Old Bailey Proceedings.
5th December 1911
Reference Number: t19111205

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
5th December 1911
Reference Numberf19111205

Related Material


Vol. CLVI.] Part 928.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writers to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]








On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Tuesday, December 5th, 1911, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir THOMAS BOOR CROSBY, M D., LORD MAYOR of the said City of London; the Hon. Sir ARTHUR MOSELEY CHANNELL and the Hon. Sir HORACE AVORY , two of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY B. KNIGHT, Knight; Sir HORATIO DAVIES , K.C.M.G.; Sir JOHN POUND , Bart.; Sir WM. WYATT TRUSCOTT , Bart.; Sir CHAS. JOHNSTON , Knight; Sir HORACE B. MARSHALL, Knight, LL.D., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FK ALBERT BOSANQUET, K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and His Honour Judge RENTOUL, K.C., Commissioner; His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.












(Tuesday, December 5.)

WAITE, James William (26, counterman), who pleaded guilty at the October Sessions (see preceding volume, p. 672) of larceny (ser-vant) and conspiracy, was brought up for judgment.

Sentence: One month's imprisonment, entitling prisoner to be immediately discharged.

CRESSWELL, Elizabeth Mary (22, servant), who pleaded guilty at the October Sessions (see preceding volume, p. 670, and the present volume, p. 1) of housebreaking and larceny, was brought up for judgment.

A home having been found for prisoner, she was released on her own recognisances in £25 to come up for judgment if called upon.

COLBRAN, Richard (26, soldier), who pleaded guilty at the November Sessions (see p. 3) of forgery, etc., was brought up for judgment.

Prisoner was stated to be of previous exemplary character.

Sentence: One month's imprisonment, entitling prisoner to be immediately discharged.

WALKER, Edward James (26, publican), who pleaded guilty at the November Sessions (see p. 66) of conspiracy, was brought up for judgment.

It was stated that prisoner's former employers were willing to take him back.

Sentence: One month's imprisonment, entitling prisoner to be immediately discharged.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-5
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

COOPER, Frederick Thomas (18, clerk), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, two several requests for the payment of money, to wit, a Post Office demand for the payment of £1 and a Post Office notice of withdrawal for the payment of £34 7s. 3d., and a certain receipt for the payment of money, in each case with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from His Majesty's Postmaster-General the several sums of £1 and £34 7s. 3d. with intent to defraud.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at Lambeth Police Court on January 5, 1911, receiving six weeks' hard labour for stealing a postal order and opera glasses.

Prisoner was unconnected with the Post Office; he was stated to have a very bad character. In 1907 he was certified as insane by two doctors and sent to Colney Hatch Lunatic Asylum for six months, being released on his father's application.

Sentence was postponed till next Sessions, in order that prisoner might be medically examined.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-6
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

JAMES, Samuel (17, messenger), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a ring, and a postal packet containing a book of old postage stamps and two boxes of stamp mounts, in each case the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Sentence: Six months' imprisonment, second division.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-7
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

NATT, Charles Francis James (34, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing two postal orders for 5s. 3d. and 4s. respectively, and nine penny postage stamps, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office. Prisoner was stated to have served in the Army, five years with the colours and seven years in the reserve, with good discharges.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-8
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HAMBRO, Sidney (24, journalist) pleaded guilty ,of stealing three pairs of binocular field glasses, the goods of Fred Snellgrove; stealing three pairs of field glasses, the goods of Edwin Lawley and others; attempting to obtain by false pretences from William Charles Maule one pair of field glasses, with intent to defraud.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this Court on July 19, 1910, in the name of John Avis , receiving 18 months' hard labour for obtaining a bag by false pretences. Other convictions proved: Lincoln Quarter Sessions, October 19, 1909, nine months' hard labour on two charges of obtaining goods by false pretences; Guildhall Police Court, December 2, 1908, three months' hard labour for obtaining cloth by false pretences, after a previous conviction at Winchester Assizes on May 25, 1908. Prisoner was released from his last sentence on October 19, 1911, this crime being committed on October 20.

Sentence: Twenty-two months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-9
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MORRIS, Albert (22, packing-case maker), and PETERS, Thomas (30, labourer), both pleaded guilty of attempting to break and enter the warehouse of Edgar Coombes with intent to steal therein; both breaking and entering the warehouse of William Stephen Knott and stealing therein one clock and £5, his goods and moneys; both breaking and entering the warehouse of Richard William Penfold Pine, with intent to steal therein.

Prisoners confessed to having been previously convicted of felony—Morris at Clerkenwell Police Court on October 27, 1906, receiving 21 days' hard labour for stealing from a gas meter; Peters at North London Sessions on December 4, 1906, receiving three and a half years' penal servitude and three years' police supervision for warehouse breaking. Several convictions from 1902 were proved against Peters, who was released on September 22, 1911, with a remanet of 105 days. Morris was stated to have been earning a good living as a packing-case maker and to have been led away by Peters (his brother-in-law).

Sentences: Peters, Five years' penal servitude; Morris, Six months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-10
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

KNIGHT, John David (20, labourer), pleaded guilty of stealing one overcoat and one cheque-book, the goods of Henry Colbrow Bevis; forg-ing and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £4, with intent to defraud.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at Marlborough Street Police Court on December 31, 1906, as Robert Jones, receiving 21 days' hard labour for stealing a bicycle. He was also convicted at this Court on October 24, 1908, as Alfred McGregor, and sentenced to two years' hard labour for gross indecency; at Marlborough Street on March 2, 1907, three months for soliciting. Said to be a member of a gang of blackmailers.

Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-11
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

THOMPSON, William (32, labourer), pleaded guilty of stealing one plane, the goods of Arthur Everitt.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted of felony at this Court on September 8, 1908. Prisoner has now a remanet of one year and 21 days to serve. Eleven previous convictions, commencing Feb-ruary 1, 1890, were proved. Prisoner was stated to have been in possession of implements of housebreaking when arrested.

Sentence. Twelve months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-12
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

QUILLEY, Elizabeth, pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Walter Frederick Quilley, her former husband being then alive.

Prisoner was stated to be a respectable and industrious woman. When married to Quilley she had not seen her husband for 24 years; on arrest she stated that she knew her husband to have been alive at the time.

Sentence: One day's imprisonment, entitling prisoner to be imme-diately discharged.


(Tuesday, December 5.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-13
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

SMITH, Thomas George (18, barman) , unlawfully uttering counter-feit coin twice on the same day.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

FREDERICK FELIX WEST , barman, "De Beauvoir Arms "public-house, Stamford Road, Kingsland Road. About 9.30 p.m. on Novem-ber 19 prisoner came in and ordered "two "of port, cold. I served him and he tendered this bad florin (Exhibit 2). I said, "Tom, where on earth did you get this from? This is bad, "and I gave it him back. I had bent it slightly with my teeth. Two months before this he was a barman with me at this same public-house. He gave me a good florin and I gave him the change, 1s. 6d. and 4d. in coppers.

HENRY HERBERT TILBY , barman, "Lamb "public-house, Kingsland Road. At 9.40 p.m. on November 19 prisoner came in and asked for half a quartern of the best Jamaica rum, price 3d., and he gave me a bottle which he had brought. I served him and he tendered me this bad florin (Exhibit 2). I tested it with acid and it turned black. I took it to the manager, who went and spoke to prisoner. He asked him how he accounted for it, and he said he took it from a conductor on a motor-bus in the morning. I also showed it to another barman, Saphlin, who was in another bar. He came round to prisoner and said, "You have been round to my side." Prisoner denied it.

OSWALD SADLER , manager, "Lamb "public house, corroborated, and added: I put the bad florin that Tilby had given me and put it with another (Exhibit 1) taken earlier in the evening and they were of the same date. I called in a constable and gave prisoner into custody.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I only saw you once myself in the public-house that evening. You are a stranger there as far as I know.

Re-examined. I was not in the bar till 8.15 p.m.

FREDERICK CHARLES SAPHLIN , barman, "Lamb "public-house. I was in the public bar on November 19 when, at about 8.10 p.m., pri-soner came in and ordered half a quartern of best rum, price 3d. He tendered a florin and I gave him 1s. 9d. change. I put the florin on the top of the till as the florin till was full up. He went out shortly afterwards. I found it to be counterfeit, and I put it on the mana-ger's desk. This is the coin. (Exhibit 1.) At 9.40 p.m. I saw him at the other side of the house, and I told him he had been round my side that night, and he denied it. This is the bottle (produced) which he gave me when ordering the rum.

To prisoner. I had never seen you before this night. I remembered you because it is a very unusual thing for anybody to ask for half a quartern of best Jamaica.

Police-constable GEORGE BUTLER, 624 J. At 9.45 p.m. on Novem-ber 19 I was called to the "Lamb "public-house, where

I saw prisoner detained by the manager. The manager charged him, and he said he had got the florin from off a motor bus that morning. The manager handed me these two bad florins (Exhibits 1 and 2). I asked prisoner how he accounted for them, and he said, "I got one from a Great Eastern motor bus I this morning, "he did not admit the second one; he said that that was the first time he had been in the public-house.

To prisoner. You went quietly with me.

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. These two florins (Exhibits 1 and 2), are both counterfeit, and are made from the same pattern piece.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate." The first time I went into the public-house was at 9.40. I got the two-shillings in change from a Great Eastern bus, and 5d. in coppers. I did not know that the two-shilling piece was bad. After I got the change I bought some cigarettes. I have no witnesses to call."

THOMAS GEORGE SMITH (prisoner, not on oath). I have got four years' good references. I have only left school four years. I did not know the coin was bad or I should not have tendered it. When Mr. West told me it was bad I was not sure, and I thought I should not be the loser by it, and so I went into the "Lamb "public-house.

Verdict, Guilty on Count 2 (passing to Tilby).

It was stated that the account prisoner had given of himself was a true one, but of late he had been associating with bad company.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances and those of his father, Robert Smith, in £20 each to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-14
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SNIDER, Phillip (35, porter) . Unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.

Police-constable ALBERT BROOKS, G Division. Shortly after mid-night on November 18, I was at the junction of High Street, Shore-ditch, and Kingsland Road, when I saw a disturbance. Prisoner was 'interfering with two officers who had a man in custody. I took him into custody. In struggling he tried several times to get something out of his inside jacket pocket. A man came up and shouted, "Phil, I'm here! "Prisoner then made a more determined attempt to get at his pocket. With the assistance of another officer I took him to the station. I found in his left hand pocket, to which he had been trying to get, this leather pocket book (Exhibit 1), containing these eight coins resembling half-sovereigns (Exhibit 2), each wrapped up in a piece of tissue paper. He also had on him these 10 coins, resembling half-sovereigns (Exhibit 3); they are partly finished, and were wrapped up in a piece of newspaper. I asked him how he came by them, and he said "That's for you to find out." Subsequently he said, "I have these to make ear-rings with." He said he was a fish porter.

Cross-examined by prisoner. You did not tell me that you had these on you before I found them.

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. Exhibit 2 consists of eight base coins gilded over to represent half-sovereigns; they are dated 1911. Exhibit 3 came from the same mould, but they are not yet gilded. Such coins as these have been passed for good coins.

To prisoner. I also had shown me on November 20 two pairs of ear-rings (Exhibit 4), made from coins from the same mould. Ex-hibits 2 and 3 are much lighter than a half-sovereign.

Police-constable ALBERT BROOKS (recalled). Prisoner produced the ear-rings (Exhibit 4) at the second hearing, after he had been on remand for a week; he had been on bail.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate (at the second hearing)." I can show these ear-rings that I have had made. I can produce the man who made them. They were made three weeks ago. They were made by a man named Arthur."

PHILLIP SNIDER (prisoner, not on oath). I have been a licensed fish porter 16 years, but I met with an accident and had to do something for a living. A man made me these ear-rings to try and get a half-a-crown a pair for them, and I had the gilded coins to show people, so that they could see what they were like and give me an order.

Verdict, Guilty. A previous conviction in 1903 for larceny was proved. It was stated that prisoner worked at the fish market till six months ago, but that he was an associate of thieves, amongst whom was a man convicted of coining.

Sentence: Six months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-15
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

ANDERSON, Joseph (21, printer), pleaded guilty of possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same.

A conviction for uttering counterfeit coin on October 10, 1910, and a previous conviction in 1909 for larceny were proved.

It was stated that at the age of 19, when prisoner was in a reforma-tory, he was crippled through an accident. The statement that he had made when he was arrested that he had tried to get work but had failed, had been verified. He had applied on four occasions to the Prisoners' Aid Society, but nothing could be done for him, as he was too delicate. He was too old to be sent to a Borstal Institution.

Prisoner pleaded for a chance to get work, stating that he could do brush making.

(December 7.) An officer of the Church Army undertaking to do his best to get prisoner employment, prisoner was released upon pro-bation.

BEFORE THE RECORDER. (Wednesday, December 6.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-16
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

RICHARDSON, Henry Charles (35, upholsterer), and SWEET, Albert Wm . (29, postman), both conspiring and agreeing together to obtain from William Walker the sum of £6 9s. 5d. by virtue of a forged instrument, to wit, a falsely postmarked letter.

Mr. Forster Boulton prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett defended Richardson.

Sweet having pleaded guilty, Mr. Forster Boulton proposed to call him as a witness against Richardson, and suggested that sentence Should be passed upon him at once so that his evidence should not be influenced. It was stated that Sweet had borne an excellent character. Sentence (Sweet), Six months' imprisonment, second division. Richardson was then tried for endeavouring to obtain £6 9s. 5d. by means of a forged instrument.

ALBERT WILLIAM SWEET . I have been in the Post Office since 1901, and have two good conduct stripes. I made the acquaintance of Richardson last May or June; he lives at 13, New End Square, Hamp-stead; I live at 12, New End, close by. On October 18, between 10.30 and 11 p.m. I met him by accident a little way from his house, we had a drink, came out, and he said, "Could you get me a letter through to-morrow? "He then told me the letter would be addressed to "Mr. Walker, 25, South Hill Park, "said it would be all right, and he would post an empty envelope at Well Walk pillar box just after 1; he said, "You will find the envelope when you go in." I did not clear the box; he meant I should find it on the sorting table. I was to take the envelope, which I should know by its being empty, and give it to him. On Thursday, October 19, I came into Hampstead Sorting Office at 3.5 p.m., went round to the sorting table, picked the envelope out, and put it in my pocket. It was date-stamped "October 19, 2.15 p.m." At 3.40 I left the office on a bicycle to take a bag to Kentish Town; on the way I met prisoner, as arranged, at Hampstead Heath railway station; he said, "Have you got it? "I said, "Yes, "and handed him the envelope, which was lightly sealed down. He opened it, put a slip of paper in, sealed it down and handed it back to me. I then went to Kentish Town, delivered the bag, and brought back another. On the way back I called at 55, South Hill Park, at 4.8 p.m., and dropped the letter in the letter-box. I was in uniform; a lady called me back and said, "What is this? "I said, "This letter has been mis-sorted to Kentish Town "; she then called a young lady; I said, "This letter has been mis-sorted to Kentish Town, and I have brought it up with an apology. I have come from Kentish Town, you can see from my bag. Will you accept the apology? "She said, "Yes, "and I said, "Or shall I take the envelope back." I then rode back to the sorting office. On Saturday, October 28, just after 1 p.m., I called at prisoner's house, 13, New End Square, but did not see him as he was dressing to play football;

as I was leaving he called down, "I have not heard anything from up the road." On Tuesday, October 31, I had an interview with Mr. Stratford of the Secretary's Department of the G.P.O., and was sus-pended from duty. That day at about 4.15 p.m. I went with him to prisoner's house. Mr. Stratford knocked at the door, but I cannot say whether he saw Richardson that day, because I walked on; Mr. Stratford then rejoined me in the road, we waited about for some time, but I did not see Richardson. It is ten minutes' walk from Richardson's house to Hampstead Heath railway station.

Cross-examined. I only know Richardson by casually meeting him in public-houses. This summer my holiday of 16 days ended on October 18; I did not go away. The first thing he said about this was "Can you pass a letter through for me to-morrow? "I at once understood what he meant. Richardson's letter, and all letters sent to Walker were in typewritten envelopes. I knew Walker was a book-maker. I went over to the sorting table which it is my duty to go to and where a number of men were working, and picked out this letter from a number of others addressed in precisely the same way. to Walker; I am short-sighted. Prisoner had told me, "You will find it amongst the collection as you go in." In the ordinary course that letter would have arrived at Walker's at 4 p.m.—the time I actually took it there. Two days after this I was in a public-house arrang-ing about playing at a football match in which prisoner was also play-ing; I do not know whether I saw the prisoner there that day. I did not see him between October 19 and 28. On October 28 I went to Richardson's house to tell him I could not play that afternoon. Walker's house is not "up the road "from Richardson's house; you have to go round a corner. I did not know till to-day that I was going to be called as a witness. Yesterday morning Detective Drake handed me the paper (produced) which is an account of what I told Stratford and have now stated. At that time I had not pleaded gulity.

Re-examined! The only distinction between this letter and the other letters on the sorting table addressed to Walker was that this was empty.

Mrs. Walker, wife of Wm. Walker, 55, South Hill Park, Hamp-stead. On October 19, at about 4 p.m., a postman, whom I cannot recognise, brought me letter produced, said he had brought it from Kentish Town and would I accept the apology, if not he must take the envelope back; it had gone there by mistake. I called my daughter.

Ella Walker, daughter of Wm. Walker. My father carries on a betting business by post; I keep his accounts, and open all his letters. We only accept bets if the post mark is before the time of the run-ning of the race. I know prisoner Richardson, he had a betting account with my father. Before 4 p.m. on October 19, my mother called me to the door; a postman gave me a letter which he said he had brought from Kentish Town with an apology, because there had been a mistake. I took the letter and said, "Very well." Prisoner's bag had "Kentish Town "on it. I opened envelope (produced),

which bears date stamp "N.W., 2.45 p.m., October 19, 11 "; inside was a betting slip in prisoner's handwriting, which I have lost; I asked prisoner for a copy, which he sent (produced), which shows that he had won £6 9s. 5d. on races, the last of which is reported in the "Sporting Life Guide, "as starting at 3.39. Prisoner has asked me more than once to pay the bet; I have not answered his application.

Cross-examined. We receive most of our betting slips in typewritten addressed envelopes which we ourselves send out. 4 p.m. is a heavy post during the racing season, the postman came between 3.45 and 4 p.m.

THOMAS GEO. BUTCHER , head postman, Hampstead Sorting Office. Sweet was employed at my office. A letter posted at 1 p.m. at Well Walk would bear date stamp "2.15 p.m." It would leave my office at 3.30 p.m.; Sweet would have access to that letter.

Cross-examined. Sweet's duty did not take him to the table where this letter was, but he might be helping other men at their work. He would have been stopped if he had been seen to put this letter into his pocket.

WILLIAM EDWARD STRATFORD , clerk in the Investigation Branch, G.P.O. I have been investigating into a complaint made by Mr. Walker as to a letter posted on October 19, On October 31, at 2.30 p.m., I saw Richardson at his house, 13, New End Square, and showed him envelope and a betting slip (produced), which I had received from Walker. I asked him if he made the bet on the slip, and he said, "Yes, this is my own copy." Mr. Curtis Bennett submitted that this conversation with Richardson was not admissible, as an officer of the G.P.O. had no right to cross-examine a suspected person who was not a servant of the Post Office (Archbold, 24th Ed., p. 396;. R. v. Berriman, 6 Cox, p. 388).

After further discussion, the Recorder said he had some doubt whether the evidence was admissible in the case of a person not an officer of the G.P.O.; he would admit it with a view to the matter being dealt with by the Court of Appeal; he would give leave to appeal if necessary.

Examination continued. I told Richardson my name, and that I was an officer of the G.P.O., and said, "It is my duty to caution you, but you are not bound to answer any of my questions; anything you say will be taken down in writing, and may afterwards be used as evidence against you. I am not a person who is in authority em-powered to hold out any threat or promise, or to answer questions." 1 have no power to arrest anybody, and at that time the prisoner was not under arrest. I interviewed him to see if any crime had been committed. It was in consequence of prisoner's answers to me that these proceedings were started.

(Friday, December 8.)

WM. EDWARD STRATFORD , recalled. Further examined. I said, "A postman called at your house at 1.10, and left at 1.20 p.m.!" He replied, "He certainly did not see me. I am not certain where I was on the afternoon of Wednesday, October 25; to the best of my belief I was at Paddington Goods Station up to about 4 to 5 p.m.,

and after that at 32, St. Leonards Square." I made a note at the time and then read it over to Richardson; he agreed to it and signed it. I said, "Can anybody say where you were on the afternoon of October 19? "he took me to his brother William. I said to him in the presence of Richardson, "Your brother and I have been having a discussion over a business matter; could you tell me where he was about 4 o'clock on October 19—Thursday week? "He shook his head and said, "No, I cannot remember." Detective Blake was with me the whole time in plain clothes. I saw Sweet, and he made a state-ment.

Mr. Forster Boulton proposed that the statement of Sweet should be given in order to see whether it agreed with his, statement in the witness box.

The Recorder: A statement made not in the presence of the prisoner could not possibly be evidence.

Examination continued. I returned to prisoner's house at 5 p.m. in company with Sweet and Blake in uniform, but was told Richard-son was not at home. I then waited in the street for about a quarter of an hour when Diamond and prisoner together approached the house; prisoner caught sight of me and ran away very quickly. I spoke to Diamond. Blake went after Richardson. There is a public telephone call box at Hampstead Heath Station.

Cross-examined. My interview with prisoner took about half an hour. I did not make inquiries at the places where he said he was on October 19. I did not ask to see his wife. When I asked prisoner's brother where Richardson was, he did not say, "What has that got to do with you," or anything of that kind. When prisoner saw Sweet, Blake and me in the road he disappeared round the corner, which was quite near.

Re-examined. Prisoner denied having seen Sweet on October 28; he did not explain that he had called down to Sweet.

GEORGE DAVID ROBINS , messenger G.P.O. On October 28 I kept observation on 14, New End Square; at 1.10 p.m. I saw Sweet go through the gate of that house, which leads to a workshop, and come out again 10 minutes afterwards. I also saw him go into that house on October 25 at 5.30 p.m. and remain there 25 minutes.

Cross-examined. I was keeping observation on prisoner's house; it might have been 13 or 14, New End Square.

Re-examined. Richardson's name is over the gate of the house I kept observation.

HARRY TURNER , Exchange Telegraph Company, Cornhill. A tele-phone message come to our office from Sandown Park as to the results of races. On October 19 the result of the Orleans Nursery Handicap came at 3.39 p.m.; we informed our subscribers in the ordinary way by means of the tape.

Cross-examined. We telephone the result on to anybody who orders it beforehand. I could have found out the nearest place to Hampstead Heath Railway Station that we telephoned the result to if the prosecution had desired me to do so.

Police-constable ALBERT BLAKE, A Division, attached to the G.P.O. Having received a warrant for Richardson's arrest I went with

Police-constable Phelps on November 13 at 6 p.m. to Richardson's house, 13, New End Square, said we were police-officers, read the war-rant to him and told him I should take him to the police-station; he said, "I will come with you at once." When charged at the police-station he made no reply. I afterwards arrested Sweet. He is a married man with two children.

Cross-examined. Mr. Stratford's interview with Richardson at which I was present took about an hour.

Detective-sergeant GEORGE PHELPS corroborated the last witness as to the arrest.

Mr. Curtis Bennett submitted that there was no sufficient evidence to go to the Jury, on the ground that Sweet, an accomplice, was not corroborated on any material fact involving the criminality of Richardson; the only corroboration being that of Ella Walker as to the post bag having "Kentish Town "on it, and the tact that Sweet went to Richardson's house on October 25 and 28.

Mr. Forster Boulton submitted that Richardson's admission that he sent the betting slip was corroboration involving Richardson's guilt.

The Recorder said he had decided to leave the case to the Jury.


HENRY CHARLES RICHARDSON (prisoner, on oath). I have lived all my life at 13, New End Square, and am an upholsterer. I have never had any charge brought against me before. At the time of this alleged crime I had had a betting account with Walker for three weeks; I was working with my brother William and Frederick Diamond repairing and decorating for Mr. Drake, builder and contractor of Hampstead. I produced time sheet signed and made up by myself as foreman at the time, which shows that I worked for seven hours on Thursday, October 19. I started at 9 a.m. and at 12.45 p.m. went home by Tube to dinner; in the train I wrote out the betting slip and posted it to Mir. Walker in Well Walk. (To Walker.) I had dinner, and returned to 32, St. Leonards Square at a few minutes after two, and worked there till 5 or 6 p.m. Mr. Drake saw me there at about 3.30 p.m. I sent Walkera copy of that slip as they had lost it, and when I did not receive my money I wrote for it repeatedly. I did not see Sweet on October 18. On October 25 I took some furniture to Paddington Goods Station in a van; I produce receipt for the hire of a van for 5 1/2 hours; I then went to 32, St. Leonards Square; my time sheet shows 3 1/2 hours work. On October 28 I did not see Sweet and I did not call out to him; I never knew he had been there until my wife told me afterwards. On October 31 Mr. Stratford had an interview with me of exactly 1 1/2 hours; I denied this charge entirely; I gave him a full description of where I was at the time. He finally said, "If you confess your guilt we shall be more lenient with you." He also asked to see my wife, when I stated that she might be able to support my alibi; but I refused to let him see her, as she was not well. He then asked my brother where I was; my brother said, "What for? Who are you? "I said, "It is all right "; my brother said I was making a mattress. October 19 was not mentioned by Mr. Stratford to my brother. After this interview I went out and returned an hour afterwards, when I saw Stratford with

Blake and Sweet outside my house; as he had said he would let this stand over for a fortnight owing to my wife's approaching confinement, I went back and avoided him. I had casually known Sweet by meeting him in a public-house.

Cross-examined. I know no reason why Sweet, a married man, should come and give this evidence, which has sent him to prison. I have my time sheets for the whole of the week ending October 21, but I can only swear to the 19th. Envelope (produced) addressed in my handwriting to Walker, 55, South Hill Park, the Post Office date stamp being "October 17, 12.15 p.m.," was posted by me personally at Well Walk pillar-box at a time when, according to my time sheets, I was at 32, St. Leonards Square. Well Walk is about a mile from 32, St. Leonards Square. I sometimes leave my work to get materials. As I am foreman I signed my brother's and Diamond's time sheets. When I go home in the middle of the day I buy the paper just before I go into the Tube station and make up my bets in the Tube travelling from Chalk Farm to Hampstead, there being one intermediate station. I made a copy of that after I had posted the letter. I do a good deal of betting, but I never telephone for the result. If Stratford and Blake say that Stratford did not promise that I should be dealt leniently with if I confessed, they will be telling lies.

WILLIAM HENRY DRAKE , master builder, Hampstead. Prisoner Richardson is a man of very high character. In October of this year I employed him at 32, St. Leonards Square; he made out time sheets for every day and gave them to me in a batch every Saturday. The time sheets (produced) are the sheets for week ending October 21. On October 19 at 3.30 p.m. I went to 32, St. Leonards Square and went round the premises with Richardson—there is no mistake about it. I left about 4.15.

At this point the jury stopped the case and returned a verdict of Not guilty.


(Wednesday, December 6.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-17
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

GREENE, Oliver Cromwell (35, blacksmith), and GREENE, Barker (32, traveller); unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin, having more in their possession.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

ARTHUR LAW , head barman, "Artichoke" Public-house, 121, Lower Marsh, Lambeth. At about 10 p.m. on November 4 prisoners came in and Barker ordered a small Bass and a bitter, price 5d. He tendered this gilded sixpence (Exhibit 1), which he produced from his left-hand trousers pocket, having previously taken some money from his righthand pocket and put it back again. I told him it was bad and took it to the "Guv'nor," who said he would attend to it.

ANDREW STALLAM , licensee "Artichoke" public-house. On the night of November 4 Law handed me this gilded sixpense and I went and asked Barker where he had got it from and if he knew the coin was bad. In Oliver's hearing he said he did not. I told him it was a gilded Jubilee sixpence and he said he had got it from a public-house near the "Elephant and Castle." I asked him what public-house and he said he did not know. I asked him if his friend knew where he had got it from; Oliver said they had got it from the last public-house they were in, but he could not remember which public-house it was. I said I hardly knew what to do as their explanation seemed funny. I scratched the coin so that they should not be able to pass it anywhere else and gave it back. Harris, a customer, said I ought to give them in charge. I gave them the drinks they had ordered and Barker paid with a good half-crown. They stayed chatting about five minutes with Harris and then went out. Harris followed them.

Cross-examined by Barker. You went out about a minute before your brother.

NATHANIEL THOMAS HARRIS , 4a, Arnott Street, New Kent Road. About 10 p.m. I was in the "Artichoke," when I saw prisoners. I heard Barker call for drinks and hand a coin, which the barman took to the guv'nor. The guv'nor returned with it, scraped it and gave it to Barker. I told him he should not have done that, but should have given him in charge. I followed them out. They separated and I followed Barker. I spoke to a constable, who arrested him. I then followed Oliver, and spoke to another constable, who arrested him. I went to the police-station, where I saw them searched. The constable took up Oliver's gloves and produced a half-sovereign from one of the fingers. Oliver said on this, "I did not try to change mine."

((To Barker.) You left the public-house first.

Police-constable JAMES KNIGHT, 39 L.R. About 10 p.m. on November 4 I was on duty in Lower Marsh, Lambeth, when Harris said in Barker's hearing, "This man and another one have been attempting to utter counterfeit coin in a public-house down the road. I saw the landlord hand him back a gilded sixpence, which he scraped with a knife." I said to Barker I should take him to the station. Harris, pointing to Oliver, who was walking away very quickly on the other side of the road, said, "That is the other man." I told him to follow him. They were both taken to the station and searched. Oliver put his gloves on the form. Police-constable Bates picked one up and found in it a gilded sixpence.

Police-constable SAMUEL BATES, 230 L. When I arrested Oliver he said, "What's this for? Let go of my hands." On finding this gilded sixpence (Exhibit 2) in his glove he said, "I did not try to pass mine."

Police-sergeant FRANK TROTT, L Division. On the night of November 4 I saw prisoners at the police-station. Barker took this gilded sixpence (Exhibit 1) from his waistcoat pocket; I asked him where he had got it from and he said, "I got it in change for a sovereign at a public-house." I said, "What public-house?" He said, "It was a house in New Kent Road—the "Bricklayers' Arms" or the "Elephant and Castle "—I don't know which." On him were found

two good half-sovereigns, two shillings, 11 1/2 d. bronze, and a foreign coin. I asked him where the rest of the change for the sovereign was and he said, "I have spent it." I only left home at nine o'clock and met my brother at the 'Bricklayers' Arms' at half-past." A gilded sixpence was found in Oliver's glove. When charged he said, "I did not try to pass mine."

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. These two coins are genuine sixpences gilded over.


OLIVER CROMWELL GREEN (prisoner, on oath). I met my brother on November 4 at 9.30 p.m. We went to Westminster Bridge Road and he gave me the coin. I looked at it, saw that it was a gilded sixpence, and put it in my glove away from my other money.

Verdict, Guilty. It was stated that both prisoners had been in constant employment and bore good characters.

Sentence (each), Four months' hard labour.

The Common Serjeant commended the witness Harris for his conduct in the matter.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-18
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Guilty > with recommendation; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > preventive detention

Related Material

HEALY, John (42, labourer), and HEALY, William (33, checker), feloniously making counterfeit coin.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.

Detective CHARLES WESLEY, G Division. On the afternoon of November 16 I, with other officers, went to the first floor of 31, Sidney Grove, Islington, where I saw William Healy sitting in front of a fire, which was alight; he had in his hand this spoon containing molten metal (produced). John Healy was lying on the bed watching him. I told William that we were police-officers, that we had seen him making counterfeit coin and we should take him into custody. On a hanger in front of the fire there was a plaster mould of a half-crown dated 1910 drying and as we came in William seized the reverse side, broke it in the fireplace, and threw the pieces into the fire. With the obverse side in his other hand I sprang upon him and a struggle ensued. I took it from his hand and the other officers came in and overpowered him. He said, "I was only making them for drop-pieces."

Cross-examined by John Healy. You were wide awake.

Cross-examined by William Healy. There was another mould on the hearth lying flat down with the two parts together. I could not say what you had the spoonful of metal for; there was no pot on the fire. You were sitting on a box and in the struggle you went over it; I made a dash at you to prevent your throwing away the other part of the mould; you had dropped the spoon. You tried to overpower me before the other officers came into the room; you did not merely struggle to get up. When another officer found a certain envelope you said, "That's done it." You did not say that you were making them for brooches as well.

Detective WILLIAM KEEN, G Division. I was with the other officers at the time of this raid. On entering I saw Wesley struggling with

William Healy. On searching the room I found in the fender this mould bearing the impression of a half-crown dated 1910, which seems to have been used, and a saucepan containing metal; on the mantelshelf two unfinished counterfeit half-crowns dated 1910, a genuine halfcrown of the same date and pattern, a mould band, a piece of glass, a tin of plaster of paris, and a small tin containing paraffin wax (possibly black lead), a chisel, a knife, and a file; on the washstand a saucer containing plumbago, a small camel-hair brush, and an oil-stone, I said, "Who is the occupier of this house?" and John said, "I am, and he (pointing to William) is my brother; he lodges here."

To William Healy. The saucepan was cold, but the metal in it was not liquid, but hot. I heard you say that you were making these halfcrowns for brooches and drop-pieces.

Detective JOHN COLES, G Division. I was with the other officers when this raid occurred. In the mattress of the bed I found this counterfeit half-crown dated 1910; it has been mislaid. I also found an envelope containing an enclosure. (William Healy objected to this being put in evidence as he stated that it dealt with his previous character.) When I found it William said, "That's done it." (The Judge directed that it should be put in.) In the copper in the back kitchen on the first floor I found a bag containing plaster of paris. I arrested John and took him to the station. When charged he made no reply.

To William Healy. You were sitting on a tin trunk in front of the fire. You certainly were not pushed over it. I did not see any resistance on your part or a big struggle.

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. These half-crowns are counterfeit and the half-crown (Exhibit 6) is genuine, and is the pattern used in making them. Exhibits 3 and 4 are moulds suitable to be used for the purpose; I cannot say with certainty whether they have been used. The other articles produced are used in the manufacture of counterfeit coin.

To William Healy. I do not think the half-crowns are good impressions.

Prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. John Healy: "William said he would make some coins—some half-crowns to make brooches, and to put on chains as drop pieces. He was at work at Carter Paterson's. He had a day off. I said I would let him do it. He was going to sell them for sixpence each." William Healy: "I have been working at Carter Paterson's for 16 days. I made them and drop pieces for chains to go and sell. I told him I could not make a perfect half-crown, but they were good enough to be made into brooches."


WILLIAM HEALY (prisoner, on oath). I was a checker at Carter Paterson's and lodged with John Healy and his wife and his brother Stephen at his house. Stephen worked at Carter Paterson's also. On the Sunday previous we were all sitting down to tea when Mrs. Healy

said that she had a hard job to make both ends meet as Stephen Healy was out of work. I proposed to John Healy that I should make some imitation half-crowns for drop pieces and brooches and he could get about sixpence each for them. He was quite agreeable. On Wednesday, November 15, I was told at Carter Paterson's that I would not be required on the Thursday because they were slack, so on the Thursday I started making these imitation half-crowns. I cracked a mould and when Stephen came home for dinner I asked him to get me six small split rings and six brooch rings and to bring them back when he came home for tea. However, the police came at 4 p.m. and arrested me. The detective made a rush at me and knocked me over the box I was sitting on and I dropped the mould I was carrying into the fire; I did not deliberately do it. I did not struggle at all. I told the police everything and they went and got Stephen from his work at Carter Paterson's, and so lost him his job. Nobody would be fool enough to take the half-crowns I had made as genuine. I was in honest employment at the time with valuable goods passing through my hands.

Cross-examined. I admit making the half-crowns, but not with a felonious intent.

STEPHEN HEALY . John Healy is my brother. On the Sunday before the arrest I remarked that I was likely to have the day off next day at Carter Paterson's. (Witness corroborated previous witness's evidence.) Since he has been in Brixton Prixon I received a letter from him, which states that I knew he was going to make drop pieces. (Prisoner stated that he did not wish this letter read, but the Common Serjeant stated that as it was prisoner's letter it ought to be read. It was read. It was a letter from prisoner William Healy to witness and stated:".... If you can manage to get what you said yesterday it will simplify matters exceedingly and I shall call you as a witness.... However, we can only tell the truth as to what we were making them for and trust to Providence for the remainder.... You know as well as I do that.... it was brooches and drop pieces I was going to make. There was only Alec besides ourselves who knew anything about it." The letter went on to accuse a person named "Alec" of writing to Scotland Yard about the matter.)

To the Court. I had seen him the day before I received this letter and he asked me if I had got the pins would I bring them along and show what they were being made for.

KATHLEEN HEALY , wife of John Healy, corroborated.

JOHN HEALY (prisoner, not on oath). I agreed to William Healy making these brooches as I did not think it was a criminal offence. He was making them so as that we should get a shilling or two for Christmas. I have never been in trouble before.

Verdict (each), Guilty. John Healy was recommended to mercy. William Healy was further indicted for that he is a habitual criminal.

Detective CHARLES WESLEY (recalled). I produce and prove the fiat of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the notice to the prisoner which I served on November 27.

Warder THOMAS TUCKEY (Wormwood Scrubbs) proved the following three statutory convictions: April 13, 1907, nine months' hard labour in the name of William Brown, for larceny; October 20, 1908, four years' penal servitude in the name of "William Cooper" for possessing counterfeit coin; November, 1906, for larceny, three years' penal servitude (to run concurrently with the previous sentence). Prisoner was discharged on license on October 16 of this year.

Sergeant JOHN KENWOOD proved further convictions in 1906 and 1908.

Cross-examined by William Healy. You served through the South African War and on being discharged you bore a very good character. After your discharge you obtained employment for a short period.

Inspector WILLIAM BURNHAM, G Division. I asked prisoner if he would give me the name and address of anyone for whom he had worked since his discharge from prison. He said, "Yes, I worked for Messrs. Carter Paterson's. I got a job and I had been put off the day before you arrested me over slackness. I have passed the doctor and I am going to have a permanent situation there." On inquiry I found that he had obtained the situation by a false character, but that he had been working there since October 31 at 3s. 9d. a day as a checker and would have been kept on regularly if a vacancy had occurred.

WILLIAM HEALY , called upon for his defence, stated (not on oath) that he was not guilty of the charge of which he had been found guilty; but that he had been earning an honest living since his release; that he had been in different regiments since 1893, leaving the Army when in Africa in 1902 with a good conduct medal. He worked in Africa till 1904, when he came home. As a porter in the Direct Supply Stores he was arrested for being drunk in charge of a van when this was not the case and underwent 14 days' imprisonment. To this he ascribed his downfall. He contended that the number of his convictions did not justify him being called a habitual criminal, and complained that on his release from prison he should have been informed that if he committed another crime he was liable to be indicted as such.

Verdict, Guilty.

John Healy received a good character.

Sentences: John Healy, Eighteen months' hard labour; William Healy, Three years' penal servitude and Five years' preventive detention.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-19
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CORNISH, James Francis (20, attendant), pleaded guilty of unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same.

Prisoner received a very high character, but had recently fallen in with dishonest companions.

Sentence: Six months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-20
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

DENNIS, John (52, labourer), pleaded guilty of stealing one watch and chain, the goods of George Gibson, from his person.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at this Court on February 8, 1904, in the name of " James Claude," when he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. In May last he was sentenced to three years' penal servitude for stealing a watch; there were a number of previous convictions, dating from 1895.

Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, December 6.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-21
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SMITH, James (25, porter), pleaded guilty of stealing one trunk and other articles, the goods of Muriel Jackson, and feloniously receiving the same.

Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-22
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

PERRY, Herbert (19, footman), pleaded guilty of stealing three ostrich feathers and other articles, the goods of the Duchess of Westminster.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-23
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

FOX, Thomas Grassman (35, oilman), and FOX, John Oliver (27, labourer), stealing about 1/4-cwt. of solder, the goods of Donald McArthur and others, and feloniously receiving the same.

Mr. Latham prosecuted; Mr. Hutchinson defended T. G. Fox; Mr. Purcell defended J. O. Fox.

Sergeant GEORGE STEVENS, E Division. On October 9 about 10.15 a.m. I was with Detective Steggles in Cromer Street, Gray's Inn Road. I saw John Fox jump from a van which was standing outside the "Boot" public-house. He had this solder under his arm, wrapped in newspaper. He walked sharply down Cromer Street, looked round, and then entered No. 74, an oil shop. I followed with Sergeant Steggles and entered the shop. I saw Thomas Fox, told him we were police-officers and asked him where the parcel was that the man had just brought in. He said, "A customer of mine has just left a parcel for me to mind. I do not know what it contains." I said, "Where is the parcel; the man who left the parcel is in your shop-parlour." He said, "No he is not; come in and have a look." I went into the shop-parlour; no one was there. I noticed the side door was open that led into Tankerton Street. I then said to him, "The parcel contained sticks of solder." He said, "Here it is." And he produced it off a box on a sideboard, saying, "I have been here 18 months, I have a good character, give me a chance. I bought it off a man for 10s. I don't know, and have never seen him before." I told him I should take him into custody for being concerned with another man in stealing and receiving this solder. I took him to Hunter Street Police Station. On the charge being read over to him he said, "I did not know it was stolen." When John Fox jumped off the van with the solder the ends

of the solder were protruding from the paper it was wrapped in. It must have been unwrapped before I got into the shop. On October 17 about 1.30 p.m. I saw John Fox outside King's Cross Road Police Court, I recognised him as the man I had seen jump off the van and take the solder into Thomas Fox's shop. Sergeant Steggles arrested him. He told him he should take him into custody for being concerned with Thomas Fox in stealing and receiving the solder. He said, "That is right, I suppose I shall get a sixes for this." He then said to a woman, "They have got me, tell father." When told he would be taken to Hunter Street Police Station he said, "Cannot you get it settled here, at the same time pointing to King's Cross Road Police Station. On the way to the station he said, "You might as well have let me had my dinner."

Cross-examined by Mr. Hutchinson. When I went into the shop I did not ask Thomas Fox what the man had brought in. He did not say it was a parcel, or that it contained solder. I thought the man that brought the parcel was in there. He did not tell me he had bought it for 10s. He first said it was a parcel he was minding for a customer and he did not know what it contained. He afterwards said he bought it off a man he had never seen before for 10s. He then said, "Here it is," and pointed to it. It was about three minutes from the time the man left the van to the time I followed him into the shop, a distance of 230 yards. It was when he looked round that my suspicions were aroused. I searched John Fox's place afterwards. I found nothing which I took away.

Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. The man who jumped off the cart was wearing a light overcoat. I did not hear John Fox say when arrested he never had a light overcoat in his life. I went to his place the same evening. I searched for a light overcoat, but did not find one. I was about 30 yards away when the man jumped off the cart. I said at the police court that the man who jumped off the van looked round before entering the shop. It is very often the case that the magistrate's clerk does not take things down. John was arrested after Thomas had been further remanded. I saw John speaking to a woman I knew to be connected with Thomas. That was not the incident that attracted my attention to him. I recognised him as soon as I saw him. He did not treat his arrest as a sort of joke. He did not say, "I suppose I shall get six years for it." He said, "A sixer." King's Cross Road Police Station is next door to the Clerkenwell Police Court. A person pointing might confuse one with the other. He did not say, "Cannot you take me in there now and prove. it?" meaning before the magistrate. He refused to give any information respecting himself.

To Mr. Hutchinson. I have made inquiries as to the character of Thomas; he has borne a good character so far. He has never been convicted; never been charged before.

Sergeant ARTHUR STEGGLES, E Division. On October 9 I was with Sergeant Stevens at Cromer Street. Shortly after 10 a.m. I saw John Fox jump from the back of a van with this solder under his arm. (Witness corroborated Sergeant Stevens as to the conversation with Thomas Fox.) Whilst we were in Thomas's house he had no opportunity of

touching the solder. I looked out of the door and saw the driver of the van going away. I went after him and took him back to the shop, where he saw the solder on the counter. He said, "That is the solder stolen from my van. You can see where the label has been torn off." Prisoner Thomas said, "I've never seen the label." I asked him if he had a receipt for the solder. He said, "No." On October 17 about 1.30 p.m. I was with Sergeant Stevens in King's Cross Road, where I saw prisoner John. I told him we were police-officers and that he answered the description of the man I saw jump from the van with the solder under his arm and I should take him into custody for stealing same. He said, "That is right, I suppose I shall get a sixer for this." Turning to a woman standing by his side he said, "Tell father they have got me. I told him he would have to come to Hunter Street Police Station, He said, "Cannot you get it settled here?" pointing to King's Cross Road Police Station. On the way to Hunter Street Police Station he said, "You might as well have let me had my dinner first." When charged he made no reply.

To Mr. Hutchinson. I have given evidence several times before. I mentioned what the carman said at the police court if it is not on the depositions.

To Mr. Purcell. When the man jumped off the van I noticed he had a light overcoat on. I heard John say at the police court he never had one. He walked sharply away and turned round when he got part of the way down the street. When my evidence was read over I did not notice that the magistrate's clerk had left out the part about the man having turned round. I saw the man's face as he came out of the van. I should not have known prisoner if I had not seen his face as he came out of the van.

ALBERT E. WESLEY , manager McArthur and Sons, proved that the solder was handed by them to James Newby, their carman.

JAMES NEWBY . On October 9 about 9 a.m. I took out the van from the Midland Railway. This is part of the solder that was in the van. I left the van unattended outside the "Boot" public-house for five to ten minutes. That was the first place I stopped at. When I saw it in the shop the tag was not on it.


THOMAS GRASSMAN FOX (prisoner, on oath). I was an ironmonger's assistant for 14 years. I have been carrying on this oilshop on my own. On October 9 a man came in and asked me if I wanted to buy any solder. I said, "Not particularly." So he said, "I will run and fetch it and you shall see it." Four or five minutes afterwards he came in and said, "There it is, give me 15s. for it." I said, "I do not want it." He pleaded a tale that he wanted to get yonder, and did not want to carry it further, and said, "Give me 10s." I said, "I don't want it." He said, "I am really hard up." He looked like a traveller. I gave him the 10s., he went out of the shop door the detectives came in. They said, "What did the man bring in?" I said, "A parcel." They said, "What did it contain?" I said, "Solder.' He said, "Where is

it?" I said, "On my box in my parlour, where I have my meals." I took him into the parlour. He said, "Where is the tally?" I said, "I do not know; I never saw one." He said he would take me into custody. I said, "All right." I told him I had just bought it off a man for 10s. I had no idea it was stolen.

To Mr. Purcell. The man that brought the solder was not my brother.

To Mr. Latham. The man who brought the solder went out by the front door. The police came nearly five minutes afterwards. I should think the "Boot" public-house is 50 yards from my shop. Anybody standing there would be able to see my shop. It is a straight road. I know something near the value of solder. When I bought it I thought it was cheap. The deal took four or five minutes, the second time he came in. He was there about three minutes the first time. He went away and fetched it. He did not say where he had got it. I am not in the habit of buying things this way. It is quite untrue that I told the officers a customer had left a parcel. I did not say the man had gone info the parlour. I took them into the parlour because the solder was there. I keep other things there to keep my counter clear. There was no tab on the solder when I bought it. The side door leading into Tankerton Street was open. I did not look at the solder closely when I bought it. When I buy things I generally undo them. I did not undo this. It was undone when I handed it to the police officer. I said I had been there 18 months and that I had a good character. I said, "Give me a chance," because I had nobody to look after the place. I am by myself, a single man. The reason the side door was open is the lodgers are in and out with the children.

Mr. MAYS (traveller in oils and colours). I have had dealings with prisoner Thomas for 18 months. I have always found him perfectly honest.

Mr. HENRY BOON and Mr. ALFRED BETTISON testified to prisoner's good character.

JOHN OLIVER FOX (prisoner, on oath). I live at 415, Northampton Buildings, Clerkenwell. For a number of years I have been employed as an auxiliary postman at Christmas. The last two or three years I have worked as a porter at Hillhouse's fish shop in Rosoman Street. This is the first time any charge has been brought against me. On October 17, the day I was arrested, I went to Clerkenwell Police Court at 11.15 a.m. to hear my brother's case. I tried to get inside the court, but was told by 411 G "There is only witnesses allowed. You must go out in the hall." I did not tell him what I wanted to go in for. I was in the street when my brother's case was called, I believe. Directly he was called in I went into the hall with him. I tried to get into the court. Detective Stevens and Steggles went in. I waited until somebody came out and said he was remanded or something. I then went out of the hall with this young lady, my brother's friend's wife. I had not. seen her for a good many years. I was introduced to her inside. I walked to the yard that separates the court from the police-station. We stopped at the corner of the yard. Both detectives walked up to me. Sergeant Steggles touched me on the arm and said, "We are going

to charge you with stealing this solder." I said, "Very well." The other officer said to me, "You had better come up the road for a walk." I said, "No, why don't you take me in there and prove I've stole the solder?" He said, "You will have to come to Hunter Street." I said to the young woman, "If you see Tom, tell him I have been charged with stealing this solder." Then we started walking up the road. I said, "You might have let me had my dinner first." I do not know whether Stevens or Steggles said, "We have let you be a week," so I said, "I look like getting six years, then?" He told me going along I should not steal any more solder for a while. I said he had made a mistake. He said, "We don't make many mistakes." I told them at the station I could account for where I was. They did not seem to take notice. When I said I was Fox's brother they seemed astonished. One said I was like the man who got out of the van with a light overcoat. I said, "I live about two miles from the place where this happened." I never wore a light thing in my life. I was taken before the magistrate twice, committed for trial and admitted to bail. It is the first time I have been charged with any offence. All the policemen in Sadler's Wells know me, as Mount Pleasant is the post office I have been employed in at Christmas for nine or 10 years. I have to give them two references every year. On October 7, Saturday, I went to Mr. Bacon's, a baker, at midnight. I help every Sunday morning to do the bakings. How I came to stop on the Sunday, I was late and he made me stop to dinner and I kept him company all the evening. It was raining. He left me there while he and his wife went out. They came home about 11.30 p.m. He said, "You had better stop, Jack." I went upstairs, where I always sleep Saturday nights. Next morning I went into the bake house. I said, "You should have called me earlier." Bacon said, "Before you go, the missus wants you to clean the copper." It must have been about 10.15 when I started on the copper. I finished that about 3 or 3.30. I left there at 4.30 to 5. Mr. Bacon's shop, 136, Lever Streets, St. Luke's, is about two miles from Cromer Street.

To Mr. Latham. I have stopped every Saturday night at Mr. Bacon's for nine or ten months. I have only stopped there on Sunday night on one or two occasions if he wanted to go out and had nobody to let in the baker to set the dough. I have never known the copper to be cleaned out before. I live with my father and mother. Northampton Buildings is about a mile from Lever Street. It would not have been much trouble to go home from Mr. Bacon's if I had wanted to. When I got home between 5 and 6 on the Monday my mother told me my brother had got into some trouble; that he had bought some solder off a man that had stolen it, and he was in charge. I went down to see him. He did not tell me the man he bought it from was like me. After I had been arrested they told me the man might have had a moustache. My brother did not tell me who he bought it from. I had no curiosity to know. I do not ask him about his business and do not want to know anything about his business. I know absolutely nothing about the solder. What these officers say about me is

absolutely all stories. I did not say, "They have got me; tell father." I have shaved twice a week for six or seven months.

ERNEST BACON , 136, Lever Street, St. Luke's. I have known John Fox nine or 10 years and know others who have known him. He bears the character of an honest, hardworking, straightforward man. He came to my house about 12.30 on Saturday, October 7. He nearly always comes on Saturday night because I have a lot of money there, the takings of my own business and my brother, who is a butcher opposite, and Fox helps to carry out the dinners we bake on Sunday. John Fox slept there Saturday and Sunday night. I saw him on Monday at 10 a.m. in my bake house. About 10.10 I shut the oven door on the last batch. Then there was a job; I believe it was a copper to be repaired, that he stopped mainly on the Sunday night to help me do on the Monday. I should think that job lasted till nearly 1 o'clock.

To Mr. Latham. He has stopped on Sunday nights before occasionally. What brings this particular Sunday back to my mind is when I got home on the Tuesday his mother was at my house. I knew the other brother had been taken into custody, although I did not know him, and I thought perhaps she had come down to ask me to bail him out or something, when she told me John was taken into custody. This was the Tuesday after the Sunday he slept at my house. I am not certain of it now. I have never had to call this date to mind. I thought it was the Sunday night before the mother came.

To prisoner, John Fox. Your mother came to me after you were charged.

ETHEL SMITH , Assistant to Ernest Bacon. I know John Fox by him coming to Mr. Bacon. I went to Clerkenwell Police Court on October 24 to speak of his being at my master's place on October 7. That was Saturday. He came that night and stopped there on Sunday. He was there all day long up till about 4. I saw him on Monday at 10 a.m. coming in from the back kitchen. He had only just got up. He was working on the copper. I have never seen him wearing a light overcoat.

To Mr. Latham. I have known John Fox about two years. I remember this particular Monday morning, the 9th; it was washing day, for one thing; this was the week the copper had to be mended. Beyond that there is nothing to make me certain it was the 9th.

Police-constable ALFRED CARPENTER, 411 G. It is part of my duty to look after the door of the Clerkenwell Police Court. I saw John Fox at my door on October 17. He asked permission to enter the court. I told him to wait in the hall a bit. I could not say if that wag soon after the case of Thomas Fox had been called on. I saw him about noon.

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Thursday, December 7.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-24
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > other institution

Related Material

PAGE, Ruth (18, servant), pleaded guilty of feloniously setting fire to the dwelling-house of Frank Hislop, divers persons then being therein.

Prisoner had endeavoured on two occasions in one night to set fire to the house of the prosecutor, in whose employment she had been for two months. She had been previously bound over for embezzle ment, and had been in various Church Army homes. When arrested she stated that she wanted to be put into a home.

Sentence: Two years' imprisonment in a Borstal institution.


