GEORGE SAYCE, Theft > simple larceny, 4th March 1839.

1058. GEORGE SAYCE was again indicted for stealing, on the 9th of February, 4 shirts, value 6s.; and 6 handkerchiefs, value 2s.; the goods of Richard Mallinson.

 RICHARD MALLINSON. I live in the Minories, and am a slop-seller. On Saturday, the 9th of February, the prisoner came to my shop—he inquired the price of my shirts—I told him—he said he should want from four to six hundred, to go to Carolina—he went away, and returned, and said he thought the shirts would do very well, that be would pay me half the money on Monday, and the other half before the goods were sent from my house—on the Monday I received a note from him, which I have here—I sent my son down with four patterns, as he requested, to show his friends—he came afterwards, and said the shirts would do very well, and he was to have a hundred and fifty of each pattern—I had sent the patterns merely to show his friends—I expected them to come back, to form a portion of what were to be sent—I did not give him credit, to pay for them after they were delivered—the declaration the prisoner made was, "I am ready money, I shall pay you half the money on Monday, and the other half before the goods go out of your house"—I received this note on Monday evening—I had not sent any before I received it, nor did I know where to send them—I sent the shirts merely as samples, not upon sale—I sent eight shirts as samples, and he selected four.

Prisoner. I admit having these shirts from him as samples of what I was going to purchase.

Witness. He came again, and said he wished to extend the order to some slops—the shirts would come to about 60l., and be said he would make it up to 100l.—I then received another note from him—I began to think that things were not altogether right—I sent a coat down that was not finished—on the Saturday morning after I took the coat I saw him—he said, "At four o'clock you shall have the money"—I said "You have told me so many different stories about the money, I shall take the coat back—he then coloured up, and said, "You are very strange, or crusty, about this coat"—I said, "You give me reason"—I had delivered six handkerchiefs into his hands, to show to the same person—they were as patterns, not for sale—I only delivered them as samples—these an the shirts and handkerchiefs—(looking at the them.)

 JOHN MALLINSON. I am the prosecutor's son. I saw the prisoner the second time he came on the Saturday—he said the shirts would answer the purpose, and on Monday he would bring part of the money—the Monday came, and we began to have our doubts till this note came; and on the Tuesday, in consequence of this note, I took eight shirts to the prisoner's lodgings—he took four—I saw him, and he said, "You have come here with the patterns."

(Read)—"MR. MALLINSON, I shall not be able to Call on you to-day, but will thank you to send me, for the inspection of my friend, who joins with me in the shipment of the shirts, but who is an invalid, a shirt of each pattern, the dark and the white, for him to see—I shall be up in the morning, and will pay you one half of the amount, and the other half before the delivery from your house.

"I am, respectfully, your obedient servant, GEORGE SAYCE.

"At Mr. Codd's, No. 2, Cannon-street-road, St. George's in the East."

Witness. I went on the Monday evening, and he was gone to bed—I went again on Tuesday morning, and laid a different quality before him—what I left were not on sale, but merely as samples to show to his friend.

 JOSEPH BLAY. I am a pawnbroker. I produce three shirts, which were pawned with me by the prisoner, on the 12th of February.

 THOMAS MICKLEFIELD. I am in the service, of Mr. Telfer, a pawnbroker. I have six handkerchiefs, pawned by the prisoner on the 14th of February—to the best of my belief, it was in the latter part of the forenoon.

(Property produced and sworn to.)

Printer's Defence. I was in expectation, when I called on Mr. Mallinson, of going to South Carolina—I had a friend, whom I expected here, who would have paid for these—I took patterns, and I admit I pledged them, but I considered them as part of the order.

GUILTY. Aged 52. — Transported for Seven Years.

JOHN MALLINSON, victim name in trial of EDWARD JOHN STEVENSON.

 EDWARD JOHN STEVENSON, Deception > forgery, 24th October 1842.

2823. EDWARD JOHN STEVENSON was indicted for feloniously forging and uttering an acceptance on a bill of exchange for 69l. 17s.; with intent to defraud John Mallinson.

MESSRS. BODKIN and CHARNOCK conducted the Prosecution.

 JOHN MALLINSON. I am an out-fitter, and live in the Minories—about Whitsuntide a person representing himself to be Edward Williams called on me, and said he lived at No. 185, Ratcliff-highway—I went to the house on the Monday, found it shut, and nobody in it—I think the person called on the Friday—three weeks or a month or more after, he came again, and after that second visit the prisoner and Williams came to me, I cannot say the date—he was introduced as the son or son-in-law of Williams——they selected goods, I can hardly say to what amount—the whole of the goods I sent in amounted to 82l.—they left the selection partly to me—part were delivered on Friday—before the whole of the goods were delivered I went down on Saturday morning, and Williams said he supposed cash was acceptable at all times, and gave me four 5l. notes—the prisoner was present—I applied to the prisoner for payment of the account as soon as all the goods were delivered—he told me that Williams had just gone out of town—I went almost day after day and saw the prisoner there—I saw them together—I do not recollect the day—the prisoner had told me that Mr. Williams had got some bills which he was going to get discounted—I cannot charge my memory whether Williams or the prisoner told me if I came down at such a time he would settle my account—I believe they were both present—I went at the time appointed, Williams was not within—they were both present when the bill in question was given, I think it was in the forenoon—Williams said I had been very untradesmanlike in pressing a respectable tradesman for cash so soon, and he should have no further dealings with me, he had not been able to get the bills discounted, but he had a bill more than the amount of my goods—he gave me that, and laid a particular stress on his words, saying, "Mind, I will not take the balance in goods, I will have it in money when the bill is paid"—it was for 69l. 17s.—this is it—my account was 61l.—Williams laid the bill on the table, the prisoner took it up, and they had some conversation respecting the merits of the bill—I cannot say what it was, but both said that Captain Cutting was a respectable man, a captain of a vessel then at sea, but would be home before the bill became due, and the bill was for goods they had sold him, and he had several other bills and a deal of money laying out at the present time which was very hard to get in—the prisoner took the bill, and said, he thought Mr. So-and-So, mentioning a person's name, would cash the bill for me, if I allowed him 10 per cent.—there was an altercation about what 10 per cent would be—I said it was about 7l., and the prisoner said it would be 7l.—I took the bill, put it into my pocket, and thought, as he said the acceptor was a respectable man, I had better keep it than lose the 7l. on it.

Cross-examined by MR. CLARKSON. Q. Did you originally go before the Lord Mayor with the complaint? A. I did—he dismissed it—it was not gone into properly—the attorney said he would bring the case of forgery on, but he did not—we did not go into the case of forgery—I gave the prisoner into custody on a charge of forgery, but when before the Lord Mayor, the solicitor went into the charge of false pretences, and said, he would bring the forgery on afterwards—the Lord Mayor said he had nothing to do with false pretences, they being committed out of the city, and sent the case to Lambeth-street—Williams said the prisoner was his son-in-law, and he was about to set him up in business.

MR. BODKIN. Q. Are these the invoices you sent with the goods? A. They are.

 JAMES CARTER. I reside at Ipswich, and have done so thirty-six years—I have been a policeman there six years and a half—I knew a Captain Cutting of Ipswich—he has been dead three years—he was master of a vessel which sailed from I pswich—I do not know of any other Captain Cutting living at Ipswich—I never knew any but the one who is dead—the prisoner is a stranger to me.

Cross-examined. Q. Was Captain Cutting's name John or John Thomas? A. John Cutting, to the best of my knowledge—he lived in the parish of St. Mary Key—that is a different parish to St. Clement's.

Q. Do you mean to swear that you do not know any other person named Cutting, a seafaring man, who has commanded a vessel, and that you have not spoken to such a man within three or four days? A. I have spoken to a man named Cutting, a fisherman—I never knew him command a vessel—his name is John—I do not know whether his name is John Thomas.

Q. On your oath, did yon not, within these four days, say to him, "How do you do, Captain Cutting?" A. I said, "You are Captain Cutting here, but not at Ipswich"—I have known him twenty-five years.

MR. BODKIN. Q. How have you known that man employed? A. ✗ going out with boats with fish—he is a man of poor circumstances.

 CHARLES CHAMBERS. I am a policeman. I took the prisoner into custody—he pulled these papers out himself—this invoice was one of them—the prosecutor said he charged him with forgery—he said he knew nothing of it—I asked his name—he said Williams, and directly afterwards he said Stevenson.

 WILLIAM BROWNING (police-constable H 190.) My attention was directed to a house, No. 185, Ratcliff-highway, at seven o'clock, on Saturday morning, the 17th of September, and I saw the prisoner helping to remove some things—the house was shut up at the time—I do not know whether it was opened afterwards.

 JOB HANCOCK. I am in the prosecutor's employ. I took the goods mentioned in the invoice to No. 185, Ratcliff-highway, and delivered them to the prisoner, who was in the shop—I knew him by the name of Stevenson.

— PRIEST. I was in the employ of Mr. Popplewell. I went to No. 185, Ratcliff-highway, for orders, about the beginning of September, I think—I saw the prisoner there, and asked for Mr. Williams—he said, "I am him," or words to that effect—the name of Williams was over the door—I did not see the premises after they were shut up.

Cross-examined. Q. Do you mean to swear that what be said was not that he represented Mr. Williams? A. He said he was Williams, or words to that effect—as well as I recollect, he said, "I am him," or something to that effect—I cannot say the exact words—I did not know Williams then—I have seen him since, and got bills from him—the prisoner came to us for somebody to come to Ratcliff-highway to take an order—I told the Magistrate that he said his name was Williams.

 JOHN HISSEY. I lived in Green-square, Houndsditch—I am concerned for a Manchester house. About the middle of August I went to No. 185, Ratcliff-highway—I asked for Mr. Williams—the prisoner was called in—I asked, was he Mr. Williams?—he said "Yes"—I saw him again on the 9th of September, and told him a letter had been received by the house I represented at Manchester, and the letter had been sent to me—that letter came from Mr. Williams, and I called respecting an order—I said I had been frequently, and could not see him—he said he had a shop on the other side of the street to attend to as well, in consequence of which he could not be so regular at No. 185—there is another shop on the other side of the street—I believe it is an old established shop—it is kept by a Mr. Williams.

 JAMES FRASER. I am a shoemaker, and live at No. 172, Ratcliff-highway. I had some dealings with these parties—I went to No. 185 on Saturday, the 17th of September, about nine o'clock in the morning—the shop was shut—I knocked at the door—I got in, and went into the shop—the prisoner was not there, nor was Williams—the shop was empty of goods, but the shelves on which goods are usually kept were filled with packages of brown paper stuffed with straw and hay, tied up like persons usually keep their goods—they are usually called dummies—all the goods were gone.

 HORACE CHARLES DOWNES. I am clerk at Messrs. Glynn's banking-house—the acceptor of this bill has no account with us, nor do I know anything of him.

(The bill was dated Ipswich, 22nd of July, at two months after date, on Captain Cutting, St. Clement's, Ipswich. Accepted, J. T. Cutting. Payable at Glynn and Co.'s.)

MR. CLARKSON called

 JOHN THOMAS CUTTING. The acceptance on this bill of exchange it my handwriting—I accepted it for old Williams in blank—I lived at St. Clement's, Ipswich, for six years in one house—I had the command of the Eliza, from Ipswich, fourteen tons burden—it was a fishing-boat—I have been at sea lately, fishing—they call me Captain Cutting at Ipswich.

MR. BODKIN. Q. Did they call you that when you were last in gaol? A. I do not know—it is about twelve months since I left gaol—I was there six months—I have commanded a fishing-boat from 1832—I have had different ones—I have a small one now—it is five or six years since I commanded the one of fourteen tons—the boat I have now is a rowing boat—I get my living by that means, having been so lame—I was at Ipswich when I wrote my name on this paper—I had had no goods from Williams at that time—I consider that I owed him a good bit of money—about two years ago I bought some cloth of him, and was unlucky enough to lose It—I was never in a workhouse—I applied to the parish for my family while I was in gaol—I have been in the habit of carrying about fish, apples, and ginger-beer, to sell in the street—I do not carry apples often—I do sometimes—I buy cargoes of apples—(the witness was here desired to write his name)—I wrote my name and direction on the bill, what is written across it—I wrote "Accepted, J. T. Cutting," and where it was payable—I think it was Glynn and Co. where Williams told me he should Pay the money in—I signed four at the same time, all in blauk—I got nothing for it, not one farthing.

MR. CLARKSON. Q. Did Williams tell you he would take the bills up when at maturity? A. Yes, and that I should have no trouble—I was in gaol for smuggling—never for debt or any thing else.

NOT GUILTY.

JOHN MALLINSON, witness name in trial of JAMES SMEE, April 1859.

 375. JAMES SMEE (18), Stealing 27 lbs. of cloth cuttings, value 27s, of William Whitworth and another.

 JAMES SMEE, Theft > simple larceny, 4th April 1859.

 WILLIAM WHITWORTH. I am a woollen-manufacturer at Cripplegate—I have one partner—I have a warehouse in Vine-yard, Aldersgate-street—the prisoner was in my service—it was his duty to sort cuttings—he had only been with us two days—I have seen a bag with some cuttings in it—I saw it before the prisoner took it, we had it on our premises—I was afterwards shown the bag of cuttings; they were ours, and were what I had seen safe on our premises on the morning of 1st of March—the prisoner was working at them—he had not the least authority to take any of them away—I saw them safe on Tuesday morning, the 1st of March—the prisoner did not come to work on the Wednesday morning as usual—I did not miss the bag before it was shown to me.

 JOHN MALLINSON. I saw the prisoner on Tuesday, the 1st of March, about 5 o'clock—he had a bag with cloth cuttings in it—I asked him if he had come from Vine-yard with them; he said, "Yes, they will not buy them there"—I said, "Well, you had better come back, and we will see"— he then dropped the bag and ran away—I ran after him a short way—I then went and took the bag to the prosecutor.

 FRANCIS MEED (City policeman, 216). I apprehended the prisoner on 2nd March—I told him he was charged with stealing a quantity of cloth cuttings—he said that he knew nothing about them—I took him to his master 8, and there he said he was employed to carry them to White-horse-court—I found the bag at Mr. Whit worth's.

Prisoner's Defence. A person asked me to take the bag, and the gentleman came and took me; I put it down and ran away.

GUILTY. — Confined Three Months.

ELI MALLINSON, witness name in trial of HERBERT VYSE.

 HERBERT VYSE, ALFRED JUDD, Deception > bankrupcy, 23rd November 1874.

39. HERBERT VYSE (30), and ALFRED JUDD (35), were indicted for various offences under the Bankruptcy Act—Vyse for obtaining goods "by false pretences, and for not truly disclosing his property—Judd for aiding and assisting him. Other Counts.—For joint conspiracy to defraud.

MESSRS. BESLEY and Straight conducted the Prosecution; MESSRS. MONTAGU.

WILLIAMS and CHARLES MATTHEWS defended Vyse, and MR. A. B. KELLY defended Judd.

 NEHEMIAH LEAROYD. I am a member of the firm of Learoyd and Learoyd, solicitors, of Huddersfield, Yorkshire, and Moorgate Street, City—in 1869 I was the solicitor representing the assignees in the bankruptcy of Judd—his debts were, in round figures, about 2,000l—these are the proceedings in Judd's bankruptcy (produced)—I believe his trading related to one single year—I find on the proceedings several orders for Judd to file cash and deficiency accounts; they were all made upon my application—there was ultimately an order of the Court, of December, 1870, that the discharge of the bankrupt should be adjourned sine die, and he was to file a cash and deficiency account—the prisoner Judd is the man to whom these proceedings refer—in 1873, acting on behalf of Messrs. Mallinson & Co., of Huddersfield, I recovered a judgment against Vyse for 181l. 8s. 6d.—a writ of summons was issued in reference to that, but we were unable to serve it, and an order of substituted service had to be obtained—execution was afterwards issued upon that judgment, and placed in the hands of the Sheriff—we have got nothing.

 RICHARD SPARKS. I am a clerk in the London Bankruptcy Court—I produce the proceedings in the bankruptcy of Herbert Vyse, of 28, Noble Street, and also the proceedings in the bankruptcy of Alfred Judd—Vyse describes himself of 28, Noble Street, City, warehouseman—the date, of the petition for adjudication is the 24th of February, and the adjudication was on 23rd March, 1874—Mr. Samuel Barrow was appointed trustee on 17th pril—the 28th of May was the day appointed for the bankrupt to appear and pass his public examination—I find a note that the bankrupt did not attend, and no excuse was alleged for his non-attendance—I also find on the proceedings an affidavit dated 27th of March, signed by Vyse—I do not know Vyse's handwriting—I also find the examination of Alfred Judd attached to the proceedings of Vyse's bankruptcy purporting to have been taken on 8th May, 1874—there is no statement of creditors in Vyse'a bankruptcy attached to the proceedings—I find a notification of the first meeting of creditors—that was the only meeting held before the adjudication—I don't see that Mr. Catlin attended on behalf of the bankrupt as his solicitor.

 SAMUEL BARROW. I am an accountant, at 24, Gresham Street—I was appointed trustee under the bankruptcy of Herbert Vyse—Mr. Ditton was the solicitor who represented me, and Mr. Withers, his clerk, had charge of the bankruptcy on his behalf—I have not received any statement from him with reference to Vyse's affairs at all—I have not received any information as to how he incurred the liabilities or disposed of the goods he obtained—I have not received any books of account of any sort or kind—application was made on my behalf to the Court of Bankruptcy as to the prosecution of these persons.

Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. I never had occasion to apply to Judd for any information.

 JOHN WITHERS. I have been acting in this matter—I produce the judgment paper of the 29th November, 1873, being the judgment in the Mayor's Court of Messrs. Horandt & Muller, of Basle in Switzerland, for 173l. and 3l. 8s. 10d. costs—execution was issued'upon that—I went to 28, Noble Street on the 24th December; that was after Mr. Fitch had taken possession—there were some large empty packing-cases, some cardboard boxes, and some large brown paper parcels—I opened nearly all of them, and found they contained straw principally—when they were tied up they represented a large quantity of goods; that is what I should have taken them to be—there was no stock there at all—the things were not taken away under the execution; there was an interpleader—they were claimed by Mr. Watson, Mr. Vyse's solicitor; he alleged he had purchased them sometime before for 7l.—that was the whole contents of the office—they were sold by Mr. Hay wood, who is here—a summons in bankruptcy was issued shortly before the levying of the execution—a debtor's summons was also taken out—I made efforts to serve—that on Vyse—I. went several times to Noble Street, and I sent every day—I saw Judd there on two or three occasions, and at other times the door was closed and locked—I asked Judd where Vyse was; he said he was not in, he did not know where he was, or anything at all about him—we got leave to substitute service on. the premises—the 24th February, 1874, was the date of the petition in bankruptcy being filed—I again made efforts to find Vyse, and went there on several occasions—I was at 28, Noble Street on the 5th March, when the broker was in possession—there was no difference in the place at that time—this affidavit is signed by Vyse, to the best of my belief—he there says "I am prepared to satisfy the petitioning creditor, as well as any other creditor who may have any claim; I say I am not indebted to any person beyond the persons in the due course of my business"—that is dated the 27th March—on the 25th March at 5.30 I saw Vyse and Judd come from Mr. Catlin's—they went into the Castle Tavern, in Gresham Street, and from there to the Raglan Hotel, in Aldersgate Street, and then to the refreshment bar at Aldersgate Street—they got into a Midland train, and I got into the next compartment—the train stopped at Farringdon Street, two or three persons got out of the train—after the the train had started Vyse suddenly opened the door, and jumped out—I jumped out too, and Judd went on in the train—Vyse went up to the refreshment bar, and had some refreshment; then he went to a public-house opposite—he had some refreshment there—he came out of the public-house, and got into a Hansom cab—I followed, and he went to Red Lion Street, Holborn—a young woman was waiting for him there, and he went with her into a public-house—they came out of there, and went to a kind of coffee shop in Red Lion Street, where they had tea; they then went into a public-house in Princes Street, Red Lion Square—they afterwards went to the Raglan "Music Hall where he remained till 10 o'clock—he then went again to the Stockbridge public-house, in Red Lion Street, where he waited till he was turned out at 12 o'clock; and then he went towards the Haymarket, and finally to the Turkish Divan, and I did not see any more of him—in the course of my inquiries I traced Vyse to 285, Hdlborn—I found out on the following day, the 26th, that was where he resided—I went there, and after making inquiries I went back in the evening—I found "Apartments to let" up then—I did not find Vyse there—I attended the first meeting of creditors on the 17th April, 4874; Mr. Catlin, Vyse's solicitor, also attended, and he produced this statement—at that time all that is written with ink was on. it; the pencil writing is my own, and is the names of the creditors I found out subsequently—when the paper was produced it contained nine creditors only—the officer of the Bankruptcy Bourt refused to take it, and handed it over to me for the trustee—I endeavoured to see Vyse again, and went two or three times to Holborn and once or twice to Noble Street, but I was not able to see him—I did not write—he never attended to give any information about his affairs—no books, papers, or documents of any kind relating to his affairs have ever been produced by him to me—I sought to have him examined at the Bankruptcy Court, and got an order for that purpose—the 8th May was fixed for his attendance, the same day that Judd was examined, but he did not attend—I was present when Judd was examined, and his examination was taken by Mr. Barber, a shorthand writer—a public examination of Vyse was fixed for the 21st July, but he did not attend on that day—a warrant was granted by the Court on the 8th June for not attending on the 17th April, and was placed in the hands of Mr. Reed, the officer of the Court—I tried with Reed to discover him, but was unable to do so—Vyse was present on the 27th March, the same date as the affidavit—I asked Mr. Catlin whether he had 50l. in his pocket, the bankrupt was there, and Mr. Catlin said he had—the bankrupt did not attend the public examination in July, and a further appointment was made—on 3rd October I went to 285, Holborn, and searched the room, and found a number of memoranda, and also this letter in the handwriting of Judd.

By MR. KELLY. I know Judd's writing, by having seen him write on 27th December, when I was at the office in Noble Street—I only saw him write on that occasion, but besides that he has admitted the handwriting—I only saw him write an address on an envelope—I can swear this is his writing, without the slightest hesitation.

By MR. BESLEY. This is the letter—"Saturday, 1.30. Return at once, do not delay, say where I can meet you, at Peckham or somewhere out of town before you go to No. 285. Don't send anything to No. 9. Will explain when I see you." I also produce three pawn tickets which I found at 285, Holborn, and also some cards and invoices and a directory—I did not see Vyse from 27th March till he was in custody.

Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. I never saw Judd at 285, Holborn—I saw him on two or three occasions when I called at Noble Street, and he stated that Mr. Vyse was not there—I had no reason to suppose he was not there, but I have heard persons in there when the door has been locked—there was nothing that I saw that was inconsistent with his being a clerk.

 CHARLES LEGGATT BARBER I am a shorthand writer appointed to the Court of Bankruptcy—I attended on the 8th May and took down in shorthand the examination of Alfred Judd—I transcribed the shorthand notes and this is the transcript on the file—he was summoned there in the bankruptcy of Vyse and was called as a witness upon those proceedings—the examination was before Mr. Registrar Brougham, the witness was examined by Mr. Ditton, and Mr. Catlin appeared for the witness. (The examination was put in and read at length, also certain memoranda and orders for goods which were referred to in the examination and which are also referred to in the evidence).

 JOHN WITHERS (recalled). Cross-examined by Mr. Williams. I was present when Mr. Catlin handed over the statement of accounts on the 17th April—this is the statement—the pencil marks on it are mine—the total amount of the account is 2,127l.—two or three of the parcels I saw at 28, Noble Street contained wadding, but the others all contained straw—I don't know that on several occasions Vyse has been absent from England on the Continent during the time he was trading—I have not ascertained that fact—I don't know that he was travelling on the Continent for orders—I have never seen him write.

 ELI MALLINSON. I am a member of the firm of Mallinson and Sons, of Hudderafield—we supplied goods to Vyse in June and September, 1872, to the amount of 181l. 8s. 6d.—these are the invoices of the goods—on the 6th June we sent 198 yards of woollen cloth at 3s. 1d. and 106 and 99 yards—on the 28th June we sent 205 yards, and on 10th September. 50 1/2 yards, 416 1/2 and 46 yards—we never received payment for those goods—we took proceedings against the bankrupt: a writ was issued—we put the matter in the hands of our solicitor—this is the judgment—it is for 188l. 5s.—I produce five letters received by our firm from the bankrupt between the 28th May and 9th September, 1872.

 JOHN WITHERS (recalled). These five letters are in the handwriting of Judd.

Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. I speak to these on the same ground as I spoke to the others, that I saw him write an address once on an envelope. (These were letters asking for patterns and ordering the goods).

 EMIL HORNER. I am a silk agent and merchant at 2, Carey Lane—in May, 1873, I received instructions from my correspondents, Messrs. Ritchie and Co., of Zurich, in consequence of which I took proceedings against Vyse—I produce the judgment paper. (This was dated 1st July, 1874, for 169l. 15s. 8d. and 5l. 15s. costs, and was a judgment on an acceptance of Vyse of 25th February, 1873.) I did not realise anything from that judgment—I produce some letters which have been handed to me by Messrs. Ritchie. (John Withers. These letters are in the handwriting of Judd,) One of them is to Mr. Liverton, my solicitor—I was also agents for Messrs. Bessent Bros., of St. Etient, France—some goods were ordered from them, but I prevented them being sent.

 WILLIAM HOPCROFT. I am a member of the firm of R. and W. Hopcroft and Sons, Nottingham—we deal in hosiery—in April, 1872, we supplied goods to Vyse, of 28, Noble Street, to the amount of 66l. 14s. 2d.—the first parcel was 17l. 5s. 8d. and the second 10l. 6s.—the last delivery of goods was on the 29th April—I afterwards sued for my debt aad I produce the judgment paper—the amount is 100l. and 11l. 11d. costs and is dated 6th September, 1872—we put it in the hands of Messrs. Sole and Turner and got 30l.: on October 5th, 1872, 15l., and December 21st, 1872, 15l., leaving the balance, 36l. 14s. 2d., unpaid—these are the letters we received in the course of the transactions. (John Withers. With one exception, these are in the (handwriting of Judd.) Those invoices contain a correct description of the goods—the amount of my bill before the law costs was 66l. 14s. 2d. and in October and December 30l. was was paid leaving 36l.

 WILLIAM FIELD. I am a member of the firm of W. and J. T. Field, of Shelburn Park—we deal in fancy vestings—we supplied the firm of Vyse and Co. with goods in September, 1872—we got the order a month or two before that, but the goods were supplied on September 11th—I produce four letters received in the course of the transactions. (John Withers. Three of these letters are in the handwriting of Judd.) The first parcel was despatched on 11th September; that consisted of four pieces of silk vesting, 130 yards at 3s. 2d., and four pieces 130 yards at 2s. 2d., amounting to 35l. 3s. 1d.—the order was larger than that, but we did not deliver the remainder; we found out what the parties were—they wrote for patterns first and we sent them some—I took proceedings, the amount with costs being 50l. 15s. 9d.—received 7l. from the sheriff, leaving a balance of 43l—I have never known goods of that description sold at 35 1/2 per cent, discount.

 WALTER WADE. I am a woollen cloth manufacturer in partnership with my father at Portobello Mills, Wakefield—I received these two letters. (John Withers. One is in the handwriting of Judd, and the other is in the same handwriting as the others to which I have not spoken). (This stated Your account shall receive attention at the beginning of next month") Previous to the receipt of that letter in 1874 we had supplied Vyse and Co., of 28, Noble Street, with goods in November, 1873—these copy invoices accurately describe the goods which were sent—the amount altogether is 91l. 2s. 6d.—I applied for payment and the letter which has been read is one that we received in reply—we afterwards instructed our solicitors and a writ was issued; that was the latter part of January, 1874—we never got any money.

 JOSIAH CHARTER. I a member of the firm of Uphill, Charter and Co., of 3, Little Castle Street—we are agents for Messrs. Warner and Co., hosiers, of Leicester—we had nothing to do with the supplying of the goods by Warner and Co. to Vyse, but we were requested to obtain payment, and with that view I went to the office at 28, Noble Street—I think that was in April, 1873, and I continued going up to the time that they left—I should think I went fifty times altogether—sometimes I found the premises open and sometimes closed—I have seen both the defendants there on three or four occasions or more—I remember on one occasion asking Judd if Mr. Vyse was in—Judd said "No"—I asked if he had been in and he said "Yes"—I said "Will he be here any more to-day?"—he said "I don't know"—I heard a rustling of some paper and went and opened the counting-house door and Vyse sat there—I said "Oh, you are here, are you?"—he said "I am busy writing, I am too busy to attend to you"—I said he was not too busy to get goods, but he seemed too busy to pay for them—there was a great deal of conversation and he ran downstairs—I ran after him and he came back again—there was some more conversation, but I got no money—I got a letter from Mr. Watson in consequence of what I had said, threatening me with an action—I afterwards saw Messrs. Warner's goods at Town-end's in Wood Street, about May, 1873—they are wholesale dealers.

Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. When I went to Noble Street I went to see Vyse—I always asked for him—I understood the transactions to be with him, and when Judd said he was not at home the moment I saw Vyse he said he was too busy to see me—Judd promised me payment several times; he said if I would wait till 20th August he would prove to me that Vyse was an honest man and I should be paid—I could not tell what Judd was, I only know he was on the premises.

 WALTER FRANCIS FITCH. I am agent in London for Messrs. Wemklyn and O'Hagan of Manchester—I produce three letters. (John Withers. Two of these are in the handwriting of Judd, and one in the same writing as the letters of which I have not spoken). (These were letters ordering patterns and goods). These copy invoices accurately describe the goods that were sent—I had samples of the goods—the amount of the two invoices is 200l. odd—Messrs. Wemklyn and O'Hagan sued Vyse and Co. for the amount—our solicitors, Messrs. Phelps and Sedgwick have got the judgment paper—I have seen Judd—I called with Mr. O'Hagah in October, 1872, after the goods were delivered; Mr. O'Hagan applied for the money; Judd said that Vyse was out, but that he was certain when the account was due that it would be paid—we told him the account had been due two months—he said he could not do anything in the matter as Vyse was not there—I waited with Mr. O'Hagan from 2 till 8 o'clock, but Vyse never came—I went afterwards with the man who served the writ—the writ was served on Judd the day after our visit—we instructed Phelps and Sedgwick that afternoon, and I went with the man next morning to serve the writ—I have not been since the money has never been paid.

 THOMAS BARTON. My firm is G. and T. Barton, of Macclesfield—we have had transactions with Vyse and Co., of 28, Noble Street, and have supplied goods—we commenced nearly three years ago and supplied goods for nearly six months to the amount of between 400l. and 500l.—we sued them afterwards and we got altogether about 200l. both before and after the sueing—I think they are indebted to us now about 300l., but I have got no particulars.

Cross-examined by MR. MATTHEWS. I believe some of the money that was paid was paid under an arrangement by which Vyse was to pay 10l. a month—White and Co., of King Street, were the persons who received that—I don't know when the instalments commenced.

 HENRY BORCKENSTEIN. I am a merchant, at 8, Moorgate Street, and am London agent for Messrs. Kaiser—I produce a judgment paper. (This was dated 10th December, 1873,for 177l. 11s. 8d. debt, and 7l. 8s. 2d. costs, on an acceptance drawn by Kaiser & Co., arid accepted by Vyse & Co., payable three months after 10th October, 1873, for 168l. 10s. 8d.) I issued execution, but got no money.

Cross-examined by MR. MATTHEWS. Messrs. Kaiser sent me the bill—I don't know of any arrangement made between them and Vyse—I know no arrangement has been made subsequently to the bill being sent to me, because they have written to me repeatedly to enforce payment of the bill—I can't say whether they have had 50l. on account of that acceptance.

Re-examined. The bill was first circulated and came back protested, when it was sent endorsed to me" Try and get the money"—I put it in the lawyer's hands, and it seems that the judgment is in my name.

 JOHN WITHERS (re-called). I have received a judgment paper and certain letters from the clerk of Messrs. Pritchard and Englefield, the solicitors—those letters are in the handwriting of Judd—this is the judgment (This was a judgment in the Lord Mayor's Court, dated 21st October, 1872, for 16l. 12s. and 3l. 15s. 8d. costs against Vyse).

 WILLIAM KEMP. I am a partner in the firm of Thomas Kemp & Sons, silk merchants, of Spital Square—we supplied two parcels of goods to Vyse & Co., 28, Noble Street, in February, 1872—on February 2nd; 32l. 12s. 6d., and on the 9th, 17l. 0s. 9d.—I did not see either of the defendants before I supplied the goods, my brother did—about June, 1872, three months after the goods had been delivered, I went to 28, Noble Street, and I continued to go at frequent intervals during the whole of the year 1872—I went perhaps eight or ten times altogether—I went in the usual business hours, and about twice out of three times I found the place closed—when the place was open I saw Judd and asked him with reference to the payment of the account which was due, and on all occasions I have been promised that we should receive the money—eventually I received 3l. from Vyse—I met him in the street with Judd, and he promised we should have the account—I said "You had better let me have something on account," and he gave me 3l. from his purse—that was on 20th March, 1873—I have not had any more on account of his debt: the rest is due to me—the description of the goods was on 2nd February, 182 yards of black silk, suitable for mantles and dresses, and on the 9th 87 yards of silk of a similar character.

Cross-examined by MR. MATTHEWS. Nothing was said about a monthly arrangement when the 3l. was paid—Mr. Vyse said he would pay the rest as soon as he could.

 LOUIS JUDAH ABRAHAMS. I am buyer and manager to Mr. Mark Josephs, at 139, High Street, Whitechapel—I have known Judd about three years and Vyse not quite so long—I believe Judd was a commission agent at first—I never saw Vyse in Aldermanbury—I have my books and invoices here—I have an invoice here of the 27th December, 1871, 524 yards of silk at 1s. 3d.—that is in Vyse's handwriting, and was written by him in Aldermanbury—I must have known him in Aldennanbury, and I was wrong in what I said just now—the first transaction with Vyse was on 27th December, 1871, 524 yards of silk at 1s. 3d., 32l. 15s.—this is his receipt—I paid that money to Vyse—I think Judd introduced him first, and I think he brought us samples—the next transaction was the 30th January, 1872, 7l. for two sewing machines—I produce the cheque—I forget whether I saw Judd in that transaction—the next was on March 1st, 1872,18l. for 90 1/4 yards of silk—the next is March 6th, three pieces of coating, 173 1/2 yards, 20l.—I produce the invoice, receipted, and the cheque—I believe I paid Vyse, but I really don't know, except the invoice has the signature of who ever I paid—there was also 51 3/4 yards of black union, on the 6th March, for 4l.—I gave him a cheque for 24l.—this is the cheque in respect of that transaction—the next was the 14th March, 165 yards of black union cloth at 4l. 8d. a yard, 13l. 15s.; that was not a pledge, but a sale outright—the 22nd was the next, six pieces of fancy coating, 257 3/4 yards at 5s., 65l. 10s. 3d.—a cheque for 40l. was paid and cash 20l., discount 5l. 10s. 3d.—the next transaction was on April 3rd, 171 yards of coating at 3s. 2d.,27l. 1s. 6d.—I paid that to Judd—the next was April 4th,10l. for 90 1/4 yards of silk—that was received by Judd—the next was May 2nd, forty dozen of cotton hose at 8s., and forty dozen at 11s., 38l.—there was a discount of 17 1/2 per cent., amounting to 6l. 13s.—I paid a cheque for 26l. 7s.—I made a mistake in my examination at the Bankruptcy Court—I said that the discount was 11l. 13s., instead of which it was 6l. 13s.; the invoice is right, and I am wrong in my book—I only gave a cheque for 26l. 7s., and the remainder was in cash—that was paid to Judd, and the receipt was signed by him—the next transaction was May 27th, 267 yards of coating, 33l. 7s. 5d.—I believe that was paid by cheque—this is the cheque, "Pay Vyse & Co. or order," and endorsed Vyse & Co.—I paid that to Vyse—the 28th May was the next, sixteen dozen pounds of thread at 1l. per dozen, 16l.—I paid that cheque to Vyse—there was no discount off that—June the 3rd is the next, for some linens, amounting to 53l. 14s.—that was paid to Vyse—June 15th, 401 1/2 yards of fancy doeskin at 2s. 1d., 46l. 16s. 4d.—I paid a cheque for 45l. 13s., and discount 1l. 3s. 4d.—June 21st is the next, that is a long invoice of some odd sample dozens of hose, amounting to 24l. 14s. 5d.—35 per cent discount was taken off that.

MR. WILLIAMS here stated that he could not resist a conviction against Vyse upon some of the counts, and that he would plead GUILTY.) The next transaction was on the 3rd July, 205 yards of doeskin, 23l. 13s., receipted by Vyse; 11th July, 40 large silk shawls, at Us., 34l., receipted by Vyse; 12th July, 1,872 1/2 yards of flannel at 10d., 78l. 0s. 5d., and wool rugs, 8l., receipted by Judd for Vyse & Co.; 13th August, 14 pieces of black silk velvet, 1,408 yards for the lump sum of 110l. nett, cash—I have missed 1st August, there is not an invoice of that; 13 pieces of black neck-handkerchiefs, and 2 pieces of sarsenet, for 30l.—29th August, 100 railway rugs for 33l., paid to Judd for Vyse & Co.; 30th August, 2 pieces of Japanese silk and 3 pieces of sarsenet, 80l.; 10th September, 4 pieces of black velvet, 9l. 10s.; 12th September, 10 pieces of fancy Tweed, 523 yards at 2s. 6d., 65l. 3s. 6d.; 20th September, 816 yards coloured Japanese silk and 327 yards of sarsenet, 73l. 9s. 6d., 8 pieces of vesting, 264 1/2 yards, 35l. 3s. 1d.—I believe the invoice is in Judd's handwriting, it is receipted by Vyse and paid by cheque—I have no particular means of knowing Judd's handwriting, except by the invoices and constantly dealing with him—I can't say that he came with the goods—I have seen him write some invoices—the next transaction is 9th October, 81l. 8s. 2 1/2, discount for cash, 79l. 8s.—the next is 17th October; 40 woollen wrappers, nett cash, 12l. 10s.—21st October, 13 pieces of white sarsenet, 69l. 3s.; 23rd October, 1205 yards of sarsenet, 74l. 1s., discount 1l. 17s. 2d.—4th November, 8 pieces of union cloth and 120 railway wrappers, for 81l. 9s. 8d.; 19th November, 1184 yards of sarsenet,74l. 10s.; 26th November, 647 yards of sarsenet, 31l. 11s.; 18th December, 299 1/2 yards mixed Devons, 18l. 4s.; 13th January, 1873, 20 dozen half hose, it. 10s.—that is signed by Judd for Vyse & Co.—6th February, 120 dozen half hose, 21l. 18s. 6d.; 25th February, 161 1/2 yards of Devons at 15d., 10l. 1s. 11d.; 7th March, 942 yards of black silk, 125l. 12s.; 20th March, mohair and flannel, 39l.; 9th April, 120 dozen half hose, 20l. 18s.—then there is nothing between that date and 22nd October, 1873, 120 pieces of Swiss book muslin, 47l., 33. per cent, off 61l. 6s. 8d.—the body of that invoice seems to be in Judd's writing—13th November, 199) yards of black union, 97 1/4 yards different patterns, 54l. 2s. 8d.; 26th November, 207 3/4 yards of black union at 4s. 2d., 41l. 1s. 5d.; 10th December, 471 yards of woollen shirting, 31l. 8s.—these are the receipts, and I produce the cheques in respect of the different transactions—in all the transactions the goods were brought to our place in a truck in the ordinary way, and sometimes by a porter—they were always unpacked when they came—I was not always there when the goods came, to see who came with them—I have seen different porters bring them—I have not always had the transactions with Judd when the invoices have been in his handwriting—they have been together sometimes—I have not seen Judd bring pieces—I have been to 28, Noble Street, but I could not say how often; it might be once a week or twice a week, sometimes a month might elapse—I could not give you any definite times—sometimes I have seen Judd there, sometimes Vyse, and sometimes both—I might have been there in the interval between the 9th April, 1873, and October, 1873—I have seen a ticket on the door, 'Be back by a certain time.'

Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. From first to last in the transactions I have spoken to, I supposed I was dealing with Vyse—Judd always seemed to be a subordinate—if he showed me samples, and I made him an offer for a piece, he always said "Well, I must submit it to Vyse."

Re-examined. I had dealings with Judd as a commission agent before he introduced me to Vyse—he did not owe me anything—I was acting for Mr. Josephs; he is a woollen draper and Manchester warehouseman—we do with a good many tailors, and they would have sewing machines, and the sarsenets are suitable for caps—we must have been Mr. Vyse's principal customer.

 WILLIAM DAWES. During 1871, 1872, and 1873, I was employed as porter by Mr. Brock at 28, Noble Street—Vyse had a room there on the second floor front—I know both the defendants— I went on duty about 7.15 in the morning, and remained till 6, and sometimes 7, and sometimes 9 o'clock in the evening; it depends upon whether we were busy or not—I saw Judd there sometimes — I have been there when goods and parcels have been brought by the railway vans—Vyse & Co.'s office was not always open—I have known goods arrive when the office has not been open, and they were then placed on one side till Judd came, and then they were taken in by him—I have seen goods unpacked and taken upstairs, and I have seen goods go away again—a man came with a truck, and took them away—I did not know the man; he came with Judd—it was not always the same man—it was not the same man twice to my knowledge—the men were brought there by Judd—sometimes the goods were taken away in an hour, or an hour and a half, or two hours after they were brought by the vans—I never had any conversation with Judd as to where the goods were going—Jndd was most frequently at the place of business—on one occasion he left me an order to authorize me to take in goods when the carman came and he was not there—this is it: "To-Chaplin & Horne, from Vyse & Co., to the carman; please leave the truss for us with bearer, who will sign for it on our behalf"—sometimes Vyse has been absent from the place of business for three weeks or a month; I have not seen him sometimes fox that time, and Judd has been there while he was away—I have seen the door locked when people have come there and left a memorandum or message in the box, and I have heard someone inside, but I did not know who it was—there has been a paper on the door when I heard somebody inside.

Cross-examined by MR. KELLY. I have frequently seen Vyse there as well as Judd—I looked upon Vyse as the master—I never heard Vyse say that he was going abroad.

 SAMUEL HAYWOOD. I am one of the officers of the Sheriff of London—on 10th August I had a fi fa to levy on the 12th on the goods of Vyse & Co., 28, Noble Street, for 55l. and 1l. 5s. costs, at the suit of Henry Walker against Herbert Vyse—I went to 28, Noble Street, to the office on the second floor front—I am not positive whether I got in or not—I think I met the defendants in the street—I spoke to them, and I afterwards accompanied one or both to Mr. Watson, their solicitor, and he went with me to Mr. Leoroyd, and an arrangement was made as to the settlement—I am not sure that Judd went with Vyse and myself to Mr. Watson—on the 27th. November, 1872, I had a warrant, at the suit of Mr. Field, for 50l. 15s. 9d. and 1l. 9s. costs—I went to the place then and levied—I think I found Judd there—I sold the whole of the contents of the place for 7l. 7s. 6d. — they were chiefly samples—Mr. Watson was the purchaser—the next execution I had was on the 2nd December, 1872, for 48l. 10s. and 1l.-6s. costs, for Mr. Ingram—I tried to get in, but there was nothing there beyond what I had seized before—the next was a committal orderon the 25th May, 1873, for 6l.—I saw Judd several times, and told him my business—there was another on the same date for 1l. 6s. 8d., and they were both satisfied—the next was on the 14th July, 1873, for Mallinson — that was a fi fa—I think I entered then, but not finding any more goods than I seized before, I returned "No" goods"—I can't say whether I saw Judd there the last time I went.

 THOMAS COOMBS. I am a house-agent and furniture dealer and distraining broker—the landlord of the room occupied by Vyse & Co. instructed me to levy—I hold the warrant now—I levied on 28th February, 1874, for 10l. 13s. 9d.—I found fourteen wooden boxes and packing-cases, contents white paper, sundry pieces of canvas, about sixty dummies and paper boxes empty, patterns, and other things of that kind—they were condemned by Thompson, an appraiser, of the Cambridge Road, for 25s. 6d.—I sold them for 14s., and took away the patterns because I could not find a purchaser—I saw nothing of Vyse during the whole seven days I was on the premises; Judd came backwards and forwards on several occasions—whilst I was in possession I got this letter (produced).

 JOHN WITHERS (re-called). This is in the handwriting of Judd. (Read: March 3rd, 1874. Please give the bearer any letters you may have, also be good enough to keep the door shut as we may probably arrange with the landlord to withdraw in a short time. Vyse and Co. A. J."—three of the cheques which have been produced by Mr. Abrahams are endorsed "Vyse' and Co." in the handwriting of Judd—they are dated 3rd April, 2nd May, and 2nd August, 1872.

 MURRAY RUSSELL. I saw Judd with respect to taking an office at 9, Goldsmith's Street, Wood Street, at an annual rent of 25l.—he said It was for Vyse—I think it was about March this year, but I can't give you the exact date.

 GEORGE COOPER. I am clerk to Messrs. Allen and Co., silk mercers, and linen drapers, 69 and 70, St. Paul's Churchyard—I have kept the bought ledger for some years and I have carefully examined it for the past seven years—I find one transaction with Vyse and Co, of Noble Street, during that time—that was May 15th, 1873, and the amount was 1l. and 6d.—that is the only transaction.

 WILLIAM WALLIS PARTRIDGE. I am salesman in the trading department of Howell and Co., St. Paul's Churchyard—I know Judd by sight—in April, 1872, he purchased some goods to the amount of 6l., have got the invoice—there was no other transaction but that one—I don't know Vyse at all.

Cross-examined. Our firm might have transactions which would not come directly under my notice at the time, but they would come to my knowledge afterwards.

 WILLIAM WEBSTER. I am buyer to Charles Meeking and Co., Holborn—I know Judd by sight—on 2nd May, 1873, we had a transaction with him to the amount of 6l. 18s.—I produce the invoice—we have had no other transactions with Vyse and Co.—I never saw Vyse till he was in custody.

 JAMES CHAPMAN. I am clerk to Messrs. Hitchcock, Williams and Co., St. Paul's Churchyard—I have searched through the bought ledger and the other books and I find one transaction with Vyse and Co., 28, Noble Street—I produce the invoice and receipt—I don't know either of the defendants—20l. 10s. 9d. is the amount—it is receipted "For Vyse and Co. A. Judd.".

 GEORGE FORD ROUTLEDGE. I am a member of the firm of Devas and Routledge, warehousemen, of Cannon Street—the bought ledger of the firm is in Court—we have never had any transactions with the firm of Vyse and Co., 28, Noble Street, and I do not know either of the defendants.

JUDD— GUILTY on the Conspiracy Counts— Judgment Respited.

VYSE— GUILTY — Twelve Months' Imprisonment.

THOMAS MALLINSON, witness name in trial of EDWARD ROBERTS.

 EDWARD ROBERTS, Royal Offences > coining offences, 24th June 1878.

652. EDWARD ROBERTS (19), Unlawfully uttering two counterfeit florins.

MR. E. LLOYD conducted the Prosecution.

 ELLEN SARAH DEAN. I serve at the Duke's Head, Rotherhithe Street—my mother keeps the house—about 12.40 p.m. on 29th a man came to our house, passed a bad florin, and went away—I gave him 1s. 11d. change—the prisoner came in 10 minutes afterwards, and called for half a pint of ale—he tendered a florin—I tried it in my teeth, and found it was bad—I told him so—he said he had just taken it at the Hibernia—I told him I thought he was with the other man who had been in just before—he did not reply—Mr. Mallinson was present, and heard what passed—I showed Mr. Mallinson the florin, and then gave it back to the prisoner—I saw three florins in his hand—he offered another florin, an a then pay down a penny for the 4d. ale—I served him—he left—the potman was lent after him—a man named Jackson was with him at the station—Jackson was not the man who passed the other bad florin—this is the florin which the first man passed.

 THOMAS MALLINSON. I live at 101, Shrubbery Road, Peckham, and am a traveller to Messrs. Roberts, a tobacco manfacturer—I was at the Duke's Head, Rotherhithe Street, about mid-day on 29th May—I saw the prisoner throw a florin on the counter—Miss Dean picked it up, and said it was bad, and, after going to the till, "It seems funny for two florins to come in one after the other for half a pint of ale"—she said to the prisoner "There was a friend of yours in just now who passed this bad one"—the prisoner said "No such thing, no such friend of mine has been in"—she handed it to me, and asked me whether it was good or bad—I gave it back to her, and she gave it to the prisoner—he then placed a two-shilling piece in my hand, and asked if that was good—I said it was, and placed it back in his hands.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I did not see other florins in your hand—you said yon were very sorry, you should lose two shillings, and it generally fell to a poor person's hands to get hold of them.

 SARAH DEAN. I put the florin I took from the first man in the till—there was silver, but no other florin there—I examined it before he came and afterwards.

 HENRY GREEN. I am potman at the Duke's Head—about 1 p.m. on 29th May I went for the prisoner in consequence of what my mistress said to me—I saw him with two other men—I followed them a mile and a half—one man was taller, the other shorter than the prisoner—the shorter one went into the Plough—the tall one went on—I went in and shut the door—they called for something in a pint bottle—they tried to get out the back way—they went into the taproom—the potman said, "Don't shut the house up; let them open the door"—they got out—I followed them—they saw me all the time—about hall a mile farther I met a constable, and gave them in charge.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I saw you pick up something to throw at me—another man got a constable—he came to the station—you tried to walk away—we all kept close together.

 SARAH HAWKSWORTH. I am the wife of Charles Hawksworth, of the Royal Standard beerhouse Rotherhithe—on 29th May the prisoner came about 12.20 p.m.—he called lor half a pint of 4d. ale—he threw a florin on the counter—it sounded as if it was bad—I tried it in the tester and found it was bad—I said, "This is a bad two-shilling piece"—the prisoner said, "Is it, ma'am; let me look at it"—he took it up and threw down another—I asked him if he had a penny he could give me for the ale, and he threw down a penny—he drank the ale and went out before I could pick up the penny—I had seen him five or six weeks before the 29th, When he called for the same ale and put down a florin, which I put in the till, and gave him 1s. 11d. change—there was then another florin, some shillings, and sixpences in the till, which I had brought downstairs and placed there—I am positive that was a good florin because I examined it—I found two florins in the till; one was bad.

 PATRICK SHANAHAN (Policeman R 212). I took the prisoner into custody with a man named Jackson, who was discharged—I searched the prisoner and found four shilling pieces, three sixpences, and 1s. 6d. in bronze.

 WILLIAM WEBSTER. There is only one coin here; it is bad—I examined two coins; both are bad.

The Prisoner's Defence. I was hard up. I went to work at the water side, and saved up 9s. I told Miss Dean I must have taken the florin at Hibernia Wharf. If I had been guilty I should have run away. I did not know it was bad. As to the other witness saying I was there within six weeks of the 29th May, I can prove that I was under sentence of three months in the Wandsworth House of Correction, and was set at liberty on the 20th May.

The Prisoner then called

 HENRY WARD. I am Sessions Officer of the Wandsworth Prison—you were convicted on 2l. st February, 1878, and sentenced to three months as a rogue and vagabond in the name of Henry Langham—you would be discharged on 20th May, so that the witness could not have seen you between those dates.

Cross-examined by MR. LLOYD. I know he served his time—I saw him on the morning of the 20th at the prison.

NOT GUILTY.

STEWART JOSEPH MALLINSON, witness name in trial of CHARLES JACOBS, Deception > fraud, 15th September 1879.

816. CHARLES JACOBS (26), Unlawfully obtaining by false pretences from William Chadwick and others 19 reams of paper, with intent to defraud.

MR. WILMOT Prosecuted.

