Old Bailey Proceedings.
30th January 1912
Reference Number: t19120130

ActionsCite this text | Print-friendly version | Report an error
Old Bailey Proceedings front matter.
30th January 1912
Reference Numberf19120130

Related Material

JANUARY (2), 1912.

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, January 30th, 1912, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir THOMAS BOOR CROSBY, M.D., LORD MAYOR of the said City of London; the Hon. Sir WALTER GEORGE FRANK PHILLIMORE , Bart., and Sir EDWARD RIDLEY , Knight, two of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart.; Sir ALFRED JAMES NEWTON , Bart.; Sir W. VAUGHAN MORGAN , Bart.; Sir JOHN KNILL , Bart.; Sir CHAS. CHEERS WAKEFIELD, Knight; EDWARD ERNEST COOPER , Esq.; Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; His Honour Judge LUMLEY SMITH , K.C., Commissioner; 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, January 30, 1912.)

MOSKOVITCH, Aaron (26, hawker), who was convicted last Session (see page 408) of unlawfully making a false declaration under the Pawnbrokers Act, 1872, as an applicant, he knowing the same to be false in a material particular, was brought up for judgment.

SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , medical officer of Brixton Prison, stated that, though weak-minded, prisoner showed no sign of insanity.

Sentence: Six months' imprisonment.

JAMES, John Robert (41, messenger), who pleaded guilty last Session (see page 308) of stealing a number of postal packets, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office, was brought up for judgment.

Dr. DYER stated that prisoner was menially feeble, but there were no signs of insanity.

Sentence: Six months' imprisonment

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-3
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SALES, John (33, printer's labourer) , stealing one cardboard box and other articles, the goods of Charles H. Hinton and Company, Limited.

Mr. Tully-Christie prosecuted.

WILLIAM DAVID SHEPHERD , foreman packer to C. H. Hinton and Co., 2, Friar Street, underclothing manufacturers. At about 5 p.m. on January 4, just outside my firm's premises, I saw prisoner, in company with another man, carrying a box (produced) which I recognised as belonging to my firm. I followed them to Ludgate Hill, when they separated. Prisoner went on to Old Bailey and put the box down. I said to him, "Have you been to C. H. Hinton and Co.?" He seemed flabbergasted, and said, "No, no; no, no." I said, "Well, I am going to take you back." I took him by the collar and picked up the box; he said, "All right, governor, do not throttle me; I will come quiet." I took him back to Friday Street and gave him into custody. The box contained ladies' underwear. My firm has no retail business—it is all wholesale. Anybody could easily steal the box, as travellers and other people were continually coming in and out.

Inspector JAMES DUNNING, City. On January 4, at 6 p.m., I was called to prosecutor's premises, where I saw prisoner detained. I told him I, was a police-officer and that the prosecutor had just given him in charge for stealing box produced. He said, "I did not steal the box." He was taken to the police station, charged, and made no reply. Next day, on the way to the Mansion House Police Court, he said, "I may say I shall plead guilty to this charge and have it settled at the police court."

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: I plead guilty to being in possession of this property, but not for stealing. I met a man last Thursday in Leather Lane that I knew. On one or two occasions he asked me how I was getting on. I told him I was in very bad circumstances and my wife had been turned out of house and home. I had a drink with him. He said, "Will you come for a walk with me, and perhaps I can get some goods for stock." I took a walk with him.

We went into two different places off Golden Lane. When we came to this place where the box was stolen I waited at the top of the court while he went to this firm. The next I saw of him was when he came down with this box. He said, "I have got some stock here, Jack. Get hold of it and we will make our way towards Smithfield, going through the Broadway." He said, "There is a pub along here, Jack; we will have a drink." I got towards the pub and I put the box down.

I stood there a tick or two and I thought he had gone into the pub to get a drink, and the attendant of this firm came up to me and said, "Is this your box?" I said, "No." "Well," he said, "I will take you back to the firm; it has been stolen." I said, "I have not stole it. I will come back to the firm with you." I went back to the firm with him.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at the County of London Sessions on August 25, 1908, receiving six months' hard labour, for burglary. Several other convictions were proved. He was stated to be quite capable of earning a living as a printer's labourer.

Sentence: Twenty months' hard labour.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-4
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CRAWLEY, Henry (39, horse keeper), stealing one horse, the goods of Frederick William Parratt; fraudulently converting to his own use and benefit the sum of £2 12s. 10d. with which he had been entrusted on account of Frederick William Parratt.

Mr. Gerald H. Carter prosecuted.

The charge of fraudulent conversion was proceeded with.

FREDERICK WILLIAM PARRATT , Ilbray, near Farnham, contractor. On December 18 I took ten horses down to the Elephant and Castle Horse Repository and sold nine of them. I then saw prisoner, whom 1 had known for some time, in the yard, and told him to take the remaining grey mare to the Barbican Horse Repository next morning and I would probably be there. He agreed and asked me for a shilling, which I gave him. The next morning I did not go to the Barbican; the next time I saw prisoner was on January 1. I never received any money. I did not give prisoner authority to sell the

horse; his business was to take it to the Barbican and hand it over there.

RICHARD LAMPELL , contractor. On December 18 I was at the Elephant and Castle Horse Repository, when I saw prosecutor tell prisoner to take a grey mare to the Barbican Horse Repository the next morning, saying he would be there. Prisoner asked for a shilling, which prosecutor gave him. On January 1 I saw prisoner again at the Elephant and Castle Horse Repository. He asked me where Parratt was and said, "Has he got the rug?" I said, "Yes." He said, "Has he got the postal orders?" I said, u No. Parratt was at the police court, you had better come and see him." We then went to the police court and then to the police station, where we found prosecutor; prisoner was detained and charged with converting this money to his own use.

HERBERT GEORGE STOLLERY , auctioneer, Barbican Horse Repository. On December 19 prisoner brought a grey mare to the Barbican Horse Repository and entered it for sale as the property of "Henry Crawley, 16, Winch Street, Walworth," to be sold to the best bidder at that day's sale without reserve.

WILLIAM ROLAND SELL , clerk to the last witness. On December 19, at about 11 a.m., prisoner told me be had sold the grey mare to a man named Osborne for £3. I booked the sale, and Osborne paid me the £3. I deducted 7s. 2d. for commission and stamps and paid the remaining £2 12s. 10d. to prisoner on the following Saturday, for which he signed receipt produced.

WILLIAM OSBORNE , 137, Merrick Road, Clapham Junction. On December 19 I bought a grey mare from prisoner for £3.

Detective-sergeant John Digby, City Police. On January 1 I saw prisoner in custody at Kennington Lane Police Station and told him I was a police-officer and that. Mr. Parratt had given him into custody for stealing a grey mare on December 18 last. He said, "How can that be stealing when I sold it as they told me to?" He then produced the invoice for the horse, and said, "That is what I sold it for." I conveyed him to Moor Lane Police Station. When charged he said he would like to volunteer a statement. He was then cautioned by the inspector on duty and made the following statement, which the inspector took down in my presence: On December 18, 1911, I was at the Horse Repository at the Elephant and Castle, when Mr. Parratt asked me if I was out of work, and I said, "Yes, I am doing nothing." He said, "Go with Dan"—a man well known at the Elephant and, Castle Repository—"to Waterloo Railway Station to fetch ten horses." Dan and I fetched the horses and took them into the above repository. The horses were ticketed and put up for auction; nine were sold, with one set of harness, and one grey mare was not sold. I afterwards saw Mr. Parratt; he then told me to take the grey mare the following morning to the Barbican to put her up for sale there. I took her to the Barbican and waited for Mr. Parratt to meet me as he had previously told me, but I did not see him; later I saw Mr. Osborne, a horse dealer and greengrocer. I said to him, "We were looking for you last night to buy that mare." I told him Mr. had not

turned up. I asked him how much it was worth for him. Osborne had previously seen the same horse in the Elephant and Castle Repository and he knew it belonged to Mr. Parratt. Osborne said, "I won't give you more than £3 for it." I said, "Will you give £3?" Osborne said, "Yes." I then took him in the office and he paid the money. I received the voucher the same day I took the horse to the Barbican. I took the horse away to Mr. Osborne's place at Battersea and he paid me 5s. On the following Thursday I drew the money. I sent £2 7s. 6d. to Parratt in postal orders, two for £1, one for 5s., and one for 2s. 6d., and the balance I kept for my own expenses; taking the horse there and cleaning it. I also sent to Parratt by rail the same day (Thursday) a rug and halter', which Parratt has received, but he has not received the letter and postal orders. This statement is made by me voluntarily.—Henry Crawley.

Verdict, Guilty.

Convictions proved: Southwark Police Court, sixteen weeks' hard labour for robbing a fellow-prisoner after being arrested for drunkenness; 1902, bound over at the County of London Sessions for assault. Prisoner was stated to be an associate of horse thieves.

Sentence: Nine months' hard labour.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-5
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

HANCOCK, William Thomas (30, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a postal order for 10s., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Prisoner was stated to have been employed by the Post Office for eight years as an auxiliary postman at a wage of 12s. 9d. a week; he also earned about 10s. a week as a furniture porter. He probably stole for his wife, who had been in very delicate health for some time and has since died.

Sentence: Three months' imprisonment, second division.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-6
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

CHAPMAN, Charles John (21, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing two postal orders for 20s. each, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Prisoner, who was an unmarried man earning 23s. a week as a postman, was stated to have admitted having stolen 470 letters.

Sentence: Ten months' hard labour.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-7
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

RICHARDS, Stephen (26, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing one purse, 5s. and two halfpenny stamps, and a postal packet containing 15s., a pair of sleeve links and three penny postage stamps, in each case the property of His Majesty's Postmaster General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Prisoner, who had been in the service of the Post Office since 1899, was earning £1 11s. a week as a postman.

Sentence: Nine months' hard labour.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-8
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

STEVENS, George (33, traveller), pleaded guilty of stealing a dressing bag containing a quantity of jewellery and other articles, the goods of Catherine McMillan; also stealing a bag containing jewellery and other articles, the goods of Miss Chad wick.

Prisoner was proved, by comparison of finger prints, to have been sentenced in 1905, in Heidelberg, South Africa, to 10 years' hard labour for house breaking and theft after three previous convictions; he was released after five years' detention owing to ill health. He now admitted that he was so convicted.

Sentence: Three years' penal servitude.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-9
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > other institution

Related Material

FLACK, George (18, labourer), pleaded guilty of stealing £2 9s., the moneys of Joseph Piper, his master; having been entrusted with the said sum of £2 9s., unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Prisoner was bound over at the Thames Police Court in January, 1911, under a probation officer, to be of good behaviour for 12 months for stealing oats. His parents were very poor, and he had not been properly fed in his youth.

Sentence: Three years' detention in a Borstal prison.


(Tuesday, January 30.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-10
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

KIRBY, George (21, shoemaker), and ROCKALL, William (19, painter) , unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same; Kirby, feloniously possessing a mould upon which was impressed the obverse and reverse sides of a shilling.

Prisoner pleaded guilty of possessing the counterfeit coin.

Mr. Whiteley, for the prosecution, stated that he did not proceed with the other indictment against Kirby.

A conviction in 1909 was proved against Kirby for stealing; since his release he had endeavoured to obtain employment, but without success. A conviction in December last year, when he was bound over, was proved against Rockall; since then, although helped, he had had no regular employment.

Sentences: Kirby, Ten months' hard labour; Rockall, Nine months' hard labour. (Judge Lumley Smith stated that he had taken into account in sentencing Rockall that he had been previously bound over.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-11
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

KAPLAN, Abraham (18, cabinetmaker) , unlawfully uttering a counterfeit florin to Frances Lawrence knowing the same to be counterfeit, and on the same day uttering another counterfeit florin to Joseph Lawrence knowing the same to be counterfeit.

Mr. Whiteley prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.

ROSE LAWHENCE , dressmaker. My mother keeps a tobacconist's shop at 94, Lillie Road, Fulham. Between 9.30 and 9.45 p.m. on December 30 I was in the parlour at the back of the shop when I noticed through the window prisoner come in. He asked for a packet of cigarettes, which mother gave him. He tendered a florin, and she said to him, "This is bad," but she tried it and as it had a ring she passed it. She put it on the side of the till. Prisoner went out.

Mother then showed me this florin (Exhibit 2). About 11.45 p.m. on a Saturday evening a fortnight after I saw him in the shop again. I said to my brother in his presence, "That is the man who came in a fortnight ago." Prisoner made no reply. I went for a constable.

Cross-examined. From the parlour I cannot help seeing people who come into the shop. On the first occasion he was in the shop about three minutes and I was looking at him all the time. I noticed what a smart fellow he looked. When I saw prisoner the second time I had heard there was some question about a florin.

Re-examined. My attention had been drawn to him by his smart looks, and I remembered him afterwards by the fact that mother had called my attention to him.

FRANCES LAWRENCE , sister of last witness. I am 13 1/2 years old. At about 9.30 p.m. on January 13 prisoner came in and asked for a packet of "Player's Weights." I gave them to him and he gave me this florin (Exhibit 3) and I gave him 1s. 11d. change. I had rather a doubt about it, but I did not say anything. I put it on the till where there was no other florin. I went to bed at 10 p.m. I saw my sister about 2 a.m. I identified prisoner on January 23.

Cross-examined. I recognise the florin by the date. I did not say anything about it before I went to bed because I forgot. When my sister woke me up we discussed prisoner's appearance. She asked me whether I had taken the other bad florin found in the till and I said I had.

JOSEPH LAWRENCE , 94, Lillie Road. My mother is ill. Just before 12 p.m. on January 13 prisoner came in and asked for a packet of "Player's Weights." I gave them to him and he gave me this florin (Exhibit 1). 1 found it was 'bad and sent my sister Rose for a constable. He said he did not know it was bad. My sister said, "That's the man who came in a fortnight ago." When the constable came I handed him the florin (Exhibit 1), the florin (Exhibit 2) which my mother gave me a fortnight previous, and the florin (Exhibit 3) which I had found that day in the till; there were no other florins in the till then.

Cross-examined. All the coins bear different dates and I suppose they come from different moulds. Exhibit 1 is a good imitation and if I had not tested it I should have passed it.

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. Exhibits 1, 2, and 3 are counterfeit florins bearing dates 1907, 1909, and 1910.

Police-sergeant ISAAC PENNY, 39 B. At 12 p.m. on January 13 I was called to 94, Lillie Road, where I saw prisoner in custody of prosecutor. Prosecutor said, "I want to give this man into custody for passing bad money," and he handed me Exhibit 1, saying that prisoner had given ft to him for a packet of cigarettes. He handed me also Exhibit 2, saying that prisoner had tendered it fourteen days ago, and Exhibit 3, which he said had been tendered that evening. Prisoner said nothing. On searching him I found 8s. 6d. in silver and 3d. in bronze (good money), a packet of cigarettes, a pawnticket, and a latchkey. On the way to the station he said, "This is the first time I have been this way." When charged he made no reply.

Cross-examined. He was very cool.

Police-sergeant GEORGE GARNER, B Division. Prisoner was brought before the magistrate on January 15 and was remanded. He was further charged on January 23. He made no reply. Frances Lawrence was not asked to identify him until the 23rd, because we were not in possession of all the facts until then.

Cross-examined. I knew on the evening of January 15 that she could identify prisoner, but she had no opportunity of doing so until the 23rd because he was in Brixton, and no good purpose would be served because he was coming up to the court on the 23rd.


ABRAHAM KAPLAN (prisoner, on oath), cabinet maker, Hackney Road. I have never been charged with any sort of offence before. I work for my father. At 9 p.m., on January 13, I went to keep an appointment with a girl friend, who lives in Fulham, outside Walham Green Station. I did not see her. I went into the tobacconist's shop to buy some cigarettes. I did not know the florin I tendered was a bad one. I had never been in the shop before. I had got the florin in change for half-a-crown on the tramcar I had taken on my way to Walham Green.

Cross-examined. My father gives me 3e. 6d. a week spending money. Joseph Lawrence showed the florin I had given him to his mother in the shop and she said it was a bad one; she was serving as well. On December 13 I was walking up and down Shoreditch with a friend named Shurman from 7 till 9.15 p.m.; we then went into the "Queen's Head" in Bethnal Green and played bagatelle till about 11.30. I did not say anything about this at the police court. I was in the train going to Aldgate at 9 p.m., on January 13. The reason why I was at Fulham at 11.45 was because I thought I might see her. When I started out that evening I had 11s. 1d. on me which I had got for a job I did repairing a washstand for A. M. Hatto, of Waterloo Road. JAMES SHEDDEN, french polisher, 47, Mansfield Street. I have known prisoner some years and he has always been a hard-working, good lad. On December 30 (I know the date because it was a fortnight before he was arrested) I saw him in company with Shurman close on 12 o'clock at the corner of Virginia Road, Brick Lane. I spoke to them. I went with prisoner as far as his home.

HARRY SHURMAN , tailor, Taplow Buildings, Mount Street, Bethnal Green. On Saturdays and Sundays I always go out with prisoner. On the evening of December 30 I met him at the corner of Brick Lane and we walked up Shoreditch to look for girls. Not seeing any we went to the theatre, but it was full up. We then went to the "Queen's Head" and played bagatelle till about 11.30 p.m. On coming out Shedden met us at the corner of Virginia Road and I left them. I have not seen prisoner since he has been in custody.

Cross-examined. The day after he had been arrested I heard that he had been arrested for passing a bad florin that evening. I did not go to the police court because I thought they would soon let him out; I

did not believe it was so serious. When he did not come out I told his mother he had been with me that evening. I did not go to the police court on the following Tuesday week because I was not asked and I did not think it would be necessary. I first made a statement last Friday.

Verdict, Not guilty.


(Wednesday, January 31.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-12
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown; Guilty > lesser offence
SentencesImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

HUMPHREYS, William Castle (28, cab cleaner), was indicted for, and charged on the coroner's inquisition with, the wilful murder of George Edward Humphreys.

Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Roome prosecuted; Mr. Inskip and Mr. Bankes defended.

JAMES WILLIAM FRANK WATSON , motor driver, 18 Merrow Street, Walworth (ground floor). Prisoner lives with his family on the second floor; I have only seen him passing along the passage. In January he was in employment on the Tube Railway. About 8.30 p.m. on January 11 I heard a smashing noise from upstairs, and afterwards a cry for help. I went up to his flat, which I found in darkness. Three or four women were standing outside; I did not see Mrs. Humphreys. I struck a light and saw prisoner standing on a chair just inside the door, which was open, doing something to the gasmeter. I asked him why he did not let the missus fetch the baby out; I could hear the baby crying. I did not see his missus or the children then. He got off the chair and said, "If the missus wants it she must come and fetch it herself." I remember now that Mrs. Humphreys had asked me to go and get the baby out. When I first went up there I made an attempt to get the baby out, and he stopped me and made the statement that I have said. Mrs. Humphreys seemed frightened to come into the room, but at the finish she walked over to the perambulator and took the child out. There was no light in the room then, but there was light from the passage. She screamed, "He has murdered the baby." I took the baby from her and bathed its face, which was smothered in blood, in another room. Prisoner was standing still when she took the baby from the pram, and I left him there. About 8.50 p.m. the baby was taken to the hospital. I went out on business and returned at about 11.15. A telegram came which when prisoner saw he said, "I am expecting that." He went upstairs and got his hat and coat on. When he came down I asked him if I should go to the hospital with him and he agreed. We took a tram, and on the way I asked him how the accident had happened to the baby. He said, "It was no accident; I knifed it. The other two can think themselves lucky the knife broke." He seemed very strange; he spoke as if nothing had occurred. We reached the hospital as the operation was on. When returning home with him I asked him how he came to break the gas bracket. He said he had picked up a chair and with

one stroke had broken it down and that he had also tried to break the window with the chair, but that was too strong. I asked him if the gas was really safe, and he said he had cut a cork and made a mixture with some butter, milk, and sugar and plastered the place up to prevent the gas from escaping. On going into the room I found that this was what had 'been done. (Here prisoner interrupted stating that when on the chair he had turned the gas off at the meter and that he had stopped the gas up when he came from the operation.) I spoke to the policeman about the other children.

MARGARET DALY , 96, Merrow Street. About 8.45 p.m. on January 11 prisoner called me and I saw him in his room. The only light was a candle on the table. He was wiping his hands with a-towel. He said, "Is the baby all right, missus?" I said, "I don't know if it's all right. It has a terrible gash on its face. We are now taking it to the doctor." I asked him if he had gone mad, and he said, "I will gash her if she comes up before I go out." He appeared very calm; his manner was at if he had done nothing. I went with Mrs. Humphreys and the baby to the hospital. On returning I went with Mr. Ellis to see prisoner. I told him the baby was in the hospital in a critical condition, and he said, "Is she waiting for it?" meaning his wife. I said, "Yes'; that they would not allow it out as it was so ill And that she was waiting to see what happened to it. I asked him if he would go to the hospital. He said at first he would not go and then said, "Is she going to stay all night?" I said, "She may do, and she may come home with you if you go." He said, "If she's going to stay all night she can get on with the business. I'll go to bed." Ellis at first asked what was the matter, and he said there had been some disturbance, that things had been going wrong for a long lime, and he would put them right and he would put them right in his own way. He mentioned the fact that the other children had been lucky; I think he meant that they had been lucky to escape injury, but I did not know that he meant with a knife. I then went to the hospital and subsequently prisoner came in.

Cross-examined. It was fifteen minutes after I first saw him that 1 speak as to his condition being calm. In reply to Mr. Ellis the actual words that he used were, "There has been a little upset."

Police-sergeant WALTER PEARMAN. About 12.15 p.m. on January 12 I, with another officer, went to prisoner's flat. He was there with two children. I said, "What was this disturbance about up here last night?" He said, "I done it in a fit of temper. I hope it will get over it. It has gone to the hospital." Handing me this broken tableknife, he said, "The other piece has stuck in its mouth. I am glad the knife broke, or I should have done more damage." I said I should arrest him and take him to the station pending inquiries. He said, "Very well; you know what to do." He then came quietly with me to the station. This piece of metal (produced) corresponds exactly with the stump of the blade.

CHARLESS VERNON ANDERSON , House surgeon, St. Thomas's Hospital. On the night of January 11, deceased, a child few months was in brought in suffering from a wound on the upper lip. in which there

was still this piece of metal (produced), which was protruding through the palate, not through the wound in the upper lip; the wound in the palate was caused by its entrance. I saw it extracted. I do not think the two wounds were caused at one and the same time. The piece of metal, in my view, entered 2 1/2 to 2 3/4 inches. There had been considerable bleeding from the lip wound and not so much from the palate, as it was plugged by the metal. Having regard to the character of the palate of a child of that age excessive force would not be required, although the knife was wedged in tightly. At about 10.30 p.m. it was extracted. The child was suffering from considerable shock, but progressed satisfactorily till the following Thursday, the 18th, when it developed symptoms of meningitis, which got worse. On the 19th I performed an operation; I passed a needle into the spine so as to withdraw some of the fluid produced there by the inflammation of the coverings of the brain; the fluid extracted showed that the child was suffering from meningitis. The operation was a necessary one. It died on the following day. I assisted in the post-mortem. The body was that of a healthy child, and the cause of death was meningitis. The wound in the palate, in its course, must be presumed to have pierced the cavity at the back of the nose, as it could not be found entering the cranial cavity itself; the knife must have curved forward, it being somewhat pliable. I cannot tell at what point the meningitis commenced. The division between the skull and the nose is a very thin bone with very small openings, but this had not been pierced. There are a considerable number of causes of meningitis; it is caused by organisms and their mode of entrance may be unknown; on the other hand, it may be through the nose or the ear. In this case it might be due to an extension of inflammation from the nasal cavity, or it might be due to an infection, in which case we could not determine the mode of entrance. We found no obvious inflammation in the nasal cavity; there must have been a place where the knife entered, but we could not find any trace of it; it was 10 days after the knife had entered that we examined it. One might not be able to see inflammation, yet there might be such if one were to use a microscope; this was not done. Such a wound as this was would be likely to cause inflammation, which might have disappeared by January 22, the date of the post-mortem, from visual examination. It is unlikely, however, that it could have been present in such a form as to be communicated to the lining of the brain and yet disappear from visual examination. I say it is possible, under the circumstances, that the meningitis originated from that wound, but I cannot say definitely one way or the other; it is a thing you would look out for, but it would not follow in every case. The meningitis could not have been present on January 11 or 12. No other cause for it could be discovered than this wound. I do not think that the extraction of the metal would set it up; the length of time for the symptoms to display themselves would be 20 to 24 hours from the first moment of the inflammation of the brain lining.

Cross-examined. Meningitis is quite a common form of death in children; it may arise from natural causes. If arising from a wound one expects to be able to trace the connection between that and the

disease, and in this case I found no local inflammation at all, or injury to the membrane of the brain. There are various forms of meningitis, some being associated with pneumonia. The same organism which causes pneumonia was present in this case. If this meningitis had been due to the wound, one would expect local sepsis, and one would also expect meningitis to supervene sooner than it did.

Re-examined. The wound was not septic, but the knife may have actuated the organisms which are present in the respiratory organs of a normal person and so cause inflammation which might communicate itself to the train membrane. There was no pneumonia in this child's body, and that may be disregarded. The organisms I found in the fluid may be present in an inactive condition in the respiratory organs of a healthy person.

Detective-inspector THOMAS DUGGAN, L Division. At 8.30 a.m. on January 12 I saw the deceased in the hospital. I saw prisoner a little later and told him he would be charged with the attempted murder of the child and cautioned him. He said, "All right. I have got to stay in prison and go for trial; I suppose I don't go out at all. I did not know it would be so serious a charge after it had got over the operation; that is between me and you. I thought I was detained to see how the child was getting on." When charged, he said, "Yes." The same evening I went with other officers to his flat where I saw some broken crockery on the floor, a bent gas bracket, and some child's clothing stained with blood. When charged with wilful murder he made no reply.


EDITH EMILY HUMPHREYS . I have been married to prisoner five years. Since July last he has been employed as carriage cleaner on the Underground Railway, but before then he was fourteen months out of employment. Before that he was a french polisher. About a year ago he was very queer with his head; he was very strange, not bodily ill; he did not seem as though He could help what he said or did. Last May he went to the doctor four times; since then he has not been at all. On January 11 he got home at about 10.45 a.m. and started taking the paper chain from the wall to give to the children to play with. I asked him to mind them while I went out and got the dinner, and on my return found he had gone to bed and was asleep. At about 8.20 p.m. he came down and started having his supper, when he jumped up, threw a chair at me, and knocked the gasbracket down, leaving the room in darkness. I made for the door, but found him standing there. He said, "You don't get over me this time." He caught hold of me and then let go. I got outside and saw the neighbours. I asked for the little children to be got out, and they were got out. I asked Watson to get the baby out, and he did so. The other children were in the room when all this happened.

Cross-examined. In April, 1910, he left Reed and Gregory's, where he had been about thirteen years. I have known him altogether seven years. He has been strange some time; he used to wake up with his

head bad and say he used to suffer with it. One day he said he would cut my head off because he thought I had been talking about him, but he was all right directly after. I had not said anything about him. He appeared quite rational, only angry. We were always happy together and he loved his children—the youngest most of all. He appeared strange and vacant in his manner this last two years and has frequently said he was mad and did not know it, when he has found himself in the wrong. He has said if people only knew what pains he had in his head they would pity him. Ever since May, 1910, I have been constantly on the alert lest he might do me some injury; he had threatened me once or twice. Nothing in his behaviour on this day made me think there was anything wrong with him. I did not see the knife which was on the table in his hand.

SIDNEY REGINALD Dyer, Medical Officer, Brixton Prison. As the result of my observation of prisoner I have come to the conclusion that he is now and has been for some time insane; his mental condition has cleared up a little under treatment, but he has hallucinations and delusions. I consider him to be very dangerous to both himself and to others; he is very muddled and confused. I think it is probable he will not get better; the attacks, which are periodical, may appear at any moment. If his impulsive insanity is due to lead poisoning I think his condition will improve.

Cross-examined. My own opinion is that it is probably due to heredity, but it has been very difficult to get any history of him.

The jury, on being asked by Mr. Justice Ridley to state their view, said they were of opinion that prisoner was insane at the time he committed the act.

Mr. Justice Ridley stated that it was now for the jury to find whether the wound inflicted was the cause of the meningitis which had led to the death of the deceased.

The following further evidence on this point was called for the defence.

THEOPHILUS B. HYSLOP , M.D. I have seen prisoner and agree with Dr. Dyer's conclusion as to his state of mind. It seems to me very likely that it is due to lead poisoning arising from the nature of employment. I did not see deceased, but from the evidence I have heard today I think it is remotely possible, yet extremely improbable, that there may have been some connection between the meningitis and the wound for the following reasons: Firstly, had there been any local injury to the base of the skull the inflammation would have been propagated to the membranes at the site of the injury; and secondly, the local meningitis would have appeared almost immediately after the injury, neither which had happened. Had there been a poisoned instrument used undoubtedly meningitis would have supervened. There was no definite inflammation at the possible site of any infection. Meningitis occurs in children from causes which are not capable of being discovered.

Cross-examined. With a healthy child having a wound in this position one of the things you would look out for would be local meningitis at the base of the brain; you would not get meningitis in the wound itself.

The fact that there was no sign of inflammation in the wound is consistent with it having existed and disappeared at the time of the post-mortem; but it would not have, while existing, communicated itself to the linings of the brain without the child crying out, of which there is no evidence. I think if there had been any local inflammation it would not have cleared up as quickly as it did. It is quite possible that although this was a healthy child meningitis was set up from some natural causes within a week of this injury.

Re-examined. I agree with Dr. Anderson that it is possible the meningitis was the result of the wound, but I am not able to go further than that. Meningitis can either be local or general inflammation, and if due to a wound it is local. (There being a dispute as to whether Dr. Anderson had said there was a local inflammation or not he was recalled.)

C. V. ANDERSON (recalled). Further examined. In this case there was general meningitis; I should not imagine that this arose from local meningitis, because there was no sign of the brain membrane being affected primarily. I do not know that the fact that there was no local inflammation assists me to deal with the question whether the wound was the originating cause of the meningitis.

Verdict, Not Guilty.

Mr. Bodkin stated that there was another indictment charging prisoner with wounding with intent to murder and wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Inskip stated that prisoner would plead guilty to unlawfully wounding.

The jury were sworn to try prisoner on the indictment indicated by Mr. Bodkin.

Mr. Justice Ridley stated that he would not like, under the circumstances, to take a verdict of guilty of unlawful wounding, whereupon Mr. Inskip, after consulting with prisoner, stated that prisoner would plead guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Bodkin suggested that Dr. Dyer should be recalled to state again his opinion of prisoner's state of mind, so that the jury could find that he was insane at the time that he committed the act.

Dr. DYER was accordingly recalled, and repeated his statement that in his opinion that at the time prisoner committed the offence he was insane and did not know the nature and quality of his act.

In accordance with Mr. Justice Ridley's direction, the jury returned a verdict of Guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but at the time he committed the act he was insane, so that he was not responsible for what he did.

The prisoner (who protested that he had given his counsel the charge, and that he wanted the jury to say whether he was guilty or not) was ordered to be detained until His Majesty's pleasure be known.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-13
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > other institution

Related Material

GONZEWSKI, Vincent (26, stickmaker) . Feloniously shooting at Victoria Gonzewski, with intent to murder her. Feloniously shooting at John Chesnovski, with intent to murder him.

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

The indictment relating to Victoria Gonzewski was first proceeded with.

JOHN CHESNOVSKI , 3, Pelham Street. I have known prisoner five years. I at one time lived at 52, Buross Street. When prisoner lived at No. 29 his wife used to go to his house to scrub the floor. They subsequently left and went to 157, Cannon Street Road where I went and took a separate room. I remember an occasion when he came in and found me and his wife in the room and there was a quarrel. He left his wife after that and did not come back any more. I then lived with her as man and wife, first going to Christian Street and then to my present address, where I have been four months and two weeks. Shortly after I went there I met prisoner in Commercial Road and asked him if he wanted his wife and he said he would not have her. I did not see him again until January 15. At 1.15 p.m. on that day his wife and I went home. I sat between the table and the bed and she sat with her back to the door. After we had been here five minutes prisoner opened the door and started shooting. I tried to shut the door but could not do so properly. He shot six times and I was hit on the hand and the forehead. He tried to reload, but I do not know whether he succeeded or not. I got away the revolver from him and hit him on the head with it. Just before the police arrived he bit my thumb. His wife was lying on the floor, prisoner having shot at her three times.

Cross-examined. I had had no quarrel with prisoner. I did not see whether he fired first at me or his wife. He knew I was living with his wife. I was by the door when he started shooting. I could not get the door shut quite, and he shot through the small opening; he shot and broke the glasses in the door also. I was hit three times.

JOHN LAPINSKI , skin dresser, 67, Christian Street. I have known prisoner and his wife about seven years; they come from the same part of Russian Poland as I do. Three weeks ago last Sunday I was in a beershop in the Commercial Road when he came in. He said, "What have you got to do with my wife?" I said, "I cannot help her. You can do what you like." He said, "I will shoot at my wife and the man what is living with my wife."

PERCY GOODMAN , registered medical practitioner. At about 1.30 p.m. I was called to 22, Newman's Buildings, Pelham Street, where I found a woman lying on the floor. I found two bullet wounds on the back of the chest on the right and left of the spine, extending round the ribs (they had not penetrated the cavity of the chest), one on the left side of the chest extending backwards around the ribs, one in the abdomen on the left side below the ribs, and one which had gone through the left arm without touching the bone. I dressed them temporarily and she was taken to the hospital. I did not examine Chesnovski. The woman's wounds were serious, but not likely to cause death. I picked up these three bullets and portions of a fourth (produced), and gave them to the sergeant.

ALBUBY BARKER , chief surgeon, London Hospital. Victoria Gonzewski, on January 15, was brought to the hospital suffering

from five bullet wounds. We extracted this bullet (produced) from the left side of the chest. She had two wounds in the left upper arm, apparently caused by a bullet passing through, a wound on the left side of the chest, which may possibly have been caused by the same bullet that went through the arm, and a bullet had gone through the right side close to the spine and come out at the left side of the chest; this led about 14 hours afterwards to paralysis of both legs. I do not' think she will recover the use of them. She will not be able to leave the hospital for certainly under a month, and it is possible that complications may ensue which will prevent her leaving at all; she is in a very serious condition.

Cross-examined. It is possible that only two shots may have struck her. (To the Court.) My description of the wounds differs somewhat from that of Dr. Goodman, who made only a hasty examination. Three wounds might have been caused by the same bullet.

Divisional-surgeon PERCY JOHN CLARKE, Commercial Street Police Station. At 1.45 p.m. on January 15 I was called to Newman's Buildings, where I saw Chesnovski. At the station I found that the nail of his right thumb was torn almost completely off; he had a contused wound just below the right elbow, which might have been caused by a bullet, a clean cut in the palm of his left hand, which extended down to the bone, probably caused by some sharp instrument, a contused wound on the right side of the forehead, another on the left side of the head, and other minor scratches and abrasions. The cut in the palm was the most serious. Prisoner was suffering from two contused wounds on the top and on the right side of the head, which might have been caused by a blow from the handle of this revolver. He smelt strongly of alcohol.

Police-constable THOMAS GILLAN, 257 H: At 115 p.m. on January 15, I was called to Newman's Buildings. On arriving there I heard a shot fired from the upper parts of the building. I went Up the staircase, where I saw prisoner, who pointed a revolver at me. I stepped back and gave my whistle to a private person to call for assistance. Police-constable 127 arrived, and we went up on to the landing. He put his helmet on his truncheon and put it round the corner to draw the fire. As there was no firing we went along the landing and we saw Chesnovski and prisoner standing against the wall. Chesnovski handed the revolver to Police-constable 127, who asked him who had done this, and Chesnovski pointed to prisoner. We arrested them both and took them to the station. I saw a woman lying down in one of the rooms, and she was attended to by one of the constables.

Police-constable ERNEST POOL, 127 H corroborated, and added: "I called out in Yiddish "when going" up the stairs, 'What's the matter?' and I received an answer in a foreign tongue which I did not understand."