(Thursday, December 7.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-25
VerdictsGuilty > lesser offence
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous

Related Material

STEINATS, Charles (24, chemist) , feloniously making and counterfeiting four counterfeit half-crowns and seventeen counterfeit shillings; feloniously possessing a mould for making counterfeit coins; unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same; stealing an umbrella and a walking stick, the goods of Wilhelm Unterbusch.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.

Prisoner was tried on the indictment for having feloniously made and counterfeited four counterfeit half-crowns and seventeen counterfeit shillings.

Mrs. HETTY JAN, charwoman. In October I was engaged to clean rooms, etc., for Mr. Unterbusch at 89, Hampstead Road. Prisoner occupied the second floor back room. On October 27, at 10.30 a.m., I went to clear up the rooms. Shortly afterwards prisoner came and on his giving me 1s. 6d. I gave him the key of his room. He packed up his things in a cardboard box and a wicker basket, which he took across to the tobacconist's. I identify the box and basket produced. Later that day I was clearing the cupboard in prisoner's room, when I noticed a lot of broken pieces of plaster of paris, a ladle, a saucepan, and pieces of broken metal (produced). I informed the police and they collected the articles.

WILHELM UNTERBUSCH . Prisoner rented a furnished room from me; he said he was a clerk and wanted to learn English business. As far as I know he always left his room locked.

Mrs. MILLER. I keep a tobacconist's shop at 1, William Street, which is nearly opposite 89, Hampstead Road. On October 27 prisoner called and left with me two cardboard boxes and an basket, a lamp, a little parcel, and an umbrella and walking stick. These were afterwards taken from me by the police.

Inspector GEORGE WALLACE. On the afternoon of October 27 I went with Mrs. Jan into prisoner's room; I now produce the articles

I found there: a lot of broken pieces of plaster of paris, two pieces of zinc plates, pieces of aluminium, solder, brass, and sheet copper, some antimony, a ladle, and a saucepan. Putting the pieces together, I succeeded in forming eleven moulds, six of half-crowns, three florins, and two shillings. That evening I went to Mrs. Miller's, and she handed me the articles produced; one box and a parcel contained clothing; another box contained four counterfeit half-crowns, and a number of unfinished coins. (I opened the box with a key which I found on prisoner.) I also found a spoon containing plaster of paris and metal, a file, and pieces of solder, brass, copper and tin.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I found no counterfeit coins upon you.

HENRY MELSHEIMER , interpreter. I attended at Aubrey Street Police station on October 28 and interpreted the charge to prisoner. He admitted that the things found belonged to him. He said he was an inventor of various things and intended the coins which he was making to be used in one of his inventions; he made the moulds and used the coins as he had no other metal to do the thing with.

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. The four half-crowns produced are counterfeit; three are dated 1910, one 1909; the seventeen shillings produced are unfinished counterfeit shillings. The different materials produced are such as would be used in making counterfeit coins.

To the Common Serjeant. As to the seventeen shillings, I think it would be difficult to make them compute counterfeits, whether good or bad. The four half-crowns I should not call counterfeit coins as they now stand; I should hardly say that if other operations were carried out upon them the process could be completed of turning them into counterfeit coins.

The Common Serjeant pointed out to Mr. Morice that the indictment charged prisoner with "making," and asked whether there was any case to show that a man was guilty of making counterfeit coins if he had been trying to make but had never succeeded in making.

Mr. Morice submitted that the indictment was good, under the Coinage Offences Act, 1861, if section 2 (with the interpretation in section 1) was read with section 30. Under section 1, "The expression 'false or counterfeit coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble or pass for any of the (Queen's) current gold or silver coin' shall include any of the current coin which shall have been gilt, silvered.... or in any manner altered so as to resemble or be apparently intended to resemble," etc. Section 2 read, "Whosoever shall falsely make or counterfeit any coin resembling or apparently intended to resemble," etc. Then, section 30 provided that the "offence of falsely making or counterfeiting," etc., "shall be deemed to be complete although the coin so made or counterfeited.... shall not be in a fit state to be uttered, or the counterfeiting thereof shall not be finished or perfected."

The Common Serjeant expressed the view that section 30 would not apply to the process of making things which could not possibly be turned into coins; he would leave to the jury the charge of attempting to make.

Prisoner's written statement put in at the police court: "Part I.: Objections to the evidence of the various witnesses. Witness Unterbusch; (1) door locked; the charwoman says that she had cleaned the room, which proves that my door could not have been locked. (2) This proves that not only myself but also Unterbusch had a key. (3) He and his wife told me that I must lock my door as many people

lived in the house; I should hang the key on their door on the first floor. If my door had been locked the room could not have been cleaned. I left in the morning and came back in the evening. II.: Witness Unterbusch (1) said that he was a painter; he is a tailor, which is proved by the plate on the door. (2) He says I have paid irregularly; when I paid him on Thursday I had £2 in my pocket; this the charwoman can prove. When the letters were late or got lost the money could not have arrived punctually, but then came money by telegraph. (3) As to the police officer, I could not understand the man, and did not know what he wanted, as I had never been in contact with the police before. Questioned as to my illness he showed his doubts and made remark. Thirdly, the young women. Between 10 and 11 she cleaned the room and had suspicion between 3 and 4 p.m. because I had not come back. This as to the character of the witnesses and their evidence against me. Repetition of the charge itself. Take the first charge; my answer is I always associated with the family of Unterbusch.... Detailed explanation and contradiction of the evidence. First part, repetition of the accusation as to the separate inventions. Explanation of same. No. 1; with reference to a new form of shield. I wanted to paint this over with a glace-like paste, and for that purpose boiled oil and so on; this paste I wanted to invent for chocolate and sugar manufactories for them to produce and use; that is why I experimented to find the composition for that and so forth. No. 2. I had various metals in my possession so as to produce another metal which would get red hot when held into a gas jet and set light to the same in a lamp; to invent this I make the various metals and experimented with same. No. 3. The round, large, and small wheels I wanted to use for a new toy of the gymnastic kind. To produce this I made the wheels. As I had no other I used the form of money, as I thought this to be the proper size, but found that they were not heavy enough. I am able to explain this invention with the others. I also wanted to invent various other things, one of which is an artificial india-rubber, etc. Second part. General remarks as to my second accusation. I shall dispel every doubt which should exist, as I can give correct explanations, proofs, and witnesses. I have always been speaking to my acquaintances about my inventions, and can prove the truth of this. Although this affair might have a dreadful appearance, I nevertheless only followed up my own inventions and nothing else. That is proved by the fact that I have explained the same to perfection and am here to learn the language and to receive my money every month or week from Germany. Proof. These were private experiments. I deem myself quite innocent. Whatever may happen to me I feel that I am here wrongly accused, and shall not rest until they find out that I have only tried to perfect my patent. I got money from Germany, and there was no need for me to want; otherwise I would not be here or would work. Should this be the case my position would be different, but the intention of learning the language does away with every doubt which there should still exist concerning me, as also the explanation of the witnesses, etc., which which prove my innocence. All the things, chemicals, etc., have cost

a lot of money, but I spent my time greatly with inventions. I beg to be excused as to every point. I can give a clear explanation to every question. I furthermore defy anyone to bring a substantial charge against me, one which would in the least accuse me of fraud or anything similar. This will never be possible, as it was only my private occupations and my endeavour to study and perfect the inventions and patents. Illness; don't mention. P.S.—The game with a coin was the idea to my invention."


CHARLES STEINATS (prisoner, on oath) repeated the points given in his written statement. He gave accounts of his various "inventions," but failed to make himself intelligible.

(Friday, December 8.)

Cross-examined. I came from Germany to London in August last. I purchased the antimony and other materials for use in connection with my invention of an incandescent gas mantle. I do not know that antimony is used in making counterfeit coin.

Verdict, Guilty of attempting to make counterfeit coin. The other indictments remained on the file of the Court.

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


(Thursday, December 7.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-26
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

BAILEY, Frank (29, painter), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering a certain place of divine worship, to wit, St. James' Mission Hall, Plumstead, and stealing therein two pairs of boots and other articles, the goods of Martha Elizabeth Hewitt, to the value of 5s.

Several minor convictions were proved. The builder who had employed prisoner had discharged him in consequence of drink, but was willing to employ him again.

Sentence: Four months' imprisonment, second division.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-27
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BROWN, Horace Stanley (27, clerk), pleaded guilty of forging a receipt for the payment of £3 and forging a request for the payment of £3.

It appeared that prisoner had telegraphed for money to be sent to him by a farmer in the name of the farmer's son, and afterwards signed a receipt for the money.

Previous convictions for stealing bicycles and being in possession of house-breaking implements were proved.

Sentence: Twelve months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-28
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

RICHARDSON, William George (37, solicitor's clerk), pleaded guilty that, having received certain property, to wit, a banker's cheque for £33 11s., for and on account of William Garwood, he unlawfully did fraudulently convert part of the same and the proceeds thereof, to wit, the sum of £25 3s., to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett appeared for prisoner.

Mr. Curtis Bennett stated that prisoner had committed the offence on October 11, 1906; a warrant was issued on March 15, 1907, and executed on November 18, 1911. Prisoner in 1906 was a solicitor, having worked his way up from the position of office boy. He had started on his own account and at the time of the offence he owed rent for his office to the extent of £30; the bailiffs were in possession of his private house, where he had a wife and eight children, and he was being pressed for wages. On the facts becoming known to the Law Society he had been struck off the Roll. From the beginning of 1907 he had lived by odd jobs; he had worked in the docks at £1 a week; but from November, 1910, he had been working for Mr. Wilkinson, a solicitor, whom he had told all the facts. The warrant would never have been revived but for the fact that Mr. Wilkinson in the execution of his duty had to issue a writ against a man named Flowers who had been instrumental in getting the work for prisoner in 1906, which resulted in his appropriating the cheque. Prisoner had nothing to do with the writ being issued, but Flowers, who had known since January, 1911, that he was employed by Mr. Wilkinson, immediately went to the police and informed against him.

Judge Rentoul said he could not believe that if the statement which had been made had been put before the Law Society they would have struck prisoner off the Roll, although they might have punished him in some other way.

Mr. Curtis Bennett said on the facts before them the Law Society had had no option; prisoner had not appeared before them.

Judge Rentoul asked if it was possible that prisoner might now be reinstated.

Mr. Curtis Bennett said he did not think there was any chance of that, but Mr. Wilkinson would continue to employ him as a clerk.

Judge Rentoul said that if there was anything he could do in the way of signing a petition to reinstate prisoner on the Roll he would do it. He had to sentence him to three days' imprisonment, and as he had had that he would be discharged, with his Lordship's very great sympathy.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-29
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

BROWNE, Thomas Sexton (35, director of company) , maliciously publishing a defamatory libel of and concerning Charles Guttmann.

Mr. Edwin Walker prosecuted.

The libel complained of was contained in a letter to one of Mr. Guttmann's business relations.

At the close of Mr. Walker's opening speech prisoner stated that he wished to plead justification. He had not done so in a legal manner, nor had he pleaded it before the magistrate.

Judge Rentoul pointed out the danger of such a plea and requested Mr.—to see prisoner.

The case was put back and, on being resumed, Mr.—said he had advised prisoner that he had no hope of success and prisoner now unqualifiedly withdrew the libel and promised it would not be repeated.

Mr. Guttmann, on being asked by Judge Rentoul whether he wished prisoner punished, said he would leave it entirely with his Lordship.

Judge Rentoul, strongly warning prisoner against repeating the offence, or even speaking against Mr. Guttmann, released him on his own recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-30
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

THOMPSON, George (33, bricklayer), GOVEY, George (28, coachman), and HARRIS, Frederick (32, butcher) , breaking and entering the shop of George Rushbrooke and stealing therein four coats, his goods.

Thompson pleaded guilty.

Mr. Gregory Fisher prosecuted.

THOMAS SELLERS , market constable at the Central Meat Market. I was on duty in the market about 2 a.m. on November 9. Police-constable Fagg and I went into Charterhouse Street. Opposite No. 71 we walked across the road and saw Govey and Harris walk from the doorway of 71, which is a clothier's shop belonging to Mr. Rushbrooke. We asked, "What are you doing there?" Harris replied, "We are waiting here to see a man that works just here in the market that is going to stand us a drink at Mufflet's." That is a public-house on the south side of the market. It opened at 3. Fagg rushed to the door of No. 71 and prisoners walked sharply past me into the market. I went after them and said, "Where is the shop where this man workst" Harris said, "Down here, opposite Mufflet's." They quickened their pace to go out of the market, and I caught hold of them and said, "You are not going away like this. I am going to detain you, as I want to know something more of your movements before you go." Govey said, "You b—well going to take met?" I said, "Yes, I am; I am going to make sure." He put himself in a fighting attitude. I left go of Harris and caught Govey by the throat and pinned him to the wall. Harris was walking sharply away and I said to a man outside the market, "Stop him." He was stopped and brought back. Market-sergeant Vincent came up, and from what he said we took them to Snow Hill Police-station. When charged, Govey made no reply. Harris said, "A man can't be out looking for work without getting locked up now, then."

Cross-examined by Govey. You did not attempt to run away through the market, a distance of about 80 yards. I stopped you at the gate. Harris could have got away, I believe, if he had run after I let go. You attempted to strike me, but could not because I had you by the throat. You walked quietly to the station, but I was on one side of you and another man on the other.

Cross-examined by Harris. You were walking towards us when we stopped you. You had to do so to come away from the doorway.

We crossed the road straight to you. Up the side of the market there were big vans and other vehicles, so that you could not see us and we could not see you till well within three or four yards of the kerb in front of the doorway.

Police-constable JOHN HAWTHOBNE, 319 B. About 2.15 a.m. on November 9 I was informed that something was wrong in Rushbrooke's shop. I found the gate had been prised out of the hinges, the back part, the socket. I looked through the gate and saw a large hole in the window of the door, which was of frosted glass. I got through the hole and looked into the shop and saw Thompson, who has pleaded guilty, in the gallery at the back of the shop. I saw no one else. There were six jemmy marks on the door, evidently freshly done. I searched the prisoners, and on Harris I found a candle, a box of safety matches, and a tin containing ointment (produced) which might have been for plastering on paper for the purpose of breaking windows, to deaden the noise.

JAMES WILLIAM FAGG , market constable, Central Meat Market. On November 9 I was on duty in the west division of the market and noticed the three prisoners and another man patrolling round the market, and pass through the private roadway from the south side to the north about 1.35. I saw them first about 1.20. They passed into the Grand Avenue about 1.40, I think. I saw them standing right opposite Rushbrooke's premises looking in when I passed again. Rushbrooke has three shop fronts in a row. I entered the Grand Avenue again and I was informed their premises were being broken into, about two o'clock. I got into touch with Sellers and told him and we immediately went down opposite this shop. I saw Govey and Harris standing covering the small collapsible gate. On approaching them they both hurriedly left the gate about two or three yards towards the kerb. I asked them what they were doing there and they said they were waiting for a pal. After their leaving the gate I could see this small collapsible gate had been tampered with. The top part was bent to the right hand, allowing the gate to fall askew. I told them I thought they had done something to the gate and Govey said, "I want to see a pal of mine in the market." Harris said the same. They said their pal had promised to give them a drink in the "A 1 Tower." I asked them where the man was likely to be found, seeing it was two o'clock, and they did not open till three. They said they were going to see their friend across the road. Sellers followed them, and I walked towards the gate. I could see a panel in the door had been broken. In a few moments I saw the shadow of a man at the back of the shop. The light they keep at the back of the shop was out. The panels are bright mahogany. I sent for assistance to the Snow Hill Police Station, and the other officers arrived and found Thompson in the gallery. I identify Govey and Harris.

To Govey. The street in the market is not dark. The vans were in the road and I had to pass between them. I saw you and Harris and two other men at 1.20, 1.30, and 1.45. I cannot solve the problem of how you got there by 1.20 if you did not leave home till after 1.30.

ARTHUR SMITH , van guard in the emptoy of the Great Northern Railway. About 2 a.m. on November 9 I was behind my van going along Charterhouse Street. I saw four men loitering round Messrs. Rushbrooke's premises, 71, Charterhouse Street. I do not identify the prisoners. The men watched the police go by, and then two of them opened the gate by pulling it. The other man got through the gate and then through the glass of the door, which was broken. The two men closed the gate. I watched them till the two market constables came up and spoke to them. The two men walked through the marked and one constable followed them and the other stood at the gate till the City police arrived. The police waited awhile and then opened the gate, got through the glass and fetched a man out. I do not know who it was. I only saw it from a distance. I know that the two men the policemen went up and spoke to are the two men who opened that gate and closed it.

To Govey. I was 20 yards away from the shop. I saw everything plainly.

ALBERT HOLMES , carman employed by the Great Northern Railway. About 2 a.m. on November 9 I was driving my van up Charterhouse Street, when I saw four men loitering round the premises of Messrs. Rushbrooke's. I pulled up on the opposite kerb and told a ticket collector to call the police. On returning to my van I saw two of the prisoners closing the gate. On the arrival of the policemen the two men walked away from the gate. The policemen stopped them and spoke to them, and one followed them through the market. The other went to the gate of the shop and examined it. I do not identify the men, but the two men the policemen spoke to were two of the four I saw round the premises.

To Govey. I drew up at the gate into the market almost opposite the shop. I never went into the market at all. The ticket-collector is just opposite the market gate. I have never said I sent the boy to fetch the police; I said I told the ticket-collector to do so. What happened at the Guildhall was this. I was asked whether I identified the prisoners and I said no. I did not hear what the clerk said afterwards. He did not ask me what I saw, and I did not reply "Nothing." I made my statement to the police on November 9.

Govey. Then why was not this evidence produced at the Guildhall or at the Mansion House on the 15th? Have you made this up? I do not believe a word you say.

Judge Rentoul (to Govey). You are sailing dangerously near the wind, and you know what I mean by that.

JAMES BURKE , salesman to George Rushbrooke, clothier, 67 to 71, Charterhouse Street. I left the premises at 5.30 on November 8. They were then securely locked and bolted. On the following morning at 6 I found the gate had been lifted from its hinges and the panel of the door had been smashed. There were three coats and a rainproof lying on the floor. They could not have fallen there. I identify these coats (produced). Their value is £6 10s. There were six jemmy marks on the door.

GEORGE GOVEY (prisoner, not on oath). I had to see a man at the market who promised to get me work at the Cold Air Storage. He had promised Harris some work on the previous day. I left home about 1.30 and I had 20 minutes' walk to Smithfield. I got there about 1.50. 1 saw this man (Harris) outside the post office at Cowcross Street. We stopped there talking till 2 by the clock in the Meat Market. We walked down Charterhouse Street to go over towards the gate when the constables came up to us. (Prisoner gave a story of what passed, which agreed with that of the constables.) We saw Thompson at the station. He said he was charged with stealing a pig. He was drunk. When the inspector came, Constable Fagg said he had seen me and Harris twice previous to the arrest; he never mentioned anything about Thompson or a fourth man. He gave no evidence at the Mansion House, and the carman gave no evidence till to-day. The street is very dark. We being the first men the constables saw they took hold of us. If Sellers had waited a few minutes till the man Barker, who promised us work, was found everything would have been explained, but he was excited; he was trembling like a leaf. There was no cause for it. I did not attempt to strike him. He would not tell me what he wanted us for; he said he would tell me later on.

FREDERICK HARRIS (prisoner, not on oath). I can only say the same as Govey.

A Juror. Could not they have called Barker to prove the appointment?

Govey. We do not know his address, but one of my friends has seen him and he says he would willingly come if it was not for the market constables concerned in the case. He works for a firm in the market and he says they have a lot of influence with the men in the market and he is afraid of getting himself into trouble.

Judge Rentoul. You have had a warning, Govey, and it is necessary now, I think, to put the jury in posession of your reputation. (To the Jury.) This man has been convicted twelve or fourteen times already. Call the evidence.

JOHN MORGAN , 572 F, proved several previous convictions for stealing against Govey.

Verdict (Govey and Harris), Guilty.

Previous convictions were proved in the case of Thompson and Harris.

Sentences: Thompson and Govey (each), Eighteen months' hard labour; Harris, Twelve months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-31
VerdictNot Guilty > no evidence

Related Material

CARLTON, Ada (20) , stealing one pocket book, 2,000 francs, the sum of £30 and a purse containing 200 francs and the sum of £1 10s., the property of Alphonse Lonys, from his person.

Mr. Davenport (for the prosecution) said that since the case was committed the cabman in which cab the robbery was alleged to have taken place had been found, and his evidence put an entirely different

complexion on the matter. There had been two women present and prisoner had nothing found on her at the time she left the hansom. He therefore offered no evidence against her.

The Jury, by direction of his Lordship, returned a verdict of Not guilty.


(December 8 and 9.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-32
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > directed
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SYMON, James (41, chemist), BRETT, Gertrude (38), and WINKEL, Barend Machiel (39, manager) . Symon and Brett; feloniously using an instrument called a catheter upon Beatrice Gregg with intent to procure her miscarriage on September 27, October 2, and October 8, 1911. Winkel; unlawfully inciting and soliciting Beatrice Gregg to feloniously aid and abet the use of such instrument to procure her miscarriage and also supplying a noxious thing, viz., 21 pills containing permanganate of potash, to Beatrice Gregg with intent to procure her miscarriage.

Symon and Brett pleaded guilty; Winkel pleaded not guilty.

Symon and Brett were also charged with feloniously using an instrument called a catheter upon Kathleen Allen on November 15 with intent to procure her miscarriage. To this prisoners pleaded not guilty.

The case of Winkel was proceeded with.

Mr. Leycester and Mr. Montague Shearman prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.

At the close of the case for the Grown, Mr. Gill submitted that, there being no corroboration of the evidence of Beatrice Gregg, who was herself an accomplice, there was no case to go to the jury.

Mr. Leycester stated that the question he would ask the jury to consider, if the case were left to them, would be whether, on being arrested, prisoner would have denied giving the £5 note to Beatrice Gregg (this fact being borne out by independent testimony) if he had an innocent object in so doing.

Mr. Justice Avory held that there was no corroboration. The question of the kind of corroboration which was required must always depend upon the nature of the charge which was being inquired into. The whole case against the prisoner of being an accessory before the fact depended upon what he was alleged to have said to Beatrice Gregg (admittedly an accomplice and a principal offender) which, it was alleged, amounted to an indirect counseling or procuring of her, through Symon and Brett, to commit the offence. Undoubtedly there was independent evidence to show that prisoner and she were on terms of intimacy and that he might possibly have been the father of her child, but it would certainly be wrong to ask any jury to infer from that fact that he was guilty of the offence alleged. It was impossible to say, too, that the fact borne out also by independent, evidence, that the prisoner gave her a £5 note on the morning of the

day on which the operation was performed, was any corroboration, since there was no evidence to show that this had, in fact, reached the hands of Symon or Brett; on the contrary, this payment was consistent with it having been one of the payments made to her, according to the admitted promise of the prisoner, for her keep.

By direction of his Lordship the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

Sentences: Symon, Three years' penal servitude; Brett, Twelve months' hard labour.


(Friday, December 8.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-33
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Not Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ROLTON, Joseph (50, agent) , feloniously uttering counterfeit coin twice within 10 days.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.

JOSEPH LAW , bookseller, Cecilian Avenue, Southampton Row, W.C. On November 13 about 9.30 p.m. prisoner came into my shop. He had in his hand a two penny piece of music, which he had taken from the stand outside. He tendered me a half-crown in payment, which he had ready in the same hand. He had nine to a dozen 2s. pieces or half-crowns, in the other hand. He saw that I was suspicious about the coin, and he wanted to give me another, but I took it to my neighbour across the avenue, who was at his door. Prisoner was at my shop door when I returned, and he immediately ran away. I followed, and overtook him 150 yards away, when a constable came on the scene and I gave him in charge. I at once ran back to my shop and asked the constable to bring prisoner along. When prisoner was brought in he advanced towards me in a threatening manner, and, raising his fist, twice repeated, "I will pay you for this." I have not seen the piece of music since. On September 5 prisoner came into my shop, and brought a small book in, in the same manner, from the stand outside. The price was threepence; he gave me a bad 2s. piece in payment, and I gave him 1s. 9d. change, and he went away. I have not the slighest doubt prisoner is the man. I found out at once that the coin was bad and went outside to see if I could find the man, but he left very hurriedly. I then took the coin to Gray's Inn Road Police Station and explained the matter to the Inspector.

Cross-examined by prisoner. You did have a handful of silver in one hand, and a coin, which I say was counterfeit, and the piece of music in the other. It was a very peculiar attitude. I did not say, "This coin looks lather funny," and you did not say, "Does it? have another one." I say you threatened me when the constable brought you to my shop. I did tell the constable that you had been in my shop the week before November 13 and given me a bad 2s. piece, but I said it hurriedly without having time to collect my thoughts.

Re-examined. I had been running after prisoner, and at the moment I made that statement to the constable, when I gave prisoner

in charge, I did not know exactly how long before it was that prisoner had been in my shop. I have recollected since, and I am able to fix the date because I made a careful note in my diary at the time.

ADA LAW , wife of last witness. On September 5 I saw prisoner in the shop. He bought a small book for threepence, and gave my husband a 2s. piece that was a bad one. I saw my husband give him 1s. 9d. change. I handled the 2s. piece myself and bounced it on the counter and made a remark to my husband about it. On November 21 I picked prisoner out from about eight other men.

To prisoner. I said at the police court that I found out after you had gone on September 5 that the coin was bad by the ring of it. You had on the suit you are now wearing. I swear to the suit; it was a light one. My husband did not give me a minute description of you in order to enable me to identify you.

Police-sergeant JAMES BENNETT. On November 13 about 9.30 p.m. I was on duty in Bloomsbury Square, when I saw prisoner running towards me from the direction of Cecilian Avenue, followed by prosecutor. Prisoner stopped when he saw me, and prosecutor said, "Arrest this man, he has just given me a bad half-crown, and he did the same thing about a week ago." Prisoner said, "I know nothing about it." Prosecutor said, "Has he got a piece of music with him?" Prisoner said, "No, search me if you like." I then took him back to prosecutor's shop and searched him. I found on him 10s. in gold, seven half-crowns, three-2s. pieces, three shillings, two sixpences, and 10 1/2 d. in bronze. I took him to Gray's Inn Road Police Station where he was charged. He replied, "Right." In the shop he put his fist up to prosecutor and Said something, but I could not hear what it was he said. Prosecutor handed me the counterfeit half-crown when he first came up. Exhibit 1 is the coin; I marked it myself. On November 21 I was present at Bow Street Police Court when prisoner was at once picked out by Mrs. Law from a number of other men as the man who on September 5 gave her husband a counterfeit 2s. piece in purchase of a small book. He was charged with that and made no reply.

To prisoner. I was close to you, and, although it is my duty to take note of everything that is said, I did not hear you threaten prosecutor. Prosecutor, you, and myself walked back to the shop together. You gave no trouble and offered no obstruction to my searching you.

Detective sergeant ALFRED SAUNDERS. On November 21 prisoner was placed among nine other men. He objected, and said they must all have dark overcoats on like the one he was wearing. He was afterwards placed among nine other men all dressed in dark overcoats. He then asked that they should all take their hats off. This was allowed, and he was at once identified by Mrs. Law.

Inspector FREDERICK HUSSEY, E Division. On September 5 prosecutor brought to me at Gray's Inn Road Police Station a counterfeit florin. The coin produced (Exhibit 2) is the one; I initialed it.

To prisoner. He told me that the man who presented the coin was about 40 years of age and about 5 ft. 3 or 4 in. in height.

JOSEPH LAW , recalled. I cannot identify the counterfeit half-crown (Exhibit 1). I gave it to the police-constable when he arrested prisoner.

SYDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. The coins produced (Exhibits 1 and 2) are counterfeit.


JOSEPH ROLTON (prisoner on oath). On September 5 I was in the employ of Mr. Melrose, furniture dealer, Grand Parade, Mitcham. I knew he had moved, and I only got his new address on Monday last, when I at once telegraphed from this Court, "Melrose, 7, Milkwood Road, Loughborough Junction. Was I working for you September 5? If so, telegraph what time I left your shop. Reply paid. Rolton, prisoner, Old Bailey." Two hours afterwards I received this reply, "Rolton, prisoner, Old Bailey. You were working for me September 5; left between 5 and 7. Melrose." His wife and other people connected with the business could prove that I was there on that day, but I have had no time to call them. I am 50 years of age, not 40; 5 ft. 6 in., not 5 ft. 3 or 4 in. With regard to the November 13 charge, I do not know that it was a bad coin I was tendering.

Cross-examined. Detective-sergeant Saunders did ask me at Bow Street on November 14 if I could give him the names of any persons or friends whom he could go and see, and I said, "Not now," but I sent him a list afterwards. Ho also said, "I will do anything to help you in your defence consistent with my duty." I do not remember him asking for the names of people I had worked for. I do not remember him asking me the same question on the 21st but he did on the 27th in Brixton Prison. I said I would communicate with them myself as they were respectable people, and I did not want them interefered with by the police. On Sunday last I did write him the letter produced, and on Monday, as soon as I got Mr. Melrose's address, I telegraphed him.

Verdict, Guilty of passing the half-crown to Mr. Law on November 13, knowing that it was a bad one.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this Court on November 19, 1907, of possessing counterfeit coin.

Prisoner was further indicted for that he is a habitual criminal. Detective-sergeant ALFRED SAUNDERS, E Division, produced the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to this charge being made against prisoner, also the notice to the Court, and service of the notice upon prisoner.

Detective-inspector CARLING. On February 21, 1902, I was present at Maidstone Assizes when prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal servitude for obtaining £320 by false pretences. On July 21, 1902, he was brought up on a Home Office order and convicted at this Court of obtaining goods by false pretences and sentenced to three

years' penal servitude. He was also indicted for bigamy and received a further sentence of three years, to run consecutively. He practically married four women in twelve months.

To prisoner. I have made inquiries as to your past character. I cannot say that you have led a dishonest life from the age of 16, but I can say that you have done so for some considerable time. You had served in the Army up to 1892, and I believe left with a good character.

To the Court. On November 1, 1898, prisoner, in the name of Stanley, was sentenced at North London Sessions to 22 months' hard labour for stealing furniture belonging to a woman he cohabited with.

Detective-inspector ALBERT YEO, K Division. On November 19, 1907, I was present at this Court when prisoner was sentenced in the name of Stanley to three years' penal servitude for possessing counter-feit coin. His licence was then revoked, and he is wanted for failing to report. He came out on March 25.

ALFRED SAUNDERS , recalled. I saw prisoner at Bow Street Police Court on November 14 and 21, and on each occasion asked him for the names and addresses of persons for whom he had worked since his liberation, or to whom he could refer me. He declined to give me any. I repeated my request at Brixton Prison on the 27th and he asked me for my name and station and said he would write to me. I received a letter from him on Tuesday, after this Sittings commenced, and I made inquiries of the people he mentioned. Mr. Allan Hay told me that he had known prisoner for some time, that he had waylaid him in the street, and that he had given him occasional sums of 5s., and had advised him to go straight, but he was unable to say whether he was doing so or not. The same day I saw Mr. Barnard, of Landor Road, Clapham. He says he has given prisoner odd days of work as often as his business allowed him to do so from June to August. I asked him if he could give me Mr. Melrose's address, and he told me he was unable to do so. Prisoner has not reported since June 25; he ought to report on the 25th of each month.

Prisoner, called upon for his defence, read the following letter from Mr. Barnard: "Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of your letter asking or a reference. I have no objection to stating the time you worked for me here and that I would employ you again if you need it for such work as I can give. I do not remember the date you first worked for me, but I believe in May last, at the last time some time in September. I can only say I always found you honest and willing, and I regret I was not always able to give-you employment when you asked for it. Mr. Melrose has now moved from where you used to work for him. I am not quite certain of his address, but I am sure he will give you a reference for the time you were with him. Best wishes.—Yours truly, T. Barnard." Prisoner had also written to Rev. H. C. Pigott, Chaplain of Dartmoor Prison, in April last, asking for his assistance to find work, and produced copies of his letters to him and the replies.

Verdict, Not guilty of being a habitual criminal. Sentence (for the coining offence), Four years' penal servitude.


(Friday, December 8.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-34
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

KENNEDY, John (30, carpenter), and BROWN, Alfred (31, scaf-folder) , stealing two rings, the goods of Frederick Bravington.

Mr. J. F. Vesey FitzGerald prosecuted; Mr. Wickham defended Brown.

THOMAS PAYNE , salesman to Frederick Bravington, 298, Pentonville Road. About 6.30 on September 6 Kennedy came into my shop followed by another man. Kennedy said, "I want a diamond ring." I took one from the window and gave it to him to examine. He took it to the centre of the shop to examine. Brown said he also wanted to purchase a ring; he could not pay for it; he could leave £2 and call for it the following day. Kennedy stood in the centre of the shop for some time; the other man stood near the counter. All of a sudden there was a dash. I think they both turned together. Brown snatched at the tray and snatched a diamond marquise ring worth £22. They both ran out. I shouted. Alfred Meek followed them. He was at the opposite counter. Walter Beard, another assistant, also heard me shout. Prisoner had been in the shop 15 to 20 minutes. I picked Brown out from 15 to 20 men at the police court four or five days afterwards. He was then dressed in a bowler hat and mackintosh. When he was in the shop he had a collar and tie, a dark jacket and vest, and dark overcoat.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. This occurred about 6.30. I am not aware that Detective-sergeant Lang said it was five minutes to six. (Witness was asked to turn his back to Brown and describe him.) Clean shaved, very strong mouth and strong chin, with wrinkled fore-head. I cannot say the colour of eyes. It was by his features I recognised him. I should be surprised if I was told that he had not had a dark overcoat for 10 years. When I identified him it might have been a week after, not 16 days. I said at the police court, "I have never seen him before." He had bought a ring at our shop before, but I did not serve him. He was wearing a mackintosh when I picked him out. I was at the police court with Beard, who said, "I really cannot say I saw the second man." Meek says, "I do not recognise Brown," the reason being that he was at the opposite counter and the two men had their backs to him.

Cross-examined by Kennedy. I recognised you when you were brought back to the shop.

To Mr. Wickham. I did not hear No. 5 called out when I went to identify. I was shut in a room while this was going on.

WALTER BEARD , assistant at Bravington's. Between 6 and 615 on September 6 two men came into the shop. I have identified

Kennedy as one of them. I heard Payne shout. I turned round and saw Kennedy running out of the door. I gave chase and caught him. As I was at the back of the shop I could not get a good view of Brown.

To Mr. Wickham. I said at the police court, "I cannot say I saw the second man." After I had said at the police court I had not seen a second man I was sent for, and Brown was put in the midst of a row of men for me to try and pick him out.

To Kennedy. I did not see you enter the shop. I saw you leave. I ran out behind other assistants. When Payne shouted I first glanced and saw Kennedy running out of the door. I did not notice any other man. Brown must have gone when I turned to put the tray in the drawer at the back. The door by which he left was behind a pillar.

EDGAR WILLIAM MEEK , salesman at Bravington's. Between 6 and 6.30 on November 6 I saw two men come into the shop. One was Kennedy. He asked for the ring and brought it to the centre of the shop to examine. I was at the counter opposite where prisoners were, about 8 ft. off. I saw Kennedy's face; the other man had his back to me. Kennedy made a dash out of the shop. I pursued and caught him at the top of the Metropolitan Railway steps. I lost sight of him for a second time as he passed out of the door round the window. I then had a full view of the same man running across the road.

To Mr. Wickham. I am certain there was a second man. I left him in the shop when I pursued Kennedy. I do not recognise Brown at all. I said the second man was about my own stamp. I do not think I am as tall as Kennedy. Although I said I could not identify the second man I was asked to go. I picked out the wrong man. He bore no resemblance to Brown.

Police-constable WILFRED GREEN, 145 G. I was on point duty, directing traffic, at 6.30 on November 6 when I was called to the shop. Kennedy was there. He made no statement. I took him to King's Cross Road Police Station, where he was charged. He made no statement there. He was searched. He had no rings.

Sergeant JAMES LANG, G Division. In consequence of information and a description I received from Payne, I arrested Brown at Albany Street Police Station. I said to him, "I am going to take you to King's Cross Road Police Station, where you will be put up for identification for being concerned with a man, named John Kennedy, in stealing two diamond rings from Bravington's, jeweller's shop at King's Cross, about 6.15 on the 6th of this month." He said, "That was bonfire night. I was at Stepney at five o'clock. I then drove to Hampstead, where I was till 11 o'clock." I took him to King's Cross Road Police Station, where he was eventually placed with nine other men. I was there. We got men as near prisoner's age as possible. Payne was called by the inspector on duty; he looked up the line and at once went up and touched Brown. Brown was then dressed at he is now. Whilst the charge was being entered Brown said to Payne, "Don't you think you have made a mistake?" Payne replied,

"No, I am positive you are the man." In reply to the charge Brown said, "I know nothing about it; I can prove where I was."

To Mr. Wickham. I communicated with an officer who knew Brown that I was looking for him and he saw him and took him to Albany Stree Police Station. Beard never said to me that he had not seen another man in the shop. If he had told me that I should not have let him pick out another man. I was not in court when Meek gave evidence. As Brown was going to be in the dock with another man it was only fair he should be put up for identification. I was present at the identification and swear that No. 5 was not called out. This is the first time I have heard any complaint about No. 5 being called out.


ALFRED BROWN (prisoner, on oath). I reside at 102, Little Albany Street with my mother. I was arrested by a detective from Albany Street Police Station. He said he did not know why he was arresting me. He said Mr. Lang would tell me. When I saw Mr. Lang he told me what he has stated here. I said, "When did it occur." He said, "November 6." I said, "What time." He said, "About half-past six." "I said, "I was up at Hampstead at that time and can prove it." About five o'clock on November 6, with my master, Edwin Hooper, and Gold we drove from 82, Stepney Green to Hampstead. I did not leave them at any time during the journey. Hooper left me for about five minutes in Tottenham Court Road to go to an auction room. On my oath I was not in Bravington's and know nothing about this ring. I had bought two rings at Bravington's previously and that is the reason why I believe Pavne thinks he has seen me before. Little Albany Street is about three-quarters of a mile from Bravington's. I am often in that neighbourhood. At the identification they first fetched in eight or nine men with caps on. I had on a billycock hat. I objected to stand up. They then fetched in three or four men with billycock hats. I said I was satisfied. I did not have the mackintosh on. The inspector said, "Do you want to take off your mackintosh?" I said, "Yes," and placed it on the seat. My brother complained that my number had been called out. Meek identified a man much taller than me. That was 14 or 15 days after. I have not worn a dark overcoat for four years. No dark coat would have been found at my mother's.

Cross-examined. I am assistant to a dealer in cheap jewellery. I have bought two rings previously at Bravington's, one for me and one for my young lady. I have neither of those here. (Mr. Payne: His solicitor produced two of our receipts.) Kennedy was not employed by Hooper. The fourth man in the trap was a stranger to me. The route we took from Stepney Green to Hampstead was along Mile End Road, Whitechapel, Great Eastern Street, I believe, Old Street, Clerkenwell, past Holborn Town Hall, Theobalds Road, Tottenham Court Road. We turned round by the "Horse Shoe." The auction room is opposite there.

EDWIN HOOPER , 82, Stepney Green. Prisoner was in my employ. (Witness confirmed Brown's evidence as to the journey to Hampstead.)

Cross-examined. When I was asked at the police court what roads we crossed after City Road I thought for a moment and answered. The solicitor for the defence did not suggest what roads we took. I was a few minutes in the auction room; it is like a gateway; the front is right out. Icould see what was going on in the trap. I should not allow my assistant to leave when he likes or do what he likes.

JOSEPH GOLD , 106, Vallance Road, Bethnal Green. I am employed by Mr. Hooper. At 5 p.m. on November 6 we went from Stepney Green to Hampstead. We went by Mile End Road, Whitechapel Road, Commercial Street, Great Eastern "Street, Theobalds Road, Oxford Street, Tottenham Court Road, waited outside the auction room; Mr. Hooper went inside. Brown was with me the whole time. I left him at 10.45 at Somers Town.

Cross-examined. The fourth man in the cart was a paper boy we picked up at Stepney Green to look after the pony. He looked about 17. The evidence I gave at Clerkenwell was afterwards read over to me. I thought when I was asked if we stopped at all between Stepney and Hampstead the question meant if we stopped outside a public-house.

JOHN KENNEDY (prisoner, on oath). I had just left the "Victoria" public-house, King's Cross, about six when this robbery is supposed to have been. I was hurrying, towards the railway station in order to catch a train when two young men tapped me on the shoulder and requested me to go with them to the shop, which I did, and there they charged me. I had not been previously in the shop. I am innocent.

EDWIN HOOPER recalled. (To Judge Rentoul.) I have employed Brown four months. I was standing at Somers Town selling jewellery. He was there. I was short of a man and took him on. He has satisfied me. He has hasstoflen nothing from me. He could have done; I have dozens of watches. I had no reference with him.

Verdict (each), Guilty.

Numerous convictions were proveu against each prisoner.

Sentence (each), Twelve months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-35
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

RICHARDSON, Gertrude Louisa (22, laundress) pleaded guilty of endeavouring to conceal the birth of her male child; stealing two nightdresses, the goods of John Bailey.

Prisoner was released on her own and another's recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-36
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

LANGLEY, William (33, clerk), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal order for 10s., a postal order for 11s, and a postal order for 10s. 6d., the goods of Boilerene, Limited, his masters.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £10 and another's in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-37
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties; Miscellaneous > sureties; Miscellaneous

Related Material

HALL, Albert (26, salesman), and SAUNDERS, Morris, pleaded guilty of stealing two rolls of dress material, the goods of J. and C. Boyd and Co., Limited, the masters of Hall; attempting to steal two rolls of dress material, the goods of J. and C. Boyd and Co., Limited, the masters of Hall; stealing 13 rolls of cloth, the goods of J. and C. Boyd and Co., Limited, the masters of Hall; conspiring and agreeing together to steal the goods of J. and C. Boyd and Co., Limited.

Hall was released on his own recognisances in £10 and another's in £20, Saunders, on his own and another's recognisances in £20 each, to come up for judgment if called upon; Saunders to pay the costs of the prosecution.


(Saturday, December 9.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-38
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

WILSON, Gladys (23, actress) , maliciously setting fire to a dwelling house, divers persons being therein; maliciously damaging certain bedding and furniture, the goods of Henry Erslinger, to the exten. of £5.

The second indictment was proceeded with.

Mr. Muir prosecuted; Mr. Patrick Hastings defended.

ALICE BORLSTON , St. Andrew's Chambers, Wells Street, W. I know prisoner. I met her in the Pavilion on the night of November 15. At her request I went to her flat at 13, Bude Mansions, with her. At the Pavilion she said, "I have found my boy's photograph in another's girl's flat," and showed me a photograph torn in two. 1 cannot quite remember what she had to drink, but she only had one with me. When we got to the flat she was very excited; she packed all her things up. The taxi man took one packet down and she asked me to take the other. I went down and waited outside about 15 minutes. I then told the taxi man to go and hurry her up. He went up and met her on the stairs. On leaving I noticed lights in the bedroom window of the flat. We then drove to the cloak room station at Charing Cross, where we put her things. We had a drink and took the taxi to outside the "Excelsior" public-house, which is opposite her flat; she stopped him there. She paid the man and rushed across the road to her flat without saying a word. I did not hear the taxi man say anything to her. I went over and waited outside. She same down screaming "Fire!" She had had time to go up and come down from her flat. She never said anything to me that night as to how her boy had treated her.

Cross-examined. Prisoner told me that she was leaving her boy because he knocked her about; that was either in the taxi or in the Pavilion; I cannot remember which. I understood her reason for leaving the flat was finding the photograph. I do not think she told me that Erslinger, her boy, had taken all his things out of the flat earlier in the day or that she had been to consult a solicitor who had advised her to leave him. I think she put all her clothes into one basket; she did not tell me she was coming back

to get more clothes. When leaving the flat she called my attention to the fact that the lights were on, but did not say that she had done it on purpose; the cabman had called her attention to it. On returning to the flat the cabman did not say someone had left the lights on.

Police-constable CHARLES PELL, C Division, produced and proved a plan of the flat, No. 3, Bude Mansions, stating that it consisted of three rooms facing Charing Cross Road.

Police-sergeant ALFRED BRADLEY, C 32. At 10.50 p.m. on November 15 I was on duty in Button Street, when I heard a woman scream and saw her rush into Charing Cross Road. I went up and saw prisoner standing outside the entrance of Bude Mansions, being held by Police-constable Pattison; she appeared hysterical, but, in my opinion, she was not; she was shouting, "Oh, save my dog." I asked her what was the matter and she said the flat was on fire. I saw smoke coming from the third floor window. I gave the alarm and then went upstairs and tried to force the door, which was locked; there was no smoke on the landing. The Fire Brigade arrived, forced the door and put the fire out. On examining No. 1 bedroom I found the bedding, the window curtains, the top of the dressing table facing the bed and the wickerwork of two chairs were burnt. It may be that the bedding was set alight and set fire to the curtains and the flames may have spread over to the dressing table, but how the chairs came to be alight I cannot explain. In No. 3 room the fringe round the mantelboard was burnt and the board itself was scorched. There was also a small hole burnt in the middle of the tablecloth; there was a distance of about 5 ft. between that spot and the mantel border. In No. 2 room the fringe round the mantelboard and part of the mattress were burnt; there was no connection between the two. The cupboard above the door was smoked. Prisoner came up to the flat and I asked her if she could explain how the fire had happened. She said, "I do not know how it happened. I came home with my friend Dorothy (Alice Borlston) at about 10 o'clock and packed some of my things and took them in a taxi-cab to Charing Cross Station. We left about 20 or 25 past 10. After leaving the luggage at Charing Cross Station we drove back in the taxi-cab and when outside the 'Excelsior' I saw the flat was on fire. I ran across the road and ran upstairs and then the police came." I asked her whose flat it was, and she said, "Erslinger's flat. I pay the rent for him to live. To day he went away at 6.30 and took his things with him."

Cross-examined. She also said, "I am living here with Erslinger. I moved some of my things as I am going to leave him. I am afraid he will knock me about to-night when he comes back." The only thing I saw in the flat in the way of woman's clothes was a pair of corsets, but I did not look carefully. I did not look to see if Erslinger had taken his things away.

Re-examined. It was after she said that Erstinger had gone away taking his things with him that she said she was afraid he would knock her about that night when he came back.

BENJAMIN ROBERT COOPER , Station Officer, Theobald's Road Fire Brigade Station. At 10.57 p.m. on November 15 we received a call to Bude Mansions. Flat No. 3 was closed; there was apparently a fire inside. We broke it open. There was no dog inside. In room No. 1 the bed and bedding and several other articles were burnt. but the bedding was the only thing that was alight Some chairs and the window curtains had been also burnt. The fire all seemed to be from one origin. In the dining room some fireplace decorations and the mantelboard had been burnt and there was also a small hole in the centre of the tablecloth, which might have been done before; there seemed to be no connection between the two. There appeared to be two origins of fire in the bedroom No. 2. Altogether there were four fires.

Cross-examined. When I got in the electric light was on in the dining room and No. 1 bedroom; Fireman Kent, who was the first one in, told me he had found them so. The mantelboard in the dining-room was still smouldering; it had probably been alight longer than five minutes because there was very little draught in the room. The bedding in No. 2 room may have been burning 15 minutes. There was a window open in that room.

(Monday, December 11.)

WALTER HARRY PETERS , taxi-cab driver. About 10 p.m. on November 15 two ladies engaged my cab near the Pavilion Music Hall. Prisoner was one and Miss Borlston the other. I was told to drive up Long Acre, and they stopped me at some mansions there by tapping on the window. They both went in and told me to wait. They came down again in about five minutes' time, and one of them told me to drive to Bude Mansions. When I got there they went upstairs and told me to wait. In about 10 minutes Miss Borlston came down, and in consequence of what she said I went upstairs into a bedroom about the third floor up. Wilson was putting some clothes into a basket. She then asked me to carry the basket down and put it in the cab, which I did. Miss Borlston followed me down with a box. Then prisoner came down and told me to drive to the Left Luggage Office at Charing Cross Station. They deposited the things there, and then told me to drive to the "Excelsior" public-house, opposite Bude Mansions. Prisoner then went into Bude Mansions, and in a few minutes came down screaming, "Fire; save my dog! "When we first got to the "Excelsior "I looked up at the flat. They asked me what I was looking up for, and I said, "Someone has been in and turned the lights out." I noticed when we left the first time that the light had been left on, in all the three rooms I should say, and I told them they had left the lights on, and prisoner said, "Never mind; let 'em put another shilling in." I did not see any smoke when I looked up at the flat when we came back, but I noticed it afterwards.

Cross-examined. Prisoner did not say, "Let them burn out; he will have to put another shilling in." She said, "Never mind, let 'em put another shilling in."

FREDERICK JOHN KENT , fireman, Theobald's Road Station. About 11 p.m. on November 15 I arrived at Bude Mansions with a horse escape. The flat appeared to be in darkness and smoke was issuing from the windows. I went up the escape and entered No. 1 bedroom by the window. The electric light was alight. I did not go into any of the other rooms. The door was being forced open by station-officer Cooper when I went to it.

Cross-examined. I made no report. I first mentioned that the electric light was on when I was questioned by station-officer Cooper on the night of the fire. I do not know that the magistrate asked him whether the lights were on in the flat and he said he did not know. He has not spoken to me since the hearing before the magistrate about this. I did not mention about the electric light being on until the detective took my statement on Saturday night.

Police-constable ALFRED PATTERSON, 451 C. On November 17 up to 11 p.m I was on duty near Bude Mansions. About 10 o'clock I saw a taxi drive up there. It drove away about 10.20 and returned about 10.50 to the "Excelsior" public-house. Wilson went up to the flat followed by Miss Borlston and shortly afterwards she came down screaming, "Fire, save my dog." She appeared to be hysterical, but I do not think she was.

Detective-sergeant JOHN PROTHEROE, C Division. About 11 p.m. on November 16 I saw prisoner in Piccadilly Circus. I said, "I am a police officer. I want you to accompany me to Vine Street Police Station in connection with the fire at your flat." She said, "Am I to be kept at Vine Street all night? You cannot prove that I have done it." At Vine Street,. Divisional-inspector Fowler told her, you will be charged with unlawfully and maliciously setting fire to two bedsteads and other parts of furniture in flat No. 3, Bude Mansions, 162, Charing Cross oad." She said, "I do not care. How can you say that I set fire to the flat? You have got to prove it. Who told you that I had put the at on fire? Erslinger said he would kill me last night, and he would have done it, too." In the formal charge the furniture is described as Erslinger's property, and when it was read she said, "You mean the ponce." On the way to the station she also said, "You will have to prove it; that is that dirty ponce, Erslinger." At the time of the formal reading of the charge she said, turning to the witness Borlston, who was present, "You have done this. You wait and see what I will do for you I know of plenty of men to set upon you."

Cross-examined. Prisoner is a prostitute. After asking if she would be kept at Vine Street all night, she said, "You will have to prove it; it is that ponce, Erslinger." I made a careful examination of the flat on the 16th and found neither women's nor men's clothing there. I did not know that she took her clothing on the 16th to another woman's flat.

HENRY ERSLINGER , 162, Charing Cross Road, professional wrestler. I am tenant of flat No. 3, Bude Mansions. The furniture there is mine. It was not insured. In August prisoner came to live with me. Just before the fire we had a little quarrel. On November 14 prisoner brought in a lady friend named Duncan. I said, "You are not allowed to bring anyone up here," and I went to turn them out. She resisted, and I took her by the arm and tried to push her out but she fell down, and they went into their own bedroom and I locked them in. Next morning I asked her what she was going to do. I said, "It is not right bringing ladies up here," and she said, "I am not going to stop here; I am going to Paris." I then left the flat and took another room at 80, Marchmont Street. I returned at 4.30 for my clothes. Prisoner asked me if I would take her dog, and I consented, and took the dog together with my clothing. I left her in the flat. On the evening of the 15th I was in the company of two ladies, Miss Rainsford and Mrs. Fisher, at their flat, 60, Bedford Court Mansions, from 6.30 till 11.45. I did not go out at all during that time.

Cross-examined. I did not know that prisoner was a prostitute. I knew it from several people afterwards. She never carried on her profession at my flat. I earn my living by wrestling and giving instructions in wrestling. Prisoner did not give me many pounds every week. I bought the furniture on the hire system; it is not quite paid for yet. I did not know that it belonged to the Hackney Furnishing Company until it was paid for. There were other things of mine in the flat on the night of the fire; there was some wrestling stuff there—sweaters, and so on, and all my fittings and blinds. I had taken away all my clothes the morning before the fire, but I believed the furniture was mine. I did say at the police court that I was at 80, Marchmont Street with a lady named Fisher unpacking my clothes, and I was there from about 5.30 to 6 o'clock. I also said I was there from 6.30 to 11.30; that is not true. I was with Miss Rainsford and Mrs. Fisher during that time. I have seen Miss Rainsford in court, and I knew you could have tested my story about 80, Marchmont Street. Miss Rainsford has been something more than a friend to me. I passed the flat that was burnt a few minutes before 12 on the night of the fire. I had to pass it going to Leicester Square to get some food for my bull dog. I saw Sergeant Protheroe before the girl was arrested.

Re-examined. In August I was wrestling at Aberystwith and received £121 for that engagement; also at Brighton, £16 or £17. I have the use of a gymnasium in Windmill Street, where I teach wrestling and get about £3 a week from my pupils on the average. I did not mention at the police court that I had been to Bedford Court Mansions because the lady did not want me to mention it.

BERTHA RAINSFORD , 60, Bedford Court Mansions. I am a single woman and know last witness. On the night of the fire he was in my flat from about 6.30 till 11.45. My maid, Mrs. Fisher, was with. me.

Cross-examined. I was first asked about this last Friday week at Vine Street. Sergeant Protheroe asked me to go there.

MRS. MARY FISHER . I am a native of Bohemia, and servant to Miss Rainsford. I was at 60, Bedford Court Mansions on the night of the fire from half-past six till 11.30, when I left to go to my flat at 80, Marchmont Street. Erslinger was there the whole time.

Cross-examined. I go to Miss Rainsford's every day to work. I let rooms at 80, Marchmont Street. Erslinger is one of my paying guests. I knew him before the fire.