 JOSEPH SAMUEL HODGE. I am manager to William Chadwick and Sow, Upper Thomas Street, paper makers—on Thursday, 14th August, Jacobs, whom I had known as being with Mr. Eagles, came to our warehouse tod stated that he had bought some paper elsewhere, and wanted some more to make up an order, and he selected some—he said he was a grandson of Mr. Moses, of Moses, Son, and Davis, Cannon Street, and that his grand-father had just died, and some of the money was coming to him and he should have some money on Saturday and would then pay for them—I knew there was such a firm, and I let him have 14 reams of double crown (produced) at 3s. 9d. and 5 reams double demy at 10s. 6d., value altogether about five guineas—I subsequently received certain information and gave him in custody—he wrote me a letter the day after, stating he was very sorry the property had not been sold, but that he should receive the money; on Tuesday—he did not come on Saturday to pay for the goods—I let him have the paper on the representation that he was the grandson of Mr. Moses—he gave his address 53, Crawford Street, Edgware Road, and I wrote to that address twice and the letters came back through the Dead Letter Office.

Cross-examined by the Prisoner. I should not have let you have the goods but for your representation that you were the grandson of Mr. Mow, and that you had come into property and had houses at Tottenham and the Isle of Wight, and were going to Cheltenham on Monday.

 FREDERICK LITTLE. I am a printer, at 26, Mile End Road—Jacobs came to my place of business on 14th August and offered me for sale the 14 reams of double crown paper and five reams double demy produced—I paid him 2s. 9d. per ream for 10 reams and 5s. for the other—I had one transaction with him previously—he said he attended sales and bought paper and machinery, and was supplying neighbouring printers and would be happy to supply me.

 WILLIAM FOWDEN. I am traveller to Messrs. Chadwick and Sons—this paper is ours—I know it by the quality and by the wrappers. Herbert Montague. I am a warehouseman to Messrs. Moses, Son, and Davis, Cannon Street—there is no such a person as the late Mr. Moses—he is still alive—the prisoner is not a grandson or any relation to Mr. Moses or Mr. Davis.

 STEWART JOSEPH MALLINSON (City Policeman 680). I met Jacobs on Saturday, 23rd August, and asked him to accompany me to Messrs.

Chadwick's—Mr. Welch gave him in custody for obtaining paper by false pretences—on the way to the station he said the statements he had made were false, and he hoped they would not go hard against him, and at the station when one of the detectives was about to go and make inquiries he said "It is useless going, what I have said was false."

Prisoner's Defence. I offered to return the money. I expected 7l. on Saturday, which I should have brought to Mr. Hodge, and I had to sell the paper so cheap because the people who had ordered it had gone to Plymouth.

GUILTY. — Three Months' Imprisonment.

ELIZABETH MALLINSON, witness name in trial of WILLIAM SMEETON 26th April 1880.

419. WILLIAM SMEETON (30) and EDITH SMEETON (22), Feloniously forging and uttering a cheque for the payment of 4l. 15s.

MESSRS. POLAND, MONTAGU WILLIAMS, and AUSTIN METCALFE Prosecuted; MR. CROOME Defended.

 JOHN WALKER. I live at Eye Lane, Peckham—on the 8th November, Edith Smeeton came to my shop and ordered a leg of mutton for Mr. Cook, of Lyndhurst Road, Peckham—she produced this cheque, and I asked me if I would cash it—I said, "It is one of his own, I think?"—I directed my cashier to give her the change—she went away with the change and the leg of mutton—I did not know her—I next saw her at the railway station—she came out of the waiting-room—it was about 10 a.m. some time in February—I recognised her as the person who brought the cheque—I sent it to my bankers; it was. returned, marked as it is now. (Read; "London and South Western Bank, 18th November, 79. Pay Mrs. Ling or order 4l. 15s. Henry Cook.") Endorsed "E. Ling."

Cross-examined. I am a butcher—it is a middling business—we were busy at the time—I do not know whether I ever saw Edith Smeeton before—I do not know Mr. Henry Cook—my cashier is not here—I communicated with the police—I saw Viney, a detective officer—he asked me to come and see if I knew a woman—he did not say, "the woman that passed the cheque"—he did not say she was in custody, or that she had a baby in her arms—she did not say a word about Mellish—I know Mellish now—he was standing outside the door at the station—I can swear she is the woman who passed the cheque—Viney came to me twice that morning—I do not remember what he said then.

 HENRY HOLLINGSWORTH. I am a clerk in the London and South-Western Bank, Fenchurch Street—we have no customer named Henry Cook, nor had we in November 1879—this cheque is a forgery.

 EDWARD ADAMS. I live at 5, Elm Terrace, Lower Clapton—I am a cheesemonger—on Christmas Eve last the female prisoner came to my master's shop about 7 p.m.—she purchased several articles amounting to 2l. 1s.—she produced this cheque for 5l. 9s. (Dated 21th December, 1879, in favour of Mrs. Salmon or order, signed Henry Davis, and endorsed Emily Salmon)—I said, "Is it one of your own?" she said, "Yes"—she gave her address, 16, Elderfield Road, and said her name was Salmon—I gave her 3l. 8s. change, and sent the goods to the address given to me—I sent them off three times and they were brought back each time—the cheque was returned, marked as it is now, to Mr. Sumner my master.

Cross-examined. I did not go with the goods—I said before the Magistrate, "The person who came was a perfect stranger to me"—Christmas Eve is a busy time—there were about twelve people in the shop—I have not been to Elderfield Road—I have sent to the same house since—we had been opened about a week—I have never cashed any cheques since—that has been a lesson to me—I next saw her on the platform at the railway station in charge of a police-officer in uniform, and I believed her to be the woman—that was on 10th April, and the last time I had seen her was on the Christmas Eve—I went there for the express purpose of seeing the woman—the police did not tell me it was the woman who passed the cheque, but that I was to come to see a woman.

 JOHN MUNRO. I am a grocer, of Broadway, Forest Gate, Essex—on Thursday, 22nd January, between 7 and 8 p.m., the female prisoner came into my shop—she said, "Will you cash this cheque for Miss Mallinson?"—she handed me this cheque (Drawn by Henry Milner on the London and South-Western Bank for 9l. 12s. 4d.)—I know Miss Mallinson—I had not any change, and I said, "I have not sufficient to cash it"—she said "I will try the chemist opposite," and she went away—she returned in a few minutes, and said, "Give me what you can spare 'and send the balance on to-morrow"—I looked up what I could spare (about 6l.), and she handed me the cheque and went away—I presented it at my bank the London and County Bank, at Stratford—I never received the money.

Cross-examined. It was not a foggy night; the fog was later on-Miss Mallinson is a customer—I never saw the female prisoner before—I have to wear spectacles occasionally—the next time I saw her was on 10th February, at 39, Henslow Road—I went there with the police—I saw her twice—I do not know whether she had a bonnet on, or what—I saw her again on 25th March, when she was in custody—I went at the request of the police to identify her—when I went in the room I saw that she was the person, but for my own satisfaction I looked round—I did not ask her to take her bonnet off—I said, "Will you raise your hat, please"—then I felt more satisfied, because I saw her forehead and her I hair was parted on one side.

Re-examined. I am long-sighted.

 ELIZABETH MALLINSON. I live at No. 2, Craven Villas, Forest Gate—I am single, and keep a school—I saw the prisoner at Guildford—I had never seen her before to my knowledge—I am a customer of Mr. Munro—I had no account at the London and South-Western Bank—I do not know Henry Milner—this cheque was never in my possession—Mr. Munro showed it to me on 22nd January—the endorsement, "Mary Ann Mallinson," is not mine, nor is it written by my authority—my name is not Mary Ann.

 HENRY HOLLINGSWORTH (Re-examined). We have a customer named Harris James Sadgrove—the order produced was presented to me on 18th September, 1879 (This was on the South-Western Bank for 50 cheques payable to bearer, signed Frederick H. Sadgrove)—I delivered the cheque-book to the person who presented the order—it was the male prisoner—the numbers run from 236851 to 236900—I made an entry at the time—these cheques (236878, 286871, and 286875) are three of the cheques—the first 8 has been altered from a "3" in two of them—it was originally a 3—we have a customer named Henry Ernest Milner but not Henry I Milner—this is not Mr. Milner's signature—I am speaking of the Upper Norwood Branch of this Bank—these three cheques have passed through our bank and been returned unpaid—we have no customer named Henry Davis.

Cross-examined. This is a large bank with several branches—I have been removed from the Norwood branch to the City office—this cheque book had nothing to do with it—I believe a cheque-book was issued to the prisoner shortly before the one in question—I told the Magistrate that 100 cheque books a day were issued—that was a mistake—a great number are issued daily—I have no memory of that particular cheque book except from seeing the order produced and the entry I made—I did not examine the cheques in the book before I handed it over, only the first cheque—there were about 500 customers at that branch—they vary considerably—I do not know the name of every customer—fresh Vomers come every day—I left that branch just before Christmas 1879 there would be a great many customers—I knew the name of every one en I left and could swear to their signatures—I was not cashier—a fresh account is opened through the manager or first cashier—the prisoner was pointed out to me at Ilford as the man who had been taken custody about these cheques—I will swear he is the man—I did say before the Magistrate, although I believed him to be the man I would not swear it.

 HENRY GROVE SADGROVE. I am an auctioneer at Forest Hill—I have a business at Upper Norwood and in the City—William Smeeton was in service in the year 1876 for about six weeks—the business was then my father's, Frederick Sadgrove's—I managed it—my father had an account he London and South-Western Bank, Upper Norwood branch—I used to sign orders for cheque books for my father—our offices were then in Belvedere Road—I believe the writing on this order to be William Smeeton's, the signatures to the cheques as well—I gave the prisoner authority to write the order—I have not seen him since he left my employment till lately—Edith Smeeton came to meet him at my office—ok them to be man and wife.

Cross-examined. I employ a boy—I had other clerks—I will not pledge oath to the prisoner's writing—I must have seen him write—he kept books—I did not overlook him when he was writing—this letter is not filled up in the way I used to do it.

 FREDERICK McLEAN. I live at 55, Furley Street, Peckham—I have known the male prisoner seven years,-and the female five years—they by repute as man and wife—about last October I saw them at 33, slow Road, Dulwich—William Smeeton showed me a telegram, and asked me to write an answer to it—he said, "Enclose 2l. on account of defence of Miss Denham"—I wrote the letter, and addressed it to Roberts, solicitor, Stowmarket—I subsequently asked him why he wished me to write it—he said, "Miss Denham might be searched, and not want my writing to be seen," and that there was a cheque-book found on the girl—I said, "It is funny thing how a girl in her position 1 get a cheque-book"—then he said, "It was obtained by Sadgrove, a auctioneer, and you know I was clerk to Sadgrove"—I knew that Denham been servant and companion of a lady—she had lived at 45, Palace Square, Upper Norwood, and other places—I remember William Smeeton going to Pontypool in February—Edith came down the evening he went away, to my house—she said, "I have had a great fright. There has been a man to look after the house. I think something will come of this"—she seemed very much frightened—I told her I would come and see her during the ensuing week—she said she had seen a man talking to two detectives—I saw her subsequently, and asked her what she was frightened about—she said, "It is about that cheque-book that was found on Lizzie, and if that beastly Roberts goes to the manager of the bank it will be all up with Billy and I"—I afterwards wrote a letter to Mr. Roberts—I received an answer—I gave information to the manager of the South-Western Bank—on 26th March the male prisoner came to my house—he said, "We have had a bother this morning. Edith has been taken. She is quite innocent. We are going to employ Mr. Armstrong to try and prove an alibi"—I said, "Well, I have seen the order to the bank for the cheque-book, and it is undoubtedly in your handwriting"—he said, "Oh dear, no Lazzie got the cheque-book. I did not get it. You did not swear to my handwriting"—I believe it to be his handwriting—I saw him again the next day—he said, "They will not accept bail, and it is all up with Edith"—I said, "You have got the two women into trouble, and you should move heaven and earth to get your wife out"—he made no answer—he then left.

Cross-examined. I have been doing nothing for five years—three years ago I had an engagement with my brother—I am an architect—I have also been a photogrpher—I have known William Smeeton about seven years—I was friendly with him—she used to come and sleep with his before they were married—I have had some experience that way myself—I got a divorce because another man ran away with my wife—McDonald was not that suit—I lived with Mrs. McDougal in Smeeton's house for about a week before that suit was instituted—I told Smeeton's house for wife, but he knew—I said, "Billy, I have got married"—I have paid him and have the receipt—Smeeton was witness in the case at my request—he appeared against me—I wished him to—I could not brine my landlady forward—he was called by the petitioner—we were just as friendly as ever—he gave his evidence fn November—the police communicated with me with regard to Smeeton, but not as early as November or before Christmas—there is no mistake about that—the tot time was the 2nd of March when I went to the bank, and Mellish called on me about a week or a fortnight after—I will swear it was not before Christmas-tiie police asked me to let them know when Smeeton came back—I was not watching him in February—I will swear it—he went to Wales on 9th February—I wrote to McDougal on 23rd Maroh—I hive not been watching Smeeton for the police since he went to Pontypool—I wrote the word on that envelope—I used to see Smeeton about once a week or once a fortnight—it is about three years since Mrs. McDougal and I boarded with him—I never lodged in Peckham—I remember telling Smeeton I wanted some furniture—that was at New Cross—he sold me some—I paid for it, about 5l.—I paid him 5,. a week—I have the receipts but not here—I saw him in October, and conversed with him about writing a letter—I have no spite against him now; not the slightest I am only anxious to furtter the ends of justice—he showed me a telegram and asked me to write this letter—he did not say he had been writing to Roberts, because he did not want to write in his own handwriting—he did not tell me he had written—I did write the letter in his name, and signed it with his name and address—on the second occasion I did the same-Smeeton went to Pontypool to take employment in connection with Rickett's Blue—he was there about six weeks—I do not know that he is in a consumption now—he told me he left because the work was too hard for him, and there was a great; deal too much running about—I believed I mentioned the detective before to-day—he said Roberts was a lawyer at Stowmarket and in Suffolk—Denham was servant and companion to Mrs. Smeeton for some time—I believe she nursed her children in their illness—Mrs. Smeeton said something about that being the reason they contributed to the defence of Denham.

 GEORGE MELLISH (Police sergeant. K). On 25th March I went to the prisoners lodgings, 50, Hasenby Square, Lyndhurst Road—I saw the female prisoner and said to her, "I shall take you in custody for passing a cheque upon Mr. Munro, a grocer at Forest Gate"—the male prisoner replied, "Have you a warrant?"—I said; "Yes"—he said, "Read it"—I read it—he said, "I never passed any of the cheques. This is the spite of the solicitor over not getting his money in the last case, of the girl that is now in prison. Are you going to take me?"—I said, "No, I have nothing to do with you"—he said, "Then I will go and see Mr. Armstrong"—I took the female to West Ham Police-station, and from there to Peckham Bye railway-station—there Mr. Walker recognised her as she was coming out of the waiting-room—he said, "That is the woman that passed a cheque on me"—I had not seen Mr. Walker before that—I searched her the next morning—I found this letter, addressed to Mr. W. F. Smeeton from Mr. Roberts, in a box in the male prisoner's presence—Mr. Roberts's bill of costs was with it—I asked him what it was—he said it was costs incurred in consequence of the girl that was in prison—I also found a newspaper, the account of the trial, in the box.

Cross-examined. Viney went with me—I do not know whether he was there when Walker came up—he was with me when I arrested the woman, then he went away, and I saw him again at Peckham Rye Station—she had a baby in her arms when she came out of the waiting-room—I have not been asked before about the conversation—I have been in the force 12 years.

 RICHARD WILDEY (Police Inspector K). I arrested the male prisoner on 3rd April, outside the Court at Ilford—I said, "You will be charged with a woman who has given the name of Edith in changing a cheque for the payment of 9l. 13s. 4d., and defrauding Mr. Munro, of Forest Gate"—he said, "You have made a mistake"—afterwards, when the charge was read over to him, he made no reply.

 CHARLES CHABOT. I have made handwriting my study for 25 years—the signatures to these cheques are in the same handwriting; also the endorsements; I have compared them with the order for the cheque-book, and believe them to be in the same writing. (H. G. Sadgrove here stated the cheque were the prisoner's writing.) These letters are in the same writing and more natural—the other is a manufactured hand, and devoid of characteristic, or nearly so.

Cross-examined. Superficially, no one would think the cheques were in the same writing—one of the signatures on the cheques diners from the others, but that does not raise a doubt in my mind—I have nine pages of letters here to compare it with—they are press copies, which are as good as original except for the defects in copying—I may have made mistakes in my evidence before, and juries have decided against me—in some cases the verdict did not rest only on my evidence.

 FREDERICK McLEAN (Re-examined). These are original letters which I have received from the male prisoner.

The Prisoners received good characters.

GUILTY.

WILLIAM SMEETON— Twelve Month Imprisonment. EDITH SMEETON— Four Months' Imprisonment, with such labour as is suitable to their condition.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

KATE MALLINSON, victim name in trial of WILLIAM DAVIS, Violent Theft robbery; EDMUND NOEEIS, Violent Theft robbery; WILLIAM VAUGHAN, Violent Theft robbery; ALFRED HELDERGILL, Violent Theft robbery, 2nd May 1881.

442. WILLIAM DAVIS (19), EDMUND NORRIS (18), and WILLIAM VAUGHAN (21), Robbery on Kate Mallinson, and stealing; a bag and 64l. 5s., the property of Louis Lumley and others, and ALFRED HELDERGILL (20), for inciting them to commit the said robbery.

MESSRS. POLAND and MR. WILLIAMS Prosecuted.

 KATE MALLINSON. I live with my parents at 125, St. Paul's Road, Bromley—I am in the employ of Messrs. Louis Lumley and Co., cork merchants—they have an office in America Square, and the works are in Bow Common Lane—it was mine and my sister's duty to go on alternate Saturdays to America Square to fetch the money for the wages, and bring it back to Bow Common Lane—I have done it for the last two years—Heldergill is in Messrs. Lumley's employment—on Saturday, the 5th March, I went to the City to get the money, as was my custom—I left Bow Common Lane at about 11.30, went by rail to Fenchurch Street, and on to America Square, and fetched 64l., 52l. in gold, 9l. 9l. 6d. In silver, and a cheque for 2l. 16s. 1d.—I put the money in this bag, I locked it and put the key in my pocket—I left the City by rail, and returned to Burdett Road—I walked down St. Paul's Road, where I lived, called at my own house, came out again, shut the gate, and proceeded down the road—it was about 1 o'clock in the day—I had the bag in my hand, locked—I saw Davis, Norris, and Vaughan on the pavement——Vaughan rushed towards me and took hold of the bag, then he pulled me round, forcing me towards my house; the other two took hold of me at the back by the shoulders and the arms; Vaughan was pulling at the bag, trying to get it away—I screamed out for help; one of them rushed between Vaughan and me and took possession of the bag, and ran off with it, and the other two ran after him—Davis said "I will run after him"—the struggle lasted about two minutes—I had struggled with them past six houses—Vaughan's hat fell off into the footpath in the struggle—they all ran round the corner into Rowsell Street—Vaughan's hat was picked up and handed to me, and I took it to the works—I gave information, and the police were sent for—in the afternoon the bag without it's contents was brought to my house—I felt the effects of this for about a week afterwards in my arms, where they had been caught hold of—I was struck on the arm—the struggle took place about 100 yards from the factory—the men were generally paid at two o'clock—I saw Davis about a fortnight afterwards, Norris about a week after that, and Vaughan a week after that—I have no doubt that these are the men—I was not quite so sure of Norris, I am positive of the other two.

 SUSANNAH COCKERTON. I am the wife of Arthur Cockerton, a carpenter—we live at Copenhagen Terrace, Limehouse—on Saturday, 5th March, I was in St. Paul's Road about a quarter to 1—I saw the prosecutrix there with the bag—I saw three young men come along; Davis is one of them, and Norris is the one who took the bag; I can't swear to the third one—I saw Davis give Miss Malinson a knock on the right arm—I did not see whether it was the arm on which she carried the bag—the struggle did not last long, it was very quickly done—then they all three ran away, and I did not see what became of them; they turned down the first street they came to—the prosecutrix screamed out.

 ELIZABETH BUSS. I am the wife of Thomas Buss—we keep a coffee-house at No. 187, Bow Common Lane—on Saturday, 5th March, three men came into our house at about 1.30—I can identify Davis and Vaughan; I am not sure about Norris—Vaughan had a scratch on his hand, which was bleeding; he had no hat on—they asked for three cups of coffee, and sat down in one of the boxes near the door; we keep the window shutters at the end of that box during the day—I said to Vaughan "You appear to have met with an accident," and Davis said "Yes, we have been fighting," and that in the struggle Vaughan had lost his hat—Vaughan asked me if I had an old one to give him; I told him I had not got one; he said "A sack or a bag will do"—I tried to find one, and could not—he then asked me for a newspaper; I gave him one, and he took his coat off and made a parcel of it in the newspaper, and put the parcel on his head—the two other men went out first, and Vaughan followed with this parcel on his head—no one else had been in that compartment where the shutters are kept that morning—about three-quarters of an hour after the men had gone Inspector Godden came to my house, and I went in the box where the prisoners had been sitting—I looked behind the shutters, and found this bag; it was cut; nothing was in it—I handed it to Godden, and he took it away—Vaughan was in the house about three-quarters of an hour, Davis about half an hour, and Norris only a few minutes—I afterwards, on a subsequent occasion, saw Davis again at the police-station; he was placed among eight or nine others, and I picked him out—a few days after that I saw Norris at the police-station; he was put among others, and I picked him out—I can speak positively to Vaughan.

 MICHAEL JOYCE (Policeman H 140). I took Davis into custody on 18th March—I had seen him on 11th March; he was in custody then on another charge—I searched him on that night; I found on him 10l. in gold, 25s. in silver, and two gold rings—he was discharged upon the other charge, and detained in custody till the 18th, and then taken on suspicion of this—I told him I should take him into custody on suspicion of being concerned with two others not in custody in stealing 65l. from a young lady on the 6th March; he said "All right"—he said he was a dealer, and that was his stock money—he was afterwards seen by Miss Mallinson and the other witness, and identified.

 JOHN SMITH (Police Sergeant). I apprehended Norris on 25th March near the House of Detention at Clerkenwell; at that time Davis was in custody there—I told Norris I was a police officer, and should take him into custody for being concerned with two others, one in custody, for stealing a bag containing 65l. from a young woman in Bow Common Lane on 6th March—he said "All right, I suppose if they don't pick me out you will let me go?"—he said later on "Who put you on to me?" I said "No one"—he said "If they don't pick me out I will stand to it"—I went with Sergeant Thick to Messrs. Lumley's works, Bow Common Lane, about two o'clock that same day—I spoke to Mr. Chapman, the manager and foreman, and Heldergill was called into the office—Mr. Chapman said "These are two police-officers, they wish to speak to you "Thick said to Heldergill "You had better be careful what answers you make to our questions, as we are in possession of information"—I said "Do you know a man named Vaughan?" he said "No"—I said "Do you know of the robbery committed upon a young lady in your master's employ?" he said "No, I did not put it up"—I said "No one asked you for that remark"—on the way to the station he said "I met Vaughan," and I think he said Davis, "in a public-house at Bethnal Green, and he said 'Can you put us up to anything where you are?' he said 'Yes, there is a young lady goes to the City every Saturday and fetches the money to pay the men, and I should think you might get it'"—I said "Do you know Vaughan, the person you speak of?" he said "Yes, I know Vaughan has been in trouble"—he said "I never met them again until the night of the robbery I then saw Vaughan and Davis; I said to Vaughan 'Well, you have done the job, then?' he said 'No, it was not me, it was Mivey' (Mivey is a nickname for Davis, I believe);' all I got out of it was a glass of ale; on the morning that I was brought up Davis was brought up by a habeas corpus'"—I told Vaughan he would be charged with the three others for stealing a bag containing 65l. from a young woman on the 6th March; he made no reply—I produce the hat given me by Godden.

 EDWARD GODDEN (Police Sergeant K 13). I received the bag from Mrs. Buss.

In the Prisoners' Statements before the Magistrate, Davit, Norris, and Heldergill declared their innocence. Vaughan alleged that Heldergill informed him of the robbery having been committed.

DAVIS, HELDERGILL, and VAUGHAN— GUILTY. DAVIS— Twelve Months' Hard Labour. HELDERGILL— Fifteen Months' Hard Labour. VAUGHAN, who PLEADED GUILTY to a previous conviction— Two Years' Hard Labour.

NORRIS— NOT GUILTY.

JOHN MALLINSON, witness name in trial of HENRY NYE, Breaking Peace > wounding, 2nd June 1902.

450. HENRY NYE was again indicted for unlawfully assaulting Walter Vincent, a constable in the Metropolitan Police Force, in the execution of his duty, and causing actual bodily harm to him.

MR. FITZGERALD Prosecuted.

 JOHN MALLINSON. I am a store keeper and live at 36, Priory Road, St. Anne's Road—I was in the vicinity of Farringdon Street Station on May 12th, when I saw five or six men close round the prosecutor—Haller ton grasped his chain, and a struggle occurred—they both fell to the ground—I went to assist the prosecutor—Nye came to assist, and I believe he received the watch from the other prisoner—I received a blow on the neck—I followed up until I saw a constable—when arrested Nye struck the constable a blow in the face—he then ran away—I ran after him. And he turned and struck me in the throat, knocked me down, and jumped on me—I made a report at the police station—I did not see him again till, I think, May 21st, when I identified him amongst a dozen men—I have not recovered from my injuries yet.

 WALTER SELBY (Police Constable G.) I went to the Cheshire Cheese to arrest another man for an offence—Nye was there, and attempted with others to rescue the man from custody—he was arrested for that offence, and also on suspicion of being concerned with this charge—I know both prisoners to be the associates of thieves.

GUILTY.HALLERTON then

PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at this Court on January 10th, 1898, and four other convictions were proved against him and one against Nye. HALLERTON— Eighteen months' hard labour; NYE— Twelve months' hard labour.

JOHN EDWARD MALLINSON, witness name in trial of HYMAN BARON BERNSTEIN, Deception > forgery; PHILIP GOLDMAN, Deception > forgery, 27th April 1903.

421. HYMAN BARON BERNSTEIN (41) and PHILIP GOLDMAN (35), Feloniously forging and uttering 300 Bank of England notes with intent to defraud.

MR. MATHEWS and MR. LEESE prosecuted; MR. LEYCESTER and MR. MILLER appeared for Bernstein, MR. ELLIOTT and MR. GREEN for Goldman.

 WILLIAM BARMASH. I am the son of Solomon Barmash, and am now undergoing a sentence of ten years' penal servitude in Lewes Gaol which was passed upon me in this Court in December upon my plea of guilty to a charge of forging and uttering Bank of England notes (See Vol. 137, page 208)—I was also convicted of forgery in 1893, and sentenced to twelve months' hard labour—my father was tried with me in 1893, and he pleaded guilty in December last to forging and uttering Bank of England notes—he committed suicide in prison in December— I have known Hyman and Philip Bernstein sixteen or seventeen years—Philip has been resident in London most of that time—Hyman was away for about eleven years in Australia—he returned to this country about 1900, when I used to see him frequently—I saw a man named Mayer in Hyman's company—in June, 1901. I was living with my father at 25, Broad Lane, Tottenham—I was friendly with the Bernsteins—eventually I met a man called Johann Schmidt—Philip Bernstein had a jeweller's shop at 120, High Street, Whitechapel—it had not long been opened—I always thought it belonged to both the brothers—it was conducted as Bernstein and Co.—it was doing a bad business—we got talking about various things, and Philip Bernstein asked me if I could not look up "that forger"—he did not know his name—I said I would try and look him up, which I did—I saw Hyman at this time, but I would not swear whether he was present at that particular interview—he was no doubt present at others about this time, when the matter of the employment of Schmidt was discussed, and as to what should be done if I could find him, and if anything could be forged—that is all Schmidt could be employed for—it was not discussed what he should forge—I saw my father about it, and had some conversation with him, in the course of which Schmidt's name was mentioned—I was not present at any meeting between my father and Schmidt—I met Schmidt and had a conversation with him—I then went and saw the Bernsteins—I saw them both, and told them I had looked up Schmidt and had had a conversation with him, and that he had suggested to me that Bank of England notes would be the cheapest and easiest things to make—I said that Schmidt had mentioned £50 at the probable cost of making them—we discussed the matter, and they wanted to see a sample—I saw Schmidt again, and told him I should want a sample made—I gave him instructions to make a sample watermark of a fiver—Schmidt took that work in hand at our house, Broad Lane—he had a genuine £5 note to work from—Philip Bernstein gave me that—it took Schmidt about a week to make the sample, and when it was finished I went to the Bernsteins taking two samples of the watermarks of £5 notes—they both examined them and found something wrong with them—I do not remember what it was—it was some slight fault in the watermark—they did not consider the fault was so grave as to make the notes useless—it was easily repairable, and they were put on the fire in their room—I think it was next day that Hyman Bernstein came to me and brought four genuine £5 notes and pointed out what was wrong and what they wanted altered in the forgeries—I showed them to Schmidt and had a conversation with him—I do not think Schmidt worked on them—I think I handed them back to Bernstein—Schmidt had got his first genuine note all this time, but they brought me the four notes so as to show me that the sample was different to each of them—Schmidt had a plate of the samples he had produced—the Bernsteins objected to the work being carried on from the original £5 note, and I gave it back to them—no further samples were made then, but Schmidt was to give an estimate how much it would cost exactly to make so many pieces of £5 and £10 notes—I do not know how many pieces, but I know it was £12,000 or £13,000 face value—I gave the estimate on a slip of paper to the Bern-steins—they were living together in the same house—Philip is married—Hyman was single then—£50 was to be the cost, and Schmidt was to have 7 1/2 per cent. after the notes had been converted into money as well as 30s. a week—I was to have £2 a week to look after Schmidt and supervise the work—the Bernsteins wanted the work to be done in my place at Broad Lane, but I could not agree to that, and eventually it was agreed a house should be taken at the sea side—a house was taken at Southsea, and I arrived there with my family on July 1st, 1901—Schmidt went down, I think, in the same train—a room was set aside for him to work in.—before he went down he bought the plant and things he required—I think Philip Bernstein gave me £16 or £17—I gave the money to Schmidt, and he bought what he required—he showed me receipts which I showed to Bernstein—they were from different firms—Winstones, Penrose, Fox: I do not remember the others—Hyman Bernstein gave me a £5 note and a £10 note to take down to Southsea as samples—he said he had got them from the Bank of England in the name of White—before leaving London I saw the Bernsteins daily—Schmidt continued his work at Southsea—he reported to me from time to time—I reported to the Bernsteins by letter, which I always addressed to Bernstein and Co.—our expenses there amounted to £6 or £7 a week, which the Bernsteins found—at first the money was sent by Philip Bernstein by bank note, then by telegraph money order—at first he sent it from "Philip Bernstein," but then he said it was rather suspicious sending it to me,' and so he sent it as from Solomon Barmash—he had to write to me about that because I had to answer that question at the post office before I could get the money—Schmidt wanted different material, such as sandpaper, blotting-paper, and various pieces of wood, and some framework—when Schmidt wanted them I would write to the Bernsteins and they would send them down to me—on two occasions Schmidt went to London and made purchases himself—on one occasion he went for a special machine—on the other occasion for paper, I think, or for a holiday—when he told me he would require a machine I asked him for a drawing, which I sent to the Bernsteins—when it came it was in accordance with the drawing, but it was a complete failure—I returned it to the Bernsteins—a copying press was bought at Yardley's in Wormwood Street—two pieces of wood were also required for wedges—no drawings of those were sent, only a description—they were forwarded—there was also a square flat piece of wood—Bernstein told me it was very expensive—it was not sufficiently level and was no good—the stay at Southsea lasted until August—about the beginning of August it was resolved to decrease the number of pieces—I do not think there was any resolve to increase the value—I have seen a framework like this (Produced) in Schmidt's hands—it is for stretching the paper—I saw these other pieces of wood (Produced) at Broad Lane—they are the waste which was cut from other pieces—later on some little wooden blocks were required for printing—there was a determination to make £50 notes—that was discussed between the Bernsteins and my father and communicated to me—I told Schmidt about it and gave him a genuine £50 note—there were none forged then—he gave it back to me—it had been sent to me by the Bernsteins—Hyman had got it—I do not know which of them sent it to me—I was with Hyman when he got it—I had come up to London because Schmidt had said it would take a long time to make the notes if he did not have a machine—we then discussed the matter of the £50 notes—I was told it would be as well to have £50 notes—I asked for a sample, and Hyman told me to get it at the Bank of England in the name of White—he told me to get it in the same name as the £10 and £5 notes—it was sent down to Southsea to me because I did not care to take it with me—when Schmidt returned it to me I sent it back to Bernstein and Co.—when I was in London at that time I went with my father to Goldman's at. 35, Sandringham Road, Dalston—I stayed outside—my father went in—he stayed in there about an hour, joined me, had a conversation with me, and we then walked away—he showed me £75, £60 in notes and £15 in gold—it was on that visit that the £50 note was in the first instance given to me—my father paid the money he showed me into the Royal British Bank—he had no account then—I think he opened one with the £75—about a month afterwards I and my father and Goldman were at Bernstein's house—I showed Goldman samples of the forged £5, £10, and £50 notes—they were then complete with the exception of the numbers—he did not say much—he had a look at them and pointed out some of his faults—father said to him, "There you are, now you can see what you have given the money for," or "The money is good," or something of that sort—we discussed the disposal of the notes—I think my father suggested France—I suggested Egypt—nothing definite was spoken of—I suggested Egypt because I knew Goldman had been all round there, and I suggested it as a matter of policy more than anything else to see what he would say—you might call it a feeler—I wanted to know what his view would be—I do not remember what he said he did not say very much—my impression is that; he took the matter quite cool—subsequently there was a discussion between my father, Goldman, and myself as to what Goldman's payment should be—he wanted £400 for lending £200. which my father thought was too much—he thought sovereign for sovereign was enough—they left it to me to decide—I decided £400 was a reasonable figure, and that he should have 200 per cent.—he was to have £600 in all—£50 of the £75 was a payment towards the first £100, and the other £25 was a loan to father—Goldman was a bookmaker—the £25 was to be repaid by my father, the £50 was for the business—when I showed the samples to Goldman the printing in the centre of the notes was smudgy—we met at Bernstein's house, but they did not know that Goldman was seeing the notes—the arrangement with Goldman was that the Bernsteins were not to know that he was advancing money and that Bernsteins thought that Goldman did not know that they were in it—that is what they were all permitted to believe—that was kept up for some considerable time—Goldman was known as Phillie Michaels—when we met him at Bernstein's house we smuggled him upstairs without their knowledge, to one of their rooms, and showed him the samples—we got him down in the same way—we used the private door—he was using the Bernstein's house for making a book—at the house there was also a man named Stern or Mayer—after Goldman had gone we showed the samples to both the Bernsteins—that was the first time they had seen a sample of a £50 note—they had not got to the printed stage then—the Bernsteins complained of their being dirty in the centre—I said I would see that it was remedied—Hyman took the notes downstairs while we were there—he afterwards confessed to me that he had shown them to Mayer—the samples were then put on the fire—I went back to Southsea, and the work was continued there—at the end of September the house there was no longer necessary, and we came back to London—I sent some things back to 25, Broad Lane—a copying-press was sent to the Bersteins—Schmidt returned about a week before me—on my return I found him at work at Broad Lane—he remained there for about three or four weeks, when it was decided that the work should be carried on at Mrs. Samuel's house at 82, Winchester Road—the water-marked paper was taken away from Broad Lane from time to time—sometimes Hyman, but mostly Philip Bernstein, came for it—it was packed up in a little parcel and marked with a number—it was not printed—I do not know why it was taken away—the amount taken was according to the amount Schmidt had done during the day—the notes were printed and numbered at Winchester Road, and bleached at Broad Lane—about 400 pieces were perfected in the end, about 100 fives and 100 tens and 200 fifties—a great many were spoiled, but those are all that were completed—the Bank stamp, which is on the one produced, was done by the Bernsteins and myself and my father the night before we left for America—we sat up all night—we made up the stamp ourselves—the notes are stamped London and Westminster, Hampstead Branch—the object was obvious—the idea is very well known to anybody who does not want his handwriting known—it is to prevent the banker from asking you to sign it—my only object in pointing that out is perhaps to make the police wiser—by the end of 1001 everything was completed and in order for the uttering of the notes—there were many discussions, and it was finally decided that America was to be the place where they were to be disposed of—Hyman Bernstein was present—when that was decided upon he agreed to Mayer being sent to the United States—Goldman was not present at any of the discussions—he did not know that America was the place selected—the Bernstein's paid Mayer's expenses to America—I do not know which of them paid—I was not present when his ticket was booked—he went quite alone—the Bernsteins told me that his expenses were £15—they told me the boat he went by, but I do not remember the name now—I know he went at midnight from St. Pancras—he did not take the notes with him—it was determined that Hyman Bernstein and myself should go afterwards—we had an appointment with Mayer outside the Post Office in New York—money was required for the traveling expenses—I saw Goldman at Bernsteins shop—I asked him for the money for the expenses, and he gave me a cheque for £50—I went to the London and Westminster Bank, Eastern Branch, and cashed it—it was drawn on that bank in the name of Harrison I got a £50 note in exchange for it, which I gave to Philip Bernstein—I went elsewhere—I returned to Tottenham—Hyman Bernstein gave me the note back—I gave it to Philip because I could not get down to give it to Hyman, who wanted it for comparison with one of the forgeries—I took it to a friend of mine at Tottenham, a tobacconist named Rutenburg—I owed him a few pounds, which I paid him and got the change, which he gave me in £5 notes and gold—he sent a cheque for the change to his bank, but I did not have it he sent one of his travellers with it, and gave me the change which came to about £40—about an hour afterwards I paid them to Schmidt at Broad Lane—my father was there—Schmidt wanted some money on account, and we agreed to give him £50—we gave him £45—I was at Southsea at the time Goldman paid the second £50—this was the first £50 towards the second hundred—the second £50 of the second hundred was for the fare of Hyman and myself—Philip Bernstein met us up West at an Aerated Bread Shop, and brought £35 in a little bag—I think he gave it to Hyman and took our fares with it—he said it came from Goldman—I asked him about the other £15, and he said he would lay claim to that for Mayer's fare, and that he would settle that up afterwards—we took single fares at Cook's in Cockspur Street—Philip and Hyman Bernstein and myself were there—we booked for New York—we were not personally conducted—we did not want any conductor—I was the conductor—the tickets were for Hyman and myself—we did not give our full name and addresses—he went as Hyman Baron—I went at William Brice—we sat up that night doing the stamping, and left at 5 a.m. for Southampton—we went by the American Line ship "Philadelphia"—my recollection is that we took about £10,080 face value of notes—I do not know what became of the rest of the £11,800 worth which was the total made—Goldman came down early in the morning to our house on his bicycle, and said he wanted security for his money—he did not agree about advancing the other £100 unless he had security, and we went down to his house and left him with £600 worth of forged notes as security—there were about 25 tens and the balance of fifties—I do not remember any fives—the tens were some which Schmidt had made a little time previously and discarded—I thought it was very good security; as long as he held one note it would be as good as if he held fifty, because if he disposed of one note it would be exposed, and he could not get rid of any more and would spoil our scheme—they were not of Schmidt's best—the fifties were Schmidt's best and would have been negotiable if Goodman had chosen to negotiate them—the arrangement between my father, Goldman and myself was that Goldman should hold them for ten days, and within ten days he was to receive at least the £200 which he had invested, and if he did not receive it he was then entitled to dispose of the notes or do anything else he liked with them—the £200 which he was to receive was to be provided by our cabling from New York—that accounted for £10,680 worth—I do not know what became of the rest—when I last saw them before I left England they were in Hyman Bernstein's hands—that was after we had given the notes to Goldman—the ones he had were not stamped—on the way to America Hyman kept them—Philip Bernstein sent a telegram to Mayer, and Hyman and I met him outside the Post Office—we put up at the Summit Hotel as Baron and Brice—Mayer did not stay there—we signed the register in our assumed names—I am very well acquainted with Hyman's writing—Mayer refused at first to get rid of the notes, and as a consequence a telegram was sent to Philip Bernstein as "Fulda, Compton Hotel, Liverpool"—I was present when that was sent—it was drawn up by Hyman and myself (Read) "Fulda, Compton Hotel, Liverpool, M. refused, going last minute, cable £20 immediately, try prevent P. doing business, coming home, H. Baron, Summit Hotel, New York."—I did not speak to Mayer myself about passing the notes—Hyman had a long conversation about it with him and told me that Mayer was afraid they were not good enough—"Try prevent P. doing business "meant try and prevent Phillie Michaels or Goldman disposing of the notes—Mayer's scruples were over-come, but in his endeavour to pass a £50 note he was stopped at the first onset—he was arrested and kept in custody in New York for a fortnight—a day or two after that, a telegram was sent from New York to London—Hyman and Philip had arranged a code by which they could let each other know how things were going on—the words were "Bare "or "Bull," as representing bad or good fortune—I was present when this telegram was sent by Hyman addressed "Morris, 41, Newcastle Street, White-chapel, Bare cable £20 immediately, Baron, Summit Hotel, New York"—"Bare" meant things were bad—£20 in dollars was paid to Hyman and I at Cook's office in New York, and aided by that we were enabled to make our way back to London—we came back by the same line—I think by the "St. Paul"—we travelled in the same names—we arrived at Southampton—these notes (Produced) are the ones Mayer tried unsuccessfully to utter in New York—on landing at Southampton, Hyman had the balance of forged notes on him—it was determined to send them by parcel post to London—we put them into a cigar box—it was addressed to Morris, 41, Newcastle Street,—Bernstein's father lived there—it is not far from 120, High Street, Whitechapel—we telegraphed to Philip on our arrival, and then came together to London—we were met, I think, at Vauxhall Station by Philip Bernstein and my sister—we separated and went home—I stayed at 25, Broad Lane, with my father—the two Bern-steins were at 120, High Street—in due course the parcel we had dispatched at Southampton came to hand—I think it was the next day—I saw it at 120, High Street, in the possession of the Bernsteins—it was opened—there was a good deal of dispute about the contents—in the mean time they remained with the Bernsteins—we arrived early in February, 1902, and after our arrival some negotiations were started for the purpose of replacing the notes—I saw Goldman—he said he had a customer who would buy them—the conversation took place at Khann's restaurant opposite 120, High Street, Whitechapel—he said he wanted samples—I gave him one of each which I got from Hyman Bernstein—he went down with them, and in a few minutes came up again with them, but the result was, no business was done—I returned the samples to Hyman Bernstein—I had many conversations during February with Goldman in regard to the disposal of the notes—he did not make any statement to me with regard to the batch that he held as security—I never spoke to him about it—I never saw them again; I heard of them—in March the arrest was made by the City police of a considerable number of men charged with forging and uttering Bank of England £5 notes—I heard of it—it was a gang headed by a man named Devenport, and the result of that arrest; there was an investigation before one of the City Magistrates, and a trial in this Court in May, 1902—business during that time was not active in the way of trying to dispose of these notes—it was better to be quiet for a time, but about six weeks before I was arrested, on October 20th, negotiations were re-started for the purpose of replacing the notes—there was a considerable effort to dispose of them, but I and my father were arrested, and at different dates before an Alderman in the City we were charged with this offence, and committed here for trial, and in this Court in December, 1902, and before, my Lord, I pleaded guilty to forgery—I was indicted with my father and Philip Bernstein, who also pleaded guilty, and sentences of different degrees were passed upon us—within a comparatively short time of my arrest I made a statement to the police—I went to Amsterdam between my return from America and my arrest for the purpose of placing the notes—I was not successful.

Cross-examined by MR. LEYCESTER. I did not take any of the notes with me to Holland—the last time that I saw any of these notes was about four days before my arrest—when Mayer was unsuccessful in passing any of them in America I did not attempt to pass any myself—I never tried to pass any in America—I went there at the request of the others because I was more acquainted with America than they—I went as a guide—I had been there for some years—none of these notes were ever passed—the only person who made any money out of the transaction was Schmidt, and anybody else who had put any money into it has lost it—I had £2 a week, but I did not have a holiday with it—I did not sleep very comfortably with things like that in the house—I had to work for my £2 a week—I could have made that if I had been bricklaying—I have known Schmidt for eighteen months—I knew he professed to be a very remarkable forger—he was somewhat proud of it—I know at the police court he described himself as the champion forger—I do not know if it was the championship of England or the world—I did not see his diploma his own description of his abilities was rather flattering—he said he had started forgery in Russia; that is where he comes from—he said he had forged Russian rouble notes and paper money in Germany and Exchange notes in America—he boasted that he was responsible for smashing the Cheque Bank—I knew Philip Bernstein better than Hyman, who had been in Australia for eleven years—I did not see him at all whilst he was there—he had only recently returned—I knew him before he went—I was quite a schoolboy then—I am twenty-six now—the first time I saw him after his return may have been at a Christmas party at Philip Bernstein's at the end of 1900—I cannot swear if Hyman was present when Philip asked me to look "up that man the forger"—the next interview I had with Philip v, was when it was agreed I should find Schmidt—Hyman was present then: I am quite certain of that—I was certain of it at the police court—I have not had much opportunity whilst in prison to consider what ray story is—they give you occupation there, which prevents your thinking—the police came and saw me in prison—I told them what my story was, and I have given it once at the Mansion House—undoubtedly I said there, "I went and saw one of the Bernsteins at 120, High Street, Whitechapel; I think I saw both"—I was positive then—if I had been asked if I was positive I should have said yes—the first sample note Schmidt made was only for the purpose of the water-mark—I took it to the Bernsteins—they were both present, I am positive of that, and I am positive the samples were burned—I do not know if I said at the police court that I took them back again—I am, quite certain that they were destroyed in that room—I cannot say at which of the interviews Hyman was present—I always considered he and his brother were one person—it is hard for me to distinguish between interviews where both were present or only one—it is about nine months now since Hyman was stopping at 120, High Street—I do not know if he lived with a niece of his at Lavender Hill—I have never been there in my life—I did not call on him there—I know the niece's husband, Raphael—it was not there that Hyman first told me he was going to America, I have seen the niece and her husband, but always at Bernstein's place—Hyman was not living with them just before he went to America—he was living in my house then—Raphael is a tailor—Hyman was in my house for three weeks—he was a bachelor at that time, and had no home of his own—I do not remember him telling me that he was going to engage some stalls at the St. Louis Exhibition—I do not know if there is a St. Louis Exhibition or not—I have never heard of it—I did not hear when I was in America that they were going to have a St. Louis Exhibition in 1903—I did not have time to look up these things, I had other troubles—I do not know if Hyman was a dealer in opals—I know he brought some from Australia—he had one with him in America, which he sold—I went with him when he sold it—he did not sell others when I was not there—I did not shadow him, but he was strange there, and did not want to go about much without me—I only know one Mr. Rosenberg—he is in my own line of business, a tobacconist—he does not deal in forged notes that I know of—I do not know Mr. Harry Rosenberg, furrier, of 26, Hare Street, Bethnal Green—it is news to me that he was paying half Hyman's expenses to America—it is quite possible that I wrote the telegram which was sent from America—Hyman is not a good writer—Mayer may have written the first telegram; he could not have written the second, he was elsewhere when it was sent—it was arranged with Philip Bernstein we should telegraph to Morris at Newcastle Street—I do not think he had anything to do with the notes.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. At the time of my arrest I made no statement to the police—I made a statement ten days afterwards—it was at Brixton Prison—it was put into writing by the police—they took it down in shorthand and transcribed it—I signed it—I did not mention Goldman's name in it—I mentioned the Bernstein's names, but not my father's—I did not make any other statement before I pleaded guilty—nothing was said by my Counsel about Goldman—the name was not mentioned by the police—it was suggested that I knew of others in it but I denied that—I made another statement about six or seven weeks after I was sentenced, at the request of the police—that was taken down by a gentleman from Messrs. Freshfield's—I did not sign it—I did not then know that Philip Bernstein had made a statement—he was then in the same gaol as I was—we could not communicate with each other, we were in different classes—we did not see each other—I first heard that I should be required to give evidence about ten days after I made my second statement, and I also learnt then from the police that Philip Bernstein had made a statement—I did not then make a further statement until I gave evidence at the Mansion House—my second statement included Goldman's name—it was not until I had been in Lewes Gaol for about seven weeks that I first mentioned his name—the idea of finding Schmidt originated with Philip Bernstein—I did not ferret Schmidt out—I eventually met him—enquiries were made by others to get at his whereabouts—having found him, I communicated the fact to the Bernsteins—I do not know if my father attempted to find him; I would rather mention his name as little as possible, he was my father, and I respect his name—Goldman had nothing to do with the original idea of finding Schmidt—a very considerable time elapsed before Goldman appeared on the scene—the dealings with Schmidt were limited for many weeks to the Bernsteins and myself—there was an understanding between us that the knowledge of the transaction should be limited to ourselves—I find there is very little honour among thieves—I did not go to Goldman in the first instance—he first gave any money in August, 1901—I was not aware that prior to that my father and Goldman had been doing business—my father was a commission agent—he did not occasionally act as a solicitor—he may have prepared legal documents and carried through mortgages—I do not know if he did or not—he and I were on confidential terms—if there was any conveyancing of property his part of the transaction would be to bring the vendor to a solicitor—I know he had been acting in that capacity on behalf of Goldman—as a rule he would not do that for nothing—I know my father had not received payment from Goldman as he should have done—he certainly expected to receive payment—I am not aware that there was a sale of property to my father by a Mr. Williams—he sold property to Goldman—I do not know the name of the solicitor who acted—my father acted as Goldman's adviser—I know Goldman eventually bought the property, and although my father carried it out for him Goldman's view was that father was not entitled to any remuneration, but only to a present, as he had his own agent, who he had to pay—I think Williams and Goldman bought father some article to the value of some £5 or £10—I was not present when it was given to him—the original value of the property was between three and four thousand pounds, so if father had got any commission at all he would have received £75 or £100—I suppose it would" have been 2 1/2 per cent, or 1 1/4 per cent.—when my father and I went to Goldman's on August 7th, 1901, my father had only a few shillings on him when he went in—I always knew at that time how much money he had—we were in a sort of partnership—when he came out he showed me £60 in notes and £15 in gold, £25 of that was a loan—it had then been arranged between him and Goldman that Goldman should let him have £200 for the purpose of the business of the forged notes—I do not know if at that moment it had been quite settled, but the proposition had been made to Goldman—the £75 was split up, partly as an advance and partly as a loan, because my father was bound to hand all the money he received as an advance to the Bernsteins, because they were the people who were advancing money also—my father would tell them how much he got—I said before, that I did not tell Goldman or the Bernsteins everything, but that was not in regard to money—I do not know if my honour is of a discriminating character, perhaps we had better not discuss my honour—we were bound to tell the Bernsteins of every penny we received from Goldman—every pound was costing two pounds—it was the Bernsteins' proposition that we should go to Goldman, because they could not advance any more money for this transaction—they did not know that Goldman was to be told of the transaction—they wanted father to approach Goldman to ask him to invest a certain amount of money, but not to tell him what it was for, or that they were interested in it—he could know that it was for Bank of England notes, but he was not to know the true character of them—it would not be unusual to go to a man and ask him for £200 without exposing the real nature of the business; that is a point which I am afraid you will not understand—I do not think you know much about, it at all, but it is an ordinary thing to ask a man to advance money without telling him what it is for, providing the man is to be depended upon—I am not prepared to give a list of the names and addresses of these people who can be depended upon—I am not an information bureau—that kind of man does not want to know very often—it is not an uncommon thing to ask a man for £2,000 without disclosing the nature of the transaction—Goldman had lent my father money before, but not as much as £200—I daresay my father from time to time had paid him back—I am not sure if Goldman is owed money now—the loan had been returned to Goldman—my father may have drawn a cheque to him about August 13th for £15, but a man's cheques are no criterion at all, because if my father wanted £15 and Goldman was going in the direction of the Royal British Bank he would give him the cheque and ask him to bring the money back—£47 may have been paid by my father to Goldman between August 13th and August 27th—I have never seen my father's account at the Bank—I do not know how Goldman made the next payment, because I was in Southsea—when I returned I was told that he had paid £50—the first time that any notes were shown to Goldman was in September, about a month after his first advance—they were then complete with the exception of the numbers—nothing definite was stated to him as to the ultimate paying off of the notes except the discussion regarding Egypt and so on—I thought that at that time the notes were good enough, because the fault although obvious was easily remedied—the £10 notes which were subsequently deposited with Goldman were imperfect—they had a fault which was obvious to me—I do not know how the general public would take it—it is not on these, as they were discarded—this one is very weak—if you folded it up several times it would fall to pieces—the printing is smudgy—I said on a previous occasion, "The notes given to Phillie Michaels were really the misfits. It was reckoned if he changed one in England it would do all the damage. The notes given to Goldman in the parcel were dangerous to negotiate. I should not have cared to negotiate them myself: the printing was not straight, and the vignette was murky"—they were not in a box—they were in a piece of paper when they were shown to him—I do not know if he saw the murky vignette at the first glance—by changing one of them the others would be useless, because it would be known next day that forged notes were in circulation—I suggest that notes changed to-day reach the Bank of England to-morrow—some of them are kept in circulation for some time, but you have to figure that they reach the Bank next day—a man would not risk his liberty on them—if we did not fulfil our agreement Goldman he knew he had us in his hands—if he wanted to negotiate one of the sample notes he could do so without being found out—if Goldman had issued it he could say he was a bookmaker if he was found out, and very likely he would receive a forged note—he advanced the first £50 of the second hundred by a cheque which he gave to me in Bernstein's shop-parlour, drawn upon the London and Westminster Bank, Whitechapel Branch, in the name of Harrison—I think that name came from him, not me—I do not remember whether the cheque, was "To order "or "To bearer"—I do not remember endorsing it—Bernstein brought £35 in gold next day—I was told that Goldman had given a cheque, drawn in the name of Gordon—I never saw the cheque—the other fifteen of the £50 was left to be settled after we had gone to America—I know about that £15, because Bernstein got me to change a cheque of his at a friend of mine—I do not know of my personal knowledge how the £15 was paid.

