Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 30 November 2022), January 1896, trial of EDWARD AUGUSTUS INGOLD (30) ALFRED ATTRIDE (t18960113-160).

EDWARD AUGUSTUS INGOLD, ALFRED ATTRIDE, Deception > fraud, 13th January 1896.

160. EDWARD AUGUSTUS INGOLD (30), and ALFRED ATTRIDE (34), falsely applying to 1,080 electric lamp holders a mark so resembling the trade-mark of the Edison and Swan United Electric Light Company as to be calculated to deceive.

MR. C. MATHEWS, MR. C. F. GILL and MR. GUY STEPHENSON Prosecuted; MR. SHULTESS YOUNG appeared for Ingold, and MR. HUTTON and MR. COLLISON for Attride.

THOMAS TUCKER I am a metal stamper—I work at my shop at Mr. Lugdon's, 144, Old Street, St. Luke's—Attride brought me this piece of brasswork about the middle of last October—it had stamped upon it "Edison and Swan, Patent E. Co., Ld."—he said he had a contract

for 25,000 of them; he wished to know what I would charge for making a stamp or marking them with those letters—I said I could mark them if I fixed the stamp on a machine which I used for another purpose, at 7s. per 1,000—he said he would consult his partner, and let me know next day—he came next day and instructed me to get on with the stamp—I asked him for a written order—he said he had not brought one—I handed him this paper, which is one of Mr. Lugdon's billheads, on which he wrote, as it now appears, "James Ford, 22, Downham Road, Kingsland, N.E."—I wrote the words in pencil underneath, the lettering appearing rather indistinct on the brass-work—from that I supposed him to be the person he represented himself to be, and he left this brass with me—he said he would call in a few days with some of the brass-fittings he wished to get marked—the lettering was done by a man I employed, and I fitted the stamp (produced) to the machine—on October 19th he paid me a deposit of 10s.—on the 26th October he had brought me 71/2 gross of these fittings in small quantities—he took them away when they were stamped—I have made this copy of a small leaf of my diary, which enables me to give the dates: on October 31st he received one gross; on November 2nd 11/2 gross, and paid another 10s.; on November 4th he received two gross one dozen; on November 11th one gross eight dozen; 15th, seven dozen; 22nd, six dozen; making fourteen gross ten dozen—sometimes he waited for them and sometimes called again—afterwards the police came, and I made a statement of what I could remember—I was shown some of the fittings, which I recognised as having stamped.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG. I have had no communication with Ingold, that I can remember.

Cross-examined by Collison. I did not know Attride was a roughrider—I know the stamp by the extra pressure I put on the "E"—that is only apparent to me—he gave no reference—I saw no reason for a reference, as he found his own material, and I understood his contract was with the people whose name was to appear—I was paid in advance—he came openly as an ordinary customer—I had no personal knowledge of Edison and Swan.

AUGUSTUS BOWER . I am manager of the Electrical and General Engineering Company, Leadenhall Street—I knew Attride by his applying for a vacancy as traveller in December, 1894—he told me he had been employed by Edison and Swan, and by the Electrical Company—he came again in July Or August, and offered some Edison and Swan holders for sale, with their stamp upon them—he quoted a price which was under the ordinary price, and I inquired how it was that he could sell them so cheaply—he said that a firm with whom he did business owed him some money, and as he could not get it, they handed over these holders as a sort of security against the debt, and, being anxious to get money, he offered them to us at the price mentioned—his explanation seemed satisfactory—I went thoroughly into the matter with him, and believing his statement, I bought two gross and six dozen on August 22nd, and paid him for them—they were sold in two lots—this is his receipt—I paid him £5 on account, and the balance of £21 by cheque afterwards. (The holders were described as a job lot.) He brought some more Edison and Swan holders in November, and quoted a low price—I asked him

