Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 03 October 2022), July 1906 (t19060723).

Old Bailey Proceedings, 23rd July 1906.

1906, JULY.

Vol. CXLIV.] [Part 862.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]







On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Monday; July 23rd, 1906, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN , Bart., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir CHARLES JOHN DARLING , Knight, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir J. WHITTAKER ELLIS, Bart., Sir JOSEPH RENALS, Bart., Sir ALFRED J. NEWTON, Bart., Sir JOHN C. BELL, Sir T. VEZEY STRONG , Capt. W. C. SIMMONS, Aldermen of the paid City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K. C., Recorder of the said City; FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET , Esq., K. C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and His Honour Judge RENTOUL, K. C., Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.

Sir HENRY GEORGE SMALLMAN , Knight, Alderman.










OLD COURT; Monday, July 23.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

COLEMAN, Michael (24, labourer), pleaded guilty to stealing a horse and van, a set of harness, and 14 bales of silk, the goods of Pickfords, Limited; also to a conviction for felony, at Clerkenwell Sessions, on November 8, 1904. A number of other convictions proved; prisoner said by police to be an habitual van thief. Sentence, Twenty months' hard labour.

DORRINGTON, William (26, clerk), pleaded guilty to stealing £4 9s. 6d., moneys of H. Ringwood; £34 0s. 3d., moneys of John Alderson; and £3 10s., moneys of Irvin Dock. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

HARRIS, Thomas (22, stoker) , burglary in the dwelling-house of William Moore, and stealing therein a saw and other tools, and feloniously receiving same.

WILLIAM MOORE , 42, Dalston Lane, laundryman. On July 3 I locked up my place and went to bed. Early next morning I was aroused by a constable, and found a burglary had been committed; the back door had been burst open. The tools (produced) had been taken. The constable had got the prisoner, and I went to the station and charged him.

JOSEPH TASKER , police-constable, J Division. On July 4, in the early morning, I was on duty in Woodland Street, Dalston, which is at back of Moore's premises. I saw prisoner put his head over the wall from Moore's premises. In a few minutes prisoner came over the wall. I asked him what he had been doing; he said, looking for old iron. He had a saw sticking out of his coat pocket. I said he must come to the station. I aroused Moore, and found that a burglary had been committed at his place. He came to the station and charged prisoner; the tools produced were found in prisoner's pockets. On examining prosecutor's premises I found that a pane of glass

had been broken, and entry had been gained by forcing the back door.

Prisoner. I found the things outside the gate.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

PRATT, James (37, labourer) pleaded guilty , to fraudulently converting to his own use 25s., entrusted to him by Alfred Flahey for a certain purpose. Ten previous convictions were proved, including one of seven years' penal servitude, of which 175 days had yet to run. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

STANLEY, George otherwise Hatch (28, bookbinder), pleaded guilty . to stealing a Post Office Savings Bank book, certain brushes, and £4, property of F. J. Colegate; stealing a similar book, some clothes, and 12s. 6d., property of J.J. Newman; stealing a watch, etc., property of F. Edwards; obtaining by false pretences from the Postmaster-General three sums of £1 each, with intent to defraud; forging and uttering three requests for payment of £1, £1, and £1; he also confessed to a conviction at this court on September 13, 1904, of felony. A very bad record was proved by the police. Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.

WINN, John Albert (39, auxiliary postman) pleaded guilty , to stealing a post letter and enclosures, the property of the Postmaster-General . Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

HOLDEN, William (26, labourer) pleaded guilty , to stealing 5s. 6d., 1s. 11d., and 9d., moneys of the Gas Light and Coke Company (from "penny-in-the-slot" meters). Several previous convictions were proved. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

SMITH, William (25, labourer) pleaded guilty , to breaking and entering the vestry of St. Stephen's Church, Isleworth, with intent to steal therein; he confessed to a conviction, at Leeds Assizes, on May 3, 1905, of felony; other convictions were proved. Sentence, Fifteen months' hard labour.

HARNETT, Michael (28, bricklayer), and BAKER. Edwin Thomas (25, bricklayer) , assaulting Reuben Rottstein, with intent to rob. (Another indictment, for inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Edward Hemms, was not proceeded with.)

Mr. Thorne prosecuted; Mr. Jenkins defended.

RUBEN ROTTSTEIN , 8, Rick Street, Limehouse, tailor. In the early morning of June 23 Iwas in Commercial Road. Just after passing a coffee stall, I was going past a big pillar, when three men came from behind the pillar and caught hold of me. I cried out, and my son, who was a little way behind, came up; he said, "Hullo, what is the matter?" Harriett said,

"What's that to do with you?" My son said, "That is my father." Harnett said, "All right, we've made a mistake," and they let me go. There was with my son a friend of his named Hemms. I went for a policeman; when I went back I saw Hemms lying on the pavement unconscious. The following day I picked out prisoners from a number of men at the policestation.

Cross-examined. Harnett caught hold of my coat and pulled me on to his breast. Prisoners were behind the pillar, which is four or five yards away from the coffee stall. Harnett did not try to rob me; he had no change. Baker never touched me at all. I deny that I was staring at Harnett at the coffee stall, and that he took hold of my coat and said, "You will know me next time." I did not hear Hemms speak to prisoners. I did not see a lot of people about. When I came back Hemms was lying about 20 yards away from the coffee stall. I was struck at the back of the head, but I cannot say whether prisoner struck me.

ISAAC ROTTSTEIN , son of last witness. I was walking with Hemms, a little behind my father; as father passed the pillar, I saw a hand come out from behind the pillar, and take him by the coat. When I got up there with Hemms one of the men got hold of me by the shoulders; the others set about Hemms; Harnett struck Hemms and laid him over; Hemms had his coat on at the time; when he was lying injured on the pavement we put the coat under him. On the blowing of a police whistle, the three men ran away. I identified Harnett out of a number of men at the station.

Cross-examined. The three men were with some girls; I did not see them at the coffee stall; they were hiding behind the pillar. There were four or five people at the stall. Father was walking three or four yards in front of me. I did not hear Harnett say anything to father; when I rushed up Harnett was just going to strike father, and I pulled him off. I did not see Harnett try to rob father; he did not have time. It is not true that Hemms and Harnett had a fight. When Hemms came up the three men rushed at him and he tried to run away; Harnett caught him up and struck him; the road was "up" just there for tramway repairs, and Hemms was thrown against the ropes and fell into the trench. It was not a fight between Harnett and Hemms.

THOMAS GALE , Detective, K Division. On June 23, in the early morning, I went to Kirby Street to keep observation on Harnett's house, with orders to arrest him when he came home. At seven o'clock the two prisoners came round the corner; directly they saw me and another constable (who was in uniform) they ran away. After going round several streets they came running back. I stopped Baker, and told him I should

arrest him for being concerned with Harnett in assaulting a man in Commercial Road (meaning Hemms). He said, "All right, sir, I'm done; I will go with you. I am a respectable man going to work. I only just met the man (Harnett) and asked him to have a drink, I do not know anything about the assault. I was never down this way before; I come from Hammersmith." At the station he made no reply to the charge. At the police court, whilst waiting to be called, he said, "It was a fair fight; he set about me; I am very sorry." I know both prisoners; I have not seen Baker before in Limehouse.

Cross-examined. It is not true that I at first called Baker Harnett; I know Harnett quite well, as I live at the back of his house. It is true that I had my truncheon out when I arrested Baker; I knew my man.

GEORGE MASLIN , Inspector, K Division. I arrested Harnett about 7.30 a. m. on the 23rd. I told him he was wanted for being concerned with another man in assaulting a man in Commercial Road, about one o'clock that morning.

WILLIAM BROWN , Sergeant, K Division. When prisoners were charged at the station Baker, from the dock, said, "Did you say the man was unconsciouse" I said, "Yes." He said, "I am very sorry, but the asked for what he got; it was his own fault." At the police court, at the back of the court, Baker said to me, "This is a bad job; I am sorry for the man, but they took a liberty with us; he put his fists up at me; I sat up and let out, but he jumped back and fell down the hole; I saw him lying there, but I did not think it was serious, or I would have stopped and taken him out."

EDWARD HEMMS . 15, Albert Road, Millwall, labourer. I was walking with Isaac Rottstein a little behind prosecutor. I was struck from behind; I cannot say who hit me. I became unconscious. I was taken to Poplar Hospital; the base of my skull was fractured; I was unconscious for a week; I am still in the doctor's hands. I did not have a fight with these men.

Cross-examined. I cannot recollect going up to Harnett when he had hold of prosecutor's coat; I remember nothing about it; I was unconscious too long. I did not have a fight; all I remember is being struck from behind; I fell, and became unconscious.

THOMAS PATTEN , 16, Errick Street, Poplar, cabinet-maker. I was standing in the middle of the road when this happened. I saw one of the three men "claim hold" of prosecutor's coat and pull him towards him. Rottstein and Hemms came up. I heard the third man say, "Let him have it." Harnett struck Hemms a heavy blow and knocked him over the ropes; he must have been knocked clean out before he went down the

hole. Hemms did not attempt to fight; he made no insulting remark to the men, and did not draw them on in any way.

Cross-examined. The man who took hold of prosecutor by the coat and pulled him to him was the third one the one that got away; I am certain of that. Hemms and Harnett did not have a fight; there was no quarrelling at all; only Isaac Rottstein asked why they had got hold of his father. I did say at the police court, "I came over and found you quarrelling "; they were jawing to one another, but not kicking up a row. When young Rottstein asked why they had caught hold of his father, I did not hear Harnett say that it was because the old gentleman was staring at him. They all "claimed hold" of young Rottstein, and he said, "Take your hands off me "; they did not hurt him. I did mention this at the police court. I did not hear Harnett say anything. I did not see blows exchanged between Hemms and Harnett. I was standing by, and did not go up to them. There was quarrelling, and Baker was trying a bit to pacify them; he said, "Let them go" There were a lot of other men standing close by. There was plenty of light. The quarrelling took place close by the pillar; where Hemms fell was about 30 yards away. I ran to pull him out of the trench. Both prisoners struck Hemms; Baker struck him in the side and Harnett hit him in the face and knocked him over the ropes. I did not say at the police court that they both struck him in the face. First they struck at Hemms, and he ran away; they run after him and caught him by the ropes; then he was struck again and fell over the ropes.

Re-examined. There was no man to man fight.

On the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Jenkins submitted that there was no evidence of attempt to rob, and no evidence from which the jury could infer an intent to rob.

The Recorder ruled that there was evidence to go to the jury.


MICHAEL HARNETT (prisoner, on oath). On June 22 I met Baker, and went with him to his mother's house at Hammersmith. We left there at half past nine and got to Aldgate about 11. We went into one or two public-houses and had drinks. I met an old shipmate named Montgomery, and we also met two girls. When we got to this coffee stall Baker proposed that we should have some tea; he called for five cups. wile we were at the stall prosecutor came up and stood staring at me. I said, "Have a good look at me and you will know me "; and I just caught him by the lappet of his coat, not thinking what I was doing at the time. Immediately these others came up. Hemms took off his coat, and said, "I'll fight the beat man here." There was a crowd of

people round. I tried to pacify him; Baker came from where he was standing, and also tried to pacify him. Hemms sparred up in front of me, and I stepped on one side; I just shoved him; when he found he had met a man as good as himself he turned round and said something to the others, and the whole lot run away; that is how he met with the accident—trying to get away so quick, when he fell over the rope. There was no one near him at that time at all. We walked away, not knowing that anything serious had happened; I did not run away.

To the Court. This was just after closing time. I went home, and I could not sleep; about half past five in the morning I went out and I met Baker.

Cross-examined. I am certain that Hemms took off his coat and said he would fight the best man there; I am sure he had his coat off before he fell into the trench. He made a blow at me, and I stepped aside; I shoved him; it was not a blow of mine that rendered him unconscious. It was between 1.15 and 1.20 that I got home. When the officers came at five o'clock my mother thought they were men who wanted to take me out to drink, and she said I was not at home. On this night I had had a drop to drink, but nothing to speak of. when I caught hold of prosecutor's coat I did not know what I was doing. He had looked at me in a very insulting wav. I repeat, on oath, that Hemms took off his coat and challenged the beat man to fight. After Hemms fell into the hole I did not run away; I walked across the road; if I had thought that it was anything so serious I should have gone to help him. Q. Why did you run away directly you saw the two police officers at seven o'clock in the morning? A. Because I know what they are; they have taken a liberty with me many a time.

HENRY BAMFIELD Police-constable, 661 K. On hearing a police whistle I went to this place. Hemms had been taken out of the trench and was lying on the pavement. His coat was off; it was rolled up under his head.

THOMAS PATTEN , recalled. When we got Hemms out of the trench his coat was on; I am positive of that.

ISAAC ROTTSTEIN , recalled. I helped to pull Hemms out of the hole; I am sure he had his coat on then. There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that before anything had been done to him Hemms pulled off his coat and offered to fight.

EDWIN THOMAS BAKER (prisoner, on oath). When we were at the coffee stall there were 14 or 15 men about there. After I had ordered some teas, I saw prosecutor staring at Harnett in a very insulting manner; he was 13 or 14 ft. away from the stall. Harnett, seeing that prosecutor was staring at him in this way, went up to him and caught hold of the lappet of his

coat and spoke to him. Prosecutor called out, and immediately Hemms and two or three others came up and got round Harnett and started having a row. Seeing that they were quarrelling I went over and tried to stop the row. During the wrangle I saw Hemms take off his coat, or partly take it off, and I heard him say that he would fight the best man there; then I saw Harnett strike Hemms. Hemms collided with the rope and fell into the ditch; that is how he met with his in juries. All I did was to try to pacify the men; I did not strike prosecutor nor Hemms. When I was arrested at seven in the morning I was in company with Harnett. When I saw the two constables I ran away; I did that because I had been in this affair the night before. When Gale arrested me he took me as Michael Harnett; I said, "You have made a mistake." I said I would go quietly with him, but he drew his truncheon and stood over me with it. At the station I gave a detailed account of the whole business. The constable to-day has just picked out a little of what I said, so as to try to incriminate me.

Cross-examined. It is not correct that I ran away when Hemms fell into the ditch. Harnett and I had two girls with us; when this affair happened the girls ran away; I went to try to find them; I was tramping about all night trying to find them. It was purely by accident that I met Harnett in the morning. I heard Harnett say that he gave Hemms a "push "; I should rather call it a blow; but he did not send Hemms Over the rope; the man fell over. There was only one blow Struck that I saw. I know Harnett well. The men who were round the stall were strangers to me; if I had been arrested at the time I could have called some of them as witnesses. I am certain that Hemms took his coat off, or partly so.

(Tuesday, July 24, 1906.)

Verdict, Guilty. Harnett confessed to having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on August 12, 1902. Baker confessed to having been convicted of felony at this Court on January 7, 1901. Other convictions proved against both prisoners. Sentence, Harnett, Seven years' penal servitude; Baker, Five years' penal servitude.

NEW COURT; Monday, July 23.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

CLARKE, James (44, stoker) pleaded guilty , to possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same, and confessed to a previous conviction.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

On the morning of July 5, about 11 o'clock. Detective Biggs. A Division, looking down from an omnibus which was pulled up in consequence of repairs to Commercial Street, saw prisoner hand what he took to be a coin to another man. The officer got down, and finally on searching prisoner found the eight counterfeit coins referred to in the indictment. For a similar offence prisoner was sentenced on March 25, 1901, to seven years' penal servitude. A long list of other convictions was proved. Prisoner was released on license on June 26 of this year, so that he had been at large about a fortnight at the time of his arrest.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

SANDERSON, Henry (31, dealer), and SANDERSON, Martha Louisa (29, his wife), both feloniously possessing a mould and other tools for making counterfeit coin. The male prisoner pleaded guilty.

Mr. Partridge prosecuted, and proceeded with the trial of the female prisoner.

LOUISA STUTTER , wife of William Stutter, upholsterer, 347, Old Ford Road, proved letting two rooms to the female prisoner in the name of Harvey on June 6 on a weekly tenancy. She paid 3s. deposit, and prisoners entered into occupation next day and remained until July 16.

WILLIAM BURNHAM , Detective-Sergeant, New Scotland Yard. On July 16 I was in company with Detective-Sergeant Yeo in the neighbourhood of Old Ford Road. We saw the prisoners during the morning in and out of the house fetching errands. In the afternoon the man went out at about three o'clock and came home at about quarter to five, and as the result of our observations we decided to go in. At about half past four the woman had come out and with another woman had gone into a public-house, afterwards returning to the house. We went up to their rooms and met the male prisoner on the landing between the two rooms. We told him we were police officers, and suspected him of having counterfeit coins in his possession, and implements for making them. He said, "All right," and walked into the kitchen where the woman was. She said, "You b—y fool you have been 'tailed off' (followed). If you had been drunk I could have understood it, but you are sober. You call yourself 'wide.' They could not have 'tailed' me." In front of the fire on a hanger was the florin mould produced, drying. In a cupboard in the bedroom I found two bottles containing plating solution, and a rack used for plating coins, the coins being put in the rack and placed in the solution, two ladles with part of the metal in them, a pair of pliers, some pieces of metal, and amongst them two gaets, or pieces of metal that go into the pouring holes of

the mould, and two clamps for holding the moulds together while the metal is being poured into them. The prisoners were brought into the room, and I said to them, "You see all these things," and the man replied, "Yes; all right, governor." The woman said, "I wonder how I am going to get on." At Bow Police Station, in answer to the charge, they said "All right."

ALBERT YEO , Detective-Sergeant In the oven in the presence of both prisoners I found two moulds both dated 1904 similar to the one found in front of the fire; on the mantelpiece a packet of plaster of Paris used for making the moulds, a piece of glass used for levelling moulds, a pair of scissors for cutting off the gaets, and a dozen metal spoons used for making the coins, and in the ladle that had already been used were the pieces of steel used in the handles of the spoons. The woman said, "Yes, that is all right; a fair 'cop.'" She then took a 2s. piece out of her pocket dated 1904, the same impression as was in the moulds. She also said, "It is no use having trouble with you people; you are sure to beat us."

The Common Serjeant observed that there was no evidence that the woman was acting independently of her husband, and therefore she could not be convicted.

Mr. Partridge said he had preferred to try this case, at it was always difficult to know what to do, and it would be remembered that not long ago a detective officer complained in the witness-box that people actually got married in order that the woman might be under legal coercion. The woman was no doubt a very willing dupe.

The Common Serjeant. No doubt a very willing dupe, but that will not alter the law.

The jury accordingly returned a verdict of Not guilty against the female prisoner. The male prisoner confessed to a previous conviction for uttering.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

MARTIN, Ellen (33, no occupation) ; stealing a post letter containing an order for payment of 18s., the property of James Montgomery, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Lilley prosecuted.

JAMES MONTGOMERY , commissionaire, 9, Ridsdale Street, Chelsea. I lodged at one time with the prisoner at 14, Hunt Street, Vauxhall. At that time I was receiving regimental pay, 17s. one week and 18s. another. I have since been discharged from the regiment—last Friday. The money was payable each Tuesday. Prisoner used to receive the letters that came for me to Hunt Street. I remember asking her on May 29 if my letter had arrived and her saying "No." I told her I had been informed it had arrived and she replied, "Cannot you trust my word?" I said, "Yes; I will call again to-morrow." As I was

leaving the room she turned round and shouted, "I have got your letter. I will make you go the full length for it." The letter should have contained 18s. As a rule, the money was paid to me at the Post Office in Kennington Road. It was a special money order.

Prisoner. I told him when he came I did not have the letter as I was out at the time of delivery.

To the Court. I lodged with prisoner three or four weeks and she took in the letters every week. I was employed in night work and kept in bed during the day. Except on this occasion, when she said she had not got, she always handed me the letters.

HENRY PRESTON , Colour-Sergeant, 2nd West York Regiment, stationed at Hollywood, near Belfast, proved the despatch of the letter "O. H. M. S." containing the 18s.; and Lance-Corporal GEORGE HANCOCK, regimental postman on May 28, deposed to posting it at the Hollywood Post Office.

JOSEPH WILLIAM BANDY , postman, Brixton. I recollect delivering a letter on May 29 addressed to "J. Montgomery, 14, Hunt Street, Vauxhall," into the hands of prisoner. I had previously delivered there blue envelopes "O. H. M. S." and knew prisoner by sight.

Prisoner denied the delivery, stating that she had only received six letters in eleven months, those having been delivered by the postman with glasses.

Witness, to the Court. The delivery would be as nearly as possible at two o'clock.

Prisoner. I was not in at two o'clock.

HARRIET LOUISA TRIBE , superintendent, Lambeth Post Office, 42, Kennington Road, proved the payment on May 29 of the 18s. on the order of Captain Lowe, of Belfast, but had no recollection to whom it was paid.

EMILY HEYWOOD . I am the sister of James Montgomery and married. On May 29 I went with my brother to 14, Hunt Street to get a letter that was coming from Ireland with money in it. He asked Mrs. Martin's daughter if his money had come. Prisoner subsequently made her appearance and my brother asked her for the letter. She said she had not received it. As we were leaving she said, "We have got your money; we have got your money; we will make you go the full length of the way for it." There were several other women in the house.

Prisoner said the young woman was telling falsehoods.

ALBERT WARD , Detective, L Division. On June 25 I went to 14, Hunt Street, Lambeth, to arrest prisoner. Her daughter opened the door and I saw prisoner run into the back yard. I told her I was a police-officer and should arrest her for stealing a postal letter containing a money order addressed to James Montgomery. She became very excited and called to some

woman in the next house, She said, "I know who had the b—y letter. He served me a dirty trick, sponged on me, and I got my own back; wouldn't you? You cannot prove I had the money. I can prove where I was at the time." Several women rushed in from next door. They were all very excited. We had dirty water thrown over us from tins and saucepans and several things.

Prisoner. Do not stand there telling such falsehoods. I never had a saucepan. I had to borrow one from next door.

Witness. As we were leaving the house prisoner said to her daughter, "Keep your mouth shut; don't tell them anything." The explanation of the delay in arresting the woman is that prosecutor first of all applied at the Westminster Police Court. The warrant officer there first made some inquiries and we waited till we had corresponded with Ireland and then I was some time before I could find prisoner in.

Prisoner. I was away a fortnight attending a confinement and that is the reason why I was not in. I had eight little children and a new-born baby and the wife to look after. I have never been locked up before and have never been handled by a policeman in my life.

The jury acquitted the prisoner, regarding the charge as "non proven."

REYNOLDS, William (29, carman) pleaded guilty , to burglary in the dwelling-house of Herbert Goldsmith, with intent to steal therein, and confessed to a previous conviction. A number of convictions were proved; prisoner has a remanent of 240 days to serve. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

PHILIPIDES, George (27, agent) pleaded guilty , a Greek, to breaking and entering the counting house of Hermann Seelinfreund, and stealing therein one typewriter and a parcel of cigarette cases, his goods, and feloniously receiving same; feloniously receiving a typewriter and 20 dressing gowns, the goods of Percy Bethell and another, well knowing them to have been stolen; feloniously receiving a typewriter, the goods of Thomas Ferriman, well knowing it to have been stolen; feloniously receiving a walking-stick and five keys, the goods of Peter Narik, well knowing them to have been stolen; feloniously receiving a bicycle, the property of William Hambridge, well knowing it to have been stolen; prisoner confessed to a previous conviction in 1903.

Mr. Lilley prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

Detective-Sergeant BARRON stated that prisoner had been in several places during the past twelve months, and everyone he had been to he appeared to have defrauded in some way, and in the case of two of the indictments he had received charity from the men he had robbed. Mr. Seelinfreund had assisted him

on several occasions. Prisoner when asking for charity or for employment used to take note of how he could get in, and was one of the cleverest office thieves, leaving no trace behind him, his visits being only discovered through goods being missing. At prisoner's house he found a whole plant for making skeleton keys, a quantity of keys and files, and vices for filing them. Prisoner had a child under twelve months old, and his wife, who was an Englishwoman, appeared to be a respectable woman.

Mr. Purcell said it was clear prisoner must have had assistance in disposing of the plunder.

The Common Serjeant, in sentencing prisoner to four years' penal servitude, regretted that as he had married an English woman he could not recommend his deportation at an undesirable alien.

WESTFALL, Arthur (37, stoker), and SOLOMONS, Jack (30, porter) , stealing a watch and other articles, the goods of John Brownhill, from his person, and feloniously receiving same. Solomon pleaded guilty.

Mr. J. F. Vesey FitzGerald prosecuted.

JOHN BROWNHILL . I am a retired licensed victualler, and live in Essex. On June 18, at about quarter to nine, I was walking in Middlesex Street on my way from Fenchurch Street to Liverpool Street. I noticed Solomons walking about four paces on my right-hand side. Presently he touched me on the right shoulder and said, "Hulloa, dad," or something to that effect. The instant he did that Westfall jumped from the opposite side and caught hold of my watch-chain, pulled out the watch, and said, "I have got it," and they ran away together. The bar of the chain fell in my hand. I valued the watch, chain, and spade guinea attached at seven guineas. I followed for a short distance, and had a full view of them for 15 or 20 yards. Then I stopped, and a policeman came up to me. Prisoners were afterwards brought back by two policemen, and I identified them. I was asked which of them took the watch, and I said Westfall.

ISAAC PENNY , Police Constable, 366 H Division. At 8.45 on the night of June 16 I was on duty in Duval Street, Bishopsgate, near Middlesex Street. I saw Westfall running from the direction of Widegate Street, a turning out of Middlesex Street. There were some children running after him and they called out, "That is the man in the bowler hat." I gave chase and caught him and asked him what he was running away for. He said, "I am trying to stop a man who has stolen a gentleman's watch and chain." I took him back to Widegate Street, and when prosecutor saw him he said, "That is the man who has stolen my watch and chain." He was taken to the Bishopsgate Station and charged.

GEORGE MACCARTHY . I am 13 years old and live at 5, Sandys Row. On the night of June 18, about a quarter to nine, I was in Artillery Lane, near Middlesex Street. I heard some whistles blowing and a crowd stopped the two men, Westfall and Solomons. I saw Solomons take the watch from Westfall's hand. Then the crowd shouted out, and they all pointed to Solomons, and when the police caught Solomons he threw it back to Westfall and I saw it on the ground.


ARTHUR WESTFALL (prisoner, on oath). On the night of June 18, at 8.30, I was coming from Bishopsgate Street into Middlesex Street, going towards Widegate Street. When in Widegate Street I heard a shout of "Stop thief!"Three men ran past me, and as I got towards Widegate Alley I tried to stop one, but I was thrown down by the two others, and when I got up I had lost sight of them. I never saw either of the three men again until I was arrested. I was standing still at the time and was a bit dazed through being knocked down.

Cross-examined. For the last six months I have been working for a chairmaker. I lived at 118, Fenton Street, St. George's, but have had to get out of my place through being in this trouble. I do not know the other prisoner, never saw him before, and have never been in his company.

Prisoner called his wife to produce his characters and discharges, he having been a seafaring man, but the woman said she had not them with her.

Prisoner, subsequently recalled as to his character, admitted a conviction for larceny from the person in June, 1904, and that he had previously to that been convicted three times, the first occasion being in 1897, when he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for fraud.

The jury found Westfall guilty, and numerous convictions were proved against both prisoners.

Sentence: Each four years' penal servitude.

OLD COURT; Tuesday, July 24.

(Before Mr. Justice Darling.)

HOLLIS, Amelia (51, midwife) , on coroner's inquisition, murder of Bertha Doel.

Mr. Symmons, who appeared for the Director of Public Prosecutions, said that prisoner was supposed to have performed an illegal operation. Apart from evidence, properly taken by the coroner, but which would be inadmissible on a trial in this Court, it would be impossible to ask the jury to convict, and, with the sanction of the Court, he proposed to offer no evidence. His lordship, having perused the depositions, agreed. The jury accordingly, by direction, returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

MABLE, Wilfred Lawson (23, engineer) , feloniously wounding Sarah Louisa Mable, his sister, with intent to kill and murder her, and to do her some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Travers Humphreys defended.

NORMAN MABLE , The Laurels, East Acton. I am a brother of prisoner. On June 6, at twenty to nine a.m., having received a communication from my eldest sister, I went to a bedroom upstairs; I saw my sister, Sarah Louisa, lying in bed with blood issuing from her throat. Prisoner was standing against the door; I asked him what he had done, and he made no reply; he gave me the razor which he had in his hand. Later on he told me that he had done it to put the poor girl out of her misery. Sarah Louisa suffered from epileptic fits, and had been mentally afflicted all her life.

KATE FRANCES MABLE (affirmed). I was at home on this morning, and saw prisoner and my sister together.

Cross-examined. When prisoner came back from Canada two years ago he seemed strange, and to suffer from delusions; he thought he was being followed; that people were whispering, or touching him. Just before June I noticed that he seemed very depressed. He was always very fond of Sarah Louisa. I was the first to go into the bedroom on this morning; prisoner was standing on the further side of the bed with the razor in his hand. When I went in he said, "Don't say anything, Kate."

Dr. CAMPBELL, Emanuel Avenue, Acton. I was called in to see the child; she had already received first aid. On removing the bandages I found she had a severe lacerated wound in the throat, about three or four inches from right to left, involving the windpipe; the razor produced might have caused the wound. I saw prisoner; he seemed quite unconcerned; he did not wish to conceal the fact at all; he seemed dazed; I think he was in a weakened condition. There had been nervous trouble in the family.

Cross-examined. Sarah Louisa had been mentally afflicted since she was nine years of age, and, I think, getting worse. I expressed the opinion that she could not give evidence because she would not understand the nature of an oath, and she was not called before the magistrate.

ARTHUR MARGETT . Police Constable, 579 X. On my arresting prisoner he replied, "I did it to put her out of her misery, as she was subject to fits." At the station he made no reply to the charge.


DR. SCOTT, Brixton Prison. Prisoner has been under my observation since June 7. I have made myself acquainted with the facts of this case, and with the history of prisoner and the members of his family. I have come to the conclusion that he was insane at the time he committed this act. While under my observation he has shown no remorse or emotion. I asked him if he did not think he had done a wicked act; he said he thought many people would say so, but he was quite sure God would not. I asked him if he did not know one of the Ten Commandments, "Thou shalt not kill "; he said no, and seemed surprised to hear that there was such a command in the Decalogue.

Verdict, Guilty of attempt to murder, but insane at the time. Ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.

SMITH, Lawrence Ernest (25, bootmaker) , feloniously shooting at and wounding Helena Philpott with intent to murder her and to do her some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted.

Prisoner, on being called, through the interpretation of a clergyman from the Church for the Deaf and Dumb in Oxford Street, said: " Confession; God says I must tell," and handed in a written statement.

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING said he should not affect to address himself to the prisoner, because he was deaf and dumb, but the sentence would be communicated to him, and perhaps the reasons for it later. The prisoner, a married man, had by threats of violence driven his wife away from him. He afterwards began courting the girl Philpott, and eventually, after threatening her, he fired a shot at her with a revolver. The bullet entered her neck. The X rays having been applied the bullet was extracted, but the wound might have been fatal. The sentence he was going to pronounce upon the prisoner might appear harsh unless it was explained. It was perfectly plain that the prisoner was a dangerous man, who was probably not in his right mind. The clergyman interpreter, who had known him for years, said he was always of opinion that he was not in his right mind, and that that was his opinion now. Two documents written by prisoner which had been handed his lordship satisfied him that he was not right in his mind. However, prisoner had pleaded guilty to shooting at the girl and wounding her with intent to murder. He should send him to penal servitude, and there he would be properly treated, to see what was the matter with him. The prisoner would be watched, and if he was really insane the Home Secretary would order his removal to an asylum, or if that was not done he would be treated is a way appropriate for a criminal thus afflicted. Any attempt now to fix a limit as to when he should be released upon the public would be quite an ordinary. He should pass the maximum sentence for the crime to which prisoner had pleaded guilty in order that the matter should be fully considered by the Home Secretary, so that he, under the advice of medical experts, might determine what should be done. He should pass upon the prisoner a sentence of penal servitude for life, not with the idea that he was to be treated as an ordinary criminal, but that people must be protected against him, and he must be protected against himself, because he had intended, not only to kill the girl, but also to commit suicide.

LEWIS, Lucy (40, charwoman) ; attempted murder of William Lewis and Violet Lewis, her two children; attempting to kill and murder herself.

Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted. Mr. Mahaffy (at the request of the Court) defended.

EMMA HANLAN , matron at Dr. Barnardo's Home, at Bow. Prisoner's son, William Albert, has been in my charge at the Home since October; he is aged seven years. On June 9 prisoner came and asked me to let the boy go out with her for a little while; I assented, and she took him away.

Cross-examined. I had seen her five weeks before this, when she seemed very poorly; she said her heart was affected. She appeared to be devotedly fond of the child.

MARIA WOOD , Oram Place, Rotherhithe. I am prisoner's half sister-in-law. On June 9 she came to me about seven in the evening, having the two children with her. She said she was getting on very badly, that she was run right down, and really didn't know what she was going to do. She went on to say that she was going to drown herself and the two children. I said, "For God's sake, don't do that." She said it was no use her going home, for she owed 9s. rent, and she had neither food, fire, nor light. She left me, taking the children with her.

Cross-examined. She was looking very bad, and was very poorly clad. I have known her 8 or 9 years. She was always fond of both the children. She seemed very strange in her mind and upset. I did not follow her when she left me, because I did not dream that she was going to do anything like this.

WILLIAM T. LEYCESTER , tram driver, Deptford. On June 9, about 10.30, I was on Black Horse Bridge over the canal at Deptford. I saw prisoner walking down the canal bank holding a little boy by the hand. She either fell in or threw herself in. I got assistance and went down to the bank; I took off my coat and got in as far as I could and put out a stick towards her; she made no attempt to take hold of it. Eventually I pulled her in with the stick, and we got the children out as well. Some people around asked why she had done it, and she said because she was in trouble.

Cross-examined. I cannot say whether she fell in or threw herself in. It was very dark at this spot. She did not try to reach my coat or stick; she was helpless in the water. When she was got out she was very exhausted, and soon went into a swoon.

JAMES AUSTIN . I live on the canal bank at Deptford. On June 9 my attention was attracted by screams; on going to the bank I saw prisoner and two children in the water. I helped last witness, and between us we got the three of them out. Prisoner made no attempt to get hold of the stick; she saw it and could have reached to it.

WILLIAM HINSLEY , Inspector, R Division. On June 9 prisoner and the two children were brought to the station, where I was inspector in charge. She said she wanted to make a statement. I said, "Whatever you say may be used in evidence against you."

Mr. Mahaffy submitted that these words did not constitute a sufficient "caution "; prisoner should have been told "that the need not say anything to incriminate herself, but that whatever she did say would be taken down."

Mr. Justice Darling. That is the ordinary caution given before the magistrate: it in totally different where a person comes and says: "I with to make a statement." There is no necessity to give a caution at all.

Witness then read from his note the following statement of the prisoner: "About three p.m. on the 9th inst., I left my home to go to Dr. Barnardo's Home, Grove Road, Bow, taking Violet, aged 2 1/2 with me. I fetched Willie away to do for the three of us. I went to my sister-in-law's, Albion Street, Rotherhithe, and stopped there two hours. I then left my sister-in-law, and came straight to the canal, and I took the baby in my arms, and took hold of Willie's hand and purposely fell in. I told my sister-in-law I was going to drown myself and the children, as I have had a lot of trouble and no one to help me."

Cross-examined. Prisoner was in a rather agitated state when she made this statement.

Prisoner's statement upon committal: "I cannot realise what I have done, and I cannot think all I said."

No evidence was called for the defence.

Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.

It was shown that prisoner bore a most excellent character. She had lived very happily with a man for eight years, when he was accidentally killed; she did not marry him, as he was already married. Since his death she had lived quite respectably, and tried to support herself and the children. The child Violet had, since this attempted drowning, been quite dumb Mr. Scott France, the missionary attending this court, said arrangements had been made for the care of the children, and for prisoner being looked after on the expiration of whatever sentence

might be imposed. Mr. Justice Darling sentenced her to six months' imprisonment.

WOODARD, William Richard (25, salter) ; feloniously throwing upon Mary Ann Woodard, his wife, a corrosive fluid, sulphuric acid, with intent to burn, maim, and disfigure her, and to do her some grievous bodily harm. He pleaded Guilty, under great provocation."

Mr. Mahaffy, who prosecuted, said that prisoner was married a year ago, and lived fairly happily with his wife until she contracted drinking habits. On June 18 she stayed out all night, and would give prisoner no explanation except that she had stayed the night at her sister's house. Prisoner, in the course of a quarrel, when his wife was jeering at him, threw some sulphuric acid over her; she was only slightly burned.

Mrs. WOODARD, prisoner's wife, was sworn, and questioned by his lordship. Q. How came you to stay at your sister's all that night? A. I was not there at all. Q. Where were you? A. I refuse to answer. Q. Were you at some disreputable place? A. I refuse to answer. Q. With whom were you? A. I refuse to say. The woman said she was willing to go back to prisoner, and he said he would take her back. "and trouble no more about it." The injuries inflicted by the corrosive fluid appeared to be quite trivial.

Mr. Justice Darling released prisoner on his own recognisances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon. His Lordship told the woman that he might have sent her to gaol for contempt of court. He only took this lenient view of the prisoner's offence and of her contempt in the hope that the pair might take a lesson from what had occurred and live together peaceably in the future.

PERRETT, Ruth Augusta (30, charwoman); indicted and charged on coroner's inquisition for the wilful murder of her newly-born male child.

Mr. Symmons prosecuted. Mr. T. Mathew (at the request of the Court) defended.

ADA WOOD , West Street, Gravesend. I am a married sister of the prisoner. She has been married about 12 years and has three children; she lived with her husband till October last, when he left her, and she came and lived with her parents, two doors from my house. On May 28 she left West Street, telling me that she was going to the hospital, where she said she had been attending for three months, suffering from ulcerated stomach. I had no idea that she was pregnant. In the evening I received a letter saying that she had to stop at the hospital. She came back on June 13; she said that the ulcers had broken and she felt well enough to come home. She said nothing about a child having been born.

Cross-examined. Prisoner's husband was very, very unkind to her and finally deserted her, taking the home away with him.

BEATRICE J. BING . I let lodgings at 28, Storks Road, Bermondsey. On May 28 prisoner came to me, giving the name of Mrs. Turner, and took a furnished room. She said her husband was away at sea, that she was attending St. Bartholomew's Hospital for ulceration of the stomach, and wanted a room in London so as to be near the hospital. Noticing her appearance, I asked her if she was in a particular way. She said, "No, it was the ulcers." She stayed on till June 13. She had no visitors. She said nothing about being in the family way. On June 11, at nine in the morning, she came downstairs for some hot water to make tea. I noticed nothing unusual in her appearance, but she seemed poorly. On the morning of the 13th she came down and asked me if she might burn a few rags in the copper, and I agreed. I do not know what she burned. She went out just before 11, saying she was going to the hospital and would be back at two. I did not see her after that. That evening I got a letter signed "Mrs. Turner "; the envelope bore the postmark, "S. E., 3.30." I did not keep the letter; it enclosed the key of her room. Next day, on stripping her bed, I noticed some stains on the clothes; I also found a piece of macintosh and a dressing jacket.

WILLIAM HOLLANDS , guard on the S. E. and C. R. On June 13 I was rear-guard on the 11.17 train from Charing Cross to Deptford. As I was shutting the doors at Lewisham Junction I noticed under a seat in a third-class compartment a brown paper parcel; the compartment was empty; the door had been left open.

WILLIAM PADBURY , porter at Lewisham Junction. The parcel was handed by last witness to me. I took it to the waiting-room and undid it in the presence of a station inspector. We found it contained the dead body of a male child wrapped in a nightgown, which was stained with blood. I handed over the parcel to the police.

ALBERT BRIGHT . Last witness handed me the parcel. On the brown paper there was a paper with a lady's name and the address of 10, Wilmot Street, Gravesend.

