Old Bailey Proceedings Online (www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 8.0, 26 May 2019), July 1908, trial of SIEVIER, Robert Standish (48, journalist) (t19080721-46).

ROBERT STANDISH SIEVIER, Theft > extortion, Theft > extortion, 21st July 1908.

SIEVIER, Robert Standish (48, journalist) ; unlawfully threatening Jack Barnato Joel on June 25, 1908, to publish certain libellous and defamatory matter and things of and concerning and touching the said Jack Barnato Joel, with intent thereby to extort from him certain money, to wit, the sum of £5, 000; and unlawfully proposing to Jack Barnato Joel to abstain from printing and publishing the aforesaid matter and things with intent thereby to extort from him, the said Jack Barnato Joel, certain money, to wit, the sum of £5, 000.

Sir Edward H. Carson, K.C., M.P., Mr. C.F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. Rufus D. Isaacs, K. C., M. P., Mr. Montague Shearman, K.C., and Mr. R. D. Muir defended.

ALBERT BENDON , Finchley. I am a member of the Stock Exchange and an owner of racehorses. I first made the acquaintance of prisoner in September last at Derby races, and afterwards saw him frequently at race meetings. In November I had a horse running at Manchester. Sievier telegraphed to me to back my horse for him; I backed it for him for £100 each way; it lost; I paid the money, and have not been repaid it. On April 6 I lent him £1, 000, which has also not been repaid. On April 29 he asked me if I could get Mr. Solly Joel to lend him £2, 000 on the security of 5, 000 "Winning Post" shares. I told him I did not care to ask Solly Joel, but he persuaded me to do so; I asked Solly Joel, and he flatly refused. Sievier then asked if I could get Jack Joel to lend the money, but through a third party, and said that if he did he would never annoy him or his family again. On April 30 I spoke to Jack Joel; he said he would think the matter over, but that if he lent the money he would require a receipt and a letter promising to keep his word not to annoy him in future; he did not want a bill or security. I told this to Sievier, who said, "I will have no transaction with Mr. Joel; my loan would be from Mills." I had suggested that the matter might be carried out by Mills. I repeated to Mills the conversation I had had with Joel.

Cross-examined. I do a considerable amount of Stock Exchange business for the firm of Barnato Bros., in which J. B. Joel is a partner; I should naturally be anxious to oblige him, but I should not

do anything wrong in order to obtain business. I am on intimate terms with Solly Joel. He had been repeatedly attacked in the "Winning Post"; I was anxious that this should be stopped; I approached Mills to use his influence with Sievier; I believe he did so, for there were no further attacks upon Solly Joel. There was no question of money in that transaction. Mills is a person who puts money on horses for himself and on commission for others. The £1, 000 which I lent Sievier on April 6 was on a three months' bill, and that had not matured when this prosecution started. The £200 owing to me on the betting transaction I have not pressed for; I have told Sievier not to bother, that I would win it back for him. When Sievier asked me to get him a loan of £2, 000 on 5, 000 "Winning Post" shares I saw nothing discreditable or disreputable about it. I believed the money would be repaid if it were advanced. When Solly Joel refused the loan I did not tell Sievier that I thought I knew somebody who would do it. When I went to J. B. Joel no suggestion of a threat had been made. In my interview with J. B. Joel I did not say that Sievier was a villainous scoundrel, that I was afraid of him, and that that was why I had done it; that is an absolute fabrication. I first began to think some kind of trap was being laid for Sievier at my second interview with Joel. I told Mills the conversation I had had with Joel, and said I did not like it, that I thought it was a very dirty business, and I would have nothing more to do with it; he said, "You are quite right, I will see to it"; I said, "Be very careful, Charlie, you are not dealing with Solly."

Re-examined. The attacks on Solly Joel ceased about February, at the time Solly Joel prosecuted Von Veltheim for blackmail. (See preceding volume, page 579.)

HENRY M. MAYHEW , from the British Museum Library. We keep files of newspapers; on anyone applying to inspect a file his name is entered in a book. In a book (produced) I find that on March 11, 1905, inspection was had of the "Police Gazette" of 1884 by "J. Wisdom, 11, Essex Street, Strand," and "R. S. Sievier, Savoy Mansions, W. C." I produce the file of the "Police Gazette."

CHARLES ANTHONY MILLS , 54, Parkside, Wimbledon Common. I have been connected with the turf for 25 years, and am a professional backer, with a little business on commission. I have known Sievier for many years; in September or November last year I introduced Bendon to him. On April 29 this year Bendon spoke to me at the Epsom Spring Meeting and said Sievier had asked him to get him a loan of £2, 000 from J. B. Joel to leave his name out of the "Winning Post." Two days later he told me he had been to Joel; that he (Bendon) did not care to go on with the business, and would like me to take his place. I said that if Sievier was agreeable I would do so. I rang up Joel three or four times, but he was not in. On June 22 Joel rang me up and asked me to call at his private house, as he wanted to see me very particularly. I went to his house on June 23. He said, "Can you guess what I have sent to you for?" I said, "Yes." He said, "This business has upset me very much and my wife is ill through it; I want you to do your best and see

Sievier and try to stop it for me for as little as you can; if you do this you will be doing me a great favour, and I shall always be grateful to you." I said I would do my best. I then telephoned to Sievier and told him that Joel wanted me to see him to settle things and try and bring peace between them, and Sievier made an appointment to meet me at 132, Regent Street on April 24. We met there accordingly. We had a conversation to the effect that Joel had asked me to get Sievier to leave his name out of the paper, and Sievier said he would do it for £5, 000. Sievier and I then went to a room in which there was a telephone. I rang Joel up. I said, "Sievier is here. He says he will do it, but not for less than £5, 000." Joel replied, "Ridiculous; would not mind giving half." I spoke to Sievier as to this, and then spoke to Joel. "He won't take one shilling less, and he says that if you do not find some money he will put some very hot things in the paper about you this week, including a warrant for your arrest, issued in Johannesburg in 1884, and he has also got two murderers that he will put you between." Joel again said, "Ridiculous." I said, "You had better think it over and let me know by wire to Newbury." Later, at Sievier's suggestion, I sent Joel this wire, "You must give your decision to-day absolutely; reply Mills, Weighing Room, Newbury." I had this wire back, "Five thousand ridiculous after offering to accept two to settle business; would do half if he will give letter as he offered before." I wired this on to Sievier, and in the evening he and I met at the Victoria Club. I got on the telephone to Joel and said to him, "Sievier is here at my side. I showed him your telegram, and he says he will not accept a shilling less than £5, 000." Joel said, "It is ridiculous, but if you cannot do it for less I will gave him the £5, 000, providing he gives you a letter to say he will not molest me any more and a bill for £2, 500." I told this to Sievier. He at first did not agree to give the letter, but eventually said that he would. This I telephoned to Joel, who said, "I will give you a cheque for £5, 000 to-morrow morning at eleven"; he afterwards altered the appointment to six o'clock at night. Sievier and I then left the telephonebox. He asked me if I could let him have some money on account; I said, "If you will bring the letter and the bill to me at 132, Regent Street in the morning I will give you a cheque for the £1, 000." Next morning he called and gave me the bill and the receipt; also a copy of the warrant advertisement that had been intended to be inserted in the "Winning Post," with the likeness of Joel that was to have been put between two murderers, and copy of the old warrant for Joel's arrest. He said, "These you can take and show to Joel." He said he was very pressed for money and I gave him a cheque for £1, 000 on account of the promise of Joel's £5, 000. We arranged to meet that evening. On my return from the races I found a taxicab waiting at the station, with a boy from the "Winning Post" on it, and I went to see Joel. I gave him the papers Sievier had given me. The letter of Sievier's was: "Dear Charlie,—Many thanks for the money, which I will repay as agreed. I ought not to be pressed for