why it was so low—he said he got them from a bailiff's assistant, who employed half his time with the bailiff and half with Ingold, and that they were bought in job lots at sales—I purchased from him on that occasion 143 holders for £36 10s., and seventy-two on November 12th for £7 10s.—Attride, who had delivered some of Ingold's holders, called in November, and asked me to buy some holders—I said, "Where is Ingold?"—he said, "He is away travelling, and I want some money, I have a few holders to sell; will you buy them?"—he called three times; I refused to buy at the first interview, but at last I did—he said he was Ingold's servant—I said, "Are you a bailiff's assistant?"—he said, "Yes"—I bought half a gross of holders of him for £2 12s. 6d., marked "Edison and Swan;" this is the receipt (produced); it is an open cheque, endorsed "James Ford"—these are two of the holders, the others are sealed up; I have not disposed of any of them.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG. When Ingold came to me in 1894 I had no reason to believe that his representations were untrue—the holders in August were purchased very cheap—I have not been in the habit of buying holders—I have not a licence—as long as they bore the impression of Edison and Swan, and he paid the royalty, that was all I had 'to see to—there was no secrecy—if they looked right I had a perfect right to buy them—I had no communication with Edison and Swan, nor with any person connected with the company; I had a private communication with another firm; am I right in saying the name?—it was after November that I first suspected something was wrong—I do not think I had any communication before November—between the sale by Ingold and my communication with Ford I had a conversation with Mr. Bevis, of the General Electric Light Company, who said that Ingold had no right to sell the holders—I said, "Why not?"—he said he did not think they were right—I said, "Why not? they are stamped"—after that Ford brought in some more, and I bought them—it was the cheapness opened my eyes—they were holders of the Edison and Swan type, marked with their stamp.

Cross-examined by MR. COLLISON. I always looked upon Attride as Ingold's representative.

PAULINE PASTORI . I am single, and keep a tobacconist's shop at 18, Eldon Street, Finsbury—I know both the prisoners as customers, but do not know their names—that man (Findlay) came with them; I do not know his name—they asked leave to have parcels left there in the name of Walters and Co., and letters and postcards came, like these (produced), foreign letters and postcards from Cologne—I think Ingold took all the letters—there may have been fifteen parcels all from abroad—I knew the prisoners as Inky No. 1 and Inky No. 2—No. 1 was Ingold—I only occupy the shop, I do not live there—both the left parcels there sometimes for two or three days, and called for them, parcels other than those which came from Germany—the police found two parcels there; they had not come from Germany, they had been left—Attride did not tell me what he was—I knew Ingold was in the electric light way, but did not know where he carried on his business; he had parcels left there for five or six months before his arrest—Attride has been coming there five or six weeks, and Ingold a much longer time.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG. One or two postcards came in the name of Warburton; I cannot say who received them—Attride carried the parcels in quite an open manner, and, to all appearance, as Ingold's servant.

Re-examined. This is one of the postcards sent to my place—I am a Laplander; that is next door to a German.

THOMAS MILLINGTON FINDLAY . I am a clerk in the Edison and Swan Electric Light Company at their London office—I knew Ingold as an invoice clerk—he left their service in 1892, and went into the service of the Electrical Company, Charing Cross Road, who are licensees of Edison's patent—I met Ingold from time to time after he left; he was living at Ilford, and I at Walthamstow—at the beginning of 1895 I used to meet him at a public-house, 97, Moorgate Street; he told me he was receiving electrical holders from Germany, and getting them stamped with Edison and Swan's patent mark, and then sold them to different firms as genuine Swan holders—he asked if I would receive a parcel of holders from Mr. Freeman at my house at Walthamstow, and I consented—they were in the name of T. M. Findlay and Co., electrical and railway contractors, and there were almost immediately consigned to me 1,500 holders by Mr. Cramer in that name—these are some of the invoices (produced)—I brought them into the City to Ingold in parcels of about a dozen at a time—they were without a mark—I knew I was doing wrong—we took them to Putney and got them stamped by Cosgrave, who was in their employment, and then brought them to London, and left them at cloak-rooms of some of the railway stations, and they were called for as they were sold—Ingold Always took the ticket, unless I left them, and took the ticket afterwards—I did not leave any at the public-house at Moorgate Street, but sometimes we left them at public-houses—the letters to Cramer were typed, and I signed them, "T. M. F. and Co." Ingold received the money; I got £2 for receiving goods and about £8 besides—I was out of employment, and still am so—I have always been a clerk—I received very nearly 4,000 holders from Cramer from time to time—I have been with Ingold to the cigar-shop kept by Pauline Pastori—holders were also consigned to Ryder and Co., of Wandsworth, Woodcock at Peckham, and Adamson at Clapham—I know Side and Edwards and Attride and Co.—there was no such firm as Walters and Co.—Ingold went to Cologne in August, and told me he had seen Cramer, and arranged to pay by bill, and he would send more goods—bills were sent to me, which I signed and sent back; this is one (produced)—I was the acceptor—Cramer drew them on me—I accepted two, but I never paid them—as far as I know, Walters and Co. never paid any bill—Ingold told me that Ryder was his father-in-law; he did a little in the electro trade, selling lamps—when this had been going on for some time, Cosgrave was discharged from his employment—he used to take the stamp home from Pattesson and Cooper's to his house, and use it at night; but when he was dismissed he had not access to it—I introduced Attwright to Ingold at the beginning of October; he had nothing to do with electrical business—Ingold said that he would have a stamp made, and Ingold said that one had been made, and that he was getting holders stamped at a place in Old Street, and Attride was taking them there,

