Exhibit 67. The statement of facts was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions on December 24 and the information was laid on January 20. Mr. Lewis, in whose bill of costs he advised that Hogg should become a director, was solicitor to the promoters, the Central Industrial Trust. As regards the litigation, when Hogg became director the minute of August 31, 1908, resolves that steps should be taken to terminate all the litigation and the agreement (Exhibit 60) was entered into by which 100 actions were disposed of; it was never filed. All litigation was over by July, 1909. According to Statement No. 1, made by Hogg in February, 1910, the only bank mentioned was the Capital and Counties. There are about half a dozen cases in the share ledger in which I have not been able to trace the moneys entered as having been received, they range between September 23 and

November 30, 1909. The balance in Schedule X representing the cash received for calls as shown by the share register and not entered in the cash book is £2,102 18s. 5d. As regards the accounts of the company, it would not be the practice to draw cheques on any specific call account; the credit of the company would be represented by the general account and the call accounts; on December 15, 1908, although the general account was overdrawn £59 1s. 3d., there was £1,127 in the call accounts; on December 17 the credit balance was £928 18s.; December 26, £962 18s.; February 13, £107; February 15, £30; March 1, £587 14s.; March 2, £237 14s.; March 3, £437 14s. The first mention of the Waterford Trust is in the minute of February 17, 1909, and the payments to Cox and Lafone of £25, £10 10s., and £225 were all before that date. There is nothing to show in the books that the payment of £25 to Brown was on account of the registration of the Waterford Trust. I do not think there can be any objection to deducting £41 13s. 4d. and £27 15s. 7d. from the £99 3s. 8d. drawn out of the secret account on November 10, as these two sums represented director's fees due to Hogg; the balance is more than accounted for by Hogg in reference to the two payments of £10 to Marpole and Marpole and £31 1s. to Cox and Lefone, although these payments were made considerably after November 10. Although it is true that Hogg appears as an unsecured creditor for £152 15s. 7d., yet at the date of the winding-up the share register shows that the Corporation was liable for £10,000 in calls; I have here a writ dated December 10 in an action brought by the Corporation in which they ask that the company be restrained from making these calls and for a rectification of the register. Nothing in the case turns upon the statement of affairs prepared by Brooke Mee. I do not remember Hogg even asking me to let him look at the books; in his letter (Exhibit 57), which is five pages long, he never complains of not having been allowed to do so. Butt has told me that the Contractors' Corporation undertook to pay his salary and the office rent of the company, and I find periodical payments to the Corporation on that account. Butt received £26 a month salary. The tender of the Contractors' Corporation to the company for smelting plant amounts to £4,120, and by the minute of March 31 it is accepted; I find in the banking account of the company payments amounting to £1,145 to Bowes, Scott, and Western, who were tenderers in respect of the smelting plant. According to the books the company paid the Corporation £3,700 in respect of this plant. (Mr. Rawlinson objected to questions being put upon the matter, submitting that they were irrelevant. The Recorder overruled the objection, having regard to the fact that the witness had been cross-examined about it by Mr. Valetta.) The £800 paid by the Anglo-Spanish to the Corporation is quite a different sum from the £800 charged, as it was paid quite early in the year. Exhibits 112 and 113 are letters from the company to the Corporation and the Corporation to the company relating to the tender.

  ALBERT FERRETT (recalled, further examined). After considerable trouble I on March 14 found Clarke Barber; he was living at Kingston. He absolutely refused to make a statement.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I saw him on subsequent occasions. I heard that he was at the police court, but I did not myself see him there. Early in the proceedings he was subpœnaed by the prosecution, but he was not called in consequence of certain things which occurred. Beyond this letter that I had from him from St. Petersburg I do not know where he is.

  HERBERT HOGG (recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Valetta). I have made out a list of the actions that were pending between the company and its shareholders. From March to the beginning of August, 1908, there were 235 such actions and in November 125. In November the amount involved was £20,000.

Further re-examined. In March, 1908, all the litigation consisted of an action by the company against the Spanish Copper Company, but there was the Lloyd Richardson action pending.

Mr. Rawlinson formally submitted that as against Hogg there was no evidence to go to the jury with regard to Counts 12 to 18 of the indictment. The Recorder held that there was.

(Wednesday, July 12.)

(Defence of Hogg.)

  WILLIAM CASH , of Cash and Son, chartered accountants, 90, Cannon Street, E.G. I have examined the books and documents in this case on Hogg's behalf. I have seen a copy of the information. The books are incomplete and badly kept. The cash-book only purports to be a record of the transactions at the Capital and Counties Bank. I agreed it with the pass-book. I have heard the evidence relating to the £2,000 alleged to have been paid to the Corporation and have prepared an account as between the Corporation and the company (Exhibit 97a). On the left-hand side I have set out the various sums paid to the Corporation on both the London and Westminster and Capital and Counties banking accounts. It is quite clear that "Repayment" would be the correct description for the £87 10s. paid on March 3 and not "rent," as no rent was due on that date. The item of £300 was received by them according to the cash-book on October 16 and repaid by them on October 17; the company's account was overdrawn £299 8s. 5d. on that date. The £450 item refers to the payment in the ledger which is indexed to "Smelter." The account headed "Contractors' Corporation" in the ledger is incomplete, but there is a pencil entry on March 31 which says, "By contract £4,120," and there is another pencil entry on the debit side, "Customs Dues £160 "; if those entries are correct then the account is overpaid to the extent of £440 assuming it relates to the Smelter. Item No. 7 in Exhibit 97a is a cross entry; apparently £394 8s. went in end part of the account on December 9 and was then paid to the Anglo-Spanish Company against a cheque for £894 8s. on the following day. In making out this account I have assumed the existence of a liability by the company to pay the Contractors' Corporation £2,000 under the agreement of September 2, 1908, and I have credited the

company with that amount. I have seen the cheques (Exhibits 100, 101, and 102) relating to the payments to Cox and Lafone, Items Nos. 9, 11, and 12, and they are all duly endorsed and there are receipts for them. I find in the ledger that the £1,500 was, in fact, paid to the Reliance Syndicate under the agreement. My account shows that £5 10s. is still owing to the Corporation. Taking Exhibit 103, the account between Hogg and the company, I have examined the vouchers and the cheques and find that there is a balance due to Hogg of £11 6s. 2d. The only voucher I have not seen is as regards the item of £50 for his expenses to Paris, but this payment is authorised by the minute of December 10, 1908.

Cross-examined. I was called in in March of this year. I was instructed by Hogg's then solicitors to prepare these accounts, Exhibits 97a and 103; they were produced at the police court, but I was not called. Hogg did supply the materials for Exhibit 97a, in so far as the entries therein do not appear in the company's books. There was nothing in the books to show that £2,000 was due to the corporation; the remark applies to the four items on the other side of £250, £450, £800, and £500, except as regards the £250 and the £450 items, which were entered in the cash book as "On account" and in the ledger index the word "Smelter" appears against them. If all these sums were paid in respect of the £2,000, there would be no difficulty in allocating them as such. I did not ask for receipts; I have not audited the books. I got my information as to the £2,000 from Hogg. In connection with the £87 10s. item I was told nothing by him about Danes, Adams and Co. I now understand that £140 was due from them for calls. It is true the company netted only £52 10s.; and on the same day the company was debited with £87 10s. in favour of the Contractors, but £52 10s. was the sum agreed upon to settle the liability. I did not notice that the Corporation got the shares fully paid. Hogg told me that the Corporation had provided £87 10s. which went to the company and that was why I entered it to their credit; it was paid in, but of course it is true that it was drawn out on the other side. My account (Exhibit 97a) is subject to any calls due from the Corporation. I was told only to prepare an account as regards the subjects of this charge, and I have done nothing more than that. Exhibit 103 was prepared under the same conditions. I was not told why Hogg should have paid Spyers £50.