DR. ROBERT VINCENT DONELAN , 2, Lewisham Park. I was called to the Police Station about half-past two on June 13 and saw the dead child; it had then been dead, I should say, at least 48 hours. It was a fully-born child; there were no distinctive marks of violence. There was compression on one side of the face; this might have been due to the position in which the child was in the parcel; it might have been caused after death. I subsequently made a post-mortem examination. The child had undoubtedly had a separate existence for some short time. The cause of death was asphyxia.

Cross-examined. The child might have been dead 48 or 56 hours. It is perfectly possible that the asphyxiation might have been caused by the child lying face downwards. Its existence may have been very brief indeed.

Dr.JOHN HOBART DIXON, Lewisham Infirmary. Prisoner was brought to the infirmary on June 18, and I examined her (with her permission). She had been recently delivered of something; I cannot say of a child; this might have happened any time within 10 days before I saw her.

EDWARD BADCOCK , Inspector P Division. On June 18 I went with Detective Thomson to 31, West Street, Gravesend, and saw prisoner. I said to her, "You know Mr. Thomson; I am a detective-inspector from London." She said, "Yes, sir, all right; I don't care who you are; I know what you have called about; people have been saying I have had a baby, but it's a lie; I have been in St. Bartholomew's Hospital for treatment for an ulcerated stomach, which I have suffered from for years; the ulcers broke last Monday, and as the doctors said I could come home I did so." I then cautioned her. I said, "I have found out that you were staying at Mrs. Bing's, 28, Storks Road, Bermondsey, from about May 28 till last Wednesday, June 13, and that you left that house about 11 o'clock in the morning. I am inquiring about the dead body of a newlyborn baby found in a train which passed through London Bridge Station a little while after you left Mrs. Bing's house." She said, "Yes, I did stay at Mrs. Bing's in Storks Road, but I called at St. Bartholomew's Hospital and got medicine on Monday, and I rested at Mrs. Bing's while I used it; I have not had a baby for a long time." I then showed her the different articles we had found, and asked whether they belonged to her. She said, "I bought a piece of Waterproof on London Bridge; the dressing-jacket I bought in London; the nightdress I bought in Jamaica Road, Bermondsey. I left those things in Mrs. Bing's room." I said, "Have you any doubt that these things are the same?" She carefully examined them and said, "They are the same; I bought them all in London, because I did not take any things with me." I said, "I must tell you that the nightdress, the piece of chemise, the towelling, and the paper were wrapped round the dead baby when it was found—there is no doubt the baby was smothered, and I must arrest you for killing it; you will also be charged with concealment of birth." She was about to say something then, and I again cautioned her. She said, "Don't tell my poor old father; I am very sorry now; I have a bad, drunken husband; I left him last October, and since I have worked at home; my father and mother keep my two children. When I found I was going to have another baby I went up to London and took a room in the name of Turner until it was over. The baby was born last Monday. I did not let anyone know. My

husband was the father. On Wednesday I left the house with it just before 11, and took train from London to New Cross. I got out, leaving the baby under the seat, and I walked back. I bought some tea, and went home, telling my people the ulcers in my stomach had burst. I am very sorry, but I could not burden my old people with another child, and so I had to do it." No child's clothing was found in prisoner's room at Mrs. Bing's.

Cross-examined. When prisoner made this last statement the was not in a state of emotion; she was quite self-possessed.

Prisoner's statement before magistrate: "I wish to call the missionary. When I came to I was on the floor, and so was the child; I never saw the child move or heard it cry."


RUTH AUGUSTA PERRETT (prisoner, on oath). I did not leave my husband; he left me. For the last eight years I have suffered from an ulcerated stomach. I was treated for that at New Brompton, and afterwards at Bartholomew's Hospital at Chatham. The reason I left my mother's house was that I was not very comfortable at home; I felt ill, and wanted rest. I was then pregnant; I had no reason for not informing my family. I do not remember much about the birth of the child. I came over bad, and when I came to I was on the floor with the child. I got up and laid on the bed; how long I lay there I cannot say. I was frightened at finding the dead body of the child there. I do not remember the statements I made to the detective. I did not live happily with my husband; he was very violent to me at times; he has threatened me with a loaded revolver; two years ago he turned me out in the streets at eleven at night, in my nightdress, with my baby.

Cross-examined. My husband was the father of this child. He took away the home when he deserted me, and left me with nothing. My father and mother have been burdened with me and my children on and off since I was married; it is not correct that I had made up my mind that they should not be burdened with another child. I had made preparations for the confinement; I had the clothes ready in a box at home; I did not take them with me when I went to Mrs. Bing's. I did not know the date when the child would be born. I did not tell my sister that I was pregnant, because I knew they would worry about it. I did not go to Mrs. Bing's so that the child might be born away from home; I went there to rest. I did tell Mrs. Bing that I was not in the family way; I did not want her to know. I was alone when the child was born; I do not remember having any preliminary pains; I was sitting down doing needlework, and the child was born. There were Mrs. Bing and another woman in the house; I did not call out for help. When I came

to the child was dead; I turned it over; I did not pick it up. When I got home I told my sister nothing about the confinement; I was frightened, and did not know what to do for the best. The baby's clothes I had in my box at home were clothes left from my other children. I was actually attending the hospital for the ulcerated stomach right up to this time; the doctors were not examining me; I went for medicine.

Verdict, Not guilty of murder; Guilty of concealment of birth; a strong recommendation to mercy. Prisoner, who had been a month in prison, was sentenced to a further term of Three months' imprisonment.

NEW COURT; Tuesday, July 24.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

LEHMANN, Ernst (58, journalist), pleaded guilty at May Sessions (see preceding volume, p. 462) to maliciously publishing a certain false and defamatory libel of and concerning Caroline Edith Mayne. Surety not being in attendance, prisoner was remanded on July 26, he was released on his own recognisances in £1,000 to come up for judgment if called upon.

KEEN. William (26, agent), pleaded guilty to obtaining by false pretences from Benjamin Swan and others a motor car with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Corrie Charles Cook and Joseph Keele and others a motor car, with intent to defraud. He confessed to a conviction of felony at Stafford on October 18, 1904, in the name of Frederick Watson, receiving 12 months' hard labour, after the following convictions: July 6, 1901, stealing pigeons, five years in a reformatory; and convictions for stealing, one month, three months, and six months. Prisoner was stated to have been in various situations fox 18 months, two years, and three years, to have had an excellent character, and to have been employed by Mr. Nuttall, riding school proprietor, as chauffeur, where he thoroughly understood his business and was only discharged because his license as a driver was refused on account of his previous convictions, from the last of which he was discharged in August, 1905.

Sentence. Twelve months' hard labour.

PRICE, John (48, labourer) pleaded guilty , to unlawfully wounding his wife, Mary Ann Price . Prisoner was stated to be a waterside labourer, a hard-working man, but very much addicted to drink. He was charged in February, 1904, with assaulting his wife and bound over. He was said to have

suffered an injury to his head and to be uncontrollable when in drink. Prisoner stated that his wife had repeatedly assaulted him. The Recorder advised prisoner to take the pledge and keep it. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

COVERDALE, Miles (33, clerk) , stealing the sum of £2 11s. of the moneys of Lockhart's, Limited.

Mr. Moran prosecuted.

ARTHUR YOUNG , assistant at Lockhart's, Limited, 115, Queen Victoria Street. On February 14 I got to Queen Victoria Street at four a. m. We opened at six. Prisoner came dressed in a silk hat, white muffler and fawn-coloured coat, and carrying a hand-bag. He walked round the counter and checked the till. Afterwards he produced a card with "Lockhart's, Limited," on it. He asked about the business, and made a general inspection of the upstairs premises. He then asked to see the money-sheet, and I told him it was down below. He said he would make a general inspection of the premises, and went downstairs. I then heard the sound of money. He passed several remarks about the downstairs premises, about brewing the tea, etc. There was £2 13s. in the office downstairs, which was locked. At five minutes to six I had made the money up, entered it in the book, and locked the office door, putting the money on the side of the desk. Prisoner came upstairs, and after some conversation left. I then went downstairs, and found only 2s. in copper in the office. The door was locked, and I opened it with my key. On July 3, between nine and ten, I saw the prisoner in Fore Street. Detective Harris was with me. Prisoner went into Lockhart's premises at 18, Fore-Street, and he was arrested in the office of the company. That office is where they engage the employees.

Cross-examined. The money was all in copper, except 2s. in silver, the copper done up in 5s. packets. Prisoner jumped up immediately I came into the office in Fore Street, and tried to get to the door. The coat he wore was a light coat; it may have been another shade than fawn coloured.

WILLIAM HARRIS , Detective, City Police. Between nine and ten on July 3 I was in Fore Street, Finsbury, in company with Young. He pointed out the prisoner. I had been looking for prisoner since February 14. Young said, "That is the man who stole the £2 11s." We followed prisoner to 18, Fore Street, where he went up the stairs into the general office of the company. I said to prisoner, "Your name is Coverdale." He said, "Yes." I said, "You will be taken to Bridewell Police Station on a charge of stealing £2 11s. from a till in the basement of 115, Queen Victoria Street." He said, "Oh, that is all right." He was dressed in a frock coat and a straw hat. He gave his name and address as Miles Coverdale, 65, Steel Road, Tottenham. I find he has lived there from the early part of the year.

Cross-examined. Prisoner occupies a small room in his mother's house. She is a dressmaker. I looked through some papers in prisoner's room to see if I could find a card of Lockhart's but found nothing.


CHARLOTTE COVERDALE , 65, Steel Road, Bruce Grove, Tottenham. I am the mother of prisoner. He is a teacher of music and pianoforte tuner, and lives with me. He is married, but separated from his wife. Since January 5, 1906, he has resided permanently with me. He usually wears a felt hat or a cap. He has no silk hat at all. He never had a long fawn coloured overcoat I have never seen him wear a white muffler. He sometimes has worn a white handkerchief round his neck. Christmas was the last time I saw him wearing it. On Monday, February 12, he went away to Cambridge, and returned, I think, on the Friday. I received a postcard from him on Wednesday, February 14, which I have destroyed. He had a small brown or dark bag for carrying his tuning things. The bag had a flat bottom and two fastening catches on the top. It was quite a little thing, just large enough to hold the tuning key, wires, etc., for tuning. In winter prisoner wears a black overcoat with a fine white thread or spot, a sort of Chesterfield.

ARTHUR YOUNG , recalled. Prisoner had a very small and very old brown bag with him in Queen Victoria Street. As far as I could say it had no catches to it. He put it over the counter to me before he went downstairs.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was wearing dark gloves.

MILES COVERDALE (prisoner, not on oath). On Monday, February 12, at half past five a. m., being very fond of walking I started to walk down to Cambridge via Hitchin. Passing along Silver Street I got into Hitchin. On Tuesday I went by rail from Hitchin to Cambridge, remained there the rest of the week, and left on the Saturday, walked to Hitchin, stopped in Hitchin all day Sunday, and got home on Monday morning at 6.30. I went to Cambridge to see a friend of mine to see if he could get me some employment. My friend is not here; he has moved from there. I do not know where he has gone to. On June 30 I called at Lockhart's, 18, Fore Street, Finsbury, and saw Mr. Hughes, the staff clerk. He told me then to come up again on Tuesday morning at half past nine, when there would be a vacancy. I arrived there at that hour and was given in charge for stealing this £2 11s. on February 14, which I knew nothing about.

Detective HARRIS. recalled. I had been keeping observation upon Steel Road, prisoner's mothers address. He had not been at home. He does not live there. I never saw him before I

arrested him; otherwise I should have arrested him before. He was some distance off when Young pointed him out.

Verdict, Not guilty.

HUMPHREYS, William (24, labourer), and HARRIS, Emma pleaded guilty , to forging and uttering a certain agreement for the purchase of goods, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from one Sidney Charles Henry Cooper and George Fraser and Company, Limited, a pair of sheets and other articles, with intent to defraud. Sentence, Humphreys, Six months' hard labour; Harris, Two days' imprisonment.

THIRD COURT; Tuesday, July 24.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

JACKSON, Thomas Joseph ; feloniously, and without lawful authority, acknowledging a certain recognisance of bail in the name of Thomas Freeman for the purpose of procuring the release of Annie Jackson, a person in lawful custody.

Mr. Giles prosecuted.

ALFRED MATTHEWS , Police-Sergeant, L Division. I was on duty at Carter Street Police Station, Walworth, on May 31 of last year. That was Derby Day. It was part of my duty to record recognisances. There was at the station a prisoner named Annie Jackson on a charge of being drunk and disorderly and assaulting the police, for whose release on bail in the sum of £5 an order had been made. Prisoner presented himself as surety for Annie Jackson and gave the name of Thomas Freeman, of 59, Little Surrey Street, Blackfriars, and, by way of showing that he was a responsible person, produced a rent book in that name. I accepted prisoner as bail on that representation and he signed the bail book and the woman Jackson was released. At the date fixed for the hearing she did not appear and I made inquiries with regard to the surety. I went to 59, Little Surrey Street, where I saw Thomas Freeman, whom I found not to be prisoner. A warrant was issued and I arrested him outside Lambeth Police Court about a fortnight ago. I read the warrant to prisoner, who in reply said, "I admit signing it. Freeman told me I might go and use his name as he was too unwell to attend and gave me the rent book."

THOMAS FREEMAN , labourer, 59, Little Surrey Street, Blackfriars Road. Prisoner and his wife lodged with me for two or three months and left on Derby Day of last year. On that day prisoner asked me, "Would you go and bail my wife out?" I told him I felt too queer, but I would ask my son to go and

stand bail in my place and I gave my son the rent book. Prisoner and my son then went away together.

THOMAS FREEMAN , Jun. I went with prisoner at my father's request and at Manor Place, Walworth, prisoner said to me, "Give me the rent book. I will do it myself." He then went into the Carter Street Police Station and returned accompanied by his wife. When they came out they started fighting and I saw no more of them till the Elephant and Castle, where they started the same game again, rowing, and I saw no more of them. When I next saw prisoner he was in custody.

To Prisoner. I did not say I would give you the rent book if you would give me half a sovereign to clear out of it.

PRISONER (not on oath) gave a similar version of the occurrence and said he was in good work with Thomas Tilling and Sons and his home had been broken up over this affair. Freeman gave him full permission to sign his name, but had he known the consequences he should not have done it.

The jury found prisoner guilty, but without intention to commit a criminal offence, and strongly recommended him to mercy, considering that he had acted in ignorance, and that his ignorance was rather furthered by Freeman giving him the book.

The Common Serjeant observed that prisoner had done a very stupid thing; he was bound over in his own recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon.

THURSTING, Charles Horace pleaded guilty , to forging and uttering an order for payment of £7 18s. 3d., with intent to defraud.

Prisoner was a clerk in a firm of oil and colour merchants. It was his duty to open letters, and he forged the signature to the order, which was cashed at the Essex Road Post Office. According to the statement of Police-sergeant Williams, his parents are respectable people, and his downfall was attributed to his squandering money with prostitutes at the West End. Hitherto he had borne a good character. Sentence, Six calendar months.

EMMS, Edward (24, bricklayer) , feloniously wounding John Marks, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Sydney Davey prosecuted; Mr. Daniel Warde defended.

JOHN MARKS , slater, 7, Providence Place, Finsbury. On Wednesday, June 13, some time after midnight, I came out of the King's Arms, Sclater Street, in company with another man, William Doulton. I saw the prisoner, who was in company with about six more. After standing talking to my friend for a few minutes I bade them all good night. When I had got about six yards prisoner came behind me and hit me in the face with a broken glass, afterwards throwing the glass on the ground. I turned round directly holding my jaw, and saw prisoner. No one else was near. I think it was a public-house glass. I have

no doubt the man I saw was the prisoner. I said to him, "You cur." One of the others threw a glass at me. I saw it coming, and I put up my hand, and it cut my hand and my forehead. I fell to the ground, and when I came to myself at the police station I found my face had been sewn up and bandaged. I was so weak I could not stand. My mind was quite clear at the time, and I was quite sober. I have known prisoner four or five months.

Cross-examined by Mr. Warde. I swear I did not stab prisoner in the face some months ago. I went into the King's Arms about half past eleven that night and went into the saloon bar. I do not know whether prisoner was in the other bar. I did not see him at all. A man named Quinlan or Sinclair was in the saloon bar. I did not demand money of him or of any man who was in that bar. A man in the saloon bar did not refuse to give me money; I never asked for it. I treated them all round bar one man (Quinlan). I did not knock Quinlan down in the bar. I pushed him on one side, and he fell down. Because I did not treat him he had a row with me. I could not say whether I gave him two black eyes. I have not heard that he was laid up for three days in consequence of the violence of my attack upon him. He was in Court at the first hearing; that was the next day. I did not call across the bar to prisoner, "Hulloa, Teddy, how are you going on? Are you going to pay for something? Will you lend me 2s.?" I did not say that if he did I would stand drinks. I did not see prisoner there. The first time I saw him that night was outside. The house is shut at half past twelve, and they call "Time" at about five minutes to the half hour. I did not go up to prisoner when I came out and say, "Are not you going to give it to me?" I never spoke to him. I did not say, "You deserve to get the same as you had before." I did not thereupon pull out a pocket-knife and run at him. He did not run away and I after him. He did not then stoop down and pick up this piece of broken glass with which he assaulted me. That story is a pure invention. I have been convicted several times, and readily admit that. How many times? I should say about six, most of them for personal violence, but never for using a weapon. Fifteen years ago I had seven years and twenty cuts with the "cat" for highway robbery with violence. Since then I have had four years. That was a fight really. The man got the worst of it, and naturally it hurt his feelings, and he prosecuted me. I have also been sentenced to twenty months for assault.

Re-examined. Before prisoner struck me I had seen him at the door of the public-house, but I did not see him when he struck me from behind. I did not see the glass with which I was struck. Since this case had been proceeding I have met

prisoner in company with two men named Harding and calligan, after eleven o'clock at night, and have been obliged to run into the station for protection. They have been throwing glasses at me again since this case has been on.

Prisoner. I deny that.

PERCY JOHN CLARKE , Divisional Surgeon, H Division. On June 13 last I saw John Marks at the Commercial Street Police Station. He was suffering from an incised wound across his left cheek which required eight stitches to bring it together. The cheek was hanging down. He also had an incised wound on the little finger of his right hand and on his forehead, but neither of them was severe. At the back of the head there was a contused wound, such as would be caused by a fall or a blow. The wound on the cheek might have been caused by a blow from broken glass, but it could not have been caused by a glass which was thrown. It would not have sufficient strength behind it in that case. The injury to the finger might have been caused by putting up the hand to protect the face. He was in a fainting condition through severe loss of blood and seemed to be sober.

Cross-examined. He did not say he had had a fight with another man. He did not say very much; he was rather beyond that. As to the wound on the face, I do not think anybody could throw a glass sufficiently hard to cause such a severe wound. It was a very deep wound, almost into the mouth, right down to the bone of the face, in a slanting direction. It must have been broken glass to cause such a wound.

ALFRED PUTT , Police-constable, 413 H. On June 13 I found prisoner in a public-house and took him into custody. I told him I wanted him for the affair last night with Marks. He said, "All right, I will go. I have heard something about it. He is the man who helped to ruin my eye ten weeks ago." Prisoner has a scar under his eye now. At the station he made no reply.


JAMES QUINLAN , 8, Kerbela Street. I am a general dealer and buy boots and bottles, to collect which I go round with a barrow. On the night of June 13 I was in the King's Arms and after some time prosecutor came in. He asked me for 2s., and I said I had no money at all. He then struck me a violent and knocked me down. I did not hit him in self-defence. I did not do anything. He was a big fellow and I was not very well at the time. He hit me three or four times with his fists and knocked me down and when he got me down he jumped on me. He gave me two black eyes, and I was in bed two days from the effects of his violence. I did not see prisoner at all. I was still there when Marks left the house, and I stayed behind after closing lime for protection.

Cross-examined. I should think it must have been quarter to one before I left. I was afraid to go out. I had not had more than one glass to drink. Marks had three or four glasses. I think the other men treated him. I cannot give the slightest reason why Marks should knock me down. I did not go to the police court at the first hearing. I was not able to get up for two days.

FLORENCE BUNBURY , barmaid at the King's Arms, Sclater Street, Shoreditch. On the night of June 13 I was serving in the bar. I saw Quinlan in the saloon bar reading the paper about quarter-past twelve. Prisoner was in the public bar. There is a partition between the two bars. Marks was also there along with one or two more. Of course, I was going on with my business, and I heard a terrible row in the corner, and, turning round. I saw Marks hitting the last witness, punching him, and Quinlan had two shocking black eyes, and when he was on the ground Marks kicked him. Marks then went over to the public bar and called to prisoner for 2s. Prisoner turned round and said he had not got it After that prisoner went outside and they all followed, but what took place outside, of course, I do not know.

Cross-examined. Quinlan had left just before. I did not see him come back. It was just after closing time that I went up to bed. I was asked to come here to give evidence by my governor, Mr. Smith. I have only seen prisoner in the King's Arms once or twice since that night. I have not spoken to him or to any of the other witnesses about this matter.

ARTHUR TRESELDON (otherwise Harding), 10, Gibraltar Buildings, Bethnal Green. Harding is my nickname. On the night of June 13 I was in the King's Arms in the public bar. Prisoner was there. I came away with Marks at half-past twelve, when the houses close. I saw Marks go up to prisoner and say something to him and suddenly I saw a knife in his hand. What he said I did not hear, but he put his hand in his righthand jacket pocket and pulled out a small penknife. I saw prisoner trying to run away. He looked in the gutter and picked up something, aimed it at Marks, and ran away. I saw Marks stagger, but he did not fall. He said, "You should have come up and hit me. You should not have done it like that." I picked Marks's cap up and gave it to him.

Cross-examined. I should think prisoner was six or eight yards from Marks when he threw the glass. When I got up to Marks I saw blood running down his face. There were 20 or 30 people round. I did not see anybody else throw glass at Marks. There was a scuffle and Marks might have got the bruise on the back of his head in the scuffle. I have been convicted twice of felony, once stealing from a van and stealing a watch.

I received a sentence of 20 months nearly four years ago. I had twelve months for stealing from the van. I was with prisoner the first part of the evening, but when I saw Marks pull out a knife I ran to take it away from him and afterwards gave it to him back. I asked him if he was going to give it them or not. He said, "No, not unless they interfere with me."

Re-examined. Since I came out of prison about three years ago I have been working at my trade as a cabinet-maker.

EDWARD EMMS (prisoner, on oath). I live at No. 1, Gibraltar Gardens. Bethnal Green and am a newsvendor. I knew Marks before he had the sentence of four years' penal servitude. Some months ago there was a quarrel and a fight between us. It was in the same public-house, and I was intoxicated. We went outside and fought, and Marks's friends stopped us about eight times. I have the mark of a wound on my face. The doctor at the hospital said it was a stab. I do not know how I came by it. On the night of June 13 I was in the public-house when Marks came in. I heard a fight going on, and looking through the partition I saw Sinclair (Quinlan) on the floor with two black eyes and Marks jumping on him. That is all I saw of that affair. After that Marks asked me to treat him. He called me by name, and said, "Are you going to pay for anything?" I only laughed. He said, "Lend me 2s., and I will treat you all round out of it." I went like that (indicating) as much as to say I had not got it. It was just closing time then, and I went out. Outside Marks called me away from Harding, and asked me for 2s. He said be wanted it to take him somewhere. I refused. He then said, "You deserve the same as you had before," and he fetched out a pen-knife from his pocket, already opened, I believe it was; I never see him open it. I said, "Don't do that, Jack; don't do that." I ran round him like to keep away from him so that he could not get hold of me. While I was running round him I was looking for something to defend myself with, and came across this broken glass. I do not know whether it was a bottle or a glass. Marks was still following me with a knife, and I aimed the bottle or glass at him. Then I walked away. I was frightened of my life. Marks and his friends will stab or shoot anybody; they do not care what they do. I have served terms of imprisonment.

Cross-examined. I was last sent to prison in April, 1905, for twelve months under the Prevention of Crimes Act. I have been in prison a number of times besides that for stealing watches and purses. My defence to this charge is that I did this in self-defence. I came out last March. In April, 1903, I was committed for 18 months at the North London Sessions for larceny. I did not cross-examine Marks at the police court about having a knife. I have known Treseldon about six years. I did not say anything about the knife when I was taken into

custody. I was four or five yards away from Marks when I threw the glass. I saw it hit him. He did not fall down. I cannot account for the wound on the back of his head.

Verdict, Not guilty.

BROWN, William (31, labourer) pleaded guilty , to committing an act of gross indecency with Frederick Arrowsmith, a male person. Sentence, Six calendar months.

SPENCER, Cecil (26, traveller) pleaded guilty , to stealing a scarf pin and other articles, the goods of Lestock Frederick Reid Livingstone-Learmouth; obtaining by false pretences from James McRobert a quantity of perfume and £1 6s. 2d. in money; from Lincoln Lawrence a pair of opera glasses and 10s. in money, and from William Leader a bag and 11s. in money, in each case with intent to defraud. Prisoner also confessed to a previous conviction.

Prisoner had been in the employ of Mr. Learmouth since the beginning of the year as butler, and left suddenly, taking with him property of the value of £50 and a cheque-book. Three of the cheques he signed in the name of Herbert Spencer, making them payable to himself, and these he gave to tradesmen in payment of goods, taking the balance in cash. The stolen jewellery and clothes he pawned. Three previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Penal servitude for five years.

Mr. Charles Attenborough subsequently applied on behalf of the pawnbrokers that their loss might be shared by the prosecutor. According to his instructions Mr. Learmouth took a great deal for granted when he engaged this man, engaging him upon a written character, which turned out to be forged, without personal application.

The Common Serjeant. I do not make any order except for the restitution of the goods.

Mr. Attenborough. I do not think anything whatever is sug gested against the pawnbrokers.

The Common Serjeant. If I left it alone he could recover the things immediately in the County Court.

WALKER, John (42, bookmaker), and WALKER, Elizabeth, his wife; stealing a ring, value £50, the goods of Charles Mann, in a dwelling-house, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Sidney Jones prosecuted. Mr. Wildey Wright defended.

CHARLES MANN , stockbroker, Bradford. On Friday, July 6, I was staying at the Great Northern Hotel. I had dinner about half-past eight, and at about 10 o'clock I took a hansom up to Piccadilly, where I walked about for some time. I spoke to the female prisoner, who, after a time proposed going home. We went part of the way in a hansom and walked the rest of the way to Bolsover Street. I do not know the district at all. Before I went into the house I had a diamond ring on my necktie.

It was an ordinary ring made large enough for a tie. I value it at £50. I had been wearing it all day. I last saw it in the house in Bolsover Street in the presence of the female prisoner and I missed it about half an hour afterwards. The moment I missed it I told the female prisoner that unless she returned the ring I should call in the police. She had noticed and admired the ring and said, "What a beautiful ring!"When I charged her with stealing it she said it was no use my saying that; she had not got it. I then said I should go to the door and call the police. I was satisfied no one else had been in the room. I went to the front door and a detective came. The male prisoner came I from another room just about the time I was going to the door. He rushed at me and nearly threw me out of the door. I told him I had lost a ring there. He said nothing but simply turned me out. The female prisoner said she had not got it. I had not taken the ring off. The female prisoner touched it whilst she was standing close to me. It was not a ring that could be moved with ease as it would have to be slipped over the ends of the scarf and did not open like an ordinary scaring. I do not think it possible for the ring to have slipped off. I have worn it for 35 years and it has never done so. I went to the station and charged prisoners.

Cross-examined. I have no other name but Charles Mann. I am a stockbroker at Bradford, but not a member of any Stock Exchange. I am an outside stockbroker. I did not tell the police I was a justice of the peace. I am not. My business address is the Arcade, Bradford, No. 88. I do not live there. I have no house since my wife died; I have lived about. I move about the district. I came up to London on the morning of the robbery. I got to King's Cross about 20 minutes past 2. I went straight to the City by the Underground when I got here and went to various offices on business, but not to various restaurants. I will swear I was sober when the robbery occurred. I got back to the Great Northern Hotel about seven o'clock. I had no drinks before dinner. With dinner I had a bottle of Beaune. I do not accept the suggestion that when I left the hotel at 10 o'clock it was to go on the spree. I went to see what was passing. I had not been in London for two or three years. I wanted to see whether London was altered. I am not accustomed to London. I have not been in London five times in 15 years. I do not know the church of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields. I do not know exactly where I met the woman, because I do not know the names of the streets. We had only one drink before we went into the house. I think I drank gin, as I generally have that. It would be about half-past 12 o'clock when we got to Bolsover Street. We stayed in the public-house till it closed. I was in the house about 40 minutes at the outside. I will swear I was there more than 10 minutes. I had several conversations

with this woman. I did not tell her that I had been with another woman before I went to see her and that I did not like her. I had not been with another woman. I have not seen the ring from that day to this, and, as far as I know, it has not been found. I am certain I saw the ring in the house and that the woman admired it. The moment I missed the ring I charged her with stealing it. We had not been been lying down, but simply sitting close together. Neither of us had been undressed, we had simply taken our hats off, that was practically all. I stayed at the police station some three or four hours while search was being made for the ring. I wanted to take the early train back. The woman went out of the room once or twice, but she was not long out—three minutes perhaps, I had seen the ring almost immediately before I charged her with stealing it—if you like the time defined it might have been any time within seven minutes. She left the room after she had seen the ring and admired it. She did not leave the room after I charged her with stealing it. I noticed the ring distinctly. I am very proud of it. As to part of my time being spent in looking at it, I do not know that; I should like to look at it now. I saw the ring any time between seven minutes and one minute before I missed it. She went twice out of the room and was not out of the room more than two or three minutes at a time, and within about five minutes or seven minutes of the last time she came in I detected the loss of the ring. I had no idea that the ring was being stolen until I missed it. I was wearing a tie similar to that I am wearing now, but of a different colour. I never saw the male prisoner till he pushed me out. That was after I had charged the woman with stealing the ring and she had denied it. In the interval between my charging her and being thrown out I was trying to get her to give me the ring back. I told her if she did not give me the ring buck I would call the police. She said she had not got the ring. She did not say she had never had it or had never taken it. The man did not say I was drunk and kicking up a row and he would not have me in the place. I am staying now at the hotel at King's Cross.

Re-examined. The bottle of Beaune I had with my dinner on this night was not a half-bottle, but an ordinary bottle, and the price was 2s. if you want to know. The female prisoner noticed the ring and remarked that it was a beautiful ring and touched it and she left the room afterwards. I did not see the ring after she had left the room a second time.

ALFRED BESLEY , Detective, C Division. On the night of Friday, July 6, I was keeping observation on 60, Bolsover Street, from the inside of No. 2, Buckingham Street. At about twenty minutes to one I saw the female prisoner and prosecutor enter 60, Bolsover Street, and they remained there for some time.

At about quarter past one the door was opened, and the male prisoner (whom I knew) walked out into the street on to the pavement and looked up and down. Three or four minutes afterwards he looked out again. Then he went hack, and I saw prosecutor pushed out into the road by both the male prisoner and the female prisoner. Prosecutor said he had lost his ring and shouted "Police." He went back to the door, and a second time the man came out and deliberately pushed him away. I heard prosecutor say to two individuals who were passing that he had been robbed. I then came out of No. 2. Buckingham Street, and without speaking to the prosecutor went to the top of the street to get assistance. Having obtained the assistance of another officer, I went back to prosecutor, and explained to him what had happened. Then I got another officer to take him to Tottenham Court Road Police Station. I kept observation on No. 60, Bolsover Street, until I got further assistance. I waited for the return of the prosecutor and the other officer, and then I entered the house. I saw the two prisoners and a little boy in the back room on the ground floor. It was just an ordinary kitchen with a bed in it. There was no wash-stand or sink. The back room was entered from the front room through folding doors, which could only be opened from the kitchen side. The fastening was an ordinary button. The door was fastened back so that the handle would not turn. I told prisoners I was a police officer, and should arrest them, and I sent them to the station. I stayed behind and searched the room but found nothing.

Cross-examined. I searched thoroughly. Twenty-five minutes had elapsed since the time prosecutor was pushed out. Prosecutor had been drinking, but was not drunk; he was capable of taking care of himself. I sent him to the station because I wanted him to lodge a complaint with the inspector on duty, and I thought there would be a possible chance of recovering the ring. The rooms were such as you might find in any part of London, communicating by means of folding doors. There was no secret door, but the doors were made secret by oiling the hinges, and the hasp of the door was wedged back with a piece of wood so that it could not catch. The button was on the kitchen side. The door might have been fixed that way for the purpose of allowing the little boy to come in as he would not be able to open the door. I know nothing against the woman.

(Wednesday, July 25.)

ANNE BROOKS , prison matron. On July 7 I was on duty at the station. At two o'clock a.m. prisoner Elizabeth Walker was brought in and charged with stealing a ring, and I searched her. She said, "I wish I had not picked the prosecutor up, I should not have got into this trouble. Do you think they will search the boy?"


ELIZABETH WALKER (prisoner, on oath). I am married to the man in the dock. On July 6 I met the prosecutor outside St. Martin's Church, and stood talking to him for a few minutes and then we took a cab and drove to Great Portland Street to a public-house—the "Coliseum," at the corner of Portland Street and Carburton Street. We left the "Coliseum" at closing time. We both had something to drink. Prosecutor went home with me. Between the back and front room are folding doors. We lived in two rooms, me and my husband, and a little boy of nearly five years of age. The lock was out of order, and my little boy would get into the front room and get shut in, so I took a piece of wood and prised the latch back. The doors were never shut; they were always open. We both went into the front room. My husband was not at home. He was not in the house at all. When we went into the front room neither the prosecutor nor I undressed ourselves. I sat down on the lounge and the gentleman sat in the easy chair—facing one another, two yards apart. I should say prosecutor was drunk. I did not see any ring on his tie. He told me he had been talking and drinking with a lady, but he had to leave her because he did not like her. It is not true that I stole anything from the prosecutor. I never gave anything to my husband. He came in while the prosecutor was outside in the street talking to the police, and that was the first I saw of him The prosecutor began to talk business with me, and Isaid, "I do not know what you mean." He put his hand up to his tie, and he said, "You have stolen my ring." I said, "I have not stolen anything belonging to you." He called the police, and the police came in.

Cross-examined. Prosecutor asked me to take him home. He was drunk and he said he did not like to go to his hotel. He asked if I had got a furnished room and I said, "No." He said, "Could you take me home?" I said, "I cannot take you home; I am married." He said, "That will be all right, if you will get me a room." I am 25 years of age. Prosecutor was a perfect stranger to me. I had been to the Vaudeville Theatre by myself. Prosecutor was wearing a white silk tie. I looked at it when he accused me of stealing the ring. I did not know gentlemen wear a ring with that tie. I am sure he was not wearing the ring. I had only one farthing in my possession, but I had some money in the Post Office Savings Bank, which I had put into the bank on July 3.

To Mr. Wildey Wright. I had never taken a man to our rooms before; I have never in my life done such a thing.

Verdict, both Guilty.

JOSEPH SIMMONDS , Inspector, D Division. Up to four years ago the female prisoner was a very respectable woman and was employed at Colney Hatch Asylum as head nurse, but she met the male prisoner, an intimacy took place, and a child was born. About two years ago the female prisoner went out to New York to join the male prisoner, and it was arranged that he should meet her on the landing-stage, but he did not do so and she was kept in quarantine. Walker called the next day and claimed the woman, but because they would not allow her to land unless he married her they were married on the spot. On August 4 last year John Walker was sentenced at the South London Sessions to seven months' hard labour for attempted burglary. At that time it was proved beyond all doubt that he was a most expert burglar and safe-breaker. It is a question whether he is an American or an Irishman who went to America. There is a list of other convictions commencing in New York in 1882, when he was sentenced to three years in Sing Prison. Then a conviction in England in 1883, when he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude for burglary. Communications are in progress between the New York Police and the London Police in regard to him.

ALFRED BESLEY , recalled. I was keeping observation on the house for a fortnight, from June 21, and prosecutor is the first man I have seen go in—she apparently takes them to other hotels. I saw a man come out of there and I arrested him and he had a parcel which contained 40 yards of silk.

Sentence postponed till next Sessions.

FOURTH COURT; Tuesday, July 24.

(Before Judge Rentoul.)

WELLS Harry (30, fireman) ; robbery with violence on James Williams and stealing from him the sum of 10s.

Mr. F. P. Fausset prosecuted; Mr. Curtis-Bennett defended.

JAMES WILLIAMS , carman. I was in Commercial Street on June 16, at 11 o'clock when prisoner came up to alt me for tobacco, and I put my hand in my pocket to get the tobacco and I was seized from behind by two men, one of whom put his hand on my throat and the other turned my pockets out. They took just over 10s. While they were closing round me one of them kicked me on the ankle. I fell down, till a policeman came and picked me up and took me to the hospital. I saw the three run away, and I was taken to the hospital. Prisoner was brought for me to identify with eight or nine others and I identified him by his features.

Sergeant LEESON, examined. I was in High street, Whitechapel, on Saturday, June 16, and I saw the prisoner at

Gardiner's Corner at a quarter to 12 in company with two other men. whose names I do not Know. I believe he saw me and and the two other men turned into High Street, Whitechapel, and went in the direction of Mile End and I lost sight of them. I know prisoner well.

FRANK ROBERTS , house surgeon, London Hospital. James Williams came to see me on Sunday morning with an injury to his left ankle. There was a great deal of swelling and he was in great pain. I thought at the time that the outer bone of the ankle was broken when I saw him the first time, but when I made an examination there was no sign of a fracture. It was compatible with having been caused by a kick.

WILLIAM BROGDEN , Police-Sergeant. I saw prisoner in High Street. Whitechapel, on June 17, at 11.40 p.m., and I told him I wanted him for knocking a man down and robbing him on June 16, at 11.20 He said, "You have made a mistake; I know nothing about it. I can prove I had a drink in the 'Wheatsheaf' with Sailor-the-Chivver, my wife, and another girl, and we afterwards got on the tram at 20 minutes to 11 and went to Burdett Road, and we went to the 'Eastern' public house and had a drink." I conveyed him to the Commercial Street Police Station. He was taken to the London Hospital and placed with eight other men similar in appearance to himself. Prosecutor was wheeled along the line of men, and he said, "I believe that was the man who knocked me down," referring to the prisoner. He afterwards said, "You are the man that asked me for the tobacco in Commercial Road." He presently turned round and said, "I thought you knocked me down, but I am certain you are the man who asked me for the tobacco."

Cross-examined. That was the second time he was taken down the line. It is one mile and a quarter from where this assault took place to Burdett Road. Trams take 15 minutes and it would take 25 minutes to walk it.


HARRY WELLS (prisoner, on oath). On June 16, at a quarter 11 p.m., I was at Aldgate, near Leman Street. I was waiting there for a tram, and I got on the tram at 10 minutes to 11 for Burdett Road. After I was arrested I found when I was in the cell a tram ticket which I received that evening. The ticket hrs been identified by the conductor who issued it, at five minutes to 11 on that night. It is a ticket from Aldgate to Burdett Road. I have not got that ticket now, but the clerk wrote it down, "M. F. 2183"—a blue ticket. I arrived at Burdett Road at 10 minutes past 11, and went to the Eastern Hotel facing Burdett Road, and I stopped there till closing time, 12

o'clock. Then I went towards home along the Burdett Road. I did not see prosecutor on June 16, and I have never seen him in my life. I could not have been at Gardiner's Corner at a quarter to 12. When I was taken for identification prosecutor looked at my trousers, and he said, "I believe it is the man who kicked me." Then the detective got hold of me, and prosecutor said. "That is the man who asked for tobacco."

Cross-examined. I got on the tram at Aldgate, and the robbery was supposed to be committed in Commercial Street about 200 yards away. The "Eastern" is about four minutes walk from where you get off the tram. I left the "Eastern" at 12 o'clock. The tram went by Stepney Station.