ROSIE GOTTHELF , 23, Newman's Buildings. I occupy the room next to Chesnovski's. I knew the woman who lived in that room as "Victoria "; they had lived there four months. About 1.20 p.m. on January 11. I was in my room when I heard shooting and a woman

scream. I opened the door and looked out. I saw prisoner in the passage bashing at the door with a revolver he held in his hand. Then he shot through the glass of the door six times. I shut my door, ran to the window and screamed "Police!"I went into the passage with my child and saw prisoner again. I said, "Please let me get down with the child; it is very frightened." He said, "You may go down. You tell nothing." I said I would not and he let me go down. He was alone.

Cross-examined. The door of Chesnovski's room was a little open; prisoner held his legs in the door. I could see through it.

Divisional Detective Inspector FREDERICK WENSLEY, H Division. At 1.40 p.m. on January 15 I went to 22, Newman's Buildings. Victoria Gonzewski was being brought down. She was taken to the hospital. Both the glass panels of the door were broken, and in one there were apparently two bullet holes. The top rail of the bedstead inside was broken, apparently by a bullet. At the station this revolver was handed to me; it contained five spent and one live cartridge. Prisoner was charged with attempted murder through an interpreter, and he said in English, "Yes, I know."

Police-constable AMBROSE RAYNKR, 130 H. On searching prisoner I found these seventeen live cartridges in the left pocket of his macintosh and 13 in the right pocket (produced) which fit the revolver produced. On the landing of outside No. 22, Newman's Building, I found one live and two empty cartridges and a rod used for unloading a revolver (produced). Inside the room I found some piece, of cartridges. From marks on the door, the wall and the rail at the foot of the bed I could see the shots had been fired from outside the door into the room.

Verdict, Guilty of wounding with intent to murder.

Mr. Muir stated that he did not propose to proceed with the indictment as regards Chesnovski.

Sentence: Three years' detention in a Borstal institution.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-14
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > other institution

Related Material

NOWLAND, Daisy (18, servant), pleaded guilty of feloniously throwing upon Kate Stevenson a certain corrosive fluid called vitriol, with intent to do her grevious bodily harm.

The prosecutrix's eyes had not been affected, but she would be permanently disfigured. Prisoner had stated she committed the offence because prosecutrix had been "telling tales about her.' She had been bound over, when 16 years of age, for stealing.

Sentence: Three years' imprisonment in a Borstal institution.


(Wednesday, January 31.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-15
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesNo Punishment > sentence respited

Related Material

RACKLEY, Elizabeth (53, charwoman), and WATSON, Ada Louisa (23), pleaded guilty of stealing one post letter containing an order for the payment of £ 3, the property of Ann Schultz. Both forging the endorsement on the said order with intent to defraud.

It was stated that prosecutrix was a lodger in the same house as Watson: she moved away, and Watson and Rackley, her aunt, stole a letter containing money sent to prosecutrix by her son and spent the money on drink.

Sentence was postponed till next Sessions.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-16
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

GUINEY, Eric Octavius (22, farmer), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling house of John Mally Colwill and stealing therein one pair of earrings and certain jewellery and money, his goods and moneys; burglary in the dwelling house of Edward Robert Fanser, with intent to steal therein.

It was stated that prisoner, who was staying at the Waverley Hotel, Southampton Row, on Christmas Eve stole the master key, entered other people's rooms and stole their property. Prisoner, who on December 7 arrived here from South Africa, obtained moneys by means of worthless cheques and bills.

Sentence: Twelve months' hard labour.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-17
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SMITH, John (33, dealer), pleaded guilty of stealing a watch chain, the goods of John Edwin Holder, from his person.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at Clerkenwell Sessions on February 5, 1907, receiving three years' penal servitude and 3 1/2 years' police supervision for unlawful possession of house-breaking implements by night in the name of Alfred Wilkins. Other convictions proved: May 24, 1910, 12 months' hard labour and license revoked, for assault, at the County of London Sessions; released on license on December 5, 1911, hi* license expiring on January 24, 1912; March 23, 1896, at Worship Street Police Court, bound over for attempted stealing; June 1, 1896, at the same court, six weeks for attempted stealing; November 30, 1896, North London Police Court, six months' hard labour, stealing a watch; North London Sessions, July 6, 1897, 18 months' hard labour, stealing a watch; and on February 15, 1899, 21 months, attempted stealing; at this Court, February 20, 1901, 18 months, attempted burglary; North London Sessions, February 3, 1903, 21 months, attempted stealing; December 20, 1904, two years' hard labour, stealing a bicycle. Prisoner was stated to be a member of a very dangerous gang of thieves.

Sentence: Three years' penal servitude.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-18
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

ROBINSON, Sidney (37, labourer), pleaded guilty of, having been entrusted by Edward Charles Payne and others with certain of their moneys, to wit, the sum of £ 17 10s. 1d., unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Prisoner, who was a man of very good character, was stated to have stolen the money of the Huston Carriage Cleaners' Mutual Aid Society, of which he was secretary, instead of distributing it among the members. When arrested prisoner's explanation was that he met a

woman and went on the drink, and when he awoke the next morning all the money had gone. Prisoner was not addicted to drink. Sentence: Six months' imprisonment, second division.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-19
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SULLIVAN, John (25, porter) , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £50 4s., with intent to defraud.

Mr. Muir prosecuted.

CHAELES WOOD , trading as B. Wood and Son, 64, Mark Lane, wine merchants. My firm banks at the Great Tower Street branch of the London Joint Stock Bank. On January 6 I drew cheque (produced) for £1 4s., payable to Paul Dainty and Co.; I crossed it, put it in an envelope, together with invoice, addressed it to 44, Lamb's Conduit Street, and gave it to Davis, my clerk, with instructions to post it. The crossing has now been erased, and the amount has been altered to £50 4s. I gave no one authority to alter the cheque. I do not know prisoner.

GEORGE DAVIS , clerk to B. Wood and Son. On January 6 the last witness handed me letter addressed to Messrs. Paul Dainty and Co., 44, Lamb's Conduit Street, which I posted at 10.55 p.m.

PAUL DAINTY , of Paul Dainty and Co., 44, Lamb's Conduit Street, wine merchants. Some little time before January 6 I sent invoice for £1 4s. to B. Wood and Son. I have never received that invoice back again or any cheque in payment. Cheque produced is endorsed "Paul Dainty and Co." I neither endorsed that nor gave anybody authority to do so. At about 10 a.m. on Monday, January 8, I found the letterbox broken open and letters missing.

GEORGE ERNEST JOHN SWIFT , cashier, London Joint Stock Bank, Great Tower Street. On Tuesday, January 9, at about 12.45 midday, prisoner presented cheque produced. I asked him how he would have it. He replied, "In gold." I saw the crossing had been erased and communicated with my manager. Mr. Wood, whose office is close by, was sent for, and prisoner was arrested. Prisoner said he was out of work, a stranger came up to him in Lamb's Conduit Street, and asked him to cash the cheque in gold, and he would give him a piece of gold for himself.

Detective-sergeant JAKES BROWN, City. At 2.20 p.m. on January 9 I saw prisoner at the Minories Police Station. I told him I was a police officer and that he would be charged with forging and uttering a cheque for £50 4s. on the London Joint Stock Bank, 94 and 95, Great Tower Street. He said, "I did not know it was forged; all the man said was 'Go to the Bank,' and I went, and he asked me to cash the cheque for him, and when I got there I was detained for it. The man who gave me the cheque said he would meet me between one and two to-day in Lamb's Conduit Street, and he said when I came back he would give, me a bit of gold. The man was a stranger to me, and I have never seen him before." I asked him if he was willing to write a statement out. He replied, "Yes," and voluntarily wrote out and signed statement produced: "January 9, 1912. I, John Sullivan, residing at 13, Great St. Andrew's Street, Shaftesbury Avenue, W.C. make the following voluntary statement: At about 11 o'clock this morning, that

is, January 9, 1912, I met a man in Lamb's Conduit Street, where I was standing. He came to me and said, 'Do you mind going to the bank and cashing a cheque for me, and I said, 'Yes.' He said, 'Very well then, here is the cheque then, hurry up then, and I will meet you here between one and two o'clock; and then he gave me 6d. for my fare there and back, and he told me he would give me a bit of gold when I came back. He told me where the bank was, and I went there, and when I got there I was kept there—John Sullivan, 13, Great St. Andrew's Street, Shaftesbury Avenue, W. C." He then wrote a description of the man: "A man between 50. and 60 years of age, 5 ft. 9 in. high, a short man, grey hair, fresh grey moustache. Dress: Dark cloth overcoat, which was buttoned up, dark trousers, brown boots, high silk hat and umbrella, horn handle. He had rather hump shoulders. He had a gentlemanly appearance. I have a slight doubt if I should know the man again if I saw him.—John Sullivan, 13, Great St. Andrew's Street, Shaftesbury Avenue. "I went to that address and found bottle (produced) labelled" hydrogen peroxide. "I experimented with the liquid in that bottle, and found that it removed ink writing. I also found paper, three safe keys, two master keys, a key marked "Invincible power-proof lock," two mortice keys, and a latchkey. I showed the keys to prisoner, and told him I had found them wrapped in tissue paper on the mantelpiece of his bedroom. He said he knew nothing about them. I showed him the bottle of acid, and told him I had found it in a cupboard on the floor of the room that he occupied. He said, "I do not know anything about them." He did not share his bedroom with anybody else.

Cross-examined. Prisoner did not say the bottle was an old bottle which was there before he came, or that he picked the keys up.

Prisoner's statement: "I did not know the cheque was a fraud."


MRS. ROSE JAMES , 13, Great St. Andrew's Street. My husband works at a furniture dealer's. Prisoner lodged at my house for about three months. I was present when a detective searched prisoner's room and found bottle (produced) in a cupboard. That bottle was there when I took the house three months ago.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner three or four years; he was a friend of my husband. I have been in court the whole of the time this case has been going on. When I came to the house there were a few old bottles there and I put them in the cupboard to get them out of the way. I could not swear that that was one of the bottles there.

Verdict, Guilty.

Convictions proved: January 18, 1910, Bow Street Police Court, bound over under the Probation of Offenders Act for stealing money with which he was entrusted; June 20, 1910, Bow Street Police Court, again bound over for giving the probation officer a lot of trouble; February 21, 1908, he was again bound over at Marlborough Street as a suspected person. Prisoner was stated to have been seen several times in company with a man who answered to the description given by prisoner.

Mr. Muir. I do not suppose your Lordship wants any evidence in support of the fact that this kind of fraud and larceny has become very prominent?

The Recorder: I have found it so from my experience in this Court.

Mr. Muir. No doubt these people act in gangs; there is the person who steals the cheque; the person who puts it down; and the person who forges it.

Sentence: Eighteen months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, January 31.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-20
VerdictsGuilty > unknown; Guilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment; Imprisonment

Related Material

FRYER, Cyril Frederick William (44, architect) , being an undischarged bankrupt did unlawfully obtain credit to the extent of £20 and upwards, to wit, to the extent of £100 from the Brompton Motor Company, Limited, and from Harold Arthur Arkwright, a director thereof, without informing them that he was an undischarged bank-rupt; obtaining by false pretences from the said Motor Company and the said H. A. Arkwright a motor car. Mr. Leycester and Mr. Adrian Clark prosecuted; Mr. Hayes defended.

HAROLD ARTHUR ARKWRIGHT , director, Brompton Motor Company, Limited, 78, Brompton Road, S.W. Prisoner was introduced to me about the end of May last. He said he wanted to buy two motorcars, that he and his sons might let them out on hire at the Wellington House Hotel. He said he was the architect of the hotel, was one of the principal directors, and had the principal word in the management of the hotel, which was in a very flourishing condition; they were just building a new wing, and it was full up owing to the Coronation, and there was a lot of work for motor-cars, hiring, etc. He showed me a prospectus of the company. He said he was a large holder of shares in the hotel, which he had negotiated the sale of in Paris, and the money was coming definitely in six weeks. I sold him two cars, a Mercedes and a Benz, for £310. He was to pay £100 in cash, and the balance by bill payable in six weeks. I agreed to take 500 shares in Wellington House as collateral security against the bill. He told me there was a market for them in Paris at about 20 francs a share and a dividend of 6 per cent. for three years had been guaranteed. He showed me a contract note showing the shares had changed hands at about 20 francs or 20s. within 12 months. He did not tell me he was an undischarged bankrupt. I should not have parted with the cars if I had thought he was not in a position to pay for them. On June 15 prisoner telephoned that the Mercedes car had arrived, that it was a bigger horse-power than he expected, and asked if I would agree to his only paying £50 down and receiving the other £50 when the other car was delivered; he was just off to Paris, and would send the £50 immediately he got there. I agreed and wrote him confirming same. On the same day I wrote him that on thinking things over I did not consider

the sale of the ears complete, as he had not deposited the certificate for the 500 shares, and that I had instructed my man to fetch the Mercedes car back, and that if he wanted the cars we should have to come to quite fresh terms.

Cross-examined. When he showed me the contract note I thought the shares had a value and that they could be sold for 20 francs in Paris. He told me Wellington House Hotel was a large hotel in Buckingham Gate, and showed me a picture of it. I have read in the "Evening News" that the Government have bought it for occupation by the officials under the National Insurance Act. I do not know what they have paid. I have not had the shares. I do not assert or dispute that the hotel was doing good business. I did not take much notice of the prospectus because I relied on the bill being met. As to when I first came to the conclusion that there was fraud and false pretences, I told my secretary when I saw the transfer, which I did not like the look of, to find out about the hotel. He was a long time doing it, and as prisoner seemed anxious to have the car in a hurry I let the car go. The moment I had done so I received a message from my secretary saying he had searched the register and could not find that prisoner had any shares in the hotel, that the hotel was in a bad condition financially, that it had a receiver in, and that the shares were in his opinion valueless. We did not take civil proceedings till the bill was dishonoured. I am not certain that I determined to charge him criminally. I do not bother about those things much. I believe my people tried to get the money back by sueing him. We were then going to let the case drop as we heard he was bankrupt and his cheques were being returned in all directions. When I heard the Crown were taking another case up it influenced me considerably. They did not come to me personally. I have four partners. Mr. Williams will know about that. When I heard there were no shares standing in his name I did not consider it worth while to send the blank transfer to the company to get the distinctive number of the shares put in. I thought I might be liable on uncalled capital. I preferred to rely on the bill. I only parted with one car. I had £50 and the blank transfer for 500 shares in respect of that. I think we sued him for £100; we got judgment against him for the full amount he owed us.

LEONARD WILLIAMS , director, Brompton Motor Company. Mr. Arkwright handed over to me the conduct of the bargain between himself and prisoner as to the purchase of two motor-cars. On June 14 prisoner signed the two agreements to purchase in my presence. He handed me this bill of exchange. It was dishonoured. He banded me at the same time transfer for 500 shares in the Wellington House Hotel. I did not exercise any judgment in the matter; that had all been arranged by Mr. Arkwright.

Cross-examined. As to when I suggested there had been false pretences, I cannot tell you. I have not had a good deal to do with this matter. I merely received the bill on behalf of my firm.

GEORGE HAROLD MANSFIELD , 67, Montpelier Rise, Golder's Green. I was secretary to the Brompton Motor Company in June last. I made inquiries about Wellington House Hotel, and reported afterwards

to Mr. Arkwright. I saw the transfer, dated June 14. It had no numbers on it. After a conversation with Mr. Arkwright I went to Cannon Street Hotel. On the way I saw the Mercedes car we had delivered to prisoner. The person driving it told me he was Fryer, jun. We received a bank note for £50 from prisoner about June 15. I wrote him at the Hotel Continental, Paris, "I am instructed to acknowledge receipt of your letter offering to return the Mercedes car if the company will return you your payment of £50." After our company obtained judgment against defendant I ascertained that he was an undischarged bankrupt. We have not received the car back or been paid the balance due on it.

Cross-examined. Mr. Arkwright told me he had had the transfer given him and asked me whether he should take it as collateral security for the balance owing. After searching the file at Somerset House I was not prepared to advise him to do so. I formed the opinion that supposing we had to fall back on the shares they probably would not realise £500. I found out that some of the shares were not fully-paid, so there was a risk of a call being made upon them. I did not inquire on the Stock Exchange what the shares were worth. I formed my opinion entirely from the file at Somerset House.

GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE , messenger, Office of the Senior Registrar in Bankruptcy, produced files showing that prisoner was adjudicated bankrupt in 1891, 1896, and 1907.

JOHN WILLIAM ROBERTS , senior examiner, Bankruptcy Office. Prisoner has never applied for his discharge. In the last bankruptcy the liabilities expected to rank were stated to be £5,314 and assets £4,230. Nothing in fact was ever realised, and there is a debit balance of £11 11s. 4d. on the estate.

SIR VALENTINE GRACE , Bart. I became a director of Wellington House, Limited, about 1909, and chairman three or four months afterwards. Prisoner introduced me. £75, 000 Debentures were subscribed. A receiver was appointed for the Debenture holders in January, 1911, I think. He had been conducting the business of the hotel for four or five months. I hold 20, 000 shares in the company. The market value of the shares at the beginning of last year was whatever one liked to give. I personally had lent them £1,200 on; he 20, 000 about a year before the receiver was appointed. In June last they would have a certain value; the concern was beginning to turn the corner and do very well. I think from a speculative point of view they might have been worth 3s. a share. I think the Government are going to pay about £4,500 a year rent. The ground rent is £1,500. The Debentures are 4 1/2 per cent. The company is being wound up.

Cross-examined. If people lend money at 4 1/2 per cent. it should be almost a, gilt-edged security. People in Paris were negotiating with prisoner to buy a block of shares at 20 francs each before the receiver came in. I thought it my duty to give them notice that there was a receiver in, and a letter was written to that effect. There was no guarantee by anybody of 6 per cent. on the Ordinary shares. If certain negotiations had taken place it might have been guaranteed.

FRANCIS RICHMOND , clerk, Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House. I produce the file of Wellington House, Limited. It was incorporated February 19, 1909, with an authorised capital of £55, 000 in £1 shares. Practically all were issued. £75, 000 Debentures were issued in January, 1910. On June 28, 1910, a mortgage was registered for £7,971 in favour of Howard McCusack. Prisoner was appointed director. Notice of that was given on July 12, 1910. On July 28, 1910, a contract was made between the company and Palgrave and Co., by which Palgrave and Co. were to receive 5, 000 shares in satisfaction of a debt of £938 owing by the company to them. Palgrave and Co. appears to be prisoner. He is not registered as the holder of any shares. There are other people named Fryer on the register. Mr. Fitton was appointed receiver on January 27, 1911, on behalf of Mr. McCusack. There is an order for the compulsory winding up of the company dated December 19, 1911. There is a contract, dated July 28, 1909, by which the vendor, Thomas Westrup Sweeten ham, sold the lease of the land and buildings to the company for £83, 700. There is no registration on the file of Mr. Sweetenham as secretary. There is. a return of allotments of September 2, 1910, signed by him as secretary. There is nothing signed by him since that.

WALTER STANLEY FITTON , solicitor, Newmarket. In June, 1910, I was appointed director of Wellington House, Limited, in the interests of Mr. McCusack. I resigned-January 26, 1911. I was appointed Receiver on January 11, 1911. I have been conducting the business since. Since my appointment prisoner has had nothing to do with the conduct of the business of the hotel. The hotel has never made a profit. Last June the Debenture interest and a half-year's ground rent and rates and taxes were in arrear. They were paid by Mr. McCusack. The value of the shares was discussed at board meetings. I told prisoner in February last that I should inform people that in my opinion their value was nothing.

Cross-examined. I am told hotels do not pay dividends in their first or second year. I have no experience of this. If I heard there was a contract for sale of 20, 000 shares in France at 20 francs I should say the market value would depend upon who made the contract. My client advanced £52, 000 in cash, for which he took £65, 000 in Debentures. Then he guaranteed the company's debt for furniture to the extent of £70, 000 odd, for which he took another £10, 000 Debentures as his consideration.

EDWARD JAMES RAM , secretary, London Banking Corporation (in liquidation), 32, New Bridge Street, E.C. Defendant had an account at our bank for some years. I produce certified copy of same. (Witness gave evidence that on various dates the account was overdrawn, and that cheques had been returned and re-presented.)

Detective-sergeant ALBERT EVE, T. On January 10 last I charged prisoner with having obtained credit for upwards of £20 without disclosing that he was an undischarged bankrupt. He said, I paid the Brompton Motor Company £50 cash deposit on the car and gave a bill

for £210. I was advised that it was no offence against the bankruptcy laws to pay a deposit and owe the remainder of the money.


CYRIL FREDERICK WILLIAM FRYER (prisoner, on oath). I am the principal of the firm of Palgrave and Co., 28, Victoria Street, S.W. 1 was formerly in partnership with Mr. Palgrave. My holding in the Wellington House Company varied. Sometimes I held 7, 000 or 8, 000 shares. They were held in various names, mostly in the name of my firm, who were the original architects for the hotel. Some were in other names. My wife was an independent shareholder as well as nominee. Five thousand were allotted to Palgrave and Co., and we bad the option of a great many others at a price. I had a contract in Paris to sell those shares. I showed Mr. Arkwright a London Stock Exchange contract a few months before this Paris contract, showing that I had sold these shares at from 18s. 6d. to 20s. 6d. I sold some hundreds, and they were a great factor in bringing about this Paris contract. I designed the hotel, and we had made plans for an additional wing, which they were going on with when the Paris deal was completed. That was part of the arrangement, as then the company would be in funds. The company owed Palgrave and Co. about £1,000, balance for work done. They had originally paid us £3,000 or £4,000 cash; then we did some other work, and I agreed to take the balance in shares, because I had clients in Paris, and I took them on the lines that I could sell them at 12s. or 14s. each. I introduced Sir Valentine Grace as chairman of the company. How the motor deal with the Brompton Motor Company originally came about was, my son had been articled to my chief assistant but did not care for the architect's work and seemed to be very keen on the motor industry, and associated himself with a man named Sadler, who I think knew Mr. Arkwright, and they were very desirous of getting one or two cars for hiring out for the Coronation, as good prices were going to be paid. He had seen one or two cars at Brompton which he thought suitable, and asked me if I would go into this thing and find him one or more cars if my Paris deal came off. I saw Mr. Arkwright and showed him the French contract. I explained that until I received this money from Paris I did not want to pay any money at all, and it would suit me better if he would take the shares in exchange. He told me he did not know much about that class of shares. I answered neither did I; I was an architect, and knew very little about Stock Exchange matters. He said he would think it over. He said, "I see you are going to receive money. You can pay me £100 for the cars and the balance out of the second instalment on your Paris contract." He said, "You must give me a bill. but of course I shall get the shares." I said, "You understand, of course, I propose to pay you out of the second instalment." There were certain things required to be done to the Benz car, which I left my son to see to, as I was leaving for Paris that day or the next. It was subsequently arranged that he should have the 500 shares left with him as collateral security for the bill. There is no truth in the statement that

I did not have the property in those 500 shares. Sir Valentine Grace stated at the police-court that we had 4, 000 or 5, 000. I went to the secretary's office before the blank transfer was issued and ascertained there were so many shares to my or my nominee's credit, and arranged that they should debit my account with 500, and they should give me a provisional certified transfer in blank. Those shares have been hypothecated to the transfer. In the corner of the certificate there is "Coupon for 500 shares forwarded to the company's office by C.F.W. Fryer. Certified J.W. Sweetenham, secretary, Wellington House, Limited. "That means that the shares are at the office waiting receipt of that transfer and they are there to this day. I have done all that I. could to transfer those shares. There is no reason why a certificate with distinctive numbers would be more valuable The shares were all fully-paid. I paid the Brompton Motor Company £50 cash when they handed over one car. The bill covered two cars. As I only had one car the bill ought never to have been presented. I had no intention of getting credit. I was advised there is a section of the Bankruptcy Act which says that a bill or post-dated cheque is payment; and it certainly was arranged between Mr. Arkwright and myself that the bill was to be paid out of the second instalment of the French contract. I never got the second instalment. I have delivered the first instalment and hold my solicitor's receipt for £6,400, and he is now suing by my power of attorney for £20, 000 and the return of my deposit. I told Mr. Arkwright or the firm that as I had received no consideration for the bill it would not be met. I was greatly surprised to hear that it had gone in.

Cross-examined. My son has the car. He is in the provinces. I last saw it about three months ago. I have not had the money to pay for it. Mr. Arkwright said at the police-court he was satisfied the money should come out of the second instalment. If I did not get that I had my professional income, which was above £2,000 a year. I have not received a penny from Paris in respect of the shares. They are lodged with my solicitor to be transferred to the Paris bank. I did not discover by the middle of June that the deal would not come off. The £500 I deposited was provided by a cheque of the Maritime Securities, Limited, and the London Banking Corporation guaranteed the repayment. I shall have to repay it. No one had guaranteed 6 per cent. interest on the Ordinary shares.

(Thursday, February 1.)

CYEIL FREDERICK WILLIAM FRYER (prisoner, on oath), further cross-examined. I stated yesterday I had £500 on deposit at Barclay's Bank. I ought to add I had given them a sort of lien upon it for any overdraft that might come to Wellington House Hotel. I do not know if it was at my disposal; I never attempted to draw upon it. It is there now. The motor-car is registered at the L.C.C. in my name or my son's. The reason the sale did not come off in Paris was not that they found out that the interest was not guaranteed. They were share warrants to bearer. A minute had been passed agreeing to a certain

number of Ordinary shares being converted into warrants to bearer. they had not been issued; that would have been done simultaneously with the completion of the deal. I did not intend Mr. Arkwright to believe that the shares he was to get were guaranteed by a financial group. 1 heard him say I did, but I fancy he misunderstood me. At the time of the Paris deal I probably had 8, 000 or 9, 000 shares and a call on the whole of Sir Valentine Grace's 2, 500, which I was going to sell as well. If I was not on the board at the time the Receiver was appointed I should have nothing to do with the management of the hotel. I think Mr. Arkwright misunderstood me when he said I told him I was the chief person managing the hotel. I have no recollection of telling him. It is difficult at this time to say, but I should say I did not. It is a fact that I appointed the general manager and had formed the company. Mr. Fitton was appointed a friendly Receiver, not by order of the Court, and the board held their meetings as before. Sweetenham was employed at the hotel in June. I cannot recollect if I had an interview with him before the transfer was drawn up. I daresay I did. He would look to see if the shares were available. Share certificates have been issued in my name and dealt with either in my name or the name of nominees. I let the secretary fill in the numbers as I did not know what were available. I sold some hundreds of the shares at 16s. 6d. on the Stock Exchange between September, 1910, and March, 1911. The contract notes are in Paris. They were sent to me there. I do not think I could recognise the transaction from the transfer book. I did not tell either Mr. Arkwright or Mr. Williams that I was an undischarged bankrupt. I was not obtaining credit; I gave them a bill. I do not think it fair to give the name of the solicitor who advised me that that would be a payment under the Bankruptcy Act. The advice was in writing. Verdict, Guilty, on the first and third counts.

Prisoner was further indicted for obtaining from Gertrude Amy Bartlett £46, with intent to defraud.

(Another Jury was sworn.)

GERTRUDE AMY BARTLETT , Burleigh House, Chelsea. On September 15 I was staying with Miss Emerson at Burwash, Sussex. I saw prisoner there. I had no conversation with him. Next day I came up to London and saw him at 28, Victoria Street. I said I had come about shares in New Picture Palaces, Ltd. He showed me a plan of Prince's Hall, Kew Bridge. He said it would be open by Christmas time and the shares were then worth £2 each. He said they had a lease of the premises for 21 years. I said I thought of having 20 shares. He said they were 25s. each, but if I took 40 he would let me have them for 23s. I said I would ask my husband about it and I would like a paper like Miss Emerson had. He sent it that night. I told him I was only a working woman and did not want to lose my money. He said I would not lose my money, that they had had an expert down from Lon-don belonging to all the picture palaces, who said it would bring in 100 per cent., that he could guarantee me. 100 per cent. himself. He

said, "The public do not get the chance of having their money in a good thing like this." He said it was a private company and Sir Valentine Grace was the chairman and also a sleeping partner. Next day I got £46 out of the bank and my husband and I went to 28, Victoria Street. We handed over the money and I signed a transfer. Next day I received from him a certificate for 40 shares in New Picture Palaces, Ltd. On September 26 I went with Miss Emerson to see prisoner. I could not tell you all that he said. He asked if I had been to Kew to see the place; I said I had. It had been a theatre kind of place. He said they had had a board painted, but they had put on the wrong address and it would be all right by to-morrow and if I went again I would see the board up and the Prince's Hall board taken down. I did not go inside. I had implicit faith in him up till the end. I had no notion that the company had not the lease or that the hall was not fully equipped, or that Sir Valentine Grace was not chairman, or I should not have parted with my money.

Cross-examined. Prisoner told my husband he had a little bother with the brewers and that I need not worry about my money; it was all right and they were putting on 600 men next week and it would be open by Christmas time. I had faith in him until I saw Mr. Firth, who said there was no lease. I should not have put my money in if I had been told the lease was in course of being signed. He told me everything was signed and settled and he had a 21 years' lease. Miss Emerson first told me about the shares, but did not persuade or advise me to have any. I got prisoner's address from her. He gave it of her to give to me. I said to Mr. Firth, "If you can get my money get it, please, off Mr. Fryer." I cannot remember what he said to that. That was eight or ten days after my husband last saw prisoner. Prisoner was not arrested on my account, but on Miss Emerson's. I did not say Mr. Firth said he would try and get my money. He did not tell me the result of his endeavours. I saw him when I went to make my statement. I have not written him at all. I did not ask about my money afterwards; I knew prisoner was going to be arrested.

THOMAS WILLIAM BARTLETT (husband of last witness) gave similar evidence.

FRANCIS HUGH RICHMOND , clerk, Registration Department, Somerset House. I produce the file of New Picture Palaces, Limited. It was registered September 13, 1910, with a nominal capital of £5,000 in £1 shares. Up to October 10, 1911, 1, 949 shares were issued. The first registered office was registered on April 10, 1911; it was then stated to be 53, Haymarket, with Mr. Lebutt as secretary. On October 25 Mr. Fraser was registered as secretary, address 38, Great James Street, Bedford Row. The directors are registered as Sir Valentine Grace, prisoner, William Thorley, and Ralph Lebutt. 1,092 shares were registered in the name of Fryer.

THOMAS WILLIAMS STABLEE FIRTH . I am a solicitor, practising at 77, Chancery Lane.

Cross-examined. I was first consulted by Miss Emerson. She said she had taken in exchange from prisoner for a motor-car 60 shares in New Picture Palaces, Limited, that a transfer had been sent to her,

and acting on the direction given in prisoner's letter that transfer had been sent and was returned through the dead letter office. She instructed me to make inquiries whether the company was good and whether Fryer was honest or not. Mrs. Bartlett did not come till afterwards. She has made a mistake if she said she instructed me to get her money back which she gave Fryer for the shares. I have not attempted to do so. I attempted to get money from him for Miss Emerson before I found out it was a fraud. Prisoner sent me the address of a man supposed to be the secretary. We sent repeatedly to the offices of the company. When Mrs. Bartlett came to me I told it was an impudent fraud and nothing could be done but criminal proceedings. I had been making inquiries up to November 18, when I stopped. I did not ask for Miss Emerson's car back because he had driven it and it had been in other hands. He pawned it as soon as he got to London. He expressed his willingness to return the car, but it was an empty expression; he had not "possession of it. We were referred to a man called Fraser at Gregory Day and Co's, solicitors, Great James Street. I had repeated reports "Mr. Fraser is out," and we could not see the books or learn anything. On November 18 I discovered there was no picture palace and no lease. If he had paid the £60 before November 18 I should have taken it.

(Friday, February 2.)

JAMES FRASER , 38, Great James Street, Bedford Row. I am clerk to Mr. Day. I was appointed secretary of New Picture Palaces, Iimited, on October 5 last. Mr. Day informed me of this appointment. There was no agreement as to salary and I did not receive any. Sir Valentine Grace was present at board meetings; December 14 was the last date. I do not know in whose handwriting the entry of the shares in Mrs. Bartlett's name is. I received the book about the end of October from prisoner at 28, Victoria Street, where the books of the company were. As far as I know the company has no banking account. The only assets it possessed I suppose were the negotiations for the lease of the Kew Theatre. My firm was acting for the company in acquiring the lease. The negotiations dropped about the end of November. The company never had a lease of Prince's Hall. They never spent any money in repairing or altering it.

Cross-examined. We got as far as engrossing the tenancy agreement. Fuller, Smith, and Turner insisted on a deposit of £1,000 as the references were not satisfactory. The engrossment was not in existence on September 21, but the deeds were approved, I think, by then. £50 had to be found for the first quarter's rent. Prisoner was arranging this when he was arrested.

HENRY FLEETWOOD FULLER . I am a member of the firm of Fuller, Smith, and Turner, Griffin Brewery, Chiswick, who are the freeholders of Prince's Hall, which is attached to the "Star and Garter." It is licensed for music and dancing. It has never been used as a picture palace that I am aware of. On August is last prisoner called

at the brewery and proposed to take up the hall on behalf of a Mr. Sweetenham. A good deal of correspondence passed between us up to the time of his arrest. No lease was ever granted.

Cross-examined. It was provisionally agreed to let the place to Mr. Sweetenham. The draft agreement was approved by us subject to references. Those references were not satisfactory.

WILLIAM DOWN , licensee, "Star and Garter," Kew Bridge. I have seen prisoner at my house. I remember a board being put up announcing that Prince's Hall was going to be opened shortly as a picture palace, with the address of New Picture Palaces, Limited, 28, Victoria Street, S.W.

Cross-examined. I did not fix up the board. Their men put it up. SIR VALENTINE GRACE, Bart. I was chairman of the New Picture Palaces, Limited, at the start. I was introduced by prisoner. He gave me to understand it was to be a private company subscribed by his friends; no prospectus was to be issued to the public. After attending three or four meetings I discovered that, these friends had not supplied the money. I resigned in February last as I was not satisfied with the financial position. That was at a meeting at 28, Victoria Street. It should have been recorded on the minutes. No secretary was present. Prisoner was there. I sent a letter the same evening to prisoner to confirm my resignation. During the time I was connected with the company it did no work beyond holding meetings. Qualification shares were allotted to me for which I paid nothing. I never attached any market value to them.

Cross-examined. I got no acknowledgment of my letter of resignation. I wrote twice. I found out afterwards they were using my name as chairman. To the best of my belief I asked Fryer on several occasions for a letter accepting my resignation. I never got one. There was only prisoner there when I resigned. I thought the concern had died a natural death. I resigned verbally. I requested prisoner to put it down. I resigned because I was not satisfied with prisoner's transactions with me in the past and I did not think him a fit person to be associated with.

Detective-sergeant ALBERT EVE, T. On September 13 I charged prisoner with having obtained £46 from Mrs. Bartlett by false pretences. He said, "I did not ask Mrs. Bartlett to put her money into the company."

Cross-examined. I arrested him in the case of Miss Emerson. I told him I had a warrant for his arrest for fraud. He said, "What ground? Where is the sworn information?" I said, "I have not" got that, but I will read the warrant to you." I read it. He said, "This is an absurd charge. I got the car from Miss Emerson and paid her with marketable shares in a genuine concern. The car was absolutely worthless and I sold it for scrap iron at a ridiculous figure. Miss Emerson is the person who ought to be charged with obtaining my money for a useless car. I only hope she has got plenty money to pay me damages for malicious prosecution." Whilst I was searching his desk he said, "What do you want?" I said, "Any papers

relating to the company." He said, "There is no company; I am an architect and have been at 28, Victoria Street with Messrs. Palgrave for sixteen years. Of course, I suppose I can have bail." I said, "No, not to-night. You will be detained at Chiswick police-station." He asked what kind of bail we would want. I said any substantial householder. He said, "1 do not know anyone I can trust. It is disgusting to think that a woman can go to a court and get a warrant by telling an abominable pack of lies. She tried to blackmail me for £60 and this is the result." When charged he said, "I will make her pay for this; it is an outrage. I deal in cars and have bought a lot this year. It is blackmail pure and simple."