Re-examined. When I was convicted in 1898 I was sixteen years old—I stood then in the dock beside my father—we were convicted together—after 1900 I saw a great deal of Hyman and Philip Bernstein—I was at their place at 120, High Street, almost every day—I know Philip's writing—the entries on these pages in this book (Produced) are in his writing—I did not hear how the second £50 of the first £100 was advanced, it was during my absence—the £50 note was given to Hyman for comparison—to my knowledge no cheque had been received from Goldman prior to that.

 HERBERT TILLY. I am a principal in the Issue Department of the Bank of England—on July 24th, 1900, £380 an gold was exchanged by the Issue Department for notes—£350 of it was in seven £50 notes dated February 16th, 1899—I produce a slip from the Issue Department authorising the payment of £350 to H. Baron—it is endorsed "H. Baron, 1, Houndsditch"—on June the 15th, 1901. a £5 note was issued to Bernstein, of 120, High Street, Whitechapel, numbered 96489—it is endorsed "H. Bernstein" on the back—there is a £10 note issued on July 10th. 1901, to H. White, 6, Church Street, Stoke Newington, numbered 96793—there is an endorsement on the back partly cut through "William Barm 14. And"—there was a £50 note issued to H. White dated March 6th, 1900, numbered 99500—there is no endorsement to it—four £5 notes were issued on June 22nd, 1901, to H. White, at the same address—there were two £10 notes issued 30th July, 1901, to the London and Westminster Bank, and a £10 note dated April 2nd, 1900—it was issued on July 10th to White—on December 30th, 1901, a £50 note numbered N/21 62741 issued to the London and Westminster Bank—on January 7th, 1902. seven £5 notes, numbered J/68 97552 to 97358 were issued to Glynn, Mills and Co.

 ROBERT SAGAR (Detective Inspector, City.) On June 15th, 1901, I was on duty at the Bank of England, main entrance—I knew Philip Bernstein—I saw him go into the Issue Department—he came out and spoke to me, and in consequence I changed a sovereign or a half sovereign into silver for him—then he went back into the Bank.

 ERNEST HENSON. I am manager to George Barker, trading as Webb and Co., of 111, High Street, Whitechapel—I knew the Bernsteins in 1901—This £5 note 96489 was paid into our account at the London and Westminster Bank on June 22, 1901—the endorsement is "H. Bernstein"—it is our custom to get our customers to endorse their names on the back of notes.

 GEORGE EDWARD HOLMES. I am cashier at the eastern branch of the London and Westminster Bank, Whitechapel—on June 22nd, 1901, I received from George Barker a £5 note No. 96489—I sent it on June 24th to our head office—in 1901 Goldman was a customer of ours—I produce a copy of his account on January 2nd, 1902—I received from our head office a £50 Bank of England note, N/21-62471, and on January 9th it was paid out by a cheque on Goldman's account drawn in the favour of Harrison—cheques are returned to the customers with the pass books—on January 10th there was a cheque for £33 drawn in favour of Gordon—I do not know if it was a bearer cheque—it was paid in cash—there is an entry on November 12th "Harrison £50 "and a £30 note was paid for that—that note came back into the same account on November 18th.

 ALBERT GEORGE GOUGH. I am a clerk at the head office of the London and Westminster Bank—on June 24th, 1901, we received from our Whitechapel Branch notes to the amount of £5,385—I cannot say what the separate notes in that parcel were—we sent them to the Bank of England on June 25th—on January 2nd, 1902, we issued a £50 note No. N/21 62741 to our Eastern Branch, and on July 30th we received two £10 notes No. 09098-9 from our Eastern branch and sent them to the Bank of England next day.

 THOMAS CAINE. I am sub-postmaster at Southsea Post Office—on July 29th, 1901, this £10 note (Produced), No. 96793, was cashed over the counter—it bears our stamp and something which looks like my endorsement—these telegraph money orders (Produced) were cashed at the office for William Barmash in July and August, 1901—the total amount is £44—some of them are in the name of P. Bernstein, and the last three the name of Solomon Barmash—I sent the 0 note to the National and Provincial Bank, Southsea.

 HERBERT GRESLEY CLEVSRTON. I am cashier at the National Provincial Bank of England, Southsea—on July 29th, 1901, I received a £10 note, No. 96793, from the Southsea Post Office—I sent it to our head office the same day.

 ARTHUR FREDERICK AYLEN. I am clerk at the head office of the National Provincial Bank of England, Bishopsgate Street—I received a £10 note. No. 90793. on July 30th from our Southsea Branch—it was paid into the Bank of England the same day.

 ISSY ABRAHAMS. I am manager of the Adelphi Club, Maiden Lane—in August, 1901, I changed a £100 note for Mr. Fraytag—I gave him £60 change as he owed me £40—I cannot remember how I gave it to him.

 JULIUS FRAYTAG. I live at 285 Kennington Road—at the end of August, 1901, I was in the Adelphi Club, Maiden Lane—I received from Mr. Abrahams this £50 note and £10 in gold, in exchange for a £100 note which I gave him—I owed him £40—I kept the £50 note until January 15th, 1902, and then paid it into the Birkbeck Bank.

 ISSAC NEWTON EDWARDS. On January 15th, 1902.I received from Mr. Fraytag a £50 note. No. 99500—I paid it in to his credit, and on the same day it was paid into the Union Bank, Chancery Lane.

 WILLIAM TAGART. I am a cashier at the Union of London and Smiths Bank, Limited, Chancery Lane—on January 16th, 1902, I received from the Birkbeck Bank a £50 note. No. 99500. and forwarded it to our head office on the 17th.

 WILLIAM HENRY TYLER. I am cashier at the head office of the Union of London and Smiths Bank, Limited—on January 17th, 1902, we received this £50 note from the Chancery Lane Branch—on the same day it was paid into the Bank of England.

 HENRY CORNOR. I am manager of the Whitechapel Branch of the Royal British Bank—Bernstein and Co. had an account with us, which was opened on June 3rd, 1901—I produce a copy of the ledger account, and also a certified copy of the account of Solomon Barmash opened on August 7th, 1901—I cannot say who he was introduced by, I think it was by Philip Bernstein—the account was opened by a payment in of £75—there was a payment out on the same day to Bernstein of £50—part of that £75 was in two £10 notes.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. On August 13th there was a cheque for £15 drawn in favour of Goldman, and on the 20th there is another cheque in his favour for the same amount.

 WALTER GEORGE BURGIN. I am a postman, and on February 7th, 1902, I delivered a parcel by parcels post at 41, Newcastle Street, in the name of Morris—I produce my delivery sheet—I gave the parcel to a woman at the door.

 LAZARUS RUTENBURG. I am a tobacconist and hairdresser of West Green Road, South Tottenham—William Barmash was a customer of mine—he came to my shop on January 9th, 1902, and asked me to change a £50 note for him—he owed me some money—I sent a cheque for £40 to my Bank, the London and Provincial, and having deducted what he owed me out of the £50 note, I handed him the proceeds of the cheque.

 HUGH CHARLES OWEN. I am the manager of the South Tottenham Branch of the London and Provincial Bank—on January 7th, 1902, I received seven £5 Bank of England notes, Nos. 97552 to 97558, dated November 11th, 1901, from Glynn, Mills. Currie and Co.—on January 9th I received a £50 note, No. 62741, dated January 24th, 1901, which was paid into the account of Lazarus Rutenburg, who is a customer of ours—on the same day a cheque for £40 was drawn by him—it was paid over the counter—the seven £5 notes were given in exchange for it, with a balance of £5 in gold.

 ALFRED BENDALL KNOTT. I am a clerk at Glynn, Mills—on January 7th these four Bank of England notes went to the South Tottenham Branch of the London and Provincial Bank—on January 10th we received from the same branch a £50 note, No. 62741, in a total of £290, and on January 11th it was paid into the Bank of England.

 JOHANN SCHMIDT. I am an engraver by trade and a German by birth—I was employed in June, 1901, in the manufacture by the Barmashes of a number of spurious Bank of England notes—I commenced work in their house at Broad Lane, Tottenham—at first the value of the notes I was to produce was £5; afterwards it was £10 and £50 I had a genuine £5 note given me for the purposes of my work, and I reproduced upon the spurious notes the water mark of the genuine note in its entirety—later on, genuine £10 notes were given to me, and I produced on the spurious £10 notes the watermark in the genuine note—I required certain plant and material for the purposes of my productions—something similar to this piece of wood (Produced) was brought to me, but not this one—a block of wood and frame was made for me to more effectively make the water-mark—I also had some wooden blocks" supplied me of a different form—they were not used, and I had to resort to a frame like this (Produced), with two clamps inside to hold the paper—it was fixed on to a table—it was to hold the paper tight—a special machine was sent down to Southsea, where I went after having done some work in London—I went with William Barmash and his family—we were there for about three months—whilst there I required further material and plant—I communicated my wishes to William Barmash from time to time, and such things as I required were sent from London—I tried certain things and abandoned certain things in turn, but in the end I perfected the water mark on all the notes of different values; as they were completed I handed them to Soloman Barmash—when I was at Southsea I gave them to William Barmash—when I came back to London I worked at 25, Broad Lane, and then went to 22, Winchester Road, Edmonton, the residence of a Mrs. Samuels—the notes were completed by the end of December—I was to receive 30s. a week and to get 7 1/2 per cent, on the face value of the notes—whilst I was engaged in London and Southsea I received my 30s. a week pretty regularly, and when the notes were completed I insisted upon having some money—I asked for £50, and I got £40—that was about the day before young Barmash sailed for America—as far as I can remember it was paid to me in notes—I can see my handwriting on some of these (Produced)—about this time I wanted to buy some postal orders, and I took the notes to a post office in Commercial Road—there was some question raised as to their issuing postal orders for notes—they returned the notes to me—I went to another office and got what I wanted—I do not remember young Barmash returning from America—by the time he returned I and his father had become somewhat estranged, because I did not want to advance any money to him, which he wanted me to do for the return of young Barmash and Hyman Bernstein—of course, we never spoke to each other after that—later in the year my attention was called to an advertisement in regard to a reward in relation to Bank of England notes—I went and saw Mr. Freshfield, the solicitor to the Bank—he referred me to the City police—I made a statement to them—I was examined as a witness in the case which was tried here in December, in which the two Barmashes and the other Bernstein were accused of uttering these notes—all these notes (Produced) are like my work—this torn one does not look like mine.

Cross-examined by MR. LEYCESTER. I never saw Hyman Bernstein until he was in the dock—this wooden frame I cannot identify—it is only similar to the one I had—it is not the sort of thing all engraver might use—it was made for the purpose of making water marks—it was used but discarded, as it did not answer its purpose.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I only had one £50 note submitted to me for the purposes of the forgery—as far as I can remember, that was at the end of August, 1901—there may have been another £50 note for comparison, but not for copying—I do not know the date—I think it must have been about the end of December—I completed some of the £50 notes several times as regards the water mark, and others as regards the printing—with regard to the watermark, they would be completed at the end of August or the beginning of September—the ones that I completed finally were ready about the end of December—they were completed in London.

Re-examined. There were different stages before the completion of the notes—they had to be watermarked and printed, bleached and numbered—the printing must have been complete about the beginning of December—it would take place about two weeks before the numbering.

 ELIZABETH FLORENCE SEELEY. I live at 29. Arby Road, Grove Road, Bow, and on January 13th. 1902. I was an assistant in the Commercial Road Post Office—on that day a man brought in some £5 notes and asked for change for them—on the back of some of these notes (Produced) there is the endorsement "Postal orders"—that is in my writing—that is the record that postal orders were taken when they were changed—two postal orders were issued in return for two £5 notes—the man went away—he came back shortly afterwards with another man, whose name I do not know—I know him by sight—they asked if the postal orders were good or not—I said, "Yes"—the man who had first come in had asked if the notes could be changed for gold—I said, "No"—the end of it was he got his £5 notes back—the name Simon was put on by him.

 DEBORAH APT. I am the wife of Woolf Apt, who is the proprietor of an hotel at 64A, High Street. Whitechapel—I know the Bernsteins—Hyman visited the hotel in the summer of 1900—he stayed for about a week—he came with another man named Mayer—this is Mayer's photograph (Produced).

Cross-examined by MR. LEYCESTER. Hyman said they had just come from Australia, and that he had met Mayer on the voyage.

 ANNIE POOLE. I live at 23, Broad Lane, Tottenham—in December, 1901, I knew the Barmashes—I then visited at their house—I. knew Hyman—I believe I saw him when I went to the house—he was introduced to me as Mr. Bernstein.

Cross-examined by MR. LEYCESTER. I only saw him once; it may have been at the end of 1901 or the beginning of 1902—I was a neighbour—I went in to return a book which had been lent me—I do not know if Hyman was there as an ordinary friend or not.

 GEORGE WOOD. I am a shop fitter, of 19, Penter Street, North Minories—I first got to know the Bernsteins in October, 1900—I commenced to fit up for them a jeweller's shop at 120, High Street, Whitechapel, in November—that work went on until February, 1901—during that time I executed some further orders for them—amongst other things they ordered several dozens of small blocks of wood about half-inch square and three inches long—as far as I can remember, both the brothers were together when the order was given—I saw them pretty constantly—they were invariably together—I will not say always—I also received orders to make a frame and block like this one—I also made this one—Philip gave me the order for it—I had a description and, as far as I can remember, a paper drawing—I took it to 120, High Street—I saw Philip there—I had some conversation with him with regard to it; it was not right; it fitted too loose—he gave me an order to make two further blocks to fit tighter—I executed that order—I took away this block and frame, and eventually delivered the two others that I made—I think I delivered them to Philip—I kept this frame at my workshop—I also made two very heavy mahogany supports for the Bernsteins—a sketch was brought over with the height and width and the holes required in it—I made it to that sketch—I bought some mahogany for the purpose, as I had nothing sufficiently heavy—these two pieces of wood are the waste of the supports that I made—there were bolt holes in them—I think it was Philip who gave me that order—I am not quite sure if he was alone at the time—I took the things over when they were done—I think I delivered them to him—I cannot be sure whether his brother was with him or not—I made a piece of wood with a wedge at each end—that was made from a sketch—as far as I can remember it was Philip who gave me the order—I took this thing to the shop—I fancy both brothers were there then—the last four orders were between July and September, 1901—there was a running account between me and the Bernsteins of which £1313s. 6d. is still owing—this is my account (Produced)—there is an item of 12s., which is for making two mahogany blocks as required—I was practically only dealing with Philip for the shop fitting—they traded as Bernstein and Co.—the other things that I made for them I think were paid for by cash when they were delivered—on one occasion Philip paid, I think, and on one occasion Hyman—I identify the prisoner Hyman as Philip's brother—I have seen Goldman at 120, High Street, but I have never had any conversation with him.

Cross-examined by MR. LEYCESTER. I regarded Philip as the person with whom I was doing business—it was at his request that I was fitting up the shop—Hyman was there when I was receiving orders about it—it never occurred to me that there was anything wrong about the frame or pieces of mahogany—I had nothing to impress them upon my mind except that I thought they were funny little things to make—this bill is the only one in which any of these things appear—I cannot swear that both the brothers were present when I delivered the piece of wood with a wedge at each end—some of the work I was doing at the shop was paid for by cash, but in a different way, because I had to make an arrangement with Philip on the Friday to get the cash on Saturday—I do not remember getting any from Hyman in that way.

Re-examined. I asked Philip once what these things were required for—I said there was a lot of work in them, but I could not see much to charge for—he said it was for a patent that a friend of his was bringing out.

 PHILIP BERNSTEIN. I am now undergoing a sentence of penal servitude for forging a number of Bank of England notes—I pleaded guilty to that charge in this Court in December, 1902—I first began to negotiate to bring the forgeries into existence in June, 1901, with Solomon Barmash—I then had a shop at 120, High Street, Whitechapel—my brother Hyman was living with me—he had come back from Australia in 1900—he brought about £420 with him—the bigger portion of that he lent to me—I had it in my safe at 99, Bishopsgate Street—in June, 1901, there was no ready money, most of it was in stock in my shop—the Bishopsgate shop was entirely for imitation jewellery—the High Street shop was for better class jewellery; not high-class but genuine stuff—five or six months after 120, High Street was opened business was going badly—one evening in June, 1901, Hyman told me that Solomon Barmash had come to him and said he had got a man who could make successful Bank of England notes, and he wished him to join us—I tried to dissuade him from it—I was unsuccessful—he said that next day Barmash was going to bring him a kind of sample—next day I came into the shop parlour and found Solomon Barmash talking to Hyman—he stopped talking when I came in—my brother said, "It is all right," and he told me all about it—he showed me the sample and compared it with a £5 note which I had, and which he had asked me to get from the Bank of England—I had not been there specially for it, but I got it—I remember seeing Sagar there and asking him to give me some gold—the forged sample was not exactly perfect—it was not satisfactory—it was only to show the ability of the maker—we were not satisfied with it, but I think it was anticipated that in time it would be better—my brother told me of the conditions with Barmash—he said that be originally wanted him to go himself but he was to supply men trustworthy and reliable, and that he was to lend £49 or £50 at the rate of £5 a week for six weeks—the total cost of the material was to be about £19—Barmash brought a list with him—my brother and I saw it—there was a chance that it was likely to take two or three weeks longer, but the cost would be at the utmost £70—Barmash undertook to provide £100—he had not got it then, but he had an idea where to get it, and if he failed, although he did not care to do it, he would make a couple of Bills in order to get the money—he did not give us particulars of how he would deceive the people who would accept the Bills—my brother agreed to get the £50 in my presence—only £5 and £10 notes were proposed then to the amount of £14,000 or £15,000—the arrangement was that the forger should have 7 1/2 per cent. up to £10,000, and to be paid 30s. a week—the work began at Southsea—William Barmash came to London several times from Southsea—I and my brother saw him, and every week we sent down the money to Southsea to enable the work to be carried on—the arrangement was that Hyman should find the man who was to utter the notes—he was in London; he was called Mayer—Hyman said he had met him on board ship coming from Australia—he said Mayer was a painter or letter writer and had worked his passage home—it was suggested by my brother that the utterer should get 15 per cent., but Solomon Barmash wanted him to get only 10 per cent, and the remainder should be divided into three shares—the whole cost came out at about £600—we did not anticipate it would cost half as much as that—I am sure the Barmashes did not work honestly—in some instances we paid twice as much for machines as we ought to have done—the postal orders that were sent to Southsea were sometimes written by me and sometimes by Hyman—sometimes my shop assistant went to get them, and sometimes Barmash himself—the machinery that was required at Southsea was sent—I did not send any, I only sent two or three small items—one or two things came back—owing to the failure of the process, which it was thought would prolong the time and expense, Barmash suggested that £50 notes should be made instead of tens or fives and that the number of notes should be reduced—William Barmash brought up some samples from Southsea of tens and fives that Schmidt had made—I do not know who gave William Barmash the genuine £10 or £5 notes for samples—the samples William Barmash brought up were shown to Hyman and I—there were only small faults in them, which it was explained could be remedied—my brother and I did not get the £50 note from the bank—Solomon Barmash suggested that he had got an idea how he could get one—Hyman was there at the time—Barmash would not speak to me alone, he had nothing particular to do with me—he would not speak of any new proposition to me unless Hyman was there—he told us he had made an arrangement with Phillie Michaels to borrow £100 to open a banking account, to give Michaels four cheques post dated for four weeks, and as it would only take a fortnight to make a £50 note he would be able to meet the £100—I suppose the post dated cheques were for £25 each—this £50 cheque is not in my writing; it is similar to mine—it was determined that the money should be drawn out of the Royal British Bank, into which it had been paid to Barmash's account—I think this cheque is in William Barmash's writing—I cannot swear who got the £50 note from the Bank of England—I think I gave it to one of Barmash's girls to take to Southsea—I received it from Hyman—when the party returned from Southsea, they went first to Broad Lane—I used to see them everyday—one of the Barmashes came to our place every day—I saw the work as it was progressing up to the end of November—by then the work was being carried on at Mrs. Samuel's house—the notes were completed by the beginning of January—it was determined to despatch Mayer to New York to utter the notes—I was away when he left London—I went away at the end of November, and returned on December 21st or 22nd—I was here from then to the end of January—I understood that Solomon Barmash had lost the first £100 at cards, so he had to tell Goldman the whole of the secret, and asked for an additional £100—he offered him some remuneration for it—I think he was to have £300 for his £200—my brother and I were told that originally, but afterwards we were told that it was to be £400 for the original £200—Goldman said when he knew the whole of the secret that he must have good interest for his money—he did not say the amount—he eventually withdrew his promise, and Solomon Barmash had to offer him £600—Barmash was very angry at the time, but he had to give in—eventully he gave him £400 for his £200, in fact I understood he gave him more than that—I think £800 to £1,000 in forged notes had been given to Goldman for making the advance of the second £100—when the time for the American journey arrived, Solomon Barmash had not got any money—we were not supposed to give any for that purpose, that was Barmash's undertaking; but while I was away Hyman advanced £15 for Mayer's journey—my brother had access to the takings of 120, High Street, as well as I had—he was not exactly my partner, but we were almost like one—we trusted one another—we never had a quarrel—just before he sailed for America I got £35 in gold from the London and Westminster Bank on a cheque which I had obtained from Solomon Barmash—I do not remember in whose name the cheque was—it was Goldman's cheque—I went to an Aerated Bread shop with it, where I found young Barmash and my brother—I gave the money to them—we all three went in the direection of Cook's Office—they went in—I afterwards joined them in there because I wanted to buy a little American guide—the passages were taken, and next day they sailed from Southampton to New York by the "Philadelphia"—there were many arrangements made the night before they sailed, one of them was as to how they should communicate with me by cable—they were to cable to "Fulda, Compton Hotel, Liverpool"—I went to Liverpool—I found a telegram waiting for me there, dated January 22nd, "M. refused going last minute, cable £20 immediately; try to prevent P. doing business, coming home.—H. BARON"—I returned to London—Barmash came to me—I showed him the telegram and had some conversation with him—I did not send any money on that day—two days later I received another telegram, "Bare cable, £20 immediate"—that had been sent to 1, Newcastle Street, my father's address—"Bare "was the code word which had been arranged—it meant unfavourable—I went to Cook's and cabled £20, to be paid in dollars on the other side—Solomon Barmash was supposed to help me with it, but he could not get it, so I got it—within a short time Hyman and William Barmash returned to London—I went and met them—they told me all about their failure—next day a parcel came from Southampton—I was not present when it was opened—it consisted of a cigar box containing the forged notes—between £10,000 and £11,000 had been taken to America—I did not count them when they were returned—it was taken away by one of Barmash's sons, who was waiting—I did not see the notes after that—the box had been opened in my brother's room—he told me he saw samples of them after that—I was away in the country about the end of March or beginning of April, and on my return Hyman told me that Goldman had introduced a customer for the notes—no business resulted from that—Goldman was at 120, High Street, Whitechapel, ever since he was connected with Barmash—I went there in March, 1901—he came about July—he continued to come until I left in February—he used to make regular appointments with Barmash there—his runners used to bring him papers there—he is a bookmaker—he did not use the place for betting—I objected to papers being brought to him there—he said there was no risk attached to it—one day in April, 1902, I met him in the street—we went into a public house—he then owed me £10—I asked for a portion of it—he said he could not afford it, because old Barmash had ruined him entirely—I said, "It is the same with me, as regards Barmash"—we had a general conversation about the forged notes—that was the first time that he personally disclosed tome that he had anything to do with them—I had known it all the time—he told me he knew I was in it, and I told him I knew he was in it—I removed to Plymouth about the end of October—I was arrested on October 4th—this book (Produced) was found amongst my possessions—it is in my writing—Hyman saw it at the same time that I did—he often told me to put down certain amounts—I cannot identify anything particular—some of the accounts refer to the forgeries—Hyman looked over it almost every day—I do not know if he ever saw the last page of it.

Cross-examined by MR. LEYCESTER. I did not say I was led into this matter—I submitted to it—my brother suggested the first part of it to me—Barmash originally objected to my having any knowledge of it, but my brother said that could not be—I do not know if Barmash regarded my brother as the principal, but he would not have anything to do with me—it is quite untrue that I first suggested it to Barmash—I did not tell him I was hard up or ask him to look up Schmidt, or to look up the man I had heard speak of—I made a kind of confession while I was on remand, I made a statement at Brixton—I did not plead not guilty until I got here, I reserved my defence—I did not make a statement to the police until I was convicted—I do not remember if the Judge in sentencing me told me that it would be the best thing in my own interests to divulge everything I knew—what he said did not make an impression upon me—it was the first time I had been convicted of anything—I do not think you can pay much attention on occasions like that—I come here to-day to reveal the truth and to help myself—a lot of abominable statements were brought against us, especially against me—I have hopes of getting some remission of my sentence by giving evidence—I cannot say now where the notes are, because I do not know—the last I saw of them was in the possession of the Barmashes—I and my brother are not Roumanians—I came from Russia in 1885—Hyman was already here, and sent me the money to come with—he then supplied me with money and a stock in trade for me to start business with—eighteen months or two years afterwards he went to Australia—except for one short visit from 1886 till 1900, he was out there, I think, dealing in jewellery and opals—he did not deal with me while he was in Australia—when he came back in 1900 I was not in difficulties: I was bankrupt, and am still—I was trading at that time in the name of my wife—I used some of Hyman's money to take 120, High Street—the business started there was my wife's—my creditors are not going to get anything out of it—the profits of the business were coming to me, that is, I had to live upon them—my furniture was there—I and my wife were living there—I called it Bernstein and Co., but there was no Co.—Hyman lived there with me all the time he was in England—he went to Lavender Hill for about a fortnight—he did not live there for months—he was not there at the time he went to America, as far as I know—I do not know that he was going to take some stalls at the St. Louis Exhibition for a man named Rosenberg—William Barmash told me that he was going to look into some divorce matters for his father—I think Mrs. Barmash had applied for a divorce against Solomon Barmash in America—she lived there—I have known the Barmashes slightly since 1886—I do not know much of William Barmash—I cannot remember if the first time he was introduced to my brother was at a Christmas party in 1900—I think Solomon Barmash looked him up very soon after he arrived from Australia—I think my brother and I got on very well together—we did not have what you would call quarrels—we did not quarrel in November, 1901, about the money he had lent me—when I was making my statement to his Lordship before I was sentenced I was not anxious to put as much as I could on my brother's shoulders—I may have said then that my brother had nothing to do with the notes after his return from America—that was true, with the exception of that occasion which I have mentioned, and which I remembered afterwards—when my brother was brought back from South Africa I wrote a letter to him saying that if he would plead guilty to conspiracy he would only get a few months, and that I should get a good deal off my sentence—the first sample that Barmash ever brought to me was only a portion of a watermark—I do not know what became of that—Barmash may have burned it or destroyed it—I cannot remember if he did so in my presence—all the letters that were sent to Southsea were written by me—there was only one or two, I think—I ordered all the things from Mr. Wood on Barmash's instructions—I do not know who put the bank stamp on the notes, I was not there—at the time it was done—it was put on at Broad Lane—I got there about 10.30 p.m., when the stamping was nearly finished—I do not know who did them—I think—I put the numbers in order—my brother was there and the two Barmashes—the whole house was awake—my brother was there before I was—I went to wish him good-bye.

Cross-examined by MR. ELLIOTT. I am positive that the Barmashes deceived me and my brother with regard to the manufacture of the notes —they both told me that they had given Schmidt £50, but they had only given him £40—there are many other little things where they deceived us—they would say the machines cost £35, but they only cost £25 or £20—I do not know the exact sum the Barmashes got from Goldman, they told us they got £200—Soloman Barmash told me he had lost the first £100 at cards, and I was satisfied he had lost a portion of it—I had known him to loose at cards; not with me—he used to visit clubs—the Barmashes were only supposed to bring £100 towards the expenses—on August 7th Solomon Barmash told us he had got £100 from Goldman—I did not see it—I do not know how it was paid; it was not paid to me—I understood that Goldman was not to know what it was for, but was to believe that it was a loan to assist Solomon in regard to his property—that is what Solomon told us—I know he had done some work for Goldman, and that he had lent him £100 in consideration for his services—Barmash had given Goldman four post-dated cheques, which would become due in a month—I do not know the date of that—it was a day or two after the proposition of the forged notes—I understood that that is the £100 which was lost at cards—I understand that he has not paid Goldman back a halfpenny of that £100—Barmash told me that in order to get the other £100 he had to divulge a certain secret to Goldman, which would make him look big in the eyes of Goldman—there was no question of the second £100 then, it was about getting the first £100 back—the secret was to assuage Goldman because the cheques were not going to be met—we did not then want money to go on with the manufacture of the notes—the want then was a £50 note, in fact Barmash wanted to make £100 notes if he could have managed it—he opened an account with the first £100—a £50 note was obtained—it was used by Schmidt and returned by him and Barmash lost it at cards—I know Goldman got none of the £100 back—Solomon had to smooth him over for not paying the money back, and he told us that he had told Goldman that he had got £4,500 in notes with several other people which he had obtained by illigitimate means, I suppose by forgery, and that there was a risk in changing them, as he had found out there was a stoppage—they were good notes, and he was looking for a customer for them, and Goldman was supposed to bring him a price for them—next day he brought him a price, and Barmash said he would submit it to his other partners—I think the price was £3,500 for the £4,500—we knew Barmash was telling lies simply to make Goldman hold on and not ask for the £100 he had lent—he was supposed to have gone to his confederates to submit the offer, and came back saying his people had refused it, as they could have the numbers altered for £50 or £100—that is the way he gat out of it—I knew he had no notes to offer Goldman, so if Goldman had offered him enough he would have to tell a lie to get out of it—when the lying came to an end he had to tell him the truth, but he did not say they were forged notes—he said the numbers were being altered—he took him some of the forged notes telling him they were genuine—that is what the Barmashes told us what happened, but I do not think they told us a quarter—I knew they were taking Goldman in—I did not think about him, I thought about ourselves—we did not want him to know about the forgery—it was in Goldman's interest that he should not know, but I believe he would have preferred from the beginning to have known—I do not care if you have had another prisoner in the box—I do not see why I should tell lies, the matter is not so very important—Solomon Barmash told Hyman and myself that Goldman should not know that we were connected with the forged notes—Solomon told us that as it took such a very long time to take the numbers out of the notes Goldman began to suspect that that was not being done, but they were being manufactured, and he commenced to bother Solomon greatly about his first £100, then Solomon absolutely made a clean confession to him in order to obtain the second £100; that the notes were being manufactured, that they would soon be ready, that he would want another £100 and that in compensation Goldman would get £400 for his £200—that was about Christmas time—Goldman promised he would give it to him the day it was required, but three or four days before the departure for America Goldman said he was not satisfied with the offer and that he wanted a bigger remuneration, and they had a quarrel—they came to terms—he was to have £400 for his £200 which would make £600 due to him—I think Goldman knew that Barmash had lost his first £100—I had frequent opportunities for conversation with Goldman, and during one of them he told me what a reckless man Barmash was in gambling with other people's money—I think that was before the whole truth had been told him—I told Barmash that I thought Goldman knew more about it than we thought he did—Barmash kept on denying it—I did not get any money direct from Goldman in connection with this transaction—I once got a cheque from him for £40 for my father-in-law—I gave him £40 in cash, and he gave me a cheque for it—he asked me what name I wanted it made out in—I said I was not particular—I had to send it to Nelson and he made it out in that name—I had to send it to Nelson as I owed it to him—it was nothing to do with the forged notes—I may have gone to Goldman to get another cheque to send away; I cannot remember it—letters used to come to Goldman at 120, High Street, but not in connection with his bookmaking business—he had his letters and papers brought there—they did not come by post—he used to pay his runners there in the evening to pay his men—I think he had a real bookmaker's business—I do not know if it was a large one—he was not making a large book compared to some people I know—when the telegram from America to "Fulda "came I had not a number of notes in my possession—I did not have any notes until the day they arrived from America—they were only in the house for two hours—they were brought into the room where my brother was, and taken away by one of Barmashes' family—I knew there were some left behind—I was not then preparing to go to Africa or Antwerp—I do not think I have ever been to Antwerp—at the time the telegram arrived at Liverpool I think Solomon Barmash was at home, but I do not know.

Re-examined. The notes that were left behind were in Barmash's possession, at least he said where he was going to send them to—as soon as the notes were completed they were always in the Barmash's possession—William Barmash never parted with them even in America—Goldman paid over the second £100 a couple of days before the others went to America—I understood that at that time, notes of the face value of about £1,000 had been given to Goldman—he refused to advance the second £100 unless they were handed to him—of that second £100 William Barmash gave me £50—I gave it to Solomon—the £35 cheque which I received from him was used for the payment of the journey to America—I suspected that Goldman knew more than we thought about two months before the departure—words slipped out which gave me a surmise that he knew more about it—after the return from America I spoke freely with him, and he then told me he knew I was in it, and he subsequently had a conversation with my brother.

 CHARLES HORTON. I am a clerk at Thomas Cook and Sons, at their Cockspur Street office—on January 10th, 1902, two men came in and booked a passage to New York by the "Philadelphia"—they gave their names as H. Baron and Walter Brice—the "Philadelphia" left on January 11th.

 EVAN NORMAN KINSEY. I am chief clerk in the American Line Steamship Company, Cockspur Street—I produce the passenger list of the "Philadelphia" for January 11th, 1901—it shows the names of H. Baron and Walter Brice as second-class passengers—I also produce the passenger list of the "St. Paul" of January 29th, 1902.

 HENRY WEEKS. I am a clerk in the Western Union Telegraph Company—on January 22nd, 1902, I received at Old Broad Street this telegram, "M. refused going last minute," and on January 24th, 1902, there came direct to the office at the Royal Exchange this telegram, "Bare, cable £20 immediate"—they were forwarded to their different destinations, one in Liverpool and one in London.

 CHARLES HERBERT SULMAN. I am cashier at Thomas Cook and Sons', 93, Gracechurch Street—on January 25th Philip Bernstein came in—he brought £20 with him, which was to be cabled out to Hyman Baron at the Summit Hotel—I changed it into dollars for him—we could not find any such hotel in our list, so we told him to wire to his friend, asking him to call at Cooks' Office for the money—we wired to our office in New York—this (Produced) is a receipt signed by Hyman Baron for the 92 dollars which he received.

Cross-examined by MR. MILLER. I do not know Hyman Bernstein at all.

 ARTHUR PERCY ALLPORT. I am a clerk in the Anglo American Telegraph Company, and produce a telegram received on January 25th, 1902, and telegraphed on that date to New York, "Apply Cooks'"—I also produce a receipt, which shows that that telegram was received in New York.

 JOHN EDWARD MALLINSON. I am an official in the Accountant General's Department in the Post Office, and produce the telegrams passing between the United States and this country—I am able to say by a document that the two telegrams which have been referred to were delivered at their respective destinations—I also produce telegraph the money orders which went from London to Southsea first in the name of Bernstein and afterwards in the name of Barmash.

 JOSEPH ORSMAN (Detective Constable, City.) On February 14th I searched 225, High Street, Shoreditch, where Philip Goldman was living—I produce a list of the property found there—a large number of note-books were found—on the outside of this one is "Just a line."

 JOHN OTTAWAY (Detective Inspector, City.) On February 13th I arrested Goldman—when I told him the charge, he said, "I do not know what you mean"—I took him to Cloak Lane Police Station, where he was charged—he said, "I know nothing about it"—he gave his address as 35 Sandringham Road, Dalston—I said to him, "You don't live there"—he said, "Yes I do, I am still living there"—I went to that address and ascertained that he had left about four months—he subsequently gave me his correct address at 223, High Street, Shoreditch.

 JOHN DAVIDSON (Chief Inspector, City.) I arrested Hyman Bernstein at Cape Town, where he was detained under a provisional warrant—I read the warrant to him on January 13th—he said, "I had those read to me yesterday. I want to ask you one question. Why have you got three warrants when one would have been enough?"—I explained to him the reason was owing to extradition—I showed him a photograph of himself, which was attached to the depositions I had taken out—he remained under remand until January 23rd, when he signified in writing his request to return to London—I brought him back on the "Kildonan Castle," arriving here on February 14th—I produce a list of the property found upon him whilst he was in my charge—I saw him write—I arrested Philip Bernstein on November 5th, 1902—I made a list of the property found upon him and at his premises (Produced)—among the things I found was this pocket-book.

 THOMAS HENRY GURRIN. I am an expert in handwriting—I have had placed before me these two documents, which I was assured were samples of Hyman Bernstein's writing—I have also seen the Bank slip and the signature, H. Baron, both of which are in the same writing as the letters which are said to be Hyman's, as well as the signature on the receipt for the telegram.

 ALEXANDER GOUGE. I am superintendent at the Bank Note Office. Bank of England—the £50 note No. 99500 came back to the Bank of England January 17th, 1902—the £10 note No. 96793 came back on July 30th, 1901—the £5 note No. 96489 came back on June 25th, 1901—these three notes are forged (Uttered by Mayer in New York), and also this half-note.

 JOHN DAVIDSON (Re-examined.) These (Produced) are a hawker's licence and a miner's right, taken out by Hyman Bernstein in the name of Hyman Baron in Australia in 1896 and 1899—there is no doubt from the result of my inquiries that long before anything arose about this case he was using that name.

Bernstein, in his defence on oath, said that he knew nothing of the forget notes; that he did not supply any genuine note as a pattern; that he did not send any of the things to Southsea, or give any of the orders to Wood: that he did not know that his brother had anything to do with any forgery; or that any money was being obtained from Goldman; that he did not hear of it until he was arrested; that he did not go to America for the purpose of tittering the notes, or supply any money for the purpose of the forgeries.

Evidence for Bernstein's Defence.

 HARRY ROSENBERG. I am a furrier of 26, Hare Street, Bethnal Green—I have known Hyman Bernstein just over two years—I remember him going to America for a short time—about a month before he started I authorised him to take a stall for me in the St. Louis Exhibition—we arranged that on his return I should pay half his expenses—when he did return I paid him, I think, between £10 and £11—I do not exactly remember.

Cross-examined. The settlement between us was in cash, no documents passed—the exhibition was to have taken place in 1903, but it was postponed—I was making my arrangements in the beginning of 1902, or a month before he started—he did not get my stall.

By the COURT. I got to know Hyman because I am the young man of his sister-in-law's—I am engaged to her—at that time I had a business of my own—I now go out to piecework—my shop used to be a fur shop—I was going to send skins and fur rugs to the exhibition—I had some at that time—they were worth £5 or £7—I was going to show them in America because I believe you can get a big price there—I bought the skins and made them up—some of them came from Canada—that is not far from America—I thought of taking a stall at the exhibition, because Hyman said he was going to exhibit some ivory and ornaments there—he showed me one or two articles of ivory and china, such as women with babies on their backs—they were not opals—at present I have no furs or shop—I am still engaged to his wife's sister—we did not discuss what the stalls were to cost—I did not consider whether I could get a stall without sending a man to New York to do it—I do not know how far New York is from St. Louis—I thought he was going to New York first, and then to St. Louis—I daresay St. Louis is in America somewhere—I then occupied one room in my father's house as a workshop—I paid 5s. a week—I had no banking account—I' had over £50 then—I did not think that I could see a plan in London in order to engage a stall.

 AARON RAPHAEL. I live at 85, Lavender Hill, and am married to Hyman Bernstein's niece—I remember him staying with me some time before he left for America—he stayed for about a few weeks—I cannot say how long before he went—from me he went to William Barmash's—he was away from me for about a week before he went to America,—I remember William Barmash coming to my house before Hyman went to America—he came to see me—Hyman was there also—William Barmash asked me if I could lend his father a loan—I did not know what he wanted it for—Hyman said he was going to America—William Barmash said, "If you are going, I am going in a week or so; Dad is away, you have an opportunity of staying with me for a week or two"—Hyman said, "When are you going?"—William said, "I shall go in a week or two; when do you wish to go?"—Hyman said, "Any time will do for me"—they left my place that night together—I do not know where for—on the next Friday, Hyman came back and packed some of his things up and went off.

Cross-examined. When he packed his things up I did not see him again until after his return from America, when he came for the remainder of his things—it was not stated in my presence why he was going to stay with the Barmashes—I understood William Barmash to say that Solomon wanted money because there was a divorce case in America—there was no question of the expense of this travelling party.

By the COURT. Hyman was not married when he was staying with me; he was engaged to the woman who is now his wife—I married his niece before he returned from Australia—I knew Solomon and William Barmash as very nice and trustworthy people—I did not know they had been convicted.

GUILTY GOLDMAN†* then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at the South London Sessions on April 16th, 1895. Five years' penal servitude. BERNSTEIN— Ten years' penal servitude.

JOHN EDWARD MALLINSON, witness name in trial of HUGH WATT, Breaking Peace > wounding, 11th December 1905.

118. HUGH WATT (49), Unlawfully soliciting and endeavouring to persuade Herbert Marshall, James Shuttle, and Thomas Worley to kill and murder Julia Watt.

MR. MATHEWS, MR. BODKIN, and MR. GRAHAM CAMPBELL Prosecuted;

 MR. HORACE AVORY, K. C., and MR. MUIR Defended.

 THOMAS BATEMAN HOUSTON. I am a clerk in the Probate and Divorce Registry of the High Court of Justice—I produce certain sealed and certified copies of proceedings in that Court, namely, a petition for divorce, dated October 11th, 1895, in which the petitioner is Julia Watt and the respondent the prisoner, on the ground of adultery with a lady, not connected with this case—there was a decree for judicial separation on May 21st, 1896, on the ground that the respondent had been guilty of adultery, but not of cruelty—I produce another petition of Julia Watt against the prisoner, dated November 29th, 1900, in which a decree of judicial separation is prayed on the ground of adultery with Lady Violet Beauchamp—that was dismissed on January 15th, 1901, by consent, each party paying its own costs—I produce a further petition of Julia Watt against the prisoner, dated April 18th, 1901, originally for a decree of judicial separation, but subsequently amended to a petition, in which a decree of divorce was prayed on the ground of cruelty, and adultery with Lady Violet Beauchamp—the decree nisi in amended form was pronounced on March 5th, 1903, but since that time no steps as regards making it absolute have been taken—I produce a certified sealed copy of a petition in which Sir Reginald Beuchamp was the petitioner. Lady Violet the respondent, and the prisoner the co-respondent, dated December 18th, 1900—on May 7th, 1901, a decree in that suit was pronounced, which on November 25th, 1901, was made absolute.

Cross-examined. I also produce the proceedings relating to Herbert Marshall—on January 20th, 1899, a petition was filed by Herbert Augustus Marshall against his wife, and there was a decree nisi on June 12th, 1899, which was rescinded on the intervention of the Queen's Proctor on January 29th, 1900, on the ground that divers material facts respecting the conduct of the petitioner in the said suit had not been brought before the Court; "that during May, June, and July, 1899, the petitioner had habitually committed adultery with a woman named Mrs. Williamson at 35, Ladbroke Gardens"—the decree was never made absolute.

 RICHARD OWEN ROBERTS. I am an official of the Judgment Department of the High Courts of Justice, and produce the original proceedings in an action of Mrs. Julia Watt against Violet Beauchamp, the original writ being dated July 26th, 1901, claiming damages from the defendant for libel—the solicitors for the plaintiff were Messrs. Charles Russell & Co.—that action was heard and I produce the original judgment dated October 30th, 1902, for £5,000 after verdict—those damages were reduced by the Court of Appeal to £1,500 on June 17th, 1903—I have no record at all of the House of Lords appeal, because the judgment stands, as it is one of reduction of damages.

 HENRY JEPHSON BREWER. I am a registered medical practitioner—I have been attending Henry Drummond at 96, Holly Street, Dalston—I last saw him this morning—he is suffering from acute tuberculosis, and it is absolutely impossible for him to be here to-day; it would be quite dangerous.

By the COURT. I am afraid acute tuberculosis is never likely to be cured.

Cross-examined. He has been suffering from this for the last five weeks; I have been attending him for about the last month—I had never attended him before that—he is almost always in bed; he gets up for a few hours of an afternoon and then sits in a chair; he cannot walk at all—I cannot say with absolute certainty, but I am afraid he will never come out of doors again—he says he has only been ill for about six weeks—he must have been suffering for some slight period longer than that, but it may be quite rapid.

By the COURT. In an acute form it may be quite rapid.

 HENRY FOWLER (Sergeant, Metropolitan Police). I was present on August 25th at Marlborough Street Police Court when Henry Drummond gave evidence—the prisoner was present, represented by Mr. Freke Palmer, who cross-examined Drummond.

 HERBERT AUGUSTUS MARSHALL. I live at 5, Hanger Lane, Ealing, and am in partnership with Mr. Sweeney at 5, Regent Street, as inquiry agents—I have been in partnership with him for nearly two years—on the evening of August 9th Mr. Bicknell called at the office and made an appointment; I did not see him—I did not see him the next day—I had some conversation with Mr. Sweeney—about 11 a.m. on August 10th Mr. Sweeney introduced the prisoner to me at the office; that was the first time I had seen him—he did not say anything as to the object for which he was there on that day; they went out together after the introduction—Mr. Sweeney returned alone—on August 11th the prisoner had an interview with me at the office—he gave us instructions to watch his wife, Mrs. Julia Watt, who lived at 15, Chapel Street; he said he wanted the life she was leading found out and we discussed the question of terms—this document (Ex. A), dated August 11th, 1905, was drawn up in his presence—it is in my writing—he read it through afterwards, signed it, and left the office—he came back about twenty minutes afterwards and made an interlineation (Read): 5, Regent Street, London, S.W., August 11th, 1905. Dear Sirs,—I hereby instruct you to take such steps as you may deem expedient to find out the mode of living of Mrs. Watt, of 15, Chapel Street, and, if possible, to induce her to make absolute the decree nisi she obtained against me, and I agree to pay you your usual charges f one guinea per each officer engaged, together with the out-of-pocket expenses, and I further agree that if you are successful in bringing about the decree nisi being made absolute and a settlement of all disputes, to pay you by way of a bonus the sum of £1,000. Yours faithfully, Hugh Watt," addressed to "Sweeney & Marshall, 5, Regent Street"—he came back and interlined the words "and a settlement of all disputes"—the bonus of £1,000 was the prisoner's own suggestion—I saw him next about 11 a.m. on August 12th at the office—he spoke of the immoral life that he said Mrs. Watt was living; that he had had a girl he was keeping and had been keeping for two years, whom he would produce at the proper time to speak as to these acts, and he likewise showed me a typewritten post card of a very scurrilous nature which he said had evidently come from Mrs. Watt and we must find out, as he would lock her up—I do not think he said anything about litigation on that occasion—he told us we were to watch her and find out the character of the people who visited her; that we were to get in with the servants—we did watch her—shortly after he left, we got a telephone message from him—he seemed very excited and said that Lady Violet Beauchamp had been assaulted by hooligans just off Sloane Street at the instigation of Mrs. Watt and we really must do something in the matter—I told him he must leave the matter in our hands and we would do our best, and if he did not approve of what we were doing he could take his business elsewhere—he said, "Come and see me at 72, Knightsbridge, at 9.30 on Monday"—I kept that appointment and he told me that I must see Mrs. Watt, and gave me £10 in gold for expenses—I did not give him any receipt—nothing else took place at that interview—about 3.30 p.m. on that day I called at 15, Chapel Street, which was a house to let, furnished—I was shown over the house by a servant named Maloney—I saw Mrs. Watt and had some conversation with her—about 5 p.m. the same day I saw the prisoner and told him that Mrs. Watt was very much frightened at his violent behaviour towards her on the occasion of his visit there, which was made the subject matter of the prisoner applying for a summons at Westminster—he did not say anything to that—I told him that Mrs. Watt had told me that he (the prisoner) had offered her £600 a year to give up the settlement of 1901—I do not think he said very much as to that then—the prisoner had mentioned that settlement to me before my interview with Mrs. Watt—he showed me another post card, a written one, of a scurrilous character, but not quite so bad as the first one he showed me, and he said, "Something must be done. You must really find out where these come from"—I said, "We will do our best"—he made an appointment for me to see him the next day at 72 Knightsbridge, at 5 p.m.—I went there the next day and saw him—he began talking about Mrs. Watt; he spoke of the occasion on which he had been to 15, Chapel Street, and said that during the altercation he struck Mrs. Watt over the left breast with his left arm, but that owing to the muscles of his left arm having been hurt or strained he was not; able to strike an effective blow; that he swung round to give her the right and finish her, and just then Mary Maloney came in at the doorway—he then asked me if I could recommend him a solicitor who could deal with these post cards—he said he had been robbed by solicitors, and mentioned various names—he mentioned that he had given Bernard Abrahams £2,000 to murder Mrs. Watt; that he, Abrahams, and two other men went down to where Mrs. Watt was then living, but at the last moment they showed the white feather and stuck to the £2,000—I recommended him a solicitor—he said he would do for her and produced a wooden case from a roll top desk, which he unscrewed and produced a bottle containing some white liquid, which he said was chloroform—he removed the stopper, but I did not smell it—he then said, "You get Mrs. Watt to come here. We will get her downstairs, where I have a room prepared. I will give her a push, chloroform her, and when it is all over you are to go for Dr. Francis Blake, of Putney, who will certify death to be heart disease"—he said that Mrs. Watt had suffered from a weak heart—I said, "You must be mad," and at once left the place—before I left he said he would come and see me the following day—on August 16th, the following day, he telephoned me he was coming and would arrive at 11 a.m., which he did—he came to fetch the post cards which were in my possession; he only stayed a minute or two, and said, "I am coming to see you to-morrow at 11 o'clock to get the matter settled up"—on that day I seriously thought over what he said the day before, and on the next morning, August 17th, I gave some instructions to McKenna and Drummond, who were in my employ—the prisoner came about 11 a.m. into my private room—he said he had been dining in Devonshire Place the evening before and he passed the house in Chapel Street, and that it looked very dirty—I said, "Have you thought matters over? Is there no other way out of it?—he replied, "No; we must snuff her out. You get her to come to 72, Knightsbridge; we will talk about the letters and induce her to come downstairs. I will give her a push, chloroform her, and when all is over you are to go for Dr. Francis Blake, of Putney, and I will have her cremated within twenty-four hours, and I will give you the sum of £5,000"—he further said, "We will pour essence of peppermint between her teeth to take away the smell of the chloroform"—I said, "Have you told Dr. Blake about this?" and he said, "Yes, and Dr. Blake replied, 'I will not have anything to do with it. You must not have anything to do with it, but you must get another man.' You must get Maloney to take her discharge and help us"—I said, "You must give me twenty-four hours to think the matter over, and I will give you an answer, yes or no"—he went without making any further appointment—a minute or two afterwards I went to Scotland Yard alone and saw Acting Superintendent Fox, getting there about 11.45 a.m., perhaps a little earlier than that; it was 11.45 a.m. when I saw Mr. Fox—I had an interview with him—I saw another officer who took my statement down—I left with Sergeants Ball and Fowler shortly after 12, and went to 5, Regent Street, with them, remaining in their company till we got to Marlborough Street Police Court—on arriving there, I should think about 1.30 p.m., we found the Magistrate had adjourned and we waited until he sat again—the information which had been prepared and signed by me at Scotland Yard was laid before him and I swore to it—this was before 2 p.m., before the public had come back into Court—the Magistrate intimated that a warrant would be granted and we waited till it was made out—I went back to the office, arriving there about 2.30 p.m.—I was told that the prisoner had telephoned me when I arrived at the office from Scotland Yard with the officers before going to Marlborough Street—I had a communication with the prisoner on the telephone, when he said, "Send me in your account. I am going to the country. I will see the solicitor about the letters"—I asked him to come and see me at 5 p.m.—then I went to Marlborough Street—on coming back from Marlborough Street I did not have any further telephonic communication from him—he did not come at 5 p.m.—this bottle (Produced) is very like the one the prisoner showed to me, and this is the case (Produced) in which it was—from the time that the prisoner spoke to me in my private room on August 17th until I got to Scotland Yard after he left, I had no communication with either Drummond or McKenna.