WILLIAM MALLION . I was conductor of the tram-car running from Aldgate to Stepney Station on June 16, and I issued the ticket "M. F. 2183" on Saturday evening between five minutes to 11 and 11 o'clock. We only went to Stepney Station. The journey from Aldgate to Stepney Station takes about a quarter of an hour. The number of the first ticket which I issued after I left Aldgate was 2167. This would have been the sixteenth ticket I issued after leaving Aldgate. I issued 21 tickets on that journey. The further the tram runs the further it runs away from where this assault is supposed to have been committed. I have not got the tram ticket. (The prisoner was not able to produce the ticket.) The distance is one mile and a quarter from Aldgate to Burdett Road, and the journey takes a quarter of an hour or 16 minutes. The number of persons I had on that journey was 21. I cannot my to whom I issued the ticket.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sergeant DESANT. On February 10, 1902, prisoner was sentenced to three years' imprisonment at this Court for robbery. On May 16, 1899, he was sentenced to six months' at the North London Sessions.

Sentence, Penal servitude for five years.

BRYANT, Henry (20, labourer) pleaded guilty , to breaking and entering the Primitive Methodist Mission Hall, Willesden, and stealing there from the sum of 16s. 6 1/2 d. Released on personal recognisances in £10 to come up for sentence when called upon.

HARRISON, Henry (40, carman), and a man, name refused, were charged with committing an act of gross indecency with each other.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, each prisoner, Three months' hard labour.

HUNT, Austin (52, clerk) , maliciously damaging two plateglass windows, value £25, the property of A. W. Gamage, Limited.

Mr. C. G. Moran prosecuted.

ARTHUR LESTER , Police Constable 267. On July 4 I was in Dyers Buildings, Holborn, and I saw prisoner coming along at 10.40 p.m. on the north side. I heard a smash, and looking over I saw him give the shutters of a newsagent's box three blows with a stick. I went across the road and watched him. Hamilton came to me and said prisoner had been hitting the windows of Gamage and Co. coming along. We both watched him, and he went as far as the corner of Brook Street, and stood opposite Wallis's shop. I went across to him, and asked him why he struck the shutters of the newsagent's box, and I could not get a definite reply. I took him back to Gamage's, and we found two of the windows cracked. They measured 14 ft by 8 ft. At the station, in reply, he said, "I did not hit them very hard; I do not know why I did it; I did not think they were glass." He was sober, but he had been drinking.

A. J. HAMILTON, coachman. On July 4 I was outside Wallis's and saw prisoner coming along. I looked round and I saw him striking the windows of Carnage's. He struck three of the bottom shop and two of the top shop. The window was smashed to pieces.

GEORGE LOWE , resident manager of Gamage and Co. I inspected these windows. One was broken right across and the other was cracked and shattered. £25 damage is an underestimate. I do not know prisoner.

PRISONER (not on oath) stated that he was on the Swan Pier some hours and got tired. He had one or two glasses of beer and he did not remember striking the window of Gamage's, but he remembered striking the newsagent's box. He was singing to himself, and that is all he remembered about it.

Verdict, Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.

DR. SCOTT (Brixton Prison) stated that the prisoner was a man physically weak and of a nervous temperament; that a very little drink would have an effect upon him; and that while there was no evidence of insanity his mind was not particularly strong.

Sentence, One month's imprisonment in the second division.

FELGATE, Douglas (42, agent), BOON, Frank Montague (42, agent), and CAMPBELL (52, plumber); conspiring together to obtain money by worthless cheques. Felgate pleaded not guilty to the false pretences; Boon pleaded guilty to all the indictments except those charging him with obtaining money by false pretences; Campbell pleaded not guilty to all the indictments. Counsel for the prosecution consented to take a verdict of not guilty against Campbell. Sentence: Felgate and Boon, each 18 months' hard labour.

GRANVILLE, James (34, painter); DAVIS, William (30, harness-maker); and BASSETT, James (28, basketmaker) ; robbery with violence on Martin Julian and stealing from him a purse and the sum of £2 10s.

Mr. Fausset appeared for the prosecution.

MARTIN JULIAN , waste-paper dealer. On July 6 I met the three prisoners at seven o'clock. We went drinking from house to house. I was with James Bassett, and on Clerkenwell Green we met the other two prisoners. They were in Brooks's Market. Lt was seven in the evening when I saw Bassett. About eight o'clock we were outside St. James's Church. Granville was there at the same time. There were five of them altogether. We proceeded to the Royal Midshipman, in Skinner Street, Clerkenwell. Thinking I had had sufficient drink, I went home, followed by the prisoners. I had to go through the playground into another playground, where I was assaulted. It was after 10 o'clock. I heard a rush of feet behind me, and I received a violent blow on my head. Granville struck me. I was not acquainted with Granville. I recognised Davis, but I had never been in his company before. They knocked two teeth out. I fell on the ground on my face and tried to grab the prisoners. I could not holloa; I was so overcome I fell on my face unconscious. I had £2 10s. in gold in my purse and 13s. in my other pocket. The 13s. was in my packet afterwards, but the purse and the £2 10s. had gone. I was brought to by people bathing my face. I was taken across to the King William the Fourth, and then I was taken to the station by the police officers, and I was asked who I was. I did not know the two other men. I identified the prisoners in the station. I picked them out from two or three other men.

JOHN CARPENTER , superintendent of St. Alban's Buildings. On July 6, at 10.15 p.m. I saw Julian going throught the archway, followed by there men, who were strangers to me at the time, and then I heard a disturbance. I shouted out, and one of them said, "There is a copper," and the three men went arough the passage. I recognise Bassett. I have not known them before.

JESSIE FRANCIS , house surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital. Julian came to the hospital on July 6. He had a bruise on the boght eyebrow and a small cut on the right eyelid, and the right cheek was bruised. The bruises were not serious. He did not tell me that he had had any teeth knocked out at the time.

JOSEPH JOCELYN , P. C. On the night of July 6, with other officers, I went to a public-house and saw James Bassett and Davis. Before I went with the other officers I saw prisoners by myself. At 11.15, on the 6th, I was informed prosecutor had been knocked down and robbed. I went to various public-houses in the neighbourhood. I went to the Rose in Hatton Garden and saw the three prisoners and a man named Dennis

and William Bassett. I followed them from there through Hatton Garden into Leather Lane. James Bassett, Davis, and William Bassett went through to Baldwin's Gardens. Granville and William Davis stayed behind. I saw them go to the Hole-in-the-Wall. I went back to Clerkenwell and saw Sergeant Bissel, and with him went to the Hole-in-the-Wall, and told James Basset, Davis, and William Bassett that I was going to take them into custody for robbing a man and knocking him down in Bell Court. Bassett said, "All right, I will go quietly with you," or words to that effect. "If he prosecutes me, I will charge him and do him in afterwards." We went to the Gray's Inn Road Station and detained the three prisoners there, and went back and arrested Granville in Leather Lane. When I told them we were going to put them up for identification, Bassett said, "You don't want to do that; he knows me; let him prosecute me if he likes." They were then placed with nine other men, and the prosecutor came; he said to William Bassett, "You were not there at the time and I won't charge you," and he was let free, and the other three were charged.

JOHN BISSEL . Police Sergeant. I was in Leather Lane on July 6. Immediately I saw Granville I told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of being concerned with James Bassett and William Davis in assaulting and robbing a man in Bell Court He said, "I have not seen Bassett to-night." I then took him to Gray's Inn Road Station. As he was brought in Bassett turned round and said to him and Davis, "You keep quiet; I will get you out of it. I know the prosecutor; if he prosecutes me I will do him in properly." I had previously seen Bassett. I was passing by the "Rose" public-house at five minutes past 11 and I saw the three prisoners and William Bassett and Dennis in the public-house; in the bar.


----DENNIS On July 6 I was sitting on a stool outside my place and we had a can of beer, and Granville came up and spoke to me about 10 o'clock; he stayed about a quarter of an hour. I said to Granville, "Come to the 'Rose' and have a glass." We stayed there till 20 past 11, and I bid Granville good-night at the door. I know it was 10 o'clock because the night policeman was going on duty.

Cross-examined. I could not say whether Bell Court is 150 yards from Leather Lane. do not know anything about the robbery. was once convicted for stealing; was drunk at the time.

CHARLES ISEN . On July 6 I saw Granvlle between half past nine and a quarter to ten. He was in my company till a quarter to eleven. Dennis was with them.

----O'NEIL. On July 6 I was in Leather Lane and Granville was in my company from seven till half past ten. He never left my company. I left him in the company of the other two witnesses.

Cross-examined He was talking to me. The first time I saw him he was waiting for a man working at Cohen's. I have been convicted of different things, but I have regained my character. The last conviction was two years ago.

JAMES GRANVILLE (prisoner, on oath). I was at the corner of Baldwin's Gardens, and I was doing something I had no business to do, and Inspector Bissel came up and spoke to me. He said I was doing wrong; then I walked away. He said, "You had better walk up to the station for identification with Bassett." I said, "I have not seen Bassett to-night." I have never seen prosecutor before in my life.

The jury did not think there was sufficient evidence against prisoner, and returned a verdict of Not guilty.

OLD COURT; Wednesday, July 25.

(Before Mr. Justice Darling.)

HAWKINS, Walter (17, printer's labourer), and BELL Joseph (17, cropper boy) pleaded guilty , to buggery with each other. Sentence, Hawkins, 18 months' hard labour; Bell, 12 months' hard labour.

ASHWELL, George Yate ; perjury.

Mr. Patrick Hastings prosecuted. Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Alfred Bucknill defended.

BERTIE ROBERT SMEETON , member of the Institute of Shorthand Writers. I produce shorthand notes taken in the Divorce Court on March 19, 1903, in a case of Ashwell v. Ashwell and Tilley. Prisoner was sworn and stated as follows: "Q. After your marriage in 1881 you first of all lived at Birmingham, I think? A. Yes. Q. And then you moved to Chiswick, then to Wales, and then to West Kensington, and, ultimately, in June, 1898, did you come to live at Marlborough Road, Gunnersbury? A. Yes. Q. During all that time was your married life a happy one or not? A. Yes. Q. Did your wife look after your home? A. Yes. Q. What sort of a mother was she to her children? A. A very good mother always. Q. Your home was a happy and comfortable one? A. Yes."

Cross-examined. I have no special mark if a witness hesitates to show the hesitation; if he does not answer we put in "No answer." If the witness had hesitated and the counsel had gone on and asked a second question I should not have had the

answer "Yes." I have put down in my note "Yes" in answer to each question. I had been a shorthand writer about two years at that time. At that time I think I was a member of the Institute. I was 21 years of age. I have no recollection of the incident apart from my notes. I have reported a great deal since then.

HORACE A. PEREIRA , Officer in Divorce Registry, Somerset House. I produce file of proceedings in Ashwell v. Ashwell and Tilley in 1902 and 1903. The decree nisi was granted on March 19, 1903. I also produce file of proceedings in Ashwell v. Ashwell and Armitage, the petition in which was filed January 27, 1896. It came on for hearing on June 17, 1896; no one appeared and the case was struck out. I have also an affidavit verifying the petition in that case sworn by the prisoner on January 25, 1906.

ALFRED ERNEST WARD , 7, King Street, City, solicitor. I have acted for the prisoner as agent for a provincial firm. I am advised that with regard to all the information or documents which came into my possession the prisoner is entitled to claim privilege and that I am not entitled to waive it.

Mr. Justice Darling. But he has not claimed privilege. Who has claimed privilege? You do not. A. Not at all, my lord.

Mr. Elliott submitted that there was privilege when the relation of solicitor and client existed with regard to all matters having no relation to the present proceedings.

Mr. Justice Darling. The witness does not and cannot claim privilege. When we come to the documents we will see.

Examination continued. I acted for the prisoner in the year 1895 as agent as I have described. I had to communicate with a man whose initial is "M," in reference to contemplated divorce proceedings which were never commenced. Q. Were the proceedings in which you acted in consequence of a suggestion made by the prisoner.

Mr. Elliott submitted that where a solicitor was employed and had communications made to him in a perfectly legal and legitimate transaction, into which it was not suggested that any element of a criminal character entered, all the communication necessary for the purpose of his taking the contemplated proceedings on his client's behalf were made to him in the relation of solicitor and client, and that all communications made and documents given to him in those circumstances were given under privilege and he was bound not to disclose them. [Cites Regina v. Cox and Railton, 14 Q. B. D., 153.] No doubt, where the communication between the solicitor and client partook of the nature of some suggestion or application or device in order to carry out some criminal design, then the privilege was waived.

Mr. Justice Darling. Of course, nobody suggests that Mr. Ward was conspiring with the prisoner in a criminal design.

Mr. Elliott. No. In this case it was a perfectly legitimate transaction so far as Mr. Ward was concerned in relation to all the proceedings. The case is referred to in Archbold, p. 401.

Mr. Hastings argued that the witness had no privilege. A long line of authorities went to show that there was no privilege at to any communication

made with the solicitor to or from the third person, the opponent against whom he was acting.

Mr. Justice Darling. What you desire to ask is as to something which "M." said to the solicitor in order that it might be communicated to the defendant.

Mr. Hastings said that was the material point, and cited Bray on Discovery (1885 edition, p. 432) an to communications from an opposite party or generally from collateral quarters; also Kennedy v. Lyell (23 C. D. 404); Ford v. Allen (32 Beavan, 162); Pickett v. Bayless (5 Barnewall and Adolphus, 502).

Mr. Justice Darling. What is your present question?

Mr. Hastings: "Did you write or communicate to 'M.' in consequence of certain suggestions that he had been guilty of adultery?"

Mr. Elliott. That is a double question, because it involves a statement of facts.

Mr. Justice Darling. I do not think I should admit that because that would be a way of putting in what the defendant has said to the witness. "Did you write or communicate with 'M.' or his solicitor acting as solicitor for the defendant?" is another thing.

Mr. Hastings. The question. "Did you make a claim on behalf of your client against 'M.'" has been upheld.

Mr. Elliott. I do not take exception to that.

Mr. Justice Darling. The answer is "Yes."

Witness. Speaking from recollection, it is 12 years ago. All the communications took place with "M.'s" solicitors, and I never saw or communicated with "M." direct at all.

Mr. Hastings. In consequence of what you said to "M.'s" solicitors, was a sum of £1,000 paid to you? A. Yes. by the solicitors for the gentleman named "M." Q. To the best of your recollection, give the substance of what was said to you by the solicitors on behalf of "M."

Mr. Elliott. I object. Whatever was said by the solicitors for this other person to this gentleman was said to him for the purpose of being communicated to his client and that is not admissible.

Mr. Justice Darling. How is what was said by the solicitor to the third party evidence against the defendant if the solicitor did not communicate it to the defendant? Assume he did not.

Mr. Hastings. My answer to that in that the defendant employs a solicitor as his agent to make statements and to receive statements for him; those statements are made by his solicitor; the solicitor acts as his agent and can give evidence of what he has heard and what he has said.

Mr. Justice Darling. You do not suggest that he could properly tell you what was said to him not to he communicated to his client.

Mr. Hastings. No. I only ask him the question what was communicated to him as solicitor to the defendant, It is no more than I should be entitled to do by asking the opposite party to tell me himself. The solicitor was merely the agent acting as conduit pipe, and there is no more privilege attending the solicitor in a case of that kind than there would be in the opposite party if he was called upon to say what was said to him by the plaintiff.

Mr. Justice Darling. I do not know that there is very precise authority covering the whole ground, therefore I shall admit the question, dividing it in this way: I hold that the witness must answer the question so far as to repeat what was communicated by "M.'s" solicitor to him strictly in his capacity of solicitor acting for the defendant, and if it become necessary I will reserve the point whether the evidence is properly admitted.

To the Witness. Tell us what "M.'s" solicitor communicated to you; or, if it is a document, give us the document, limiting yourself strictly to what was communicated by them to you as solicitor for the defendant? A. The communication made to me by the gentleman's solicitors was an absolute denial of the charge or suggestion against Mr. M.

Mr. Hastings. An absolute denial of what? A. Of the suggestion or charge of adultery against the gentleman named "M." with the defendant's wife; but that he was a gentleman holding some position of prominence, and, rather than have to meet the allegations, he would pay a sum in consideration of a complete release. A release was drawn up recording the denial—

Mr. Justice Darling. You cannot say that; you can only say that a document was drawn; you cannot say a release. A document was drawn up, and "M." paid £1,000, or his solicitor. A. Through his solicitors; I presume it came from "M." I also acted for prisoner in divorce proceedings instituted against Dr. Armitage in the same way as agents for the same provincial firm. The case was ultimately set down for hearing and came into the list. I believe a payment was made by Dr. Armitage, but it did not pass through my hands.

Mr. Elliott. I understand that this gentleman really merely acted as agent and did not make the communication direct with the defendant. I was under the impression he did when I was signing the point. I do not know whether that in itself would not afford another ground for objection, that he only communicated as far as I understand what was communicated to him by another firm of solicitors.

Cross-examination continued. My firm were agents for a provincial firm who were the solicitors for the prisoner, but it happened that he was in London, and, as frequently happens, he came to see me personally, although I was communicating with the provincial firm and acting for them. Apart from these incidental meetings in London communications in relation to the release and payment of the money were made by me direct to the provincial solicitors—to my professional clients in the country who were acting for the defendant. I have no doubt I had direct personal interviews with the prisoner. I cannot gay whether at the time I was consulted by the prisoner in relation to the wife's infidelity it was ever contemplated that both "M." and Dr. Armitage should be in the same petition for the whole matter to be dealt with at once, The proceedings against "M." was a year before the petition against Dr. Armitage. Whether facts alleged coincided in point of time I cannot say at this distance of time. I think, speaking from recollection, that that is probable, and that if proceedings had been commenced against "M." they would have been taken together. I think they sufficiently coincided in point of time for that to be the proper course. I think if "M."

had been made a co-respondent he might have been co-respondent in the same proceedings as Armitage.

Re-examined. I am almost certain the payment from "M." was made by the cheque of "M 's" solicitors. I do not know the date of the cheque. Refreshing my memory, I think it would be January 2, 1896. I believe the payment by Dr. Armitage was in April, 1896, but my recollection is that that did not pass through my hands. It was in April.

Dr. ARMITAGE. I attend on subpoena. Proceedings for divorce were instituted against me by prisoner in 1896. I paid his solicitor £270 to settle the action.

Cross-examined. Prisoner's solicitors were Lane and Clutterbuck, of Birmingham I had no dealings with Mr. Ward. I never saw prisoner.

WILLIAM RICHARD JENNER , managing clerk to George Everett, solicitor. Mr. Everett acted as solicitor for prisoner in Ashwell v. Ashwell and Tilley. I was in Court during the hearing in March, 1903, and heard prisoner give evidence on oath. To the best of my knowledge and belief he answered the questions as reported by Smeeton. The case was undefended, and there was a jury to assess the damages, Who assessed them at £1,250 against Tilley. My firm had no knowledge of any previous transactions in any divorce proceedings brought by the prisoner, nor of the payment by "M." of £1,000, or of any payment whatever. In May, 1906, Mr. Everett brought an action against prisoner for a sum of money owing to him for costs of the divorce proceedings. That action came on for hearing on May 10. I was present in court the whole time. Prisoner gave evidence on his own behalf, and was cross-examined by Mr. Evans, K. C. As near as I can say the first question put to prisoner was, "Had you made any complaint against your wife prior to the one in respect of Tilley?" and he answered, "I had." Mr. Evans then said, "Had you in the year 1895 obtained a sum of £1,000 in respect of a charge against your wife of misconduct?" Prisoner answered, "£1,000 was paid, but I did not get it all." Mr. Evans asked prisoner whether the answers given to questions put in the Divorce Court, to which attention has been called to-day, were true or not. Prisoner said "No." Those questions were read over to him. I think the first question put to prisoner was, "Did you represent to the Court that your wife had always been a good wife until that time?" and the prisoner said, "I did." Mr. Evans asked him whether he had told Mr. Everett about the previous proceedings, and he said, "Yes." Mr. Evans then asked whether he had instructed him in writing, and he said, "No; all my instructions were given to Mr. Everett verbally." Mr. Evans then produced to prisoner a written statement of the whole story

given by himself to Mr. Everett in prisoner's own handwriting. (Same produced.) It is in prisoner's writing.

Cross-examined. I did not take a note of the questions and answers referred to in the proceedings in May, 1903. My recollection is based on what I have read in the shorthand-writer's transcript and from my memory, and also from what the defendant said to me at the time prior to the proceedings. We commenced to act for the prosecutor, Mr. Tilley, when we were instructed in these proceedings. We were not acting for They during his bankruptcy in November, 1905. I was not present at Tilley's public examination in November, 1905. We applied for a transcript of the evidence in the petition in 1903 in November, 1905. I do not know whether Tilley in his public examination in bank said that he knew that there had been other proceedings, and that there ought to have been no damages—I was not present at the public examination. I have not been told that by Tilley since. I was acting as clerk to Mr. Everett in March, 1903. Prisoner consulted Mr. Everett a month or six weeks before I went to him. Q. How can you say that nothing was said by Ashwell to Everett about previous charges? A. All that I can say is that untill I heard in the course of the case of Everett v. Ashwell that other charges had been made I never knew anything of it. I am certain nothing was said in 1903. The proceedings had already been instituted when I went there. I have read the statement of prisoner through. I noticed that between 1894 and 1896 nothing is said, and I say that that conclusively shows that the instructions given to Mr. Everett contained nothing with reference to any proceedings. If you refer to another part of those instructions, prisoner says, referring to the time they were at Chiswick, they were both popular locally and socially. He says nothing in that particular passage as to their being happy or as to the wife being a good mother to her children between 1894 and 1898. I cannot explain it except to say that the defendant's intention was that no one should know about the trouble with Armitage and "M." I say there was no knowledge of it. I could not say how many interviews Mr. Everett had with prisoner. He was worrying us every day, especially after the award of damages was given. There was no interview for about three weeks before the hearing. There were many interviews. I seriously say Everett and prisoner never had an interview at which I was not present, or which I did not know of, because Mr. Everett would immediately acquaint me: that would be the custom of the office. In the cross-examination by Mr. Evans, the original statement of prisoner was handed to him. His solicitors had had a copy of it. Prisoner perfectly understood that the questions of Mr. Evans were put on the shorthand note, because

the transcript was mentioned. The question as to the written instructions came up after prisoner had stated that Mr. Everett knew all about the previous proceedings. It was two distinct occasions.

Re-examined. Mr. Evans specifically mentioned the importance of his questions. Prisoner on many occasions discussed his previous life with me before the action against Tilley came on. He led me to believe that until Tilley met his wife his life had been thoroughly happy, and he also mentioned the effect of the co-respondent's conduct on his children. Proof of prisoner's evidence was drawn up entirely on his statements to me. The evidence prisoner gave was in accord with the proof.

CHARLES EVERETT (called by the Judge). I acted as solicitor for the prisoner in the proceedings in Ashwell v. Ashwell and Tilley.

Cross-examined. I applied for a transcript of the evidence given in 1903 prior to my action against prisoner for the costs in the 1903 action. I think it was for the purposes of that case I wanted it. I thought it might be useful. It was certainly not my only object in bringing that case that I might put the transscript to my previous client Mr. Ashwell. I acted for Tilley after the hearing of my case against Ashwell. Tilley came and asked me to act for him. Prisoner has not received anything from Tilley through me. I received £30 as a portion of my costs from Tilley. I brought an action against Tilley for my costs, but not for the £1,250 damages. The taxed costs were £80, and I received £30 on account I proved in the bankruptcy Mr. Tilley changed solicitors at that time and that prevented me getting any more. The new solicitors turned the handle of the machinery, and put him in the Bankruptcy Court and got nothing. I brought this proceeding on Tilley's express instructions. I do not see any serious objection to my acting for Mr. Tilley; my duty towards Ashwell had ceased for some years. I did not see any objection to it in the interests of justice. My relation with Ashwell had ceased for at least 18 months prior to my connection with this ease. I was not interested in the recovery of the damages and my costs against Tilley, because he bad become bankrupt. He did not become bankrupt till November, 1905; my case was March, 1906. I told prisoner that I was suing Tilley for my costs. It was prior to his taking the matter out of my hands that I sued Tilley. I am looking to Tilley for the costs of this prosecution. He has provided me with funds. Where he gets his funds from is nothing to do with me.

On the close of the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Elliott formally submitted that, assuming that the evidence to which he had objected ought not to have been admitted, there was no case to go to ✗he jury.

Mr. Justice Darling. I think there is other evidence even if that were

out of the question. Evidence has been given by Jenner which would make it necessary to leave the case to the jury, even if I had excluded the evidence you objected to.

Mr. Elliott. If it should ultimately be held that that evidence ought not to have been admitted it would of course vitiate the indiciment.

Mr. Justice Darling. Absolutely—certainly.


GEORGE YATE ASHWELL (prisoner on oath). I was married in October, 1881, at which time I was an engineer, representing an engineering firm. My income was about £200 to £250, on a commission basis always, and it increased about that time. I was living in Birmingham in 1881; we moved alter about two years to Chiswick, and lived there till 1892. We then went to live in Wales, and removed at the end of 1893 or beginning of 1894 to Matheson Road, West Kensington. Up to that time I had had no trouble with my wife. My married life had been a perfectly happy one down to the beginning of 1895. In August, 1895, my wife was away on a holiday. A telegram came that made me suspicious. I employed detectives, and ascertained facts which led me to the conclusion that my wife was unfaithful to me. That was absolutely the first suspicion of any kind. I had three children. I had suspicion of one man, and had him and my wife watched. When she returned I found a telegram in her packet which made me suspicious of another man, and I extended the inquiries to him. I taxed her the day she came back, and I then went to the Birmingham solicitors, Lane, Clutterbuck, and Co., of Whom Mr. Ward was the London agent. I placed the matter in relation to both these suspected persons at the same time in the solicitors hands. There was no great distance of time between my discovery of my wife's relations with the one and the other. A telegram that came when she was away put my suspicion on "M," who was the chairman of a company with which I was connected. I believe when she went for the holiday the had seen "M." for the last time, but her relation still existed with Dr. Armitage. The instructions to the Birmingham solicitors were given with regard to both on one paper. My solicitors eventually received £1,000 from "M.," which included costs. There had been above £1,000 expenses then. There was no petition with regard to "M." In the other case there was a petition, and I received £270, including costs, which were very considerable. I did not divorce my wife. My solicitors advised me not to do so. I was under great pressure to go back to my children. My wife was looking after the home; we had boarders; it was an expensive house, and she was looking after ✗. I had sent my children, away, and was living in rooms for about a year. It was put to me by friends that my children were of an age that anything coming out publicly would do

them harm, and I condoned, and, as far as possible, forgot it, and returned to live with her. The scheme of which "M." was chairman was ruined. I had lost a settled income practically for life through it. "M." was to be chairman. I had got other directors on his name, which was a good name, and then when I found it out of course the whole tiling was ruined. I lived with my wife from the autumn of 1896 till November 12, 1902, a little over six years, during which I had the least occasion to suspect her fidelity. Our relations were practically restored. There was a scar, but the wound had healed. It was the happiest time I ever had with my children. During those six years I lived happily with her, and no claim or suggestion was made against any other person. In the winter of 1902 a lady staying with us suggested that there were a good many letters came addressed to a Miss Curtis after she had left us. This was in June, 1902. I opened a letter which began, "My dearest" and charged my wife with it. Finding it came from that man, I started off to his house, to kill him, I suppose, and was fetched back by my daughter. My wife swore on her knees there was nothing in it. that he was a foolish old man, and tranquillity was restored to an extent for the time. I knew Tilley as the churchwarden when I was there years ago. Everybody knew him. I did not communicate with him, but I kept the letter. On Sunday, November 9, 1902, my wife having gone to a neighbour, I went to look for her and saw her near Tilley's house, the door of which was being fastened. I said, "Where did you come from?" and she told me she had been somewhere else. I knocked at the door and asked Tilley, "Is my wife here?" He said, "Just this minute gone." I said, "What is she doing here this time of night?" He said, "Do not make a noise." I knocked him over. He jumped up and ran off. I went back home and sent my wife to her room and did not occupy it again. I left my home after that and went to Mr. Everett for two or three days after. On the Monday I got a letter from Tilley, in which he said practically that nothing had happened, that he was absolutely innocent, but he had lent her money. I showed that letter to Everett, and on his advice instituted proceedings, citing Tilley as co-respondent and claiming damages; no one appeared and the case came on before the President as an undefended action. Mr. Hume Williams, K. C., and Mr. Dyer appeared for me. I was told by Everett's clerk that my wife and Tilley were in Court, but I did not see them. The shorthand note is correct down to the question, "During all that time was your married life a happy one or not?" (that is from 1881 to 1898. I did not understand that question, I had not got the date of it, and I did not answer—I hesitated—I was thinking, and while I was hesitating the counsel asked, "Did your wife look after

her home?" I said, "Yes." I had not answered the previous question. If any specific date had been put, including 1895 or 1896. I should have said, "No, I left my home at that time." I said she was a good mother—she always was, and to she is. She was always kind and attentive to the children. They will not leave her now. She had the furniture settled on her and she keeps a boarding-house. I could not make a home and I have been there for a time—for the last 12 months I have had no other home. I am not living with her as husband and wife. I acted for the children's sake. It began when I had gone to see the children by one of them begging me to stay and I stayed all night. I think about November, 1904, I went back. I was away about two years. I was paying so much for my room and they wanted the money there and I had not another borne. I had not been making money, and I gave what I could. If I had any capital even now I would make a home for my children. The whole position was this—the furniture was settled on my wife by ante-nuptial settlement; I had no other home for my children, and was not making enough money to keep them in my own way. Therefore, when the took a home in her name I paid what I could and went there for the benefit of them generally, and also that the children's friends might know they had got a father. They removed into another neighbourhood, and tried to start again. I have not received a farthing from Tilley, and I have been sued by my own solicitor for the costs I incurred in enforcing my claim against him.

Cross-examined. I quite understand the questions that have been put to me to-day. I did not quite understand the questions put to me by Mr. Evans. Mr. Evans confuted me. It was nearly two years after the divorce that I went back to my wife's home. I went back so as to take what little I could there, and became my children were there. I had paid something towards the housekeeping expenses. My wife looked after the home and the children. She is not my wife; it is a well upon earth. I went there because I had no option. We live in the same house, but generally occupy separate rooms. If you want me to be very plain and say have I cohabited with her—I have, so that there is no chance of mistake. We are not living as husband and wife. I have not been out with her all the time I have been there; I do not say "Good morning," or anything of that sort. She has not been a good wife since 1904. It is not a happy home for the children such as they had before. I thought that "M." had wronged me very deeply. Armitage I had never seen. I did not think there could be such serious harm with him. "M." was running a company in which I was working, and I had £16,000 promised, and "M." was the chairman. "M." had known her socially

before we went to North Wales. He had been letting me spend 18 months of my life working on this scheme, and building up chances of a future for myself. I received £1,000 from "M." because I had been more than £1,000 wronged. I had been paying detectives watching him and her, and he had stopped the Hydro Company. At the first meeting of directors, when he should have been there, and I should have introduced the directors to him who had come on the board because of his name, he was not there, and I afterwards found that he was out with my wife. The £1,000 practically amounted to paying me back money that I had lost. There was no corroboration against "M." except that I had got the telegram. The claim against Armitage was left to my solicitors, Messrs. Lane and Clutterbuck. He paid £270 by instalments. I received it to punish the man, if you like. I presume I saw the papers in Ashwell v. Ashwell and Tilley. I do not know if I saw the Advice on Evidence. Document produced is in my writing and refers to the points on the Advice on Evidence.

Mr. Elliott objected that these documents could not be put to witness, as they could only be placed in the custody and control of Mr. Everett as solicitor to prisoner, and he could not produce them as solicitor to the prosecution.

Mr. Justice Darling. This it a question of privilege which the witness is entitled to claim or to waive.

Witness. I claim the privilege.

Mr. Hastings submitted there was no privilege, because the prisoner had in this Court alleged that Everett was aware that what prisoner was saying to the jury was not the truth, assuming he said it.

Mr. Justice Darling. The prisoner has not said it, nor hat Everett been cross-examined to it, therefore the basis of your contention is gone.

Cross-examination continued. Mr. Evans did not ask me whether I told Mr. Everett that I had instituted those proceedings before or whether I had given the information to Everett. When I was being cross-examined the Judge said: "Did Mr. Everett know of this?" I said, "He knew I left my home?" The Judge: "Did you give your proof or instruction verbally or in writing?" I said, "Verbally," which is correct. I had not remembered that I had given this document. The Judge did not ask whether Everett knew all the transactions.

Cross-examination continued. I wrote to Tilley on November 12, 1902, that he had ruined our lives and the lives of our children, and if I had known it on Sunday night I should have killed him. It was true in this way: I had had six years of happiness; I had had a most comfortable home for my children; he had been scheming with my wife and taken her out at different times. He had certainly absolutely ruined the home, broken it up, and the children knew they had no father and mother married; the children were at a different age than when "M." and Armitage had come on the scene. There was no scandal with regard to "M." or Armitage.

Re-examined. During the six years that elapsed between my wife's first infidelity until the Tilley incident I lived happily with her and had reason to think she had entirely amended. She was a wonderfully good mother. What I had written down certainly represented my feeling at the time. Tilley made no offer of a smaller sum. He once offered to pay the costs in order to settle.

Verdict, Not guilty.

ATTERBURY, Basil John (45, agent) pleaded guilty , to committing acts of gross indecency with Edward Morris, and other male persons, and with attempting to commit with them, or some of them, unnatural and abominable crimes. Sentence, Seven years' penal servitude.

NEW COURT; Wednesday, July 25.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

BERGMANN, Carl (21, clerk) pleaded guilty , to stealing 2, 870 fitch skins, a muff, and a tie, the goods of Ludwig Victor Rosentower, his master. On the prisoner's application, judgment was respited to next Sessions to enable restitution to be made.

WILLIAMS, John (35, cook) pleaded guilty , to forging and uttering three orders for payment of £8, £8, and £3 respectively, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. A. E. Gill, prosecuting, said Williams was evidently an assumed name, as prisoner was an Italian. On May 14 he went down to Brighton and there made the acquaintance of a restaurant-keeper named De Duca, who, he learned, had three brothers in business at Darlington, Hamilton, and Coatbridge. Next day, having returned to London, he despatched from the Post Office at Finsbury Park telegrams in Italian to the three brothers as from the Brighton De Duca. asking for the several amounts mentioned for the furtherance of an important affair in London. The applications were successful, and on the 16th prisoner returned to the office and collected the money. He appeared to have practised this fraud to some extent, being engaged in a similar way on June 1 at the Highbury Post Office, whence he was sending a telegram to an address in Italy. That case, however, was not taken up because of the difficulty of procuring witnesses from that country.

Previous convictions were proved against prisoner, who is also wanted in Italy for similar offences.

Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment. Certified for expulsion under Aliens Act.

SWALLOW, James (42, manager) ; wilfully and with intent to defraud making certain false entries in and omitting material particulars' from certain books and accounts belonging to Tunis Hermanus Haagen and another, his masters; obtaining by false pretences from Tunis Hermanus Haagen and another orders for payment of £14 13s. 4d., £28 5s., £19 13s. 4d., £19 13s. 4d., £4 10s., £49, £65, £105 8s. 4d., and £115 respectively, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Cecil E. Fitch prosecuted. Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., and Mr. J. P Grain defended.

HERBERT THOMAS BLOOR , of the firm of William Smart and Son, chartered accountants, Finsbury Pavement, examined by Mr. Fitch. On April 13 I was instructed to examine the books of the London branch of T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co., tanners and leather merchants, 67. St. Mary Axe. I spent from May 1 to May 12 with my clerks in going through the books. I was informed that a balance-sheet had been sent every year, from 1894 to 1905, to the Rotterdam house, and I was handed copies first of all, but I had occasion to ask for the originals. Attached is a list of debtors and creditors, which I also produce. Also the cash books from 1900 onwards. In the cash book for 1900, folio 197, December 31, I find this entry:—"Trade charges: Christmas boxes, as per private list, £15 8s. 6d." In the cash book for 1901, December 31, folio 57, I find the item: "Christmas boxes, as per private list, £12 5s." In the cash book for 1902, December 31, folio 160, I find the entry: "Trade charges: Christmas boxes, as per special list, £15." In the cash book for 1903. December 31, folio 19: "Christmas boxes, as per special list, £19 10s." In the cash-book for 1904, folio 143, December 31: "Christmas boxes, as per private list, £22 5s. "; and in the cash book for 1905, December 31, folio 19: "Christmas boxes, £24 14s." I asked prisoner for the lists, as they were all marked, "As per private list," and he said, "I have got them at home." I said, "That is a funny place to keep your business papers. Will you bring them, up to-morrow?" He said, "It is no use shuffling. I have not got them." That was on May 10. I said, "Surely you must have some lists?" He then looked in a pigeon-hole about his desk and produced a list for 1905 showing a number of names with amounts opposite to them totalling £8 12s. 6d. I pointed out that there was an error of £1 in the addition; it should have been £9 12s. 6d.; also that the amount entered in the cash book was £24 14s., and asked him to explain the difference and he said he could not. I said the Christmas boxes in the list appeared to Be to the clerks and asked him if he had paid any others to tradesmen, etc., and he said he had not paid any money Christmas boxes other than those entered in the cash book, but there were Christmas boxes paid in the form of cigars and wines. In 1900 the staff was six clerks and the weekly

wages were £5 15s. 6d. In 1901 seven clerks, and the weekly wages £7 19s.; 1902, seven clerks, weekly wages, £8 16s.; 1903, eight clerks, weekly wages, £10 13s. 6d.; 1904, eight clerks, weekly wages, £10 16s.; 1905, ten clerks, weekly wages, £13 16s. 6d. In 1905, therefore, the list of Christmas boxes was in he proportion of two-thirds of the weekly wages, but according to the cash book, where no lists were produced, they considerably exceeded the weekly wages. On February 4, 1895, I find the entry T. H. Haagen, income-tax, in the cash bank column, £13 6s. 8d., and in the cash column, £1 6s. 8d. I have no cheque for either of those two amounts. The entries are in Mr. Swallow's handwriting. I produce two receipts for income-tax, one in the name of T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co. for £13 6s. 8d., and the other in the name of Mr. Swallow for £1 6s. 8d. In the 1896 cash book, folio 1, February 5, I find in the bank column £14 13s. 4d., T. H. Haagen, income-tax. I do not produce any cheque, but I produce two receipts, T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co., £13 6s. 8d., and J. Swallow, £1 6s. 8d. That would be on his commission for the year; he was paid by commission. In 1897, folio 80, I have the entry of £14 13s. 4d. for income-tax, and two receipts as before. With regard to that entry, I have a cheque dated February 2, 1897, signed T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co., the body of the cheque being filled up by Swallow to William Wood, income-tax collector. In April, 1898, folio 183, the entry for income-tax is £19 13s. 4d. A receipt to Haagen, Son, and Co. for £18 6s. 8d. has since been discovered. The cheque for £19 13s. 4d. is as before filled in by Swallow. The cheques would be sent over to Rotterdam to be signed. On March 15, 1899, there is a cheque to William Wood for income-tax, £19 13s. 4d., signed by T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co. There are two receipts, to Haagen for £18 6s. 8d. and to prisoner for £1 6s. 8d. On February 17, 1900, there is an entry of the payment of £19 13s. 4d. for income-tax by Haagen and Co., and there are two receipts as before. On June 13, 1901, there is a payment by Haagen to W. Wood of £37 income-tax. In that case there were two cheques, one for £32 10s. and one for £4 10s., both called in by prisoner. There is nothing in the body of the cheques to indicate for what purpose they were drawn. In 1902, March 24, there is an entry of a payment by Haagen and Co. of £49 in one cheque, and receipts for £43 15s. and £5 5s. to Haagen and Swallow. On May 2, 1903, the payment for income-tax is £65, and the cheque is filled in by prisoner, there being two receipts, one to Haagen for £56 5s. and one to prisoner of £8 15s. On March 15, 1904, there is an entry in the cash book of £105 8s. 4d. for income-tax, payable to H. E. Heyworth, the collector. I have only one receipt in respect of that £82 10s. to Haagen. On March 17, 1905, there is an entry for income-tax of £115, and the cheque is in the handwriting

of prisoner. I have only one receipt for that £90 to T. H. Haagen and Son. At the time I saw these entries of payments of income-tax I had not seen Mr. Swallow's agreement. I asked him if the agreement allowed him to pay his income-tax out of the firm's funds, and he said it did not. He also said, "I ought not to have done it." I said, "You do not appear to have been very particular with other people's money. In the last few years you have not only paid your income-tax, but you have paid considerably more than you ought to have done." On £500 he would have been entitled to an abatement of £150. He said he knew he had, and would try to get it back. I said, "For yourself or the firm?" To which he made no reply. All these entries were duly passed in the ledger under the head "T. H. Haagen's account." For the year 1905 there are details of travelling expenses amounting to £355 0s. 9d. The amount of Mr. Swallow's travelling expenses is £246 16s. The average of his travelling expenses in previous years was £40 or £50. I asked Mr. Swallow for a list of his expenses. He said he had not got a list; the figure was only put in to reduce the cash balance. I asked him if there was anything due to him I He said there was not. I asked him if there was anything due to other travellers? He said, "No, everybody had been paid." On March 7, 1894, when accused took over the management, the balance carried forward was £15 7s. 4d. Prisoner told me that was the balance he took over. In the balance-sheet, at the end of that year, signed "T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co., James Swallow, manager," there is supposed to be £57 16s. 7d. cash in hand. In 1895 the figure had risen to £126 4s. 11d.; in 1896 to £211 5s. That balance-sheet was not signed by him; the previous one's were.