ready, but I have not had a winning week for a long time. With respect to our conversation about J. B. Joel, and your request that I might now leave his name out of the paper, you can take it from me that I have now done with the subject, except in the ordinary way of referring to his horses when running. I have said all there is to be said, and I am glad you did not ask me to 'leave him alone' earlier. If it is any pleasure to you, you can assure Joel that I have completed my remarks regarding him, and, if you wish, show him this letter." Joel read this and said to me, "I am going to give you a cheque for £5, 000 on one condition, that you have a line inserted at the top of the second page that he will not molest me any more." I took Joel's cheque for £5, 000 and the letter, and I went in the taxicab to where I had arranged to meet Sievier. I showed him the cheque and told him what had passed. He at first objected to inserting the words suggested by Joel, but eventually he wrote in after the words "when running," the line "and I will not, as you say, molest him again." I suggested that I should deduct not only the £1, 000 I had given him the previous day, but £600 that he had owed me for some years; he agreed, and I gave him my cheque for the balance of £3, 400. It was arranged that the letter should remain in my possession until on any future occasion he should attack Joel, when I was at liberty to hand it to Joel for him to do as he pleased. I afterwards saw Joel; he took a copy of the letter; then it was placed in a sealed envelope addressed, "J. B. Joel, Esq., care of C. Mills, Esq.," and I took it home. At this time I had not the slightest knowledge that the matter was in the hands of the police. On the day Sievier was arrested I handed the letter to Inspector Drew and made a statement to him.

Cross-examined. I had no idea that I was taking part in anything discreditable or dishonourable in these negotiations. I knew nothing about a trap being laid by Joel for Sievier. Bendon said nothing about a trap and gave me no warning whatever. He did say, "Be careful," but not "because you are not dealing with Solly"; I understood he meant be careful of J. B. Joel; I knew he was prejudiced against J. B. Joel; he said nothing about "a dirty business"; that may have been what he understood when he said, "Be careful." My conversation with Bendon was about Sievier's proposal to borrow £2, 000, and nothing came of that at all, and the matter dropped altogether. It was reopened six or seven weeks later by Joel sending for me and asking me to act for him in the matter, as he was sick to death of the whole business. My instructions were taken from Joel. I had a great deal of influence with Sievier; we had had many business transactions, which were quite satisfactory to both of us; I sometimes owed him money and sometimes he owed me money. In February I had asked him to leave Solly Joel's name out of the "Winning Post," and he consented and kept his word; there was no suggestion about payment of money in connection with that; he said, "If you wish it I will do it," and he did. At my first interview with Sievier after J. B. Joel had sent for me I said to him, "I want to see you about Jack Joel; I want you to keep his name out

of the paper now." He replied, "If you want me to do it I will," but, he added, "for £5, 000." At the police court I admitted that he might have said that keeping Joel's name out "was not a question of money." Thinking it over since, I do not think Sievier did say that. He did say that he wanted some money—there is nothing extraordinary in that—he said he had security to offer, and I said I would see if I could get him some money. I do not remember his saying, "I do not want Joel's money; I am not taking any." At my interview with Sievier at the Victoria Club, when I told him, "Joel wants you to write a letter to say that you won't put his name in the paper again," I do not think Sievier replied, "I have already promised that"; I said, "Write a letter saying you will drop it"; I did not say, "That will show Joel what influence I have over you"; he did finally say, "All right, I will write it." I will not swear that at this interview I showed Sievier Joel's telegram to me or Joel's cheque for £5, 000. As to my cheque to Sievier for £1, 000, I gave that to him on April 25; I swear I did not give it to him on the 24th, dating it the 25th; it was a mistake if I said so at the police court. I gave him the cheque at 132, Regent Street, at 11.30 on the morning of the 25th.

(Tuesday, July 28.)

CHARLES ANTHONY MILLS , recalled, further cross-examined. With regard to the cheque for £1, 000 paid by me to Sievier, that was a loan to him on the promise of Mr. Joel to advance £5, 000. At that time Joel had paid me no money. I drew the cheque with the intention that it could be presented and honoured at once. If a hitch arose I should have been left with a debt from Sievier, but that I did not mind. I could not think I was risking anything of any consequence. I do not think I used exactly the words, "On the promise of Joel to advance the money," but "On account of the £5, 000." He told me he wanted the money that very day. I had no promise from Joel to reimburse me for any loan I made to Sievier. It never struck me that Joel wanted Sievier to take money. I remember on June 24, during the conversation in Regent Street, Sievier asked me whether I had ever seen a description of Joel in the "Police Gazette," and I said I had not. He told me in effect that that was the best description of him that he had ever seen. He told me he had a woodcut of Joel, and might have said that it came out of the "Gazette." I asked to see it and he showed me. I did not understand him that the portrait had appeared amongst murderers, or men looking like murderers. I am not prepared to pledge my word that he did not say that. I never had the impression, as a result of the conversation, that there was anything dishonourable in what he suggested. I did not look upon it as blackmailing. As to when I saw the woodcut, if I did not see it on the Wednesday, then it was on the Thursday morning. I told Joel, "Sievier is mad with you about what happened last Saturday at Windsor, and thinks it was on your instigation that Morton bid for his horse against him,"

and, further, "I hear that in this week's issue he is going to have a nice attack on you in connection with this incident, and also the warrant." That was at the interview in consequence of Joel telephoning to me to see him. At that time the matter had dropped for some weeks, and that conversation was not in consequence of what Sievier had told me to tell him. I knew on the Tuesday that there had been a racing incident on the Saturday previous. I read the article in the "Winning Post" of June 20; it was not connected with the racing incident. I understood Sievier to say he was going to put the woodcut, or a reproduction of it, between two murderers. I may, however, have been wrong. He may have said he had seen it between two murderers. When we met in the shop in Regent Street on the Thursday, Sievier produced the letter and bill and the printed warrant for Joel's arrest in Johannesburg in 1884, and I gave him a cheque for £1, 000. I did not tell him I would let him have the remaining £1, 500 that day. He gave me bill, which I myself drew up. It was made payable to me for £2, 500. I asked him for, and he gave me, a typewritten copy of the warrant, as I wanted to show it to Joel. I did not ask for the picture, and Sievier did not say he would send for it if I wanted it. I know as a fact that he sent for it, and it was brought. On the Thursday night I arranged to meet him in New Oxford Street—he coming in a taxi-cab—after I had seen Mr. Joel. A placard of the "Winning Post" was put on the cab so that I should know it. He gave me a letter with the address of his bankers, and asked me to post the cheque to them. I read the letter and gave it back to him. I did not put it in my pocket. He said he was very anxious for the money to be paid in. After that we were to meet at the Victoria Club. At that meeting I said I had shown the letter to Joel, in accordance with the permission Sievier had given, and further that Joel wanted inserted a promise that he would not be molested again. I said, "I think it will be all right if you put it in." With regard to the £600, I gave him a cheque for £3, 400, having deducted the £600 which had been owing between us. It never occurred to me that this was obtaining money by threats. I looked upon it as carrying out what I had been asked by Joel. I do not remember that Sievier said he would pay the other £2, 500 back. He may have said so. I do not remember that he said he would let me have bills for it during the week. As to his saying, "I want no £2, 500 as a present; I will pay it back," I do not remember that. He may have said it. I may have said at the police court, "Possibly he said it." I saw him at Sandown on the 27th, but do not remember him saying, "I was going to bring you the bills, but they did not come in time." He might have said that. I could not swear that Joel read the letter out aloud at the interview at Grosvenor Square on the 25th. I had not the faintest suspicion that a policeman was concealed in the room on that occasion. I did not say to Joel, "it is a dirty piece of business; Sievier is a villainous scoundrel." Joel said, "He is a villainous scoundrel to the last." I was amazed when I heard the police had arrested Sievier at Sandown. I certainly had

no idea that it could have been anything in connection with our negotiations. The first time I heard there was a criminal offence was when Inspector Drew said, "I have arrested Mr. Sievier on a warrant for blackmail." I realised that I was in a very unpleasant position, I being a friend of Sievier. I knew nothing of what was being done to trap him. If I was being used to trap him I was being played a very dirty trick. That would be by the person who sent for me to carry it out—Mr. Joel. I am of opinion that a dirty trick was played upon me by him.