Cross-examined. I am employed to find and search out matters and I am paid so much a day per man, which is the ordinary rule—I do not think it is to our interest to keep the inquiry going as long as possible; we like to finish our inquiries as soon as we possibly can; we are looking to future recommendation—we are never paid by results or by a lump sum; this bonus was quite an unusual thing; we did not ask for it—Mr. Sweeney had been at Scotland Yard; he came to me at the beginning of last year, two or three months after he left there—I suggested to the prisoner drawing up the agreement—I left out about the settlement of disputes, but he corrected it afterwards—he did not take it away or make a copy of it—he came back and said he would like to make one or two alterations, and I at once handed it to him—we should require to employ men to find out Mrs. Watt's mode of living—I quite understood that his desire at that time was to have a friendly settlement of all the disputes—when asking him to sign it I did not say it was the usual agreement, nor did Mr. Sweeney, who was there at the time, say so to my knowledge—Mr. Sweeney went away directly afterwards to the country, where he had a case—I did not telephone to the prisoner on that same day after he had signed the agreement that I had heard of or knew that there was a board outside 15, Chapel Street, saying that it was to let to my knowledge—it is absolutely impossible for me to say whether I did do so; I have no recollection of it—how I knew about the board was that Mr. Watt told me—I will not swear I did not, because I cannot recollect it at this length of time; to the best of my belief I did not—I telephoned to him that Mrs. Watt was going to Ostend, and he asked me to come and see him the next morning—he did not say that he did not believe it and give me forty-eight hours to finish my inquiries and negotiations, or the matter was ended, nor words to that effect—I swear I did not call upon him in the evening, nor did I have any conversation with him whatever—there was a conversation on the 12th at my office about Ostend; he did not say he did not believe my story about Mrs. Watt going to Ostend; he said he did not think it very likely—he did not know more than I did except that I reported to him that she was going to Ostend—I said that I would want two men to follow her if she went—I asked him how long she generally stayed away and he said, "Two months," and wanted to know what the cost would be—I said, "Somewhere about £250 if she stayed two months"—I did not say I wanted £250 for the men to follow her to Ostend—he did not reply that his solicitor, Mr. Bicknell, had advised him to pay me only out-of-pocket expenses; he never mentioned Mr. Bicknell's name to me—he did not say that he would give me £10 for my out-of-pocket expenses and that I could either take that or go about my business, nor did he say that to me when he gave me the £10 on the 11th—he did not say either on the 12th or the 14th that he would give me forty-eight hours to make some progress with my negotiations or I could go about my business; he never used such words to me on any occasion—he did not name a time within which I was to do something tangible or go about my business—at no time did he express dissatisfaction with my conduct in the matter—we did not look upon the agreement as a very valuable business; we get so much of it—I suggest that with that document in my possession on the 12th I suggested to the prisoner that he could take his business away if he was not satisfied with what we were doing—it was not in consequence of his having complained that I said that—I did not look upon his saying that we really must do something as a complaint—when we are instructed we usually have matters left in our hands to deal with and we do the best we can for our clients—Mrs. Watt never went to Ostend to my knowledge—I did not tell the prisoner who it was that told me she was going—I did not say to him on August 14th that I had now discovered that she was not going to Ostend, but was going on a motor trip; I am quite sure I never said anything about a motor trip to him—I never told him that I had discovered she was not going to Ostend—I did not tell him on the 14th that I had been all over the house with Mrs. Watt; I told him I had been all over the house with Maloney—I got in as an intending tenant—I did not tell him that I was very hopeful of success in my mission after having seen Mrs. Watt; I said I was not very hopeful—I certainly did not tell him that I thought I had been so successful that had I had the agreement I could have induced her to sign it—there was nothing said about the agreement that day—on no date was anything said between the prisoner and myself about an agreement for Mrs. Watt to sign—he did not produce to me a document which he had drawn up and wanted me to get Mrs. Watt to sign, nor did he tell me the terms of it—I understood what he was proposing was that Mrs. Watt should agree to accept £600 a year from the present time in lieu of her reversionary interest under this deed, but he never said anything to me about it—I understood he wanted everything settled—I got the idea that the prisoner was going to offer Mrs. Watt £600 a year from Mrs. Watt herself, and she said she would have nothing whatever to do with it—when he gave me the £10 he said, "You will want some money to go on with"; he volunteered it without any request from me—Mrs. Watt never complained of having been assaulted by the prisoner—I did not tell the prisoner on the 15th that I had just come from Chapel Street, where I had had another interview with Mrs. Watt—I did not tell him that I had had a conversation with her regarding their differences and that I thought I would succeed in time—I never led him to believe that I had any hope of success; I led him to believe it was a very difficult matter owing to Mrs. Watt having said that she would have nothing to do with the £600 a year he had offered her—on that day he did not say that he did not believe a word of my stories about her movements; or that he had no confidence whatever in my statements, and as I had nothing tangible to report he did not wish to see me again—he did not open a desk for the purpose of showing me the document he wanted Mrs. Watt to sign—I never saw any such document—I think the desk was in fact open—I did not take up the wooden bottle and say, "What is this?" and he did not say, "That is chloroform which Lady Violet or I have used for some medical purposes"—I had certainly not up to that date led him to believe that I was a person prepared to carry out murders at short notice, nor have I advertised that; I never advertise at all—I certainly say that, without ascertaining what sort of person I was, he suddenly proposed that I should help him in murdering Mrs. Watt—I did not wait long enough to inform Mrs. Watt or the authorities—I did not on the 16th telephone to him that I had important information to give him and ask him to call upon me—I think it was on the 17th that I asked him whether he had said anything to Dr. Blake; it was the last part of the conversation that he told me Dr. Blake had refused to have anything to do with it—in the same conversation he told me to go to Dr. Blake, but admitted nevertheless when I asked him, that Dr. Blake had said he would have nothing whatever to do with it—when he called upon me on the 17th he did not say, "Have you anything to report?" nor words to that effect; nor did he say, "As far as you are concerned, I suppose you can do nothing further in the matter"—I did not make any reference to a motor-car in reference to Mrs. Watt, nor did the prisoner say, after some discussion. "I have no faith in you at all, and your statements are the purest rubbish," and I did not reply, "Very well, you shall have your bill made out"—nothing was said about my bill whilst he was talking to me—he did not leave the room very angry—up to that time he never said if he was pleased or otherwise; he certainly did appear quite satisfied with what I was doing for him—I did not make a note of the conversation—I am quite certain he used the expression that the curtains seemed very dirty when he had passed Chapel Street—He left a few minutes' after 11—when I returned to the office from Scotland Yard it would be somewhere about 1 p.m.—my clerk then informed me that the prisoner had telephoned; he may have telephoned at 11.45 a.m., but I do not know—my clerk did not give me any message; he simply said the prisoner had rung me up—when the prisoner telephoned me I understood he was making an end of all the business, as he was going into the country, and for no other reason—Drummond has not been well for a long time; he has been away from the office about six weeks—I gave instructions to McKenna to take written notes of what he had heard that he thought important—I did say at the Police Court, "McKenna had no instructions to make a report, but he had a report ready when I came, back"—there is a difference between notes and a report; McKenna put his notes in the form' of a full report—I take it that a note is a record of something that took place at a time and a report would be made up from those notes afterwards—McKenna made the report on his own initiative—I never saw the notes which he made, only the report—I do not know if the notes are in existence—I did not instruct Drummond to make notes—from first to last I never asked the prisoner for money on account of this business—I had been engaged in this kind of work ten to eleven years, starting by myself as "H. Marshall"—in 1900 I sold my business to a limited company—I had 500 shares, the subscribed capital of the company being £1,000, subscribed by a man named Hanmar, a great friend of mine, and a very wealthy man—he had the particulars of the business from me and he was very glad to subscribe to it—the object of the company was to carry on the various objects mentioned in the Articles of Association, such as financial business, detective work, collection of debts and so on—lending money may have been in the Articles—three years afterwards it went into voluntary liquidation with no debts, the object being that I wanted the thing to be carried on under my own name and Mr. Sweeney's—Mr. Sweeney preferred not to come in when it was a company—Mr. Hanmar has still got his £1,000 in the business; he did not ask for it back—October, 1904, may have been the date of the liquidation—Mr. Sweeney was not in partnership with me in the first place; alter the liquidation he went into partnership with me—I did not tell the prisoner that Mrs. Watt had telegraphed me in the name of Kerrlane, Hanger Lane, Ealing—Kerrlane is the name of the lady I am living with at Hanger Lane, Ealing—I did not swear at the Police Court that she was my wife—I did not swear, "It was in 1896 or 1897 that the divorce in my own case was made absolute"—I swore that it was not made absolute—my deposition was read over to me and I signed it—I did not swear that in spite of its being on my deposition; the word "not" must have been left out and unnoticed by me when I signed the deposition—I said at the Police Court, "My former wife has died"—I swear I do not know that she is alive now—I also said, "And I am living with my second wife and not free to marry. The intervention of the Queen's Proctor was successful but my wife afterwards died"—I have not seen her for a very long time—I saw her last in the beginning of last year—the ground for my swearing my wife had died was an anonymous communication I received, saying that she was dead, at the beginning of this year, which I tried to verify—I did not keep it—I showed it to no one—I made all the inquiries I could think of, but I could not trace her—I believe she has been living ever since with the man on whose account I obtained the decree nisi, but I do not. know of my own knowledge—I have seen that man and conversed with him on the subject of my wife—I have asked to see her, but I have not seen her—he has not told me that she is alive, nor has he told me she is dead; I have never asked him—it was only the other day that I saw him—I did ask him whether she was alive and he told me she was alive and living with him—when I said that I did not know that she was alive, I meant of my own knowledge; I have not seen her—I believe she is alive from what you have just said—I asked this man one simple question: whether she was alive or dead, and he did not answer me—I asked him if she was alive, could I see her, and he did not answer—I did not ask him whether she had been subpoenaed to appear here—that is my wife (Pointing); I do not know where she has been living—I was not living in adultery at the time I obtained this decree nisi from my wife—the Queen's Proctor intervened on the ground that I was living with a Mrs. Williamson, and the Court was satisfied that that was true—Mrs. Williamson was the widow of a clergyman and possessed of considerable property—I became acquainted with her before January, 1899; I was carrying on this business at Regent Street at the time—she was brought to me by a friend to make some inquiries with regard to her property—soon after I promised her marriage in the event of my getting my divorce—I did not live with her on the strength of that promise—after I failed in the divorce I lived with her at 35, Lad-broke Gardens, but never before—I do not remember receiving any notice that the Queen's Proctor was going to intervene—I did not get it until the last moment, when we were in Court for the purpose of the decree absolute—I did not fight the case, because I did not want to bring this lady's name in—I cannot tell you what the Queen's Proctor alleged against me—I may have instructed a solicitor to write to the Queen's Proctor saying I did not intend to have the decree made absolute; it is such a long time ago that I do not remember—I did not know that the allegation was that at the time the decree nisi was obtained I was living in adultery with this lady—I knew that the charge was adultery, but I did not know the time—I lived openly with Mrs. Williamson after the decree nisi was rescinded—I did not live with her secretly or in any way before—she came down to live with me at Torrington; I did not induce her to—at my inducement she purchased two houses called "The Warren" and "The Lodge"—she provided some of the money for it—I provided £300 or £400—the conveyances were taken in my own name—I had a very good business in Marlborough Street as my livelihood—it is quite right that I had no means of livelihood then; I had been very ill from fever—I was living on this lady until I could get something to do—I opened a banking account in my own name with some of her money—I has none of my own then—I did not induce her to raise money for my benefit—I know she did raise some money—I think in 1900, soon after, she was obliged to sell "The Warren" in order to secure an overdraft at the bank—I think I had left by June 30th, 1900, when the account was closed with a debit balance—I cannot recollect whether I knew at the time I left that the account was overdrawn—I transferred everything back to Mrs. Williamson, deeds and conveyances—this is a cheque given to me by her for £2,000 to invest (Produced)—I invested it in a theatrical company—the money was lost—she gave me a further cheque for £200 on May 5th, 1899, to pay some accounts of hers in connection with the estate—she made the cheque out to me because there were a great many accounts to be settled up in reference to her late husband's debts—I swear it was used for her purposes, and not mine—I left in the middle of 1900, July or August—I did not leave in consequence of her discovering that I was carrying on an intrigue or intrigues with other women while I was living with her—she did accuse me of it, but I was not doing so—she did discover some letters, but they were old ones—she did not turn me out, nor request me to go—I thought I had much rather go—I left everything behind; I did not want to take anything with me—I did not leave her practically denuded of all her property—I had not had it; she had spent a considerable sum, but not for my benefit—I was not living on-her; I had certain moneys of my own—her solicitors were Grossman, Pritchard & Co., and I placed myself in communication with them to restore the property to her—I swear I went to see them—to the best of my belief I went voluntarily to them for the purpose of offering to restore this property to her, but it is a long time ago, and I suffered from brain fever; I will not swear to it—the solicitors called upon me to assign over to her the conveyances of "The Warren" and "The Lodge"—I do not recollect pledging one of these properties for the purpose of borrowing money; I may have—now you have mentioned the Standard Assurance Co., I remember having borrowed £175 from them—I believe Mrs. Williamson had to pay that amount—subject to that I reconveyed it—I do not recollect refusing to reconvey this property to her, nor demanding a sum of £250—they gave me voluntarily £250—Mr. Pritchard told me if I reconveyed he would give me £250; I had given up my business in Marlborough Street—he gave it to me out of the estate—I will not swear that I did not refuse £50 and say I would take nothing else than £250, because I do not recollect it—I do not recollect calling at their office on September 18th, 1900, and stating that I would go down to Torrington and create a disturbance unless arrangements were come to forthwith for the payment of this money; I cannot swear anything, but I am perfectly certain it did not take place—I did not go on to say that under any circumstances I would take steps to have the guardian-ship of the children changed—Mrs. Williamson had children of her own by her first husband, of whom she was guardian under his will—I never said that unless she paid me this money I would make public her relations with me and so deprive her of the guardianship of these children—nothing to my recollection, was said about the guardianship of the children—I know that she had to pay me £250 in order to get her property reconveyed to her—I did not have £4,000 or £5,000 out of her—I do not recollect having some of her securities in my name besides the deeds—I did not threaten the solicitors about the guardianship of the children, nor did I tell them I knew something that would deprive her of her guardian-ship—I cannot explain anything that Mr. Pritchard wrote to Mrs. Williamson (Extract of letter from Mr. Pritchard to Mrs. Williamson read: "As regards the guardianship, I can only say if he can prove what he says he can, you would be deprived of the guardianship as a matter of course, and I think the fact of your association with him would of itself be sufficient")—I did not tell the solicitors that I could prove something that would deprive her of the guardianship—("It is mainly to your interest, as I said before, to come to some amicable arrangement. If you do not there will be a public scandal")—I cannot explain that; I was not threatening to make a public scandal—I received this letter on September 22nd, 1900, from Mr. Pritchard (Stating that Mrs. Williamson was almost without means, but that she would, upon his (Marshall) signing the document making over the houses to her, authorise him to give him (Marshall) a cheque for £50, and, should the houses sell at the amount anticipated, she would be willing to give him a further sum, making up the amount he (Marshall) mentioned")—I see that in the first place she tried to induce me to accept £50; I should not have recollected it if you had not read that letter—I never mentioned any amount—I do not know that I ever wrote to tell him that I had not done so—I cannot give any explanation of his writing that letter to me—I think if you read a letter from him to me afterwards it would put a very different complexion on your questions to me; I have lost it—it is in Mr. Pritchard's letter-book—I cannot recollect the date of it.

Friday, December 15th.

H. A. MARSHALL (Further cross-examined), I obtained a sum of £350 from Mrs. Williamson for the purpose of lending it to a Mrs. Baghouse—when the question of the settlement of all matters between me and Mrs. Williamson arose I said that I did not know where Mrs. Baghouse was to be found; I did not know then—I do not recollect that at that time I gave an undertaking to procure repayment of that sum from Mrs. Baghouse and to pay it over to Mrs. Williamson—possibly when I received the £250 I signed an undertaking beginning in these words: "I will use my best endeavours to procure payment of the £350 due by Mrs. Baghouse and to pay same over to Mrs. Williamson or her solicitor"—I never repaid that or any portion of it; I have not had it from Mrs. Baghouse—I know where she is now; I know where she was eighteen months ago; I do not know at the present moment—the last address I knew her at was in Ealing; I think it was Castle House, Castle Hill—I may have at the time of the settlement signed a letter to be handed to Mrs. Williamson withdrawing any charges of immorality or misconduct against her; I probably did—I was not in pecuniary difficulties in 1904 and up to the beginning of 1905, and a number of bankruptcy notices were not served against me to my recollection—I know there was a dispute with Messrs. Pedley & Mortimer about the rent of some offices at Fleet Street, but I do not remember a bankruptcy notice, but I will not swear to it—it resulted in proceedings against me—there was certainly not a bankruptcy notice served against me by Frederick James Marshall for £321 19a. 9d. I do not know anybody of that name—there was a bankruptcy notice nerved on me by Cohen & Co. for £59. but it was never proceeded with—I know the Pot Pourri, Limited, threatened a bankruptcy notice against me, but I do not remember having one—this was all in 1903 or 1904—I am not often in communication with the police I know a great number of the police personally, but not before Mr. Sweeney came to me—I never saw Inspector Hayter until I saw him at Marlborough Street—with regard to what I said yesterday about Mr. Watt telling me of his offer of £600 a year, the first conversation that arose about the £600 and giving up the settlement of 1901 came from Mrs. Watt on Monday, August 14th, and that same evening I reported to the prisoner that conversation; it was then that he told me that he was prepared to give her £600 a year if she would give up the settlement—when I said yesterday, "He never said anything to me about it," I took the question as being previous to Mrs. Watt having spoken to me about the £600.

Re-examined. I say in my deposition, "I did not tell the defendant that I had divorced my wife and that the King's Proctor had intervened; I never spoke to him about that. It is true that I divorced my wife and that the King's Proctor did intervene"—I and my wife parted fifteen years ago—a little boy I had of six years of age died and on the boy's death bed, when I was very much cut up, she confessed to me that the child was not mine, and told me who the father was—then I left—I had a daughter by the marriage also, who is with me now—my wife went to live with a Mr. Charles Cary; he was not the man who seduced my wife—neither written nor verbally did Mr. Pritchard make any charge against me of demanding £250 or that I would make a scandal—there is another letter, which was the final one from Mr. Pritchard, which I have lost; I am afraid I cannot say the contents, but I know from my point of view it was very satisfactory—the theatrical scheme I invested the £2,000 in was Pot Pourri, Limited, at the Avenue Theatre—it was invested in my name—I took shares—£1,100 was invested in that way and the rest Mrs. Williamson spent on jewellery from a Mr. Joseph, a jeweller in Westbourne Grove, which she kept—I think the banking account was first of all started at Bideford and transferred from Bideford to Torrington—I cannot say whether at Torrington I paid in money of my own or at Bideford; I certainly did at one of those places—I paid in one sum of £150 at Bideford; I cannot recollect the other sums; I left all my papers behind and I had not a chance of referring to the bank books or anything else—when the £250 was paid to me by Messrs. Crossman, Pritchard & Co. I had made no threats; I believe I made a claim for it—I was brought in contact with Mr. Sweeney over a case that I did for the Government at Gibraltar in connection with certain insurance frauds—prior to August last I had never heard of Thomas Worley or James Shuttle—I had certainly not either from Sweeney or from any other person connected with Scotland Yard learnt the contents of any documents which were at Scotland Yard prior to August.

By the COURT. I employed two men to watch Mrs. Watt for five or six days—I did not send in any bill to the prisoner—he would not owe me much, having paid me £10—we were to get what we could in the way of being able to throw stones at Mrs. Watt and at the same time to try and negotiate with her—I did not connect the two, nor did the prisoner—he did not say that watching her mode of life would help him to bring about a settlement—I do not know how they were to work together—I do not suggest that the prisoner knew I had gone to Scotland Yard when he telephoned to my clerk—tins is one of the cheques which were drawn to pay Mr. Joseph for the jewellery for £575, but further amounts than this were paid.

 JOSEPH MCKENNA. I have lived at 4, Millard Road, Stoke Newington, but I now live at 74, North Grove, Dalston—I am an assistant to Messrs. Sweeney & Marshall—I have been a police officer, and, when I retired, a sergeant in the Metropolitan Police for some twenty-five years—I entered the employ of Messrs. Sweeney & Marshall in July of last year—on the morning of August 17th Mr. Marshall gave me some instructions, Drummond, a fellow employee, being present at the time—at 11 a.m. I saw the prisoner at the office; he was shown into Mr. Marshall's room—I then called to Drummond and went to the door of the room and listened to the conversation from within—I heard the prisoner say, "I was dining at Buckingham Gate last night, and I passed by the house twice; it looks very dull"—he mentioned the address of the house as 15, Chapel Street—Mr. Marshall said, "I have been thinking over what you said to me. Is there no other way out of it, Mr. Watt?" and the prisoner said, "No, no other way, only to snuff her out"—Mr. Marshall said, "How do you propose to do it?" and the prisoner said, "You induce her to come up to my house; we can talk over the post cards. You can help me get her downstairs. I can do the job with the chloroform. When all is over we can send for Dr. Blake, who will certify death from heart disease, and then I shall give you £5,000"—Mr. Marshall said, "Have you spoken to Dr. Blake about this, Mr. Watt?" and the prisoner said, "Yes, I have, but he says that he cannot do it and that I must not do it; I must not do it; I must get a strange man. You can get Maloney to take her discharge and come to my house, and she can assist us in the matter"—Mr. Marshall then said. "Very well, Mr. Watt, give me twenty-four hours to think it over"—I heard a movement inside and we both of us came from the door very quickly—shortly after, the prisoner came out and left the offices—Mr. Marshall came out almost immediately afterwards—coming out he said to the office boy, "I am going to Scotland Yard"—he did not say a word to me with reference to what had taken place in the room, or to Drummond either—after he left I sat down and made notes of what I had heard—I told Drummond to go into another room [MR. AVORY objected that what the witness said to Drummond was inadmissible, but the COURT held it was admissible, since it was a command]—I told him to make his own notes independently of mine of what he had heard, and he went—Mr. Marshall came back to the office with Sergeants Fowler and Ball—up to the time of their return I had had no communication with Drummond—I, Marshall and the two sergeant then went to Marlborough Street and an information was prepared to which I swore—my notes that I had made were taken as the sworn information—they were kept at the Police Court.

Cross-examined. I placed myself in a standing-up position against the door, and I saw Drummond go down on his knees to listen at the bottom of the door—neither of us have ever been asked to do this sort of thing before—I made notes in my own room just adjoining—I made no rough notes at all at the door—Mr. Marshall could not have said that I made out notes which have been destroyed or which were lost and that I only had a report—Drummond made notes also, but not at the door—I saw him writing it and I saw it there after he left—I did not see what became of it when Sergeant Fowler came; I left almost immediately with them—Drummond did not go to Marlborough Street—I said at the Police Court, "Drummond made out one. Drummond handed his written report to Sergeant Fowler. I saw Drummond's report lying on the desk, but did not read it"—it must have been a week later that Drummond handed that report to Sergeant Fowler; it was not that morning—I did not mean to convey that he handed it to Sergeant Fowler that morning—I heard the prisoner getting off his chair, so I hurriedly went away from the door—a minute might have elapsed from the time I left the door before he came out; more conversation had taken place, no doubt, because I could hear talking, but I could not understand it, having come away from the door—the last thing I heard was, "Well, give me twenty-four hours to think it over"—I am quite sure that I heard "Dr, Blake" and no Christian name—I did not hear any expression about getting Mrs. Watt cremated—I think I must say I omitted to put in that I heard about pouring essence of peppermint between her teeth; it occurs to me that I did hear that—I will rot swear I heard it; I have some slight recollection that it was said; I want to be as careful as I can—I have read in the papers that the prisoner did say that, but I do not wish to swear to it myself—there is not a word about it either in my evidence at the Police Court, or here, nor about giving her a push—I did not hear anything about the curtains looking dirty—the prisoner was there about five minutes—after leaving the police I went to Slater's, being with them a year and eight months; I left when the trouble commenced, or was on—I cannot swear whether I went downstairs between the time of the prisoner going away and Mr. Marshall coming back with Fowler and Ball—I was there when they came back—if I had gone out, I had returned—the prisoner came at a minute or two to 11—I did not go out at the same time as Mr. Marshall—I cannot remember whether I went out afterwards—soon after 11 I generally go out to have a little refreshment, but I do not remember—I received a telephone message from the prisoner about 12, or after—I cannot say the time—it was to the effect that we were to send in our account, as he was going into the country—he asked me if Mr. Marshall was there—I said, "No," and he said, "When he comes back tell him to send in his bill at once, as I am going away in the country this afternoon"—the office is on the second floor—the prisoner had gone down the stairs before Mr. Marshall came out of the room.

Re-examined. The prisoner left about 11.5, and Mr. Marshall came out one or two minutes afterwards in just enough time for the prisoner to get down the stairs—I cannot say whether the prisoner went away in a cab or walked—I do not know whether he telephoned from home or some-where else—it would be about noon when he telephoned; that is as near as I can fix it.

(Drummond's deposition, read): Henry Drummond, on oath, saith as follows:—"Of 96, Hollis Street, Dalston, clerk, employed by Messrs. Sweeney & Marshall, 5, Regent Street. I know the firm was engaged on some inquiries of defendant, whom I knew at the office as "the Captain." On the morning of August 17th Marshall gave me certain instructions. Later on that morning defendant came to the office. He got there about 11 a.m. He was shown into Mr. Marshall's room. The door was shut. I laid on the floor and listened beneath the door. McKenna stood at the door and listened. I heard defendant commence the conversation by saying that he had been dining out at Buckingham Gate and that he had passed by the front of the house twice and the front looked very dull and dirty. Marshall said, 'I have been thinking over what you have said; don't you think there is some way out of it?' Mr. Watt said, 'The only way is to snuff her out.' Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Watt in what way he proposed to do it. Mr. Watt said, 'You must induce her to my house; I will speak to her about some post cards. You can then help her to the room and I will finish the job with some chloroform on a pocket handkerchief.' Mr. Watt also stated that he could then call in Dr. Blake. Mr. Marshall asked Mr. Watt if he mentioned the matter to Dr. Blake before and Mr. Watt said, "Yes, but the doctor said neither I nor he (the doctor) must do it; it must be done by some other man. He then said, 'When all is over I will pay you £5,000. He said Mr. Marshall must get Miss Maloney to take her discharge and get her to my house and she can assist us. Mr. Marshall said, 'Very well, you must give me twenty-four hours' notice to think this over.' That is all I heard. I thought the conversation then ended and I moved from the door, so did McKenna. I moved to a separate room and wrote out my statement; I had been instructed by Mr. McKenna to make notes. I did not see either defendant or Mr. Marshall leave. Later on two police officers came to the office, with Marshall, about 2 p.m., I believe. I had finished my notes. McKenna did not see it; Marshall did not see it until the Friday. I handed it to the police officers on Saturday when they came for it. Cross-examined. I did not give my report to the police officers on Thursday because I was not asked for it. I did not leave it lying on my desk; McKenna could not see it. If he said he did, that is not accurate; I carried it in my pocket until the Saturday. Marshall did not ask me for my report when he returned; I told him I had made one. This case was in Court on Friday before I produced my report. I had seen and read the case in the newspapers before I produced my report. I have been with Marshall since fourteen years of age. I am clerk. I am employed on 'Confidential Inquiries' when we are a bit busy and pushed. I listened at the door, lying flat on my stomach. This is the first time I have been so employed; we have never had a case like this before in the office. I did not at any time see McKenna's report and have not seen it now. Marshall told me that defendant had made a proposition, but did not tell me what it was. Re-examined. My report was ready at 2 p.m. on the Thursday and I handed it to the police the first time they asked me on the Saturday. (Signed) H. Drummond."

 MARY FRANCES MALONEY. I am still employed by Mrs. Watt as a parlour-maid at 15, Chapel Street—in August there was a notice up at the house that it was to let, furnished or unfurnished—Marshall came on Monday, August 14th, and wished to be shown over the house and I showed him over—afterwards he saw Mrs. Watt and had a conversation with her, which I did not hear—I showed him into where she was—between 3 and 4 p.m. on August 2nd the' prisoner came when Mrs. Watt was not at home—he asked for her, and I said she was out, but I expected she would be back by 7 that evening—he returned at 7 p.m., when Mrs. Watt had just come in—he saw her—I did not hear what they said—I should think the interview between them lasted twenty or thirty minutes—between 9 and 10 a.m. on August 4th he called again—I did not let him in; I saw him in the dining-room—I was shut out at the back and he opened the window for me—Mrs. Watt was informed that he was there, waiting to see her and she came down immediately and saw him—they were together about fifteen minutes; it may be more—I went upstairs and left them in the morning-room—he came upstairs, calling, "Mary! Mary! they are, going to get the police to put me out"—I had just come out of Mrs. Watt's bedroom and kept the handle of the door in my hand—he asked me if that was Mrs. Watt's bedroom, and I said, "Yes"—I kept my hand on the handle of the door and he went down again, I following him—he passed along the hall first and then he went into the dining-room or the morning-room; I cannot say which now—Mrs. Watt had left the house then—I followed the prisoner into the morning-room—I cannot tell you the conversation between us, because it was not very nice—he made mention of his wife, not in a nice way—in the course of the conversation he said that he was a bit of a pugilist and he could knock Mrs. Watt out in ten seconds; I cannot remember exactly what he did say—he said that she had been turned from Victoria station and he asked me about her health and I said her health was all right—he said he would have her in Pentonville in a short time—I cannot remember any more—he had a paper in his hand and he purported to read to me the contents of it—I said to him that it was a pity that they did not come to some agreement and he said, "Yes, it is a pity, but it is her fault"—he said she would not settle about this affair; I did not know what the affair was—he said if she settled it, he would allow her—600 a year—he did not say what the affair was, but I had an idea what he meant—I had never seen him until I saw him on August 2nd—he said if I had any influence with that woman would I try and use it in getting her to try and settle—he said that he would advise me to leave the house, as he meant to make it hot for Mrs. Watt—he was there some time when the telephone bell rang—before that happened Mrs. Watt returned to the front door and told me to remain in the room with the prisoner; she had no hat on—she may have been twenty minutes gone; I did not see her go out—she did not come in; she went across to the public library again in Chapel Street—a few minutes after the telephone bell rang, and I answered it and found that it was Mrs. Watt's solicitor, who asked me if Mrs. Watt was there—I said, "No, but Mr. Watt is here. Do you want to speak to him?"—he said, "Yes, send Mr. Watt to the telephone"—I handed the receiver to the prisoner—at first he refused to take it—he asked me who was there and I told him—after a bit he took it from me and he held a conversation through the telephone—I think it was Mr. O'Malley at the other end—I heard what the prisoner said—after the conversation was over he had a few seconds' conversation with me, and he walked up and down the hall—he stayed a few minutes at the front door and after a bit went away—I saw nothing more of him until at Marlborough Street—his manner that morning was very excited.

Cross-examined. I did not know there had been a violent scene between them on August 4th, because I went upstairs—I did not hear loud voices, because I was two storeys above—when I saw the prisoner afterwards he said that she had pushed him, and he appeared very excited and angry I—I saw in the papers that he applied at the Police Court for a summons for assault—I remember now that the prisoner never told me she had pushed him; I learnt of that from the papers—he called me "Mary" because he heard Mrs. Watt calling me "Mary"—I am generally called "Mary" in the house—I certainly do not expect to be called "Miss Maloney"; not in my position, anyway—as far as I know, when the prisoner saw Mrs. Watt at 7 p.m. on August 2nd it was a perfectly friendly meeting—he went away quietly—the paper that he had in his hand on August 4th was like that (Notepaper produced)—I did not handle it; he read it to me; at least, he made an attempt to read it; he read part of it, I believe—I would recognise it if I saw the words of it—this is not what he read to me (Paper produced)—he never said anything about 1901—he said something about paving Mrs. Watt £600 a year, but not for life—I understood that was to settle the affair—I did not see him try to assault her—there is no truth in the suggestion that I prevented it—I never came in at the door until Mrs. Watt had left on the morning of the 4th.

 JOHN FRENCH BLAKE. I am a registered medical practitioner, of Wurther Road, Putney—I have known the prisoner about three years—he has never been a patient of mine, although I attended him on two occasions for his usual medical attendant—I have attended Lady Violet Beauchamp for two or three years, the last time being July 17th and the first March 30th, 1903—never at any time have I prescribed chloroform for her, or essence of peppermint—I remember seeing the prisoner on July 17th at 72, Knightsbridge, where Lady Violet was living—I gave him some chloroform in the winter of last year, I think it was March; he called and asked me to let him have a little for experimental purposes; he did not say what they were—I gave him this bottle in this case—as far as I can judge, it contains just about the quantity that I gave him, about two ounces—it was a gift on my part—I never gave him any other but that—this bottle contains chloroform, and this one evidently essence of pepper-mint—I saw these bottles before the Magistrate—chloroform is very dif fusible and gives off an unmistakable smell—the effect of the essence of peppermint would be to drown to a certain extent the smell of the chloroform—essence of peppermint also has an unmistakable odour.

Cross-examined. A very great number of people keep essence of pepper-mint in the house—Lady Violet suffered frequently from neuralgia—she herself, or the prisoner, told me that she used chloroform on that account—I know the room called the library on the ground floor, and I have always seen Lady Violet there—I did not notice whether the desk was generally open; I think it was usually closed—I never saw my bottle of chloroform on that desk; after I handed it to the prisoner I never saw it again until at the Police Court—the prisoner never saw me on the subject of my being called in to certify that Mrs. Watt had died from heart disease; I consider it to be very unjust; he had no justification whatever to anticipate that I should associate myself with such a thing—he never consulted me at all about it—there must be a certificate by at least two medical men before any body is cremated and also with an executor or some relative.

 JOHN SWEENEY. I was at one time a detective-inspector in the Metropolitan Police, attached to Scotland Yard, leaving there on September 7th, 1903—I went into partnership with Marshall on January 1st, 1904—there was a company there—I started practically as a partner, and there was a formal partnership later—during the time I was with him I had no knowledge of the existence of any statements made by a man named Shuttle, in whatever name those statements were made—I learnt about them first from the newspaper on the morning after the proceedings at Marlborough Street Police Court.

Cross-examined. The prisoner was first introduced to me by Mr. Bicknell, a solicitor, and it was I with whom he first made arrangements for employing my firm on August 9th—I had known him by sight as a Member of Parliament—he may have known me as an officer of police; he said he did—I went away on business on August 11th for over a week and I saw nothing more of him after I met him at the office on August 11th—I introduced him to Marshall on August 9th—I was present when the agreement was signed—the prisoner went away and came back again to make some alterations, but I was not there then—Marshall drew it up.

T. B. HOUSTON (Further cross-examined). The decree filed in Marshall's case is dated December 20th, 1899—these are the allegations made by the Queen's Proctor (Alleging petitioner's adultery in June, July August, September, October and November, 1899, with Mrs. Williamson, find mentioning the various places at which the adultery had been committed)—the decree nisi was June 12th, 1900.

H. FOWLER (Recalled). I was at Scotland Yard on August 17th, when I saw Marshall about 12 a.m.—as a matter of fact, he had been there some time before—I went into Mr. Fox's room and there was a conversation between the there of us—I, with Sergeant Ball and Marshall, then went to 5, Regent Street, starting from Scotland Yard about 12.30 or 12.40 p.m., arriving there just before 1 p.m.; I should think it is about ten minutes' walk—we were there in the office about five or six minutes—if we had started from Scotland Yard at 12.30 p.m. we should have arrived in Regent Street at 12.40, and if we started at 12.40 we should have arrived at 12.50—I saw McKenna, who handed a statement to me which was incorporated into the information at Marlborough Street—I did not get any statement or notes on that visit from Drummond; I got that on the 19th, about 11 or 12 a.m.—we then proceeded straight to Marlborough Street Police Court, Marshall, McKenna, Sergeant Ball and myself—when we got there we found the Magistrate had risen and we waited until he sat again—the information of Marshall and McKenna was then put before him and a warrant was granted—about 5 p.m. that day I went to Knightsbridge, when I saw the prisoner—I stopped him and said, "We are police officers. I believe your name is Watt"—he said, "Yes" I said, "We hold a warrant for your arrest on a charge of attempting to procure one, Herbert Marshall, to commit a felony, namely, to murder your former wife"—he said, "At whose, instance is this?" and I said, "Mr. Marshall laid information before the Magistrate"—the notes I am reading from were made at the time—he said, "Ridiculous; perfectly ridiculous"—we then called a cab and conveyed him to Vine Street police station—on the way in the cab I read the warrant to him and he said, "It is absurd. If I had wanted to murder her I could have done so scores of times when she laid ill in my house. This all comes through my trying to settle matters with her. She has ruined my life and been a curse to me for years, and cost me thousands of pounds"—he was then charged at Vine Street police station, and when the charge was read over to him he said, "It is utterly untrue"—I then searched him, during which he said, "I call this d—scandalous to be treated like this on the word of a man like Marshall. I saw him this morning and we were alone. What corroboration has he got?"—I said, "I cannot answer you that," and he said, "I have paid him £10 and telephoned to him this afternoon to send in his bill"—about a minute before we left Marshall's office, somewhat before 1, some telephone communication took place—I only heard what Marshall said—he asked at my suggestion that the prisoner should be at the office at 5 p.m.—I have tried to listen through the doorway of Marshall's room when the door is closed and persons are sitting inside speaking in ordinary ones, and I find it is quite easy—it is a wooden partition with a door in the middle of it—I have got Drummond's statement that I received from him on the 19th.

Cross-examined. I met the prisoner outside his house at 72, Knightsbridge, just going in; he was coming from the direction of Brompton Road to his house when I first saw him—Marshall at the telephone said "All right," evidently in answer to something the prisoner said at the other end.

 ALFRED BALL (Sergeant, New Scotland Yard). I accompanied Sergeant Fowler from Scotland Yard to 5, Regent Street, and then to the Police Court—I was afterwards with him when the prisoner was arrested, and I agree with his account of it—on the same evening of August 17th, at 9 p.m., I went with Sergeant Fowler to 72, Knightsbridge, the address the prisoner gave, and saw Lady Violet Beauchamp—she pointed out a roll top desk to me in the front room on the ground floor—with a key which Sergeant Fowler had found in the prisoner's possession I unlocked it and on the left-hand side I found this wooden case and on the partition on the right three other bottles—there was a bottle of glycerine which has no connection with this case—they were all three wrapped in two pieces of rag, of soft material.

Cross-examined. Lady Violet said, "Those are only two pieces of my old combinations"—when Sergeant Fowler unscrewed the case containing the chloroform and smelt it he said, "It smells something like camphor,' and she said, "That is what I use," but she said nothing in reference to the other three bottles—the prisoner did not say what the key was with which I unlocked the desk—seventeen keys were taken from the prisoner—Lady Violet said, "It is camphor; that is what I use"; I am quite sure of that—I did not ask her what the other bottle was, nor did I smell it.

Re-examined. Lady Violet said she had no key to the desk—there was some money in it when I opened it, and we allowed her to take what she wanted; she took a sovereign saying she had no key to the desk.

 ALFRED EDWARD SUTTON. I am a clerk to Messrs. Gadsden & Treherne, of 28, Bedford Row, and I produce a deed of settlement, dated January 17th, 1901, between Hugh Watt, Julia Watt and George Frank Fergusson Gadsden.

 GEORGE SAUNDERS. I am reporter for "The Times" at the West-minster Police Court—I was there on August 9th when an application was made by the prisoner for process for assault against Mrs. Watt—I took notes of what he said in making the application; I have not the absolute shorthand note, but I have a transcript made from the original note at the moment—it contains nothing but what actually took place in the Court. (Read: Stating that the prisoner had applied for a summons for an alleged assault by his wife, who had divorced him; that he had called at 15, Chapel Street, Portman Square, by appointment and suggested that five years' litigation should be ended by some arrangement; that Mrs. Watt was simply "furious" and having "stampeded" up and down the room caught him by the shoulders and pushed him against the door; that she had certainly asked him to go out, and in reply to Mr. Curtis Bennet's question stated he did not think she had a right to use force against him because he was still her husband, the decree not having been made absolute; and that she said she still had a right over him and "the other woman" had not, meaning by "the other woman," the lady to whom he was then married, all the facts having been explained to the Registrar when he married her; that Mr. Curtis Bennet said he was not justified in granting a summons, since he (the prisoner) had been ordered to go)—the words in the inverted commas, "furious," "stampeded," and "the other woman," are the actual words he said.