Mr. Grain. Balance-sheets not signed by the prisoner are not admissible in evidence. The opening was that Messrs. Smallfield and Co., the accountants, audited the books, and made out balance-sheets. My friend suggested that they ought to have sent them direct to Rotterdam, but did not, but handed them to prisoner for the purpose of transmitting to Rotterdam. That may very well be, but they were responsible for the balance-sheets, and unless prisoner signed them I submit he would not be responsible for the figures upon them.

The Recorder. He is manager and responsible for the books. You may be able to show by calling him that he was only there as superintendent, and that the accepted these balance-sheets which subsequently turned out to be inaccurate, but if they were forwarded by him to Rotterdam surely they are evidence against him.

Mr. Grain. On my friend's opening, it was upon the accountants that the responsibility rested year by year to audit these books and to put forward the balance-sheets. Prisoner had nothing whatever to do with the making out of the balance-sheets. Some be signed; those I admit by his signature he renders himself responsible for.

The Recorder. Do you dispute that he was sole manager in London, and forwarded the balance-sheets to his principals in the ordinary way?

Mr. Grain. No, but I do not admit that he is responsible here, became a man may receive a letter for or on behalf of his principals

as a servant may receive a letter for or on behalf of his or her matter without being responsible for the contents.

The Recorder. With regard to the business dealings for the year he satisfied himself no doubt that they were correct representations of the accounts.

Mr. Grain. My submission is that until you get his signature or his acquiescence in some other form to the figures he is not responsible for them.

The Recorder. I quite agree that unless you had hit acquiescence in some form—supposing, for instance, they had been forwarded direct by the accountants without his having seen them, they would not be evidence against him; but if they are submitted to him, and he accepts them, and forwards them to his principals as being a correct record as vouched for by the accountants, of his dealings for the year, I cannot exclude the evidence. You may say he is not responsible.

Mr. Fitch. I cannot call all the witnesses. That is the difficulty I am in. None of the rest are signed.

Examination continued. In 1897 the balance carried forward was £223 7s. 7d.; in 1896, £243 1s. 4d.; in 1899, £309 8s. 1d.; in 1900, £366 14s. 8d.; in 1901, £424 11s. 2d.; 1902, £434 15s. 6d.; 1903, £630 18s. 9d.; 1904, £749 16s. 1d.; 1905, £699 17s. 10d. From 1896 onwards instead of the wording being "cash in hand" or "cash in the office" only it was "cash in hand and bills receivable." This was not a business in which "cash in hand" to the extent of more than a few pounds was required, it being a manufacturing, not a retail business. The accountants certified the balance-sheets as correct in the usual form found on the balance-sheet of every company and private firm. With reference to the 1905 balance-sheet, I asked Mr. Swallow to produce his cash books and open the sale. There was practically nothing inside the safe, but according to the balance-sheet there should have been £699. I asked him where the money had gone to, and he said it had been spent. I asked him if he meant that he had had it, and he said, "I am responsible for it." I said, "You mean to say that nobody else in the office can have made away with it?" He said, "I alone am responsible." I asked him if the accountants had ever asked him to allow them to count the cash, tie said, "No; if they had it would have been found out from the first year. I wish your firm had been appointed, and I do not think it would ever have happened." I asked him how what he was now telling me agreed with what he had written to the firm. He said what he had written to the firm was not correct. As a matter of fact at no time in the history of T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co. were there any of the cheques and bills which were sot out in these letters. The cheques were always entered directly they were received and paid into the bank. I asked him to let me see Thompson's bill, and he produced to me a document which was only half a bill. It was accepted by Robert, Thompson, but not drawn, and it was dated September 7, eight years before. I asked him if he seriously expected me to take that as part of the cash balance, as it looked to me

like a private transaction of his own. He said he had lent money to Mr. Thompson, who was a private friend, and had originally intended it as a private transaction, and expected to get the money back within the month that the bill was made out for. I have a cheque for £15 drawn by T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co. on February 3, 1906, and also one for £20 10s. 4d., payable to Bornstone, and crossed "National Provincial Bank of England, James Swallow." It is an account for cigars. I had previously asked prisoner if he had any objection to showing me his private pass books. He said he had not, but they were at home, and he would bring them up next day, which he did. He said the £20 10s. 4d. had gone through his private pass book, and the £15 cheque might have gone through on the same day. He told me he had paid Bornstone with his own cheque, and that the account was for cigars, cigarettes, and such like for Christmas boxes, and that the cheque for £20 10s. 4d. was paid in against what he had paid Mr. Bornstone. The cheque produced, drawn by T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co. for £28 5s., is to Dan Albone, dated May 11, 1897. The body of that cheque is in the handwriting of Mr. Swallow. The entry in the cash book is not in May, but in December. In consequence of what I had heard from Mr. Jacoby, the manager, I asked Mr. Swallow if he had bought two bicycles. He said he had—one for himself and one for his wife. I showed him the entry and told him the firm had paid for them. Albone is a cycle dealer. In 1897 the amount was rightly entered in the ledger to Mr. Swallow's debit, but in 1898 it was standing to his credit and transferred to T. H. Haagen. It ought to have been deducted from his commission. I find, according to the books, the total turnover in 1895 was £17, 775, inclusive of goods obtained from the Rotterdam house and strap butts. The strap butts are the finest part of the leather. Taking 2 per cent, commission on the balance, £253 10s. 9d., and 1 per cent, on the strap butts, £23 19s. 9d., there was due to Mr. Swallow, £277 10s. 6d. He actually drew £325 13s. 6d. In 1896 the amount due to him was £303 12s.; he actually drew £347 11s. In 1897 the amount due to him was £311 10s. 3d., and he drew £352 12s. 6d.; in 1898 £327 19s. 6d. was due to him, and he drew £411 3s. 7d., including £28 5s. for two bicycles. In 1899 the amount due was £340 19s. 11d., and he drew £381 3s. 1d. In 1900 £365 19s. 7d. was due to him, and he drew £401 16s. 3d. In 1901, £404 13s. 4d. was due to him, and he drew £438 13s. 9d.; in 1902, £435 12s. 5d., and he drew £477 13s. 3d.; in 1903, £411 11s. 10d., and he drew £445 9s. 8d.; in 1904 £408 16s. 3d. was due, and he drew £438 18s. 7d.; in 1905 £452 13s. 7d. due, and he drew £487 6s. 4d., the total overdrafts being £467 3s. 2d. Between 1895 and 1905 the turnover of the business had increased from £17, 775 to £24, 350. At the end of the interview

on May 10, 1905, prisoner completely broke down and he ended up by saying he supposed that most men in his position would blow their brains out or bolt. He added, "I shall not do either. I shall stop and face the music and take the punishment like a man." I told him it was a very painful position for me to be in, but I was only there to do my duty, and he thanked me for the way I had conducted the inquiry.

Cross examination reserved.

TUNIS HERMANUS HAAGEN, JUN ., partner in the firm of T. H. Haagen, Son, and Co., tanners and leather merchants, Rotterdam and London. In March, 1894, we appointed the prisoner manager of our London branch. My father is advanced in years and does not take much part in the business. Before that prisoner had been in our employment as clerk since 1887. We looked upon him as a very able man of business and had unlimited confidence in him. The terms of Mr. Swallow's employment were embodied in a letter of August, 1894, signed by my father. He was to have 2 per cent on the turnover, with the exception of goods brought from Rotterdam, and he was to have 1 per cent. on strap butts. Strap butts are supposed to be the better part of the hide, which is cut into straps to make leather belting for machinery. These ran into big money, and therefore we appointed only 1 per cent. Prisoner had no power to draw upon our account at the National Provincial Bank. All cheques were sent to Rotterdam for endorsement and then sent back to be paid into our account. We partly buy the skins in England and partly in Holland. They are manufactured partly in Rotterdam; but we have two other factories as well. The management in England is confined to purchasing these skins and selling what we manufacture in Rotterdam. Sometimes, but very seldom, we asked him to buy for us. He was to have no commission on that at all. In case he wanted money he would send to me cheques in which he put the name of the payee and the amount. For wages we sent him bearer cheques in batches of five. For his own commission he would get a special cheque; he filled in the amount and we returned it; we left the particulars to him. If the amount had suddenly sprung up we might have asked about it. From 1894 to 1905 the firm received balance-sheets from time to time. They came regularly up to 1903, but we only got the 1904 balance-sheet in February of this year. The balance-sheet for 1905 we received in April. Messrs. Smallfield, Rawlins, and Co. were appointed by Mr. Swallow accountants to check our books, and I approved. When we received the 1904 balance-sheet we wrote prisoner about the item of "cash in hand and bills receivable, "£749 16s. 1d., and received a letter in reply. In April, 1906, when we received the balance-sheet for 1905, we again wrote, and again received

a reply. (The letters in question were read, in which prisoner accounted for the item by a number of false entries.) Prisoner had no authority from the firm to buy bicycles for himself or draw upon the funds of the firm for payment. When the cheque for £28 5s. was signed I did not know it was for bicycles; I knew nothing about the bicycles. The cheque was an ordinary trade cheque. The first we heard of the bicycles was when Mr. Bloor was investigating our books in May of this year. I come over in May and had a conversation with prisoner about the conduct of the London business. I asked him how it was possible he could have deceived me in the way he had done, having regard to the kind treatment he had always received from my father and myself. Prisoner always stayed with us in Holland when he paid business visits, which he did about twice a year. He did not give a straightforward answer to my question, but said it was the happiest day he had ever had in his life now that I had found out his conduct and the load was off his mind. Last time he was in Rotterdam the chef de bureau had asked him why he wanted so much money to conduct the London business. He said he would have liked to have told all then but he was afraid to do so. Talking about the auditing of our books, he said he would have liked that the new accountants, Messrs. Smart and Son, should always have audited our books, and then irregularities would not have taken place. He further stated that the old accountants never checked his cash. Prisoner was very much distressed, and broke down several times.

(Thursday, July 26.)

TUNIS HERMANUS HAAGEN , further examined. I remained from May 1, when the foregoing conversation took place, till May 12, and went to the office from time to time. I was there when Bloor asked prisoner for particulars as to Christmas boxes. Prisoner replied, "I have got them at home." Mr. Bloor then said, "It is rather a funny place to keep the business papers of the firm. Will you bring them up to-morrow morning?" Swallow said, "There is no use any further shuffling. I cannot bring them to-morrow because I have not got them." I finally discharged Mr. Swallow on May 17. He said he was sorrow to leave me under such circumstances. I never gave prisoner permission to pay his own income-tax out of the firm's money. I had no idea when the cheques were sent over they included prisoner's income-tax. Prisoner has never accounted for the cash in hand or any part of it. I never gave prisoner authority or leave to buy bicycles or to charge 2 per cent. commission on strap butts. I did not know of it until the investigation. Prisoner's commission was paid by cheque every month. He sent over a cheque for the amount and we signed it and returned

it. Prisoner himself made up the commission account and sent a cheque, and we signed it believing it to be correct For the last three years I have not been in London. When I did come we had a general conversation about business, but I did not go into the accounts because I left the management to Mr. Swallow. There was an annual audit, and besides that there were three guarantees. As a member of the firm, I placed every confidence in Mr. Swallow. I never knew I was being charged 2 per cent. on goods bought from the Rotterdam house.

Cross-examined. Prisoner had sole control of the business in London. He was a very energetic and valuable man of business. I would not have objected if I had known he was giving Christmas boxes to people outside my employment. He has increased the business considerably, but the profits on the increased turnover are less. On the goods sent to London from Rotterdam there was practically no profit made. The London house was merely a distributing house and the profit depended on what was the prime cost in Rotterdam. I know leather it a great deal talked about just now. We should not adulterate leather with glucose. Our leather is known to be the best in the market and it also realises the biggest price per pound. I have only recentally found out that prisoner had an account at the National Provincial Bank. I do not know that in 1894 my firm was asked whether they would allow Mr. Swallow to have an account there and that a letter of recommendation was actually written. I can quite believe that the National and Provincial Bank—people of the highest possible standing—naturally and properly require the sanction of the principals before allowing a manager to have a private account at the bank. There was nothing against it; it might perhaps have been to our advantage, as if prisoner wanted to make a small payment and he had not got our cheques to hand he could make the payment out of his own account. I do not know that on many occasions he has paid cheques out of his private account, and then recouped himself by paying our cheques into his account; there has never been necessity to do so. Up to March, 1894, a Mr. Poole had been our manager, and with a turnover of about £11, 000 he had a guaranteed minimum of £500 a year. Prisoner speaks two or three languages, and was of great value as a linguist. I do not remember that it was ever proposed that we should go together through Spain, Turkey, and parts of Palestine and Egypt. I do not know that in this country large sums of money are distributed by way of secret commission amongst various business houses, and that presents are given to the managers of big firms who give orders. I believe it is necessary in the present state of trade to give commissions to people who give orders. If in the course of these ten or twelve years prisoner had returned each year the sum of, say, £100 as

given in commissions, the details of which could not be disclosed, I do not think I should have objected at all, but we should have wanted to know the names of all the persons with whom he had done business. We should never allow anyone even in the case of secret commissions, to pay money away without knowing where it went to. If, for instance, Mr. Swallow had given a £5 note to the engineer of a firm who had given an order for £1,500 worth of leather belting, we should have expected it to be entered in the books. I do not keep a secret or private ledger. I have heard of firms keeping private, locked-up ledgers, not accessible to anybody, even to the accountant, but I have no experience of the kind myself. The turnover in 1893 was £10, 918; in 1894, £11, 400; 1895, £17, 700; 1896. £17, 300; 1897, £17, 700; 1898, £19, 000; 1899, £19, 000; 1900, £20, 000; 1901, £21, 000; 1902, nearly £22, 000; 1903, over £23, 000; 1904, £22, 000; and in 1905 it had jumped to £24, 350. In the eleven years Mr. Swallow had more than doubled the turnover. That was entirely due to his individual exertions and selling at low prices. It suited our book to sell, and it suited his book as well, as he got more commission. In the latter part of the time we started the "Helvetia" department of the business. There was not much travelling in connection with that. It was, necessary for Mr. Swallow to push the "Helvetia" line very strongly when we took up that manufacture, but we had a large turnover already; but that turnover merely represented our brokage profits, whereas when we took to manufacturing it represented also manufacturers' profits, a totally different thing. Q. Up to 1899 travelling expenses had increased, and after 1899 decreased, there being again an increase in 1905, due, I suggest, to the "Helvetia" business? A. It was nothing like that. As the business increased in this enormous way I should expect Mr. Swallow's commission account to increase. I had not noticed that whereas when the turnover was £10, 000 his commission was £56 4s. 4d., when the turnover was £24, 000 it was only £86. If that very small increase had been accounted for by the payment of secret commission I should have known it. It is not, in my opinion, self-evident that money was being used qua commission, which it was not advisable to detail in the ordinary ledgers of the firm. For the "Helvetia" trade it was not necessary to give commission. I think we had travellers working on commission. I do not admit that if I had been in Mr. Swallow's place I should have had to spend more than the alleged deficiencies in bringing this business into the condition in which it now is. I do not know whether Mr. Swallow has put any of his money into his own pocket. I should think he lived above his legitimate means in housekeeping. I know that managers I had over here said he was living in big style. I should think he wanted more than £500 a year

to live in the style he did. I have been to his house only once, but I know others who have been there. A friend of mine at Rotterdam stayed with him a whole year, paying so much a month or week. I did not at once come down and say, "You are living beyond your means," because I thought perhaps Mrs. Swallow had moans of her own. As to whether Swallow was an out-and-out better man than Poole, I do not think Poole was a man of any very great capacity. We did not appoint Swallow over Mr. Poole's head. Mr. Poole left us quite friendly to go into partnership with another firm, and his agreement terminated by lapse of time. There is no question that Mr. Swallow was not entitled to commission on the gross turnover. I am not aware that in the sketch Agreement the word "net" before turnover was put in and struck out. Prisoner was entitled to 1 per cent, on all strap butts. There are two classes of strap butts, those which are bought in very large quantities and sold in London on a commission of 4 per cent., and there are also quantities of strap butts which go through our merchandise account, and are told at a profit of 10 per cent. to 12 per cent. As to prisoner's contention that he is entitled to commission on merchandise strap butts, the agreement speaks for itself very distinctly. The accountants, Messrs. Smallfield, Rawlins, and Co., were appointed in 1894. As to whether a firm of their position would not have investigated the rate per cent, and the basis upon which it was to be calculated, you had better ask the accountants themselves. We have a very large staff at Rotterdam and a very competent chef de bureau, Every year the balance-sheets were seat to him, and Mr. Swallow's commission as taken out tallied with the amount included in the balance-sheet as commission earned. Without the books we could not in Rotterdam have checked how much of the turnover was strap butts and how much general merchandise. We could have sent a man over a London at a moment's notice, but if we had done that we should not have wanted the management at all. We relied on our auditors and we relied on our manager. Mr. Swallow himself never called attention to the difference between the two different sorts of strap butts, nor discussed the point with me. When Mr. Swallow sent the balance-sheet of 1905 he wrote asking when it would be convenient for me to see him upon an important matter at Rotterdam. It was not then convenient for me to see him, as I was away from home. My suspicion that Mr. Swallow was other than honest commenced about then. At the interview between Mr. Bloor, Mr. Mote, and prisoner, I had authorised Mr. Mote to ask Mr. Swallow to give up the key of the safe and the key was handed to me. Mr. Swallow was invited to take away any private papers and memoranda he had and also to give any

assistance he could to Mr. Bloor in the investigation which was commenced the next day. At that time Mr. Swallow was practically suspended. We had not made up our minds to discharge him but were waiting the result of the investigation. As soon as I found out what that was I made up my mind to discharge him at once. It was on May 12 I dismissed him and on May 30 he was arrested on a warrant applied for at my instigation. Mrs. Swallow subsequently came to see me at my hotel. I did not tell her I did not want to send Mr. Swallow to prison, but I wanted to get at the accountants. I naturally wanted to get rid of her as quickly as possible. There has never been any question of taking action against the accountants in respect of their negligence, and I have not consulted my solicitors as to their liability. I did not tell Mrs. Swallow her husband had been a most faithful servant and I did not wish to punish him. One of the charges against prisoner was that he had received over £800 from Spain for which he had not accounted. I do not remember that Mr. Bloor suggested that prisoner had put it into his own pocket, and that when prisoner stated it had be written off as a bad debt Mr. Bloor said in that case he would apologise. The whole of the business we do in Great Britain is done from the London house. We accept bills payable at the National Provincial Bank in London in payment of goods from the Rotterdam house, and it was part of prisoner's duty to provide that money should be at the bank for the purpose of meeting those acceptances. From 1894 to 1906 we never refused to sign any cheques sent to us by prisoner for signature. We never took steps to ascertain whether goods alleged to have been bought had been so purchased. We trusted him to any extent. We had known him for 20 years and had no idea he could deceive us.

Re-examined. From May 1 to May 12 I was almost constantly at the office. Until to-day I have never heard it suggested that part of this deficiency was due to secret commissions. We first started to manufacture "Helvetia" in 1902, so that the £200 travelling expenses suddenly occurring in 1905 had nothing to do with "Helvetia." "Helvetia" is a kind of leather that is used for making laces. From beginning to end Mr. Swallow never complained that the agreement did him an injustice.

HERBERT THOMAS BLOOR , recalled, cross-examined. Messrs. Smallfield and Rawlins are accountants of high class, but I should say Haagen's books were not properly audited, inasmuch as they did not count the cash. I have been a qualified accountant about fifteen years. We were appointed to examine Haagen's books, and have no notification of being appointed auditors after that. The books had been kept fairly well, but had been allowed to get behind considerably. We investigate

the affairs of a good number of firms. I have never seen a ledger which is kept almost entirely for secret commissions. If any firm kept a book they refused to produce I should refuse the audit. I know that secret commissions are paid largely by men of business, and deplore the fact very much indeed. Such commissions are generally included in the general expenses. I saw an information prepared by the solicitors. With regard to the £15 8s. 6d. for Christmas boxes in 1900, I should not be surprised to hear that Jacoby's Christmas box in 1900 was £2.10s. I asked prisoner for the lists, and he could not produce them. For the year 1905 prisoner did produce a list which showed payments to all the staff. The deduction I drew was that part of the amounts represented by Christmas boxes had been embezzled. With regard to the payments for incometax, with the exception of one year, prisoner's income-tax was included in that paid by the firm. Where two were drawn they were passed through the books as one cheque. The income-tax paid to Messrs. Haagen was too much, because there was no profit. The rate of profit I should look for would be 15 per cent., and that was wholly absorbed by the London expenses. As to why, under those circumstances, the firm keep it on I cannot tell you; you had better ask Mr. Haagen. People, of course, are under no obligation to disclose their profits to their accountants. A retailer might make 33 1-3 per cent, but the profits of a leather merchant or tanner are nothing like that. The 15 per cent, profit it from factory to merchant. I know many leather businesses that would not work out at more than 7 1/2. As to the cheque of £15 paid to prisoner's private account, no explanation is forthcoming. £20 10s. 4d. he told me he had paid to Bornstone for cigars for Christmas boxes, and when he received the firm's cheque he paid it into his account. If the cheque for £15 had inadvertently been crossed it would have been a reasonable thing for the prisoner to have paid it into his private account at the same bank and drawn against it. With regard to the cheque for £28 5s. in 1896, the amount was carried to the debit of his commission account. In the following year it was entered on the credit instead of the debit side, though it should have been entered at a balance due from Swallow on the commission account I do not think such an entry could have been made my mistake. Prisoner's commission was paid in twelve cheques, the last one balancing up the shortage, if any. Assuming prisoner to be entitled to commission on the turnover without taking the goods bought for Rotterdam and the strap butts, I do not think he has overdrawn his commission except for that £28 5s. That it the only serious overdraught in the whole account. When I saw prisoner about the accounts he was in a state of great mental distress. He did not say he had been a great fool for not

accounting for these sums to the firm beforehand. He never attempted to deny that he was responsible for the money not accounted for. He said that if the previous auditors had counted the cash, or if my own firm had been auditors, this would not have happened. For years the amount carried over under the head of cash in hand and bills receivable had been growing in amount, going up sometimes as much as £100 a year. In 1900, when it was £366, it was quite large enough to be questioned, and my view is it ought to have been questioned at the end of 1894, when it was only £57. Prisoner admitted that the explanation of the item he had given in his letters was not the correct one. The bad debt in Spain was due from a debtor in Valencia, who up to March, 1894, had paid his account fairly regularly by cheque or bill. At the end of 1894 he was owing £543. In the list we got over from Holland we found that the initial 5 had been scratched out, and so through until the whole account had been written off. Being written off piecemeal through the merchandise account, it was lost sight of by the firm. I have never suggested that Swallow put the money into his pocket. By subsequent investigations I have found that the debtor in respect of the £883 is neither dead nor bankrupt, as was stated by prisoner, but I cannot find that the money has ever been paid.

Re-examined. Prisoner told me first that the Spanish debtor was dead and the estate had been administered amongst the Spanish creditors, and that the English had got nothing. Afterwards he told me he was bankrupt and had started in business again. He should have appeared as owing £543, and, secondly, £883, but owing to the erasure of the "5" he appeared as only owing £43. The amount was gradually being wiped out through the merchandise account.

TUNIS HERMANUS HAAGEN , sen., proved signing the letter of agreement with prisoner in 1894.

THOMAS RAWLINS , senior partner in Smallfield, Rawlins, and Co., accountants, King William Street. In 1894 we were instructed by Mr. Swallow to act as auditors on behalf of Messrs. Haagen and Co. The first two balance sheets were signed by my partner, Mr. Charles Gordon Evans. Those for 1896 and 1897 are signed by myself. Those for 1898, 1899, and 1900 were signed by Mr. Evans, and those for 1901, 1903, and 1904 by myself. Those for 1902 and 1905 were signed by my present partner. Mr. Swallow never complained that any of the balance-sheets did him an injustice. The details of the balance-sheets were prepared by my managing clerk for some years, and by him produced to me. I did not know the terms of the agreement under which prisoner Was employed.

THOMAS HENRY RAWLINS . I went through the 1905 balance-sheet with Mr. Swallow with a trial balance. Speaking from

memory, it included everything but what was due from the London firm to the Rotterdam branch. Whenever I wanted any information I went to Mr. Swallow. I went into the question of what the £699 17s. 10d. was made up of. Prisoner said there was a small amount of cash in hand, and the balance was made up of bills. Speaking from memory, the cash might have been anything between £10 and £15. He promised to give me a list of "bills receivable," but as it was late at night I asked him to get them out and let me have it next morning. In the morning he changed his story and told me the money had been used for travelling expenses. I believe I pointed out that there were travelling expenses in the account, and I mentioned the matter in the report. I did not ask him the percentage of commission to which he was entitled. I entered the figures he gave me as the sum payable, leaving it to the firm in Rotterdam to correct if necessary. Mr. Swallow never complained that the balancesheets did him injustice.

Cross-examined. I cannot say that the amount of commission and the turnover were both shown from the accounts. I practically took the balance-sheet as by the proprietor of the business against himself. It is no part of an accountant's duty to ascertain whether the manager of a business has charged commission on a right basis; that is a matter between him and his principal. If the firm had thought the amount of commission excessive they could easily have tested it by sending over and investigating the books to see what the turn-over was. My suspicions were aroused by prisoner changing his story as to the amount of bills receivable. I had previously received a communication from Rotterdam. I do not remember that prisoner said the amount was for travelling and other expenses extending over twelve years. Distributing the item over 12 years it would represent somewhere about £50 a year. £60 per annum in secret commission would not have been an excessive sum in building up a business of £24, 000 a year, but if in going about he had spent the money in giving dinners to customers there is not the slightest reason why it should not have been legitimately entered under the head of travelling expenses. Probably men going away on journeys like that do not always remember the amounts they spend. There was a charge for travelling expenses in the books of 19s. 6d. per week for Mr. Swallow, but, in addition, there was a sum of £200. The travelling expenses for the year were returned as £355 9s., having in the previous year been £156, but the average expense for the years 1902, 1903, 1904, 1905 is not so great as for 1897, 1898, 1899, 1900, and 1901. He said he had been under great pressure to work the books and wanted assistance, and he had assistance from our firm. He said he had been very hard-worked owing to the enormous amount of travelling he bad to do.

Re-examined. Until to-day I have never heard the explanation as to secret commission.

To the Court. As to the cash in hand and bills receivable, they could not be produced owing to the length of time after the beginning of the year that the accounts were made up—six months, nine months, or even twelve. I was obliged therefore to take his word that that had been the condition of affairs at the close of the year. Unless the books had been kept right up to date we could not have carried the account up to date.

HARRY WILLIAM EVITT , managing clerk to Smallfield, Raw lins and Co. I was a personal friend of Mr. Swallow, and it was through that my firm became appointed auditors to Messrs. Haagen in 1894. I generally attended to complete the audits. I never checked the cash in hand. Accused never complained that the balance sheets did him injustice. I went through the items of sundry creditors with Mr. Swallow. I never knew the full terms of his agreement. Some years ago I suggested there was a very large balance, and he said it was necessary He never suggested that it meant travelling expenses or secret commission.

Cross-examined. I had previously to this always regarded Mr. Swallow as a thoroughly reliable, honourable man. I took his word for all these matters. He told me he was entitled to 2 per cent, on the turnover without qualification.

WILLIAM BARTON , clerk, Threadneedle Street branch. National and Provincial Bank, produced a certified copy of the account of James Swallow, extending from 1894 to March, 1906, and showing the passing through prisoner's private account of two cheques for £15 and £20 10s. 4d.

ARTHUR MARTIN JACOBY , present manager of T. H. Haagen, Son and Co. I have been in the service of the firm since 1893. At that time a Mr. Angold kept the books. Since he left I have kept them under Mr. Swallow's directions. Mr. Swallow gave me instructions as to the entry of the Christmas boxes, and the payments of income-tax. I remember two bicycles coming to St. Mary Axe in March of 1897. Prisoner said they were for himself and his wife. A cheque was drawn by the prisoner for £28 5s., and a cross was put on the counterfoil showing that I was not to enter it. It was finally entered as in December of that year. When the books were being completed he told me to make the entry. Amounts were then being put to his debit in the commission account, and the auditors wrote it off from his commission when going through the books. I called his attention to it. and it was altered. Next year I called his attention to it and he said, "That is all right. I have arranged it with Mr. Haagen." meaning that he had arranged that the amount was to be written off. The audit for 1898 would be made up in 1899. A large proportion of the cash items were initialled bv Mr. Swallow.

Cross-examined. I think the books were well kept. I was appointed manager as from June 1 of this year. From May 17 I was temporary manager. On April 27 I asked Mr. Swallow if I could have a holiday as I wanted to meet a friend. I spent part of that day at Mr. Bloor's office with Mr. Haagen. Previously to then I had gone over to Rotterdam to see Mr. Haagen. My salary as bookkeeper was £3 per week; at manager it is £5. I was advised by a solicitor whom I consulted to go to Rotterdam. I asked that the books should be examined. I did not tell Mr. Swallow I had been. I did not know that Mr. Swallow had written about that time to Rotterdam asking for an interview that he might see Mr. Haagen about books and things. I know it was the habit of Mr. Swallow to give Christmas boxes. I had a Christmas box every year in proportion to the amount of my salary. All the staff had Christmas boxes except the travellers, and they were entered, as you have seen, "as per private list." I became suspicious as to the entries as to the Christmas boxes when Mr. Swallow could only produce to Mr. Bloor a list amounting to £9 12s. 6d. to account for £24 14s. Personally, I disapproved of the entry of £200 for travelling expenses. As the auditors had passed the item for "cash in hand and bills receivable," it was not for me to make inquiry. Prisoner was not travelling a great deal in 1905. He made a few journeys to Rotterdam, and one to Birmingham, and perhaps to some other place. He did not see a large number of customers at the office. He was an energetic man of business—sometimes. In 1905 we had one traveller. I got a few orders upon which I received commission. If I get an order I can surely have commission.

HARRY PHILLIPS , Detective Inspector, proved the arrest of prisoner at his house at Upper Norwood on May 17. He said, "It is simply hard lines to be taken away now, as I have not run away and was perfectly willing to surrender myself at any time. I have a complete answer to the charge."


JAMES SWALLOW (prisoner, on oath). I am 43, and a married man with two children. For the last nine years I have been living at Norwood. I entered the employ of Messrs. Haagen in 1887 at a salary of £100 a year. I speak French, German, and Italian fluently, and have a smattering of every language barring Russian. The salary of Mr. Poole, my predecessor in the management, was £500 a year on a commission basis, which he never earned. The turnover when I was appointed was about £11,000, and I have worked it up to over £24, 000. I had not heard that the London business showed no profit until Mr. Haagen said something to that effect in the course of

the investigation. It is not true, as Mr. Haagen says, that I got the increased turnover by selling at reduced prices. I say that the business is certainly in a more flourishing condition now than when I joined it in 1894. Mr. Haagen admitted to me, in discussing the conduct of the business, that it was on a sound footing, and there was a good foundation for a good business. By the agreement the expenses of the London house were not to exceed 6 per cent. The expenses have increased certainly. We have always been at a disadvantage owing to the fact that we have always had to have a large staff of clerks, and we could not cut down the expenses to 6 per cent. During the last 11 years I have given my best efforts and whole time and energy to the extension of this business. I have not carried on any business of my own or any private interest. I have never gambled or speculated, nor have I any vice. I have not put into my pocket one farthing of money I was, not entitled to. As to the sum of £699, which is untruthfully accounted for in the letters that practically commenced in the year 1895, and has gone on growing, every penny of the money has been spent in the interests of the business, including travelling expenses and commissions. There is no truth in the suggestion that at Norwood I have been living beyond my means. I paid no rent, as I lived in a house bought with money left to my wife. That it is necessary to pay certain amounts by way of secret commission for the advancement of the business is a recognised thing, not only in the leather trade but in every trade, and it would not be prudent to enter such amounts in any book, nor do I think it would be possible to do so. These commissions take the form of a percentage on the profits and tips to employees. Warehousemen, for instance, expect tips of a sovereign, half a sovereign or a couple of sovereigns, according to the amount of business done. For a period of three years Mr. Haagen never visited the business at all, and during that time I carried it on as if it were my own, and expended money in carrying it on as I should had it been my own. I produced private lists of the Christmas boxes I am charged with embezzling from 1901 to 1905, which are all I can find. I do not think I have the vouchers for each item, because secret payments are payments made in cash, for which, of course, it would be impossible to get a receipt. Besides money payments, the Christmas boxes included hams and cigars. In 1905 I sent cigars to 32 persons. They were bought of Bornstone, who had the ground floor where our place of business was. I had known Mrs. Bornstone since I had had the management of the business, and was in the habit of buying cigars of her for Christmas boxes. The bill has sometimes been made out in my own name. The firm's cheque to Bornstone in 1905 came to be passed through my private account in this way. She asked me if I could let her have a cheque

on Friday or Saturday. I told her I would write a cheque and send it to Rotterdam for signature, and she could have it on Monday, but if she wanted a cheque for her own convenience I would give her one of my own. The cheque I gave her was a little more than I received from Rotterdam, at the could only give me the amount roughly, and that was 9s. 6d. out of my own pocket. There it no truth in the suggestion that the cigars were for my own use. As to the cheque for £15 paid into my account, the proceeds were accounted for by me to the firm. Rightly or wrongly, I have always paid commission on the gross turnover. I also claim, rightly or wrongly, the right to discriminate between one class of strap butts and another, tome telling at 4 per cent., which is practically only a turnover, and tome at 12 per cent., which it ordinary merchandise. When I sold merchandise I did not claim commission; I took it, and it has never been questioned before the examination. Mr. Haagen, jun., agreed to pay my income-tax. He says he did not; I say he did. My remuneration was very small, and I found the expense of conducting the business far too great. The proposed Spanish and Eastern trip in 1893 was a matter that gave me an enormous amount of trouble. I did quite at much work at Mr. Poole, yet Mr. Poole was drawing £500 a year from a turnover of £10, 000; but I have never drawn £500 a year from a turnover of £24, 000. With regard to the £200 for travelling expenses in 1905, during that year I was travelling a good deal in the provinces and abroad, and the last journey I took I was away a fortnight on end. I should say that what I spent that has not been repaid me by the firm it considerably more than has been repaid me by the firm with what I have given to people for the purpose of making business. People occasionally take a little drop of liquid refreshment; I never came across anyone who refused it, unless he was a teetotaller. Occasionally they go as far as dinner and champagne. That I am not in a position to pay for out of my 2 per cent. commission. £650 or £700 would not be a large sum to spend in twelve years in the way we are talking about. I wrote to Mr. Haagen that I wanted to see him because I wanted to explain how it was these items were standing in the books as cash in hand. I did not tell the truth about it because the matter had grown to such an extent and it could not be adjusted in five minutes. My intention was to give my employers a full explanation when they gave me the interview for which I asked. Not a farthing of that money went into my own pocket. I had never any intention to defraud Messrs. Haagen of any portion of the money not accounted for, and if on an account being taken any debit is found due from me I am quite willing to make it up by instalments according to my means. With regard to the bicycles, the cheque for £28 5s. was sent to the firm at Rotterdam, and

signed by them. I bought the bicycles in the firm's name so as to get thorn at the trade price. The amount should undoubtedly have been debited to my commission account. The first year it was carried forward as a debit, but in 1898 it was evidently written off. When Mr. Jacoby says I told him I had adjusted it with Mr. Haagen he states what is not true. My attention was never called to the entry where it is written off. I believe the entry is in the handwriting of the auditors. It is squeezed in small on January 1, 1898, between the lines. I did not know at the time it was so carried forward that the effect was to give me credit to that expense. However it came about, it was done by the auditors, and I cannot explain how they came to convert a debit balance into a credit. I gave no instructions in the matter.

Mr. Elliott pointed out that in the case of two items on the credit side, £352 12s. 6d. and the £28 5s., there had clearly been an erasure. It looked as if the general credit balance had been erased in order to make room for the amended figures.

Witness. I know nothing whatever about any scratching out. When the original entry was made my instructions were that it should be debite to my account.

The Recorder. Do you really mean to suggest that the auditors without your authority scratched out one item making it into two items in order to transfer a debit into a credit in your favour?

Witness. No doubt they would ask me if the item was right.

The Recorder. This is only one of many charges made against you, but it is a very clear and tangible one. It is quite clear that you paid for these bicycles out of the firm's money. It is equally clear that you originally charged your commission account with it. Here you are credited with it, so that it is wiped out. In order to do that the original amount has been scratched out and split up into two items.

Prisoner. As you notice, the balance brought down from January, 1898, has been squeezed in, and that shows the balance was not originally there. There has evidently been some misunderstanding about the entry.

Examination continued. I have no clear recollection of what was done, it is so long ago. I am not in a position to explain it. If it was done by my authority I had no fraudulent intention. As to whether I said to Mr. Bloor that many men in my position would blow their brains out, I was in a very distressed state of mind and I am not in a position to say what I did say. It was not that I was afraid of any fraud I had committed; it was simply that I felt my position. I have always said that I was prepared to account to Messrs. Haagen and that I was wrong

in making the false statements that I did. From first to last I had no intention to defraud Messrs. Haagen.

(Friday, July 27.)

JAMES SWALLOW (prisoner, on oath). Recalled. Cross-examined. I had been with Messrs. Haagen since 1887, over nineteen years, during which time they reposed absolute trust in me, and I have no complaint to make of their conduct towards me. We had, of course, business difficulties. They always treated me with the greatest courtesy and consideration, and any wish or suggestion of mine was always entertained and reasonably considered, end until these unfortunate matters came to a head in May of this year we were on terms of the greatest friendship as between employer and employed. That being so, in allowing all those years to elapse with this ever-growing balance in hand without saying anything to either father or son was foolish, and more than foolish. The prime cause of my not attending to this ever-growing deficit was the condition in the so-called agreement with regard to expenses. I found in the first two years it was absolutely impossible to keep expenses within the limit, that the expenses of the London house, exclusive of travellers' and agents' commissions, were not to exceed 6 per cent. in the net turnover. The balances were allowed to accumulate in the first two or three years, and under those conditions, and ultimately accumulated to such an extent that they could not be cleared off without some explanation. As to why I did not communicate to the firm that I could not carry on the office on such a basis, I cannot exactly give the reason, but there was no fraudulent intent. Looking at the matter from one point of view, it was perhaps not honest to them. When I took over the management I received the sum of £15 in cash. The first balance-sheet, signed by myself in 1904, shows a balance in hand of £15 16s. 7d., and the balance-sheet for the following year £126 4s. 11d. I had not got that actually in cash. I admit, therefore, that even at that stage I was transmitting accounts which I knew to be untrue—false balance-sheets, but I do not think, having regard to the fact that Messrs. Haagen were considerate and reasonable people, that if I had said to them I must have 8 per cent. for expenditure or 10 per cent., they would have assented to it. Speaking from my experience of the firm, I went on in the hope that, sooner or later, things would right themselves. That the deficit was so large at the end of 1905 I attribute to my having had to pay secret commissions in order to secure business. I had only rough notes of what I paid away to engineers and storekeepers. I have not those notes now, and do not know what became of them. When Mr. Bloor was going through the books I admitted I had a deficiency. I explained to Mr.