Re-examined. The £5, 000 was paid to keep Joel's name out of the paper. At the time I telephoned to Joel at Regent Street Sievier could hear every word I said. I told Joel that Sievier would not take less than £5, 000. Joel said that was ridiculous, he would give £2, 500. Sievier said if he did not pay £5, 000 there would be some very hot things in the paper about him that week. It never struck me that it was a dirty business. As to the £600 which I deducted, Sievier had owed me that for four or five years. With regard to Solly Joel, he was left alone at my request. Sievier never suggested that he had any materials on which he could attack Solly. When the picture was sent for he said he was going to put it in the "Winning Post," and, I understood him, between two murderers. I was under the impression that the £2, 500 was "dead," that is, it was given to Sievier. On the morning of the arrest Sievier said, "I have heard it reported from a man on the 'phone that Joel has been heard to say that he has got me." I said, "I do not thank so." The cheque for £400 appears to be dated August, 1906, and is in my favour. It was found on Sievier when he was arrested.

Further cross-examined. I know nothing about that cheque and do not suggest anything against Sievier with regard to it.

JACK BARNATO JOEL . I live at 34, Grosvenor Square, and have a country place at St. Albans. I own a racehorse breeding establishment and run horses on the Turf under the name of Jack Barnato Joel. I am a member of the firm of Barnato Bros., which I joined on the death of my brother, Wolfe Joel, ten years ago. I inherited a considerable fortune from him, and also from my late uncle, Barney Barnato. I have never had any dealings or transactions with Sievier, and have only casually spoken to him on a racecourse. At Epsom, when Sceptre was running in the Derby, Sievier said he hoped I would back his horse. In the same year, at Epsom, he wanted to borrow money from me, asking if I would be willing to let him have some on good security. I said there was no objection if the security was good enough, and he said he would come to my office. I was told that he called, but I did not see him, and nothing came of it. I afterwards had a letter from him about purchasing his place at Shrewton, where he had a racing stable, but I declined the offer. On October 15, 1904, I saw it announced in the "Winning Post" that the next "Celebrity in Glasshouses" would be J. B. Joel, and it duly appeared on October 22. It was of a most scurrilous character, attacking my parentage, my origin, and the whole of my family. I believe placards of the "Winning Post" were exhibited outside my house.

From that time, regularly, there have been articles in that paper attacking me, my brother, and uncle. Copies were sent to me and my wife. The articles have given us very great annoyance. In April or May last Bendon called upon me, saying he had been sent by Sievier, who desired to borrow £2, 000 on 5, 000 "Winning Post" shares, and that if I agreed he would abstain from printing anything in his paper about myself. I said, "I am surprised you should come to me," and Bendon remarked, "It is a blackmailing business. I know." I said, "Let me think it over." He said he would call again, and he did so. I told him I might be prepared to do the business if he gave me a bill and a letter promising to stop publishing the articles, and he said Sievier was willing to do that. Bendon further said, "I am going to introduce the business now to Mr. Mills; I won't have anything more to do with it, it is too dirty for me." I was afterwards rung up by Mills, but I did nothing in the matter at the time. On June 18 my horse, Your Majesty, won, the St. James's Palace Stakes at Ascot, and a day or so after the "Winning Post" had the following: "The victory of the horse, Your Majesty, in the St. James's Palace Stakes was a disgrace to racing. He is the property of Isaac Joel, who races under the assumed name of J. B. Joel, which is unregistered. Apart from this, his owner is as unscrupulous on the Turf as he has been in his dealings in the City and at Kimberley. For the King's horse Perrier to be beaten by one belonging to such an individual is a tragic blow to the Turf and one the recurrence of which should be prevented by the stewards taking the same action as they have done on previous occasions when the circumstances were far less aggravating, even if they were true in fact. Our King takes defeat as only the first gentleman in England can, but his subjects must feel that it is a scandalous state of things that a horse should beat his at the Royal meeting belonging to one who has estreated his heavy bail in South Africa when charged with 'one' of the most grave offences of theft that can be perpetrated in that colony and for whom a warrant is still out in the name of our late revered Queen." On another page of the same issue was another paragraph, "Ike Joel, owner of Dean Swift and millions made out of illicit diamond-buying and crooked dealings, also nephew of Issy Sloshy, entertained one of his old acquaintances at his palatial residence for Ascot week. The 'old pard' of the dim, past days was dumbfounded at the wealth which filled his eyes at every corner. He even conjured up the thoughts of how he could burgle the place at a later date." Having read that, I telephoned to Mills, who I knew had great influence with Sievier. When he arrived I asked whether he knew why I wanted him and he replied. "suppose it is about this Sievier." I said, "Yes, it is worrying myself and wife to death and something must be done to stop it." He said, "You lost a golden opportunity at the time when Bendon came and offered to settle it for £2, 000. He is in debt up to his neck and I am afraid he will want more money now." I said to him. "I am going away to the Continent. I wish you would see him and see what can be done and get this thing settled." He told me he

would see what he could do. The next morning Mills rang me up in the City, saying, "I have seen Sievier and he won't take a shilling less than £5, 000. If you don't pay it he is going to publish your picture between a woodcut of two murderers and a copy of the warrant." I said that he was a blackmailing thief and he replied, "Well, anyhow, think it over and wire me to Newbury." Mills told me, also, that something very hot would come out in the paper if the money was not paid. I received a telegram from Mills from Newbury that I must give my decision that day. I wired back the telegram that has been read. Later I telephoned Mills to the Victoria Club, and he told me Sievier would not take a shilling less than £5, 000; that he would give a bill for £2, 500 and that I was not to expect ever to see the other £2, 500 again. I said, "If he will give me a letter promising to abstain I think I might be induced to do the business." He said, "Can I rely, if I get the letter and the bill, that you will pay the £5, 000," and I said, "Yes." He suggested coming the next morning, and I altered it to the evening. The next day I instructed my solicitor to place the matter in the hands of the police. Inspector Drew came to my house and was concealed in the room when Mills arrived. I said, "Have you got the letter and the bill?" He replied, "Yes; I have them both," and produced them. The letter did not at that time have the line, "I will not molest him again." Mills brought the bill for £2, 500, as well as the typewritten document extracted from the "Police Gazette." The letter, he said, was the thing which was going in with my picture between the woodcuts of two murderers. I read all the documents aloud, with the object that they might be heard by the detective. At the time I noticed that the words relating to Sievier abstaining from molesting me in the future were not in the letter and Mills said he would see Sievier on the morrow and get them inserted. This was done. I noticed that the bill was drawn to Mills and he told me that that was because Sievier did not care to have it drawn to me. Mills added, "He has made it payable to me, and I hand it on to you." I asked him to give me a copy of the letter, which he did. The letter itself Mills was to keep and if Sievier ever published anything again the letter was to be handed over to me. I gave Mills the cheque the first time he brought the letter.