 JOHN LIGHTFOOT. I am now undergoing a sentence of twelve months hard labour at Wormwood Scrubbs, having been sentenced at this Court for perjury—I remember on August 25th last being in Hyde Park—I was sitting on a seat—two gentlemen came along and asked me for a match—one of them was the prisoner, whom I had seen before in Glasgow—they sat down on the seat beside me and began to talk about the weather, and then the prisoner said to me, "I think you are a Scotchman"—I said, "Yes, practically of Scotch descent"—I then said, "You are Mr. Watt; I think I have seen you in Glasgow"—he said, "Yes, I was Member there"—he introduced me to his friend as "Lord Kinloch, Equerry to the King," who had been Governor of Australia when Mr. Watt was in Australia—"Lord Kinloch" said that Mr. Watt was in trouble and gave me an idea that he was charged with inciting to murder—the prisoner then asked me if I would have a drink—we went to a public-house right across the Park—on the way "Lord Kinloch" said that Lady Violet Watt was a friend of the King and he ("Lord Kinloch") was instructed by the King to get the case hushed up—in the public-house drinks were ordered—the prisoner there said that "Lord Kinloch" was arranging to get the case hushed up and they wanted a witness to give evidence, to blind the public; words to that effect—they proposed to me that I should give evidence which they would write down for me—I thought it strange, but their names fascinated me—they asked me when I went back to Yorkshire would I write a letter up to Mr. Watt and he gave me his address on a piece of paper—this is it, "H. W. 72 Knightsbridge, S. W."—I asked them what sort of letter they wanted—they said they would write me one out for me to send up to them—a letter was written in the public-house by "Lord Kinloch" at the prisoner's dictation—the draft was handed to me—I asked why I could not send it up to his solicitor—the prisoner said he would take it along to his solicitor and get him to write me the next morning after it arrived—he further said that the solicitor would ask me for a statement and they proceeded to write it out and I copied it in the public-house—I took it away with me; also their draft, but I destroyed that and only kept one copy—I cannot quite think how it arose, but I had given them my proper name as John Lightfoot; but I said I did not fancy my name being glared about before the public in a case like this, and the prisoner suggested I should take another—I suggested Battle and he suggested Norman, as it would look more Scotch, he said, so that I passed as Norman Battle—I gave him my proper address in Yorkshire and he said that I had better have two addresses—he also suggested that I should get some cards printed in London with the name on of Norman Battle and the two addresses—"Lord Kinloch" went out for about fifteen minutes—the prisoner then started to tell me all about the case—he told me that Lady Violet had, I think, £2,500 damages to pay for slander; that the former Mrs. Watt was costing him a lot of money; that Lady Violet was very friendly with King Edward; that there were letters from Lord Knollys, I think was the name; that "Lord Kinloch" was going to get the case hushed up with the Treasury; that it would be a good thing for me and that I was lucky to be in it—I do not think so now—he further said that they were going to arrange with the Treasury to get the case defended, but that at the present time it was in the hands of Mr. Palmer, but that they did not wish Mr. Palmer to know anything about my arrangement; that it would be arranged with Mr. Kennedy, the Magistrate, and someone would represent the Treasury, and would I meet Mr. Rufus Isaacs the next week—all this was said by the prisoner in the absence of the supposed "Lord Kinloch," who then returned and we three left and went back into the Park—they asked me if I had any place to go to—I said, "Not yet"—then "Lord Kinloch" said that he could give me lodgings for the night—in the public-house £18 10s. was given to me by "Lord Kinloch," who said that it was all he had on him, but that he would give me more and make it worth my while to give the evidence—we walked across the Park to Hyde Park Corner, where the prisoner left us, "Lord Kinloch" saying that he would be down at Mr. Watt's house shortly—I went with "Lord Kinloch" to one of the turnings off Edgware Road and went to a private house there—"Lord Kinloch" knocked at the door and said to the woman who opened it, "This is the gentleman I spoke to you about"—I was shown into a side room and "Lord Kinloch" went away—I left the house next morning early—on that day I went back to Yorkshire, where I have a poultry form—the following Sunday, August 27th, I wrote this letter ("Battle 1") the prisoner—I wrote it from the one given to me in the public-house—next day I received a reply from Mr. Freke Palmer (Read: Stating that the writer would be glad to receive a full statement of what the witness knew of the matter)—next day I replied (Read: Stating that the witness would on hearing, come up to London and give all details)—I had no reply to that, so wrote again—I received a reply from Mr. Palmer, and in consequence sent him this statement: "Rough statement per request. Norman Battle, of Edinburgh, saw Mr. Hugh Watt leave Mr. Marshall's office a week past Thursday, 17th August, about midday as I was waiting near by. About five minutes afterwards Marshall left the same doorway. Immediately afterwards McKenna rushed after him and joined him near me, when I overheard the following conversation take place:—McKenna: 'Be careful how you go about it. Mr. Marshall.' Marshall: 'Have no fear; nobody will believe Watt and I will taka it out of him. Fancy only £10.' McKenna: 'All right, see the thing through watt does no count for much; besides, look at the advertisement.' Marshall: 'Finish that statement you commenced yesterday, but be sure to keep a copy for me and Drummond or we are done.' McKenna: 'Do you want me to finish it now?' Marshall: 'Of course we must not make a (mess of this job or Watt will paralyse us. Back shortly. Marshall went on, McKenna back to office, and I thought I would keep the conversation in my mind, as it seemed so strange after seeing Mr. Watt pass by just previously. N. Battle, August 29th, 1905"—that statement was made from the one read out in the hotel, an exact copy—I received a letter from the prisoner and came to London on the Friday—I cannot think of the date, September 15th, 16th, or 17th—I brought with me the little pencil memorandum of the address which he had given me—it was in my little bag—I had got all the letters with me, but rather than open my bag in the street I asked a policeman which was the right number of the prisoner's house—I then went to 72, Knightsbridge—they there said that Mr. Watt had gone out, but would be back at 4.30—it was then 3.30—I went back at 4.30—the prisoner opened the door himself and said, "I am afraid I have asked you up to London a bit too soon"—I had told him I had come in answer to his letter—he asked me inside and took me into a room on the left—he there introduced me to Lady Violet—he said he was expecting Rufus Isaacs, the King's counsellor, to come in any minute—at that time it was told me about the detectives having gone to arrest Mr. Watt and knocking Lady Violet down in the passage—Lady Violet received me all right, shook hands and told me she was pleased to see me—she mentioned the King's name and the Duke of Fife's, and that she was cousin to the Duke—whilst this conversation was going on the bell rang—the prisoner went to the door and returned with a gentleman who, he said, was Rufus Isaacs, but who I know now was not—I have since found out that he was Bernard Abrahams—I picked out his photograph in prison—I identify this photograph as his—I was introduced to him—the prisoner said that I was the party that had arranged to give evidence, or words to that effect—"Rufus Isaacs" said that he was arranging to get the case hushed up on behalf of the Treasury—it was said that I was to get £5,000 for giving evidence and that it would be a good thing for my wife and family—I said it would—they said they would give me a berth under the Government, of a Government character—I have now got the situation in prison—the prisoner said that he had a large fruiterer's business, with sixteen hands employed, that it was about fifteen to twenty minutes' walk from his house in the West End, and that if I did not get this other appointment he would hand this over to me if I was used to it—soon after this "Lord Kinloch" came in—there were then present Lady Violet, "Lord Kinloch," "Rufus Isaacs," Mr. Watt, and myself—we had dinner together at 6.30 in the house—there was a lot of conversation before dinner and the King's name was again mentioned—I dined three times in the house and once in Sloane Street—we had pie for dinner and hard-boiled eggs, sliced—the prisoner brought the pie in himself—there was conversation at dinner about the case—it was never anything else—Abrahams took me in hand, and started to tell me what to do—he told me to get this evidence off by heart, that he was arranging with the Treasury—of course it was always pretty much the same thing, but they impressed upon me that it was the Treasury and the King who wanted the case settled—that was to blind me—Abrahams said he could not take the case himself, as he had too much to do, but he would arrange for someone from the Treasury to come and take it—he said there were very few who would know about it, just Mr. Kennedy, the Magistrate, himself, of course, Lady Violet and the prisoner—he told me on no account to say much to Mr. Freke Palmer, as he had not confidence in him, that Mr. Palmer was sure to speak it about aloud, that he was a windbag and could not keep a secret, that all Mr. Palmer wanted was money, and that he had already asked him for £100—they said they had engaged a leading counsel from the Treasury; Mr. Muir they expected would take the case in hand, as he was one of the leading counsel of the Treasury—I believed the whole story—during this evening both Lady Violet and the prisoner told me what had been the effect of the detective's violence on Lady Violet, that she had had a miscarriage, which had prevented him from having a son and heir—after dinner Lady Violet went off to bed, or said she was going to bed—that left me with the prisoner and Abrahams—I had any amount of wine, champagne it was, I expect—the prisoner took out of a sovereign purse five sovereigns and gave them to me—that night I got a registered letter and sent £4 home to my wife—Lady Violet and the prisoner offered to put me up that night in their house—I thought I would rather not; in fact, they offered to let me stay there altogether, but "Rufus Isaacs" thought it would be dangerous my being seen staying there—I left the house with the prisoner—we went through the Park and out of the gate, where I got on to an omnibus—he said he was going home—I stayed that night at Adams' Temperance Hotel, Gray's Inn Road, in the name of Kirtley—next day I returned to the prisoner's house at Knightsbridge—I saw him and Lady Violet—they said I had better go home again for a short while till things got arranged with the Treasury and they would send for me again—I told them I had got a four days' ticket from Thirsk—on that Saturday £5 was given me by the prisoner out of his sovereign case—I went home to Thirsk—the next thing that happened was that I received this telegram: "N. Battle, World's End, Sowerby, Thirsk, York. Can you be here 6 o'clock Thursday evening. Watt, 72, Knightsbridge"—the reply being paid, I replied that I would be there—I went for a drive and when I got back I found another telegram awaiting me, which said "Battle, World's End, Sowerby, Thirsk. If can come Wednesday do so. Will put you up. Watt"—I answered that by telegram and letter—on Wednesday, the 20th, I left Thirsk and came to London, arriving about 2—I went to the prisoner's house—Lady Violet, the prisoner, "Rufus Isaacs," and "Lord Kinloch" were there—they said that I would have to go to Mr. Palmer's office the next morning to go through a statement, about 10.30 or 11—I was told not to tell Mr. Palmer much about the letters or telegrams; I was to keep them to myself; as it was practically arranged with Mr. Muir to take up the case, I was to say very little to Mr. Palmer—I was to tell Mr. Palmer that I had heard the story which was concocted at the Hotel—at the interview at the prisoner's house, both the prisoner and "Rufus Isaacs" asked me if I would let him (the prisoner) see Mr. Palmer's two letters—I let the prisoner see them and he kept them—Abrahams also asked to see the prisoner's first letter to me, which I showed him—he kept it—he also asked to see the statement, as he would like to go through it—he kept it, saying it was not necessary for me to keep it—I stayed At the prisoner's that evening to dinner—the party consisted of the prisoner, Lady Violet, and Bernard Abrahams—the dinner was as before—after it was over, Lady Violet retired—I was taken upstairs by the prisoner and Abrahams—£5 was given to me—they offered to put me up for the night—I said I would rather not stay there, and went back to the same hotel as before, in the same name—next morning, at 9.45, I went to the prisoner's by appointment arranged the night before, to go to Mr. Palmer's office—I went to the office with the prisoner and saw Mr. Palmer—he asked me a few questions about the statement, which I did not answer very well, as I had not got it off then—he then asked me if I had the original statement, that is the original note of the conversation—I said I had not it with me—I told him I would produce it later on—the prisoner gave me a wink—he was there all the time—Mr. Palmer said he would see me again next day at the Court—I wish to say that Mr. Palmer acted very honestly in this affair—that interview over, I left with the prisoner—we met Abrahams—the prisoner told me I had better get a statement ready, and Abrahams advised me to go into a stationer's shop two or three doors off Mr. Palmer's and write one out—they said I would be asked to produce it somewhere or other, at Court most likely, better have it ready—it was just as a matter of form, they said—they further said that I had made a mess of it with Mr. Palmer—I went to a little stationer's shop and bought a sheet of paper and an envelope—I asked the lady there if I might write something out—she said, "Yes"—I there wrote out in pencil a document and left the shop—I was shortly afterwards joined by the prisoner and Abrahams—I then noticed there was some fourth person near us—they said he was a detective from Scotland Yard—he sometimes kept behind and sometimes passed us—when we got to an hotel to dine, Abrahams said, "Are we being shadowed?"—the so-called detective answered, "No, it's all right"—we all four, including the detective, went in and had luncheon—I said to Abrahams, "What is there to be afraid of being shadowed if this is all right?"—he replied, "He is just sent up by Scotland Yard to see that Mr. Watt is not annoyed"—the prisoner said, "That's quite right"—I also asked the detective if he was from Scotland Yard and he replied, "Yes"—I never heard his name or other description, but I could identify him out of a thousand—I was the only one who had dinner—they had drink—the prisoner and Abrahams asked me to show them the statement I had written out in the shop—they told me to put the time in the corner—this is the statement—I showed it to them, also the copy I copied it from—they handed it back to me—I left the public-house with the prisoner and Abrahams—they said that they expected the case would be finished the next day—they said that they had plenty of money to spend and that the detective would see that a certain witness would not appear to-morrow, as they were keeping him out of the road, as they had had him drunk for years—they called him "Nosey"—the prisoner said it did not matter what was spent—the others parted company and left me with the prisoner and with him I went through the Park to Hyde Park Corner, and then to Piccadilly Circus—from there he took me round to the right and pointed out Marshall & McKenna's office—he told me to take notice of the place and said I "might be asked something about it to-morrow"—he said he had better tell me what sort of weather it was on August 17th—he said it was only a matter of form he was telling me that, as the case was practically settled—he said it was a grey sort of morning—we walked about in the Park and he then said he had to go to the bank for some money—I waited for him—when he returned he asked me was I satisfied that the case was all right on behalf of the Treasury—I said, "Yes, it seemed all right"—he said, "I will convince you; we will go down to Mr. Muir's office, the Treasury office. I am going to see Mr. Muir there"—we got into a cab and went down to the Strand—he took me down an archway and said that it was the Treasury office—he showed me a lot of offices and said he was going in to see Mr. Muir—I waited for him for about forty-five minutes—when he cam back he said Mr. Muir would appear in the morning for him or for the Treasury and the case would be finished—we went back to his house and I there saw Lady Violet and Abrahams, who went over the statement with me and told me I should have to get it thoroughly off—he asked me a few questions likely to be asked me the next day, where I had stopped the night before, the time, and the weather—I went over my statement five or six times—then I went over it with the prisoner after that—it was said that I had stopped the night before the 17th at Paris and to get my evidence taken I was to say I was going to Canada—before I left that night it was arranged that I should be at the prisoner's the next morning at 9 o'clock—I went back to the same hotel—next morning I went to the prisoner's and there saw Lady Violet, the prisoner, and his secretary, who was also said to be the manager of the fruiterer's shop and who collected rents—I begged the prisoner to tell me if it was all correct what he had told me—he said, "Yes, a good thing for you and your wife and family; it will put you on your feet"—I drove with the prisoner and his secretary to the Court—when near there the prisoner said, "I think another drink will do you good; you seem to be nervous"—he took me to an hotel opposite the Court and gave me a glass of brandy—we went to the Court and the prisoner pointed out that Mr. Muir was there and said, "Now it is all right; there is Mr. Muir"—my name was called as a witness and I got into the box and am sorry to say I gave evidence which was taken down [The witness's depositions were then read]—my evidence having been given, I returned to 72, Knightsbridge, and there had some conversation with Lady Violet—half an hour after I went out with the prisoner and Lady Violet down Sloane Street to a dining-room about 6.30 and there had some dinner—the meal for the three cost 18s. 6d.—during the meal Lady Violet said to me she knew I had been in the box, because a telegram had been sent to her—she said, "It was just signed 'Scotland Yard'; there has also been one sent to the King in the same way"—the prisoner said the case was remanded for a week—I said that was strange, and I was beginning to get frightened then—I said I thought they had made a mess of me; it seemed like it, as Mr. Kennedy had said that if Mr. Watt annoyed anybody in the meantime he would be arrested—I did not hear the Magistrate say that, but I heard the prisoner repeat it—Lady Violet at the dinner drank rather a good drop and had to leave the table and go home—after she left, the prisoner and I went to Victoria Station—the prisoner bought a paper, and we saw in it the Magistrate's remark about molesting the witnesses—I began then to complain, saying I thought he had made a victim of me—he said, "Mr. Kennedy must have been in a hurry to-day to get away; it will be finished next week"—I then got on to him about the money—he said, "You will get it next week when the case is finished"—I said, "What about the £5,000 you promised me; it looks as though it is not correct what you told me"—he said, "Oh, you will get your £5,000 when the case is finished"—he was a little bit drunk—we walked towards Hyde Park Corner and pointing in the direction of some houses the prisoner said, "Mrs. Watt lives along there"—on the way back to Knightsbridge he said frightful things about Mrs. Watt, "that she ought to be mown off the earth, Sir Reginald as well," that she was a bad character and that he picked her up off the streets—he said that he had said such a thing to Marshall, as Marshall says, but never really meant it—he also said that Sir Reginald Beauchamp was very "dicky" on his legs and he could soon be settled; it would be a charity to put him out of the road—before I left him that night he said that he expected to get "time" for it; that he had slept in the backwoods of Australia and out in the open air with nothing but the sky above him for shelter and he thought he could do a few months—I said it was serious and I complained generally—I said I would go to Scotland Yard and give myself up, as I found I had been made a victim of—he begged of me to put it off for another week and told me he would talk to me in the morning—I went to his house early next morning—I there saw him and Lady Violet—we had a bit of a row—I told him I was going to tell all about the case, what they had done to me, deceived me, and I would go down to Scotland Yard—he again begged of me not to do that, said he would give me a good handsome cheque besides the £5,000 if I would only keep quiet till the case was settled—they expected that the case would be settled that morning—they gave me £5 and I left—that afternoon I went home and told my wife all about it and decided that I would give information—I got a witness summons and went back with the officer who served it—at Marlborough Street I went into the witness box and made my statement on oath—the first statement I made on August 17th was false; it was the statement that had been drawn up for me.

Saturday, December 16th.

J. LIGHTFOOT (Further examined). This pencil document with regard to my evidence was given by me at the Court, I think (Ex. 8 produced)—I am not sure whether I gave it up to the police or the Court, but I know it was found in my pocket.

Cross-examined. It was either found upon me when I was arrested or I gave it up at the Court on the second occasion—I swear it was given up on one of them times—it was decidedly not given up when I first gave evidence—if it was given up at all, it would be in the Court; I never gave any papers to Mr. Freke Palmer at all—I swear I gave it up at the Court when I gave my evidence for the first time; I think so—I gave it up one of the two times; I am not certain which; I fancy myself it was on the 22nd; I made it out on the 21st—I cannot remember giving it to Mr. Freke Palmer; I gave it to the Magistrate or one of the officials—I do not say I did not give it to Mr. Freke Palmer; he may have asked me for it—I gave it to someone in Court—if I knew that I gave it to Mr. Freke Palmer, I would tell you—in August this year I was dealing in cattle and I had a little poultry farm at Thirsk, Sowerby, Yorkshire—I lived at a little place just at the bottom of Sowerby—I had a field, a little orchard, a big garden, a cottage, a stable, a pony and trap, and 100 head of poultry and a horse at that time—I have bought and sold pigs and several things; I make my living at it—I have done nothing else this year, but I did a little bit now and again last year—the latter part of last year I was doing very much the same thing, and in the early part working at my printing trade—that is the trade I served my apprenticeship at, but I have not worked at it for some time—I have worked at it on and off this last few years—I worked fifteen years in one place, rising to head compositor at a head wage—I am forty-two, my birthday being the day I was sentenced—I gave up my berth five or six years ago—as near as I can tell you the last time I earned any money at printing was a year ago—a year ago I passed in the name of Kirtley, because my father was editor of a newspaper and I did not want the people where I worked to think that I had been better off and had come down to work for a small wage—I was in Paris and St. Cloud in January this year for a few weeks—I never did anything while I was there; I lived on what I had—I made a little bit of money gambling—I did not go to Paris altogether to gamble, but that is practically why I went—I only gambled a little in a little street near the Vendome—I made bets; I did not gamble—that is why I went to Paris—I went with a gentleman; I cannot think of his name now—I will tell you, if I think of his name and address—he said he was a photographer from London—I have met him in London—all I know about London is my way from Victoria Station to King's Cross by Piccadilly and Regent Street—I met him by arrangement at King's Cross—he induced me to go over to Paris on the Baltic Fleet Commission, the inquiry about the Russians firing into the Baltic Fleet—I know a bit about the River Humber, and I went there as a witness, but I was never called upon—this gentleman was engaged by the Government to gather up evidence—I am telling you what I went to Paris for as I go along—I stayed at the Rue d' Amsterdam, this gentleman paying part of my expenses and I paying part—the house I stayed at used to be called "Fox's"; I do not know what they call it now; it goes by the name of "Fox's Hotel"; it is still on the window, "Austin Fox's," but that is not the proprietor—I was very successful in my betting; I was there seven or eight weeks, getting about £200 or £300—it was more in February than January when I did the betting on steeplechasing, at little bits of meetings—I did not lay against horses at all—this was my first experience of Paris—I said at the Police Court that "Austin Fox's" was the name of the hotel I stayed at—I came back about the back end of February—I had been to Hyde Park before; that is about the only place I really know in London—I generally go in there and have a sit down when I am tired—I have been to London a few times—I like to sit and watch the people go along on the horses—I cannot say when I was in London before this; I do not think I had been in London before I saw the prisoner; I am not sure—I got my expenses for going to Paris and a lump sum of £300 from the photographer, which was quite apart from my betting—it was very doubtful when I went whether I would have to give any evidence; the evidence I was going to give was about the moving banks of the Humber, in which I am very well up—I have done drawings from plans of the Humber—the photographer was a representative of the Russian Government, as far as I know, both sides—he did not think it was necessary for me to give evidence; I only went to enlighten him on certain things—the £300 was paid me by a cheque on a London bank, of which I cannot tell you the name—I never had one before—I did not then have a banking account—I went with this gentle­man to the bank; it is in the West End somewhere, the Kensington district—he went with me part of the way and told me to get out at a certain station; I cannot say whether it was Kensington or Sloane Street—I think it has been an unprofitable trip for me, taking it right through—I wrote this letter, dated August 27th, on a Sunday; I do not remember the date (Extract of Ex. 1 read: "Sir,—Not having your correct address, I trust this note will find you, but I think I know sufficient to clear you from the base charge brought against you ")—I returned from London the day after Mr. Watt was tried—I thought I returned on Friday, but it appears to be Saturday—I was only in London one, night on that occasion—it must have been Friday, the 25th, if that is the day Mr. Watt was tried, and I Returned to Yorkshire some time on Saturday—the interview in Hyde Park took place on Friday, the 25th—I think he told me he had been tried that day—it is very difficult to get a newspaper at Thirsk; I see them now and again—I have got them on a Sunday sometimes, but very seldom—I was sitting at the first big seat round the left of Hyde Park Corner—I do not smoke; if anyone gives me a cigarette I smoke, but I never buy any tobacco—neither of them were smoking anything when they came up—I cannot say that I saw the prisoner take the cigar out of his pocket that he gave me; I was not glaring at him—I swear that I think it was the prisoner who handed me a cigar, unless it was his living image—I swear that that gentleman (The prisoner) handed me the cigar; to the best of my belief it was the prisoner—I am certain it was the prisoner, but I am not so keen on swearing things as I used to be—I practically swear that that man (The prisoner) offered me a cigar, but I am pretty well nervous now—I know it was him—I know all three of us then smoked cigars—I swear that as far as I know, the prisoner smoked a cigar; I am certain it was the prisoner, but I am not going to swear anything—if it was not him, it was his living image—to my satisfaction it is him—I swear that he smoked several cigars after that; he smoked one in Hyde Park when we were walking along together—I swore falsely for two purposes: one which has never been mentioned in public, but I should like to write it down—I had his word for the £5,000 he was going to give me; he was a Member of Parliament and I thought he was all right, but I am satisfied now that he is not—that is not the main reason why I swore falsely at all—we were in the public-house talking above an hour—it was after 8.30 p.m. when we came back to Hyde Park Corner; we knocked about Edgware Road for a bit; it would be about 9 p.m.—I made a statement in prison of the evidence I gave yesterday; after I was convicted of perjury and sentenced—I think it was to Sergeant Fowler and Sergeant Ball, who called two succeeding days, Friday and Saturday—I swear those, are the only time they have been there; that is all I have seen of them—I cannot give you the dates, but I think they were two dates together—I know one was a Saturday, but I thought it was Friday and Saturday—they were not much there on the Thursday, but they were there a good bit on the Saturday—they saw me on a third occasion, but not for an interview—I am sure they did not see me on a third occasion and take further evidence from me; I proved out of prison where I had been to on certain occasions—not every word of my evidence was false; I gave my own and my sister's address—my evidence had pretty well all been prepared by this imitation Rufus Isaacs—I was thoroughly deceived into it by a man who represented himself to be a Member of Parliament and another one who said he was a lord, and Lady Violet and this Rufus Isaacs—I knew it was false—if I said in my cross-examination that I said, "My solicitor has the note; I gave it to him then," it would be true; I gave the paper up in Court—on the 29th I wrote to Mr. Freke Palmer, "As I have just a few minutes I must be brief. I will not be in London for some time, as I am bound for Scotland soon. If you desire to see me, I will engage a gentleman in my place for a short time and on seeing you I will give you all minor details. The above address will find me until Friday if you are likely to send for me. Please drop a telegram so I may make arrangements. Address, pro tern., World's End, Sowerby, Thirsk"—I wrote that letter in the post office at Thirst—World's End is at the corner of Sowerby—I wrote it without assistance from anybody—I say also, "I have identified Marshall's photo in the Sunday 'News of the World "'; I added that of my own accord—I had seen the paper that, day—I do not see that paper once in three months; I just happened to pick it up—I did not enclose in that letter the state­ment which I was prepared to make; I had not got it in my pocket—this is in my handwriting (Ex. 5 produced) including the signature, "N. Battle," and the date, August 29th—I wrote this letter to Mr. Freke Palmer on August 31st from World's End of my own accord, because I thought that the thing had fallen through (Ex. 6: Stating that if he (Light-foot) should not hear from Mr. Palmer on the Friday or Saturday he would conclude that his services were not necessary, and that he trusted he would bring the case to a successful conclusion. Signed, "N. Battle")—in reply to that I got this letter from Mr. Freke Palmer, dated September 1st (Read): "I am much obliged for yours of the 31st ult., and for the statement you have kindly sent me. If the case is committed for trial I should like to see you on the matter and will communicate with you again shortly if you will keep me informed of your whereabouts"—I am quite certain that I did not send the statement until after that letter was written in the post office; I cannot give the date when I sent the statement, but I know I sent it by itself without any letter—I swear my statement dated August 29th was not enclosed in the letter of the 29th—on September 21st I was at Mr. Palmer's office—I think he started by saying that it was no use my making any statements which would not stand inquiry; he did all right; he did his best—the prisoner winked at me as much as to say, "Take no notice"—I was sitting on a chair inside the door and the prisoner and Mr. Freke Palmer were facing us both—Mr. Freke Palmer questioned me closely upon my statement; he cross-examined me—I did all I knew to make him believe in the prisoner's presence that it was true—at the instigation of the prisoner I told Mr. Freke Palmer that I had a note of the conversation I had overheard—I did not repent immediately after I had given my evidence on September 22nd; I repented the same day—when I was at King's Cross I was very much upset; one minute I was going down to Scotland Yard and the next minute I wondered whether I should not go and tell my wife all about it—being at King's Cross, I thought I would go home—I went to see a friend, to go with me to Scotland Yard previous to that—about three or four weeks after, the police served a notice on me requiring me to go back with them—I remained at home making arrangements for my wife and family—I knew I was going to be locked up, because I intended to plead guilty—I told my wife that the very first day I got to the Court I was going to tell all about it—I came back quite voluntarily; I always meant to do so—I met Sergeant Ball coming up the road—I think he said, "You are Battle" first—I did not hesitate—the officer went on to say, "You are the man who attended Marlborough Street Police Court on September 22nd on the hearing of the case against Mr. Watt," and I acknowledged it—he told me he was directed to serve a summons on me for my attendance at the Marlborough Street Police Court the next day—I said I could not come, as it was too short a notice; I said I had just got a letter to go to Leeds to-morrow and it was very awkward, but I would come—the officer may have said, "You must come, "and I said, "If I must come to-morrow, I must"—he told me he could not bring me—I gave in evidence yesterday a number of things which I never said at Marlborough Street Police Court, but I had not the chance"—I did not say a word about the prisoner saying that he expected he would do time, and that as he had slept in the back woods of Australia he thought he could manage a few months; I simply answered the questions that I was asked—I asked to make a statement at the Assizes, but I was not allowed—I wanted to make a statement before I was sentenced, but they would not allow me a barrister—I had given just an outline of my evidence to Sergeant Fowler before I gave my evidence at Marlborough Street on the second occasion—I was not asked for all; I was not in a position to give all; I was too cut up—I told a lot of it to Sergeant Ball in the train—I think I told Sergeant Fowler about the prisoner alluding to doing time—I should like to explain why I did not give a lull account of it—we rushed into Court and I pleaded guilty in less than five minutes—I think I was in the witness-box about three-quarters of an hour—on one occasion, when I was at the prisoner's house, the man who called himself 'Rufus Isaacs "had a conversation with the prisoner in a language which I took to be French—I cannot speak French; I know a few words like "Oui, oui"—your suggestion that my first communication with the prisoner either verbal or written was the letter on August 27th is wrong, and that the first time I ever saw him to speak to was September 16th, bar seeing him in the park—I asked a policeman the number of the prisoner's house—at that time I think I had a piece of paper with his address in my bag with my letters—I knew I was going to Knights-bridge and I did not look in my bag—I knew the number, but it had slipped my memory—I did not open the bag, because I did not want to stand I the middle of a crowd with a bag open—I may have said to Sergeant Fowler that I had omitted to bring his address with me—I appreciate the fact that if I asked a policeman it looked as if I did not know the address—when I wrote on August 27th saying," Not knowing your correct address," I had mislaid the little bit of paper—on September 16th, when I saw the prisoner, I did not say, "My name is Battle "or "I wrote to you," and he did not say, "You must see my solicitor"—I did not say, "I have come from Edinburgh to help you, and return to-night. I sent your solicitor a statement about three weeks ago. May I show you a copy?"; that is nonsense—I do not think that he and Lady Violet read over a copy of my statement to me, nor did the prisoner say, "Is it true?"and I did not reply, "Yes, every word of it"—I did not say I was hungry—I had dinner behind the cellar kitchen, where they dine—they told me their dinners were sent in always; I do not think they have any servants to cook any dinner; I don't think they have anybody except a general cleaner, who comes to clean up—whatever I eat they told me was fetched from outside—the prisoner did not say before I left, "I do not think your evidence can be taken until the case for the prosecution is closed, but I shall as my solicitor to let you know"—the motive which is influencing me in coming forward and giving evidence in this case is that I have done wrong and I wish to put things right in the interests of truth and justice and to let my friends in the North see bow I have been taken down by the prisoner—I have never been offered any advantage—if the prisoner says that on September 16th I said, "I am only coming forward in the interests of truth and justice," he knows well enough that he is talking rubbish—I did not, suggest to him he might pay my expenses; he gave me £5 freely—I never told him I came from Edinburgh—never at any time did I tell Mr. Palmer that I was in a good way of business in Yorkshire and my character would bear every investigation—the prisoner never gave me more than £5 at once; I had altogether from him £20—I have not yet remembered the name of the photographer who took me over to Paris—if I had been called as a witness I should have appeared as "Lightfoot"—I was staying in Paris in the name of" Kirtley "because I was used to it.

Re-examined. "John Kirtley "was the name I went under about two years ago—I served my apprenticeship with the Mayor of Durham; I do not know whether he is Mayor now—I was fifteen years in the service of Messrs. Howe Bros.; I left their service about five years ago—I was then chosen as manager of a printing office out of sixty-three applicants in Chester-le-Street, Durham—I was there a year until the firm was sold—I then went to Sunderland on the "Sunderland Echo"—I was on for myself a little while before that, doing printing at Chester-le-Street and Sunderland—a gentleman ruined me; he did me out of a lot of money—my connection with the printing trade stopped in Sunderland about two and a half years ago—I have three boys—after I gave up printing I commenced to buy pigs and started my poultry farm—I bought on a small scale before going to Paris, but I got some money there and I then started on a large scale—I used to do printing as well if anyone was busy—the photographer told me he was a representative of both Governments; he said he was a sort of general man in the case if advice on the River Humber was wanted—he took photographs abroad at different places—this is a further document found upon me when Sergeant Ball brought me to London; it is an additional ink copy of the proposed evidence, signed "N. Battle "and dated August 26th, 1905 (Produced)—on my way to London in the train I made a statement to Sergeant Ball—I think he put a little bit down in a book, but not all of it—before I was sentenced in this Court I wished to have a counsel, so that I could explain the reason I had committed perjury—they said I had pleaded guilty and could not have one—I started to make a statement, but I thought I was wasting the time of the Court, and that I was doing wrong by making it then, and I stopped—it was arranged that I should write the letter of August 27th to deceive Mr. Freke Palmer—I want to write down the principal reason for my committing perjury for my own sake—I am very anxious to do it—it explains everything; it is most serious. [The witness, at the learned Judge's direction, wrote on a piece of paper which was afterwards shown to the counsel and Jury. The learned Judge stated that he would take a note that no wrong inference was to be drawn from MR. AVORYS not cross-examining upon it. His Lordship then directed the statement to be sealed.]

By the COURT. I won my money in betting from an Englishman—I just filled in my spare time—I betted with English people in a cafe; Paris is full of English betting men—I did not bet with people connected with the North Sea Inquiry. [The witness, on asking to make a statement, was told by the Judge that they could not have it, as they were trying the prisoner and not him.]

 GEORGE FUELLING. I carried on business as a fruiterer at 153, Earl's Court Road, up to June, 1897—I then disposed of the business to the prisoner, but a Mr. Daeth acted as his nominee—since that time the prisoner has made an effort to dispose of it—he and my son came into communication last October and my son purchased the business on or about October 23rd—the lease of the premises was assigned to my son.

Cross-examined. I do not know that the prisoner purchased the business for Mr. Daeth's benefit—all I had to do was to assign the lease and the business.

 FREDERICK MARSHALL TURNER. I am the manager of the Lyric Printing Co., of 126, Charing Cross Road—on September 20th, 1905, we received an order to print some gentleman's visiting cards—it is in my order-book—the cards were supplied in the name of" Norman Battle," but I cannot say to whom.

 JOHN EDWARD MALLINSON. I am a clerk in the General Post Office—I produce certain original telegrams—one purports to be signed "Watt, 72, Knightsbridge"—it was handed in at Knightsbridge on September 18th—it says: "N. Battle, World's End, Sowerby, Thirsk, Yorkshire. Can you be here "(then there is "Friday morning "crossed out) "6 o'clock Thursday evening"—this is another telegram of September 18th handed in at Thirsk, which says: "Right, depend upon me, will call punctually"—a third telegram handed in at Knightsbridge on September 18th says: "Battle, World's End, Sowerby, Thirsk. If can come Wednesday do so. Will put you up," and a fourth, dated September 18th, signed "Battle "and addressed to "Watt, 72, Knightsbridge," which says, "All right. Wednesday six; been in country."

 LOUISE BRIDGER. I live at 9, Bracewell Road, Kensington, and am employed at Searcy's restaurant, 19, Sloane Street, as an attendant there—I know Lady Violet Watt and the prisoner by sight—I remember on one occasion in September last their dining at the restaurant—there was another gentleman with them, tall, thin and dark [Battle came forward)—I should think he was the man—I think it was September 22nd—the meal came to 19s. 10d.—I have the bill here—they had roast lamb and vegetables, sparkling hock, sparkling moselle, pudding, cheese, and afterwards tea—I should say the meal was between 2.15 and 3 p.m.—while they were sitting there Lady Violet asked me to leave the room for ten minutes—I did so and then came back—Lady Violet went away, leaving the other two—they remained a short time and then left together—I remember about a week before that seeing Lady Violet, the prisoner, and another gentleman dining there—I did not notice the other man particularly except that he was rather a Jewish-looking man—we have supplied food to the prisoner's residence—I should say we do not keep pies ready made; I do not know—we have received orders for pies from Lady Violet—I cannot say when.

Cross-examined. Lady Violet has been a good customer of ours, but not for luncheons—I have known her for about three years, coming in and out—she has sometimes had lunch, but very seldom with the prisoner—I recognise the gentleman sitting below you [Mr. Church]—I think he was there one Saturday—he is not the rather Jewish-looking man—I was not called before the Magistrate—I was asked to give evidence four or five weeks ago—I was asked to remember who had lunched there on September 22nd—we have no dinners.

Re-examined. We keep the customers' bills, but they are not dated.

 WILLIAM ADAMS. I keep the Adams' Hotel, 339, Gray's Inn Road—I know a man named John Kirtley [Battle came forward]—that man has been in the habit of staying at my hotel for probably two years, as John Kirtley—on referring to my book I find he stayed at my place on September

20th, 21st, and 22nd—the time before that was June 4th—I saw him on September 16th—he said he would be coming up probably for a fortnight, would I reserve a room for him?

Cross-examined. I have never known Battle in any other name but Kirtley—he stayed at my place on April 18th last, also the 15th—this book is rather slovenly kept—he has stayed with us several times this year—he usually came to stay from Tuesday to Friday, going home on the Saturday—I only knew "Thirsk, Yorkshire," as his address—he has not been to us since September 22nd.

Re-examined. I had the conversation with Kirtley on either the Wednesday or Thursday.

 HENRY HILLS (51 B. R.) During the third week in September last I was on duty in the neighbourhood of Sloane Street—I remember a man coming up to me and asking where Mr. Watt lived—I pointed out the house to him—I have seen Lightfoot since—he is the man who spoke to me.

 THOMAS FOSTER BRADFORD. I am an overseer at the General Post Office—I produce the certificate of a registered letter addressed to "Mrs. Lightfoot, World's End, Sowerby, Thirsk"—it was handed in at the Knightsbridge Post Office on September 21st, 1905.

 JESSIE WEEKS. I am a general servant at the Rose Hotel, Maidenhead—up to November 9th, 1905, I worked for a Mrs. Clarke at the Bungalow, Raleigh Road, Maidenhead—during the time I worked for her, there was a Bernard Abrahams living with her as his wife—I know the prisoner and Lady Violet by sight—I have seen them at the Bungalow [MR. AVORY protested that the Defence had had no notice of this witness and stated that it was quite impossible during the trial to make inquiries so as to test the witness's accuracy. The Judge stated that he was surprised at the conduct of the Prosecution, and said that the Defence should be given every facility to test the accuracy of the story]—I have seen them there about three times—the last time was, I think, about September last—I worked for Mrs. Clarke for two years and nine months—I saw in the newspaper an account of the prisoner's case at the Police Court—the last visit of the prisoner and Lady Violet was after I saw that account—I think Abrahams went to London once or twice—he used to go out sometimes every morning and come back in the evening to dinner—the last time I saw him was about October 13th—it was a Friday, I think—Mrs. Clarke told me something after he left—she received three letters after that by post—I do not know whose writing they were in—they were addressed to me, but by Mrs. Clarke's directions, I gave them to her—this (Produced) is a photo of Abrahams. [Cross-examination postponed at MR. AVORY'S request.]

 GEORGE BENNING (Inspector, Berks Constabulary). I am stationed at Maidenhead—I know Bernard Abrahams well—I used to see him nearly every day—I received a police telegram from London on, I think, October 16th—up to a day or two of receiving that I saw him—I have not seen him since.

 ALBERT BALL (Recalled by MR. BODKIN). I went to 72, Knightsbridge, to search the house at 9 p.m. on August 17th—before I went there I had heard something about peppermint from Marshall—it was while we were on the way to the Police Court to apply for a warrant, I believe [MR. AVORY objected to this evidence, and the Judge said it must be struck out]—I went to Sowerby with a witness summons and there saw Lightfoot—travelling up with me in the train he made some statements to me—he was arrested on October 12th, at 6.30 p.m.—after he made his statement at the Police Court he was kept under observation, but he was not formally arrested until we had the warrant signed—I searched him and found upon him this ink copy of the pencil memorandum.

By MR. AVORY. I served Lightfoot with a witness summons at Sowerby on October 11th at 9 p.m.—he was walking in front of me and I overtook him—I told him I recognised him as Norman Battle—he hesitated slightly at first, and then I told him he would have to come up to Marlborough Street.

 WILLIAM ADAMS (Recalled by MR. AVORY). I find that Lightfoot stayed at my place this year on February 27th, 28th, March 6th to 10th, 14th and 15th, April 15th and 17th, June 4th to 7th, September 20th, 21st and 22nd.

 THOMAS WORLEY. I am now living at 32, East Street, Theobald's Road, and am a newsagent—for about ten years I had a newspaper stall outside the Hyde Park Hotel at Knightsbridge—I supplied the prisoner with newspapers—his house was two doors away from my stall—I saw Lady Violet occasionally—I used occasionally to go errands for her—I went about August, 1902, for her to a firm of solicitors at Oxford Circus—the same day, after I returned, the prisoner came to me and said, "Would you like to earn some more money?"—I said, "I don't mind, if I have the time and if it is in my way"—he said, "Will you meet me at 3 o'clock in Hyde Park at the back of my house?"—I said, "Yes"—I met him—he said to me, "You seem to be a fellow able to give a good account of yourself"—I said, "What do you mean?"—he said, "You would not be afraid to strike anybody"—I said, "If anybody interfered with me I should try to interfere with them back again"—he said, "I mean this: I have had a woman following me about for a long time; she has had large sums of money from me and I intend to put a stop to it. I want you to go to White Hall (or White House) at Hampton Court and say you are an old servant named Howes, ask her to come out, and when she comes, give her a blow in the stomach as her inside is in a bad condition, and I will give you £10 for that—I said, "I do not care about" doing anything of that, as I have never done such a thing before"—he talked for a little while and then said, "In the course of your travels you meet with a lot of rough fellows"—I said, "Yes, I meet with all sorts"—he said, "Do you think you could get me two or three chaps; take them down there, give them about 5s. a piece and keep the rest for yourself"—I said, "I'd sooner not do anything like that, as it might get me into trouble"—he said, "You are missing a fine thing; she always carries about £70 or £80 worth of jewellery. It is easy done; you can entice her to the river, which runs close by, you can give her a blow and clear, out and be done with it"—I said, "I don't care about doing anything of that"—he said, "Here is £5; take that and do the best you can. I will meet you to-morrow and if it is done I will give you another £5"—he gave me a stick that afternoon, saying, "Take this; if you cannot hit her hard enough give her a blow with this"—I took his stick—he told me the name of the woman was Seelieg—next morning he came to my stall and said, "How did you get on?"—I said, "Well, I sent them fellows and when they got there they said that Mrs. Seelieg was not staying there "—after a while, having walked about and considered, he came back and said, "No, I think them fellows have twisted you; they have not been there at all"—as a matter of fact, they had not been and I had no intention of sending any—after that I had to shift my business, on account of building operations, and secured a portion as a newspaper carrier on a bicycle—the prisoner had asked me for my name and address, and he wrote me a letter asking me to meet him—the letter is destroyed—I would have kept it if I had known this case was coming on—I was to meet him at 3 o'clock at the same place, but I never kept the appointment—some time after that as I was riding my bicycle I met him—he asked me how I was going on—I said, "Oh, very well"—he said, "Take this sovereign; I want you to go to the Howard Hotel, Norfolk Street, or to Courtfield Gardens, and find out if Mrs. Watt is staying there"—I was to let him know—I did not go at all—I again met him—he asked me, "Is she staying there?"—I said No"—I had not been to inquire—he said, "That is a d—nuisance. I shall have to put the private detectives on her track, and they are rather expensive; they cost £1 a day"—I left him and was to meet him on a future occasion when he found out where Mrs. Watt was staying—he said it would not do for me to be seen talking to him so often at the back of his house, he would meet me in the Green Park—I met him later on and he said he had found out that Mrs. Watt was staying at the Howard Hotel, in Norfolk Street, in the name of Watt—he said to me, "Have you still got that stick?"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "I want you to stop about there; watch your chance, if you see her to run into her, then give her a severe blow in the stomach and knock her down"—I said, "They might have me up for doing some robbery or violence to her; I would rather have nothing to do with that"—then after a little while he said, "Don't you think it would be a good idea if you were to hang about there with your bicycle, watch your chance as she is crossing the road to run into her and knock her down; I will give you £1 a week while hanging about on your bicycle; £50 if you knock her down and give her a severe blow, £100 if it leads to something else"—I found that "something else" meant if I killed her, so I said, "I will see what I can do"—I never troubled further—I was to make an appointment to let him know how I was going on—I did nothing—I saw him again some two or three days afterwards in Green Park—he said to me, "It is very funny; I have been to this place two or three times during yesterday and the day before and I never see you"—I said, "Very likely, as I was riding about on my bike"—as it was cold, of course I was riding about—he said, "You will have to keep a closer watch; besides, it is essential that something should be done. I will tell you what I will do now: I will give you £1 a week while you are hanging about, £50 if you hurt her, and another £100 and £1 a week for life if you kill her, and I want this done as quickly as possible "—I had to make another appointment—I never troubled about waiting about the hotel—I met him—he gave me a sovereign occasionally and sometimes £2, but that was towards the end—he had said to me, "It is essential that something must be done; as soon as you write me the letter that you have knocked her down, put down in it the word "Done' and I will meet you and give you the £50"—I was not to put anything else in the letter and I was to address it simply "Mr. Watt"—this was about October, 1902—his address, I believe, was then 20, Albert Gate, but I think they have altered it to another name now—he said as soon as he received the letter he would meet me the same evening and give me £50—he met me the same evening and gave me a little bag with £10 in gold in it, saying," Take this £10; if I find out that she is seriously hurt I will give you the other £100"—he said, "Did you knock her down? Did you seriously hurt her?"—I said, "I did not stop to see, as I rode away"—he had said to me, "Don't stop to see; ride away if you can, then they won't make much inquiries, take not much notice of it"—two days after that he said he would go and find out how Mrs. Watt was—I met him two nights after that—he said, u I cannot make it out; I have been and inquired. Mrs. Watt is not confined to her room, and she is able to go out; this seems very funny. Did you really give her a severe hurt?"—I said, "I did not trouble to see"—he said, "Perhaps you knocked the wrong woman down"—I said, "Perhaps I have"—he said, "I want you to take this photograph. Of course you must not go by that too much; she is much stouter now. Study the features well and you will recognise Mrs. Watt by that"—I took the photograph—he said, "Don't you think it would be a fine thing if you were to dress yourself up really smart, go to the Howard Hotel, take rooms and watch your chance to get into Mrs. Watt's room, give her a blow and chloroform her; I can get the chloroform for you to give her when you have done it!"—I said, "I don't much like to have anything to do with it"—he said, "I have been good to you; do you think you can find me a man who has done manslaughter or something of that?"—I then thought of a man I had seen hanging about—I said, "I will do my best to see if I can find you a man"—when I found him I was to fetch him to Green Park, the same place where I had been meeting him—I knew the man I meant as "Nosey"; I did not know his real name—I saw "Nosey" after this conversation and took him to meet the prisoner—the prisoner said, "Is this the man?"—I said, "Yes, this is the man"—he said to "Nosey," "Have you done any time?" or something of that—" Nosey" told him he had—he said to him, "It is like this here; what name shall I call you?"—" Nosey" said, "Call me 'Jim'"—the prisoner said, "Well, Jim, I want you to go to the Howard Hotel, take rooms there and watch your chance; get into Mrs. Watt's room, give her a blow and chloroform her. It can be done, by getting all right with the housemaid and giving her a present. Watch your chance, secrete yourself in her room and give her a blow and chloroform her"—" Nosey" said, "Very well"—he gave "Nosey"£5 to go there to take the rooms and buy some clothes—the prisoner further said, "Shall I get the chloroform—I believe "Nosey" said, "Well, I will get it"—I did not listen to all their conversation; I left them together—out of the £5 given him, "Nosey" gave me £2 10s.—it was arranged that "Nosey" was to come again two days after to let him know how he was going on—we met the prisoner, who asked "Nosey" how he was going on—"Nosey" said 'Mrs. Watt was not staying there, she had gone to Harrogate'—the prisoner said, "The best thing you can do is to go to Harrogate, find out where she is; she generally stays at the Prince of Wales Hotel, Harrogate"—they had some more conversation after that, which I did not hear—the finish of it was that we had to meet the prisoner again two nights afterwards—we met him and he said, "I don't want no more to do with this man; he is a liar and a scamp. She has not been to Harrogate at all"—he gave "Nosey" a sovereign that evening and "Nosey" went off—I did not see him again for eighteen months—the prisoner said that neither "Nosey" nor Mrs. Watt had been to Harrogate; as a matter of fact; Mrs. Watt was still staying at the Norfolk Hotel—I met the prisoner again after that—he said to me, "We had best let Mrs. Watt drop for a while"—he said at some time that he believed she had gone to Ascot House, Ascot; would I go down on my bike and find out if she was staying there?"If so, you will have a fine opportunity there, because there is nobody about. You can knock her about and then fall on her, jump on her, what you like; there will be nobody in sight"—I did not go to Ascot, but I met him two nights after to let him know how I was going on—that day it had been very muddy and I was in a rare state—he said "I can see what it is; you have had a bad journey"—I said, "Yes, I, have had a bad journey"—he said, "I don't suppose you will be sorry when you are at home"—he said, "Did you go to Ascot?"—I said, "I went to Ascot. I never see her there, and I don't think she is staying there"—he said, "I think we will let her drop for a while; I have got something else in hand"—I think he gave me £2 that night—this was somewhere about November, 1902—I had, I should think, about £50 altogether from the prisoner—I have not got any of his letters—I kept them at home in a drawer for some time and then they got thrown away.

Cross-examined. I had known "Nosey" at that time for about two years—I had been in his company once or twice—I did not know he had been convicted—I knew him as a man hanging about—I never knew him to interfere with anybody or cause anybody any bodily harm, and I thought he would be just the one to take to the prisoner—it was not our idea to get money out of the prisoner; if he liked to give it, he would; but if he did not, he would not—I thought we would get money, but not by telling lies; we did not think anything of that kind—I arranged with "Nosey" to divide anything we got—it would not have been honest to have done what the prisoner wanted—he came to me because I sold newspapers and thought I would do anything for him, but he found out his mistake—it was not an honest way of getting money out of the prisoner—I know now that "Nosey's" real name is Shuttle—I said at the Police Court that the reason I selected him was because he never had the heart to work for a living and never had the heart to thieve for a living—I cannot say how many times altogether I obtained money from the prisoner by telling lies, as sometimes I never told him any lies at all—he gave me the money to keep the meetings, and as I was not doing nothing for it, I took his money—the biggest sum I received from him at one time was £10 and the smallest £1—I thought he meant what he was asking me to do—I never Mentioned the matter to anybody but Shuttle—the prisoner had no character from me as to whether I was a betting man or addicted to violence—he did not ask me if I was prepared to assault anyone or willing to do so if paid for it—for all he knew, I might have gone straight away to a policeman and told him about it, but he was a man of position and a Member of Parliament, and I simply sold newspapers, and he might have got somebody to say different to me and nobody would have believed me—I never did inform the police; they came to me while I was at work, after the prisoner was charged—I am quit sure the prisoner gave me the stick on the first occasion I met him—it is lost—it was an ordinary dark brownish walking-stick, with a very heavy knobbly head—I do not remember saying at the Police Court about" running straight into her and giving her a blow with the stick in the stomach"—these things occurred three years ago, and I have had to think of all this by memory—on one or two occasions I took news-papers to the prisoner's house; he would ask me to leave them and I pushed them under the door—I do not know whether he was well known as living in the neighbourhood—he gave no reason for telling me to write him as "Mr. Watt," except that it might be noticeable—I say that having said "Nosey" was a liar and a scamp, he gave him a sovereign—" Nosey" was to write me a letter pretending he had been to Harrogate, but I do not remember receiving one—if you like, you can put it that it was for the mere purpose of obtaining money from the prisoner by false pretences—it was to show that he had been there when he had not gone.

Re-examined. The police came and took my statement in September this year.

Monday, December 18th.

 JAMES SHUTTLE. I am living now at Brook Street, Holborn, and there are six convictions against me altogether—I was convicted of assault in March, 1904, and I served the sentence in Pentonville prison—I have a lot of nick-names; I have never been called a nick-name until it was put in these ha' penny papers—I have been called "Nosey" a long time—in November, 1902, I had some communication with a man named Worley, who had a paper stall at Knightsbridge, just outside the hotel—as a result of that I met him at Hyde Park Corner one evening and went with him to Green Park, where I saw the prisoner, with whom I had a conversation—he said to me," What shall I call you!" and I said, "Jim"—he said, "Have you ever done time?"—I said, "I have just come out from doing three years for killing a woman"—he said, "All women are wicked. I want you to do a job for me. Stay at an hotel in Norfolk Street, Strand. There is a woman staying there in the name of Mrs. Watt. Here is £5. Get some chloroform, buy a jemmy and stay there. You can square the chambermaid to get the number of her room"—I said, "All right"—he gave me the number of her room as well, but I cannot recollect now what it was—he said, as regards the chloroform, "Put it in a handkerchief and hold it over her nose," and I said, "All right"—it was not the fact that I had done a term of imprisonment for killing a woman—as regards the jemmy, he said, "You want to burst open the door with the jimmy to get into the room. You can easily buy one"—he gave me £5 and said if I wanted any more money I was to let Worley know—Worley was standing a few yards away, not within hearing distance—that was all that passed between us on that occasion—he walked away and left us and I joined Worley and gave him £2 10s. out of the £5—the next day I saw Worley and had a conversation with him and on the Saturday night following that we went again to Green Park, where we again saw the prisoner—I told him Mrs. Watt had gone to Harrogate"—he said, "She will stay at the Prince of Wales Hotel, Harrogate. Why do not you follow her?"—I said I had no more money, and he then gave me another £5 in gold—he then left us and I divided the £5 with Worley again—shortly after I went to Euston and gave a letter to the guard to be posted by him at Harrogate to Worley, so he could show it to the prisoner—I never went to Harrogate—I afterwards ascertained from Worley that that letter was Bent to him—shortly after that I saw the prisoner in company with a lady at Albert Gate, Knightsbridge—he did not speak to me; he looked at me—on the same day I saw Worley, and after that he and I saw the prisoner in Green Park at 6 p.m. on a Saturday—he spoke to Worley first—he said to me, "You are a liar; you have not been to Harrogate. I have had a private detective and proved she has not left London, and I shall not give you any more money until you have done the job. Go and stay at the hotel at once"—I said, "I have got no money," and he gave me a sovereign"—that was all the conversation—I kept the whole of that sovereign—I did not go to the hotel—he mentioned the name of it, but I forget it; it was the same hotel as before; she was still staying there—I did not see the prisoner till about the beginning of January, 1904—I went then to Walham Green to see Worley—I had a conversation with him and as a result of that I went to the prisoner's house, 20, Albert Gate, at 6 p.m.—he opened the door—I said, "Tom sent me. You want a job done"—he said, "Walk towards Hyde Park and I will be out in a minute"—I walked towards Hyde Park and after a short time the prisoner joined me—he said, "What shall I call you?"—I said "Arthur'—he said, "Have you ever done time?"—I said, "I have just come out from doing five years for hitting a woman over the head with a bar of iron'—that was not true at all—he did not seem to recognise me in the least—he said, "There is a woman living at 15, Chapel Street, name of Mrs. Watt. I want you to do her in for me"—he said Chapel Street was at Grosvenor Place—he told me to get some operating chloroform and he gave me 2s. and told me to go and have a steak, as he said I looked bad—he said, "I will meet you at 9 o'clock at Hobart Place, Victoria"—he said, "Come to my house in twenty minutes' time and say your name is Howes, you used to be my valet at St. George's Square"—I was to get a pair of boots—he said he would give me £100 as soon as the job was done—he mentioned Hobart Place as the place where I was to meet him after I had been to his house—after twenty minutes or so I went to his house—he opened the door and gave me a pair of patent boots wrapped up in brown paper—I wore them for two or three hours and pawned them at Young's in King's Cross Road, the next day, because they were too big for me—I cannot tell you the name I pawned them under—I sent a woman in to pava them—when the prisoner gave me the boots he told me to meet him at 9 o'clock at Hobart Place—the woman who pawned these boots of mine was a cousin of mine named Doncaster, but I do not believe she pawned them in her right name—I went to Hobart Place and saw the prisoner—he gave me a sovereign to get some chloroform and told me he wanted Mrs. Watt murdered—he said, "As soon as you have done the job I will give you £100. When you go and see her, say you are a brother of Howes, who used to be my valet at St. George's Square"—I knew Chapel Street to be in Grosvenor Place—he told me Howes was in the Army in India—I was to say I was out of employment and ask her if she could do anything for me—he made an appointment for 6 o'clock the next night between Wellington House and Stanhope Gate; he said, "I will be there at 6 o'clock every night until you have done the job"—I did not go to 15, Chapel Street—I kept the appointment next night and told him that I saw a servant coming out of the house to post a letter, and that I had asked her if she was posting it to her lover and that she had said that she was posting it to Prince of Wales Hotel, Harrogate, where her mistress was—that was an invention; I had not seen any servant—he said, "That was very clever of you. You had better go to Harrogate at once and take a friend with you"—he said, "Where will you do it: in the train of the hotel? Doing it in the hotel would be best. I will go and get you some money"—he went indoors and came out and gave me £6 in gold and told me to go to Harrogate at once and stay at the Prince of Wales Hotel—he told me to meet him between Stanhope Gate and Wellington House at 6 p.m.; he said he would be there every night till I came back"—I met a friend of mine named Harvey, who was a tailor out of employment—I took him to "Gardiner's, Knightsbridge, and I bought two overcoats and paid a guinea each for them—I never went to Harrogate—we then got into a cab and went to the Tivoli Music Hall—I next went to Mrs. Watt at 15, Chapel Street, with Harvey—I saw her and had some conversation with her—on the day following Harvey and I went to Mrs. Watt's solicitors, Messrs. Russell, and we made a statement there to Mr. O'Malley—this is my statement, which was taken down in writing and signed by me in the name of "James Howes "(Produced)—we got 10s. each—Harvey made a statement, but he would not sign it—I saw the prisoner next between Wellington House and Stanhope Gate, but I did not speak to him—Harvey who was with me, spoke to him, and on coming back to me showed me a sovereign—on the night after I and Harvey were again in Hyde Park—I had given him an empty bottle labelled "Chloroform" which I got from a chemist in King's Cross Road—I saw him go up to the prisoner and saw him speak to him, having the bottle in his hand—I saw the prisoner after that, but I never spoke to him—later I paid a second visit to Mrs. Watt's house and I was told to come back in half an hour's time—I returned—I was alone, but I had somebody waiting for me—whilst having a conversation with Mrs. Watt, Detective Tanner came and arrested me and took me to the Gerard Road police station—I then made a statement to Inspector Hayter, which was taken down in writing, I signing it in the name of James Shuttle, which is my real name—I am known by one or two names to the police—this is the statement (Produced)—I was sent to prison in March, 1904, for assault, two months afterwards, which I served at Pentonville—two or three days before I came out, which was on May 27th, 1904, I wrote a letter addressing it to "Mr. H. Watt, 20, Albert Gate, Knights-bridge," and handed it to the warder in accordance with the prison rule—letters are always opened.

 GEORGE CLARK. I am principal warder at Pentonville—Shuttle was confined from March 28th to May 27th, 1904—he wrote a letter—a record is kept of all the addresses of the letters which are sent out for the purpose of posting—it is the duty of the principal warder of each division to make an entry showing who the addresses of the letters were—Shuttle was in my division, so it would be my duty to read the letter, enter it, and see that it was sent—turning to my record, I find on May 24th, 1904, he wrote a letter; the entry here is, "17217," the man's registered number when he was in prison: "J. Shuttle. Friend's name: Mr. H. Watt; to whom addressed: "20, Albert Gate, Knightsbridge"—I having read the letter, it would in the ordinary course go to the Governor or Deputy Governor to "be initialled, and then it would be handed out to the officer to post—it is impossible to keep a record of the letters that are posted. [The learned Judge intimated that that, on such evidence, was not sufficient to allow of the contents being read.)