and that he generally met Attride in Bishopsgate Churchyard—Ingold said that if it was found out he would get away; he said, "When the bills are due I shall go away and give information to Edison and Swan, and make about £20"—I thought it over, and I went first—I gave information on August 14th or 15th, but did not get the £20—whatever I did after that date I was acting under the instructions of the company—I communicated the names of the people where the things were being disposed of after they were marked: Merritt, Lilywhite, Hundred, Young, and others.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG. I have been promised £100 if I am correct, and the persons are convicted. (A document to this effect signed CHARLES GOVER was here put in.) I think you asked me at the Police-court if I had been promised anything if the prisoners were convicted, and I said "No"—that was untrue—I do not know whether he said that he was selling the holders as genuine; I have never seen any holders like these (Tucker's holders) before—those with which I was in the habit of dealing were marked "E. and S., Limited," and these are marked "E. Co., Limited"—the holders I refer to as stamped by Cosgrave were stamped under Marsden's directions, I understand—I do not know that Ingold said that he was going to see Cramer about payment; he said that he had to make arrangements that the thing should be met by a bill—I did not type any of the letters myself; he dictated them and got it done—Marsden was in the country when I informed on August 14th or 15th—I cannot explain why nothing was done till November after I informed—I introduced Ingold to Attride—I had been in communication with the Edison and Swan Co.—he did not suggest to me that I should take Ingold to somebody to receive goods—I have not suggested to anybody else that I would give anybody anything out of the £100. Ingold has not said to me that he would defy the Edison and Swan Co. to touch him; he said that he did not fear them, meaning that he would be able to get out of it—I believe he thought they would bring a civil action against him—I have never discussed the Merchandise marks Act with him—I said at the Police-court, "I introduced Attride as a friend of mine to Mr. Ingold, in order that he might receive a parcel"—the parcel was goods from Germany, and I think it would contain holders—trapping Attride did not come out of my own head; Ingold suggested it—I was with Attride, and Ingold asked to be introduced—it was simply as you might introduce an employed to an employer—I did not know at that time that a person who fraudulently applied a trade-mark was criminally responsible; I thought it was a case for a civil action.

Cross-examined by MR. COLLISON. I know Mr. Leon—he is connected with Attride—Attride was ill About October—it is not true that I asked him to take a parcel into his house for me when he was ill, or that I said I would pay him for taking it in—he may have said, "Very well, Tom, I will do it for you; I will take in the parcel"—he had already got the goods when he met with an accident—it was not true that a box was delivered for me just after his accident, it was for Ingold, he received it, I believe, before he was ill, because he assisted me and my brother to bring some of the goods as far as Haggerston Railway Station.