Cross-examined. When Sievier asked me at Ascot whether I would lend him money he did not say that he would not sell any of his horses without handing me the proceeds. I believe he owned valuable horses at that time. I did not say to him that he was to see me after the next race, nor did I say, "I will do that for you." In March, 1902, I remember I had a conversation with Mr. Markham, M. P., about a question which it was proposed to put in Parliament. I did not know that it bore reference to a warrant. I went to see him because I heard he was going to say something about me. I do not think our conversation was about the Consolidated Johannesburg Investment Company. It did not have reference to a contract with the Imperial Storage Company. I was a director of the first-named company. Mr. Markham did not say to me that he did not think I

was telling him the truth and he certainly never asked me whether I could point to any untrue statement in the question to be put to the House. We did not discuss the question at all. He did not say to me that hundreds of men had been sent to prison for buying a single illicit diamond. I did not offer to give Mr. Markham £10, 000 to go to any institution he might name in his constituency if he did not put the question; the whole thing is a pure fabrication; it is pure invention. In June, 1908, when I sent for Mills it was not with the intention of getting material upon which I could prosecute Sievier. I sent for him merely to see what Sievier wanted; to see how this thing could be stopped, and nothing beyond that. I had consulted my solicitor about it before sending for Mills, but it was not on my solicitor's advice that I sent. When Bendon came and proposed that I should lend £2, 000 on "Winning Post" shares it did not occur to me that that was material upon which I could prosecute. Mills told me Sievier was very much broke. I did not then think it a favourable opportunity to "dangle" money before him. I am quite clear that when I sent for Mills on June 23 I had no idea of prosecuting. I did have, however, on the morning Mills told me over the telephone that my picture was going to be published between two murderers. The statement I made at the police court that I always intended paying the money provided I got what I wanted—viz., sufficient information to prosecute, is not quite correct; I did not intend to prosecute Sievier until he threatened me with the murderous attack. I did not want to pay hush money, but to prosecute. I wanted a letter containing sufficient to prosecute on, but it was not forthcoming. Until Mills went back to Sievier and then came to me again, I did not really know in what way the money was to be paid. Mills told me that Sievier was mad with me because Morton, the trainer, bid for his horse against his (Sievier's) bid, and that the following week a nasty attack about it would be made against me in the "Winning Post." Of course, I meant to prosecute if the opportunity occurred. I sent for Mills because he was a great friend of Sievier and had much influence over him. I went on using Mills to get the materials with which to prosecute. I did not consider that dishonourable; I had been persecuted for four years. It was an unfortunate thing, but it had to be done. My solicitor wrote the telegram from me in which I said £5, 000 was ridiculous and asked if half that would do. That, however, was not done as a trap. I was of opinion that the security of "Winning Post" shares was valueless, as also a bill given by Sievier. If Mills denies that he said to me, "This is a blackmailing business; he is a villainous scoundrel" he has made a mistake. Bendon said, "He is a blackmailing dog," and "I am scared of him and that is why I have done it." I am not the only one he said that to. If he denies it he is telling an untruth. I have no recollection of saying to Mills on June 23 that Mr. Leopold Rothschild had stated that these attacks must stop. When I wrote out the cheque for £5, 000 I did not know that Mills had already given Sievier a cheque for £1, 000. I have given money to a man named Dan Murray, but it was not for the purpose of

getting Murray to attack Sievier. I gave him £200 on three occasions; he blackmailed me for it. He came to my house and threatened to smash up my home and kill me. I was a fool to pay him anything. I ought to have locked him up. I was pleased at the time to give him £200. I think I would have given him £500. If a man wants £5, 000 to suppress an article in a paper £200 is very little to give a man for not taking my life. Murray told my solicitor afterwards that he came to my house by arrangement with Sievier. I do not know whether Sievier challenged me to bring a libel action in connection with Murray's statement, to test the truth of it. I remember seeing the following in the "Winning Post," with reference to the "Police Gazette": "To those who may at the time have entertained any doubt upon the subject, Mr. J. Joel has himself set their minds at rest by not answering a single charge which we brought before the public, and if further proof were needed the British Museum can produce it. In its library are the bound copies of the 'Police Gazette' of July and August, 1884, published at Scotland Yard, Whitehall. The public has access to this volume on application for a ticket from the librarian, and in its pages it contains, week by week, a long account of Isaac Joel and the justifiable reason which demanded this publication. That there may be no shadow of doubt as to whom it refers, it also prints a woodcut portrait of him, and the likeness does not lie. The pendant portraits of the two others on the same page are not flattering to the owner of Dean Swift." Then there was a further paragraph. "On the first afternoon Mr. J. B. Joel won three races, but the objection to Garnock should not have been for bumping and boring, but on the ground that Mr. J. B. Joel has not registered his assumed names according to rule, his real name being Isaac Joel. Any doubt on this subject can be set at rest on reference to the 'Police Gazette' (Scotland Yard), in which his portrait appears, and by which he can readily be identified." Those articles contained pretty well everything that could be said against me. I did not know that a warrant had been issued against me for something in connection with South Africa, I know now. There is no doubt my bail was estreated, but I do not know to what amount. It is 25 years ago, when I was a boy. I never inquired what it was, whether £10, £10, 000, or £10, 000, 000. I have been told that I was bailed to the extent of two sums of £1, 000 each. Then I was told it was £4, 000. I have not been to South Africa since. My firm's business is not principally in that country. Since the death of my brother and uncle it has mostly been in England—that is to say, in shares. I have not promised Mills anything for taking part in this negotiation. Such a suggestion is infamous. I have not made bets with him, either by myself or through my brother. I have asked my brother to put money on horses, and if he chooses to give it to Mills that is his business. With regard to the £600. I believe Mills sent a cheque back to my solicitor. I am certainly under no promise to give Mills the £600. After the prosecution had been started he returned the £600. Mills has never made any complaint about his treatment in the matter; I do not

think he is ever likely to speak to me again. It was a very dirty business on my part to put him into it. It was not a very pleasant thing to do.

Re-examined. What I mean is, it was a dirty business towards an innocent man. I was engaged in putting an end to a series of outrageous attacks made against me extending over four years. There is no truth in the suggestion that the getting back of £600 from Mills was a mere colourable matter, nor that I was to pay it back again to him. I have not paid him a farthing, nor spoken to him since this business. He returned the £600 when he made his statement to my solicitor. He did not at first know what had happened, but when he did he returned the money immediately, saying, "I cannot touch dirty money; take it back at once." No application was made to him for it; he returned it of his own accord. This occurred when I was contending that this money had been got out of me by blackmailing. I did not agree in the first instance to lend Sievier money and then go back on my word. There was no agreement or reason in the world why he should demand money from me to lend. I do not know the man. I did not know that it was to settle his betting account. I did not know what he wanted it for. It was simply the case of a stranger coming up to know whether I would lend him £5.000 to settle his bets; he always had the front to do anything. I know he has gone to other people in the same way and they have paid it like fools. There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that he came and complained that I had not carried out my arrangement. There is no foundation whatever for the allegation that I offered Mr. Markham, M. P., to pay him money for any charity in his constituency. It is a pure fabrication. I deny that I told him a falsehood by saying that I was not a director of the Consolidated Johannesburg Investment Company. Mr. Markham never suggested that I was not telling the truth. I have only seen him once before to-day, and that was in 1904, when I went to him with a letter from Sir George Lewis. I looked upon the threat about putting my photo between two murderers as so very serious that I thought the only way to stop it was to try to get evidence. The reason I took no proceedings in respect of what was in the "Police Gazette" and Sievier's challenge was because there would have been brought up a very unfortunate incident that happened to me in my youthful days—something like a quarter of a century ago which I was in hopes was forgotten; secondly, there would have been the greatest possible difficulty for me to have obtained evidence after so long a period; and, thirdly, the whole of the newspapers would have been ringing with this thing, whereas it was only in a rag like the "Winning Post," that no respectable people ever read, so I let it die at that.