Cross-examined. If there is anything wrong in the letter I underline it and submit it to the Governor or Deputy Governor, and he would exercise his own discretion.

Re-examined. If the Governor rejected the letter for any reason, the prisoner would he had down in front of him and he would tell him why he objected, and he would have the privilege of re-writing the letter or the letter would be suppressed—if that letter had been suppressed and he had written another one that which had been suppressed would be pinned in the man's prison record—there is no suppressed letter pinned in Shuttle's record—there would be an entry in this book to the effect that the letter was suppressed, and there is no such entry in connection with Shuttle.

 JAMES SHUTTLE (Further examined). I did not see or hear anything more of the letter—after I came out I went to Kelly's Library, Shaftesbury Avenue, to make some inquiries—there was no letter for me there—I did not see or hear anything more of the prisoner until August this year—I read in the newspapers something in connection with him and I went to see Mr. O'Malley at Messrs. Russell's office and asked if he wanted me—I then went to see Sergeant Fowler at Scotland Yard, where I made a statement which was reduced into writing and signed by me in the name of James Shuttle, the date being August 28th—this is the document I signed (Produced).

Cross-examined. The last time I was in prison was May 27th, 1904—between that date and August 28th I made no attempt to see or communicate with the prisoner—I have known Worley on and off for years knocking about Knightsbridge with his stall—I was looking for work; I was not loafing about the streets—I had not been in the habit of going to the same coffee house with Worley; I have been in a coffee house while he has been there, but not regularly—I never told him what I was doing for a living, and he never asked me—he never said he missed me during some of the times when I went to prison—I do not know that he thought I was quite a respectable member of society—he knew I had to get my living somehow—he might have known that I was making my living by thieving; I never made any disguise of it—for fifteen months I have been living an honest life—it was not through Worley that I went to see the prisoner in January, 1904; I went to Worley in 1904, and I asked him the gentleman's name and he said, "You know; it is Mr. Watson," as I understood him—up to that time I did not know his name—I asked Worley in 1902, and he would not tell me—if I had asked the prisoner his name he would not have told me; I did not ask him—in 1904 I understood his name was Watson until I had a look in the directory—I appreciate that this interview in 1904 is almost precisely the same as I had with the prisoner In 1902—at the conclusion of my evidence at the police Court on September 22nd after I had been speaking of the interviews in 1902, I concluded with, "That finished what I had to do with Mr. Watt and Tom"—that had no reference to my account of the interview in which I said I had been to Harrogate and the prisoner said that I was a liar and gave me a sovereign—that concluded my dealings with the prisoner—T kept the sovereign on that occasion—I had agreed to go halves with Worley, but I had all that sovereign—in January, 1904, I apparently was a complete stranger to him—he did not ask me who "Tom" was—I am sure "done in" was his expression; I knew that it meant murder—it might be an expression used by criminal classes—as to the chloroform, both in 1902 and 1904 he said, "The best thing to do her in with is to get some operating chloroform"—he did not ask me in 1902 how much the chloroform would cost—in 1904, on his inquiring, I am quite sure I said it might cost £5, or words to that effect—I said before the Magistrate that I said "15s. or a sovereign"—I said a sovereign to the best of my recollection—there was nothing about a jemmy in 1904—in 1902 he said I was to square the chambermaid so as to get into Mrs. Watt's room—I have said before the Magistrate that, in 1904, he asked me whether I was going to do it in the train or in the hotel when telling me to go to Harrogate—in 1902 he did not ask to see the chloroform And jemmy that I said I had bought—he trusted me implicitly and took my word as a gentleman—in 1904 I got some money from him, but I did not share it with Worley, as he had nothing to do with it then—I had nobody in 1904 with whom I shared the money—I gave Harvey a few shillings, but not much—I knew that Worley got the letter that I sent to Harrogate to be posted to him, because he showed it to me—I have not heard Worley say that he never received it—I do not know where Harvey is now—I do not think he does any stealing—his father has got plenty of money—he is twenty-six or twenty-seven—I saw him last in March this year, and I have not seen him since—in January, 1904, when we first went to Mrs. Watt's, we got half a sovereign each—my convictions began in 1894, my first being for stealing from my brother's house; the next in 1900, for stealing behind a bar, where I was employed as a barman; another for stealing from a person in a cab; one in 1901 for stealing from furnished lodgings, and in July of that year one for robbing a person in the street of a watch and chain; we had all been drinking and there was a friend with me who helped in that robbery—he is leading an honest life now—I said before the Magistrate, "My pal has done nothing since; it broke his heart"—in September, 1903, I was again convicted of attempted robbery of somebody in the street—on that occasion I gave the name of my friend, James Harvey—in March, 1904, I was convicted for assaulting a man who owed me some money; I gave him a hiding because he would not pay me—at Gerard Road I made an accusation against a woman of stealing my watch and chain and I had her locked up; for how long I do not know, and I do not care—it was not a false charge—I did not appear to prosecute her, because I was going to a race meeting the next day to back some winners, and for no other purpose—I know now that she was remanded in custody for a week—I did not say I was going down to the race meeting to get watches and chains; I said, "Also to see what I could find. I did not find anything. They did not catch me that time"—I had a watch and chain at that time—I was not living with my brother—I gave my brother's address when charging this woman—I said at the Police Court, with regard to the prisoner, "All I was after was money, and that was all Worley was after, I suppose"—I was not going to do murder; I went to get money—I did not go to Mrs. Watt the first time to get money; I went to warn her of her life—the last time I went to get money—I got altogether 30s. from her.

Re-examined. I am about thirty—before September 22nd, when I made the statement before the Police Magistrate, ending with the words, "That finished what I had to do with Mr. Watt and with Tom," I had made my statement at Scotland Yard on August 28th [MR. AVORY said that in putting the question he was only drawing attention to the fact that what the witness had to do with Mr. Watt and Tom ended in 1902, so far as the combination of Mr. Watt and Worley was concerned, and that he did not suggest that the witness had never said before that something happened in 1904. The COURT intimated to MR. MATHEWS that if there was anything in the witness's statement to the police on August 28th showing that Worley was in any way concerned with it in 1904, he could use it]—I said in my statement on August 28th, "I then had nothing more to do with Watt till January, 1904, when I saw Tom at Walham Green and I spoke to him—Worley had nothing to do with it in 1904, except that I got his address from him.

 CHARLES O'MALLEY. I am managing clerk to Messrs. Charles Russell &Co., solicitors, of 37, Norfolk street, Strand—for a great many years Mr. Russell has acted as solicitor to Mrs. Julia Watt, and on her behalf conducted the divorce petition of 1901 and the libel action, in reference to which the date of judgment in the House of Lords was April 3rd this year—it has been re-entered, on May 22nd, and is waiting for trial in the present week's list—the decree nisi being made on March 5th,. 1903, no application has been made since to make it absolute—on January 16th, 1904, Shuttle and another man, who gave his name as Harvey, came to the office, and Shuttle made a statement which I took down in writing and he signed—I knew through Mrs. Watt that they were coming—this is the statement Shuttle made, when he posed in the name of "James Howes"—Harvey also made a statement, but he refused to sign it—I think his address is part of the statement—I gave them 10s. each—not long after, owing to a communication I received from Mrs. Watt, I communicated with the police at the Gerard Road police station, from whom I received a report with another document—no further action was taken at that time.

Cross-examined. No action was ever taken either by myself or the police upon those statements—I do not recollect that either the prisoner or his solicitors were informed of them—it is possible my principal may have made the communication—the prisoner put in an answer to Mrs. Watt's petition for divorce in 1901 on the ground of cruelty and adultery—to my recollection he did not instruct counsel—in 1895 there was a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and adultery, which suit was defended and tried by a Jury—the Jury found that the charges of cruelty were not established—Mrs. Watt's third petition the prisoner did not defend; formal appearance was entered, but no appearance at the trial—since the decree nisi there have been negotiations going on between the prisoner and Mrs. Watt from time to time with a view to a settlement of the differences between them, and these negotiations being renewed at the end of August or September—they had stopped some months before that.

By the COURT. They stopped some months and were then renewed at the latter end of August or September of this year.

Re-examined. I made no communication to the prisoner or his solicitors, and I have no recollection of any communication being made from the office—the renewal of the negotiations would be after the prisoner was charged in the case.

 CATHERINE RICE. I am the wife of William Rice, a printer, and am a sister of Worley—I live now at 7, East Street, Theobald's Road, but used to live at No. 2, where my brother used to visit me from time to time—he had letters addressed to him there, and I saw them when they arrived and when they had been opened—the envelope was written in ink, and the inside was written in black lead pencil—the envelope was of commercial size, and it was a small slip of paper inside—I gave them to my brother when he arrived. [MR. AVORY objected to the witness giving contents of the letters, which objection was upheld by the COURT.]

 LOUIS SEELING. I live at Hillsborough, Ascot, and Mrs. Watt is my wife's sister—in July my wife and I were staying at White Hall, Hampton Court, an hotel—Mrs. Watt was staying there at the same time, but she was on her own—looking at my diary, I see that Mrs. Watt arrived on August 2nd at White Hall; on August 25th Mrs. Watt and my wife left by the 2.20 train for Harrogate from King's Cross; on September 26th went up to Harrogate by the 1.40 train and found my wife still there, but Mrs. Watt had left; October 28th, 29th, and 30th I went to Howard's Hotel to make a call on Mrs. Watt and I saw her there—on March 2nd, 1903, Mrs. Watt came and stayed with me at Ascot, remaining till April 27th—this is a photograph of her taken, I should think, at least twenty-five years ago.

 ANNIE MORTIMER. I am the manageress of the Howard Hotel, Norfolk Street, Strand, and I have the hotel books here—I know Mrs. Watt—turning to my books for October 22nd, 1902, I find she was staying at the hotel from October 22nd to November 11th, 1902, and again from January 24th, 1903, to February 9th, 1903.

 ARTHUR MARTIN. I am an assistant to Mr. Young, pawnbroker, of King's Road, Chelsea—turning to my book (Produced), I see on January 14th, 1904, that a pair of men's boots were pledged on that day for 1s. 6d. by a female in the name of "May Till, of 10, Manor Street, Chelsea"—they were redeemed on January 8th.

By the COURT. They were "men's boots" so described.

 HUGH ROSS. In January, 1904, I was in the employment of Gardiner &Co., tailors, of Knightsbridge—I produce a bill dated January 14th, 1904, which says that we sold two overcoats for a guinea each, I believe, to the same person, who paid cash at the time.

 WILLIAM HOWES. I am a gardener—I used to have a son named Henry William Alfred Howes, who was in the prisoner's service in 1890 and 1891—the prisoner was then living at 101, St. George's Square, I think—my son went into the Army, went to India and died in India in 1898.

 ELLEN THOMPSON. I was formerly in the service of Mrs. Watt at 15, Chapel Street, from November, 1903, to January, 1904—a man I have heard in the name of Shuttle came to the house in January, 1904—I do not think anyone was with him—I forget whether he saw Mrs. Watt that time or not—he came two days later, and I showed him into the morning room—I think he saw Mrs. Watt on that occasion.

 TOM TANNER (Sergeant, Metropolitan Police). On January 30th, 1904, I received a communication, in consequence of which I went to 15, Chapel Street, about 6 p.m., when I saw Mrs. Watt, who made a communication to me—I waited in the house until Shuttle arrived—he went into the dining room on the ground floor, where Mrs. Watt went also—I stayed outside the door, which was partly open, and I heard some conversation—I went into the room—I took Shuttle, whom I knew and who knew me, to the Gerard Road police station, where he was seen by Inspector Hayter.

 HENRY HAYTER (Pensioned Inspector B.) In January, 1904, I was in charge of the Detective Department of the B Division—on January 22nd, 1904, I received a communication through a firm of solicitors and I saw Mrs. Watt, to whom certain instructions were given—Tanner was one of my officers at that time—on January 30th I went to Gerard Road police station, where I saw Tanner and Shuttle—Shuttle made a statement to me, which I wrote down at the time and read over to him and he signed it; this is it (Produced)—a day or two afterwards I had an appointment at Messrs. Russell's office, but the person with whom I had the appointment did not attend there.

H. FOWLER (Further examined). I have seen the prisoner write several times—I have seen the two original telegrams produced by the Post Office, purporting to have been sent by the prisoner, and to the best on my belief they are in his handwriting—I have seen Lightfoot write on more than one occasion—I have seen two telegrams produced here, purporting to be in the handwriting of Lightfoot, and to the best of my belief they are in his handwriting.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "These ridiculous charges are baseless, and were put forward originally for the purpose of blackmail,"

 JESSIE WEEKS (Recalled. Cross-examined by MR. AVORY). I said on Saturday that I had been with Mrs. Clarke for two years and nine months—she was about thirty-seven—Mrs. Clarke engaged me—I was firs asked to fix the date of any visit of 'the prisoner and Lady Violet to Mrs. Clarke's by Sergeant Fowler last Saturday week—I have no particular reason for remembering the visit.

Re-examined. There were three visits altogether over the whole period—the first Christmas I was at Maidenhead I saw the prisoner—the next time was on a Sunday; I do not know when—it was in the winter time, I think—the third visit was in September.

Tuesday, December 19th.

T. TANNER (Further examined by the Court). In the conversation which I overheard between Shuttle and Mrs. Watt I did not hear any demand for money—I took him to the station to take a statement from him—I said he would have to come along with me, as his conduct was suspicious—I meant suspicious in the extraordinary story he was telling.

J. KIGHTFOOT (Further cross-examined). I think I know this paper called the "Hull Daily News "(Produced)—I see a paragraph headed "The Lucky Compositor "; it is supposed to refer to me—I have read it before to-day, but I did not see it at the time it was published—I cannot say how long after it was published I knew of it—that paper says it is the result of an interview between me and somebody else, but I do not think that is right—I had an interview, but I cannot say it was with a representative of that paper; if I did, it has slipped my memory—a report got about that I, John Kirtley Lightfoot, had just inherited £56,000 from my grandfather, but I did not set it about—I never told anybody that, but I know it has got about, because I had some money—I did not tell this interviewer that I had been away two and a half months in France, Spain, and Italy; I do not remember any such interview [MR. AVORY indicated a gentleman in the well of the COURT]—I do not remember that gentleman at all (Extract of paragraph read): "I have been away two and a half months in France, Spain, and Italy, in each of which countries my grandfather had property and mining shares. I find I have become the owner of £35,"/50 in land, bills, etc., £17,375 cash in the bank, and £3,000 in shares. This is not the whole of the fortune, but with the property being in three countries, Genoa, Bilbae, France, it has taken a longer time transferring it to me. I have to come up to London to see about the final transference of it"—I cannot remember saying that to him—I know there was a report got about to that effect, and I never contradicted it—I had a few hundred pounds in my pocket, you see—I admit that I encouraged the statement because I hadn't got the heart to contradict it—after your having told me where the interview took place, I cannot now recollect it—I admit I was in Hull at this time, March 13th, 1905, for a short while; I had just come back from France—the money I had with me was seen and there were reports about it even before I got to Hull (Further extract read): "Mr. Kirtley Lightfoot was born thirty-eight years ago near Berwick-on-Tweed and was one of two sons"—I never remember telling anyone that; I was not born near Berwick-on-Tweed, and I am one of four sons—" He was brought up at Edinburgh, his father being a newspaper proprietor"—I did not tell him that, but my father all the same was editor of a newspaper, but not in Edinburgh—" His brother died two years ago when with him on a visit to Ramsgate"—I did not tell him that, but my brother all the same did die at Ramsgate, not two years ago, fourteen years ago—" And his father and two uncles being also dead, he became his grandfather's sole heir. He previously had a small fortune, but this he lost by an unfortunate speculation on the advice of a solicitor"—to my knowledge I never told any of this to anybody in Hull at this period—" It was for this reason that he came to Hull during the printers' dispute and took employment with Messrs. W. Kirk & Sons, printers, Chapel Lane"—I acknowledge that is well known; that is where I changed my name from Lightfoot to Kirtley—I was thoroughly hard up and I was a non-Unionist man—" About November I got the first letter, and it came as a great surprise, for I had expected that my grandfather had been dead twenty years. He went out to France fifty years ago, when he was about thirty years of age. I can remember sitting on his knee as a boy seven years old when he paid a visit to Scotland"—I never said that, to my knowledge, although I do remember similar things—I do not think I could have forgotten it if it did take place, but I question whether it ever did take place—I represented that it did take place, but I may have forgotten it—I admit, that on that same day March 13th, I had an interview with a representative of the "Daily Mail," but I did not tell him the same story; he said he supposed so-and-so about me, and I did not contradict it; it had got so far about—I am not aware that he asked me what my legacy consisted of, nor that I said, "Money and property mostly in Genoa, Bilbao, the south of France, and a little in Paris, but not much"—I think all this was a hoax on me by the people, because I had money in my pocket; the report got about and I never contradicted it—I admit that I saw it in the papers, and I did not contradict it (Further extract read from the "Hull Daily News "): "No, I am not married, although the news had evidently leaked out whilst I was in Spain, and a lady there threw herself very much in my way, and she was a beautiful woman too "—he never asked me, "Is there a lady to share your fortune?"and I did not reply—I think that gentleman has had a conversation with someone else; that is my honest opinion—I do not remember him no this card (Produced); I never saw a card like that, to my knowledge—I am quite willing to own up to it if I got it; I owned up to the other for.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that after being in business for fifteen years as a shipbroker in Glasgow, he entered Parliament for the Camlachie Division of that town; that he left Parliament in 1892, and, after liquidating his business, retired; that in 1880 he married Mrs. Watt, who obtained a judicial separation from him in 1895; that in 1901 there was a settlement between them, in which both parties abandoned all legal proceedings and in which he settled certain property on her which was to vest in the survivor; that Mrs. Watt had not carried out the agreement, but since that date till August, 1905, he had been endeavouring to put an end to all the disputes; that Mrs. Watt had obtained a decree nisi against him in 1903,which she had never made absolute; that on August 4th, 1904, he had called on her with a view to getting her to sign a document he had drawn up stating that in consideration of £600a year, which he would allow her for life, she would consent to make the decree absolute, and give up the settlement of 1901, and all legal disputes were to be settled between them, but that she refused to do so, her conduct being such that he applied for a summons for assault against her the same day at the Westminster Police Court; that the friction arose purely between Mrs. Watt and Lady Violet, with whom he was living, and he endeavoured to act as an intermediary as far as he could; that for the purpose of getting things in trim for a settlement of all disputes he consulted Mr. Bicknell, a solicitor, who introduced him to Mr. Sweeney, to whom Mr. Bicknell gave instructions to get all the disputes settled, he (the prisoner) not to interfere at all; that Mr. Sweeney introduced him to Marshall, who drew up the agreement which, after interlining the words, "And a settlement of all disputes," he signed; that he should not have done so had he known that Mr. Sweeny was going to leave town; that Mr. Bicknell also having left town, he was left with Marshall as the sole agent in the matter; that on August 11th, the date of his signing, the agreement, Marshall telephoned him that he had learnt Mrs. Watt had decided to go to Ostend, on which he (the prisoner) said that he did not believe it and that if that was the sort of information he was going to be given he would give him forty-eight hours to finish the inquiry; that this led to a stormy interview, and Marshall called upon him the same evening and offered to follow Mrs. Watt for £250under certain circumstances, but he refused to pay it; that Marshall told him from the result of the interview he had had with Mrs. Watt he thought he could get her to sign the agreement but that he (the prisoner) said the situation would be met if she left London, and had he known she was doing so he would not have employed him, and they had better end it; that also on that occasion Marshall informed him that Mrs. Watt had a bill on her house, "To Let"; that the interview ended by his practically having to put Marshall out; that on the 14th Marshall telephoned him saying that he had received a telegram from Mrs. Watt to him addressed "Ken-Lane, 5, Hangers Lane, Baling" making an appointment for him to see her and arranging to call on him (the prisoner) afterwards to report results; that he saw him that day in the library, when Marshall informed him that Mrs. Watt seemed to be changed and would not discuss the agreement; that he was still in hopes of getting her to sign, but he must have money; that he gave him £10, saying that Mr. Bicknell had advised him to pay him only out-of-pocket expenses, which was the fact, but that Marshall said that that was no good to him and that he had now learnt that Mrs. Watt was going on a motor trip; that he said he equally disbelieved that, and refused to allow him to follow her, again repeating what he had said, that if the left town there would be an end to the friction between the two ladies, and said, "Your reports appear to me to be absolute fiction and you must go"; that on Marshall inquiring what the "funny" bottle he saw lying on his roll top desk was, he told him it was chloroform that he had obtained from Dr. Blake, of Putney, who had been attending Lady Violet; that he had got that originally for some experimental purposes for a gentleman who was offering him a patent; that there was also some other chloroform on the desk which he had had some time and which his wife used for her neuralgia; that on the 12th and 14th Marshall showed him two scurrilous post cards which he concluded came from his wife, on which Marshall said that if that was so he could get her twelve months, but that he (the prisoner) said he wished nothing of the sort; that on giving certain particulars to him Marshall said he could trace the writer; that he gave them to him and did not get them back, and then with difficulty, till the 17th; that during this time Lady Violet was in a little room leading out of the library; that on the next day Marshall came again at 5p.m. and saw him in the library when Lady Violet was again in the small room; that Marshall said that he had seen Mrs. Watt again, but that it seemed hopeless, and asked him again if he could follow on a motor car and he said "No "; that he said it depended upon when she let her house as to when she left England; that he (the prisoner) said it would be a good thing to get her to sign the agreement before she left; that he said, "It seems to me the purpose of my employment of you has been met; at all events, you apparently can do nothing, therefore you may consider yourself released as far as my employment is concerned "; that he had already practically dismissed him on the 15th, but in spite of that Marshall telephoned him that he had the most important information which was too long to tell by telephone; that he did not see him on the 16th but went to see him on the 17th to hear what the important information was; that he (the prisoner) said to Marshall. "What is your important information?"; that Marshall said, "What information do you mean?" that he said, "What you have telephoned me about to call and hear "; that Marshall seemed surprised and said, "I have no information; I have with drawn my agent in terms of your instructions"; that Marshall said, "What can you expect from £10?"that he (the prisoner) said he had done nothing to earn his money and rose hurriedly and dashed to the door, throwing it open; that he saw no one outside; that he (the prisoner) went home and sent word to Marshall to send his account in; that at no time did he ever propose to Marshall about murdering Mrs. Watt; that he never mentioned Dr. Blake's name to Marshall; that it was untrue he ever told Marshall that he had hit Mrs. Watt with his hand; that he asked Worley to find out where Mrs. Watt was, as he wished to call and inquire how she was; that there was no truth in what Worley had said as to his wishing to injure Mrs. Watt or anybody else; that he never wrote to Worley; that he never gave him a stick, or a photograph of Mrs. Watt, as he had not one; that he never, to his knowledge ever saw Shuttle; that he could not say whether he ever received a letter from anyone who was in prison, as he received thousands of begging letters; that Lightfoot first wrote to him; that he had received hundreds of letters since the case was first published in the papers; that he sent the important ones on to Mr. Palmer; that he sent one of August 27th writing on it. "Dear Sir,—You might write this man. Have very many kind letters from all parts; not one against H.W."; that there was no truth in Lightfoot's story as to drawing up a statement; that Lightfoot came to him and said he could give evidence; that he (the prisoner) said he had plenty of proposals from people, but all they wanted was money; that Lightfoot said he was not a "sponger"; that he said he had not had anything to eat and he.(the prisoner) gave him something; that Lightfoot said he was leaving for Canada and that he (the prisoner) said it might be possible to interpolate his evidence; that Lightfoot never was asked to dine with them, but that as he (the prisoner) was going out with Lady Violet, Lightfoot followed them, and so he (the prisoner) asked him to have something; that it was quite untrue what Lightfoot had said as to his (the prisoner) making signs or winks to him at Mr. Palmer's office; that up to the time Lightfoot recanted his evidence, he (the prisoner) believed it was quite true; and that he (the prisoner) went to Maidenhead to find Abrahams, as Abrahams owed him a considerable sum of money. In cross-examination the prisoner stated that he never mentioned a fruiterer's business to Lightfoot and that Ball must have told him that; that Ball mentioned at the Police Court that he (the prisoner) was selling all his effects and was going to abscond; that Ball mentioned the fruiterer's business in Court and that Lightfoot was in Court and must have heard it; that he never said to Marshall that he had given £2,000to Bernard Abrahams to murder Mrs. Watt; that on the occasion when Lightfoot and Bernard Abrahams were in his house together he did not introduce them, and that he at no time mentioned his name to Lightfoot; that to the best of his recollection the last time he saw or heard from Bernard Abrahams was on September 21st and that he did not know where he was now; that he had only paid Worley a shilling or two for conveying his messages; that he had never come to his house, nor had he seen him in the park' and that he saw him at his stall when he wanted to know the answer to his messages; that, in fact, the chloroform he obtained from Dr. Blake never was used for experimental purposes; that Maloney must have misunderstood him in saying that he said he was a bit of a pugilist; that he never said he would get Mrs. Watt into Pentonville; that on thinking it over and on consulting Lady Violet he believed that Marshall had called for a few minutes on Saturday, August 12th; that he could not remember whether over the telephone he told Marshall that the assault on Lady Violet was at the instigation of Mrs. Watt; that he did not tell Marshall on the 17th to bring Mrs. Watt to his house; that he knew she would not come, nor did Marshall ever suggest it to him, the only suggestion being for him to go with Marshall to see her, of which he did not see the feasibility; that he denied all Marshall's account of the conversation between them on the 17th; that on leaving Marshall's office he got home at 11.30 without delaying on the way; that on the 15th, on his refusing Marshall the £250, on going out he mumbled something about making it hot for him; that what led him to make the remarks he did when arrested was that at the first rush he thought Mrs. Watt had something to do with it. In re-examination he stated that he had never dreamt of any such charge being made against him; that prior to Bernard Abraham's bankruptcy in 1899 he had advanced him £1,300 on what he believed to be ample security, and that he had no reason to suppose that he was in any way a discreditable character; that when Bernard Abrahams was in prison he instructed a solicitor to get some assignments executed which were part of the security; that on his coming out of prison Abrahams gave him to understand that he could pay off the debt by instalments, and that is why, together with his knowing something about Marshall, he kept his connection up with him; that Abrahams had given certain information about Marshall, which had been very valuable in the case, but beyond making researches as to Marshall and giving information he had had nothing to do with this case; that there was no interview at which Light foot was present when any person representing himself to be Lord Kinloch or Rufus Isaacs was present. [The Foreman said that the Jury took it that they must rely entirely on Lightfoot's evidence as regards the meeting with the prisoner in the park to which the COURT assented.

Evidence for the Defence,

 JULIA CHARLOTTE MARIA, LADY WATT. I have taken the name of Lady Watt by deed-poll—I have been living at 72, Knightsbridge, since March, 1892—I was married to the prisoner by the Registrar at Brighton after full discovery of all the circumstances to him [The Judge intimated that the Registrar's conduct should be inquired into. MR. AVORY stated that the Registrar had acted only after reference to headquarters]—the prisoner is very regular in his habits; he receives people on business between 9 and 10 a.m. and 5 and 6 p.m.—we always dined out, leaving the house about 6 p.m., or a little after, dining generally at the Monico restaurant—on August 25th we dined at that restaurant at 6 p.m., Mr. Church being with us—we remained there till 9 or a little after, the prisoner remaining in our company the whole time, when we returned home—after that time Lightfoot was never in my company in the presence of any person calling himself "Lord Kinloch," or "Lord Kintore" or any person calling himself "Rufus Isaacs"—there is no truth in his story that I ever sat down to dinner with him in my house at Knightsbridge in company with Lord Kintore, or anybody else—I remember the luncheon which has been spoken of at Searcy's restaurant on September 22nd, about 2 p.m.—we did not invite Lightfoot to lunch; he followed us down the street and sat down with us—that is the only occasion on which he sat down to a meal with me—there was never any interview between him and any person calling himself "Rufus Isaacs," "Lord Kintore, or anything like that—I know a man named Bernard Abrahams by sight—there was never any interview between him and Lightfoot in which the evidence Lightfoot was going to give was discussed—the prisoner and I frequently go to Maidenhead, and I have been with him on two or three occasions when he has called upon Bernard Abrahams there—I was present on one occasion when I saw a Mrs. Clarke—we were there a few minutes on business—there never was any discussion at all about Lightfoot's evidence—we were dining in that week to Friday, August 25th, at the same hour [The statement made by Lightfoot as to one of the reasons why he had committed perjury was then handed to the witness]—this is a gross fabrication of lies and most libellous—[The COURT ordered the document to be re-sealed]—I remember the prisoner employing Marshall and the arrangement made—I only heard him when he called at the house on August 11th—I was in the library when he called on the 14th and I went out from there into a small room, the door of which opens into the library—I left that door open—Marshall did not see me in the library; I went into this little room before he came in—I retired in the same way when he came in on the 15th—on each of these occasions I overheard the conversation between him and the prisoner, and at neither was anything said by the prisoner proposing to murder Mrs. Julia Watt; not a word was suggested that she was to be chloroformed and Dr. Blake was to be called in, who would certify death to be heart disease, and so on—I heard Marshall ask the prisoner for £250—the excuse for that was to settle this agreement—I heard a reference made by the prisoner to the agreement—I had seen that document myself—at the time that reference was made to that document I saw Marshall take up a bottle and heard him say, "What is in that bottle?"—the door was not so far shut that I could not see; I saw perfectly—the prisoner said that was chloroform he had for inventive purposes, but I was to use it if I wanted it for different pains I have in the head—on the 15th Marshall again asked for £250 and the prisoner said, "No, I will not give you £250"—then Marshall went to the door and said, "If you do not give me £250, I will make it hot for you "; I heard those words—on the 16th I was in the hall when a telephone message came—there is a double receiver on the telephone, and I heard with one and the prisoner with the other—it was from Marshall, who said that he would like to see the prisoner, as he had something to tell him—the prisoner went away the next morning at 10.45 and returned home at 11.30 a.m., when he made a communication to me about Marshall—at 11.30 a.m. I heard him telephone Marshall to send in his account.

Cross-examined. My attention was not drawn to the date of August 25th till September—I do not remember when Lightfoot went into the box in Marlborough Street and recanted—if he did so on October 12th, my attention could not have been drawn to this date before that date—I do not keep a diary—we had been dining for a long time at the Monico; I should say from last January or February every night when we were in town; I cannot swear to every night—we have dined at very many places besides the Monico, the Cecil, Prince, and the Savoy—I think we dined once at the Criterion, but it is a long time ago now; I should say that during the last year we have dined only at the Monico, from last January—we were in London from January to August, except when away for week-ends sometimes, but with those exceptions we have dined every night at the Monico down to the present date; almost invariably leaving the house about 6 or 6.15 p.m., the dinner lasting until perhaps 8 or 9—we dined at the Monico on August 24th—my memory had not to be revived as to who dined with us on the 26th—we did not often have people, and I remember the people who dine with us well—I have carried that in my memory—on August 26th we dined at the Monico—the prisoner and I went to Maidenhead, but not for the purpose of calling on Bernard Abrahams—I cannot remember when we called on him last; I think it was the end of August; I cannot remember whether it was September 17th—I am not sure whether it was a Sunday—we got back to dine at the Monico on the day we saw him—I have spoken to him—a long time ago I paid visits to him at Maidenhead with the prisoner—some time ago on his introduction I met Mrs. Clarke—I should say I have seen him two or three times at Maidenhead—some time this year, I cannot quite remember when, I saw him at Knightsbridge; some time in the autumn, I think, later than September—I have been very ill and I cannot remember all these things—I have no reason for fixing that as the time he came—he came with a message of business from Mr. Freke Palmer—I cannot say whether this was after or before the last visit to him at Maidenhead—on that day Lightfoot was in the hall, but he had no conversation with Abrahams; he passed into another room; Lightfoot was not there with him—I was in the hall at the time—they were not together in the hall—Abrahams remained in the house for a few minutes—Lightfoot was in the hall and Abrahams went through the hall, but did not speak to Lightfoot at all—the door opened and Lightfoot came into the hall—I was in the library at that moment the first time he came—the prisoner was at the door and brought him into the library; he said, "There is a man called 'Battle'. Would you see him?" and I said, "Bring him in; what does he want?"—he remained only a few minutes in the library—I believe he had a little cold meat, as he said he was hungry and had come a long way—he went downstairs, I believe, to have it—he had some cold meat, the remains of the servants', I believe—I do not think it was a pie—how many servants I had has nothing to do with this case—we had one or two; I forget now—I think it was two then—we had none who slept upon the premises—I mean women servants; we may have had one and we may have had two—I think the prisoner went down when Lightfoot was having his meal—he came up when he had finished and I saw him and spoke to him—he le't about 4.40 p.m.; I think he came at 4 p.m.—I should say he was there about twenty minutes—he handed me a document, which I looked at—I had heard about it already, because he had sent it some weeks before to Mr. Freke Palmer—I recognised the document he handed to me; it was recording that he had overheard a conversation—no more conversations occurred there between anybody—I believe he said something about going to Canada, but I cannot remember much about that—I did not go to Maidenhead the day after his visit—I saw him when he came to the house the next Wednesday—it was my suggestion that he should be put up for the night—I cannot be quite certain whether I saw him on the Thursday when he came—if Thursday was the day when Bernard Abrahams came; I was there—I have never lunched with Bernard Abrahams anywhere, nor with a dark gentleman, Jewish in appearance—I saw Lightfoot when he came at 9 a.m. on Saturday—I had no conversations with Lightfoot and I never made any statement to him about the violence of the officers who had come to search the premises—I never said in his hearing that in consequence of their violence I had had a miscarriage—I would not speak to a common man on those subjects—this letter is my writing—it is written to the Chief Commissioner of Police, complaining of the results of the policemen's conduct, which had caused serious injury to my health; I have been more or less ill ever since—I do not wish to get other people into trouble, but I have an idea how Lightfoot had such an idea—I cannot invent a suggestion—in my hearing no mention was ever made to Lightfoot about a fruiterer's business—on August 14th I was in the room when Marshall was announced, and, as I was in my deshabille I went into the little side room—I did not go in there to overhear Marshall and the prisoner's conversation—the door of the little room is always open—he came about 5—the conversation then was entirely about trying to get Mrs. Watt to sign the agreement—on the 15th it was that I heard Marshall say, "If you don't pay me £250 I'll make it hot"—the £250 was for his expenses, but there were no expenses—I took it to be blackmail—I do not think I knew that Marshall was coming on the 15th—I always sit in the library, but as I was not dressed at that time I went into the little room—I did not go for the purpose of listening—I had my dressing gown on at that time—it was not the sort of dress to sit in with a stranger present—I keep my things in the little room—I never think about shutting doors—on the 14th the subject of the chloroform bottle was just touched upon—Marshall picked it up and said, "What's that?" and Mr. Watt said, "Chloroform," and that was all—I think I remember something being said at one of the Marshall interviews about post-cards—I think it was said that they were funny post-cards, nothing more—there was no mention of my having been assaulted at either of those interviews—I was once pushed up against by some boys—I have not attributed that to Mrs. Watt—it was not said that the post-cards came from Mrs. Watt—the prisoner never said so—I never heard him say anything against his former wife, not to me—he has always talked nicely about her—her name was very rarely mentioned between us—I did not hear Marshall say at the August 14th interview, referring to the post-cards, "If these are your wife's I can get her twelve months"—I did not hear the prisoner say that one seemed to come from one of her clubs, nor did I hear Marshall reply, "There is a lady friend of mine at Sloane Street and I will send her up to test the machines"—I cannot remember much of what happened when the police came, as I was very much upset—I did make a communication to the Director of Public Prosecutions as to overhearing Marshall—that was on August 21st; it was sent to his private house.

Re-examined. The first I knew of the prisoner's arrest was when a policeman came to the house and told me—I have been ill ever since.

 GEORGE FREDERICK CHURCH. I am principal managing clerk to Messrs. Michael Abrahams, solicitors, of Tokenhouse Yard—I have known the prisoner for upwards of twenty years—my firm have acted for him for some years—I am acquainted with the room called "The Library" and the little room which leads off it, at 72, Knightsbridge—this little plan I have here was made by me—the dimensions are all approximate, as I had no measure with me—it shows the position of the two rooms and the position of things in it—the little room I have called "Butler's Pantry"—it is very dark in there—I was not aware of its existence till the prisoner called my attention to it—you can from that room see all that takes place in the larger room; that is with the door ajar—there is no window to the pantry—it is about 10 feet deep—I did not notice if there was any carpet on the floor—on February 1st last I had an interview with Mr. Charles Russell and telephoned to the prisoner what I had done in consequence—I remember dining at the Cafe Monico with the prisoner and Lady Violet on August 25th—while this case was on at the Police Court my firm practically controlled the work, Mr. Palmer doing it under my supervision—Lightfoot, when he was giving his recanted evidence, referred to August 25th—the prisoner is a non-smoker.

Cross-examined. I am quite certain about the 25th.

 PETER JOSEPH WIERTZ. I am superintendent of the Renaissance Room and the Banquetting Department at the Monico restaurant—the prisoner and Lady Violet have been in the habit of dining there for a year past—table 30 is reserved for them—our books show when that table was occupied—the table is very seldom engaged by anyone else, because it is too near the band—on August 25th table No. 30 was engaged for three persons—I know Mr. Church by sight—he has been there with the prisoner—on the 24th that table was engaged for two; the 23rd, engaged for two—I am certain that Mr. Church dined there on the 25th—that room is never full on August 24th—on the 23rd there were only nine tables engaged out of thirty or thirty-one.

Cross-examined. The prisoner always came in with the first customers to dinner, never later than 6.30—I cannot recollect that he has ever been late.

A. BALL (Recalled by MR. BODKIN). I attended the Police Court at the various hearings of this case—I was present when Lightfoot was first examined on September 22nd—he was the first witness called—he signed his evidence and at once left the Court—I saw him go up the street—I gave no evidence that day in his hearing—on October 12th I was again present when he gave his evidence—he was put into the box within a few minutes of his arrival—after his evidence the question f the prisoner's bail arose—the police raised some question about it owing to his behaviour to the witnesses—nothing was said then in public as to the prisoner's property or as to any action he was going to take with regard to it—Lightfoot next appeared at the Police Court on October 13th on the prosecution against himself for perjury—he was then in custody—he remained in custody up to October 17th, when he pleaded guilty here and was sentenced—it was on November 1st that I first heard of the fruiterer's business; that is, to have definite information of it—I did not get it from Lightfoot; it was from inquiries we made—there was a remand of the prisoner to November 8th—it was then that the fruiterer's business and its disposal was mentioned—Lightfoot, of course, was not there then—I have never on any occasion said anything to Lightfoot as to the fruiterer's business.

By the COURT. The Magistrate increased the bail to two sureties of £500 each instead of one of £600.

By MR. AVORY. I am prepared to swear that the increase of bail was on that same day—I cannot disclose from whom I got the information about the business.

P. J. WIERTZ (Recalled by MR. MATHEWS). Looking at my book, I find that only table 30 was engaged on Sunday, September 23rd—on Sunday, September 10th, table 30 was occupied by two people—there were two other tables engaged—on September 15th, 16th, 17th, 20th, 21st, 22nd, and 23rd, table 30 was unoccupied—I have got some dates when the prisoner dined in the grill room.

By MR. AVORY. The prisoner and Lady Violet frequently dined in the grill room—I have seen the prisoner very often there.

[The learned Judge, in his summing-up to the Jury, stated that he ruled that the evidence of Lightfoot and certain witness called in corroboration of it was admissible in this case on the well-established principle that the conduct in litigation of a party to it, if such as to lead to the reasonable inference that he disbelieves in his own case may be proved and used as evidence against him, and cited Wills on Circumstantial Evidence.]

C. O'MALLEY (Recalled by the COURT). The prisoner's solicitors reopened the negotiations at the end of August or the beginning of September—I remember my firm wrote a letter on September 25th without prejudice to the prisoner's solicitors, making a certain offer in settlement of all matters between the prisoner and Mrs. Watt, expressly excluding the criminal proceedings, but that was not the re-opening of the negotiations; it was in answer to a suggestion made by them.

By MR. MUIR. Mrs. Watt had nothing to do with the criminal proceedings.

By the COURT. That offer was never accepted.

GUILTY. Five years' penal servitude.

JOHN EDWARD MALLINSON, witness name in trial of FREDERICK ARTHUR FANE, Deception > forgery; PHILLIP MONTAGUE PEACH, Deception > forgery; FREDERICK ARTHUR FANE, Deception > fraud; PHILLIP MONTAGUE PEACH, Deception > fraud, 21st May 1906.

FANE, Frederick Arthur (63), and PEACH Phillip Montague (32, clerk), were indicted for having on May 29, 1905, feloniously forged a warrant and order purporting to be a bankers cheque for the payment of £900, drawn by F. C. T. Gascoigne on Messrs. Drummond in favour of P. F. Tate or order and uttering the same knowing it to be forged; further, with feloniously forging on May 29, 1905, a cheque drawn by F. C. T. Gascoigne on Messrs. Beckett and Co., of Leeds, for £900 and uttering the same knowing it to be forged; further, on July 24, 1905, feloniously forging an order for payment of £350 on the Bank of Ireland and uttering the same knowing it to be forged; further, fraudulently conferring together, with Edward Willing and Maud Willing, to cheat and defraud of their moneys divers subjects of His Majesty.

Mr. Horace Avory, K.C., and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted.

Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. Leonard Kershaw defended Fane. Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. W. H. Thorne defended Peach.

 EDWARD WILLING. I am now undergoing a sentence of penal servitude for forgery on a conviction in this Court in October last. On November 7 I saw Inspector Arrow at my request and made a statement to him—amongst other things in reference to the forgery of Colonel Gascoigne's name, for which I had been convicted. I have known Peach for about 12 years. Maud Willing was convicted with me, and also Mrs. Hughes, the mother of my sister-in-law, Sybil Willing. I had been living with Maud as my wife, and was so in December, 1904, at 94, Elm Grove Road, Barnes. She did not know Peach till I introduced him in December, 1904. He used to come to the house very frequently. I have known Captain Fane about 17 years. He belonged to the Naval and Military Club, Piccadilly, and the Eccentric Club, Shaftesbury Avenue. I introduced Fane to Maud on May 13, 1905, at the Drayton Arms, South Kensington. Fane was living at 28, Drayton Gardens. In December. 1904, Peach mentioned one Kemp to me as a very expert forger, and said he could imitate anyone's handwriting—man. woman, or child. He said he lived at Brighton, but gave no address, or full name, nor did he ever introduce me to him. He called him "The Hermit" and "Jim the Penman." I had no further knowledge of him. I knew there was a Colonel F. C. T. Gascoigne, of The Hall, Parlington, Aberford, near Leeds, in April, 1903. He sent me a cheque for 30s. on Beckett's Bank in April, 1903 [produced ex. 49]. I had been told of him by a lady. I cashed it at once. The next cheque I saw of his was for £2 2s., payable to Colonel Fane. It is dated May 12, 1905, and is on Drummond's. I had had a conversation with Peach in January, 1905, about Colonel Gascoigne. I told him he was a man of wealth, and if we could only get his signature it would be all right and Peach wrote to the Colonel. I saw the answer, from some place in Italy, on the Riviera, asking for a reference. I think it was signed by his private secretary. I told Fane of the Colonel about May 1 or 2, 1905, and explained the difficulty of getting a cheque from him. I told him he was a man of great wealth. He said he had heard of him; so we went into the Drayton Arms and had a drink, and, after further conversation, he said, "How about if I wrote him a letter asking for a subscription towards a soldier servant of mine, of my old regiment, the Rifle Brigade, who has fallen on evil times?" I said, "That might fetch him." He wrote a draft copy, which, as far as I can remember, was "Dear Sir,—Pardon the liberty I am taking, but I am getting up a subscription for an old soldier servant of mine of my old regiment, the Rifle Brigade, who has fallen on evil times, and should be thankful if you could send me a trifle." He said, "The less said the better." He said he would write it from he Naval and Military Club, and would also write it to somebody else. I do not think the soldier servant existed—he mentioned no name. I first mentioned Peach to Fane in April about some other business. I told him I knew a man who had a man behind him who was a very clever forger. I had previously called at the Eccentric Club on Captain Fane about April 12 or 14. He had just returned from Madeira. We went into the Cafe Monico and had a drink, and told him about Peach and his forger. He said, "Well; that is good." I told him of two other successful forgeries, and we met the next day, when he gave me some documents and on April 26 we cut up the proceeds of a forgery we had just carried out. He gave me £75, and he had £25. When I met him again eight or nine days after he said he had not had an answer from the Colonel, and he would write him again. On May 15 Peach and I at four o'clock met Fane at the Drayton Arms, and gave him) some money out of another forgery that had just been done. Fane had £10 for the use of a club form to effect it, otherwise he had nothing to do with that. The cheque is for £163. He said he had not heard from Colonel Gascoigne; but 24 or 48 hours after I had a telegram to, meet him, and he handed me a cheque (ex. 18) and a letter. The cheque is dated, May 12, 1905, drawn on Drummond's, payable to Colonel Fane or order" for £2 2s., and signed "F. C. T. Gascoigne." The letter apologised for the delay; but his letter had been mislaid. Fane said, "I have got a couple of forms for you," alluding to the cheque forms. I telegraphed to Peach to meet me at Barnes. He gave me the cheque, letter, and forms. He said, "If any trouble should come about this forgery we can easily concoct—or "dig up" I think his expression was—the soldier servant, and get a man to write me a letter in an illiterate hand from a lodging-house to acknowledge the receipt of the money." These are the cheque forms he brought first, crossed "Holt and Co., Naval and Military Club, not negotiable." I told him the Colonel banked at Beckett's, Leeds, and it was arranged to do it for a large amount. He said, "The larger the better," and suggested some £2,000 or £3,000 for each of the two cheques. I said it was too large, and asked, "Who is going to pull the chestnuts out of the fire?" and suggested a sum just under £1,000 for each. We agreed on £900 on each banking account at Beckett's and Drummond's. I took the specimen cheque and letter to Peach that night. I told him we were going to forge two cheques for large amounts from the specimens. Peach was to forge them or get them forged. Peach came to me at Barnes, and I gave him the specimen cheque, the forms, and the letter. I said, "Let me have the £2 2s. cheque back as soon as you can." I cold him we had arranged £900 for each cheque and suggested they should be cashed simultaneously in Leeds and London and that Maud should go down and cash the Leeds one and I would cash the London one. Those forms were open. Fane said, "I must go to Switzerland; hut as soon as you get the money wire me and come over to Schoenek, near Lucerne, and I will cash the notes for you." Peach gave me back me £2 2s. cheque, I think, on May 19 or 20. He said, "It is all right. My man has taken a tracing of it and has got all he wants," and I returned the cheque to Fane and told him Peach had done all that was necessary. I saw him the next day and asked him if he had cashed the cheque. He said, "Yes, at the Naval and Military," and said to the steward, "They have given me brevet rank," referring to the cheque being drawn, "Colonel Fane." He went away on May 24. He gave me his dog, "Smut," to take care of. I explained the matter was out of my hands—that I was hurrying Peach on all I could and I would wire him as soon as I could. I wired him, "Will be with you on Tuesday." He went to Switzerland, I think, for his health with a friend. Peach promised to bring over the two forged cheques on Sunday night. That is why I promised to be with Fane on Tuesday, and they were to be cashed on Monday, but he did not turn up with them till Monday, 29th, filled up, as they now are, both on forms of the Naval and Military Club. Maud was with us. I said, "You two go down to Leeds, I know how to do it. About 11 o'clock send the notel porter to buy something and let Peach follow the man. and see that he follows him properly. I will stop in London and cash the other." They went to Leeds with the other £900 cheque. The next morning I went up to town and went to Pound's, in Regent Street, and bought a portmanteau. I said, "I have not got any money in my pocket—give me a bill and I will send somebody to pay for it and you can receipt the bill." I took the bill away. I think the bag was £10 10s. I then went to the Langham Hotel and wrote a note in the smoking-room on the hotel paper: "Dear Sir,—Please hand bearer in exchange for enclosed cheque 16 £50 notes, five £10 notes, five £5 notes, and the remainder in gold."—(Signed) "P. F. Tate." That is the name of the payee on the cheque. It is addressed to the cashier, Messrs. Drummond and Co. I told the coffee-room waiter to get me a messenger-boy and I gave him the note with the cheque and Pound's bill and told him to go to the bank. That is the boy. [Hinton stood forward.] I went and had some refreshment and the boy was shadowed by a friend while he went to the bank and to Pound's. My friend then came to me and said, "It's all right: It's a bigger bag than the boy himself." The idea of the bag was to satisfy me that the money had been got, otherwise the boy would not have the bag I then got into a cab and went to Farringdon Station, where I told the boy to meet me. This is the portmanteau [produced]. I did not want anything that the boy could put in his pocket. I found the boy behind the bag. He handed me an envelope containing £889 10s. being £900 less the price of the bag. I think I gave him 2s. 6d. or 5s. for himself. This is the ticket I signed. I put the portmanteau in the cloak-room and never took it out. I returned to Barnes and saw Peach and Maud; Peach was in a great state of mind. He said he had had a terrible disaster—that Maud had sent the man off—that they had been followed and he was 25 minutes in Beckett's Bank—that he then went to the shop to fetch the parcel that had been ordered, and he came away without it—Peach, thinking he had not got the money. ran away and left the man walking about with £900—that they left their luggage behind them at the station. My wife blamed Peach and said it was his cowardice and that he made her nervous. I said. "Mine is all right—I have got mine." That made a great difference in my plans, because if the cheque had been cashed I should probably have gone to Schoenek with the money, but I thought that, if there should be an exposure in Leeds there would be probably an exposure in London, so I sold a portion of the notes for gold at 85 per cent, on Derby Day morning, and I think it was completed the next day. I remember now that £350 in notes of the money from Drummond's I did not discount. I gave those to Peach, and said, "This is for your friend, the forger. Let him change hit own money"—or "the Hermit," whatever I called him. I gave Peach £10 on Derby night, and told him to come next day and I would settle up. On Wednesday morning I went into the London City and Midland Bank in Barnes, and opened an account with £100 in gold and notes, and sent Fane £75 by registered letter. I had before received this telegram from Fane: "Not kept promise—conclude my business not done, so must return immediately. "I wired him: "Have sold one house." That is written by Peach on a post-office form and sent from town. I also wrote a few lines in cypher used by Peach. This document was taken by the police when I was arrested at Worthing. That is the cypher. It conveyed to Fane that one cheque had been cashed at Drummond's, but that we had a disaster at Leeds owing to Peach, and that I would write again and let him have the balance, a third. On June 2 I received this telegram from Fane just before we were going to the Oaks: "Letter not received; wire explanation and remit, or must return. Take care." I wired back: "Sent registered letter Wednesday, addressed as above. Will inquire." That evening I received another telegram: "Received. Writing." These telegrams, addressed "In running," are in Fane's writing. I got 2,000 francs in French paper money from a friend staying with us in exchange for gold, and sent it to Fane on June 8, and told him not to send more letters or wires to my house from Schoenek, as it was not advisable, but to write to me in cypher addressed to Mrs. Collins, a newspaper shop in Hammersmith Road. I afterwards sent him a cutting from the "Morning Post" of the death of Colonel Gascoigne. Maud called for letters at Mrs. Collins's. I answered them in cypher. They were destroyed or taken by the police. I met Fane in July on his return, and told him what occurred at Leeds, and how the money had been left behind. He was very angry and swore, and said he wished he had stayed in London, and would not have Peach in these things any more, and would try and get into direct communication with the forger himself. I said, "He keeps him very close. I can't get at him. He has been always coming to see us, but has never been yet." This cheque for £8, dated July 25, was found on Fane when arrested. It was signed in blank by me and filled in by my wife to give to Fane, and is on the London City and Midland Bank. We were all hard up, and he said, "If I can't get any money I will cash the cheque at the club. He knew there was nothing at the bank to meet it. He afterwards pent my wife £5 by telegram. It was cashed for Maud and me to go to Ireland, which we did on July 26, and cashed a cheque there for £350. It is drawn on plain paper and purports to be signed by Robert Hodgson. We arrived at eight a.m., left for Belfast at three p.m., and left Belfast at eight Peach was to have a share in that, but did not get it. In August Maud, Sybil Willing, and I went to Worthing. We got this letter from Peach: "I managed to get £9 advanced on one of the club forms in your name, post-dated August 11, so you had better write to City and Midland stopping same in case I don't raise the ready by then." The club forms I had obtained from Fane. "Shall do my best to get as much as I can for Kemp. Can't lose him for £50, but you need not meet cheques. I have two more which I may as well use, as I don't altogether intend getting 18 months for nothing. If I don't get the cash to repay by Friday, August 12, you will know I was obliged to hook it Sorry to put you to inconvenience, but I don't see why I should lose my man without an effort. Going to Goodwood to-morrow," etc. We received this letter, which I think is in Fane's writing, postmark, "Paris, August 19," headed "Eccentric Club," addressed to Mrs. Willing: "My address from to-night, Fulbrook, Worcester Park, Surrey." We also received this in Fane's writing: "Fulbrook, Worcester Park.—This is my address. Arrived here yesterday.—Yours, F." Also this: August 24.—"Dear Mrs. Willing,—Sorry you have been so bad. The American dentist companies are the best people. Now business. If the results are to go to Paris, or elsewhere abroad, and if I am to take them I must be in town the day before and see you and C. [Willing] and arrange things. When in town I shall put up at the club. No mess must be made this time. Hope Smut is well.—Yours truly, F. P.S.—Not a moment must be lost in getting over there. Four trains daily to Paris." That was received shortly before my arrest, on August 30. It has nothing to do with these cheques, but with another cheque we had arranged to do under £1,000.