CYRIL FREDERICK WILLIAM FRYER (prisoner, on oath). I do not think you would call me the promoter of New Picture Palaces, Limited; I was architect for the buildings. The company were negotiating for a hall opposite when we found out that Prince's Hall was in the market. Mr. Down told me his tenancy was likely to expire and he would be glad to get rid of it. I told him we were open to negotiate on behalf of a client. He referred me to Fuller, Smith and Turner. They offered to grant a lease and had our acceptance on September 12 subject to references being satisfactory. We had to give the references of our client, for whom we had done considerable work. He was lessee of premises rented at £1,500 a year, director of Wellington House, of which he was vendor at £83, 000; so I felt perfectly safe he would be accepted for this paltry £200 a year. I did not receive Sir Valentine Grace's letter of resignation. He would not send it to me because I was not a director of the company. He did say on more than one occasion it was no use his attending meetings until the company was further developed. That was while we were negotiating for this property. By the articles of association the company had power to build anywhere in the United Kingdom. The negotiations for the lease of Princes Hall never did end as far as I am aware. The company is still going on. We were doing all the work for nothing and taking shares for our work. The gentleman who was to be our manager was associated with another company that paid 50 per cent, last year. I do not know what the estimate of £5,104 profit per annum is based on I did not make it. I gave Miss Emerson 60 shares for a secondhand motor-car. I took it up to London. It broke down three times going to the station. I wrote Mr. Firth that I could get the car back. That was true. When Mrs. Bartlett called at my office I showed her plans of what Prince's Hall was going to be. I have not. a distinct recollection that she asked me anything about the company; I think she seemed to have discussed this more with Miss Emerson;? he seemed to know all about it. I told her I thought it was going to be a very good thing, that we held a great number of shares in it, that I was a director, and we expected to open at Christmas. I may have told her who the other directors were. I did not give her any printed matter in connection with the company. I think I sent her afterwards a sort of

circular. I told her our shares ought to change hands at £2 if the profits estimated were anywhere near realised. I said it would be unwise for her to sell her shares until Christmas. I said my price was 25s. 1 told her there were 40 outstanding of Miss Emerson's and if she liked she could have those at 23s. in order to absorb that certificate. She said she would consider the matter. She and her husband came and brought £46. I gave her a transfer for 40 fully paid shares. She is a registered holder in the company. The next time I saw her was about a fortnight after, when she called with Miss Emerson. I practically only had conversation at that interview with Miss Emerson. She came to ask where she should send the vulcaniser of the car. I told her 'to send it to the office. Then she asked me if I could sell any more shares as she knew a gentleman who was interested in companies. There was no complaint that day about Mrs. Bartlett's shares. I have had no complaint from her or her husband. I had a letter from Mr. Firth saying he had been consulted by Miss Emerson and Mrs. Bartlett That war, the first intimation I had that they were dissatisfied. When he asked me to find £60 or he would resort to legal proceedings I thought he meant civil proceedings. A month before my arrest I wrote him that I could no doubt procure a client to relieve Mrs. Bartlett of her shares if he so advised me. On October 13 I wrote Mr. Firth that I had bought the car back. That was true. I wrote him on October 14 that I was arranging for Mrs. Bartlett's shares to be taken over. I do not think I answered his letter in reply to that. When arrested I said it was an outrage and blackmail because there was an attempt to get £60 from me. Mr. Bartlett called on me some three weeks after Mr. Firth bad written to me and stated that neither he nor his wife had instructed Mr. Firth to write to me as he was not their solicitor.

Cross-examined. I do not know that I said to Mrs. Bartlett that the hall belonged to the company. I had authority from Fullers to put up one board a month before that. There is a letter, I think Mrs. Bartlett asked me where the books of the company could be seen, and I said they were at our office; in fact, I pointed to a deed box on my safe and said, "There they are," or words to that effect. I made no complaint to Miss Emerson about the car. She knew it had broken down and wrote that she was sorry to hear it. The day after I got the car I borrowed £13 on it from Mr. Ram, the cashier of the bank. I asked him to take it to the Baker Street Bazaar; I wanted a friend of his to examine it. It remained there till after October 21. I told him to get the best price he could for it. It was sold for £31 10s. Mr. Ram deducted the £13 and paid the rest to my credit. I accept responsibility for the circular sent to Mrs. Bartlett. We had three schemes prepared for picture palaces. We sent our builders' to make estimates and had prepared plans and specifications. Prince's Hall is fully equipped as a picture palace with the exception of the operator's box. It was not our fault we did not get the lease of Prince's Hall Sir Valentine Grace did not resign. I could not say if he attended a meeting since January, 1911. I was not a director, so I do not know. He has apparently not signed any minute as chairman after December 9, 1910. I told Miss Emerson and Mrs. Bartlett that the expert's estimate was

too favourable, or words to that effect, and I should be satisfied with a quarter of the amount.

Verdict, Guilty.

Previous convictions were proved.

Sentence: On the first indictment One month on the first count Eight months on the third count; on the second indictment Eight months; all in the second division, and to run concurrently.

Session Paper


(Wednesday, January 31.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-21
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ERT, Emanuel (18, porter), pleaded guilty of obtaining the sum of £15 by false pretences from Thomas Henderson Beale and forging and uttering an order for the payment of sum of £15 with intent to defraud.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at Newington Sessions on June 7, 1910, in the name of Ernest Myers, and several other convictions were proved.

Sentence: Three years' penal servitude.

Session Paper

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-22
VerdictMiscellaneous > unfit to plead
SentenceImprisonment > insanity

Related Material

BAKER, William (44, clerk), was indicted for maliciously publishing certain defamatory libels of and concerning Constance Amellee Sampson and Julius Spier.

Jury were sworn to inquire whether prisoner was sane and able to plead.

SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , medical officer, Brixton Prison. Prisoner has been under my charge since January 11 this year, and I am of opinion that his state of mind is such that he cannot properly appreciate the evidence or properly instruct counsel for his defence.

The jury found prisoner to be insane and unfit to plead, and he was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.

Session Paper

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-23
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

PRATT, Charles George Robert (25, clerk), pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Norah Eileen Mona Grace Desmond Clark, his wife being then alive.

Prisoner was released on own recognisances and those of his mother in £50 each to come up for judgment if called upon.

Session Paper

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-24
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty

Related Material

DAVIS, William (42, labourer), pleaded guilty of maliciously damaging by night a plate-glass window, value £24, the property of W. and T. Avery, Limited.

Sentence: Three months' imprisonment, second division.

Session Paper

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-25
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

TALBOT, John (40, grocer) , attempting to procure the commission by a male person and an act of indecency with another male person.

Verdict, Guilty.

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

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-26
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

BOWDEN, Edward (21, labourer) , robbery with violence upon Auguste Jacobi, and stealing from him £3, his moneys.

Mr. D. Owen Evans prosecuted.

FRITZ HASLAR . At half-past 12 on New Year's night I was walking down the right-hand side of Old Compton Street and saw prosecutor, rather intoxicated. I saw prisoner and two or three more men attack him and go through his pockets. I went towards them; the other men walked away, and prisoner went over to the other side of the road and began running. I ran after him and stopped him, and a policeman came up and took him in charge.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I am sure you were one of the men. Police-constable WILLIAM DUNBAR (232 C Division). Early on New Year's morning I was on duty in Old Compton Street. I saw prisoner talking to two other men and two women at the corner of Dean Street. I requested them to move on, and they went in the direction of Charing Cross Road. I saw the prosecutor come staggering along from the Charing Cross Road, and the two men went on either side of him, while the prisoner stood in a doorway and then came out and struck the prosecutor, who fell down. They all bent over him, and I heard money fall on the footway. I ran towards them, and prisoner walked to the other side of the road; the other men ran away. Prisoner mixed himself up with the crowd of people, but I caught him at the corner of Frith Street, about 20 yards from where the assault took place. He threw down the piece of lead (produced). When charged prisoner said prosecutor was drunk and had made a mistake.

AUGUSTE JACOBI . On the night of January 1 I was returning hom e from a French club of which I am a member. I had been drinking. I remember being stopped by some men who asked me for money and then being struck and falling on my face. I had £3 in gold and six to seven shillings in silver, which was taken from me. I cannot identify any of the men.

EDWARD BOWDEN (prisoner, not on oath). On this night I was with these people and all of a sudden they flew after this man. I did not know what their idea was.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence: Twelve months' hard labour.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-27
VerdictsGuilty > lesser offence
SentencesImprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WILSON, James (22, sailor) , burglary in the dwelling-house of Emily Marshall and stealing therein one overcoat and other articles and the sum of 1s. 9d. in money, her property and money; assaulting Charles Smith, a police officer, in the execution of his duty.

Mr. R. B. C. Sheridan prosecuted.

EMILY MARSHALL , widow. On the night of January 19 I shut up my premises and everything was safe. When I came down in the morning I found the door was open; all the drawers were open, boxes turned out, my writing-desk was turned inside out, and 1s. 9d. was taken out of my purse. I recognise the overcoat and gloves produced. They belong to my son. The hatpin stand and the penknife also produced are my daughter's.

Police-constable JOHN LEWIS, 630 N Division. At 5 a.m. on January 18 I was on duty in St. Peter's Street, N., and saw prisoner carrying the overcoat produced. He went towards Islington Green and I stopped him and asked him where he had got the coat from. He said it was his. I was not satisfied with his replies and took him into custody, when he became very violent and struck me on the right eye. On being searched the other missing property was found in his possession.

Police-constable CHARLES SMITH, 434 N Division. At 5 o'clock on the morning of January 18 I was on duty in Camden Passage, Essex Road, when I heard a police whistle and on running to Charlton Place I saw prisoner struggling with Police-constable Lewis. Prisoner on seeing me struck me a violent blow in the face. I closed with him and assisted to take him into custody. All the way to the police station he was very violent. I saw him carrying the overcoat and at the station I saw the other articles produced found upon him.

Police-constable WILLIAM HALL, N Division. On January 19 1 examined the premises of the prosecutrix and found marks on the area wall where someone had climbed down. The window was all right. The outer door leading into the area could not be bolted, and could be opened from the outside. There was an inside door, but I found no marks on it.

JAMES WILSON (prisoner, not on oath). I never struck the constable. About half-past four on this morning I met a fellow with this coat and he asked me to give him 3s. for it. I gave him half-a-crown. I found the other things in the pockets and he said I could keep them. He went away and then the policeman came up and threatened to kick me, and he hit me with all his force.

Verdict, Guilty of being in unlawful possession.

Several previous convictions were proved.

Sentence: Twelve months' hard labour.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-28
VerdictNot Guilty > directed

Related Material

PARRY, Egerton Musgrave (30, artist) , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, the endorsement on a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £3 6s. 8d., with intent to defraud.

Mr. Spratling prosecuted; Mr. S. W. Clarke defended.

MARY HENRIETTA DUNCAN , 9, Montpellier Grove, Blackheath. On November 30 I drew the cheque (produced) for £3 6s. 8d. on the London County and Westminster Bank in favour of Mrs. Andrews, and posted it to her. It was enclosed in an envelope with a sheet of paper bearing my stamped address, and to the best of my belief I addressed the envelope "175, Wymering Mansions." On December 4 I heard from Mrs. Andrews that she had not received the cheque, so I stopped payment at the bank. The cheque was shown to me three or four days afterwards by Police-sergeant Collins.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Andrews did not live at 175, Wymering Mansions, but used to visit there occasionally. I do not think I made a mistake in the number.

Mrs. RHODA ANDREWS said that she did not receive the cheque.

MIMA TERRY , married woman. I live at 145, Wymering Mansions, Maida Vale. On December 1 or 2 a letter was delivered at my flat, addressed to Mrs. Andrews. I opened it and found it contained the cheque produced. I know prisoner. On the same evening he called on me and I gave him the cheque to repost to the address of the sender. I did not look at the name on the envelope before opening it.

Cross-examined. I believe prisoner has been a lieutenant in the Army and served during the South African War. While there he was dangerously ill, and since his return he has had constant attacks of rheumatism and dysentery. He is sometimes dull and does not appear to understand what is going on. I have never heard that he is in the habit of taking morphia. The number on the envelope was 145. The endorsement on the cheque "A. C. Andrews," is not like prisoner's handwriting.

FREDERICK SURRIDGE , manager to Walter Wainwright, clothier, 26, High Street, Bloomsbury. On December 14 last prisoner came to the shop and bought the suit of clothes (produced) for 30s. He tendered the cheque (produced) in payment. I declined to cash it without a reference He went away and returned in half an hour with a letter from Mr. Jolly, a solicitor, whereupon I let him have the clothes and handed him £1 16s. 8d., the balance of the cheque. On being paid into the bank it was returned marked "not to pay," and the matter was put into the hands of the police.

Cross-examined. I have seen prisoner once before.

Police-sergeant ALFRED COLLINS, E Division. I apprehended prisoner at the Strand Union Infirmary, Edmonton, on December 18 last and conveyed him to Bow Street Station, where he was charged and made no reply.

On the submission of Mr. Clarke on behalf of the prisoner, the charge of forgery was withdrawn from the jury.

(Thursday, February I.)

Verdict, Not guilty.

session paper


(Thursday, February 1.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-29
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ABRAHAMS, Alice (39), pleaded guilty of maliciously casting upon Frederick Dennison a certain corrosive fluid called vitriol, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Prosecutor, who had been living with prisoner, had lost the sight of his left eye and was permanently disfigured. Prisoner had complained to the police of his conduct towards her and there was at the time she committed this offence a summons against him for assault,

which summons she had been willing to withdraw, but prosecutor had expressed his intention of leaving her. She asked that he might be called, stating that he wished to withdraw the charge as it was his fault. Mr. Justice Ridley would not allow this to be done, but stated that he would accept her statement to that effect.

Sentence: Three years' penal servitude.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-30
VerdictsGuilty > lesser offence
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

WHELEN, William (20, hairdresser) , feloniously shooting at Florence Ethel Howard with intent to murder her; feloniously sending, knowing the contents thereof, a letter threatening to murder the said F. E. Howard.

Mr. G. S. Rentoul prosecuted; Mr. Penry Oliver defended.

The first indictment was proceeded with.

FLORENCE ETHEL HOWARD , 32, Horsell Road, Drayton Park. I am unmarried. I have known prisoner eight months; it was an understood thing that we should be married in about two years' time. On the evening of January 8 I received this letter from him (Exhibit 1). I did nothing about it and the next morning I received this letter (Exhibit 2). My mother found it and she went to the police. In consequence of the advice they gave, she and I and Police-sergeant Haynes went and waited outside the registry office. We saw prisoner at a distance. We then went home. I then received this telegram: "Come at once to Upper Street Police Station. Whelen arrested. "Thinking it was genuine, my mother, my brother-in-law, Mr. Pratt, and I went to the police station. We were just getting into the tram when prisoner rushed up to me and put a revolver to my head. I put my arm up and it went off; I cannot say if I hit his arm. He said nothing. I ran into a barber's shop. I did not see anything of him after that. On several occasions before this I had seen him with this revolver (produced). Once or twice before Christmas he threatened to shoot me with it; once he fired it off in my presence.

Cross-examined. He knew the truth about myself before I met him. Since he has been in prison I have written to him twice, but I did not say in them that I knew he only wanted to frighten me. When he presented the revolver at me I said, "Don't be silly, Will. "Last November he made me promise to go and be married in a registry office, although I did not wish to be married like that. I then wrote putting him off, as I thought it better for him to get a position first. When arranging to be married I did not ask him not to tell my mother. He did not want my parents to know. On the Sunday night previous to this I said I would go to the registry office because he said he had already made arrangements, but I wrote him that night, saying I did not want to. He came on the Monday night to see me, but I would not see him; I sent my sister out with a note. Then I received Exhibit 1. My mother objected to the engagement as she did not think he was going on properly, but I do not remember telling him that they were "nagging" me to give him up. I told him I would stick to him if he went on properly and that I would marry him, only I was afraid of my mother stopping me. I do not know

that it was in consequence of the quarrels I had had at home that he was anxious to marry me at once.

Re-examined. He held the revolver in his left hand and held my arm in his right. The revolver was touching my forehead. The bullet did not hit my hat. I was struggling in the road with him and after that the revolver went off.

EMILY HOWARD . The last witness is my daughter. I remember her receiving the letters Exhibits 1 and 2. On reading Exhibit 2 I went to the police. I was ordered to go with her to the registry office and I went with her. Whilst waiting outside I saw prisoner at the end of the street beckon to her. I told my daughter not to go and the detective went down to him. When prisoner saw him he ran away. On arriving home we received a telegram saying that he was arrested. She, I, and Mr. Pratt went to the station. Whilst waiting for a tram prisoner came across the road, took hold of my daughter's arm and pulled her towards him. He then put a revolver up to her head. She raised her arm to strike it off and it went off. He knocked me down on the pavement, but I got up immediately afterwards and saw him do this; they were struggling in the middle of the road. She said, "Don't, Will." I saw her arm hit his arm. I got hold of her and pushed her into a barber's shop. He ran up Fieldway Crescent and he put his arm out and fired again in the direction of Horsell Road, where we live. Mr. Pratt ran after him. I took my daughter home.

Cross-examined. I knew he had been "walking out" with her for about eight months, but I did not object to it in any way. I never knew anything of her going to be married. He had the revolver in his left hand.

JAMES HENRY PRATT . Prosecutrix is my sister-in-law. On the Tuesday afternoon previous to this I met prisoner outside my house. He told me that the people round home had been setting the police on to him. I asked him what he had been up to. I said if he wanted I would come out and hear what he had got to say. He said he wanted to speak to my sister-in-law if she was inside. I said I would let him know if she was inside. I found she was not. I saw nothing more of him until the shooting. I went with her and her mother to the police station in answer to the bogus telegram. While standing waiting for a tram I was hailing a car when I heard a scream. I immediately turned and heard the flash and report of a revolver across-my face. Prisoner was clasping my sister-in-law by the arm, and her mother was raising herself from the pavement. She broke away from him and ran across the road; he followed her. I placed myself between them. Prisoner then ran up Fieldway Crescent and I followed him. When I was within about ten yards from him he half turned and fired again at random. He was stopped by a police-constable, and I went and put my hand on his collar. He told me to take my hand off or there would be trouble. He threw the revolver away, and it was picked up.

Cross-examined. His arm was slightly elevated when he fired the second time; he fired cross-wise into left-hand side of the roadway.

Police-constable PATRICK MCNALLY, 999 N Division. At 4.30 p.m. I was on duty in Fieldway Crescent, when I heard the report of a firearm discharged in Holloway Road. I went in that direction and saw prisoner running towards me, followed by a crowd. Within five yards of me he fired a shot into the roadway, and threw the revolver down in the road. This revolver (produced) was afterwards picked up by a lady, who handed it to me. Prisoner said, "All right, officer; I will not give you any trouble." I took him to the station. On the charge being read over to him, he said, "All right."

Detective-inspector ARTHUR HAMBLEDON, Upper Street Police Station. At 4.41 p.m. on January 9 prisoner was brought in. This revolver (handed to me by the constable) is a six-chambered quick-firing revolver, of the Bull-dog type; it contained three live and two spent cartridges. It is in perfect condition, and can be cocked. Prisoner had evidently been drinking, and he looked rather strange about the eyes. We never sent this telegram (Exhibit 3); he said himself that he had sent it.

Detective-sergeant GEORGE HAYNES, N Division. In consequence of a complaint by the prosecutrix on January 9 I went with her and her mother to the registry office. About 150 yards away I saw prisoner coming from the direction of Liverpool Road. I walked towards him and he turned round and made off. He got away eventually.

Cross-examined. I produce some letters found on him from the prosecutrix; I cannot say what they contain. He has never been previously charged with any offence.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I had something to drink and tie letter I wrote was only to frighten Florrie and when I pointed the revolver at her I had no intention to fire. My finger was not on the trigger. The revolver went off as I was running up Field-way Crescent The second time I fired towards the ground when I got within the constable's reach, and I threw the revolver to the ground. Mr. Pratt said to the constable, 'It will take three men to take him. He has got another gun in his pocket.' That was false. I am very sorry at what occurred and I promise it will never occur again. The letter I wrote her was only just to frighten her; that was all. The girl had fully agreed to go to the registry office with me two months ago and kept postponing it owing to her mother. Nothing of this would have occurred if it had not been for her mother and other people interfering. I have no witnesses here."


WILLIAM WHELEN (prisoner, on oath). I have known prosecutrix about 10 months and we were engaged. In November last in conesquence of what she told me about her position at home I made arrangements to be married in a registry office on November 30, but she kept postponing it because she said her mother was wanting her to give me up. (She said she would not do so. I told her she would have to make up her mind and she agreed on the Sunday before this happened to be

married on the 9th as long as I did not take her away from her home for 12 months. On the Monday I made the necessary arrangements but that night she sent me a note by her sister when I went to call. I wrote her as I did only to frighten her. I went to the registry office the following afternoon to meet her. When I saw the detective I ran away. I sent the telegram, as it was the only means I had of getting to see her. I happened to be going through the Holloway Road, when I accidentally saw them waiting for a tram. I simply pulled the revolver out of my pocket with my right hand and put it on a line with my shoulder within a yard from her. She put up her hand and said, "Oh, don't, Will." Her mother then led her into a barber's shop. The revolver did not go off until about four minutes afterwards, when I was about 300 yards up the road; it went off in the air. The second shot went off as I was throwing the revolver to the ground; I fired it as I threw it. I have never threatened her with it before; I once showed it to her as I was putting it into another pocket. I had no intention of doing her any harm.

Cross-examined. I bought the revolver about 18 months ago. It is true I wrote in the letter: "Otherwise I mean to punish you severely and I don't care what it means "; "You will drive me to commit murder "; and "It is now either murder or marriage "; but I only wrote that to frighten her. She was perfectly willing to marry me. I did not have my finger on the trigger when I pointed it at her, and it was impossible for it to have gone off. (To the Court.) It is true I could have frightened her without using live cartridges.

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

It was stated that since last December prisoner had been discharged from several situations as a barman for dishonesty. Since he had been awaiting trial he had written prosecutrix letters containing bidden threats. He had been in the Army.

Sentence: Three years' penal servitude.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-31
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceMiscellaneous > sureties

Related Material

JONES, Henry John (19, soldier), was indicted for and charged on the coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Arthur George Chown; a second count of the indictment was for unlawfully assaulting Arthur George. Chown, thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm.

Mr. J. P. Grain prosecuted; Mr. C. M. Pitman defended.

At the conclusion of Mr. Grain's opening Mr. Justice Ridley stated that he had decided, under the circumstances, to discharge prisoner on his awn recognisances. Upon this, prisoner withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty of manslaughter. The colonel of his regiment, it was stated, was willing to take him back into the regiment, and on it appearing that this course could be taken provided no sentence of imprisonment were passed, Mr. Justice Ridley discharged prisoner on his own recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon, recommending that he should be taken back to the regiment.


(Thursday, February 1.)

ALEXANDER, Alec (54, musician), who pleaded guilty last Sessions (see page 422) of larceny and fraudulent conversion, was brought up for judgment.

Sentence: Six months' hard labour, to date from the first day of last Sessions.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-33
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

HEATH, Henry (29, dealer), and BAILEY, William (30, carman) , both stealing one set of harness, one brougham, 1, 846 rings, the goods of Lawson, Ward and Gamage, Limited.

[Refer to trial of William Lee and Chris Hagan at the November Sessions, page 84.]

Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. Roland Oliver prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended Heath; Mr. H. W. Wickham defended Bailey.

Detective-sergeant ALFRED GROSSE, Y Division, proved plan of the neighbourhood of Westbury Avenue and Boundary Road, Wood Green. ERNEST WILLIAM WEDGE, 72, Trinity Road, Wood Green, traveller to Lawson, Ward, and Gamage, Limited, 26, Clerkenwell Road, E.C., wholesale manufacturing jewellers. I drive about in a brougham which contains large quantities of jewellery. On Tuesday, September 5, as is my custom on every Tuesday, I drove in the neighbourhood of Wood Green. At about one o'clock I went to my house for dinner, and left Booker, the driver, in charge of the brougham, which contained 1, 846 gold rings, 970 pairs of earrings, 842 bracelets, 607 necklets, 1, 117 brooches, 1, 180 pendants, 402 scarf pins, and other jewellery, packed in five trunks, the value being £3,280. On the near side of the brougham there was a Yale lock, and a bolt on the inside of the offside door; the windows had green blinds pulled down. That brougham could only be opened without the key by breaking the window, putting one's hand in, and pulling the bolt back. At 2.30 that day Booker came to my house without the brougham, and made a communication to me. At 3.30 I saw the brougham empty at Wood Green Police Station; the offside window had been broken and the door unbolted. About a fortnight afterwards I identified two leather cases and jewellery to the value of 15s. (produced) as being part of the stolen property.

GEORGE BOOKER , coachman. I was employed by T, Brickland, Limited, Gough Street, Gray's Inn Road, to drive a brougham for Lawson, Ward and Gamage. On September 5 I was driving the last witness; at 1 p.m. I left him at his house, ate my lunch outside the "Prince of Wales" public-house, in Trinity Road, and then went to a public lavatory at the foot of Jolly Butchers Hill, at the corner of Lordship Lane. I took the bit out of the horse's mouth, put the nosebag on, locked the wheel with a Yale lock, and went down into the lavatory, leaving the brougham in charge of a man whom I did not know. When I came up six or eight minutes afterwards the brougham and the man had gone. I informed the police and then went to Mr. Wedge's house. I know Bailey; two years ago he was

employed with me as cab washer at T. Bricklands. In 1910 I saw him driving a Royal Mail van after he had left Bricklands. I do not know Heath.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. Bailey has always borne a good character; had he been outside the lavatory I should have left the brougham in his charge.

HENRY DANIEL CHESSER , 182, High Road, Wood Green, blacksmith. At about 1.30 p.m. on September 5 I saw Heath coming towards my forge along a road which has no name, which leads from the High Road, Wood Green, towards Lordship Lane. He was wearing a high hat and a coachman's coat with bright buttons. He came within 10 yards of me; I took especial notice of him because he was lame in the right leg. He went on to Lordship Lane and I lost sight of him. Next morning I spoke to a detective; on Christmas Day I picked Heath out from a row of other men as being the man I had seen. I have not seen him walk since September 5, and did not pick him out because he was lame.

Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. I first noticed him when he was 30 yards away. I have since seen Inspector Neil several times. I saw in the "Mirror" that the coachman had got a limp. I daresay there were three or four men as big as Heath in the row of men. ROSETTA MAUD MURRAY, 27, Sandford Avenue, Wood Green. On September 5 between 1 and 2 p.m. I was standing at the top of Lordship Lane, opposite the lavatory, when I noticed a brougham on the other side of the road. By the side of the brougham I saw two men whom I now know as Lee and the prisoner Heath. At the last trial I identified Lee, who was convicted. Heath was dressed in a livery and a tall silk hat, and was standing on the pavement conversing with Lee. Lee then handed something to Heath; Heath mounted the box and drove off in the direction of Tottenham; Lee went into the lavatory. I noticed the brougham because it was drawn upon the wrong side of the road, and I was trying to cross. On Christmas Day I picked out Heath at Wood Green Police Station from a number of other men.

To Mr. Purcell. A double row of tram lines runs down Lordship Lane; there was traffic in the road. When I first saw Lee and Heath they were just beyond the horse's head, walking towards the brougham, which was then between us. Heath got on the box, looked at me, and drove in the direction in which the horse's head was turned.

Mr. Purcell proposed to read the witnesses evidence before the Common Serjeant as reported in the Sessions Paper.

The Recorder: You cannot read that, it does not profess to give everything the witness says.

Cross-examination continued. I saw the brougham for two or three minutes. When I picked Heath out there were only two short men in the row.

EMMA BUSE , wife of William Francis Buse, printer, 178, Westbury Avenue. On September 5, at about 2 to 2.15 p.m., I was in my garden when I saw a brougham with green blinds coming along Boreham Road from the direction of Lordship Lane. A man in livery

and a silk hat was driving; by his side was Lee. The brougham went past my house and stopped at the corner of Boreham Road and West-bury Avenue. Lee got out, crossed the road and put on a pair of brown gloves, while the brougham went on, passed my house again, and disappeared in the direction from which it had come. A four-wheeled cab then passed; Lee put up his finger, it stopped, he got in, and the cab drove on after the brougham. I afterwards picked out Hagan as the driver of the brougham, Lee as being the man who sat by his side; on January 1 I picked out Bailey as being the driver of the cab.

To Mr. Purcell. Although Hagan was acquitted I still think he was the driver of the brougham. He had red hair, and was not at all like Heath.

To Mr. Wickham. I remembered Bailey on January 1 because the other trial had kept him on my mind. I did not at first pick him out because I did not want to give evidence; I had been ill—I recognised him at once.

ANNIE MORAN , servant to Dr. Taylor, 2, Stanley Villas, Boundary Road, Wood Green. At about 2.20 p.m. on September 5 I was looking through the bay window of the dining-room when I saw a brougham standing on the opposite side of Boundary Road; a four-wheeled cab from the direction of Boundary Road passed the window, re-passed, and drew up behind the brougham. The two vehicles were then about the length of this court from me. Bailey was driving the cab. When the cab stopped Bailey got down; he and Lee, whom I saw walking on the pavement, each took a case, like those produced, out of the brougham and put it into the cab. Lee got into the cab and shut the door; Bailey got on the box and drove away, leaving the brougham there. I only saw two men. On January 1 I picked Bailey out at Wood Green Police Station.

To Mr. Wickham. After I had identified Bailey I was asked to turn my head away and give a description of him, but I said I could not do so because I had not looked at him much.

Re-examined. I gave a full description of Bailey before I picked him out.

THOMAS UNWIN , 77, Chesterfield Gardens, Harringay, handy man. About 2 p.m. on September 5 I was walking along Boundary Road when I saw a brougham with the horse's head facing Lordship Lane and a cab just behind it. The brougham window was broken. I saw Bailey and another man take about four boxes out of the brougham and put them into the cab. On January 1 I picked Bailey out from a number of other men as being one of the men I had seen.

To Mr. Wickham. When I picked Bailey out I had a little doubt as to whether he was the man. (To the Judge.) I picked him out because I thought he was the man.

Police-constable JOHN HALL, 83 TR, stationed at Wood Green. At 3.20 p.m. on September 5 I found a horse and brougham wandering unattended in Boundary Road; I took it to Wood Green Police Station, where it was identified by Wedge. The brougham was empty.

the glass panel in the offside door was 'broken, and a broken chain was hanging from the fore wheel.

Police-constable ARTHUR SMITH, 539 J, stationed at Victoria Park, Hackney. At 6.30 on September 7 I found a number of leather cases, a number of small cardboard cases, a few brooches and earrings, and a number of tickets (produced) thrown on a dust shoot on Hackney Marshes.

Detective-sergeant THOMAS RATCLIFFE, N Division. Three or four days before September 5 I saw the two prisoners in company with Lee once inside, and once outside the "Three Brewers" public-house, Islington; the "Three Brewers" public-house is a long way from Lordship Lane. Two or three days after the robbery I saw the two prisoners in company with Lee going into the "Red House" public-house, Essex Road; they had a drink together. On September 15 I followed Heath and Lee, and they went into a public house together, Lee was arrested on September 19; I did not see Heath or Bailey from September 15 till after they were arrested, although I was looking for them.

To Mr. Purcell. When I saw Heath and Bailey on one occasion there were three other men with them, and on another occasion there was one other man. I am a plain clothes officer. When I followed these men I was not disguised; in some neighbourhoods the detectives are better known than the uniformed officers.

To Mr. Wickham. I made no note of this.

Detective JOHN BUCKINGHAM, Y Division. In consequence of instructions I had received on September 14 I kept observation on 23, Church Path, Stoke Newington, which is the prisoner Heath's home. He came out at 10.15 a.m. I followed him to the "Three Brewers" public-house and four other public-houses; he was spending money very freely and buying drinks for others. Next day he came out at mid-day. I followed him to the "Freemason's" public-house, where he remained for three hours drinking very heavily. That evening I saw him drinking at the "Oporto Stores" public-house. He left there at ten and went to the "Three Brewers" public-house, where he met Lee and three other men. I did not see him again until he was arrested. His right knee is stiff and he walks with a limp.

To Mr. Purcell. Hagan had a slight limp; he was ginger-haired and nothing like Heath. (To Mr. Wickham.) I know nothing about Bailey.

(Friday, February 2.)

Detective RICHARD JUBY, Y Division, corroborated.

To Mr. Wickham. I know nothing about Bailey.

Detective CHARLES WESLEY, G Division. On May 23, I think, of last year I saw the two prisoners together in Clerkenwell Police Court while a case not affecting them was going on. The case was remanded and on May 27 I saw them together conversing outside the Court.

To Mr. Wickham. It was the case of a man named Wilkinson who was afterwards discharged. I made no note of this meeting.

MARY HEATH , 23, Church Path, Stoke Newington, widow. Prisoner Heath, who is my son, has been living with me. On a Tuesday or Wednesday in the middle of September he went away; I did not see him again till about ten days before Christmas, when he returned to live with me. I received a postcard from him when he was away, but no address.

To Mr. Purcell. My son frequently left me in the summer and told me he was going to race meetings. I was not at all surprised when he went away that time; he told me he was going to race meetings at Manchester and Southampton. When he came home from attending race meetings he sometimes had won some money. He paid me 10s. a week.

EMILY WALKER , wife of Robert Walker, 78, Brewery Road, Islington, tenement house. About November 23 Bailey and his wife took three rooms on the ground of the same house as I live in. At about 6 p.m. on December 28 he moved out with his furniture. During the time he was there Heath called on him three times. Although I never saw Bailey doing any work, he seemed comfortably off. I afterwards picked Heath out as the man who came to see Bailey.

To Mr. Wickham. The evening would be the usual time for people in Bailey's station of life to move. He had ordinary furniture.

BERNARD HARTLEY , secretary to T. Brickland, Limited, Gray's Inn Road, jobmasters. My firm let out the brougham which was stolen. When I came into the employment of the firm between five and six years ago Bailey was employed as a washer; he used to drive occasionally. He left three years ago. Since last May I have frequently seen Bailey and Heath together in a public-house near our yard, and elsewhere. I did not see them after August.

To Mr. Purcell. As a rule a good many men hang about the yard looking for work. Bailey and Heath were not a solitary pair; they were usually with two other men.

To Mr. Wickham. We have nothing against Bailey's character except that he did not do his work satisfactorily.

Re-examined. Heath and Bailey were always seen with the same two men.

Inspector ALFRED SCHOLES, Y Division. In the evening of December 24 I saw Heath at Newington Green. I said, "Heath, I want to speak to you." He said, "Yes?" I said, "I am a police inspector, and shall arrest you on suspicion of being concerned with a man named Lee in custody, and other persons not in custody, in stealing on September 5 last a horse and brougham containing a quantity of jewellery, from Wood Green. I shall take you to Wood Green Police Station." He said, "Lee?" I said, "Yes." He said, "All right, I will go with you to the station." I took him to the station and repeated the charge to him. He said, "I did not say 'Lee,' I said 'I would go with you to the police station.' I found £4 10s. in gold and 11s. 6d. in silver on him. Hagan was not at all like Heath—there is no comparison.

To Mr. Purcell. When Hagan was tried Mrs. Buse and Mrs. Bannell, 175, Westbury Avenue, picked out Hagan as the driver of the

brougham, who was dressed in livery, and gave evidence at the trial that they had seen the cab and the brougham together in Boundary Road. Mrs. Bannell was not shown Heath. It has never before been suggested that there were two drivers to the brouhgam; at the previous trial it was never suggested that Hagan drove the brougham from the lavatory. I now suggest that there were two drivers in livery on the brougham. Chesser was shown the row with Lee and Hagan in it. Three or four people were shown the row; two picked out people who were not prisoners. Nobody picked out Hagan as the driver at the lavatory. Mrs. Murray saw Hagan, but said he was not the man she saw in livery at the lavatory. Mr. Watson said he had seen the man in livery at the lavatory, but he could not pick him out.

To Mr. Wickham. Mrs. Bannell saw the row, but was unable to identify Bailey. Besides the witnesses in this case, two other people unsuccessfully saw the row with Bailey in it.