FREDERICK DAVIS . I am an electrical engineer, of Alma Street, New North Road—I know Ingold; in April, 1895, I met him at a public-house,

99, Moorgate Street, and he showed me some sample holders, unstamped; he said he was agent to Mr. Cramer, at Cologne, and asked if I would order some; I ordered 750 through him, and they were consigned direct to me by Cramer—this is the invoice; it is for £24 7s. 5d.—when I got them they were unstamped—I sold 300 to go abroad, but found they would not sell unless they were stamped; I told Ingold so, and he suggested my getting then stamped through him—I was to go to Cosgrave, at Church Road, Fulham; Cosgrave was not in, and I was to call again in the evening—he asked me to take a parcel away for him—I saw Ingold afterwards, and he told me to call in the evening; he asked me to bring a parcel away with me for him—a few days afterwards I went again, and left twenty-five dozen, and received them back stamped with the trade-mark of Edison and Swan—I bought other stamped holders from Ingold—I produced to the police stamped holders I bought from him—I first saw Attride about October in a public-house, but did not speak to him—when I did see him to speak to, he suggested he should get some holders stamped for me; he said he would let me have them the next day—I made an appointment to meet him in the City Road a few days afterwards—I brought him six dozen unstamped holders; he said it would take him about twenty minutes to get them stamped—at that time I was in communication with the Edison and Swan people—steps were being taken to find out where the stamping was going on, and I was acting under Edison and Swan's directions—I had found out that this was being improperly done—they wrote and asked to see me—I did not know where Attride was going to take them to, but I knew he was going to be followed—he came back in about half an hour with the holders stamped—I paid him 7s. 6d.—from first to last I got over 1,000 stamped holders from Ingold.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG. I did not get any stamped holders, from Marsden direct—I knew Marsden to be a foreman of Patterson and Cooper's—twenty-five dozen were my holders—I paid Musgrave 5s. 3d. for stamping them—I did not know the regular price, I paid more afterwards—I met Marsden, and he said he wanted more money—I told In-gold I had paid Marsden more money—I think Ingold was present, but not in communication with us—I paid Marsden without communicating with Ingold—I paid him because I had not seen him previously with reference to the twenty-five dozen—I have no idea what the royalty on the twenty-five dozen would be—information was given to Edison and Swan about the end of August, or the beginning of September—I went to them when I heard what Marsden said about his being stopped, and that his firm had a letter from Ashurst, Crispe, Morris and Company—I asked them how I stood in the matter—they did not threaten me—they told me they could come on everybody afterwards for royalty who had been using the holders—by September I knew it was wrong to get the holders stamped—I believe Ingold sold some unstamped for export—there is a market for them abroad without the stamp, but not in England—I have heard of Campbell—I never met him—I have had no communication with the Electrical Engineering Company—I wrote to Edison and Swan afterwards—they answered the letter—I have destroyed the letter—it said, would I call?—on calling they suggested I should get six dozen stamped for them—I have not received any payment, nor was

I promised any, but I thought as I bought these other holders, I was only getting them stamped out of an obligation to them—I heard of £100 being offered by them for information—I do not know what proceedings they will take against me—I had no communication with them through Findlay—I was not aware he was giving information—I knew it now—I just knew him at the Police-court—Findlay owes me a few shillings he has borrowed from time to time in sums of 5s. and 2s.—I did not enter into betting transactions with him.

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. Attride told me he was working for Ingold—Attride first mentioned the holders to me—I met him by chance when he was waiting for Ingold—no one was present when he mentioned the holders—I did not pay particular attention to the prisoner's conversation about the holders.