JENNIE DUNCAN , 22, West Square, Kennington. I sat beside Wilson in the Pavilion Music Hall on the night of November 15. I saw a girl give her a photograph of Erslinger's; she tore it in two. She did not seem to be much annoyed about it.

Cross-examined. I slept in the flat the night before the fire. Wilson asked me to go home with her as she was afraid of Erslinger. He knocked her about that night and we locked ourselves in one of the bedrooms. I went with prisoner the morning after the fire in a taxi-cab to Charing Cross Station to fetch a hat-box and a basket. I also went with her the same morning to Bude Mansions, where she packed up her dresses and blouses and underclothes in a box, and we took them to my flat.

Cross-examined. I did not know prisoner until the night before the fire. She was a complete stranger to me.

Mr. Hastings submitted, firstly, that there was no evidence that the goods burnt were of the value of £5, and, secondly, that it was not proved that the goods were the property of Erslinger.

Mr. Shearman was allowed to recall Erslinger on the point as to value.

HENRY ERSLINGER , recalled. I have not here the hiring agreement. for the furniture. The damage done amounted in all to about 36s.

On the direction of the Judge the jury found the prisoner Not guilty.


(Saturday, December 9.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-39
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded part guilty; Not Guilty > unknown; Not Guilty > no evidence; Not Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BURKE, Edward (64, bricklayer), and CRINION, Thomas (39, labourer) , both forging, altering, and uttering, knowing the same to be forged and altered, a certain request for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £90 5s., with intent to defraud.

Mr. Muir and Mr. H. Cassie Holden prosecuted; Mr. Tully-Christie defended Burke.

Crinion pleaded guilty of uttering, which plea was accepted by the prosecution.

HENRY WESTON MILLER , 21, Rae Crescent, Tollington Park, ac-countant and cashier, Eagle Film Agency, 49, Greek Street, Soho. On October 28 I drew cheque (produeed) in favour of G. Brooke Wilkinson

for £2 5s. and handed it to O'Toole to be dispatched. It has now been altered to £90 5s.

CHARLES O'TOOLE , shorthand typist, Eagle Film Agency. On Saturday, October 20, at 3 p.m., I posted cheque (produced) with a letter to J. Brooke Wilkinson, 62, Strand, in a pillar-box at Shepherd's Bush. On the following Monday, acting under instructions, I sent a letter by special messenger to the London City and Midland Bank, that being the bank on which the cheque had been drawn.

JOSEPH BROOKE WILKINSON , 62, Strand, cinematograph film manu-facturer. Last October the Eagle Film Agency owed me £2 5s. I never received cheque (produced) nor any letter purporting to contain it. I did not endorse or give authority to anybody to endorse it; the endorsement is not the least like my writing. On Monday, October 30, in the course of a conversation with the Eagle Film Agency on the telephone, they happened to mention the cheque.

CHARLES PERCY MYERS , cashier, London City and Midland Bank, Cambridge Circus. On Monday, October 30, we received a letter from the Eagle Film Agency. At 12.30 p.m. the same day I noticed Burke leaning on the counter as if waiting to be attended to. There were about half a dozen people in the bank; I was the only cashier. Two or three minutes afterwards I noticed Crinion standing two or three feet from the counter, Burke being nearer the door. Seeing Crinion had a cheque in his hand I beckoned to him and he handed me the cheque (produced); I said, "How will you have it?" He said, "£80 in notes and the rest in cash." I then noticed that the cheque was the same number as that which had been mentioned in the letter which we had received that morning from the Eagle Film Agency. I said to Crinion, "You might step in the manager's room a minute." He at once began to make for the door. I called out loudly to a customer in the bank, "Stop that man, Planter," and immediately Burke, who at the time was facing me, turned round with his back towards me and threw himself on Mr. Planter, who had his hand out to catch Crinion, and called out, with one of his arms outstretched, "I want £2 silver." Mr. Planter then shook off Burke and went out after Crinion, who got away. Burke then made for the door; Mr. Planter came back, and caught him, and called out, "This is the man that stopped me from catching the other one, he is in it, we will have him." I took Burke into the manager's room and stated that I had had a cheque which I was told to stop, that Burke stopped Mr. Planter from catching the presenter of the cheque; Planter confirmed what I said. Burke said, "I know nothing about it; I am an innocent man." He was asked for his name and address and gave the name of Edward Burke, and said "I live at Gee's Court, Oxford Street; I am a builder by trade." The manager consulted the Post Office Directory. Burke was asked whether he had any objection to our going with him to that address; he at first protested, but after-wards agreed. All four of us then went in a cab to the Eagle Film Agency and then to Vine Street Police Station.

Cross-examined. I had seen Burke standing at the counter about a couple of minutes before this occurrence; I did not beckon to him

because he did not seem in a hurry to be served. Burke made some objection, which I forget, to going into the manager's room. None of the customers took any interest in this incident. First of all Burke said his business of a builder was at Gee's Court; afterwards he said he was working for a builder. We did not go to Burke's address.

JOHN PLANTER , 96, Charing Cross Road, tobacconist, customer of the London City and Midland Bank, corroborated the last witness.

Sergeant GEORGE SMITH, C Division. On October 30 at 1.20 p.m. Burke was brought to Vine Street Police Station by the manager of the London City and Midland Bank, Mr. Myers, and Mr. Planter. In consequence of a statement the manager made to me I told Burke I was a police officer, cautioned him, and asked him if he would give me any particulars as regards himself to prove his bonâ-fides, as unless he could do that he would probably be charged with being concerned with another man in uttering a forged cheque. He replied, "My name is Edward Burke; I am a highly respectable builder and have resided at No. 5, Gee's Court, for the past two years." I then said to him, "Can you refer me to anyone who knows you?" He said, "It is your business to find out; I will tell the magistrate when I am charged what I want him to know. I shall give you nothing." The facts were then repeated; prisoner said, "I know nothing about the cheque. It is a perfect mistake, I am innocent." He was charged and made no reply.

Detective-inspector HENRY FOWLER, C Division. On October 30 I went to 5, Gee's Court, and made inquiries for Edward Burke. No. 5 is a small chandler's shop, belonging to a man named Thomas, who lets three beds in the back parlour. There were no signs of a builder's business there. I got no information there about Edward Burke, I called again and was shown a small portmanteau in which I found two suits of clothes, two pairs of boots, brush and comb, one or two ties, a few other odds and ends, and two memorandum books, with all the writing rubbed so that I could not read it.

HENRY THOMAS , 5, Gee's Court, Oxford Street, chandler. Burke has rented a bed from me for the last 18 months or so. I know him as William Williams, according to the address on a letter sent to him. He paid 3s. 6d. a week for a bed and washing accommoda-tion. He told me he was employed in a sale room mostly.

Cross-examined. Burke stayed with me until he was arrested. I showed Inspector Fowler everything that belonged to the prisoner.


EDWARD BURKE (prisoner on oath). My name is Edward Burke; I used to lodge with the last witness Thomas. On October 30 at about 12.30 I went into the bank to get change for two sovereigns to pay for some goods I had bought. There were so many people in the bank that I could not get to the counter to be served, and as I was waiting a cashier called out, "Stop that man." There was

a flurry in the bank and Planter ran against me; I did not run against him. I was going into the bank when I heard the cashier shout and Mr. Planter got hold of me and said I was one of the men that was connected with the other man that ran away. I said, "I am nothing to do with the man that has ran out, I will go to the bank manager." In the manager's room I was asked my name and address and I gave my right name and address—Edward Burke, 5, Gee's Court. The manager said he would go with me to my address to see if it was correct, and I agreed. We then gat into a cab, but did not go to Gee's Square. They drove me about for some time and I then volunteered to go to the police station.

Cross-examined. I had not bought any goods that day; I wanted the change to pay for some goods I was going to buy at auction, because they do not give change. At the time I went into the bank I had six sovereigns, one half-sovereign, and 6s. in silver. I had been in the bank a very short time when Planter ran against me. I never said that I wanted change until I got into the bank manager's room. Planter has told a falsehood as to that; the cashier could not hear what I said. I did not hear anybody tell the bank manager that I had called out, "I want £2 of silver." I am known at 5, Gee's Court, as William Williams. I am a porter at Debenham Storr and Co. I told the manager I was a builder because I was once a builder. When Planter came back into the bank I was not about to leave.

Sergeant GEORGE SMITH, recalled by the Court. I searched prisoner at Vine Street Police Station and found on him six sovereigns and 14s. 6d. in silver.

CHARLES LIONEL STOCKFORD , 14, Meath Street, Battersea, porter. On October 30 between 12 and 12.30 I was in the London City and Midland Bank, Cambridge Circus, when I saw a man hand a cheque to the cashier, who looked at something behind the counter, then at the cheque, walked a little way down behind the counter, and beckoned to the man to come. The man walked to the door; the cashier called out, "Hold him, Planter." Planter turned round to catch hold of him when he collided with Burke, who at the time happened to step forward and had his hand up as if he wanted something, and said something, but I never caught what he said. I had never seen Burke before that.

Cross-examined. I did not see what was in Burke's hand. Planter just put his head out of the door and then put it in again. Burke was in the bank some little time before this occurred.

(Monday, December 11.)

Verdict (Burke), Not guilty. Upon three other indictments the prosecution offered no evidence, and a verdict of Not guilty was returned.

Crinion confessed to having been convicted of felony on May 21. 1909, at this Court, in the name of Thomas Johnson.

Crinion was then indicted for that he is a habitual criminal.

Formal proof was given of service of the statutory notice and the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The following convictions were proved: March 6, 1900, at Clerkenwell Sessions, 21 months' hard labour, larceny; October 1,1901, at Clerkenwell Sessions, four years' penal servitude, larceny; May 21, 1909, at this Court, in the name of Thomas Johnson, three years' penal servitude; and a number of others, dating back to 1888.

Prisoner denied that he had been living persistently a dishonest or criminal life. On his last leaving prison he had obtained employment and remained at work till September 23, when he had to give it up owing to illness.

Verdict, Not guilty of being a habitual criminal.

Prisoner (who had 303 days to serve of his last sentence) was sen-tenced to Eighteen months hard labour.


(Saturday, December 9.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-40
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SILVER, Samuel (22, machinist), and GATES, Joseph (22, labourer) . Robbery with violence on William Huggett and stealing from him £1 3s., his moneys.

Mr. A. F. S. Pasmore prosecuted.

WILLIAM HUGGETT , cabinet-maker, 112, Halley Road, Forest Gate. On October 19 about 2.30 a.m. I was in Cleveland Street, Mile End, going towards Stepney Green Station when I was attacked from behind by three men. One held me round the neck while the others went through my pockets. They took what I had, 23s., in five halfcrowns, half a sovereign, and some coppers. They then pulled me to the ground and ran backwards. I went after them. One came back and punched me in the mouth, splitting my mouth and nose and knocked me to the ground again. I got up and still followed them When I got to Cambridge Road I saw two policemen, one just passing over to the other. I told them what had occurred and they went after them. I saw one of the prisoners brought into the station later, but I could not identify any of them as it was all in the dark and all done from the back.

Cross-examined by Silver. I told the officers what had happened a little after 2.30. Before long they returned and said they had missed the men round a back turning. (To the Court. Before I came up to the police I had not lost sight of the men.) When I told the officers one said to the other, "I told you so; come on after them." It was about a quarter of an hour after I was robbed I saw them. At the police station you said to me, "Was I one of these men that robbed you or assaulted you?" You did not say, "Was I the man who struck you in the face."

Cross-examined by Gates. I do not know either of you. The robbery took place about the middle of Cleveland Street, on the

left-hand side, just passing a court. Whether the men came out of the court or out of a gateway I cannot say, but I do not think they had followed me up from the back or I should have noticed it. The place was seven or eight minutes' walk from Stepney Green Station.

Police-constable JOB SIMMONS, 476 J. On October 19 I was in Devonshire Street, Mile End, about 3.30 a.m., when I saw the two prisoners with another man not in custody. I said to the other officer, "There goes Sammy Silver." He said, "Yes; I wonder what he's up to." I went across the road to search him. At that moment prosecutor staggered round the corner in a very dazed condition and said he had been knocked down and robbed by three men. The three men then ran away. The other officer gave chase through several back streets, but failed to catch them. I took the prosecutor to the station and read the information to the officer on duty. Knowing Silver I gave his name and a description of the other two men. Subsequently I saw Silver about twenty to eight in the morning being arrested by Detective-sergeant Handley. He made no reply to the charge at the station. I saw Gates on November 7 with nine others, and I identified him.

To Silver. I did not say anything to the other officer after prosecutor told us he had been robbed. We at once ran after you You were walking very sharply when I saw you, and were about five yards away. Then you ran away when prosecutor spoke to us.

To Gates. Prosecutor stammered out the words, and it was very difficult to hear him for a moment. It took a few seconds. When you passed we were standing at the junction of Cleveland Street and Devonshire Street on the opposite side. You passed under an arc lamp. (To the Court.) I knew Silver before, but not Gates.

Police-constable THOMAS COOK, 502 J, corroborated the evidence of the last witness. On November 7 I identified Gates amongst nine others. I knew Silver and had seen Gates once or twice. I had seen the two together about the first week in October, at the corner of Vallence Road.

To Silver. I saw you two alone then. Prosecutor was robbed about 3.30.

To Gates. I saw you together in October between 7 and 9 p.m. I did not see the man robbed.

Detective-sergeant HERBERT HANDLEY, J Division. On October 19, at 7.30 a.m. I arrested Silver at 11, Waterloo Terrace, Whitechapel. The door was bolted and I had to get in by the wndow as they would not open it. Silver was in bed in the front room on the ground floor. He was just getting out of bed. I said, "I shall arrest you for being concerned with two other men in robbing a man named Huggett this morning in Cleveland Street about 3.30." He said nothing. He dressed himself and just as he was going to leave the room I saw him pass something to his mother. I seized his hand and found it contained three half-crowns and a shilling. At the station I searched him and found twopence in bronze. When the charge was read over he turned to the prosecutor and said, "Was

I the one that struck you in the face?" Prosecutor said he was struck in the presence of the prisoner.

To Silver. You did not get a chance of trying to run away when I arrested you. I told you what I arrested you for. You never said to your mother, "Here is 8s. 6d. what belongs to Mrs. Levine, what I had to get buttons and tape with." You have never mentiered that before to-day. You did not say to prosecutor at the station, "Was I one of those men who robbed you or assaulted you?"

Detective FBEDEBICK COBLEY, J Division. On November 6 I was with Detective Courtney and went to a fish-shop in Brick Lane and saw Grates." I said, "Gates, you know who we are; we are police officers and we are going to arrest you for being concerned with Samuel Silver with robbing a man in Cleveland Street on the 19th of last month in the early morning." He said, "All right; I will go quietly." When he got outside he struggled, and in the struggle I heard some coins thrown to the ground One was picked up and handed to Detective Courtney, and was found to be a counterfeit half-crown. I got a cab, and on the way to the station he said, "Why don't you go and get the others as well? I left Silver at Fred's coffee-stall at 5 o'clock that morning; I know nothing more about it." The next morning he was placed with eight others for identification and was identified by the two officers. When charged he said, "Right."

To Grates. You began to struggle about five yards away from the fish shop. There were a lot of well-known characters in the shop and they all crowded round. I walked in front and Courtney was keeping the crowd back. That is when you commenced to struggle.

Detective EUGENE COURTNEY, J Division, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

To Gates. I did not say we would use our sticks to you, or threaten you at all. You were not arrested before because I never saw you before, though I was looking for you.


SAMUEL SILVER (prisoner, on oath). I was in bed when the crime was done. The 8s. 6d. found on me belonged to Mrs. Levine, where I am working; I had to get three gross of buttons and three cards of tape at Venables. The police would not tell me what I was arrested for till on the way to the station. At the station the prosecutor said that three fellows had robbed him and assaulted him. I said, "Was I one of those men who robbed you or assaulted you?" He did not answer me, but he answered the inspector and said he did not know the fellows who robbed him. I deny saying, "Was I the man who struck you in the face?" That is a bit the officer has put down himself. I can swear I never said such a thing as that. The police did not put me amongst any fellows for identification; and only one officer said, "Yes, that's him."

Cross-examined. The officers did not see me at 3.30 a.m. in Devonshire Street. 1 have never seen Simmons and Cook in my life, and they do not know me.

JOSEPH GATES (prisoner, on oath). I was not with Silver that day. I only saw him once before I never spoke to him. I was out that night when the crime was committed to look for where my father was living. He is living with another woman, and my mother wants to know. I was looking for work as well at the glass-blowers'. I never saw Silver that morning of his arrest at all. I saw him the day before. I can prove my innocence. The police have tried to take that portion of the character which I have regained away from me.

Cross-examined. On October 19 I was opposite Stepney Green Railway Station, outside a coffee-shop, standing in a doorwary with a cup of tea in my hand. I was on my own. I came down the road and stopped at Fred's coffee-stall, and the gentleman at the coffee-stall will tell you I was round there till late that morning, because I saw my father drive by in a donkey-barrow the morning before and I got his address that same morning. I stayed at Fred's coffee-stall till 5.30. (To the Court.) I was at the coffee-shop opposite Stepney Green Station, or near it, from two to three, and then went to Fred's coffee-stall)

SARAH SILVER , mother of prisoner Silver. On the night this occurred Silver was at home in bed He had come home to tea and he was out again at 5.30; he met his father at nine at the corner of Vallence Road and came home with him, and never went out again that night. When he was arrested he said, "This is money I have got to get buttons and tape and trimmings," but he did not hand me the money.

Cross-examined. I was not called at Old Street. I was not allowed to go in.

Verdict (each prisoner), Guilty.

Silver confessed to having been convicted at the Sessions House, Newington, on May 25, 1909, of felony; Gates pleaded guilty to a conviction of felony at Newington, on July 5, 1910. Other convictions were proved by the police.

Sentence (each prisoner), Five years' penal servitude.


(Saturday, December 9.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-41
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

THURSTON, James Ernest (38, clerk) , forging the endorsement of a certain request for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £10 1s., with intent to defraud.

Mr. Gervais Rentoul prosecuted; Mr. H. C. Bickmore defended.

EDWARD RUMBALL . I carry on business as a coal merchant in the name of E. Rumball and Co., 22, Stroud Green Road, Finsbury Park. In September, 1910, I engaged prisoner as clerk and traveller on

salary, with 2s. 6d. for 'bus fares for the local district, and 3d. a ton commission. Part of his duties was the collection of accounts. Those moneys should be paid in the same night on his return to the office, or failing that the following morning. He left without giving notice on September 4. I made inquiries, and subsequently had an inter-view with him on the following Thursday. I met him at Highbury Station by appointment. He told me things could not go on as they were. I said, "What things?" He said, "I will make you out a list of moneys I have received and not paid in." I said, "To what extent might that be?" He said, "£60 or £70." I received a statement next morning by post. That is Exhibit 8 in his writing. The items C. Hill £10 1s., Barratt and Co. £3 13s., have not been accounted for by prisoner. He never had authority to endorse the firm's name on cheques (two cheques handed to witness). These are endorsed "E. Rumball and Co." in prisoner's writing. He has made no entry in the cash book with regard to those, Early in September I sent an invoice to Mr. Hill and asked him to favour us with a cheque. Exhibit 7 is a postcard in prisoner's writing to Mr. Hill sent without my knowledge. If prisoner said on August 22 that money was needed for wages in a great hurry that would not be true. That was a Tuesday. We pay on Saturdays. Prisoner's suggestion made at the police court that we endorsed each other's cheques is ridiculous.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bickmore. Prisoner was arrested about September 21. I could not say that I knew of Hill's cheque at that time. My solicitor had it after the inquiry by the magistrate. I found out after his first remand that the matter was gone into before the magistrates. No charge of forgery was preferred at Middlesex Sessions based upon that cheque. That was not done until prisoner was arrested on November 7. The £10 1s. was one of the items which was in evidence at the Middlesex Sessions when the charge of embezzlement was Heard. On that occasion he was acquitted. I opened this business in August, 1910. Prisoner joined me about a fortnight later. The other assistants were a man named Gomez, he was with me six or seven months, and my brother-in-law Beckhurst joined in January. Gomez left on January 14. Prisoner's wages were 15s. a week for the first two months, then 25s. with 2s. 6d. expenses and 1s. a ton commission. He came to me in trouble, and as an old colleague I gave him a start. He himself suggested his salary should be small. He was not a profitable servant. In the 12 months the total tonnage sold was 591 tons. He was practically my bookkeeper. My brother-in-law remained till April 14. I wrote prisoner the letter of March 11 offering a partnership. It was. written for the purpose of enabling prisoner to borrow money from a Trust. He had to show reason for his application, the purpose for which he wanted the money. After two applications they declined to advance the money. In September, 1910, his salary was reduced to £1 plus 2s. 6d. expenses without commission. At that time I was to a certain extent in financial difficulties. Alfred Usher and Co. were pressing me. A Mr. Sly assisted me to the extent of £100 to enable me to get over my temporary difficul-ties,

and as pressure was being applied with regard to Ushers' account I borrowed a further £100 from him against the almost sure loan that was coming from the Trust, which was to repay it. That was obtained after prisoner had written me the letter saying he agreed to the purchase price being £350, and he hoped to produce £80 or £100 from the Trust and that he was in no way sceptical of being able to fulfil his part of the contract on his brother's return from India. Of course by this time, from what we now know, prisoner had been for some time robbing me of moneys which he had collected on my behalf. He has been tried on that and acquitted, but that is what he confesses on that list. I was hoping after that that this partnership would go through: I was requiring money. I did not treat him as a partner. I introduced him to people as an incoming partner—told them I had made him the offer. He was my traveller. I was responsible. He did not after that time join me in buying supplies. He interviewed people who came and collected accounts from his own customers. I did not employ him in satisfying pressing creditors. He offered me his assistance on one or two occasions. He did on one or two occasions assist me in satisfying creditors. He guaranteed a debt of £40, which I discharged. My banking account has been overdrawn under a guarantee. I was away only one day in June at Southend. I was not at the office daily, but was carrying on my business. I was absent from the office 10 or 11 days. During that time Thurston and an elderly gentleman were in the office. Thurston met me every morning at Highbury Station with correspondence, etc. I told Mr. Robinson I only discovered the forgery since the last affair. I believe the cheque was put in before the Highgate magistrate. I did not know about the Barratt cheque until after prisoner's arrest this time. Broome's cheque was drawn in prisoner's favour at his request. It was not so drawn with my knowledge. It was for 12s. more than the account owing, and I gave prisoner the 12s. change as he said that was owing to him by Broome. That cheque was dishonoured. I deny that I wrote the signature "E. J. Thurston." The cheque was stolen from my desk. On August 28 or 29 we had a conversation about the partnership at Finsbury Park tube station. He asked if I would make him a partner there and then. I said it was impossible until he produced the money. He said he thought his brother had just arrived from India, and it would strengthen his hands to be able to go to him and say, "I am a partner, and we require capital to carry out the orders for the coming winter." I declined to agree to that, or to entertain the idea till he produced the money.

CHARLES HILL , Westbourne Terrace, N. On August 22 prisoner called on me. My wife gave him a cheque for £10 1s. Exhibit 5 is the receipt he gave. The following day I had a postcard from prisoner saying an account had been sent me for coal already paid for, and apologising and promising to see me the following Thursday.

EDWARD WILLIAM PONTER , secretary, Barratt and Co. The cheque of July 24 was drawn by me and posted to Messrs. Rumball and Co.

EDWIN JAMES GROVE , 367, Seven Sisters Road, N. On August 22

prisoner called on me. He produced the cheque Exhibit 40, said they were short of money at the office, would I let him have a few pounds on account. I only had about £4, and said he could have £2 and the other when the cheque went through. He came again about four days after and asked if the cheque had gone through all right. I said, "Yes, I believe so; I have heard nothing about it." I then gave him a cheque for £8 1s. On July 27 the same thing happened with Barratt's cheque. He told me he was becoming a partner in Rumball and Co.

Cross-examined. There was no concealment when he endorsed the cheque. Prisoner did not cross-examine me concerning Barratt's cheque at Highgate.

Detective BENJAMIN ROBINSON, Y Division. On November 7 at 7.45 p.m. I saw prisoner at 99, Englefield Road. I told him, "I am a police officer; I am going to arrest you on a charge made by Mr. Rumball for falsifying his account books and forging an endorsement on the back of a cheque received by you from Mr. Hill for Mr. Rumball and cashed for you by Mr. Grove." He said, "This is persecution. I have the cheque and he knows all about it. It was mentioned in the last case. This will do me. I was going to make a fresh start in a new situation." I said to him, "Mr. Rumball informed me he has only discovered this since the other affair was disposed of." He said, "That is not true."

(Monday, December 11.)


JAMES ERNEST THURSTON (prisoner, on oath). I entered the employ of Mr. Rumball on September 17, 1910. I think he had started business the previous week. My salary was to be "15s. per week for October and November, 25s. a week for the next two months, then 30s. a ton; one shilling a ton commission on private house trade, 3d. per ton on what we call large consumers' trade. The 30s. a week did not become effective; the reason, I believe, was that the firm was not sufficiently strong. I believe my sales were 747 tons up to end of June. I have no means of finding out what it was since then. The amount I received in salary during the 12 months is £54 10s. I received £5 on account of commission. It is impossible for me to say how much is due to me. In April last there was a re-arrangement of terms, 20s. a week instead of 30s. and the commission was to continue until the partnership was arranged. My duties were pretty much the same except I paid more attention to office work, the general management of the place. Anything that cropped up I had power to dial with like a partner. I collected accounts, paid wages, and advanced subs to workmen. That was usually on Wednesday. The 2s. 6d. allowance for travelling was not sufficient and I had to employ the firm's money for that. As to the partnership letter Mr. Rumball wrote to me, my brother was not expected back

till late in the summer, and the letter was given to me for the purpose of getting the advance from the Trust. The question of the partnership was a daily topic. I was always endeavouring to get the money. The matter was still open in July. It was in consequence of the letter to Mr. Rumball of May 5: "Referring to our conversation of this date referring to proposed partnership, I agree to the purchase price being £350, and hope to produce £80 to £100 during the next week," etc., that Mr. Sly advanced £100. At this time I was consulted about the purchase of coal. On August 29 I had a conversation with Rumball about the partnership and suggested the matter should be completed on September 1. He said he would think it over and let me know. I was then assisting him in managing the business as a partner in every way. I was arranging payments and that sort of thing on the 'phone with Mr. Usher. During April we had financial difficulties with Thrutchley and Co. Their representative, Mr. Westlake, called one morning and told me their account would have to be settled or certain procedure that was in operation would be gone on with. I said, "Don't do that; we do not want the publicity," and so forth. He said, "Well, you had better come down and see my firm." I suggested taking Mr. Rumball with me. He said it was no good my bringing him. An appointment was made and Mr. Rumball gave me a signed open cheque so that I could settle the matter to the best of my ability. They would only accept my personal guarantee for the balance, about £45, which I gave. There were also difficulties with Bracy, Cook and Co. They started proceedings in the High Court. I practically had the conduct of that. I entered the appearance, filed the defence, and personally appeared for Rumball before Master Macdonnell. I recollect two executions being put in. I interviewed the execution officer and got him in both cases to withdraw. Rumball left that to me entirely. During 18 days in June I think Rumbail only came to the office once, that was about 8 p.m. During that time I had authority to do what I considered best. I obtained a loan of £15 from Mr. Higgins, a friend of mine, to assist the firm. He was approached again for the same purpose. I received the cheque from Mr. Hill drawn in favour of E. Rumball and Co. Some of my customers drew cheques to me personally. Mlumball never reprimanded me on the subject. I asked Mr. Grove to cash Mr. Hill's cheque. We wanted some ready money at the office, probably for subs. He gave me £2 in cash, and a post-dated cheque drawn to me personally for the difference. I do not know that I asked him to so draw it. Broome's cheque was in part payment of an account due to Rumball and Co. When I got it I left it with Rum bell telling him not to present it for a day or two until I told him, as the man told me he had heavy bills to meet and there would be hardly sufficient to meet it. The top signature is not mine. The second signature is Rum ball's. He told me himself that he put my name on this cheque and paid it in. I left Rumball's employ on September 4, the Monday following his refusal to complete the partnership. We were in the office the best part of two hours.

I could see there was no hope of coming to a finish in the matter, so I walked out.

Cross-examined. I do not deny endorsing the cheques. I do not suggest I had authority to put the money in my pocket and not account for it. I submit I did account for it. The reason I did not enter the amounts received in the cash-book is because I was not ready to do them then. There was no fixed rule with regard to myself. What Mr. Rum ball said as to paying in money that night or next morning may have applied to others, it did not apply to me. I absented myself because I had not got his reply with regard to the partnership and 1 was sick and tired of waiting. I suggest when I said to him at Highbury Station, "Things cannot go on as they are," that referred to the partnership. I told him I would make out a list of moneys not paid in, and that they amounted to £60 or £70. I kept a faithful record and they are there in the list. I did not tell him I had received those amounts because I did not think it necessary. I do not agree that the subs were never more than 2s. per man. They were not always paid by Rumball out of his own pocket. I frequently paid them without consulting him. The reason I did not tell him I had received the £10 1s. cheque is because to the best of my knowledge I did not see him on August 22 or 23. I had no need to tell him as soon as I saw him; I had kept a record of it. As to the post-card to Hill saying the account was sent in mistake, I believe I made but the account and sent it—the original. Probably Rumball sent one after. Probably I overlooked the fact it had been paid to me and sent the post-card almost immediately. I am entitled to commission on the orders of four. customers Rumball claims as his. I suggest the £10 1s. cheque of Mr. Hill's was used in the firm's interest. Probably the books would show. The thing that kept me from being a partner was not producing the money. I expected it on the return of my brother from India in September. We tried from three different sources to raise the money pending his return.

ARTHUR STANTON WESTLAKE , High Stone, Hadley, Barnet, traveller to Thrutchley and Co. Limited. From October to February I called on Rumball and Co. for orders. We then ceased business. They owed £176 odd. I visited them many times between then and April to endeavour to get the money. I understood from Rumball that prisoner was entering into a partnership with him. Prisoner was then a traveller. After that there was a difference in his position. He was consulted with regard to coal being bought and treated in quite a different manner to what he was when he acted as a servant. We issued a writ against Rumball and Co. I met prisoner quite casually and he put it to me it was hard lines for us to have issued this writ as he was going to enter into this partnership and it might wake the whole thing fall through. I suggested he should come down and see our manager to see if he could make some arrangement. He did so and entered into a personal guarantee that he would be responsible for the money. I have that document in my pocket.

Cross-examined. It would be somewhere about December when Rumball told me prisoner was going to be a partner. I do not know that prisoner did not bring money into the business and never was a partner. With regard to the guarantee I presume the money has been paid by Mr. Rumball.

THOMAS HIGGINS , 20, The Avenue, West Ealing. On January 6 prisoner telephoned asking if I would see him. I did so. He told me Rumball was in difficulties and he himself was hoping to go into partnership with him, and asked if I could assist them with an advance of £15 temporarily for a week. I did so. I was not paid at the end of the week, but subsequently by Mr. Rumball.

GEORGE PERCY , 8, Grove Road, Walthamstow, traveller to Bracy, Cook and Co. I did busines with Rumball and Co. early this year I I called probably once a week. Prisoner appeared to be a sort of manager. In the month of June I had difficulty in finding Rumball at the office. Prisoner was usually in charge. We had to issue a writ for an account.

Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy owing to the loose way things were carried on.

A previous conviction was proved.

Sentence: Two months' imprisonment, second division.


(Monday, December 11.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-42
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

DAY, John (24, clerk) , was charged on the coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Frederick Smith, otherwise Stephen Wheeler , and indicted for assaulting the same person, thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm.

Mr. Edward Clarke prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

JOSHUA WILLIAM LEVY , Clovelly Mansions, Gray's Inn Road. On Saturday, September 23, about 10 p.m., I was in Tottenham Court Road, and saw prisoner talking to a girl by the kerb near the "Horse-shoe." I heard her call him a "ponce" twice, and he gave her a slight touch on the back with his umbrella. The girl went away, and deceased then stepped forward from the direction of the public-house towards prisoner. They seemed to be talking, and after a minute or two I saw prisoner poke his umbrella in the direction of deceased's face twice, and then deceased fell down and someone said it went in his eye.

Cross-examined. Deceased did not appear excited; I did not see him make a rush at prisoner.

MAXIMILLIAN LEURIENT , clerk, 50, Bloomsbury Street. I saw prisoner strike the woman with the side of his umbrella; it nearly hit me. She called him a "ponce." Deceased then approached prisonrs and there was some argument, and it looked as if they were going to fight I looked round to see if a policeman was coming, and the next thing

I saw was deceased being struck by prisoner. I could not say what with. Deceased held his hands over his head, and prisoner stood leaning on his umbrella as if nothing had happened. I fetched a constable and pointed prisoner out to him.

Cross-examined. I saw a hand raised first, but I could not say whose it was.

ALICE COX , 34, Seymour Place, Marble Arch. I happened to be coming out of the "Horseshoe," and saw prisoner having a few words with a woman. He gave her a slight tap with his umbrella, and deceased then came from the kerb and made a grab at prisoner as if he wanted to fight him. He missed him and stepped back and made another rush at prisoner, who raised his umbrella as if to denote by the action and the expression on his face, "Go away; I want nothing, to do with you." He then pushed his umbrella in front of him in the direction of deceased's face. Deceased put his hands to his face, and the next thing I saw was him lying on the pavement covered with blood.

Police-constable GEORGE NORTH, 334 D. I was called to the "Horse-shoe" by Leurient, who pointed out prisoner to me. A man was lying on the pavement bleeding from the left eye. I told prisoner, who was close by, that I should arrest him for assault. He said, "He is a friend of mine," that is all. I then took him to the station.

Police-constable FOSTER, 180 C. I took deceased to the Middlesex Hospital.

Police-sergeant THOMAS DURRANT, D Division. I was in charge of the Tottenham Court Road Police Station, when prisoner was brought in and charged with assaulting deceased and causing him grievous bodily harm. He said, "I did poke him in the eye with my umbrella, but I did not think I was going to hurt him." He was carrying the umbrella produced.

Cross-examined. It has a very pointed ferrule.

BASIL HOOD , M.R.C.S., L.K.C.P., medical superintendent St. Marylebone Infirmary. Deceased was sent to us on November 14 from the Middlesex Hospital. He died on the 20th. It was evident he had some injury at the base of the brain, but what it was was not apparent. There was a small scar on the left eyelid, and I think the sight was destroyed. Together with Dr. Mackenzie, under whom he had been at the Middlesex Hospital, I made a post-mortem examination. We found that the roof of the left orbit was fractured, and that fragments of the bone had punctured the brain, and caused death. The wound could have been made with the point of an umbrella.

Cross-examined. A reasonable amount of force would have been required to cause the fracture, but it is not necessary that all the force should have been applied by the person holding the umbrella. I think some degree of force must have been used by him.

Dr. MACKENZIE. I was at the Middlesex Hospital when deceased was brought in. He was unconscious, and commenced to vomit and from the smell I have no doubt he had been drinking heavily.

JOHN DAY (prisoner, on oath). On September 23 I was in Tottenham Court Road about 10.30 p.m. I had some conversation with a woman and after she left deceased, Frederick Smith, whom I have known all my life, came up to me and asked me what I was doing. He was drunk. I just walked away and then went back again and he came at me all of a sudden, not exactly to strike me, but I did not know what he was going to do. I stepped back and put up my hands. I had an umbrella in one hand and the point went into his eye. I did not think I had done him the least injury, and I just stepped to one side and the constable came up and took me into custody. I have never had any quarrel with deceased.

Cross-examined. I have been on friendly terms with deceased all my life. I did not know what to think when he rushed at me, but I feel confident he would never have hurt me. We were good friends. I had no intention of putting the umbrella near his face, but he was such a short fellow that he was liable to come right on to it. I just raised the umbrella to keep him off and had no intention of hurting him.

Verdict, Not guilty.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-43
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

MARSHALL, Herbert (40, private detective), and BUTLER, William Henry (50, inquiry agent) , conspiring and agreeing together to accuse Elijah John Fader with having before then caused or (procured the miscarriage of a certain woman named Frances Mary Tolley; feloniously demanding with menaces from the said E. J. Fader £1 5s. and cheques for £2 15s. and £41 respectively, with intent to steal the same; feloniously receiving one photo frame, one letter book, a quantity of letters and other articles, which had before then been stolen, they well knowing the same to have been stolen.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

ELIJAH JOHN FADER , 20, Hereford Road, Acton. I am a Canadian, over here on business. I have been in this country 12 months, and during that time became acquainted with a Miss Tolley. I have been on friendly terms with her, and upon occasions have assisted her with money. My wife and family did not come over with me. I had a private secretary named Davey, whom I had to discharge about June 1. I was then staying at the "First Avenue Hotel." On June 20 I received a letter from prisoner Marshall, in consequence of which I rang him up to the telephone number given on his letter-head. I knew nothing of him before this. He called on me the same day, and said, "Captain Fader "—I am a marine captain—"I come to you as a friend. I used to be in the Mounted Police in Canada, and I therefore sympathise with you. You are being followed by people. Would you like to know who those people are, and what for?" I said, "Yes, what will it cost me to find out?" He said, "I will get you the information for £5." I agreed, and the following day he brought me Exhibit 2, a letter signed Percy Beck, and I immediately paid him the agreed sum of £5. There was no conversation whatever about it. I next saw

Marshall about the end of September, when he called at the hotel without any appointment. He said, "You know a little girl from Manchester?" I presumed he referred to Miss Tolley, and I said, "Yes, I have helped a little girl from Manchester, who has not been very well." He said, "This little girl says she is in the family way by you, and that you had been a party to an illegal operation." I said, "Marshall, it is a lie, and I don't believe it of the little girl; I have always found her a little lady." The matter dropped there then. I think he said, "Then you do not want to do anything in the matter?" and I said, "No." I went and saw Miss Tolley next day. I went to live at 20, Hereford Road, Acton, on October 10. On the 24th, on returning home, I found that my correspondence had all gone from my writing-desk, that a copy letter-book, a portfolio, and an address-book, had also disappeared, and a silver-framed photograph of myself from the mantel-piece. I reported the matter to the police, and Sergeant Rose came to see me about it. On the 27th Marshall and Butler called in the evening without appointment. That was the first time I had seen Butler. Marshall said, "Hullo, old boy; let me introduce you to Mr. Butler. I said, "What do you want?" He said, "You remember the little girl from Manchester; she learns that your wife and family are coming to England, and she is going to have some money out of you." I lost my temper, and said, "I don't believe it; I believe it is you and your clique that is doing this business." Marshall said, "On the honour of my dead mother, if it is not the little girl my mother is a whore." I was disgusted with the remark, and I said, "What is it you want? I have only got your word for it." He said, "We are prepared to settle this business for you "—that is, the matter of the illegal operation—"for £1,000." He produced two letters that had been stolen from my room. I told him I had not got £1,000, and he replied, "You have a lot of money coming in." I told him what I particularly wanted back was my correspondence which had been Stolen from my desk, the copy letter-book, the address-book, and the photograph. He said, "We can get those back for you to-morrow, can't we Butler?" Butler said, "Yes." I told him I did not want them coming to my house, and he said, "I will meet you at the 'Telegraph Hotel,' opposite the Shepherd's Bush Tube Station, at 4.30 to-morrow afternoon." He then asked for some money, but I said no. Finally I gave him 5s. Next day I went in a taxi to the "Telegraph Hotel" with a clerk of mine, Mr. Hazeldene, and saw Butler standing on the pavement. At the end of ten minutes I called to him, and said, "Where is Marshall?" He said, "He has not arrived yet; he will be here in a few minutes." I said, "Have you got those papers" He said, "Yes; do not talk so loud." I waited a quarter of an hour, but Marshall did not arrive. Before I left Butler asked for some money, and I gave him 1s. After this I received several letters from Marshall, and I arranged to meet him outside my club, the Royal Automobile, in Pall Mall, on October 31, having first communicated with the police. Detective Rose took up a position near the window of the smoking room of the club. At three o'clock I met the two prisoners outside the club and took them

close to the window so that the detective could see what took place. I said, "Well, Marshall, have you the papers?" He said, "No, but I have the photograph," and he handed me this protograph (produced). He then said he wanted some money: I said, "I can't find £1,000 for you." He said, "We don't want £1,000; we can settle it for £200 now." I said, "I will meet you at my house to-morrow evening, and if you bring me the rest of those articles I will probably have some money for you." He said, "My God, man, we are broke," and produced some documents, which contained a pawnticket, showing he had pawned his overcoat for 10s. I gave him 3s. and Butler 2s. 6d. I had an interview with Detective Rose, and next evening he and Inspector Davidson came to my house about 6.30 and placed themselves in the garden under my dining-room windows. I opened the windows and pulled the blinds down, so that they could hear what took place inside the room. About seven Marshall and Butler arrived. I took them in the dining-room, and said, "Let us get to business. What is it you want?" He said, "£200 and £8 5s. for myself." We agreed the amount at £210. He said he wanted £30 for the little girl, and mentioned something about sending her into the country, and £10 for her while there. He said she was run down after the illegal operation and he wanted the money for her on that account. I agreed to pay him £45 in cash and £55 a month for three months. Exhibit 7 (produced) is the memo I made at the time of the arrangement. I asked, "How do you want this £45?" and it was finally settled at £3 for Butler and £42 for Marshall, and I then proceeded to write out the cheques. Marshall said he wanted the "ready." I said, "I don't carry £45 in my pocket," and I gave him £1 and Butler 5s. I then gave Marshall a cheque for £41 and Butler one for £2 15s. Before handing the cheques over I said, "When am I to receive my papers back?" Marshall asked when the bank opened? I told him nine o'clock, and he replied, "I will be at your office at a quarter past ten with the papers as soon as we get the cheques cashed." At that moment the two detectives came in. Marshall had put his cheque in his pocket, and Butler had his in his hand. They were both then arrested for demanding money from me with menaces. The next day I went to a stationer's in Acton with Inspector Davidson. Norman, I believe, was the name; I do not remember the address. We found there part of my stolen goods that Butler and Marshall had left there the night before. The parcel contained the letter-book and address-book, and part of the correspondence. I have never at any time instructed Marshall or Butler to act on my behalf with regard to Miss Tolley.

(Tuesday, December 12.)

ELIJAH JOHN FADER , recalled, cross-examined. The first communication I had from Marshall was in June, when he sent me a letter saying that he had some information that would be of value to me; then he called and after I had had the first conversation with him, I did think his information was of some value as to who was following me. He brought me a letter (produced), which contains the name

of my discharged private secretary Davey; of course, it interested me to know that my discharged servant was keeping me under observation. At that time I regarded Marshall's firm as my detectives, and I wrote "my detectives" on a slip of paper on which was printed the name of his firm. When Marshall called on me at the First Avenue Hotel and made a statement to me about the girl, I took an interest in her and had befriended her on more than one occasion, but the statement that she had had an operation would not have interested me because I am a married man, and I should not have had anything to do with her after that. If I thought I was going to be charged with being a father and being responsible for the illegal operation that would have interested me. I called on her the next day to tell her not to mention my name in connection with such things, and I did not see her again until after I left the First Avenue Hotel on October 10. When my books were stolen I did not know who had taken them, so I gave information to the police. When Marshall called on Friday, October 27, I left the door open as I had become suspicious, but I did not make any arrangements to have anybody listeing, I relied upon the natural curiosity of the household. I told Marshall that I wanted the books back, but I did not ask him to bring them back until be produced the letter, because then I knew that he either had them in his possession or knew who had them—I believed he was a party to the robbery. I did not think the girl had stolen them. I led Marshall to believe that if he brought my documents back he would be remunerated. At this interview I saw Butler for the first time; Marshall said, "Let me introduce Mr. Butler"; and Butler said down while Marshall and I were having this conversation. Marshall said he would settle up for a thousand pounds—not a thousand dollars. I said I knew nothing about it. Marshall begged me for some money, and although I knew he was a party to the robbery of my books, I gave him 5s. out of pure charity—not for any services he had rendered to me. On October 28 I saw Butler at the Shepherd's Bush Station; he said Marshall could not come or had not come, but that he expected him. I asked him if he (Butler) had the papers; he said, "Yes, we have them, but do not talk so loud." He begged me for some money and I gave him a shilling. On the Tuesday I had a conversation with them under the window of the Automobile Club, there being an area about four feet wide between the window and the pavetment. The window was not open; I saw the detective's face in the window. On November 1 I still believed that Marshall was a party to the robbery; although the detectives were listening outside I did not direct my evidence in such a way as to get evidence from the prisoners. When they came in I gave them a drink, so as to make them feel at home; then when Marshall spoke about something quite unconnected with this affair I brought him back to the point because I did not want to stand the whole evening talking shop. He spoke about the illegal operation at that interview. He asked for £210, saying that the young girl was to have £30 and he was to have the rest. He did not offer me any explanation as to why he was to have this money.

Re-examined. Miss Tolley denied telling Marshall she had had an illegal operation. (To the Court.) When Marshall came to me he showed me two of my letters which had been stolen; I gave them back to him because they were of no interest to me. I had an idea that they would be of use as evidence against them if I gave them back to him.

FRANCES MARY TOLLEY , 7, St. John's Road, Highgate. I made the acquaintance of Mr. Fader about ten months ago; till about the end of September I met him frequently, and we were on friendly terms. About the end of September or the beginning of October he came and saw me in my house, and we parted not very friendly. I afterwards went to his City office, but was unable to see him. I subsequently discovered he was living at 20, Helford Road, Acton. I called there at about 2.30 p.m. on October 24, knocked at the door, and there being no answer I walked in by the side door, and waited in the room in which Mr. Faber kept his books. Nobody came. I then went to his desk, and picking up a letter, I saw the name of "Marshall," and I thereupon picked up all the books and letters that I could find, and a photograph of Mr. Fader (produced), tied them all up with a piece of ribbon I had and took them home. At that time I had never seen Marshall. When I got them home I looked at the address-book, and I found the address of Marshall. I had known his name before. I then wrote a letter addressed, "H. Marshall, Esq., 27, New Street, Victoria, S.W.," dated October 24, asking him to come and see me in reference to Captain Fader. I was fearfully excited at that time, and I put in a piece of paper, "Can you call at once to-night; to your advantage?" I then received a wire and a letter-card, but I was sitting by the fire and I threw the letter-card in. Marshall called on Friday, October 27, and said, "I am Mr. Marshall, and I believe you are Miss Tolley?" I said, "Yes, but I have never seen you before," and he said, "Yes, I have seen you before." I said, "You have never spoken to me," and he said, "No." He said, "I have seen you with Mr. Fader." I said, "What right have you to call at the hotel and tell Mr. Fader that I had an illegal operation?" He said, "I did not." I said, "Mr. Fader told me so." He said, "What did you go to the hotel for?" and said he had been working for Mr. Fader, and Mr. Fader owed him money. I said, "If he owes you money would you like his address? I will give it to you, but do not mention my name to him." He wanted to know how I had found out Mr. Fader's address, and I told him how I had been round to Mr. Fader's house and had taken the documents and books, and then I brought them all up from the kitchen because he asked to see the address-book. Marshall looked at them, and then he said he would go and see Mr. Fader. I did not give him instructions to act for me. The next evening he sent me a wire that he would call on me on Saturday morning at 11.30 a.m., and he came with Butler. He said, "We know all about you." I said, "What do you know?" He then said he had seen Mr. Fader, who had sent him to take the names and addresses and business letters. I said, "I will let you have a look, but you are not to take any." I then made them wait for a quarter of an hour so that I could consult my landlady, then she brought the documents up. Marshall then sat

down and began reading the documents and pretending to write on a piece of paper, when I saw him slip three or four letters underneath a piece of paper. I said, "Excuse me, would you let me look at the paper you are writing on," and I lifted it up and found the letters underneath. I said, "You are not acting onourably," and I then put all the papers away. He then began to talk to me, and after that I brought them out again, and he asked me if I had to photograph of Mr. Fader. I said, "I have one upstairs," and he said, "Is it as good as this one," pointing to another photograph on the table. He asked me to fetch it I went out to get it, when I caught sight of the two prisoners in a large mirror, and I saw Marshall slip something into his left-side pocket. I turned back, but the papers were still on the table. Soon afterwards, as they were leaving, I said, "I see you have come for these papers, and you shall not have them." Marshall said, "Be a sensible little woman, they are of no use to you, and let us return them to Mr. Fader." I said, "Certainly not. Mr. Fader has not been nice to me, he shall not have them. I shall burn them." He said, "If Mr. Fader had done anything to you I can influence Mr. Fader, because I have a great influence with him and a great pull on him"—he said that several times. I said, "Well, influence him then to do the thing that is right to me." They then left. I was very ill at that time and I did not notice anything was missing, but a couple of hours afterwards I found the photograph wag missing. On the following Monday Butler came to my house and stayed a few minutes. He said, "I do not think Marshall will do anything for you. You do look ill. I should advise you to go to a solicitor." I said, "It is a long way for you to come, but I have not any money to give you." He said, "Oh, it does not matter, I do not want any money." He then left. The next day, October 31, I was very ill, and I sent a telegram, "Marshall, Leicester Square P.O. Influence Fader to wire me cash at once; ill.—Tolley." Marshall had told me that Leicester Square Post Office would find him. He called on me between six and seven. I said, "Before I shake hands with you, where is that photograph you have stolen from me?" He said, "Excuse me, I did not steal it, I borrowed it to keep Mr. Fader under observation. You know we are keeping him under observation." I said, "Why?" and he said, "You know he owes me this money and I want to get it." I demanded the photograph back and he said he wanted to have a long talk albout it. He said, "I will send it you on through the post to-morrow, because after that I shall not be interested in you any longer." He sat down and told me that he had been to see Mr. Fader, and he had said some nasty things about me. I said, "Tell me what he said." Marshall said, "He says you are very gay and he said you were a common street walker," and that Mr. Fader had imputed things against my reputation. I said Mr. Fader would have to apologise. He said, "I am fearfully hard up, have you a few shillings you could give me?" I refused; he stormed about the room, I asked him to leave and not to call again, and I said I would send him some money if I could. He then left. I asked my landlady's advice, and then I waited about by First Avenue Hotel to try and

see Mr. Fader. I thought I saw Marshall, and afterwards I saw Mr. Fader and had a conversation with him. I then sent telegram (produced) to Marshall, "Get here before two o'clock—going out for the day." He called on November 1 at about 2.10 p.m. and seemed very excited. I said, "Oh, you are late, I must go, I am going out." He said, "Attend to me now," sat down and showed me the last few words of a telegram (produced), "money easier on the 16th." I said, "I am not interested in that." He said he was going to try to get the money Mr. Fader owed him; he said he would do anything for me, and he asked me a lot of questions as to what I wanted. I said, "I really must ago." He said he wanted me to write something; I first refused, but afterwards wrote a statement (produced) at his dictation, and if 1 said, "That is not right," he would say, "Never mind, you write that down." I wrote a statement as to a balance of £160, and signed it. Marshall and I were alone then; the door would not catch, so Marshall put a chair under the nandle. He then said he wanted the books, and let him hare them. As he said he was starving I gave him 8b. He said, "I am not taking the books back, I am leaving them at a little shop at the bottom of the road," Directly he had gone I telegraphed to Mr. Fader.

Cross-examined. I never thought I had any sort of claim on Mr. Fader. Before September he had been frequently visiting me, and he had frequently sent me presents. In September Mr. Fader was living at the First Avenue Hotel; I first knew that when he sent me a wire about a week after we quarrelled. When he left the First Avenue Hotel he told me he was going to Southampton, but I did not believe that. 1 was anxious to find out his address; I guessed he would be at Kew because he had relations there, and I found his address by going to a house agents in Kew. I wanted to find him to ask about something he had said Marshall had said about me. I took the letters, not particularly to find Marshall's address, but to find something about him. I took the photograph because I really did not know what I was doing—I was excited and worried, as I had been very ill. I had tried to find out about Marshall before. I do not know why I wrote the words, "Can you call at once to-night; to your advantage," on a separate piece of paper, although there is plenty of room on the first piece of paper. I did not go round to Marshall's premises at all. I wanted to see Marshall to go for him because of the things he had said about me. I am very impulsive, I do things like that. Marshall said if I showed him the address book he would show me where his address was, and I brought them up; I do not know why. I should want to know where his address as because, of course, I knew it. I brought them all up because they were all tied up together. After Marshall came the original abject for which I took the documents for was gone, but I kept them because I thought "He shall not have them." On the second occasion that Marshall called I knew he was trying to steal the documents, but I brought them up to him because he said he could influence Mr. Fader. I did not want Marshall to help me: I never asked him to help me. I afterwards asked him if he had influence with Mr. Fader to influence

him in my favour. Two other men had come up before to ask about these papers. Butler never spoke when he came with Marshall. When I sent the telegram to Marshall to come before two o'clock, as I was going out. I did not think he would get ft, and so he would not pester me any more, as I did not want to see him again; I thought he was a bad man. I did not take the documents back myself to Mr. Fader because I was not going to put myself out for anyone. Marshall persuaded me round so that I thought I would write a book for him if he would only go. Every word of that statement came out of his head. X should never have written it if I had not seen Mr. fader.

Re-examined. On the occasion of the quarrel with Mr. Fader he asked me if I knew a Mr. Marshall. I said, I did not, and then Mr. Fader said I must have had a conversation with him because Marshall had come and said I had had an illegal operation, but I denied seeing Marshall. Up to that time I knew nothing about Marshall and had never heard of him. But from that time, having heard that Marshall had put Mr. Fader against me, I then began to search for Marshall.