Re-examined. Mrs. Murray and Mr. Chesser only picked out Heath.

Detective-sergeant FRANCIS HALL, Y Division. On December 25 I saw Heath in the cells, and said, "You are going to be put up for identificatin now." He said "All right, I am not charged yet." He was then put in a row in the yard with 13 other men of similar appearance The witnesses were then in a room with the blinds down, and there was no possibility of their seeing him being put into the row. Heath was then picked out by Chesser and Murray. I then called him out of the row and he walked up to me. He said, "Those people all swear I am the man because I am the only one left." I said, "The only persons who will give evidence of identification are those who picked you out when you stood in the row." He said, "Yes, but what about my walk"—he was then walking with a limp. Witnesses did not see him walk before they picked him out.

To Mr. Purcell. Heath is about 5 ft. 10 in. There were no men in that row under 5 ft. 6in. (Witness corroborated the cross-examination of the last witness as to the attempted identifications of Heath.)

THOMAS EDWIN JOSEPH MARKET , licensee, "City of York" public-house, King's Cross Road. Bailey is a customer at my public-house. On December 27 he asked me to take care of a bag containing £31 in gold; I did so. Next day he drew £1 and on the following Friday his wife drew £5. After his arrest I gave the remaining £25 to Inspector Neil.

To Mr. Wickham. Bailey did not tell me he wanted me to take care of the money because he was moving. It is a common thing for publicans to take care of customers' money.

GEORGE HENRY BROWN , 130, York Road, Islington, builder. On December 28, at 10.30 a.m., prisoner arranged to take a room from me and to move in on the following Saturday. At dinner-time he again saw me and asked if he could move in the same night. I went to the landlord of the house at which he was then living and, finding his references were satisfactory, allowed him to come in that night. He paid 4s. 6d. a week for one unfurnished room.

To Mr. Wickham. When he asked me to let him come in that night he said he was in no hurry if it was not convenient.

Detective-sergeant THOMAS POWELL. At 8.15 p.m. on December 31 I saw Bailey in Copenhagen Street, Caledonian Road. I told him I was going to arrest him for being concerned with Lee and Heath in stealing a horse, a brougham, and jewellery to the value of about £3,000 at Wood Green in September last. He said, "I suppose I shall have to go with you. I do not know either Lee or Heath." On the way to the station he said, "I suppose someone has put me away." 1 have had a row with my brother, it might be him." In August and September I have seen Bailey and Lee together. I did not see Bailey from the end of August or the beginning of September until I arrested him; 1 had been looking for him.

To Mr. Wickham. Bailey at the police court denied saying that someone or perhaps his brother had put him away. York Road is a quarter of a mile from Bailey's previous lodgings.

Divisional-Inspector ARTHUR NEIL, Y Division. About 7 p.m. on December 25 I saw Heath at Wood Green Police Station. I told him I was the inspector in charge of this case, and said, "You have been identified by two witnesses, Mrs. Murray and Mr. Chesser, of having been concerned with William Lee, already under sentence, in stealing a horse and brougham containing jewell valued at over £3,000, the property of Lawson Ward and Gamage, He said, "I do not know Lee; I do to know anything about it. The witnesses only picked me out because of my walk." When charged he made no replay. On December 31 I saw Bailey at Caledonian Road Police Station. I told him I was an inspector of police, and he had been brought there on my instructions for being concern with William Lee, in custody and undergoing sentence, and a man named Heath, and he would be detained on suspicion of being concerned with them in stealing on September 5 jewels to the value of over £3,000 from the bottom of Jolly Butchers Hill, Wood Green, and that he would be then taken to Wood Green and put up for identification the next day. He said, "I do not know Heath; I do not know Lee; I have never been to Wood Green." I said, "I propose going to your house to see if you have anything there—you have given your address at 21, Collier Street, but I know you live at King's Cross." Prisoner had previously given the address of 21, Collier Street. He said, "I only stayed there last night with my wife; you will find nothing there. I have been living at Collier Street, my mother's address." I said, "I have reason to believe you have some money." He said, "I have not, and you will find none, I have had to pawn things to live." I went to his room at 130, York Road, and found there furniture apparently newly purchased. His wife was dressed in new clothes. I then went to the "City of York" public-house and received bag containing £25 (produced) from Markey. I returned to Caledonian Road Police Station and said to Bailey, "I have received this bag and £25 in gold from Mr. Markey at the "City of York" public-house. He said you deposited with him £31; £1 was given to you a day or two afterwards and £5 to your wife on Thursday or Friday

last." He said, "It is quite right, I will account for it at the proper time." Next morning he was identified by three witnesses.

To Mr. Wickham. I should say the value of the whole of the furniture would be £30. I asked Bailey to give me the particulars as to the purchase of these articles; he refused, and I have not been able to make any inquiries. I asked Bailey if he could tell me where he had worked. He said he had been at work at a job-master's up to last May; since then he has followed no regular employment. At the time when he denied knowing Lee or Heath, Lee was a convict, and Heath had been arrested.

WILLIAM SPERRING , 69, Lever Street, Castle Road, yard foreman to James Allen and Co., mail contractors. From October, 1906, to September, 1907, Heath drove for my firm. From November, 1910, to May, 1911, Heath drove for my firm.

To Mr. Wickham. Bailey came to us with a good character and he gave us every satisfaction. He left in order to get a motor license.

JAMES BAUSER , manager to Charles Webster, Limited, 6, Whitechapel Road, job-masters. Heath was employed by our firm from September, 1910, to January, 1911, to drive a traveller's brougham. He used to wear a livery and a tall hat. That livery should have been returned to the firm when he left our employment, but I could not say whether he actually did return it.

(Defence of Heath.)

HENRY HEATH (prisoner, on oath). I am a commission agent; I attend racecourses during the summer. When I am in London I live with my mother at 23, Church Path. I know nothing about this crime; I was not the coachman seen by Chesser or Mrs. Murray; I knew Lee and Bailey; I might have been in their company at the public-houses, as the officers state. I denied knowing Lee because I had read of his conviction in the newspapers. I said nothing about Bailey. In July and August I had been away as usual following race meetings, and I won a lot of money betting. On September 5 I think I was at the Newmarket races. I cannot be sure; I keep no diary or anything to refresh my memory. I also went away to racecourses in the middle of September, as my mother says.

Cross-examined. I have known Lee since the Coronation. I was not spending money more freely in September than at any other time. The officers must be mistaken when they say I was spending money freely. I think I went away before Lee was arrested on September 19. I cannot say whether I was drinking with Lee a few days before September 5 as the officer says. I might not have been at Newmarket on September 5—I cannot say what race meeting I was attending at that time. I denied knowing Lee because I thought I should be charged with the crime if it was known that I knew one of the persons engaged in the crime. I did not deny knowing Bailey. In September I went racing with some other men—we shared what we won. I cannot mention the name of any of those men.

(Defence of Bailey.)

JOHN SPEAG , auctioneer to Messrs. Henry Ward and Sons, 407, Edgware Road, horse dealers. On August 8, 1910, my firm sold a pony and harness to "Mr. William Bailey, 384, Liverpool Road." That is entered in our books, but I cannot identify the prisoner Bailey as being the man.

ARTHUR JOHN FINCHAM , manager, Essex Bedding Company, Essex Road. On September 26, 1911, we sold a bolster, two pillows, and a bedstead, value £2 10s. to Bailey, 44, Queens' bury Street, Islington. I cannot identify the prisoner Bailey as being the man.

WILLIAM BAILEY (prisoner, on oath). I have always borne a good character. When I was arrested I gave my address as 21, Collier (Street because I did not want to be shown up before my new landlord. 1 was arrested three days after I moved into 130, York Road. My parents live at 21, Collier Street; I gave that address because I have occasionally stayed there. I have known Heath for 18 months; I have been in Lee's company about four times. I denied knowing either of them because Lee had been convicted of this robbery and Heath had been arrested. I said I knew nothing about the robbery meaning I had taken no part in it; I had read an account of it in the papers. When Sergeant Powell arrested me he said, "You nave got some nice kind friends round you." I made no reply. When we got to the station he repeated that observation. I said, "I have got no kind pals round me. I have had a few words with my brother "; but I said nothing about his putting me away for the robbery. When Inspector Neil showed me the money I said, "Yes, that is my money and I will account for it at the proper time." I have always been careful of my money and have always had from £30 to £40. I once had a grocery business at 129, Cloudesley Road, Islington, and I have been a horse dealer. I left my money with Mr. Markey for safety as I was moving. I have lately been costering the streets and my wife has earned good money nursing. My furniture is worth from £6 to £7. I bought the articles which the witnesses have deposed to. I know nothing about the robbery; the witnesses who have identified me must be mistaken.

Cross-examined. About a fortnight before Christmas I and my wife stayed a few nights at my parents' house. At that time I also had the rooms in Brewery Road. If I had a quarrel with my wife I used to stay at my parents' house for a little time, away from her. I have known Lee about four or five months. The officers say they saw me together five or six times with Lee, but they must be wrong, because I was only with him about four times. After the robbery I did not go away; the officers could have arrested me if they had wished. Sergeant Powell cannot be telling the truth when he says he looked for me but could not find me. I did not hear of Heath's arrest until Sergeant Powell told me when he arrested me. When I was arrested I had not seen Heath since about a fortnight before Christmas, and I did not know anything about him. I did not leave £35 with Markey because Heath was arrested. My brother used to live with me in

Brewery Road; I quarrelled with him and he left; and then I left Brewery Road because I did not want three rooms for me and my wife, and the landlord preferred that we should go rather than take less than three rooms. Another reason was that I did not like those lodgings. I did not move because Heath was arrested. I did not move in a great hurry. Inspector Neil said, "I am going to search your house "; he did not say, "I have reason to believe you have some money." I did not say, "I have had to pawn things to live on." That would not have been true. I do not know where I was on September 5; I may have been costering.

JACK RUSSELL , 11, Victoria Crescent, St. Anne's Road, Tottenham, bus and brake proprietor. I have known prisoner all his life; he was in my employment for some time. I have trusted him with money; his character is that of a thoroughly honest and straightforward man. He is a straight man with regard to drink. He always had £1 or £2 in his pocket. I should not be surprised to hear he had £40.

(Monday, February 5.)

Verdict, Guilty.

Heath confessed to having been convicted on February 9, 1904, at North London Sessions, receiving nine months' hard labour for stealing ties from his employer. Other convictions proved: January 18, 1908, Bow Street Police Court, three months' hard labour for larceny; November 16, 1909, County of London Sessions, nine months' hard labour, for possessing house-breaking instruments by night. Heath was stated to have followed no regular employment since February, 1911, and to have been associating with thieves. Heath and Bailey were stated to have been well acquainted with the habits of Mr. Wedge. Bailey had followed no regular employment since May, 1911, and had been associating with Lee and Heath.

Sentences: Heath, Three years' penal servitude; Bailey, Twenty months' hard labour.


(Thursday, February 1.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-34
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

SANDY, James (40, carman) , attempting to carnally know Florence Annie Maud Appleton, a girl under the age of 13 years.

Verdict, Guilty.

The police stated that prisoner was a hard-working man and bore a good character.

Sentence: Six months' imprisonment, second division.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-35
VerdictGuilty > unknown
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

WESTFALL, Arthur (otherwise Maurice Murphy) (44, seaman), and BARRON, James (27, coal trimmer), robbery with violence upon Charles Foile, and stealing from him 4s., his moneys.

Mr. Taylor prosecuted; Mr. St. John McDonald defended Westfall.

Police-constable Albert Hayward, 355 K. On January 3, at 11.30 p.m., I was on duty in East India Dock Road, where I saw prosecutor, who passed me. About 30 yards further on he was stopped by three men, two of whom were these prisoners. Westfall struck prosecutor who fell to the ground, and Westfall also fell down. As I came up I saw Westfall take his right hand from prosecutor's right-hand waistcoat pocket. Barron was holding prosecutor's left arm. I went for them and the third man ran away. Barron also ran away, but as I knew him I said, "All right, Barron, I know you; you can go." I detained Westfall, and just then another policeman came up and Barron ran right into his arms. We took them to the police-station.

Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. There were a number of people about. The place was well lighted and I could see distinctly. I have no doubt the prisoners are two of the men who hustled the prosecutor and I am certain it was Westfall who struck him and afterwards put his hand in his waistcoat pocket.

Police-constable WILLIAM HOLMES, 698 K, deposed to arresting prisoner Barron and assisting Hayward to take prisoner to the policestation. When charged Barron said, "I know nothing about it. Westfall said, "Is any 4s. found on me?" Only 2 1/2 d. was found on him.

CHARLES FOILE , potman, 25, Beaumont Road, Plaistow. On January 3, about midnight, I was in East India Dock Road when three men pounced on me and went down my pockets. One of them struck me under the jaw. I could not say which one it was. Prisoners are two of the men who pounced on me. I suffer from heart disease and the result of the blow was that I was laid up for a week. I lost two 2s. pieces from the pocket of my waistcoat, which I was wearing under a Cardigan jacket.

To Mr. McDonald. I had had a drink or two, but was not drunk. When Hayward came up after the assault he asked me if I had lost anything and I said "Yes, 4s." I did not say I had lost a watch and chain. I am sure prisoner's are two of the men who assaulted me because they never had a chance of getting away. I did not strike Westfall.

HENRY O'BRIEN , Divisional Surgeon, I happened to be in the police-station on the night in question and saw prosecutor. He appeared to be in a dazed condition and ill. I could not say whether he was drunk or not, because I did not examine him then. I examined him two days afterwards by the magistrate's order and found a small lump and some discolouration on the jaw. I found his heart was in a very bad state and such a blow as he states he received might have been attended with very serious consequences.

To Mr. McDonald. If prosecutor drank a great deal it would be very bad for him, but still a violent blow would be very serious.


ARTHUR WESTFALL (prisoner, on oath). I produce my seaman's discharge book from November, 1909, to December, 1911, showing my character to be "very good." A discharge book was found upon me when I was arrested belonging to Maurice Murphy, which I took from him while he was fighting in Commercial Road on December 23, and because I would not give my name the police jumped to the conclusion that it was my book and called me Maurice Murphy. On this night inquestion I had been working with a man named Today on a ship called the Rufus till 11 o'clock. We left together and, walking across the centre of the bridge, we went into the urinal. As I came out I met four or five people and one of them, the prosecutor, punched me on the nose. I struck back. Then I was knocked down by Police-constable Hayward, and when I got up he said, "You've got that man's watch and chain." I said, "You have made a great mistake." Then he took me and the other prisoner, one in each hand, and said, "You will have to come to the station. "At the station we were charged with stealing 6d., till the police whispered to the prosecutor, who said that he had lost 4s., and then we were charged with robbing him of two 2s. pieces. They would not let Today into the station and at the police court I told the magistrate I had him as a witness, but he would not let me call him. I have never seen Barron before. I was not one of the men who pounced on prosecutor or had any hand in robbing him.

Cross-examined. When prosecutor punched me on the nose it bled, but I forgot to point it out to the police. I had no chance, because I was knocked about so. After I got to the station the inspector hit me across the face with the charge book and knocked me down. I always fulfil my engagements unless I have a proper excuse; I have 23 years' discharges, which will prove that.

(Friday, February 2.)

Judge Rentoul said that, having regard to the attacks which had been made by the prisoner Westfall on the conduct of the police, and the Magistrate in not allowing him to call a witness, be thought it necessary that the jury should be in possession of information as to his previous career.

ARTHUR WESTFALL (prisoner on oath). Further cross-examined. I remember being convicted at this court on July 7, 1906, for stealing from the person and sentenced to four years' penal servitude. (Several other convictions dating from 1897 were admitted by the prisoner.)

Inspector HARRY SMITH, K division. I took the charge when prisoners were brought to the station. Barron gave his name; Westfall said, on being! asked his name, "Find out," but allowed himself to be charged as" Maurice Murphy."

JAMES BARRON (prisoner, not on oath). I want to ask you, gentlemen, if the constable thought I was guilty why he sent me away. When

prosecutor was walking behind to the station he said he never saw any struggle and never saw me either.

Verdict, Guilty.

Previous convictions were proved against Barron.

Sentences: Westfall, eighteen months' hard labour; Barron, four months' hard labour.


(Friday, February 2.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-36
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence
SentenceImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

SCANNELL, James (42, shoemaker), was indicted for and charged on the coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Thomas Fenton Churchman.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Graham-Campibell prosecuted; Mr. Ashby defended.

EDWIN THOMAS ENSOR , registered medical practitioner, 2, Galborne Road, N. Kensington. About 10.45 p.m. on December 30 a Mrs. Wise and deceased came to my house. He was suffering from a wound situated about midway between the naval and the pubic bone in the central line of the abdomen about three-quarters of an inch in length, transverse in direction. There was no external bleeding, but the clothing was blood-stained to a slight extent. From his symptoms I gathered the wound had gone through the abdominal wall, reaching the abdominal cavity and there injured important vessels from which there was internal hemorrhage. He was very ill and I sent for the police. He was removed to the hospital. He had nothing in his hand.

Cross-examined. The wound had the appearance of having been caused by a very sharp instrument, but it would require a certain amount of force, because the tissues there are somewhat of a fibrous character.

HENRY CHURCHMAN , road sweeper, 100, Church Street, Croydon. On January 1 I went to the hospital and saw the body of deceased, my nephew. He was 42 years old. I last saw him alive on December 26; he came to my house at 9.45 p.m. and he slept the night. He was fireman on board a ship and had latterly been passing under the name of "Thomas White" He is a married man. Jeans is not his wife.

Cross-examined. He lived with Jeans some years, and about a year ago he deserted her. (To the Court.) This last year he was abroad. I do not know prisoner.

LOUISA JEANS , single woman. I had known deceased about eight years; he was a gardener in the same place where I was a servant. I lived with him for some years; I did not know he was married at first I have had three children by him. In May, 1910, we went to live at 56, Arlington Road, Camden Town, where we made the acquaintance of prisoner, who was living there also, as a single man. In November deceased left me with the three children to keep and after a

time prisoner and I lived together. I had a child by him. On December 26 we were living at 8, Bosworth Road. Prisoner is a bootmaker and he kept his tools in the sitting-room, which is the front room ground floor. From that window you can see anyone standing on the left of the steps outside the front door. In the early part of the evening of December 26 deceased called when prisoner and I were in. I opened the door and he asked me if I wanted to see him. I went out with him; prisoner from the window could see us going down the steps. I was with deceased rather more than 30 minutes; I parted fom him at the top of the road. I returned to prisoner and told him what had happened, and that deceased had said he was going away that night and we should never see him again. He was rather upset at his having come. Things went on as usual until December 30; he was keeping sober. At 10 p.m. on that day a knock came at the door, which we did not answer—not for any particular reason. Then came a rat-a-tat, which he answered; as far as I know he did not know who it was when he went. The next thing I heard was a woman saying, "Scannell, take it in." I went out and saw Mrs. Patterson asking prisoner to go indoors. I also saw Mrs. Wise and Mrs. Collins, but not deceased. Prisoner came in with the shoemaker's knife (produced) in his hand; it was usually kept on his bench in the front room with his other tools. I do not know how he came to have it in his hand; the knife would be only a little distance from him when he got up to open the door. On his coming into the house he said he should stay there till he was fetched and what he had done he had done in self-defence. I did not know and I did! not question (him as to what he had done; I did not know that it was deceased who had come to the door. In the early part of the evening prisoner had had a great deal of drink, and when he came home he rested in the chair; he had been in two hours before the knock came and he was not a great deal better then. About 30 minutes after the police came; prisoner had been standing by the fireplace all the time saying nothing; he had the knife in his pocket. He had been wearing his overcoat all the evening.

Cross-examined. He might have had the knife in his pocket all that day for all I know. When the knocking came we could not tell whether it was for somebody else in the building or for us. Prisoner has provided for me and my three children since deceased deserted me, and he has always behaved well. When deceased called the first time before going out with him I told prisoner who it was, and he asked, me to get him away as he was anxious to avoid unpleasantness. I did not tell deceased the prisoner was in when he asked me; he said, "If I get hold of him I will kill him. It was very likely that I told prisoner what deceased had said. When out with deceased I saw Mrs. Collins, who asked me to come in. Deceased told me he was going to Croydon and then to Liverpool. Prisoner's manner is very excitable when he has had beer. When he has had a great deal of drink he does not seem to quite know what he is doing. On the 30th he was sitting on the side of the fireplace nearest to the window. As far as I have noticed a few drinks have no effect upon him.

Re-examined. I believe the deceased was going away for good; I cannot say whether prisoner did. His name was not mentioned between us between the 26th and the 30th; I heard nothing of him in the interval.

Police-constable Benjamin Spencer, 194 X, proved the plans of the front room and the front door of 8, Bosworth Road, and stated that there were five steps, including the large flag at the top, leading to front door, and that the nearest light was 15 ft. from the centre of the steps.

KATE COLLINS , wife of William Collins, labourer, 6, Bosworth Road. My sister is married to prisoner's brother. About 7 p.m. on December 26 prisoner sent to my house asking to see my husband. He was in bed with a cold, so I went. I asked him what he wanted and he said, "I can't tell." I said, "Why can't you tell me? I am a married woman. If you can tell Bill you can tell me." He said, "I do not know what to do. That woman's husband came and all these children are screaming." I said, "Surely she would not do such a thing." He said, "I don't want the landlord and all the people to hear these children crying, she has been gone such a long time. I want her watched." I said I would go and speak to her for him. I went out and saw her speaking with a man. I told her all her children were screaming. About 9.30 p.m. on December 30 I was outside talking to Mrs. Patterson and Mrs. Wise when the man I had seen on the 26th came and asked if anybody knew the name of Scannells. He then looked up and said, "This is the house." He went up and knocked at the door, but it was not answered. He said to us, "You are all looking at me and you will see a pretty fine scene all the way round." He knocked again and prisoner came to the door. He said to prisoner, "Good evening, Jim. You don't live here." He then took him by the collar and threw him down the steps. He then came on the flat part at the top of the steps as if he was going to go for him, and prisoner turned round and punched him in the stomach with his right fist; I did not see anything in it at the time. Deceased said, "You've done it, Jim," and Mrs. Wise took him away. Prisoner then said, "I done it in self-defence," and showed me a knife which he had in his right hand. I did not see anything in deceased's hands. When he knocked first he was eating nuts. Prisoner had been drinking all day; he was not sober. I subsequently identified the body of deceased.

Cross-examined. When I saw deceased on the 26th I did not hear what he was saying to Jeans; he did not speak to me. Prisoner fell right on to the pavement and then deceased came on to the flat part at the top with his foot out as if he were going to continue the attack, and prisoner came up and hit him. Deceased would have the light of the street lamp on his face. After he was struck deceased put his hands into his pockets.

Re-examined. I think prisoner went up two steps before he hit deceased. I cannot say where deceased's hands were when the blow was struck.

ELLEN PATTERSON , wife of Charles Patterson, labourer, 6, Bosworth Road. At about 10 p.m. on December 30 I was with Mrs. Wise and Mrs. Collins in front of No. 6, when deceased came and knocked at the door of No. 8. (The witness here corroborated the evidence of the last witness.)

Cross-examined. Deceased, after he had thrown prisoner to the ground, came off the top step on to the next as if he was going to him, and then prisoner turned round and struck him with his fist.

ELIZABETH WISE , wife of George Wise, labourer, 24, Bosworth Road. About 10 p.m. on December 30 I was with Mrs. Collins and Mrs. Patterson near the door of No. 8, when I saw deceased go up and knock at the door of that house. There was no answer, and after two or three minutes he knocked again. The door was opened by somebody, and he put up his hands as if to hit somebody. The door came open further and then a man, whom I now know to be prisoner, came out and said, "Take that. He hit deceased in the stomach. Deceased said, "Jim, you've done it on me. Why didn't you have a fair fight?. I saw nothing in prisoner's or deceased's hands. When the blow was struck deceased's hands were up in the air ready to fight. The blow took place on the top step. I took deceased to Dr. Ensor's.

Cross-examined. Deceased was a good deal bigger than prisoner. It took us nearly an hour to get to the doctor, as he was ill on the way.

JANS REED , wife of George Reed, 120, Arlington Road, landlord of 156, Arlington Road. Prisoner, deceased and Jeans lived at No. 156, Deceased left on November 10. About 7.45 a.m. on December 26 he called at my house and asked me a question.

ANDREW DINGLE , carman, 3, Preston Street, Paddington. In August, 1911, prisoner, Jeans and some children came to live at my house, and remained for a few weeks. On December 26 a smartish and biggish man, who looked like a sea-faring man, came and asked a question.

Cross-examined. He said he had been looking for prisoner and asked if he lived there.

Police-constable Percy Dark, 421 X. At 10.45 p.m. on December 30 I was called to Dr. Ensor's surgery by Mrs. Wise. I saw deceased there and I took him to St. Mary's Hospital.

CHARLES WALTER GORDON BRYAN . In December last I was casualty surgeon at St. Mary's Hospital. At 11 p.m. on the 30th the deceased was brought in suffering from a wound in the abdomen and shock. At 12.20 a.m. I saw him later with Dr. Berry, and later that day a necessary operation was performed. The wound might have been caused by this knife.

WILLIAM ARTHUR BERRY , house surgeon, St. Mary's Hospital. At 12.20 a.m. on December 31 I saw deceased. I performed an operation that afternoon. I found that the stabbing wound communicated with the abdominal cavity; the bowel was cut. He became rapidly worse, and it was decided to dose the wound. He died at 1.5 p.m. from syncope, due to loss of blood, caused by the cutting of the right

external iliac vein, inflicted before the operation. The knife had penetrated about 4 in.

Cross-examined. Even with such a sharp knife as this considerable force would have to be used to penetrate the distance it did. Assuming that the deceased was coming down upon the knife, that would intensify the effect of the blow, but I do not think falling upon the knife would of itself be sufficient. I do not think that the direction in which deceased was coming would have very much to do with it, since the wound went backwards and downwards.

Police-constable 728 X. At 11 p.m. on December 30 I went to Dr. Ensor's surgery, where I saw deceased. From there I went to 8, Bosworth Road, and knocked at the door. Prisoner opened it three inches, and said, "Who is there?. I said, "A police officer." He went into the front room and I followed him. He was fully dressed and wearing an overcoat. He took this knife (produced) from his right-hand overcoat pocket, and said, "I stuck it right in his gut, but it was my life or his. I told him I would arrest him for wounding a man and he said, "Are you here by yourself or are there any more besides you?. I said, "Yes, there are, but at the corner." He said, "Don't put your hands on me, as this knife is sharp and I am quick. I asked him to put the knife in my pocket book and he said, "I will not. I'll hand it to the inspector at the station," and he put the knife back into his pocket. I took him by the collar and he said, "I will go to the station quietly if you don't touch this knife." I then took him to the station, where he gave the inspector the knife. I noticed small bloodstains upon the point. When charged with malicious wounding he made no reply. I should say he was sober.

Cross-examined. When I went into the house he was very excited.

Inspector Frank Hamblett, X Division. On December 30 I saw prisoner at the station. I said, "You have a knife in your possession," and he said, "Yes, here it is," and gave me this knife (produced). He continued, "This is what I did it with. He came after me and I put it in his gut. I told him he would be detained and he said, "Well, I was first. If he had been first, I should not be here."

Detective-inspector Frank Pike, X Division. At 10.50 p.m. on December 31 I saw prisoner at the station and told him he would be charged with murder and cautioned him. He said, "Not guilty of murder. White came to the door and directly I opened it he caught hold of my collar and came after me. It was me or him for it and 1 struck him with a knife. When formally charged he made no reply.

Cross-examined. In 1889 prisoner enlisted and up to that time he had led a sober and steady life. On October 3, 1901, he was admitted to the Hanwell Lunatic Asylum and he was discharged on the 28th of the same month. On October 31 he gave himself up as a deserter. He was taken back to his regiment and then certified as a lunatic. On December 11, 1901, Lieut. Long certified him as suffering from delusions and that he was in danger from a supposed gang, and he was discharged as being permanently unfit for service and as a dangerous lunatic. He again went to Hanwell, where he remained till 1902. In May of that year he went back again and remained till September.

On his own initiative he returned again in October and remained till February, 1903, when he was discharged as cured. He has worked as a journeyman shoemaker and is described as a good workman, but he gives way to drink; he has been fined twice, in 1905 and 1907. In April, 1908, he was taken to the workhouse suffering from chronic alcoholism; he was discharged in the same month. The books of Hanwell Asylum show that an uncle of his died insane.

Police-sergeant FREDERICK REED, X Division. On January 1 I went to St. Mary's Hospital, where I received deceased's clothing, in a pocket of which was this small penknife (Exhibit 4).

SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , Medical Officer, Brixton Prison. I have kept prisoner under careful observation since January 1. My conclusion is he is sane; he has been perfectly rational during the whole time. I am of opinion that he was sane at the time he committed this act. I have considered the whole of his history carefully and have come to the conclusion that the cause of his temporary periods of insanity has been alcohol; this was 10 years ago and such insanity passes away.

Cross-examined. If the drinking is pursued the insanity returns. A man who has had alcoholic insanity is not quite so sane as a man with a clear mental sheet; he might possibly have slight exaltations. I do not think the drink he had on this day should result in his not being) able to realise things as they should be. The fear on his mind might perhaps make (him a little more excited.

Re-examined. The insanity would be brought about by a prolonged period of excessive drinking; it would probably begin by delirium tremens, and there would be delusions, exaltations, and violence. This result would not be produced by getting drunk on one day.

Mr. Justice Ridley stated that he was not of opinion that a case of wilful murder could be maintained. Prisoner thereupon withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty of manslaughter, under strong provocation. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty of Manslaughter.

Sentence: Five years' penal servitude.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-37
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

GOUGH, Thomas (22, fish salesman) , rape upon Ellen Simcox. Verdict: Not guilty.


(Friday, February 2.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-38
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded part guilty

Related Material

BRANDES, Wilhelm (53, engineer), forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain endorsement on an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £62 7s.; embezzling the several turns of £62 7s., £71 13s. 4d., and £110 7s. 9d., received by him for and on account of Germain Guilliet and others, his masters; stealing the sum of £65, received by him for and on account of Germain Guilliet and others, his masters; unlawfully altering and falsifyingcertain papers and accounts, the property of his said employers, to wit, 28 weekly statements of the expenses of Albert Morris Malkin, in each case with intent to defraud.

Prisoner pleaded guilty of falsifying accounts, which plea was accepted by the prosecution.

Prisoner was stated to have been manager, at a large income, of an English branch of a German company and to have embezzled their moneys. He was a man of great ability. He had! at first accused an innocent man of this crime, but had afterwards withdrawn that.

Sentence: Fifteen months' imprisonment, second division. The prosecution asked that prisoner should be ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.

The Recorder refused, there being no evidence that prisoner had means.


(Friday, February 2.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-39
VerdictNot Guilty > unknown

Related Material

BROOKES, Walter (43, agent) , breaking and entering the counting-house of Marie Louise Nutt and stealing therein four 500 franc Ville de Paris Bonds, her property; breaking and entering the counting house of Albert George Johnson, and stealing therein certain of his goods.

Mr. B.C. Ferrers prosecuted; Mr. David White defended. CHARLES HENRY COLLINS. I am warehouseman and key holder in the employ of Mrs. Nutt, 59, Long Acre. On Tuesday, January 2, at 7.45 p.m., I fastened up the premises securely. Next morning I found an entry had been effected by forcing the street door and also the door in the passage; the desks had been interfered with in the shop, and cupboards and locks had been forced in Mrs. Nutt's office on the first floor.

Mr. White admitted that the premises had been entered, but submitted that there was no evidence to connect prisoner with that portion of the indictment, whereupon Mr. Ferrers elected to proceed with the count charging prisoner with being in possession of the property stolen.

MARIE LOUISE NUTT , publisher and bookseller, 59, Long Acre. I was absent from London in January and returned about the 12th or 15th. On going to my business premises I found cupboards and drawers broken open, papers scattered about, and the French bonds, mentioned in the charge, missing.

Cross-examined. I cannot tell you the numbers of the bonds. The numbers were obtained from my stockbroker in Paris. He is not here today. Thousands of these bonds are issued. The police inquired of me if I had lost any bonds, but they did not tell me the numbers of the bonds they had, and when they asked me what the numbers of the bonds I had lost were I told them I did not know.

Detective-sergeant ALBERT CRUTCHETT, New Scotland Yard. On the evening of January 8 I, in company with other officers, was keeping observation on the "Highfield" public-house, Cathcart Road, South Kensington. I saw prisoner in the bar with three or four other men. I called him out and asked him if he had any property about him which did not belong to him. He said, "No." I told him I was a police officer and should search him. On doing so I found in his inside overcoat pocket the paper bag containing the bonds (produced). I asked him where he got them, and he said a man had just given them to him to mind.

Cross-examined. I received information from an officer named Keen, who was keeping watch inside the public-house, that prisoner had been seen with a parcel in his hand.

Detective-sergeant WILLIAM KEEN, New Scotland Yard. On January 8 I saw prisoner inside the "Highfield" public-house examining a small parcel and also holding a whispered conversation with some other men. I informed Sergeant Crutchett, who afterwards arrested him, and found on him the bonds (produced).

Cross-examined. I did not see the parcel given to prisoner by anybody. I cannot remember whether he was talking to a man with a black moustache.

Detective-sergeant ALFRED COLLINS. I was in charge of the case originally, and on hearing of the prisoner's arrest I ascertained that some bonds were missing from the premises which had been broken into. I asked the prosecutrix if she could give me the numbers of the bonds, but she could not do so, though she accurately described them. Subsequently she furnished me with certain numbers, and on comparing those numbers with the numbers of the bonds found in the possession of the prisoner I found they were identical.

Cross-examined. I charged prisoner with breaking into the premises in Long Acre, because he was in possession of the stolen property. I have made inquiries and have ascertained that prisoner has never been charged with any offence before.


WALTER BROOKES (prisoner on oath). On January 8 I was in the "Highfield," and met a man I had seen four or five times before. He gave me the bonds and said, "Will you see if they are of any value and meet me here tomorrow night at eight o'clock?" I said I would, but if I did not see him where could I find him. He wrote me an address, 58, Shardloes Road, North End Road (which I handed to the officer, Keen), and wished me good night. Then the officers came in and I was arrested.

Cross-examined. The man's name is Barker. I did not instruct my solicitor to try and find him, but I gave his address to the police. Verdict, Not guilty.


(Monday, February 5.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-40
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

JENNER, George (43, cook) was indicted for (count 1) carnally knowing Elizabeth Maud Jenner, who to his knowledge was and is his daughter; (count 2) attempting to carnally know the said Elizabeth Maud Jenner, who to his knowledge was and is has daughter; (third count) indecently assaulting the said Elizabeth Maud Jenner.

Before prisoner was called upon to plead, Mr. Graham-Campbell, for the prosecution, asked his Lordship's ruling upon a point of procedure. Counts 1 and 2 were laid under the Punishment of Incest Act, 1908 (8 Edward VII., c. 46); section 5 provided that "all proceedings under this Act shall be held in camera." The third count charging simply indecent assault involved a public trial, unless (which counsel rather doubted) there was inherent jurisdiction in his Lordship to clear the court upon grounds of public decency.

Mr. Justice Ridley asked what course the prosecution suggested should be taken.

Mr. Graham Campbell suggested that prisoner might be called upon to plead to the first two counts, the third remaining on the file to be dealt with if necessary. This course had been adopted in a case at this Court before Mr. Justice Jelf (R. v. Petty, Sessions Papers, Vol. CLI, page 93).

Mr. Justice Ridley adopted this suggestion and prisoner was arraigned upon counts 1 and 2, to which he pleaded not guilty. Verdict, Guilty upon both counts.

Sentence: Three years' penal servitude.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-41
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

SCALLY, Patrick (29, coster) and McDONNELL, Bridget (23), Patrick Scally, being a male person, unlawfully carnally knowing Bridget McDonnell, who was to his knowledge his sister; Bridget McDonnell, being a female person, unlawfully permitting Patrick Scally to have carnal knowledge of her, she then well knowing him to be her brother.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentences: Scally, Three years' penal servitude; McDonnell, Twelve months' hard labour.