Chief-inspector EDWARD DREW , New Scotland Yard. I was first communicated with about this matter on Thursday, June 25. I received telegrams and certain information, in consequence of which I went to J. B. Joel's house. I was concealed in a room in such a position that I could both see and hear everything that went on. At about a quarter past six in the evening Mills and Joel came into the

room together. Joel said, "What have you done?" Mills replied, "I have done what you want." Joel said, "Have you got the bill?" Mills, producing a document, said, "This is what was coming out about you this week." Joel commenced to read it aloud, and Mills said to him, "He has got your woodcut coming out between two murderers, with the description," The document was a copy of the "Police Gazette" of 1884. This he read out. After that Joel said, "Have you got the bill?" Mills said, "Yes," and he handed him another document, and Joel read that out. It was the bill. Joel said the bill was drawn by Mills, and Mills said, "Yes, and it is accepted by Sievier." Joel then asked Mills if he had got the letter. He said, "Yes," and Mills handed the letter to him. This Joel read out aloud. At the finish of it Mills said, "It is a dirty bit of business; he is a villainous scoundrel." He added, "I am doing this for yours and Solly's sake as a favour." After the letter was read it passed from Joel to Mills. Joel said, "It does not contain a promise that he will not attack me in the future. I should like to have that put in." Mills said, "I can easily get that done; I am sure he will do it." Joel said, "I should like to have that done." Then he further said, "I suppose you would like to have the cheque." Mills said, "Yes," and Joel sat down, wrote a cheque, and handed it to Mills. Joel said, "I should like this business done at once, as I am going away." Mills said, "I will go and get it done at once." Joel said, "I will wait here until you come back." About an hour afterwards Mills arrived and Joel asked him if he had got it done, and he replied that he had, and Joel read it out again as to the alteration that had been made. Joel asked for a copy of it, and Mills made one. Mills asked, "You don't mind having that in about going in between the two murderers?" and Joel replied, "Certainly not, I would like to show it to Solly." When the letter had been copied Mills gave Joel the letter, and Joel said, "What shall we do with this?" and he said, "You seal it up and give it to me, and I will put it in my safe, and if occasion arises you shall have it." Joel then put the letter in an envelope, gummed it down, wrote across it, and handed it to Mills. Later on I reported the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, and a warrant was granted for Sievier's arrest. I went to Sandown Park Racecourse, where I saw Sievier and told him I held a warrant for his arrest on a charge of attempting to extort £5, 000 from Mr. Joel. He said, "Don't catch hold of me; I will go with you quite willingly; I don't want any scene to be created." I went into the betting-ring and spoke to Mills, after which I returned to Sievier and read the warrant. He said, "I have not seen Joel; I absolutely deny the charge." I searched him, and found a cheque for £400, dated August 28, 1906; a cheque for £25, payable to Mr. Dillon, dated June 26, 1908; £25 in bank notes, and three blank cheques. Sievier and the two officers who were with me got into his motor-car and were driven away. I then went to Mills' house at Wimbledon, and he took out of a desk a letter which he handed to me. It was sealed and gummed, and I took it to Bow Street Police Station, where I saw Sievier. When charged on the warrant he said, "I have

already answered that charge." I next went to Scotland Yard with Mills, where the envelope was opened. It contained the original letter which has been exhibited here. On June 29 I went to the offices of the "Winning Post." I found no money there, but discovered the three portraits. The "Police Gazette" is a publication issued week by week for the information of the police authorities exclusively, and is treated as confidential. The picture of Joel found at the "Winning Post" was a reproduction of his portrait mentioned in the "Police Gazette," excepting that on the "Winning Post" picture a moustache has been pencilled in. I have searched Scotland Yard for the Kimberley papers referred to in the extract, but the only trace I can find of them is that they were destroyed.

Cross-examined. I stated in my sworn information that I had reasonable cause for suspecting that part of the £4, 400 was concealed at the "Winning Post," and on that allegation the magistrate granted a search warrant. It never occurred to me to search his private address. Every facility for searching was afforded at the "Winning Post." Mr. Knight, the solicitor, was at that office and warned me that it was outside the province of the warrant to take the documents, but I considered it was in the interests of justice that I should take them. Mr. Knight showed me the pass book and how the money had vanished. I saw that £800 had been paid to the credit of the "Winning Post." I produce a copy of the "Police Gazette" in which there are three pictures, one being of Mr. Joel and the others of people charged with embezzlement.

Re-examined. In regard to taking away the documents in question, I conformed to the ordinary practice. I took away, purely and simply, what might be evidence of the crime for which the warrant had been issued.

JOHN SMITH , hall porter, Victoria Club, Wellington Street, Strand, said: Mills is a member and Sievier not. On the afternoon of June 24 they were both, in the club and went into the telephone box together. The next day they came again and stayed about half an hour.

Cross-examined. Mills went into the box alone at first and Sievier followed after a while.

FRANK FREDERICK HOLLOMBY , clerk in the Accountant-General's Department of the General Post Office, produced the originals of the telegrams.

ERNEST ADOLPHUS LUCAS , 142, Horseferry Road, Westminster, taxicab driver. I was engaged by a gentleman, who gave me written instructions to drive a boy who had "Winning Post" on his cap to Paddington. A little before six a train came in and Mills came from among the passengers and I drove him to 34, Grosvenor Square. On the way back to the Victoria Club Mills got out and spoke to someone. After being at the club a short time, I drove him to 34, Grosvenor Square again.

JAMES BRIDGER , foreman at the works of the printers of the "Winning Post." I produce several exhibits of matter received for that paper. I could not swear to the handwriting of the one concerning "Ike Joel." I fancy it is Sievier's, but I am not certain. Another

which ran, "In the Selling Plate at Windsor where Ike Joel's Violet started favourite there was a colt called Birdlime; this it thieves' slang for 'time,' " I believe to be in Mr. Sievier's handwriting; as also "Would not Portland Gaol be a more appropriate name for Port-land Bay, the winner of the Wokingham."

Cross-examined. The picture with the moustache pencilled in could be printed in the "Winning Post."

JAMES STRONG , manager of James Strong and Co., 132, Regent Street. Mills is interested in our business; Sievier came there about 11 o'clock on the morning of June 24 last and asked for Mills. Both went into a room at the back of the shop, where there was a telephone. They remained there some time and left together. The next day Sievier came again and both he and Mills again adjourned to the back room.

EDWARD ELLIOTT , bookmaker, 136, Sutherland Avenue. Sievier had an account with me which should have been settled on June 8 last. The total was £559. He asked me whether I would take a post-dated cheque; if not he would have to get the money and pay 60 per cent, for it. I agreed to the post-dated cheque, I paid it in in due course and it never came back. The amount was credited to my account on Saturday, June 27.

Cross-examined. I have many times received similar requests from people with whom I have had accounts. Sievier pointed out that I had claimed too little and he gave me a further £75.

SYDNEY ARTHUR SAMUEL , partner in Fieldings, moneylenders. I discounted a cheque for Sievier on June 24. It was five days post-dated, and I charged him £25 for the accommodation. I really gave him £550 for a £575 cheque. I presented the cheque, but the account was stopped.

Cross-examined. It has since been paid. I have had considerable business with Sievier, having lent him a great deal of money extending over a long period. He has always paid.

Re-examined. He owed me £4, 420 at the time in question. We never charged him anything but what he offered to pay us.

SIEVIER. Might I say, my lord, it was my suggestion that I should pay him £25 for the loan.

FRANK ASHMAN , manager, Strand branch, National Provincial Bank. Sievier kept an account there from November, 1906. as also did the "Winning Post," The sum of £550 was paid in on June 24. On June 19 the balance was £2 7s. 10d.; 20th, £2 17s. 10d.; 22nd, £114 17s. 10d.; 23rd, £64 17s. 10d.; 24th, £507 9s. 3d.; 25th, £68 19s. 3d.; 26th, £3, 155 13s. 3d.; and on the 27th, £945. A cheque for £1,000 which was paid in was Mills's, as also one for £3, 400. A cheque of Sievier's was dishonoured on June 24, and others previously. They were subsequently met.

Cross-examined. There were sometimes very large balances. The account was very operative. Sievier has always kept faith with us.