Re-examined. I was not in any way improperly influenced by Hogg. All the payments in regard to the Waterford Trust are prior to the agreement of March 1, and payments subsequent to that, such as the £200, would have to be paid to them direct. The £800 item does not appear in the cash book at all, but as regards the £500 there is in the cash book this entry" Contractors' Corporation, Limited," without anything else; I do not think there is anything extraordinarily unusual in it being entered in that way. The four items in the ledger before the £250 and the £450 amounting to £3,700, appear in the cash book as "on account Smelter." Assuming that all the items with regard to

the Smelter mentioned in the minute of March 31, except the final one on completion, had been paid, they come to £3,700. I was informed that the £87 10s. was actually paid by the Contractors' Corporation, and it did, with the £52 10s., appear in the call accounts under the head of four items of £35 each for calls. It is true that nothing is entered in the cash book as to it; that is because the practice was to pay all these items into the call accounts, and then to transfer them from there into the general cash book. (To the jury.) I do occasionally find ledgers with incomplete indexes. I think it is possible that a memorandum may be added in the index to assist the book-keeper when he comes to enter up as to what account he shall put, certain items to. I think in this case there were two accounts with this Corporation.

  ALFRED SIMS , solicitor, 170, Bishopsgate Street, E.C. In October, 1908, I was instructed to appear for the Contractors' Corporation in some actions that were being brought, and I got into communication with Mr. Brown, the company's solicitor. On November 16 there was a consultation with Mr. Gore Browne; there was then pending litigation; the Contractors' Corporation was one of the defendants, Hogg and Yglesias and Brooke Mee being co-defendants. On November 17 there was an interview at which were present Brown, Hogg, Butt, Brooke Mee and myself. The question of the costs likely to be incurred was discussed, and Brown said that he thought he should be safe-guarded; he seemed to think that it was possible that an injunction would be obtained over the Capital and Counties banking account, and suggested there should be an account opened at another bank. I thought it was a very good thing. Hogg simply followed the advice; I do not think he made any specific statement about it. Hogg subsequently told me that they had opened another account, but I do not remember his telling me when it was; it did not affect me. I was acting personally for him, but not in connection with this Walters action. In August, 1908, I received instructions to form a company called the Romanera Company, the object of which was to acquire the property of the Anglo-Spanish Company in Spain; Yglesias, the original vendor, saw me, amongst others, with reference to it. I drafted the agreement with Mr. Ellis as trustee for the company on August 26, and on August 28 or 29 sent it to Brown for perusal on behalf of the Anglo-Spanish Company. (Mr. Rawlinson proposed to read the minute to witness. To this Mr. Bodkin objected on the ground that it was leading. The Recorder upheld the objection. A similar objection was made and sustained as to minutes of a meeting of September 3.) The draft agreement was returned to me by Brown on September 1, and on the 3rd Brooke Mee with other gentlemen called at my office. I went with Brooke Mee to the offices of the Anglo-Spanish, where he showed me a letter which appeared to emanate from the Corporation.

Mr. Rawlinson proposed to ask witness what advice the witness gave upon the contents of the letter.

Mr. Bodkin objected on the ground that neither prisoner was a party to it. If Brooke Mee had communicated it to either prisoner

and he, the connecting link, was going to be called, that was another matter.

Mr. Rawlinson stated that the evidence he wished to elicit satisfied the information contained in the minute of September 2, 1906, and added that he would give no undertaking to call Brooke Mee.

The Recorder upheld the objection, adding that it showed how inconvenient it was that a prisoner should not be called first, in order that the court should have the advantage of hearing his account.

Examination continued. I remember in October or November, 1908, Hogg telling me that there was a sum of money coming to the Contractors' Corporation, but I do not remember if he said what it was for, or the amount.

Cross-examined. I registered the Corporation under Hogg's instructions. I should think the expenses of that would be about £20. I then acted for the Corporation in one or two matters after that. In the Walters' action the plaintiffs were asking for an injunction restraining the company from enforcing calls except upon the whole body of the shareholders. I am still acting for them. I cannot say that Hogg was the Corporation. I took instructions also from Robinson. I do not know where he is now. I only acted for the Anglo-Spanish as regards the registration of the Romanera; I acted throughout September, 1908, for the Corporation. I refused to act for both vendors and purchasers in the matter of the sale to the Romanera, and I elected to act for the Romanera; I believe Brown was instructed to act for the company. I was not representing the company at the consultations on November 16 and 17. I was asked to attend as solicitor for the Corporation. I do not recollect Brown suggesting that an account should be opened in his own name, or that a sum of money should be paid to him personally. I do not know if the "fighting fund" was only opened in respect of the Walters' action. I should think I was first spoken to about this matter at the beginning of the year. I do not remember this agreement of September 3 (Exhibit 60); I do not think I have ever seen it before.

Re-examined. I see that one of the parties to this agreement is the corporation, but I did not act in that matter. Having read part of it now for the first time I remember that I heard an agreement had been entered into, but that was all.

  CHARLES EDWARD HOGG (prisoner, on oath). I live at 147, South Audley Street, and I also have a place at Horsham. I am a member of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, and have had considerable experience in mining matters and railway work generally. The first time I came into touch with the Anglo-Spanish Company was in Febuary, 1908, when Mr. Crowther told me of the difficulties the company was in in regard to what was considered by the vendors to be gross acts of injustice done by the promoters; be introduced me to Brooke Mee, who was acting, I think, as what is called an alternate director. Papers were put before me and I was invited to try and put things right. The active, litigation then consisted of an action pending against the promoters, but there was a large number of threatening actions. I drafted a scheme in March, which was accepted by the then directors,

and on March 12 I was appointed a director; a few days later I was appointed one of the committee of management. I became chairman in July, 1908. I had already registered the Contractors' Corporation (in January, 1908) for a purpose which it carried out. I told the company that I would continue to assist them if the distribution of shares were readjusted, that is if the vendors held one-third instead of two-thirds, and the contributing shareholders the rest. That was concurred in. In consequence of my representations as to the value of the mines being really tested, it was agreed by the directors that there should be a call of 2s. a share, and the committee of management, of which I was then one, should use the proceeds, which should have come to £10,000, in exploiting the mines, which included buying fresh plant, and were not to incur liabilities over that amount. Only £5,000 came in, and the committee were considerably hampered. An agreement was entered into with the Contractors' Corporation out of this £5,000 to provide a smelting plant, which under the circumstances was a very risky thing for the corporation; the price was £4,120, and the completion was to be four months from the date of the agreement, March 31. At this time there was very considerable litigation pending with shareholders, and eventually 150 or 160 shareholders, who were then going against the company, were consolidated into a syndicate which was called the Reliance Syndicate; this was effected by the corporation. By the minute of August 31 it was requested to continue negotiations in respect to this; by the minute of September 1 it stated it was in a position to submit a proposal for compromise, and it was desired to make it in writing in the form of a draft agreement, and the minute of September 2 says: "A letter from the Contractors' Financial Corporation and the draft agreement embodying the terms of the proposed compromise... were submitted, both of which were read and approved subject to further consultation with Mr. Sims "(solicitor). Exhibit 76, is the letter written by the corporation referred to, and I find it press-copied in the corporation's letter book (Exhibit 76a) in its proper place. The company were not in possession of their books at the time, they not having been transferred from their old office from which they had moved. Brooke Mee, a director, desiring to be satisfied that the proposal in the corporation's letter should be in such a shape that the Anglo-Spanish directors would be in order in accepting, saw Sims. I was not present. (The Recorder disallowed, for reasons previously given, evidence with regard to what was said at the interview.) Then at the meeting of September 3 Sims produced the agreement engrossed, which was approved. At the adjourned meeting of September 3 the agreements arrived at through the corporation's efforts were finally approved. By Exhibit 76 the company had to pay the corporation £2,000 for these efforts. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Sims was not present at the last meeting; it is an error in the minutes; it was Lloyd Richardson who was present. Butt mixed him up with Sims. As shown by Exhibit 97a, the corporation were paid £250, £450, £800, and £500; these sums were on account of the £2,000. It is impossible