ANNIE ISABEL ASHBY , 20, Hereford Road, Acton. I am Fader's sister-in-law. I went to stay with him somewhere in October. On the evening of October 27 I heard a knock at the door; a maid answered it. A voice asked for "Mr. Fader." Fader went into the passage, and said, "Hullo, Marshall." Marshall introduced his friend as "Mr. Butler" He took them into the front parlour. I came out of the dining-room, and was on my way to the kitchen when I heard high voices between Fader and somebody else. I heard Fader say, "Look here, Marshall, you have been following me." Marshall said, "I know nothing about it. I swear on the honour of my dead mother I know nothing about it." Fader said, "I have your word for it. I have had a burglary at my house." Then he asked Marshall if he knew of that, and Marshall said he did not. Then there was a pause for a minute, and then I heard the same voice that had been speaking say to Pader, "Do you recognise this?" Fader said they were two of his letters that had been stolen from his house. The voice said, "Burn them," and Fader said, "I do not burn my own correspondence." The voice asked for them back, and then said that he had shad an express letter the day before from some one; I did not catch the name as the voice was rather low, but I heard him say there was ft woman in it. Then Fader said to this voice, "Look here, Marshall, what is it you want?"and he said, "Money." I beard no other voice but that one until then; it was the same voice that had introduced Butler. The voice said he wanted £1,000, and Faber said, "I have no thousand pounds." The voice replied, "We know you have some money coming in." Fader said that there was something that he wanted very particularly that had been taken from the house, and there was a meeting arranged for the next day at half-past four at the "Telegraph Hotel," Shepherd's Bush. The same voice promised that he would try to bring what Fader wanted; I did not hear what it was that was wanted. The voice said he had no money. Then I heard some money jingling, and two voices said, "Think you." The same

voice asked someone else if that was all right, and the other voice said, "Yes." That was the only time I heard the other voice speaking. There was nobody else but Marshall, Butler and Fader in the hoom. I then went away, and shortly after the two men went.

Cross-examined. From the time the men came in until they came out it seemed almost an hour. I think I heard almost everything that was said with the exception of the name of the woman, and that was said in a soft voice. I did not say anything to Fader about it until the next morning; he asked me if I had heard the conversation, and I said that I had, and it had rather surprised me. I asked him who the men were, but he did not make any reply. I was first asked to make a statement as to what happened about November 5.

Detective-inspector THOMAS DAVIES, X Division. On October 31, having received certain information, I made an appointment with Fader, and I went to his house at 6 p.m. on November 1, accompanied by Detective sergeant Rose. We had a conversation with Fader, and took up our position outside the dining-room window, which was partly open, the blinds being drawn. At 7.30 I heard a ring and a knock, and afterwards I heard two people ushered into the dining-room by Fader. Fader said, "Sit down Butler; take a seat Marshall." Marshall said, "Before we start the other matter, here is the card of a man whom you can do some good business with. He comes from New York." He read the name and address, and Fader appeared to be copying it down. I did not hear the name, but the address was Laurence Pountney Hill, City. Marshall said, "Now what about Gillan and Price"; they are not connected with this case." Fader said, "Never mind about that; let us get down to business. Have you brought the stolen letters you said you would get?" Marshall said, "No, laddie, nothing doing." Fader said, "What, can't you get them?" Marshall said, "No, I could not get them." Fader said "Why, you said you would." Marshall said, "I know I did, but you know I cannot take that clock and put it under my coat and walk away, can I?" Fader said, "Not without my seeing you." Marshall said, "I have brought you a copy of Garland's letter." Fader said, "I do not want copies; I want the originals." Marshall said, "I know, but we are going to get some money out of you to-night, laddie." Fader said, "Well, what is the proposition? You say you want £200." Marshall said, "Yes, these are my instructions: Miss Tolley wants £30 down and £5 a week for two months; then there is borrowed money and she has pawned her furs. Hasn't she Butler?" Butler said, "Yes, that is right." Fader said, Well, I do not know anything about any woman; I am not dealing with any woman but your two." Marshall said, "Look here, laddie, I am steering this deal. Butler is only my man; I owe him £2 10s. Then there are my own expenses £8 5s. You engaged me to work for you in this matter." Fader said, "No, I did not engage you. You say you are engaged by Miss Tolley; what is this money for?" Marshall said, "Well, she says you caused her to have an illegal operation by a doctor "(mentioning the name) "in Harley Street; I suppose the £30 is for that." Fader said, "It is a lie. Look here, I am not dealing with any

woman; I am only dealing with you two. Do I understand that if I give you this money I shall have no more calls? I want to clear this matter up once and for all." Marshall said, "Well, when she gets this money she is going right away and she is going to take a little cottage in Derbyshire until the end of May, and you will not hear any more of her." Fader said, "If I pay you this money, I shall not have any more calls." Both Marshall and Butler said, "That's it." Fader said, "Well, how much do you want? You said the other day £200 would settle it." Marshall said, "Yes, besides £8 5s., my expenses—that makes £208 5s." Fader said, "Let us call it £210, round figures. Row much do you want now?" Marshall said, "Well, you see what she says—£30 down." Fader interrupted and said, "I do not know anything about any 'she.' I am only dealing with you two." Then there was a general conversation and eventually the sum agreed upon was £45 (that night and three instalments of £55 each. Fader said, "Let us make a memorandum of it, so that there will be no mistake and we shall each have a copy. Now, whom am I going to pay this money to?" Marshall said, "Me." Fader said, "I will make out the cheques then." Marshall said, "Oh, no, laddie, we want the ready; we have not a cent." Fader said, "Well, you do not expect me to carry £45 about with me, do you?" Eventually I heard the jingle of money and Fader said, "Here is a sovereign for you, Marshall, and 5s. for Butler. I will allow for it in the cheques." Buitler said that his cheque was to be male payable to "H. Butler" and Marshall said, "H. N. Marshall." Fader said, "Now you are going to bring me hack all the stolen things that you promised." Marshall said, "As soon as we have cashed the cheques." Fader then handed a cheque to Marshall saying, "Here is yours Marshall, £41; that is right, 1s. not it?"We then entered the room. Fader turned to them and said, "These gentlement are detectives. I am going to give you. into custody for stealing my letters from that bureau and blackmailing me." Both prisoners were sitting down at the table. Butler had his cheque in his hand and as soon as the word "detectives "was mentioned he threw it down on the table. I said, "If you do not want it I will take it." Butler said, "Oh, no, Mr. Fader, not blackmailing., I am only working for him (Marshall)." I told them that I had overheard the whole of the conversation. Marshall, after a second, said, "I am glad. I am quite ready to go with you." On the way to the station Marshall said, "Blackmail? Where the deuce were you then? I am only acting as an intermediary. Well, when I say 'intermediary'"—then he stopped. At the station he said he was acting for Miss Tolley and produced the statement written by her (Exhibit 12) saying, "There are her instructions." I produce Exhibits 4, 6, 9, 10, 11, and 13. When Exhibit 10, the letter from Mies Tolley, was found upon him he said, "There are my instructions, too." On him were found a sovereign which Fader had given him, four pawntickets, two for overcoats, the exhibits I have mentioned, a fountain pen, and 4d. in bronze. When charged Marshall said, "Absolutely not guilty; I deny everything, "Butler said, "I am only working for him (Marshall)." The next day I went to Norman's shop at la, Grafton Terrace,

which is at the end of Fader's road, and received a parcel done up in brown paper. It contained this address book and letter book (produced), which were identified by Fader.

Cross-examined. Butler took a very small part in the conversation; he took quite a subordinate part all through. Marshall did not insist throughout the conversation that he was working for Miss Tolley alone, but he certainly insisted that she was one of the people who had instructed him.

Detective-sergeant WILLIAM ROSE, X Division. On October 31, I went at Fader's request to the smoking-room of the Royal Automobile Club in Pall Mall. Standing looking out of the window at 3 p.m., I saw the two prisoners join Mr. Fader and engage in a conversation with him which I could not hear. Marshall produced two or three letters to Fader, and put them back into his pocket shortly afterward. He took this photograph from his pocket (produced) and handed it to him. Fader then handed some silver coins to both prisoners and they parted. I went with Inspector Davies to Hereford Road on November 1 and I have my note-book here containing a record of the conversation which we heard. I took Butler to the station. On the way he said, "You have made a mistake, you know; I have not broken into the house"—at the time of the arrest they were charged with stealing and blackmailing—"I knew the letters were stolen, but they were given to me, or at least to both of us." At the station he said, "I am an old friend of his; I am only working for him (Marshall). I first knew Miss Tolley respecting this matter on October 16, when the pledged her furs. I have only worked for him for three months. I have made two or three inquiries for him, but this is really the only one." There were found upon him 3d. in bronze and 5s. in silver.

Cross-examined. I have ascertained that he has been working for Mr. Simmons, a private detective, and Mr. Chamberlain, an ex-police inspector. One has known him for about three years.

ALFRED JOHN NORMAN , newsagent, 1a, Grafton Terrace, Acton. About 7.30 p.m., on November 1, prisoners came into the shop. Marshall bought a packet of cigarettes and asked me what time I closed. He then handed me a parcel wrapped in brown paper. I gave it to Inspector Davies on the following day.

WILLIAM BOWDEN , porter, "First Avenue Hotel," Holborn. I know Marshall. I only know Butler by sight. About the commencement of June I saw Butler opposite the hotel, evidently watching somebody. I saw Marshall about Coronation time. In consequence of what I saw of them I made a report to Fader, who was stopping then at the hotel.

Cross-examined. I am not certain about the time I saw Butler; I am positive it was before the Coronation time. I did not often see Marshall there. I know now that he has an office in Chancery Lane. People going into the lounge of the hotel can be served with coffee but not with drink.

Re-examined. We have no bar in the hotel


HERBERT MARSHALL (prisoner, on oath). I have been a private detective in England six and three-quarter years. I was in the Secret Service of the Canadian Mounted Police, and I have been in the Intelligence Department in South Africa. I first heard of prosecutor through an operator applying to me for temporary employment, about June 20. In consequence I wrote to the prosecutor, offering my services, and I afterwards called upon him. He agreed to pay me £5 if I found out who it was who had been keeping him under observation. I handed him the operator's report and the letter which has been put in evidence. That was the end of that piece of business. I next met him about the end of September at the "First Avenue Hotel," where I lunch very often. He told me that Miss Tolley had been occupying room No. 174, and that she had been in the habit of visiting some of her female friends in Chancery Lane, and thai it had come to his knowledge that she was saying things about him concerning an operation which she had lately been through by a Harley Street doctor, which took place at Endsleigh Gardens. The word "illegal" was not used. He asked me for my private address, which he wrote in his address book, and gave me to understand that he would very likely have cause to employ my services. This conversation took place in his bedroom. On October 27 (with Butler) I went to see him at Acton. I had received an express letter on the 26th from Miss Tolley, asking me to call at her address and I should hear something to my advantage. When I called she told me that she had found Fader's address. I told Fader that she had found his address, that she had visited there during his absence, and had taken some papers, a photograph, etc., from there, that she intended to hold those until he had done right by her, and that she was in ill-health through having had cohabitation with him." £1,000" was not mentioned; it was 1,000 dollars that I mentioned. The way that it arose was that Miss Tolley had had two men and a certain Mr. Bradley go to her house to try to get these books, but she would not part with them unless she received £200 to make Fader see her right. I told Fader this. (Mr. Justice Avon here remarked how inconvenient it was that the prosecutor and Miss Tolley had not been cross-examined as to this, and stated that those witnesses would have to be recalled). I offered my services to him, and he said on account of the robbery at his place he had intended to write to me, but he did not know where to write to. He had had three men trying to get these books back for him, and asked me to do my best. He offered to reimburse me for my trouble, and he gave me 5s., which I took for my 'bus fare. We made an appointment to meet at Shepherd's Bush, 4.30 p.m., the next day, but I was unable to keep that appointment. The next time I saw him was on the Monday, outside the Royal Automobile Club. I had been lucky enough to be able "to persuade Miss Tolley to part with the photograph belonging to him, and I handed it to Mm. Her account of how I came to be in possession of that photograph is absolutely incorrect. We made an arrangement to see him the following evening. On the afternoon of

the next day, after receiving a telegram, I went to see Miss Tolley, and she wrote out the note explaining how £200 was to be paid (Exhibit 13). I did not dictate it to her. I got an address-book and a letterbook from her, and I did them up in a parcel and left them at the stationer's shop, because I promised her not to part with them until I had received the money from Fader in order to pay her with. I did not take another parcel with me. I then went to see Fader that evening, and the officers' account of the conversation which took place is substantially correct. I insisted throughout that I was acting on behalf of Miss Tolley. I handed Fader two sheets of foolscap paper. which I copied from one of the letters which had been stolen. 1 wrote it at Miss Tolley's address when she says I was only pretending to be writing. I have never been charged with any sort of offence before. I honestly believed that I was being employed by Miss Tolley, and I intended handing the cheque for £35 to her. The rest of the money she wished paid through her solicitors.

Cross-examined. I have made a mistake in saying that I carried on business at 27, Chancery Lane; it was 93 and 94; I had forgotten. The name of the firm was "Marshall and Rose"; Rose carried on the book publishing part of it and I the private inquiry business. I have had Butler in my employ about three or four times about the beginning of January and May this year; he was not in my employment in June. I had kept no books whatever in my business. I have no operators' returns to show as they were destroyed. I paid their accounts in advance. The man who applied for work to me was named Peck; I employed him subsequently to detail his report to me in consequence of instructions I had received from Fader. It is not true to say no such person exists. He told me he had been working for himself and 'the last time I saw him was about ten days before I went to Brixton Prison; he was then out of work. I cannot say where he is now or what he is doing. After having paid him a sovereign for the information Fader wanted I had no cause to employ him again. I have never seen Davey, the person who was having Fader watched. I did not see Fader again on business until September at the First Avenue Hotel. I did not say to him, "You know a little girl from Manchester" in those hard and dry words; he had very often spoken to me about having helped a little girl from Manchester. He mentioned her first before I said a word about her; I did not know she existed. I meant just now when I said that he mentioned her very often that he did so at the conversation—not before. It is not true that my mentioning the word "illegal "operation on that occasion was the first thing that caused trouble between them; I never used the word. I swear that I saw him at least 20 times between that date and October 27 and the reason was that I had two friends stopping in the same hotel during that time. On October 27 Miss Tolley gave me instructions to act for her and I did so. It is not true that she said, "This is the first time you have ever spoken to me"; it would be unnecessary for her to say that. I did not say "Yes, but I have often seen you with Mr. Fader." She did not say, "What right had you to go to the First Avenue Hotel and tell Mr. Fader that I had had an

illegal operation?" It is true I took two letters away with me and she knew it. I did so to prove to Fader that she was the one who had stolen the books from him; it is not true that I was acting on behalf of the thief to get something out of the person from whom they had been stolen; Fader had asked me to get them for him; he said he had sent three men who had failed to get them and he would make it worth my while to get them. I suppose I was acting for him then; I did not expect to get any payment from Miss Tolley; I got nothing from her as a matter of fact; she never handed me 8s. I went that same evening, October 27, with the letters to Fader, I never used the word "illegal" to him on any occasion. It was Fader who mentioned the 1,000 dollars; he asked me how much money Miss Tolley wanted to take her away until May and I said, "£200"; he then said, "Oh, a thousand dollars"; it was his voice that Miss Ashby heard. It is not true that on going to see Miss Tolley on the 28th I tried to put some letters under the paper I was writing on, I took the photograph away, but I did not tell her it was for the purpose of keeping him under observation; I knew Fader perfectly well. I persuaded her to give it to me; as a matter of fact she gave it to Butler. I did not tell her on the evening of October 31 that I would return her the photo by post, as after that night I would not require it; I had already (given it to Fader. I did not tell her that I had seen him and he had agreed to pay me the money he owed me; he never owed me any money. I got the written instructions as to how she wanted the money from Miss Tolley on November 1, because I would not dare to talked Fader for money for her without them. Butler was acting for me throughout; he went to see Miss Tolley twice, when I had something else to do. I told Inspector Davies that the books were at the stationer's shop, not knowing that he already knew. I had no office on November 1. It is true I only had 4d. in my pocket on that day, but I only wanted my bus fare.

Re-examined. I paid Butler 10s. a day if I had any shadowing or anything like that for him to do, and the cheque for £2 10s. handed to him by Fader was For five days' pay. (To the Court.) The reason I 'took him to Fader's on October 27 was if there was anything I could not suggest or understand or anything that I was unable to do, he would be able to do it, also I did not like working singly on this kind of work. I took him on November 1 for these reasons and also he was to receive the £2, 10s. for his services. On October 28 Miss Tolley never left the room during the interview I had with her. She did not on the 31st tax me with having stolen the photograph; she had given it to me on the 28th; her story as to all that is invented.

(Wednesday, December 13.)

WILLIAM HENRY BUTLER (prisoner, on oath). For a number of years I have been employed by private inquiry agents. I have worked for the late Mr. Chamberlain, Strand, the late Mr. Andrews, Cockspur Street, Mr. Simmons and Mr. Robinson, Basinghall Street, and several others. They all pay different salaries; some pay 7s. 6d.

a day and out-of-door expenses, others pay 10s. a day and you have to pay all expenses. I have been employed by Marshall on very small cases. I am nearly certain I was not outside the First Avenue Hotel in June, because I had some other business on. At the beginning of the year it is true I kept observation on that hotel. On October 27 Marshall sent me a telegram asking me, if I was disengaged, to call on him. I called and he said he had had an express letter from Miss Tolley and that he was going there for instructions. He asked me to go with him and I went. He went in while I stayed at the corner. On coming out he told me that Miss Tolley was very ill; she had been under an operation and that Mr. Fader had left her very shabbily. He said he had some work for me, probably inquiries, and showed me two letters concerning Fader from Spain. I just looked at them. He said that he was going to show them to Fader. I went at his request to Fader's house and was present during the conversation, but took no part in it. Fader asked Marshall to meet him at the "Telegraph Hotel," Shepherd's Bush. I did not know until Mr. Fader said so that those two letters which Marshall had shown me were stolen. Marshall did not pay me anything for that day's observation. He told me to call at his place the first thing in the morning, as he had an appointment with Miss Tolley at half-past 11. I called and went with him to her house. He introduced me as working for him. I took no part in the conversation; I sat at the back. On leaving Marshall told me he had some business to do and I was to meet him at Shepherd's Bush at 4.30 p.m. I went there at that time. Fader drove up in a taxi-cab with another gentleman and asked me where Marshall was. I said that I did not suppose he would be very long, but that he had told me he had a little business to do and I asked him to wait. He said he was in a great hurry as he had some very important business. It is not true that I asked him not to talk so loud. He said that his people the night before had heard through the keyhole what had been said and there had been trouble over it. He asked me to tell the taxi-cab driver to drive him to 72, Holland Park Avenue, and told the clerk to give me a shilling, which I thought was for a drink. He told me to tell Marshall not to write to his private address any more and I said I would. He then drove away. I waited some little time and Marshall did not come. I saw him later that night and told him what Fader had said. He said that he had been detained, but that he had written to Fader making an appointment on the Monday, October 30, and told me to meet him the first thing on Monday morning. I saw him accordingly and he told me to see Miss Tolley to ask her whether she had received a letter from Fader or whether he had sent her anything. I went and saw Miss Tolley; she told me that she had been very ill, her rent would become due the next day, and that the last time she had seen Fader was several weeks back. I was not there more than ten minutes. I advised her to consult a solicitor, because I did not think Marshall would be able to do this case for her. She showed me a pawnticket for her furs. I met Marshall subsequently and made a report to him. He said that he had received a telegram from Fader saying he could not keep the appointment

that Monday night, but would meet him on the following Tuesday at the Automobile Club and he said he would not require me any more to-day, but told me to call on him first thing in the morning as he had some business to do. I met him on that Tuesday morning accordingly; he told me there was nothing from Fader and told me to meet him outside the Automobile Club. I met him and Fader there at 3.30, but I took no part in the conversation. Marshall said to Fader that the account was running up and that he owed me money for work done. Fader then asked him whether he had got the photograph and Marshall handed it to him and said that on Saturday he had to pawn his overcoat when he did not see him at Shepherd's Bush. He handed him 3s. and me 2s. 6d.; that was the first money I received in the matter except the shilling I had at the "Telegraph." Marshall said he would not require me any longer that day. I called on him the next morning. He showed me a telegram he had received from Fader saying he must have the address books and some other books or else he would not pay a cent. He said he should go up to Miss Tolley and get them and I was to meet him at six o'clock. I met him and he told me he would pay me that night. He then owed me £2 10s. He had one brown paper parcel with him, which he said he was going to leave at a tobacconist's because he had promised Miss Tolley that he should not give them to Fader without getting the money. I went with him to Fader's house and was present with him during the conversation. I took very little part in it; I only went there because Marshall told me he was going to pay me that night. He told me that he was being employed by Miss Tolley. I understood he was working as a sort of intermediary between Miss Tolley and Fader. The cheque for £2 15s. which was handed to me was for my salary and the expenses which I had incurred. I did not realise that there was anything wrong with the transaction or I should not have acted as I did. I have never before Seen charged with any sort of offence.

Cross-examined. It is true that over 20 years ago I was a 'bus conductor. It is not true that I have worked for Marshall for three months; I said that to Sergeant Rose in the excitement of being arrested; I was upset; I only worked for him occasionally for two or three days at a time. In watching the First Avenue Hotel about the beginning of this year I fancy I was working for Mr. Simmonds. The book in which I generally enter the people I work for is not here; it. ought to be at home. I rather fancy I have destroyed it, but I am not quite sure. I was not watching the hotel at the beginning of June last; I was at Tewkesbury then, working. I do not think I was working for anybody in June, but I had other little business at times; I work occasionally for my brother, who works for a Mr. Littlechild, a private inquiry agent. He did not give me anything to do in June but he generally gives me money to go on with. In June I was calling on different agencies for work. Marshall did not employ me until he got instructions from Miss Tolley on October 21. When I went to him in response to his telegram he said he thought he had some work for me and then we went to Miss Tolley's. On his coming out from Miss Tolley's he said he would employ me. We both understood I was

to be paid 10s. a day and I to pay my own expenses. He asked me then to go to Fader's because probably there would be some inquiries and some corroboration; as a rule agencies always work two together. It is true I made no inquiries that night, but there was my corroboration. I heard Marshall tell Fader that Miss Tolley knew his wife had come from abroad, but not that she was "bound" to have money; he said she was "in difficulties." When Fader asked him what he wanted Marshall said he had come on Miss Tolley's behalf and that he could settle the matter for £200 or a thousand dollars; I did not understand this was to be the price for the return of the books and letters, but rather to enable her to go away and recuperate. I did not say, on Fader asking, that we would have the books and letters by to-morrow night. I went with Marshall to Miss Tolley's on the following day to corroborate. She gave him a letter and the photograph voluntarily; he did not slip the letter under the paper on which he was writing. It was either a book or a letter that they gave him; I am not quite sure. Miss Tolley never left the room at all during that interview. I never heard anything said about any other photograph but the one in the silver frame. On meeting Fader at the "Telegraph Hotel" I did not tell him I was absolutely broke; I said I could do with a drink or something of that sort; and he handed me a shilling which I took to be for that. I did not say, "I could do with a drink." I made no inquiries that day. At that time if I wanted to communicate with Marshall, he having no office, I would write to his private address. At the interview on November 1 Marshall told Fader that the money was wanted to send the girl away as she was sick, in the family way, and had had an illegal operation; this must have been before the cheques were handed. I was there simply because Marshall had promised to pay me; I had made no inquiries that day. It is true in this case that my hours were very short; there were no inquiries to be made except on the 28th; all the rest was corroboration. (To the Court.) On October 27 Fader said, "I have no thousand dollars," referring to the £200 that Marshall had mentioned. I did not enter in the book, in which I said I had probably entered it, the name of the man for whom I had worked in watching the "First Avenue," Marshall's work, because it was not necessary, since he was with me the best part of the time; I entered it on slips of paper. I reported to Marshall that I had told Miss Tolley to consult a solicitor as I did not think he, Marshall, could undertake the work.

(Rebutting evidence.)

E. J. FADER (recalled, further examined). I did not send for Marshall at the end of September; he telephoned that he wanted to see me. At the interview on October 27 I did not mention anything about dollars; the £200 was first mentioned outside the Automobile Club. Marshall never handed me two sheets of foolscap. (To the Jury.) Marshall admitted on the 27th that he had got the two letters he showed me from Miss Tolley and I drew the inference that she had got the rest. I did not employ two men to go and get them back from

her; I know my secretary went to her, but that was before the robbery.

F. M. TOLLEY (recalled), to the Jury. The two men who came to my house on October 26 were friends of Fader; they would not give their names. They suggested I should return the books. That was the day before Marshall called. One of them I had already seen at Fader's house; he answered the door to me on the 25th. I admitted to him then that I had the books.

E. J. FADER (recalled, further examined). I did not know that Miss Tolley called at my house on the 25th. A gentleman staying in my house told me that a lady had called, but he did not know who it was. I had no impression up to then that she had taken the books. The gentleman I have referred to was really taking care of the house in case there might be another burglary. I never sent him to Miss Tolley; I think she is mistaken in his identity. (To the Jury.) He never told me that Miss Tolley had said she had taken the books.

Verdict (each prisoner), Guilty.

It was stated as to Butler that there were no previous convictions against him. He had originally assisted his father in a bookmaking business; he then became a'bus-conductor and had latterly been employed casually by various detective agencies. There were no previous convictions against Marshall. He, with a man named Rose, had carried on a book publishing business for a short time at 93 and 94, Chancery Lane, and at odd times had been engaged in private inquiry work. The use of the name "private detective," it was stated, misled the public into the belief that the person using that name was connected with the police.

Sentences: Marshall, Three years' penal servitude; Butler, Nine months' hard labour.

Mr. Curtis Bennett stated that inquiries had been made of the doctor in Harley Street whose name had been mentioned and it was ascertained that the operation performed by him upon Miss Tolley was of a minor character and in no way illegal.


(Monday, December 11.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-44
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HUMPHREYS, William Campbell (30, secretary), pleaded guilty of stealing two cheque forms, the goods of Henry Ward, his master; stealing bankers' cheques for £25 6s. 6d., £40, £40, £60, and £47, in each case the property of the said H. Ward, his master; unlawfully making certain false entries in the cash-book and ledger of the said H. Ward, his master; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £400, with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a bankers' cheque for £20, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins appeared for prisoner.

Previous convictions were proved.

It was urged on prisoner's behalf that upon the expiration of his last sentence he had obtained respectable employment and had done his best to retrieve his good character, but that he had been practically blackmailed into committing the offences to which he now pleaded guilty by two men whom he had met in prison and who threatened to disclose to his employers the fact that he was an ex-convict unless he assisted them in the present crime. Prisoner had made restitution of part of the money of which prosecutor had been defrauded.

Sentence (December 13), Twelve months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-45
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment; No Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

SUGDEN, Arthur Herbert (22), and FAIRFAX, Richard William (18) , both stealing one suit case containing one mackintosh and other articles, the goods of John James Porteous and feloniously receiving the same; Fairfax stealing one suit case containing divers articles of clothing and other articles, the goods of Arthur Murray Downton and feloniously receiving the same; Fairfax stealing one suit case containing divers articles of clothing and other articles, the goods of Thomas Farrell and feloniously receiving the same.

Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Frampton and Mr. Chute defended Sugden; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Fairfax.

Major JOHN JAMES PORTEOUS. On October 13 I travelled from Dublin to Euston. My luggage was put on the boat train at Dublin; it included a suit case; this was missed at Euston. I identified the case and mackintosh produced as my property.

Mrs. COUSINS. I keep a boarding-house at 53, Bernard Street, Russell Square. On October 23 Fairfax rented from me a bed-sitting room; he said he was a student at Guy's Hospital and at Caius College, Cambridge. On October 27 Fairfax engaged another room for Sugden. On November 7 they both went out and did not return. On the 12th Sugden came and said that Fairfax had been in a motor accident and got his clothes torn and he wished to go into Fairfax' room to take a suit of clothes. I allowed him to do so, and he took a suit, which he packed in a mackintosh that he had on his arm; it was a mackintosh similar to the one produced. Later, as they had left owing me rent, I examined Fairfax's room. I found two portmanteaus, one bearing the name of Downton and the other the initials "F. F."; in the wardrobe was a quantity of ladies clothing. I communicated with the police, and subsequently acted on their instructions. On November 20 Sugden called; I sent for the police and he was arrested.

Cross-examined by Mr. Frampton. My tenant was Fairfax; I never let a room to Sugden. None of these things were found in Sudgen's room.

Sergeant GEORGE STEPHENS, E Division. On November 20 I went to 53, Bernard (Street, and saw Sugden; he had on his arm the mackintosh produced. I told him I was a police officer and should arrest

him for being concerned with a man named Fairfax, not in custody, in stealing luggage from Euston Station. He said, "Nonsense; what do you mean? I have not seen Fairfax for over a week; he rang me up from some West End office yesterday and asked me to call here to-day. 1 have not the faintest idea where he is now. I appear to be in a fine fix; I must get out of it somehow. I do not like being a cad, putting a friend away who has been good to me, but I must look after myself. Fairfax done the stealing, and I have pawned some of the things. For God's sake do what you can for me; treat me fair; I will be straight to you. I cannot deny having lived here with Fairfax, and no doubt the landlady has seen me go out with parcels." When charged at the police-station, he said, "I know nothing about it." In Fairfax's room I found the dressing-case identified with Porteous.

To Mr. Frampton. Sugden did not tell me that he thought Fairfax was living at 15, Piccadilly Mansions.

Detective-sergeant ALBERT STEGGALL, E Division. On November 20 I went to No. 15 Flat, Piccadilly Mansions, and saw Fairfax. I told him he would be arrested for being concerned with Sugden in stealing luggage from Euston Station. He said, "Have you got Sugden?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I thought something would happen, as I was expecting him back. I will tell you the truth. I come from a most respectable family, and have got through my money by gambling." He produced a parcel, containing a quantity of clothing, and said, "These came out of some of the bags we have stolen, most of them from Euston, Waterloo, and Paddington. I shall try and get Sugden out of this."

To Mr. Frampton. We located Fairfax from a letter found upon Sugden.

To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. Fairfax did not say, "These came out of some of the bags I have stolen."

Inspector WILLIAM GOUGH, E Division. On November 20, at Hunter Street Police Station, Fairfax made and signed the following voluntary statement, after being cautioned: "I remember stealing three or four pieces of luggage from Euston Station on different days. When the trains arrived I took the things out of the luggage-van, or told a porter to remove them to a cab, in which I drove off. I disposed of the property through pawnbrokers. I stayed at the Savoy Hotel, then at the Berkeley Hotel, then at 53, Bernard Street. There is a bage at the Savoy and one at the Berkeley, both of which I stole from Euston Station." On November 29 prisoners were charged with stealing the Farrell and Down ton articles. Sugden said, "I plead not guilty to the first two charges; I was not with Fairfax on August 21." Fairfax said, "I have nothing to say."

To Mr. Frampton. I have been told that Sugden has been receiving £2 a week from his uncle.

EDWARD COUPLAND , assistant to George and Sidney Smith, pawnbrokers, Tottenham Court Road, produced duplicate of a pawnticket, dated November 3, relating to a dinner jacket, vest and trousers, and identified the articles produced (property of Downton). Witness did not identify either prisoners.

ARTHUR MURRAY DOWNTON . On October 20 I was a passenger from Liverpool to Euston. On arriving at Euston there was missing from my luggage a brown suit-case. I identify the case (produced) as mine. The dinner-jacket, etc. (produced) were part of the contents of the case.

FLORA FARRELL , wife of THOMAS FARRELL, gave similar evidence as to the loss of a suit-case, bearing the initials "F.F.," and identified the case found in Fairfax's room; also some of the ladies' clothing found in Fairfax's wardrobe, which had been taken from the suit-case.

(Tuesday, December 12.)


ARTHUR HERBERT SUGDEN (prisoner, on oath). I have no occupation. I live on an allowance of £100 a year, which I draw weekly. My father has a fairly high position in China. I was introduced to Fairfax last spring by a man I knew in the City. He appeared to have plenty of money; he used to go to the clubs and bet on the tape, and as far as I used to know, lose fairly large sums of money. On October 27 he asked me to go to his lodgings at Bernard Street and have some oinner. As soon as I got there I said to him, "You are fairly comfortable; I have not fixed up anywhere permanently myself; can I get a room here"; and he took me a room there and then. I stayed there that night. I took no things there; my uncle was going to fit me up with everything, and Fairfax lent me some night clothing The following morning, feeling seedy, I stayed in bed. I did not see him until near six o'clock. He then said to me, "You have only got a few shillings, have not you?" I said, "That is right." He said, "I got some money this morning, but I have lost it, do you mind pawning a bag for me?" He produced a bag with two initials on it. I said, "I cannot pawn that very well, it has got initials on it." It is not one of the bags here. I think it had "B.T." on it; I would not be certain. I did not think they would lend me any money on it because the bag was blemished through having initials on it. I then said, "Whose bag is it?" He said, "My cousin's bag," and he gave me a name, I think it was "Thornhill" or "Thorn" something, perhaps "Thorndike." He said, "You might just take that thing, I can get it out in a week or two; my cousin will not want it." So I went to Southampton Row, or near there, and pawned it for 10s. On the following Tuesday I pawned a blue coat that Fairfax gave me, and a scent bottle; he wanted about 4s. or 5s. I pawned the coat in Tottenham Court Road and I believe I gave Fairfax's name and right address. Later in the day, after pawning the seent bottle, I went to see my uncle; he was not in; I drew my allowance and came back and met FairfaxHe asked me if I had drawn my money? I said "Yes." We walked to Leicester Square, where he left me for about five minutes. He said, "I am just going round to my cousin's to borrow a sovereign or so." He came back and said he could not borrow any money, but his cousin had lent him a couple of old golf coats and wanted me to pawn them. I said I could not very well do so in that neighbourhood.

He told me where to go and I pawned them for 15s. On November 11 I again met Fairfax at a woman's place, where we had been staying for two or three days. I told him I had not any money. I borrowed his greatcoat and pawned it for £2. He gave me £1 of it. Those are all the things, I believe, I pawned for Fairfax. 1 thought they were all his own goods. I gave him the pawntickets, I think, nearly every time, and the money. When I was arrested I was carrying a macintoshcoat, which I had borrowed from Fairfax. I have never been charged with anything more serious before than drunkenness. I am 22 years old.

Cross-examined. I have never been in America or Canada. I was out in China with my people about eight years ago: Fairfax told me he had gone over to America for a trip. He did not say he had returned by the Majestic. A man named Tim Warwick introduced me to Fairfax; he was secretary to a Mr. McCarthy I knew in the City, who was a shipbroker. I never knew that any of these goods were stolen. I never saw Fairfax bring a bag in or anything. I did not tell the police officer these exact words, "Fairfax did the stealing and I pawned some of the goods." What I said to the best of my recollection was, "Well, then, Fairfax must have done the stealing and got me to pawn some of the things." I never saw Fairfax in possession of any jewellery, except a cigarette case, or a thing like that, or a little pin. I think it was a pearl pin. He had two portmanteaus in his room at Bernard Street, similar to the one in court. I never saw the bag that is produced in court there; it was the same colour and somewhat like it. It had a white label on; I never picked the bag up and examined it. It is not correct that I went out very little during the time I was at Bernard Street; I was out nearly every evening. I used not to get up till about one o'clock. I went sometimes with Fairfax and sometimes alone. I think I have only been once or twice in Euston Station. I have never been at Waterloo Station, where the boat-trains come in. On Saturday. 28th, I went out when I pawned the bag, not with Fairfax, in the evening. He had left me early after dinner, about 9.30. I believe I pawned a cigarette case and a gold pin in East Street, Baker Street; they were my own property. I have not been to A. and C. Rebertson, late Amhurst, 68, East Street, Baker Street This document now handed to me, which is a contract note for £100, was given to me on Saturday, the 19th, I think by a man named Beer, with another for £40. He asked me to sell them. That was at the Fiat, 15, Piccadilly Mansions. They relate to jewellery worth £140. I never asked Fairfax where the jewellery was got from. I introduced Beer to Fairfax. Beer sells and pawns jewellery. I do not know his address. When arrested by Stephens I said I had not seen Fairfax for a week. Fairfax told me to say that in case Mrs. Cousins asked me, as he was owing her money. When I saw Stephens I thought he was a friend of Mrs. Cousins and so I said that, but I had been in Fairfax's company all the time. Stephens had not then told me he was a police officer and was going to arrest me. When he said he was, going to charge me I said, "Nonsense, I do not know anything about it," and when he told me the charge I said, "Well, then Fairfax must have done the stealing, and got me to pawn some of the

goods." I never said, as the officer says I did, "Fairfax done the stealing and I have pawned some of the things." I rever took out parcels from Bernard Street; the only thing I took out was the bag I pawned for 10s. When I told Mrs. Cousins that Fairfax had met with a motor accident, he had gone to a house and lost his clothes, and was then sitting on the edge of a bed with a pair of socks and shirt on, but I could not tell Mrs. Cousins that, so I told her the other tale. It was the best explanation I could think of.

Re-examined. I have never seen those contract notes from the day of my arrest till now. They were not found on me; they were put down as Fairfax's property, and I was never asked for an explanation of them. The statement I have now given of what I said to Stephens is correct. I told Stephens where Fairfax would be found. He said, "I want you to tell me what you know about it, it will help you; it either means you have to go in the dock or the witness-box." He never said anything about it being taken down.

Sergeant STEPHENS (recalled). I went to 53, Bernard Street, about 12.45 on November 20. I found Mrs. Cousins talking to Sugden. As soon as I saw him I said I was a police officer and should arrest him for being concerned with a man named Fairfax (not in custody) for stealing luggage from Euston Railway Station. He then made the reply, which I gave in chief. When arrested he was carrying the macintosh on his arm. I did not tell him he would have to choose between the dock and the witness-box. He did not tell me that Fairfax would be found at 15, Piccadilly Mansions. I found out Fairfax's address from a letter found on Sugden (produced).

RICHARD WILLIAM FAIRFAX (prisoner, on oath). At the time of my arrest I was living at 15, Piccadilly Mansions. Steggals arrested me. I have heard the evidence he has given of a statement I made on my arrest, and I also made a statement to Inspector Gough. If those statements are true they amount to a confession of guilt. The statement I am said to have made is this: the officer said he was going to arrest me for stealing luggage, or being concerned with Sugden. I then said, "Have you got Sugden?" and the officer said, "Yes." I said, "I thought something had happened, as I was expecting him back. I may as well tell you the truth," and I then produced a parcel containing some clothing. I did not say, "These came out of some of the bags we have stolen." I said distinctly, "These came out of some of the bags I have stolen." I did not then exactly say, "Most of the bags were stolen from Waterloo Station." I said, "The bags were stolen from Euston Station, but that I was not aware whether I bad taken bags from Waterloo and Paddington Stations." I said those words, but they were not true statements. I admit having this property, which has been identified, in my possession, and also the pawntickets that have been produced, also the two contracts. How I came by the property was in this way: Early in the year I gambled a lot, I had a good deal of money and also an allowance from home. I fell in with some rather bad companions, was introduced to gambling clubs, and lost a great deal of money. I met a fellow named Jimmy,

whose surname I forget. I told him I was very short and he told me that he went to railway lost property auction sales and bid for bags and boxes, and having got them he either pawned them or sold them and doubled or trebled the money he laid out. He fur-ther said that he was very busy and if I would pawn something for him it would save him a lot of trouble and I could take 25 per cent. out of any transaction that took place He did not bring them always in his hand as they were heavy bags. I often met him and he would say, "I bought one or two bags, there are the tickets, I put them in cloak-rooms; just go and get them and dispose of them as you can." I did so. The bags were always full of clothing. When bags were left at railway cloak-rooms unclaimed they were sold very cheaply with the contents. Six or seven days before I was arrested I was staying with Sugden, with some girl he had previously met. I had met by previous appointment this fellow, Jimmy, in the Cafe Monico, but he had no tickets, and he said I would not have any more transactions. I asked him why and he advised me to be strictly careful. He then told me for the first time that all the property he had stolen, or he with his friends; there were two or three of them. I asked him why he had not told me before. He said the police were after him and he should strongly advise me not to return to Bernard Street, as he was almost sure the house was being watched. He never came there, but he knew where I stayed. Imme-diately after that I went to Piccadilly Mansions. When he told me that, I said I would go to the police and give everything up and tell the whole thing, as I did not want to get messed up in it. He said "You have got 25 per cent. out of it, and although I did not tell you it was stolen, as you got the money out of it, you have no business to go and give me up" and he threatened that if I did I would have to take care of myself. Seeing that all the things were found in my room in my possession, that I had pawned things and had the tickets, that it was all circumstantial evidence against me, I pleaded guilty immediately and took the whole thing on my own shoulders, in consequence of Jimmy's threat and my position. It was not hurriedly I said I had taken them, I made up my mind to say I had; that is why I said to Detective Stephens that he would have to find out. I am 18 years old.

Cross-examined. This certificate of the American Petroleum Cor-poration for 2,500 shares was in this pocket-book in a back pocket The book was given to me by Jimmy as a present. I did not know at the time it had anything in it. The whole of my statement to the police was not untrue. I have never stolen any goods at all. This port-manteau, with "Downton" upon it, was given to me by Jimmy; he gave me them all. Jimmy is not about here, he has taken good care of that. I said to Sergeant Stephens that Sugden had not had anything to do with this and I should try to get him out of it.

Re-examined. I had no idea at the time any of the property was stolen. The first time I knew it was stolen was about six days before my arrest.

Verdict (each prisoner), Guilty.

The police gave Fairfax a very bad character. There are warrants out against him upon two other charges, which it was now desired should be now taken into consideration. There is no previous conviction against either prisoner.

HENRY ADOLPHUS BUSH , a retired merchant from Manchuria, said that Sugden was his nephew; his father holds a Government position in China. If the Court would deal leniently with the prisoner, witness undertook to see that he immediately went out to his people in Manchuria.

Sentence (Sugden), Nine months' imprisonment, second division; sentence on Fairfax was postponed till next Sessions.


(Monday, December 11.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-46
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > penal servitude; Miscellaneous

Related Material

ESTEGNY, Alexander (38, cabinet-maker), and BARAULT, Jules (29, machinist) , feloniously possessing 22 moulds in and upon which was impressed a certain stamp intended to resemble French and Belgian coins.

Estegny pleaded guilty.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted; Mr. Russell Biggs and Mr. Martin O'Connor defended Barault.

Detective-sergeant CHARLES LEACH, New Scotland Yard. On October 26 I went to 5, Netley Street, Hampstead Road, about 4.30, accompanied by Sergeant Goodwillie. In the back garden I found a large workshop containing some benches, a furnace, some dies, and a large quantity of tools, also a crucible, a melting pot, mould bands, some boards bearing the impressions of coins, wooden clamps, wire dippers, a bag of plaster of paris, an enamelled pail containing cyanide of potassium, a quantity of acids, and a book on chemistry. I then went to 44, George Street, about 150 yards away, and found in the first floor front room Estegny and Barault's wife. While we conversed Barault came in. I said, "Who is this man?" Estegny said, "He is my mechanic and also my cousin." Barault said, "That is true, and that is my wife. I live here." I told them I should take them into custody for making counterfeit coins at 5, Netley Street. Estegny said, "You have me. You are masters here; you must do as you please." Barault said, "I am only his workman." They were taken to Albany Street Police Station and detained. With Sergeant Goodwillie I went to Portland Road Metropolitan Station, and two boxes were handed me which I found contained 22 plaster of paris moulds, one being that to which the indictment relates, all for making French and Belgian five-franc pieces. (Witness produced several moulds.) I also found the two coins (produced) in one of the boxes. They are five-franc pieces. I then went to 10, Sandringham Road, Golder's Green, where Estegny lived. In the kitchen I found a cloak-room ticket for Euston Station, and proceeding there I was

handed this box (produced). It contained 221 bad French and Belgian coins, five-franc pieces and four metal plates bearing impressions of coins. (Produced.) Prisoners were charged at Albany Street on the 27th. Estegny said, "I made some on these moulds, but they were no good and I melted them down." Barault said, "That is right."

Cross-examined. Barault said, "That is right" in answer to the charge. The name on the Euston cloak-room ticket was not that of either of the prisoners.

Detective-sergeant GOODWILLIE, New Scotland Yard. I accompanied Sergeant Leach. I examined the moulds taken from the box and found them quite warm as if boiling metal had been poured into them and they had not had time to cool. Witness corroborated last witness's evidence. I was present at the police-court, and after Leach had given evidence Barault said, "From the first I have told you, and I shall always tell you and maintain, that I have had nothing to do with the business. I helped Mr. Estegny to carry the moulds to Portland Road Station after he told me about the thing, but I did not work at it."

Cross-examined. We believe Estegny was the master. Since his arrest Barault has said he was working on automatic machines. We have reason to believe he did do some work at that business. Some of the tools seized might be used in working on automatic machines. On the other hand they are quite the tools which coiners very often use. We do not know anything to Barault's detriment.

Re-examined. In the workshop there were a few old coins which might have been taken from the machines, but nothing else to indicate that anything but a coiner's business had been carried on.

Detective-sergeant JOHN BOWSTED, New Scotland Yard. I took the photographs produced of the interior of the workshop at 5, Netley Street on October 27.

Polie-constable HERBERT KEMP, 768 S. On October 26 I was on duty in Stanhope Street, adjoining Netley Street, about 3 p.m. I saw both prisoners coming from the direction of No. 5 with two wooden boxes. I followed them to Portland Road Station, where they deposited them in the cloak-room. I identify one of the boxes in court.

Cross-examined. I did not hear what name was given.

WALTER GAMMON EVANS , owner of 5, Netley Street. I let the place to Estegny on July 31 at 7s. a week. He gave the name of Delarue and said he wanted it for experimenting in chemicals. I gave him the key of the house and the workshop.

Cross-examined. I never saw Barault about it.

JAMES ARCHIBALD MACINTOSH , 44, George Street, plumber. Barault was one of my lodgers, and had the two rooms on the first floor from May 6 this year, the rent being 10s. 6d. a week. He referred me to someone at Golder's Green, but I have lost the card. I have seen Estegny at the house about half a dozen times.

Cross-examined. Barault told me he was in the automatic line.

FRANK BARRETT , owner of 10, Sandringham Road, Golder's Green. I let that house to Estegny in June, 1910. The mortgagees took it over in September, 1910, so that I only know he was tenant to that time.

Police-constable CHARLES PETTS, New Scotland Yard, gave evidence of the number of occasions he had seen Estegny go to and from 10, Sandringham Road, 5, Netley Street, and 4, George Street, from September 30 to October 26 sometimes accompanied by Barault. On October 27 I searched 44, George Street, with Detective Lacey, and found a key of the workshop of 5, Netley Street, on the mantelpiece. During the time I kept observation on 5, Netley Street, I never saw any automatic machines taken there, and the only things that left were small parcels.

Cross-examined. I did not try the key on the door of 44, George Street. I am sure it does not open it; it is a difficult class of lock.

Detective EDWARD LACEY, New Scotland Yard. I kept observation with Police-constable Petts on the houses mentioned and on the two men. I was with him on October 6, 19, 20, 21, 26, and 27. I saw Barault go into 5, Netley Street, and afterwards into 44, George Street, on several occasions. I saw Estegny go one night into 44, George Street, followed by Barault.

WILLIAM GEORGE PALMER , foreign cashier, Credit Lyonnais, Cockspur Stret, Pall Mall. I examined 74 French five-franc pieces connected with the case, including the one shown to the jury. Apparently they are bad.

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. The moulds (produced) are suitable for making five-franc pieces, some French and others Belgian. The coins (Exhibits 27 to 31) and the two coins wrapped in linen are counterfeit French five-franc pieces. Some of the moulds corresponded with some of the counterfeit coins. The wire dippers I saw which were found at Netley Street were coated with silver and had been used for an electroplating battery. A large proportion of the other articles found had been used in the manufacture of counterfeit coins. There were antimony, cyanide of potassium, nitrate of silver, and a large number of gets and moulds.

CHARLES LEACH , recalled. Lacey saw the box in which the moulds were kept after the boxes were taken from Portland Road Station.

HERBERT KEMP , recalled. I saw the boxes which Leach obtained from Portland Road Station at the station and identified them as those I had seen deposited.


JULES BARAULT (prisoner, on oath). I lived at 44, George Street. I never had a key for 5, Netley Street. I got in there with the same latchkey I had for George Street. I did not have the key of the workshop. I was looking after a certain number of automatic machines. I had to go about London to do so, and for that I used Estegny's bicycle. I borrowed it whenever I wanted

it. Estegny's wife and my mother-in-law are sisters. I used to go to Netley Street to get the bicycle, and to do small repairs when necessary. I have never worked in any way in making counterfeit money or had anything to do with it. About midday on October 26 when I came home I found Estegny there. He told me he had been been making counterfeit coins, and wanted to get rid of those things. We had something to eat, and then I went with him to 5, Netley Street, and took all the moulds and put them in boxes and took them to Portland Road Station. When Estegny was charged, as he did not speak as good English as I do, I explained to him in French some parts of the charge and translated his replies. The officer repeated what I had been telling him. There was perhaps some difficulty aboat a technical word which I did not know in English, and when the officer repeated that I said, "That is right." I did not say, "That is right" when Estegny said he had made some moulds and melted them. On October 20, when it is said I stayed a long time at Netley Street, I do not remember what I had been doing, but one afternoon it rained and I stayed to clean the bicycle with Estegny. The key found on my mantelpiece was the key of the workshop at Netley Street. It did not belong to me, but to Estegny.

Cross-examined. The 26th was the first I knew of Estegny making counterfeit coins. The moulds were hot when we put them in the box; we took them out of the oven. I did use the workshop to do my repairs. I do not remember saying. I was Estegny's workman or mechanic. I saw the battery in the workshop but did not know what it was used for. I never used it.

Verdict (Barault), Guilty.

The police gave Estegny a bad character as an Anarchist; in Brussels he had been sentenced to six months' hard labour for carrying firearms and four months for the possession of keys for housebreaking purposes. He had worked at Maple's and other places as a cabinet-maker and was a good workman. Barault bore a good character and nothing was known against him.

Sentences: Estegny, Five years' penal servitude; Barault, Four years' penal servitude. Both recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-47
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HUNTER, John (25, baker) , feloniously stealing an overcoat, a pair of gloves, and a knife, the property of Ernest Stein.

Mr. Gwyn Morris prosecuted.

Detective-sergeant FREDERICK WISE, City Police. On the morning of November 4 I was on duty in Ludgate Circus in company with Detective-sergeant Smith. I saw prisoner coming from the direction of New Bridge Street into Ludgate Circus. He was carrying this overcoat (produced) over his right arm. Apparently noticing me he changed the coat from his right to his left arm, ran across Ludgate Circus towards Farringdon Street, and at the corner of Farringdon Street he darted behind a van and got into a horse-omnibus, which was going back through Ludgate Circus towards Blackfriars Bridge. I gave Smith certain instructions and he got into the bus and got out

again with prisoner, to whom he said, "Where did you get that coat." He said, "It is mine; you have had it before." I told him I had never seen it before. He said, "Oh yes, you have; you had it when I was in the Minories last time." I then said, "Where are you going?" He said, "Torrington Square" I told him he was not going in the right direction but was going away from it. He said, "I am going to the Mansion House Station; that is the nearest way." I told him I was not satisfied with his explanation and I should take him to the police station to make inquiries. I took him to the station and sent for Sergeant Brown, of the Minories. He came to the station and said the coat was not the one that Hunter had before. I then made prisoner put it on, and I found it was too short for him, both in length and in the arms. There was a pair of gloves found in the pocket. He was asked to put them on also. They did not fit. He was then charged and made no reply. After he was put back in the cell I examined the overcoat and down in the lining I found this small white-handled penknife (produced). I took it to prisoner in the cell and said, "I have found this knife in the overcoat. Does it belong to you?" He said, "No, I have only got one. It must have been in the coat when I bought it down the Lane."

Cross-examined by prisoner. You told me you were going to Torrington Square about a situation. When you saw me you ran across the road. I do not believe the policeman was letting the traffic pass, or I should have lost sight of you. You gave your correct name and address. You said you had bought the coat from a man named Nathan. I have not investigated that.

Detective-sergeant WALTER SMITH, City, corroborated the evidence of last witness.

To prisoner. I did not search your place, but I went there, I did not see anything there to make me think you were getting a dishonest living.

Detective-sergeant JAMES BROWN, City Police. I was in charge of the Minories Station on November 23, 1910, when prisoner was in custody. He had an overcoat. It was not the same as the one which has been produced.

ERNEST STEIN , packer, in the employ of William Dederich, fine-art publisher, 23, Imperial Buildings, Ludgate Circus. The coat (produced) is mine, also the gloves and penknife. I last saw the coat about 9.15 a.m. on November 4, behind the private office door. I missed it about one o'clock. I did not report the loss to the police. The caretaker told me that an inspector had been over. There were a penknife and a pair of gloves in the coat, and fivepence in the ticket-pocket.

To prisoner. I could not be mistaken in the coat. There are other offices on the same floor, and opposite the office where the coat was hanging there were some workmen a few feet away. In the office were a table and desk and on one of them was £15 in gold and a diamond ring. Mr. Dederich told me so. They were not touched.

JOHN HUNTER (prisoner, not on oath). I darted across the road only to escape being run over. They searched my place and found nothing to suggest I had stolen the coat or that I was getting a dishonest living. The coat was a common one, and you must see plenty like it in the course of a day. Mr. Stein can only swear to it by the hole. Anyone can have a hole in their pocket. He says he did not report his loss, but at the police court I understood him to say he did not report it till the 6th. In the meantime I had been charged and remanded. You are asked to believe that someone goes into that building, past the general offices into a private office, with workmen only a few feet away, and carries the overcoat away and leaves behind him £15 in gold and a diamond ring, and that is to be done in a busy building without anybody seeing it. Suppose it was possible to do so, would not anyone naturally take the money and the ring, which could be put in their pocket and which could be hidden? There is no evidence to connect me with stealing the coat. I told the police where I had bought it. If they have not taken the trouble to inquire there am I to be held responsible? I am quite willing to let the gentleman have the coat if you find me not guilty, because it has cost me too much trouble as it is. I suggest that someone at that office stole that coat and I am the victim. The law has to prove my guilt, and if you have the slightest doubt about the case you must give me the verdict.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted of felony at this Court on September 7, 1909. The police proved other convictions and stated that prisoner was a great nuisance in the City. He was a persistent office thief and very difficult to catch.

Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-48
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

BULLER, John (25, collier) , attempting to break and enter a shop of the Aerated Bread Company, Limited, with intent to steal therein; being found at night with a certain house-breaking implement in his possession without lawful excuse.

Mr. Stebbing prosecuted.