Mr. HELLIER, chief clerk, London and South-western Bank, Wimbledon. Mills had an account with us on June 25. A cheque for £1, 000 of Mills's was sent from the National Provincial Bank and specially cleared. So also was the cheque for £3, 400 on June 26.

Mr. BERGER partner in Ladbrooke and Co., bookmakers. In the week ending June 20 Sievier owed us £1, 142 on betting transactions. He asked us to hold over his cheque for a few days and we did so. It was then paid in.

Cross-examined. We have had many dealings with Sievier and we have held over his cheques before. He has always met his liabilities to us.

(Wednesday, July 29.)

FRANCIS JOSEPH SELLICKS , secretary of the "Winning Post" Company. Sievier is managing director of the company and the editor of the "Winning Post." After he was arrested he gave me a cheque for £10, which I cashed. I know a man named Stebbing, a member of one of the sporting clubs and a bookmaker, I believe. I have no idea whether he was a clerk of Sievier's.

Cross-examined. I acted as sub-editor of the paper and was more in attendance than he was. I believe it was started in August, 1904, and was subsequently formed into a company. The shares were dealt in, the last transaction being at 45s. for an ordinary £1 share—in June of this year. I was in the office on Tuesday, June 23. Sievier was there, conversing over the telephone, and I heard part of what was said. He was talking to Mills. I heard him say, "Look here, Charlie; as for Joel, I have done with him, and you have my word for that, as in the case of Solly." He also said, "I will do everything I can for you, and you have my word for it that I have done with Joel." He further said, "If you could lend me a few thousands I could do with it; but I don't want Joel's money; I am not taking any." I was then asked to take down an address—132, Regent Street—and after Sievier put down the receiver of the telephone he told me there were to be no further paragraphs about Joel. This he repeated before leaving the office that evening. In the room where I am there are many artists' pictures and sketches. There is also a safe there, the key of which only I possess. I saw the picture of Joel when I first came to the office, about May, 1905. At that time it had upon it the pencilling of a moustache. I have never seen a picture struck from it with the moustache on. No instructions were given, then, to use the picture. The pictures of the other two men were drawn by Mr. Cudham, an artist, on my instructions, as I proposed to write a series of burlesques and skits on Labour leaders and so on. They were absolutely burlesque pictures. So far as I know they were never shown to Sievier. They had nothing whatever to do with the picture of Joel and I never heard it suggested that they were to be published with his picture. When Inspector Drew searched the office he found the two pictures in the safe, where I had put them on the Friday previous to Sievier's arrest

on the Saturday. I put them there because I was clearing up my table. Never, until it was stated at Bow Street, had I heard it suggested that Joel's picture was to be published between two murderers.

Re-examined. I do not remember ever having seen the picture of Joel without the pencil moustache. I cannot guess the meaning of the two marks at the side of Joel's head. It might mean the positions of two murderers. I do not doubt that Inspector Drew found the two pictures together; but I say they were placed together by pure accident. The shares of the "Winning Post" are not quoted on the Stock Exchange. I could not tell you whether that paper was sold on the bookstalls of such firms as Smith's or Willing's in March of this year. Those firms sell it to order.


ROBERT STANDISH SIEVIER (prisoner, on oath). I am editor of the "Winning Post" and managing director of the company. I started the paper in August, 1904. I have known Mills for 15 or 20 years, and have had many transactions with him; he has accommodated me and I him; we are about level. I have had a great deal to do with racing and know many racing men. My first acquaintance with J B. Joel was in 1901. I had met him on several occasions previous to the Ascot meeting that year. We chatted and talked together frequently about all sorts of things. In the course of the week at Ascot I told him that I had had a very bad time, and that my settling on the following Monday was very rocky, and would he lend me some money. He said, "How much do you want?" I said, "About £5, 000 will see me through." He then said, "That's all right, I think, but I will think it over, and I will see you after the next race." After the next race I felt a hand placed on my shoulder, and Joel said to me, "I will do this for you." Then I said I would send in a bill for the amount, carrying 10 per cent., and guarantee that I would give him the refusal of any horse I sold except those who won selling plate races, until after the money was paid. On the Sunday morning at Toddington Park, where I lived, I got an intimation from him that he could not entertain the matter, as he did not think it was business. I did not get the money. I met him at Tattersall's subsequently and told him he had let me rather into a hole. He said he did not think it was quite business, but would I see him in Austin Friars? I went, and instead of seeing Joel I was told by Mr. Tom Honey that he would see me instead. After a long conversation I was offered £10, 000 for Sceptre. My answer was, "I gave that for her as a yearling," and I got up and walked out of the place After that incident I called one of my horses "Promising Jack." I did not speak to Joel after that. He was not a man of his promise and I left it there. I remember in 1904 an article appearing in the "Winning Post" attacking Joel, and subsequently there were other articles reflecting upon him. In April, 1908, I saw Bendon, whom I knew as an owner of racehorses. I am very clear

about the conversation we had. It was one day at the Epsom Spring Meeting. I said, "I am going very badly; do you think you could lend me £2, 000 on 5, 000 "Winning Post" shares and a bill at three months—it will be met, as you know?" He said, "I also am going badly and I cannot lend it." Then, after a pause, he said, "Do you mind me asking Solly?" I said certainly I did not mind. Then he left me, and after a time he came back and said, "Solly will not do it." He paused and then said, "I think I know where I can get it for you." I said, "Thank you very much, if you can it will assist me." With respect to Solly Joel, things had appeared in my paper holding him up to ridicule. About February, 1908, Mills asked me to cease attacking him. Mills told me the request, came through Bendon. I agreed, and kept my word. There was never any suggestion of consideration of any kind for that. I had known Mills many years. He had given me tips on races and I had given him tips. I trusted him. I saw Bendon at the Sandown Meeting, and he said, "Well, I have seen the person I was speaking about, and I am going to see him again to-night." I saw him next day, when he said he was sorry he had failed, and added that he thought Mills had more influence than he had, and he was of opinion that I could get it from Mills. Seeing Mills, I asked him whether he had seen Bendon. He said he had. That is the only conversation in regard to that matter, and I have never heard any more about it. Jack Joel's name had never been mentioned once up to that time. I said nothing at all about promising not to annoy Jack Joel or his family. The first I heard of ever having offered to give such a promise was in the police court. From that time till June 23 I heard nothing from either Mills or Bendon in regard to applying for a loan. The first time anything came up afresh in connection with them was on that date, when Mills telephoned me to my office. He said, "I want you to do me a favour and keep Jack Joel's name out of the paper," or words to that effect. I said, "Very well, if you ask me I will do it for you." He then said that if I wanted it he could get me a bit of money. I replied that I would have no money in connection with keeping Joel's name out of the paper; that it was being kept out in the same way as Solly's name had been—at his request. Then he went on to say that he would like to see me, as I had said that I would like to borrow money from him—as I had done before. He asked me to meet him at 132, Regent Street, and I finally said, "You will understand I don't want any money from Joel." When he said he could get me a bit of money I said, "I don't want any money for this transaction, and I will not have it—it has nothing to do with it." After other words I said. "I want to borrow some money and if you can lend me any, do." I went to 132, Regent Street, and met Mills. He invited me into a little parlour at the back of the shop and said, "I am very much obliged for your keeping Joel's name out; it will do me a turn." He then said he was sure he could borrow some money if I wanted any. I said if he could lend me some I should be only too pleased to borrow from him. He asked what I wanted, and I replied that£5, 000 would clear me. In the course of conversation