(Monday, February 5.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-42
VerdictGuilty > lesser offence

Related Material

COOPER, Herbert (37, instructor) , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £90 4s. 3d., with intent to defraud.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Purcell and Mr. Tully-Christie defended.

FREDERICK WILLIAM WITT , cashier, Gas Meter Company, Limited, 236, Kingsland Road. On January 18 I drew this cheque (Exhibit 1) for 9 3s. 4d., payable to the order of T. S. Borradaile, and crossed it with an india-rubber stamp "and Co. "It was signed by two directors and the secretary, and enclosed in a letter addressed to "S. Pontifex and Co., Regnart Buildings, Euston Street, Church Street, N.W. "This company and Borradaile's are two branches of the same business carried on by two gentlemen named Lennard. I handed the letter to Field, a clerk, at 4.45 p.m. for postage. No person had any authority from us to alter the cheque or to endorse it.

WILLIAM FIELD , junior clerk, Gas Meter Company, Limited. At 4.45 p.m. on January 18, Mr. Witt handed me 101 letters, amongst which was one addressed to "S. Pontifex and Co.," to be posted. I took them to the post-office at 289, Kingsland Road, and posted them, registering two. I counted them. This letter was not one of the registered ones.

CHARLES JOHN BARCLAY , managing clerk to F. W. Lennard and his brother, trading as "S. Pontifex and Co." and as "T. S. Borradaile, Regnart Buildings, Button Street." On January 18, £9 4s. 3d. was due to us from the Gas Meter Company. We never received from them a letter containing this cheque (Exhibit 1). The endorsement thereon, "T. L. Borradaile," is a forgery. Our letter-box is in a clerk's office, and cannot be got at from outside except through the aperture. We have not missed any letters except this one.

J. HAWK, paying cashier, London Joint Stock Bank, Princes Street. About 1.5 p.m. on January 20 prisoner came in and went to the P to Z division, and handed this cheque (Exhibit 1) to the cashier, who put it on my desk. Prisoner followed it. It was exactly as it is now; the amount in figures and letters is £90 3s. 4d., and it is endorsed "T. L. Borradaile." On examining it I instructed the messenger not to allow him to escape. I said to prisoner, "Do you come from Mr. Borradaile, the payee?" and he said, "Yes." The police were fetched, and Inspector Thompson came.

Detective-inspector ERNEST THOMPSON, City Police. On the after noon of January 20 I was fetched to the London Joint Stock Bank, where I saw prisoner. Mr. Batcher said to him, "These are police officers. You had better explain to them where you got the cheque from." He was holding Exhibit 1 in his hand. Prisoner said, "My name is Harry Roberts; I am a physical culturist, and live at 35, Robert Street, Hampstead Road, N.W. This cheque was given to me last night by my brother-in-Thomas Lawrence Borradaile, an electrician. I do not know his place of business." I said, "Where does he live?" but he made no reply. I then said, "I hope you are telling me the truth, as you will be detained while inquiries are made regarding your statement." He said, I will tell you the truth. A fellow named percy I knew in the Imperial Light Horse in South Africa asked me to cash it for him last night. We were in a public-house opposite Fred Wall's in the Hampstead Road." I took him to the station, where he was charged with forging and uttering; he made no reply. He gave his name and address as Herbert Cooper, 34,

Arlington Road, Camden Town. I have not been, able to find "Percy."

Cross-examined. So far as I know prisoner has never been charged before.

Re-examined. He declined to give me any account of himself. I asked him if he could describe Percy to me and he said he could not tell me whether "Percy" was his Christian or his surname, nor could he describe him.


HERBERT COOPER (prisoner, on oath). My name is Herbert Cooper and I live at 34, Arlington Road. I was in the Royal Dublin Fusiliers and my discharge paper is marked "Very good." I went through the African campaign and obtained certain medals. I left the Army in 1902. (Witness produced certificate of character he had obtained while in South Africa from 1902 to 1907, where he had been employed in turn by the Central South African Railway, the Mayer and Lewis, the Lancaster Gold Mining Company, and the West Rand School, in the capacity (amongst others) of gymnasium instructor.) I left Johannesburg in August, 1907, for England. I did nothing for a time, but in September, 1909, 1 was appointed as gymnasium instructor at Aldershot and I produce my certificate of character. I subsequently obtained employment in the same capacity at the Working Boys' Home Club, and I produce the certificate dated April 29, 1910. Since then I have been giving lessons in physical culture. This man Percy gave me this cheque to cash in a public-house. I thought him well-to-do. I had met him several times; I knew him in Africa. He gave me a sovereign every week. He said the cheque was drawn by his brother-in-law, but he did not mention his name. I did not know it was forged.

Cross-examined. He was in the South African Light Horse when I was in the Dublin Fusiliers and I met him in the campaign. I think he went then by the name of Corporal Woodall, but I am not quite sure. I told Inspector Thompson that I did not know his surname, because at the time I could not remember it. I think I knew "Percy" was not his surname. He gave me the cheque the night before I cashed it. I looked at it when I got home, but only noticed the amount. I was to meet him on the Saturday evening in this public-house, I think, at six o'clock, to give him the money. I did not ask him why he could not cash it himself; he said he was very busy and was going to Highgate and I believed him. I know nobody of the name of Borradaile; he told me it was his brother-in-law, an electrician, and that I might as well say it was my brother-in-law as it was only a matter of form. That did not make me suspect anything. He did not tell me his brother-in-law's address or Christian name. I was confused when I gave Inspector Thompson my name as "Roberts "; I told him I lived in Robert Street, my last address, and I thought he was asking me again when I said "Roberts." He said, "What Christian name?" and I said, "Harry "; I am always called "Harry." It is true I wag living then in Arlington Road, and I was confused

when I said "Robert Street "; it was the first thing I thought of. I think it was No. 36 I lived at. I will not deny I told him my brother-in-law's name was Borradaile, but I do not remember saying his name was Thomas Lawrence. When asked to describe Percy I think I told him that he was about 5 ft. 11 in. with a long, fair moustache; I know I told someone that. Percy told me he was on the Stock Exchange, but I did not know where he lived. It did not occur to me to tell the inspector that I had an appointment with him to give him the money. Percy had given me a sovereign a fortnight for boxing lessons and he was going to give me a sovereign for cashing this cheque. I have not been in regular employment for two years. I did not refuse to give any account of myself; I do not think I was asked to. This piece of paper I wrote telling the police to give My property to my wife. (Here witness, as directed, wrote "T. L. Borradaile" twice. Mr. Leycester, on comparing the writings, stated he did not suggest they were similar.) (To the Court.) I did not endorse the cheque and I did not see it written.

Detective-inspector E. THOMPSON. Recalled. (To the Court.) The document was obtained from him for the genuine purpose of handing his property to his wife.

Verdict, Guilty of uttering.

Sentence: Eight months' imprisonment, second division.

ALLINGHAM, Charles, otherwise Harrington (57, labourer), PERRY William (48, waiter), and THOMAS, George (43, porter) , all unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same; all unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day; Harrington and Thomas feloniously possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same; Harrington and Thomas feloniously uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day.

Mr. Beaumont Maurice prosecuted. Perry and Thomas pleaded guilty.

SARAH KING'S depositions, having been proved in the usual manner, were read. (Medical evidence was called to show that she was unable to attend the Court.)

Detective-sergeant ALBEBT BOREHAM, H division. At 4 p.m. on January 6 I saw prisoner (Allingham) and Perry leave the "Black Horse" public-house, Leman Street. I went and spoke to Mrs. King. On coming out I saw them going up Leman Street towards High Street. I followed them. They stopped outside the "Baker and Basket" public-house. Prisoner then went to the kerb and appeared to drop something; I afterwards saw there was a street gully near where he had been standing. They then went to the corner of Leman Street and High Street, where they met Thomas., They talked a few minutes together. Thomas took something from his inside jacket pocket and handed it to Perry. Prisoner and Perry then went down Leman Street followed by Thomas; they turned into Colchester Street. I then got assistance. As I turned into Colchester Street I saw Thomas standing on the kerb at the corner of "The Man in the Moon" public-house and prisoner appeared to be looking in the door of the public bar. I

went up to the door and Perry came out and spoke to him. I caught hold of them and pushed them into the lobby. I directed the other officer to arrest Thomas, and he did so. I told all there that 1 was a police officer and suspected them of uttering counterfeit coin. Prisoner said, "You will not find any bad money on me." I found none on him or Perry, but in the inside pocket of Thomas's jacket I found these eleven counterfeit florins (Exhibit 3). At the station I found on him eight shillings, seven sixpences, and 10d. in bronze, good money. I was shown in "The Man in the Moon" some florins from which I took this counterfeit one (Exhibit 2). When they were charged they made no reply. At 1.30 a.m. on January 7 I was present when this bent counterfeit florin (Exhibit 1) was found in the gully; it was afterwards identified by Mrs. King as the coin she had bent.

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. The 11 florins (Exhibit 3) are ail counterfeit, six of them being dated 1908 and five 1903; eight of them were separately wrapped in tissue paper. Exhibit 2 is a counterfeit florin dated 1908; I am unable to say if it came from the same mould as the other 1906 coins. Exhibit 1 is another counterfeit florin, dated 1908, from the same mould as Exhibit 2.


WILLIAM PERRY . (To the Court.) It was I who put the florin that the lady at the "Black Horse" returned to me down the gutter; prisoner never had it in his possession.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was in the "Black Horse" with me and saw the lady give it back to me. I showed it to him.

CHARLES ALLINGHAM (prisoner, not on oath). I did not have the coin in my possession. I have not uttered any. No one can say that I have. Perry merely asked me to have a drink and I had one with him, not knowing what he was going to put down. Although he had put one down I was not to know he was going to put another down.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of uttering on September 6, 1910, in the name of Charles Harrington.

Allingham was further indicted for that he is a habitual criminal.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the notices to prisoner and to the officer of the court, dated January 22 and 27, and the following statutory convictions were proved: 1904, October 21, at Essex Quarter Sessions, three years' penal servitude for house breaking; 1910, February 8, at this Court, six months' hard labour for uttering; 1910, September 6, at this Court, 18 months' hard labour for uttering, from which sentence he was released on December 6, 1911.

Detective-sergeant ALBERT BOREHAM (recalled). On January 6 I asked prisoner if he could refer me to any person for whom he had worked. He said, "No, I have been out of employment." He has never done any honest work.

Judge Lumley Smith stated that he had very great doubt (though there had been no decision as yet on the point) as to whether the convictions now proposed to be proved could be proved by the production.

Only of the signed certificates of conviction, and he would only take the convictions which were strictly proved.

Warder WILLIAM REYNOLDS, Brixton Prison. I was present on the last occasion when the following convictions were proved against prisoner: 1894, November 17, six months' hard labour, larceny; 1891, November 20, six months, stealing, 1894; May 21, 18 months, stealing; 1898, October 12, three months, stealing; 1900, April 27, six months, under the Prevention of Crimes Act; 1901, August 5, two months, stealing; 1902, September 9, 18 months, stealing; 1904, April 27, 12 months, stealing; 1905, August 6, six months, under the Prevention of Crimes Act; 1907, November 18, three months, frequenting.

Detective-sergeant ALBERT BOREHAM (recalled). Since his release prisoner has been living at a Rowton House and has been associating with bad characters.

Cross-examined by prisoner. You did not say that the coppers found upon you had obtained by selling newspapers.

Prisoner, called upon for his defence, stated that he would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Court.

Verdict, Guilty.

Thomas confessed to a previous conviction of uttering at this Court on March 28, 1911, when he was sentenced to six months' hard labour. It was stated that since his release he had done no honest work and that he was an associate of thieves. Perry had refused all information as to himself. He had been seen in the company of Allingham.

Sentences: Allingham, Three years' penal servitude and five years' preventive detention; Thomas, Eighteen months' hard labour on each indictment, to run concurrently; Perry, Eight months' hard labour.

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-44
VerdictsGuilty > pleaded guilty; Guilty > pleaded part guilty
SentencesMiscellaneous > fine; Miscellaneous; Imprisonment

Related Material

JARVIS, David (54, merchant), and JARVIS, Alfred Harold (18, chauffeur), both conspiring and agreeing together to obtain for the said A. H. Jarvis a situation of emolument by forging and uttering a certain forged testimonial of character, and D. Jarvis unlawfully forging and uttering a certain testimonial of character, in each case with intent to defraud; A. H. Jarvis forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, seven several receipts for the payment of money, in each case with intent to defraud; A. H. Jarvis obtaining by false pretences from John Gilbert Dale £1 16s., £5 7s. 3d., and £4 1s., in each case with intent to defraud.

David Jarvis pleaded guilty; Alfred Harold Jarvis pleaded guilty to all the indictments with the exception of the indictments relating to the forging of the six of the seven receipts.

Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Bodkin appeared for the Prisoners.

Prisoners are father and son. The son had obtained employment as a chauffeur with Mr. Dale by means of a genuine and of a forged character, the latter being written by the father. The son had by obtaining sums from Mr. Dale for accessories from Renault, Limited, which he had never obtained, defrauded Mr. Dale of the sum of £34, showing forged receipts therefor. To enable him to do this he had, it

was alleged, corrupted a man named Godwin, a clerk in the employ of Renault, Limited, who had been instrumental in obtaining him the receipt from the company, and had also stolen certain accessories for the prosecutor's car. On leaving prosecutor's employ the son had returned to the service of a Mrs. Wilson, who had befriended him, and who subsequently found she had been robbed in a similar manner. Mr. Travers Humphreys asked whether prisoner wished the court to take cognisance of the facts relating to these charges, which would otherwise be the subject of a further prosecution by Mrs. Wilson.

Mr. Bodkin stated that he must leave Mr. Travers Humphreys to act upon his instructions.

Judge Lumley Smith said that as the facts were not admitted he could not take cognisance of them. It was further stated that the son had originally obtained employment as chauffeur to Messrs. Harrod's by means of a forged character, also written by the father.

Mr. Bodkin, on behalf of the father, urged that Mr. Dale in engaging prisoner had not been influenced alone by the forged character. A number of witnesses were called to speak to David Jarvis's high character; one of them. (LEWIS MARKS, managing director of Messrs. D. Morgan, Limited) stated that he was willing to take the son into his employment. It was urged on behalf of the son that the success which had resulted from his ability as a chauffeur had turned his head.

Sentences: David Jarvis, fined £5 and ordered to pay the costs connected with his own prosecution as distinct from the prosecution of his son; Alfred Harold Jarvis, Four months' imprisonment, second division.


(Monday, February 5.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-45
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

ORMES, Alfred William (27, clerk) , feloniously embezzling divers sum of money, to wit, 15s., 18s., £2 7s. 6d., and 15s. respectively, received by him for and on account of Roland Bruce Chessum, his master.

Mr. L. W. J. Costello prosecuted; Mr. Metcalfe defended.

ROLAND BRUCE CHESSUM , 7a, South Place, E.C. I am in partnership with my brother as J. Chessum and Son. Prisoner was employed by us clerk. This document, which he had in his possession up to the hour he was dismissed, sets forth his duties, which have been revised from time to time. He had to collect rents each Monday at Wick Lane, Bow, and Greenleaf Road, Walthamstow, and accounted to me for them on the following day. He had to render a statement. Mr. Bamberger's rent book shows that prisoner received 15s. from him on August 21 last. Mr. Kemp's shows that 18s. was paid to prisoner on September 4. The cash-sheet for September 4 shows Mr. Kemp's 18s. in, the arrears column. Mr. Forbes pay monthly. He paid prisoner £2 7s. 6d. on November 27. That is put in the arrears column,

and in the remarks column are the words, "Will settle next week." I have not received cither of those sums. I have been through the books, and find I am about £14 short in this way. On December 9 I told prisoner of the discoveries we had made, and asked him for an explanation. I told him what a serious offence it was, and that I should be able to give him in charge for it. He said he always intended to pay it back. I offered to show him particular items. He said he did not require to go into the figures; he knew them perfectly well; they were burnt in his brains. I suspended him. He said he had had a lot of illness at home and his expenses had been greater. I told him he should have come to the firm for assistance. I reminded him that I had personally assisted him before by a loan of £4, which he paid back. He said I spoke to him in such a way. I asked in what way I had spoken unkindly. He said I told him a man must learn to live within his expenses and must cut his coat according to his cloth. He made no suggestion that money was owing to him by us. The only money that could be suggested as owing was wages due from November 30. In December there would be due to him 2 1/2 per cent, on the rents collected on the Greenleaf Road property, but not on the Wick Lane property. That would amount to £2 18s. 6d.

Cross-examined. At the time prisoner took over the collecting and letting of the Wick Lane property there were a number of flats unlet. He submitted tenants to us, and we applied for their references. We do not employ an agent for letting. We have paid a id a Mr. Clark something if he has introduced a tenant. Prisoner, said at the Guildhall Police Court that he had applied to Mr. J. W. Chessum as to the amount he was to get for letting, and he was told to ask Mr. R D. Chessum. Mr. J. W. Chessum is not here. He did not speak to me about that. I did not tell prisoner I would speak to Mr. J. W. Chessum. We set our face against giving any commission for letting because we felt it was not conducive to getting good tenants. It was that which led us to take it away from Mr. Clark. We were paying 2 1/2 per cent., including everything. Prisoner's schedule of duties does not include the duty of letting. You cannot schedule every item that a clerk has to do in his duty. The houses have filled up better in consequence of our reducing the rents. I have no recollection of any interview with prisoner except the one when we put the proposition that he should go and live on this property, and that we should pay him as an emolument the same commission we had been paying to an outside man.

Re-examined. Part of prisoner's duty was to pay workmen's wages on different jobs. I have discovered that with regard to a job at Paternoster Row there has been time added on the pay sheet after it has been made up and the total increased by 10s. It is not in prisoner's normal handwriting; it is put in to imitate something already there. The same thing happened on a job at Greenwich.

Further cross-examined. The pay sheet is made out by the foreman and sent to our office to arrive on Friday afternoon. If the foreman happened to make a mistake it would be discovered on payment.

GEORGE BEVERLEY , foreman to Messrs. Chessum. I was foreman on a job at Greenwich last November. The entries in this time-book are mine. Sparkes worked four hours on November 24. The sheet made out by me showed 3s. 6d. due to him. That has been altered to 15 1/2 hours and 13s. 6d. Prisoner paid Sparkes in my presence 3s. 6d. I saw prisoner in court last Friday. He asked me if I was against him; I said, I suppose so. Then he said he had put 10s. on my time-sheet.

JACOB BAMBERGER , 3, Wick Terrace, Bow. My rent book shows that I paid prisoner 15s. on August 21.

WILLIAM KEMP , 4, Wick Terrace. My rent book shows that I paid prisoner 18s. on September 4.

HENRY L. FORBES , 32, Greenleaf Road, Walthamstow. My rent book shows that I paid prisoner £2 7s. 6d. on November 27.

Detective-constable FRANCIS BRADSHAW, City Police. On December 16 I saw prisoner at his house. I read the warrant to him. He said "I did not think they would do that; in fact, I did not think they could; I thought it was a matter for a civil court. I have had some of their money, but they also owe me money for the letting of the flats." When formally charged he made no reply.

Cross-examined. Practically the whole of last year he has had the doctor in the house.

GEORGE MAYNARD , foreman, Chessum and Son. I was in charge of a job at Paternoster Row last November. The time-sheet of a man named Paul has been altered from £1 0s. 1 1/2 d. to £1 10s. 1 1/2 d. and the number of hours from 23 to 34 1/2. I was present when prisoner paid Paul £1 0s. 1 1/2 d.

Cross-examined. It is unusual for the foreman to check the pay sheets. I stand by the side of the pay clerk when the man is paid. I do not compare the pay sheet with the time-book to see that they agree. WILLIAM PAUL, bricklayer. I was working on a job at Paternoster Row last November. On November 17 I was paid £1 0s. 1 1/2 d. I could not say if it was prisoner who paid me.

Cross-examined. If I was paid 10s. more than was due I should give it back again.

GEORGE DONALDSON , clerk to Chessum and Son. I checked the time sheets for November 17 and 24.

Cross-examined. I checked them on Friday night or Saturday morning.

Mr. Metcalfe. The alterations were made after payment.


ALFRED WILLIAM ORMES (prisoner, on oath). I was in the service of Chessum and Son from August, 1901, to March, 1907, and from November, 1908, to December last. The arrangement with regard to the Wick Lane property was that I was to go after lunch on Mondays and collect the rents. I got nothing for that; it was done in the firm's time. With regard to Greenleaf Road the arrangement was that I should go there to live and pay rent, and to receive 2 1/2 per cent, commission.

Then I was told, I think by Mr. R. B. Chessum, that I should have a certain amount for letting the flats. I let about 40. After I had been there about a year the rents were reduced by 1s. a week. I considered I had a claim for about £18 commission on the basis of receiving the first week's rent. I asked Mr. J. W. Chessum several time about my claim. He agreed that I should be allowed something and said would talk it over with Mr. R. B. some months afterwards I told Mr. R. B. I had spoken to Mr. J. W. about it and that he had said he would talk it over with him. He said he would see Mr. J. W. about it. I have had the doctor in the house about 18 months. I acknowledge that I have received various sums from the tenants, which I have not handed over, amounting to about £13. I kept none of those before the illness began. If it had not been for the illness I should have been content to wait until the question of my remuneration for the letting had been settled. With regard to Paul, I must have paid him £1 10s. 1 1/2 d. I made the alteration in the pay sheets. It might have been because I paid away 10s. too much by accident. I have done that before. I think I must have paid Sparkes 10s. 10 1/2 d., not 13s. 6d., as there is 2s. 7 1/2 d. which is not in the "amount paid" column. I cannot account for the foreman saying I only paid 3s. 6d.

Cross-examined. It was about a year after I took over the Greenleaf, Limited, letting and collecting that I spoke to Mr. J. W. about the letting commission and he said he would speak to Mr. R. B. I cannot swear I did not put into my pocket money during October that I did not account for. There was nothing due for collecting rents when I put into my pocket the cheque for £2 7s. 6d. I have been paid commission in advance. When I went for my holidays in 1910 I received two months' commission in advance. There was no arrangement in writing that I was to have commission for letting the flats, but I was told I should have something. On the strength of that I thought I was entitled to take my employers' money over a period of nine months. I do not suggest I was fairly treated by a long way, apart from the claim for commission. I was only away from business three days during the time I was ill. It would have been no use massing my claim. I should have lost my situation. It is not dishonest for an agent to withhold money on account of commission owing. Un the case of Greenleaf Road Mr. Chessum is not my employer; he is My principal. Beverley is wrong when he says I told him I had put' 10s. on his sheet. I do not say he is not telling the truth. I asked him what they Bad brought him up for. He said, "I do not know" I said, "They are going to say 1 put 10s. on to your sheet." He said, "Well, that is nothing to do with me; I shall stick to my time book." I admit I made the alterations to square my money. The foreman could not see what money I paid. It is easy to explain paying away 10s. too much. I might give half a sovereign instead of sixpence. I have paid away money by mistake and every clerk has. Paul might have come back and said he had worked more hours. If so I might not have told the foreman in order that he could alter it in his book.

Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy on the grounds that prisoner honestly thought he had a claim against his employers, that he had borne a good character, and that he had had a good deal of domestic trouble.

Sentence: Six months' imprisonment, second division.


(Wednesday, February 7.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-46
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

ABRAMOVITCH, Myer (28, coster) was indicted for and charged on the Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Solomon Milstein and Annie Milstein.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. A. W. Elkin defended.

The trial proceeded upon the indictment and charge of the murder of Solomon Milstein.

Sergeant ALFRED LAND, 86, N division, and Sergeant JOHN BOWSTRED, New Scotland Yard, proved plans and photographs for use in the case.

LEWIS HERZCOWITZ , linotype operator, 14, Church Street, South Kensington. My wife and the deceased woman Annie Milstein were sisters. The deceased man and woman carried on a restaurant at 62, Hanbury Street, Spitalfields, for over eight years. For three years I have been going there. The customers chiefly came from a boot factory opposite. There had recently been a strike at the factory and the (business was stopped. The front room in the basement was used for eating, but for the 'last five or six weeks gambling had gone on there. I last went there on December 23; it was the last time I saw the Milsteins. This is my brother-in-law's overcoat, made by my own 'tailor and' on the same cloth. I do not recognise the coat.

Cross-examined. I have not been to Hanbury Street much lately, once in two or three weeks. I was there twice when gambling was going on. I saw prisoner going downstairs with bananas. The last time I saw him was three weeks before the murder. I know he was very friendly with Milstein. Milstein helped him with small sums of money to buy fruit to sell. He gave prisoner permission to sell it on the premises. Mrs. Milstein spoke to me about prisoner once, saying that I should have him taught the furtrade, as he, the prisoner, was hard up. I have not spoken much to prisoner; as far as I know he was a quiet man. I cannot fix the last time I spoke to him. I complained to Mrs. Milstein about the gambling, she promised to stop it after Christmas I have not seen prisoner gambling lately.

Re-examined. I have seen prisoner many times at 62, Hanbury Street, in the restaurant upstairs: no gambling took place there, only a friendly game. Three weeks before the murder and on Saturday, December 23, gambling was going on in the front basement room. On the occasion three weeks before, I saw the prisoner selling fruit in

the basement. I did not see him on December 23. I have not seen him taking part in the gambling. I know him as a customer in the restaurant.

To Mr. Elkin. Before the gambling took place the front basement was used mostly as a servant's bedroom. The factory girls had dinner and tea there.

JOSEPH GOLDSTEIN , pugilist, 168, Pelham Street Buildings, E. I first knew Solomon Milstein about December 10. In consequence of what a friend said to me I went to Hanbury Street and spoke to him. I became a partner with him in the gaming downstairs. He told me to look after the players and keep them quiet. Out of the profits he look so much as rent and then the rest was shared between him, a man named Slavinsky, and myself. From that time I went to the restaurant every evening. In the cafe upstairs friendly games of cards were played, but no money was put on the table. In the basement all games were played, but chiefly faro. I have known prisoner by sight for a few years. I have seen him outside the premises with his 'barrow, when he went out with fruit. He used to be a customer at the restaurant. I have seen him in the basement probably five or six times a week, when sometimes gambling was going on. I have not noticed him playing. On Sunday, December 24, I was in the basement. A man named Abraham Rockman was there. Faro was being played. Rock-man handed me a watch and chain and asked me to go to the governor and get a sovereign on it, which I did. I gave the watch and chain to Milstein, and he gave me a sovereign out of a little purse. This purse (handed) is similar. He had it open when he brought it from a back room into the cafe. The prisoner was in the basement on that day. He might have been there when Kockman gave me the watch and chain, which was between 8 and 10 o'clock p.m. This is the watch and chain (Exhibit 7) I handed to Milstein. The chain has a Kruger sovereign attached. I, saw it no more till at the police station. On. Boxing Day I was in the basement from, 3 till after 11. I saw prisoner in the early evening till about 8, upstairs and downstairs. I did not see him after 8. He was there while the gaming was going on. I do not think he played, but I am not certain. That night there was a sharing out of money taken from a small cash box between Milstein, Slavinsky, and myself about 10.30 in Milstein's bedroom. A box was kept on the table where the gambling was. The man who had the bank had to put in. 3d. each deal of cards. That evening there was 13s. 6d. or something" like that. I left that evening about 11.5. There were two or three People there, I should say, in the cafe, and six or seven people in the basement. They were placing a friendly game.

Cross-examined. As far as I know, prisoner was a quiet, inoffensive a During the times I saw him at Hanbury Street he was selling furit I have never spoken to him. There was nothing about him that struck me as peculiar. He hardly spoke to anybody. Milstein I suppose used to put the lights out. I never noticed when I left at night whether the gates to the covered way were open or not.

ABRAHAM ROCKMAN , mantlemaker, 153, St. George's Street, E. I spoke to the last witness some time before Christmas last; in consequence I went to see Milstein; I think it was three or four days or a week before Christmas. I have known prisoner by sight, for about two years. I have seen him at the restaurant every time I have been there, three or four times; the last time I was there was the Sunday before the murder. I have played faro for money in the basement. When I saw prisoner he was selling fruit. I never saw him playing. Now I am reminded it might have been three weeks before Christmas that I first went. I remember December 24, I played in the basement I lost my money, and I handed Goldstein my watch and chain with a Kruger sovereign about 10.30 p.m. and asked him to borrow a sovereign on it, which he did. This (Exhibit 7) is my watch and chain. I next saw it at the police station. Prisoner was there when I handed the watch; he was looking on; I do not know whether he was playing or not.

Cross-examined. I have been there about four times, spread over three weeks; Saturday and Sunday nights were the only times I could spare to go. I do not know whether prisoner was a quiet man or not. He sold fruit; I have never spoken to him.

HERMANN LASSERSON , tailor, 15, Robert Street, Brighton. I come from Courland. I have a friend named Graff. Last Christmas I came to London and lodged with him off Commercial Road. I used to go with him to 62, Hanbury Street. I came up to London the Saturday before Christmas and went to 62, Hanbury Street; I was there from 12 till 12 or one o'clock in the morning. I had my meals in the cafe. I took part in the gaming. I recognise prisoner. I saw him at the restaurant. I cannot say each of the days I was there, but I did on the Tuesday. I saw him playing friendly games, for small money, mostly for 3d. or 4d. On the Tuesday after Christmas I was there from the afternoon till 12.45 a.m. I played that night; I first won and then lost. I owed Milstein 10s. and borrowed of him £2 on my watch and chain; Graff took the watch and chain to him. Exhibit 7 is the watch and chain. I borrowed £2 10s. altogether of Milstein in the cafe. There were a few people there, but I did not take much notice of them. Milstein put the watch and chain in his pocket. He handed me at first £2, I asked for 10s. more, 'and he looked at the watch to see what its value was. That same day prisoner was at the premises between five and seven, downstairs. He was sitting by the table where I was playing cards, just opposite me. There were many others; I cannot remember if prisoner was playing. he might have been, because my friend said to me afterwards, "if they ask me who has done it, I shall say I think a fellow of the name of Myer." I had asked him if they had any suspicion of anybody. I do not remember paying or receiving money from prisoner. It is possible he was not playing there that night. He asked for a few pence when I left off playing, which I did not give him. I left the restaurant the night about' 11 o'clock with Graff. As I went along I missed my cigarette case and sent Graff back for it. I went back, too, and we

stayed till 12.45 or 12.50. Milstein let us out. I do not know whether any players were left behind, but six of us went away together.

Cross-examined. I have a gamble in Brighton and in London when I come, which is seldom. I usually play solo. At Hanbury Street I played faro. When I am playing I give my mind entirely to the game. I would not concern myself as to the people sitting or standing round the table. We played for small amounts. I knew a few of the players at 62, Hanbury Street. As I have said I cannot say whether prisoner was playing or not; he was in and out; I did not notice whether. was selling fruit or not. It is quite usual for the winner to be asked for a few pence.

ISAAC GBAFF , tailor's presser, 195, Conduit Street, Whitechapel. I came from Warsaw. I have been visiting 62, Hanbury Street, for about 15 months; I had my meals there, and played there for about six weeks I am a friend of the last witness, who stayed with me in London last Christmas. On Boxing Day I was at 62, Hanbury Street with my friend from about 10.30 a.m. all day. I went away about seven o'clock and came back about 11.30. I know prisoner; I have seen him in the restaurant and downstairs. When I left at seven o'clock he was there. He was wearing a neckerchief round his neck, similar to this (Exhibit 5). When I came back at 11.30 I did not see him. We stayed till 11.45 Having gone away, Lasserson missed a cigarette case. I went back to see if I could find it. There were about nine or ten people there then. Milstein let us out.

Cross-examined. When I left about 7 or 7.30 that night, prisoner was there. He was not exactly playing cards, he was standing at the table looking on. I have seen him selling fruit there.

LAZARUS RICKMAN , costermonger, 11, Hanbury Street, E. I am a Russian Pole, I used to go to the restaurant at 62, Hanbury Street. I did not play there for money. I remember Boxing Night last. I Went there about 10 o'clock I know prisoner. I cannot say for certain whether I saw him there that night. I have seen him having; meals there. It is possible that prisoner was si 62, Hanbury Street, on Boxing Night, but I did not take any particular notice. I have noticed a neckerchief he wore. This is it (Exhibit 5).

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner about six years. He was a respectable and quiet man, never offensive. He was not known as I Myer the Insane." I did not say so at the police-court. Counsel asked me and I said I know the last few months he used to tell me, "I do not know what is the matter with my head:" he always used to stand messing about with his head like this [describing]. They did not read the deposition to me at the police-court, but I made my cross upon it. I have seen prisoner taking meals and selling fruit in the restaurant.

Re-examined. I heard that I was supposed to have said at the police-court that they called the prisoner "Myer the Insane" and I went to the police-court about it. I wanted to say that he looked miserable or confused. I told the police that if I was called again at the police-court I would put it right, out they did not call me up.

MARKS VEKBLOOT , cabinetmaker, 62a, Hanbury Street. I occupy a flat on the upper floor of 62, Hanbury Street. I have a separate entrance. My room is immediately above the bedroom of the Milsteins'. I went to bed on Boxing Night about one o'clock. I awoke hearing groaning, it seemed to come from upstairs. I went to sleep again. I next woke up smelling smoke from burning rags, about 3 a.m. I opened the window and saw a dull light below. I took a boot brush and threw it through the back window. It broke the window and smoke came out. I opened the front window, and blew a police whistle. I then went downstairs. A constable came up and we went into the restaurant to the bedroom. The door was locked. I went upstairs to get some water to help to put the fire out. The bed in the bedroom was on fire. Later on I saw the bodies of Mr. and Mrs. Milstein.

Cross-examined. The doors of the covered way are locked at 11 o'clock at night.

Police-constable THOMAS DAVIS, 334 H. On December 26 my beat took me past 62, Hanbury Street. I passed about 10, next about 10.40. At those times the covered way gates were open. At 10.50 I took a charge to the station. I next passed 62, Hanbury Street about 1.10. The gates were still open. I next passed about 1.40: the gates were then closed. I examined them as I passed. I tried the front door of 62, Hanbury Street; it was shut on each occasion. The last time I passed was about 3.50.

Cross-examined. At 3.50 the covered way gates were securely fastened. I am sure they were open at 1.10; it was not unusual.

Police-constable RODERICK STEWART, 457 H. On December 27, at about a quarter to. 4 a.m. I was on duty in Hanbury Street. I heard a police whistle and went to No. 62, the door of which was open, and saw the witness Verbloot. The restaurant door was locked The key was in the outside of the door. I turned the key and passed through the restaurant and went into the back room. The room was full of smoke. The smoke came from the floor. There was no flame but red smouldering'. It appeared to come from the bedding or bedclothes, which were on the floor. I put the fire out with Verbloot's assistance and noticed the body of a man lying on the floor on his back. I had no light except my lantern. The room was in darkness. The man appeared to be clothed on the lower part of the body, but the upper part had on only a vest, which was covered with bedding. There was blood on the floor and the bedding. The body was removed from the back room to the restaurant. Solomon Milstein appeared to be dead. I did not see any other body at that time. A few minutes after the firemen had re-entered, we saw the woman's) body lying on the floor under the bed, on her back. I examined the doors and windows to see whether there was any evidence of the house having been broken into, but there was not. A struggle had evidently taken place, as the bedding and also a chair were lying on the floor.

Cross-examined. I only examined the restaurant door and restaurant at that time. After Inspector Webb came along I went downstairs and made an examination of the back room and basement. The

door of the basement was open and several people had been on the scene before Inspector Webb came. There were no marks of breaking open. I did not notice what kind of lock it was.

Police-constable FREDERICK JAMES WINTON, 168 H. I was on duty on December 26 from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. on December 27. I passed 62, Hanbury Street several times during the night. I noticed it was lit up till about 12 o'clock. After that there was no light. About 4.15 I heard a police whistle. I went to the house and saw Stewart there, I also went into the back room and helped to put the fire out. I noticed bedding on the floor, but did not turn it over. The bedding consisted of mattresses and things, pillows. I shifted the pillows and found a knife underneath. The knife now shown me is the one I found under the pillow. It is a long knife, used on the premises for cutting bread. The blade was blood-stained, and the pillow was also bloodstained. The Wood appeared to be fresh. I then took the pillows and knife into the restaurant. The pillow, underneath which the knife was found, was between the door and the bedstead.