that the items of £250, dated September 30, and £450, of October 16, could have had anything to do with the smelting contract, as would appear from the index in the ledger; they are dated after the company had parted with all control of the plant, which they did on September 9. Sims, on November 17, advised strongly that another banking account should be opened, which should be used as a fighting fund, and which should be out of reach of creditors who could attach the account at the Capital and Counties Bank; there were something like 170 actions, and the directors personally might incur heavy liabilities; Brown also pointed out that £1,000 or £2,000 might be wanted for counsels' fees; I think he did suggest that £1,000 might be placed to his own credit, but I did not deem it prudent thai that should be done. I accordingly wrote the letter of November 20 (Exhibit 7) to the London and Westminster, opening an account there, acting as a committee of one under the powers granted by Article 114 of the Articles of Association. I think if I had been particularly careful I might have added that the resolution to open that account was passed at a meeting of the committee and not a board meeting, but this Exhibit 9 being a printed form I did not think of it This was the sole occasion on which I acted as a committee and as it was a meeting held in the presence of the secretary and in the registered offices of the company it seemed very unnecessary to report my proceedings to the secretary of the company. Gartside was appointed a committee, but he never acted except possibly on one occasion when he signed the agreement with the Waterford Trust; as there was so much litigation pending against the company, I did not want their name to appear, for if it did we could not have got the option. For this reason also the payments were made to Cox and Lafone through the solicitors of the corporation; the £100 paid the corporation on February 18 was by way of repayment to them on arrears of payments they had made to Cox and Lafone. I made myself personally responsible to Cox and Lafone for further costs, and the £31 1s. represents what I had to pay. As shown on Exhibit 97a, there is a balance still due to the corporation of £5 10s. In addition, there is a claim for unpaid office rent amounting to £150. As regards the £99 3s. 8d., which was the drawing out which closed the secret account, £69 8s. 11d. represented director's fees, to which I was entitled, and the balance I retained because I was liable to Cox and Lefone for costs, out of which I eventually paid the £31 1s. In addition, I paid through Gartside 10 guineas to Marpole and Marpole in connection with the winding-up. I am an unsecured creditor for £152 15s. 7d., but I have never claimed it. I really played a very small part in connection with the negotiating with shareholders; I left that to Brown; I settled with him the amount we would take per share, but I do not think I ever worked out what the total amount would come to; there were so many actions. The deduction of £259 12s. from the £809 12s. for commission and costs, was never brought under my notice at all. I did not know of it until the Official Receiver brought it under my notice; I never had any of it and I do not

know what became of it. I wrote to the Official Receiver on November 1 that the settlements were entirely arranged by the company's solicitor and under his advice, that I understood that commission and costs were the amounts payable to the solicitors who brought about the settlements, and that the authority would no doubt be that of the company. It was true I received notice that the statement of affairs would be made by Brooke Mee, and that I was to work with him. On February 2, 1910, I went and saw Mr. Winearl's, and told him I was the right, person to make the statement of affairs, as I was chairman of the company, and protested against the appointment of Brooke Mee, who had not been a director for 18 months and could know nothing of the affairs of the company. Mr. Fox was called in, and he would not allow me to do so, saying they had powers to appoint whom they liked. The end of it was we had rather a "flare-up," and from that day to this, beyond two or three questions, I have not been asked a single question about the financial position of the company, and I have not been allowed to see the books. I went to Newfoundland after this interview. On my return I saw the Official Receiver's report, which was full of inaccuracies. On October 13 Mr. Fox asked me about the £125 cheque, not telling me that he had seen Butt already as to it. He pledged me not to see Butt, and to give him my recollection in writing. I suggested that I might be allowed to see the books, but he plainly intimated to me that if I wanted to see them I would have to buy copies; I did purchase some copies a few days afterwards. On October 18 I wrote Sims a letter (Exhibit 53), in which I told him what I recollected at the time of the £125, not having seen Butt in the meantime and having had no access to the books. There is no doubt that it is not a correct explanation. The Official Receiver wrote me (Exhibit 55), and upon that I wired Butt on October 26. I wrote him on the 27th, and he called on me on that day, my letter having crossed him. (I had forgotten his letter to me on June 14.) I showed him Exhibits 53 and 55, and he said, "You are entirely wrong. You did not get that cheque in exchange for other cheques as you think. You got that cheque in exchange for a cash payment tome; you gave me gold, and that cheque, and you subsequently cashed that cheque. I have frequently reported to the Official Receiver that this amount was transmitted to Spain." I said, "As I am reporting this matter to the Official Receiver, will you please write me a letter to that effect, so that I may send him a copy?"He left for Clacton-on-Sea on October 29, I believe; I received this letter (Exhibit 96), dated October 27; the postmark on the envelope is 12.15 p.m., October 28. I received it as it is now; it contains the explanation he had given me verbally.

(Thursday, July 13.)

  CHAS. EDWARD HOGG (re-called). On March 1, at the board meeting, I was told that some arrangements had been made that the £125 cheque should be remitted to Spain for the Romanera. If all the

cheques then drawn had been presented the company's account would have been overdrawn, and I cashed it for Butt, who brought it to me on the same afternoon; the gold I gave to Butt I got from my private safe; I am in the habit of keeping quite large sums there in connection with my farming operations in the country; I find it more convenient to keep it there as my bank at Horsham is about nine miles from my house. At the interview on October 13 I had clean forgotten the whole matter and my letter (Exhibit 55) was written from memory. I never had any part of the £386 7s. 6d., the Hicks, Arnold, and Mozley payment. £200 of it was paid into the secret banking account on June 23, by Butt, without consulting me at all, and the account was then not operated upon until September 22. The £100 which I received on June 21 had nothing whatever to do with that amount; the Palace Restaurants owed the corporation £100 for office accommodation, and for some reason they made the cheque payable to Butt; Butt gave me one of his own cheques, which was dishonoured; he gave me a further cheque on June 21, which was honoured. I understood from him that the amount receivable was the amount paid into the secret banking account, £200. I had no idea that £386 7s. 6d. had been received. I did not look in the cash book; I trusted him. When discussing the matter I always discussed so much a share and did not work out the totals. I myself presented a petition for the voluntary winding up of the company. There are no creditors outstanding against the company except the corporation, Gartside, and myself.

To Mr. Fulton. It is true that I am deeply interested in the Contractors' Corporation, but I am not the corporation myself. I take entire responsibility for the opening of the secret account. It would have been improper to enter sums paid into that account in the cash book, or to refer to it in the minute book, as it would defeat the purpose for which it was opened. I do not think before February, 1910, I was discussing with Butt the affairs of the company. I expected he would be examined by the Official Receiver. I do not recollect saying to Butt "Don't bother about the secret account; leave it to me; I will fully explain." I have no recollection of the Sulzbach and Adler and Faure's settlements; the same remarks I made with regard to the deductions in the other settlements, apply to them. If my story be true that the board did not authorise the deductions for commission and costs, Butt undoubtedly misappropriated that money, but I do not think it odd that he should enter those misappropriations in the cash book; any director seeing the deduction would think that the balance left was the sum total due to the company after the solicitor and secretary had settled the amounts that might be payable in connection with the settlement. The commission, £259 12s., deducted from the £809 12s., works out at 33 percent.; if I had known that it was going to what is called an intermediary, I would not have allowed it for a moment, but I never looked at the cash book and I did not see that entry. I should have been immediately put upon inquiry if I had seen the deduction, which amounts, to 62 per cent. In the Faure settlement; the same remark applies to the Sulzbach and