EDWARD JAMES PATTERSON . I am one of the firm of Patterson and Cooper, Electrical engineers, of 3, Princes' Mansions, Victoria Street, Westminster—the early part of last year Marsden and Cosgrave were in our employment, Marsden as out-door foreman and Cosgrave as store-keeper—our firm has a licence from Edison and Swan to manufacture and sell electric lamp holders—we are bound under penalties to stamp every holder—we cannot sell excepting at a fixed rate and a discount which may vary from time to time, on their standard price—the present rate of discount is 33 1/3—we pay them a royalty of ten per cent, upon the gross selling price of the holder (Licence produced)—the stamp was in Cosgrave's charge at Victoria Street—his duty was to stamp the holders—Marsden had no authority over it—in consequence of information which reached us late in September, I had an interview with Mr. Crispe, of Ashurst, Crispe, Morris and Company, the solicitors for the Edison and Swan Company, on 25th September, which was followed on the 26th by an interview between myself, Marsden, and Cosgrave—as a consequence of that interview I discharged them both.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG. A number of our holders have been made in Germany from a pattern we supply—we are not obliged to make them to a certain pattern provided the essential elements of the patent are present—before our licence we bought them from the Edison and Swan Company and afterwards, but which are those particular holders I could not say—we pay a royalty of £100 a year to Edison and Swan—I consider we are entitled to get them from Germany—we have not received a remonstrance from Edison and Swan for so doing—it is a general custom of the trade—the holders had been made by myself and other people without taking out a licence—I was thus liable to an action—I agreed not to do so—the trademark, "Edi-Swan," was modified—I did not think it necessary to stamp the holders "Made in Germany"—I had an agent named Campbell—I had no difficulty with him—I knew nothing about Campbell selling holders at less than cost price—all I guarantee is that the royalty on the holders shall be paid, and that they are well made, and in accordance with the patents—I take care the holders are as well made as they can be in England—an expert might find something different, but the holders are practically undistinguishable from the holders Edison and Swan sell in England—anyone would say they are as good a holder as sold in the trade—they are perfectly good for the purpose for which they are made.

ALFRED GOULD (Sergeant G). On November 28th I saw Attride in

Broad Street, City—I was with another officer—I said, "We are police-officers. I hold a warrant for your arrest"—it was afterwards read over to him—he made no reply—on the way to the station he said, "Is there anyone else arrested?"—I said, "Ingold is arrested"—he said, "He is the cause of all this"—I then said, "I have been informed that you sold a parcel of goods yesterday"—he said, "That is quite right, I did; I sold about six dozen for £2 12s. 6d. to Mr. Bower, the manager to the Electrical and General Engineers, 85, Leadenhall Street"—I found on him this letter from Cramer, the envelope addressed to Attride and Co.—I went to 26, Richmond Road, Dalston—I was handed by Attride's wife twenty-two parts of lamp-holders unstamped—they would make about a dozen holders—Attride was charged with Cosgrave—he made no reply—there is a warrant out against Marsden, he has not been arrested yet—on December 3rd I went to 17, Eldon Street, a tobacconist's shop, kept by Mrs. Pastori—she gave me this parcel of twelve dozen holders, stamped "Edison and Swan Electric Company, Limited."

Cross-examined by MR. HUTTON. Attride was a rough-rider for Leon—he has not only a good character, but is respectably connected.

The witness Tucker identified the holders found in this parcel as having been stamped by him.

JAMES SCOTT (Sergeant G). On November 27th I arrested Ingold on a warrant at the Park Hotel, Cardiff—I read it to him—he made no reply—it charged him with forging the Edison and Swan trade mark—I conveyed him to London, and handed him over to Inspector Leach—I found these six holders in his bag—three are stamped, and three unstamped.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG When arrested Ingold was about his ordinary business as an electrical agent—he had the usual travellers samples—he made no resistance.

ALFRED LEACH (Detective Inspector). I have had charge of this case—warrants were issued for the arrest of Cosgrave and Marsden—I have made every effort to execute the warrant against Marsden, but without success—after Ingold's arrest I went to 15, Woodlands Road, Ilford, with Scott—in the top back room I found this press-copy letter-book and a number of letters from Cramer, of Cologne, showing a large supply of holders.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG. Ingold occupied the house as a married man—he gave me liberty to make inquiries in the house—there were odds and ends about, the holders were under boxes—there was no concealment—the place was untidy—he has not been charged before to my knowledge.