Cross-examined. Part of my beat included the restaurant opposite. The gates were closed when I was called by the whistle. I had not passed on that side of the road before. That was after 12 o'clock.

WILLIAM JOHN HAYNES , fireman, Whitechapel Fire Station. On December 27 last, at 4.22 a.m., we got a call to 62, Hanbury Street. I got there at 4.25. The police were there. I went into the back room on the ground floor and saw the body of a man. The bedding was on fire, and the room full of smoke. The man was lying on his back with his head towards the door, parallel with the fireplace. His head and chest were covered with some of the bedding. I helped to carry the body into the shop. I then went back into the room and turned the bedding over. I discovered a woman's body partly under the bed stead, in a kneeling position, with the head towards the fire-place lying face downwards. She had some underclothing on, which was up around her neck. I turned the body over. There was a large wound on the stomach, and the lower part of the body was charred. Lying alongside were tongs and shovel, the heads of which were off, lying in another part of the room.

Cross-examined. The heads could be severed with a very small tap on a hard substance. I should not think considerable force was required to break them.

Sub-divisional Inspector Owen Webb, H Division. On December 27 I was called to 62, Hanbury Street, at 4.45 a.m. In the front room I saw the dead man and in the back room the dead woman. Two doctors were there and a police officer. I examined tine rooms; there was no evidence of the house being broken into; the locks and fastenings of all the doors were intact. On the ground floor a pane of glass was broken. In the back room there was a side table with a small spirit bottle on it. This is it (Exhibit 3). It has a small quantity of paraffin oil. There were bloodstains on the bottle. I also found this match-box (Exhibit 4), with blood-stains on it. I examined the bolt on the street door, that had blood stains. They appeared to be fresh ones. I went into the basement, and in the

front room I saw a long table with portions of cards lying about. The bedroom had the appearance of a struggle having taken place. The floor was blood-stained and smeared and the bed had been slightly shifted. The premises were lit by gas, I saw no lamps.

Cross-examined. The bedroom is about 3 yards by 2 or 3 yards. The struggle took place in a very similar space.

MRS. RUTH MONTGOMERY , 12, Davis Avenue, Punt Street, E. I had known the dead woman for some three years. Last December I was employed by her as cook. I had been there about four weeks. I worked from 6 a.m. till 9 p.m., sometimes later. When I came in the morning I came in at the back, down the covered way. The gates were open. The back door was left unbarred. The deceased slept in the back bedroom on the ground floor, with their door locked. On December 27 I arrived at ten o'clock and found that the Milsteins were dead. At the police-court I was shown this long knife, which was used for cutting bread, which was kept in the back parlour, which was used as a bedroom. I have never seen this bottle (Exhibit 3) before till I saw it at the police-court. A small quantity of paraffin was used at Hanbury Street for cleaning purposes, I used to buy a pennyworth. Exhibit 20 is similar to the bottle I got it in. The bottle was kept in the kitchen, where it could not have been seen. I have never sean this matchbox (Exhibit 4) before. It contains white pine vestas; I used small wooden matches. On Boxing Day these fire-irons and tongs were all right. Mrs. Milstein had a coat like Exhibit 11. I have never seen this small knife (Exhibit 6) in the house. There was a money-box kept in the bedroom.

Cross-examined. As a rule I arrived at six o'clock. The doors of the covered way would be open. I may have arrived at 5.30 in the morning, then the doors would be closed. I should have to knock to gain admittance, and then the caretaker would open them. I have passed at 10 or 10.30 p.m. I could not identify every article in the Milsteins' household. There was a little paraffin in the bottle, but I am not prepared to swear that there is exactly the same quantity as when I last saw it in the Milsteins' house. No. 62 was a restaurant and frequented by a number of men. The box of matches produced a few moments ago are not the same as were used at No. 62. I have never seen them before. I brought a box of matches out of the place and brought them back in the morning. I think I gave them to Inspector Wensley. I could not swear that that box of matches was not upon the premises, only I have never seen them. They were smoking on the premises. I could not say that the small bottle was not upon the premises, only I have never seen it I should think I had seen every knife like this now shown to me. I have never counted the knives. This knife would he a small one for the Milsteins. The long bladed knife, with which I used to cut bread with, was kept in the Milsteins' bedroom, in a little place where the bread was kept. I last saw it on Boxing Day. There were three carving knives. I purchased the paraffin at a shop in Brick Lane under the arch not far from 62. I purchased a pennyworth. I

could not say exactly if it was half of the large bottle; I do not remember. It was used for cleaning windows and stoves. It was not used for lighting. I have never slept on the premises.

Re-examined. The knives were kepi in the bedroom in a little place where they cut the bread on, on the left-hand side as you go in from the shop. There is a little cupboard there; the bread was cut underneath. The bread was kept on the top of the cupboard. The knife was kept on a little board there used for cutting the bread on.

Dr. PERCY TRANTER GOODMAN, 70, Brick Lane, E. At 4.30 a.m. on December 27 I was called to 62, Hanbury Street by the police. In the restaurant I saw the dead body of Solomon Milstein. I thought he had been dead about an hour. The body was clothed in vest and pants. The clothing was soaked in blood. I went into the backroom and saw the body of Annie Milstein lying on the floor with the legs beneath the body, lying on the back. The body was not yet cold. I should say she had been dead about 30 to 45 minutes. She had on some linen garments, nightdress or chemise, which were covered with blood. I examined the bodies and later made a postmortem. The man was well nourished, about 35 to 40 years of age, 5 ft. 5 in. in height. There was an incised wound 4 in. long on the scalp 1 in. behind the left ear running perpendicularly, an abrasion under the right eye, a bruise on the left temple, an abrasion on the left side of the neck; no other injuries on the head. On the body there was an incised wound 2 1/4 in. long on the right chest below the right clavicle running obliquely downwards and inside and 5 in. in depth. There were three abrasions about the size of a threepenny piece on the right-hand side of the chest and in different positions about the chest. On the limbs there was a superficial and incised wound horizontal in direction at the back of the right arm 2 in. long just above the elbow and a longer scraping kind of superficial cut on the elbow running downwards the right forearm. The chest wound penetrated five inches into the right lung. It severed the right bronchus, passing through the upper lobe into the lower. It was a very dangerous wound. The first effect of it would be that there would be immediate haemorrhage in the lung which would cause a choking sensation followed by immediate disability to do anything and unconsciousness. Such a wound, I should think, could not be self-inflicted. The wounds were caused by a sharp instrument such as either of the knives produced. The chest wound was more likely to have been produced by the short knife. The other wounds were more of cuts than stabs. The contused wounds might have been caused by finger nails. The contusions were possibly caused by the tongs and shovel produced. I made a postmortem on the woman the same day. Dr. Clarke was present at both post-mortems. These were the injuries I found on the woman: On the head there was a perpendicular incised wound 1 1/2 in. in length. At the right side of the nose and the right cheek a wound extending horizontally backwards for 1 1/4 in. There was an incised wound on the left temple 1/2 in. long horizontal in direction; a small cut at the anterior part of the left ear; an incised wound at the right side of the forehead 3/4 in. long extending to the bone and penetrating the outer plate of the frontal bone; an abrasion on the

left cheek; contusion round the left eye and a contused wound on the inner side of the lower lip; there was a contused and lacerated wound 2 1/4 in. on the right-hand side of the scalp, a contused and lacerated wound 1 1/2 in. long on the left side of the scalp; a lacerated wound on the crown of the head and another lacerated wound on the scalp close to the one I have mentioned last. The hair was not cut by any of these wounds. The middle and ring fingers of the left hand had several small cuts and contusions. On the body an incised wound 5 in. in length running obliquely downwards and forwards was seen on the chest and abdomen, which penetrated the skin and fat to the depth of 1 in. The lower part of the abdomen and upper part of the trunk and thighs were burned, the burn extended through the skin and was most severe about the left groin. Some of the wounds were caused by a sharp instrument and some by a blunt; the wounds on the scalp were produced by a blunt instrument such as the fireirons produced and the incised wounds could have been produced by either of the Knives produced. One or two of the wounds were probably caused by the short knife (Exhibit 6). The bone of the nose was chipped as though struck by a sharp pointed knife. The injuries could not have been self-inflicted. The man's death was caused by haemorrhage and shock. He would die in a short time after the wound in the chest, a matter of minutes. The woman's death was from haemorrhage. There were cuts on the clothing corresponding to the injuries in both cases. I think considerable force must have been used in some of the injuries. Cross-examined. It was a very brutal outrage, not the slightest mercy shown. I think the wounds on the woman's abdomen were slashing. It is difficult to say if the wounds were inflicted by a frenzied person. A person seized by frenzy would stab as well as slash, possibly.

To Mr. Justice Ridley. The wound in the chest must have caused the death; this was probably the last wound inflicted. The man could not have stood after that. The marks upon him were consistent with the use of a blunt instrument such as one of the fireirons, or they might have been caused by a fist. There had been a struggle.

PERCY JOHN CLARKE , Divisional Surgeon, Commercial Street, E. On December 27, early morning, I went to 62, Hanbury Street. I saw Dr. Goodman there. I have been in Court and heard his evidences and agree with it. On December 28 at about 11.30 a.m. I was at Leman Street Police Station. I found the prisoner there. I examined him and found that he was suffering from a clean-cut wound in the fold of the left thumb; it was two inches in length and half inch deep. There were also two superficial wounds on the inner side of the left hand, one three-quarter inch in length, and the other half inch in length. He also had an incised wound on the ring and little finger of the right hand. All these wounds must have been caused by some sharp instrument. The wound on the left hand was such as might have been caused by grasping the blade of a knife. The injuries an the right hand might also have been caused by coming into contact with a knife. I examined on December 28 the overcoat, coat and vest, pants, singlet and shirt, exhibits in this case, also boots. I found

considerable bloodstains on all of them, also on the braces; the left boot had a considerable quantity of dried blood on the sole just in front of the heel. All the bloodstains could not have come from the wounds on the prisoner's hands. The bloodstains in the pockets of the overcoat probably did. I think the other bloodstains were caused during the struggle. I examined the neckerchief identified with the prisoner and found on it bloodstains and it had a strong smell of paraffin.

Cross-examined. I do not agree that the slashing and stabbing nature of the wounds were consistent with an attack by a frenzied person; they were not. I am not an expert on insanity, but I have seen injuries caused by homicidal maniacs in four or five cases. I cannot say I have seen injuries inflicted by a person suffering from transitory melancholia. If this was anything at all it was homicidal mania. I detected no sign of insanity about the prisoner. I did not specially examine him as to his mental condition. I looked at his injuries and his clothing. His mental condition was never suggested to me. I never saw any signs of insanity. If the prisoner had been insane I should have expected to find him much more depressed than he was. He was not careworn, nor particularly palled. Cases vary on these points: the degree of depression in one differs from that in another. I have heard the prisoner described as a quiet man, keeping himself to himself; that being so, he would be less likely to have a sudden attack of homicidal mania. I have given evidence many times in cases where insanity was set up as a defence. I have not come across a case in which the accused has been perfectly quiet up to the fatal occurrence. It would be a rare thing. I think I have heard of it. 1 am not an expert on insanity. I say that the act committed here was that of a sane man. He wore the dead man's clothes in the very district, in order to hide his own, which were covered with blood. I cannot recall the case of a sane murderer before who has done such a thing. I never came across a case where the accused's clothes were so much bespattered with blood as here. A sane murderer shortly after the attack, if his clothes were very wet, might take them off and put on the dead man's clothes, but he would leave his own behind as evidence. He was not an extraordinary object in Whitechapel to walk about with two suits on. They sometimes wear three suits in Whitechapel and they are not insane: it is a foreign habit.

Re-examined. In cases of acts committed by a frenzied person there is more slashing and cutting. All the injuries here were only such as might have been caused in an ordinary struggle or fight. If I had noticed any signs of insanity I should have reported them. I made no such record.

(Thursday, February 8.)

Mrs. RUTH MONTGOMERY, recalled. (To the Court.) The tongs belonged to the room at the back of the shop, which was a sitting and bedroom in one; they were kept in the fender at the fireplace.

HARRY ZCIKA , trouser presser, 27, Fostick Place. For the last

18 months I have been going to 62, Hanbury Street. I started playing in the room downstairs from three or four weeks before Christmas About 7.30 p.m. on December 26 I went there. I left and returned at nine with three "pals," who left me. I slept on the bed there till 12.30, when Solomon Milstein told me it was time to go home. I left leaving him alone there. The next day I heard of the murder. About 1 a.m. on the following day (Thursday) I was with my lodger and my missus going to Leman Street Police Station, and at the corner or Commercial Street I saw prisoner standing by a coffee-stall. When he saw me he began to walk slowly to Commercial Road. I called to him. and asked him where he had been all day, because all the people that had been with the Milsteins had gone to the police-station to give evidence except him. He made no reply. I told him not to be afraid, and to come with me to the station. He accompanied us. On the way I said, "You hear what was in Hanbury Street?" He said slowly, "All right." When we got near to the station I made an excuse and went on, where I saw the inspector. I told him I had the man Myer, whom he had been looking for all day. He went with me to where prisoner was walking with the two women. I have seen him in the room when gambling was going on; he used to sell fruit down there. When he had a few coppers—1s. or 1s. 6d.—he used to play. Cross-examined. He was a very quiet man, and never interfered with anybody. When I saw him on the 28th he appeared to be a little excited, and he had a small scratch on the side of his face; 1 could see he was a bit depressed, but I did not notice that he was nervous. It seemed to me he was hoarse. At the restaurant he appeared on very friendly terms with Milstein; I know that he used to lend prisoner a shilling now and again. On the way to the station he was nervous and excited. I left him two or three hours before at the corner of Great Alie Street and Leman Street.

Inspector JOHN FREEMAN, H Division. At 7.30 a.m. on December 28 Zoika came into the Leman Street. Police Station, and in consequence of what—he said to me I went up Leman Street. I saw prisoner with three women walking very slowly towards High Street. I said, "Myer, I want you." He said, "Eh?" I said, "I think you are wanted. Come with me to the station, will you?" He said, "All right" He had both his hands in his overcoat pockets. On the way to the station I said. "What is the matter with your hand?" and he said, "I cut it." I sent for Inspector Wensley.

Cross-examined. I saw him at the exact spot that the last witness said he had left him.

Detective-inspector FREDERICK WENSLEY, H Division. At about 6 a.m. on December 27, in consequence of information I received I went to 62, Hanbury Street. In a bedroom at the back of the ground floor restaurant I saw the body of Annie Milstein lying on the floor: Solomon Milstein's body had been removed to the front room. The man had a singlet and pants on and the woman two chemises. The fireirons with the knobs broken off and stained with blood were in the back room. I also saw Exhibit 2, a long, blood-stained knife, a bloodstained matchbox, a small bottle of paraffin, on the couch under the

window a blood-stained blue handkerchief smelling very strongly of paraffin, knotted in a similar way as it is now, and on the floor where it bad been indicated to me the body of Solomon Milstein had laid this broken butcher's knife covered with a large quantity of burnt flock from the bed which had been smouldering; the handle was 18 inches from the blade. There was one gas light in the room; I think incandescent. There was a smell of paraffin. There were signs of burning in the room at the head of the bed and on the bedclothes generally. The stains on the pillows were bloodstains. I directed that all the things found should be taken to my office at Leman Street, where they remained till the inquest. At 1.45 a.m. on December 28 I was called to Leman Street, where I saw prisoner. His left hand was bandaged and I said, "What is the matter with your hand?" He said, "I got it cut) in Hanbury Street this morning." He accompanied me to my office. When he got to the door he said, "I know what you want. You will find it in this pocket," and indicated the left-hand inside pocket of his overcoat. I found it contained a silver watch, a gold chain and a Kruger sovereign, and a silver watch, a gold chain, and a matchbox (Exhibits 7 and 7a). Then taking this leather purse (Exhibit 8) from his right-hand trousers pocket, he banded it to me and said, "This is his. You will find all the money there." It contained £2 10s. in gold. In various pockets I found 3s. 3d. silver and 2s. 8 1/4 d. bronze. I told him he would be detained for the present on the suspicion of the murder of Mr. and Mrs. Milstein yesterday morning. He replied, "I done it," and pointing to this handkerchief lying with the other things on the table he said, "That's mine. I done it because I lost all my money at gambling." I then left him. On returning shortly afterwards I searched him and found that in addition to the overcoat ho was wearing two jackets, two waistcoats, and two pairs of trousers (produced). Low down the trousers leg of the outer suit a very minute blood stain has been pointed out to me. There were no stains on the waistcoat or jacket of the suit. The left-hand pocket of the overcoat was saturated with the blood and I think there was a little on the right pocket. On the underneath suit there was a large quantity of blood and there was also blood on the singlet, pants, and shirt which he was wearing. With regard to the outer suit he said, "These are Milstein's, and so is the overcoat." On being subsequently charged with wilful murder he made no reply.

Cross-examined. I did not warn him before he made the statement, which was quite voluntary. I was present when Rockman gave hit evidence at the police court. He came to see me on January 30 with reference to the evidence he had given. His depositions were read over to him after he was examined. I do not remember him drawing a distinction between" Mad Myer" and "Myer the Insane." He was in trouble as to what was being said to him in English; on two or three occasions he said he knew prisoner by no other name than "Myer." The court interpreter then came to the rescue and he made some observation in Yiddish and the observation was interpreted and put into the depositions; the distinction between "Mad Myer" and "Myer the Insane" went down through the interpreter.

Re-examined. (Mr. Elkin asked the witness whether prisoner was known as "Mad Myer" or "Myer the Insane" and he made no reply Then the interpreter put the question in Yiddish and all the rest of the answers were in Yiddish.) Rockman came to me of his own accord (To the Court.) I am certain that the man who committed this crime did not get over the gate, because there were not the indications I should have expected of his having done so, either inside or outside There would be no reason for his doing so, because the yard is kept open a considerable time and the watchman was obviously drunk • he was recovering from it the following morning. There is plenty of room in the yard for anybody to conceal himself.

This closing the case for the prosecution,

Mr. Elkin stated he called no witnesses.

Mr. Bodkin proposed to call Dr. Dyer with reference to questions put in cross-examination with a view to suggest that prisoner was irresponsible on the ground of mental incapacity.

Mr. Justice Ridley stated that he thought it advisable that this course should be adopted. Where such suggestions were made the prosecution had the power, though it was not the absolute rule, to call a doctor in order that it might be seen whether there was any real foundation for them.

SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , Medical Officer, Brixton Prison. Prisoner was received on December 28 and since that time I have kept close observation upon him. When I first saw him on his reception he was very depressed; there were no signs that he had been drinking; he spoke quite rationally and calmly; and I could find no hallucinations or delusions; I was with him about an hour. He had some wounds on his fingers and I asked him how he had got them, but he would not tell me. His depression was not unusual, having regard to the nature of the charge. Notes were taken of his case every day either by myself or one of my colleagues, and special instructions were given to the hospital nurses to watch him and to let me know anything they might note. I had also several long interviews with him. I could find no symptoms of insanity about him and after very careful inquiry I have come to the opinion that he knew what he was doing on the 27th was wrong. He became less depressed.

Cross-examined. There have been cases of sane men suddenly having an acute attack and after the attack becoming depressed upon realising what they have done, but in my opinion this is not one of those. I have not been able to find any evidence of insanity in his relations, but this is not essential. This was not a form of melancholia as the shortest time I have known this to pass off is 10 days, and there were no evidences of melancholia when he was admitted. The evidence that he has always been an inoffensive man has had no weight with me in forming my opinion; he is naturally a quiet dispositioned man, but that does not indicate insanity. I have read the depositions including those of Beckendorff, who has not been called here today. (Mr. Bodkin stated that this witness with his wife had left for South Africa at the conclusion of the police court proceedings, with the assent

of prisoner's solicitor.) There is such a condition as transitory mania, but I do not think this was such a case, for although the wounds were unusually violent there must have been a tremendous struggle. Of course, continual worry leads to insanity. I consider prisoner's conduct after the crime quite consistent with normality, and the dead man's clothes covered up his own blood-stained clothes. We have men coming to the prison wearing as many as six suits. I have never come across a sane murderer wearing the dead man's clothes. He was very evasive on all questions connected with the crime, but perfectly rational and sensible otherwise. He gave contradictory accounts.

Re-examined. I came to the conclusion that they were untrue accounts. I could find no form of insanity attributable to the appearances of this man. Apart from the depositions of Beckendorff and guided only on the evidence I have heard in this case and my observations of him, I come to the same conclusion.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence: Death.


(Wednesday, February 7.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-47
VerdictMiscellaneous > no agreement

Related Material

HOLMES, Annie (34, charwoman) , unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin.

Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted; Mr. A. L. Ganz defended.

AMY PALMER , 61, Manor Street, Clapham. On December 29 I let a room to prisoner and her husband at 5s. 6d. a week.

HERBERT BRESMAN , wine merchant, 358, Wandsworth Road. On January 9 prisoner asked me to send a bottle of brandy to 15, Killyon Road, at once, with change for a sovereign. I sent my boy with them. He came back with 5s. 3d. and what appeared to be a sovereign, but which was a gilded shilling. I reported the matter to the police. On the following Sunday I identified prisoner from among nine women at the police station.

Cross-examined. The women were in the charge room. I was put in the matron's room. I did not go into a passage. I did not see prisoner except with the other women.

VIVIAN FLETCHER . I took a bottle of brandy and change for a sovereign to 15, Killyon Road. Just before I got to the gate a man asked for the bottle of brandy. I gave it him, and he asked if I had change for the sovereign. I said yes, and he gave me this coin. I gave him 14s. 9d. change.

ELIZABETH JONES , greengrocer, Manor Street, Clapham. On Saturday, January 13, about 11.30 p.m., prisoner came into my shop. I knew where she lived. She bought two pennyworth of vegetables. I held out my hand for the money and she put this in it, which I thought was a sovereign. I gave her 19s. 10d. change. Dumbarton was on the step at the time talking to a lady. I afterwards showed the coin to

my husband's brother. On the following Sunday, about 5.45 p.m., I was going to prisoner's house with the witness who saw her in the shop. We met her in Manor Street. I told her about it. She said she never came in my shop. While we were talking a policeman came she has been in my shop three times. I have no doubt she was the woman. I gave her in charge.

Cross-examined. When I taxed her with having changed a bad sovereign she did not offer to go to the police-station. Trade was no. brisk that Saturday night. 11.15 p.m. is a very slow time. She was in the shop about five minutes. I had to go to the parlour to get the change. Dumbarton and the lady were in the shop when the prisoner came in.

WILLIAM CHARLES DUMBARTON . I was in Mrs. Jones's shop on January 13 at 11.30 p.m. when prisoner came in. I did not know her as Mrs. Holmes. When she had gone Mrs. Jones showed me the coin. It was like this one. Next evening Mrs. Jones and I were going towards 61, Manor Street when we saw prisoner. Mrs. Jones said to her," You gave me a bad sovereign last night." Prisoner denied it.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Jones fetched me on Sunday evening. She said she had found out where the woman lived; would I go and see the person. As we went down the street Mrs. Jones said, "There she is." I did not recognise her at first; it was rather a dark part of the street. I was the only person in the shop besides Mrs. Jones when prisoner came in. I had never seen prisoner before. I stopped talking to a customer on the step. I was actually in the shop at the time.

Inspector GEORGE FORDHAM, W Division. On January 14 I was in the charge-room at Clapham police station when Mrs. Jones came in with prisoner and Dumbarton. Mrs. Jones said, "This woman came into my shop about 11.15 p.m. last Saturday night and bought some vegetables to the value of 2d. She handed me this coin (Exhibit No. 1). I fetched 19s. 10d. change from the parlour and handed it to her, when she left the shop. I then noticed that it was a funny colour and showed it to Mr. Dumbarton, who was on the step of the shop, when he said, 'It is a bad coin.' I met prisoner again about 6 o'clock to-night and told her she had given me a bad sovereign and we came here to see what I could do." I said to prisoner," You hear what Mrs. Jones has alleged against you?" She replied," I have never been in her shop—at least, not last Saturday night, for I bought my vegetables up the High Street against Clapham Cross." I then told prisoner she would be charged with uttering the coin. She replied. "I will swear I was not in the shop last night." When charged she made no reply.

Detective-Sergeant CHARLES GOGGIN. I saw prisoner come into the station with Mrs. Jones and Dumbarton. She was afterwards identified by Mr. Bresman. When the charge was read over to her she replied," I never heard anything like that in my life, and as for the brandy, I have never seen a drop of brandy, I will take my solemn oath." Bresman had no opportunity of seeing prisoner before being placed among the others.

JOHN WARBURTON , 15, Killyon Road, Clapham. I have never seen prisoner before. I know nothing about the order for a bottle of brandy which was given to Mr. Bresman.

SIDNEY WILLIAM SMITH , Assistant Assayer, H.M. Mint. These coins are a Hanoverian medal and a gilded shilling.


ANNIE HOLMES (prisoner, on oath). I am a laundress, and work at Stevens', 20, The Pavement, Clapham, I did not order the brandy at Mr. Bresman's. I was not acting in concert with any man. I have been in Mrs. Jones's shop once or twice to order coal. I did not go there on Saturday, January 13. I was indoors all the evening waiting for my husband to come in. He came home intoxicated and begged me to go and get his laundry. That was about 11.30. I went by 'bus from the" Plough." The place was shut. I came back by 'bus to the" Plough" and bought a few vegetables at a shop near there. It is some distance from Mrs. Jones's. On the Sunday Mr. Holmes and I met Mrs. Jones. She taxed me with having passed a bad sovereign. I denied it. I said I was not in her shop on Saturday night. I offered to go to the police station. My husband and I walked in front. The constable merely said, "I will show you the police-station." I saw Mr. Bresman as he stood in the passage as I came from the cells to be put up with the women. He saw me. Cross-examined. My real name is Dewlake Holmes. I swear I am married. On January 9 about eight o'clock I was at home. My husband was not there. I do not know Mr. Bresman's shop. I have never been inside it. I do not know Killyon Road. I had no counterfeit money in my possession in January. I never told anybody I had any. I ordered two lots of coal at Mrs. Jones's. She asked what address it was to go to. I said 61. She is wrong in saying I was in her shop on Saturday evening. I do not remember swing Dumbarton before. On the Saturday evening when she accused me of the bad coin I said I was not in her shop and had no bad coin. She asked Dumbarton." Do you know her?" He said, "No, I do not recognise her." Later, when we got to the station, he said, "Oh, yes, I do," merely because they had been talking it over going up the road. She said she had given me 19s. 10d. change; I said, "Not me."

The jury disagreed. Prisoner was put back till next Sessions.


(Wednesday, February 7.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-48
VerdictGuilty > unknown

Related Material

HOOLEY, Ernest Terah (52, financier) . Unlawfully obtaining from David Thompson and George Leech Tweedale, by means of false pretences George Leech Tweedale, for the sums of £600, £500, £450, £125, £125, and £200 respectively, with intend to defraud.

The Solicitor-General (Sir John A. Simon, K.C.V.O., K.C., M.P.), Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Wild prosecuted; Mr. T. M. Healy, K.C., M.P., and Mr. J. B. Matthews defended.

WILLIAM CARTER , 27, Essex Street, Strand. I have several businesses; I deal in land chiefly. I have known prisoner about six years. In about July, 1910, I knew he was going to purchase the Thorney Estate. I myself paid, for him or his nominee, £3,750 deposit to Peak, Bird, and Collins, getting this document (Exhibit 1), which is a charge or mortgage; it bears his signature. I have not been repaid anything. Exhibit 1 is executed by T. A. B. Walker, his nominee, Terah Franklin Hooley, his son, himself, and Arthur T. Ashwell, who was acting as his solicitor at the time, and is dated July 12, 1910. (Read. After reciting the agreement of sale of Thorney Hall Estate by Mrs. Sophia Parry Herrick to T. A. B. Walker, agreeing to repay the £3,750 advanced on or before December 25, 1910, together with one quarter of the profits made by Walker on the resale of the said estate, this sum guaranteed by prisoner personally not to be less than £3,750; Carter is to have a charge on Walker's interest in all contracts entered into by him for sub-sales; Walker is not to dispose of any portion of the estate without Carter's approval, and is from time to time to supply Carter by Walker with full particulars of all negotiations and contracts entered into by him, and Carter is to be at liberty to attend at the completion thereof, and that all cash deposits received in respect of sub-sales shall be held by Larkin and Co., solicitors, Lincoln, as shareholders in the event of Walker being unwilling or unable to complete the purchase, and if Carter so requires Walker shall assign the full benefit of the agreement to him.)

Cross-examined. I will not say that I knew James White at all at that time. I cannot say of my own knowledge that he knew of my charge. I know he knew of it subsequently, but I cannot say when; I met him and we talked it over with him; I should think he knew of it in January, 1911. I knew that the property was being bought for the purpose of being broken up and sold in small lots, and that the profit I was to get could only be obtained by means of such sub-sales. I knew that the price given for it was £37, 000 odd and that could only be obtained by sub-sales. I thought the contracts for the sub-sale of the whole estate had been made before March 31, 1911. I do not remember Thompson going down to visit the estate; if he went I probably knew of it. Prisoner had a perfectly free hand to enter into these sub-contracts.

ARTHUR HARPER BOND , land agent and farmer, Oulton Broads, Suffolk. On September 14, 1910, I obtained this charge (Exhibit 2) from prisoner in respect of £4,500 I had advanced. I had known him then three months. It has not yet been repaid me. It is a collateral security. I effected a sub-charge too on February 22, 1911, to my solicitor, A. D. Davies. In Exhibit 2 I had a charge also on Tattershall (Exhibit 2 was then read. Similar charges and privileges were given as in Exhibit 1; in respect of the £4,500 lent there was to be a bonus of £1,050, and if the sum lent were not repaid within the month 62 3/4 per cent. was to be charged.)

Cross-examined. I had advanced £90, 000 for the purchase of the Tattershall estate, and this charge on the Thorney estate was merely a collateral security. I knew that prisoner could only make profits by sub-sales and I was willing he should sub-sell; he had largely sub-sold before I was asked to advance. My solicitor gave notice of my charge to Peake, Bird, and Collins in the ordinary way; I understand from my solicitor that no formal notice was given to Gadsden, but my solicitor saw him and he knew of this charge.

The Solicitor-General stated that Arthur Charles Bourner, the next witness, had gone to America, but his partner, who was not present at that moment, could identify his signature to the charge.

Mr. Healy stated that he had no objection to the document being produced in that way, but he thought it should be admitted that Mr. Bourner knew that prisoner would only make a profit by means of sub-sales.

The Solicitor-General said he would assume that; but he would put himself in order by calling Mr. Hosegood.

ALFRED HOSEGOOD , solicitor, partner in Jackson and Co., Rochdale. My firm have acted for Tweedale's father and grandfather and also for the trustee of their wills. In August 1910 I handed to Tweedale securities to the value of £27, 500, representing the fortune left him. Between August, 1910, and July 1911, we acted for his trustee and I think on some trust matters for him also. We did not act for him, in any transactions with prisoner. Early in October, the day before the summons was issued, I got to know of there being charges on the Thorney estate. I acted as solicitor for the prosecution down to the time of the committal, and the Director of Public Prosecutions then took over the conduct of the prosecution. I was present when Arthur Charles Bourner gave his evidence at the police court and I saw him produce the document (Exhibit 16), dated March 3, 1911, executed by T. A. B. Walker and prisoner, giving a charge on Thorney for £1,050 owed him for work done. (Exhibit 16 read.)

Cross-examined. I took over these matters in July, 1911; I do not think Thompson has acted for Tweedale since then. Early in September proceedings were taken against him for damages for negligence in the general dealings with prisoner. At the time I knew that Tweedale had lost the £2,000, but I did not know of any fraud or that there were these charges; Tweedale had not complained to me by then that there were these charges. I am quite willing to take the depositions of Bourner as saying," I did not concern myself in any way with the subsales of the Thorney estate "; I left it entirely to the defendant.

DANIEL GEORGE FREDERICK SIMMONS , managing clerk, Peake, Bird and Collins, solicitors, Bedford Road, W.C. My principals acted for the vendor of the Thorney estate, Mrs. Perry Herrick. Exhibit 3 is the original contract of the sale to prisoner's nominee, I. A. B. Walker, for £37, 500, which was afterwards adjusted to £37, 000, the schools being taken out. The deposit paid was £3,750, a tenth of the purchase price, which is the usual percentage. The contract was never completed, and except for the £3,750 we never received any

money from prisoner. In accordance with Clause 14 on March 23 1911, we gave him, the nominee, notice. Unless he completed on or before May 4 next the deposit would be forfeited and we should deal with the property; it was sent by registered post and copies were sent to Gadsden and Pennefather and to the solicitors for the chargees, Carter, Bond, and Bourner, from whom we had had notice. (Exhibit 15 read.) We should have given notice to the chargees that we were going to complete and we should have completed. The property was forfeited.

Cross-examined. I cannot say when we received the notices of the charges; they were soon after the charges. I cannot say that it was known to Mrs. Herrick and all the district that this property was bought for the purpose of subsale. We were told after the contract had been made the sub-contracts had been made. I never heard of Thompson's name in the matter.

DAVID THOMPSON , solicitor, Rochdale. Tweedale, also of Rochdale, came of age a little over two years ago. In May or June, 1910, he became a client of mine, and from time to time I advised him on business matters. I learnt that he had come into a fortune, but I did not know the exact amount. I introduced him to White, who introduced him to prisoner at the Great Northern Hotel at about the end of September, 1910. I had had one transaction with prisoner before this. From that time there were a number of business transactions between prisoner and Tweedale, in all of which, except one, I was advising him. By December 16, 1910, he had paid prisoner in one way or another £19, 500. On that date he executed and gave prisoner bills for £16, 000, which, allowing three days' grace, would become due on June 19, 1911, in connection with a contract for the purchase by him from the prisoner of the Risley Estate. In the following January there were some further contracts made; the main contract was the repurchase by prisoner. (Mr. Healy asked that these documents should be produced. The Solicitor-General stated that he would not deal further with the matter until they were found and produced.) On March 30 I saw prisoner at the Great Northern Hotel as regards Tweedale's buying the balance, 611 acres, of the Thorney Estate; this was the first time prisoner had mentioned it to me; it was suggested to me first by Whits, and at his request I came to see prisoner in London about it. Prisoner said the price was £6,000, £2,000 to be paid on the signing of the contract and the balance on completion. After discussing the matter with White, who was advising Tweedale as to the values, I telephoned to Tweedale to come up to London. White, a land agent, knew the value of the estate; be carried on business at the Midland Grand Hotel. Tweedale came up to London. On March 31 I saw prisoner, alone at first, and asked him to supply me with particulars of the land. He called for his secretary, who brought in a sheet of paper containing the particulars. He told me that Gadsden was his solicitor in the matter and referred me to him. Later in the day I saw Gadsden and handed him the parts, which were embodied in an agreement executed later in the day; I do not know

what became of the actual sheet. I told him that Tweedale was proposing to buy, and he said "All right." I saw prisoner again and told him that Tweedale was prepared to buy on the terms he proposed, and I asked him whether he had pledged or charged his contract. He replied that he had not, and I asked him further if he was able to enter into a contract for the sale. He said he was. I then asked him whether he would embody those statements in a declaration, and he said he would. I then went to my London agent's office to prepare the contract (Exhibit 5) and the form of declaration (Exhibit 4). The paragraph in writing was inserted at the Midland Hotel later at White's suggestion; it is in his secretary's writing. Paragraph 1 is a list of properties with the acreages, and is an exact copy of the particulars supplied to me. I saw prisoner and handed the two documents to him. He read them and said they were all right. Gadsden acted as the commissioner for oaths. Before the declaration was executed he and prisoner had a word together in a corner of the room; they had the declaration with them. I did not hear what they said. The declaration was then executed, and I saw prisoner sign it. He signed the contract at the same time; I witnessed it. The first paragraph of the declaration says: "The contract for the purchase of the said estate has not been pledged by me and there are no existing charges thereon, and I have fall right to enter into the contract for the sale of 611 acres entered into by me with (blank) "; the name was not filled in. Then comes the paragraph which was added, and it has no bearing on the things under discussion. Then it goes on: "And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declaration Act, 1835." Then follow his signature and the signature of Gadsden as Commissioner. The agreement is of the same date, and is made between prisoner as agent for and on behalf of I. A. B. Walker, the vendor, and Tweedale; it contains the full particulars of the 611 acres that I have referred to, and stipulates that the purchase shall be completed on or before April 13 next. Then follows in manuscript the receipt of the £2,000 deposit. I am not positive whether the cheques were drawn before or after the execution of the agreement. Tweedale and White came across to the Great Northern with me, and in the Court below my recollection was that Gadsden came in first, but I am not quite positive about the order after thinking over it. The six cheques amounting to the £2,000 (Exhibits 7a to 7e) were drawn in my presence from Tweedale's book, and they are signed by him. Demery, prisoner's secretary, filled them up and also the counterfoils. The first is a cheque to J. B. Newton, for £200; he was a land agent at Long Eaton and Tweedale's selling agent of the Riseby estate. The next one is a cheque of £500 to Mr. Ball, a land agent at Nottingham. I had nothing to do with the splitting un of the cheques. The next cheque is for £450 to Demery, then £125 to Edwards, my London agent, and the next a cheque for £125 to me. These were all drawn under prisoner's direction. The last one is a cheque for £200 drawn in favour of "H. Morton," White's secretary; this was afterwards split up into smaller amounts.