Adler entry. From May to July Butt took from the company's funds in this way £601 without the authority of the board. I am really not qualified to say whether it was an odd thing for him to enter in the cash book. I agree that the statement of cash balances and the pass books were frequently before the board, but not always. The company was constantly in difficulties. I admit that I had a very general idea of how much actually was receivable in respect of settlement; I am perfectly satisfied that the amounts were reported to the board, and what had been deducted, but the report would not be made in such a manner as to lead me to suppose that the deductions had been improperly made. I would take it for granted that they were properly made. I never saw the orders themselves at all. There were 160 cases besides these, and these not prominent as they are now. I am not saying that I did not ask Brown the actual amounts payable; but months would elapse before those amounts were actually paid, and I would not then realise the size of the amounts that were then deducted; if this deduction, for instance, of £259 12s. had been brought specifically under my notice I should have been put upon inquiry, but it was not. At my interview with Butt on October 27, when discussing the Official Receiver's query about the deductions, he never told me that he had made an arrangement with an intermediary to get personally a commission from him. It was Butt who told me on March 1 that the cheque for £125 was urgent, and he probably gave me a reason, but I do not remember it. I cannot explain why it should have been dated the 2nd. The cheque for £150, drawn for a similar purpose, was held over because there were no funds to meet it. I had never before, nor have I since then, cashed a cheque under similar circumstances. I do not agree that the company's account was £287 1s. in credit on March 1; the bank pass books were not before the board on that day. The board would only know of the overdraft on the general account. The reason I kept gold in the safe was because it was safer than cashing a cheque at my bank at Hors-ham. I would not trust messengers to bring gold from there to my house. It is true that I drew cheques for small amounts to "Self"or" cash," but I did so because I did not want to deplete the money I had in the safe. I do not remember how much I had there when I gave the £125 to Butt; I kept no records. My wages' bill in the country would come to about £30 a week. When my son joined me I opened a farm account, and since then a good deal of the wages were paid from it. I understood from his letter that the Official Receiver wanted a further explanation as to the £125 cheque, and that was why I wired for Butt; I knew that at the time I had cashed it, but I thought it was by cheques that were negotiable. Butt was away on company's business from March 3 to March 9. He must have known whether he had sent it or not. It is not true that on October 27 I dictated the letter (Exhibit 96) in my office to Butt, who wrote it down; that I asked him to put in a postscript to make it look as though it was a letter; that I told him the Official Receiver had asked me not to see him, and that, therefore, I wanted him to go back home to Clacton that night and post it so that it should appear

to the Official Receiver that I had not seen him; I should not have asked him to do such a thing as it would be an act of gross dishonesty, and I know he would not have done it. I know nothing about the postal arrangements at Clacton. The paper on which the letter is written is obviously different to the envelope. The "I" and "T. B." appear to me to have been blotted immediately after being written; that is all. I think the vital part of the letter is the admission to me, "I feel sure that the actual cheque was handed over to you in exchange for cash "; I agree, however, that the alterations from "you" to "I" is also vital; it is an extraordinary mistake to make under such circumstances. It is not true I altered the letter after he had gone. The initials at the side and at the bottom of the letter are not very much alike, but Butt's initialings are never very much alike. I agree that the bodies of the cheque of January 1 and February 13 are in my handwriting; the counterfoils are in Butt's. I will not dispute that he was away ill when they were drawn. I doubt whether Gartside can recognise his own initialing, his health being now what it 1s. The initials "T. H. B." and the signature "Thomas H. Butt," appear to be in different inks; it is possible that the initials "T. H. B.", "F. G.", and "C. E. H." are in the same ink. If it it suggested that I wrote the "T. H. B." it cannot be suggested that I wrote the "T. B." in Exhibit 96. It may be that these cheques were sent to him in Ilford for him to sign in blank. Because the minutes were not read on January 1 it does not follow that he was away ill. On March 20, 1909, Butt reported that an intermediary was being employed in the settlement of Cohen and others' cases, brut I had no idea who it was, nor did I trouble to inquire. Butt does not say that he employed him himself; Brown may have done so. I should expect him to be paid, but the matter passed from my mind after that. We gave him very wide power in these matters. I saw Clarke Barber a year and a half after this time; Brown sent him to me when I began to make inquiries about this matter. When these proceedings commenced I got a sworn declaration from him. I hear now that he has gone to Russia. Riden emigrated to Canada a year ago; he was not my confidential clerk; he was merely a transfer clerk. On about January 20, when in Switzerland, I received an envelope, which I destroyed, enclosing Clarke Barber's receipt, with other papers, of which Exhibit 92 was one. I do not know who sent it. I do not remember asking him about it when I saw him at the police court. When I saw him in November he said he had given receipts in full, and I asked him to supply duplicates as the originals had been lost. I had never heard of him before that; he certainly did not look the sort of man who would be of much use in negotiating with shareholders. It is true that Riden could have given information about the HarschkeAustin cheque, but I regard that as a trivial matter. I myself used some of the unused cheques on the secret account after that account was closed for the Contractors' Corporation; I found the used portions amongst some papers in a box and I produced them at the police court. The postcard with the initials "T. B." on it in this letter-book I simply used to denote the place where there was a "T. B."; I was looking for illustrations of those initials.

To Mr. Bodkin. Brooke Mee, who was the first witness for the. defence at the police court, has been in the precincts of the Court during the trial. As to the Contractors' Corporation, I was on the books of the company as the financial adviser, and I was making use of the company as much as it suited me; no public money was invested in it; I controlled it; I do not mind it being called a "one-man company." I did not on October 13 say that I would not be such a fool as to admit that I was the Contractors' Corporation in view of the possibility of the liquidator taking proceedings against it to recover calls; I said I would not be so foolish as to give any information that would assist the actions then pending between the company and the corporation. I do not remember saying that the "management" consisted of Robinson and myself, and being told that he was only a clerk acting for me; that is not the fact; he is a gentleman of independent means; he was anxious to do something, so I asked him to join the board of the corporation and he did so. The rubber stamp with his name was used for transfers; it was never used by persons out of my control. Waiting for him to sign Exhibit 76 would not have affected the matter; he would sign the letter just the same whether it was with the stamp or with his own hand. When the corporation made profits I got them; there are hundreds of such companies and they are absolutely correct. The fact that I was on the board of the company and also financial adviser to the corporation in transactions between those companies did not embarass me. My co-directors of the company knew of it from the start. I do not question that on many occasions statements of cash balances and the pass books were submitted to the board; the call pass books were not always produced with the general pass book, as there would be sometimes a difficulty in getting them. The board would not know on March 1 the state of the call accounts; it might be some calls would come in while the board was sitting. The bank would, it is true, transfer moneys coming into the call accounts to the general account and on that date it appears the company was in credit taking the call accounts into consideration, but it may be that those sums came in in the evening of that day. The £125 cheque on March 1 appears to have been urgent, but I do not know that it refers to the telegram from Jiminez on February 20 asking for a remittance; it was probably wanted for Government dues. I did not hesitate about cashing it, because I knew I could do so and that it was urgent; that was the reason why the same process was not adopted as in the other three cases when remittances were sent through the bank; in those cases there was perhaps credit at the bank sufficient to meet them. When I say in my letter to the Official Receiver of November 1, 1910, that "I understood that 'commission and costs' were the amounts payable to the solicitors who brought about these settlements," I had not Brown in my mind then; I was thinking rather of Weiller and Faure. I did not ask in the letter to see the books, as I did not want to put up with another rebuff. All mention of the £2.000 to be paid to the corporation was. especially excluded from the agreement of September 3 by myself and co-directors because