HENRY CHARLES GOVER . I am the secretary of the Edison and Swan United Electric Light Company, Limited, at 36 and 37, Cheapside, their London office—the company is the registered holder of the patent, but not the patentee—this is a certified copy of the registration of the trade-mark (produced) obtained from the Branch Patent Office, in Southampton Buildings—our company, as the licensees, have the right to stamp the holders with the trademark, to grant licences to others to use initials or other marks approved by the Company—the mark "Edison and Swan E. Co., Ld.," is granted to the Electrical Engineering Co., of Charing Cross Road"—the object of the difference in the trade-mark

is to enable the company to distinguish their holders from ours—the "Edi-Swan" is another trademark, which our company use exclusively—our licensees mark is "Edison and Swan" invariably—we grant no licences with the mark "Edi-Swan"—since we withdrew the right to use the words "Edi-Swan," the prisoners were not licensees, nor Mr. Tucker, nor Marsden, nor Cosgrave—the royalty on each holder is 2d. or upwards, which should represent 10 per cent, on the standard or fixed price—the selling price of this holder is 2s. 6d. (One stamped by Tucker), of this one the same, this one with the switch for turning on or off the current, from 4s. 6d. to 5s.

Cross-examined by MR. YOUNG. The letters on these holdersare printed in a distinctive manner, though the form of the letter is not the same—our trademark dates from 1875—the holder at 2s. 6d. would be subject to 33 per cent, reduction, which would make it 1s. 8d.—I do not know the cost of making them—our Company make them—one of our licensees have their holders made in Germany—we make no remonstrance—we are compelled to go to America—many licensees do not put initials—the earlier licences were first granted in 1890—on reference I find the date of the alteration made by the company is the 26th August, 1891—none of the holders Ingold is accused of stamping that I have seen are stamped "Edi-Swan"—so far as form is concerned there is very little difference between the prisoner's holders and ours—our board of directors consider every application for a licence, and in some instances, not in all, they grant them, and in those cases they require the holders to be stamped "Edison and Swan"—we manufacture holders in hundreds of thousands—the licensees may make their own but they are bound to put on our trademark—they cannot sell below a certain price, nor contest the validity of our patent—Ingold's name was mentioned some time after these holders were referred to, and at the time I wrote my letter about it I had no knowledge of any names or persons—I did not see Findlay till the date of my letter in September—Davis did not come to me—I heard nothing of Davis until my letter—our firm did not approach Ingold with a view of offering him money to inform the firm respecting the improper stamp; we had been making inquiries, and trying to find out the wrongdoers, and we made the discovery by Findlay coming to us—Mr. Moffatt, our engineer, was looking about a great many months—I am aware he had an interview with Ingold—he had no authority to offer Ingold money, and I do not know that he did so—I did not so instruct him—I knew Ingold was approached with a desire to discover where this making was going on—that was before Findlay and Davis gave information—Ingold did not refuse to give information; he said he knew nothing about it—I did not see him—I never had any communication with Campbell—nor with Patterson and Cooper—I never knew Marsden—I complain of our stamp being imitated—everyone in the electrical trade, looking at them, would consider that the prisoner's holders were royalty paid holders.

Re-examined. My letter to Patterson and Cooper, dated August 26th, 1891, asks them to place the words "Edison and Swan" on their holders, and states that we could continue to use the words "Edi-Swan"—I think Ingold was then in our service—so far as I know only one of our licensees has his holders made in Germany—they are marked "Made in

Germany"—the name of the German firm is Muller—I did not know till this case that Patterson and Cooper had their holders made in Germany.

By MR. YOUNG. The words "Made in Germany" have not been added since this action was taken—I was not aware Williams and Josephs got holders from Germany—the Electrical Company, of Charing Cross Road, are our agents.

MR. YOUNG submitted that there was no case to go to the JURY; that the COURT could not be called upon to protect a trademark which the owners let out on hire to other persons, and over which they exercised no supervision; he referred to several cases in support of his argument, but the Common Serjeant was of opinion that the cases referred to did not apply to the present form of charge, and that the case must be left to the JURY, whether the mark on the goods so nearly resembled the trademark of the prosecutors as would be calculated to deceive.