1 believed the statement the prisoner had made in the declaration or I should not have advised Tweedale to carry through this transaction and pay this money. I had no knowledge that these charges upon the contract and property, or that notice had been given by the vendors to complete the contract by May 4. I think it was on May 17 that I heard there were any charges. On first hearing I saw White, who saw prisoner on Tweedale's behalf. Through him 1 received a proposal that prisoner should pay Tweedale £3,000 to cancel the contract. I saw prisoner in May. By June 14 we had reached the point of being ready to settle the matter by payment of the £3,000, and I saw prisoner at the Great Northern Hotel expecting to receive that sum. He had a number of bills amounting to £80, 000, on which 1 understood he was going to raise money to clear off the £3,000 and some other matters in connection with the Risley estate and he handed them to me, to hold until I received the £3,000 on the following day. Exhibit 12 is the memorandum I signed as to it, and Exhibit 13 the terms I agreed to. On the next day I saw him again expecting to get the £3,000, but I did not get it. I handed back the bills and he gave me a receipt for them (Exhibit 11). As far as I know, Tweedale has never got any part of the £3,000. I ceased to act for him on July 29, 1911.

The Solicitor-General put in three documents relating to the resale by Tweedale to the Hooley family of parts of the Risley estate, dated respectively December 21, 1910, January 7, 1911, and January 14, 1911. It was stated that no other had ever been completed.

Cross-examined. The Risley purchase price was £105, 000 upon Mr. Albert Ball's valuation. I supposed at that time Tweedale was able to finance that transaction (I did not know what money he had), and I assume prisoner did or he would not have contracted. I do not think I was ever asked by prisoner whether he could, but if I had been I should have said I thought he could. Immediately after the agreement of December 16, 1910, he (Tweedale) entered into possession and the furniture and most of the materials were sold. The matter was carried through by White, Tweedale's agent. I was not present. The furniture fetched about £3,000. Everything that was loose and moveable was sold and the whole thing realised about £14, 000. The mortgages on Risley were disclosed in the agreement and the £14, 000 practically went back into the estate and Tweedale had that amount to credit. He was also credited with the £19, 500 and with £10, 000, I think, profits he had made on other deals with prisoner. If Tweedale had had the money to finance and if it had been carried through I thought it would have been a most advantageous transaction for him, and I think so still. Tweedale was to subsell in small lots and pay off the mortgagees; prisoner had nothing more to receive after he got the bills; that was the intention when the contract was entered into. Exhibit 11 is the statement of account as to it. Tweedale had to pay the items shown there: Re Whiteley and Acryse, £5,850; Re J. White, £700; Re Ball, £700; costs of resale, £600." Upon prisoner's direction Tweedale is credited with £10, 000 profit re Erskine and the £19, 500 advanced by him. The three large sums at the bottom are sums to be

paid to mortgagees. The account represents a wiping out of all prior transactions and a pooling of the whole thing into the Risley purchase. 1 believed, and believe it now, to be an honourable transaction on his part. I do not know what the £500 cheque (part of the £2,000 payment) to Ball was for. He made a valuation of the Risley estate only for Tweedale, and which he was paid for by him. It was not through me that prisoner learnt that Tweedale was unable to finance the Risley purchase. If the contracts entered into by prisoner and members of his family and the other existing contracts had been completed, I did not think there was any difficulty in the matter being wound up by June—if Tweedale had been prosperous in carrying out the subsales he would have been able to meet the bills. I should think the subcontracts made after the purchase of Risley came to £34, 000. The first of the contracts was made with a view to enable prisoner to keep his own place. I cannot without having the sub-contract before me say what was their nature; they were handed in July last to Mr. Hosegood; the last one was on March 31, 1911, by which prisoner's wife was going to buy back from the Golden Brook Estates, Limited (a family company in which the whole of the assets of the prisoner's family were invested), who were the vendors to Tweedale, a portion of the estate for £24, 000; Tweedale was asked to sell it and he did so; he was re-selling to the prisoner's family at a higher proportionate price than what he had given for it. I consider the sale of Thorney unencumbered to Tweedale for £6,000 a good bargain. White, who inspected it, advised him as to the value and told him he could make a profit on the resale; prisoner himself said it was worth £16, 000. I knew prisoner had subsold down to March 31, 1911; 1 knew the sub-sales had not been completed by conveyance in January, 1911, but all but 611 acres; I also knew all the particulars of the sub-contracts he had entered into had been verified in that month by my London agent's managing clerk, Exeter, for another purpose altogether. I did not know that prisoner had not paid Mrs. Herrick. On March 31 by the form of the contract and the declaration I must have assumed that he had not got his conveyance, but I also knew that the amount of the sub-sales totalled more than the purchase-price he had to pay; I think I must have known that the whole thing still rested in contract. I felt that I had been satisfied first by prisoner and then by Gadsden that the particulars prisoner had given me of the land he proposed to sell to Tweedale were all right. I handed Gadsden the particulars and asked him whether they were all right, and he said they were; between solicitors I thought that sufficient; I thought if he knew of any charges he would have told me. I saw Tweedale and White and told them the conversation I had had with prisoner before I saw Gadsden. When I told White on May 17 about the charges he did not say that he knew all about them; I did not communicate with prisoner direct at first because I had not got particulars of the charges; I got them alternately through my. London agent. I thought the inducement for the bargain was prisoner getting the large present payment of £2,000. Tweedale was a willing buyer, but I personally had no interest in the matter except that I was anxious he should make a profit. I cannot

say why I did not say to prisoner that I would not advise my client to pay more than the usual 10 per cent, deposit, except that that offer was made by prisoner and it was accepted. After Gadsden had confirmed the particulars (at about 2.30 p.m. on March 31) I saw Tweedale at his hotel, the Midland, and told him that to my mind the matter seemed in order, and then he instructed me to proceed. I then went to my London's agent's office and prepared the contract and the declaration, having made an appointment with prisoner to meet him at his hotel at about 5 p.m. I returned to the Midland where I saw Tweedale and White, and it was then that White suggested the insertion of paragraph s: "I have arranged terms with Mr. Studley as set out in James White's letter to me of March 23, 1911." I had had no word with prisoner about that at the time it was written, but it related to a matter affecting Tweedale. I knew of the letter, but I had not seen it. I cannot say whether prisoner said anything about it. He and Gadsden were locking at it together in the corner of the room for about two minutes—It was about certain arrangements that prisoner was making with Studley, a third mortgagee on the Risley estate, which were beneficial to Tweedale. White and Tweedale accompanied me to the Great Northern; we arrived there about 5.15, a little late. This was a Friday, and I knew prisoner went home for his week-ends, but I did not know he caught any special train. The only business that Tweedale had to do was to sign the cheques, and to sign the Thorney and Hopwell Hall contracts; Hopwell Hall was part of the Risley estate; I think he did all the signing at one time and then left with White at well turned half-past five. The £125 cheque to Edwards was a debt owing to him by prisoner and the £125 cheque to me was for expenses in connection with the Risley estate, and all of it went in that manner. I produce the original envelope (Exhibit 20) on which the prisoner divided up the £2,000 into the different cheques; the only difference is that the item, "J. White, £325," was split up to a cheque for £200 to White and a cheque for £125 to me. I presume, seeing how the £200 was split up, White wanted some money in London for immediate use. The splitting up of the £325 cheque was done by White and prisoner and the splitting up of the £200 by Tweedale and White. After White and Tweedale had left I was chatting to prisoner and I am inclined to think that it was then that Gadsden came into the room; I have been thinking that point over. I was not then that I first broached the question of the statutory declaration; I had handed the declaration and the agreement to prisoner before anybody came in. (To the Court. Tweedale was with us when the paragraph was inserted in the declaration.) I, should think Tweedale was in the room a quarter of a hour altogether. There would be the Hopwell contract in two parts, the Thorney contract and the declaration on the table. I should say I was with prisoner alone about 10 minutes, while White and Tweedale waited either in the corridor or the billiard room and it was then that I banded him the documents—the Thorney contract and the declaration first and the Hopwell contracts separately, but it was all done at

the same time; I said that in the Court below. I regarded both contracts as important; I did not draw any distinction; I should think he regarded the Hopwell contract as the more important, but I cannot say that the whole conversation I had with him during that 10 minutes was about it; he read it through and that would take him about 10 minutes; he had not seen it before; he did not ask me any questions about it; he was a man of experience and understands these things. I do not know that anything else but the Thorney and the Hopwell contracts were discussed; they were then put on the table. I cannot say that the paragraph about Studley in the declaration was discussed at all. I understood in the Thorney matter and the declaration matters prisoner was relying on Gadsden. When White and Tweedale came in I cannot recollect whether the Studley paragraph was mentioned at all. At this interview Demery, prisoner's secretary, was in and out of the room all the time. Prisoner and Tweedale were both at the table signing together; I think they signed the Hopwell contracts first. When Gadsden came in there were only prisoner, Lemery, and I in the room. Gadsden was there to see prisoner on another matter and that is how he came to be the Commissioner; this was about 6 p.m. My recollection is that when I saw prisoner in the afternoon I told him when I came at five I would arrange for a commissioner to come from the City, and I, think he then told me that I need not do that as he expected Gadsden would be calling between five, and half-past; I think I said that in the police court. In August of this year he (Tweedale) issued a writ against me for negligence, but I have heard nothing further of it. If I had known that the Risley contract could not have been completed I certainly would not have advised him to enter into it. When I was pressing prisoner to meet me on the Thorney matter as regards the £3,000 I did not know that Tweedale would be unable to complete the Risley matter because at the same time I was pressing prisoner for the Risley contracts to be completed; the pressure was applied by continual interviews—not correspondence. White's home is in Rochdale and he used to call every Monday to see me and Tweedale at my office. I do not think there was any delay on our part in completing the sub-sales. I knew towards the end of May that the bills were becoming due and there were no signs of completion taking place; Tweedale told me then that he would be unable to meet his obligations if the sub-sales did not go through. I do not know that he ever acquainted me with his exact financial position. I keep a diary on separate sheets and I have no entries in this matter. Each transaction with prisoner is fully set forth in the agreement. I have no letters either to refresh my memory—only the agreements themselves. If prisoner had not had a receiving order made against him, I think he would have found the £3,000 to close the Thorney transaction.

Re-examined. In the course of the afternoon, while the transaction going on, prisoner never corrected the statement that he had made that he had not changed or pledged his contract. I think Exhibit 5 was in duplicate. The whole of the manuscript receipt at the foot

is in prisoner's handwriting; when the contract was signed something was said about the receipt and prisoner just picked up the document and wrote the receipt on it; this was done before Tweedale had gone. and the cheques were still in the room, though I cannot say in whose possession they were. If I had known at that stage that there were these charges I should have stopped the cheques. I know that prisoner sometimes financed his purchasers by giving charges in the profits and that is why I made the inquiries I did as to Thorney. The resales of Thorney I found for the most part were agreements with a deposit in cash. The London agent gave me the figures of the resales and I calculated that they had already paid for prisoner's purchase price and it left a profit to him, and the 611 acres still in hand. I treated Hilton's contract for subsale as nonexistent. My London agents got copies of the subcontracts from Ashwell's and went to the solicitor of each subpurchaser and verified them on the spot. I produce a list (Exhibit 21) supplied by Ashwell's to White with the amount of the sub-sales. The investigation made by Exter in January, 1911, into the sub-sales was made with a view to arranging an advance to prisoner's own purchase money to enable him to complete with his own sub-purchasers; it had nothing to do with Tweedale.

Further cross-examined. The investigation occupied only one day. White brought the particulars up; I understood from him he had had instructions from prisoner, whom I considered as my principal in the matter.

(Thursday, February 8.)

GEORGE LEECH TWEEDALE , Passmonds, Rochdale, mechanical engineer. I came of age on October 21, 1909. In August, 1910, my solicitors, Messrs. Jackson and Co., handed over to me £27, 500. I had known for some time Mr. David Thompson, a solicitor of Rochdale; he introduced me to Mr. James White, a land agent, in October, 1910, at the Midland Hotel, St. Pancras. In October White, Thompson, and I visited the prisoner. Various transactions took place and by December 16 I paid Hooley £19, 500. On December 16 I accepted bills (produced) to a further amount of £16, 000, which became payable on June 19, 1911. In those transactions I was advised by Thompson, as solicitor, and by White as to the value of the land. On March 30, 1911, I had a telephone message from Thompson and saw Thompson and White; I accepted their advice. We then saw the prisoner at the Great Northern Hotel. I do not remember signing documents, but I signed five cheques for £2,000 each (produced) and another for £200, which was afterwards, changed for six smaller cheques at White's request. These cheques have all been met by my bankers. I was paying this money for the purchase of Thorney for £6,000, free from encumbrances, I did not investigate myself the question whether the estate was free from encumbrances—I relied on Thompson. The purchase has never been completed. I first heard there were incumbrances in May. Up to the middle of July the

matter was in the hands of Thompson, as my solicitor; I then placed it in the hands of Mr. Hosegood, of Jackson and Co., solicitors, Rochdale. I was unable to meet the £16, 000 worth of hills, and a receiving order in bankruptcy has been made against me.

Cross-examined. Exhibit 23, "Particulars of sale of Bisley Hall and Hopwell, David Thompson, solicitor, of Rochdale," was issued on my behalf. In December I knew I was entering into a big deal without the money to finance it, but I did not tell prisoner that. I got prisoner's estate, which is a most beautiful place, and I sold the cattle, furniture, carriages, the growing crops, and everything else on the estate by means of a series of auctions lasting from December to May. I expected to be able to pay £105, 000 for the estate by means of the profit I should get from the Erskine estate, the £20, 000 already credited; I expected to make sufficient profit by selling off the live stock, etc., on the estate to pay off my £16, 000 worth of bills; and the £47, 500 mortgages would be deducted. I did not get myself presented to prisoner as a man of considerable wealth; I did not tell him anything about my financial position; I did not get the money which was the proceeds of the sales of the live stock, etc., on the estate; Mr. Thompson, my lawyer, got it; I do not know where it is now. I do not even know who was the auctioneer. 1 was told in August that the sales realised £14, 000. Some of that went to Mr. Ball, the valuer. I do not know whose man he was. I do not separate myself in this transaction from Thompson. My confidence in Thompson ceased at the end of July. I can hardly say whether I still have confidence in Mr. White. In July I lent White £1,000 for the Wells-Johnson prize fight. He gave me £500 back; the rest he owes me. My confidence ceased in Mr. White in July last. I last saw Mr. White two months ago when I had an interview with him at my house in Rochdale. At the police-court on November 27, I said, "I think Thompson did his duty by me with regard to the Thorney Estate. White acted as my agent and adviser subject to Thompson in legal matters. My confidence in White had continued to this time." That was a mistake. In August Mr. Hosegood, my new solicitor asked that all the papers should to handed over to him; Thompson then handed over a cash statement with regard to Risley and Hopwell (produced), which I saw. That only accounts for £8,411; we came to the conclusion that we did not understand the account. That was the only account I received with regard to the £14, 000 realised. In May I first made up mind that I would be unable to meet my bills; I then knew that they had been negotiated by prisoner. I agreed to sell Risley Hall to Mrs. Hooley; I have no idea how I could sell the property before I had cleared off the mortgages and made a title. I was in complete ignorance of how to conduct these arrangements. On March 31 I arrived at the Great Northern Hotel at about 3 p.m. There was no definite appointment to come there. I knew I was going to sign something to make me the purchaser of Thorney. When I got to the hotel I went straight to prisoner's room with White and Thompson. Thompson told prisoner that I was ready to purchase the

Thorrey estate, prisoner said, "This is where you make money." I do not recollect his saying that he hoped I would give him some thing on account on Risley. Thompson produced some documents; I said, "Is everything all right?" Thompson replied, "Yes." Demery then came in, made out some cheques, and I signed them. Shortly afterwards I saw Thompson and White in the billiard-room talking to Gadsden; that was the first time I had seen him. I may have signed some contracts, but I do not remember. I went back by myself to the Midland Hotel. The whole of the transaction was over by 4.30 p.m. I saw White in the Midland Hotel about 5.30 p.m. I returned to Rochdale alone by the 2.40 a.m. train. The cheque for £15 8s. 4d. is not for my hotel bill; that was paid for White's account. I never heard of a statutory declaration being signed until May. I might have seen a statutory declaration and not known what it was; I did not know that one was being prepared. I have never known that he statutory declaration included a clause about White and Stubbley. White first suggested the breaking up of the £200 cheque; Thompson may have been present.

Re-examined. Before the Risley transaction I had purchased a share of the profits on the Erskine estate from prisoner, and be had guaranteed me £40, 000 as a minimum profit. In the transaction of December 16 I was credited with £10, 000; I have never received the remaining £30, 000. On December 16 I received agreement (produced) signed by prisoner and Ashwell, his solicitor, in which they agreed to pay me on or before April 25, 1911, £15, 000 for my interest in £30, 000 debentures to be issued to me in respect of the Erskine estate. That £15, 000 would become due before my bills for £16, 000 matured. I never got that money. When prisoner and Ashwell failed to pay me the £15, 000 I saw I should not be able to meet my bills. I have heard that Ashwell has since, become a bankrupt.


LEONARD CHARLES CHERRY , clerk, Department of Official Receiver In Bankruptcy. I produce a bundle of documents in the possession of Mr. Kay, one of the Official Receivers and as such trustee of the estate of T. A. B. Walker, amongst which there is a receipt signed by Garden and Pennefather for documents received from Ashwell, dated February 6, 1911. (On the Solicitor-General being asked whether he had any objection to the admission of these documents he stated that he understood that the witness was producing them in order that prisoner might refer to them when he went into the box. Mr. Matthews stated that the object of their production was to show that Gadsden and Pennefather knew of the charges on the Thorney estate, since these were included in the documents handed over to them by Ashwell; he would call a witness to prove the handing over.) In the bundle there are also letters from Gadsden and Pennefather to Ashwell dated February 8, February 13, and February 16, 1911.

Cross-examined. As far as I can remember Walker's bankruptcy was in 1911.

ESNEST TERAH HOOLEY (prisoner, on oath). I am now living at Risley Hall, which was substantially my wife's property; it has now been sold, and we are paying £12 a week rent until we can get to another place; technically it belonged to the Golden Brook Estates, Limited, in which my wife held all but two or three shares. Years ago I was successful as a company promoter, but in June, 1898, I became bankrupt, and have not since obtained my discharge. On June 16 last year a receiving order was made against me. For the last three or four years I have speculated in landed estates, contracting for the purchase of a large estate, cutting it up and selling it in lots to the tenants, attempting in that way, to realise a profit; I have dealt in this way with nearly £3,000, 000 worth of landed property. One estate dealt with was the Erskine Estate, which borders the Clyde for some miles. I also purchased, through my son as nominee, the Tattershall Estate from Lord Fortescue. When Bond advanced £90, 000 I had sold that estate at £35, 000 profit. Other estates I have dealt in are the Whitehall Estate, Buxton, the Elmham Estate, Norfolk; and the Acryse Estate, Kent. I first met Tweedale in about October, 1910, when White and Thompson brought him to my hotel, •the Great Northern. I did not know Thompson at all, but I had then known White about eleven months; I understood his business to be dealing in land and as a mortgage broker. He had told me previously that Tweedale lived in Rochdale and he had just come into a fortune of about a quarter of a million, and if I had anything in the way of business to propose' he could get him to come in if. the proposals passed his solicitor; I cannot remember whether he mentioned the solicitor's name. As my business was to have land deals with people I was pleased to be introduced to Tweedale. I then saw Thompson, who I was told was Tweedale's solicitor, and he said that Tweedale had come into a fortune and White had told him that I had certain business to propose to him. I told him the class of business I had been doing and mentioned several estates. The next day I was introduced to Tweedale, and I went through the same story again about the estates I had bought and sold, and that I thought it was a good business. I did not know until July, 1911, when Hose good came to see me, that he was not the rich man I had been given to understand, by that time his bills had been dishonoured. In March, 1911, he paid me for divers considerations £195, 000, £5,000 of which he advanced towards the Erskine Estate purchase, for which I had contracted to pay £127, 500, £5,000 for the Elmham Estate deposit, and something for the Whitehall and Acryse deposits, but I cannot remember how much, they were all for deposits. Thompson and his London agent acted throughout for him. I saw Thompson nearly every week. White inspected the estates and advised as to values before Tweedale advanced anything; after my introduction to Tweedale I used to see White every day with the exception of Saturday and Sunday; he lived at the Midland, quite close to my hotel. I do not think I ever at any time had any dealings with him at all other than in matters in which he was acting for Tweedale. Oh December 16, when the Risley contract was entered

into, the position was that Tweedale was interested in the four estates which I have mentioned, all of which were at that time still open. At the end of November White proposed the sale of Risley; every-thing was to be settled up if I would sell Risley; they said they would rather have Risley and deal with it themselves than wait for their profits on the four estates; White said this speaking for Thompson, Tweedale and himself. It was valued by Mr. Ball a man of position in Nottingham, at, I think, £105, 000, with the Hopwell redemption thrown in; I do not know who instructed him to value it; he was not acting for me. The £10, 000 credited to Tweedale in Exhibit 11 on that purchase is the profit I had agreed to give him on the Erskine Estate, and he was credited with the £195, 000 he had paid me. The £2,000 they debited me with because they said there might be taxes and tithes and interest, which I had not told them about, to be paid. The £700 credited to Tweedale for White was the sum I had to pay White for the deal with Tweedale. As to the £700 to Ball, I think I owed him that sum, and they were to pay him. I and my family would not agree to sell the place if they did not give us the right to buy the house, the furniture, and 34 acres back, and a contract was entered into to that effect on January 7. My wife arranged for the money, £12, 000, to carry out that contract. Adjoining was Hopwell Hall, which was untenanted, which was encumbered by mortgages, and on which I had an equity of redemption. This was sold to them for £420, 000, but on March 31, at White's suggestion on behalf of Tweedale (because they could not sell it as it wanted money spending on it) I bought it back, giving them a profit of about £2,000. My father has lived in a lodge adjoining Risley about 32 years, so my association with it was not merely as my own residence. As soon as the contract of December 16 was settled they said they would not settle without I gave them possession that night and they sent a man down. The first thing they did was to sell off my Jersey cattle without pedigrees that were worth £30 for £9 or £10 apiece. They also sold haystacks at 30s. a ton; they knocked down everything at any price they could get; they did not leave a stick or stone about and sold all the grazing rights; they were very foolish. By the contract £2,000 was set aside to pay the interest on the mortgages; I do not know whether Tweedale paid any, but a receiver was put in about six months ago and my home at Risley was broken up. I contracted to buy the Thorney Estate from Mrs. Herrick for £37, 000 and I entered into contracts for the subsale of the whole of that estate except the Hall and 611 acres. On the morning of March 27 White came to me at my hotel and asked me if I would take £6,000 for the balance, and if I would he would get Tweedale to do that if afterwards I would resell it for them, giving Tweedale £1,000 profit, and credit me with any surplus towards my Risley new purchases. On the following day, I think it was, I agreed to do the deal subject to Tweedale's and his solicitor's approval, and that I was to have £2,000 deposit; I thought the property was worth £16, 000, but they were only getting £1,000 profit in any case. I proposed to White in January that he should get Tweedale or some

of his people to complete the purchase of Thorney. In buying a large estate and cutting it up into lots it is necessary to find money to get the conveyance before completing the conveyances with the sub-purchasers unless you can arrange with the vendor to give you the deeds peacemeal, and I approached Mrs. Herrick through Ashwell to let me have these deeds, but her solicitor refused, and I approached White with regard to financing the completion. He had been over the ground and in January I had given Thompson all the particulars, and his London agent's clerk had been down there making inquiries and verifying these sub-purchases. White arranged with Ball to finance it, 'but this fell through because Ball wanted to step in before Carter bad any profit; so White knew all about the Garter charge. A few days before February 6 I arranged with Gadsden, who took over the business from Ashwell, to finance the completion; I instructed Ashwell to hand over the papers to Gadsden and Pennefather as my new solicitors; the date of Gadsden's receipt for them is February 6, 1911. (Mr. Justice Phillrimore ruled, on the Solicitor-General's objection, that the letters produced by the witness Cherry could not be put in and read at this point as showing what arrangements were made by prisoner with Gadsden.) He did not carry out the arrangement which was on foot at the time of the contract with Tweedale, and as a result Mrs. Herrick cancelled the contract, which brought the whole thing down. White having suggested this purchase by Tweedale of the balance, Thompson came, I believe on the Thursday, and said that subject to the thing being all right he would get Tweedale to buy this Thorney land and he asked me if I had any charges on the property that would prevent me dealing with it. I said, "None, but you had better see Mr. Gadsden; he has got all the papers and he will give you all the Particulars you want and will tell you everything about it "; Gadsden knew all about it. He did not say a word about a statutory declaration; he first brought it to my notice at about 6.20 p.m. on Friday, March 31, when I had got my coat on going to catch my train. I do not know whether I saw Thompson on the morning of that day, but I saw White; he told me the deal was going through and they would have the documents ready some time later in the afternoon and he made an appointment for us all to meet at ray hotel at 5 p.m. They did not keep it and I kept ringing them up and telling them I was disgusted; they had been keeping the deal going all the week and they always messed me about until Friday afternoon. At after 5.30 Tweedale, Thompson, and White all came in together; there is not a word of truth in Thompson's statement that he saw me first and handed me the declaration and the other documents. The contracts were signed and the cheques passed. When Tweedale and White had gone away and I was getting on my coat to catch my train (this was at 6.30) Thompson said to me, "I want you to sign this." I said, "What is it?" He said, "It is a document to say you are free to deal with the property." I threw it across the table to Gadsden and said, "Is that all right, Mr. Gadsden? Can I sign this?" Gadsden had come in as soon as the others had gone; he had been waiting in the billiard-room to see me; he used to call on me most nights on his way home to

see how the Thorney deal was going on He said, "It is all right; you can sign it." I signed it and finished, put on my coat, and went. I did not know that Gadsden was acting as a commissioner and that it was a statutory declaration; I thought he was signing it as a witness. I did not say to Thompson that I would arrange that Gadsden should attend to act as commissioner; I had no appointment with him to call. Carter, Bourner, and Bond had never interfered in any way with my arranging sub-sales, and their charges did not prevent me from selling the balance to anybody. When the charge was first given to Carter, Larkin and Co. were to hold the deposits. Carter did not like these lawyers, so we agreed we would not have them and I was to take the deposits. Bond had lent me £90, 000 on the Tattershall estate, and the sum he advanced, £4,700, on the Thorney estate, was to pay the vicar's stipend, for which I gave him a charge on Thorney; but he had ample security from the charge on Tattershall and he would not want a shilling from Thorney. Bourner's charge was on account of professional fees. When signing the declaration I did not know I was putting my hand to statements that were not literally and actually true; of course, I am a bad judge, but I reckon they are true now. I say there are no charges which prevented me dealing with the property. I agree that the declaration ought not to have been signed. There is not the slightest foundation for suggesting that I acted in this matter with any intent to defraud Tweedale.

(Friday, February 9.)

ERNEST TEEAH HOOLEY (recalled, further examined). Thompson and White agreed in Tweedale's presence that they should provide the purchase money for Erskine and that a company should be registered with £100, 000 debentures and £100, 000 ordinary shares; Tweedale was to have £30, 000 debentures, and I gave contracts to Thompson, White, and Edwards for so many debentures, for which they agreed to find £15, 000. Then I agreed by Exhibit 25, the agreement of December 16, to buy back Tweedale's debentures for £15, 000 by April 25. They failed to find the £117, 500 necessary to complete the purchase.

Cross-examined. Throughout these transactions I regarded White as advising Tweedale and protecting his interests as against me. They were all ordinary business transactions, and I thought they were very fair both ways. The Erskine transaction was one of the earliest; he paid £5,000 to the solicitors in Scotland for the deposit of £10, 000. I do not know if this cheque handed to me for £5,000 drawn by him in favour of "W. G. Ewing "and dated October 6, 1910, is the cheque for Erskine. Owing was my secretary, and therefore the cheque was intended for me. For his £5,000 he was to get a quarter of the profits, and I see by the contract dated October 6, 1910, I guarantee this will not be less than £4,000; he was also for this to advance a further £10, 000, and for the £15, 000 he was to be given bills drawn by my wife and accepted by my son and endorsed by me payable toy £5,000 in three months, £5,000 at four months, and £5,000 at six months. An insurance for £15, 000 was to be taken

out on my life and the policy was to be held by him until the £1,500 was repaid. The £40, 000 was to be taken by him in cash and debentures pro rata with me. I believe this was the first transaction I had with Tweedale; the agreement is dated October 6. I am now quite satisfied that the cheque for £5,000 shown me is the cheque which represents the payment under this agreement. I should call this an ordinary business transaction; the other transactions were, I imagine, all about the same. It was a transaction, I agree, between myself and Tweedale. It is true that for a present advance of £15, 000 I was willing to guarantee a profit of £40, 000, but there were special circumstances. All the subsequent transactions involved Tweedale paying me money at the time the contract was entered into. I can indicate no transactions in which I carried out the obligations I understood, but all the contracts were cancelled at their request; before I had time to perform them a fresh contract was always substituted; in every case the new transaction may have involved Tweedale paying a further sum of money. The Risley contract wiped out all the earlier transactions and released me from all the promises I had made; it is true I did not hand any actual cash back to Tweedale, but he was credited with it on the £105, 000, the purchase price which he had to pay as I directed; Exhibit 11 shows how I directed that the money was to be paid to me; although the agreement was made between him and the Golden Brook Estates, Limited, it was, in substance, a bargain between him and myself. The £700 I owed to Ball on account of previous dealings I had had with him; it was nothing to do with commission. He valued for Tweedale. I had never employed him as a valuer; he is a dealer in landed estates. I had not the money myself to pay him. His chance of being paid did not depend upon whether I could satisfactorily realise Risley; I should have paid him sooner or later out of something else. Tweedale gave up his £40, 000 guaranteed minimum profit for the £10, 000 credited to him in Exhibit 11; they offered to do this; we could not bring out the company until the following May, and they wanted to clear up with, me then in December. I do not know the reason why they should want to do it; it was a very good bargain for him, as he had made £5,000 profit. But he was to have £30, 000 more debentures in addition if the company came out and they did what they had bargained to do. By Exhibit 21, dated December 6, I and Ashwell agree that in consideration of his assigning to us all his interest in these debentures we undertake to pay him on or Wore April 25, 1911, £15, 000, but the debentures, as I say, have never been issued. I did not pay a farthing of that because I never got the debentures. Ashwell was not a bankrupt before April 25. This promise was not made to enable him to meet his £16, 000 worth of hills becoming due in June; he was represented to me as having a quarter of a million at that date. I agree that in the agreement (Exhibit 21) that the fact that there are charges on the Risley Estate is mentioned. His lawyer drew up the Thorney agreement, and he could have put the charges in that one. Thompson insisted on my paying his and his London agent's costs, £600, mentioned in

Exhibit 21, although they were the purchaser's costs. I did not represent, to Thompson or anybody that the 611 acres of Thorney was pure profit, the sub-contract for resale of the other portions covering the purchase price I had to pay to Mrs. Herrick. I heard Thompson cross-examined in the Court below;, I do not remember Mr. Matthews suggesting to him on my behalf that I had represented the 611 acres was pure profit. (Mr. Healy objected, to the Solicitor-General reading the depositions on this point. The Solicitor-General stated he would not press it.) I do not think that if all the contracts of sub-sale had been carried out I should have had sufficient to pay the prime cost and leave the balance as profit. (Mr. Justice Phillimore pointed out that at the foot of Exhibit 22 there was a calculation which showed that such sub-sales would have realised £33, 700.) On the Thorney plan my secretary has given particulars of the sub-sales, which show that altogether I had sold £33, 769, excluding Hilton's and Tweedale's contracts, so I was £2,750 short of the purchase price. I think the deposits that I had received by the end of March on these sub-sales were a little more than £2,349; in some cases farmers paid me in sheep; I estimate altogether £3,149. It is not true to suggest that it was wholly against my interest to complete the Thorney purchase. I did intend to complete. It is true if I had carried out the purchase I should have had to pay £37, 000, the purchase price, and Carter's bonus, £3,750; I should not necessarily have had to pay Bond's £4,500 from Thorney because he had only a collateral charge on Thorney; he had other securities. I had also contracted to pay him £1,050 bonus and 62 3/4 per cent.; he would not entertain it unless he had those terms; he would not have charged anything like £1,500 for interest. I agree that adding all these figures and Bourner's £500 together the amount I would have to pay would be £48, 300, and leaving Bond out the figure would be £41, 250, but I am not satisfied that that is the way to reckon it up. Comparing that with the £39, 760, the sub-sales and Tweedale's £6,000, I should sustain a loss, but that is not a fair way of putting it. If Risley had fetched on my reselling it £16, 000, which it was worth, I should have had £9,000 credited to me by Tweedale on what I owed him for the Hall which I had bought back from him for £12, 000; he would have the balance of the profit £7,000, £6,000 being the money he had advanced and £1,000 the guaranteed profit; I never intended to sell the balance to him out and out for such a low price as £6,000. I do not agree I should have sustained a loss on the Thorney completion; deducting deposits received and adding Tweedale's £4,000 I had to receive £34, 572, which would leave me a balance in hand of £1,250 after paying Mrs. Herrick; I could have satisfied Carter from what I made out of the Risley deal. If the sale to Thorney had been an out and out sale I agree there would have been a loss. It is true if I had not carried the sale through I had £5,179, being the deposits and Tweedale's £2,000, in pocket. I have always been and am ready and willing now to return Tweedale his dishonoured bills for £2,000, dated December 16, 1910. (Produced.) (Mr. Justice Phillimore rebuked the witness, stating that he could not bargain off punishment for a possible

crime by attempting to pay back.) As soon as I got them I gave them to Redfern and Hunt, the solicitors acting for me now, for £1,700 costs, they giving me a cheque for the balance, and when they were dishonoured I gave them a mortgage for £2,000 in return for them, and they now belong to me. This was perhaps two months ago. I think I had arranged to have them back before the January Sessions. I did not know that as recently as January 8 of this year they were carrying on an action on these bills against Tweedale as though they belonged to them. (The Solicitor-General put-in the writs dated August 18, 1911, and the Reply dated January 8, 1912.) I do sometimes pledge my contracts and sell my profits and it was a very proper thing for Thompson, as he knew this, to ask me whether I had done so in the case of Thorney. I had given him particulars as early as January as to the charges. March 30 was the first time he actually asked me and I told I had done so, but it did not prevent my dealing with the property. I cannot explain why this was not put to Thompson in cross-examination; I told my solicitors the whole case. The property could have been delivered to Tweedale if Gadsden had completed as he promised to do; it was not the charges on it that prevented him getting his deeds so they really did not make any difference; under the subsequent conditions, of course, it has made a difference, I agree. At the moment it would have made a difference to him in prudence. I do not remember saying to Tweedale. "This is the way to make money." I did not read the statutory declaration. It is not true that that and the agreement were signed at the same time. Gadsden and I did not examine it together, apart from the rest. I do not remember when signing it seeing "Commissioner for Oaths "; I believe from looking at it now that those words were added by Thompson after I signed. I had only signed one statutory declaration before this one. I did not see, when signing, the lithographed words just above, "Statutory Declarations Act, 1835." I relied entirely upon Gadsden as my solicitor. If I had known it was a statutory declaration I should have inquired into its contents and if I had so inquired I should have found I was declaring a lie. I directed how the £2,000 was to be split up. White insisted an having £200, so a cheque for that amount was drawn for him; Thompson and Tweedale agreed to it; I do not know what it was for; I did not think he had a banking account, so it was drawn to Martin's, his secretary, favour; he having a banking account. I knew at that time that my solicitors had received a notice from the vendor's solicitors cancelling the contract if the contract was not completed by May 4. I did not tell Thompson, but I told White that I would have no control over the property unless I could find £37, 000, and he had been trying from January to get somebody to complete for me. Mrs. Herrick, although not legally compelled to do so, gave the tenants their deposits; I myself did not return them. The first I heard of the declaration was in May when White told me I had signed one, and there would be trouble if I did not do certain things and paid so much money. Somebody had tricked me. That declaration

was put before me at White's instigation. I make no charges against anybody. As soon as I learnt I sent for the selling agents of the Risley estate, Newton and Ball, to come up and see White and Thompson, paying their expenses for doing so. Edwards then had the document. Of course, I told White I had never signed one and I said the same to Newton and Ball when they arrived. I complained to nobody else. Thompson was not in town then; I never saw the document until at the police court; I asked to see it many times, but they would never show it to me. I was not on good terms with Edwards then. White arranged to meet Ball and Newton and then they came and told me that it appeared to be a statutory declaration that I had signed. I arranged with Ball to help them to get the Risley estate sold and I was to buy certain portions of it. If I did not do that they said they would apply for a warrant at Derby close to my home. Later on they wanted £5,000 for the document; Thompson was the man who made all the bullets. Newton and Ball did not tell me that Gadsden had signed it as a commissioner. I did not complain to Gadsden because since he had dropped me over the Thorney deal I had not spoken to him. (Mr. Healy objected to the Solicitor-General asking witness whether he had subpoenaed Gadsden, on the ground that it was against public policy. The objection was overruled) My solicitor has subpoenaed Gadsden and I have heard that he refused to give a proof.