we were dealing with certain people whom we did not want to inform to too great an extent as to the affairs of the Anglo-Spanish Company; I will not mention the name of the man who was at the head of the Reliance Syndicate out of consideration for him. We were advised also that it was unnecessary; the Reliance never saw the agreement, so it did not matter what was in it as far as they were concerned. The corporation were going to supply 8,000 fully-paid shares, and it was only right they should have some consideration for that; I myself paid 5s. a share, only two or three weeks before. Wyatt Digby was one of the persons we were dealing with. The suggestion that the corporation should have this £2,000 came from Brooke Mee or Yglesias; it was said I should be helping the company amazingly if I supplied the 8,000 shares at the rate of 5s. a share. I should not say these discussions, which extended over many months, are minuted anywhere; board meetings played a mighty small part in this business. It was I, representing the Contractors' Corporation, who reported to the board on September 1 that the Contractors' were in a position to submit a proposal. Up to September 3, it is true, the only thing that was authorised according to the minutes was the engrossment of the agreement of compromise, bat it would be ridiculous to suggest that minutes contain a history of all that passes. When Sims said he had not seen Exhibit 60 before, I quite believed him. He was not acting for the company in this matter, but for the corporation. It is quite possible that this is the first time I have said that Sims was not present at that meeting; Richardson would naturally attend to receive the document on behalf of the Reliance Syndicate; the engrossments were made by him and not Sims. It is true that I said at the police court no solicitor but Mr. Sims was consulted about this agreement and letter, but I meant in relation to the corporation which he was representing. I told Sims of the proposed contents of Exhibit 76 and he approved it, and it was undoubtedly considered at a meeting of the corporation. I should say that Sims composed it, although I gave him the headings of it. I do not know who put the rubber signature to it. He undoubtedly charged for it, although it would not be itemised, as he used to be paid in lump sums. I do not think the corporation got any answer from the company acknowledging the receipt of it; I can find no trace of one in the papers of the corporation, and I have already explained why it would not be press-copied in the letter books of the company. I presume Butt would have answered it in the affirmative. I do not think receipts were given by the corporation for the £2,000; the cheques were endorsed and entries were made in the company's cash book; I agree that there is nothing in the cheques especially allocating them to the £2,000. There was no necessity to have a minute authorising the payments as they were made, as the payment had already been authorised in full. I think the secretary ought to have asked for receipts and the books ought to have been more properly kept.

(Tuesday, July 18.)

  CHARLES HOGG (prisoner, on oath, recalled. Further cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin). There were no receipts given for cheques in payment. of the £2,000. Three of them were to order and were endorsed. One dated January 1, 1909, was a bearer cheque which was cashed for one £500 note. I cannot give any reason for that. It was the secretary's business to make entries recording the payments of the £2,000 to the company of which I was chairman, and which was, in fact, myself. Butt knew all about the £2,000 agreement. The four items making up the £2,000 are debited to "Contractors' Financial Corporation Smelter." My codirector Brooke Mee, and the solicitor, Mr. Brown, perfectly understood the £2,000 agreement. The 8,000 fully-paid shares have not been handed over to the Reliance because the time has not arrived. Out of £1,738 5s. 6d. received from shareholders in settlement of calls I understand that £791 1s. 6d. was paid to Clarke Barber for commission and costs. I did not know that at the time I accepted the statements made to me by Butt that certain sums were receivable by the company. On January 8, 1909, 5,232 shares belonging to Harschke Austin and other shareholders were surrendered to the Anglo-Spanish Company, together with a payment of £447 4s. by those shareholders upon which the actions by the Anglo-Spanish Company were withdrawn. Cheque produced was then drawn by the Contractors' Corporation for £1,569 12s., and receipt given for that amount as the balance of the unpaid calls; that is balanced by another cheque, and is a mere cross entry. The 5,232 shares were then surrendered to the Contractors' Corporation as fully paid; they took them with the risk of being called upon to pay up the unpaid calls. It has been suggested that the settlement was ultra vires under Articles of Association 118, sub-clause 6. I, as the Contractors' Corporation, took the risk. The Contractors' Corporation circularised the Anglo-Spanish shareholders, offering to buy their shares with all liabilities attached to them at 1s. a share. The Contractors' Corporation in that way acquired 23,000 shares upon which there was a liability of 8s. per share for calls. That was between July, 1908, and July, 1909. After July, 1909, there was an endeavour to voluntarily wind up the Anglo-Spanish, the Secretary of the Contractors' Corporation to be appointed liquidator. Certain promoters of the Romanera Company petitioned and obtained a compulsory winding up. I as the Contractors' Corporation brought an action to rectify the register so as to remove the liability in respect of the 23,000 shares on the ground that the promotion of the Anglo-Spanish was fraudulent. This action was brought before the voluntary winding-up, when information was received showing fraudulent promotion. That matter is still pending. As chairman of the Anglo-Spanish I instructed Butt to open an account with the London and Westminster Bank, in order to create a fighting fund to meet the expenses of litigation. The account was ordered by the directors; Mr. Gartside was thoroughly aware of it; also Mr. Brown, the solicitor. All cheques

were drawn by my authority and signed by me and by Butt as secretary. I did not disclose this account to the Official Receiver. I did not tell Butt not to deal with that account—I did not know he was to be examined by the Official Receiver. Clarke Barber was never employed as an intermediary to settle claims against shareholders for calls to my knowledge or that of the directors. (The various items in the secret banking account were expained by the witness.) Brooke Mee drew up the statement of affairs of the company. Mr. Fox refused to allow me to see the books; I was ignored. There were numerous communications with me with regard to the promotion and formation of the company, but I was only asked three questions about the accounts. I saw Mr. Winearls, who said that Mr. Fox had given him a mass of information, out of which he weeded something to put into a report. I consider the report is written in a most hostile spirit Against me from beginnng to end.

Re-examined. Riden was transfer clerk to the Vaal River Gold-fields; he was not my secretary, although I paid him his salary. When I came into the company in March, 1906, the shares had a liability for calls upon them; litigation ensued against shareholders who alleged misrepresentation before I was connected with the company at all. The shareholders were anxious to be free from their liability to pay calls, and my co-directors and myself were willing to settle with the recalcitrant shareholders on the footing of their paying ls. to 2s. 9d. a share; we were practically prepared to take anything we could get. A question arose whether these settlements could not be challenged in a Court of Chancery, and an arrangement was made that the Financial Corporation should take over the shares in the middle of July, 1906, no calls to be made for another 12 months. My corporation acted as the nominee. (The various agreements and letters were explained by the witness.) With regard to the settlements with shareholders I received nothing of the money said to have been deducted for commission and costs. When I was arrested in Switzerland I immediately offered to take a special train and to pay the costs of the officials to bring me to England. I had nothing to do with the employment of Clarke Barber.

(Defence of Butt.)

  THOMAS HENRY BUTT (prisoner, on oath). I live at The Briars, Clacton-on-Sea. On September 3, 1908, I was appointed secretary to the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company. Two or three months before I had met Hogg at 5, London Wall Buildings: he said he was negotiating to get the control of the Anglo-Spanish Company, and if I would act as secretary to a small committee then being formed I should in all probability be appointed secretary to the company. I then learned for the first time of the Smelter contract. Taking up the books from Bramall, the previous secretary, there was one account with the Financial Corporation; I then put the word Smelter against it and entered items to that account. The directors were Hogg, Brooke Mee, and Gartside; while I was secretary there were practically

tically only two directors, Gartside and Hogg. Hogg never sat formally as a committee; there were no minutes of that committee. The account of the United Investment Corporation, 15, Moorgate Street, had 1,472 shares on January 31, 1907. That is rectified by order of the Court of May 4, 1909, and the name is ruled out in red ink. I was ill and was away from the office from December 24, 1906, till January 12, 1909. Two cheques of January 1 for £500 and £50 payable to bearer, and one of February 13 for £75 were signed by me in blank when I was ill in bed, and filled up afterwards by Hogg. The initials "T. H. B." are not my writing. I first saw the cheques about six weeks afterwards, when I was writing up the cash book. Hogg then told me to debit them to the Contractors' Corporation. The secret account in the London and Westminster Bank was first proposed at the end of 1908. I was instructed to open it by Hogg; he obtained the form and a copy of the minute was made by me. The pass book was kept by Hogg. I never received a farthing from it. I acted under the instructions of Hogg, the chairman. The account was opened on the advice of the company's solicitors. Gartside was present when it was discussed. We were told in case of litigation the company's account would be attached; there would be no money to carry on the litigation, and this was necessary for a fighting fund. I was a director of the Waterford Trust, from which I received a small sum in addition to my salary of £6 a week as secretary of the Anglo-Spanish. I only received the amount of my salary; it was paid by the Contractors' Corporation. I first heard of the £2,000 agreement in December, 1908. Hogg instructed me to draw the cheque for £800 on the secret account. I asked him what it was for. He said it was due as part of the £2,000 coming to the Contractors' Corporation under the agreement. I pointed out it was not included in the agreement with the Reliance and the Contractors' Corporation. Hogg said, No, the reason that it is not in that agreement is that the Reliance would see how much the Contractors' were getting, and if they did he was afraid of being blackmailed. He showed me the letter from Allen Robinson, which is referred to in the minutes in my writing. I did not then know any of the parties, and Hogg's explanation absolutely satisfied me. I am put down as acting secretary on September 2, but I was constantly out of the room; the letter was not read in my presence. The three cheques of £500, £50, and £75 Hogg told me were further on account of the £2,000 contract. I understood the £450 cheque to be an account of the Smelter contract. Hogg also told Parker, a director, who signed it. that it was for the Smelter contract. At that time that was the only contract I knew of. This answer applies also to the £250 cheque. I have never been secretary of the Financial Corporation or connected with them except that they paid my salary as secretary of the Anglo-Spanish Company. Hogg was always worrying me about getting the calls in. Owing to the failure of a county court action, by which the company sought to recover calls, people generally refused to pay, and both Hogg and Gartside agreed that wherever compromises could be made they should be. I was instructed to see Mr. Brown, of C. W. and S. E.