Police-constable GEORGE HANSON, 378 C. I was on duty in plain clothes in Leadenhall Street about 5 a.m. on November 20. I saw prisoner in company with a woman loitering in the vicinity. I stepped into a doorway and watched them. I saw them enter the doorway of No. 140, Leadenhall Street, premises occupied by the Aerated Bread Company. I stayed there for a little time and heard a creaking noise in the doorway. I saw them leave the doorway and walk towards Cornhill. The noise sounded like wood creaking. They went a short distance and again returned to the doorway. I heard a similar noise, and saw them again leave the doorway. A constable then turned the corner. They left the doorway and made off. I then examined the doorway and found this bar (produced) lying upon the doorstep, and also saw marks on the door. The bar was part of the door fastenings; it had been forced off and I noticed two large jemmy marks upon the woodwork. I followed them and stopped them in Gracechurch Street. I told them

I was a police officer and asked prisoner what he had forced the padlock off with. He replied, "I could not force the padlock off without a jemmy." I then told him I should arrest him, and I took him back to the station, where he was charged. In the dock he produced this jemmy (produced) and handed it to me. He produced it from his trousers while standing in the dock. I had not searched him before then. He was searched in the dock by a reserve man, Gurney. Prisoner put his hand down in the inside of the trousers at the top part and handed the jemmy to me. I was standing at the side of the dock. He was facing me at the time. Gurney was not searching him at the time, but a reserve man, Robinson. I cannot call to mind any particular remark prisoner made as he handed the jemmy to me. I afterwards tried the jemmy on the door and it fitted the marks exactly.

Cross-examined by prisoner. The first time I saw you in the doorway was when I turned from the corner of Bishopsgate Street. You walked out of the doorway then and went a little way down the road. I saw you enter the doorway twice after that. I asked the police officer if he had seen you. I had to allow myself time to get from the doorway where I was standing to see what damage had been done before I could get near you. That was why I allowed you to walk away. You turned the corner, and that was why I asked the officer, if he had seen you. I asked you what you had forced the padlock off with, and you said, "Force a padlock? Why, how could I force a padlock off a door, seeing I have no jemmy," or something like that. You asked me to search you, but I did not. I unbuttoned your coat and looked inside. I did not see any padlock, but I saw a padlock was on the door not very long before. At the station you were searched by an officer with grey hair, a rather stout man. He searched your coat and did not find anything there. He took 6 1/2 d. from your pocket, and also a piece of lace from a lady's garment, a handkerchief, and a piece of string, which were afterwards returned to you. I said to the inspector, "Well, sir, the padlock was not very strong; he might have kicked it off with his boots." The inspector made you sit on the floor and take off your boots. No marks were found on them. Then he ordered another officer to search you, which he did; he took off your coat, waistcoat, and hat. After searching you he was proceeding to search your coat and waistcoat. I handed a jemmy to the inspector which you got from inside your trousers. At Guildhall and in the station I said you got it from your trousers pocket. You may have said, "That jemmy has never been in my possession; he has just produced it himself. It is not fair that I should be detained like this. Surely you will not detain me." seeing the police officer has just fetched this jemmy up like this and I have been already searched three times. The police officer knows me." You may have said so; I cannot recollect all you said; you said so much. You asked the inspector where you could have had the jemmy, and he said, "There are some very funny places you might have had it."

Re-examined. When I passed the doorway of the Aerated Bread shop about a quarter of an hour before it was quite in good order; the padlock was on The hasp was not broken then.

Police-constable WILLIAM MINTER, 208 C. About 5 a.m. on November 20 I turned into Leadenhall Street from Whittingham Avenue and saw a female standing in the doorway of 140. I stood there a few seconds and the female and the prisoner came out and went in the direction of Cornhill. I went across the road and Hanson spoke to me. I went to the door of 140 and saw the padlock was off, the bar off, and two jemmy marks on the door. At the station prisoner was rubbed down in the first place; he could not be properly searched on account of the female being in the dock at the same time. As soon as the female was taken out he was properly searched. He produced a jemmy from his left-hand trousers pocket apparently, and put it in the hand of Hanson, who was standing against the dock rail. Prisoner said, "Where did this come from? Have a fair charge."

To prisoner That particular shop was not on my beat. I did not hear any noise of wood breaking. You walked away. If you had run we should have caught you; there were two policemen at the other corner. I allowed you to pass me because you cannot arrest everyone that goes in a doorway. At the station the sergeant gave orders to a tall man to search you, not a small man of about 50. He could not search you properly while the female was in the dock with you. He rubbed you down. He found 6 1/2 d. on you. Then another officer searched you; he took off your coat, waistcoat and hat. He was beginning to search your coat and you produced a jemmy. Hanson handed it over the desk to the inspector. The inspector said to Hanson, "Where did you get that jemmy?" or words to that effect. The answer was that the prisoner had given it to him. You thrust it into Hanson's hand. You had not been thoroughly searched.

ELLEN ALEXANDER , manageress of the Aerated Bread shop, 140, Leadenhall Street. The premises were properly locked and padlocked on the evening of November 19. I was the last person to go away. The next morning I found the bar and padlock gone and jemmy marks on the door.

To prisoner. The 19th was a Sunday. The shop was not open that day. It was locked up on the 18th about 4 p.m.

(Tuesday, December 12.)


JOHN BULLER (prisoner, on oath). On the night of November 19, about 10.30, I was at the corner of Commercial Road. Having no work and nowhere to go I was staying out all night. I got talking to a young woman and found she was also, so I suggested we should walk about together so that I should be a protection to her. We walked up various streets until about 4.45. I stopped in Leadenhall Street, and turned my back for the young woman to tie a piece of string on my

clothes. It did not take a minute. Then we proceeded up Leadenhall Street and crossed Leadenhall Market, and I saw a man running towards us. I stopped. He asked me how I had broken a padlock off a door. I then turned naturally enough to the police officer and invited him to search me. I said, "You say I broke a padlock off a door? How do you expect that I could break a padlock off a door, seeing that I had no jemmy upon me?" We went with the officer to where the padlock was supposed to have been broken off, and he showed me a piece of iron on the ground but no padlock. At the station he dictated the charge to the sergeant, who gave orders for me to be searched. I was searched and had 6 1/2 d., a piece of lace from a female's garment, a pocket-handkerchief, and some string taken from me. They were returned to me. Then the inspector came in from outside and read the charge in the book and asked the sergeant if I had been thoroughly searched. He replied, "Yes." Then Hanson turned and said, "The lock was not a very strong lock; he might have kicked it off with his boot." My boots were taken off and thoroughly looked at, and then returned to me. The inspector gave orders to another searching officer to search me again, remarking, "Search him well Search all his pockets." The searching officer took away my coat, waistcoat and cap, and took away the various things which had been found before, this time for good. While he was searching my coat, waistcoat and hat Hanson turned round to the inspector and produced that jemmy and said, "He has just given me this." The inspector asked him where I had got it from. He said that I had got it from my trousers pocket. I turned to the inspector and said, "Inspector, that jemmy has never been in my possession; he has just produced it himself. Surely you will not believe him and detain me here, seeing that I have already been searched three times and nothing whatsoever found upon me. Where could I possibly have had that jemmy upon me? The inspector then said, "There is some funny places you might have had it." I then naturally enough got very excited and turned to the inspector and said, "If that piece if iron had been in my possession he would not have arrested me." The inspector told me to hold my row, that he had never heard a man make so much trouble; why didn't I keep quiet and be calm. He asked me if I wanted to be again charged for threatening. I said, "No, I am already locked up and charged here for nothing. I think it is very unfair." With that I was escorted to the police cell.

Cross-examined. I was taken to the doorway of No. 140 after I was arrested I had not been there before. The police officers' evidence is not correct. There was no reason why they should not have searched me according to the rules in the presence of the young lady. They would not have to undress me.

To the Court I had no jemmy. Hanson produced it and pretended he got it from me. The explanation I suggest is that someone between November 18 and 20 must have attempted that doorway and been disturbed. The officer on that beat came and found the lock missing. He did not want to be judged careless in his work and therefore he stopped at some distance and waited for a likely man to pass

by, so that by arresting him he would not be judged careless. Then, getting that piece of iron, he suggested that I had made those marks on the doorway with it, so as to say that I attempted to break into that shop. The jemmy was not on me at all.

The COMMON SERJEANT. After the evidence you have just given you may be asked questions you would not otherwise have been asked.

Cross-examination, continued. I have a very bad character indeed. I have been several times convicted of offences of dishonesty. I still persist in my statement. The police knew I bore a bad character.

Alice Gordon was called, but there was no reply.

Inspector CHARLES FEBUEY, City Police. (To the Court.) I arrived at the station 20 minutes after prisoner was brought in. In consequence of what I was told I told prisoner to take off his boots, which I examined. I found no indication of their having been used for kicking off a padlock. I directed P.C. Robinson to make a thorough search of prisoner's clothing. While he was doing so at the back I heard P.C. Minter say, "Here it is," and looking over the desk I saw the prisoner holding a jemmy over the side of the dock pushing it into P.C. Hanson's hand. Prisoner said, "I suppose you want to make out that this was found on me." I said, "You will be further charged with having it in your possession by night." Prisoner said, "If I had had it on me," turning to P.C. Hanson, "I should have cracked you over the head with it." I told him not to talk nonsense unless he wished to be further charged with threatening to assault. The whole time he was in the station he was very talkative and laughing. I had to tell him to be quiet in order to hear what the witnesses had to say. He said it was not fair and that he had been searched three times. I told him he had been only searched once in my presence and at my direction.

To prisoner. When I arrived at the station I asked the sergeant if you had been searched. He said you had been partially searched. A thorough search could not be made until the female prisoner was taken from the dock Neither coat, hat, nor waistcoat were taken away from you in my presence. If the searching officer who found the 6 1/2 d. on you had felt the jemmy he would probably have handed it to me. I saw you give the jemmy to Hanson. I asked Minter where you had taken it from and he said, "Apparently from the left pocket of his trousers." You said several times that the jemmy was never in your possession. You asked me where I might have had it upon me and I said, "There are many places where you might have had it."

Sergeant JOHN SHAND. To prisoner. I was in charge of the Bishopsgate Station when you were brought in. I gave orders for you to be searched when you were brought in and the charge was preferred against you, but you were only partially searched. I was in the station when the inspector ordered a different searching officer to search you again. He undid your coat and waistcoat, but did not take them away. I heard Minter say, "There it is," and I saw Minter hand the chisel to the inspector.

Police-constable RUSSELL GUENBY, 335 C. (To prisoner.) I did not properly search you. It was impossible because of the woman. I

felt in your pockets and took out some things. I was sent to fetch the female searcher and when I returned the other officer was on duty and he searched you. The money came from your waistcoat pocket, I believe. I did not feel you all over.

Police-constable Louis ROBINSON, 303 C. (To prisoner.) I came on duty about 5.50 at the station. I took your coat and hat away from you, but not your waistcoat. I searched you and I did not find anything. I did not see the jemmy produced; my back was turned. I heard you say, "I suppose you will want to say that you found this on me." I looked round and saw one of the officers with the jemmy in his hand. That was the first I saw of it. You said, "Inspector, surely you will not detain me, seeing I have already been searched four times and nothing found on me." You said, "Four times," not three.

At prisoner's request Alice Gordon was again called, but there was no reply.

Prisoner then addressed the jury from the dock, recapitulating his evidence given on oath.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the Chelmsford Sessions on May 26, 1909, in the name of William Burke. Other convictions were proved for housebreaking and stealing.

Prisoner, on being called upon, gave a long account of his actions from the date of his last release, October 15. He said he had walked about the country trying to get work and had failed.

Sentence: Four years' penal servitude.


(Monday, December 11.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-49
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

NEWMAN, Edward (60, labourer), and BROWN, William (17, labourer) , committing an act of gross indecency.

Brown pleaded guilty.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentences: Newman, Six months' imprisonment; Brown was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.


(Tuesday, Decemoer 12.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-50
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SMITH, William George (41, broker) , obtaining by false pretences from Edwin Tyler the sums of £2 and £3 5s.; from John Henry Baker the sums of £1 and £4 5s.; and from Albert Oggier the sums of £1 and £4, and one watch and chain and one ring, with intent to defraud; unlawfully forging, counterfeiting, and uttering, knowing the same to be false, forged and counterfeit, a certain writing purporting to be a letter from persons named G. Gaskell and Hunt, of Didsbury, in Canada, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Oliver prosecuted.

EDWIN TYLER , 18, Fentiman Road, Clapham Road. Previous to going to Canada in August last I had been a bookseller's assistant. I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" as follows: "Canada. 20 men wanted. A farmer from Alberta now in London is prepared to engage men able to return with him next Thursday. Must pay £10 passage, 12s. a day board and lodging. Work guaranteed. Need not be experienced if willing.—Hetherington's, 163a, Strand." I went to Hetherington's on August 4; they sent me on to 463, Strand, where I saw prisoner, who was interviewing other men on the same subject. He showed me the following letter: "July 7, 1911. Dear Mr. Smith,—We are afraid we shall not be able to get harvest hands. Could you manage to engage and bring along with you, say, about 20 men? You can give them a contract on our behalf for three or four months' work at three dollars a day and board and lodging. We do not mind about them being farmers as long as they are willing to work. You know they can get plenty of work after harvesting is over. We would not have asked this, but you were kind enough to offer to do so if we let you know—Yours sincerely, G. Gaskell and Hunt, Didsbury, Canada. To W. Smith. Cable reply." Prisoner said he was a farmer from Canada and owned the Arlington Hotel, Calgary, and would take us back. The fare would be £9 15s. We were to pay him £5 5s. for his interest in the matter. He told me I could get four months' work at three dollars a day, with board and lodging, and he would give me the use of his office later on to find employment. I paid him £2, believing his statements. I went to the Allen Line office and paid for a ticket to Winnipeg, £9 15s. Prisoner said men going to work as harvesters would be allowed a free passage to a certain distance, and from that it would cost a cent a mile, which he would pay. I paid him £3 5s., making £5 5s. altogether. I produce receipt. Eventually we paid the extra fare ourselves. We went to the Canadian Emigration office and told the emigration officer we were satisfied with the terms offered us by prisoner. On August 10 I and 16 or 17 others started from Liverpool in the ss. Corsican with prisoner. I prove the contract with prisoner (Exhibit 18). On the ship he offered me the management of his orifice in Calgary. On his suggestion I got three or four emigrants on the ship to join our party. He offered me 10s. per man, but I never got anything. At Quebec, after interviewing prisoner, the officers allowed us to proceed to Winnipeg. Prisoner gave them a letter stating he held himself responsible for the consequences if any of us became a public charge (Exhibit 23). I saw him sign it. When the men learned that the fare from Winnipeg to Calgary was five dollars 30 cents they demurred at first, but paid. We arrived there August 22 and stayed at the Arlington Hotel, prisoner saying it would cost us nothing. On August 23 be went out

and returned to say that harvesting was not ready, but he had obtained other employment. The men were very dissatisfied, but finally decided to take it. Mr. Gaskell, an employment agent, told them on Calgary Station that they were going to irrigation works, ditching and digging, and some had to handle horses. They eventually decided to take it rather than wait about in the town. I prove another contract with prisoner (Exhibit 19), in which he describes himself as Canadian manager for the London and Calgary Financial Brokers' Company, of London. I stayed in Calgary after the others left, at the Arlington I had to pay. It belonged to Mr. Lambert; prisoner had no partownership at all. After three days I went into lodgings. Eventually prisoner took me to the office, which I found to be the office of a Mr. Irwin, an advertising agent. Prisoner shared his one room and had the use of his typewriter. I did about three weeks' correspondence. It was about the purchase of farms. No business correspondence took place beyond that, and no purchase was completed. Prisoner remained in Calgary till Labour Day, September 4.

(Wednesday, December 13.)

EDWIN TYLER , recalled, further examined. On Labour Day, September 4, as prisoner had not paid me any salary, I asked him at Calgary for the first month's salary of eighty dollars; he said he would draw me a cheque if I met him at 8 p.m. at the Arlington Hotel. I waited at the Arlington Hotel till 9.30 p.m.; he did not come; I left him note (produced) and called next morning, but found he had left the town by the 2.30 a.m. train. I had no money and I got employment after waiting a week at the Arlington Hotel as night clerk at 20 dollars a month and board until September 26, when I got employment as checker on the Canadian Pacific Railway at 60 dollars a month; I kept that employment until I came to England for the purposes of this case.

Cross-examined by prisoner. On August 3, the first day I called on you in London, I saw the letter of Gaskell and Hunt; at the same time you mentioned an insurance agency for Calgary; I went to the London and Lancashire Fire Insurance in London, but I did not arrange anything in London with regard to that agency; they referred me to their agent at Winnipeg. I did not understand from Sullivan that he first suggested charging a commission. I will not swear I saw Oggier pay you £2; I think he did. On August 9 I saw Oggier and Zanerelli in your office in the Strand. I did not see Oggier ask you at Liverpool on August 10 for money for his breakfast. I did not say to you on the boat that the Canadian officials were inquiring if you were on board, or anything of the sort. I was not sent by the Canadian emigration people to accompany you to see if your were honest, nor did you suggest that to me on the boat. We were put in the forward part of the boat; I never saw my ticket which you got for me. The cooking on the boat was good, but the serving was awful,

and the boat was not clean; you said that you would write about it to the Board of Trade; I did not see you actually write. Before starting I knew that after arrival at Winnipeg there would be another 900 miles to Calgary, but I did not know that we should have to pay another 28 dollars 40 cents for the fare. When I paid the five guineas to you in London Sullivan was present; you did not say I should have to pay another £1 2s. 1d. for the fare from Winnipeg to Calgary. On the boat those who could not show their vaccination marks had to be revaccinated; I could not show mine, but I had made up my mind rather to go back than be revaccinated; you saw the doctor; then I gave the doctor a shilling and he passed me without being revaccinated. I paid you the five guineas simply for the harvesting contract. On the boat you did not read out a letter purporting to come from Gaskell and Hunt, saying that as the weather was bad they could not take on the men. You did not suggest to me that you should find us other work. On arrival at Quebec eight of us went before the emigration officers; we were not let though until you signed a letter stating that we should not be left destitute in Calgary; you also produced letters from Gaskell and Hunt, which may be the letters produced to-day. When you gave me the office work the harvesting contract was thereby cancelled. At Winnipeg you saved us a considerable sum of money by arranging that we should all club together and buy food sufficient for us all for the four days' train journey. You also paid for four or five men who could not pay for their food on the train journey from Winnipeg to Calgary, You could not have left us on the way, because we looked after him to see that he did not. The Railway officials at first wanted each man to pay return fare from Winnipeg to Calgary until you persuaded them to let us go at single fare. I collected that money from the men for you; four or five could not pay, and you paid for them. I did not suggest to you then and there that by the agreement you ought to pay all our fares, because I was in the same boat with the other men and if they paid I paid. The men that you engaged on the boat who paid £1 commission got the same contract for work. I do not know what the other men paid you. At Calgary you went through your accounts and said you were £5 out of pocket over this business. You took upon your shoulders the responsibility and worry of taking these men to Canada. On our arrival at Calgary you met a man whom you called Mr. Taylor. I knew before we left London that you were going to return to London a week or ten days after you reached Calgary. I saw that the wheat was not ripe in Alberta and part of Saskatchewan. Directly we reached Calgary the men got work, but not the work they had been promised. At that time I told you that I thought you had treated the men very well. On the journey you told me that the Arlington Hotel belonged to you. You never promised to refund my five guineas. You made out a rough proof of your contract with me for the office work and gave it to me to type; I did so and added the words, "The first month's salary in advance." You would not agree to that, and you sent me a letter (produced) agreeing to pay me my cheque on September

25. I did not work on till the 25th because I had no money to keep myself. My experience is that Canadian employers pay monthly.

Re-examined. I am not sure as to the exact day on which I first saw prisoner.

JOHN HENRY BAKER . Before I went to Canada I was a tea traveller in London. I have a brother in Canada. On Friday, August 4, I saw advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" went to Hetherington's, in the Strand, in the afternoon of the same day I saw (prisoner and Sullivan at 453, Strand, and had a conversation with them about going to Canada. Sullivan showed me a letter from a farmer (produced) and read it to me in the presence of prisoner; Sullivan told me the farmers in Canada wanted men, and that prisoner had come over to fetch the men. Prisoner said he had had a letter from a man to say would he fetch so many men out to Canada to be employed as farm hands; he then offered me a harvesting job out in Canada, and gave me a contract for harvesting work for four months at 12s. a day, board and lodgings. The contract, which I have lost, was signed by prisoner; I paid him £5 5s., receipt for which I have also lost, for that promise of work. I believed his statement about the farmers wanting men out there, and that the letter was a genuine one; I should not have parted with my money if I had not believed those statements. Prisoner said it would cost £10 to go to Canada and he wanted £5 5s. as his fee for getting the job; he was to find me employment out in Calgary and try to get me another job if the harvesting was finished. The next day I went to the Allan Line office and paid £9 153. for a ticket to Winnipeg; I subsequently sailed in the Corsican with prisoner and other men, and arrived in Calgary on August 22. There was a bit of trouble at Winnipeg, but I gave prisoner to understand that I had not another penny in my pocket when I left London, so he agreed to see me right through. At Calgary on August 23 prisoner said he had found I was not strong enough for harvesting so he would get me a nice job as a cookie, but I actually got a job driving a dump wagon, under Sampson, at Irrecanna, where I stayed for four days, and then Sampson took me to a hotel, told me I should get work there, went off, an never paid me any money. I found a friend in an officer of the Canadian Mounted Police, he paid my lodgings, and I got work on a farm for 10 dollars a week board and lodging, instead of the three dollars a day prisoner had promised me. I stayed there there weeks and then I got a job as yard man in a restaurant at 30 dollars a month and my meals, but I had to find my own lodging; I stayed there until I was brought over to England to give evidence in this case.

To prisoner. Sullivan was present the first time I saw you. I did not pay any money to Sullivan; I paid you. I told you in London that I was short of money and you lent me 10s., You paid for a cab to the docks. On arrival at Quebec we had some trouble in getting through; you gave an undertaking making yourself responsible to give us 12s. a day and board and lodging for four months. When

I we got to Winnipeg you gave Zanerelli, Oggier and myself 30 cents I to get our food; you also paid my fare from Winnipeg to Calgary, which I think was about £1, my food on the train—7s. 3 1/2 d., and my hotel bill at Calgary—6s. 3d. I understood that the agreement was that you should take me right through, paying all expenses. At Calgary you did not tell me I could not go harvesting because of the weather. You did not tell me in Calgary that you had arranged with the farmers Gashell and Hunt, when I should start work.

ALBERT OGGIER , interpreter, French citizen. On August 7 I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph": "Apprentices wanted, must pay £10 passage. 12s. a day, board and lodging. Work guaranteed, and telling those interested to go to Hetherington's. I went there, and then to 453, Strand, where I saw Sullivan; later the saint day I saw prisoner and told him I should like to go to Canada; he asked if I had enough money; I said I could get it. He said £10 was required for passage and £5 for himself. He showed me a letter which I did not lead, and told me a farmer had instructed him to bring at many men out to Canada as he could; prisoner said I should have 12s. a day, board and lodging, for harvesting work for four months. Prisoner said he himself was a farmer and had a farm in Alberta. I believed all his statements; on August 8 I gave Sullivan £1 and the next day I paid prisoner £20, being £15 for myself and £5 for Zanerelli, a friend of mine who was going out. I also gave him a gold watch, chain, and ring, for which I produce receipt, as security for the other £10 10s. for Zanerelli, who thereupon got a similar contract. We went to Canada with prisoner, and arrived in Calgary on August 22. The next morning prison asked me if I could drive horses, I said "Yes," and then Zanerelli, prisoner, and myself went to an employment agent and prisoner paid two dollars for me and my friend and we were given a job at an irrigation channel at a dollar a day. I told prisoner that was not the work he had promised me and it was not enough money; he told me I had better take that, and if I had not taken it he would have left me. We worked at the irrigation channel for two days and then were sent away because the work was too heavy for us; on August 27 I saw prisoner in Calgary; he told me I had better look for myself—he could not do anything more for me. I asked him if he would pay my room in the Arlington Hotel; he said "No." I told prisoner I had no money. Zanerelli and I finally got work in a brickyard at a dollar a day, board and lodging, and prisoner paid for our rooms. On August 29 I left there because the weather was too cold for making bricks; then I got a job in a restaurant and stayed there until I was brought to England for the purposes of this case.

To prisoner. You said in London, "It is no good unless you can find extra money for your train journey to Calgary." I laid I could not give more than £20, but I said I would try. I gave you the jewellery not to pay any fare but as security for the commission. You did net tell me to pawn that jewellery because I had not got the money to pay my railway fare in Canada. You did not tell me in Liverpool that

you had pawned the jewellery for £1 15s. You paid for food on the train for Zanerelli and me. I do not know how much. You also paid £1 2s. 1d. each for our fares from Winnipeg to Calgary, 6s. 3d. each for our first night at the Arlington Hotel, 4s. 2d. each at the employment agent in Calgary, and our hotel bill Saturday and Sunday. At Quebec we had some difficulty in getting through, but finally they let us go through without showing £5 each.

Re-examined. I have never seen my jewellery since.

TIMOTHY JOSEPH SULLIVAN . On July 21 I answered an advertisement in the "Daily Telegraph," and got a letter in reply signed William George Smith, in consequence of which I saw prisoner at the Hotel Cecil, and discussed going into partnership with him. Prisoner then took an office at 453, Strand, for which I paid the rent and assisted him in his emigration work. About 200 intending emigrants called and I heard what they had to say to prisoner. He told me he had some friends in three places in Canada, called Calgary, Olds, and Didsbury, said that he had authority from farmers in those places to bring out emigrants, and showed me letter (produced), which he afterwards read to the men when he engaged them; I thought it was a genuine letter; I may have read it to some of the men myself. Prisoner sailed on August 10, leaving me a written authority to engage more men on the same terms; he also left me contracts signed in blank for me to fill in the particulars when I engaged the men; I engaged some more men on those contracts.

To prisoner. I entered into partnership with you and signed a deed of partnership on July 24, the terms of which were that we were to carry on business as Anglo-Canadian financial agents, putting Canadian schemes before British capitalists, and any other profitable business. You were to take the Canadian part of the business and I was staying in England. I paid no money for coming into a half share of the profit of that business. You did not tell me about the emigration business until after the partnership agreement had been entered into; I did not suggest that you should charge the men a commission, that was your idea; I agreed that if you were going to give the emigrants a good thing you ought to get something for your trouble. There were one or two men whom you took with the agreement that they should pay the commission in Canada. You gave the emigrants to understand that you would pay from Winnipeg to Calgary; it would come out of the money they had paid. In London I saw a placard quite apart from our notices, which said that something like 30,000 men were wanted in Canada for harvesting. You said that you were bringing out the men to oblige Gaskell and Hunt, who were old friends of yours; at first objected, as it took you from our ordinary financial work but I consented to oblige you. I suggested that as such a lot of emi grants were calling at the office you should get some authority greater than yourself to show that the men were wanted, and that you should cable to the Mayor of Calgary and ask him. Shortly after you said that you had done so, and snowed me what you said was the reply with the word "Yes," which, of course, might have been an answer

to any cable. After you had gone I sent seven men out; I spent the £35 I received from them in office expenses. The partnership agreement says that neither of us should spend more than £10 without the authority of the other partner, but this emigration work was nothing to do with the partnership.

(Thursday, December 14.)

TIMOTHY JOSEPH SULLIVAN , recalled, further cross-examined by prisoner. I do not know whether the first three men you engaged paid no commission. That was before you approached me in the matter. I believe some of the men you took out could not find the full amount. We did not agree that I should leave on August 19 by the Megantic. I engaged seven men after you left, on new contracts. You were to pay the fares from Winnipeg to Calgary. They received altogether £3 out of what I received to help pay their expenses between Winnipeg and Calgary. There was no reference in the cable I sent you to the effect that these men were coming. There was no arrangement between us that you were to leave again for London the first week in September. You were to wait in Calgary till I got there. I paid Alexander £4 to take charge of the men. They were quite willing to accompany him. He was to pay you the commission when he got to Calgary. He was a stranger to you. I gave him a letter of introduction. I did not receive £45 altogether. I was a partner in the London Calgary Financial business. I paid £2 5s. 10d. rent, clerk £2 18s., writing on the door about 17s., and one advertisement 4s. As to the interview with Mr. Allen at the Canada Emigration Office, I certainly considered they were interfering with what I thought at the time a perfectly legitimate business, about which I changed my mind afterwards.

CHARLES ALFRED ALLEN , Canadian Government Emigration Office. A number of men who had seen prisoner's advertisement of August 3 called at our office. I showed them Exhibit 6, which is in defendant's writing. The offer of 50 dols. per month is in excess of what could be obtained by unskilled men. Prisoner called on August 4 or 5. I told him a number of inquiries had been made respecting his advertisement. I told him certain contracts had been shown to me. I do not recollect what he said. I asked what authority he had for offering those terms. He told me he had letters from farmers in Canada, advising him that men were wanted. I told him I should have to warn men from accepting offers of this kind, and that he had no right to charge a fee. I saw him the following week; he brought what were supposed to be two letters. I asked if he would let me take copies. I had them made while he was in the office. If the work guaranteed is farming work immigrants would not be required to show they had £5.

To prisoner. I do not know where the agents who advertise for harvesters get their authority from as to what men are wanted and what wages they will receive. They do not get it from our office. I

have not seen advertisements offering the same money as yours. An agent only gets a bonus on certain specified emigrants. The Ottawa Government decide whether the agent would be paid. I do not know whether Hetherington is on their list. There are not thousands of men waiting every year for work; they may be waiting between trains. I could not say if the demand for labour at Calgary is in excess of the supply. A wet season might affect men getting employment. If the grain was inferior I do not think the farmer would be offering lower wages; the same amount would have to be handled and the same amount of labour required. I believe Sullivan thought he was entitled to receive something for getting these men work, but he wished me to understand he was not concerned with that part of the business. I do not recollect him saying that it was through him persuading you that you charged commission. I do not recollect you saying you should put the facts about two girls who had been booked to Brandon before the Press. The prosecution was not instituted because of that complaint, or of the complaint about the accommodation on board ship.

CHARLES TOWELL , caretaker, 453, Strand, W.C. Prisoner rented a room at this address. He came on August 2. It was closed on the 24th. I wrote a letter at prisoner's dictation. He said he had a cable from a farmer in Canada, asking if he could find 20 men; he did not wish to show it to everybody, as it contained other business. He did not show me the cable. Exhibit 1 is what I copied No. 9 from.

To prisoner. Mr. Sullivan paid the rent and everything. After you had gone I understood Sullivan was going by a particular ship. At the time I wrote at your dictation a lot of men were coming to the office. You did not give me 2s. for copying the letter, nor ask for the original. I did not bring the original downstairs. I swear I did not copy the letter from another letter. I wrote it in your room while Sullivan was away.

NORMAN GASKELL , employment agent, 110, Ninth Avenue, West Calgary. I think the terms in the contract are altogether excessive. The average rate of wages for experienced farm hands is 40 to 45 dols. a month, inexperienced 35. I have known experienced me get 3 dols. a day, but if it becomes a wet day they do not get paid. I saw defendant on August 23. He asked if I could find these men work in the harvest field. There were 17. I told him the corn would not be ripe for a month; the season was wet; as the men came as harvesters they must know something about horses and I could find work 80 or 90 miles from Calgary, irrigation, etc. He seemed to think it would be a good thing to get them to work right away. I placed 13 with one contractor, one with another, and one I sent to British Columbia to load lumber. I saw them off by train. I heard some of them say, "I suppose we will be in the harvest fields to-morrow." I told them I hired them from Mr. Smith to go as driven of teams at 35 to 40 dols. a month all found and they were going 82 miles east of Calgary. They did not seem best pleased. I explained there would be harvesting in a month and if they took my advice

they would do this work I had got which would give them a month or six weeks west country experience which would he to their advantage. Within a week about six of them were back. I did not tee Smith after thai. At the request of the Canadian Immigration authorities I went to Olds to try and find two men of the name of Holmes of the initials C. L. and G.F., or any other Holmes. I found them and took statements from them. I also went to Didsbury to find Gaskell and Hunt. I inquired of the post office, hotel proprietors, one or two stores, and N.W. mounted policeman, and the stationmaster. obody seemed to have heard either name.

To prisoner. The man who went to British Columbia was to have 2 dols. 50 a day less board 5 dols. 75 a week. The others got equivalent to £8 a month; those are the going wages for teamsters. I did not go to Trochu Valley. I did not make inquiries about Holmes in Oalgary, but I did about Gaskell and Hunt. I did not go to the Town Hall or the Lands Title Office. You paid me 1 dol. for each of the 17.

Sergeant FREDERICK BOWDEN, E Division. On October 6 I saw prisoner at 6, Compton Terrace, Highbury. Mr. Campbell, of the Canadian Emigration Department, was with me. I told prisoner I was a police officer and held a warrant for his arrest for obtaining money by false pretences from persons that had emigrated. He said, "I do not see how you would call it false pretences. The men who paid me commission I took to Canada and placed them in employment. I cannot help it if they did not remain there. Why is not Mr. Sullivan in this?" When the charge was read over he said, "All right." When searched about 5s. was found on him. I found many documents in his portmanteau. I found no letters from Gaskell and Hunt or Holmes, or similar names.

To prisoner. Endeavours have been made by Scotland Yard to find Gaskell and Hunt and Holmes and I hold the reply.

CHARLES BENNETT , assistant to Joseph Avant, pawnbroker, 114, Fleet Street, E.C. I produce the watch, chain, and ring pawned on August 9 for 35s. in the name of J. Smith.

To prisoner. You wrote from Brixton saying you had lost the ticket. We have not had a sworn declaration.


WILLIAM GEORGE SMITH (prisoner, on oath). On June 25 Mr. Gaskell, of Gaskell and Hunt, of Johnstone Farm, Trochu Valley, Didsbury, with kirn Mr. Walter Holmes, of Olds, Alberta, came into Calgary and stopped at the Arlington Hotel. On the Sunday we had a general conversation; they said that they had for several years past difficulty in obtaining men for harvesting and threshing. These farmers own a ploughing outfit and a threshing outfit, and they contract with other firms to break up their land for them, and also to do their harvesting and threshing, so that they want other men. Knowing I was going to London in a few days they suggested that I might bring some men with me. I remarked that if they lei me know before I left and gave me a letter to that effect I would do the best I could for them.

On the Monday they were leaving again for home and Mr. Holmes then, gave me a letter for his men; I think that was dated the 27th, and Mr. Gaskell, of Gaskell and Hunt, said he would talk it over with Mr. Hunt and write me. I told him in doing that he had better write to my London address as I should be leaving Calgary in a few days. That is the last I saw of him. I arrived in London, I think, on July 20. I received a letter, I think it was two days after I arrived in London, from Mr. Gaskell, of Gaskell and Hunt; that was dated July 7. After I arranged with Sullivan to go into partnership and everything was settled I was to go back to Canada and return with particulars of certain investments and see about getting men for the farmers. I called at Hetherington's and asked if he could assist me in this way. I showed him the letters. He said, "There are some men coming up here every day; you can see them up here." I engaged three men—Aplin, Hughes, and Eyrl. These men were engaged on a contract and paid no commission; no commission was asked for. Hetherington suggested that I should come up to the office every morning and he would make appointments for these men to meet me. I left Hetherington's office and went to keep the appointment with Sullivan, and explained to him what had delayed me, that I had engaged these men to take back with me. He said, "Have you charged them any commission?" I said, "No, it never occurred to me to charge commission." He said, "You are very silly; these men would willingly pay you a commission to go direct out with you to work." We talked the matter over and he suggested that we should engage an office at the Strand, which we had been to see, and have the men come there. Sullivan drew up an advertisement for the paper and we decided together to take the office in the Strand. I notified Hetherington in future to send all the men he had who wanted to go out to the office and we would interview them there. While we were having tea the conversation was what commission was going to be charged to these men, and Sullivan suggested £5 5s. I said it was too much and suggested £1 1s. or £2 2s.; he said, "No, it is worth £5 5s. to them, especially as you save them on their passage and so on," and eventually I agreed. Several days after that we had a number of people come up who wanted to go to Canada, and then some trouble arose with the Canadian people. I went across and saw them. That was on the 3rd, the first time I saw the Canadian people; Sullivan then sent a Mr. Oliver over to see. Mr. Allen talked the matter over, and Sullivan started talking about the commission; he told Mr. Allen that it was he who proposed that. Then, after that, I said to Mr. Allen, "I will let you see the letter of authority tomorrow." Next morning when I arrived at the office Sullivan was not there, and I commenced to write a copy of Holmes' letter. So many people coming into the office, I went outside the office and saw Towell, the caretaker, and, asked him, "Can you write me a copy of a letter?" He remarked, "Yes, certainly, Mr. Smith." I gave him the original of Gaskell and Hunt's letter, which was written on ordinary notepaper in pencil, also paper; he had pen and ink upstairs, he said, which he could use. He took that upstairs to his floor on top

And wrote the letter. Soon after that he came down with it to the office, opened the door and brought it in. I asked him for the original. He then remarked that he had left it upstairs and would go and fetch it. When he returned with it I gave him 2s. Two of the men that accompanied me to Canada saw him hand that letter to me and the other one. Of course, they are not here. After that Sullivan arrived and I told him I had brought the letter up with me, and made copies to take to Mr. Allen. I showed Sullivan the two originals and also the two copies, the one I had copied and the one the caretaker had copied. I then left him in charge of the office while I went to Mr. Allen to show him the letters as promised. I showed him the originals and the copies, and he said he would prefer taking typed copies, which he did then, and as far as I remember I left the copies with Sullivan. Allen typed them in the office and I took both sets away again. As far as I remember I left two copies of the letters with Sullivan here and the originals I took with me. The remark Allen made at that time was, "You are quite right; you had better keep the originals." I engaged Oggiers as one of the farm hands. He saw Sullivan first. He said he should have to wire for his money. He wired, and on August 7 he brought £20 in gold. That was the first money I saw from him. I took Oggier and his friend Zanerelli across to the shipping office and paid £19 10s. for their passage money to Winnipeg. The agent handed them their tickets and labels. Oggier said he was short and begged of me to return him half a sovereign, which I did. I then said to him, "Have you managed anything about the extra money for the journey?" He said he could not get it. I said, "If you had told me that yesterday I should not have booked the passage, because you cannot expect me to find £3 or £4 and take no commission." He said, "The best thing you can do is to pledge the watch and chain in your name and you can get it out for me." That is the reason I pledged them. I offered him the £1 15s. I received from the pledge at Liverpool on the 10th, and told him it was not sufficient to pay the two fares from Winnipeg to Calgary, apart from the food, but that I would make up the difference. He then remarked, "I had better keep the money and keep account of what I spent," which I did. It cost me for the two men, food on the train four days and a half journey, 14s. 7d. The fare from Winnipeg to Calgary cost £2 4s. 2d. the two. I paid 6s. 3d. for each of them at the hotel the first day we got in. I paid 4s: 2d. each employment fee to Mr. Gaskell, of Calgary, and then I paid when they returned to Calgary on the Saturday and stopped till the Monday 12s. 6d. each for them. There were other extras, 10s. each I lent them at Liverpool, cab down to the docks, breakfast, and also at Winnipeg. When we arrived at Calgary with all the men Oggier willingly accepted the work. I explained why I could not get the work. I saw him on Sunday and asked him why he returned. He said the work was too hard for him and they discharged him, and there was also one of the other men there had come in, a man named Bisson—he went with ten men Gaskell had out—and he came to thank me for what I had done for him. He told those two men, Zanerelli and Oggier, what he thought of them for not sticking

ing to the work. He was doing the same work and said to Bisson, "Will you look round Calgary to-day; you will see the notices up; see if you can find anything for these men and I will see you in the morning." I was away on the Sunday. On Monday morning I saw Bisson again, and he told me he saw where there was some work. I saw Oggier and those men who had finished work on Monday at the hotel and they were starting off. I told them I had got other work and they remarked they had got other work themselves and they would be satisfied if I paid the two days' hotel bill. That was all I saw of Oggier and Zanerelli. Those two did not pay commission. Baker did pay a commission of £5 5s. I lent him two separate 10s., one was in London, which he gave me an I.O.U. for—I do not know whether it is amongst my papers; probably it is at Calgary with the other papers. £2 lite. 9(d. I paid for him altogether. There was a certain amount of trouble to get Tyler through with the vaccination officer. After we arrived in Calgary I saw Tyler regularly every day practically. About September 24 I left for the Rockies with an engineer and an owner of some coal to inspect the coal mine properties. That was on August 24. I arrived back on Saturday night and saw Tyler on the Sunday morning at the hotel. He brought all the letters for me to sign. They were posted and we went into certain business matters. We were an hour or an hour and a half together. I was leaving for England on Tuesday and gave final instructions. I did not see Tyler again after that at all. The Monday was holiday, Labour Day, I spent the whole of that day with my own lawyers and Mr. Tweedie, the lawyer for the coal owner, and I did not see Tyler again until I saw him at the police court. He was to type this contract in my absence and I was to sign it on my return. He brought it to the hotel. The reason it was not signed was he had inserted the words "First month's money to be paid in advance." I said I would think it over and let him know before I left for England. On the Tuesday morning when I arrived back at the hotel I found a letter waiting from Tyler. The time put on it was 8.30. It was asking for certain particulars about business matters, but nothing at all said about money. I then sat down and wrote a letter of final instructions during my absence in England and stated that I arranged money to be paid when due, September 25, and that I would go into the matter on my arrival in London with my partner, Mr. Sullivan, or the company about the suggestion that he should receive money in advance or weekly. On my arrival in London I wrote two business letters to Tyler, but received no reply. It was understood between us there was to be a month's notice given at the time of severing our connection. With reference to the other men I engaged Tyler paid £5 5s., Morris £5 5s., Bolding £5, Mayer £5 5s., and Baker £5 5s., Eyrl paid nothing; Lynch paid nothing, but I lent him £1 12s. 6d., that was for his fare and for his hotels. Stretton paid nothing, but I lent him £1 12s. 6d. for food and fare, Winnipeg to Calgary. Hughes paid nothing; I lent him 10s. 5d. Aplin paid nothing. These men were engaged on the boat. I lent Aplin £1 12s. 6d., the two brothers Leith £1 each; and there were other payments. Watson went in the

same boat, but he was not with the party. When we arrived at Winnipeg he went round Winnipeg and found he could not get work; he came to me and said that he would like to go further out, and if I would take him with the party on a contract for work he would pay me my fee. He paid £1 and I saved him the fare. I received £34 from all the men. 1 received £23 10s. myself, Sullivan received £10 10s.; I spent £28 14s. 4 1/2 d. At Quebec we had some trouble to get the men through, but I produced original letters from Gaskell and Hunt and Holmes, and on my authority that I would take the boy they allowed him to go through. At Winnipeg they had some, trouble with the tickets. They wanted to charge the men with return fare. It seems the usual thing is, many men go out to come back again, and that is why they choose a cheap rate. They have to pay return fare, but they granted me the single fare after some trouble. Before I left London on the evening of the 9th I was busy all day in London. On arriving in London I went down to my own residence in Comtpton Terrace. As I was leaving in a cab for Marylebone the postman handed me a number of letters. I put them in my pocket and did not think anything more about them until next day on the boat I opened those letters. One of them was from Gaskell and Hunt to the effect that owing to the rain they would not be able to take the men for two or three weeks, and did not know what time I intended to return. I showed that letter to Tyler and Mayer. We had a cabin for four, Tyler, Morris, Mayer, and myself. After talking the matter over I said the only thing I could do would be to go right on to Calgary and arrange to get the men work pro tem until the harvesting work started. They were perfectly satisfied, and I wrote a letter to Mr. Gaskell, the employment agent, of Calgary, asking him to find work for the men on arrival. The letter has been put in. Mr. Tyler, or one of the others, asked whether there was any connection between Gaskell, the employment agent, and Gaskell and Hunt. I said no, there was no connection whatever. The morning after we arrived at Calgary I telephoned to Gaskell and Hunt about the men, and also to Mr. Holmes, stating that we had arrived, but it was some time before I could get through on the 'phone to them. They asked me whether I would arrange to place them in Calgary until the harvesting commenced, and they said they would have them. I spoke on the 'phone pretty sharp on the matter. They said they would protect me. That was the morning after we arrived. I rang up the farmers first. I went back then to Gaskell, the employment agent, and asked him what he could do for the men. With reference to the letter, I told Gaskell they had come out to go harvesting, and the harvesting was not ready. He then said he could fix them up. I then went back to the hotel and told the men what the work was. I had them all in my room, some two or three together, and some of them by themselves, and explained the work would be irrigation work till harvesting commenced. They did not much like it at first. I told them it was better than nothing. They agreed to leave. Mr. Gaskell came to the station to see them off. There was no complaint made at the station about the work because

they had already complained to me in my room about that. I left them then, and on the Saturday following that. I sent a cable to Gaskell and Hunt, saying I was coming over to see them. On the Sunday I went. They said they would probably be able to take the men in the middle of September, that they would let me know before I left for England. I was anxious to get the matter settled because I was returning to England in a few days. I heard no more from them, but when I left Calgary on the 5th I went to Olds first. I had sent a telegram to Lamont's livery stable at Olds to meet me; I was coming by midnight train. I arrived at one o'clock (night) on Tuesday, 25th, and stopped with Mr. Lamont that night. The next morning he drove me to these two farmers, Gaskell and Hunt, and W. and B. Holmes. Gaskell and Hunt arranged they should take the men on September 12 or 14. I returned to Olds and wrote a letter to Mr. Clayton, one of the men of the 15 that were going to Luzano, and told him he could leave the work they were doing and go direct to Gaskell and Hunt and some of them to Mr. Holmes to start the harvest on the 14th. In the meantime it would be better for him to write to Gaskell and Hunt and Holmes, and acknowledge I had written to him and told him about the work and make the arrangement about going. That was the last I saw of the men. With reference to the other men that went out in my absence from here, there were about four or five or so who wanted to go to Canada but could not get their passage money in time. Sullivan suggested he should follow me with these men. I said, "Very well; remember, leaving England you must cable me, so that when I arrive in Calgary with these men I shall know you are coming, and I shall not leave to return to London but wait your arrival with the men." On arrival there I found a telegram, but nothing at all stating he was leaving with the men. Then with reference to the conversation about taking those men out on my arrival back in London I called on him on September 27, two days after I arrived. When I arrived I could not find him. I went to Richmond to his residence, and he had moved. I thought, "Well, he had told me he had thought of moving to Golder's Green." I spent a day there, making inquiry to find him: could not do so. The post office people advised me to write a letter to his late address and get it forwarded. That I did, and the next day I received a telegram from Sullivan to meet him at the Hotel Cecil at a certain time, I forget what time. I kept the appointment, but he did not. Next day I received another telegram from Mr. Sullivan for me to meet him at Lyons' Restaurant, Holborn. I rushed away to keep the appointment and found he had been before and left. Next day, passing the Strand, I passed the office and saw the name taken off the door. I went upstairs and asked Towell where I could find Sullivan. He said, "Upstairs." I went upstairs. He said, "You have stranded those men." I said, "What?" He said, "You have stranded those men." He did not mention a word to me that, he had sent any men out or that he had taken any money It was a week later, on November 5, the clerk called upon me and told me he had sent out seven men. I called upon Sullivan next morning and

told him what I had found out, and I said, "You should have told me you had sent those men out. What have you done with the money?" He said, "I have got the money." I said, "Why did not you tell me when I called last week instead of leaving it like this and letting the men take their chance?" The whole thing was left at that. He said, "Do you want any money?" I said, "No, you took the responsibility, you had better accompany the men."

Cross-examined. I have known Messrs. Holmes since early 1909. I believe their names are Walter and Bernard. They are farmers at Olds. I may have corresponded with them. I have not tetters from them here; probably they are at Calgary. I should not correspond from London. I have written to Calgary asking Stewart to try and find the letters and send them to me. Gaskell and Hunt are well known people in that part. I sent them a telegram addressed Trochu Valley, Didsbury. It would be sent by the C.P.R. Rail way. It would be sent to the nearest railway station and thence by horseback if the farmers are on the prairie. If Mr. Allen had gone to the Mounted Police at Calgary he would have found them. The stationmaster at Didsbury should know them. I can produce letters in Calgary and the men too. Towell and Sullivan have given false evidence; part of Oggier's is false. I believe one of the Holmes is named George and the other Curney; I believe they are brothers. If I had opened my letter before I left England I should have known that Gaskell and Hunt and Holmes could not take my men. I told Tyler, Mayer, and Morris on the Corsican. I showed Tyler the letters. The cable (Exhibit 28) is from Mr. Lambert, of Olds, about his farm. I have not seen that before to-day. I did not tell Sullivan if a cable came addressed Smith, c/o Hypothec, London, with the word "Yes," it meant he was to send out more men. My cable about the men was to the Mayor of Calgary. I had no answer from him.

(Friday, December 15.)

Prisoner addressed the jury in a long speech, recapitulating the story he had given in his evidence on oath. Verdict, Guilty.

Previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.


(Tuesday, December 12.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-51
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty; Not Guilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

KRAMER, Benjamin (17, tailor), CHILDS, Herbert (30, porter), and WOODS, James (49, tailor) , breaking and entering the warehouse of James McCombie and stealing therein one roll of cloth, the goods of the said James McCombie, the master of Woods.

Kramer and Childs pleaded guilty.

Mr. Huntly Jenkins and Mr. E. J. Purchase prosecuted.

JAMES MCCOMBIE , 26, 27, and 28, Fenchurch Street. I identify this roll of cloth as my property. Woods has been twice in my employ. Childs was also in my employ up to within a month of this occurrence. We parted because he would not attend to his business.

Detective-sergeant, JAMES BROWN, City Police. In consequence of information I was in Fenchurch Street on November 11 at 7.30 a.m. keeping observation with other officers on Mr. McCombie's premises. About 7.40 I saw Kramer on the corner of Rood Lane looking towards McCombie's shop. About 7.50 I saw Woods come out of the door and walk up and down. Then he hurried into the doorway as if following someone. After a while he came out and stood at the door. Childs came from inside the passage and spoke to him. From what I could see I should say the door was open before I saw Woods. Ohilds looked up and down the street, went back, and shortly afterwards came out carrying a roll of cloth. Woods was then standing with his back towards the door. In front of Woods was a window cleaner at work. As Childs came out with the roll Woods partially turned his head towards him. Childs then turned into Rood Lane. Kramer left the corner. They were followed to a public-house, from there to a railway station, where they were both arrested and taken to the police-station. Childs carried the roll of cloth and took it into the public-house. They were both in my sight the whole time. When Childs was searched at the station there was found upon him a knife and £3 16s. in money. At 9 a.m. I went to McCombie's and saw Woods. I told him we were police officers and he would be charged with being concerned with two other men in custody with stealing and receiving a roll of cloth. He said, "How do you know I am concerned with them?" He was then taken to the Minories Police Station. All were charged and made no reply. I examined McCombie's premises. Going down the doorway leading to the basement from where Childs came out I found that an entry had been made by forcing an iron door inside a pair of sliding doors. I should think the instrument that had been used was that knife.

Cross-examined by Woods. I did not see you arrive. I saw you come out about 7.50. I did not see you speak to the caretaker. I did not see you go inside the double glass doors at No. 28. 1 do not know that your train from Woolwich did not get in till 7.45. There is a lavatory in the basement. I do not know that it is used by hundreds of people from the street.

TIMOTHY CONOLLY , packer to prosecutor. I shut up the premise on the night preceding November 11. I put the different bolts on and the cross bar in the basement. I came late in the morning, about 8.15. I did not see anything amiss with the premises. It is not my duty to open the front door; the manager would do that.

To Woods. My usual time to arrive is 7.45. I saw you first at 8.15. The errand boy did not tell me you had been trying to get in.

I was standing at 28 entrance. You passed by me and said you were going down the street. I did not speak to you by the gates. I do not remember you asking me why I had not opened the gates.


JAMES WOODS (prisoner, on oath). I arrived at Fenchurch Street Station about 7.45. On the corner of Mark Lane I met Childs, an old shop mate. I went up to the shop, expecting the packer to be in to work between 7.45 and 7.50 He was not there. I went inside and saw the assistant caretaker cleaning the brass work on the doors. I spoke to him five or six minutes. I came to the door with him and stood on the doorstep. I spoke to the window-cleaner some few minutes. I walked up and down. At last I saw the packer come at 8.15. I went down and tried the doors; the doors were fact, and I could not get in. I walked up and down until such time as I could get in I was arrested at nine o'clock. I said, "Why do you connect me with those men?" He said, "We will let you know when we get to the police-station." That is all I have to say.

Cross-examined. I got to the entrance to the work place seven or eight minutes after I got out of the train; roughly, 7.50. I did not come from inside the premises at that time. The door is generally open when I get there. I had no idea where Childs was when I got to the premises. I imagine I left him behind somewhere. It was about 7.50 or 7.55 when he asked me could he go down into the lavatory. That was in the street. As far as my knowledge is concaned what the officer says is not true, that Childs appeared from the premises. I did not hear or suppose I heard Childs come out of the place.

Verdict (Woods), Not guilty.

Sentences: Childs, Six months' hard labour; Kramer was released on his own recognisances in £10 and another's in £25 to come up for judgment if called upon.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-52
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

ALEXANDER, Leon (46, musician), who was convicted on February 14, 1910, of unlawfully taking Catherine Newman, an unmarried girl under the age of 16 years out of the possession and against the will of Henry Newman, her father, and was then released on his own recognisances in £20 (see vol. CLII. p. 500) was brought up under that conviction, upon the allegation that he had broken his recognisances.

Upon being released on recognisances in February, 1910, prisoner undertook to see no more of the girl, and it was understood that she was to get back to her parents. He had now been discovered to be living with the girl.