I asked him whether he had seen the description of Joel in the "Police Gazette." He said, "No," and I told him it was the beat description that I had ever seen of the man in so few lines. He said he would like to see it, and I remarked that I would have a copy found up. He then stated that he would see what he could do as to the loan and would telegraph me from Newbury. After that he rang up someone on the telephone, and as I did not desire to overhear his conversation I walked out of the shop. Mills came to me shortly after and said, "I have rung up Joel, and he will not lend £5, 000, but he will £2, 500; is that any good to you?" I said, "I can raise the money elsewhere, but £5, 000 would have been more useful and would save me a lot of trouble." There the conversation nominally ended. We did speak about the "Police Gazette," and I said Joel's picture was amongst a lot of fearful individuals who might be taken for murderers. It is absolutely untrue that at that interview I told him I was going to bring out some very hot stuff and put Joel's picture in the paper between two murderers. I had never given such instructions, and had no idea of such a thing. I pencilled the moustache on Joel's, picture in September, 1905, I think. It was done to guide Mr. Star Wood, who drew the cartoon of Joel—to guide and give him some idea, of Joel's likeness at the present time. Mr. Wood had gone to the City to try and find him, but he did not find him and we had to resort to this. The cartoon is that. of the "Gladiator," who is Joel, with the "Winning Post" standing on top of him. I told Mr. Wood to make the head a little fatter and to bring the ringlet a little further down, somewhat after the fashion in which Solly does his hair. I may say that that pencilled moustache, if put on a block and sent to the Art Reproduction Company would not print on the "Winning Post" paper; it would come out a smudge and grey. Except for the purpose of indicating to Mr. Wood the position of the moustache that block or picture has never been used. At the back of it the top three lines are mine. They are, "Sultry Stories; Peppery Paragraphs; Tobasco Tales." Tobasco is a hot sauce. Before Mills left I had not said anything to him about sending a telegram to Joel. What Mills said about my having said anything to him about sending a telegram to Joel is absolutely false. When I received the wire from Mills at Newbury, "Message to say five ridiculous; prepared to give half if will give letter as promised," all I understood was that I had asked Mills if he could get me £5, 000 as a loan, taking it from him, and that he had said he could lend me £2, 500 and that that was in some way to do with it; but more than that I knew nothing. When I wired him to meet me at night I had not received the other telegram. I had not been to the office. I had made no appointment with him in the morning and I wanted to know exactly whether he was going to let me have this money or not. I saw him at the Victoria Club that night. He came out of the telephone-box and said, "You can have that £2, 500 if you like." I said, "Thank you verymuch, can yon give it me now?" He said, "No." I asked if he could give me anything and he replied, "You can have a thousand and I will give you the rest to-morrow morning." I then got a cheque

from him for £1, 000 and told him I would bring him the bills. He had previously asked me to give him a letter saying that I would not annoy Joel and would leave him out of the paper. That was when I showed him the telegram and asked him for an explanation of it. The first thing that happened when I met Mills at the club was, I showed him the telegram and asked what it meant and he said, "It is all right, it means that Joel will only lend £2, 500." Then I said, "Yes, that is all right, I understand that, but what about if I give a letter?" He said, "That is nothing; he wants just to see that it is not going to be in the paper at all; it will do me a turn if you write me a letter. Write it to me and I will show it to Joel." I said, "I will do it with pleasure and I will also write one for Solly." "No," he said, "that is all I want; it will just do me a turn and show that I have a little influence in this matter." And I said, "Certainly." There was no question connecting the letter with the £2, 500 in any way whatsoever so far as Mills's conversation with me was concerned. Nothing was said about the balance. A sum of £2, 500 was going to be lent, as I thought, immediately, and I got £1, 000 of it. I said I would bring the bills to Regent Street the following morning. I asked when he wanted it back and he told me I could make my own time. I said, "If I can make my own time I will make it a year. That will be a very convenient time." I got the bills out at 12 months, wrote the letter on "Winning Post" paper, and went to keep the appointment at Regent Street, expecting to get £1, 500 in exchange for the bills the next morning. As to the other £2, 500 which I wanted, I said I would have to go to Mr. Bass or someone like that. I think I also mentioned Mr. Blacklock's name. The former is a brewer and the latter the proprietor of "Bradshaw's Guide." Neither of them are money-lenders. I got the £2, 500 that night and paid it into the bank next morning, about 10 o'clock. Mills's statement that he did not give me that cheque until 11.30 the next day is untrue. On Wednesday, the 24th, at the Victoria Club, Mills told me that if I would come up to 132, Regent Street, and bring the bills he would give me the balance of the money. I deny that I was in the telephone room at the club with Mills on the Wednesday evening. On the Thursday morning at Regent Street he said he had not the money with him. I had given him the bills and I gave him a letter saying, "Is this the sort of thing you want to please you?" He read it and said, "That will do nicely; it will do me a bit of good," or words to that effect. Then he said if I met him that evening between New Oxford Street and Shaftesbury Avenue he would give me the balance, as he had a board meeting, and that was the only point at which he could meet me. When I showed him the papers and the "Police Gazette," he said he wanted them, as he would have a bit of fun. I remember what was said about the telegram about £5, 000 being ridiculous, but I have never seen it in my life. I never sent any offer whatever to Joel or anybody; the boot has been on the other leg. I sent a taxicab for Mills on his arrival at Paddington. When he got out he said, "I can lend you £5, 000." I said, "Thank you very much, this is a

surprise; I am in a great hurry, would you mind placing the cheque in this letter?" I had already written a letter to my bank saying I wanted the enclosed cheque placed to my credit. I said, "Would you mind placing the cheque into this and posting it to my bank tonight, as I want to get home to-night and I shall not be in town for the end of the week." He took the letter and said, "I have not the cheque with me—will 12 o'clock to-morrow do?" I said, "Yes; I should prefer if you would send the cheque to-night." He retained the letter and put it into his pocket. Then at the Victoria Club he wrote me out a cheque for £3, 400. The reason that the figure was made £3, 400 was because he said to me that there was a matter of £600 outstanding between me and him. I said I had no recollection of it. He said, "Well, there is" So I said, "If there is you had better have it now and take it off the cheque." Then he wrote me a cheque for the £3, 400 on blank paper and I put it in the envelope which contained the letter and which Mills handed me back and I posted it. He said to me before I posted it, "I wish you would put in another sentence here. I have seen Joel, but he says you have not said in this letter to me that you will not molest him." I then said, "I have never molested him, but if you with it—" and he said, "Well, do it for me; I want it; it is all right; what does it matter and it will be putting me very nicely with Joel?" I said, "Certainly," and with that I wrote it saying, "I will do as you wish," or words to that effect. It was done openly. The whole of this was done in the Victoria Club. Members were passing constantly and could have heard the conversation. I know the majority of the members there and they know me. The interlineation of the words in that letter and everything was done at the porter's table in the hall. As to repayment of the extra £2, 500, I said I must have time to settle as to how I could pay it. I said I would do it before the other bill became due, because, of course, I could not owe it over a year and I would see how I could work it out—how I could pay it back. I never agreed to accept that £2, 500 as a present. Mills said, "You can have £2, 500 as a present if you like." I said, "No such thing; I will not accept it as a present." Mills told me early in the course of our meetings that Mr. Leopold Rothschild had said to Joel that this sort of thing in the "Winning Post" ought to stop. I went to Sandown on the day I was arrested. The bills were to have come down to me in the morning by messenger before I started. They did not arrive, however, so I started for Sandown. They were brought to my house at Taplow later in the day. They were brought to me by my solicitor, who opened the envelope. With reference to the picture now produced, I had never seen it before it was shown at the police court. I never supposed it to be the picture of two murderers. It is too grotesque for anything, and I know nothing about it. Referring to the two articles about Dan Murray, I made reference to both him and Joel. I myself believe those statements. I say that in publishing the articles reflecting on Joel I had no intention whatsoever to extort money from him. It is not true that I was in league with Murray.

I have earned a fair income during the past few years, but have had many periods of considerable financial depression. I have had high and low tides financially. I never saw the cheque for £5, 000 which was given by Joel to Mills.