Haagen that the money had been paid away in tips to engineers and other people during the last ten years, but I did not tell Mr. Bloor so, because he looked upon everything I said as untrue.

Mr. Marshall Hall (having consulted with prisoner) said he had pointed out to prisoner that upon these admissions his lordship would be bound to direct the jury that prisoner could not escape a verdict of guilty on the falsification count, and, acting under his advice, prisoner desired to withdraw his plea of not guilty on that count; but with regard to the Christmas boxes and other matters he did not so plead.

Prisoner then formally pleaded guilty to the counts charging him with falsification.

Mr. Elliott said that Messrs. Haagen had felt it impossible to pass over so grave a defalcation in the case of a man in whom they had reposed such absolute confidence as they had in Mr. Swallow. They fought against the suspicion as long as they could. Having regard to the position of the accountants who had audited their accounts from year to year, they felt that it was almost impossible to be true; but when the investigations of Mr. Bloor showed a deficit of some £1,600, it was impossible for them to do other than they had done. They had no desire to be vindictive.

Sentence, nine months' imprisonment, second division.

THIRD COURT; Wednesday, July 25.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

BROWN, Arthur (25, engineer), and FLYNN, James (22, labourer) ; robbery with violence on Thomas Hamilton and stealing from him the sum of 7s.

Mr. May prosecuted.

THOMAS HAMILTON , marine engineer, Hamilton, Lanarkshire. On July 18, at one o'clock a.m., I was in the vicinity of the Angel, Islington, and prisoners were with me. Brown struck me with a stick over the head. I closed with him, and we both fell to the ground. I called out for help. Then he put his hands in my pockets. I had 7s. in silver. Later I missed two half-sovereigns. The 7s. was in my left-hand trousers pocket and the two half-sovereigns were in my right-hand pocket. Among the silver was a 4s. piece and the rest was small silver.

To the Court. I was with these people drinking in Bishopsgate Street and walked with them from there to the Angel Brown and Flynn were not in liquor. The first place I saw them was in "Dirty Dick's," in Bishopsgate Street. When we left "Dirty Dick's" we went to another public-house, but at that

time I was drinking non-alcoholic drinks. We left "Dirty Dick's" about 10 o'clock and this robbery was after 12 o'clock.

HELEN LANG , 9, Astey's Row, Essex Road. On July 8 I went to my window just after one o'clock and I saw three men with Hamilton on the ground. One man was sitting on his stomach, one had his bands in his pocket, and one had his hand over Hamilton's mouth. Hamilton called out for the police and I called out too, but nobody came. I threw a flower-pot into the street and disturbed them and they ran away, leaving Hamilton there. I dressed myself and reported at Upper Street Police Station what I saw. I noticed one of the men had white slippers on. I cannot identify either of the prisoners as the man who put his hand into prosecutor's pocket, nor could I say which of them it was had the white slippers on.

DAISY WARD . 9, Astey's Row, Essex Road. On July 18, about one o'clock, I heard a scuffle and looked out of the window. I saw three men attacking prosecutor. Helen Lang and I screamed out of the window. I saw one of the men had a stick, but I could not recognise which. I went to the station and we met the constable as we were going along. We came down to see if we could see the prisoners—they ran off and we went as far as the station to see the policeman. We found this piece of silver (produced) where they attacked the prosecutor. The constable had the stick. There were two keys, which Helen Lang picked up on the ground, which she gave to prosecutor. She found those about a yard away.

THOMAS HAMILTON , recalled, stated that the keys were his and that they were in the same pocket as the silver.

DAVID STOTESBURY , Police-Constable, 320 N. I live in a house which overlooks Astey's Row. Shortly after one o'clock on July 18 I was standing at my window and I saw Brown and Flynn in company with another man not in custody. Prosecutor came along Astey's Row towards Essex Road. I saw Brown strike prosecutor with a stick and he fell. The other two closed with prosecutor, but he regained his feet, and Brown struck at him again. The others closed round him, and they fell to the ground. I heard some money fall on to the footway. I came out of my room and ran down the staircase into the street, and I caught the prisoner Brown in the Essex Road, and told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of assaulting and robbing a man in Astey's Row. He replied, "The dirty bastard tried to take my wife away—that is the reason I hit him. I will kill the dirty bastard when I come out." I took him to the station, and charged him. He replied, "I know nothing of the robbery." In the meantime I sent Police Constable 757 after the other prisoner, and he was coming along Essex Road at the time. He was afterwards brought to the station. On searching Brown I

found a 4s. piece and sixpence in his mouth, and the other prisoner had some other money. Brown was sober.

WILLIAM ROBERTS , Police Constable, 757 N. On July 8 I was in Essex Road on duty, and I saw Stotesbury struggling with Brown in the road. There were two other men running. I chased Flynn a quarter of a mile, and arrested him. He said, "I suppose we shall get the stretch for this—we have had a good run." On being searched there was 4s. in silver wrapped up in the bottom of his pants. He was wearing white shoes.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoners were then charged with stealing a safe, and pleaded guilty.

Police Constable WRIGHT stated that prisoners made the acquaintance of a shop-girl and walked out with her several times, and one night they offered to mind the keys of the safe. The next day the shop was found open, and the safe was open. There was nothing in the safe of value. Flynn took it to his father's house. It was two feet square. The day before there had been £170 in the safe, and the prisoners were aware of it. That was on June 28. Flynn got in company with the young woman. They went to Highgate to get possession of the keys, and they left the woman there and returned and removed the safe.

Eleven previous convictions were proved against Brown, and nine against Flynn. Police gave both prisoners a very bad character.

Sentence, each prisoner, for stealing the safe, Five years' penal servitude; for robbery with violence, Three years' penal servitude; to run concurrently; each prisoner to receive 15 strokes with the cat.

The Common Serjeant commended the vigilance of Police Constable Stotesbury, and directed that the two women who assisted him in the capture of the prisoners (Daisy Ward and Helen Lang) should each receive 40s. for assisting the police.

JOHNSON, William (30, porter), DUNSDON, George (29, grocer's assistant), BAKER. William (27, labourer), WHITE, Frederick (32, baker), and SAGE, Lily (25, factory worker) ; breaking and entering the shop of George James Brailey on June 2 and stealing five suits of clothes and other articles and feloniously receiving the same.

Johnson pleaded guilty. The others pleaded not guilty.

Mr. J. H. Harris prosecuted. Mr. W. H. Sands defended Dunsdon, and Mr. E. D. Purcell defended Baker.

MRS. CHARLOTTE CHAMBERLAIN , 26, Prebend Street, Islington. In May a man and woman came to me and engaged a room. The name they gave was Daniels. I recognise Johnson as being the

man. They took the front room on the first floor. They were visited by Dunsdon.

Cross-examined. They lived with me for six weeks. I should think that Dunsdon visited every day.

WALTER STRICKLAND , assistant at Brailey's shop, 114, Pentonville Road. On Thursday, June 21, I closed the shop and secured everything. On returning to the shop I found the first floor back window with the two panes cut out, and I missed five suite of clothes, five overcoats, six pairs of trousers, three jackets, six vests, six yards of cloth (value £20), and 16s. 6d.

WALTER HERBERT , Detective-Sergeant, N Division. On June 22 I was keeping observation on 26, Prebend Street with Sergeant Kenward and Police-Constable 194. I had been keeping observation for some days. About 10.20 p. m. I saw Johnson, Dunsdon, and Baker and two other men not in custody in Prebend Street, a short distance from No. 26. Johnson left the other four and went to the side door of No. 26, Prebend Street and let himself in with a key. Shortly after I saw a light in the first floor front and Johnson came to the window and looked out Dunsdon left the others and went to the side door. Johnson came down the stairs and opened the side door. They spoke together and Baker then crossed the road and spoke to Johnson and then all three went in upstairs. One of the other men stood at the corner keeping watch. I could see they were holding something up and folding clothes. One of them, I believe it was Johnson, came to the window and looked out several times. They were inside about a quarter of an hour altogether, and one of them came down and out of the door and spoke to the man standing at the corner. He returned to the side door and waited, when Dunsdon appeared with the box produced. Johnson followed carrying something on his arm. Baker went just inside the door and picked up something which turned out to be two overcoats. They all three walked sharply away through Union Street and Williams Square. When they discovered they were being followed they threw two overcoats down in the street and ran and Dunsdon threw the box from his shoulder at me. I gave chase and eventually caught Dunsdon in Queen's Head Street, and he said, "I am done; I will go quietly; that is the fruits of having pals." I took him back to St. Paul's Street, where the property was. I said, "What were you going to do with this?" He said, "You don't suppose I am going to tell you?" I told him he would be charged with being concerned with the other men in the unlawful possession of property, and he made no reply. The contents of the box proved to be one gentleman's overcoat, one suit of clothes, seven vests, seven pairs of trousers, five jackets, a big purse, and a white metal necklace. At that time I had not known about the burglary at Brailey's shop.

JOHN KENWARD , Police Sergeant N Division. I was with last witness on June 22, keeping observation on 26, Prebend Street. Shortly after 10 o'clock I saw Johnson coming down Prebend Street, and he went into No. 26 and went upstairs and lit the lamp. He returned to the door and waited for some few minutes. Baker and Dunsdon came along, and they both went to No. 26 and went into the first floor front room. I saw them moving some clothes about. About a quarter of an hour afterwards they all three came out, and Dunsdon was carrying a large clothes box. Johnson and Baker were carrying two overcoats each. They dropped them, and we followed them down Union Street into St. Paul's Road. Dunsdon then dropped the box and ran. I apprehended Johnson on the spot. I told him I was a police officer, and I had reason to believe he had some stolen property. He said, "Who has 'shopped' us?"

ERNEST SAUNDERS , Police Constable N Division. On June 22 I was with the last two witnesses. We had been keeping these prisoners under observation for three weeks. I saw White and Sage and Dunsdon leave No. 26, Prebend Street, at two o'clock on the Friday afternoon. White used to come almost every day, I also saw Dunsdon and Baker with the other three at a quarter to one on the Tuesday morning, June 19, in the street opposite 26, Prebend Street, conversing. They were together for a quarter of an hour. Lily Sage and Johnson went to No. 26. On June 26 I saw Johnson, White, and Lily Sage leave No. 26 at 2 p. m. They went out together, and I watched them into Shepherdess Walk. Johnson returned by himself about 2.40. I was with Kenward and Herbert. About 10.20 I saw White, Johnson, and Lily Sage go into 26, Prebend Street, and two other men (not in custody). One stood at the corner of Union Street and the other stood at the corner of Williams Square. About 10.30 Baker came out and spoke to the man outside No. 26, and then went back to the side door, and put some overcoats on his arm. Dunsdon then came out, carrying a wooden box on his right shoulder, followed by Johnson. They all walked down Union Street. On seeing that they were followed Baker threw down the overcoats and started to run. I chased him through St. Paul's Street into Windsor Street, where I caught him. He said, "All right, guv'nor, I will go quietly. I suppose this means another Clerkenwell job."

JAMES LANG , Sergeant E Division. At 2.20 on June 22 I was on duty in Shepherdess Walk. I saw Lily Sage and White walking towards me. Lily Sage was carrying two parcels wrapped up in black stuff. White was not carrying anything; he was walking by her side. Johnson was walking a few yards behind him. Johnson overtook White and Lily Sage, and as he passed them he spoke to them, but I could not hear what

he said. He went on in front of Lily Sage and White. Seeing him speaking to them made me suspicious, and I went to Lily Sage and White and stopped them. In the meantime Johnson had gone into a public-house. I told Lily Sage and White that I was a police officer, and I said, "What have you got in that parcel?" Sage said, "Trousers I made up at home." I said, "Where are you going with them?" She said, "To where I work at Martin's, in the City." I said, "Where is Martin's?" She said, "It is up a court at the Meat Market." I asked her for more details as to the address, but she could not give them to me. I then said to White, "What do you know about them?" He said, "I know nothing about them. I have just met her—she is a friend of mine." I told them I was not satisfied as to their explanation, and I should take them to the station. I found that each parcel contained a gentleman's new suit. They were given up to Brailey because they were orders. At that time I did not know of the shop-breaking at Brailey's. The prisoner Sage refused to give any name or any account of herself, but after they were charged she said, "I will tell you the truth. Four men gave them to me in the 'Carved Red Lion' public-house. Essex Road, and they asked me to pawn them for them." She then gave me her name and address at a common lodging-house in Colebrooke Row, Islington.


WILLIAM JOHNSON (prisoner, on oath). My name is George Neave Sage, and that is my wife in the box. I had at my lodging some clothing, suits, overcoats, and trousers which I had taken from Brailey's shop. I have known Dunsdon four or five years as a casual acquaintance, and I told him I was leaving the furnished apartments, and I had to get out, and if I did not clear my things on that particular night I should lose them. I said, "Will you come and give me a hand?" and he said, "I do not mind—I have nothing particular to do." I never told him what it was I was moving. He never saw them, and had no idea they were stolen. We walked along Upper Street and met Baker, and I told him the same as I had told Dunston, and they promised they would come with me and help me carry the things. I could not carry them by myself. When we got a long way up the street we saw several detectives, and I knew they wanted me, so I told them to clear out, which they did. (Marriage certificate produced, dated April 22, 1900.)

FREDERICK WHITE (prisoner, on oath). I was arrested on June 22. I have known Mrs. Sage for a number of years, and I respect her. When I met her I spoke to her. I was passing through Packington Street on my way to Cannon Street. I saw Mrs. Sage walking in front of me, and I overtook her. I

asked her if she would have a drink, and she said "Yes," when we were stopped by this detective. She said, "I know this young man, and I respect him—surely you are not going to take him to the station?" The detective said, "Yes, he will have to go." I said, "Very well, I have no objection to going to the station." I had been in her company only two minutes. He asked me for my name and address, and every question put to me at the station I answered in a straightforward manner. I had not the slightest idea what Mrs. Sage had in her parcels, and I think it was a great shame I should be a prisoner for talking to a woman whom I had known for years.

Verdict, Dunsdon, Baker, and White Guilty; Lily Sage, Not guilty. The jury requested that Dunsdon and Baker should be dealt with as leniently as possible.

Dunsdon confessed to a conviction for larceny at the North London Sessions in March, 1904; White confessed to a conviction for felony on April 9, 1902. Police proved several other convictions against Dunsdon, White, and Johnson.

Sentence, Johnson, Five years' penal servitude; Dunsdon, 18 months' hard labour; Baker, Six months' hard labour; White, 18 months' hard labour.

FOURTH COURT; Wednesday, July 25.

(Before Judge Rentoul.)

WINFIELD, Samuel (54, porter) pleaded guilty , to indecently assaulting Arthur Winterflood, a male person. Several previous convictions for similar offences were proved.

Dr. SCOTT, Brixton Prison, said he had had prisoner under observation; he could not be said to be insane, but it appeared that when in drink he was addicted to acts of this character. Sentence, Two years' imprisonment, second division.

IRWIN, William (32, joiner), and MOORE, Henry (40, labourer) ; robbery with violence on Lucy Brewood and stealing from her £40.

Mr. Bohn prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended Moore.

LUCY BREWOOD . I am a widow, and live in a small shop in Lambeth Walk. I met another woman whom I knew; we went into a public-house, and I paid for drinks from a purse which contained £40. I kept the purse in my bosom. We made the acquaintance of the prisoners there. We all went for a walk in the direction of Kennington. I paid for more drinks at another public-house out of the same purse. The woman asked me to lend her some money, and I lent her £1. One of the men asked me to lend him some money. I said, No, I would

not lend him any, as I did not know him; the woman said it would be all right, she would see that it was paid. I did not know these men, but the woman I was with knew one of them. I got the £40 from my son, who is a soldier. I did not lend the men anything, because I did not know them. We went to Kennington and had some more drink. We then went down a dark street, when one of the prisoners knocked me down, and the other took my purse; the woman went away. In the struggle my right thumb was sprained, and I had to go to the hospital.

Cross-examined. When I went in the first public-house with the other woman both prisoners were in another bar. When they saw us they came in the bar we were in, and we had drinks together. We went to one public-house where they would not serve us. The last public-house we went to Irwin paid for some special Scotch whisky for me. I believe he put something in it, because when I drank it I seemed dazed. I do not know which one knocked me down or who took the purse; it must have been one of the prisoners, because I had the purse before we went in the last public-house.

R. ROBERTS, barman, "Mason's Arms," Lambeth. I saw Mrs. Brewood and another woman in the bar at about half-past 10 in company with the two prisoners; they had drinks together. Mrs. Brewood paid for them from a purse she took from her bosom. I know her by sight as a regular customer. At the police station I picked Irwin out instantly. I knew him by the colour of his coat; it is an old slate-coloured coat. I am certain of Irwin being one of the men.

----LONG, Detective-Sergeant. I arrested Moore and took him to the station and charged him with being concerned with another man with robbery with violence on Mrs. Brewood. He made no reply to the charge.

HENRY HICKS . I saw the two prisoners and Mrs. Brewood drinking together in the "Mason's Arms." I saw Mrs. Brewood pay for the drink from a purse; she took the purse from her bosom; they left together. The next I saw of her was on the pavement and the prisoners were running away.

Cross-examined. When I saw her on the ground I did not go to help her to get up because she was getting up and I was talking to my employer. I did not tell the police. I could not see any police about. She looked drunk as she was getting up; she was shouting out she had been robbed. I did not take any notice, as I saw she was drunk.


WILLIAM IRWIN (prisoner, on oath). On the night in question I had been to see an uncle of mine, and it was late before I got

home. My uncle gave me some money to buy some clothes and I bought these clothes, and because I had new clothes on the police thought I bought them with the money that was stolen. I never saw the money.

JAMES IRWIN . I saw my son (prisoner Irwin) come indoors on the night in question about half past 10, after he had been to his uncles, and he never went out again to my knowledge.

JAMES IRWIN , brother of prisoner Irwin. I remember the day in question. I saw my brother early in the day, and I next saw him between half past nine and ten. He was sober when I saw him. My father and sister were there, too.

Verdict, Guilty. Previous convictions proved against both prisoners. Sentence, each prisoner, Four years' penal servitude.

LOVELL, Edward (57, journalist) , attempting to procure the commission by William Day of acts of gross indecency with him; and indecently assaulting William Day.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Symmons prosecuted.

Verdict, Guilty. Police proved a conviction at this court on March 8, 1886, for a similar offence; he had also been in trouble in New York. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

COX, William , maliciously publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning Frank Henry Robey. Prisoner pleaded guilty, but disclaimed any intention of malice. Prosecutor stating that he did not desire prisoner to be punished, the prisoner, on expressing his regret, and promising that he would absolutely discontinue these libels, was released on his own recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.

OLD COURT, Thursday, July 26.

(Before Mr. Justice Darling.)

BARTER, William Edward (21, soldier), and KERBY, William (20, soldier) . Rape on Lizzie Hooper ; stealing a watch the goods of Lizzie Hooper from her person and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. Warburton prosecuted.

At the close of the evidence for the prosecution the jury, on the suggestion of his lordship, found a verdict of Not guilty of rape. No further evidence was offered on the charge of stealing and the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

PETERS, Frederick (38, labourer) . Carnally knowing Fanny Mortimer, a girl under the age of 13 years.

Mr. Fordham prosecuted.

Verdict, Guilty. Previous conviction of six months for indecent assault proved. Sentence, seven years' penal servitude.

STEIN, Malcolm Henry (52, motor driver) , manslaughter of William Alves.

Mr. A. E. Gill prosecuted. Mr. Randolph and Mr. Graham-Campbell defended.

ALBERT SQUIRES , Detective, E Division. I have made and produce plan of street opposite Knightsbridge Barracks. The distance across the road is 48 ft. 6 in.

ARTHUR NEILAN , Police-Constable, 451 P. On July 13, 1906, at 12.30 a. m., I saw prisoner and deceased leaving the "Ennismore Arms" public-house and drive away in a motor brougham.

Cross-examined. I did not see them get on to the motor, but saw them drive away. I did not notice their condition.

CHARLES ALFRED MONTGOMERY , 1, Cromwell Place. On the early morning of July 13 I was walking with Trevanion along Knightsbridge towards Kensington on the south side of the road when I noticed a motor brougham coming along behind a four-wheeled cab. The motor in order to pass the cab went right over to the other side of the road, continued on its wrong side, and went crash into a hansom cab coming in the opposite direction. The occupants of the cab were thrown out and the horse fell. I asked prisoner if he was hurt. He said, "Am I fast?" and did not seem to understand me. Then he said, "You are all against me, I suppose." I said, "You were on the wrong side of the road." Prisoner appeared to be dazed. I thought he was drunk.

Cross-examined. The hansom was five or six feet from the kerb when struck. It seemed the general opinion of everybody that prisoner was drunk.

ARUNDEL L. TREVANION , 245, Cromwell Road, confirmed the evidence of the last witness. The motor was going about 16 miles an hour. I came to the conclusion prisoner was drunk. When he was standing up and walking to the station he was swaying slightly. He struck the hansom on the near side.

Cross-examined. The accident occurred about 20 minutes to one.

CAPTAIN OSBORNE . I have now retired from the Army and am in business in the City. At about one a. m. on July 13 I was coming west past Knightsbridge Barracks in a hansom cab with a Mr. Chappel. The cab was about four or five feet from the pavement on its near side, whe I saw prisoner's motor brougham swing right across the road and hit my horse on the near shoulder. I and my friend were thrown into the road. After picking myself up and looking for my friend I saw prisoner standing by his motor. A crowd had collected and there were two policemen. I said to the police, "You must

take this man in charge for being drunk." My only reason for saying he was drunk was because there was no other way of accounting for the way that he had driven. The road was perfectly dry. Prisoner said, "Do not be excited." No doubt I was excited. I followed him to the police station. He was told by the doctor to walk across the room, and he came through that examination much more satisfactorily than I should have thought he could have done.

Cross-examined. Prisoner spoke with civility and clearly to the police. He was not offensive in manner. I did not know that the prisoner had been thrown off the motor on to his knees.

THOMAS JOSHUA BASS , hackney carriage driver, 6, 820. I was driving Captain Osborne and Mr. Chappel in the hansom cab referred to. I was about a yard from the kerb on my near side. The motor came from the middle of the road and struck my cab on its near side. I was thrown off the cab on to the road on the near side. From the appearance of the prisoner I should say he was drunk or the worse for drink.

Cross-examined. The first thing I saw was the motor lamps and then he was into me. I did not notice a cab in front of the motor. I had a very severe shock. Everybody said prisoner was drunk, and I thought he was drunk from the way he drove. No sane person would have done such a thing. I was in great pain. Prisoner spoke in an abrupt way, as if he did not like being accused of being drunk.

ERNEST BARNES , Police-constable, 386 B. On July 13 I was on duty near Knightsbridge Barracks, at 12.50 a. m., when I heard a crash. I went up and saw the hansom cab, about three or four feet from the pavement, the motor carriage, and the prisoner standing by it. He was drunk. I did not speak to him, but formed that opinion from his unsteady appearance. I saw the deceased lying on his back in the road, put him in a cab, and took him to St. George's Hospital.

Cross-examined. I did not see prisoner walk. He was rolling backwards and forward.

----LOUIS, Police-Constable, 265 B. I say prisoner was the worse for drink from his appearance and the way he was waving backwards and forwards. I took him to the station. He said he could not help it. I formed the opinion he was drunk.

ALFRED PRINCE , Inspector, D Division. Prisoner was brought to the station at 1.10 a. m. on July 13. He was drunk. I charged him with driving recklessly whilst in charge of a motor car. He was subsequently charged with causing grievous bodily harm. I sent for the divisional surgeon. I went to the scene of the accident at 2.45, found the ground dry, and examined the car. It was an electric motor brougham, 671A. It had two brakes, which appeared in working order.

The front dash-board was pushed in in the centre and splintered below as if it had been struck twice. The hansom had the two shafts broken off and the near side door pillar broken, and there were abrasions on various parts of the body of the cab on both sides.

Cross-examined. Prisoner said, "There is nothing the matter with me." His breath smelt of drink, his face was flushed, he had a peculiar look, and he had all the appearance of a drunken man. He had a stupid look.

WILLIAM EVANS , 25, Pimlico Road, Surgeon, B Division. At 1 a. m. on July 13 I examined prisoner. He was under the influence of alcohol. His face was flushed, his eyes were suffused and congested, his tongue furred, and there was a strong odour of alcohol from the breath. I got him to walk across the room. His gait was unsteady, and he staggered when he turned round. I came to the conclusion he was drunk.

Cross-examined. A man thrown off his box would not necessarily have the same symptoms. A man's breath would smell slightly from a single glass of beer. He did not complain of feeling hurt. It is very seldom I find it necessary to report against the police.

To the Judge. I have no doubt at all that he was drunk.

WILLIAM ADDISON BULL , House Surgeon, St. George's Hospital. I examined the deceased man, William Alves, when brought in. He had a wound four inches long in the upper part of the left thigh, swollen, a wound on the knee, tenderness in the abdomen, and was in great pain. An operation was performed, and I found he was suffering from ruptured bladder and other injuries, apparently resulting from the accident described. He died at 4 p. m. on the same day.

ARTHUR CROXTON , manager, Electric Landaulette Company, Chelsea. I examined the car and found the steering gear and brakes in good order.

Cross-examined. I did not run the car to test the electric brake. Such a car can be pulled up in its own length when going 16 miles an hour.

Miss EMMA MAPLE. I am manageress of the "Innesmore Arms." I knew the deceased man. He came with the prisoner to the public-house just before closing time on July 12. Prisoner called for two glasses of bitter and drank part of his glass. I was at the door when they went out. Prisoner walked perfectly straight through the passage, said "Good night," and went out.


MALCOLM HENRY STEIN (prisoner on oath). I live at 117, Alderney Street, am 52 years old, am married, and have two

children aged 17 and 14. I have had four years' experience driving a motor car. I have 33 years' character, have been four years stud groom to Sir Spencer Maryon-Wilson. I left of my own accord on May 10, 1905, and entered the employment of the Krieger Electric Carriage Company on May 16, 1905. and have been since in their employment. I have been three years licensed. This is the first accident I ever had. On July 13 I drove a lady during the day, starting at 9.30 a. m., and finished about 2 p. m., and then from 3 to 6. I left the yard again at 7.30, took a lady to dinner, and finished about 10.40 at her house at Regent's Park. I had five drinks during the whole day the first at about 12 with my lunch, another at dinner-time, a third at 10.5 p. m., on setting the lady down I had another, and at 12.30 I called for one and drank a part of it at the "Innesmore Arms"—they were all mild and bitter. I was perfectly sober at the time of the accident. As I drove past Knightsbridge Barracks there were several vehicles in the road. I sounded my hooter as I passed a four-wheel cab to give the driver notice. He did not give me any room and I had to go further to the offside. The driver I collided with was on the crown of the road. Had he taken any notice of my hooter or kept his eyes open he would have seen my car coming and might have avoided any accident. I was travelling from 10 to 12 miles an hour. In colliding with the cab I was thrown on my face. My cap saved me from being scarred. I had bruises on my side and both my knees. Dr. Evans thought I was drunk because my tongue was furred—I have had that for 12 years—and because my eyes were swollen. Let any man drive 10 hours on the streets of London on a motor car and knock off at night and see if his eyes will not be swollen and inflamed. I was perfectly sober when the accident happened, and I have been perfectly sober for many years.

Cross-examined. It is my duty to take the carriage to the yard when my work is done. I went into a public-house at 10.40 in Maddox Street and remained till 11.25. I took my friend, the deceased, up at 11.40. From there I drove over to Innesmore Gardens, where he stopped to call on two friends. We then went into the "Innesmore Arms" and had the two drinks.

JOHN JAMES CARTER , secretary, Krieger Electric Carriage Company. Prisoner has been employed by my company since May, 1905, as driver of a landaulette. His character is of the very best as to sobriety and carefulness. Any indication of insobriety in our drivers is punished with instant dismissal.

Verdict. Not guilty.

THIRD COURT; Thursday, July 26.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

HERMANN, Ernest (34, barman) ; carnally knowing Daizy Hermann, a girl above the age of 13 and under 16 years.

Mr. Fordham prosecuted.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.

REES, John , being lessee of certain premises, Gloucester Mansions, Charing Cross Road, did knowingly permit such premises to be used for the purpose of habitual prostitution. Another count charged the defendant with keeping a common bawdy house at Gloucester Mansions.

Mr. Bodkin prosecuted. Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., and Mr. Muir defended.

The defendant, who was lessee of premises let out in flats, was indicted under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885 (Sec. 13), and had been summoned, after notice from the Westminster County Council, at the Police Court, but elected to exercise his right to be tried by a jury.

At the close of the case for the prosecution, Mr. Gill raised the objection that there was not conclusive evidence of any wilful act on the part of the defendant.

Mr. Bodkin submitted that there was and cited a decision by Lord Coleridge in Gully v. Smith, 1883, 12 Q. B. D., p. 121, to the effect that the fact of refraining from removing a nuisance, after due notice, was in itself a wilful act. The Common Serjeant ruled there was sufficient evidence to go to the jury on the ground of "permitting." Verdict, Guilty. Sentence postponed till September Sessions.

FOURTH COURT; Thursday, July 26.

(Before Judge Rentoul.)

DARLING, John (40, stationer's assistant) . Embezzling several sums received by him for and on account of E. B. Horwood and Co., Limited.

Mr. R. D. Muir prosecuted; Mr. J. P. Grain defended.

HENRY R. BATTEN , managing director for E B. Horwood and Co., Limited, stationers, 54-5, Cornhill. Prisoner has been employed for 14 years by our firm. In October last and up to last month he was employed as assistant in the stationery department. A man named East was head assistant in that department About the beginning of June, in consequence of information received from some of our assistants, we called in the City Police and set watch on the department between June 7 and 22. On the 22nd East was arrested on a charge

of embezzlement, and prisoner was arrested on a charge preferred by the police of unlawful possession of some property found on him. They were both brought up before the Alderman on the 23rd, and remanded till the 28th; on the latter date we heard that East was dead, having been run over by a train. In the interval our books were examined, with the result that charges of embezzlement and falsification were preferred against prisoner. He had the duty of collecting accounts when I told him specially to do so, but he had no duty to do so on his own initiative, and I did not know that he had been collecting accounts from Bullard, King, and Co., or King and Foa, or the British Dominions Insurance Company, or the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company. With regard to none of those firms did he ask permission to go out and collect accounts or leave slips that he had done so. With regard to printing orders, he would take the orders and pass them through to the bookkeeper, and they would go to another department to be executed; therefore, if that order was suppressed from the bookkeeper, the work would never be executed. When prisoner received a written order for stationery it was his duty to pass that to the bookkeeper (Mr. Hill) and mark on a charge-up order the letters "C. U." with his initials. If the order delivered were a verbal one, he would write a particular slip with the customer's name on it and the amount of goods, saying "Charge-up," with his initials. The customer would receive an order-tally, which he would past in to the cashier. When that was handed in to the bookkeeper the customer would be discharged from the debt. If the order and the tally were suppressed there would be nothing in our books and it would be open to a dishonest servant to embezzle the money. The two documents produced are orders for Bullard, King, which were found on prisoner when he was arrested. He would have no right to leave the premises with those two orders in his possession. They should have been handed in by him marked "C. U." and initialled by him.

Cross-examined. I have been with this firm for seven or eight years, two years as managing director, and previous to that as manager. Assuming that East told prisoner to go out to collect accounts, he would give the money to the cashier and she would enter it in books kept for the purpose. Supposing the prisoner collected an amount from Bullard, King, and Co., his duty was to bring it back and hand it to the cashier, and she kept a book to record the sum she had received. She would record the name of the customer and pass the money on unless it was a counter transaction. Whether she received any money from an assistant would depend entirely upon her book and her memory. We have a number of large customers whose orders would be given in the

ordinary way and they would have a ledger account; at the orders came in they would be posted up, and at the payments were made they would be potted up. We have some monthly accounts which go into the petty ledger. These monthly accounts would be collected by an indoor collector. I have directed East to collect some accounts; also I have directed prisoner to collect a few accounts. The assistants in the department receive from our firm a commission on the amount of their sales. East and the prisoner had a good many customers who came to them individually, in regard to whom they got a commission of a penny in the £. We take stock once a year. Prisoner has been 14 years with our firm, and his salary was 36s. a week, with the commission I have named.

Re-examined. In all these cases we are dealing with, if the proper course had been followed, when Bullard, King, and Co. paid moneys, a tally of the kind produced would be made out and handed to the cashier, and on the counterfoil would appear the name of Bullard, King, and Co. and the amount they paid. The tallies are afterwards destroyed, but the counterfoils remain. Besides the entry in the cashier's book, the person who paid to the cashier would have his counterfoil, and that would be balanced up; the tallies would be kept till the balance had been made, but the counterfoil remains.

HENRY THOMAS LOWDEN , cashier to Bullard, King, and Co., 14, St. Mary Axe, shipowners and brokers. Our firm are customers of Horwood and Co. for stationery. Payments were made in cash on receipt of invoice on Friday in each week. The goods ordered were usually delivered by prisoner by hand and payments were made in cash at the office by myself. Referring to the invoices which are receipted from October 13 to June 15, 1906, I paid every account. These are all signed in full by prisoner.

Cross-examined. We had dealings with Horwood and Co. for three or four years. We knew prisoner; that is why our orders always went to him. He used to call to collect accounts and nobody else. The transactions were between our firm and the prisoner. Sometimes the goods were taken by our junior and sometimes delivered by hand, and they had a receipt in their parcel book. We never thought there was anything irregular in the prisoner collecting the accounts. He came regularly and there was no concealment.

CHARLES PARKER , Sergeant of Commissionaires, examined. I was employed by Messrs. King, Foa, and Co., 11, George Yard, bill brokers. They are customers of Horwood's for stationery. Official orders I had nothing to do with, but the unofficial I ordered myself. I did not have a written order but sometimes I put it down on a piece of paper for my own convenience, and in that case I handed in the slip of paper in

my own handwriting. I used to go to prisoner and hand it to him. I used to make all the payments. The cashier gave me the money. I took the invoice with me, and got the bill receipted. I always used to pay prisoner. The receipt produced, dated February 7, 1906, for 15s. 7 1/2 d., is signed by prisoner. I always used to hand the bill over to prisoner and count the money out.

STANFORD ROGERS , clerk to the British Dominions Insurance Company, Royal Exchange. Our company dealt with Horwood's for stationery for between two and three years. Most of our transactions were cash. I gave the orders to Horwood's to East personally at the shop. The prisoner invariably brought me those. They were paid for in our office to prisoner, and we received a receipt. On May 18 I recollect the order was for 12 files, £2 6s. 6d. I had already paid one amount, and I had not enough money, and I said, "I will call round and pay it to-morrow "; prisoner said, "Don't do that; I would rather come round and fetch it; it will give me an excuse to come out." The bundle of invoices produced were paid by me to prisoner in my office, and receipted by him.

HENRY S. C. BATEMAN , clerk in the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company. We are regular customers of Horwood and Co. In the early part of March I went there and ordered of prisoner one gross of drawing pins. He brought the invoice (produced) with him for £1 3s. 9d. and the pins. I paid him £1 3s. 9d., and I got this receipt. He signed it in my presence.

SIDNEY A. HILL , book-keeper to Horwood and Co. When goods are ordered which are not paid for at the time, the assistant should make out a charge-up order and pass it on to me to charge up to the customer. I enter it in my day-book, and post it on to the petty ledger, or ledger, according to the amount purchased. The ledger accounts and the petty ledger accounts are treated in the same way. If the customer orders goods which are delivered and paid for on the same day it does not come through me. Where a charge-up order has been entered in our books we issue monthly statements, and an official receipt is given which is kept for that purpose. I have to take it from the cashier, who passes me her book the following morning, and from that I mark off the various amounts. The cashier's book shows who has paid the money. As regards the list of amounts paid by Bullard, King and Co., to Darling on behalf of Horwood and Co., from October 13 to June 15, none of those amounts are in the ledger. The same remark applies to King and Foa. The British Dominions Insurance Company have not got a ledger account, and none of the items in the list of amounts paid by them to prisoner from January 30 to May 18 are in our accounts. With regard to the King and

Foa account, the item of £6 0s. 6d. on March 22 is duly credited. That is the item which was paid at the same time as the £1 1s. 6d. which is not credited.

Cross-examined. The tallies are destroyed after they are entered because they are of no more value.

Re-examined. We strike a balance every day, the results of which are recorded in balance-sheets, which sheets are kept. The tallies are kept till after the balance is recorded. When they are destroyed there remains the counterfoil, in the handwriting of the person who receives the money.

KATE FLORENCE MASSEY , cashier to Messrs. Horwood and Co. I was cashier from October, 1905, to January, 1906, and I kept a book in which I recorded the moneys that I received. Where there is a charge-up slip when money is paid I get a large tally with the name of the customer on it, and the amount in Mr. Hill's handwriting. If a customer comes in and pays money in the shop Mr. Hill makes out the tally slip and I enter it in the order book. In all cases in which there are payments I entered them in the cash book. I have looked through my books for the items of Messrs. Bullard, King and Co.'s payments down to January 19; none of those sums were paid to me.

NELLIE BEATRICE NORRIS , cashier to Horwood and Co. I have looked through the items in the printed slip from January 26 onward, and I do not find any record of them in my book. The same remark applies to King and Foa and to the British Dominions Insurance Company from January 30 to May 18, and to the Indo-China Steam Navigation Company. If I had been handed these amounts with the appropriate slips I should have made the entry.

Cross-examined. I said before the alderman, "If Darling had given me a slip in respect of the five amounts in receipts E to I the name of the customer paying would not appear in any book or on the slip," but that is a mistake. It is also a mistake where I am reported to say, "Taking receipt E as a specimen, a tally with the amount but with no name should be given to me."

HENRY PHILLIPS , Inspector, City Police. Officers under me were watching Horwood's place from June 7 to June 22; on the 22nd I arrested East about 8.5. I also arrested Darling, and found those two orders for goods upon him. They had not got the initial C. U. upon them. They were found in his inside breast pocket, both dated June 22.

HENRY R. BATTEN , recalled. With regard to the goods mentioned in those two orders, the goods were delivered without my knowledge. They were packed on Friday. There is no record in our books of the delivery.

(Friday, July 27.)


JOHN DARLING (prisoner, on oath). I have been in this firm 14 years. At the time of my arrest, and same time previously, East was over me in my department, the stationery and printing department. Each salesman was entitled to a commission of a penny in the pound on amounts collected. If a person came and purchased stationery I would ask his requirements, and then ask him if he was going to pay cash. If not, and if he had not got a ledger account, and I knew he would pay two or three days later, I made out a slip with the name of the customer and the amount, and put it in a clip in a basket which was kept at the side of the entering desk, and then he would receive an invoice made out by me. If the same customer came the next day the same process would be gone through. If he was a monthly customer that procedure would not be followed. East gave me directions to call and collect the money and give a receipt. In the event of an account being long overdue I was directed by Mr. Batten to go and collect, and I gave a receipt in my name on behalf of the firm. If that was a ledger account I should make a ticket in the tally book, and pay that money to the cashier with the name of the customer. If it was a stationery account where we gave credit for two or three days that would be made on a small ticket by the assistant who served the customer. If it was a short credit account, having collected the money, I should make out a slip with no name on it, and take it to the cashier and hand the money over to her. No account was opened in the name of Bullard, King and Co.—there was in the case of King and Foa as regards printing orders only, which did not apply to stationery; we took that as ready money, though it might be two or three days before they paid, because they paid promptly. The British Dominions Insurance Company had no ledger account with the firm; they were all cash transactions; and the same with reference to the Indo-China Company. There is nothing peculiar in these items not appearing in any ledger. I do not deny that all the receipts put in have been signed by me, and the moneys received as indicated by the receipts. I paid all those moneys to the cashier or to the manager East.