Sentence: Two years' hard labour,


(Thursday, December 14.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-53
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WHEELER, Robert (31, marble polisher), SPENCER, William (29, bricklayer), COOPER, Stephen (30, tailor), TAYLOR, Thomas (23, porter), CALLAGHAN, Charles (31, labourer), NEWMAN. William (27, porter), ANDREWS, William (30, painter), and TRESSADERN, Arthur, alias "Harding" (25, cabinet maker), all to-gether with divers other persons to the number of 20 and more assembling to commit riot and committing riot; Sipencer, Tressadern, Newman, and Taylor feloniously wounding Isaac Bogard with intent to do him grievous bodily harm; Spencer, Tressadern, and Taylor feloniously shooting at George King with intent to murder him; Cooper feloniously shooting at a person unknown with intent to do the said person grievous bodily harm; Andrews assaulting George King; Andrews assaulting Isaac Bogard; Tressadern assaulting Isaac Bogard.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Briggs prosecuted; Mr. Tully-Christie defended Spencer; Mr. St. John McDonald defended Cooper; Mr. Montague Shearman defended Taylor; Mr. C. A. H. Black defended Callaghan; Mr. Fox-Davies defended Newman; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended Tressadern.

Andrews pleaded guilty to assaulting George King, and Tressadern to assaulting Isaac Bogard.

The indictment against Tressadern, Spencer, Newman, and Taylor for wounding Isaac Bogard with intent to do him grievous bodily harm was first proceeded with.

ISAAC BOGABD , comedian, 1, Hamlyn Place, St. George's-in-the-East. I know all the prisoners. At the end of last August I had a fight with Taylor, and got the best of it. I have seen him with the other prisoners at other times. In consequence of certain information I received from my wife, I avoided the places which the prisoners frequented. About 9 p.m. on September 10 with Lipmann I went into the "Bluecoat Boy" public-house, Norton Folgate. We there saw Green, and Isaacs, known as "Juppy." Tressadern, whom I knew as "Harding," Spencer, whom I knew as "Emms," Cooper, Newman, and Taylor came in after we had been there about five minutes. They looked very excited, Taylor especially. I said to Tressadern, "Hulloa! Going to have a drink?" but he took no notice. He afterwards came to me and said, "I thought you were going to pay for drinks." I called for drinks for four of them and paid; Cooper would not have anything. Tressadern said, "Do you know what we are going to do to you?" I said, "I am surprised at you." I got a push from the side by Taylor, I think. I felt a tap on my left shoulder and as I turned round Taylor from behind drew something bright across my throat; it was about three or four inches long. Then Newman, Tressadern, and Spencer broke their glasses in quick succession and struck me about the face and hands with them. As they were running out Newman said, "That's for Taylor, you f—b—." The police

whistle had then gone and they were running out. Lipmann, who had gone down to the urinal, came to my assistance, when he came up and got cut himself. The manager jumped over the bar and blew the whistle. Some police officers came; the prisoners had then gone. I was bleeding from wounds in my face and neck. I made no charge against anybody; I simply went out and walked-towards Shoreditch way. About 15 minutes after this occurred I met Newman. He said, "Look how you axe bleeding, Coon," and offered me his handkerchief. I said, "Do you mean to give me a handkerchief after you have struck me with a glass? You are a good fellow." He said, "It was not me who done that." A policeman came up and he walked quickly away. About 1 a.m. I went to the London Hospital, where stitches were put in my wounds. A police officer was there, bat I did not make any statement to him. On the following Sunday I was near the "Horns" public-house, where I saw prisoners with several others. I had a bandage round my throat and plaster on my chin. Tressadern said, "That's only half of what you have got; the rest will come." Newman kicked me and said, "All right—you, black b—." Come on, we shall do it now." On about September 17 I was served with a subpœna to give evidence at the police court on the 26th. I did not attend. I was then served with a witness summons and on October 3 I was sent for.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. If in my depositions I am taken as saying that Newman said, "I thought you were going to pay for drinks," it is a mistake. I do not know whether this is the first time I have ever said that Tressadern said to me, "Do you know what we are going to do to you?" I was quite sober. I had no knife with me. When Taylor struck me I did not take up a water jug and throw it at Tressadern, saying, "You are one of them." I did not then pull a knife from my pocket and rush at him. The first time I made a statement about this affair was two or three days after September 18. I did not see Tressadern again after this until the 17th. He did not tell me on the 11th that I had been very drunk the night before and had run at him with a knife, and I did not say that I did not mean it for him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tully-Christie. Spencer was standing near the door and he put his glass on the top of the piano. He was right up against Taylor when Taylor put the knife on me, and he broke his glass on the piano; he had not finished his drink. I had had no quarrel with him; but the reason he struck me was that they are all pals. My hand was not bandaged when I first came into the public-house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Fox-Davies. I did not hit Taylor first. Newman did not stay behind the others and lend me his handkerchief; he offered it to me fifteen minutes afterwards. I did not say when I met him that I meant having my revenge on Taylor and that I was sorry I had not done the same for Tressadern. Newman had nothing to do with my quarrel with Taylor in August, but fie was always with him. I have known Newman two years and never had a quarrel with him. When prisoners came in and refused my drink I knew there was

going to be trouble, because I had received a telegram from my wife warning me that Taylor had been after me with a knife. I did not tell the names to the police, because my life would have been in danger if I had. King and I were not exactly convicted of assault on the 17th; we were bound over. We were taken into custody, or they would have killed us.

Cross-examined by Mr. Shearman. There is a urinal in the public-house and from the saloon bar you can see anybody coming out. Just before this fighting occurred Taylor was not coming out of there and I did not say to him, "Are you going to pay for the drink you just knocked over." I did not strike him before he struck me. In August he used foul language to my wife and we had a fight. I do not think I am the terror of the district and people do not go about in fear of their lives of me. I know no black man named Hill. I am not a particularly violent man. In 1906 I was convicted for robbery with violence and sentenced to 15 months' hard labour. I have been convicted five times for disorderly conduct and assaults upon the police. In November, 1908, I was convicted for living on the earnings of prostitution. In 1909 I was convicted for assault on a private person, and in 1910 I got nine months' hard labour for maliciously wounding a female. This was not a free fight in a public-house. I doubt whether the cut on my throat could have been caused by a glass. I had no gang there.

WILLIAM CLIFF HODGES , M.R.C. S., L.R.C.P., Relieving Room Officer, London Hospital. At 1 a.m. on September 11 Bogard came to the hospital; he was suffering from deep cuts on the left side of the throat and under lip and cuts on the right corner of the mouth and upper lip. I put a number of stitches in. The wound on the neck would have been dangerous if it had gone any deeper; any sharp instrument could have caused it, such as a knife or a broken glass. The wounds round the mouth could be caused by a broken glass. The wound on the neck must have been caused by a different instrument from that which caused the wounds round the mouth.

To Mr. Fulton. The wounds round the mouth might have been caused by one blow.

JACK BURMAN . I know prosecutor and Tressadern, Newman, and Taylor. At 8 p.m. on September 10 I was outside the "Phœnix" public-house, which is not far from "The Bluecoat Boy," when I saw Tressadern, Newman, Taylor, and others there. Tressadern and Taylor said to me, "Where is Isaac Bogard?" I did not know and I told them so. They then said, "There won't be no more Bogard after to-night." At about 12 p.m. I saw Bogard in Commercial-Road; he was smothered in blood. He told me what had happened.

To Mr. Fulton. I first made a statement about this two or three weeks afterwards. They said to me, "Where is Bogard, commonly known as 'Darkie, the Coon?'" They knew I knew him; I cannot explain why they should have said, "commonly known as 'Darkie, the Coon.'" I am quite clear that at the police court I said that they said, "There won't be no more Bogard after to-night."

To Mr. Fox-Davies. I told Inspector Wensley that that is what they said. Bogard did not tell me to say that. I never told Marks that Bogard had told me to say it; I do not know Marks. I do not know Maguire or Cohen. Newman said nothing outside the "Phœnix."

To Mr. Shearman. I am at present undergoing a sentence of three months as a suspected person. I was once charged with stabbing, but I was only convicted of assault. I have been convicted of assault on another occasion.

(Harry Samuels was called on his own recognisances, but failed to appear. His recognisances were entreated.)

KATE SAMUELS , 5, Edsall Buildings, Shoreditch. Harry Samuels, my son, was formerly manager of the "Bluecoat Boy"; I cannot say where he is now; I believe he has gone away. I helped him in conducting the business. On the evening of September 10 I was in the "Bluecoat Boy" when I saw Bogard; that Was the first time I had seen him. I cannot say I recognise the prisoners; I might recognise the tall one, Tressadern; they called him "Arthur." He was there, also Newman and Taylor. When they came in Bogard asked them to have a drink and they had a drink, for which Bogard paid. They got into an unfriendly argument, then all of a sudden Tressadern broke his glass on the counter and smashed it into Bogard's face; he then rushed out. The others then broke their glasses, smashed them at him, and followed Tressadern; it must have been three who did that. I was splattered with blood from Bogard, My son jumped over the counter and blew the police whistle. Some policemen came, but prisoners had then gone. I was only a few feet away from bogard when this happened; I did not see any knife in his hand. He was friendly and sober. He had no bandage on his hand. He had done nothing to Tressadern before Tressadern hit him.

To Mr. Fulton. I had been sitting in the bar all the evening. There might have been 12 or 18 people in the bar at this time Prisoners were a bit noisy and I asked them to be quite, and then this happened like "Jack Robinson." I was first asked to make a statement yesterday morning. A detective came to my place last Tuesday and asked me where my son was. I told him what I knew of this affair and he asked me to attend here. I cannot positively swear that Newman and Taylor broke glasses and rushed out, but they were there at the time.

To Mr. Fox-Davies. I cannot say how many broken glasses were picked up, but there was certainly more than one. I did not see any water jugs broken. I did not see Bogard throw a water jug at Tressadern.

Re-examined. The glasses broken were all ordinary tumblers.

WILLIAM ISAACS , boot clicker, 199, Brunswick Buildings, Gorleston Street. I am generally known as "Juppy." At about 10 p.m. on September 10 I went with Michael Green to the "Bluecoat Boy." I saw Lipmaim and prosecutor there; I knew them before. Three or fourmen came in. Tressadern and Newman were two of them; I did

not know them before. Three of them then went out leaving Tressadern in the bar. Shortly after they came back, and Newman said to me, "What have you got in your pockets?" I turned them out; I had no weapon on me. The lot of them then made a rush at prosecutor and some broke glasses and hit him in the face. One of them standing behind him had a knife and pulled it across his throat. The guy nor blew his whistle and the police came. The men had just gone. (To Mr. Fulton.) There was no quarrel between Tressadern and prosecutor before they made a rush at him; there was no noise; the lady sitting in the bar did not say anything to them. I was standing close by prosecutor, but I did not see that he had a knife. I met prosecutor about three days afterwards by chance, but the only thing he said to me with reference to this was, "Let it drop and say no more about it." I met him a week after that, but we said nothing about the affair. I first made a statement 12 days after, September 10.

To Mr. Fox-Davies. Four altogether came in. Newman did not threaten me in any way. I did not tell the police anything when they arrived.

To Mr. Shearman. I am almost sure that I said at the police court that one of them had a weapon.

Re-examined. The prosecutor was quite sober. I did not notice a bandage on his hand.

PHILIP LIPMANN , newsagent, I, Newman Buildings, Spitalfields. On this evening I was with prosecutor in the "Bluecoat Boy." Green and Isaacs, whom I know, came in after we had been there. Tressadern, Spencer, and Newman then came in; two other men, Taylor and Cooper, who were with them, stopped in the lobby; I met them as I was going into the urinal. When I came back I saw a crowd round prosecutor striking furiously at him. I rushed to his assistance and I was struck on the hand and cut. I then ran out with prisoners into the street. I saw they were striking him with a glass, but who struck him it was impossible to see as there was such a crowd. Before the row started I heard Newman say to Isaacs, "What have you in your pocket?"; he took something out of his pocket and flashed it at him; I could not see what it was. Isaacs held his hands up. I think Taylor was in the bar at the time prosecutor was being struck. Prosecutor was afterwards bleeding furiously from the mouth, neck, and chin. I subsequently identified prisoners. I did not see prosecutor use a knife. He was perfectly sober; I did not see a bandage on his hand. I knew prisoners by sight. I had never seen them together before.

To Mr. Fulton. I recollect saying at the police court that the cut on my hand may have been done by prosecutor accidentally, but that I thought it came from a blow made at him, it is correct. I have no idea of mentioning prosecutor's name in connection with my cut; it is true I signed my depositions as correct. I was in prosecutors' company previously at "The Shades" public-house, but my hand was not cut there. On seeing him subsequently we did

not discus this affair. I made my statement about 14 days afterwards.

To Mr. Fox-Davies. I saw one man with a glass in his hand. I did not say that Newman threatened Isaacs.

Detective-sergeant HENRY DESSENT, H Division. I was present on September 26 when prisoners were charged with wounding prosecutor. They made no reply.

Detective-Inspector FREDERICK WENSLEY, H Division. I am the officer in charge of this case.

To Mr. Shearman. I saw the telegram which prosecutor's wife sent to him; it was something about Taylor and a knife. I believe Mrs. Bogard is at present in prison for disorderly conduct.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Leycester raised the question whether, in view of Mr. Shearman's crossexamination of the prosecutor as to his antecedents, he was, in the event of the prisoners giving evidence, entitled to crow-examine them under the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, Section 1, tub-Section F. This question, in hit experience, had never been discussed before; but he contended that it was similar in some respects to that which had arisen in cases where it had been held that counsel for the prosecution had a general right of reply as to all the prisoners where one prisoner only had called witnesses for his defence whose evidence affected the case of the other prisoners. He admitted, however, that the case of R. v. Scaife (2 Denison, 281; 20 L.J.M.C., 229; 17 Q.B., 238), though not exactly upon this point, rather tended the other way.

Mr. Fulton contended that the statute never contemplated that one prisoner, who may be hostile to his co-prisoners, could by the nature or conduct of his defence prejudice that of the other prisoners; each prisoner was entitled to have his defence considered separately. He asked for nig Lordship's ruling on this new point of law, because, from the point of view of the prisoners, it was necessary that they should know this before they considered what course they should adopt.

Mr. Justice Avory. What Mr. Fulton has said to me is, of itself, sufficient to show that I cannot possibly decide this question until I have some idea of what the defence of the prisoners, other than Mr. Shearman's client, is; but, for the guidance of counsel, I am prepared to indicate now what my opinion upon this point 1s. In my opinion, if the defence of any prisoner in this case should turn out to be that the prosecutor cannot be relied upon as a witness of truth, then I think his defence becomes a joint defence with that of Mr. Shearman's client, and all the consequences will follow which might attach to Mr. Shearman's client, if he were in the witness-box.


ARTHUR TRESSADERN (prisoner, on oath). On September 10 I went with Spencer and Newman into the "Bluecoat Boy." In there were the (prosecutor, Lipmann, Green, Juppy, a black man named Hill, and several other people. Prosecutor, whom I knew quite well, said, "Hullo, Arthur." I talked to Green about five minutes; I do not know who paid for drinks. Prosecutor asked me how he looked in his hat; he was wearing a cowboy hat. After talking about fifteen minutes Taylor came in. I suddenly heard a shout and I turned round and I saw him punch prosecutor. There was a bit of a scuffle and Taylor ran out prosecutor said to me, "You was with him." I said, "You've made a mistake." He picked up a water jug and flung it at Taylor;

I think it smashed up against the curtain of the urinal. Either Green or Lipmann punched me in the face from behind. Prosecutor pulled a penknife from his inside pocket and was attempting to open it. I had a glass in my hand, half full of liquor; I knew what to expect, so I hit him with the glass in the face; I never broke it first. I then went out. He was half drunk. About 1 p.m. the next day I saw him. He said, "What did you do this for last night?" I said, "Look here, Coon, I know you would have given me one last night; it was only tit-for-tat." He said, "I know it was a mistake. I was half drunk, but when Taylor done it on me I thought you was with him." He had a bandage round his throat, and I said, "Surely I did not do that?" He said, "No, Taylor done that." We had a drink and parted on friendly terms. I saw him several times between that day and the 17th; the only thing he said about this affair was that he meant to have his own back with Taylor. I had no quarrel with him up to the 17th.

Cross-examined. The 10th and the 18th are the only two occasions I have ever quarrelled with prosecutor. I am on friendly terms with Taylor; I had not seen him earlier on this evening; Burman has told a, wicked deliberate lie; I never saw Burman at all that night; I was not looking for prosecutor. I never saw Cooper at the "Bluecoat Boy" that night. I did not say to prosecutor, "I thought you were going to stand drinks." I think the fight between him and Taylor started by him saying something to Taylor. I never heard of the fight that they had had in August until the next day, when prosecutor told me. I did not say to prosecutor when we went in, "Do you known what we are going to do with you?" There was blood coming from Bogard's neck before I struck him with the glass; that was immediately after the scuffle between him and Taylor. As Taylor was running out Isaacs threw a water bottle at him and it broke against the wall. Directly I hit Bogard with a glass I ran out, but I am sure none of the others hit him with glasses. 1 have had no quarrel with Lipmann or Isaacs. I am certain Newman did not ask Isaacs to turn out his pockets; he did not know him. He never turned his pockets out. I account for the other glasses being broken by the fact that Bogard when I hit him swung his hand round to catch me as I was going and swept them off the piano.

On Mr. Leycester inquiring what his Lordship's view as to Tressaderns evidence was,

Mr. Justice Avory stated that, as far as he could Rather from the crossexamination by the other counsel, it appeared to be contended, as a joint defence, that the prosecutor was not to be believed.

Mr. Fulton contended that every prisoner was entitled to raise such a defence but he must not go further and use facts against the prosecutor's character which he may know of. He did not attack the prosecutor's character and did not intend to adopt the evidence as to his previous convictions in any way as part of his defence.

Mr. Justice Avory stated that the real difficulty was that Tressadern might have been tried separately, in which event he could not have been prejudiced by anything which the co-prisoner had done in his defence; but, on the other hand, it was easy to understand an arrangement being made between prisoners that one should take the course adopted by Mr. Shearman's client, and

the other not, and by this means, checkmate the Act of Parliament. He however felt a doubt about the point, and therefore ruled against Mr. Leycester's contention; but stated that if anything fell from counsel which implied that they relied upon prosecutor's bad character outside this case as part of their defence, he should allow the witness to be recalled.

WILLIAM SPENCER (prisoner, on oath), horsekeeper, 5, Gibraltar Gardens, Bethnal Green. On the night of September 10 with Tressadern and Newman I went into the "Bluecoat Boy." In there were Bogard, Isaacs, Green, Lipmann, a man named Hill, and several others. Bogard said, "Hullo, Arthur." Green started talking to me. Bogard said, "I'll pay for drinks." Newman said, "All right, Spencer is paying," and I paid for drinks for Tressadern, Newman, and myself. I and Newman were talking together against the bar, and Tressadern, Green, and Bogard were talking a little way off, when after about ten minutes Taylor came in from the lobby and something was said between him and Bogard; Bogard then punched him in the face with his fist as he was going to the urinal and Taylor punched him back with his fist. There was a scuffle and people got in between me and them. I then saw Taylor run out. I was still talking to Newman. Isaacs aimed a water jug at Taylor as he was running out, and it smashed against the door. Bogard said something to Tressadern and then took up a water jug and aimed it at him. He then fetched a knife from his pocket. Tressadern had a glass in his hand and punched him in the face with it. I was about two yards away at the time, still talking to Newman. Tressadern then walked out. Police whistles were then blowing and mostly everybody in the bar made a rush to the door, and I went with them. The police were at the door when we got out. My glass was on the counter; I never struck Bogard with it; I was not near enough.

Cross-examined. Newman was there when the police arrived; Tressadern and Taylor may have been also. I never saw Burman before the 18th. Tressadern had no occasion to ask him where Bogard was. I have known Taylor a long time; that was the first time I saw him on that day. I have never seen Mrs. Samuels before. It is a lie that several others broke glasses and smashed Bogard on the face; Tressadern did not break his glass before he struck. The other glasses were broken by being knocked over in the scuffle. Newman did not ask Isaacs what he had got in his pocket; he was talking to me all the time and could not have done to without my seeing it. Bogard did not actually open his knife.

WILLIAM NEWMAN (prisoner, on oath). I have been convicted four or five times, but I have now been out of prison two and a half years; I have been working for a Mr. Stringer of Spitalfields. About 7.30 p.m. on September 10 I met Spencer in Shorediteh and we met Tressadern in Bishopsgate. Spencer asked us to have a drink, and we went to the "Bluecoat Boy." When we got in the organ was playing and there were a lot of girls and fellows, amongst whom was Bogard. Bogard said to Tressadern, "Hulloa, Arthur. Going to have a drink?" Tressadern said, "No, Spencer will pay." Spencer paid, and I was having a converation with a few there when Taylor

came in. Bogard passed a remark which I did not hear and they came to blows. After the scuffle Bogard said to Tressadern, "You are one of his pals." He then took a jug from the counter and threw it at him; it smashed against the partition. He then pulled something out of his pocket and as he did so Tressadern smashed him in the face with the glass which he was holding; he did not break it first. I did not break my glass and jab it in Bogard's mouth. I did not say to him, "That's for Taylor, you b—." Bogard, Spencer, and I went out. Bogard went one way and we another; the police were then speaking to the manager outside the house. I heard Bogard say to them, "I don't want you people." I lent him my handkerchief. I do not know "Juppy" and never spoke to him. About forty-five minutes after I met Bogard in the High Street with two women. There were four or five women with me and two men. He said to me, "Bill, look at this, but I shall have my own back with Taylor," and he gave me back my handkerchief. I was outside the "Horns" on the following Sunday, but I never saw Bogard there. I have known him about five years and have never quarrelled with him.

Cross-examined. I did not know, until Bogard told me after his fight, that he had had a fight with Taylor in August. I have known Taylor about five years, but have never been intimate with him. I was not outside the "Horns" on the following Sunday at all; I was in Brick Lane. I never saw Taylor when in the "Bluecoat Boy" with a knife; it would be impossible for me to see, as there were so many in the bar. Tressadern was the only one who struck Bogard with a glass; I did not see any blood on Bogard until after he was struck.

To the Court. I have not been to the "Bluecoat Boy" since this occurrence.

THOMAS TAYLOR , Turin Street, Bethnal Green. At the end of last August I had a quarrel with Bogard. I was struck and kicked all over Brick Lane. He had a knife, and if it had not been for his wife and the police coming he would have stabbed me. About 10 p.m. on September 10 I went by myself to the "Bluecoat Boy," had a drink, and went down to the urinal. When I came up Bogard and one or two others confronted me; amongst them was Hill, a black man, who is now in prison. Bogard accused me of knocking his drink over. I offered to pay for another, as I could see there was no other way out of it. Bogard said he did not want it and struck me in the face with his fist and I struck him back with my fist. I had no knife; I never carry one. I walked down the passage and a water jug was slung at me. I went to a public-house just opposite.

Cross-examined. After the fight in August I did not say to Bogard, "I wish you would come to the top of Brick Lane. You have won today. You will not win to-morrow." I have known Tressadern about five years, Newman three years, and Spencer eight years, but I have only seen him once this last six years. I am not constantly going about with them. I was not in their company during the earlier; part of this evening. I had a quarrel with Burman about three years ago.

I never saw him that night at all. I did not see Newman ask Isaacs if he had anything in his pockets; 1 had not the time. I did not notice blood on Bogard's neck after I hit him; he may have got it from my nose, which was bleeding.

(Friday, December 15.)

Verdict (all), Guilty; Spencer recommended to mercy.

Mr. Muir stated that in view of the foregoing conviction the Crown would not proceed on the indictment against Spencer, Tressadern, and Taylor for feloniously shooting at George King.

Tressadern, Callaghan, Spencer, Taylor, and Wheeler withdrew their plea of Not Guilty to rioting and pleaded Guilty.

Cooper was then tried for feloniously shooting at a person unknown with intent to do the said person grievous bodily harm.

On the application of Mr. McDonald a fresh jury were sworn.

Police-constable HARRY GIBSON, 23 HR. On September 18 at about 6.50 p.m. I went with other officers to Peters Street, Bethnal Green; I saw Wheeler and a man unknown fighting; there were 20 to 30 other people there, and a good deal of fighting and rowing going on; I saw prisoner, who was about three yards in front of me, pull a revolver out of his right-hand pocket and fire it at the man who was fighting with Wheeler; I jumped forward and caught him by the right arm in which he had the revolver; as I did so we had a struggle, and prisoner pulled me down to my back on the ground. Then some one, whom I could not recognise said, "Give it here, Steve," snatched the revolver out of prisoner's hand and ran away. Then Taylor tried to rescue prisoner, who was on top of me, as I lay on my back on the ground. With the assistance of Police-constables Gurney and Robins I got to my feet. Prisoner said, "I have done nothing, governor"; I told him I should take him to the police station for firing off a revolver in the public street; he made no reply; he was taken to the station, charged the same night, and made no reply. I searched him and found nothing on him.

Cross-examined. It was a small, shining revolver; it could not have been a bunch of keys; a bunch of keys does not go off bang. When prisoner fired the revolver he put his head on one side, he looked the other way when he fired. Nobody complained of being shot. The crowd were not round prisoner, they were near him. Wheeler and the other man were on the edge of the crowd. There was nobody standing between prisoner and the man fighting with Wheeler. (To the Jury.) A search was made, but no bullet was found.

Police-constable HARRY GURNEY, 51 H. On September 18 about 6.15 p.m. I went to Peters Street, Bethnal Green, and saw Wheeler fighting with another man. I was just going to catch hold of Wheeler when prisoner, who was three yards away, fired a revolver in the direction of Wheeler's opponent. Prisoner was then arrested by the last witness.

Cross-examined. It was a small, bright revolver. There were seven or eight people round prisoner. It was dark. The revolver could not have been a bunch of keys; I did not notice the way prisoner fired it, I saw him fire it. There were no other people standing in the direction in which the revolver was fired.

Police-constable WILLIAM ROBINS, 522 H. On September 18 at about 6.50 p.m. I was in Bethnal Green Road. I then went into Peters Street, heard two revolver shots, saw a number of people, and Police-constable Gibson was lying on his back with prisoner on top of him. I went to the assistance of Gibson.

Cross-examined. I ran after a man named Taylor, who had tried to rescue prisoner, caught him, and found on him a revolver loaded in all five chambers—it had not been fired.

Mr. McDonald submitted that there was no case, as the prosecution had not proved that the revolver was ever loaded or that it was not blank shot.

His Lordship decided to leave the case to the jury.

Verdict, Guilty.

Mr. Muir stated that he would not proceed on the indictment against Andrews, Cooper, and Newman for rioting.

(Saturday, December 16.)

Prisoners were stated to be associates of one another. Against Tressadern 13 previous convictions were proved, three of them being for assault. At the age of 17, it was stated, he became, as captain of a band of young desperadoes, a terror to the police and inhabitants of Bethnal Green, and he had since developed into a dangerous criminal; he was never known to have done any work. As to Callaghan, since 1902 eight convictions were proved, of which one was for shooting with intent and one for assault; four were for minor offences; he was never known to have done any work. Against Spencer (whose correct name was said to be Emms) 12 convictions since 1899 were proved, three being for assault; he was now on license. Against Andrews seven convictions since 1906 were proved, one being for assault on the police. Against Cooper 16 convictions since 1898 were proved, of which five were for assault; he had on three occasions been found to be in possession of firearms. Against Newman 11 convictions since 1898 were proved five being for indictable offences; he was stated, however, when out of the prison to be a hard-working man. Against Taylor a conviction for gambling with dice in 1906 was proved; he was never known to have done any work. Against Wheeler three convictions were proved since 1901, one being for an assault on the police and the other two of a minor nature.

Mr. Justice Avory, in passing sentence, said: Such of you as have pleaded guilty to this riot must know perfectly well that it was one of the most serious riots which could be dealt with by the law; for it was a riot in which some of you at all events were armed with loaded revolvers, a riot which took place in the very precincts of a Court

of Justice, a riot the purpose of which was either to intimidate or to punish in your own way persons who were attending at that Court of Justice, and a riot the purpose of which was, in fact, carried out by the assaults which were committed upon the men (Bogard and King) upon whom you meant to have your revenge.

Sentences: Tressadern: For the riot, Twenty-one months' hard labour; for wounding Bogard, Three years' penal servitude. Callaghan: For the riot, Two years' hard labour. Spencer: For the riot, Eighteen months' hard labour; for wounding Bogard, Three years' penal servitude. Andrews: For assaulting King, Twelve months' hard labour. Cooper: For shooting at a person unknown, Three years' penal servitude. Newman: For wounding Bogard, Fifteen months' hard labour. Tarlor: For the riot, Two years' hard labour; for wounding Bogard, Two years' hard labour. Wheeler: For the riot, Fifteen months' hard labour. All the sentences, with the exception of Taylor's, were to run consecutively.

Mr. Justice Avory. I wish to say before I leave this case that for any portion of London to be infested by a number of criminal ruffians armed with loaded revolvers is a state of things which ought not to be further tolerated, and, if the existing law is not strong enough to put a stop to it, some remedial legislation must be effected.


(December 18 and 19.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-54
VerdictsGuilty > manslaughter
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

LUMLEY, Charles Louis (61, physician) , wilful murder of Mabel Eleanor Gorringe; feloniously using a certain instrument with intent to procure the miscarriage of the said Mabel Eleanor Gorringe; coroner's inquisition for the murder of Mabel Eleanor Gorringe.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Boyd prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K.C., Mr. Frampton, and Mr. Montague Shearman defended.

Mr. Justice Avory, in his summing up, directed the jury as follows: If the evidence satisfies you beyond reasonable doubt that prisoner did, in fact, either use an instrument, or other means, for that purpose (procuring a miscarriage), and with that intention, and death resulted from that act, then you must ask yourselves the further question which I indicated to you in opening: when he did that, must he have contemplate that death was likely to result, or must he have contemplated that grievous bodily harm was the likely result. If, in your opinion, he must have contemplated either of those consequences, then your duty is to find him guilty of murder. If you are of the opinion, and are driven to the conclusion by the evidence, that he did the act which is charged against him, but that he had not at the time in contemplation, and could not reasonably have contemplated, that either death or grievous bodily harm would result, but he thought that by his own skill as a medical man he could perform this operation

without any risk of either death or grievous bodily harm, then you would be justified of convicting him of manslaughter.

Verdict, Guilty of manslaughter.

It was stated that in 1900 prisoner had been struck off the Medical Register for submitting fictitious bills. Since 1895 the attention of the police had been directed towards him in connection with suspicion of performing illegal operatins.

Sentence: Seven years' penal servitude.


(Thursday, December 7.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-55
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

PERRY, Walter (34, coachman) , manslaughter of Edith Lily Neale; feloniously by force leading and enticing away the said E. L. Neale, a child under the age of 14 years, to wit, of the age of five years, with intent to deprive Ernest Albert Neale, the father, of the possession of the said child; having the custody of the said E. L. Neale, a child under the age of 14 years, unlawfully did wilfully abandon the said child in a manner likely to cause her unnecessary suffering and injury to her health.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Briggs prosecuted; Mr. Ashby defended.

Detective-Sergeant CHARLES LOADER, E Division. I produce and prove a plan I have made of the district in which the deceased's body was found. (The witness explained the plan.) About 7.20 p.m. on July 16, with an inspector, I went to the place where the child was found in the 16-acre field, approaching it from the Leyland foothpath, which is quite a narrow track. At the time the field was full of corn, standing about three feet high. Between the path and the field there is a ditch, and alongside the boundary between the field and the 10-acre field there is a very high unbroken hedge. Starting from the hedge 35 yards west of the path there was a main track leading to the spot; there was another track 10 yards this side of it and about 50 yards from the path, but not so wide. Following the main rack about 14 yards we came to the body. For a circle of about nine feet in diameter the corn had been trampled down; somebody had been there before us; the spot was about 200 yards from the Worple Road, and is indicated by the letters "C. L." on the plan. I was present when these photographs were taken (Exhibits 15 and 16 and 18, 19, and 20). The depth of the ditch I have referred to is about two feet and in some places two feet six inches deep, and the level of the field is considerably higher than the level of the path; the distance from the bottom of the ditch to the level of the field is five feet and the width of the ditch is about 18 inches. The hedges shown on the plan between the 16-acre and the 21-acre fields were at that date cut down. The hedge bounding the 16-acre field is

very much broken just there, and any child could get into the field from Worple Road; I do not think it could get over the gate, which is a five-barred one. A person walking into the field through the hedge could walk along the south side of the hedge to where it turns down, and so into the field where the body was found.

Cross-examined. Where the body was found is 50 yards from the footpath, and the whole breadth of the field is about 480 yards; the spot I have indicated in the plan should be another 100 yards to the west; it is 400 yards from the Worple Road. There had been a lot of search for the child, but so far as I know only two had been to the spot before us. A child would have no difficulty in walking through the field from Worple Road, there only being cabbages, and could have got through the little piece of hedge running north and south.

WILLIAM WICKS , "The Bungalow," Stanwell Road, Staines. I help my father on his farm. Prisoner was engaged by us on June 12; we knew him as "William Standing," and he lived in "The Bungalow." A woman who gave her name at the police-court as "Miss Scott" was living with him as his wife. On Saturday, July 8, we gave him notice. I saw him on that day working on the farm and on the Sunday. About 1 p.m. on the Monday I saw him going towards Staines dressed in breeches, leggings, a Norfolk jacket, and a bowler hat. I did not see him again till 7.45 a.m. on Wednesday, the 12th; he was coming towards the farm dressed in the same way as when I saw him last. I asked him where he had been to," and he said he had been round about Windsor and Maidenhead looking for work. I told him his wife was rather agitated about him not coming back to fetch her, and he said she might have known he would have come back; his wife had been at the farm all the time. He was about the farm till 11 a.m.; that was the last I saw of him; he was dressed in trousers, a Norfolk jacket, and a cap. He said nothing about his clothes. On the next day I found at the "Bungalow" an assortment of his wearing apparel, amongst which were these black leather leggings (Exhibit 7), this pair of breeches (Exhibit 8), this bowler hat (Exhibit 9), and this fancy vest (Exhibit 10). They are all in serviceable condition. When I saw him on the Wednesday he asked me if I would speak to father about him starting work again, and I told him I would.

Cross-examined. I had heard of the little girl being missing while prisoner was still on the farm on the Wednesday, but I did not hear till afterwards that his name was coupled with the affair. It was not at Woolwich that he said he had been looking for work. I remember that he was wearing breeches and gaiters when he left on the Saturday because he was the only man on our farm who wore them.

Re-examined. I did not say anything to him about the child being missing. He never went to London to sell apples for us.

Further cross-examined. I personally attend to the matter of selling apples; it would not be possible for my father to tell him to sell apples in London without my knowing it.

MARY ELIZA SCOTT , spinster. I have lived with prisoner since last October twelvemonth at different places; he told me his name was

Robins. I remember leaving "The Bungalow" with him finally on a Wednesday about the middle of July. I saw him on the Monday before that at twelve in the morning; he said he was going to look for work and a place for me to go to. He was wearing then knee-breeches, these gaiters, this Norfolk coat, and this waistcoat (produced). I did not see him again until 8 or 9 a.m. on the Wednesday; he was wearing the same clothes. We left on the morning of that day because he said he had work at Sevenoaks; he was wearing a dark blue pair of trousers. We took a few things with us, including this Norfolk jacket and a pair of trousers, in a parcel. I left all my things behind; old Mr. Wicks told us we could leave them there till such time as we had somewhere to put them. We stayed at Sevenoaks about two months. I asked prisoner two or three times to send for my clothes, and he said he would, but he never did so. We lived a: Sevenoaks in the same name as we lived at "The Bungalow"—" Standing."

Cross-examined. Some of the prisoner's clothes were also left behind. I knew he was anxious to return to the farm at a later period to work.

ADA BEACH , wife of the landlord of the "North Star" public-house, Staines. About 6 p.m. on July 10 prisoner left a round parcel about a foot long, done up in brown paper, with me; the first time I saw him was on the day previously, dinner-time. He asked me if I would give the parcel to a man. He mentioned his name, but I said I did not know it. He said, "The man that was in here with me yesterday dinner-time, who has been working with me at Wicks's"; I knew him then. Prisoner had on a kind of Norfolk jacket, knee-breeches and gaiters, and a bowler hat. I next saw him about 3.5 p.m. the next day, when he called and asked me if the man had called for the parcel. I said "No," and at his request I gave it him. We had a conversation; he was telling me he had been selling some of Mr. Wicks's apples and had made 8s. a sieve for them; he did not say where. I should say he left about 3.30 p.m. with the parcel. A man named Pat Curran was also there.

Cross-examined. I have not been asked to identify the clothes he was wearing; I told the detective I should know the man's face more than his clothes; I am not prepared to swear to his clothes. I first heard that the child was missing at about 11 p.m. on the 10th; I heard that the man who was supposed to have taken her away was "the man who worked for Wicks," and that is how I knew that I knew prisoner, as he told me himself he had been working there, and I told the detective that he had called and left a parcel. I was not asked to identify him.

WILLIAM CURRAN . I am sometimes called "Pat Curran." In July I was assisting the outside porter at Staines railway station. I saw prisoner at out four times in that month. About 3 p.m. on July 11 I saw him leave the down platform and go to the "North Star." I followed him in there. I stopped there just on an hour, leaving him there. I went on to the railway bridge just in time to see the four

o'clock train come in. I stayed there about 15 minutes, and walked towards the "Garibaldi." I then saw prisoner come out of the side of the public-house and go to the urinal, a distance of about 15 yards; he was wearing these riding breeches, these leggings, this "flash" waistcoat, and this Norfolk jacket (produced). I did not speak to him. When talking to me in the "North Star" he was sober. He walked straight to the urinal.

Cross-examined. I identified him at the station; I heard people say that "Wicks's man" was suspected, and when I went to the station I saw him. I am not so sure of his face as his clothes; I took notice of his breeches.

Re-examined. When I saw him in the "North Star" I knew him as Wicks's man.

MARY ARLING , wife of the landlord of the "Garibaldi" public-house, High Street, Staines. About 3.30 p.m. on July 11 I served prisoner twice; he was a stranger to me. He was wearing a dark coot, dark breeches and gaiters, a black bowler hat, a white collar, and black tie. He was in the house quite half an hour.

Cross-examined. I heard of the child's disappearance the same night, but it was not until a day or two afterwards that I heard that "Wicks's man" was suspected of having taken her away.

FANNY ROSINA NEALS . I live with my husband at 2, Fairfield Terrace, Staines. The deceased was my daughter. She was five years old. About 1 p.m. on July 11 after dinner she left to go to school at Stanwell Road. She never came back. She was wearing these clothes. (Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 produced.) Prisoner is a stranger to me. I've never gave him or anybody else permission to take her away. I expected her home between 4.20 and 4.30 p.m.

ADA JENNETT , teacher, Stanwell Road School. Deceased attended my class. She left school on July 11 at about 4 p.m. with Violet Rutland.

VIOLET RUTLAND . I am six years old. I promise to speak the truth. I knew deceased. I remember the last time I came home from school with her; it was in the afternoon. She left me at my gate. Percy Webb was with her.

WILFRED OSBORN WEBB , 6, Fairfield Terrace, Staines. I am eleven years old. I knew deceased well, but I do not know for how long. I heard of her being missing the same night. About 4.30 p.m. on that day I saw her coming along London Road towards home; she was not far from the "Garibaldi." Prisoner went over to her, took hold of herhand, and took her down the station path; I had never seen him before; he was wearing riding breeches, a brown jacket, brown gaiters, and black boots. He gave her something that looked like a penny and a square-shaped parcel wrapped in brown paper. He took her down the station path, holding her hand, and that is the last I saw of her. I know Edward Beasley. I did not see him at all that day. I saw nobody that I knew when prisoner was taking deceased away.

Cross-examined. When I heard I told my mother that the little girl was missing; I never told her that I had seen prisoner take her

away; I never told anybody that. I told Mr. Loader afterwards, and he look something in a book. I had heard then that the man who was supposed to have taken her away was a man who had worked at Wicks's farm and was wearing breeches and gaiters. I was outside the "Garibaldi" when I saw this. When I saw prisoner first he was coming along the road from the police-station way, which is towards London. I was unable to identify him at the station. I am only able to say that the man in the dock was among the men that I saw at the station.

Re-examined. While we were having tea that evening I told mother that the little girl was missing. I am sure that I told her then that I had seen a man take her away. I cannot remember when I made toy statement to Mr. Loader.

EDWARD BEASLEY , 5, Millmead, Staines. I am nine years old. At 4.45 p.m. on that day Edith Neale, whom I knew, disappeared, I was just by the station path coming home when I saw her going up the station path away from her home. She passed me quite close. A man carrying a brown paper parcel about a foot long was with her; he was wearing a brown coat, brown boots, and a brown cap. He was not wearing anything on his legs besides trousers.

Cross-examined. They were coming towards me. This Norfolk jacket, this bowler hat, and breeches are not like those he was wearing. I am sure it was the Tuesday I saw him; I heard people say that this happened on a Tuesday, and that is why I am sure.

To the Court. I often saw her coming home from school. My mother told me she was missing the following morning, and I told her what I had seen.

SARAH BAILEY , nursemaid, 25, Providence Terrace, Staines. I knew the deceased quite well; she lived close by. About 5 p.m. on July 11 I saw her in Kingston Road near the top of Worple Road with a man. They were going towards Worple Road and I was going to Staines Junction. She had a little brown paper parcel. The man, who was a stranger to me, was wearing light brown leggings and grey breeches. I do not remember whether the roads were dusty. When, I got home that night I heard she was missing, and I made a statement to Sergeant Dale.

Cross-examined. I had a good opportunity of seeing the man. These breeches and these gaiters (produced) are not like the ones he was wearing; I took the breeches to be grey and the gaiters to be light brown, not because they happened to be rather dusty. At the station I was given a number of photographs and asked to pick out a photograph of the man, but I was not able to do so. I did not see his face distinctly. I had a baby in a bassinet with me. I was not able to identify him at the station.

ALBERT DREWITT , carman, Great Western Railway. On the afternoon of July 11 I was driving along Worple Road in the direction of Kingston Road, and when I was at the point marked A.R.D. 1 on the plan against Mr. Honor's gate I saw a man and a child standing at the point marked A.D. 2. The little girl was about four or five

years of age and had on a hat and a dark dress; I could not swear to the pianofore. The man had a hard hat, cloth jacket, breeches, and gaiters. I had seen neither of them before. The same evening I heard a little girl was missing, and I connected that with the man and girl I had seen. I gave descriptions to the sergeant the same evening. On October 13 I identified him at the station. Previous to that I had identified his photograph.

Cross-examined. I have been living at Staines twenty years. I did not recognise more than one photograph of this man. When I identified him I recognised prisoner as the man I had seen in the road, not simply because he corresponded to the photograph I had seen.

BENJAMIN BABBIN , 4, Chestnut Road, Staines. At 5 p.m., July 11, I was coming along Worple Road towards Kingston Road and I saw the prisoner carrying a parcel and leading a child along; he was a stranger to me. The parcel was about 15 inches long; the child was five or six years old. She was a stranger to me. She was wearing a white straw hat, a white pinafore, black boots, and black stockings; he was dressed more like a gamekeeper, with knee breeches and gaiters. It was opposite Mote's rickyard that I saw them; they were walking towards Laleham. These breeches (produced) are much the same colour as he was wearing, but they appeared to be corded. The following morning I told the police officer what I had seen. At the end of July I picked out his photograph from thirty others. Some time in October I identified him at the station.

Cross-examined. I am not able to swear to the trousers he was wearing. Prisoner was a stranger to me. The same night I heard of the disappearance of the child and that some man wearing breeches, gaiters, a Norfolk jacket, and a bowler hat was supposed to have taken her away. It was not until about a week afterwards that I heard that it was a man who used to work at Wicks's. Subsequently I identified his photograph. I had some little difficulty in identifying him at the station, because on July 11 his moustache was more stubby that it is now. I did not pick him out because I thought he corresponded to the photograph, but as being the man I had seen.

CHARLES LOADER (recalled). I showed the photographs to Drewitt and Babbin on July 28. They both picked out the prisoner's.

RICHARD PUTT . I work in a factory at Staines. About 7 p.m. on July 16, with Jack Roberts, I was walking along the Laleham footpath when I noticed the corn trodden down. We followed the track up, and on the right we saw a big space trodden down, in which there was a body. There were two tracks. The body was lying in a space trodden down six or seven feet wide. It was lying on its back with the hat on the feet. The clothes were slightly disarranged, but not more than would be caused by the child lying down. We went straight to the station.

Cross-examined. The track we walked along looked wide enough for one person to go through.

Re-examined. There was also a broader track, which looked as if more than one person had gone through.

FREDERICK CHARLES POTHILL , divisional surgeon of police, Staines. At 7.30 p.m. on July 16 I went with the police to a cornfield, where I saw the body of a child lying on its back slightly on the right side. The underclothes were drawn up a little at the knees. I did not observe whether the drawers were fastened or not. I had the body taken to the mortuary; it was in a very advanced state of decomposition and swarming with maggots; the weather had been very hot that week. On July 17 I made a post-mortem examination. The sexual organs had become so decomposed that I could have seen signs of violence only if great violence had taken place; I saw no such signs. I formed the opinion that death had resulted from ex-posure, thirst, and starvation in this field, and that the child had been dead probably three or four days. I do not think that a child of her age would be likely to find her way out alone from the place where she was found.

Cross-examined. There was no evidence so far as I could see of any violence. It is possible that she could have got there unaided, but it is improbable; there is a dry ditch three feet deep leading to the place. We had to scramble up the side leading to the field, as it was rather steep.

Re-examined. I am not certain about the route from Worple Road to this spot, as we did not go that way. (To the Court.) The appearances were consistent with the child having been dead five days.

(Friday, December 8.)

Inspector JAMES DALE, T Division, stationed at Staines. On July 16, about 7.30 p.m., I went with Sergeant Loader to a field of standing corn and found the dead body of Edith Lily Neale. The clothing had not been disturbed. One side of the drawers was unfastened. The height of the corn was about 3 ft. It is almost impossible for a child to find her way there alone from the Worple Road.

Cross-examined. The child might have laid down there, but I think her clothes would have been more disarranged in her death struggle.

Detective-sergeant JOHN BOWSTEAD, New Scotland Yard. I took the photographs, which have been produced here, on October 31. Sergeant Loader was with me.

Sergeant JOHN GILLAN, V Division, stationed at Wimbledon. On October 12, at 8.30 p.m., I saw prisoner in High Street Merton, with Mary Scott. He was carrying two parcels. I said, "I am a police officer. I believe your name is William Standing." He said, "No, it is not; my name is Charles Lewis." He said he lived at Gravesend. I cautioned him and said, "You answer the description of a man wanted at Staines for causing the death of a child in July last. You will have to accompany me to Wimbledon Police

Station where you will be detained pending inquiries" He said, "I know nothing about what you are talking about. I have never been to Staines in my life. I am not the man you want. You will have to pay for this." At the station he said, "On what date did this happen?" I said, "On July 11 last." I examined his parcels and found a Norfolk jacket minus the belt (Exhibit 11). The belt produced (Exhibit 22) matches the coat.

Cross-examined. He did not say, "I have never been to Staines but once in my life"; he said, "I have never been to Staines in my life."

Detective-inspector ALBERT HELDEN, stationed at Staines. On July 11 I heard from Inspector Dale by wire that Edith Neale was missing. The clothing (Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10) came into my possession, the breeches, hat, waistcoat, belt and leggings on July 17 from Wicks, and the coat on October 12 from prisoner. On October 13 I conveyed him from Hammersmith to Staines by train. In the train he said, "On the Monday night I stayed at Pearce and Plenty's in the Borough; on the Tuesday night at Rowton House, Newington Butts. I want you to make inquiries there for me." I said, "All right. What name did you give?" Prisoner said, "Ah! that is my business You find out." I said, "How can I make inquiries if you do not give me your name?" He said, "My name is in the book there; I will write." Prisoner was charged and gave the name of Walter Perry.

Cross-examined. Pearce and Plenty's is now closed, and I could not find whether prisoner had stopped there that night. The name of Walter Perry was not in the books at Rowton House, Newington Butts on either of the days mentioned. Prisoner only gave me the name of Smith the other morning. Subsequent inquiries show there were 14 men on July 11 who gave the name of Smith, and no Christian name. I showed some photographs to Wicks, Webb, and Beasley, about 42 or 43, among them being one of prisoner. The others were not Staines men. Wicks picked, out the man who had been working for his father, and the owner of this clothing. Webb, the little boy of nine, also picked out the prisoner's photograph as the man he had seen with the little girl. Beasley could not. Both Webb and Beasley failed to identify the man at the station. I did not say anything to these people to lead them to believe that the photograph of the man who had been working at Wicks's farm was among the photographs.

Re-examined. It was the little fellow aged nine who picked out the photograph. The depositions say Webb was the one who failed Leasley and Webb were called into Court. The first one, the little one, is he who picked out the photograph. [In answer to his Lordship, the boy referred to said his name was Beasley.] Beasley was not with Wicks when Wicks picked out the photograph.

To the jury. They were not stock photographs. Thirty-five were taken at one time, and the prisoner's was amongst them, taken at the same time. They were mounted in the same way and all of the same age and size.

Detective-inspector FRANK KNELL, T Division, stationed at Ham-mersmith. On October 12, at 11.30 p m., I found prisoner detained at Wimbledon Police Station. I told him I was an inspector of police and should arrest him for the manslaughter of Edith Neale, aged five, at Staines on July 11, and further that he would be charged with stealing the child. He said, "What date did you say?" I replied, "July 11 last." He said, "I can prove where I was. On the Sunday I was at home all day and all night with my wife. On Monday I was also at home, and on Tuesday I went to town and lodged at Pearce and Plenty's coffee house in the Borough. You will find my name in the books there." He had given the name of Lewis up to that time at the station. I said nothing about the days of the week. Next day I charged the prisoner at Staines Police Station at 4.15 p.m. and he made no reply. I gave my evidence at Feltham on October 13, and afterwards prisoner said in my hearing that he had also lodged at a Rowton House at the Elephant in the Borough. Referring to the depositions I find he said, "I lodged at two places near Rowton House near the Elephant in the Borough."

Cross-examined. According to the two statements he may have lodged at Pearce and Plenty's on the Tuesday and at another place on the Wednesday.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate, "I am not guilty. I reserve my defence."

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Justice Avory invited Mr. Muir to consider whether the "custody" of a child contemplated by the common law, and by the Children Act. 1008 (8 Edward VII., c. 67). did not mean lawful custody; further, whether it did not contemplate a custody more permanent than had been proved here, in order to create the duty, the neglect of which was, in this case, made the basis of the charge of manslaughter.

Mr. Muir said that, so far as the case rested upon the common law, he put it not upon neglect of duty, but upon the overt act, which the jury might infer from the evidence, of the prisoner taking the child into the cornfield and leaving her there. Dealing with the case as under the Children Act, he called attention to section 12 of Part II., which provided that any person who, having the custody or care of any child or young person, neglected, abandoned, or exposed it in such a way as to cause injury to its health, or danger to its life, should be guilty of a misdemeanors. Then, the interpretation section was important. Section 38 (2) provided that "Any other person having actual possession or control of a child or young person shall be presumed to have the care of the child or young person."

Mr. Justice Avory. Does not that mean a legal possession or control?

Mr. Muir submitted that it meant a de facto possession. He had in mind cases in which a de facto officer of a company had been held to come within the sections of the Companies' Acts with regard to crimes, although he was not a legal officer of the company. He suggested that the word "actual" had been used in this interpretation section of the Children Act in order to cover a de facto possession, however acquired.

Mr. Justice Avory said that this point was one that apparently had not been considered before. He would, for the purposes of to-day, adopt the view put forward by Mr. Muir, and direct the jury accordingly.

Mr. Muir then addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown: Mr. Ashby following on behalf of the prisoner.

Verdict, Guilty.

Detective-Inspector EDWARD BADCOCK, V Division. In 1906 prisoner was found guilty of feloniously stealing a child and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. He was also found guilty of indecently assaulting the child and sentenced to six months' hard labour, the sentences to run concurrently.

Inspector KNELL proved nine previous convictions for dishonesty, the sentences ranging from one to 12 months.

Mr. Justice Avory, in pronouncing a sentence of Twelve years' penal servitude, remarked that, with very little more evidence, prisoner might have been put upon his trial on the charge of murder.


(Wednesday, December 6.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-56
VerdictsGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

CARPENTER, Alfred William (69, no occupation) , obtaining by false pretences from Joseph Rensonnet the sums of £12, £10, £20, £20, and £10; from Frank Abraham Slingerland £120; from Nancy Earland the sums of £350, £145, and £115; from Mary Ann Eliza King £206 5s.; from Ernest Felix Corney, £10; from John Vann, £500; from Edward Holt, £50; from Alexander Thomas Stewart a banker's cheque for £300; from Albert Henry Gale, £260; from Charles Burgess Keeling, £200; and from Charles Henry Parker £500, in each case with intent to defraud; in incurring certain debts and liabilities, to wit, to Joseph Rensonnet £12, £10, £20, £20, and £10; to Frank Abraham Slingerland £120; to Nancy Earland £350, £145, and £115; to Mary Ann Eliza King £1,300; to Ernest Felix Corney £10; to John Vann £500; to Edward Holt £300; to Alexander Thomas Stewart £300; to Albert Henry Gale £260; to Charles Burgess Keeling £200; and to Charles Henry Parker £500, in each case unlawfully did obtain credit under false pretences and by means of other fraud.

The Solicitor-General (Sir John A. Simon, K.C.V.O., K.C., M.P.), Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Rowlatt, and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. H. F. Dickens, K.C., Mr. R. D. Muir, and Mr. Adrian Clark defended.

Formal evidence was given of the death of CHARLES HENRY PARKER and of his signature to the deposition taken from him at the police court. Evidence was also given of the illness of EDWARD HOLT, another witness, and of his deposition.

JOSEPH RENSONNET , boot laster, 29, West Street, Mile End. I am secretary of the Crown Loan and Investment Society, and from time to time have to invest the society's funds. In July, 1909, I saw in "John Bull" an advertisement of the Charing Cross Bank (produced). I noticed the passage, "Established 1870" and the figures of the liabilities and surplus. I obtained this prospectus (Exhibit 3), and noticed the words, "Registered under the Bank Charter Act 7 and 8 Victoria"; that conveyed to me that the bank was under some Government

control. In 1909 I deposited in the bank £120, moneys of my society, and other sums in 1910; the total was £172. My society are creditors in prisoner's bankruptcy for this amount.