Cross-examined. The last time I had personal communication with Joel was when I was angry with him for not lending me money. We were intimate, so far as intimacy on the racecourse goes. There was no reason why he should lend me money, except that we were both owners of racehorses, and I had very particular property in racehorses at that time—some £100, 000. The case I put to the jury is that undoubtedly Bendon has grossly perjured himself. Certainly Bendon was the gentleman from whom I borrowed £1, 000 on April 6 and from whom I tried to get another £2, 000. I heard Mills say that Bendon was very much prejudiced against Jack Joel. I cannot give any reason why Bendon should commit perjury with a view to injuring me. As to Mills, he was a friend, and I say that one of the last things I had to do with him is that he tried to force upon me £2, 000. I do indeed charge him also with having committed gross perjury here. I think he was foisting that money upon me. I think he knew the whole of this business throughout, or if he did not, then what he had said to Joel he said on his own account in order to save his own skin, and he began to think it was the truth. Bendon never told me that he did not care to ask Solly Joel. I did not then request him to ask Jack Joel. That is an invention on his part. I deny that I said if Jack Joel lent the money I would never annoy him or his family again. His saying that, I should suggest was for the purpose of assisting Joel in this case. He never told me it was a dirty business from the start. When he said, "I know someone who will do it "—meaning lend the money—I did not ask him who the lender was. He did not mention Jack Joel. I would not take his money. In fact, I do not know now that the £5, 000 came from Joel. When I knew that Mills wanted me to have £2, 500, having borrowed £5, 000, and I found that he desired me to take it as a present for the obligation of Joel's name not going into the paper, I would not accept it. When I consulted Bendon and he said he was going to see someone to get it, my idea was that Bendon himself was going to lend it. Of course, he might have gone and seen a third person, but he certainly did not tell me afterwards that he had been to Jack Joel. All he said was, "I have failed, but have asked Mills to carry out the business." He did not say Jack Joel was inclined to lend the money, but would want a receipt and a letter. That is another lie. I did not say, "I will have no transaction with Joel, the loan would be from Mills." I do not know that Mills rang up Jack Joel immediately after he had seen Bendon, though I have no doubt Bendon had told him to go to Jack Joel. It was an invention of Mills when he says that Bendon stated that I wanted to borrow £2, 000 from J. B. Joel on the security of 5, 000 shares in the "Winning Post" to have Joel's name left out of the paper. I could have borrowed the money anywhere without security. The benefit, if there were any,

which Bendon would get by making such a statement as has been suggested would be the benefit of assisting Barnato Brothers, or, rather, one of their partners. I heard none of the conversation on the telephone in Regent Street between Mills and Joel; in fact, I did not know that he rang Joel up. Bendon had warned Mills to be careful, according to Mills's own version, and according to Bendon's version it was a dirty business, and Mills appears to have gone on with it without any intimation to me to that effect. I call the "business" a matter of manufacturing evidence against me. Mills has sworn that he has done everything at the instigation of Joel. Nobody told Mills about the two "murderers." What was said in reference to the case there is that I said: "This is a block of Joel's—in talking about the Joels—with a description of him, which was excellent, and it had appeared amongst a number of ugly-looking individuals, who looked like murderers. I can show you two people who look like murderers in the issue of the "Winning Post" of July 11 who had much Joel's appearance. Before I parted from Mills, when he went to Paddington to send a telegram to say that it was absolutely imperative that the business should be finished that day, I never asked him to send any telegram whatsoever to Joel. When he wired, "You must give your decision to-day absolutely," I say that he took that upon himself, on his own initiative, or by instructions of Joel. My opinion is that he did that in order that it might be part of the manufactured evidence. It was an astonishment to me when Mills telegraphed, "Wire particulars; prepared to give half if will give letter promised." It did not strike me as curious, if Mills was blackmailing on his own account, that he should telegraph to me that Joel had sent to him. That would be part of the plan. I should say very likely that telegram was sent at the instigation of Joel's solicitor, or Joel himself. In his evidence Mills said that Joel had said to him exactly what was in that telegram. When the telegram came, "Wire ridiculous; prepared to give half if will give letter as promised," I saw Mills, by appointment in the evening. I said, "What does this mean?" He replied, "Oh! it is all right; it means that I can only borrow £2, 500 for you." I said, "What does it mean about the letter as promised?" Then he said, "Joel asked me to get a letter from you saying that you would leave his name out of the paper; I promised Joel you would give me one." I knew then that he was quite willing to lend Mills the £2, 500, and as I explained to Mills on the Tuesday, I had given my promise that his name should be kept out of the paper, and there was an end of the matter. The paragraphs and everything were deleted at the time I got that telegram. I knew that Mills, if he obtained the money, would lend it to me; in fact, he said I could have the £2, 500 that night. Whatever the telegram says, the subsequent conversation did not make it a condition that I was to give a letter. If I had seen the telegram I should have understood it. The letter really was to content Mills. I cannot say that I understood from the information given that Joel was making it a condition that he would only give half the £5, 000 if he got such a letter. Mills did not put it in that

way at all. I swear that I did not even then understand that Joel was making that letter a condition of lending money. I do not know whether it was conspiracy on Mills' part, or whether he acted on his own accord in the matter. If he only acted on his own accord he would be what I call trying to be extra clever on both sides. All his evidence is false. I should think he was put up to it—probably by Joel. If the hall-porter at the club said I went into the telephone box, I say he made a mistake. I did not hear Mills say, "Sievier is here at my side; I showed him your telegram, and he says that he will not accept less than £5, 000." Mills did not tell me that Joel said, "If you cannot do it for less I will give you £5, 000, provided you give me a letter to say you will not molest me any more." I did not say at first that I would not agree to give the bills. That is very likely another invention of Mills, showing the important part he was playing to Joel. There was no question that evening of £5, 000. Mills gave me £1, 000, and promised me £1, 500 more in the morning. I do not pretend that I did not have a very strong suspicion that Joel was going to lend Mills the money and Mills lend it to me. There was no difficulty in getting me to take it in a legitimate manner, but there was a difficulty in getting me to take £2, 500 as a gift. I refused to do that. Though I had a shrewd idea that Joel was supplying the money, yet Mills might have borrowed it from other people, as he has done in the past. I maintain that there was a conspiracy between Joel and Mills to put me into gaol. With reference to handing over to Mills the "Police Gazette," it is not likely I should have let him have it to take to Joel if I was blackmailing Joel for money. It would be the last thing I should do. The sum of £1, 500 was handed over to me on the pavement in Oxford Street. That did not strike me as a curious kind of transaction. It was an ordinary business transaction on the pavement between two men who go racing and have lax views of business. I added the words in the letter, promising that I would not molest Joel again, after I received the £3, 400, not before. Of course, I understood that Joel had already seen the letter and that he had instructed Mills to get me to make the addition. I had never molested Joel, and there was no harm in saying, "I will not, as you say, molest him again." There was no connection whatsoevor between the letter and the cheque. Mills would have had that letter without any cheque if he had asked for it. I should have done it without receiving a sixpence. The fact of the loan and letter coming at the same time was not, in my opinion, a mere coincidence, but a little bit of manoeuvring—a good stroke in setting the trap. The letter and the cheque had no concern one with the other—not with me. I did not "arrange" with Mills to show the letter to Joel; I said he could do anything he liked.

Re-examined. The bills in the envelope now produced are the ones in question. They are 21s. blank bill forms, endorsed, "Important papers." This was opened by Mr. Knight, the solicitor. I had given instructions in regard to them, and they were paid for out of "Winning Post" petty cash. I waited for those bills before going to Sandown, but as there was some delay I left and went to Sandown. Eventually they reached me, after I had been arrested.

(Thursday July 30.)

Verdict, Not guilty.

On two further indictments, for demanding from Jack Barnato Joel money with menaces, no evidence was offered for the prosecution, and a verdict of Not guilty was returned.