MR. BOWER (Re-examined by MR. YOUNG). This (produced) is an un-stamped holder found in the possession of Ingold—on examining it I say at once it is an Edison and Swan patent holder; it is their pattern, and has been manufactured in Germany.

Witnesses for the Defence.

EDWARD AUGUSTUS INGOLD (The Defendant). I am an electrical engineer, employed by Cremer, of Cologne—I was with Edison and Swan; I tendered my resignation; they had a manufactory in Germany there as well—Cremer was with them in Germany—fifteen or eighteen months ago Marsden showed me in a book that a trademark must be a fancy word or a name printed in a particular manner, and that "Ediswan" was their trademark, and Edison and Swan was nothing at all, and if contested he would not mind fighting the matter out—Davidson was present at the interview—there were many interviews—I informed Cremer that I wanted holders made, and he promised to send the whole over here to be stamped—I stipulated that the trademark was to be "Edison and Swan," not "Ediswan"—they granted licences—I did not regard the words "Edison and Swan" as a trademark when I applied them—I was always prepared to meet Edison and Swan—last September Mr. Burgess, a clerk in the Edison and Swan Company, came to my house with a message from Mr. Moffat, of Edison and Swan, to come and see them at their London office—I went and saw Mr. Moffat; he offered me a lump sum of money if I would give information respecting licensees who were selling at more than 33 per cent.—he asked me not to stamp holders without a licence—I told him that in my opinion the licensees stamping "Edison and Swan" were using words which were not the trademark, and I refused to entertain his offer—all the bills due have been met except one—I gave my wife directions not to destroy any letter of Savory's, or anyone else's—there was no secrecy whatever; my wife frequently complained that there were holders in every room in the house—I employed Attride, and gave him 15s. weekly, but I only employed him from 9.30 to 3—he was a rough-rider—Sergeant Scott arrested me—I said that I was very sorry Attride was brought into it, as he was my servant at 15s. a week.

Cross-examined by MR. GILL. I employed him to go to Tucker's and get the stamp made, and to get them stamped, and fetch them away—I

did not tell him to pass himself off under the name of Ford—being my servant, I should have to take the consequences of any action against him—I knew he was using the name of Ford—I heard him say he and his partner had contracted to supply 25,000 of these, and should he get them in a different name—I told him for trade reasons he had better not get them all in my name, as, being Leon's rough-rider, he would be known—I did not go myself, because it was out of my way; I had not time to spare; it would take me about an hour—I did not know that he was out of employment and without means; I supplied him with 10s. a week—I know that Attride had apartments at 6, Richmond Road, Kingsland; I never went upstairs—Walters and Co. carried on business at Madame Pastori's—I got some 13,000 holders delivered here from Cologne; I did not have 3,000 at the time of my arrest, because the larger part were stamped—I left them at different cloak-rooms, as any commercial traveller would—I do not know that Cosgrave was in the employ of Patterson and Cooper; I know where he lived—I did not take an order to his house; I sent Ryder, my father-in-law—I did not have them fetched away in the morning—I did not know that this man was taking the stamp home at night and bringing it back in the morning—I was in the employ of the licensee—I swear that I never inquired who Cosgrave was; I never saw him till June 4th, Derby day—I do not know that he was in the employ some time, but at the end of December I think it was, Marsden told me that he and Cosgrave were to be discharged, and Marsden said he was very sorry about Cosgrave, because he did not know anything about the stamping—what he did was under direction—I swear that I did not know that they were being stamped by Cosgrave in the evening—I found that he was a working man employed by Patterson and Cooper; I did not then make inquiry about the stamping—I knew he was not under Marsden's direction, and I think it was about three weeks after that I saw him again—I knew that he was acting fraudulently as far as his employers were concerned, yet I went on just the same—I did not stamp because I had something else to do that is the only answer I can give—I represented to Mr. Bower that I employed a bailiff's man—that was spoken of as a joke; Mr. Bower must have known that—Attride took the part of the bailiff's man—I believe I told Attride what had passed between Mr. Bower and myself—Mr. Bower must have shut his eyes very close not to know that these things had forged marks on them—I don't suggest that he knew it, but the probability was that he did think so—I think he must have known so from the price—that was not the biggest order I had ever given; I had given orders for £1,500 before—I think this was the largest order I had put through Mr. P.; it was given me by Baxendale, of Manchester, a firm established before the commencement of this century—I can't say positively that I had made this jocular remark to Mr. Bower about the bailiff's man; I certainly believe that I did—it was a passing excuse—I was anxious that Mr. Bower, or any other customer, should not be involved in any action with Edison and Swan in the matter—I did not consider this to be a trade-mark—I did not know it was Patterson and Cooper's stamp for some time afterwards—I do not remember saying that I got the goods as security for a debt—I did not tell Mr. Bower so; I deny it entirely—Attride never seriously represented