Colonel FREDERICK RICHARD THOMAS TRENCH GASCOIGNE. I am a son of the late Colonel Gascoigne, of Parlington Hall, Aberford. Leeds, who died June 12,1905, in his ninety-second year. He was very well off. I was one of the executors and had charge of his papers. All the furniture was sold and I destroyed all documents, papers, and old cheques of no apparent value. These two cheques for £900 each—one on Beckett's Bank, which was repudiated, and the other on Drummond's—I should say were forgeries, but I am not an expert.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I know that both banks passed these cheques. I cannot say if Drummond's return customers' cheques. Beckett's do not, where I bank. The pass-books were kept. The colonel did not keep account of private expenditure. I had no reason to suspect forgery.

 EDWARD WILLING recalled. Croat-examined by Mr. Muir. I have known Fane about 17 years. My father was an officer in the Royal Navy. I had no occupation when I met Fane, except racing. I had small means. I belonged to a club in St. Georges, Hanover Square, and the Temple Yacht Club. Fane is considerably my senior. I am turned 46. I ceased to see Fane about 1896. I obtained £210 from a lady in Blackpool in September, 1896, by false pretences, and was arrested in London. I was bailed in £200 and absconded. In 1895 or 1896 I got a loan on some bonds. There was some restriction on them. In September, 1897, I got some jewellery on approval in Bristol. What I paid for was by good cheques, and what I did not pay for was obtained by false pretences. I represented myself to be an officer of the Royal Navy. I absconded with the goods, and was arrested and sentenced at the Bristol Assizes to six months' hard labour on July 4, 1898. I was then taken to Blackpool to answer the charge I had absconded from, and was sentenced at the Chester Sessions, on July 15,1899. to five years' penal servitude. On November 17, 1902, I was released on ticket of leave. I first met Maud, called "Willing," ten years ago. I had a wife, but had not seen her for eight or nine years, and did not know whether she Was alive or dead; so I could not marry her, but she knew the circumstances, and she agreed to live with me as my wife. She came to live with me in December. 1902, and has lived continually with me since. I have been living by my wits since my release.

(Thursday, May 24.)

 EDWARD WILLING recalled. Further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I became acquainted with Mrs. Hughes in February and March, 1903. I did not know that she had a large number of cheques, but I have beard that that had happened. She told me what was her business. I gathered at the last trial she was an habitual begging-letter writer. I stayed in her house for about a week or ten days with Maud Willing towards the end of 1903. I knew Mrs. Hughes had written to Colonel Gascoigne and got money, I gathered, in cheques, and I tried myself, and he sent me 30s. by a cheque. I did not say this before the magistrate because I was not asked. I first met Fane in May, 1904. I wrote to him at the Eccentric Club without giving an address, and afterwards met him and borrowed some small sums of him. The largest was 10s. The first forgery I was connected with after I came out of prison was one in February, 1903, by Maud Willing for a small sum of £8, The next one was in May, 1903, on Colonel Gascoigne's account at Drummond's from a letter I found at Mrs. Hughes's house. Philips did this for me. It was unsuccessful—a messenger boy took it to the bank and did not come back. I was not then in touch with Captain Fane at all. The next forgery was in February, 1905. I did nothing between May, 1903, and February, 1905, neither did Maud Willing. She was working. I was living the best I could on my wits, borrowed a bit, and making a precarious living by betting. Maud Willing was cook at the Eccentric Club from May to October, 1903, and about six weeks in an hotel, and in February, 1904, eight or nine weeks in the City. She was not keeping me. I have known that Fane attended at the Eccentric Club for years. In May, 1904, I met Fane near Victoria Station. He said, "You know where to find me if you have got anything on. Come up and see me." On April 17 or 18, 1905, I first mentioned the subject of forgery. I called at the Eccentric Club at about 4.30 p.m., and we went and had a drink. I told him about two forgeries that had been successfully done, and about the clever penman who was behind Peach. Nothing was said about forgery between May, 1904, and April, 1905, because I had not got any forgeries on at all. Cheque of Lady Pearce on Coutts's for £5 to Rev. Hughes or order I had from Mrs. Hughes for the purpose of making a forgery, and tracing produced was made by me. I forged the two cheques produced for £600 and £350 from that tracing myself, and they were in my possession when arrested on August 30. I got notepaper printed. Mrs. Hughes ordered it, and I fetched it away. That was the second time I had forged in my life. The first was the Bishop of London's cheque of August 17 for £150. I got the model from Mrs. Hughes. That was successful. The same routine was gone through—a messenger-boy employed, an article purchased at a shop, a cab, and a meeting at a place appointed. I met Tal'bot Bridgewater when under remand at Brixton for the first time in my life. I knew a racing man named Bill Wigram slightly. I have not seen him for about nine years. I knew a man named Tarbo many years ago. I met Wigram occasionally at race courses and afterwards knew him in New York. I first mentioned Colonel Gascoigne's name to Fane about May 1, 1905. Many years ago before I was convicted I have called on Fane at the Naval and Military Club. I knew his son-in-law and an old friend of my father's on the committee. I know many clubs have club cheque forms. I tried about twelve or thirteen years ago to do a bill with Fane, but not since. I knew he was in receipt of £800 a year (20,000 fcs.). He gave me the settlement about April 18. 1905. It was not for the purpose of raising a loan. Fane gave me the settlement, and the letter from Grenfell. Milne and Co., to forge his wife's name. I did it, and Fane had his share—£25. The amount was £75. I did not promise to get him £80 or £90, or to get a promissory note discounted for him. I have never had a note of his in my life. I sent him £75 in a cheque to Switzerland. The letter was registered. I also sent him 2,000 francs. That was not registered. I saw Fane with regard to the Hodgson forgery: we were discussing ways and means of going to Ireland. Fane said, "I have not any money." I sent my wife to borrow some money of him in July, although he knew I had had my share of £900. He knew I had had £75 from his wife's cheque, £163 from the Alexander D. Bond's cheque, and Colonel Gascoigne, £900, between April and May. My wife took a blank cheque signed by me and he sent her £5. This was for the visit to Ireland. He knew I was going for the purpose of cashing the Hodgson £350 forgery. Maud and I went to Dublin alone. I got the model for that from Mrs. Hughes. Maud Willing went into the bank, and I waited outside. I shadowed her to see whether she was watched. We then went into a bonnet-shop, and she bought a hat. She handed me over the money, three £100 Bank of Ireland notes, and about £20 in, gold. We then went to Belfast by train, and thence by steamer to Liverpool. I despatched three telegrams from Dublin before I left the station. This was on July 27. Peach, Fane, Mrs. Hughes, and Maud Willing were confederates in the forgery. Mrs. Hughes had a share in that and the Bishop of London's forgery. I wrote a letter to the Bishop saying that Mrs. Hughes was perfectly innocent. I tried to clear her. She had got into trouble through my carelessness in keeping a letter in my pocket. I and, Maud Willing pleaded guilty and Mrs. Hughes was tried. The only part Fane took was that he lent £5 towards the expenses. I asked him to find out the status of Sir Robert Hodgson, and he sent me by post half a sheet of paper copied from the Court Guide. I saw him, and he said "Irish baronets are sometimes wealthy; we will try him for a few hundreds." Peach had the specimen cheque for £2 2s. given to him and forged three cheques on half sheets of paper and brought them to us at Barnes on Wednesday afternoon, July 26. Peach said the forger wanted £50, the other four—Fane, Mrs. Hughes, Peach, and myself—were to have a quarter each, £75. That was the arrangement. I never paid anybody anything out of it. When Maud and I were in the train going to Dublin we arranged not to pay Peach anything. After I had lost the money at the Liverpool races I determined not to pay Fane. I lost at the races about £160 to £175. The Irish notes were awkward to change, and I lost on them. I have not seen Fane since he lunched with me at Barnes until at Bow Street. Fane told me he would change notes on the continent. It was originally arranged that if the £900 Drummond cheque was successful I was to take the notes to him at Schoenek. I think he went there, because the lady he was living with was very ill, and that she died in September. I received cheque for £1 10s. (produced) from Colonel Gascoigne. I said yesterday that the letter that came with the £2 2s. cheque to Fane was signed differently from the cheque. I suppose a forger would copy from the cheque. I volunteered the statement yesterday that the letter which accompanied the £2 2s. cheque was signed in a different way from the cheque. It was not because I knew there was a discrepancy. I first made up my mind to inform after my conviction. I knew that we had been given away by an anonymous letter. I said to the police, "Somebody has marked your card very well—you are well informed. I should like to know who has done that." One of the police said, "Well, we had an anonymous communication." I suspected it was Peach That was not my motive, though it may have influenced me. I thought it was fair that these forgers should be brought to justice. I never thought of obtaining an alleviation of my sentence. I made up my mind to make a clean breast of it all. I could not give the story about Peach without Fane: they were mixed up together. I wished the forgeries to be cleared up. I had no further motive than the interests of justice and truth. I told Maud to be careful about Peach. Peach had been to see her. I said, "Do not let out you know anything about the anonymous letter; do not frighten him away; we will very likely get oar own back with him." I wrote and told Maud I was going to inform against Peach since my conviction.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. I got the cypher from Peach. I had no communication in cypher. They were destroyed when received. I got the forged document in Mrs. Pane's name from Peach. I did the forged cheque on the Bishop of London myself. It passed. It was for £150, written on a half sheet of note paper. Mrs. Hughes supplied me with the model. She and my wife did the shadowing. The only assistance Fane gave me was to supply me with the specimen cheque of £2 2s. from Gascoigne. Peach did about eight or nine forgeries. When I did the Bishop of London's I had fallen out with Peach, and I tried, and, to my great astonishment, it came off.

Re-examined. My story is true, every word of it. I had never fallen out with Fane in any way. I had no ill feeling against Fane—on the contrary. Fane sent my wife some money in prison. He gave money to my solicitor for me. In October. 1905. Maud and I pleaded guilty to the charge of forgery of the Bishop of London's cheque. The Leeds forgery for £900, Bond's £163, and one of £83 in the name of Shepherd were mentioned at the trial. The £900 on Drummond, £350 on Sir Robert Hodgson, and the £75 in the name of Mrs. Fane were not mentioned. I knew, 12 or 14 years ago, that Fane had £800 from his wife. I saw his wife once. I was walking with him down Drayton Gardens, and he said, "My God, here is the old Dutch, and he dodged across the road. A lady about 55 years old passed, with a dog under her arm and another lady. Fane said, "You might go and follow her and see where they are going." I followed them, and they made a call, and I went back and told him. Fane was then living at 28, Drayton Gardens. The cheque on Mrs. Fane was forged on a plain piece of paper on Messrs. Chaplin, Grenfell, and Milne, Princes Street, E.C. Maud Willing cashed it. Fane got £25 out of it. I knew Fane for many years before I got into trouble. Fane knew I was getting a living the best way I could. In February, 1899, I was sentenced to five years' penal servitude, coming out in November, 1902. I did not see Fane till May, 1904. I told Fane I had been doing five years. He said he was sorry. I told him it was for obtaining money by false pretences. He said, "You know where to find me." I told him I was hard up. I never told him I was getting an honest living. I afterwards met him on very good terms. I used to call occasionally at the Eccentric Club. I gave the name of Willett. I first mentioned forgery on April 17 or 18, 1905. I told him about Colonel Gascoigne, and said an attempt had been made and it had been blundered, and then he said, "How if I were to write and tell him I was going to get up a subscription for an old soldier." It was his idea. I gave Fane the address and told him he banked at Beckett's at well as Drummond's, and I said we could do both. There were, other people's names mentioned by Fane. He wrote a letter to Lord Howard de Walden, and Fane told me no answer came to it. I gave Peach Colonel Gascoigne's cheque, the letter, and the envelope, and two or three cheque forms from the Naval and Military Club. Looking at the two forgeries and the £2 2s. cheque, there is a difference in the capital G, which is like that in the 30s. cheque. I did not use the 30s. cheque or a tracing of it for tile forgery. I had no tracing of it in May, 1905. The Bishop of London's was my first forgery. I tried Lady Pearce's, and forged two cheques. I should not like to present, them. I was the middle man in these forgeries. I was not cross-examined at Bow Street. Fane was represented by counsel. It was never suggested I should go out to Switzerland with Fane. No promissory note was ever suggested. Fane asked me 15 years ago if I could do a bill, but I had no chance of borrowing a shilling on his name or mine. The letter from Fane to Mrs. Willing of August 29, 1905. "If the results are to go to Paris or elsewhere abroad. and if I am to take them I must be in town the day before and see you and C," referred to the disposing of bank notes, the proceeds of forgery from Lady Elizabeth, Pearce, the forms of which I had got in my pocket when arrested. Letter from Peach, of August 3, "Shall, do my best to get as much as I can for Kemp. Cannot lose him for £50," refers to the arrangement to pay the. Hermit £50 for forging the Hodgson cheque. The words "chycing each other" refer to the cheating over that forgery. Somebody had seen me at Liverpool races and told him they had seen me change a £100 note.

 MAUD WILLING. I have been living with Edward Willing for some years. I pleaded guilty with him last October of forgery of the Bishop of London's name, and was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Before my trial I requested an interview with Inspector Arrow, and made a statement; I also made a further statement after the trial. At, the end of 1904 I was living with Edward Willing at Barnes. I first met Peach in September, 1904, when living at Hammersmith. I often saw Peach at Barnes. In the spring of 1905 Peach wrote to Colonel Gascoigne to try to get his signature, but Colonel Gascoigne was in Italy and did not reply. Peach said he would get the forgery, done by a man he called the Hermit who lived at Brighton. I met Captain Fane at the Drayton Arms with Peach, and was introduced to Fane as Edward Willing's wife. I afterwards saw Fane at a public-house in Brompton Road. He gave me some crossed club cheque forms. He afterwards gave me some which were uncrossed. He said, "Tell Peach to be careful with them, because they are difficult to get." My husband showed me Colonel Gascoigne's cheque for £2 2s.; he gave it to Peach with some of the cheque forms at Barnes. I afterwards saw two cheques drawn on Colonel Gascoigne's account for £900. Peach brought them and gave them to my husband. The same night, May 29, I went to Leeds with Peach, taking the cheque on Becketts' Bank. I had a Gladstone bag, and Peach had a bag. We arrived at 10 p.m., and stayed at the Great Northern Hotel in the names of Mabel Cox and Edward Dean. I had lost the key of my bag and the porter burst the lock for me. The next morning I took my luggage to the station and put it in the cloak-room. Peach sent his bag on to Clarence-road, Hackney. I went to a costumier's in Briggate, Leeds, and selected a dress. It wanted a little altering, and I arranged that the hotel porter should call for it in an hour and pay for it. I then went to the hotel and asked for a messenger, a porter, gave him letter produced: "Please hand bearer seventeen £50 notes, three £10 notes, and the balance in gold in exchange for the enclosed cheque, and oblige yours faithfully Mabel Cox," and enclosed the forged cheque for £900. Peach then followed the messenger and I went to the station. Peach was to come and tell me if it was all right. I gave the porter instructions to call for the costume, pay for it, and meet me at the first-class waiting-room at the railway station. Peach came and said he thought there was something wrong, because the porter had been into the costumiers, had not brought the parcel out, and instead of going to the station had gone back to the hotel. He got very nervous, and thought we had better go back to London. We took a cab to a station outside Leeds, booked to Bradford, and on to London. My bag was left at Leeds. Peach afterwards wrote for it, and it was sent on. I saw Edward Willing in the presence of Peach. He said he had been successful with his cheque. Next day Edward Willing gave Peach three £50 notes to be sent to the Hermit, the forger, and the day after I handed to Peach's brother £100 in gold. He brought a letter written in cypher by Peach. I had been in the habit of communicating with Peach in the cypher produced, which was found at Worthing when we were arrested. On May 31 I saw telegram from Fane, Schoenek, "Not kept promise—wire the truth immediately." In reply to that I wrote telegram, "Sold one horse. Send money to-day," and gave it Peach to send. Telegram produced appears to be in Peach's writing. I saw my husband write a cheque for £75 and send it with a letter addressed to Captain Fane. I wrote to Fane in Switzerland several times in cypher, and had answers from him in cypher addressed to a newspaper shop at 9, Hammersmith Road, where I called for the letters. Sybil Willing went with me. Fane came to our house at Barnes to lunch. Edward and Sybil were there. I afterwards met him by appointment at Brompton Road, and he gave me some cheque forms. I had a conversation with Fane about the cheques on Drummond's and Beckett's Banks. He said he thought it was badly managed. Peach was the wrong one to have gone with me to Leeds, that it made me nervous, or" something of that sort, and that he thought the other £900 at Drummond's Bank had been wasted, because so much had been charged for changing the notes. With regard to the Hodgson cheque, Fane said he thought the people were all right and might be done for a good amount. I told Fane it was all right, that my husband had seen the cheque from which the forgery was going to be made and had given it to Peach. I told him that Peach and my husband were going. Fane said it was all nonsense, and that he would go. It was afterwards arranged that my husband was to go with me, and I did in fact to with him to Ireland. I went to the Bank and presented the cheque for £350 over the counter. It was made payable to Mrs. S. Read. I had endorsed it beforehand. They kept me some time, the cashier and several others looked at it, they seemed satisfied, and gave me the money. On my return to London I went to see Captain Fane with Sybil Willing. I told him it was not successful. Cheque produced by Edward Willing for £8 I took to Captain Fane before going to Ireland to get cashed, but for him to hold it over a few days. I told him I was going to Ireland, and wanted £5. He sent me £5 by the telegraph money-order produced. It was with the aid of that £5 we went to Ireland. On my return I told him the cheque would be met. Letter produced speaking of his "share of the £350" is in Peach's writing, and refers to. the Irish forgery. I had told him it was not successful. I received letter from Fane from Eccentric Club, "My address from tonight Fulbrook, Worcester Park, Surrey," and the letter from that address, "This is my address, arrived here yesterday.—Yours, F" He told me he would write his address because we were thinking about another forgery on Lady Pearce, and I was told Fane was going to Paris to change the notes. I received letter from Fane of August 24 when at Worthing, "If the results are to go to Paris or elsewhere abroad, and if I am to take them, I must be in town the day before. No mistake must be made this time." That referred to the proposed forgery on Lady Pearce's account. On August 30 I and Edward Willing were arrested. While waiting trial I had one or two notes from Fane. He sent me a postal order for 10s. Peach wrote to me twice in the name of M. Peters, saying he was short of money or else he would help me, and he came to see me in that name. I have had no quarrel with or grudge against Captain Fane.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I first heard of Colonel Gascoigne in April, 1903, from Mrs. Hughes, when I was living in her house. She said he was a very charitable man, and advised me to write to him for money. My husband wrote and got a cheque for 30s. We cashed it with the greengrocer. I did not mention that at Bow Street. My husband got a cheque forged in Colonel Gascoigne's name. I do not know the amount. I saw it in my husband's possession. I had it and sent a messenger boy with it in the call office in the Exchange. I gave the name that was on the cheque. I do not remember the name; it may have been Mrs. Ferguson, of Porchester Gardens. I did not endorse it. I waited in Oxford Street for the boy and he did not return. I do not know where my husband got the model to forge it. I was intimate with Mrs. Hughes at the time. She had several of Colonel Gascoigne's cheques at the time I saw them and my husband saw them. I did not get any letters of Colonel Gascoigne's from Mrs. Hughes. Sybil Willing was living at Luton at that time. I saw a cheque for £10 from Colonel Gascoigne in September. Several letters from Pane were found on me on arrest, all in ordinary writing. I had destroyed those in cypher. I corresponded with him in cypher when he was in Switzerland about forgery. I wrote in cypher about Colonel Gascoigne's death. I do not know whether I wrote about the Dublin forgery while he was in Switzerland. Edward Willing and I had no secrets from each other. My husband wrote: "Drummond's successful; the other not." I wrote to explain how and why. While in prison I wrote to Fane for money, told him I had lost my teeth, and could not eat the food and was frequently starving. My solicitor was Barrett, for whom Edward Willing had been working. He applied to Fane for money. I do not remember whether Fane told him he would give a pound or two and no more. I told Sybil to tell Fane it would be better for him to help towards our defence. It might be a threat. Sybil said Captain Fane told her he could not do any more just then and that he had given her £1. In February, 1903, I passed a cheque for £15 at Welford's Dairy for Montagu, a man I knew through Edward Willing. I was prosecuted and bound over on an undertaking to go to a home. I stayed there one night and, went back to Edward Willing the next day. It was arranged that we should say the Irish forgery was unsuccessful on the journey to Ireland, because my husband wanted to buy his brother out of the Army. My husband said he had sent two telegrams from Dublin, one to Peach and one to Mrs. Hughes. He did not say he sent one to Fane. The cashier consulted other people about the signature. I stayed there and waited. I was not nervous at all. I have no scruples about telling lies when I have an object to serve. I suspected Peach had informed the police; that is part of my motive and I wanted the matter cleared up. I was put up to be identified at Holloway, and it worried me because I knew it was for the Irish cheque and I hoped to escape punishment for it. I did not hope for remission of my present sentence. I thought Edward Willing's sentence might be reduced and a small part of my motive was to assist truth and justice and for revenge. Edward Willing told me he should give information and advised me to do the same; that was when we were committed for trial. I knew I had no hope to escape conviction, and it was only a question of the sentence. The cheque for £8 I took to Fane was signed in blank—no name of payee or amount. I told him I was very hard up and asked him whether he could cash the cheque for me. I told him it was only for a few days and then it would be met.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. Of the two letters produced, the one in violet ink is Peach's writing; the other is his writing, but disguised. I received no letters from Peach which were in cypher. I have written to him in cypher. I destroyed all letters before I went to Worthing; it is an accident that some survived. There were two forgery operations which I and Edward Willing carried out without any assistance from Peach and no shadowing by him—done without the co-operation of the defendants. My story is not an invention at all.

Re-examined. I never saw Kemp the Hermit. I was not asked by the magistrate about the 30s. cheque. I was crossexamined by Mr. Muir. It was never suggested to me that the £75 cheque sent to Fane was the discount of a bill or promissory note. I never heard it suggested that Willing should go to Switzerland with Fane to play baccarat. I have nothing to explain why I told Sybil to tell Fane that it would be better for him to subscribe to our defence—he had had his share of the money.

 CHARLES ERNEST WATSON, cashier at Drummond's Bank. Cheque of May 30, 1905, purporting to be drawn by F. C. C. Gascoigne, was presented at my bank with letter produced: "Dear Sir—Please hand bearer in exchange for the enclosed cheque 16 £50 notes, five £10 notes, 5 £5 notes, and £25 in gold." Paid cheques are kept at the bank until the customer wants them. I could not say how long this one remained with us.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. Looking at the forged cheque, I see a flourish at the top of the "C" and "G." They are not present on the £2 2s. cheque produced and they are present on the £1 10s. cheque produced.

Re-examined. There is no stroke under the signature of the 30s. cheque; it is present in the £2 2s. cheque and also in the forgery for £900.

 GEORGE HENRY HINTON. In May, 1905, I was in the service of the District Messenger Company. On May 30 I was sent to the Lang-ham Hotel and was then sent with two notes, one to Drummond's Bank, for which I received two packets, one of notes and one of gold. I then took the other letter to Pounds, paid £10 10s., and they gave me a big portmanteau. I got a cab and drove to Paddington Station. After waiting about five minutes the man who had given me the letters came up. I handed over the money and the portmanteau and he signed my ticket.

 FREDERICK MERRITT, cloak room, attendant, Paddington Station. On Monday, May 30, a portmanteau was registered and remained uncalled for. I delivered it over to the police.

 CHARLES MONAHAN, night porter at the Great Northern Hotel, Leeds. On May 29, 1905, about 10 p.m., two persons called Mabel Cox and Arthur Dean arrived at the hotel. I identify them as the prisoner Peach and Maud Willing. I had to burst the lock of the lady's portmanteau because she had lost the key.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. I see many hundreds of people in the course of a month or a week. I recognise Peach by a photograph shown me by Inspector Hanley some data afterwards.

Re-examined. I recognise Peach as the man I saw at Leeds. I wag shown several photographs and I picked the prisoner Peach out.

 JOHN CRUDGE, hall porter Great Northern Hotel, Leeds. On May 30 I saw two persons named Mabel Cox and Arthur Dean at the hotel, whom I identify as the prisoner Peach and Maud Willing. The lady left the hotel in the morning with her baggage, and later came back without it. She spoke to me and I sent for George Neill, the baggage porter, and she sent him with a letter. The lady followed five minutes afterwards. The porter returned with money, and from what he said I thought there was something wrong. Inspector Hanley afterwards showed me several photographs from which I picked out one of a man whom I recognised as the prisoner Peach.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. I see hundreds of people at the hotel in a month. Inspector Hanley showed me several photos which I did not identify. He then brought me photos of three men and two females. The man I recognised had no beard.

Re-examined. The next morning I learnt they had been trying to cash a forged cheque; that helped to fix it in my memory.

 GEORGE NEILL, porter, Great Northern Railway Hotel, Leeds. On May 30 the person whom I now know as Maud Willing gave me a letter and told me to take a cab, go to Beckett's Bank, and I should there get' a letter with some money, and also £20 in gold, and then to a dressmaker in Briggate to get a dress, then take it with the money to the Midland station. I went to the bank, received the money, and on reaching the dressmakers found the dress was not ready. I then went to the station but did not see the lady, so returned to the hotel with the money and handed it to the hall porter. I had paid for the dress but had not got it.

 EDITH COBB, 47, Briggate, Leeds, ladies' tailor. On the morning of May 30 a Mrs. Cox, of the Great Northern Hotel, came to my shop and selected some costumes amounting to £10 12s. One had to be altered and she arranged to send and pay for and take away the goods. Porter Neill came, paid the account, and I promised to send the costumes to the hotel, which I did.

 WILLIAM WILSON BRIGHAM, cashier, Beckett's Bank, Leeds. On May 30 I cashed cheque produced for £900 purporting to be signed by Colonel Gascoigne, and payable to Mrs. M. Cox. It was presented by a porter from the Great Northern Hotel, with a letter stating the notes and gold required. The next day the assistant manager of the hotel brought back the money and also the costumes. I then communicated with Colonel Gascoigne, and found the cheque was a forgery. I then lodged an information, and a warrant was granted against Mabel Cox.

 JOHN FREDERICK MCNEILL, parcels clerk, Midland Railway, Lower Clapton. On May 30, 1905, I took in a bag which was sent by the 11.10 train to St. Pancras, to be delivered in Hackney district.

 ALFRED WAKEFORD, carman, Midland Railway, St. Pancras. I produce parcels way-bill of May 30, 1905, by which I delivered a bag to Davis. 115, Clarence Road, Lower Clapton. It arrived at St. Pancras about four o'clock.

 LYDIA DAVIS, wife of George Davis, 115, Clarence Road. Lower Clapton. On May 30, 1905, I took in a bag which was sent for about a fortnight afterwards, and delivered up to the police. They came with a letter which I believe came from Philip Peach, my husband's nephew.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. I could not swear the letter was Peach's handwriting.

 CHARLES ERNEST WATSON, recalled. We send a pass book to customers when asked. Colonel Gascoigne's book was sent on June 7. Between May 30 and that date it was in the custody of the Bank.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. We have a returned cheque-book. I will endeavour to find by to-morrow any entry with regard to a cheque by Colonel Gascoigne of April 23, 1903, presented April 25, 1903.

 SPENCER CHARLES WALPOLE, secretary, Naval and Military Club, 92, Piccadilly. Prisoner Fane is a member of the club, and has been for some years. Colonel Gascoigne was not a member. We have cheque forms for the use of members like those produced, both crossed and uncrossed. They are supplied by Holt and Co., our bankers. I give a number to the cashier, and the porters or waiters get them for members who pay for the stamp. We do not use many uncrossed cheques. Cheque of July 25, 1905, for £8, produced, was cashed at the club, and was returned from our bankers unpaid. I wrote to Fane asking for an explanation. I saw him on August 15. He said he had only just got my letter, paid in cash for the cheque, which I subsequently returned him. Cheque £2 2s. by F. C. T. Gascoigne is endorsed by Fane, and was cashed at the club.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. We have some 2,000 members. There is no system of recording the names of strangers introduced at the club. Any member can take strangers in. There are about 50 servants in the public rooms, not all on duty at once; at luncheon time most of them would be. We have three hall boys. It would be possible for a member, or a person the hall boy took to be a member, to send a hall boy for a cheque form.

 THOMAS BLAGDEN, hall porter, Naval and Military Club. I keep the members' attendance book, and make entries therein. Captain Fane attended on April 28, May 4,17, 18, and 20,1905.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. On each of those days a great number of members attended.

 GEORGE PACK, hall porter, Naval and Military Club. I entered Captain Fanes attendance on May 9 and 10, 1905.

Cross-examined. A great many other members attended on those days.

 GEORGE CHILVERS, steward, Naval and Military Club. I received cheque produced of May 12, 1905, for £2 2s., endorsed by Captain Fane, from the cashier on May 19 or 20. Cheque for £8 also bears my endorsement and was received by me from the cashier.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. Letters addressed to members are kept by the hall porter unless he is instructed to send them away. I paid cheque for £2 2s. into the bank on May 20.

 FREDERICK SWINDELHURST, foreman to Vacher and Co., Great Smith Street, Westminster, printers. Cheque forms produced are printed by my firm for Holt and Co. and are only supplied to them.

 ALFRED HALLETT, cashier to Holt and Co., Whitehall, bankers. Cheque forms produced are printed specially for us and are supplied only to the Naval and Military Club. Those produced bear the stamp of November 17, 1904, and were supplied by us to the club on March 2, 1905.

 EDITH RALCH, stepdaughter of the proprietor of the Drayton Arms, Old Brompton Road. I have frequently seen Fane in the saloon bar. He came nearly every day from the beginning of 1905. generally with Edward Willing. They used to sit and talk sometimes for an hour. Once they were accompanied by a woman.

Cross-examined. I do not know that Fane was living close by. I have served him with brandy in a bottle; I knew it was for hit wife.

(Friday, May 25.)

 CHARLES ERNEST WATSON, recalled. I produce returned cheque-book from Drummond's Bank, in which is entered: "26th February, 1903, F. C. T. Gascoigne, 23rd April, £50. Mrs. Ferguson, of Porchester Gardens, by messenger, 1,281. Requires endorsement." That entry means that a cheque payable in that way was returned because it was not endorsed.

 GEORGE BASIL EARLE, manager, London City and Midland Bank, Barnes. I know Edward Willing, formerly of Elm Grove Road, Barnes. He opened an account on May 31, 1905. with a payment in of £100. On that date cheque produced for £75 was drawn in favour of Captain F. Fane, and was paid on June 7 through the Cantonal Bank of Lucerne, endorsed by them June 2, 1905. Cheque for £8 of July 25, 1905, was drawn by Edward Willing on that account and refused, marked "R/D"—refer to drawer.

 CHARLES BORSINGER, manager, Hotel Kurandstadt, Schoenek, Switzerland. Fane came to my hotel on May 20, 1905, with a lady, filled up form produced, "Mr. and Mrs. Fane." Stayed till June 16 and then left. He asked me where he could change a cheque and I recommended the Cantonal Bank. Schoenek is two hours from Lucerne, half an hour by carriage, and one and a half hours by steamer. On June 2 Captain Fane was charged 4.85 fr. for a telegram, which corresponds with the cost of sending telegram to "Inrunning, London," produced.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kershaw. Fane gave his name as Mr. and Mrs. Fane. The lady appeared to be an invalid. There is a doctor attached to the hotel; I do not know whether he attended her.

 JOHN EDWARD MALLINSON, Clerk in the Accountant-General's Department, General Post Office. I produce original form of telegram of May 28, 1905, signed by C. Martin, 11, Castelnau, Barnes, to Fane, Kurandstadt, Schoenek: "With you on Tuesday, Charles." I produce original telegram of May 31, sent from Schoenek, to "Inrunning, London," received from the Swiss authorities: "Not kept promise. Conclude my business not done, so must return. Wire the truth immediately." I also produce original telegram, dated May 31, 1905, from E. Smith, Maiden Lane, to Fane, Kurandstadt, Schoenek: "Sold one house; sending money to-day "; also original telegram from Switzerland to "Inrunning, London ": "Register letter Schoenek," received from the authorities in Switzerland for the purposes of this case; also original form handed in in Switzerland: "Letter not received. Wire explanation and remit, or must return. Take care "; also original handed in at Putney addressed to Fane, Schoenek: "Sent registered letter Wednesday, addressed as above. Will inquire, Charles "; also original handed in in Switzerland to "Inrunning, London ": "Received. Writing "; also original form of application for telegraph money order for £5. payable at Barnes High Street to Maud Willing, 94. Elm Grove Road, Barnes, and purporting to be sent by F. Arthers, 91, Shaftesbury Avenue; also actual order and receipt for same.

 MAUD ELIZA WHITE, post office clerk, Barnes. I produce registered letter book showing I received and registered a letter addressed to Captain F. A. Fane, care of T. H. Vinderlie, Kurandstadt, Schoenek Switzerland. Cross-examined. All registered letters are recorded.

 THOMAS WATSON, chief clerk to Mr. Freighter, estate agent to Colonel Gascoigne, Aberford, Leeds. I acted as secretary to the late Colonel Gascoigne. He died June 12, 1905, and was ill only four or five days before he died. He very frequently gave small sums by cheque in answer to begging letters. He was not particular about his accounts. I put the estate accounts before him every month; he did not trouble about them much as long as the book was balanced. He was a colliery owner, had estates near Leeds, "was a very wealthy man, and dealt with large sums. He went to Italy about October, 1904, and returned about May 3, 1905. The turnover in his passbook, for 1903 was £69,000 at Drummond's, beginning the year 1905 with a balance of £4,000.

Cross-examined. Colonel Gascoigne was in the habit of answering begging letters and sending cheques during the past 14 years while I have known him. He was about 92 years old.

 ELIZABETH TASKER, stationer, 9, Hammersmith Road. Letters, were received at my shop for Mrs. Collins, and were called for by Maud Willing. The prisoner Peach on one occasion came for letters for Mrs. Collins.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. Peach called in May, 1905. I do not remember whether the man who called was wearing a beard. I remember his face. I first identified him at Bow Street in the dock.

Re-examined. I was not called at Bow Street I recognised Peach without being invited to identify him.

 ELLEN ATKINSON, principal wardress, H.M. Prison, Holloway. I enter letters sent by prisoners in book produced. On September 14 and 21, 1905, Maud Willing sent letters to Captain Fane, Eccentric Club. On September 26 a postal order for 10s. was sent to and handed by me to her.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kershaw. I keep a record of all postal orders or money sent to prisoners, but not of all letters received by them.

 ALICE CHEESE, wardress, H.M. Prison, Holloway. On September 11 and 15 letters were sent by Maud Willing to Captain Fane, Fulbrook, Worcester Park.

 SARAH JOYNES, 43, Wycomb Street, Leicester Square. I received letters addressed to Peters during six months from September or beginning of October, 1905. Peach was not the man who called for them.

 WILLIAM BIRCH, inspector, Scotland Yard. I arrested Edward and Maud Willing at 18, York Road. Worthing, on August 30, 1905. I examined their room, and took away some papers, including letters from Fane to Mrs. Willing; and from Peach to Edward Willing, and the cypher. I received two letters, Peters to Maud Willing, from the Governor of Holloway Prison, which 1 handed to Inspector Arrow. After Fane was arrested he wrote to his lodgings at Bury Street, St. James's, a letter containing instructions for clothes to be sent.

Cross-examined by Mr. Kershaw. I did not tell Edward Willing his arrest was in consequence of an anonymous letter. He was under that impression. He said, "I suppose this is an anonymous letter," and we did not contradict him. In fact, we did not get an anonymous letter, but acted on information.

 SYBIL HELOISE WILLING, wife of George Willing, the brother of Edward Willing. On June 1, 1905, I went to stay with Edward and Maud Willing at Barnes and remained till they went to Worthing at the end of July or beginning of August, where I accompanied them. I have been to 9, Hammersmith Road for letters for Maud Willing. I do not remember the name they were sent in. I have also been with Maud Willing and seen her get a letter which was not in ordinary writing. I know Fane. He came to Edward Willing's house at Barnes to lunch. Edward and Maud Willing were present. I saw Fane at the station when I went to meet Maud Willing. She had been away. She told me she was going to Scotland. I am not sure it was Waterloo; it might have been Euston. She came to South Kensington Station and there met a man who I think was Captain Fane. They were walking up and down, talking for about ten minutes. I know Peach. I first, saw him at Barnes, and I have seen him there a good many times, about four times a week, morning, afternoon, and evening. He was called Peter, or Philip Peach; he seemed to have two or three names. On the day we went to Worthing he came to Victoria Station to see us off. A few days after Maud and Edward Willing were arrested at Worthing I met Fane by appointment at Burlington Arcade. He wrote letter produced addressed to "Mrs. Willing, Ethelden, House, Ethelden Road, Uxbridge Road, September 5, 1905. Meet me to-morrow, Wednesday, at Burlington Arcade.—F." He said he thought Edward and Maud Willing were very foolish. I understood him to mean in being caught. I said I thought they were as well. I said, "Are you not going to have anything to do with it." I meant with the forgery. "Have you anything to do with it?" He said, "They cannot touch me." He said "Have they got any money?" He was talking about the time we met at Kensington, and he said, "Did they get any money?" I said, "There seems to be a lot knocking about." He seemed surprised. He said, "They told me that they had not got any." He said, "Maud told me they did not get anything." I do not remember anything being said about the way in which the money had been obtained. I may have said that the money was the proceedings of a forgery. I cannot remember what he said to that. I asked him for money. I wanted him to do anything he could. He gave me £1. I afterwards wrote to him at the Eccentric Club for money and received no answer. (The witness appeared to be fainting and the cross-examination was deferred.)

 CHARLES ARROW, chief inspector of police, New Scotland Yard. On March 2, 1906, I laid information on what had come to my knowledge, received a warrant for the arrest of the prisoners, and on March 8, with Sergeant Birch, arrested Fane in Piccadilly. I said, "Mr. Fane, I believe?" He said, "Yes." I gave him my official card, which I read and I said, "I arrest you on a warrant for forgery. I will read it to you." He said, "I have never forged anything. I know nothing of any forgery. I suppose it is in connection with that man Willing." I took him into the hall of the club and there read the warrant He said, "I am absolutely innocent. I know nothing about it. I know that brute Willing to my cost" I said, "The warrant only mentions one charge of forgery—a cheque. You may be charged in connection with other cheque forgeries." The one in the warrant was the £900 Drummond forgery. I took him to Cannon Row police station; he was there searched by Sergeant Birch and Sergeant Fowler, who handed to me what was found upon him, and I went through the. list with Fane shortly afterwards. Amongst them were cheques for £8, of July 25, 1905, by Edward Willing, marked "R/D" two letters, signed Peach [Exhibits 2 and 3] one dated on postmark November 27, addressed to Captain Fane, Eccentric Club, from 145, Brook Street, "I should like to see you if you care to make an appointment with me to our mutual advantage "; the other, without date, "Dear Captain Fane, I trust that when in town you will not forget our appointment." I said, "These are from the prisoner Peach." He made no remark. Prior to finding the documents, I read the charge to both defendants, and neither made any remark. I also found on Fane three pawntickets, one, October 17, for a ring for £4; a ticket of same date for a dressing-bag, £5 10s.; one, of October 19, for a watch, £5—all in the name of Fane, of the Naval and Military Club. He gave his address as 16, Bury Street, St. James's. I took from him a key and went to that address, which is a lodging-house, where he had one room, I found there a bag which the key fitted, and found in it the cypher written on a letter-card, addressed Captain Fane, Eccentric Club, Shaftesbury Avenue. in Peach's handwriting, bearing a post mark of February 24, 1906. With the exception of some minor differences, it is the same as that found at Worthing. I found a loaded revolver and some cartridges in the bag, and two pawntickets, one of September 13, 1905, for two pins, two pairs of links, a stud, and two lockets, £4 10s., in the name of Mr. Lambert, Pulbrook, Worcester Park; another, of the same date and name, for a painting, £1. I also found in an envelope five pieces of paper torn from letters, one bearing the signature of George Herring, who is a well-known gentleman of large means, living at Hamilton Place, Piccadilly; another bearing the words, "I have no doubt it is a good thing, and I wish it every success.—Savile." I have seen Mr. George Herring's secretary, and have called on Lord Savile and found he was away. Another torn piece of paper contains the words, "that you may succeed, I am faithfully yours, Robert B. Lavery." He is a well-known commercial gentleman of large means, with a private residence in Portland Place. Another bears the signature of Sir John Aird; another the signature of Sir Charles Wyndham. I received a communication from Maud Willing on September 30, and had an interview with her in Holloway on October 3, before the conviction. On November 7 I had an interview with Edward Willing, in consequence of a letter I received from the Governor of Wormwood Scrubs Prison. At that time I knew nothing of the £2 2s. cheque, or of the telegraphic communications between London and Schoenek. I made inquiries early this year and found the cheque for £2 2s. I knew nothing about the Drummond matter, and did not mention it at the time of the conviction.

 FRANCIS CARLIN, detective-sergeant, Scotland Yard. On March 7, with Sergeant Fowler, I arrested Peach at 145, Brook Street, Kennington. He made no reply to the charge. He wrote and signed receipt produced, in my presence, of March 12.

 JOHN E. MALLINSON, recalled. "Inrunning" was the registered telegraphic address of Edward Willing, 94, Elm Grove Road. Barnes, from January 24, 1905, to February 15, 1906.

 SYBIL HELOISE WILLING, recalled. In 1904 I had some correspondence with Colonel Gascoigne at the instance of my mother, Mrs. Hughes, and I received £3 from him in postal orders. Letter of August 30 produced, signed Sybil Willing, mentioning a cheque received, is not my writing, or written, by my authority. I never received cheque of Colonel Gascoigne for £10 produced. I do not know the writing on the endorsement. When I saw Fane no particular sum was mentioned. I do not remember saying it was for the purpose, of Willing's defence. I tried to get money from all his friends, and I spoke to Fane amongst others. I may have asked for money for the defence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. Before seeing Fane I saw Maud Willing in prison. I think she told me to tell Captain Fane that it would be better for him that he should supply money for her defence. It sounded like a threat. I do not remember telling him that. I cannot remember his saving that he was not going to be blackmailed. I was married February 19, 1901. Up to that date I was living with my mother, Mrs. Hughes. About two years after my marriage I heard of, Colonel Gascoigne. I first wrote to him in August, four years ago, and received £3 in postal orders. I never got a cheque from him. I wrote letters produced, of July 22 and August 7, 1904, to Colonel Gascoigne asking for money. I did not write letter, produced of August 25, signed Sybil Willing. I could not say whose writing it is. I think it is my mother's. It is her address. Upon, it is written in red ink, "£10 sent." Letter of August 30 acknowledging £10 cheque is not my writing; it is like my mother's, and bears her address. I never saw that cheque till now. When I went with Maud Willing for, the letter she opened it in the street. I did not read it or look at it, or know the handwriting, or where it came from. It did not appear, to be in ordinary handwriting.

Re-examined. In the letter of July 22 I speak of my husband being in South Africa, and that I was trying to earn something for my living. Those statements were true. Colonel Gascoigne's secretary wrote asking for a reference, and I referred him to Mr. Willey, solicitor, Leeds. He knew my family. My mother, is not a widow. Mr. Willey had known me, and my sister and the family. My father was a clergyman of the Church of England. We come from Dorchester.

Inspector ARROW, recalled. Two at least of the signatures produced are from letters addressed to Noel Middleton. I found letter from Noel Middleton on Fane's person.

Cross-examined by, Mr. Muir. Exhibit 51 is dated March 1. I have made inquiries, but could not see Mr. Noel Middleton. I had charge of the Hughes case, and also of this ease from the first. I first got knowledge that Edward Willing had been in possession of the, £10 cheque of April, 1903, towards the end of December, 1905. The matter was not then before the Treasury officials. They took up the matter on January 26. I, do not think that cheque was mentioned until the middle of April. That cheque was in their possession by April 21. I can say now it was towards the end of November I knew of the £10 cheque and also the £l, 10s. cheque. The Treasury had them from April 20. It would be possible for a prisoner in one cell at Bow Street to speak to a prisoner in a cell opposite. Talbot Bridgwater was an organiser of forgeries, and his office was a centre to which forgers from all, parts of the world resorted, and other criminals from Australia, America, and the Continent. Bill Wigram is a notorious criminal and putter-up of crime. Tarbo is a swindler and card-sharper. Bridgwater generally had a forger on hand on the premises, who attended daily for orders.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. I believe the address on the cypher to, be Peach's handwriting.

Re-examined. I have no information that Edward Willing was a companion of Bridgwater. I had a lot to do with Bridgwater before his arrest, and knew his associates pretty well, and I do not know that he had an associate in Willing. His is a separate gang. There are other gangs of forgers besides those two. Wigram and Tarbo were constant companions of Bridgwater. Until I saw Edward and Maud Willing in prison I had no knowledge of the cheque for £2 2s. or of the forged cheque for £900 on Drummond's Bank, although at the time of the conviction the forgery on the Leeds Bank was known and mentioned. After committal of the, prisoners photographs of all the material things were sent to their advisers.

 THOMAS HENRY GURRIN. I am an expert in handwriting of over 20 years. I have seen telegrams from Schoenek and letters purporting to be signed by Fane, including the one concluding with the words, "No mess must be made this time." I believe them to be in Fane's handwriting. I have seen telegram sent to Schoenek [Exhibits 2 and 3] written to Fane, Exhibit 26 addressed to Edward Willing, containing the words, "I do not altogether intend getting 18 months for nothing," and the cypher on postcard; they are all in Peach's handwriting. With regard to the two letters written to Maud Willing in prison, the one in violet ink is so unlike Peach's writing that I could not recognise it as his. I had the two cheques for £900 put before me about the middle of April. I had for comparison another cheque of Colonel Gascoigne's for £2 2s. This report, dated April 24, that I made on the three documents is absolutely unbiassed:—"Colonel Gascoigne's handwriting: The only two specimens are the cheque [Ex. 18] and a letter to Mr. James Dobson. I have carefully compared this writing with the writing of the signatures on the Leeds and Drummond's cheques [Exs. 14 and 15 respectively], and I am quite satisfied that both of these are forgeries produced by one person. There is a laboured, tremulous writing which is quite absent from the genuine writing. The signatures on Exs. 14 and 15 (Drummond's and Beckett's cheques) are almost identical-in fact, they might have been traced from one model. They are almost exactly the same length. They do not absolutely coincide when superimposed, but the paper shifting might account for the slight difference that exists. The two signatures on the two forged cheques are practically alike. One might be taken from the other." The correspondence is so great that, in my opinion, it could not have been produced by free-hand forgery. "Those signatures (I am speaking of the forgeries) do not coincide in any way with the genuine signature [Ex. 18, the £2 2s. cheque] on the cheque to Captain Fane, which bears a much shorter signature, nor with the letter to Mr. Dobson, and, although these two forged cheques may be a very fair imitation of some genuine signatures, I see no ground for assuming that either or both of them were modelled from the £2 2s. cheque made out to Captain Fane, as there are peculiarities in both the forged cheques very studiously introduced which do not exist at all in the genuine cheque or in the signature of the latter to Mr. Dobson. I refer to the initial curls at the tops of the capitals C and G in each of the forgeries nowhere seen in Ex. 18. Then, again, the date in Ex. 18 is written '12th May, 1905,' but in both the cheques the date is written 'May 29, 1905." The order of the figures is reversed. I made my report on Colonel Gascoigne's cheques for £1 10s. and £10 on May 16 as follows: "I am unable to discover any reasonable ground for assuming that either of the forgeries was modelled on either of those four specimens. [Mr. Dobson's letter and the three cheques.] It is possible that certain features may have been taken from some of them-for instance, the curved dash under the signature in Ex. 18. The reasons supporting my view are the date in the forgeries is written in just the opposite way to what we see it in all the specimens. These latter have the day first and the month after, and the forgeries reverse this order. The forged signatures must have been taken from one model. They are practically identical. This is proved by superimposing the forgeries on each other, and it is then seen they correspond individually, though, taken as a whole, the space occupied is not exactly the same. The accidental moving of the paper would account for this. The word 'pounds' in the forgeries is different. In the cheques for £2 2s. and £10 respectively I note a difference in the final 's.' The difference is in the forgeries. It is a tall 's' in the word 'pounds' and the other finishes off with a long, downward stroke. This appears in both the forgeries and does not appear in any of these models before me. The figure 2 which appears in each forgery is a quite differently formed figure to the 2 in the £10 cheque, and also quite different to the figure 2 occurring three times in Exhibit 18 and the initialled little curve at the top of the C, and occurring several times at the top of in each forgery does not appear at all in Exhibit 18; nor is it seen in the letter to Dobson. It is seen in the cheques dated 1903 and 1904 for £1 10s. and £10 respectively. So that it is possible that peculiarity might have been taken from the last-named cheques, but the theory seems improbable, as in all other respects the signatures on those two cheques are so unlike the forgeries that it is difficult to conceive that they could have served as models." That applies to Exhibit 18 as well as to the cheque of 1903. "One model, as I have said, might have served for both forgeries, and it seems only reasonable to assume that that model had a different capital T and a different from anything seen in the specimens, as they contain nothing to compare with those in the forgeries. I can therefore only respectfully express my belief that the forgers had access to some specimens that I have not seen. Possibly an examination of other paid cheques drawn by the late Colonel Gascoigne might show that." I then deal with Sybil Willing's writing. I have had no other specimens.

By the Court. Sometimes the forgery is effected by tracing and sometimes by copying a signature. When it is a reproduction of the actual signature I expect the forged signature to differ from the actual signature; but if you are dealing with a respectable kind of forger, a man who knows his work, you expect something like the original. I am very much surprised that either cheque was paid. I do not dispute that there might have been some likeness to Col. Gascoigne's signature, but the likeness does not exist between that signature and any model shown to me.