Brown, the solicitors of the company, which I did. I was seeing him at that time every day. I also went to Liverpool and settled with a number of shareholders for them to pay the calls or a portion of them. I went to Ireland to register the Waterford Copper Mines. Hogg wrote me there pressing the collection of calls. At that time Clarke Barber was introduced by C. W. and 8. E. Brown; they had been trying to settle with the clients of As hurst, Morris, and Co., who refused to pay anything at all, and would not negotiate. Clarke Barber was then employed to see those shareholders; Hogg (Brown's clerk) suggested that an intermediary or third party might succeed where the company could not, and mentioned Clarke Barber to me; then I mentioned him to the prisoner Hogg, the chairman of the company. Our instructions were, "Get what you can." I am not quite sure I mentioned Clarke Barber's name at the time; both Gartsade and the prisoner Hogg knew that an intermediary was being employed; that would be January or February, 1909. It is referred to in the minutes of March 30, 1909; undoubtedly it was fully reported at that time. I agreed with Clarke Barber that he was to effect no settlement with anybody until Mr. Hogg had agreed what amount we could accept. Garteide and Hogg both agreed to accept £550 from Ashurat, Morris, and Co., and that whatever Clarke Barber could get over that me could keep for himself. In Hicks, Arnold, and Motley's case the same arrangement was made to accept £200. The Orders of Court on which those settlements were made were brought up to the office and I corrected the register in accordance with the settlement; the orders were then filed at Somerset House by the solicitors; the settlement was reported to the board and the amount entered in the cash book, which Hogg had access to. I should not mention the amount received to the board. (To the Court.) Sot a word was said about £259 12s. being deducted for commission and costs. I received the cheque from Ashurst and Co. for £809 12s., cashed it, handed Clarke Barber £259 12s., and paid £550 into the company's account, entering the whole transaction in the cash book. Hogg knew that £25912s, had gone to the intermediary; he saw the cheque; I told him it had been cashed and converted into notes and gold; he told me to pay the balance into the London and Westminster secret account; the same answer applies to the £200 in the case of Hicks, Arnold, and Moseley.

(Wednesday, July 19.)

  THOMAS HENRY BUTT (prisoner on oath) recalled. Every settlement was reported to the board, the exact amount paid, amount deducted for commission and costs, and the balance paid into the London and Westminster Bank account. I received from Clarke Barber two sums of £100 and £60. I was hard up; I told Barber he was doing very well out of the settlements and suggested that I should participate. He handed me a bank note of £100 and subsequently £60, which I paid into my banking account. On being asked I explained this to Mr. Fox. While I was secretary some seven or eight remittances

were made to Spain. Some were made through the Capital and Counties Bank; others through Messrs. Morrison, of Philpot Lane. In June or July the Official Receiver wrote to me regarding £125. Hogg's story that the cheque was cashed by me with him, and the money handed to me to remit to Spain is absolutely untrue. I wrote to the Official Receiver that I believed (as I then did) that the amount had been remitted. On October 26, 1910, I received at Clacton a telegram from Hogg asking me to see him, which I did on October 27. Hogg told me that the Official Receiver was worrying him for an explanation about the £125 remittance, and asked me to write him a letter on which he could base his explanation. He wanted it written on private paper and Riden was sent out for a 4 1/2 d. packet. I then wrote letter produced, at Hogg's dictation, stating that "you" (Hogg) had remitted the money to Spain. The "you" is now altered into "I," and initialled "T. B." I never made the alteration. I never received the £125 as stated by Hogg. Hogg then asked me to post an empty envelope from Clacton, which I did the next morning (produced), it bears the post-mark "12.15 p.m."

Cross-examined by Mr. Rawlinson. The cheque for £125 was signed by me by Hogg's direction. In addition to my £6 a week salary I made some money by speculating on the Stock Exchange, by betting and by dealing in furniture. (Witness was taken through all the remittances to Spain which were shown in the cash book amounting to £1,980, the £125 not being included in them.) On August 23, 1910, I swore an affidavit stating that £1,980 had been remitted to Spain. The figure was ascertained from the books by the solicitor; it is an affidavit of 17 paragraphs; I did not check the figures.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin. Clarke Barber received in all £791 1s. 6d. on settlements, the total receipts from which were £1,738 5s. 6d. I got £160 and no more out of those settlements. I understood Clarke Barber was an outside broker. I had never seen him until he was introduced by Messrs. Brown. Mr. Brown, or his clerk was at the office practically every day. I should say Mr. Brown employed Barber as secretary; I instructed him. The only precaution as to the amount he was to settle for was that the directors decided how much they would accept in each case; Mr. Brown, Hogg, and myself were present, Clarke Barber was then informed, and what he got over he had for himself. (The witness was taken through the accounts and the receipts in the various settlements; also the entries in the ledger and cash book.) I am 38 years old, and have been seven years secretary to a company. I had to do what I was told by. the managing-director, Hogg. In opening the secret banking account I acted under the instructions of my chairman, and with the advice of the solicitor. I saw nothing objectionable in it. I did not disclose it to the Official Receiver, because Hogg said to me, "When you see the Official Receiver do not deal with that account. I have got all the books in my possession, and I will deal with it myself." Mr. Roberts had all the books in the office.

  WOODBERRY JAMES , M.D., stated that Mr. Allen Robinson was suffering from neuritis, following on a motor accident, and was unfit to give evidence.

  CHARLES WATSON BROWN , recalled. (To Mr. Bodkin.) Until December, 1910, I had no knowledge of the sums received from shareholders of the Anglo-Spanish Company in settlement of calls, or that Clarke Barber was employed to act as intermediary, or that the company had fixed a minimum which they would be content to get from shareholders' leaving the surplus to any other person.

(Thursday, July 20.)

Counsel addressed the jury.

(Friday, July 21.)

The jury after three hours' consultation stated that they were unable to agree on any of the issues, and were discharged. Re-trial was postponed till the September Sessions, prisoners being admitted to bail.

ESSEX CASES.

(BEFORE THE RECORDER.)

(Wednesday, June 28.)

 

  NEWSON, William Bantoff (27, soldier), pleaded guilty of marrying   Ada Earl, his wife being then alive.

Miss Earl stated that she did not know at the time she married prisoner in June of this year that he was married, but admitted to improper relations before marriage. Prisoner had deserted his first wife in 1904.

Sentence. Six months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Monday, July 3.)

 

  COLLINS, John (28, labourer) , being found by night armed with a certain offensive weapon, to wit, a chisel, with intent to break and enter a certain shop.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted.