himself as anything but my servant—I sent him to Tucker because I had had a stamp made there before, last November twelve months; Edison and Swan's stamp—I went myself to Tucker on that occasion—I sent Attride to repeat a similar order, only altering the form of it—I expect he would know about that—I did not know anything about electric light—Tucker would know exactly what I should want—either Attride or I wrote these letters of Attride and Co.—I think the first one was written at Finlay's dictation.

SOPHIA INGOLD . I am the wife of the prisoner Ingold; we have been married about eighteen months—I know Davis; he was a frequent visitor at our house from soon after our marriage up to a few weeks before the arrest—I have heard my husband and Davis speak about a dispute with Edison and Swan, that there was a difficulty, and he was prepared to fight it—I always understood from my husband that I was never to destroy any papers and letters, and if anyone called he would be pleased to keep any appointment they liked to make—somebody did call—I have seen Mr. Cramer since these proceedings.

ALFRED ATTRIDE (The Defendant) Up to Saturday last I was lodging at 26, Richmond Road, Kingsland Road—I occupied one room, a bedroom and sittingroom—I was employed by Mr. Leon as a rough-rider at the Aquarium; I was getting £3 a week for that, and an occasional benefit—in October he was bitten by a big dog, and had to discontinue the business—about 12th October Mr. Finlay introduced me to Ingold, and I was his servant at 15s. a week, and if I worked late he gave me something more—what I did was under Ingold's direction—I gave the name of Ford, that was my professional name; I gave that name on account of my name being all over London as a professional rider—I never described myself as Attride and Co., or gave authority to anyone so to describe me, or that I was a partner of Tucker's—I never said that I had a partner, or that I must consult my partner; I must consult someone.

Cross-examined. Finlay introduced me to Ingold outside a public-house—I did not know at that time that Ingold had no place of business—I thought he had business from his house—I did not know that he had no place of business till after this case came out; I then found that his only business was leaving parcels at public-houses—I left them where he told me, and fetched them from there—I was told by Ingold to order the stamping—I had never heard the name of Edison and Swan—I was in Ingold's employ, and should do anything he told me—I did not know that he had letters from abroad at the tobacconist's shop—I did not know that goods were ordered in the name of Attride and Co. till I received the parcel—I gave the address where I had my one room—Finlay asked me to receive this parcel before I knew Ingold—he gave me the stamp barrow near the Bank of England, in the street—I took it to Tucker, and was simply to ask him what it would Cost to make the stamp—I gave the name of Ford—I was simply acting under Ingold's instructions—he told me not to give his name, for trade purposes—I represented to Tucker that I had an order for 25,000 of these—Ingold had the orders, and I was to let him know the result—I always went to Tucker's to take things there, and brought them away; Ingold never appeared at Tucker's, to my knowledge—I left

parcels at Pastori's, when Ingold told me; I did not sell any to Mr. Bower; I did not say I was a bailiff's man; I heard him say so—I did not leave a parcel on my own account—I got a cheque for £2 10s.—he knew I came from Ingold.

GEORGE LEON . My correct name is George Sexton—Leon is my professional name—I live at 3, Swanage Road, Wands worth—I am a scientific horse-dealer—I have known Attride twelve or fifteen years; he is thoroughly honest and straightforward.

INGOLD— GUILTY [See next two trials] .

ATTRIDE— NOT GUILTY .