Cross-examined. When Bullard, King and Co. came and gave an order for goods, I should make out a slip and put it on the clip which was kept in the basket by the side of the entering desk. No entry is made. In the case of Bullard, King and Co. the goods went out of the house, and no entry was made in any book. In all these cases I never made a charge-up slip, but I made a note of it. I put it under the clip in the basket, which was open to the inspection of anybody.

When I got a written order like the one which was found in my possession, I deny that it was my duty to hand that on to the bookkeeper. I either packed these goods up or got one of the boys to pack them up. I left the office with these orders in my pocket. There was no record in the office that these goods had been packed up ready for delivery. With regard to all these items we are dealing with, I made no charge-up slip and no tally. I did fill in a cash tally, one of the small ones, except when the manager, East, took the money, when he filled it in himself. Bullard, King and Co. were my customers and East's. Lowden never came to me at all; I did not go there and take the orders. Bullard, King and Co. originally were East's and mine jointly. No record of any kind was in the books as to who was to get the poundage. The only record in the firm that the money was owing was the slip in the clip which East or I made out. There was no other record. For the purpose of distributing poundage East and I made out tickets for the money and divided up the sum paid. Taking the first of the items on October 13, 1905 (Bullard, King and Co.), 2s. 10d., I cannot remember whose order it was. The handwriting is mine. Bullard, King and Co. required the invoice in quadruple, and If there were two orders there would be eight invoices; it was inconvenient to make out eight invoices, and East arranged with them that when they ordered goods the invoice should go round and they should make the payments on Fridays. The invoices are all in my handwriting. Taking the cashier's book for October 13, I do not find the sum of 2s. 10d. there nor the sum of 5s. King and Foa were my customers. I heard Parker say that he always went to me when I was there. The £6 0s. 6d. and the 7s. 2d. were paid in my presence. It may have been counted out in front of me. I signed both receipts. I made out the tally for that date, March 23, £6 0s. 6d. I did not receive the money. I was present when the money was brought in. I cannot say whether both sums were paid at the same time. They are both receipted by me. I gave the money and the tally to the person who brought the money, Parker. I made out the invoice for £1 1s. 6d., not necessarily one order. I cannot find £1 1s. 6d. here, or 11s. 6d. The British Dominions Insurance Company were not customers of mine, but of East. As regards the bundle of eight receipts, all receipted by me, I should not pass on these amounts, but East. They were entirely his customers. East took the orders invariably. If he was out he would leave a message with somebody else, and they would tell him that the customer had been in. If the goods were sent out, East would make a slip and put it under the clip in the basket. After it was paid East would destroy the slip. I did not take the Indo-China Steam Navigation order, but East. The customer came in and saw East. I heard one of the witnesses

swear that I took the order. The invoice is in my hand writing, and the receipt by me for £1 3s. 9d. on March 17.

Verdict, Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy on account of the loose way in which the books were kept. Sentence. Three months' imprisonment, second division.

OLD COURT; Friday, July 27.

(Before Mr. Justice Darling.)

WARREN, Henry (40, author), and EVERETT, Robert Arthur (45, publisher) , unlawfully threatening to print and publish and proposing to abstain from printing and publishing, and offering to prevent the printing and publishing of certain masters and things touching Alexis Edward Mandeville, with intent to extort money.

Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., Mr. Frampton, and Mr. Horace Fenton prosecuted; Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Curis—Bennett appeared for Warren; Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., and Mr. Moore for Everett.

Evidence of a formal character having occupied the Court till the midday adjournment, prisoners, after conferring with their counsel during the adjournment, withdrew their defence, and pleaded Guilty.

Sentence, each prisoner, 12 months' hard labour.

REEVE, Emma Eva (43, housekeeper) , manslaughter of George Fox Hamilton.

Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. A. E. Gill prosecuted; Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., Mr. Randolph, and Mr. Clark Hall defended.

ALBERT SQUIRES , Police Inspector, B Division, proved plans prepared by him, to scale, of the premises No, 8, Phene Street, Chelsea. The front room, first floor, was 13 ft. 6 in. by 12 ft. 6 in.; of that floor-space the proportion free from furniture was 9 ft. 9 in. by 6 ft.; there was 2 ft. broad of window; distance from the window to the opposite pavement, 38 ft. 6 in. The sill of the window is about 1 ft. 7 in. from the floor; so that anyone, to look out from the window, would have to stoop down.

FRANK EVANS , coachman. I knew deceased quite well, and knew prisoner as Mrs. Hamilton. They used to live at the "Phene Arms," and when Hamilton gave up the place in March last they went to live together next door, with her two sons Percival and Thomas. On the night of May 28 I was in the bar of the "Phene Arms" with John Patrick. About 11.10 Hamilton came in; he was quite sober; ten minutes afterwards

prisoner came in. I left the house just before closing time, and then John Patrick and I were joined by Alfred Patrick. We stood on the pavement opposite No. 8, Phene Street; the first floor window was open, and there was a dim light in the room. Through the window I could see Hamilton and the prisoner, and heard them jangling; presently he came to the window and put his head out and called "Police" twice, in a feeble voice; before he came to the window I heard a sound like a can or pail falling down the stairs. After he called "Police" he fell back, and I heard prisoner say, "George, dear, speak to me." Soon afterwards I saw Percival Reeve leave the house; he came back with Dr. Grosvenor. Percival was in the room when Hamilton fell back from the window; I saw both boys in the room.

Cross-examined. I am certain deceased came to the window and leant down and put his head out of the window and called, "Police, police." What I heard prisoner say was, "George, dear, speak to me." Before the coroner I stated that what she said was, "Oh, my darling George, forgive me." That was wrong; I knew it was wrong when I heard the Patricks give their evidence. I did not notice deceased and the prisoner strug gling at all. (Before the coroner witness said, "I saw the deceased and the woman struggling together.") They were close together. Whatever it was that prisoner said, it was after deceased fell down.

To the Court. The coat (produced) is the one deceased was wearing when I saw him in the public-house; the cut on the shoulder was not there when I last saw him alive.

ALBERT PATRICK . Just about half past 12 I joined last witness and John Patrick. Outside No. 8, Phene Street, I heard some talking, some shouting, and so forth from the front room, as though there was quarrelling; then I heard a noise like a pail rattling down the stairs; just afterwards deceased came to the window and leant down and shouted "Police" twice through the open space of the window in a feeble voice; then he seemed to collapse altogether. There was quarrelling, I think, for 10 minutes from the time I got there. The only people I had noticed in the room were the deceased and prisoner. After Hamilton collapsed I heard prisoner come up to him and say, "Georgie, dear, speak to me."

Cross-examined. There was no one in the room during the quarrel besides deceased and prisoner. Deceased staggered to the window; it was open about 12 or 18 inches, and he bent down to the open part. His face did not come out of the window; I did not see through the window any struggling.

JOHN PATRICK . I was in the "Phene Arms" on this night, and saw deceased and prisoner there; I should say he was sober. About 20 past 12 I and Albert Patrick and Evans left

the public house and stood outside 8, Phene Street; through the window I could see a man and woman. and could hear their voices; they were quarrelling. The man came to the window and called "Police" twice, and then fell back. After he came to the window I saw the two sons in the room.

Cross-examined. Deceased walked to the window; he did not stagger. I should say deceased was a constant drinker, not a heavy drinker; I think he was sober on this night; I would not like to be certain about it. He and the prisoner left the public-house together talking quite friendly.

THOMAS DAY . I live at 8. Phene Street, ground floor, back. I heard prisoner say, "Tom, come down, for God's sake, and bring the stimulants with you "; then I heard Percival say, "Dr. Grosvenor will be here in a minute." Dr. Grosvenor came and went upstairs. I heard prisoner say, "Oh dear, oh dear "; later I heard her say, "He tried to throw me over the banisters."

Dr. GROSVENOR. 75, Oakley Street, Chelsea, Called by Percival Reeve in the early morning of May 29, I went to 8, Phene Street. In the first floor front room I saw Hamilton, sitting in an arm-chair; prisoner was in the room. Hamilton was unconscious, breathing heavily, his head thrown back; mere was a great deal of blood about the room. On examining him I found a vertical wound 1 1/2 inches below the apex of the left armpit; the wound went forwards and upwards; it was about 51/8 inches deep. He died within half an hour of my seeing him. When I first went in prisoner was wailing; she said she wished it had been she instead of him; she mentioned his Christian name, "George "; she said, "He took a knife, and then I; it was in self-defence; my husband had tried to throw me downstairs." She showed me a knife, and said, "This is the knife that did it." I do not think she said anything about the deceased having fallen on the knife. The wound under the armpit was unquestionably the cause of death.

Cross-examined. I had known deceased for some time; he was a close-set man, heavy for his size. As to the suggestion that deceased, after receiving the wound, walked to the window, stooped down, and called "Police," I think that would have been very difficult, but it would have been possible. When the wound was inflicted his arm must have been held up. My first impression was that it was prisoner who said the deceased fell on the knife; I corrected that. I think Percival said it. It is possible that this wound might have been inflicted if the man had fallen on to the knife rigidly held. If this was a stab, it required very considerable force. I know that prisoner for a twelve month has been in the weak state accompanying the change of life; yet I cannot say that it would be impossible for her to have had the strength to strike a blow

such as this must have been, if blow at all; it would be difficult, but it is possible. If the woman was holding he knife in her hand, the hand resting firmly on the hip, and the man had lurched and fallen on to the knife, this wound might have resulted in that way. I have since experimented with friends of mine, and I am certain that there are four ways in which it is possible the man might have met with a fatal wound similar to this by falling on a knife held rigidly.

(Monday, July 30.)

JAMES ROBERT HAYNES , Divisional Surgeon. About three a. m. on May 29 I went to 8, Phene Street. Deceased was lying on his back, with his head towards the window between the fireplace and the table. On examining the body I found the wound under the left armpit. There was considerable blood about; the body was blanched, and there were indications that the man had died of hemorrhage. The following day I was present at the post-mortem. I agree with Dr. Grosvenor's description of the wound. There must have been considerable force used. This shorter knife would, in my opinion, be the one that inflicted the wound. On the left arm I found two slight marks or scratches, one 1/2 inch and 1/8 inch long; on the second finger there was an abrasion about an inch long; there was also a small cut just over the radical artery, above the wrist, on the side of the thumb. This last may have been caused by a knife or by finger nails; the others I should say were from finger nails. On the index finger of the right hand there was a small wound of a semilunar shape just over the middle joint; this might have been caused by the man striking his hand against a hard substance, a chair or table. On the right side of the face there were four superficial marks running down parallel, and one at right angles; I think the four were caused by finger nails, probably shortly before death.

A Juror. This knife is only 43/4 inches long; could that cause a wound 51/8 inches deep, especially having regard to the blade having to go through the clothing? A. Yes, because the tissues about the axillary are very elastic, and with the force of the blow they would probably yield, so that the wound would be deeper really than the actual depth of the knife.

Examination continued. Three ribs were broken; that may have been the result of the artificial respiration. From the position of the wound I think it may have been caused by a direct thrust or by a fall; if the latter, the man must have fallen sideways and slightly backwards.

Cross-examined. A man a little the worse for drink, feeling himself falling, if there was something just in front of him might put out his arm to save himself. When I saw the body

it was in the position in which it had been put by Dr. Grosvenor for artificial respiration. If, after the infliction of the wound, the man had been put into a sitting position in the chair, and the knife taken out of the wound, he would bleed profusely. If, with the knife in the wound, he had struggled to the window, there would be an intermittent spurting of blood. The cut in the coat did not correspond to the wound on the body; the knife entered the coat just above the sleeve, and passed a little way up the sleeve before it entered the body. It would want considerable force to inflict this wound. I have heard of the state of health prisoner was in at this time; nevertheless, I think it probable she would have sufficient strength to inflict a wound such as this. Q. Suppose this man, in an angry state, had picked up a knife and was threatening her, and suppose she had taken up a knife and held it in a rigid position, not with a view to striking him, but to prevent him striking her, and he had lurched and fallen forward, and both had fallen to the ground together; might not this injury have happened? A. I think it is possible; he must have fallen sideways and slightly backwards. The direction of this wound is an unusual one. From the post-mortem examination I should say deceased had been a hard drinker.

Re-examined. I could not say that this wound was a probable result of a fall; it is a possible result.

By the Court. I think anyone falling against a knife held in a firm, rigid position could have a wound caused such as this. In my opinion, after receiving this wound, the man could have got to the window, could have stooped down and called out, and come away from the window again.

SAMUEL WOOLFORD , Police-Sergeant, 46 B. I was in charge at Chelsea Police Station when prisoner was brought in. After being cautioned, she said, "My husband took up a knife to me and I took up a knife to him and he fell on it.

HENRY FITZGERALD , Police-Sergeant, B Division. Just after 3 a. m. on May 29 I went to 8, Phene Street. In the first floor front room I saw Percival and Thomas Reeve. In the room there were two large pools of blood; one close to an armchair, which was near the wardrobe opposite the window; the other on the hearthrug, about 5 ft. from the window. There were marks of blood leading from the window to the hearthrug; there were three chairs on the right-hand side of the room, and there was blood on those. In a back room on the same floor I found a bowl with some blood and water in it; on the floor I found a knife, also with blood marks. I produce the coat which was on the dead man; besides the cut right through the right sleeve, there are cuts on the shoulder which do not quite penetrate; when I first had the coat these superficial cuts were

quite plain; the coat has since had much handling by the doctors and others.

Cross-examined. I did mention these other cuts at the Police Court. I cannot say why it is not in my deposition. I did not mention them at the inquest; the matter was not fully gone into there. I found a big pool of blood at the left side of the armchair. There was a clear space of about 3 ft. between the wardrobe and the window. There was no blood on the windowsill.

GEORGE ANDREWS , Divisional Inspector, B Division. About three o'clock on this morning I went with Dr. Haynes to this room. On the table I found the shorter of the two knives produced; there were on it recent marks of blood and a hair; the other knife was lying on the floor on the right side of the armchair; there were no marks on that. With regard to the coat, it is not now in the same condition at when I took it off the body; the principal cut was a clean cut; now, after everybody has been handling the coat the cut has got frayed.

Cross-examined. The knife on the right side of the chair was lying just as it would have fallen from the hand of the man sitting in the chair.

ANNIE DAVIS , matron at Chelsea Police Station. I was with prisoner at the station about five o'clock on this morning. She said, "I don't know whether I did it or not "; I told her that if she desired to say anything I must fetch an officer; she made no reply. I searched her and thoroughly examined her body; she had no marks at all.

GEORGE B. GRIFFITHS , Medical Officer of Holloway Prison. I examined prisoner on May 30; I found a large bruise on the upper part of her right arm, from the point of the shoulder down the arm; also a scratch about 1 1/2 inches long on the front of the right forearm.

Cross-examined. I saw no marks on her face. A woman in the condition of health she was at her time of life would, if she was violently excited by threats, have no very clear idea of what she was doing or what she did.

FREDERICK WILCOCKS , M. D., B. Sc. (London), M. R. C. P. I have examined the knives produced; the larger of the two table knives is absolutely free from bloodstains; the shorter table-knife, when I first saw it, had blood on it for a distance of three inches from the end, and on both sides, on the back and on the cutting edge; also a small spot of blood on the handle. It would be quite possible for this knife to cause the wound described.

Mr. Marshall Hall submitted that, on a charge of manslaughter, expert evidence was not admissible.

Mr. Justice Darling said he should hold that the evidence was adminassible but he concidered it quite unnecessary.

Mr. Mathews. Then that will be the case for the prosecution. At the inquest Percival Reeve was called by the coroner. If my friend change to put haul in the box, I am perfectly willing to waive any claim to really upon it.

PERCIVAL REEVE , examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. Prisoner is my mother; for many years she has been separated from my father, and had been living with deceased. About 10.30 or 10.40, on the night of May 28. I saw deceased in the "Phene Arms "; I do not say he was not sober, but he was talking in a loud voice. He was a heavy drinker; mother is a perfectly sober woman. They lived fairly happily together, but they had quarrels; I never saw any very serious violence by him to her. I slept with my brother in a top room, in one bed, and deceased slept in another in that room. On this day mother complained of her head, and said she felt very had. She went out for an omnibus ride, and came back about 10 o'clock; she was quite sober. At her wish I went to the "Phene Arms "; I returned and made a communication to her; then she went to the public-house. She and deceased came home together, just after the houses closed. I was in the sitting-room on the first floor; that room was stacked with furniture, and there was very little space left. When they came into the room deceased accused mother of going out with a man; she denied it. I went upstairs to bed. I heard a scuffling on the stairs, and I came down again; I found deceased trying to push mother down the stairs. I separated them. I and mother went into the sitting-room; deceased pushed by us and stood near the window; mother was standing near the wardrobe. On a little table about a foot and a half away there was breakfast laid for my brother for the next morning, with some knives and things. mother asked deceased to go upstairs to bed; at this time he was drunk and excited. There was wrangling for five or six minutes or longer. He called her some very vile names. After a while he picked up a carving knife from the table, in his right hand. and rushed towards mother; on the floor there were two strips of carpet, joined in the middle; as he rushed, he treapped, being drunk, and fell on to my mother. She also had taken a knife off the table; she said, "I've got a knife as well as you." With the force of him falling on her they both went over, he on top. I rushed forward and picked the deceased up. He staggered towards the window, but not many paces; he did not reach the window. I pulled him back into the armchair, which was up against the wardrobe; the short knife (produced) was then sticking in him; I pulled it out, and I think I put it on the table. I saw a lot of blood. Mother said, "Oh, God. George, what is the matter with you? I think he said, "I am bleeding." I am certain mother never struck a blow at him; he fell on the knife.

Cross-examined. The two had not been living unhappily together for some time. I did not on this morning say to the coroner's officer, "My mother and the deceased lived very unhappily together for years on account of his drinking habits and he was a perfect demon when in drink." What I said was that they were not living together absolutely happy sometimes; they were on good terms very often; very seldom on bad terms. I do not remember saying to the coroner's officer, "They had bean quarrelling on and off for the past week "; I may have said it; I was very much upset at the time; I cannot remember them quarrelling in that way. It was after 10 when I went to the "Phene Arms." I went back and told mother deceased was in there; almost directly she went out, telling me she was going to the public-house; they did not return till after 12.30, so she was there about two hours. They came back together. I told the coroner's officer, "I was in the living room with mother when I heard the deceased coming upstairs." I did not mean that he came by himself; the officer cannot have taken my statement down right. I was too much upset at the time to understand what I did say. I was standing by the sitting-room door, inside the room, while the row was going on. I could see right across the room. I cannot say where or how deceased's hands were when he tripped and fell; it all happened in an instant I told the officer, "His hands were pretty well round her shoulder "; I cannot be sure about it. Deceased went towards the window, but not to the window. He did not call out "Police, police" and put his head out of the window; that is quite untrue; it did not happen; it is impossible. I heard mother say, "Oh, George, speak to me "; that was after the wound had been inflicted. When deceased tripped and fell it was a fall forward and partly round; he swerved round when he went down; the two fell down together. With regard to the scratches on deceased's face, that may have been done by mother when they were struggling on the stairs. She may have clutched him to save herself, or they may have been caused by himself in shaving. He trembled very much, and in shaving very often cut himself. To the coroner's officer I said, "He seemed to roll towards her;" I think I did tell the officer that he fell.

Re-examined. I was very much upset when the coroner's officer was questioning me. He did not ask me to sign any statement. I have never seen the written statement on which I have been cross-examined. To-day I have told the jury what I believe to be the truth.

Mr. Mathews addressed the jury on behalf of the prosecution. Mr. Marshall Hall on behalf of the prisoner.

Verdict, Guilty, with the strongest possible recommendation to mercy. Prisoner, who had been in custody two months, was sentenced to a further one month's imprisonment.

NEW COURT; Friday, July 27.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

ROWE, George (19. French polisher) ; robbery with violence on Winifred Jewell and stealing from her a purse, two handkerchiefs, a thimble, 'and' the sum of 8s. 4 1/2 d.

Mr. J. F. Vesey-Fitzgerald prosecuted.

WINIFRED JEWELL , 33. Arbery Street, Baroness Road, Bethnal Green. On July 13, about half past four in the afternoon, I was walking in Baroness Road carrying a bag purse in my hand. Someone came from behind, I felt a blow in the side, and afterwards a kick in the knee. I was thrown to the ground and, looking up, saw prisoner bending over me and twisting my hand round, the hand in which the purse was. Another man was standing about five yards away, and there were children about He snatched the purse away. He looked full in my face and I had a full view of him. I noticed that he had a rather light grey cap at the back of his head. His hair was very long in front. He had rather a large nose; he was very pale and clean-shaven. He had on a soft shirt of flannelette with turn-down collar. I always call them cricket shirts. Prisoner ran away with the purse. The other man I think I recognised in the Court on Tuesday. I have never seen the purse since. It contained 8s. 4 1/2 d., two handkerchiefs, a pencil, and a thimble, the total value being 10s. About a quarter of an hour afterwards I saw a policeman and informed him what had happened. I saw prisoner again about ten o'clock that night with a lot of other men at Commercial Street Police Station. I knew prisoner immediately and touched him with my hand. I noticed when he ran away that he was a very tall man. The other man was of medium size. As prisoner, was running away he put the bag under his coat and looked back twice. I got up and tried to run after him. My wrist was badly swollen where he twisted it, and I have still the marks where he kicked me and I cannot kneel. I am a waitress by occupation and am employed in St. Paul's Churchyard. On the following Saturday and Sunday I had a rest, and they did not let me do very much on the Monday because I could not walk very well.

HENRY JARVIS , Police-Constable, 200 H. On the evening of July 13, in consequence of instructions I had received, I was outside the "White Swan" public-house. High Street, Shoreditch about a quarter to 10, in company with another officer. We were both in plain clothes. Prisoner was there with some other men, and seeing us approach they moved away. I stopped prisoner and told him we were police-officers and that he answered the description of a man wanted for snatching a lady's purse in Baroness Road in the afternoon. I did not say at what time. He said, "That is all right. I can prove where I was at

five p.m. I was having some ham in Perry's Coffee House, Cygnet Street." On the way to the station he said, "I suppose you think you have got me all right this time, but I can get witnesses to do you again." At the station he was placed among 10 other men of similar appearance and the prosecutrix picked him out at once. He made no reply to the charge.

To Prisoner. I heard of the robbery about five o'clock on the 10th. Mrs. Jewell came to Commercial Street Station and made complaint.

Detective Sergeant RUTTER, H Division. At prisoner's request I made certain inquiries on the night of July 13. After he had been indentified and charged, he said, "I want you to go and see if I was in Perry's coffee house this afternoon, at five p.m." Perry's coffee house is in the vicinity of where the robbery took place. It would take prisoner about ten minutes to get from one place to the other. I saw a woman who gave me the name of Mary Perry and said she was the landlady.

Prisoner stated that Mrs. Read's coffee shop in Hare Street was the one he asked the officer to call at. Perry's was the coffee shop he lodged at.

Witness. You asked me to go to Perry's, and I did so. In consequence of a communication received from Brixton Prison I subpoenaed two witnesses to attend here, Frederick Read and William Angell. They are both here now.

Prisoner declined to make a statement upon oath, but wished to call witnesses to prove he was in Read's coffee shop at the time of the robbery.

(Evidence for the defence.)

FREDERICK READ , 1, Hare Street I am manager of Read's coffee shop. On Friday, prisoner, whom I know as a customer, came in a little after four o'clock, and had a penny cup of tea and two slices of bread and butter. He remained until nearly five. He was with three other men, only one of whom I know. Prisoner asked me to trust him with a cold meat, and I did so. The coffee and slices he paid for.

Cross-examined. I am the son of Mrs. Read, who owns the coffee house. Prisoner comes in constantly. I remember his coming in on this particular Friday because one of the customers had had an accident on that day and he had to go to the hospital. I do not remember telling Sergeant Rutter I did not know whether prisoner was there or not on that day. I told Sergeant Rutter he was there on Thursday or Friday, afterwards I remembered it was Friday. I told Sergeant Rutter on the night of the robbery I did not know whether prisoner had been there that day or not. I have a rush of customers from half past four to five o'clock, and I remember prisoner being there before the half past four customers came in, and

most of the customers had gone out before he left, but I could not say exactly when he went out. I could not say how many customers I serve in the afternoon. There are two large glass bevelling shops in the neighbourhood. They are not all my customers. Some go to the coffee house opposite.

Sergeant RUTTER, recalled. The coffee shop is, I suppose, about 600 yards from Hare Street. It would take but a very few minutes to go from one to the other.

WILLIAM ANGELL . glass beveller, Bethnal Green. I remember Friday, July 13. From half past four to five minutes to five I was with prisoner in Read's coffee shop. I recollect the time because we had half an hour at tea time. I have known prisoner several years. He was in there when I went in, and I left him there when I came out. I just said to him, "Halloa "; that is all.

Cross-examined. On the Thursday I was fishing, so that it could not have been on the Thursday that I saw prisoner. I heard of the robbery the same night from my brother.

Prisoner said that on the afternoon of the 13th a Jew gave him 2d. for pushing a barrow from Bacon Street to Curtain Road, and when he got back he went straight into the coffee shop. That was about four o'clock, and he came out of the coffee shop about five. He stated to the officer (Rutter) that he lodged in Perry's coffee house, and did not ask him to make inquiries. As to his cap, there were hundreds of the same kind.

MRS. JEWELL, recalled. It may be as prisoner has stated with regard to the caps, but it is prisoner's face I go by. My work is in Paternoster Row, and I live in Arbery Street, a turning out of Baroness Road. I left off work at half past three, and walked to the Bank and took a bus. We had no stopping, and when we got to Shoreditch Church I got off the 'bus and walked to Baroness Road. Baroness Road is not far from the church. I can do it in five minutes. The omnibus would go from the Bank to Shoreditch Church in a quarter of an hour quite easily. It was about 20 minutes past four when I was robbed.

Sergeant RUTTER, recalled by the jury, said the distance from Shoreditch Church to the scene of the robbery would be from 220 to 250 yards.

HENRY HARRIS , recalled. Only 2d. was found upon prisoner.

Prisoner said he wished to call his father and his brother, for whom he had been working, but they were not in attend ance. Prisoner also produced his discharge from the Army (Royal Garrison Artillery), dated April, 1905, and marked "good."

The Recorder observed that prisoner had been very foolish in putting his character in issue, as it enabled evidence to be called by the prosecution bearing upon it.

Defective William Pearce, H Division, proved previous convictions.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sergeant RUTTER said prisoner had openly boasted at the police station that he was the finest gambler in Gibraltar, and Malta, and made sufficient by fleecing the soldiers to purchase his discharge. To witness's knowledge he had done no work for the last nine months, and was associated with thieves of the worst class in Shoreditch, Hoxton, and Spitalfields. Only three sessions ago some of his confederates received sentence at this Court.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

FOURTH COURT; Friday, July 27.

(Before Judge Rentoul.)

MOLLITER, Joseph (41, barber) ; having received certain property for and on account of Charlotte Hanson, fraudulently converting the same to his own use and benefit. Prisoner pleaded guilty, and the judge stated that if he would hand over the money before the rising of the Court he would be acquitted. The case was again mentioned (before the Common Serjeant) on July 31. The money was still not forthcoming, but prisoner said he was sure he could provide it He was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment next sessions.

COHEN, Moses ; stealing an order for payment of £3 19s. 6d., the goods of Isaac Mendelsohn, and feloniously receiving same. Then were other indictments relating to similar charges.

ISAAC MENDELSOHN , boot and shoe maker, Arbor Square, Stepney. I was carrying on business in the Whitechapel Road in May last, and prisoner was in my employ at that time and for three years previously. He left me on May 28 of his own accord. At that time I had a customer of the name of Chamberlain at Kentish Town, who was indebted to me for goods sold in £3 19s. 6d. The endorsement on the cheque (produced) was not written by me or by my authority. It is in the handwriting of the prisoner. The account produced is in his handwriting.

Cross-examined. Prisoner left my business on May 28. The business was transferred to my wife at the beginning of May. Sometimes on Saturday he had authority to endorse cheques for me, but I deny that I gave him general authority. The endorsements on the four cheques produced are all in his hanwriting,

and I had the money. They are made payable to me, and it is his signature.

After listening to the cross-examination for a little while the jury stopped the case and acquitted the prisoner. Counsel stated that he did not propose to go on with the other indictments against the prisoner, and a verdict of Not Guilty was returned.

WRIGHT, Fred (25, clerk), SHEPHERD, Charles (22, harness maker), DAWSON, Henry (65, commission agent), MARRIOTT, Alice (28, no trade), and GLENN. Dorothy ; breaking and entering the warehouse of John Towler Bland and stealing therein various article. Also with breaking and entering the warehouse of Simon Symons, and stealing therein various articles. Wright, Shepherd, and Marriott were further charged with breaking into the warehouse of Harold Wallis , and Alice Marriott with feloniously receiving goods of George Rosenthal, well knowing them to have been stolen. Wright, Shepherd, and Dawson pleaded guilty.

Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Simmons, and Mr. L. W. Kershaw prosecuted. Mr. Wildey Wright and Mr. Frank Matthews appeated for Marriott; Mr. George Elliott appeared for Dorothy Glenn.

Counsel for the prosecution consented to a verdict of not guilty against Dorothy Glenn.

SAMUEL BLAND BELTON , manager to Bland and Co, 271, Oxford Street, warehousemen and wholesale drapers. On Saturday, June 16, I left at 6.15 p. m. At that time the whole of the premises were safe. I locked them up. There is a door leading to the premises on the first, second, and third floors. The ground floor you enter by a separate door. There is one doorway from the street by which you go to the first, second, and third floors. It was all safe at 6.15 p. m.

JOHN TOWLER BLAND . On Monday morning, June 18, I went to my premises at a quarter to 10 and found they had been broken into. The door was broken open, and one lock was taken away entirely. It was the door leading from the passage into my premises. I found goods missing to the total value of £351 8s. They were all new goods. I produce a list of the property as identified as mine. The three tickets produced are my tickets and they were attached to some of the property which was missing.

SIMON SYMONS . 271, Oxford Street. When I got to my place of business on Monday I found the doors were broken open and that I had lost a quantity, of goods. I produce a list of property identified as mine, to value £85 5s. (Samples were produced to the witness.) These are some of the goods I lost. I am a manufacturer and sell new goods.

ARTHUR MAXWELL , 144, Cambridge Road, porter to Messrs. Rosenthal, 37, Berners Street, blouse manufacturers. On March 29 I left the shop at 8.10 and shut both doors and padlocked one of them. I came back next morning at 8.10 and found the door I padlocked had a panel broken open. I went into the premises and found a quantity of stock missing.

GEORGE ROSENTHAL , blouse manufacturer, 37, Berners Street. I was told by last witness what had occurred, and on examining my stock I found that I had lost 300 blouses, value £200. I have been shown some of them since. No. 291 is my own design and is one of the things that were lost. The cardboard box produced has my handwriting on it. There is also a voile skirt which was part of the stolen property.

Cross-examined. I have a very considerable number of blouses in my place numbered 291 and I have had those or some of them in my possession from the Christmas previous. I cannot identify the blouse produced as one that was stolen because that is au ordinary pattern. The writing which I identify on the cardboard box are the figures 25. I know there is a firm in Chiswell Street who trade under the style of Rosenthal Brothers, rival tradesmen to myself. When the boxes are done with we throw them away. I do not know whether any of my boxes have gone into the possession of Rosenthal Brothers in Chiswell Street. The value of the box is 2d. or 3d.

SOPHY REID , forewoman to Mr. Rosenthal. Blouse 291 is one that has been made after Mr. Rosenthal's design by one of our out-workers. On March 28 we had 30 of these in our possession. After the robbery 20 or 21 of them were missing.

LILY FISHER , assistant stock-keeper to Mr. Rosenthal. The voile skirt was Mr. Rosenthal's property. I saw it being made, but not afterwards. I looked for it, but could not find it.

Cross-examined. We had one voile skirt on the premises besides, this one, but we have not found it. I identify the voile skirt by the make of it. I identify it by the loops. I have no doubt whatever that that is the skirt I saw made.

Inspector BOWER. I received information of this robbery on June 18, and on that day at about seven o'clock I went to the house of the prisoner Marriott at 1, Sydney Terrace, New Southgate, and saw her. Sergeant Clarke was in the house at 1, Sydney Terrace. It is a secondhand clothes shop, with a front room and a back room and a kitchen behind on the ground floor, and there is a floor above. Prisoner was in the shop. I said, "You know me, Mrs. Marriott." She said, "Yes." I said, "I am making inquiries with regard to a large number of stoles, ruffles, blouses, and coats which have been stolen since the 16th from a warehouse in Oxford Street and we have reason to believe that they have been brought here." She said, "I have not brought anything, nor has anything been

brought here." I said, "Then you can have no objection to me having a, look." She said, "You can have a look. I know you have to do your duty." I then called in Sergeant Clarke and told him what had passed. We went into the back parlour and I found four large wicker baskets, which are known in the trade as skips, and I found some of Mr. Bland's property in each of them. In the kitchen there was another skip on the floor, and that also contained some of Mr. Bland's property and Mr. Symons's property. It was open, and from it had been taken some belts, which had been placed in another basket. These tickets produced are the tickets Mr. Bland has identified. I also found the property which Symons has identified as being of the value of £85 5s. I told Mrs. Marriott she would be charged. I said, "These are the articles I am looking for. They have been stolen since Saturday night, and you will be charged with receiving them well knowing them to have been stolen." I took her to New Southgate Station and there she made a statement. She repeated what she had said on the way to the station. This is the statement, "The whole of the property which you have taken possession of was brought to my place about 2.30 this afternoon by a man I know as Maff and another called Fred for me to take care of for them until to-morrow, when they promised to come and fetch it. They took away two boxes full with them. They brought the whole of it in a covered van, but I did not see any name on the van. This is all I can tell you about it. She signed the statement after I took it down. She was charged at Marlborough Street, and on the way she said, "That serves me very well right; my husband told me not to have anything to do with them." On June 19, prisoner Wright was arrested, also Charles Shepherd. The names Mrs. Marriott uses in the statement are "Maff and Fred." I knew who were meant, but I did not think she knew I knew. They were arrested on June 19, and they were confronted with Mrs. Marriott in my presence at the police station. On that day, when Wright and Mrs. Marriott were confronted. she said, "This is one of the men who brought the things to me." When they were charged, I read over her statement to all the prisoners. Shepherd said, "That is right "; and Wright said, "I was one of the men who took the stuff there; it is no use denying it now." I went to Mrs. Marriott's house on June 21, and found No. 291 blouse, a voile skirt, and the cardboard box at No 1, Sydney Terrace. The blouse was in the drawers upstairs—the skirt and the box were in the shop. On July 6 I asked Marriott to account for the possession of these things, as they had been identified as being stolen.


ALICE MARRIOTT (prisoner, on oath). I am a married woman, living at New Southgate. Shepherd and Wright brought some

goods to my place on June 18. I did not know that either of them were dishonest men. They asked me if I would mind the goods till the next morning, and I said, "Yes." I did not believe I was doing anything wrong, and I never taw what was in the baskets. The officer asked me if I had bought anything, and I said "No, I had not got the money to buy anything." He asked me to let him have a look at the place, and I immediately gave him permission. I never saw either the goods or the tickets. I do not know what the prisoners did in the kitchen while I was in the shop. I bought six blouses at Davis's auction sale for 7s. This is a catalogue (produced)—lot 299 is "six blouses," and this is one of them. The 7s. is in my handwriting. I got the voile skirt on the same day; it was described in the catalogue as a check skirt, No. 324. I got this cardbox box from Mr. Lytton, who carries on business in Commercial Road. The blouse was rather a large size, and I thought I would keep it for myself, and it was upstairs in the drawer with some other clothes. The voile skirt was hanging up in the shop, and I wanted to sell it. I did not have the least idea that there was anything wrong with regard to the blouse or the skirt.

Cross-examined. The sale was. on January 24, so that if that blouse is one of those which were stolen from Mr. Rosenthal it cannot be the one I bought at that sale. I paid 7s. for it with other things, the silk blouse and the petticoat. The value of the petticoat was 2s. 6d. The other silk blouse I sold for 3s. 6d. I gave 7s. for six blouses. I do not know the cost price of that is 4s. 6d. I have known Maff for 12 months. He was working for my husband, who was a builder. I do not know what Maff did for him. I do not know that in September, 1905, Maff got three months' imprisonment. I did not see him every Say. I had no idea what he was doing. When I moved from Euston Road to New South gate at the beginning of January he helped me and he painted the shop. He had no work at the time. I have heard him say he was a harness maker. He slept in the kitchen. Mrs. Shepherd has often been down. She has sometimes come down with her husband to tea. When he asked me to mind the baskets I did not ask him what was in them. He brought five; I did not ask him what they were and I did not open them; he was there for an hour. He was in the kitchen and I was in the shop, I was serving a lady in the shop. There is a room between the kitchen and the shop.

Verdict, Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.

Inspector BOWER. recalled. There are two other convictions against Shepherd. On December 16, 1902, he was sentenced to six months' for shop-breaking and on September 8, 1905, to three months as a vagabond. Wright was sentenced to six

months for robbery at this Court on September 8, 1903, in the name of Frederick Manning. Dawson had not been under arrest before, but has been suspected of receiving. In addition to this charge, there were three cases it was not thought necessary to go into. Property has been found in his possession stolen as far back as 1902, of the value of about £100. With regard to Alice Marriott, she was a brothel-keeper. Her husband is serving a seven years' sentence for receiving. She was sentenced to four months on July 6, 1904, for keeping a brothel. She has been an active receiver for a long time. With regard to Shepherd, about a month prior to this offence a silversmith's was broken into in Soho and silver goods to the value of £500 or £600 were stolen. In that case finger-prints were left behind and they were found on examination to be identical with those of Maffin, and it was to a very great extent that which brought us on his track at the time. Wright was concerned with him in that offence and another offence at Princes Street, Hanover Square, in the month of March, when robes more valuable than these were taken, of the value of £500 or £600.

Sentence: Dawson, Twelve months' imprisonment, second division; Wright and Shepherd, three years' penal servitude; Marriott, 12 months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT; Thursday, July 26.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

MASON, Robert (42, ex-solicitor) , conspiring and agreeing with John James Baghino and George Strong to obtain by false pretences from Duncan Ramsay Blair divers large sums of money and valuable securities with intent to defraud; conspiring and agreeing with John James Baghino and George Strong to commit felony; forging and uttering a deed purporting to be an agreement in writing between John James Baghino and James Baghino with intent to defraud; feloniously demanding and obtaining from Duncan Ramsay Blair orders for payment of £375, £5, and £3,650 by virtue of a forged instrument, knowing the same to be forged and with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Duncan Ramsay Blair orders for payment of £375, £5. and £3,650 respectively, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Walter Chapman orders for payment of £15, £10, and £50 respectively, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Charles Mathews, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Arnold Ward prosecuted; Mr. Martin O'Connor defended.

(Friday, July 27.)

JOSEPH PETER BANNIN , Priest at the Italian Church of St Peter, Hatton Garden, living at the Presbytery, trustee under

the will of Giovanni Baptista Ortelli. Ortelli died November 1, 1898, and probate was granted March 28, 1899, the estate being proved at £127, 000. His widow is living. The deceased had no children, but had adopted a daughter known as Minnie Ortelli, who married a Mr. Baghino. They had two sons, John James and James Baghino. I have known the family for the last 30 years. John James is now 24, and James nearly 19 years of age. They were both born in England. Mrs. Baghino is married again. In 1905 I received notices of charges on the reversion from Hill and Mrs. Schuhkrafft. Letter of October 26, 1905 (exhibit 2), is not in my writing. I had no knowledge of that letter being written, and had given no authority for it. It is on paper printed similar to mine, "Italian Church, Hatton Garden," except that there is no "E. C." I was not in London on October 26, being away from 9th to 28th. Exhibit 3, written on similarly headed paper, is not my writing. The pencil writing on the back is John Baghino's. I do not know the handwriting on the envelope.