Re-examined. It was after March 31 that I learnt Gadsden refused to complete. The reason why my wife's or my son's names were introduced into the December 16 contract was that they would not take my name as I was an undischarged bankrupt. Tweedale was to take his £40, 000 in debentures pro rata with me; if I had half cash and half debentures he would have taken off in the same ratio. The Erskine estate consisted of. 4, 350 acres, and Lady Mary Erskine wished to sell it in consequence of the shipping round making it no longer a desirable residence. It is worth a million to-day. If they had had that estate for cutting up, they would not have wanted any more business in the office. They never took steps to issue the debentures, however, and no demand has therefore been made on his behalf. I do not know whether they have proved in my bankruptcy for the £15, 000, the price at which I promised to redeem Tweedale's debentures, the agreements were made under extreme pressure, and Thompson and White squeezed me for the sums that I paid them. I always use my glasses when reading, though not when signing, and I was in such a hurry to catch my train when signing this declaration that 1 did not put my glasses on; I trusted to Gadsden, who I knew knew all about the charges. Whereas the charges on the Risley, which were mentioned in the agreement were charges on the land, the charges on Thorney were charges only on the contract. From May, when I first knew of the declaration, until June, every day White and Thompson were trying to get money from me to return me the declaration; I regard Thompson as the biggest enemy I have ever had in my life. When I saw him on the 31st I was under the impression that Gadsden had given him all the information about the charges.

WILLIAM CARTER (recalled, further cross-examined). The sixth clause of the agreement is "All cash deposits received in respect of sub-sales, of this estate or any part thereof shall be paid to Larkin and Company, solicitors, Lincoln, who shall hold such deposits." I had forgotten the name of Larkin, but I presume I went to some solicitors in Lincoln with Hooley. His object was to get some solicitors who would have the confidence of the sub-purchasers. I had no objection to it at all. The object of the solicitors holding the deposits was to satisfy the purchasers. (Further re-examined.) I do not say the clause was waived—(there was no allusion to it. My claims against prisoner have not been satisfied—I have proved in his bankruptcy for £50, 000 after allowing for security.

THOMAS LLEWELLYN DEMERY . I have been prisoner's secretary since July, 1910. In July, 1910, I went to Lincoln to manage the sub-sales of the Thorney property, and (had authority to enter into contracts for sub-sales. I was there about four or five weeks. The figures given by prisoner are correct. I knew who found the deposit, and that Carter held a charge. I afterwards went to Yorkshire to deal with other property there. In January, 1911, I knew Thompson and White were financing the business. I was present in January at a meeting at the Great Northern Hotel, when prisoner gave Thompson and White full particulars of Thorney. On January 5 I went to Lincoln with Mr. Exeter to verify what contracts were in existence. We saw most of the sub-purchasers. In February, 1911, Mr. Ashwell, of Nottingham, was acting for prisoner; the business was transferred to Mr. Gadsden. Gadsden asked where the original contract was; prisoner stated it was with Carter because he had provided the deposit, and therefore had charge of it; that was mentioned an several occasions I was present when White proposed to prisoner that Tweedale should buy the balance which remained of the Thorney property for £6,000, Tweedale paying a deposit of £2,000; there were a series of interview about the end of March. We went into all the figures, and it was understood, the value of the property being £16, 000, £2,000 would be a reasonable deposit. White had been over the estate himself and knew the value, but he asked my opinion. I worked out the value of each particular holding, and we arrived at £16, 000 as the total. The bargain was that Tweedale should allow prisoner to resell the property, Tweedale receiving £1,000 profit, the balance of the profit to be credited to prisoner in respect of the Risley estate. The original contract of sale by Mrs. Perry Herrick to Hooley was repeatedly mentioned to White by prisoner. White asked me where the contract was—I told him it was with Garter, who had provided the deposit. I was present on March 31 when Thompson and White called on prisoner. I again gave White particulars of all contracts then existing with sub-purchasers of Thorney, the number of acres sold and unsold, and the amounts realised; he asked also whether the Perry Herrick-Hooley contract was still in the hands of Carter—I told him it was because the charge had not been paid, and that all the contracts had been handed by Messrs. Ashwell, who had then ceased to

act for Mr. Hooley, to Gadsden. On that day Thompson had an interview with Gadsden in the Great Northern Hotel, an appointment was made for the afternoon. Thompson, White, and Tweed ale came together; all the documents with regard to Thorney and Hopwell were handed to Hooley; he said they were correct, and signed them; 0we were all sitting round the table. Tweedale handed me his chequebook, prisoner directed me to draw the cheques, which Tweedale signed and handed over; I handed the counterfoils to Tweedale; he and White then left. Gadsden came in after they had gone—this was about 5.30 or 5.45 p.m., and produced the statutory declaration—I had not seen this before—it could not have been handed to prisoner without my observing it. Thompson asked prisoner to sign that document; prisoner asked him what it was; Thompson said it was to show that prisoner was free to deal with the property. Prisoner passed the paper to Gadsden and asked him if it was in order. Gadsden glanced through it and said prisoner had perfect power to deal with the property and he could sign it, which he did. Prisoner and I then left to catch a train. No form of words showing it was a statutory declaration were used by Gadsden. There was nothing to indicate that prisoner was making a solemn statutory declaration.

Cross-examined. No conversation took place between prisoner and Gadsden after he signed the document; Gadsden did not sign it in my presence. Prisoner and I had our coats on; we left the room together. Gadsden was not asked to attend at the meeting, though he was told about it, and he probably called to learn that the business had (been completed; he generally called on the prisoner about that time; Gadsden was apprised of the fact that completion was taking place. White first suggested the £2,000 deposit; the proposal was made by him two days before March 31 on one of several interviews, which took place. I have been in court all through this case; 1 did not understand that witnesses were required to be out of court. I am a bankrupt; I am making an application to have my bankruptcy annulled next week.

Re-examined. The man who made me bankrupt broke faith over a cheque which I had given him which he was to hold pending the completion of a certain matter. He discounted the cheque with a third party, who made me a bankrupt. I have got my cheque back and expect to get my bankruptcy annulled.

FREDERICK KING , managing clerk to Le Brasseur and Oakley, solicitors. I was formerly managing clerk to Messrs. Ashwell, who had the conduct for prisoner of the Thorney estate down to February, 1911, when the papers were handed over to Messrs. Gadsden and Pennefather. I made a schedule of the documents, saw Mr. Gadsden, and was directed to hand the papers to his managing clerk, who gave me a receipt (produced) after checking the schedule, which includes copy charge of July 20, 1910, in favour of Carter and copy charge of September 14, 1910, to Barnard. I have been subpoenaed by the prosecution.

Verdict, Guilty.

(Saturday, February 10.)

Mr. Justice Phillimore, in sentencing prisoner, said: I agree with the verdict of the jury. I do not say it is all your fault that this young man, starting a year and a half ago with £27, 510, finds himself in the position of having parted with £21, 500 to you, or to those whom you directed, and engaged in obligations which he was unable to meet to the extent of £16, 000 more, and the position of having a receiving order made against him. I do not say that it is all your fault. It may well be that others, or another, bad part in that business. Nor do I say that the way in which you obtained the money, other than the £2,000, was in any way which the law would call criminal, however reprehensible the inducements which you offered to that young man may have been. You have been charged, tried, and convicted, and you shall be punished for, nothing but the obtaining of that £2,000 by false pretences.

Sentence: Twelve months' imprisonment, second division.



(Wednesday, January 31.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-49
VerdictGuilty > pleaded guilty
SentenceImprisonment > hard labour; Imprisonment > hard labour

Related Material

JONES, William Henry (35, photographer), and STONE, Leonard (24, palmist), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Edwin James Ellis and stealing therein two dozen knives and other articles, his goods.

Stone was proved to have been convicted at Farnham Police Court, 'receiving six weeks, for stealing a ferret; at Ryde, in the Isle of Wight, on March 9, 1907, he was charged with attempted murder, but was certified to be insane and was kept in an asylum until October 4, 1907; on January 17, 1910, he was charged with rape in the Aberdeen High Courts, but a verdict of "Not proven" was returned. Prisoners were stated to have violently assaulted a baker named Sharp and a Mr. Macleod, next door neighbour to the house which was broken into, who both attempted to arrest prisoners.

Sentences: Stone, Eighteen months' hard labour; Jones, Nine months' hard labour.


(Monday, February 5.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-50
VerdictsGuilty > unknown
SentencesImprisonment > penal servitude

Related Material

ANDERSON, William Henry (43, labourer) , carnally knowing Julia Margaret Anderson, who to his knowledge was and is his daughter; attempting to carnally know Ethel May Anderson, who to his knowledge was and is his daughter.

Prisoner was tried upon the first indictment.

Verdict, Guilty.

The second indictment was not proceeded with.

Sentence: Three years' penal servitude.


(Wednesday, February 7.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-51
VerdictsNot Guilty > unknown; Miscellaneous > postponed

Related Material

BROWN, Frank William (50, farmer) , feloniously receiving two kitchen stoves, the goods o. Adolphus Attell, well knowing them to have been stolen; feloniously receiving 24 overalls and other articles, the goods of Stapley and Smith, Limited, well knowing them to have been stolen; Ulawfully receiving one mare, the goods of Charles Luke Mortlock; one gelding, the goods of Jonathan Dixon; one pony, one cart and other articles, the goods of Gertrude Elizabeth Eleanor Mousley; one mare and two geldings, the goods of John Edgar Parker, and four horses, the goods of George Jackson, in each case well knowing the same to have been obtained by false pretences; conspiring and agreeing with one Brown alias Clark to obtain and in pursuance thereof obtaining by false pretences from John Edgar Parker three horses, from Charles Luke Mortlock one mare, from Jonathan Dixon one gelding, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. H. D. Roome prosecuted; Mr. Ernest E. Wild and Mr. E. Aylmer Digby defended.

The indictment for receiving two kitchen stoves was tried.

ADOLPHUS ATELL , Elm Road, Forest Road, Walthamstow, builder. In October, 1911, I was building some houses i. Sterling Road, Walthamstow; on October 11 I missed two kitchen stoves, which had the name of "Young and Marten" on them, and had been left in the kitchen of one of the new houses. The smoke pipe and cover plate were not taken. I reported the matter to the police. On January 18 at the Manor House Farm I was shown two stoves identical in every particular with those I had lost; in each case the smoke pipe and cover plate were missing.

Cross-examined. I am in a fairly large way of business. I had nine similar stoves at the time. Young and Marten have a very large business indeed and sell a great number of these stoves. They are sometimes sold without the smoke pipe and cover plate. An extra charge is made for the smoke pipe and cover plate. It is necessary to have a smoke pipe and cover plate. I am not prepared to swear that the stoves I saw at Manor House Farm were the ones I lost; you cannot swear to two pins. These stoves are a very common size.

Detective-Sergeant WILLIAM PHIPP, N Division. On January 18 I went with the last witness to Manor House Farm, which is occupied by the prisoner. In an old kitchen which was being repaired I found two stoves. We searched but could not find the smoke pipes or cover plates. An old stove was being taken out.

Cross-examined. Manor House Farm was under repair. These stoves were not unpacked; they still had the straw round them.

JOSEPH WILLIAM BESANT , 19, Coote Street, Hackney Road, assistant order clerk to Pickford and Co. On July 4 a carman named Harris was despatched by my firm to Stapley and Smith of London Wall. Harris did not come back and I have not seen him since.

ERNEST GEORGE BRUTON , manager, despatch department, Stapley and Smith, Limited. On July 4, 1911, Harris collected from us 19 cases of ladies' and children's clothing, value £500. On January 15, 1912, at Walthamstow Police Station I was shown 24 children's over-alls and other articles value £2 2s. with our ticket "S & S" upon them, I can tell from the number that the overalls were part of the stolen goods. At the trial of a man named Godbolt in 1911 for receiving a portion of the stolen goods I saw 14 cases of underclothing at Walthamstow Police Court.

The Recorder: How is this evidence against this man?

Mr. Roome: I shall call a police officer who found the goods the subject of the charge against Godbolt in a shed on a farm occupied by the prisoner Brown. The shed was sublet by Brown to Godbolt, and when the goods were found there the officer spoke to the prisoner Brown about them.

The Recorder: It is quite open to you under the Prevention of Crimes Act to prove that other property was found in his possession stolen during the previous 12 months. It is purely statutory. It was thought in the early days of this Act of Parliament that it did not matter if the prisoner parted with the possession of the property, but that is not so now. (R. v. Carter, 12 Q.B.D. 522; 53 L.J. (M.C.)96; Archbold 631, 636)."

Mr. Roome: I do not know whether your Lordship thinks I can give in evidence the conversation between the police officer and the prisoner Brown in 1911.

The Recorder: It does not relate to the charge we are dealing with at all. You are now giving in evidence matter which you can only give in evidence by the terms of an Act of Parliament. I do not think you can extend the Act of Parliament to include this conversation.

Mr. Roome: Of course the object of the Act of Parliament is to enable the jury to draw an inference as to whether or not the prisoner knew the goods were stolen, and the conversation might further assist them to draw such an inference.

The Recorder: The Act of Parliament is quite precise in confining it to goods found in prisoner's possession. If he made statements which showed that he had a guilty knowledge as regards other property, that would be a matter to be dealt with by the jury on a separate indictment; it cannot come in this cue.

Mr. Wild stated that as Mr. Roome had described this evidence in his opening speech, and as evidence had been given showing that prisoner had other, stolen property in his possession, he preferred that the whole of the facts should be given.

The Recorder The defence can cross-examine as to anything they like.

Cross-examined. There has not been the slightest attempt to destroy the identity of these things; they have not been washed; neither the trademark nor the ticket has been taken off. We have a very large wholesale business.

Detective-sergeant FREDERICK HEDGES, Scotland Yard. On January 12 I found the overalls and other things, the property of Stapley and Smith (produced), wrapped up in a horse rug on a bed in a bed-room in Manor House Farm. I took them to Walthamstow Police Station, where they were identified by the last witness in the presence of Mrs. Pressland, the caretaker of Manor House Farm.

Cross-examined. It was a spare bedroom. Prisoner and his wife had left the Manor House Farm two days before I found this property to stay with their son-in-law.

Mrs. LOUISA ANNE PRESSLAND, wife of Richard Pressland. I am caretaker of Manor House Farm. Soon after last Christmas prisoner and his wife left Manor House Farm and went to their son-in-law's house. I was present when the police officers found the clothing in the spare bedroom; it has not been used since prisoner's daughter stayed there in the summer. I was not in the habit of going into that room.

Cross-examined. As the house is under repair it is not occupied.

CHARLES WILLIAM MULBEKY , inquiry officer, employed by Pick-ford and Co. The night that Harris collected the goods from Stapley and Smith the van was found empty and unattended in Edmonton.

Cross-examined. Harris never was found. On July 11 14 of the 19 stolen cases were found in a shed at Bull's Farm, which had been sublet by prisoner to a man named Uhle. Uhle stated that he had given Godbolt permission to use the shed and Godbolt was convicted in the middle of last year at Chelmsford Quarter Sessions.

Inspector BEDFORD, N. Division. I charged prisoner with stealing the stoves; he said, "I am not guilty of that."

Cross-examined. I charged prisoner with stealing the overalls and other things; in answer to the statutory caution with regard to the clothes, he said, "I am not guilty; my man, Smy, found them in a loft the week before Christmas."


FRANK WILLIAM BROWN (prisoner, on oath). Since I took Manor House Farm, 12 months ago, I have been repairing the farm house. Preedy, a builder, and friend, advised me to get a self-setting stove. About last August I sent one of my men, Shergold, to Young and Marten to buy two stoves. I did not get the smoke pipe and cover plate, because I did not require it; they did not cost so much without them. Shergold brought two back. I destroyed the receipt because it was a cash transaction. As we never got so far in the repairs as to want them, they were never unpacked till they were taken away by the police. I had sublet Bull's Farm to Uhle; I knew of Godbolt's conviction. A week before Christmas a man in my employ named Smy told me he had found some things in a loft in Bull's Farm. I said, "That is some of the things left from the other case; that is all over and done with, I do not know that they are any good; throw them in the cart and I will take them on to the missis." I did so and have not seen them since. I forgot all about them. They were no use to me. I ought to have told the police about them, but I did not because I did not realise what I was doing.

Cross-examined. The stoves were brought to my farm in July or August, but were not unpacked till January. I bought them because I thought I might have been able to go on with them. I have fixed four other stoves in the house. I paid for them in cash. Some fire places require a cover plate and others do not. All fireplaces require

a smoke pipe, but some fireplaces have to have one made to order That was the case with mine, but I did not order the special smoke pipe at the time I bought the stoves because I did not know what kind of pipe I should want until I put the stove in. When Smy told me of what he had found, I knew they must be part of the stolen property for receiving which Godbolt had been convicted. I ought to have sent them to the police. I thought the property was of no value. Directly I was arrested I remembered that I had bought the stoves and paid for them and had a perfect answer to this charge. I once bought four second-hand stoves from Robert Scott. I may have met him on January 9 in the Higham Hill Road when I was on bail under remand, but I did not speak to him about the stoves. I did not ask him if I had bought some stoves from him. I did not ask him to give evidence for me. I cannot remember went shop I sent the man to buy the stoves from.

JAMES SHERGOLD , 9, Westbury Road, Paddington. In the middle of last. September when I was in prisoner's employ he sent me to purchase two stoves from Young and Marten, in Stratford. He gave me a written order, which I handed in, paid the money, and took the stoves to the Manor House Farm. I gave the prisoner the receipt. I cannot remember the condition of the stoves.

Cross-examined. The stoves were wrapped up in paper. I did not see them before or after they were unpacked. I did not ask for anything, I just handed in the piece of paper which prisoner gave me. I paid £3 for them. All I can say about the shop is it is at the corner by a church. I have never been to Young and Marten to ask for the counterfoil of that receipt.

His Lordship asked the jury if they wanted to hear any further evidence.

The jury stated that they thought, so far, there was no evidence. A verdict of Not guilty was then returned with regard to the stoves and the clothing. The two other indictments were postponed to next Sessions.



(Wednesday, January 31.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-52
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

NORRIS, Florence (32, servant) . Abandoning a female child, lately born, in such a manner that the life of such child was endangered.

Mr. W. Clarke Hall and Mr. Moseley prosecuted.

FREDERICK COX , 4, Lilian Road, Barnes, labourer. At 7.30 a.m. on December 17 I was walking down a lane at the back of some houses in Barnes when I heard something moan. Thinking it was a

puppy, I stooped down, and found it was a newly born baby wrapped in paper, with its face in the mud. I turned it on its side and sent for the police. A policeman came and the doctor was sent for. The doctor took the child to his house.

WILLIAM EDWARD COLSON MUSSON , registered medical practitioner, Hounslaw. On December 17, at about 8.30 a.m., I received a communication from the police, and went to a lane near Hammersmith Bridge and took charge of a newly born child. It was very, very cold and was breathing badly, probably owing to exposure. The child was token to my house, received proper treatment, recovered somewhat, and at 4 p.m. it was taken to the infirmary. At noon that day I saw prisoner at 24, Castledean, Castelnau Gardens, Barnes. With her consent I examined her, and found that she had quite recently given birth to a child. I said to her, "You have been a very, very foolish woman." She said, "I have, but you will not let them take me away, will you?" Such exposure of an infant just born would undoubtedly put it in danger of its life, and cause it unnecessary suffering.

Detective-Inspector John Currie, E Division. On December 17, at about 12.30 p.m., I saw prisoner in the kitchen of 24, Castelnau Gardens, lying on a couch. I said, "I am a police inspector. I understand you want to speak to me about a newly born child that has been found at the back of Arundel Terrace." She said, "You will not take me away, will you?" I said, "I will not take you away now, but you will have to be arrested for abandoning the child when you are well enough, and anything you tell me I will write down, and it may, be used in evidence against you." She said, "Very well." I then wrote down this statement (produced): "Florence Norris, 14, Arundel Terrace, Castelnau, Barnes, age 32. I am general servant to Mrs. Capel Hall. I became pregnant about nine months ago and I kept the fact to myself. About half-past four this morning I felt ill and I got up. I was in my bedroom at 14, Arundel Terrace. I gave birth to a child in the bed. I was so frightened I do not really know what I did. I wrapped it up in some newspapers and rushed down to the back of the house and left the baby there. I went back to bed again. It was about six o'clock in the morning when I put the baby out at the back of the house. I went to Mrs. Capel Hall at 24, Castelnau Gardens at 8 a.m. to work. Mrs. Hall spoke to me about my periods, and I told her I had given birth to a baby" She was taken to the infirmary, and when sufficiently recovered before the magistrate. When I read the warrant to her she said, "What have I to do?" The child is alive and doing well.

WILLIAM FREDERICK CLARK , 14, Arundel Terrace, Castelnau, Barnes. Prisoner occupied a room in my house. She went out as a servant during the day and came back every night. On the morning of September 17 my attention was directed to some blood on the concrete outside the scullery door, on the washing stool in the scullery, and in the room where prisoner slept. Prisoner slept there on the night of December 16.

Florence Norris (prisoner, not on oath). It would never have happened if I had not had to sleep out.

Verdict, Guilty of wilfully abandoning the child in a manner likely to cause it unnecessary suffering; the Jury strongly recommended prisoner to mercy.

Prisoner was proved to have previously given birth to an illegitimate child. Prisoner expressed her willingness to go into a Home. His Lordship directed that Mr. Scott-France (the Court (Missionary) should be communicated with.

(Friday, February 2.)

Mr. Scott-France stated that he had found a Home where prisoner would be looked after and given employment.

Sentence: Four days' imprisonment, entitling prisoner to be immediately discharged.


(Thursday, February 1.)

30th January 1912
Reference Numbert19120130-53
VerdictGuilty > with recommendation

Related Material

PHILPOT, William Henry (33, tram conductor), was indicted for, and charged on the coroner's inquisition with, the wilful murder of Agnes Mary Philpot.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Briggs prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K.C., and Mr. Lamb defended.

ELIZABETH ANNE TURNER , widow, 37, Coppermill Lane, Summers Town, S.W. Prisoner and his wife lived at No. 35. I knew her as a neighbour. At 10 a.m. on January 9 I saw her hanging out some washing. I had not seen prisoner for over a week. At about 2.20 p.m. that day I was at my street door when I saw the side blind in the front room downstairs of their house drawn down.

Cross-examined. They had been there about 12 months. They were very quiet neighbours and seemed to be on very good terms—a most happy couple. The children were well looked after. Prisoner seemed a very quiet man.

OLIVE ANNIE SMITH , assistant, Earlsfield Post Office. At about 2.30 p.m. on January 9 prisoner came and despatched this telegram (produced) addressed to "Philpot, 27, Shurley Road, Sidcup," and saying, "Dad, come at once. Serious trouble. Will. On the back there is "W. H. Philpot, 35, Coppermill Lane, Tooting. I noticed he was nervous and excited.

Cross-examined. He was very agitated and very nervous.

HENRY PHILPOT , retired station master. Prisoner is my son. He married deceased about 12 years ago and at the beginning of this year there were two children. At about 4 p.m. on January 9 I received this telegram and at about 7 p.m. I went to see him at his house. He said, Dad, I've done it. I said, "Done what?. He said, "I have killed Ag. I said, "Good God, don't say that. How did you do it?. He said, "I strangled her. We had a quarrel over money matters first and she taunted me with my past misdeeds and I felt I

went mad and did not know what I was doing. I said, "Where is she?. and he pointed to the front room and said, "In there. He said it had happened in the kitchen and he had carried her in. He told me he had bean waiting for me to give himself up. I offered to go for a constable, but he said, "Don't do that. I don't want a commotion at the house. The children were at the time in the kitchen with two or three other children, lie also said he did not want to be taken through the streets where some of his mates might see him. He said he had told the children that their mother was out and he sent the other children away. He said he would put his children to bed and I went and sent a telegram to my wife. When I returned I found he had changed his uniform for private clothes. He unlocked the door of the sitting-room and I saw the body of his wife lying on a couch. There was no sign of a struggle in any part of the house. He said he was going to give himself up and I offered to go with him, but he said he could not stand that and went alone. Before he went away he knelt down by the side of his wife and cried like a child; he kissed her and called her to come back to him. I noticed his face looked very haggard and that he had some scratches down the left side.

Cross-examined. I saw them frequently, and he treated his wife very affectionately and he was passionately fond of his children. The deceased never complained to me of his ill-treating her in any way. She has said that since his last illness she was afraid he was going out of his mind, because on two occasions he had attempted suicide, once with a razor and once with poison. His state of health when a child was very indifferent. When he was 18 months old he fell on to a breadpan and gashed his head to the bone. A little time after that he fell on to the back of his head and fractured it. When a schoolboy he fell off a wall seven feet high on to a brick pavement and, cut himself across the same scar on the forehead that he did when he was 18 months old. After that he frequently complained of pains in his head, and had to be sent home from school in charge of other boys. He has done some strange things in his time. When quite a lad in the railway service he went off in the middle of the night with the mail train to London without any apparent reason. He wandered about the docks and then came home as unconcerned as if it was quite an ordinary thing to do; he gave no explanation of his conduct. About six years ago he took his wages and went off to Euston Station, where he saw a placard with "Dudley" on it. He spent all the money he had, except a few pence, for his ticket, and went to Dudley, where he had never been before and where he had no friends or relations. He told me subsequently that he walked about from place to place when he got there. After being absent four weeks he was at Taunton and saw an advertisement his wife had inserted in the paper. He walked home and came into our house just as if he had come from the next street. He gave no explanation, only that it was exceedingly hot weather at the time and he did not quite know what he was doing when he started. He was working at the time in the sidings in the open sun. I have a sister who has been for 18 years in the Minster Infirmary suffering from severe epileptic fits. I have often noticed

how much he looked about the eyes the same as that sister. On the Friday following this day prisoner and his wife had arranged to have a children's party, and he had prepared a pantomime sketch for them to perform. There was a Christmas tree in the room.

Re-examined. He entered the railway service in 1893 and he left in 1901. He returned in 1902 and remained till 1906. First of all he was a clerk and then he was a conductor on a Pullman car. He was dismissed from the service, but his record up to that incident was good; there was no suggestion that he was insane. For a short time he was a porter at Carter Paterson's and then he entered the service of the L.C.C. in December, 1906; I have heard no suggestion from his employers there that he was insane.

He has left his wife more than once; on one occasion he went away with a girl friend of his wife's; I do not know that he lived with her. 1 heard that his wife found them at Folkestone. I took that to be one of the "misdeeds" he referred to. I have a brother and another sister who are quite sane. So far as I know prisoner has never had any fits. (To the Court.) I know nothing of any quarrels over money matters between them.

Inspector GEORGE MARRIOTT, D Division. About 8.50 p.m. on January 9 I was in charge of the Wimbledon Police Station, when prisoner was shown in. He said, "I want to give myself up for murder." I saw that he was perfectly sober. I said, "Do you know what you are saying?. and cautioned him. He said, "I quits understand what I am saying," and then made this statement, which I wrote down: "I have murdered my wife, Agnes Mary Philpot, of 35, Coppermill Lane. I wish it was not so; God knows I do. I strangled her with my hands. I have two children and have put them to bed. I wired to Sidcup to my father, and when he came up I left to give myself up. It happened just after two o'clock. We had had a quarrel. I am a total abstainer. I think I went mad. Leave it at that and give me a drink of water. I read it over to him and he signed it. He was perfectly rational and sober. The left side of his face bore evidence of having been scratched by finger nails. I told him he would be detained pending inquiries.

Sub-divisional Inspector WILLIAM BARHAM, V Division. At 8.50 p.m. on January 9 I went to 35, Coppermill Lane, where I saw prisoner's father waiting outside. He gave me the telegram which has been produced. I went with him into the front sitting room, where I saw body of deceased lying on the couch; it was fully dressed. I saw no signs of any struggle. I saw prisoner when he came into the station; he was perfectly sober and appeared calm and collected and understood what he was saying.

GEORGE GEWAN GRIMMER , Divisional Surgeon, V Division. At 10.51 p.m. on January 9 I went to Coppermill Lane, where lying on a couch in the front room I found deceased. From a superficial examination the appearances wore consistent with strangulation. As the result of a post-mortem examination I came to the conclusion that the cause of death was suffocation caused by strangulation, and the appearances

were consistent with her having been strangled by a man's hands. The hyoid bone in the neck had been fractured, which would indicate that considerable force must have been used. The woman was of slight physique. It would take at least five minutes to strangle her by pressure on the throat.

Cross-examined. I have had a moderate experience in epilepsy. One of the characteristics of a person who is subject to such fits when the fit is not on is to be perfectly rational. After a fit they usually go to sleep, and on waking up appear quite normal.

Divisional Detective-inspector Edward Badcock, V Division. At 12 a.m. on January 9 I saw prisoner at the station. I cautioned him, and said it was my duty to charge him with the murder of his wife. On the charge being read over to him he made no reply.

SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , medical officer, Brixton Prison. Prisoner was received into custody on January 10, and I have kept him under close observation since then and have had several long interviews with him. I knew the whole of the facts connected with his history. I could discover no indications of insanity, and in my opinion, after very carefully going into the whole of the case, he was at the time he committed this offence sane so as to know the nature and quality of his act.

Cross-examined. Persons having epileptic tendencies may discharge the ordinary duties of life quite normally for years without the brain showing any weakness of the kind, and when subject to an attack give way to uncontrolled fury. When the attack has passed over they appear quite cool and collected. This is called epileptic automatism. Persons suffering in this manner I have known to commit violent assaults and then be seized with remorse. I found no epileptic tendencies in prisoner, though he was closely watched. It would be possible for him, however, not to betray them. Of all classes of weakness masked epilepsy is the one form which is so often concealed in a person.

Re-examined. In epileptic automatism there is always absolute unconsciousness of what is being done, but prisoner gave me quite a lucid account of the whole thing. That is not consistent with an attack of masked epilepsy.


WILLIAM HENRY PHILPOT (prisoner, on oath). On January 9 I was a tram conductor in the employ of the L.C.C. I left home that morning at 9.30 to go to the depot, kissing my wife and leaving home quite happily. We had arranged a children's party for the following Friday. I left off work at 12.40 p.m. and arrived home at 12.45. I had dinner, my wife and children having just finished theirs. I then sat down with her to smoke a cigarette and she made a cup of tea for us. This was in the kitchen. We were discussing the party that was to come off on the Friday following and we started talking about the Christmas-tree. I asked her if she had paid for it and she said, "No, I expected you would pay for that as I have to pay for the

things to go on it. I said, "As I was a day short in my wages last week and as you had an extra day's work, I should think you could pay for it. In fact, you might help me to pay off some that I owe. She said, "You do not expect me to pay your debts, do you. I am not going to, anyway. I said, "I do not think much of you for that. She said, "Well, you know what I think of you. I said, "Why, what have I done?. She said, "You must have a bad memory if you do not remember what happened five or six years ago." We were speaking quite pleasantly up to then. I said, "There is no need for you to throw that up at me. Then she, in rather a loud voice, said, "You should not make me, then. I said, "Why, don't shout—you don't want all the neighbours to hear. Louder still she said, "I am not shouting. Then something seemed to snap in my head and I jumped up and caught her by the throat. She struck at me with her hands, but as I held her by the throat I lost control of myself altogether; I did not know what I was doing exactly. I felt as if I was holding a very strong galvanic battery; that is how I can best describe it; I wanted to leave go and I could not. When I did leave go she fell. I realised almost in a moment what I had done. I felt if her heart beat, but there was not any. I held a mirror to her mouth to see if she was breathing, and she was not. My first impulse was to kill myself as well, but I thought of my father and mother and the children, so I did not. I carried her into the front room, laid her on the couch, and pulled down the blind. Then I realised someone would have to look after the children because I intended to give myself up, so I went to Earlsfield and sent the telegram to my father. My father came at about 7 p.m., and I made the statement that he has spoken to. The account he has given of my previous history is a true one.

FREDERICK LESLIE (hairdresser, 324, Bye Lane, Peckham), JOHN LUCY (traffic superintendent., L.C.C.), and ALBERT ARTHUR MARSHALL (Regulator, L.C.C.), stated that during the time they had known prisoner he was a quiet, well-behaved man.

Verdict: "We find that the prisoner killed his wife, that he was sane at the time, that he acted in a fit of temper without intention of killing her."

Mr. Justice Ridley: I do not understand what you mean by "without intention of killing her. A man is held to intend the consequence of his act. Of course, if he does it in a fit of passion that is not "deliberate" intention in one sense of the word, but he is held to intend the necessary consequences of his act. In what sense do you use the words "without intention of killing her "?

The Foreman: The Jury are unanimously and emphatically of the opinion that at the moment of the act the prisoner did not realise the consequences of what he was doing.

Mr. Justice Ridley: For what reason do you say that he did not realise the consequences of the act he was doing? The Foreman: That we cannot say.

Mr. Justice Ridley: You must say, if you please. If he was sane at the time, there is no answer to the case.

The Foreman: I cannot hold out any hope that the Jury will come to any other finding than that I have given.

In accordance with Mr. Justice Ridley's direction, the Jury again retired to reconsider their verdict.

In their absence Mr. Elliott submitted that the finding that "he did not realise at the time what he was doing" would not support a verdict of Guilty.

Mr. Justice Ridley. I do not agree with you. I think that if a man flies into a passion and does a thing which must cause death, or which is dangerous to life, then he is answerable for his actions (unless he were in a fit, which is characterised as insanity). I am afraid I cannot hear you at the present moment. It must be discussed on some future occasion.

The Jury returned into Court with the verdict, " We find that the prisoner killed his wife, and very strongly recommend him to mercy." Sentence: Death.

Mr. Justice Ridley stated that the former finding of the Jury, together with their recommendations, would be mercifully considered by the proper authorities.

View as XML