Police-constable   BERTIE SIMS , 239 E. On June 1, about 10.30 p.m., I was in plain clothes off duty with Police-constable King (also off duty), in the Grove, Stratford. I saw prisoner standing at the

corner of a passage. He aroused my suspicions and I watched him. King and I followed him through several streets, when he stopped opposite a shop. I left King and got ahead of the prisoner. I saw him go into the doorway of 65, Forest Lane. He remained there two or three minutes. I could not see what he was doing. A man came along, when prisoner walked away about 30 yards and then returned to the doorway. I saw him in a stooping position. I then rushed upon him. He became violent and threw me against the panel of the door, which was smashed. King came to my assistance. I know prisoner. He did not know at the moment that I was a police-constable. When we had got him about 20 yards away from the shop King said, "Hullo, what is this?"and drew a chisel from prisoner's left sleeve. The prisoner said, "I only wanted some clothes and a pair of boots, and in another minute I should have had them." He was taken to the station. On him was found this table-knife. Prisoner pointed to the chisel and said, "You won't call that a jemmy, will you, but he's a little chap that can do a lot of damage."

Cross-examined by Prisoner. I did not arrest you immediately I saw you, as I was waiting events. I did not take the chisel away from you, King did. I say you were struggling with it up your arm. You said when the knife was found that you used it as a razor. I did not when I arrested you say to my mate when he asked what you had been up to, "Only a suspect."

  JAMES WHEATLEY , clothier, 139, Green Street, East Ham. I occupy 65, Forest Lane, as a lock-up shop. At night it is left unattended. I locked it up at 9.45 p.m. on June 1; at that time there were no marks on the front door. Next morning, at about 7.30, I saw marks on the door. I do not know prisoner. I did not give him leave to go into my shop and get a suit of clothes or anything of that kind.

Cross-examined. The panel of the door was broken right in the centre. I have never seen you before.

Police-sergeant   WM. DUNN , 10 K. At 12.50 a.m. on June 22 I went to 65, Forest Lane, and took this chisel with me. Sims brought it to me in the Broadway and I was directed by the Inspector to visit the premises. At the shop I found, two inches above the post of the door, a mark with which this chisel corresponded. I found this piece of wood lying in the doorway of exactly the same width as the chisel.

Police-constable   THOMAS KING , 399 K, corroborated. To prisoner: I took the chisel from your left sleeve. It was about 12 o'clock; I could not say to a minute. I did not fetch the chisel done up in brown paper; I did not leave you till we got to the station. We did not search you in the street, and that is why the knife was not taken away., from you then. When I caught hold of your arm I said, "What have you here?"and felt the chisel. I did not send you in a breakfast at the station.

Inspector   JOHN HARDING , K Division. I was on duty at the station when prisoner was brought in.

To prisoner: When the knife was taken from you you did not tell me what you used it for. I saw no money on you.

Prisoner: I had 5s. on me.

  JOHN COLLINS (prisoner, not on oath). About 11.30 on June 1 was going down Forest Lane and, passing the shop in question, I heard somebody doing something to the door. I stopped, when the officer came and asked me what I had done to the door. I said, "What do I know about the door?I am going to Stratford where I am lodging." He said, "That does not satisfy me, I am going to search you before you go away from here." I said, "I will tell you what I have in my possession; I have a table knife which I use for a razor" He said, "You have to come up the road with me." Then King came up ana Sims said in answer to his inquiry, "Only a suspect." We went along the lane a little way when King said, "I will go and see who keeps the shop." He went and came back in ten minutes with a chisel done up in a brown paper parcel. We went to the station. I said, "What do I know about the chisel" That is all I know about it.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction at West Ham Police Court on December 1, 1909, in the name of Wm. Jackson; two other convictions were proved. He was stated to be an associate of thieves and prostitutes and a dangerous man who leads others easily into crime.

Sentence, Three months' hard labour.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Tuesday, July 4.)

 

  McCOY, George (30, labourer). Being found by night having in his possession without lawful excuse certain implements of house-breaking.

Mr. Bohn prosecuted.

Police-sergeant   JOHN HATES , 536 N. On the night of May 23 I was with Police-constable Hall when I saw prisoner leave the golf shed which is about two yards from Bury Road, Chingford; he had one look at the shed and then left. He came to the horse-trough about 100 yards away where we were standing. I said, to him, "What have you been doing?"He said, "I have been having a sleep in the field as I lost the last train to London." I said I did not believe him, and searched him. In his inside coat pocket I found this table knife which has been ground down for the purpose of slipping back the catches of windows, and in his trousers pocket this jemmy (articles produced). I took him to the station. When charged he made no reply.

Cross-examined by prisoner: You did not appear as if you had been sleeping. You had a drink at the water fountain. I technically stopped you. You might have come from the forest. The nearest inhabited house to the golf shed is about 10 yards away. You were not acting suspiciously—only loitering. I think Police-constable Hall did say to you, "You have been sleeping out"; and when

I started to search you he said, "He is all right. You can see that." I think you first saw us when you were 20 yards away." The clerk at the police court has made a mistake in putting down that I said you went into the golf shed; I corrected the evidence; the clerk often breaks in on the policemen's evidence.

Police-constable   HENRY HALL , 83 N., corroborated, but stated that he did not hear the conversation which passed before prisoner was searched.

To Prisoner: You said that you had been drinking over night and you were reeling about the road. When the sergeant started searching you I said, "He is all right; You can see that." The clerk made a mistake in putting down that I said "both implements came from your coat pocket." (To the Court.) We did not put them there for the purpose of making a false charge against prisoner.

  JOHN HAYES , recalled, also repudiated this suggestion.

(Defence.)

  GEORGE MCCOY (prisoner, on oath). On May 17 I came from the West of England, where I had been working for the previous six months. I hand to the Court a statement to show that (handed). It would be hardly fair to me that the jury should see that; it is a private affair. I make the statement to show I had only been in London six days. My birthday was on May 23 and I went to Chingford to have a good time. I drank very heavily and I remember up till 7 or 8 p.m. I went to sleep in a field and woke up at 2.30 the following morning. I went into Bury Road and saw the police officers about 100 yards away. I went to the fountain to have a drink. The police constable said to me, "You have been sleeping out," and then the sergeant came and began to search me. The constable said, "He is all right; you can see that." After searching me about five minutes he produced the implements—from where I do not know. As far as I can say they were not on my person when I went to Chingford. I made no reply when charged because I was in a dazed condition and it being a serious charge I thought it was best to keep my mouth shut. I reserved my defence before the Magistrate because the evidence was very contradictory.

Cross-examined. The sergeant had both implements in the same hand and showed them to me; I do not remember saying anything then.

On prisoner returning to the dock he repeated the statements that he had previously made, pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses with regard to the evidence they had previously given, and stated that there was no inside pocket in his coat.

  JOHN HAYES , again recalled, stated that he thought the coat prisoner was wearing was the same as he was wearing when arrested and confirmed prisoner's statement as to the pocket.

Verdict, Guilty.

The Recorder remarked that when prisoner was referring to the work he had done in the West of England he was, as a matter of fact,

serving a term of three years' penal servitude at Dartmoor. He was now on ticket-of-leave. The defence was the most impudent one he (the Recorder) had ever heard. This conviction, with five other convictions since 1900, were proved against him.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Wednesday, July 5.)

 

  McCARTHY, Frank (28, fitter), feloniously demanding with menaces from   William Jones certain money with intent to steal the same.

Mr. T. Metcalfe prosecuted.

  WILLIAM ALFRED JONES , 51, Bridge Street, Stratford, foreman, Great Eastern Railway Works. I have been 42 years in the employ of the company. Nine or 10 years ago prisoner worked in the same shop with me. On June 5 at 5.30 p.m. I was going home along Martin. Street, when prisoner came from the centre of the road and asked me to give him a drink. Another man was with him, who said nothing. I said I could not afford it. He drew revolver produced and pointed it at me four inches from my head, I gave him 6d. and started on, when a policeman ran up and took the revolver from him. Prisoner was slightly in drink.

Cross-examined. Prisoner did not ask for money. I did not say I had no coppers. Prisoner never had a quarrel with me nor I with him. Prisoner had left me and said "Good night." I was very much upset and shocked. I have no animosity against prisoner. Prisoner did not ask if I would repair the revolver.