Cross-examined. Failing any appointment by Mrs. Ortelli, each of the grandsons would receive a substantial sum. I have not seen James Baghino for from three to five years—he has been abroad at school. If he had visited England I should have heard of it. The two brothers do not resemble each other.

GEORGE STRONG . I am 32 years of age, and was an architect I had no profession last year. On May 7 I was arrested by Inspector Kane at Empress Mansions, Wurtemburg Street, Clapham, where I was living with Minnie Webley as Mr. and Mrs. Strong. We had previously lived at 2, Imperial Mansions, Bromells Road, and went abroad on November 4, the furniture being warehoused. I met Mrs. Schuhkrafft at Monte Carlo. I was arrested for obtaining £12 and attempting to obtain £22 from her, and pleaded guilty in this Court in the May Sessions (see preceding vol., p. 486), and have been remanded up to now. I was charged with the prisoner at Bow Street I made a statement to Inspector Kane; then I was discharged and called as a witness. In 1905 I met John Baghino; he was living at 115, Jermyn Street. We became very intimate. He told me he and his brother James were each entitled to half a sum of £127, 000 from his grandmother, Mrs. Ortelli. He said his mother had died in Buenos Ayres, that his brother was studying in Italy, and was coming over to England very shortly, and that he wanted his brother to sign a deed poll, so that they would both participate in case either were struck out by Mrs. Ortelli using her power of appointment, and he was going to borrow money. I met prisoner and went to the Adelphi Hotel with a man named Choate. John Baghino and I frequently met prisoner at his office and at the Adelphi Hotel. John Baghino borrowed money from Wilkinson,

solicitor. Bush Lane House. Baghino and I went there, Mason occasionally waited outside and Golding was there. Golding was introduced to me as James Baghino. Golding was tall and fair, and looked about 19 or 20 years of age, but he said he was nearly 22. He said he was living at the Cecil Hotel. John Baghino told me they had borrowed £30 and were going to get £6,000. Mason was told about it by John Baghino, and Mason said he had sent on the will. Mason had about £3 of the £30, and I had rather more. Golding had £2, and he borrowed £1 of Wilkinson by himself. I learnt that Golding was not James Baghino after Blair had advanced the first money. Mason was told before Blair advanced the £300. I think Hill introduced John Baghino to Blair, and Mason was told shortly after Baghino had borrowed £15 or £20. Baghino, Mason, and myself discussed the proposed loan of £300; letters were to be written by someone representing James Baghino, and he might have to sign a deed poll. John Baghino and Mason dictated various letters for me to copy. I wrote three or four. Exhibits 15 and 17 are in my handwriting, and purport to be letters from James to John Baghino. John Baghino told me in the presence of Mason that they had been shown to Blair. It was suggested by John Baghino and Mason that I should go to Brighton to execute a deed poll. I was rather frightened, and said I did not care about it. Mason said. "Don't be a fool. This man will go on lending money until he has not got any boots." He handed me the deed (Exhibit 23) and said, "Be very careful you do not sign 'George Strong,' or you will do the whole thing in." It had already been signed by John Baghino. I then went to Brighton, asked a policeman to direct me to a Commissioner, and executed the deed before Mr. Lord Thompson, as it now appears, in the name of James Baghino. I returned to London and gave it to Mason. He said, "Oh, I know the man." A further advance of about £250 was then made by Blair to John Baghino. Mason and I waited outside. We all then went to the Cafe Royal; John had the money in notes and it was divided. I had about £60. Mason had about £50 because he was to get something from Hill, who was to receive a commission from Blair. A further advance of £3,000 to £4,000 was discussed. I went with Baghino to a printer's in Charing Cross Road, and we ordered some paper with the headings, "31, Rue de Canuce, Maison Lafitte," and "Italian Church, Hatton Garden." Exhibit 29. "Dear Johnnie,—I got your letter all right, "etc., was written by me from dictation in the presence of Baghino and Mason. The address of "41, Rue de Canuce." was selected because a jockey named Ben Easterbee, whom Baghino knew, lived there. Mason and Baghino told me Blair wanted to interview Father Bannin before he made a

further advance. Baghino said that was quite impossible. Then Mason suggested that as Father Bannin was away for a few days Baghino should try and intercept a letter. Baghino said that was impossible too, and suggested that Mason should forge Bannin's signature. After some conversation, Mason said he should not do it, and suggested that I had better do it. Baghino said, "That is nonsense; Strong has already forged one name and his writing is known." Mason said he never thought of that, and I left the two together. When I came back they both said they had thought of a very brilliant suggestion—that a letter should be written supposed to be advising him not to borrow, because if he once started borrowing on his reversion he would charge the whole thing. Baghino said, "You know Mason has not got the brains to think of such a thing." Mason said, "Have it your own way, "or something like that.

Mr. O'Connor submitted this could not be evidence of a forgery done on September 11, though it might be evidence of conspiracy. Objection disallowed.

Baghino, Mason, and I went to a wine Bodega in the Strand. Baghino made a draft in pencil on envelope produced, "Knowing the respect your grandmother entertained for the memory of her late husband, you can judge of her feeling at seeing his money thrown away by a young man sowing has wild oats," etc. I remember that sentence, and other sentences were discussed. Mason said he would take it away as it had taken so long, and would write it out and post it to John James Baghino at the Blenheim Club. Baghino afterwards showed me a completed letter at Charing Cross, and it was afterwards read in the presence of Mason. It had the words. "You must remember that your grandmother's fortune is many times greater than your late grandfather's." Baghino said, "That is ridiculous, because in that case it would be worth over a million," and he insisted on another letter being written. Letter produced is like the one substituted—it is in the same handwriting, and is on paper printed, "Italian Church, Hatton Garden." It was handed to Mr. Hill. Towards the end of October or the beginning of November I went to France to write letters supposed to be from James Baghino, Rue de Canuce, in answer to Blair. I went to the Hotel Chatham, Paris. Ben Easterbee brought me a letter from Blair's solicitor encloing a deed which I signed and posted. I then came back to London, and told Baghino and Mason what I bad done. Document produced (Exhibit 48) is signed by me in name of James Baghino, charging the reversion of £3,650, and acknowledging receipt of notice of charge, by James Baghino. On November 3 I went to Blair's office, and stayed outside with Mason while Hill and John Baghino went in. Mason said, "Mind you stand out for one-third, because you know Jack always cuts us up." I said, Yes, I would. Hill

and Baghino came out, and Baghino, Mason, and I went to the Victoria Hotel. Baghino put the money on the table—about £2,300 in notes. Mason said, "Look here, I am going to have a third, or else I won't have anything." Baghino said, "Very well, that is a good way of settling it, your not having anything." Mason said, "Oh, be a sportsman, Jack." Baghino gave him £405 or £415. I think he said, "I will toss you whether I give you £405 or £425," and Mason won the toss and got £425. Mason grumbled and said, "It is the usual thing." Baghino then settled with me and gave me £407. Mason and I each had four £100 notes. Mason asked Baghino for a bill for £250 or £350, and produced a stamped form. There was a discussion. I forget whether Baghino signed the bill, but he made the remark before the waiter, "It won't do you much good," or something of that kind. We then went outside, and Mason said, in rather a threatening tone, he would have to have a little walk down Scotland Yard to see a friend of his, Mr. Gough. He walked away. I said I had better go after him and talk to him. I overtook him and said, "If you are not satisfied, why don't you say so," or something like that. Mason said, "Oh, I have not half finished with Jack yet." I said I would talk to Baghino about it. He then went off in the direction of John Street. Baghino and I were at the Opera Tavern, Haymarket, later in the evening. Elsie Vaughan and Minnie Webley were with us. I told Baghino I wanted another £100. He said, "Will you settle with Mason if I give you another £100?" He asked Vaughan for a £100 note; she produced one and it was given to me. I saw Mason later in the evening and he said, "Jack says you have got to give me £50." I said, "Oh, you had better go and ask Jack for it yourself. I am going to keep what I have got." On Saturday, November 4, I went to Brabbington's with Webley and bought a 50-guinea diamond ring for her, changing one of the £100 notes. John Baghino was there and redeemed some things with a £100 note, and got change for another £100 note. Clothes, wedding rings, and other things were purchased, and we arranged to go to Monte Carlo, I and Webley travelling as Mr. and Mrs. Shaw, and Baghino and Vaughan as Mr. and Mrs. Vaughan. I changed another £100 note at a money changer's in Wardour Street. We left for Paris on November 4, stayed four or five days there, went on to Genoa, and thence to Monte Carlo. I there met Mrs. Schuhkrafft, her niece, Miss Mayston, and Mr. Boddington. At Christmas I went to London and saw Mason, and told him there was an old lady who wanted to lend money to Baghino. He said the old lady, or Mr. Brown, of Nice, her solicitor, had written to him. I said I would ask Hill to write what was necessary. Mason said, "Do not tell Hill anything because he is very

strong and a terrible fidget—if there is anything crooked he will have a fit." I said, "Oh, there is nothing crooked. She will want to see the will, and I told Mason I thought she would lend about £15, 000. He said he would have to come over and see Brown. I returned to Monte Carlo, and Mason came on the next day in the name of £. M. Hill. He saw Mrs. Schuhkrafft, Miss Mayston, and Mr. Brown, remained four or five days, and went back to England. At the beginning of February I received a telegram, "All out clear not London tell D." Baghino and Elsie Vaughan said they were frightened, and went to Nice in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Bagshaw. I returned to London about February 20 with Minnie Webley and took rooms at 3, Empress Mansions, Clapham. I saw Mason and told him he had sent the telegram. He said he had not. I told him he was a liar. He said, "If everyone was as straight as I am it would be a very much pleasanter world." He said Baghino had sent it to get me away from Monte Carlo because Baghino two days before that had borrowed another £2,100 from Mrs. Schuhkrafft. Baghino had returned to London before me. I met him and Mason on several occasions. They talked of borrowing a further £12, 500 from Blair on the same security. No such loan was ever made. Miss Mayston called on me at Empress Mansions about the beginning of April. I went to Mrs. Schuhkrafft with Choate, and Mason came up and waited outside on more than one occasion. I told Mason I was trying to borrow some money on a bill with a man called Norgate. He said. "I don't think his name is worth anything." Norgate and I had dictated a letter, written by a man named Green, purporting to be a letter from a solicitor called Hellard, of Portsmouth, and I obtained some money from Mrs. Schuhkrafft by showing it to her. Looking at Bank notes 28091-4 and 32820 for £100 each, endorsed "George Strong," the endorsement is not my writing. It resembles my writing. On November 8 I was in Paris. I first saw those five notes at Bow Street. £10 notes, 99618 and 99621, endorsed "George Strong, 2, Imperial Mansions, Bromell's Road, Clapham," are not endorsed by me. The writing is not in the least like mine. Three £100 notes, 32822, 32824, and 30339 are endorsed "Baghino, Hotel de Louvre," in John James Baghino's handwriting. We stayed at the Hotel de Louvre at Monte Carlo. I have not heard the name of Chamberlain mentioned in connection with this matter.

Cross-examined. I have known Choate 21/4 years. He is a financial agent. I have been trying to borrow money only for myself. When Choate first introduced Baghino to me at Craven Street he said he was a man with large expectations under this will. Mason was not present. Choate told me Baghino's mother was dead, and made other statements which

were not true. I told Baghino Henry's address, and he obtained some money from Henry. I knew Wilkinson as a solicitor who lent money. It was my suggestion, believing his statements, that Baghino should apply to Wilkinson. Wilkinson had the probate from Hill, and lent about £70. We thought it was bona fide then. The deed poll was discussed, and Hill suggested that Blair would lend money, and Golding was then introduced about the end of August or beginning of September, as John Baghino's brother by John. I believed his statement. He was fair, about 20 years old, and much like John Baghino, slightly taller, and about four or five years younger. I have not seen Golding since. I was told that he was not James Baghino before the £3,000 was advanced by Blair. I certainly never told Hill. I do not recollect telling Mason. I understood the deed poll was prepared by Hill. Hill did not know anything about my going to Brighton. Golding never went to Hill's office. I do not think I ever saw him with Mason. I fancy Mason knew about the forgery in Wilkinson's office, but I do not know how he knew it. Mason knew I was going to Brighton to forge the name. He told me to be careful not to sign "George Strong." I did not introduce Baghino to Henry. I forged the deed at Brighton, had the Hatton Garden stationery printed, and wrote the letters from France in James Baghino's name. Mason saw the printer, and got some of the stationery. I heard that Hill was to have his costs, which would be heavy, and that Mason was to have half of them, but that he would have to pay Chapman half of his part What I said in the police court would be probably more correct than what I say now. I know Jack Roberts, and saw him a Simpson's on November 4.

Re-examined. Hill had no knowledge that the deed of September 11 was a forgery, and in my judgment he believed it a proper transaction throughout. Blair's advance of £300 was a day or two after I signed the deed poll at Brighton—I knew that was a forgery. Mason told me to be very careful not to tell Wilkinson. He said, "If you keep going to Wilkinson now, Ramsay will get to know, and then there will be a fearful row about it." I never said anything about Blair to Hill. Baghino wanted to get the Bannin letter back. He told me he asked Blair to keep it, as he did not want it to get into Mason's hands; he said Mason would be continually blackmailing him.

JOHN LORD THOMPSON , solicitor, 94, Church Road, Hove. On September 11, 1895, George Strong signed the deed, Exhibit 23, in my presence.

Cross-examined. So far as I remember, Strong came alone.

(Saturday, July 28.)

EDWARD MAY HILL , solicitor, 6, John Street, Adelphi. Early in 1905 I first knew prisoner in the name of John Scafe; I understood that he had some relatives named Mason, and he took that name for business purposes. About the middle of July, 1905, an arrangement was come to that, in consideration of his having the use of my office and having his name up on the door, he would introduce all legal business that he could, and assist me in that business. It was not arranged that he should have any fixed share of the profits—only presents. The name on the door was "Messrs. Mason "; theirs was a general financial business; my name was up as well, and also the names of two companies in which I was interested, and later on, one company in which prisoner was interested, the London and County Contracts, Limited. He had nothing to do with my banking account. I had authority to use his name to a certain extent in business which he was conducting; he had authority to sign my name to letters. At the end of July or beginning of August I first heard from prisoner the name of John James Baghino. Prisoner said that John James Baghino wished to borrow some money. I was shown a certified copy of the will of John Ortelli; from that it seemed that Baghino had an interest under the will, but there was a certain difficulty about the power of appointment. I told prisoner that Mr. Ramsay Blair, whom I knew, might lend something; I did not know how much. About the middle of August I was introduced by prisoner to John Baghino; John told me that his brother, James Baghino, lived in Genoa, but was coming over to Paris. James I was told lived with his grandmother, Mrs. Ortelli, and was training for the diplomatic service. I pointed out to John (prisoner probably being present) that under the will Mrs. Ortelli, the tenant for life, had a power of appointment in favour of one brother to the exclusion of the other. On September 6 I gave John a letter of introduction to Blair; as the result of that Blair made a small temporary advance and negotiations were entered into for a loan of £300 or £400. I went to see Blair (or, rather, Mr. Chapman, who attended to all this business for Mr. Blair), taking with me the heads of an agreement to be entered into by both John James and James. I never saw James Baghino or anybody purporting to be James Baghino; John told me that James was down at Brighton. Acting for John I drew up a formal agreement [Ex. 23]; John executed it, and I attested his signature; I handed the document back to him, saying, "As your brother cannot come up to London to execute the deed, an arrangement has been made that you shall take it down and have it executed by him at Brighton; you must be careful to see

that it is attested by a solicitor, preferably a commissioner for oaths." On September 11 John brought the deed back to me; it bore on it James Baghino's signature; it purported to be completely executed. I cannot say when I first met George Strong; I met him several times with John Baghino and the prisoner; John introduced Strong to me as a friend of his, and in the name of Strong. I have no knowledge of any connection of Strong with this deed. Exhibits 15 and 17, signed, "Your affectionate brother James," I first saw in Blair's office before the execution of the deed; they were produced to Blair by John. One was produced by John as evidence that James was of age, because it contained a request for a certain watch "which mother promised me I should have when I came of age." This business of advances to Baghino was distinctly business introduced by prisoner; it was a matter in respect of which "presents" would be made. A further advance of £3,000 or £4,000 by Blair was proposed. A mortgage was drawn up and I approved the draft on October 18. Before this transaction was completed I remember seeing Exhibit 29 produced by Baghino to Blair; also Exhibit 2. I was present in Blair's office on October 31 with Baghino when Blair's cheque for £3,650 was drawn; it was held back temporarily because no reply had been received from James Baghino in Paris acknowledging receipt of a notice of charge. On November 3 I was again at Blair's office, the cheque was then cashed, a temporary advance that had been made was deducted from the amount, and £2,414 15s. 5d. was handed over to Baghino in notes and coin. I left with Baghino; I received from him £220; half of that he said was to go to prisoner, and I paid prisoner £110. I have no knowledge as to the division of the balance of the money by Baghino. I remember that about Christmas time prisoner left the office saying he was going to Paris for a few days. On returning he said he had been to Paris and Monte Carlo and had there seen Baghino and Strong. He said that Baghino had borrowed some more money, about £2,000, from a Mrs. Schuhkrafft, and that Mr. Brown, her solicitor, was going to send him over £30 towards his expenses of going over there. Later on a cheque for £30 came from Mr. Brown, payable to me; I endorsed it and handed it to prisoner. In the beginning of February I had a communication from Blair; I told prisoner that Blair said he thought he could arrange a large sum for Baghino. some £12, 000, if he (Blair) received a commission of 500 guineas, the security being the reversion and the deed, and subject to a valuation of the property, Blair to find the survey fee, about 200 guineas, taking Baghino's promissory note for that amount. Prisoner said he thought this was a very fair arrangement. Later on prisoner showed me an acceptance by "John James Baghino" for £350.

with no drawer's name. Nothing further was done about the advance of £12, 500. In May I learned that besides the £30 sent over by Mr. Brown prisoner had received £192 12s. in January from Monte Carlo and had previously received £175 in respect of the same business. I wrote to him on May 10 calling for an explanation and asking him to at once give up the key of the office as I could no longer give him office room. On May 11 I got a message from Chief Inspector Kane; I went with him to Blair's office and made a statement.

Cross-examined. When I first met Baghino he told me that he and his brother were ready to do everything to assist each other in raising a loan; that they would agree to pool everything. I paid prisoner no definite salary. The understanding with Baghino as to the costs of arranging the loan was that he should pay a lump sum; prisoner would be provided for out of the sum paid to me. September 13 was the date when the £375 loan was completed; there had been a previous small advance, and the amount actually handed over on that date was £280. As to the deed dated September 13, I took instructions for that from Baghino; at that time I believed all he said was true. Prisoner had a seat in my office, and in my absence he would have authority to do what a clerk or manager ought to do. Baghino may have called at the office when I was not there. Strong never informed me that he was the man who was going to sign the deed in question in the name of James; as far as I know, prisoner was as ignorant of this as I was. At the time it was executed, the purpose of the deed was simply to enable John Baghino to raise £300, but Baghino had told me before then that he contemplated raising a loan of £6,000. All the instructions for the deed were given to me personally by Baghino; nothing in connection with it was suggested by prisoner, but we talked over the matter generally, he being in the office. Strong called on me several times with Baghino, and sometimes I met Strong outside. The suggestion as to a further loan of £4,000 came from Blair. He said to me, "Would it suit your client if we ourselves were to lend a large sum?" I said. "I should doubt whether he would pay your price." We both at that time regarded it as a very safe security. During all the negotiations Baghino never suggested to me that he was giving prisoner any secret profit. Prisoner was a financial agent and a company director and had other capacities. I remember he was in a deal in relation to some antiques which were sold at Christie's for £5,400.

Re-examined. Prisoner first came to me as a general agent, and the idea was that he would introduce a considerable amount of legal business to me and assist me in the office; he was to act as a clerk ad hoc in business which he introduced. Baghino

did not tell me that he had any calling or profession, I understood he had held a commission in the Army.

WALTER CHAPMAN , manager to Mr. Ramsay Blair. On September 6 Baghino came to me with a letter of introduction from Hill; the letter said that Hill was raising a large loan for Baghino, and that the latter wished to borrow temporarily £250 to £350, to be repaid out of the larger loan. I made a few inquiries, and advanced Baghino £10 and £15. I was shown a copy of John Ortelli's will. I pointed out to Hill that under the power of appointment in the will the testator's wife might cut out either of her two sons altogether, and therefore it was necessary that the two brothers should join in some agreement to share in any event. Hill then showed me the informal agreement, purporting to be between James and John James Baghino, which appeared to meet my point. I believed it to be a genuine agreement. I agreed to make a loan of £300, on condition that we had a formal agreement executed between the two brothers. The completed agreement (exhibit 23) was brought to me, and I believed it to be genuine, and I advanced the money on the strength of it. The matter was completed on September 13; there were present Hill, Baghino, and myself; Blair may have been there part of the time; I think prisoner came in while the money was passing. Hill mentioned that prisoner had introduced Baghino to him, and therefore it was to prisoner that we were indebted for the business, and suggested that we should acknowledge it by giving him some small amount; we agreed on £5, and I took a note from Baghino authorising me to pay that sum. Besides being shown the deed, I was shown the two letters Exhibits 15 and 17. I wrote letter (produced) to James Baghino, notifying him that I had made the advance on the strength of the will and of the agreement with his brother; I addressed the letter to 22, Russell Square, the address of the testator's widow, as mentioned in the will; I received no acknowledgment. I saw John Baghino, and asked him why I had received no reply; he said his brother was away, and in support of that he showed me the letter, Exhibit 29 ("Dear Johnny," etc., from Rue de Canuce). Negotiaons were on foot for a larger loan, £3,650; on October 14 I lent Baghino £50 as he was in temporary need of funds. Before completing the larger loan I thought we ought to be satisfied that the property would not be encumbered, and I suggested that Hill should see one of the trustees, Father Bannin, and get an assurance on that point. Some time afterwards I was shown Exhibit 2; I believed it was a genuine letter, written by Bannin. On the faith of these things I consented (acting for Blair) to complete the larger loan; a mortgage was drawn up; also a statutory declaration as to age and non encumbrance. The matter was to have been completed on October 31. On that day Blair's cheque for £3,650 was drawn

and endorsed by Baghino; it was not then parted with; it was handed back to me to keep until we received an acknowledgment from James Baghino of the notice of mortgage. My solicitor received the letter produced dated from. Rue de Canuce, November 2, "Dear sir, I received your letter this morning, and have signed copy; I hope I have signed the right one; James Baghino." Believing that everything was genuine and in order, we completed the business on November 3; there were present Mr. Hill and John Baghino and myself. The cheque was sent to the bank and the amount drawn in £100 notes and gold; certain deductions were made for temporary advances and expenses, and the amount actually paid over was £2,414 15s. 5d. I saw prisoner in connection with these transactions very few times. It was understood that we were to be paid off out of a still larger loan, of some £12, 000, that was being negotiated by Mr. Hill. Our loan was for six months, and we probably should not begin to press about it until about April. I saw prisoner once or twice as to the progress of negotiations for the larger loan. I heard through Hill that Baghino had raised a sum of money from a lady in Monte Carlo; I asked for details of this, which I had difficulty in obtaining; then prisoner called and showed me a draft of the mortgage that had been given in favour of Mrs. Schuhkrafft. Inspector Kane visited me some time in May. This is not a prosecution instituted by Mr. Blair.

Cross-examined. I had known Mr. Hill for some time before these transactions. Whenever prisoner called I looked upon him as Hill's agent. The first suggestion was for a temporary loan of about £300. I did not much fancy the security for a very big advance, on account of the power of appointment in the testator's widow, and the fact that on the death of one brother his share would go to his issue. When the £300 was lent, that was the only sum in contemplation to be lent by Mr. Blair. I do not remember whether I heard of Wilkinson's loan before the advance of the £300. I forget whether Baghino wanted us to lend £500; I was willing to lend £300, and there was an end of it.

Monday, July 30.

DUNCAN RAMSAY BLAIR , moneylender, 215, Piccadilly. My manager, Chapman, carried through the negotiations with Baghino. I saw the letters Exhibits 15 and 29 and the deed Exhibit 23 and believed they were documents written and signed by James Baghino. I drew cheque of September 13 for £375 and the cheque for £3,650. After the last transaction was completed I saw the letters signed James Baghino and the letters signed Bannin before the £3,650 transaction was completed.

I believed they were written by James Baghino and Bannin.

Cross-examined. I identify the letters handed up to me. I remember the contents of the deed and its general appearance and I recognise it as being the deed submitted to me. I identify the Bannin letter (Exhibit 2); it has been in my possession since October and I handed it to Inspector Kane. The cheque for £50 was a temporary loan on the security of a mortgage agreed to be executed. I saw the Bannin letter some days before November 3. When the deed of September 13 was executed and the £300 advanced upon it I had in contemplation to advance a larger sum—the amount was not mentioned. It was not my intention to make a permanent loan. There were some negotiations which led up to it, and I then agreed to lend the larger amount. I regarded the deed as being genuine, and on the mortgage which was to be executed I was prepared to make the advance. I desired to be informed by Father Bannin whether Baghino had already charged the reversion. It was suggested that Mr. Hill should go and see Father Bannin and ascertain. Then Mr. Hill produced this letter as Father Bannin's reply to Baghino. I was not present when it was produced. Chapman gave it to me.

FREDERICK MARSHALL TURNER , printer, 126, Charing Cross Road. In October, 1905, two persons came to my shop and ordered notepaper to be printed, "Italian Church, Hatton Garden," and "41, Rue de Canuce, Maison Lafitte," as produced.

Cross-examined. I took the order. I cannot recognise the persons who came.

BRYAN CHAMBERLAIN , 108, Vauxhall Bridge Road, commission agent. I have known prisoner about three years and have done a great deal of outdoor work for him, leaving summonses and so forth. Part of Exhibit 3 is in my writing. Prisoner made an appointment with me in October or November at the Adelphi Hotel at 10.30 a. m., and I wrote it from a draft which he produced. We were alone. There were two letters written, one complete and the other incomplete. There was some discrepancy in the first, prisoner stopped me and directed me to write, the complete one (Exhibit 2). The transaction was carried through in a great hurry. I think prisoner said it was something about some monetary matter. I wrote the whole of Exhibit 2, including the name. I made some remark afterwards about writing the name and the prisoner reassured me. I asked prisoner whether any serious consequences were likely to arise. He said something I cannot recollect, which reassured me.

Cross-examined. I was employed as clerk in various matters by prisoner, to serve summonses and writs and copy documents.

I went to prisoner by appointment on this occasion. The Adelphi Hotel is one or two doors from prisoner's office. Prisoner was in a hurry, and said he had an engagement. The letter of October 26 was copied exactly from the document prisoner gave me, signature and everything. I am not quite certain whether the draft was in ink or pencil. Both the letters I wrote were in ink. The draft was signed "Yours truly, P. J. Bannin." I could not say whether the draft was dated or not; the body of the letter is absolutely correct. There was no printed heading on the draft. I could not (positively swear there was not a heading on the draft. Prisoner took the letters I had written away, and I believe also the draft. There was an alteration made in the incomplete letter, and then I wrote the complete one. I do not remember the exact nature of the alteration. I am positive there was only one original. I may be mistaken about one or two details, because it is a long time ago. I think prisoner told me a few words, suggested some alteration, or something of that sort. It was carried through in an extreme hurry. "Grandmother" was altered, I think, into "Grandfather." They were both copied on the same day at the same hour. I used to see prisoner on the average every other day, and he used to pay me for what I did at the time. Sometimes when there was nothing to do prisoner would give me 1s. or 2s. 6d. Prisoner always acted straightforwardly; he paid my rent. The copies I made were on clean paper, upon which nothing had been written. If there is any pencil upon them that must have been written subsequently.

Re-examined. I did not have much to do with Hill. I did no legal work for prisoner until after he went to Hill's office. I am positive Exhibits 2 and 3 were written by me in ink at the same time. I had no knowledge of any sort or kind about Father Bannin or what this letter had to do with before I went to the Adelphi Hotel.

MINNIE WEBLEY , 5, Emerton Road, Clapham. I have lived with Strong for about three years past. We lived up to November 4 last at 2, Imperial Mansions, Bromells Road. The place was taken in my name, and I used to pay the rent. On November 4 we left; we sent the furniture to be stored, and went to Paris with Baghino and Elsie Vaughan, in the names of Mr. and Mrs. Shaw and Mr. and Mrs. Vaughan. I paid a week's rent in advance in lieu of notice on the day we left. I met prisoner in August last at Charing Cross Station, and was introduced to him by Baghino and Strong. I have been with the three at the Adelphi Hotel and at Hill's office. On Friday, November 3, I went with Strong: and Baghino to various shops at the West End. Strong bought me a diamond ring at Brabbington's, paying for it with a £100 note. Strong also bought me some furs and other things. I saw Mason afterwards at the "Haymarket" public-house.

Baghino, Elsie Vaughan, and Strong were present. There was a discussion. Mason was dissatisfied because he had not had sufficient money—that he had not received as much money as he had expected. On Saturday afternoon, November 4, Jack Roberts came with Strong to the flat. We all three left together, and drove to Charing Cross Mansions, and met Baghino and Elsie Vaughan. Roberts left us there at half past six. We left about nine for Paris, then went to Genoa and Monte Carlo. At Monte Carlo we met Mrs. Schuhkrafft and Miss Mayston, her niece. About Christmas time Strong was away for some days, and returned at the new year, when Mason also came and stayed two or three days. A telegram came soon after Mason left. I showed it to Baghino, and he left a few days later and went to Nice. Strong and I remained about two or three weeks, and returned to London to a flat at 3, Empress Mansions, Clapham. We all four stayed at the Hotel de Louvre at Monte Carlo. Mason stayed there also.

Cross-examined. I first called at Mr. Hill's office in August; it was the second time I met Mason. I cannot say the date. I went to Hill's office the first time with Strong and Baghino. When we went there the second time we were talking about Hill, and Mason said, "Do not speak too loud; Mr. Hill is coming in. I do not want him to know." I think I saw Mr. Hill on two occasions before September 13; I cannot swear to it. I have been to the office on several occasions since I have been back from Monte Carlo. I had been there between September 13 and the day we left London. I did not see Mr. Hill then. I do not know how many times I have been there. I met Strong on November 3 after he got the money. Strong told me of his going to Brighton. I did not then know of any fraud. I knew of it before November 3. I heard an argument between Mason and Baghino in the "Haymarket" public-house about Mason wanting more money. I went there with Strong, and Baghino and Mason came in a little after. I stayed there about half an hour, and left just before eight, as I had to go to Highbury, and left Strong there with Mason. All the argument I heard was that Mason was dissatisfied with the money. Strong told me Mason was dissatisfied with what he had, and I heard the argument going on. I say Mason was there.

THOMAS JOSEPH BARNEWELL , manager to Brabbington's, 27, Wardour Street, jewellers. I know John Baghino and Strong as customers. On November 4 I sold a ring to Strong for 50 guineas. He paid with a £100 note. Baghino was with him and redeemed some pledges with a £100 note. Another £100 note was changed, I think, by Baghino. The three notes were paid into the London City and Midland Bank, Shaftesbury Avenue.

Cross-examined. I have known Baghino 18 months or two years, and Strong perhaps half that time, as customers. They

have called together several times in the early part of 1905 and late in 1904. I cannot positively say I have known Strong that time. The transactions with Strong were minor ones before the purchase of the diamond ring. I should say nine months before November, 1905, I have seen Strong and Baghino together.

CONRAD MONTAGUE WALROND , cashier, Williams Deacon and Co., Charing Cross branch. Mr. Blair has a letter of credit at my bank; Chapman draws cheques on it in Blair's name. The six cheques produced were cashed at my bank and debited to Blair. I produce extract from the bank cash book for November 3, 1905, showing the notes and money in which cheque for £3,650 was cashed. There were 28 £100 notes, 15 £10 notes, and £700 in gold, the numbers of the £100 notes being 32819/24. 28089/95, 30335/46, and 32601/3; the numbers of the £10 notes being ✗713131/5 and 64391/4 00.

JOSEPH PERCIVAL HUDSON , clerk in bank note office, Bank of England. I produce five £100 notes, Nos. 28091—4 and 32820. They were cashed at the Bank of England on November 8, 1905, over the counter. It is the practice to ask the person presenting such notes to endorse them and these are endorsed. There were given in exchange for them 50 £5 notes, 96901/50; 20 £10 notes, 99607/26, and £50 in gold. I produce those 50 £5 notes and 20 £10 notes cancelled. £10 notes 99618 and 99621 are endorsed "G. Strong, 2, Imperial Mansions, Bromells Road, Clapham." £100 note 30, 337 is endorsed "Strong—de Louvre," part being torn off in cancellation. £10 notes 30338 and 30320 are endorsed "George Strong, Hotel de Louvre," and 30337 and 30340 are similarly endorsed. Three £100 notes, 32822, 32824, and 30339, are endorsed, "J. Baghino, Hotel de Louvre "; 30343 is endorsed "J. Baghino." Notes 30335, 30336 and 30341 were received from the London City and Midland Bank on November 5, 1905.

Cross-examined. The particulars I have given were taken out by another clerk who gave evidence at the Police Court. [Witness was directed by his lordship to verify the extracts from the books, and after an interval returned and stated that they were correct.]

GEORGE FRANK MATHIEU , 22, Elgin Crescent, managing director of J. and F. Clark and Sons, Limited, engineers, 30, Moorgate Street. At the beginning of November, 1905, prisoner asked me to go to Paris to dispose of some curios and paid me £30 in notes of £10 and £5. My company have an account at the London City and Midland Bank, Charing Cross, and I have paid money into that account. Prisoner has paid cheques into the account of the company. I have borrowed from £10 to £50 from him from time to time, and the money

has generally been paid to me in notes. £10 note, 71, 352, I received from Mason, and it was paid by me for my daughter's schooling. I generally paid notes paid me by prisoner into my bank, the National Bank, Strand Branch. Two notes, 99623 for £10 and 96935 for £5, produced are endorsed by me and the amount, £15, is written on the back of one of them. I received them from prisoner and paid them into the National Bank. I received £5 note produced from Mason and changed it at the National Bank. The name on 96925 is wrongly spelt "Mathew." That is not my writing. It contains my address. I do not know the writing. After I returned from Paris prisoner made me a loan of £215 by cheque, which I paid into my wife's account at the National Bank. My wife drew a cheque in my favour in payment of it, which I endorsed to prisoner.

Cross-examined. Prisoner entrusted me with some antiques to sell for him in Paris. I did not sell them, and they were subsequently sold at Christie's for £45. My company was doing business, and prisoner attended to some business for the company. I saw him first at Hill's office last July.

JOHN HENRY BARNETT , accountant, National Bank, Strand Branch. I produce extract from Mathieu's account, showing that two £10 notes produced, and a £5 note, No. 96, 935, were paid into his account.

CHARLES THOMAS WILKINSON , solicitor, Bush Lane House, and afterwards 7, Clarence Street. On August 17 last year a man called Baghino borrowed money of me. John Baghino brought him and called him his brother, and they both signed a mortgage on the reversionary interest of the two brothers to secure my advances. I saw them both sign. I saw the one called James on one occasion afterwards. I have never seen prisoner that I am aware of. I know Strong. He is not the person who signed as James Baghino. He did not sign the deed.

Cross-examined. The man called James Baghino resembled John James very much indeed, and the elder one's description of him as his brother seemed very applicable as regards age. John James Baghino told me that he was over twenty-one—between two or three and 20, that he was a careful man in monetary affairs. He was very like him in appearance. Everything seemed correct. One seemed to know as much about the property as the other. I took up the business and told the elder brother I could raise £5,000, but that it would be necessary for his grandmother to make an appointment, or else that his brother should join as surety for him. He said his brother was quite prepared to sign what was necessary, and he introduced his brother for that purpose. What I told him was under the advice of counsel; Mr. Walters, of Lincoln's Inn, advised me. I obtained a copy of the will and required both to sign on securing the loan, or else the elder to obtain an appointment from the

grandmother. The deed produced was given to me as security for my temporary advances; it mortgages both their interests. Advances were made by me of £120.

JOSEPH PETER BANNIN , recalled. I know the handwriting of James Baghino. The signature to the deed produced is not his writing, nor in the slightest degree like it.

Cross-examined. I have seen his writing every time he writes to his grandmother, to whom he writes about once a month.

CARL FREDERICK HUARTSON , 54, Harlesden Gardens, clerk to J. F. Clark and Sons, Limited. In June, 1905, I was engaged by prisoner and Mr. Mathieu, and had been there about three weeks when examined at the police court. I have known prisoner about four years, and was employed by his firm, Mason, Son, and Turnbull, for about a fortnight when I first knew him. I met prisoner at the Adelphi Hotel, and he sent me to Clark and Sons. He gave me a bundle of papers to put in a box. I made a statement to Inspector Kane and he took them out. They were there about a fortnight.

Cross-examined. I think I went to Clark's at the end of March and was there about a month.

JOHN KANE , Inspector, Scotland Yard. On May 5 I received anonymous letters produced (Ex. 11 and 12). When I arrested prisoner I told him he was charged with being concerned with Baghino and Strong in forging an agreement under which Blair had advanced to John Baghino £3,650. He said, "Why, my dear fellow, I have been assisting you all along. I wrote to the Chief Commissioner and to Chief Inspector Kane the moment I thought there was something wrong. I wrote to put you on your guard and to protect Mrs. Schuhkraff." He was about to say something more when he was advised by a gentleman in his company not to do so. Having got those anonymous letters I went to Mrs. Schuhkrafft, Old Quebec Street, on May 7. I there saw Strong. I had at that time no knowledge of the advances made by Blair. Strong was arrested on a charge in connection with Mrs. Schuhkrafft. After he was charged he made a communication to me, and in my and Sergeant Ashley's presence he made a long statement, which I produce. Strong was sent for trial here and pleaded guilty, and has been under remand ever since. On May 19 I arrested prisoner. Up to that date I had no knowledge of the author of those anonymous letters. I first saw Chapman or Blair on May 11. I made inquiry at Blair's office in consequence of Strong's statement, and on May 23 saw Huartson at J. F. Clark and Sons, Limited. He unlocked a box and handed me a bundle of papers. At Hill's office I found a diary, many of the entries in which are in prisoner's handwriting. The anonymous letters are in the writing of prisoner. I got from Mrs. Schuhkrafft's nephew three letters signed "E. M. Hill," addressed to Miss

Mayston. In the Moorgate Street bundle I found two letters from Miss Mayston to Mason. At Hill's office I found a letter purporting to be written by B. Chamberlain. In the Moorgate Street bundle I found a letter from J. Baghino, Monte Carlo, of January, 1905, headed "Hotel de Louvre "; a letter signed "James Baghino, Strada Spada, Genoa "; a letter from J. Baghino to E. M. Hill; a letter from "Your affectionate brother, James." dated "Apiano Como, August 25 "; the incomplete letter spoken to by Chamberlain; letter dated October 28, 1905, from E. M. Hill to Baghino; draft of statutory declaration; draft deed of mortgage, Baghino to Blair; type written copy of deed of September 11, with some pencil writing on it; letter, Hill to Baghino of February 13, 1906; letter. Baghino to Boddington, of March, 1906; letter. Blair to Hill; letter from "Your loving 'brother, Jamie," to "Dear Johnnie," from Maison Lafitte; letter, Hill to Mason, and envelope; three letters in the handwriting of Mason in name of Hill to Miss Mayston; two letters, Miss Mayston to E. M. Hill; and a number of other documents.

Cross-examined. In Hill's office I found various documents pertaining to the Baghino transaction.

THOMAS HENRY GURRIN , expert in handwriting, of 20 years' experience. I have examined handwriting of the three letters signed "James Baghino," said to be written by George Strong; the writing in diary (Exhibit 31) of prisoner, two anonymous letters (Exhibits 11 and 12), letters signed Hill to Miss Mayston, Exhibits 32, 33, 34, and 41 (Hill to Blair), £100 bank notes 28091, 28094, and 32820. The endorsement on the notes is, in my opinion, an imitation of Strong's handwriting written by prisoner. The letters to Miss Mayston are by the same hand. The endorsement on four £10 notes, 99618/21, "George Strong, 2, Imperial Mansions," is in the ordinary handwriting of the prisoner.