Cross-examined. The society's money was formerly deposited at a bank at 4 per cent, interest upon one month's notice. I know by experience now that you cannot expect the same safety in an investment at 10 per cent. as in one at four; that did not occur to me when I invested in the Charing Cross Bank. I read the prospectus carefully; I see now that the stated objects of the bank are different from those of an ordinary bank. The prospectus states that the bank is doing money-lending business, but I assumed that advances would only be made upon good security. In one of the papers I received there was an intimation that "any additional information required" could he had from the bank; I never asked for any further information.

Re-examined. On September 19, 1910, I saw Mr. Lindsay, the cashier at the Bishopsgate branch of the bank. I told him that certain rumours had reached us about the safety of the bank; that I would have at Christmas time to withdraw money for distribution to our members; and that rather than run any risk I would be prepared to take the: money out immediately and forfeit interest. Mr. Lindsay assured me that the money was quite safe, and in consequence of that I left in the money we had there, and made a further deposit.

FRANK EDWARD HARRY SLINGERLAND , licensed victualler, Westminster Bridge Road. In September, 1910, I saw in the "Morning Advertiser" advertisements of the bank and from the statements made I believed it was a quite safe and sound concern. On September 28 I deposited £120; I was to have 7 per cent, on a twelve months' notice of withdrawal. At this time I believed from the advertisement that the bank had a surplus of £371,000. In October, 1910, prisoner became bankrupt and I am a creditor in the bankruptcy.

Cross-examined. I drew my £120 from the Post Office Savings Bank, where the interest was 2 per cent.

Miss MARY ANN ELIZA KING, Devonshire Road, Chiswick. In 1903 I deposited in this bank £300; by September, 1910, this amount had increased to £1,300; the interest was 10 per cent. on a five years' notice. On September 29 there was interest falling due; instead of taking it, I reinvested it, and with other moneys made up a further deposit of £250; I also deposited £450 on behalf of my brother. From 1903 onwards I had seen advertisements of the bank; just before the reinvestment and deposit in September, 1910, I had seen this advertisement stating that there was a surp us of £371,000; I believed this statement.

Cross-examined. I did not know that prisoner was the owner of the bank, or that his name always appeared in the "London Directory." I received interest regularly from 1903 to 1907 and I was quite satisfied.

ERNEST FELIX CORNEY , clerk, Talfourd Road, Peckham. In September, 1910, I saw in the "Daily Telegraph" this advertisement and I believed from it that this bank had a surplus of £371,000. I deposited

£10, on a six months' notice, to receive 6 per cent, interest. From the statement in the advertisement and prospectus that the bank had forty branches I believed it to be a big genuine concern.

Cross-examined. I noticed that some of the branches were financing colonial enterprises.

JOHN VANN , painter, Lofthouse Road, Shepherd's Bush, gave similar evidence as to seeing the advertisement and believing in the statements. On October 10, 1910, he deposited £500, interest to be 7 per cent., twelve months' notice.

Cross-examined. I quite understood that the bank was carrying on a moneylending business. I took the £500 out of the Penny Bank, where I had been getting 2 1/2 per cent.

The depositions of EDWARD HOLT and CHARLES HENRY BARKER were read. The former related to deposits of £300, £100, and £100 (the last amount on October 10, 1910). Barker deposited £500 on October 15, 1910.

(Thursday, December 7.)

ALBERT HENRY GALE , 3, Felton Road, Barnsbury, gunmaker. In October, 1910 my life endowment policy became due and I received £500 which I wanted to invest. On October 12, 1910, I saw an advertisement in the "Evening News" (produced), with the heading "Charing Cross Bank, established 1870," setting out the assets and liabilities with a surplus of £371,078; I understood surplus to mean what is left after all the liabilities are paid, and I absolutely believed those figures to be correct. The paragraph "Owing to the nature of our investments," etc., made the greatest impression on me because it conveyed to my mind that apart from the bank's business they had substantial investments; I thought they were able to pay the high rates of interest out of their money-lending business. I thought it was a genuine concern. In consequence of that advertisement I wrote letter (produced) of October 3, 1910, saying I contemplated depositing £250, and asking for full particulars, and received reply of October 4, 1910 (produced), signed "A. Williams, manager," enclosing a booklet (produced) which I read, and which increased my respect for the bank because of the large number of branches it mentioned. On October 12 I called at the bank in Bedford Street and invested £260 for five years at 10 per cent, per annum, interest to be paid every. three months, at the same time filling up notice of withdrawal. I should not have parted with my money if I had thought that the figures as to the surplus were not correct, or that the interest on the deposits was not paid out of the profits of the business.

Cross-examined. I took the advertisement to mean that the depositors ran no risk. I did not see any prospectuses of a railway in the bank. I should not have been equally satisfied if there had been any substantial surplus. I had previously invested at three per cent. Ten per cent, is high interest, but one that can be easily paid on a

money-lending business where 40 per cent, is the average profit. I looked upon the bank as substantially a money-lending business. I did not inquire what the investments were.

Re-examined. The only information that I had from the clerk in charge was that the bank was a safe and sound institution. I should not have deposited if I had known the money was being used to construct a railway in Canada.

CHARLES BURGESS KEELING , 60, Long Bridge Road, Barking. In October, 1910, having seen prisoner's advertisement, I drew out £200 from the Post Office, and deposited it with the Bishopsgate branch of the Charing Cross Bank for twelve months at seven per cent, interest receiving receipt produced signed "A. Williams, H. J. Taw, joint managers." I relied on the figures stated in the advertisements and should not have parted with my money but that I believed them to be true, and that the money was being placed in safe investments—not in such a thing as a railway in Canada.

Cross-examined. I received a prospectus. I did not know it was a money-lending business. I paid little attention to statements in the prospectus, I relied on figures in the advertisement.

ALEXANDER THOMAS STEWART , 20, Thorpe Road, Barking, engineer. I have been in India and have for years past seen prisoner's advertisement. On July 10 I had £300 in the Chartered Bank of India. In October I called at the Charing Cross Bank in Bishopsgate Street, received a form, a booklet, and afterwards deposited £300 at three months' notice at five per cent, interest, getting receipt signed by "A. Williams" and "H. J. Taw." I relied on the figures showing the surplus, and the statement "Owing to the nature of our investments," etc., and believed that the money was lent on good security at a high rate of interest. I had no idea that the prisoner was borrowing money to carry out his own foolish ideas.

Cross-examined. I understood that money had been expended in opening branches in the provinces.

MARK EARLAND , 23, Tooley Street, Garrett Lane, Wandsworth, wheelwright. I had seen prisoner's advertisement in various news-papers for twelve months before September 10, 1910, when I had £350, my own savings, in Farrow's Bank, which, on September 26 I drew out by cheque in favour of my sister and directed her to pay it to the Charing Cross Bank on deposit for five years at 10 per cent, interest. I was induced to do so by the figures and statements of the advertisement, believing it was a genuine bank established in 1870.

NANCY EARLAND , sister of the last witness, corroborated.

GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE , messenger, Court of Bankruptcy, produced the file of prisoner's bankruptcy.

DANIEL WILLIAMS , Assistant Official Receiver, London Bankruptcy Department. I have acted in conjunction with Mr. Hough in the bankruptcy of Alfred William Carpenter. The petition was presented by the debtor on October 17, 1910. He is described as a banker, trading as the Charing Cross Bank, at 28, Bedford-street, Staand, and various other places. The adjudication was on the same

date. Mr. Mackness, accountant, assisted prisoner in preparing his statement of affairs, which is sworn January 11, 1911. The total liabilities are £2,830,791 7s. 1d.; assets £1,131,557 8s. 4d.; preferential claims £1,443 14s. 2d.; unsecured creditors £2,813,102 7s. 1d., being chiefly due to 18,966 depositors and current account customers, including the prosecutors in this case, whose deposits amount to a total of £5,550. Amongst contingent liabilities are £14,272, uncalled balance of shares in Alperton Tyre and Rubber Works, Limited, and £15,189, due to the landlords in respect of leases of bank and branch premises. The total contingent liabilities are £40,811, of which £17,689 is expected to rank. Among the assets are: Cash at bankers £94,605; cash in hand £40,108; the schedule of other assets amount to £966,585 5s. 5d.; good book debts, principally advances on security, £19,790; bad debts £3,175. The deficiency account has estimated loss on trading since July 1, 1907, £684,802, on which date the excess of assets over liabilities are stated to have been £371,078 less clerical error of £100,000, owing to £121,000 being inserted instead of £21,000. There is a list of losses—difference of valuation of railway undertakings £662,931; on South African Gold claims £230,670; Carpenter Tyre and patents £100,000; Gaspe property £135,871; leasehold and freehold property £44,606; fixtures and furniture £8,000; stocks and shares £1,666; debtor's assets £18,166, amounting to a total of £1,261,843; adding losses on trading £684,802; ad debts £15,000; household expenses £8,000, there is a total loss of £1,970,311. The public examination took place on January 26 and 27, notes of which were signed by the prisoner.

The shorthand notes of the prisoner's examination were then read.

(Saturday, December 8.)

DANIEL WILLIAMS (recalled, further examined.) The reading of the transcript of the shorthand notes of prisoner's public examination in bankruptcy was concluded.) The advertisements in the bundle of newspapers, Exhibits 38 to 49, are all similar to Exhibit 2. Exhibit 50 is a white paper prospectus similar to Exhibit 3, Exhibit 51 is a similar prospectus, and Exhibit 52 is a circular issued from the Greenock office, setting out the advantages and stating in brackets the surplus. Exhibit 53 is the stock form of receipt; Exhibit 54 is a form of deposit bond, and Exhibit 55 is a circular explaining the deposit. bonds. Exhibit 56 is a balance sheet dated July 1, 1895, showing on the liability side £165,052, and on the asset side £465,052. Deducting the liability on current and deposit accounts from that amount there is lefo the proprietor's capital and reserve £300,000. Then follows the certificate signed "H. Chattels and Co., accountants, 1, Victoria Street, S.W." Exhibit 58 which I found also amongst prisoner's papers is the balance sheet of July 1, 1896, in which the proprietor's capital and reserve is stated at £303,000, and the current and other accounts as £209.000. On the asset side there is again a bracketed specification of the assets, coming to £465,000; it is practically a copy of the other

balance sheet. The assets are totalled at £512,475. It bears a similar certificate. Attached to these documents is Exhibit 57, an envelope endorsed in Carpenter's handwriting, "Re balance sheet, Copy balance sheets July, 1895, July, 1896." These two sheets were found in the envelope. Exhibit 84 purports to be a list of liabilities and assets on December 31, 1905, and January 1, 1906. It is in two parts. In the first part there is a list of the liabilities of various branches on current and deposit accounts and in the second of the assets of the various branches. The deposits at Bedford Street Branch come to £482,000 and the current accounts £18,000, and at the Bishopsgate Street Branch within £121,000. The depositors at branches come to £43,000, and there are two similar items of current accounts coming to about £9,000. The liabilities total up to £675,196 and the assets to £981.616. (The witness gave the figures making up this amount.) The balance is £306,020. Exhibit 59 is a balance sheet of June 30, 1907, which was amongst the documents found in his bankruptcy. One sheet in pencil is entirely in his handwriting, and there are some pencil additions on the second sheet which are also in his handwriting. On the first sheet the total liabilities set out come to £236,871, and the assets, including Victoria Works, Alberta, £10,000, the Carpenter Patent Tyre, and all foreign patents £100,000, South African Gold Claims and Mines £200,000, Freehold Land, Timber, Saw Mills, Freehold Property, 50,000 acres, etc., Lumber business, etc. £150.000, A. S. and W. Railway Bonds £130,000, A. S. and W. Property and re Common stock 3,000,000 dols., Profit on Bond sale, etc., £600,000, New Canadian Company shares and loans, etc., £70.000, and leases and fittings of different branches £121,000, como to £1.607,949. The balance comes to the advertised surplus of £371,077. The second sheet contains a list of liabilities on deposit and current accounts at the various branches, which are totalled up and brought into the list of liabilities on the first sheet. Connected with that document there was a bundle of documents, Exhibit 60, consisting of returns from the various branches of the amounts on deposit and current accounts. It appears as if they were sent up to the head office and the particulars summarised on the second sheet of the balance sheet referred to. Exhibit 61 is a document showing similar returns, but for a period six months later. The liability to depositors is £1,325,047; that is in the handwriting of a clerk. I do not see on the original exhibit before me "Less error in over-stating liabilities on June 30, 1907, £100,000." (This was explained to be a calculation on the copy exhibit by one of the bankruptcy officials: this negatived the point the Solicitor-General had made that the prisoner had himself discovered this error.) Exhibit 62 is another statement of assets and liabilities as on December 31, 1908. Exhibit 63 is a similar statement to the period ending June 30, 1909. by which time the deposit liabilities had reached the sum of £1,901.000. Exhibit 64 is a bundle of documents showing the condition of the liabilities of branches on deposit and current accounts up to November 30, 1909. Exhibit 65 shows a summary of assets and liabilities from June 30, 1910. and is initialled "A. W. C."; it consists of a number of documents

in a bundle, the front page setting out the liabilities on deposit and current accounts, the deposit accounts coming to £2,471,515, and the current accounts to £72,000 odd, making the total liabilities £2,544,009. The following sheets provide the materials from the branches which are summarised on the first page. I also found amongst prisoner's papers Exhibit 66, the original letter from Sellars, Dicksee, and Co., of April 19, 1910, to prisoner. Exhibit 68 is their reply. Exhibit 69 is a letter from Roy Pembridge, dated August 5, 1910, which was found amongst the prisoner's papers, together with the three long reports, Exhibits 70, 71, and 72. Exhibits 73, 74, 75, 76, and 77 are letters from Sellars, Dicksee and Co. to the prisoner dated respectively August 18, September 4, September 16, September 20 and October 3, 1910, to prisoner. Exhibit 24 is prisoner' letter in reply to Exhibit 77, which we got from the accountant. I also found amongst prisoner's papers Exhibit 79, which purports to be prisoner's draft of that letter, the alterations on it being in his handwriting. (Exhibit 124 was read and compared with the draft as altered.) The result of the alterations is that having been put into type as a letter from a firm, it has been altered into a personal letter by prisoner, and added to the figures there is a million for the railway, and the phrase, "I have been advised by my solicitor to act as I do." Also found amongst the prisoner's paper, was Exhibit 80, the acknowledgment by Sellars, Dicksee, and Co. of a cheque, and Exhibit 81 is the receipt. I also found Exhibit 82, a draft of a letter to the branch cashiers, asking them to communicate in future with the accountants, Messrs. Sellars, Dicksee, and Co., directing that all returns and communications must be forwarded to the head office, and stating that expenses must be curtailed and that such returns will hereafter be attended to by the accountants. Exhibit 63 is a calculation averaging out the average rate per cent, by taking all the deposits at all the branches and the rates of interest payable in respect of each group; this is stated in the public examination to be on one side a trifle over and the other side a trifle under 8 per cent. The largest total in all these accounts appears to be in respect of the 10 per rent., £289,846. and the second largest is the 7 per cent., £256,000; 7 per cent, is for one year and 10 per cent, for five years. Exhilbit 58 is a document bearing three figures only, "£1,136,249," from which is deducted £796,788, leaving £339,461. I have since seen another document dated August, 1906, which bears that last figure. Exhibits 87 and 88 are letters from prisoner to Mr. Fall and to Mr. Brooch. Exhibit 154 is a letter from Mr. Brooch on which in pencil are prisoner's initials and the date, which are in his handwriting to the best of my belief. The answer is Exhibit 88, dated June 8, 1909, signed "A. W. Carpenter, Proprietor." Exhibit 90 is a copy of a letter to Messrs. Pope, dated October 14, 1910.

Cross-examined. All these papers were seized shortly after the adjudication; we retained some of the prisoner's clerks, but we had control. Some of the papers were removed to Bankruptcy Buildings, but most of the books were left in the office. We found the correspondence in order on the files and the accounts on the office file. Prisoner

gave us every assistance possible in the investigation of his affairs from beginning to end. He offered every assistance to prepare the statement of affairs, but a letter was written to him stating that he would have to take full responsibility for it, and that the accountants would only render assistance. The principle adopted was simply to take his assets upon the basis of the amount he had spent upon them up to that time. He first made a list of his assets, Exhibits 156 and 157, showing his position according to him on October 17, 1910. (Mr. Dickens read this statement at length.) According to the statement of affairs the cash in bank and cash in hand come to £140,000, stocks and share £56,000, making a total of about £200,000. As regards the deficiency we begin by showing the deficiency in the valuation of the railways as £662,931, which is made up in this way: Deficiency in value of railway interest in New Canadian Atlantic, Quebec and Western, and value on balance-sheet on June 30, 1907, at £800,000. To that is added the expenditure on that railway since that date, and on Quebec and Oriental, less cash receipts £708,113, which makes, with the pre-vious estimate of value, £15,108. Then there is deducted the actual expenditure, and thus the difference of £662,931 is explained. All the others are dealt with on the same principle. The Official Receiver's report states that prisoner, for the purposes of the statement of affairs, has valued his Canadian assets only at the amount of his expenditure thereon, but that he anticipates that on the completion of the Coast line the assets should realise at least four million pounds. Prisoner is a creditor in his own bankruptcy for £1,000, which he put in on deposit. All the balance-sheets, and also the calculations which were apparently made to form them, which were found, have been produced.

Re-examined. There is a letter of December 5, 1910, from prisoner to the Senior Official Receiver, asking for assistance in the preparation of his statement of affairs, in consequence of which I wrote him a letter on December 10, stating that Messrs. Peat and Plender had been appointed to assist him, but I was to point out to him that he was to accept full responsibility for the figures contained in it, and that the accountants could not be considered as having assented to or in any way adopted the value which he may place upon his assets. Exhibit 156 was prepared and put in by him some time after the statement of affairs had been filed. The first time I saw it was when it was put in at Bow Street on his behalf. During the course of my investigations I saw him practically every day and he never referred to it. It is typed. I have heard that in his private room at the Charing Cross Bank there is a large map of the railway.

CHARLES ELIJAH COX , manager, H. P. Pope and Co., stationers and printers, 114, New Street, Birmingham. My firm from 1906 have printed a great deal of the prospectuses and so on for the Charing Cross Bank; in 1904 we supplied stationery to the Birmingham branch of the bank and we afterwards got the bulk of the orders. Exhibit 104 is a fair sample of the orders that came from the different branches. My firm printed the pink prospectus (Exhibit 51), the white prospectus (Exhibit 3), and the book of rules (Exhibit 5). Exhibit

130 is a bundle of specimens of documents and Exhibit 131 is a bundle of invoices, statements, and letters, which were also printed by us. Exhibit 132 shows the totals of different kinds of literature we printed and supplied. From July 1, 1907, to October 17, 1910, we supplied 189,000 white prospectuses (Exhibit 3) and for the same period 2,939,300 pink prospectuses (Exhibit 51). From 1909 to October 17, 1910, we supplied 16,150 books of rules (Exhibit 5). We also supplied 113,000 opening circulars and 77,750 calendars. As regards the little book called "Chats on Banking," we had in July, 1907, a copy sent to us with the request to prove it to the head office, which we did; we sent 25 copies, and we had an order for 250,000, but this was cancelled: the same thing happened with regard to this book called "Prospects of the Charing Cross Bank." £900 has been paid to us for printing and stationery during the period and we supplied in all 3,335,200 documents.

Cross-examined. In October, 1910, we got a letter saying that they had decided to discontinue the 10 per cent, interest; this they had power to do under Rule 11, after proper intimation.

WILLIAM JOSEPH FITZGERALD , 1, Nightingale Road, Bushey, director, W. L. Erwood, Limited, British, Colonial and Foreign Advertising Offices, 30, Fleet Street, E.C. We have been prisoner's advertising agents since the end of 1897; I attended to his business myself; we got our instructions from him. I used to see him about once a week at 28, Bedford Street, Strand. Exhibit 95 is a letter from the bank to our firm, dated May 29, 1907, asking us to give our attention to a letter which they enclosed from the Edinburgh branch containing a suggestion, which they stated met with their approval. Exhibit 99 is a letter which was enclosed, dated May 28, 1907, from J. L. Edwards to A. J. West, advising that certain advertisements should be placed in the "Dispatch." Exhibit 100 is a letter, dated November 7, 1907, signed by prisoner himself, asking us to place an advertisement in a Paisley paper. Exhibit 101 is a letter, signed "A. J. West," dated April 16, 1908, stating that the Norwich branch would be opened on Wednesday next, and asking us to make customary arrangements for an opening article and an advertisement. We would upon that request the paper to give us a few lines notice. Exhibit 102 is a letter from the same person, dated October 16, 1906, stating that prisoner was opening a new branch at Hull, and making a similar request. Exhibit 03 is a letter, dated October, 1908, from the same person, giving a list, setting out the various branches. Until the last., three or four years the Scotch advertisements were in our hands. Exhibit 104 is a letter from prisoner to ourselves. Exhibit 106, dated May 21, 1910, is a letter from West, on behalf of prisoner, asking us to make a certain alteration in the advertisement as regards notice being given at the time of depositing. With that exception there has been no change since July, 1907. Exhibit 106 is a complete list of papers, periodicals and programmes, in which we have inserted advertisements during last year, amounting to 277. I have marked those papers in which an advertisement has been inserted for the first

time since July, 1907; it includes papers of all sorts in England, Ireland, Isle of Man, and one publication in New York. Exhibit 107 is our account for advertisements in July, 1907, and it shows. £779 15s. 8d., but there is a statement which would show a greater amount than this, which is missing. In 1910 the advertisements amounted to about £1,100 a month. We were paid by prisoner weekly cheques on account. I called in the ordinary way on prisoner on October 14, and he said that he had in his mind that he would alter the advertisement, but we should receive instructions on the following week. I believe we received a letter the day after to alter it, but we can find no trace of it.

Cross-examined. We got absolute instructions to alter the advertisements in the letter of October 14. This copy shown me is a copy of the letter I remember seeing, and this is a copy of the alteration that was to be made. I do not see anything about 10 per cent.; I do not think it has ever been mentioned in the advertisement.

Re-examined. This advertisement that has been shown me is copied out of some newspaper, and on it are indicated in ink certain changes and omissions. Apparently, instead of "six months' notice of withdrawal at 6 per cent." he wants it 12 months' at 6 per cent., and instead of "12 months' notice of withdrawal at 7 per cent." he wants 24 months', and he has struck out "Notice may be given at time of deposit," and "Special terms for longer periods. Interest paid quarterly."

WALTER TREVENA COLTON , advertising manager to "Times of India," 99. Shoe Lane, E.C. In August, 1908, I received a letter from the Charing Cross Bank, requesting us to insert an advertisement in the "Times of India," and it appeared for the first time on August 20, and from then weekly until August 12, 1909. I produce a copy of that paper, dated July 29, 1909, which contains an advertisement showing a surplus of £371,078. I cannot remember any alteration appearing in the paper between August, 1908, and August, 1909. Our bill for that period was £12 7s., which was paid.

HARRY WESTON LONGLEY , senior clerk, Stamp Department, Somerset House. Mine is the department to which the returns under the Bank Charter Act have to be made. Exhibit 90 is a specimen of the return which has to be made under section 21. It is dated Decem ber 17, 1910, and attached to it is a form which has to be filled up by the person making the return. The fact that the bank had made a return under this section does not involve any Government supervision of the bank, nor does it involve the bank putting up any balance-sheet in its premises. That is only to be done under the Companies Act in the case of banks which are limited companies. A return under this section was received at Somerset House from prisoner on January 5, 1881, and from that time onwards he continued to make returns.

Cross-examined. A copy of the return so required is published in "The London Gazette," but it is not registered in any book; it is practically no use when it is once advertised. I cannot say whether

the object of this is that the names of the people who are the bank should be registered.

Re-examined. We do not call this a registration at all; there is no reference in the Act to that. (To the Court.) The only effect of it is that if anybody looked at the Gazette they would find that the prisoner was the sole proprietor of this bank.

EDWARD SOPWITH , advertisement clerk, the "Sportsman." Since March, 1904, the Charing Cross Bank have advertised in our paper, and I produce six files here of the papers containing that advertisement; Exhibit 139, shows capital in reserve £303,000; Exhibit 140, May, 1904, to January, 1905, £312,110; Exhibit 141, from February, 1905 to January 1906, £322,112; Exhibit 142, from January, 1906, to October, 1906, £336,420; Exhibit 143, from October, 1906, to July, 1907, £339,461; and Exhibit 144, from July, 1907, to October 18, 1910, £371,078; the last figure being the figure which appears in Exhibit 2. Our account came to about £26 a quarter.

Cross-examined. The first time that the clause beginning, "Owing to the nature of our investments," was inserted was in July, 1907, in Exhibit 144.

HOY MALCOLM PEMBRIDGE , Associate of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, partner in the firm of Sellars, Dicksee and Co., 48, Cop thall Avenue. I have been a member of that firm since 1903, and have had 16 years' experience of accountancy. In September, 1909, we were called in by prisoner. I knew he was the Charing Cross Bank. Mr. Dicksee went to that Bank in consequnce of a telephone message received by him. As a result of Mr. Dicksee's communication to me, I went myself to see prisoner. We were verbally instructed by him to make an investigation of his Liverpool branch; I was left a free hand to decide what was to be done. He was under the impression that there had been irregularities at that branch. I made an investigation and we made two reports. He then asked us to make an investigation of his City branch at Bishopsgate Street, and his Newcastle and Carlisle branches; this did not include the head office, as he said he did not wish us to make an investigation of that branch at that time. Mr. Lewis, the junior partner, helped me, but I had it under my personal eye. We made a surprise cash audit, and after that we investigated the books on the same lines as we had investigated those of the Liverpool branch. We made reports. This took all my time practically to the end of 1909. The system of bookkeeping was the same at each branch. During this period I saw prisoner on several occasions when I would make verbal reports to him. The system was a very incomplete one. There used to be a daily report sent from each branch to the head office. I found that their principal business was receiving deposits, but I did not see any substantial business being done in stocks and shares. As compared with the deposit business the current account business was negligible. No single branch was earning a profit as a branch. At each of them I found copies of the prospectuses and books of rules which were being used in connection with carrying on the business. Under prisoner's instructions we

devised a new system for each branch, and we wrote him on November 6 a letter dealing with some of the points which we suggested. (Exhibit 109 read.) Upon that an interview took place at which were present Mr. Dicksee, my other partner and myself on December 2, and some of the topics mentioned in the letter were discussed. We pointed out to him, that, as the result of our investigations, we had come to the conclusion that he could not have a proper knowledge of his affairs and, since he did not have proper results from his branches, it probably resulted that he had not got accurate results from his head office. He thanked us for bringing it to his knowledge, but he said he differed from us and that he did know all about his affairs; that apart from his banking business his other affairs were in separate companies and were audited by different firms of chartered accountants. He also intimated to us that he wanted us to become more fully acquainted with the whole of his affairs, but as the business was such a large one it was impossible that we could know everything all at once; he said that he intended to gradually introduce us into the whole of his affairs, and for that reason he consented to us having a room at his head office to get the branch returns kept so that they were in a state to be incorporated in the head office books; he told us that he kept private books and he was acquainted with his affairs. He also, for the first time, spoke of his Canadian schemes and produced maps of and explained what the Canadian Railway scheme was. We did not ever see the private books which he said he kept. I am not sure whether it was at that interview or at a subsequent interview that we were asked to arrange a programme of work which was to start from January 1, 1910. We wrote to him on December 7, stating that I was attending at his Bedford Street offices to commence the work which we set out. After that I attended continuously at the head office and introduced the bookkeeping methods which I had in view. As far as the head office business was concerned we did not investigate the books, as there were none. We never investigated the books at the City branch as we were never asked to do so. We should know about the City branch by the fact that returns were sent in from there. That work took me until after the end of 1909. Although in our first letter we had pressed upon him the extreme importance of the books of his whole undertaking being balanced at the end of December next, as far as I know that was never done. He did not ask us to do it nor give us any materials to do it with. On December 21 he wrote us this letter (Exhibit 111), setting out a number of things he was going to do. On December 23 we wrote in reply (Exhibit 112) enclosing a schedule dealing with the work which we personally agreed with him should be carried out during the next year. We enclosed therein an account of our charges (Exhibit 113). Our scheme was agreed to and our duty was to carry it out. On January 5, 1910, he wrote to us in reply to that letter a letter (Exhibit 114) agreeing to our proposals en bloc. Apart from the letters, prisoner from time to time told us that he was perfectly satisfied and very pleased with the changes we had introduced. He was always at the head office

when I went there attending personally to the business. On January 25 we wrote him a letter (Exhibit 115) calling his attention to the extremely unsatisfactory manner in which the cashier at the City branch was submitting daily reports to the head office, and that, in view of the facts which we mentioned, we thought he would agree that it was impossible for us to accept any responsibility for that branch. I think the very first reference made to our going to Canada was at the interview on December 2. It was referred to quite early in the next year and on May 17 I went there with prisoner. We wrote him on April 19 setting out the arrangement about going, and he wrote us in reply the letter of April 20 (Exhibit 116), saying that the letter covered all that he wanted to be done, but, of course, there might be other minor details to deal with; he also stated that he must start on May 13 as he wanted to return as soon as possible, but that I should remain if necessary. We wrote him on the 21st, saying we were glad to see that he accepted our proposals. Up to this time prisoner had not told us how much he had spent on the Canadian scheme, but he said we should get that from the accounts. We knew where he was getting the money from, as he mentioned it to us. I was in Canada for two and a half months. Prisoner returned from New York about 10 days after we arrived. I went to Gaspe, on the Quebec coast, and I there saw persons connected with the railway scheme and the London scheme. I saw some of them in the prisoner's presence and some of them after he had gone home. I went into the papers and accounts, having got clerical assistance. The New Canadian Company is the construction company for the railway. I saw the managing director, Mr. C. B. K. Carpenter, who I believe is prisoner's son, Mr. Scholes, the general manager, Mr. Lemieux, the general manager of the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway, and Mr. Gerault, the accountant of the New Canadian Company. In addition to those I had conversations with other business people. When prisoner was there he never suggested I was going outside my province at all; on the contrary, he wrote to me saying I was to go into everything to the fullest possible extent. On June 29 he wrote me saying that he wished to impress upon me that it was his earnest desire that I should make a thorough investigation of everything and to personally report to him on my return to London; he never withdrew those wide instructions. On July 1 he wrote me asking me to let him know the total amount of indebtedness of the New Canadian Company and generally as to the state of the accounts. I started back for England on July 22, and on the way back I completed the drafts of my three reports. I sent them with an accompanying letter, dated August 5 (Exhibits 69, 70, 71, and 72). On returning I consulted my partners and discussed the reports. (Covering letter was read: "These reports are, I regret to say, of an unfavourable nature. Under these circumstances, it is impossible for me to continue to try to help you unless you fully understand my reasons for thinking there are very grave matters requiring your attention if disaster to the whole undertaking is to be averted." The reports were read.) In the balance-sheets

which I prepared on the debit side would appear the capital that this company was using for the purpose of its enterprise. No additional allowance was made for the fact that the money was being borrowed at 8 per cent.

(Monday, December 11.)

ROY MALCOLM PEMBRIDGE , recalled. Further examined. (Exhibit 71, witness's report on the Gaspé Lumber and Trading Company, and the railway scheme was read and explained by witness.) On August 5, 1910, prisoner handed me report of the evidence in the libel action against "Truth." On August 6 prisoner said he was very annoyed at our reports. He said he had never sent me out to make a valuation of his undertakings. I said I had not made a valuation, but had considered their financial aspects in relation to his whole affairs. He said he was insolvent, but that he hoped to retrieve his position by the profit he must make on his Canadian schemes, on which the profits might be one, two, or three millions. He said he had no life insurance. I told him his responsibility to his depositors was a very heavy one, and that he must not look to the possible profit unless he was assured of his solvency at that time; and he was advertising a position which was not accurate; that he must be certain of his surplus. He said he had been advised by his solicitor not to alter the figures in his advertisements. On August 18, after consulting my solicitors, I wrote informing prisoner that it was imperative for him to inform his depositors of the position of his affairs. I had a telephonic message from prisoner, and saw him at Bedford Street. He said that my calculations were mistaken, denied his insolvency, that the railway scheme was worth millions of money, and that, not being commercial men, my firm could not understand its value. I told him we felt the only thing he could do was to close his doors and communicate with his depositors. He said he did not take that view, it would mean ruin to him, he would lose the profit he was bound to make. On September 10 I again consulted my solicitors and obtained the opinion of counsel, and on September 14 I wrote pressing on prisoner, in view of the unsatisfactory state of his finances, that he ought to discontinue receiving deposits and convene a meeting of his creditors. On September 22 I and my partner, Mr. Dicksee, had a meeting with prisoner. We discussed the value of subsidy lands, etc.; he said he was considering the expediency of lowering his rates of interest; that we were wrong in our calculations, that he had not asked us for these reports, and that he was really solvent. On October 3 we wrote saying it was quite impossible for us to continue to act for him, and advising him to take legal advice. Prisoner replied that we were wrong. We then submitted the papers to Sir Wm. Plender, president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, and left the matter in his hands. On October 14 I accompanied Sir Wm. Plender to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Cross-examined. I had made this confidential report for prisoner as

my employer, for whom I was acting and was paid for acting, up to October 4. On August 22 our solicitor advised us to sever our connection with the prisoner. I did not do that because I considered it too serious to allow the bank to continue to receive deposits. I believed in prisoner's honesty up to the time he received my report. At the interview of August 7 prisoner admitted his insolvency—afterwards adding, "If my railway scheme is not a success." At that interview I had not come to the conclusion that he was dishonest; he admitted the substantial accuracy of our report. I went with Sir Wm. Plender to the Director of Public Prosecutions and at his special request I said that I would give sufficient information to enable a warrant to be issued. I had said on two occasions, "Out of the millions that have passed through prisoner's hands he has not so far as I know kept back a penny for himself or his wife or family." I should describe prisoner's capacity for understanding accounts as "nil." He had not sufficient information to see exactly how he stood; he had nobody in his employ capable of doing so. I am an Associate of the Institute of Accountants, and have been in practice since 1903. I had never been in Canada or valued a railway before. I had every facility given me for examining into the accounts both in England and Canada. I consider it was part of my duty to deal with the value of property in Canada. I knew the form of prisoner's advertisements long before I went to Canada—from the commencement of our relations. We knew where the money came from which he put into the Canadian scheme, and that large sums of money were being put into a railway under construction. I had been told it was intended to do away as soon as possible with the money-lending part of the business. Prisoner is undoubtedly a very sanguine man; I had a great many statements from him as to the value and prospects of his scheme, knew that reports had been made, but had not read them. I had read the debate in the Canadian Parliament. The prisoner told me his scheme was the making of a railway which would connect with the Atlantic and Lake Superior line, and thus bring Gaspé in direct railway communication with Quebec and Montreal; that his line would be extremely valuable as completing an intercolonial line; as a local line it had no value. I saw the report of Sir Douglas Fox and Partners. Prisoner was introduced to us by Mr. Rutherford; we should not fall in with any fraudulent scheme. Prisoner handed me at my request Mr. Peat's report; I was to see that the accounts were being kept on the lines laid down by that report. I was instructed by prisoner, "Generally to assist in protecting your interests in every way while in Canada." I took it from that it was my duty to investigate the prospects and future of the railway. If the railway be worth three millions I do not suggest prisoner would be insolvent. In Canada I saw in prisoner's presence a great many people and discussed the prospects of the scheme; there was not the slightest disparagement of the future of the line before prisoner. I saw Lemieux, Scholes, Lyon Brown, Bouverie, Rochais, Geroux, Boutillier, and others. After my report I went to

stay with prisoner at his private house. He asked me, "Where did you get your information from of the value of the railway in Canada?" I said, "From the people that you know in Canada." He did not ask me the names, he knew the sources of my information; it was understood between us; they had not disparaged the railway in the presence of prisoner; those persons were: Scholes, general manager of the Construction Company; Lemieux, general manager of the Railway Company; Lyon Brown; Gerault, accountant to the Construction Company; Chas. Carpenter, Bondier, Read, Pymm, Boutillier, Rochais. Mr. Lemieux agreed with the opinion I expressed that the railway could not be expected to pay for five years. The statements on which I base my report were general statements, frequently over the dinner table. Lemieux put forward an optimistic view; he thought the Government would lease this with other branch lines. Scholes said the line would pay running expenses as soon as it was completed through to Gaspe, that I was unduly pessimistic, and that I was not in a position to judge. Pymm and Lyon Brown were sanguine, but on my figures they agreed to my views. Geroux agreed that on the facts I mentioned the railway scheme could not be expected to pay within five years. I knew the cash subsidies provided for the bond interest for five years. C. D. K. Carpenter pointed out that the line was not built as a colonisation or local line; its success depended upon their controlling the Quebec Oriental Railway, the terminal at Gaspe Harbour was essential and, with the wharf the Government were building, the prospects were very good. (The witness was taken through a number of documents and letters dealing with the figures.)

Re-examined. All the gentlemen I have mentioned were introduced to me by prisoner; they made no disparaging remarks in his presence; I did not discuss with them how the railway was being financed; most of them were employed by or connected with the railway by way of a salary. I have never contended that the railway may not in course of time become a useful and prosperous line. In making my report I considered the physical characteristics of Gaspé, its markets and industries, and formed my opinion on the matter as a whole.

(Tuesday, December 12.)

LAWRENCE ROBERT DICKSEE , chartered accountant, Sellars, Dicksee, and Co., Copthall House, E.C. Mr. Pembridge and Mr. Lewis are two of my partners. I first met prisoner in September, 1909. During the autumn of the year Mr. Pembridge was doing certain work for him in connection with the Charing Cross Bank. In consequence of a consultation he had with me I wrote prisoner a letter on November 26 and he called on us on December 2. I suggested to him that for us to be of all the use to him that we might be it was important that we should see the whole of his accounts; we had onlv then seen the accounts of the branches. He suggested that perhaps some day we should, but the time was not then. He told us that he was interested in a large railway in Canada; I do not remember his definitely saying

that it was the bank's money going into it, but I knew that to be the fac. He showed us a map and said that the railway would be finished in about nine months and he would make a very large profit running into millions out of the transaction. He said that perhaps he would wish one of our partners to go to Canada later on and Mr. Pembridge went in May, 1910, returning at the beginning of August. I discussed his reports with him and approved the terms of the covering letter. On August 4 Mr. Pembridge came to see me at Lowestoft and discussed the position of the bank and I approved of the terms of the letter sent prisoner on August 18. Our solicitors were consulted in my absence. I returned to town on September 5 and, having got the opinion from our solicitors, I wrote prisoner the two letters of September 14 and 16 (Exhibits 74 and 75). I went to see prisoner at the bank on September 22. Prisoner said, "You want me to close my doors, but if I do I shall lose a million and a half." I took it that this was. because the railway could not be completed. He said that he recognised we were advising him in good faith in what we thought were his interests, but that he did not consider we were competent to advise him on the point, because we were only accountants and not business men. He read extracts from a letter which I think he had received from a Mr. Reed; I do not remember what they were. I said that the difficulty about keeping the bank open was that further deposits were being received. He said, "Of course, they are; nothing can be done without money." I said, "Not even the payment of interest." He said, "Do you suppose I have no money to pay deposit interest except the deposits coming in? I have other sources of profit." He did not say what those other sources were. I said, "Well, it comes to this: If you have the nerve to go on, we have not; we must ask you to let us retire." He asked us whether we could not arrange it that we did less work than before, but not to entirely dissociate ourselves from him, so that now and again, if he asked us, we might go and look at the accounts of branches so that the branch managers might think they were being looked after. I said we would talk it over and let him know. Subsequently Mr. Pembridge and I had a consultation and we wrote him the letter of October 3, 1910 (Exhibit 77). Our account was paid on October 5. On that day we communicated with Sir William Plender, and saw him on October 11. We left with him certain documents and particulars and from that time the matter was left in his hands.

Cross-examined. We told Sir William the attitude prisoner had taken up and shortly the conversations we had had with him; we certainly had a general conversation with him, in which we told him that he had taken the view that Mr. Pembridge was a mere accountant and could not give an opinion as to the railway, and we left him the report, the case to counsel and counsel's opinion. I think I may say we gave him no information except what was contained in those documents and they speak for themselves. We certainly told him that prisoner had protested that our view was a wrong view. We put everything before him that we thought was material. The interview only lasted about 15 minutes and he had to read the documents in that time; there

was not much conversation. I have no doubt that prisoner did tell us at the December interview that it was the moneys of the bank that were invested in the railway. He said that when the railway was sold he felt sure that we would feel proud to act for him again.

Re-examined. When we saw Sir William we knew that the advertisements were still continuing and this was in writing before him.

Is NOEL LIVINGSTONE MACKNESS, member of the Scottish Institute of Chartered Accountants. I am engaged in the office of Messrs. Deloitte and Plender, 5, London Wall Buildings, E.C., the head of which firm is one of the trustees in prisoner's bankruptcy, appointed on November 21, 1910. From December 1 I have been continuously engaged at the Bedford Street office of the Charing Cross Bank, investigating its affairs, and acting as Sir William Plender's representative. I saw the prisoner almost daily for about five weeks, and have gone through the books and papers with him. He did his best to give me all information. I was first engaged in preparing a statement of affairs, in which he assisted by marking in the bank pass-books the destination to which the funds had gone. We were first engaged in analysing the pass-books for the purpose of arriving at the expenditure on his various undertakings, and he was the only person who could give us the information. There was no book kept which would show completely such expenditure other than the pass-book, from which, owing to his notes, we could arrive at a very good idea of the direction in which the money had gone. He made the notes by the counterfoils of the cheques. There was a book called the red cash-book, which contained items of expenditure on two or three of his undertakings, but these were not complete. It would be usual and proper in a bank like this to keep a book showing the destination of all moneys paid away. The books dealing with deposit and current accounts were in fairly good order, but there were no books showing the investments; there was not even a list of investments. In the course of my investigation I found there were some investments in marketable stocks and securities, but they were not entered in any bock. We found the scrip for them in the safe. We were able to ascertain the expenditure on the business partly from the analysis I have referred to, and partly from an account which was kept in prironer's name in the Charing Cross Bank, which was used for paying rents, insurance, stationery, and so on. This account was fed by prisoner with cheques drawn on an account which he had at Parr's Bank and Coutts's Bank, but the latter not so extensively. The Parr's Bank account was put in credit mostly by remittances from the branches, which were received almost daily, and which were usually paid into a local bank and then transferred to the head office. There was another account in Parr's Bank in the names of Randall, Wise and Brett, three of prisoner's clerks. Prisoner explained that this account was used chiefly by his clerks while he was away. As far as I recollect some of the amounts paid into that account were paid in the same way as they were paid into ordinary account at Parr's Bank. I think nearly all the cheques were in prisoner's handwriting. During the preparation of the statement of affairs I gave prisoner to understand

that whatever figures were put in were his own; he must not take anything I gave him without being satisfied that it was correct. When completed I told him to sign nothing unless he acquiesced in it. I saw Exhibit 156, prisoner's statement of his assets, for the first time at Bow-street, about July; he never showed me that before. I remember after the statement of affairs was filed prisoner was engaged for some time preparing a statement, but I did not know what the statement was. I do not remember ever having seen the valuation of his assets, Exhibit 157; I took no part in the preparation of it. In pieparing the statement of affairs, when it came to putting in a valuation upon his interest in the railway scheme, difficulties arose, but, taking into consideration all the circumstances, it was decided that the ouly way in which any reasonable idea as to their value could be given was to show the cost price, the reason being the railway was incomplete, and there was no market for the securities at that time. This was explained to prisoner, and he acquiesced; he said, however, that he though his valuation of the holding of bonds and stock's in the railway companies ought to be shown in some way, but when the circumstances were fully explained to him he agreed that the valuation at cost price was under the circumstances the most sensible one to put in. This cost price was arrived at by analysing the various cheques drawp, but no allowance for interest was taken. In the early part of 1911 I was engaged in preparing certain schedules showing office expenditure and income from all sources, and I further prepared an approximate balance-sheet (Exhibit 153), showing the position of the bank at different periods. My schedules cover the complete years 1908, 1909, and to October, 1910. I did not know there was a balancesheet of June, 1907, so I took two years and ten months roughly. Since preparing these I have gone further into all the bank's affairs, and I have discovered there are a few items not included, both in the income and the expenditure. In the income there were not included certain items for rebates taken by prisoner for repaying depositors before the due dates, and no allowance was made for cheque-books sold to customers, nor for small charges which were made to clients who were applying for a loan. (Mr. Dickens stated that he was not going to attach any importance to small items omitted from the schedules.) The amount received by the bank for rebates was £480, and £500 would cover the cheque books. According to my Schedule A, the total income for 1906 from dividends, interest on bank account, rents, and interest on loans, amounts to £12,245, in 1909 £13,444, and to October, 1910, £16,226; total, £41,916. According to Schedule C, the expenses of advertising, postage and carriage of prospectuses, for the same periods were £14,982, £16,654, £12,210; total, £43,847. According to Schedule B, the expenditure on rates, taxes, salaries, law costs, etc., for those periods come to £29,212, £37,532, and £32,791; total, £99,536. According to Schedule D, for the first complete year, 1908, the amount paid for interest on deposits was £119,507, 1909 £153,492, and the third period of ten months, £155,724; total £428,724. This does not include the head office. Deducting the total expenditure for these periods from the income

obtained from all sources, the excess of expenditure over income is £529,000. According to Schedule E, from August 6, 1910, to the close of the business on October 17, 1910, the amount of deposits received at the head office and branches was £372,110, and from August 20 up to October 17 £307,000, which represents not only new deposits, but also the redeposit of money which became due, which was paid out and put back again; the new deposits come to £177,000. The current accounts received from August 6 to October 17, 1910, were £105,000, and from August 20 to October 17, £88,000. The last branch which was opened was at Hamilton, Scotland, on July 6, 1910. The expenses up to that date of fitting up branches was £36,312. As regards the certificate appearing on the balance-sheet of July 1, 1895 (Exhibit 56), the books which could be examined and checked are probably at the Charing Cross Bank, but we have not got the details which would enable us to make up those figures. I should say that the item "Cash in hand at short notice" would be cash actually in the banks or in the safes, and perhaps promissory notes readily exchangeable into cash. It seems remarkable that the proprietor's capital in reserve should come to exactly the round sum of £300,000. I should say this balance-sheet is in prisoner's handwriting, including the body of the certificate. Exhibit 58, the balance-sheet for July 1, 1896, is on exactly the same lines. I should say that the assets have been manipulated so as to make the even sum that is arrived at. I do not know in whose handwriting it is, but it looks similar to Exhibit 56. I do not think there are any balance sheets for any period between 1896 and 1905. According to Exhibit 84, which is a document purporting to show the position of the bank on December 31, 1905, the assets are totalled out to £981,616 17s. 10d. and the liabilities are totalled out to £675,196; the difference is £306,420. In Exhibit 121 under date February, 1906, in the advertisement, this sum is put at £336,420. I found this balance sheet dated July 31, 1906, Exhibit 183, amongst some papers in the office since the proceedings before the magistrate. I should say that the pencil is all in prisoner's hand-writing. The upper part of it appears to be a list of deposits and current account liabilities at the branches and also the assets at the branches. The sums for cash in hand at 28, Bedford Street, and 39, Bishopsgate Street, are in pencil, as are also the deposit liabilities of those branches which are totalled up to £914,894, which, added to the current account liabilities at branches and head and City office come to £951,592. On the back there is, "February 1, 1906—Assets £881,616, liabilities £545,196, surplus £336,420." Added in pencil to the assets there is £254,633, making £1,136,249. To the liabilities there is added £251,592, making £796,788, producing a surplus of £339,461, which appears in the advertisements in the "Sportsman" from October, 1906, to July, 1907. There does not appear to be any relation at all between these pencil figures and the figures in the upper part of the document. Exhibit 85 is in prisoner's handwriting. The total due to depositors is £1,185,396. All the front page, on which are set out the different assets and their values, is in prisoner's handwriting; it is clear that £14,000 for the leases has been added into the

total. Deducting the liabilities from the assets £371,077 19s. 7d. is left. The value of the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway Company, as compared with the balance sheet of December 1, 1905, is increased by £100,000; £175,000 has been added to the Gold Claims; £95,000 has been added to the freeholds; £95,000 to the Carpenter's Tyre, and £100,000 for the leases. These over-statements total up to £565,000. I found reports made by branches; they used to be sent up weekly and monthly and when the balance sheet was prepared at the end of the year. So far as can be ascertained from all the balance sheets that have been found, the figures as regards the deposit accounts and thecurrent accounts and the cash in hand are all correct; the only errors are those which appear in the estimated valuation of the assets. The deposits on January 1, 1906, amount to £647,276, and on July 1, 1906, £918,894, showing an increase of £300,000 in six. months. On June 30, 1907, the deposits were £1,185,396, and on December 31, 1907, £1,325,047. December 31, 1908, £1,689,243. June 30, 1909, £1,901,505. December 31, 1909, £2,135,109. June 10, 1909, £2,471,515. October, 17, 1910, £2,710,814. As between June, 1907, and October, 1910, the deposit liability considerably more than doubled itself. The average rate of interest paid out was a trifle under 8 per cent. I made out an approximate balance-sheet showing the position of the Charing Cross Bank on August 19, 1910. Among the assets is 50,000 acres freehold land in Canada (valued at £150,000 in June, 1907), which is put at £48,162, that being the amount of outlay thereon shown by the books; Blooms' Patents, £16,863 expended and interest at 8 per cent.; James's Patent, £3,138 expended; Radna Company, £6,681, interest £960; New Ignition Syndicate, £2,000, and interest at 8 per cent.; Grain Transport Company, £900, and interest at 8 per cent.; claims to mining rights in South Africa, outlay to August 19, 1910, £74,193, interest £21,890—that outlay began in 1902; Carpenter's Patent Tyre, £32,270, interest £5,120—now found to be worthless; Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway, outlay to August, 1910, £804,961, interest £126,000. In 1909 prisoner had entered into certain contracts for the acquisition of the Quebec and Oriental Railway Company, in respect of which there was an expenditure of £4,228, interest £483. Then furniture, fixtures, etc., are put at £49,000. The whole of the assets amount to £1,431,035. Liabilities consist of creditors on deposit account £2,627,259, and, adding current account and trade creditors, the total of liabilities is £2,691,727. The deficiency is £1,260,691—consisting of amount expended on Petroleum Oil Trust, £131,674, and interest at 6 per cent, to October 21, 1904 (in all £197,108), when the Trust went into liquidation; prisoner then purchased the lands belonging to the Trust for £8,000, which is included in the amount given for freehold land in Canada, the remainder of the £131,674 and interest being lost. The remainder of the deficiency consists of prisoner's drawings from the business and office expenses at head office and branches, after allowing for interest and other income received. There were contingent liabilities not included in the above figures: £120,000

amount and a penal bond entered into with the Atlantic, Quebec. and Western Railway for the completion of that line; and £50,000 to the Construction Company for non-completing of the coast section of the railway; and liability for calls on shares which prisoner had undertaken to purchase, £23,122. Prisoner on October 17, 1910, was also under a liability to the Quebec and Oriental Railway of £104,718. The trustees have disclaimed that contract and have also abandoned the mining right claims by refusing to pay the licence dues to the Transvaal Government necessary to keep them up. The trustees have since the bankruptcy remitted to Canada about £30,000 for the construction of the Quebec and Western Railway, which is now practically completed, but not passed; they have also to provide £5,000 for working capital. Having regard to the liability to depositors at the date of the bankruptcy (£2,710,000) and reckoning interest at 7 1/2 per cent, to 1915, the railway would have to realise 3 1/2 millions to square the account. Both the cash and land subsidies are handed over in trust for the first mortgage bondholders.

Cross-examined. Mr. Guedalla, Sir William Plender's late partner, drew up a skeleton scheme for possibly realising the assets. I cannot speak as to his figures. Prisoner gave me every assistance in drawing up the balance-sheets. I agree that the realisation of the assets may be greatly prejudiced by his bankruptcy. Prisoner considered that the line, when completed, would realise four millions. My figures are based on a dead level of cost and nothing else, taken from prisoner's bank pass book and other books. The Construction Company received £764,000.

Ex-Chief Inspector JOHN KANE, New Scotland Yard. On April 25 I received a warrant for the arrest of prisoner for obtaining £500 by false pretences from Charles Henry Parker; I afterwards met prisoner and his solicitor by appointment at Bow Street. I read the warrant; prisoner said he understood it; the case was opened before the magistrate the same day and prisoner was remanded on the bail he has been under ever since.

(Thursday, December 14.)

Sir WILLIAM PLENDER, senior partner in Deloitte, Plender and Co., 5, London Wall Buildings, chartered accountants. I was in 1910, and am now, president of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. On October 11, 1910, I received papers from Sellars, Dicksee and Co., and had an interview with Mr. Dicksee and Mr. Pembridge about this matter, which I thought it my duty to submit to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and on October 14 I saw the Director with Mr. Pembridge. On October 17 the prisoner's petition was filed. On November 21, in conjunction with Mr. Peat, I was appointed trustee. Mr. Guedalla, who was then in my firm, drew up a scheme or proposition for dealing with the prisoner's assets; it was merely an idea and was never acted upon. I was at the end of 1910 requested to prepare certain schedules of prisoner's assets and liabilities; Mr.