  THOMAS BROWN , 65, Tennyson Road, Stratford, carpenter and joiner, Great Eastern Railway. On June 2 at 5.30 p.m. in Martin Street I saw prisoner take revolver produced from his right trousers pocket and place it to prosecutor's face, he then returned it to his pocket; prosecutor took something from his pocket and gave it to prisoner. A police-constable took the revolver from prisoner's right pocket.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner 12 years or more. I have never had an angry word with him.

Police-constable   GEORGE WATSON , K 831. On the afternoon of June 2 I saw prisoner with another man in High Street, Homerton, about 150 yards from Martin Street; they entered a public-house and walked towards Martin Street; prisoner spoke to several men; he then went towards prosecutor with revolver in his right hand; prosecutor took something from his pocket and gave it to prisoner, who immediately placed the revolver in his pocket. I ran across, took the revolver from him and said, "I shall take you to the station for carrying firearms." On the way he told me not to pull him about—he was not "Peter the Painter." When charged he said, "That is right.

Shove it down. I can talk to old Gillespie in the morning" (referring to the Magistrate). He had been drinking. I found on him 6d. silver, 3d. bronze, a steel punch, several books and papers, and two blank cheques on different banks. The revolver is broken and perfectly harmless.

Cross-examined. When I was taking prisoner to the station he said to prosecutor, "That is right, Bill, come on."

(Defence.)

  ALFRED YOUNG , fruit dealer. I have known prisoner 10 or 12 years. On June 2 I went with him to Stratford Market to buy fruit, but it was too dear. We had drink; he was intoxicated. As we came to prosecutor he said, "There is an old chum of mine—just see me make him laugh." He showed him this old, ridiculous looking thing; they call it a shooter; it is not a shooter at all. The policeman came up to him. I did not go forward to speak for prisoner, as I was suffering from a very bad attack of diarrhoea and had to go down to a public lavatory. When I came back they had left. As we came from market a man pointed this at prisoner and then asked if he could get it repaired. I have given prisoner money to take to Billingsgate to buy mackerel.

Cross-examined. I did not see prisoner stop other men. I did not see prosecutor give him 6d. I should doubt it. I was two or three yards off.

Prisoner (not on oath), stated that he had pointed the revolver (which he had undertaken to get mended for a friend) at prosecutor for a joke and that he had no intention to extort money.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at Tottenham on June 16, 1910, receiving three months for stealing five pairs of boots and assaulting the shopkeeper. Other convictions proved: February 5, 1910, Stratford, six weeks for breach of the peace; June 24, 1910, West Ham, fined 18s. 6d. or seven days for unlawful possession; four convictions for drunkenness and disorderly conduct. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Thursday, July 6.)

 

  PHILLIPS, John (35, dealer), and   HATPIELD, Henry (33, dealer) , uttering counterfeit coin.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.

  HORACE BERTIE ASHFORD , tram conductor. Shortly after midnight on May 23 I was in charge of a London County Council car going east. At Bow Bridge the two prisoners boarded the car. Hatfield tendering a counterfeit shilling. I said, "Have you any more like this?" He

said something to the other prisoner, which I could not understand. I made a communication to the driver, and a policeman called the prisoners out and told them he wanted to search them. Phillips said." I will show you all that I have," putting his hand in his pocket and taking out money. Something fell on the pavement and Phillips made a movement with his boot as if to kick something. A bad coin was afterwards shown me. I went to the station and charged the prisoners.

Cross-examined by Phillips. Hatfield was the first man to get out of the car when the policeman came.

Police-constable   GEORGE BRYAN , 492 K. I was on duty after midnight on May 23 in Carpenter's Bow with Police-constable Jackson, when I was called to a tramcar. I asked prisoners to leave the car. I was about to search Phillips, when he said, "You don't want to search me, I will show you all I have got," pulling good money out of his pocket and at the same time dropping a coin and making a kick with his foot. I found it was another counterfeit shilling and told him I should take him to the station. On Hatfield was found two sixpences and tenpence in bronze, and on Phillips two separate shillings, a sixpence, and sevenpence in bronze. Both counterfeit coins bore the same date.

To Phillips. Hatfield was first out of the car; you were just behind. I did not knock the coin out of your hand.

Police-constable   ROBERT JACKSON . 88 K, gave corroborative evidence. I took Hatfield to the station. He made no reply to the charge.

To Phillips. I heard the shilling drop and saw Bryan pick it up.   SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. Both coins produced are counterfeit. They are the same date. I believe they are made from the same mould.

(Defence.)

  JOHN PHILLIPS (prisoner, on oath). I went to work on May 22 with 5d. in my pocket. I spent a penny for the tram. That left me with 4d. I borrowed 1s. 6d. for my dinner and tea. I was paid 6s. 4d. and I paid back what I borrowed with a penny interest. That left me with 5s. 1d. I rode to the "Abbey Arms" with the odd penny and paid for three ales and a pennyworth of tobacco. I met Hatfield at the "Angel" public-house, West Ham, and he paid me back 4s. 6d. he, had borrowed on the previous Sunday, so I had 9s. 2d. I had a drink with him and spent 8d. Then we went to several public-houses, and I spent 3s. 4 1/2 d. When we got on to the tram it was Hatfield's turn to pay. When the conductor told the policeman the shilling was counterfeit I got up at once and said, "Do you want me as well?" The constable said, "Yes." He said, "Have you got any of these?" I said, "No, I will show you all I have got." I put my hand in my pocket. He said, "There is one." I said, "Don't do that, it will all go on the ground." I went to get hold of the shilling and it fell to the pavement. He put his foot on it. I tried to put my foot out to stop it from rolling.

Hatfield was the man who gave it to me. I gave Hatfield no money at all.

Cross-examined. The constable did not attempt to search me. He did not say he was going to. I did not use the words he said. I did not kick the shilling when it dropped. I thought I could not be charged, as I had not tendered anything.

Prisoner Phillips called two witnesses—his mother and William Cox—to prove that he had lent Hatfield 4s. 6d.

  HENRY HATFIELD (prisoner, on oath). On the previous Saturday evening I drew a sovereign off the man I worked in partnership with. I was entitled to 30s. 6d. I was to have the other 10s. 6d. on the Monday. On Sunday I borrowed 4s. 6d. off Phillips, promising to pay him back when I got my 10s. 6d., which I did. I should imagine I gave him the bad shilling by my having one myself. We went drinking at several public-houses before we got on the tram. The man I got the money from is not here as a witness. He has left his wife and child and gone to the North of England. I did not give his, name to the police, as I thought I would fetch him myself.

Cross-examined. I did not hear the constable say he wanted to search Phillips.

Prisoner Phillips put in a statement which was practically identical with his evidence on oath.

Verdict (each), Guilty.

Several convictions, dating from 1892, were proved against Phillips, including one of 15 months for uttering counterfeit coin. Against Hat-field three convictions for larceny were proved. Both prisoners, it was stated by Detective-sergeant Scrimshaw, had been endeavouring to earn an honest livelihood.

Sentence (each), Six months' hard labour.

SURREY CASE.

BEFORE MB. JUSTICE DARLING. (Thursday, July 6.)

 

  PEREZ, Joaquin Rodrigo (24, student) , feloniously attempting to discharge a loaded pistol at   Arthur Ernest Weech with intent to murder him or with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. J. P. Oliver prosecuted; Mr. Tully-Christie defended.

Mr. Oliver, in opening the case, stated that prosecutor's sister had acted as lady's maid to a Spanish Countess and while in Spain made prisoner's acquaintance. The girl returned to her father's house at Wimbledon in the spring. Three weeks afterwards she was suddenly confined of a child, and a nurse who was hurriedly sent for on opening a wardrobe found prisoner inside. Prosecutor turned him out of the house, and the same afternoon prisoner was alleged to have attempted to discharge a revolver at him. The weapon, however, did not go off.

Mr. Justice Darling had a conversation with the girl in his private room. On returning into Court his Lordship said he understood that the girl and prisoner were very fond of each other and prisoner intended to marry her. He was a Spanish subject, and it would be necessary under Spanish law to obtain his father's consent to the marriage. In the circumstances his Lordship discharged the jury from giving a verdict, and prisoner was put back to next sessions to enable communication to be made with his father.