Cross-examined. I have been over 20 years an expert in handwriting. I have learnt my business during the time I have given evidence—not under any other famous expert. I have been examining documents constantly during the last 21 years. I had given evidence about seven years before I was called in by the Treasury. I gave evidence twice in the case of Adolf Beck. My report on that case consisted of two portions, and I gave evidence on both at Westminster Police Court. Later on in this Court I was only allowed to give the first portion of my report, which was detrimental to Beck. The evidence I was not allowed to give would in all probability have acquitted Beck. My evidence before Mr. Justice Grantham was detrimental to Beck, but I do not think it made much difference because the judge told the jury rather to give attention to the identification by

13 or 14 different witnesses. Looking at notes 32820 and 26091, 32820 is not endorsed by Strong, the other looks to me very much like Strong's writing. I have never seen it before. 30338, I think, is Strong's handwriting, but I should like time to examine it. It does not look like an imitation. Endorsement on 28093 and letter from Brixton appeared to me to be in the same handwriting, speaking to the best of my belief and from the best opinion I can give, without time to examine them.

Re-examined. Looking at the Brixton letter and 28093, there is a difference of the "r" in Strong. They are very similar, almost fac-simile. The "G" in George on the note looks as if it were written slowly and not so clean as in the prison letter. When I had the five notes under my examination together I was perfectly satisfied in my own mind that all five were endorsed at the same time by the same hand. Taking one of them quite away from the others, it is quite quite possible I may not be able to say whether it is a very good imitation or not. Looking again at 28093, there is a little shakiness; the final stroke of the "G" is quite different to that in the letter. The "G" in the letter is struck quite clean. In 28094 there is the time kind of shakiness all through the writing.

To the Judge. The endorsement on the five £100 notes is an imitation of Strong's writing and is an imitation by the writer of the letters signed by prisoner and the entries in the diary. I have seen the anonymous letters to the Chief Commissioner and the letters to Miss Mayston, and I believe the endorsements on the five notes is by the writer of the letters, mainly from the resemblance in the word "Strong."

(Tuesday, July 31.)

GEORGE STRONG , recalled, further cross-examined. Baghino and I left London for Genoa on November 4; we had made our minds up a day or two before to do so. Baghino went to Monte Carlo thinking he might win money to pay Blair back. We slept two nights in Genoa. Baghino did not see his brother in Genoa; I was with him nearly the whole time. The idea of stopping so long there was the idea of Baghino and of two friends who were with us. One was named Mackenzie, the other Windhurst, a journalist; he may spell his name differently. He was "Crime Editor" of a London paper; we met them in Paris. On November 3, the day the money was paid over, I do not remember where or with whom I dined. In the evening I went to the Opera Tavern, in the Haymarket, with Baghino and Elsie Vaughan, later in the evening I think prisoner came there also. I cannot say when we left.


ROBERT MASON (prisoner, on oath). For business purposes I adopted the name of Mason by deed poll. Early in 1905 I got

a seat in Mr. Hill's office. In matters introduced by me I was to act as managing clerk, and have complete authority to use his name and act as his representative, and I was to receive emuneration out of the amounts paid in matters I introduced. I first met John Baghino at Hill's office; I was introduced to him by Mr. Choate, who said he came from Brighton. I think I saw Strong first about September 11 at Hill's office. The first business with Baghino was the raising of some money on a house at Richmond; on a lease of the house and a conveyance of the ground rent, and on the security of a debenture bond, £850 was advanced to Baghino through Mr. Ashton, a house agent. Baghino represented that there was no encumbrance on the property; late in October we found that it had already been mortgaged three times over. On September 6, on arriving at the office, I found Baghino in conversation with Hill; they were discussing the question of raising money on his reversion. Hill took his instructions, and raised £300 for him from Blair. I then knew nothing about the loan from Wilkinson; I did not know Wilkinson; I never saw him till yesterday. I heard it stated that James Baghino was in this country; I never saw anyone passing as James Baghino. Hill prepared the deed Exh. 23; I was present when John executed it; Hill attested it and handed it back to John for him to get the signature of James at Brighton. I bad no knowledge whatever that it, the deed, was intended to be used for fraudulent purposes. Strong is not speaking the truth when he says that I assented to the forgery, or knew anything about it, or paid him to go to Brighton; his story is utterly false. John Baghino told me he was a second lieutenant in the Royal Munster Fusiliers; he showed me his commission. On September 13 I was away at the Law Courts when Hill left to go to Blair's office; on returning I found a note directing me to follow there immediately. I went straight to Blair's office; it is untrue that I stayed outside while the money was being paid; I was present when it was paid. Baghino gave Hill £60 out of the money, and instructed him to pay me £30 of it. Baghino knew of the arrangement that I was to have half of what Hill got. With regard to Strong's statements that after the payment of the money there was a dispute as to its division, that we went to a public-house, or to the Cafe Royal, and that I there got £50 or £70 from Baghino, they are absolutely untrue. With regard to the payment to me of £5 spoken to by Chapman, there was a discussion between him and Hill as to some commission being paid for the introduction of the business; Hill said that, as he was acting as solicitor for Baghino, he could not take a commission; then Chapman said, "Very well; give it to Mason "; the £5 was put down on the table, but I never got it; I did not introduce

Baghino to Blair, and therefore I was not entitled to it. After September 13 Baghino frequently called at the office; Hill was acting for him in several matters, and he left various documents. I had nothing whatever to do with the printing of notepaper with the heading, "Italian Church, Hatton Garden "; it was never discussed with me by Baghino or Strong, and I never went to the printer. I knew nothing at all of Strong going to France in October and answering letters in the name of James Baghino. With reference to Chamberlain's evidence, John Baghino called at the office one morning and asked to see two letters from Bannin, and said ho wanted me to make a copy of each of them I said I was very busy, and would attend to it when I returned from the Courts; I left to go to the Courts; Baghino was with me; outside the office we met Chamberlain; I said to Baghino, "Give them to Chamberlain, and he will probably find time to do it" The three of us went to the Adelphi Hotel; Baghino and I went to the buffet, and Chamberlain went into the smoking-room to copy the documents; I did not read the letters over, and took very little notice of them. I had no suspicion that a forgery was being carried out; until these proceedings I had no suspicion that the letters were used for any fraudulent purpose. I never saw the Bannin letter, Exh. 2. As to the further loan, the negotiations with Blair were by Hill exclusively. Baghino instructed Hill to pay me half of the £225 that he received. Strong is lying when he says that after the loan was completed on November 3 Baghino and he and I went to an hotel in Northumberland Avenue, that Baghino paid me four £100 notes, and that I wanted more. It is not true that on November 4 I was with Baghino and Strong in a public-house in Moorgate Street I saw them on that day in the Strand; I was in company with Ashton and his solicitor; we had an unpleasant altercation in Simpson's. Ashton charged Baghino with having obtained money by false pretences on the house at Richmond, and threatened practically to prosecute him; whereupon Baghino produced five £100 notes and said, "This is all I can do at present; if you will renew the bill for the balance I will repay this sum." Ashton seemed satisfied; I was sent out for a 6s. bill stamp, the bill was drawn for £550, and the £500 was handed over. Shortly afterwards Ashton paid me £25, half of his commission. I had several financial transactions with Ashton. With regard to the half of Hill's £225 which Baghino said I was to receive, I did not get half. £100 had to be paid to someone else, which left divisible £125, and all I got from Hill was £62 10s. It is not true that I endorsed the name, "George Strong" on five £100 notes, or any of them; the endorsements on the notes produced are not in my writing. On December 30 or 31 I went to Paris, and from there to Monte

Carlo; I was in Monte Carlo two days. It is not correct that I used the name of Mr. Hill. Mr. Boddington, whom I met at the hotel with Baghino, introduced me to Mr. Brown as Mr. Hill; it is quite common for the representative of a solicitor to be introduced in his pricipal's name. I first heard of the deed of September 11 being a forgery from the police on May 19. On May 4 I heard that John Baghino was an illegitimate son, and not one of the legatees under the Ortelli will, and that the whole thing was a fraud; Choate told me that. I met Strong on the same day, and it was from my interrogation of him and the information I had received from Choate that I was dumbfounded at the revelation. I went back to the office to confer with Mr. Hill, and found he had gone for the night. I thought it my duty to write to the Chief Commissioner of Police, and I did so, because I knew that Strong was then negotiating a further loan from Mrs. Schuhkrafft.

Cross-examined. At Monte Carlo I allowed myself to be addressed as "Mr. Hill," but with no wrong intention; to Mrs. Schuhkrafft and her niece, Miss Mayston, I passed officially as Mr. Hill. The letter from Miss Mayston (Exh. 35) came to Mr. Hill; I swear that. I got it in my capacity as managing clerk. It was found at my office in Moorgate Street; that is not Hill's office, but he had as much access to it as I had. The letter came to Hill's office, and was put with the Baghino papers there; I doubtless took it with other Baghino papers to Moorgate Street, which we used as a City office. The office I mean is that of J. S. Clarke and Sons, Limited; Hill's name is not up there, but he is solicitor to the company. I went out to Monte Carlo sit Mr. Ashton's request; for one reason, it was to obtain a settlement of the £550 bill; I did not go to assist in getting a further loan from Mrs. Schuhkrafft. I did communicate with Mr. Brown, her solicitor. Brown wrote to Hill for information. I got from Hill half of the £30 sent to him by Mr. Brown; I got nothing else for myself, but I received money from Boddington in settlement of Ashton's transactions with Baghino. I remember getting Hill's letter of May 10, saying that he had discovered that I had received £192 10s. from Monte Carlo. I wrote an explanatory letter to him. I did receive a bank draft for £192 12s., but that was not for my own use; I received that and something under £150, to take up the Ashton bill of £550; this bill had been reduced then to £350. I paid the cash to Ashton. It is not correct to put it that the bill was given to prevent a prosecution for some fraud, although probably the threat of a prosecution had something to do with it. I had reason to believe at that time that Baghino was mistaken in what he had been doing, and I was disposed to be charitable with him and treat it as unintentional on his part. I cashed the

draft for £192 12s. and settled with Ashton. In the copy of my banking account produced I see there is a credit to me of £192 12s., and I do not see there any draft to Ashton of that amount in that account; I know it was settled out of one of the accounts. If was on May 4 that I heard that the whole thing was a fraud, and that Baghino was not entitled to a farthing; I considered it my duty to communicate with the police as to the person who had committed the fraud, and I wrote the anonymous letter. Baghino's name is not mentioned in the letter, but you will see the expression, "You will probably find that they are wanted in other similar frauds "; that paragraph would develop itself; it would identify the persons who were responsible for the swindle. The reason I signed the letter "Nemo" instead of my own name was this: the character of the people with whom these men were associated was of a dangerous class, and I was not disposed to run the risk of having a knife put into my body or having my eyes poked out, so I wrote to the police and left them to their own method of developing it. When I wrote the second anonymous letter, on May 8, I knew that Strong had been arrested; again there is no reference by name to Baghino, nor anything about Blair; the police had only to show the letters to Mrs. Schuhkrafft, and she would have told them who they came from; I might have given my own name, but I preferred to be cautious, so as not to receive any injury at the hands of these people. It was early in March that I found out that Baghino had made false representations in the matter of the Richmond house advance, but I thought he had been guilty of an oversight, not of intentional fraud. I did not then communicate with Scotland Yard, because I had not sufficient information. Q. What was your interest in prosecuting these inquiries about Baghino? A. I had been victimised out of my debenture bonds. I refer to debenture bonds in the London and County Contracts, Limited, a company that has an income at the present time of about £250 a quarter in City rentals. It is a duly incorporated company; Mr. Hill is its solicitor; its registered office is at his office. I was at one time secretary. My own family advanced the money secured on the debentures; I was trapped into giving them to Baghino, and these were the debentures that were used to secure the loan of £850 on the Richmond house. Both Hill and I knew Baghino first about July 21; on September 6, when negotiations for the loan on the reversion were entered into, Baghino was closeted with Mr. Hill himself, and gave him instructions, in my absence. Q. Was this your matter or Hill's matter? A. Well, it was a joint matter; Hill had entire conduct of the case. Q. Did you ever take steps to see who or where the brother was who was to join in the deed? A. I never interfered with anything Hill had the conduct of. Q. Was this Baghino business business which

you introduced to the office? A. I looked upon it as such. I swear that before September 6 I knew nothing whatever about a loan having been made by Wilkinson. I never met a man named Golding; I never in my life met a man supposed to be James Baghino. Up to May 4 I had not the least idea that there was anything wrong. I never heard of Golding in connection with Baghino or Choate or Strong. I did not associate with those three; from first to last I have not seen Strong a dozen times. I was connected with Mason, Son and Turnbull; I was cashier; the firm came to grief, and I carried on the business with Mr. Turnbull. I did not know Mr. Lord Thompson. I had nothing to do with the execution of the deed of September 11. I still say that I never got £5 or any sum from Blair in respect of the £300 loan. I have known Chamberlain three or four years; he has done several things for me and I have always paid him; I agree that he can have no grudge against me. It was two of Father Bannin's letters that were given Chamberlain to copy; I do not know the dates; they were among a file of papers in the office; Baghino brought them. I could not say what writing they were in; I believe they were on paper with a printed heading. Baghino came into the office in his usual way, and said he wanted a copy made of each letter; he wanted Mr. Wilkinson to have the copies and Mr. Hill to have the originals. I did not ask Baghino why he wanted copies; it was not my place to interrogate a man who had £140, 000 at his command. I was in the habit of seeing Chamberlain most days, as to process serving and so on; that is how I came to meet him on this occasion. When we went to the Adelphi Hotel I gave him all the letters and papers that Baghino had given to me. I cannot say whether these two pieces of paper (Exh. 2 and 3) were handed by me to Chamberlain; I gave him what Baghino gave me; that was, two letters, written letters, and I have an idea that there were a couple of sheets besides. Chamberlain is wrong when he says that I gave him a "draft" to copy; I gave him two original letters. He went into the smoking-room to write the copies; I went out to the Law Courts; when I got back he gave me the papers, and I gave him 2s. or 2s. 6d. I did not look to see if they were properly copied. I did notice that the paper was headed "Italian Church, Hatton Garden "; I did not take sufficient notice, on my honour. The papers Baghino gave me I placed with the bundle of Baghino papers in the office; they were quite accessible to Mr. Hill. Q. How did these papers come to be found at Moorgate Street? A. I must have taken them there along with other papers; I cannot say for what purpose; probably to investigate something with Baghino's trustees; it might be to investigate whether Baghino was legitimate; I do not say that these two papers would help me in that, but they would

be with the other papers. I was in communication with Messrs. Miller, the solicitors for the trustees, but we could never get information out of them; I say that if the solicitors to the trustees had replied to the letters written by Mr. Hill this fraud would never have got beyond the bud stage. It is the fact that before the money was parted with in September we were in communication with Messrs. Miller; the letters would be in our letter books; it would go back to July; and we never could get any information. As to Strong's story about meeting me at the Hotel Victoria, it is a fabrication from first to last. The amount Mr. Hill received was £220, a payment had to be made of £100; this left £120. and I got my proportion of that. The £100 was paid to Walter Chapman, who introduced me to Blair; Mr. Hill arranged it with Chapman; I knew this last Saturday. It is not true that Hill gave me a £100 note and a £10 note; I got £62 10s.; I did not get £400 in the Hotel Victoria, nor did I ask for more or for anything. I was not at the Hotel Victoria at all. After the interview at Simpson's on November 4, I and Ashton and his solicitor went away in one party, Baghino and Strong remained together. I do not think Ashton writes like Strong or like me. I did not see Strong after November 4. I have borrowed money from Ashton and given it to Mattheu. The endorsements on the two £10 notes 99618 and 99621 are not in my writing; there is a slight resem blance. (Later in the day Mr. Hill produced his letter books from July to September; prisoner was asked to point to any letters written to Messrs. Miller's; he could not find any, but he insisted that his recollection was that there were several letters, and that he had on several occasions gone to Miller's office.)

Re-examined. With regard to the Ashton loan, Baghino professed to be the owner of the Richmond house; the London and County Contracts Company bought the house, and the loan was secured by the debentures I refer to. When I handed the two letters to Chamberlain to copy I did not hand him separately the paper to copy them upon; I just gave him all the papers that Baghino had given to me.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner. It is a miscarriage of justice.

Many previous convictions were proved against prisoner, going back to 1882, for long-firm frauds, conspiracy, subornation of perjury, issuing a sham writ, fraudulently acting as a solicitor, and other offences. His real name is John Scaife. Inspector Kane stated that the London and County Contracts Company was a one-man concern managed by the prisoner, and at the time of his arrest it was clear that gigantic frauds were in contemplation in connection with that company.

Sentence, Seven years' penal servitude.

The Common Serjeant remarked upon the ability with which Chief Inspector Kane and the officers acting with him had unearthed a big conspiracy. It had been a most complicated case, and the bringing of these things to light, bit by bit, so that the complete story could be put before the Court, must have involved an immense amount of work; and the energy and ability of Chief Inspector Kane deserved the highest commendation.


OLD COURT; Monday, July 23.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

COOK, George (37, labourer) pleaded guilty , to breaking and entering St. Gabriel's Church, Wanstead, on June 30, and stealing therein an altar cross and other articles; he confessed to a conviction at this Court on December 11, 1905, of felony; eight other convictions were proved. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

NEW COURT; Monday, July 23.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

JOHNSON, Frederick (38, labourer), and SMITH, William (28, labourer) pleaded guilty , to breaking and entering St. Stephen's Church, Walthamstow, and stealing therein 10 1/2 d., the moneys of Charles Frederick Harvey and others, and feloniously receiving same. Both confessed to previous convictions.

A number of previous convictions were proved.

Sentences, each three years' penal servitude.

NEW COURT; Tuesday, July 24.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

WALLIS. William (20, labourer), pleaded guilty to stealing a watch and other articles, and 4s., the goods and moneys of George Cowell, and feloniously receiving same; stealing a watch and chain, the goods of George Wallis, and feloniously receiving same.

Mr. C. E. Jones prosecuted.

Three previous convictions for larceny, one months, 21 days, and four months' imprisonment were proved, and prisoner was stated to have repeatedly robbed his father and mother.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

HOWE, Frank, and HORNER, Francis ; Howe stealing two bags of flour, the goods of Gordon Coombe and another, his masters, and Horner feloniously receiving same. Howe pleaded guilty.

Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Martin O'Connor and Mr. Eric Dunbar defended Homer.

FRANK HOWE , carman, Charlton Street, Walworth Road (prisoner on oath, called by prosecution). I have pleaded guilty to the theft of these two sacks of flour on June 18, 1906. I was then in the employ of Messrs. Soddy, Walworth. On that day I went to the wharf of Gordon Coombe and Co., Clink Street, Borough, for the purpose of carting certain sacks of flour. I was in charge of a pair-horse van, and arrived there at 9.50 a.m.; 65 bags or half sacks should have been delivered, but I received 67. I did not notice it at the time. I took them to Soddy's, and delivered them to Gibbs, who told me there were 67. I then returned to the wharf for the remainder of my load. I had an order for 200 bags, and my mate who had a one-horse van took 35 each time. I signed on the first occasion for 100 bags. The second time I received 65 bags. I did not mention that I bad had 67 before. I then drove in the direction of Messrs. Soddy's, and I met the prisoner Homer in Park Street, Borough, at a public-house where I stopped to have a drink. He was a stranger to me. I judged him to be a man on the road, a bit of a dealer, and I asked him if he could do with two bags of flour. He said, "Yes." I then took the two bags off my van, and put them on to his. My van had the name of Benjamin Soddy on it. Homer gave me 5s. I took what he offered me. He did not ask me how I came to be selling it. I then went straight home to Messrs. Soddy's.

Cross-examined. Ernest Gibbs, the warehouseman, received the flour from me. He received 67 bags the first tune, and 63 the second time. It is not true that he had 65 the second time. I had not seen prisoner before that day. I was about five minutes in conversation with him. I have not seen him since until he was at the police court. He was put up at Stratford amongst a number of men, and I was not able to identify him. He was pointed out to me as being the man to whom I had sold the flour, and I then recognised him. I say that I met an absolute stranger in the street, and asked him if he would buy flour

from me that I had stolen from my employers. I did not tell him I had stolen it. I did not steal it; it was a mistake of the checkers. I only said what I have stated—I handed him the two bags of flour. I told my firm the next morning when it was found out—I acknowledged it to Mr. Soddy. Gordon Coombe and Co. never missed the flour at all.

JOHN JONES , Caledon Road, East Ham, foreman to Gordon Coombe and Co. Winchester Wharf, Southwark. On June 18 two of Soddy's vans came for 200 bags of flour. Howe signed for 100 and Simmonds. the other carter, signed for the other 100. The bags came from America by the s. s. "Minnehaha." They are marked by the miller. The first 100 were all marked, "Army and Navy." Bag produced is one of them. There is also a cypher, for each consignment. The one produced has "YZ 883 "; that represents the milling date. We had 500 of that cypher. The other 400 were delivered to various persons. I did not miss the two bags at the time. On June 19 I received information and went to the West Ham Police Station and found the two bags in the possession of the police. I should say they bad come from my firm. I identify them by the cypher. I could not swear to the flour. I swear to the bags. It is the same class of flour. The value of the two bags is 19s.

Cross-examined. I will swear by the cypher that that flour is the property of my employers. This flour is not sold everywhere in the British Islands. We do the work for a merchant in Liverpool. It is a common type of flour. I could not tell you the cypher on the other 100 bags. I delivered flour on June 19. I do not know the cypher of that. I very likely delivered some on the 17th which I believe had the same cypher. We deliver a great many other classes of flour. Other wharfingers deliver it. "YZ 883" is the date the flour goes through the mill. The people we do the work for have the sole right to that mark. I do not know how many times flour of that cypher has been sent to us.

JOSEPH PITMAN , Lower Road, Rotherhithe, tally clerk to Gordon Coombe and Co. To the best of my knowledge, on June 18, 65 bags were placed on the first van and 35 on the second. I tallied the morning load.

Cross-examined. To the best of my knowledge 65 was the number I tallied on to the first van; that is according to my tally.

GEORGE READING . Barrett's Grove. Stoke Newington. tally clerk to Gordon Coombe and Co. On the afternoon of June 18 I tallied flour delivered to Messrs. Soddy's vans. There were 65 bags delivered to the first van and 35 to the other.

ERNEST GIBBS . Charleston Street, Walworth, warehouseman to Soddy and Co. On June 18 I tallied flour sent by our two vans from Gordon Coombe and Co. Sixty-seven were delivered

from the pair-horse van in the morning and 63 in the afternoon, making 130 in all, which was the proper number I had to receive.

Cross-examined. I tally the bags as they come from the cart and record is kept in the foreman's book.

FREDERICK HANKS , Police-Sergeant, 78, N Division. On June 18, at 9.30 a.m., I received information and saw prisoner Homer at Lowther Road, Walthamstow, where he lives. I said, "I have been informed that you have some flour in your stable that is supposed to have been stolen." He said, "Yes, I have got some. I bought it for feeding pigs—some sweepings. You can have a look at them if you like" I accompanied him to the stable, and I saw two bags of flour, the bags of which have been produced to-day. I put my finger in and pulled out some flour, and said, "This is not pig's food, this is good flour" He then said, "I bought it from Frank Stockton's, at Leyton." I asked him if he could produce any bill of the receipt? He said he could. He produced a long file of bills which I examined, but I found nothing in connection with flour. He was not able to find any bill. I then said I should take him to the station, and he said, "I bought it at Stratford Market" After he was charged he said, "I bought it at Waltham Abbey Market about three months ago." I was present when Jones came to Stratford Police Court and identified the sacks.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was sober—I failed to find a trace of drink on him. He told me he had bought the flour three months before. I received three bags of flour altogether. There was no other bag or portion of a bag of flour on the premises.

Re-examined. The third bag was a different mark altogether to the other two.


FRANCIS HORNER (prisoner, on oath), 6, Lowther Road, Walthamstow, oil and colourman. I do not keep a shop—it is a private house. I am also a general dealer. Until recently I reared pigs. The local authority objected as the piggery was too close to habitations. On Monday, June 18, I went to the Old Wharf, Bromley-by-Bow, with a van load of empty oil barrels. I go there every Monday, leaving about one o'clock, and arriving about 3.30. I left Bow at about 4.30, and went to Stratford Market, and from Stratford Market home by road. I was not at Walworth that day or anywhere south of the river in London. There was some trouble when I got home with my housekeeper. She wanted some money. She works for me, and had peeled some onions for me. She appeared the worse for drink, and I was not much better myself. She wanted some money for the work she had done. I said, "I cannot pay you now; I will pay you at the end of the week." She then

threw some water on me from a glass jar, and I pushed her into a tub of water. Then she sent for the police. Then she said something to the sergeant about the flour being stolen. I had an altercation on my return home with my housekeeper. Mrs. Fone. and pushed her into a tub of water. She sent for the police. I think an ordinary policeman came first, and Mrs. Fone told him that the three bags of flour were stolen. Of course, I contradicted it. Sergeant Hanks came then. The police then removed the three sacks of flour. I could not exactly say when I purchased the flour. Sometimes I have bought flour, as I told the sergeant, of some people in Bermondsey, and sometimes off Mr. Stogdon, "Coach and Horses," at Leyton. I have bought flour off several people at Waltham Abbey Market. I can almost swear I bought these three sacks of flour from Mr. Gower at Buckhurst Hill, I should say over three months ago, and I have had them in the stable ever since. I have been in business 35 years. I have never been charged with any offence.

Cross-examined. I only keep one van. I used to keep pigs until I had this difference with the sanitary inspector; that was six or seven months ago. I have had some pigs up to last week. I buy pigs and take them over to different markets and sell them again. I keep them for a day on my premises. I have had 30 or more during the last three months, from time to time. I feed them on wash and flour. I generally keep good flour; it is the cheapest. If you buy sweepings it is half cinders. The flour in question is not good enough for baking bread. It is very suitable for feeding pigs. I pay about 8s. a bag for it. It is cheaper than sweepings, which is 5s. 6d. I bought the flour produced from Gower, of Wood ford, for the purpose of feeding my pigs. I have bought several lots of him. I bought this lot of him at Waltham Abbey Market. I visit that market every Tuesday. He had no quantity of it—only these three bags. I believe these three were bought at the same time; I could not swear to it. I have bought as many as seven or eight bags. I could not swear which had been used. I will not swear the three found on my premises were bought from Gower at the same time. I will not swear the two produced were bought from Gower; it is a hard thing to say. I have had three bags and I have had some more in at the same time. They all three came from the same place. I had a receipt (produced): "Received of Mr. Homer, March 6, 1906, £1 4s., for three bags of dark flour"—8s. a bag. This (produced) is what I call dark flour. That receipt was on my file in the front room. I had three bill files. I did not mention Gower's name to the police nor show them that receipt. I was asked if I had receipts and I said "Yes." and I gave him one file that was in the kitchen. I said I had bought

some at Bermondsey. I could not say at the time where it did come from or else I should have cleared the case up at the station. I bought several bags from Stockton at Leytonstone. I do not swear they came from Gower. I never saw Howe to my knowledge before I saw him at the Police Court.

LEONARD FONE , 6, Lowther Road, Walthamstow. I live in Mr. Homer's house with my mother, Mrs. Fone. I remember the police taking three bags of flour from prisoner's house on June 18. I had seen them in the stable for about three months.

Cross-examined. Those were the only three bags that had been in the stable during that period. Mother used to boil a copperful of potatoes, and Mr. Horner used to mix them up with flour for his pigs. He had sometimes one, two, or four pigs. We have had no pigs for three months.

EMMA FONE , 6, Lowther Road, Walthamstow, housekeeper. I remember the police coming on June 18. Prisoner was rather the worse for drink, and would not pay me for my work, and he pushed me in a tub. I lost my temper, and started saying nasty things. The police took away the three bags of flour. Prisoner used to have flour to feed the pigs. I used to boil the potatoes, and we used to mix them up with the flour. I should think the three bags had been there four months—a long time.

Cross-examined. There were no pigs to feed during that time. I sent for the police because prisoner pushed me into a tub of water. I did not tell the policeman the flour was stolen. They asked me questions, and I was worried. I do not know whether I mentioned Soddy's name to the police. I did not see prisoner come home that day. I did not tell the police I had seen the flour taken out of the van that afternoon. I did not see it taken out of the van.

Re-examined. I do not know Soddy's. I never heard of them before June 18. I do not know the name.

JOHN WILLIAM GOWER , baker, 9, Church Road, Buckhurst Hill. I have known the prisoner about four or five years, and have sold him sweepings on many occasions. I had bought a horse of him some three years ago. I sold him three bags of flour of 10 stone each, 140 lb., on March 6, 1906, for 24s. I could not tell you the name on the bags, I have a good many different bags.

Cross-examined. The sale took place at my shop, 9, Church Road. I met prisoner on the Thursday, and asked him if he would buy the flour. I made out a receipt at the time. He took delivery at my shop. I have sold him sweeping from the bakehouse floor; that is coarse stuff, not fit for human food. Flour produced is not very good patent flour; it is very dark—flour—not fit for human food—not to use alone. It might be used in a shop where they sell bread at 4d. a quartern. It is

not sweepings. It might be used mixed with other flour. I would not use it in my shop. I bought it at the Abbey Mills, West Ham, some time in February. I have got the receipt at home in my book. I think it cost me 27s. a sack—13s. 6d. a bag. It did not come up to my expectations, and I wrote to the miller, and he sent me some more in. It was not prepared at the Abbey Mills; it had got damaged on board ship. I met prisoner in Waltham Market on March 2, and spoke to him about this flour. I asked him 10s. a bag for it. He said it was rather more than he could afford to give, and he called on Thursday, at eight o'clock, took it away, and paid me 24s. for the three bags. All three were received in one consignment from the Abbey Mills. I had six bags altogether. I used the other three a little at a time, and I had complaints, so I was obliged to stop using it. My miller said it had got damaged and over-heated. I cannot account for two bags having one mark and one another mark. I do not know what the mark is; I cannot read. (The third bag was marked "Schokman's Cie, Don. ") I am not aware of having used "Don" French flour. I cannot swear to the bags. Thai is the class of flour I sold to prisoner. I cannot use it in my business. I have a very good business, and I do not get lets than 5 1/2 d. or 6d. a loaf. I use a wonderful lot of flour in, a year.

(Wednesday, July 25.)

FRANK HOWE , recalled (to Mr. O'Connor). I did not count the bags of flour forming the first load as they were being put in. I signed for 100 bags in two loads during the day. 65 bags were sent by the first load and 35 by the second load. It was my business to see that I got the proper number, and I thought that they had been counted right. I saw the tallying done by Gordon Coombes and Co. The bags are taken from the warehouse and put into a lift or crane with a chain and sling. The clerk who takes them from the warehouse is supposed to count them. A man stands by the crane to count the number of bags as they go down, and I take it that the man who puts them on to the sling counts them also. We all agreed that the number was 65.

To Mr. Fulton. We discovered we had 67 when we got to the other end.

Verdict: Both guilty.

WILLIAM KNOTT , Detective-Sergeant, W Division, said he had known prisoner Horner for four or five years and he had been in the, habit of mixing with low-class dealers and other thieves. About three months ago his van was found loaded with cycle fittings, the proceeds of warehouse-breaking, for which one man was now undergoing nine months' imprisonment and two other

men penal servitude. Prisoner was not charged on that occasion, but had lent his van. He had been under observation for some time, but up to now there had been nothing definite against him. He had the reputation of not being particular when and how he bought.

Sentence: Horner, nine months' imprisonment with hard labour; Howe, who was stated to have borne a good character, six months' imprisonment.

THIRD COURT, Tuesday, July 24.

(Before the Common Serjeant.)

JORDAN, Thomas (24, dealer) pleaded guilty , to attempting to carnally know Bertha Lynch, a girl under the age of 13 years and indecently assaulting her. Sentence, Six calendar months.

NEW COURT; Friday, July 27.

(Before Mr. Recorder.)

TENTORI, George , maliciously publishing certain false and defamatory libels of and concerning William Summerskill, a medical practitioner.

Mr. C. W. P. Overend prosecuted; Mr. C. E. Jones appeared for defendant.

Justification being pleaded, the Recorder asked to be shown the plea, and directed that further particulars should be given, the plea being insufficient by reason of its vagueness. He also directed that the case should be placed in the judge's list, as it dealt with abortion, and the practice of the Court had invariably been to place such cases in the judge's list.

Prisoner was accordingly released on bail until next Sessions.


THIRD COURT; Tuesday, July 24,

fore the Common Serjeant.)

PEARMAN, George (32, labourer), and STONE (29. labourer), pleaded guilty to burglary in the dwelling-house of William James Uphill, and stealing therein a jug, his goods, and four tablecloths and other articles, the goods of Maria Arrowsmith, and feloniously receiving same; burglary in the dwelling-house of James Neville with intent to steal therein; burglary in the dwelling-house of Frederick Edward Hulmes, and stealing therein six basins and other articles, his goods, and feloniously receiving same; and also confessed to previous convictions.

Mr. Ricardo prosecuted.

The burglary at the residence of Mr. Uphill, 4 Granville Park, Blackheath, took place on July 10. The next burglary was on July 12, the residence of Mr. Neville, being in Kew Gardens Road, which was entered through the kitchen window, and things were packed ready for removal. At the next house prisoners were caught. When arrested Stone was wearing a white shirt, part of the proceeds of the burglary at Blackheath. The evidence of police officers showed both prisoners to be habitual criminals.

Sentence, Seven years' penal servitude.

order for the restitution of the goods was made.

Mr. Ricardo said it had been suggested that he should draw his lordship's attention to the ingenuity of the police, after having caught the prisoners, in tracing she other burglaries.

The Common Serjeant said he had not learned sufficient of the circumstances of the case to say more than that no doubt the Commissioner of Police would take notice of it.

FOURTH COURT; Thursday, July 26.

(Before Judge Rentoul.)

GORMAN, Albert (43, commission agent) ; attempting to steal £18, money of Harry Cavanagh.

Mr. Curtis-Bennett and Mr. C. H. Pierson for the prosecution.

HARRY CAVANAGH , commission agent. On July 12, about three p.m., I was in the Hill Road, Wimbledon. Prisoner came to me and gave me a betting slip on which was written: "5s. Goldflake, 3.30; 10s. Marliacea, 4 o'clock" and his name "Lewis." As I held the paper in my hands, the words, "10s. Myth, 1.45, all on Serenata, 2 o'clock" developed, and beneath the name "Goldflake" the words Anything to come." Upon these words developing I immediately went to three or four of my friends and showed them the paper. I subsequently found out that the two horses Myth and Serenata had won the races referred to before I received the slip. I wrote at the bottom of the paper, "15s. received, 3 o'clock." The next day I saw

prisoner and he asked me to pay him £18, which I disputed. I said I did not think it was as much as that. I had a motive for delay at the time. While we were disputing, Sergeant Gillan came up and I gave prisoner into custody. I said to Gillan, "This man is attempting to obtain money by fraud," and I took the papers out of my pocket and explained to him what had happened to the paper. The prisoner snatched the two papers from me and the sergeant took them up and said he would charge him. Prisoner said, "It is all right; I am well known."

Cross-examined. I am a ready-money bookmaker, walking about Wimbledon. I have been fined for ready-money bets a few times. I only knew prisoner a day or two previously. I never saw him before in my life. I very often lose £18 on one paper and more. As a rule, I put down the time at which I receive the bet. I had a suspicion about this transaction. We cannot always get the people to write the times themselves, but I wish they would. I do not think I have had a great many disputes as to bets. I have lived at Wimbledon 35 years. Prisoner said, "There is £18 to come," but I did not think it was as much. I was speaking to prisoner about 10 minutes before the sergeant came up. He was asking for the money and I said, "I do not think there is as much to come." I do not deny that I said at the Police Court that I was trying to pump him.

BERT HAYES , commission agent, Wimbledon. On July 12, a few minutes before three o'clock, prosecutor came to me and showed me a ticket. When I first saw it there was: "10s. Myth" on it and I saw the other words come up very slightly. I could not tell whether the writing was coming or going—it was undergoing some process of change. When the paper was handed to me I saw "10s. Myth" very slightly and not so plain as it is now and something coming underneath not so plain as the top. I could hardly read the lines.

Cross-examined. I cannot tell you the difference between a commission agent and a bookmaker. I have been fined three times. I have not worked for prosecutor, but I have worked against him.

Sergeant GILLAN. On Friday, July 13, I was on duty in Hill Road, and I saw prisoner and prosecutor coming out of the railway station. I kept observation on them. Prisoner went into the "Prince of Wales," and I followed him in; he stopped there 10 minutes, and stood at the corner for 10 minutes. As I saw prosecutor and prisoner coming up, and they were having a heated discussion, I went across the road to them; I heard prisoner say to prosecutor. "I want £18 "; prosecutor said to me, "Look at this; this man is trying to obtain £18 off me by fraud," and he handed me the top slip of paper. He said, "I took this yesterday afternoon about three o'clock, and after

Gorman had gone I noticed some writing coming up, and I showed it to three or four others." Prisoner snatched the papers and another betting ticket from me and from the prosecutor; I forced them out of his hands. He turned round to prosecutor and said, "If you don't want to pay it, one of the horses I backed won on Friday—let me have it, it is about £2." I told prisoner he would have to come to the station. On the way to the station, he said, "Square him, and I will give you a couple of quid. You are a man of the world—take a couple of pounds, and don't let him charge me. I do not want any money." While the case was being investigated prisoner repeatedly said, "I admit it is only about £2 coming—give it me and let me go." When the charge was read he made no answer. According to the "Sporting Life" of July 13, Myth won at Pontefract at 1.45 in the Innkeepers' Selling Handicap Plate, and Serenata won the two o'clock race, the Downton Handicap, at Bibury Club. Marliacea won the four o'clock race at the same meet)ing—the Allington Stakes. Gold Flake did not run that day.


ALBERT GORMAN (prisoner on oath). I live at Wimbledon. On July 12 I met Lewis, who gave me the paper produced. I have known him as a racing man, but I could not say where he lives. I have tried to find him, but have been unsuccessful. He said he owed Cavanagh some money, and if he won anything Cavanagh would stop it, and that was why he gave me the paper. I did not notice what was on it, but I gave it to prosecutor with 15s. John Leslie was with me when I saw Lewis. I had no notion whatever of there being any fraud in this transaction.

Cross-examined. I am a betting man. The sum I asked for was £16 3s., not £18, and I asked for the money on behalf of Lewis. I did not tell prosecutor I was collecting the money for Lewis, but I led him to suppose it was for myself.

JOHN LESLIE , builder's clerk, Kennington. On July 12 I saw Gorman outside Wimbledon Station about half-past two and a man came up and gave him a paper and some money. I should not know the paper and I could not say what money he gave. I have seen the man on the racecourse and he goes by the name of Lewis. He said he was in a hurry and with that he left Gorman.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sergeant GILLAN, recalled. Prosecutor, apart from these betting transactions, is a most respectable man, and I have known him 13 years. I have known prisoner a number of years. He has lived a life of crime since 1875. In that year he was sentenced to three months for larceny, in 1881 to three months for stealing, in 1884 to six months for fraud, in 1891 to

12 months for demanding money, a similar offence to this (using invisible ink), in 1893 to 18 months, in 1902 to 60 days for larceny. In 1902 he had three convictions against him for welshing, in 1905 two months for assault, in 1902, at Northallerton, three years' penal servitude. I have known him to be the associate of a most dangerous gang of thieves that infest the south of London. They visit the racecourses, and two of the mob stand up and make a book and they clear out. They infest the public-houses of the Borough. Prisoner is a confirmed criminal and he has not done work for years.

Sentence, Two years' hard labour.


NOTE.—In this case, tried at the June Sessions (see pages 49—205), the jury failed to agree, and the trial was postponed to the present Sessions. The case was not mentioned, a nolle prosequi having been entered.