Mackness was assigned on my behalf to carry on the work. On March 29, 1911, I went to Canada, remained there a month, and returned to London on April 24. I went over the line; about 60 miles of the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway was then opened for traffic. We have provided £37,000 for completing, and £5,000 for working capital. The Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway is capitalised by £525,700 First Mortgage 5 per Cent. bonds, which are a first charge over the railway and subsidy lands of 400,000 acres; up to 1915 the interest on the bonds is provided by the Dominion Government, amounting to £26,285 per annum. There is also a second Debenture issue called Consolidated Bonds of £410,000 at 5 per cent., which are also receivable by the trustees after the line is passed by the Government, the interest being £20,500 per annum; so that on the bonds the annual interest will be £46,785. There is also £400,000 Ordinary Stock. I found in the bankruptcy that the Consolidated bonds come to the trustees; there is also the scrip of First Mortgage Bonds $182,500, and Ordinary Stock $2,400 (directors' qualification). The Dominion Government pay a cash subsidy to this Company of £1,316 a mile for the 102 miles, 80 per cent. being payable as the line proceeds, and 20 per cent, on completion; there is a further subsidy of £51,440 payable on completion of the line for bridge work. That amount covers the interest on the First Mortgage bonds to 1915; after that date the bond and share holders have to look to the profit of the line. There is a third subsidy in the shape of land. At present no land has been appropriated; there is no land adjoining the railway which could be allocated. I also inquired into the Quebec and Oriental Railway. Prisoner was under contractual liability to provide £40,000, spread over three years, to repair that line, and a further sum estimated at about £40,000 to put the line into good running order, but the Government Engineer, who went over the line with me and Mr. Peat, estimated the cost of putting it into firstclass order, including refencing, at £100,000. As trustees, we disclaimed that contract after careful inquiry, in the interest of the estate. Before August 19, 1910, roughly £805,000 had been sent by prisoner to Canada for construction purposes besides other expenses of the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway. We considered it best to pay the additional £42,000 to complete the line. Among the assets there were 528 mining claims, on which a monthly rental or licence duty was payable of 5s., a claim amounting to £132, or £1,520 a year. After taking advice we decided not to continue that payment; the claims were put up to auction and sold for £250, and a further £371 for machinery and plant. We considered the petroleum oil and timber lands, which had belonged to a company called the Petroleum Oil Trust, which was in liquidation; for many years no work had been going on, and we came to the conclusion it was not worth while to reopen the fields which had not been producing enough petroleum to earn a revenue; petroleum is there, but not in payable quantities. On August 30, 1911, a valuation was made, and we have advertised our desire to receive offers for those lands. With regard to a railway under construction, I consider

the proper value to be cost price plus interest, in the absence of a reliable offer to purchase. Taking the interest at 8 per cent., the rate paid by prisoner to his depositors (which is far beyond the rate usually charged in construction accounts), the outlay is £930,000 up to August 19.

Cross-examined. My figure is cost, plus interest, irrespective of the prospective value; that is in my opinion the proper way of making out a balance sheet. If there were an offer from a person able to carry out his contract that would alter the position. When the trustees have completed the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western line they are entitled to £343,200, First Mortgage bonds, £410,000 Consolidated, and £400,000 Ordinary stock. The total issue of the Quebec and Oriental is £200,000 Five per Cent. First Mortgage, £200,000 Five per Cent. Second Mortgage, and £75,000 Ordinary Stock. The subsidies on that line have been long ago received from both the Dominion and provincial Governments. I did not visti Gaspe; I know the Government wharf was being built there; it is now completed and passed by the Government engineer; it will probably be opened for working in May or June next.

Re-examined. In Mr. Guedalla's scheme the subsidy lands are put at 30s. an acre. We made inquiries and learned that the directors of the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway had given Lemieux an option to sell those lands when granted at 10s. an acre; that is since the bankruptcy. There was an intimation given by the Minister of Railways in the Ottawa Parliament of an intention to lease certain lines, of which the Quebec and Oriental was one; it has gone no further. If it was leased at a rental we might capitalise that income and sell it. I have not assigned a value to the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway. If Mr. Peat and I got an offer from substantial people to buy the line for what it cost we should recommend the Committee of Inspection to accept it.


CHAELES ROBERT SCHOLES , New Carlisle, Province of Quebec. I was managing director of the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway, which ran from Metapedia to New Carlisle, 100 miles from Gaspe; a purely local like. I have lived in this district since 1897; I was manager of the railrcad since 1899; I know the character of the neighbourhood and the possibilities of traffic. Of course the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway was a completed link between somewhere and nowhere. Gaspe is probably the best harbour on the coast. The plan as originally outlined to me when I took charge in 1910, was the building or finishing of a line between Pasquebiac and Gaspe, and the completion of another portion, which would make the whole line the shortest route to Quebec and Montreal, the advantages would be the opening up of the country, the shorter distance between Montreal and Quebec and between England and Canada; using Gaspe Harbour the sea journey from Liverpool to Quebec would be 400 miles shorter and to Montreal 600 miles shorter. The wharf at Gaspé will

be completed by November next year. It is 900 ft. long, and has 40 ft. of water at low tide; vessels of any size can use it. The land is good, heavily timbered; well settled. Gaspe is the most important fishing port in Canada; there is the timber traffic and that arising from the country as developed. The harbour is always free from ice, two months longer than Quebec, and frequently three months. I believe the receipts would pay running expenses from the opening; and it should in five years easily pay the interest on the bonds. We expect to get the mails away from Newfoundland, which would be a saving of 300 or 400 miles of rail on present communications. They at present go to Sydney, the extreme point of Cape Breton, in Nova Scotia. I have never said the line could not pay its expenses for the first five years. I had some general conversation with Pembridge.

Cross-examined. The province of Gaspe is about 455,000 square miles; population 35,000; there are four or five timber mills in the province. I bad nothing to do with the financing of this railway. I reckon in five years the railway with the harbour—the whole scheme—would pay its interest on its bonds. The existing railways have immense interests in St. John's and Halifax, which are open all the year around. An outlay of £250,000 would be required to fit Gasrpe harbour with sidings, etc. Pembridge showed me figures on one occasion, suggesting $50,000 a year (£10,000) as being necessary for the running expenses of the first three or four years. When I saw that I simply returned the paper and" said, "You do not know anything about the business, what is the use of discussing it?" It was part of the scheme to put on a line of steamers; in consequence of the shorter distance two steamers would do instead of three. The Quebec Central requires a heavy outlay to put it in repair; £100,000 would mean renewing the rails, which is not absolutely necessary. I said that, if that line were put and kept in good order, there might be a surplus of £7,000 or £8,000 in the course of three or four years—by itself, not in conjunction with the Atlantic, Quebec and Western—as a local line, not coming within 100 miles of Gaspe.

Re-examined. The Atlantic, Quebec and Western now pays its expenses as a purely local one. At Gaspe harbour, for the purposes of the railway, to start with there will be sufficient accommodation for ships; I am sure other steam traffic would be attracted when further accommodation can be built. In my experience the ice has never closed the outer harbour until the end of February.

(Friday, December 15.)

ALFRED WILLIAM CARPENTER (prisoner, on oath). I am in my 71st year. I started as a clerk in an accountant's office; after two or three years, in 1870, I started on my own account as an accountant and partnership negotiator in partnership with a fellow clerk. After about six months we started a moneylending business at 3, Craven Street, Strand, as the "Charing Cross Advance and Deposit Bank." That partnership was dissolved in 1878 and I carried on the business by myself, removing in 1879 to 28, Bedford Street, where I continued

until the filing of my petition on October 17, 1910. On Friday, October 14, I received a telegram from Mr. Macmin, my solicitor. On seeing him, he said he had had a long interview with the Public Prosecutor and that I must either file my petition or be arrested. I asked Mr. Macmin to phone the Public Prosecutor to ask if he would see me, which he did, but the Director said: "I refuse to see Mr. Carpenter, but I will see you"; I should certainly not have filed my petition at my own instance. I altered the title of my business into "The Charing Cross Bank" in about 1886. I had always advertised and I then altered the form of the advertisement, but from that time the advertisements continued very much the same. The expression in use in 1910, "Owing to the nature of our investments we are able to pay rates of interest on deposits which will compare favourably with dividends paid on almost any class of stock or share, ensuring the safety of capital" was first used in 1907. I had then completed the purchase from Galindez Brothers of the 100 miles of railway, I had got my 400,000 acres of freehold land granted to me, and I had my railway well advanced to completion; therefore I thought I had an absolute security second to none in the world. My advertisement says, "Write or call for prospectus." The prospectus, which was always given to applicants, has "Registered under Bank Charter Act of 7 and 8 Viet., c. 32, s. 21." I used that form from the time I started as a bank, because I was compelled to be registered under a penalty of £50. I annually sent in a return to Somerset House saying I was the sole proprietor, and giving other particulars. The form produced has at the foot "Controller of Stamps and Registrar of Bank Returns." The prospectus includes "Purchase and Investment in.... Home and Colonial Industrial Explorations, Undertakings, Syndicates and Companies. Any additional information required will be given by the manager if you write or favour him with a personal interview at the offices of the bank." Many persons called and asked the nature of my investments; I gave all information. I was very proud of the Canadian railway scheme. Maps and photos of the railway, lumber mills, and harbour were on the walls of the office. I used the name of "Alfred Williams," being my two Christian names, as I found publishing the name of a clerk as manager he took advantages, and assumed as if the place belonged to him. My name was published in the "London Gazette" as sole proprietor of the bank: I was also registered as a moneylender with my business and private addresses at 28, Bedford Street, and at Staines. My name was in the P.O. London Directory, Skinner's Banking Directories, and other places, as sole proprietor. I have a cutting from the "Bank Journal" of 1909, "Charing Cross Bank, established 1870, proprie tor, Alfred William Carpenter, 28, Bedford Street." I first began to take deposits in 1886; I then employed all the receipts in money lending; that business fell off; certain Bills of Sale Acts were passed requiring registration, etc., which spoilt the business as I had carried it on, and I had to look out for other forms of investment. I then allowed on deposits, 5, 6, and 7 per cent., and on current

accounts 2 1/2 per cent, on a minimum balance of £20. In 1906 and 1907, when I found I had to build a railway myself entirely I offered up to 10 per cent., believing my profits would pay that rate; my business grew into millions; I had the assistance of first-rate business men and had no doubt of my capacity to control my business. In 1908 I employed Peat and Co. to go to Canada to supervise my accounts. I considered myself capable of valuing my assets; in the balance-sheets I prepared from time to time I put absolutely fair values. In 1896 I published a balance-sheet signed by H. Chatteris and Co.; it was done at the instance of a man named Chatteris; a copy was shown to the well-known firm of accountants, Chatteris and Co., who complained of their name being used; my solicitor gave an undertaking that it should be withdrawn, which it was. Balance sheets from 1905 to 1907 were prepared by me for my own use; they are accurate as far as I know. In that of 1907 "21 leases of branches and fittings etc., goodwill, etc., £1,000 each," is carried out in pencil by clerical error at £121,000. It was drawn to my attention for the first time in my examination; it has been added into the total, which is absolutely wrong to the extent of £100,000. I cannot account for it. There is also a clerical error on the other side of £10,000. I opened a number of branches in England, Scotland, and Ireland, which increased the amount of deposits to a greater extent than I expected. In 1909 I called in the services of Sellars, Dicksee, and Co., as accountants. Mr. W. B. Peat (who is now with Sir Wm. Plender my trustee in bankruptcy) had made a report which is now in the hands of my trustees; he was afforded every facility for examining into my accounts both in England and Canada and had advised as to the methods of keeping the accounts. Mr. Pembridge was employed to see that the methods advised by Peat had been carried out both at the head office and the branches and he was then asked to go to Canada, investigate there, and supervise the accountancy of the whole of my business. I had never consulted him with regard to the value of my assets or the commercial value of my undertakings as a whole; he knew nothing about railways. When I received his report on August 5 suggesting I should close my doors I had not expected any such report from him; I was thunderstruck; we had lunched together very pleasantly two days before; we had not discussed the value of my Canadian undertakings; he had never asked for explanation. In Canada I had introduced him to everybody I came across connected with the railway scheme and the Gaspe Lumber and Lands business; he never in my presence discussed with those gentlemen the present or prospective value. On receiving his reports I telephoned him that I had no idea he was going about attempting to value my securities and I said, "What do you know about railway?" He came to see me. I said, "I had no idea when you went out to Canada you were going to value; my instructions were for you to come out with me partly as a companion and to see that the recommendations W. B. Peat and Co. in their report had suggested had been properly carried out as to different modes of tabulating the outgoings and receipts." He said, "I quite understand that, but I thought it

would be as well to look round and form my opinion of the rest of the business." I said, "You are the last person in the world I should have asked to value my railway. Where did you get your information from?" He said, "Oh, from several people in Quebec, Montreal, and New York." He declined to tell me who he got it from. I said, "You must have got it from somebody that either wants to discredit me and get the thing themselves or somebody that has taken a very pessimistic view. I am sure you did not get it from Scholes of anybody that knows the value of the railway." I pointed out to him that all my directors were railway men who had been over there several years, and said "You did not go to them for information." I told him he could not possibly expect me to carry out his views and shut my doors when the railway was not completed; it would be simply scrap iron if he shut me up at that moment. I showed him on paper what I considered it was worth. I said, "It is not only the value of this railway, but when we have completed and opened this we then start the Quebec and Oriental down to Quebec; when I have opened this railway I am in a position to go to the President of the Dominion of Canada and ask him to guarantee my bonds. If you shut me up now, I am done. It is only reasonable to expect when I have finished this railway I shall get the same cash and the same subsidies for the Quebec and Oriental. I shall have a million acres of freehold land. If you wipe me out now it is all gone." I asked him to come down and stay with me at my house the same as he had done before, which he did. I went through the whole thing again with him. I thought I had convinced him. He said, "Good-bye. Of course, you know, if you won't take my advice we cannot make you." I said, "There is no necessity to do anything but what is right." He left me in a perfectly friendly manner, as I thought. His view seemed modified; he asked if I had settled any money on my wife or put any by or had insured my life. I had not put a single penny by of the millions that I had, for myself or family. In my opinion there was no sense in what he advised. I said, "If you pull down any business or bank in the way you suggest my being pulled down, not one in a hundred would be solvent. An unfinished railway, too, above everything, would be as bad an asset as you could possibly have on a sudden liquidation." I never dreamed of saying I was insolvent. I said, "My only anxiety is to secure my depositors and I am quite certain in their interests I should finish the line and dispose of it in the best market," which I had every opportunity of doing. That is my honest judgment and I am certain I was right. Pembridge did not dispute my arguments. I thought I had convinced him. I put the Alperton Works in the balance-sheet of 1907 at £10,000. I purchased them for £7,500; Fuller, Horsey and Co. told me they were dirt cheap. I had a small rubber factory at Brentford, where I had developed my Carpenter tyre, with some machinery costing about £1,200, which I removed to Alperton. I insured the works for £25,000 and thought £10,000 a fair value. Fuller, Horsey and Co. valued them as a going concern at £11,000. I invented the tyre in 1905, the tube being made something on the principle of a golf ball. I had them made and some were tested

on a motor car which ran as many as 14,000 miles. Several experts were delighted with it, as I was. In the balance-sheet of 1907 I valued the patent, works, etc., at £100,000. A company was formed in which I took the whole share capital. It was afterwards found the expense of the upkeep of the tyre prevented its being of value and in my statement of affairs I put it at "nil." I had expended on the patents, experts, and factory, about £20,000; the factory, of course, is still my property. I bought a number of gold mining claims on the advice of some of the best mining experts in South Africa, expending about £68,000 upon them; they are put in the balance-sheet of 1907 at £200,000; in 1905 at only £25,000. We had in the meantime struck five or six distinct payable gold reefs. In 1907 I had upwards of 1,200 claims. I own 100,000 acres of freehold land in Gaspe, 50,000 acres of which were the property of the Petroleum Oil Company, which I acquired in 1907 of the Sheriff, after getting excellent reports of their oil value. I contributed some £20,000 towards the development of the oil fields in Gaspe and on August 20, 1891, a company called the Petroleum Oil Trust was formed; prospecting went on under Mr. Foley until 1900, when he died, at a cost of £70,000 or £80,000; the company owned 40,000 acres of freehold and 10,000 acres of perpetual mining rights. I bought Foley's shares of the executors. The Canada Petroleum Company was formed to develop a portion of that land, of which Mr. Bagnall, of Bagnall Brothers, the agents in England for the Standard Oil Trust, was managing director, Sir William Bailey being the chairman. Mr. Bagnall visited Gaspe and made a highly favourable report, but he advised his direotors to stop developing until the railway was constructed. This was in 1899. I took steps for getting a charter for the railway as the best means of economically developing the oil field the oil is there—I have never admitted it is a loss, or thought so. Exhibit 155 is an offer by Benjamin and Co., of 1,682 acres of land at Gaspe for £50,000; at that price my property would be worth a million and a half. In 1900 the Petroleum Oil Trust had no money to go on with and went into liquidation. I obtained judgment against them, and bought their assets for £8,600—upwards of £100,000 had been spent upon them. They included 50,000 acres of land at Gaspe, with some saw mills and lumber mills. I afterwards purchased 10,000 acres of land in the bankruptcy of Charles Boutillier, close to Gaspe Harbour, for about £4,000. In 1905 I valued my timber lands at Gaspe at £55,000, and in 1907 at £150,000. I had in the meantime bought some very valuable lots right in front of the harbour, close to where one Government were building a wharf, where I intended ultimately to put up wharfs and landing stages. The offices at 25, Bedford Street, in 1905 and 1907, were put at £10,000; that I considered their fair value; in my bankruptcy they are put at £2,000 by Mr. Granger. The Lagonda Motor Company, in 1905, was valued at £10,000; that was the amount spent on it; I ultimately got £2,000 out of it. James' patent engine is put at £5,000 in 1905; it was considered a valuable invention; I put that amount into it, but it was aiterwards found unsuccessful, and it disappears from the balance-sheet

of 1907. In 1907 pictures of Elmore's are put at £10,000; they were painted by the brother of the celebrated Elmore, and I thought they would become valuable in time; they cost about that sum. Exhibit 156 contains a list of my properties in Gaspe, in England, and the railway. I put the value of the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway as it stands at £2,550,000; subsidies and 400,000 acres of freehold land, £1,250,000, making £3,800,000. That was my honest opinion of the value of my railway effects at the time I was forced to file my petition. In my statement of affairs it is put at £815,000—the amount spent on it, according to the accountants. Exhibit 157 I prepared with Mr. Mackness as showing the true value of my assets, and it expresses my honest opinion. I put the railway completed at £2,040,000; 400,000 acres and wood pulp timber at £3 an acre, and £1 an acre for the oil, being £4—£1,600,000; petroleum oil lands, covered with timber, £265,000; freehold building land at Gaspe at £10 an acre £500,000; Gaspe Lumber and Trading Company, stores, timber, wood pulp and saw mills, £52,000. If allowed to develop, the railway scheme, by amalgamating with the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway from further grants of land, etc., £1,000,000; cash in hand, etc., £310,000—making a total of £5,965,000, or a surplus of assets over habilities of £2,541,897, as a going concern. (Reports of Mr. Lawrie Hamilton and other were read.)

Cress-examined. When I started at 25, Craven-street I had about £750 of borrowed capital; Leneve brought in as partner £1,500; he went out in 1879; we had then lost the greater portion of the capital. I then moved to Bedford-street and changed the name of the concern to the "Charing Cross Loan and Deposit Bank," because I wanted to get in deposits as capital. I had then some thousands of capital. I had been lending money largely, with several capitalists behind me. In 1910 I had £1,000 deposited in the bank. I had out on loans in the last two years £60,000 to £100,000, mostly at 30 or 40 per cent. Gallindez had £30,000 at 5 per cent. My income, including the interest on First Mortgage Bonds at 5 per cent and they costing 80, would equal 6 per cent., I reckon to have been close upon £300,000—that is including profit, dividends, etc. I did not profess to pay the expenses of the bank out of the income; I did it out of whatever money that came in for deposit accounts. Wise very nearly always used to make me out a summary of the monthly doings of the branches and I knew the liabilities. Of course, a good proportion of the interest to depositors came out of their own deposits and this began to cause me a great deal of uneasiness towards the end; I had many sleepless nights over it. This caused me to withdraw the 10 per cent interest. I felt justified in paying interest from the depositors' own money until I could realise my money to pay them back, and this was very close, indeed, when I was forced to become bankrupt. Branches were certainly not opened for the purpose of getting in more money: they were opened for the purpose of establishing the bank; I did not want any more money for my railway as it was. These branches paid by sending the deposits up to the head office, which invested them. I was not nervous as to what the effect of reducing interest would be

as I had sufficient money for my railway. I wrote to my managers on this subject, including Mr. Edwards, the overseer of the Scotch branches. He wrote saying that he did not think that it would have a detrimental effect and when customers asked how such rates of interest could be paid he stated that the bank, being a proprietary bank, they had no dividends of 18 to 20 per cent, to pay to share-holders and could do so; I did not see any harm in that; we had no shareholders. I did not myself circularise my managers telling them how the money was going in my Canadian schemes; I think they understood it from Mr. Laing, my head manager at Glasgow. I do not remember giving Mr. Laing positive instructions to tell them so; but they knew all about that and my other schemes either by conversations with me or Mr. Laing. I do not think it ever occurred to me to tell them. I prepared the advertisement (Exhibit 2) myself; it did not occur to me that depositors would construe it that the interest they were getting was being earned by the bank; I prepared it with a full belief that my investments were gilt-edged securities. The investments, which enabled me to pay a higher rate of interest, were Debenture bonds in the company; I was also buying land, which I should have sold at a profit of 100 and perhaps 1,000 per cent, and I was building a railway. It is true I was only getting five per cent, on the bonds and was getting at the most £15,000 interest and the interest I was paying out to October, 1910, was £155,000, but the interest was very heavy for that year. I did mean in my advertisement to say that the nature of my investments would enable me to pay the interest; I paid out of the money I had in hand and money coming in from all sources. My depositors must have known my investments would give me a higher interest later on. I did not write the booklet called "Chats on Banking"; one of my men came and put it in front of me; I might have said, "We will have some printed," but I countermanded it next morning; I never allowed it to go out; I never published a pamphlet in my life; I saw nothing objectionable in this pamphlet only I regarded it as "puffing" and not banking; it was unnecessary. This document (Exhibit 188) was simply submitted to me as a sample; it was never used; it was not shown me at Bow Street. Exhibit 171 never went out either; there might have been one or two copies sent out, but it was never the absolute prospectus of the bank. I do not recollect being asked questions about Exhibits 170 and 171 at Bow Street. I never went through "Chats on Banking" thoroughly; I do not know the origin of it. I do not recollect saying at Bow Street, "I read it, approved of it, and wished it to go out to the public," but, as a fact, I did not do so. Neither do I recollect saying, "I had it written to let people know the kind of business we were doing. I do not deny that it was written to make people pay deposits to the Charing Cross Bank," but I do not dispute it. It was simply compiled by one of Pope's assistants from other documents, and he made additions himself; I do see much to object to in it; it was never used. I had no object in saving, "It is perhaps hardly necessary to add that the Charing Cross Bank is registered under the Bank Charter Act"; I was obliged to do that and Mr. Vanderpump,

my solicitor, told me I bad a perfect right to put that into my prospectus. I knew that the figures of the assets in the advertisements of 1910 were wrong and it fidgetted me very much; I could not see how far they were wrong because I had not the figures before me; I was anxious to alter them as it was doing me harm. It would not have made the slightest difference to the amount of money coming in if the true figures had been published. I continued the false figures under the advice of my solicitor and counsel, who advised me to keep it like that while the action was pending against Labouchere; I got that in writing from my solicitor. We thought the action was coming on every week. It was begun in 1907. There was a notice of Discovery, which we declined to answer. They took the matter to the House of Lords; which decided it in June, 1910, and the books were placed at their disposal. What I was complaining of was that the articles they had written were untrue, including the statement that the figures I was publishing were untrue; they were true at the time the articles were written, 1907. I do not recollect in one of the libels there being an extract from the previous trial of 1904, but I daresay there was. I daresay what was published in that trial was that I kept the figures in the advertisements for several years at the same ovel, I did so as there was a commercial crisis in consequence of the Boer War. I believe my counsel's advice not to alter the wrong figures was bad. I understood that as from October, 1909, the statement of my liabilities in the advertisement was getting more and more false every day. The person who wrote Exhibit 110 saying that counsel was of opinion that, pending the trial, the advertisement should be left as it was was Mr. Frank Ball, then aged 27, the son of my solicitor. I told him the figures were wrong and I wanted them altered, but I did not tell him the exact amount. I did not tell him positively that the interest was being paid out of depositors' money, but he knew that. He knew what my assets were; I told him they were my own valuation. From his evidence it appears that I showed him the balance-sheet of June, 1907, but I do not recollect doing so. I do not recollect his asking me what my liability to the depositors was, how much they were increasing month by month, what the average rate of interest was that I was paying, and whether I had any independent valuation of my assets. He had the run of the office, the books, and the clerks. He knew that my liabilities were understated and increasing every week, because I told him so. On the other hand, my securities were enormously increasing in value. I was not putting the depositors' money in my pocket. I do not recollect giving him anything in writing as to my financial position to show counsel; but I kept nothing back from him. I did not give him the summary of my liabilities to depositors which I was getting day by day I know now that this Mr. Ball had never taken out his certificate. I wished the public to believe the figures in the advertisement, although it was a million and a half wrong, but I should liked them to have known also that my assets were increasing in the same ratio. The "Reserve Fund £300,000, "mentioned in the Calendar (Exhibit 170), was all invested in the business, as was also the "Capital,

£100,000." I do not know why they were put into separate sums; it might just as well have been "Surplus, £400,000"; it was not done to make it more attractive. At any rate, it never went out of the office, although I agree similar ones were sent out later. The whole of this balance-sheet for July 1, 1895, is in my handwriting, including the certificate that it was correct by Chatteris, the accountant; he was doing my business at that time. It was suggested by himself that his name appearing on the balance-sheet would be a good thing, as he was the son of the great Chatteris. It is true that his wife was borrowing money from me at the time. I never gave her, or him, except his fee, anything for this. The figures were not cut and dried for him; he bad a look at the books; my accountant satisfied him in a very short time. To a certain extent he took my valuation of the assets; he had before him all the loans and securities; he knew I should not put a wrong value upon them. I did not tamper with the values of the investments in order to make them the round sum of £300,000. The same remarks apply to this balance-sheet (Exhibit 58) except that it is not in my writing; it is true a few did get into circulation, but none of the previous one did. The valuations in Exhibit 84 are my own; I notice that the surplus is increased by £3,000 over the previous year. I cannot recollect bow much of the £700,000 I put down for common stock and debentures; I cannot give the details going to make the sum up. Mr. Mackness's figure of £187,000 as being the amount expended on the railway to this date is only the cost of the construction; I cannot say how much of the £700,000 I put down as the value of the railway. The pencil figures on Exhibit 183, dated July 31, 1906, are mine I note that the liabilties add up to £951,592; it is my own writing. I see that the liabilities in the advertisement covering this period, January, 1906, to October, 1906, state them as £545,196; this is altogether wrong, and the surplus shown in the advertisement is therefore absolutely irregular. The item in the balance-sheet of August, 1907 (Exhibit 59), "21 leases at £1,000 each, £121,000," is a clerical error; Mr. Hough pointed it out to me for the first time at the public examination. If I had discovered it in making it up, of course I should have altered the figures to £21,000. I can see by the scratching out of the "3" that my valuation of the Carpenter Tyre has been altered from £300,000 to £100,000, and by the scratching out of the "4" the valuation of the railway from £400,000 to £600,000. I quite; disagreed with the original figures, but I have no recollection of altering them myself; the "3" is too big to be mine. It is only a rough balancesheet, and I prepared it in too much hurry; I was a very busy man. I did not add £565,000 to the value of my assets as compared with Exhibit 84 to conceal the fact that my liabilities were mounting up; my securities were mounting up too. Carpenter Tyre, Limited, never went to the public at all; I would not call myself, as regards that, a speculator, trading as a bank, speculating in other peoples' money. It is true that I lost the depositors' money over the James's engine, but not much. I bought the Petrol Oil Trust, which went into liquidation in November, 1904, for £8,500, but I knew the value of it.

I did not know my valuation of it in the balance-sheet was as much as £197,000. We never sold any oil in commercial quantities. 1 am surprised to hear that Sir William Plender said that the Government adviser advised that no more outlay should be made upon them. As regards my other schemes, where I was exploiting the inventions, I did not regard them as speculations; if there had been any loss I would have paid it out of my own pocket out of the profits of the railway; if any one of them had come right it would have paid the whole of my depositors over and over again. It is true we gave up nearly 500 gold claims, but they were outlying ones, and it was no good carrying them on; I regard this as an absolute investment. A South African gentleman told me that Sir J. B. Robinson has bought some of the freehold land and a magnificent vein has been struck on one of the claims. I cannot say that there is anything in my advertisements or prospectuses telling my depositors that their money was going in a gold mine, but I did not think this was necessary; you cannot put everything in an advertisement. The claims cost nothing but the rent and the property was not of a speculative character. I consider we had reduced this to a certainty if we had had time to develop it. If I had lost I should Have paid my depositors out of my own pocket. The railway is now opened, but the formal opening will not take place till next spring. I believe the trustees have found a little money to complete it, but I found it nearly all. There could not be any delay in finishing it owing to my bankruptcy, because I left all the money to finish it, for which I get £500,000 in stock. It is true that I filed my petition 12 months before the completion, but at the time I was made to file it I begged for another 12 months. In that 12 months I had sufficient money in hand in the way of liquid assets without taking in another deposit to have paid all the interest to depositors and the principal was represented by my railway. I am quite certain I could have sold the railway and with the cash I had in hand with my assets realised £2,700,000. The moment the railway was passed by the engineer the restriction that the land subsidies were not to be disposed of until 1915 would have been taken off and the trustees could have sold them; there were only £180,000 worth of mortgage bonds to redeem. I might have sold the railway within a week of completion; the Canadian Northern, the Canadian Pacific, or, failing them, the Grand Trunk, would be eager to buy it. It is very likely I said before that if I had not got £2,500,000 for it I should have worked it myself; of course, if the new deposits had ceased to come in, the whole of my schemes must have tumbled down like a pack of cards unless I got a big financier to help me, which I had an opportunity of doing: I regarded 400,000 acres of freehold land and a railway as very good. security. If I had worked the railway myself the more traffic coming in the higher the price I could have asked for it. If there had been a year's delay in selling my railway, in spite of the liabilities as in August, 1910, and the interest and up-keep to be paid on that date, it would not be necessary for me to get further deposits in; I had the necessary moneys in hand. In order to provide the steamers I could have started' a

little company or I could have chartered the steamers. The million and a quarter that Mr. Scholes was referring to as necessary to put the harbour into trim for such purposes referred to sidings and wharves and these would be paid for from the earnings. According to the figures of the trustees themselves, my assets came to two millions. Although my 100,000 acres is freehold land with timber rights and they have a water frontage of 1,600 feet, and as such worth £30 an acre, they only value it at 10s. an acre. If I had been allowed time I would have paid my depositors 20s. in the £, but instead of that I was rushed into bankruptcy.

(Saturday, December 16.)

ALFRED WILLIAM CARPENTER , recalled, further cross-examined. I sent letter (produced) of August 26, 1910, to Edwards, and got reply from him (produced) dated August 27, 1910.

Re-examined. From time to time I bought freehold and leasehold properties out of the Charing Cross Bank money; they are now all vested in the trustees. I did not agree with Mr. Mackness's estimate of my income. I thought the profit that I made on the purchase of the bonds, buying them at 80 and estimating their value at par, that is £100, was part of my income; and the subsidy lands were coming in also. I did not think my income was composed solely of actual money coming in. The deposit and current accounts all went in together to pay expenses; I did not divide them. I had many sleepless nights because I was afraid that the rapidly increasing deposits would overwhelm me; that is the reason why in October I came to the conclusion that I would reduce the interest and so stop the money from coming in. I had plenty of money in hand to completethe railway. The branches never do pay for the first 10 years; they would pay by sending the deposit money up to the head office and so enabling me to complete my scheme. I was afraid if I reduced the interest quickly the deposits would cease altogether. There was not the slightest concealment by me as to the nature of my investments; many times I personally gave information to depositors. I told them all about the possibilities of my railway; I have had dozens of letters begging me to go on and bring the scheme to a successful issue. The value of securities was increasing by leaps and bounds. I inserted the advertisement, "Owing to the nature of our investments," etc., because I was certain that the railway was of such a character that I could afford to pay these rates of interest. I thought the railway would be open in time to carry the officials back after the Coronation and so open it with a flourish of trumpets. I thought after the railway was completed it could easily have been sold; in fact, the Dominion Government had passed an Act of Parliament which gave them the unreserved right to acquire all the lines. I stopped the publication of one of my advertisements because I thought it was too puffy, and not one copy went out. I asked my solicitor's advice in 1907 as regards my describing the bank as, being "registered under the Bank Charter Act," and he said I was quite entitled to do so. I continually suggested to my

solicitors that I should alter my July, 1907, surplus of £370,019 because the balance had afterwards increased. I rather think that the Almanack of 1893 showing "Capital, £400,000; reserve fund £100,000, "was never published. In 1894 I put the £300,000 instead of £400,000; I wrote down £100,000 because I thought I had put too much value on these Petroleum Oil Trust shares. In 1904 I put "Assets, £512,479; liabilities, £209,479; capital in reserve £303,000." I used the expression "capital in reserve "as being the same as surplus. Early every month I used to make up rough balance-sheets, and the liabilities every six months, but I cannot find those sheets. During the financial crisis consequent on the Boer War I did not alter my advertised surplus from 1896 to 1904, because the business was nearly stationary and there was no material alteration in the surplus. I altered the value at which I had estimated the Carpenter Tyre because I thought I had valued it too highly; that must be the reason. I had a series of reports sent to me with regard to this railway from people in Canada.

EDWARD BRUCE READ , managing director of the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway, and director of other railways. My experience in the construction and maintenance of railways dates from 1883. In 1905 the scheme of the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway was brought to me and I was asked to negotiate the contract and to take a seat upon the board. I went into the matter very carefully and discovered that all the professional men connected with it were first class and came to The conclusion that it would be a most important Canadian railway, because it ran to the nearest port to England. If the Lusitania went to Gaspe instead of to New York she could do the round trip in 14 days, which would be a great advantage; there is no reason why she should not go to Gaspe. The whole of the traffic that passes up and down the St. Lawrence River passes within seven miles of Gaspe Harbour, and there is no doubt whatever that during seven months of the year a considerable amount of traffic, and particularly passenger traffic, would travel on this railway. The company might run the railway themselves or sell it. If the scheme were fnished and brought into convenient touch with the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Government Inter-Colonial Railway, both these railways would be disposed to buy the line. It is a very well constructed line.

Cross-examined. I am a director of Carpenter's Tyres, Limited, and have invested £100 in it. I hold $2,000 of common stock and some first mortgage bonds in the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway.

FRANK LESLIE BALL , solicitor, clerk to Messrs. H. C. Coote and Ball, 37, Cursitor Street, Chancery Lane. I have been with my father, Mr. Ball, a member of that firm, since I was admitted a solicitor in 1905, and have had general control of litigation work in the office under my father's supervision. We first acted for prisoner in 1906, and we acted for him in an action against Mr. Labouchere. The writ in that action was issued in November, 1907; at prisoner's request I interviewed a number of depositors at the bank, and had

access to all the books of the bank for the purposes of that action; I knew the nature of the investments, including the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway. I also saw a number of the directors of that railway. I saw the balance-sheet for 1907 and knew those figures were being advertised without alteration during 1908 and 1909. Prisoner mentioned to me that those figures were wrong and proposed having an accountant in to get out a proper balance-sheet; but I said it would be unwise to do so, and Mr. Duke, K.C., when consulted later on in my father's presence, confirmed my opinion.

Cross-examined. I have never taken out my annual solicitor's certificate, but am a salaried clerk; my father is the only solicitor in the firm; he practises as Coote and Ball. My father was taken ill in September, 1908, and came back to the office about January, 1910. Prisoner is a personal friend of mine. I knew that the public were parting with large sums of money on the strength of the advertisement. I saw all prisoner's advertisements that were mentioned in the libel. I did not know that thousands were being paid away every year for advertisements. I was not able to discover in anything that I read any indication to the depositors as to how their money was going to be used. I do not think I can mention any single one of prisoner's enterprises in respect of money-lending that is mentioned in any of his circulars. I went through the balance-sheet of 1907 with prisoner item by item, for the purposes of this action for libel, but I did not notice the error of £100,000. I can see now that in the Carpenter's Tyre item something has been rubbed out, but I did not notice it when I was going through it in December, 1907, or January, 1908. I did not check the balance-sheet at all. The item of £200,000 for South African Gold schemes struck me as rather a startling figure, and I asked prisoner about it; I did not express any opinion about it because I had no experience of gold mines. He told me his experts' views; he did not tell me what he had spent on them. I mentioned that the $3,000,000 common stock of the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway had not been taken at par, and he said that he had taken that together with the bonds, which he was buying at an assessment of 80 per cent., and it was all put in together. I did not know anything about it until prisoner showed me that balance-sheet. I knew that no expert had prepared those figures, that they were entirely prisoner's own figures; I did not consider them to be a balancesheet, but a statement which prisoner got out from time to time to satisfy himself. I asked prisoner what was the average interest he was paying I did not know he was paying depositors interest out of their own deposits; it may have crossed my mind; I did not ask him anything about it. Prisoner wanted to alter the figures in the advertisement so as to show a bigger surplus. I should certainly not have given him the advice not to alter his figures if I had thought his balance was diminishing. I did not ask him how much the liabilities had increased. Prisoner did not want the defendants in the libel action to see his books. I had an informal conference with counsel—prisoner was not present. I did not think it necessary to have facts and

figures put before counsel at length. Prisoner was constantly saying that he was being handicapped by the advertisements having to remain as they were.

JOHN MACMIN , solicitor, member of the firm of King, Adams and Co., 60, King Edward Street. I have acted from time to time for the prisoner. On the afternoon of October 14, 1910, I received a request from the Director of Public Prosecutions to go and see him at once.

Mr. Bodkin stated that conversation with the Director of Public Prosecutions would not be admissible evidence, the Director being privileged, but on this occasion, if the defence thought that the conversation with him was material, no question would be raised by the prosecution.

Mr. Muir stated that this conversation, though privileged, was made by the Director in order that it might be communicated to the prisoner.

Mr. Justice Channell stated that the Director was in the same position as the police; they are not bound to give evidence in regard to inquiries made in the course of their duties. However, Mr. Bodkin had only spoken in order that it might not he said in future that such evidence was admitted without comment.

Examination continued. I conveyed a message from the Director to the prisoner, the effect of which was that he must either file his petition in bankruptcy or be liable to prosecution, and under those circumstances prisoner filed his own petition, protesting that it was not the best thing in the interests of his depositors.

FRANCIS FOX , partner in Sir Douglas Fox and Partners, railway engineers, 56, Moorgate Street, E.C. We are engineers-in-chief to the Atlantic, Quebec, and Western Railway Company. We gave the report published in the prospectus of July 7, 1906. The railway is constructed to carry fast passenger and heavy goods traffic; it is a first-rate line equal to any in Canada. My son is our agent in Toronto. My firm have been engineers for a portion of the main line of the Canadian, Pacific, and the Grand Trunk.

(Monday, December 18.)

Verdict: " The Jury find prisoner Guilty of obtaining money on credit by false pretences; they desire to recommend him to mercy on account of his age and temperament. They wish to add a rider that they consider there should be a law to prevent the use of the name or title of 'Bank' by irresponsible persons."

Mr. Justice Channell. By "temperament" you mean to say you think he was sanguine and believed in these ventures, although he fraudulently obtained the money for the purpose of carrying them on?

The Foreman. Unduly optimistic.

Sentence: Two years' imprisonment, second division.



(Tuesday, December 5.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-57
VerdictMiscellaneous > unknown

Related Material

IVES, Walter William (51, engineer) , having received certain property, to wit, two sums of money amounting together to £4 8s. 9d., for and on account of William Lusty, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Prisoner was stated to be dead, and the witnesses were released from their recognisances.


(Tuesday, December 12.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-58
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Miscellaneous

Related Material

HORNUNG, Henry (52, furrier) , feloniously causing grievous bodily harm to Albert Matthews with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm (second count) with intent to resist and prevent his lawful apprehension.

Mr. Leycester and Mr. Stanley R. Crawford prosecuted.

Police-sergeant ALBERT MATTHEWS, K Division. Before November 14 I had been watching 28, St. Bernard's Road, East Ham, for 12 days. On November 14 about 1.30 I went there with Inspector Sly and other officers. He had a warrant under the Betting Act. I was the first to go to the door, which was opened by a woman. I walked straight into the house, into the kitchen at the back, and found prisoner sitting on a chair in front of the fire. He bent forward and appeared to put something into the fire, papers of various colours and a small book. As I walked to the kitchen door the woman shouted out, "It is the police." I went up to prisoner and said, "I am a police officer. What have you put in the fire?" and I bent down and tried to get some of the papers or the book out of the fire. As I was in a stooping position, prisoner got up and kicked me rather hard on the left side of the stomach. It knocked me back against the table. He then rushed at me and caught me by the throat. He picked up something off the table and said, "I will knife you, you sod." It was a piece of stone. (Exhibit 1.) The kick knocked mo against the table and he rushed at me and caught me by the throat and fixed me against the table. He had this thing up in the air; at the time I thought he had a knife in his hand, and I struggled and managed to get out of his grasp. I took him round the legs and threw him against another small table which stood against the wall. The woman Halls, who opened the door to me, opened the back scullery door and let in a black dog, and prisoner urged on the dog to bite me. The dog came for me and I kicked at it and missed it. After throwing prisoner against the table I went back to the fireplace again to see if I could

get any of the slips or the book, and the dog came for me again. This time I succeeded in kicking it. Prisoner was urging the dog on the whole time and threatening me. He rushed at me; I retreated backwards, but he came after me and kicked me deliberately in the testicles. I became partly unconscious. I remember speaking to the inspector when he came in about the things in the fire. A doctor was brought and attended me lying on the floor, and about two hours afterwards they took me away. I was in very great pain, and was in bed until last Saturday week. I am still on the sick list.

Cross-examined by prisoner. You kicked me twice; I cannot say with which foot. I did not pull you about.

Sub-Divisional Inspector THOMAS SLY, K Division. I obtained a search-warrant under the Betting House Act, 1853 (produced), and in pursuance of that I went to 28, St. Bernard's Road, about 1.30 on November 14, with Sergeant Matthews and some constables. Matthews went about 100 yards in front of me. He entered by the front door. When I got there the door was open. I went into the passage and, in consequence of the screams I heard from a female shouting "Police," I went into the kitchen. I saw prisoner with his back against the scullery door facing me kick Matthews, who had his back towards me, in the lower part of the body. Matthews fell on his back on the floor. Police-constable Merry at that time came in through the scullery door. I went round the table on the right side of prisoner and restrained him. I held him down with Merry on the other side, in consequence of his violence and threats. Prisoner said, "Let me go. I will kill the b—. I know what that b—Matthews is after. I'll give him betting slips." He knew Matthews perfectly well. He bit Merry's fingers. Matthews was on the floor, groaning. Then Police-constable Larby came in from the scullery and helped to restrain the prisoner. There was a retriever dog coming towards me and the other officers, barking, and I struck it with my truncheon, which drove it out. I threatened prisoner with my truncheon and asked him to be quiet. I sent for Dr. Collins and he arrived in a few minutes, and rendered him first aid on the floor. He then attended to Merry's hand. There were two betting slips in the fireplace of the kitchen (produced). They were not burning. There were some burning in the fireplace. Matthews said to me, "He put some paper and a book into the fire through the bars." A week later I was present at East Ham Police Court, when prisoner was charged under the Betting House Act and pleaded guilty.

To prisoner. I found 10 shillings in gold and 1s. 6d. silver upon you. I saw a lot of pawn-tickets on the premises. While I was there five postal letters came, containing betting slips. I saw you deliberately kick Matthews with your right foot in the lower part of the body.

Police-constable HARRY MERRY, K Division. I entered the premises at the back and saw prisoner deliberately kick Matthews with his right foot, causing him to fall to the floor, apparently in great pain. He picked this large stone off the table and said, "You b—, I will

knife you." I closed with him and in the struggle he got hold of my fingers and bit the knuckles, bending them back. At the same time Inspector Sly closed with prisoner, also Larby. After prisoner became quiet my fingers were dressed by Dr. Collins.

To prisoner. I was entering the kitchen when you kicked Matthews. You urged the dog to bite us all the while.

Police-constable BEN LARBY, K 80. I entered 28, St. Bernard's Road, by the back door. The dog bit me through the trousers. I saw prisoner kick Matthews with his right foot in the testicles. The dog got hold of the tail of my overcoat and tore it and hampered me a great deal. As I approached the prisoner I saw him get hold of Merry's left hand and put it to his mouth, and he bit two fingers. He said, "Let me go; let me get to him. I will give him b—Matthews." On the way to the station he said, "I did not kick that gentleman; I am too kind. I could not do it; I could not. I have not done well. I have pawned some of my nice things. I know who has put me away."

To prisoner. I was at the scullery door leading into the kitchen when I saw you kick Matthews. You were not crying out "Murder" when I arrested you. I saw some girls on the premises.

Police-constable CHARLES COBBS, K Division. I got in at the back of the premises. I saw prisoner kick Matthews in the testicles with his right foot, and he fell to the ground. I went for a doctor.

Dr. EDWARD ERSKINE COLLINS, East Ham. On November 14 I was called to 28, St. Bernard's Road, and saw Sergeant Matthews lying on the floor in the kitchen. He was rolling about in great agony. I examined him and found the abdomen was slightly tender and. the right testicle was extremely tender, so much so that I could barely make an examination, because as goon as I touched it he rolled away. I dressed it and gave him a draught to relieve the pain. I saw him about two hours afterwards; he was then in a better condition. Previous to that he had been suffering severely from shock, and I thought it advisable he should not be moved. When fit he was taken to his own home, and he was attended by Dr. McEttrick, the divisional surgeon. The injury to the testicles might have been caused by a kick, and also the tenderness of the abdomen.

To prisoner. It is impossible for me to say how it happened. I will not swear it was caused by a kick.

FREDERICK JOHN MCETTRICK , divisional-surgeon, K. Division. I saw Matthews at home in bed on November 14. He was complaining of acute pain in the testicles and in the right side of the abdomen. I have attended him till now. He has suffered a good deal of pain. The injury to the testicles caused a stoppage in the urethra. The injuries might have been caused by kicks. Matthews is still ill and unfit for duty. There will be no permanent injury. He had two slight abrasions on his neck, which might have been caused by fingers.

To prisoner. I could not say it was caused by a kick. I do not remember that you were in the hospital last year with a broken leg. If the bone has joined you are quite capable of giving a severe kick.


HENRY HORNUNG (prisoner, on oath). I am that poor and had no money to defend myself; how could it be possible to bring me in as a bookmaker? I received a few letters last summer and made a few bets for myself for different firms and when they did not pay me, of course, I had to pay the money. Matthews wanted a boy to swear that he took slips for me, when the boy had not been near the house. Ever since I have done nothing. I could not stop those letters coming. There was no money found. Matthews had a spite against me; he could not make that boy swear he took the slips. I should like to strip and show my leg. I cannot stand now. How could it be possible for me to kick with all those constables pulling me about? They nearly broke my neck, and I have the pains now. I certainly tried to get away when they were too rough. I had never seen Matthews in my life and I did not know they were the police when they came in. I had nothing to be frightened of. Why should I kick a man? I know what it 1s. My broken leg when I was in hospital last year was broken through kicks. I was laid up five months. I could not walk without sticks till lately. I could not stand on that leg. It was a lighted cigarette I threw in the fire, and nothing else. They know absolutely that I did not kick that man.

In response to the invitation of Mr. Leycester, prisoner said he would like the doctor to examine his leg. Dr. Collins accordingly examined it out of Court.

Dr. COLLINS, recalled. There is an old standing fracture a few inches above the ankle, but there is now complete bony union. There is nothing to prevent prisoner kicking a man. On the other leg there is a scar from an old injury. He says it has been poisoned. I think it is quite possible, but it is quite healed.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner had been sentenced to three months' hard labour and recommended for deportation for betting.

Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour; recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act.



(Wednesday, December 6.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-59
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

TURNHAM, Thomas Beecham (29, currier), pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Annie Bulgin Green, his former wife then being alive.

Prisoner had married his first wife in 1903 and left her after six weeks, not having treated her very well. He married Miss Green, who did not know, he was married, in a registry office in 1905.

The Common Serjeant, commenting on the ease and privacy with which marriages could be effected at registry offices, sentenced prisoner to four months' imprisonment, second division.


(Wednesday, December 6.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-60
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

HURST, Annie (29, canvasser), pleaded guilty of stealing one mantle, the goods of Phillippa Sale; one costume, the good of Lily Turner; one coat and skirt, the goods of Dorothea Danielsen; one costume, the goods of Dora Vibert.

Prisoner was released on her own recognisances in £10 and another's in £20, to come up for judgment if called upon.


(Thursday, December 7.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-61
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

LEONARDE, Montague (24,-clerk), pleaded guilty of obtaining a bracelet, of the value of £3, from Annie Curtis, by means of a trick.

Convictions for similar offences were proved. Police gave prisoner a very bad character.

Prisoner said that his parents and his brothers and sisters were criminals, and he had had the force of heredity to fight against.

Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour.

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-61a
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

McNAMARA, William (18, carman), breaking and entering the dwelling house of Thomas Swain and stealing a watch and chain and pair of boots, his goods.

Mr. G. H. Condy prosecuted.

Detective-sergeant EDWARD HUNT, V Division. I saw prisoner go into Barnes Police Station on November 10 and ask to have his Army papers signed. He was wearing a watch chain of a distinctive pattern, answering the description of one reported stolen six months before. Prisoner knew who I was and I asked him where he got it. He replied, "I got that when I was away at camp last March, the last time that I was away." I told him that it answered the description of a watch-chain that had been reported to me as stolen, and where it had been stolen, and asked him to take it off. He took it out of his pocket with the watch attached. I noticed the watch also answered the description of one reported stolen and called his attention to that. He declined to make any statement about the watch. I told him I should detain him and make inquiries. I cautioned him. The watch and chain were afterwards identified in prisoner's presence by Mr. Swain. I then told prisoner to take off his boots, and I noticed he was wearing a pair inscribed "True Form," and the maker's name,

which corresponded with the pair stolen from the same house. He then said, "It is quite right, the chain did come out of Mortlake. I gave 8d. for it. I know where the watch came from, but that is best known to myself." He was charged with stealing these articles, and made no reply.

THOMAS SWAIN , cooper, Woodbine Villa, Mortlake. On May 26 I left my house at 5 a.m. thoroughly locked up, except the back room window. I returned about 6.15, and after a time I missed my watch and chain, and told my son. He looked round and said, "I miss a pair of boots." I gave information the next day to the police. I next saw the chain on November 10 at the station. The sergeant showed the articles to me. I identified the chain, but not the watch, but the watch I lost was similar, with "Graves, Sheffield; made in Sweden," on it. I could not identify the boots.

THOMAS SWAIN , junior, corroborated as to the loss of the articles. I recognise the chain as formerly belonging to my mother and the watch as belonging to my father. There is a small piece out near the hinge, by which I recognise it. The boots were the same kind, the same make, and same size as those I lost, but I could not swear to them; they had been repaired.

ALFRED BARTON , watchmaker, 74, High Street, Mortlake. I identify the watch handed to me as one left at my shop on December 1, 1910, in the name of Swain; I believe by Miss Swain. I identify it by the number. It corresponds with the number in the book.

WILLIAM MCNAMARA (prisoner, not on oath). It was the end of March I came out of the Army. I had about £3 or £2. I bought a new suit and these boots I am charged with. I gave 14s. 6d. for them. I worked till May 21 for Mr. Sharp, and went away to camp, and the second week in June I bought the watch for 5s. from some fellows out of South Lancashire. I came home on July 1 and worked for Mr. Sharp, and on the following Monday at breakfast-time I bought the chain for 8d. off a Mortlake boy, nicknamed Stinger. The camp is in Lancashire. I do not call any witnesses. I got the boots at Bury, just outside Manchester, from an officer's servant.

Verdict, Guilty; prisoner was recommended to mercy on account of his youth.

The police proved a previous conviction for stealing a bicycle. Sentence: Four months' imprisonment, second division.


(Friday, December 8.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-61b
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

McDONALD, Frank (23, baker), burglary in the dwelling-house of William Glover and stealing therein one knife, one box of chocolates, and other articles, his goods; breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Arthur Toogood and stealing therein one pair of fish carvers and other articles, his goods.

Mr. Condy prosecuted.

Police-constable CHARLES BAKER, 326 V. On November 3 at 3.30 a.m. I was on duty in Church Road, Barnes, and in passing I noticed a light in Mr. Glover's shop. I obtained the assistance of Police-constable Clay field. I went to the rear of the shop. I noticed a light was burning in the back room downstairs and saw the shadow of someone through the glass panel. Prisoner then came to the back door, unbolted it and came across the back yard to where I was standing. I said, "What are you doing there?" He made no reply. I arrested him and he said, "It is a fair catch; I was going upstairs if you had not disturbed me. I did not find any money in the shop." He was searched at the station and upon him were found a table knife and two biscuits, identified as prosecutor's property. The pliers have not been identified as prosecutor's property. In answer to the charge prisoner said, "I understand."

ROSE STAPLETON , manageress of prosecutor's shop at 76, Church Road, Barnes. On November 3 at 3.30 a.m. I was in bed. I heard someone calling me. I went downstairs and saw prisoner in custody. The knife is similar to others we have. Some of the articles were in the tea room and some in the shop. I noticed that the glass panel of the door had been cut away. I went to the station and charged prisoner.

Police-constable STANLEY CLAYFIELD, 518 V. I was on duty with Police-constable Baker. I noticed a flash of light at the shop. Baker went to the back; I remained at the front. Presently Baker came out with prisoner. I did not hear him say to Baker that he went upstairs and there was no money.

Police-constable FRED GARMENT, 23 V. I was present when prisoner was searched. The pliers were found on him by last witness. There was putty on them. I examined the window of the tea room. This tool had evidently been used to remove the putty from the bottom near the catch. The glass had been broken away to enable someone to put their finger through.

Verdict, Guilty.

Previous convictions were proved.

Sentence was postponed to next session.


(Saturday, December 9.)

5th December 1911
Reference Numbert19111205-62
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

NEWMAN, Albert (45, gas stoker), pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Jane Kolfe, his former wife being then alive.

Mr. A. F. S. Pasmore prosecuted; Mr. G. H. Condy appeared for Prisoner.

It was stated that prisoner was married on October 26, 1891, but he and his wife only lived together two or three years as she proved of bad character. He married Jane Rolfe in 1903, believing his wife was dead. He was given an excellent character by the police, and had been a good husband to Rolfe.

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

View as XML