By Mr. Muir. The forger undoubtedly had a genuine signature before him of Col. Gascoigne's from which those two cheques were forged. In two different specimens of his signature there are very marked characteristics, which are introduced into the forged documents. The little characteristic curve before the C and the G is entirely absent from the £2 2s. cheque and present in both the forgeries. In the £1 10s. cheque I find the characteristic curve above the C and the G. In that respect the forgeries may have been copied from the £1 10s. cheque. The dash under the name in the forgeries is absent from the £1 10s. cheque and present in the £2 2s. cheque. This cheque for £1, "Parlington Estate account, T. R. Henry," is endorsed "Sybil E. Willing." It was not shown to me. The day figure is put after the month, which is not so in the models. I do not think it probable that a person in possession of all these cheques might produce a signature like that upon the forged cheque. The forger must have had some other model. The bottom of the F in Exhibit 14 and 15 is formed by making a short hook. Exhibit 18, the cheque payable to Col. Fane, has at the bottom of the F a big open loop instead of a short sharp hook. In both forgeries, the top of the T is extensively curved. The top of the F is also curved. In Col. Fane's cheque the tops of both the F and T are almost straight; they form an angle. In the small g in the name "Gascoigne" in both forgeries there is no open loop in the tail. It is finished off almost like a q. In Col. Fane's cheque there is an open short loop in the down stroke. In the 1903 cheque the bottom of the F has a short, sharp hook similar to but not identical with that in the forgeries. The tops of the initial letters F and T are extensively curved as in the forgeries. The T is more angular. In the £10 cheque there is a sharp hook at the bottom of the F. The tops of the F and T are almost straight The T has a similar short hook as in the forged cheques, and similar to that in the £2 2s. cheque, the small g in "Gascoigne" is quite a q. In the two forged cheques the big curved dash goes right through the downstroke of the capital G and the small g. It occupies the same position in both forgeries. The dash in the £2 2s. cheque is much further below the signature at the beginning than the forged cheques. It goes quite clear of the capital G.

Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. I made a report to the Treasury on Peach's handwriting which was sent in on April 24. Exs. 31 and 32 are not, in my opinion, Peach's writing. What Maud, Willing has said would not affect my opinion. I have gone through these letters very carefully, and if there is any trace of Peach's writing in those exhibits it absolutely baffles me, and I should doubt it on the most reliable authority. 31 is written by the same person as 32. The alignment in one is a little better preserved. I do not say that the writing in 31 is natural and that in 32 disguised. There is a strong resemblance between Exs. 37 and 47. The documents that bear Peach's name, I think, show that he is versatile in his writing.

Re-examined. These two letters, Exs. 2 and 3, one signed "Peach" and the other "J. Peach," when compared with his admitted handwriting of "Peach" [Ex. 47], show very marked differences. Exs. 31 and 32, written by Peach to Maud Willing in prison, differ in slope. It is a common mistake that writing in a backward way disguises the writing. In neither the cheque for £1 10s. nor the cheque for £10 is there a dash under the signature. Such a dash I should call a characteristic, and it is obvious that the forger of the £900 cheques for that reason would not copy from the £1 10s. or £10 cheque because the dash or flourish is absent. It is present in the £2 2s. cheque, the only one in which I have seen it. The flourish or dash in the Beckett cheque under the signature corresponds more with the £2 2s. cheque than the other forgery. It finishes with a curve backwards and is completed, whereas in the Drummond cheque it goes right to the bottom without finishing. The flourish, obviously, is not a tracing. It is purely a matter of argument. There is an unnatural shakiness in the forgeries. The genuine signatures are very firm considering the Colonel's age.

(Evidence for the defence.)

 FREDERICK ARTHUR FANE (prisoner on oath). I was for some years in the Rifle Brigade, and sold out in the '70's with the rank of lieutenant. I have since been called "Captain." I have been a member of the Naval and Military Club for many years. I joined it when in service. I am also a member of the Eccentric Club. I met Edward Willing, I think, in 1888 or 1889. I understood his father was in the Navy. He was apparently well off and went about with people who had money. I met his brother later, who appeared to be a man of some means. I knew Edward as Charles. I lost sight of him in 1893 or 1894 until 1904, when he called at the Eccentric Club and left a note for me. I afterwards met him in Shaftesbury Avenue by chance. He said he was hard up and I gave him some money once or twice. He told me he had been to South Africa during the war. He called several times at the club. I went abroad in November, as the lady I was living with was getting ill. I returned to London in March, 1905, and lived in Drayton Gardens. I found two letters from Charles Willing at the Eccentric Club. I destroyed them. They were asking to see me. I took no notice of them. I afterwards met him by accident in April. He was considerably better dressed. He seemed much better off, and said he was doing fairly well. He was living in Barnes. I told him I had spent a good deal in travel and if I could raise money I should be glad. He asked if I had any security. I said nothing very tangible. He said he might raise some money for me. I told him the only security I had was a small income paid to me under an undertaking, and had been paid to me for many years. He said he would make inquiries. I saw him a few days after, when he asked me to entrust the document to him and he would see what he could do. I gave him the undertaking as against a receipt. I saw him again, when he returned the document and I returned the receipt. I showed him letters from the solicitors who forwarded me my money. He said he would let me know, and that he could get me some money on my promissory note from a sporting friend, and suggested I should make it for £90 and he would get me as much as he could on it. My allowance was £800 a year, paid quarterly. I gave him the note, dated May 9 or 10, for £90 at three months. He gave me a receipt. I met him two or three times after, when he said he was trying to get the money, but his friend had been out of town a good deal racing. The lady I have mentioned was still very ill, and I took her to Switzerland. I was anxious to get the money before going. When discussing the matter with Willing in the "Drayton Arms" a man and woman came in, who were introduced to me as Maud Willing (his wife) and Peach. Willing reminded me I had met Peach years before, as a clerk in an office in Brick Lane, where I used to call. Willing said he would send the money to me next week. I gave him my address at Schoenek. Something was said about baccarat, and that money was to be made at various watering-places abroad. He said he would not mind "having a shy at it." I left for Switzerland about May 20 or 22, and left my pot dog Smut with him. The money did not arrive, and I wrote and telegraphed to Willing. I received this telegram from him. I thought he was coming out, as he had hinted doing, for a holiday and trying at the tables. He did not come, and I wired him, referring to the promissory note (produced). I received this reply: "Sold one house; sending money to-day." Should be "sold one horse." I did not know what it meant. There was no name on it, but I concluded it was from Willing. I then wired: "In running, London. Register letter." The money not arriving, I wired: "In running, London. Letter not received. Wire explanation and remit, or must return. Take care." I thought I was being made a fool of. I then received this wire: "Sent registered letter Wednesday, addressed ass above. Will inquire. Charles." I then received a registered letter, with cheque for £75 on the London City and Midland Bank, which I gave (to the hotel people to cash. I acknowledged it, and said the amount was not what I had been promised. I returned to England in July. Willing met me in the Brompton Road and said he did not get as much money at he expected on my promissory note. He asked me to go down to Barnes. I went to luncheon. He casually said he supposed the promissory note would be met, or something to that effect, and I said yes. I afterwards had a letter from him to meet him in the Fulham Road, but he did not turn up; his wife, Maud, did. She asked me if I could lend her some money, I think she said £5. I did not like it much. She proposed my cashing a cheque, which she produced. I do not think there was any date on it. It was signed but not filled in. She said if I could cash it and hold it over two or three days it would be met, and would I wire the money? I suggested making it £8. She filled it up in my presence in a saloon bar, I think, or a paper shop. She handed it to me. It is dated July 25. I took it up to the club and cashed it, and wired £5 to her. She asked me not to send it in my own name, but "F. Arthers." A few days after I received a telegram and went to South Kensington Station where I saw Maud. She said she had just come up from Liverpool; that Willing had lost money, and was stopping to try and get it back at the races. She asked me if I had any small change for, I think, a cab or something. I did not know any reason, for her meeting me except to say he had lost money at the Liverpool Races. I gave her a few shillings. The cheque I cashed at the club was dishonoured, and I took it up. I put the cheque in my pocket and forgot all about it, and do not know where it is. I did not see her again. I saw Willing in August in the Brompton Road by appointment. He asked me if I was going to meet the promissory note. I said if he had got it on him I would pay him. He said he had, and I paid him in notes and gold £84 10s. I deducted £5 which I had sent to Maud and expenses entailed. I never saw him again. I destroyed the promissory note which he handed to me. I received one or two letters from Mrs. Willing, which are destroyed. They referred to the dog, and how nice it would be to go abroad in the autumn, which generally meant going to one or two watering-places and having a gamble. I have been on the Continent many times. I sent them my address at Fullbrooks, Worcester Park, Surrey, where they take paying guests. I wrote this letter to Mrs. Willing: "Dear Mrs. Willing,—I am sorry you have been so bad. The American Dentist Company are the best people." "Now business. If the results are to go to Paris or elsewhere abroad, and if I am to take them I must be in town the day before and see you and C., and arrange things in town," etc. "Now business" referred to going abroad for the purpose of playing and "no mess must be made this time" referred to their losing their money at Liverpool. "P.S.—Not a moment must be lost in getting there. There are four trains daily to Paris." That refers to the season, which was running out, and it might be too late. I heard of the arrest of Willing by a letter from a Mr. Barrett, who, I believe, was acting as their solicitor. I do not know what has become of it. I went to see Barrett. I alter wards received a letter from Mrs. Willing from Holloway saying she could not eat the food they gave her because of her teeth, and asking if I would let her have some money. I sent her 10s. I afterwards had a letter from Mrs. Sybil Willing, and subsequently met her in the Burlington Arcade. She told me the Willings were very badly off and wanted money for their defence, I think £30 or £40, and that Charles Willing was very bitter, and she did not know what he would say or do. I said I did not know anything about his business. I felt very sorry for them. I did not mind giving them £1 towards their food, which I gave her. I declined to do anything else. She seemed to think I ought to find money for the defence. I did not see why I should. She seemed rather warning than anything else. She was civil enough. I bad another letter from her. Ex. 38 was given me a long time ago by Middleton. I had them for two years. A man I metat the club asked me for some autographs some time ago. I got them for him, and shoved them in my pocket, as I did not see him again. I forgot all about them. The pawntickets were my own. I know nothing about the cypher code, except that I received it. I never wrote or received a letter in cypher. The letter-card of February 24, 1906, I do not know how I came by. I put it in my pocket, and threw it down with other papers when I went home to dress for dinner. In reference to the two-guinea cheque, I met a man in April last who told me he was an old soldier (Acres), and had been in the battalion, I think, and wanted some assistance to take him away, as he had fallen on bad times. I thought I would try and collect a little money to help him along. I had no previous acquaintance with Colonel Gascoigne, except that I met him casually years ago. I wrote to him and other people, and he sent me that two-guinea cheque. I remember the letter in which the cheque was enclosed was dated a day or two later than the cheque. It came to the Naval and Military Club. I kept it in my pocket for two days and cashed it at the club. Then I saw Acres, and handed the money to him and gave him £2 of my own as well. I did not have many other answers to my letters. I wrote to the colonel of the regiment and he did not answer. I never handed the cheque to Charles Willing, nor had he it in his possession. I never heard of Mrs. Hughes, the mother of Mrs. Sybil Willing. Except for that cheque for £75, which I received at Schoenek, I never received any French notes or any further money from Willing at all. I have never had anything to do with the forging of these cheques, directly or indirectly.

(Saturday, May 26.)

 FREDERICK ARTHUR FANE (prisoner on oath), recalled. I agree with Willing that I knew him first in about 1888 or 1889. I saw him frequently up to 1893 or 1894, and then lost sight of him until May of 1904 or a month earlier. Before 1896 I was on intimate terms with him-too much so. I met him at different places. He had lunched with me at the Naval and Military Club. I did not call him by his Christian name. I do not think he had any occupation. He seemed to have money. I have been a card player, not for heavy stakes. I may have played with Willing, but not habitually. When I met him in 1904 he had left a line at the club with no address and I met him by accident. I asked him what had become of him. He said he had been in South Africa during the war. I did not think he had been in a regiment or as a soldier. Whether he had been fighting or not I did not know. He asked for assistance and I gave him small sums on several occasions. He said he was trying to get something to do. I believe he was for a time in some place. I had no conversation with him about card playing. I did not say I knew a good man if he knew of anything good, or ask him if he knew of any mugs. Nothing of the sort took place. I met him off and on for a month or so. I went abroad in the autumn of 1904. I met him again by accident in the early part of April. 1905, before Easter. He seemed to be better off. He paid me £2 or £3—certainly not £10. I had lent him the money. I met him several times at the Drayton Arms, considerably after Easter, by appointment. He was negotiating a loan for me. I gave him the settlement and the letters. We probably met three times about that. He said he knew a man who could do it, and he gave the documents back to me. I understood that he had shown them to somebody who was going to do it. This was before Easter. The settlement was a voluntary letter written by my wife and two or three letters from the trustees, enclosing a cheque on Chaplin, Milne and Co. I have been told since by my solicitors that a cheque for £75 was forged in the name of my wife. Early in May I handed to Willing a promissory note for £90, payable three months after that date. I received my income of £200 about May 15, and went abroad on the 24th. I was anxious to get the note discounted before I started. I saw Willing occasionally at the Drayton Arms. I wanted to know whether the note was going to be done. I asked him to see me. I wanted the money. I believed he would send it me as soon as he got it. I trusted him. It was a mere coincidence as far as I was concerned that Peach and Maud Willing came to the Drayton Arms when Willing and I were there. Peach had nothing to do with the promissory note. I never expected them. I had known Peach as a clerk in the office of Ferrers, patent agents and financiers, in the City, in 1896 or 1897. Willing told me or I should not have recognised him. I do not know why Willing should mention my name to Peach. I afterwards met Peach in Piccadilly in February, 1906. He came up and spoke to me and asked if I could get a berth for him. I knew Edward Willing was living at Barnes. I suppose Maud Willing and Peach came to meet him at the Drayton Arms. I received two postcards from Peach, one dated November 27, 1905, from 145, Brook Street, addressed to me at the Eccentric Club. I do not know how he knew my address. I cannot explain his writing the letter. I do not know of any possible mutual interest between me and Peach. I got both those cards at the same time—found them waiting for me at the club. They do not look the same handwriting. I did not answer them. When I met him in Piccadilly he said he wanted a clerkship. I returned from abroad in July. I met Willing the first time afterwards by appointment. I wanted to see him to ask why he had sent me £75 instead of £80. I had mentioned it in my letter and had no answer. He said he could not get any more. I did not ask him who he discounted the note with. He asked me to come and visit him; the date was not fixed. I went to lunch with him and met his wife and his sister-in-law. He asked me whether the promissory note would be met and I said "Yes." After that he made an appointment to see me in the Fulham Road. Maud Willing came instead and asked me to lend her £5. She did not say what for or that they were going a journey. I refused to lend it I said I could not lend it. She then said she wanted a cheque changed and held over, and she then produced a cheque signed in blank. I agreed to let her have £5 on that cheque. She wanted me to telegraph the £5, and I made the cheque for £8 because I wanted the balance. I cashed it at the club. I believed it would be met, that it would take two days to clear it. I did not think the cheque would be dishonoured. I telegraphed the £5 in the name of F. Arthers because Maud Willing asked me not to send it in my own name. She said she did not want it to appear that the money came from me. It did not appear to me strange at the time; now it is put before me in this way it does. The secretary asked me for an explanation. I said it had been given to me. I was very sorry and I would take it up. I was not in the habit of using cheque forms at the club. I knew they had cheque forms; I have had them in my possession. When I have gone abroad I have taken two or three occasionally. I was in London between July 29 and August 15. The club was closed, and the club was located at the Rag. Letters would not be sent on there unless special instructions were given. I might use cheque forms when abroad to pay a bill by drawing on a solicitor's office. I have used them when abroad I have not done it for a long time. I do not think I can give you the name of any solicitor. In May, 1905, when going abroad, I think I had three blank cheque forms. I have not had a banking account lately. When my £200 comes in it is pretty well all gone. I have been an undischarged bankrupt nine or ten years. After lending Maud Willing the £5, I had a telegram, I think from Liverpool, asking me to meet her at South Kensington Station. I was rather surprised to see she had been to Liverpool. She did not tell me why she had gone there. I had no suspicion she had been to Ireland. Before this case I never heard of Sir Robert Hodson. I did not know what Maud Willing wanted—I thought it very possible she might want to borrow more money. She told me they had had a bad time at Liverpool. The only object disclosed to me of the interview was that she wanted to borrow. In August I met Willing and paid the promissory note by £84 10s. in notes and gold. I had a sum of £20 in notes, and the rest was from my cheque which I had just received. I cashed my cheque at Chaplin, Grenfell, Milne, and Co., 6, Princes Street. I received the cheque on August 12 and cashed it August 14. I did not make a statement at the police court. I left the case in my counsel's hands. It never struck me that if I had stated this inquiries might have been made to trace these notes. With regard to the Gascoigne £2 2s. cheque, a man met me in Pall Mall and asked me to assist him as an old soldier. It is a common form of begging. He gave me the names of several officers who served with me, and he was perfectly right. He said he recognised me. His name was Acres. I forget hit Christian name. I was not an ordinary story; I put him through his facings. I had no reason to suppose Colonel Gascoigne had any connection with the Rifle Brigade. I happened to know he was in the habit of assisting people in that position by common repute. I also wrote to Colonel Sir Julius Glyn and Lord Howard de Walden. I probably told Willing because I asked him to make inquiries about the man and to see whether he could hear anything about him, and he told me He could not. I did not receive the cheque for £2 2s. until May 17 or 18. I saw Willing several times; he was always hanging about. I had the soldier's address, and gave it to Willing. He told me he could find nothing about him. I did not think he had inquired. The next time I saw the soldier I cashed the cheque at the club, and gave it him with £2 of my own money. I cannot say whether I told Willing I had a £2 2s. cheque from Colonel Gascoigne. I saw a good deal of Willing; I did not suspect him in any way, and one talks about such a thing. I do not recollect anything being said about the cheque being made payable to Colonel Fane when I cashed it. I am called Mr. Fane at the club. Mr. Fane is on my cards. I did not say to the man at the desk, "They have given me brevet rank." I do not recollect saying it to Willing. If I told him about the cheque at all, I may have told him that; it is quite possible. There was a scheme between Edward Willing and me to go abroad to gamble, and that he should discount my promissory note; those two things absolutely explain all the communications that passed between us which have been put in evidence in this case. In May Willing was also proposing to go abroad for his health. He had the gout. Schoenek is a watering-place, a recognised hydropathic place. I have not suggested Willing was going to Schoenek. Willing said, "If we go abroad we would go to one or two places together and have a game." Aix-les-Bains was mentioned. The season begins there about June 15. I went to Schoenek for the benefit of the lady's health. We were going to move to Baden or Aix after her cure of three weeks. There was no particular hurry. I did not know when Willing was coming. I thought he was coming shortly after I left, on May 24. He was coming abroad, and if I wanted to, he would go to some of those places and have a go at the tables. You want a certain amount of capital for that. Willing seemed to get money; he was a spendthrift. I knew the man got money. It was dependent on his finding money, certainly. Willing's telegram of May 28, 1905, "With you Tuesday," surprised me. I did not expect him so soon. I know now the Derby was on Jane 1; I did not know it then. There are other races that week. It did not astonish me that he should sign the telegram Charles; I knew him as Charles Willing. I cannot suggest any reason why he signed the form "C. Martin" or should have used a false name. Putting it in the light of what he says, of course, I can understand it. The telegram, "Not kept promise; conclude my business not done, so must return. Wire the truth immediately," was with reference to the loan. I should have had to return so as to get it done elsewhere. I was dependent upon the discounting of that note to stay any length of time. I went abroad on the distinct understanding that the money was to be sent. I do not understand what Willing meant by "Sold one horse." I waited to see if the money would come. I did write and acknowledge the money, and asked him what he meant by the telegram about the horses. When I came back it escaped my memory. I say the letter of August 24, 1905, "Now business. If the results are to go to Paris or elsewhere abroad, and if I am to take them, I must be in town the day before I see you, etc., and arrange things when in town. I will put up at the club. No mess must be made this time. Yours truly, F," is explained by the Baccarat scheme—that Willing was to go abroad with me and gamble at the gamingtables. That is the whole explanation of it. I merely meant that we were to go together. "If I am to take them" means take the money. Willing must have been going to trust me with the funds to go abroad to gamble with. I cannot give any other explanation of those words. "Not a moment must be lost, four trains daily to Paris"—it was getting very late. There was no mug to catch. I do not know that the cypher if in the handwriting of Peach. I cannot suggest anyone else who could have sent it. I have not the slightest idea why it was sent to me. No doubt it is a cypher. The five autographs were obtained for the purpose of handing them to an American gentleman who collects autographs, and I had not seen him. He was a man at the Eccentric Club. He wanted noble people's autographs; he did not suggest wealthy people. I forget his name; he was an honorary member. They had been in the bag for two years. One of them is the signature of Sir John Aird. I got it from) Mr. Middleton. I got them all from him at the same time. I do not know where he is—I think he was in Italy. (Copy letter-book handed to witness.) This appears to be a press copy, and it is dated March 29, 1905. It looks extremely like a press copy of that letter. There was a loaded revolver in my bag. I have always had one. I have been in America, where we always carry one. It has been loaded for a very long time. I am not afraid of burglars in Bury Street, 8t. James's.

Re-examined. I have had these autographs a considerable time in my possession.

(Monday, May 28.)

Verdict, Guilty.

Peach pleaded guilty to on October 19, 1903, being convicted of felony at this Court.

Inspector ARROW. The above conviction was punished by 12 months' hard labour. Peach received three months' at Marlborough Street for embezzlement. He belongs to, a family of criminals. His father is undergoing a sentence of five years' penal servitude for receiving bonds. His brother is also a criminal. I have no doubt at all he is the actual forger. There are other forgeries of cheques not mentioned. The first in which Peach is said to be concerned is one in 1894 on the account of Fred Terry, the actor. Another on the account of Mr. Shepherd at the Union and Smiths Bank for £83. Then then was a cheque for £75 in the name of Mrs. Fane—the prisoner Fane's wife—and a cheque for £163 on the Capital and Counties Bank on May 6, 1905; that was the first on the Naval and Military Club forms; Fane and Peach were both concerned in that. We had next the bond forgeries, and these two cheques for £900 each and the one for £350 mentioned in this case. Then there was the cheque in the name of the Bishop of London for £150, but Fane had nothing to do with that. When arrested the Willings were in possession of forged cheques for £600 and £350 on Coutts's Bank, and as to these it is supposed that Fane was to participate if they had been passed. All the cheques were passed in the way mentioned in this case. I know nothing more about Fane than has transpired in this case. A great deal has transpired about his social life.

Sentence, each prisoner, Seven years' penal servitude.

FREDERICK WILLIAM MALLINSON in trial of SAMUEL SUGARMAN, Deception > fraud; SAMUEL SUGARMAN, Theft > receiving, 28th March 1911.

SUGARMAN, Samuel, conspiring with Frederick William Mallinson and Harold Jenkins and others unknown by false pretences to obtain goods from persons who might be induced to deal with the said Frederick William Mallinson and Harold Jenkins, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Rudolf Robert Reichenheim 73 table cloths and other articles, from Eno Kurtenger eight boxes of embroideries, and from Henry Allen 150 dozen handkerchiefs, with intent to defraud; unlawfully receiving 73 tablecloths and other articles, knowing the same to have been obtained by false pretences and with intent to defraud.

Mr. W.G.H. Jones prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Baker defended.

 RUDOLF ROBERT REICHENHEIM, 33, Noble Street, E.C., manufacturers' agent. In July last we received a visit from a man named Jenkins. He said Mallinson was a shipper to Canada, that he was conducting the Canadian trade for Mallinson and wanted to buy some embroideries and, if we were right, he would buy from us. He did not want goods for the home market. He looked round and made notes of what we had. He came back about a week afterwards and said he would take goods that he had selected. We then asked for references. He gave the name of Lazarus and Rosenfeld, of Bevis Marks. I went there. They said Mallinson had not done more than £15 or £20 in any one transaction. I was not satisfied and went to Mallinson's office and asked him for further references. He then gave me the Wholesale Supply Stores, 40, Marion Street, Leeds, the National Provincial Bank, Smithfield branch, and another. I think it was Siegel and Co. We got a verbal answer from the bank and a written one from the Wholesale Supply Stores, signed by H. Jacobson. The first order we got on July 7 amounted to about £180. He said they were for Canada. The goods were paid for. There were other orders on September 28 and October 22 and 26. The goods were delivered, but not paid for. The next lot was 30 boxes of embroidery on October 29 and the next 18 boxes of embroidery from stock. They represent a total of £340 worth, all perfect goods. None of it has been recovered and we have not been paid for it. I applied for payment on November 14 or 16 and found the office closed. I applied on November 20 for a warrant against Mallinson and Jenkins, which was granted. On that day I went to Leeds with Detective-sergeant Nicholls. On December 1 he and I called upon prisoner as ordinary purchasers. We looked round and bought half a dozen handkerchiefs at 4d. each. We then went to the Town Hall; Leeds, and then with Inspector Wilson we went to Jacobson's place. After leaving there we went to Sugarman's. Sergeant Nicholls told him what we were there for. I recognised a lot of my goods on the premises and told him they had been obtained by fraud. Prisoner made a statement, which he signed. After that he made various explanations. I queationed him as to a lot of embroidery of mine. I asked how many boxes he had; he said six. I pressed him and he still said six. Then we walked round his place and I saw 22 or 23 boxes of my stuff there, He said, "Those are all the same goods." I said, "No, they are not all the same; they are three different lots." He said, "No, they are all the same." They were three different qualities, three different prices. Sergeant Nicholls looked at the invoices and ledger. Subsequently I went again with Sergeant Nicholls and Mr. linger; we got a search warrant at Leeds and inspected the stock very minutely. Of the first lot mentioned in the indictment, £77 7s. worth, we recovered about £38 worth. I recognise them by the patterns as being the goods supplied by our manufacturers. Of the next lot we recovered about £20 worth. From descriptions I had given to me from other creditors I identified other goods. I identified about seveneighths of the goods as having come through Mallinson.

Cross-examined. It was Jenkins who ordered the goods, not Mallinson. I do not know whether he was a Canadian or not. I saw Mallinson many times. I have not said that before because I waa not asked. He did not say he was going to do business with Canada; he said he was shipping. From July 9 to September 23 inclusive there was a satisfactory course of dealing with Mallinson. Befween October 22 and November 10 £340 worth were obtained which are unpaid for. I satisfied myself that Mallinson had disappeared on November 26. Some time before the 30th I knew the goods had been consigned by Mallinson to prisoner. I ascertained it through the London and North-Western Railway Company. The goods were not easily traced; it was the merest accident. They were addressed to and consigned to the Manchester Fent Company, 130, Kirkgate, Leeds. There was no attempt to obliterate the marks of identification. I said at the police court, "The accused gave us every assistance in identifying the goods"; also, "He had dealings with Mallinson in the ordinary way of business." "He produced his books and invoices and invited the police to examine them," was said by the police. He did not point out the goods supplied by Mallinson. If I said, "He very probably pointed out himself the goods which were supplied by Mallinson," I got it corrected later onin the depositions. He did not point them out. Prisoner gave us every assistance in identifying the goods. I do not think he volunteered the statement that they came from Mallinson. He only showed one letter from Mallinson to the officer. It was on the second interview with him I thanked him for the assistance he had given. I did not then regard him particularly as a dishonest man; he just happened to be the person we found with the goods. I went to see Jacobson at 40, Marion Street, Leeds. He says he is a jeweller and hardware dealer. He told the police he had known Mallinson three and a half years and had sold goods to him. He did not say exactly that he had never bought from Mallinson. He admitted having different goods from him, but maintained at first that they were goods he had previously supplied to Mallinson. I think he afterwards amended it. I examined the invoices which prisoner gave to the police and found that the embroideries which were on his premises were only delivered to Mallinson on November 10. I found there was no invoice for embroideries after November 8. It did not occur to me that invoices might be sent on in advance and the goods delivered afterwards. I think I heard prisoner say he had made inquiries about Mallinson through his bank. He said, "I admit I had suspicions at first, but I made inquiries through my bank and they said it was all right." I was satisfied with the references or I should not have supplied the goods. On our first visit something was said about furs. Harrod & Stores were creditors who supplied Mallinson with a set of skunk furs value £9 10s. and they joined us in the prosecution. I was close by when they were selling a set of furs. The girl asked prisoner as he was speaking to us what he would take for them and he said £8 10s. I jumped to the conclusion they were the Harrod Stores' furs. (To Mr. Jones.) The £340 worth of goods supplied to Mallinson weighed 14 1/2 cwt. net and cost £24 10s. to £25 a hundredweight. The total quantity supplied from September to November 16—I took it out roughly—is 102 cwt. 3 qr. 14 1b. According to the ledger the amount charged is £777, a little over £7 a hundredweight. £7 per hundredweight is only the price of cut-up pieces of damask, whereas mine are the very finest made.

Detective-sergeant ERNEST NICHOLS, City Police. On November 30 I received a warrant at the Guildhall Police Court for the arrest of Mallinson and Jenkins for conspiracy to defraud. That has not been served. I went to Leeds on December 1 with Reichenheim. I had made inquiries and traced a large quantity of the goods which had been obtained by Mallinson to prisoner's address at Leeds, the Manchester Fent Company. I went there with prosecutor, had a look round, and purchased one dozen handkerchiefs. Exhibit 2 is one of them. I produce the receipt. Later, in company with Detective-inspector Wilson, of the Leeds Police, I interviewed Jacobson at Marion Street. 1 On leaving there we went to the accused's place and saw him again. I informed him I was a police officer from London and was making inquiries as to his dealings with Mallinson and Jenkins, of Milk Street, that it was alleged that Mallinson had obtained a large quantity of goods by fraud, which were traced to his premises. Sugarman stated "He had dealings with me to the extent of £1,000." He showed me 19 invoices. The first is assorted linens and embroideries, £48 17s. 5d. There is nothing to show how the sum is arrived at. There is the date and the name of the Manchester Fent Company, but nothing else on it. The same applies to all the invoices. Prisoner made a statement which I took down in writing and he signed. He produced his ledger, one of his lady clerks read out the different items and I checked them with the invoices. It was found there were four invoices short; I afterwards found there were really eight short. She read out 23 items whereas she ought to have read out 27. Prisoner said they evidently must have been mislaid. He produced other invoices, but no others from Mallinson. There is an invoice from E. Cohen and Company, Mosely Street, Manchester, 165 1b. mercerised damask at 1s. 10d. per 1b. All the other invoices except Mallinson's show how the sum carried out in the cash column is arrived at. I asked prisoner what Jacobson had to do with his com-pany. He said he was one of the shareholders. He also handed me then the memorandum and articles of association. Jacobson holds 25 shares. After prisoner showed me the 19 invoices and the letter from Mallinson he showed me his ledger. I inspected it and took down the statement. He informed me that Jacobson held 25 £1 shares in the company. Reichenheim asked if he had bought embroidery from anybody else. He replied, "Yes."Richenheim pointed out several lots of goods from Mallinson, and I then cautioned him not to deal with those goods. Prisoner said, "I cannot identify the goods I received from Mallinson from those I have received from other people."I pointed out some goods in bulky boxes and he said he would put those on one side until he heard further in the matter. He also asked me if he was bound to do so without the magistrate's order. I said, "You are not bound to do so, but it is a very serious matter, a large amount of goods have been obtained by fraud, and that is what I direct you to do."He placed no difficulty in my way in showing me the various goods. On December 9 I received a summons and proceeded to Leeds again in company with Reichenheim and Unger (also a creditor), and I attended the Leeds Police Court, when those gentlemen swore an information and obtained a search warrant. The same day I went with Inspector Wilson to defendant's premises. Inspector Wilson seized. a large quantity of goods. When we entered defendant was in company with Jacobson. I served defendant with the summons; he read it and said, "What are the grounds of the conspiracy; I am prepared to go." Inspector Wilson read the search warrant to prisoner who said, "All right, I understand it." He afterwards said, "I admit I was suspicious at first, but everything appeared all right. What else could I do? I made inquiries and saw that Mallinson paid regularly. My bankers made inquiries.'7 He did not say why he was suspicious at first. Reichenheim and Unger identified their own goods and the goods of other creditors from samples that had been supplied to the police. Those goods were taken away on the search warrant. About three-fourths of the goods in his stock were identified as their property. The accused was arrested, taken to the police station and liberated on his own recognisances. On the way to the station he gave his private address. We searched that but found none of the goods mentioned in the search warrant. On the way back to Kirkgate prisoner said, "Unfortunately, after you saw me last time I was taking Mallinson's letters to my solicitor and lost the parcel. I hope to get it back; somebody must hare found it." He said he had advertised for them. I have not heard of them since. Prisoner produced only one letter from Mallinson. The goods which were seized are at Moor Lane Police Station, with the exception of the samples, which are here. With the exception of one box or part of a box of embroidery we seized every piece of embroidery at Sugarman's place. Rose Angel, one of the directors of this company, was served with notice to produce the books and documents relating to the transactions with Mallinson; she produced them on the first hearing at the Guildhall. There are four books, and Exhibit 18 was handed to me by prisoner on January 7. It is labelled "Day Book" and seems to be a rough account book. A collection of invoices from other suppliers was handed to me by defendant's solicitor on December 29.

 FREDERICK DYSON. 13, Wittall Street, Manchester, smallware merchant. I let the premises 7, Wittall Street, to Thomas Holmes. He was allowed to sub-let, and sub-let to Mr. Blaydon somewhere about January, 1908. Blaydon dealt in fents and general goods. Sugarman was with him in the business. They remained there about nine months. They gave it up, saying things were rather quiet, and took a shop nearly opposite. A man named Gordon then took 7, Wittall' Street. He had it for two weeks and then found a tenant named Sinclair, who was there about two months. I knew Sinclair by the name of Mallinson. I learned that almost as soon as he got there. I saw Sugarman once go across the way at a time when Mallinson had a lot of pictures hung round. He might be looking at the pictures. I could not say what he was doing. Mallinson stayed there about two months, then Blaydon came back again immediately to his old premises. I could not say if Sugarman and Mallinson were on friendly terms.

 CHARLES WATKINS, The Oaks, Woodford Green, Essex, surveyor. I act for Messrs. Knowles, the owners, 11, Milk Street. Mallinson took the premises for a term of three years at £90 per year. He has paid only one quarter's rent. He also took a yearly tenancy of the ground floor and basement 25, Jewin Street, at £100 per annum. He has paid no rent in respect of that.

 ARTHUR PALMER PECKOVER, clerk, office of Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House. I produce the file of the Manchester Fent Company, Limited. It was registered in 1910. The signatories are Samuel Sugarman, Rose Angel, and Rachel Sugarman. 225 shares have been issued, Samuel Sugarman 50, Rose Angel 50, Rachel Sugarman 50, Eli Cohen, Harry Jacobson and David Silver 25 each.

 JOHN KARRY, clerk to Mori and Company, carriers. I produce delivery ticket dated November 5, 1910, for a case of embroidery, weight 353 kilos. It was delivered 11, Milk Street. It is addressed to Mallinson and signed by G. Smith.

 GEORGE PAVITT, canvasser to Brasch and Rothenstein, carriers, produced other delivery notes.

 WILLIAM HENRY HEAD, police sergeant, London and North-Western Railway Company, Broad Street Goods Station, produced various: consignment notes relating to goods dispatched by Mallinson, of Milk Street, E.C., to the Manchester Fent Company.

---- LAGERWELL, traveller for Mr. Lee, manufacturers' agent. The invoice for £7 14s. 3d. (Exhibit 20) was made out according to my instructions. I produce the delivery note.

 ERNEST BLAKELY, weaver and overlooker, Horsforth. I have only seen prisoner once before. I was a customer of the Manchester Fent Company at Leeds. On November 15 I purchased these boxes of needlework, 4,500 yards at 1 1/4 d. per yard, and on November 16 I purchased two boxes of needlework for £3 16s. 8d. and 40 pieces and 10 yards for £7 13s. 4d. The total works out at 2d. per yard. I also produce a sample from the box of six pieces, 40 3/4 yards in each, which I purchased at 6 1/2 d.

 RUDOLPH ROBERT REICHENHEIM, recalled. As to the suggestion of the defence that the needlework, etc., were out of season and ought to be bought cheap I can only say I would like to trade on those terms.

(Thursday, March 30.)

 ROBERT STOKES, traveller to Messrs. Unger and Roberts. I called upon Mallinson and left some patterns for them to go into. Jenkins said their trade was with Canada and he had to go into the matter and put the figures into cents and dollars. The next day they gave me an order for 25 boxes of embroidery and three or four days after-wards I sold them nine more boxes, the remainder of our stock. They were delivered on November 3 or 4. Jenkins said he wanted them both delivered together as they were for one order—he mentioned Toronto and Montreal when I saw him. Afterwards he tele-phoned for me to call and see him, when he said he was making a shipment on that date and I was to send them in to his warehouse by about 12 o'clock in the day, so that he could include them with other goods he was sending off to the docks. I took another order from them for goods that required a month to make. They were not delivered because Mallinson and Jenkins had gone.

 ROBERT ROBERTS. I am partner in Unger, Roberts and Co., 74, Aldermanbury, agents and importers. Last witness brought me an order from Mallinson for 25 boxes first and nine afterwards. I had references. I identify the goods as coming from our stock. They are our own patterns. We only sell to wholesale houses. Jenkins bought the goods. He said he had got a connection in Canada. We understood they were a shipping firm. They had got a packing room in Jewin Crescent. I have seen the whole of our goods except one box at the police station. The price Blakely bought at is not reasonable. Retailers would not sell under 7 1/2 d. or 8d.

 HENRY ALLEN, Allen and Co., Belfast. I have an office in the City. On July 3 I received a call from Jenkins. He said he had a large clientele in Canada and Mallinson, who employed him, was going to launch out in his business. He said he had business in the North of England, but was coming down to London, that he knew no one in London and that he was working to get credit in London. He gave references, Lazarus and Rosenfeld, St. Mary Axe, and the Wholesale Supply Stores—that is Jacobson. I saw Mallinson. He said he knew nothing at all about shipping business, but Jenkins did. On October 1 I supplied them with 140 dozen linen handkerchiefs at 4s. 7d. and on November 7 10 dozen more. I identify one of the boxes. The others have been identified at the police station by a young man in my office.

 WILLIAM LEGGETT, 12, Lavender Grove, Dalston. I am in the employ of last witness. Early in July last Jenkins came and asked for samples as he was commencing a shipping agency to Canada. I was showing the samples when Mr. Allen came in. Jenkins said he was buyer for Mallinson. Mr. Allen took the order.

H. M. SAINSBURY, merchant, 1 and 2, Mumford Court, E.C. I came into touch with the firm of Mallinson on November 9. On that day Jenkins called upon me and bought goods, which he said were for export to Canada. I did not ask for references, but I questioned him upon customers I had done business with in Canada and, as he seemed to know all my customers there or the biggest part of them, I concluded everything was all right. I had a lot of 18-inch wide sideboards and duchesses which were only of any use to Canada. They had been in stock some considerable time and I could not sell them in England. When Jenkins called on me and said he wanted to buy goods for Canada that was my opportunity of getting rid of some old stock. He bought them. I am sorry now I sold them to him. I did not take references as I always look upon a man as being honest till I find he is not. The total value was £83. I have identified about £40 worth at the police station.

Mr. VAN THAT. I sold to Mallinson bleached linens. About £46 worth he has not paid for. I recognise this tablecloth with the ticket of the Manchester Fent Company as my goods. They were sold by me at 3s. 9d. per dozen and should sell at 5s. 6d. or 5s. 11d. The price on the ticket is 3s. 11d. Mallinson wrote to my firm in Belfast, who forwarded the letter to me. I called on him and he told me he was shipping to the Canadian market. He gave as reference the Wholesale Supply Stores, Leeds, and his bankers. The reply from the Wholesale Supply Stores is signed by Jacobson.

 SIDNEY VICTOR ROGERS, traveller to Alfred Copeman, 6, Love Lane, E.C, manufacturers' agent. Receiving a communication from our firm in Germany, I called at Mallinson's, saw Jenkins, and made an appointment at our office. Mallinson's letter to our German firm is stamped, "Warehouse and Shipping Department, 25, Jewin Street." Jenkins called, saw samples, and bought £441 worth to be delivered to Jewin Crescent for shipment to Canada. He gave as references Reichenheim and Van That Brothers. I identify a sample of merino combinations as goods we sold to Mallinson. It has a sale ticket, "1s. 6d. 130, Kirkgate, Leeds." The retail price should be 2s. 6d. or 2s. 11d.

Cross-examined. The wholesale price is 16s. 9d. per dozen. SYDNEY WALTER PACK, CHARLES PARKES RANKIN and CHARLES GEORGE THORPE gave evidence as to similar transactions.

Sergeant ARTHUR THORPE, City Police. I have examined the books of the Manchester Fent Company. Pages 1 to 12 in the purchase day book are missing. The entries are consecutive on pages 1 and 12. July is on page 1 and August on page 12. There is nothing to identify the missing pages as connected with the Mallinson business. Pages 14 and 15 and 62 to 69 are also torn out (the witness explained the accounts).

 ALBERT EDWARD KITCHING, 74, Lambeth Road, Great Grimsby. In September last I was in the employ of Mallinson as clerk in auction room at various places in the north of England. At the end of September I joined him in London in Milk Street. I did not keep accounts. I made out one or two invoices of a kind, no details—statements. I am not aware that detailed invoices were made out at all, I never saw any. Mallinson himself would have made them out as far as I know. I was not fully occupied. I never wrote letters to prisoner and never read any that were sent to him. We sent goods to three or four different people. I am not aware that more goods went to the Manchester Fent Company than the others. I was not. in the warehouse. I made out consignment notes. I know nothing about the towels which appear in prisoner's day book at page 317 as having been sent to me.

(Defence.)

 SAMUEL SUGARMAN (prisoner, on oath). In 1908 I was associated with Blaydon, who carried on business as the Manchester Fent Company in Wittall Street, Manchester. I received £4 as manager, Blaydon had shops in other towns. I used to go and carry out the preliminaries and set the businesses upon their legs. I gained a good deal of experience in buying fents while I was with Blaydon. The fent business consists of a kind of bazaar. The kind of business I established was somewhat original to other shops I have seen in other towns. The goods I bought are mostly soft goods. I expect to get them at considerably less than manufacturers' prices so as to be able to sell cheaper than ordinary shopkeepers. I buy travellers' samples, soiled and damaged goods, salvage and bankrupt stocks, and a hundred and one different kinds of stocks come our way that we are in a position to offer at below makers' prices. Very often we get quite new goods at what are obviously below manufacturers' prices. The fent business is more popular in Manchester. I had no dealings with Mallinson in my life before July last. I have known him nine or 10 years capually. I might see him once in one or two years. He called upon me last July. I do not think I had seen him for two years or more. I did not see him to my knowledge when he was occupying premises in Wittall Street. I may Have passed there. On September 4, 1908, Blaydon and I parted. The arrangement was that he was to have the businesses in Manchester, Halifax, St. Helens, and Bradford and I was to take possession of the empty shop in Kirkgate, Leeds. I had no capital, and my sister-in-law, Rose Angel, joined me. We carried on business in the name of the Manchester Fent Company and in her name. Rose Angel put in at first about £100. Afterwards she obtained £100 on a bill of sale on her furniture and that was invested. We then occupied 11 and 12, Kirkgate. Two years later we took premises opposite at No. 130. The removal had nothing whatever to do with Mallinson. I then consulted my solicitor with a view of settling the proportions of the ownership of the business between myself and Mrs. Angel. He advised that a private limited company should be formed. I left the question of the capital of the company and everything else to him. After the company had been established some months I called in Mr. Brown, an accouttant, as my system of bookkeeping was not as nice as I should like it to be. I gave him all the material I could, some of which was on slips of paper. With regard to Mallinson's invoice of £23 3s. 9d. of August 2 and the suggestion that the entry shows only a payment of £15, I paid him £8 3s. in cash and £15 by cheque. I put it in the ledger as £23. When the accountant came upon the scene he entered up the new ledger from the pass book and there he only found £15 instead of £23, whereas I took it from the actual receipt. When Mallinson came to see me in July he gave me a card. It had on it "F. W. Mallinson, 11, Milk Street, General Merchants and Dealers." He said he had opened out in London and was doing a considerable amount of business, especially in the North, and he often came across lines that might interest me. I had not the remotest idea he was coming. There is no truth in the suggestion that at that interview or subsequently I entered into a conspiracy with him to obtain goods from people. He either brought samples or sent them by post. I was never at his place in Milk Street or Jewin Street in my life. I have never seen Jenkins. I have only heard of him since the prosecution started. Mallinson did not tell me he was engaged in the export business to Canada. The accountant in posting up the books came to me at the end of every month and I gave him such explanations as I could about matters that he queried. I never checked him. The average takings per week from the time of the formation of the company were about £130. The purchase day book was brought by one of our lady assistants. The entries are in the accountant's writing. The 10 pages were out when the book was begun. The lady who brought the book is here. When the company was formed the stock in the shop was worth £600 or £700. The profits had been left in the business. The liabilities at the time the company was formed were £500 to £600 including the loan account: Payments to Mallinson were made by cheque. All our cheques are crossed with a rubber stamp. The cheques to Mallinson amount to £970 roughly. The last cheque, November 18, £124, was crossed and afterwards made open at Mallinson's request. He called that day and I gave him a cheque to straighten up our account. He said, "I am going on North and want some ready cash, do you mind opening the cheque for me." I wrote across it, "Please pay cash." He had written from London saying he had several prospects of getting some good stuff very cheap, only he had to pay cash, and it would be beneficial to him if I could accommodate him by sending bankers' drafts instead of cheques. If we send cheques we get three or four days' credit. I made inquiry of my bank about him because he made statements to me which I did not fully believe to be absolutely true. After receiving one or two parcels of stuff it struck me they were quite new and I felt suspicious. I then went to the bankers and explained my dealings with him. The bank manager decided to make inquiries. He sent for me and told me the man was quite sound. I remember teeing Mr. Reichenheim and Sergeant Nicholls on December 1. They were looking about the shop as ordinary customers might. Later in the day they came with Inspector Wilson. Sergeant Nicholls asked me whether I knew a man called Mallinson. I said "Yes, I had done a considerable amount of business with him" He said, "Are you aware these goods have been obtained by fraud?" I said, "You surprise me; I am not aware of it." He then asked me whether I would make a statement in writing. I agreed, and various other questions they asked me I readily answered. I gave them every assistance and put the office and stock open to them. All the correspondence from Mallinson was on the premises at the time. Nothing was concealed. Next morning I went to see my solicitor at Bradford. One of the lady clerks got all the papers and correspondence relating to Mallinson's transactions, for me to explain to my solicitor what had taken place. When I got there I found the parcel was missing containing the letters and papers from Mallinson. I 'phoned to our place of business from the solicitors to ask if I had not forgotten them. They looked and could not find them. I called at another place where I had business. I telephoned there to ask if they had seen them. We then telephoned to the railway station left luggage office, and so on. We had no favourable reply. On the same day I caused an advertisement to be inserted in two Yorkshire papers. I believe one appeared the same evening. My copy letter book contains copies of replies to all the letters I received from Mallinson. Jacobson is a shareholder in the company. He has advanced me money for years. He is a frequent visitor at the shop. He takes no part in the business. Goods invoiced by Mallinson did not always come together. They very often came in three or four different consignments. The erasure in the day book was done by himself. It showed the actual cost from Mallinson. I agreed to give him 5 per cent. profit on stuff he bought if it suited me. I did not want the girls to know the actual cost because there are things they require very often for their own use on which I charge no profit, and very often they want things for their friends and neighbours and expect it at that price also. Nathan Silver is an intended brother-in-law. He has made me loans. With regard to the invoice for embroideries from Mallinson on November 8, Mr. Reichenheim says they were not sold to Mallinson till the 10th. We had samples probably 10 days before that and bought it from the sample. The things would be charged a day or two before they were consigned and they would appear in our books on that date, although we did not get them for some days after. As a matter of fact I carried those samples about Manchester and tried to offer them at a small profit, 3 1/2 to 10 per cent., but could not succeed. I decided if I could buy them at a reasonable price I would keep them till the spring. They are quite new goods. There is very little old stock in embroideries. We always claim to sell cheaper than ordinary shopkeepers. If we get a lot of goods that turn out very bad we occasionally sell under cost and are glad to lose money. As to the checking of the invoices, Sergeant Nicholls, Inspector Wilson, Mr. Reichenheim, myself, and lady clerk between us managed to get, out all the invoices corresponding with our ledgers as far as I understood. It was news to me afterwards to learn that there were several omitted. As far as I am concerned, all the goods received have been entered up in the book. On November 9 I returned some empty cases to Mallinson's address. I had no idea they would not reach him. I heard that 10 to 14 days afterwards from the railway company. One day in November while Mallinson was in the shop he selected one or two little articles and said he would like them posted on to an address in Grimsby. I believe he said afterwards he would post them himself. There was never any division of profit with Mallinson. I have had no more relationship with Mallinson than with any other person I have done business with. I had no knowledge he was defrauding anyone.

(Friday, March 31.)

 SAMUEL SUGARMAN (prisoner), cross-examined. I do not think I saw Mallinson in Wittall Street more than about once. I have heard since the prosecution that he was trading under the name of Sinclair. He was there long after me; I let the premises long before he took over the place. The Manchester Fent Company were there; that is Blaydon. I had nothing to do with it. I left for Leeds. I used to go there to buy goods after I left for Leeds. The business was in Blaydon's possession. The first possession of Blaydon and myself of 11, Wittall Street was January to November. I was associated with Blaydon from January, 1908, to September, when I took over possession on behalf of my sister-in-law. We used some of the Manchester Fent Company's old billheads. There was no name at all on the shop. I heard Dyson say that when the Manchester Fent Company gave up 11, Wittall Street in November Mallinson came in and the Manchester Fent Company went opposite to No. 8, and that Mallinson went out of No. 11 and the Manchester Fent Company went back again. I had nothing to do with that. I have been in No. 8 when the Manchester-Fent Company were there, but I had no connection with it. I may have been there to buy goods when they went back to No. 11. Our ledger will show that we bought hundreds of pounds worth of goods there. I had no more friendship with Mallinson than passing "Good day" and "Good night." I did not know him there as Sinclair. He was trading as Mallinson. I did not take particular notice what name was up. I first learned that he used the name of Sinclair from the prosecution. Mallinson's private address in Manchester is 20, Clode Street, near Higher Crumpsall. Possibly he might have been in my shop. I had not seen him, to my knowledge, for two years previous to July, 1910. (Book handed to witness containing the following entry: "January, 1910, Mr. F. Sinclair, 20, Clode Street, Higher Crumpsall, Manchester," giving details of goods supplied to the value of £1 7s. 6d.) If this was Sinclair he may have bought them and had them sent in that name but I should not assume it was his name. This entry is my own writing. When people come to buy goods and give me an address to send to I do not want to know who they are. I may have known him as Sinclair, but I would not attach any importance to it. My statement that I never knew Mallinson as Sinclair until the prosecution started was not knowingly false. I had not gone into details with him to know whether he was Mallinson or Sinclair. Perhaps I thought he was staying in the name of Sinclair. There is another entry on February 16 of goods sent to Sinclair, £1 5s. I did not take that order. It is in one of the employes writing. I might have entered in there from the book. When Sergeant Nicholls asked me when I first knew Mallinson I told him in this particular business I never knew him before July. I do not remember if he asked, "When did you first know Mallinson? "or words to that effect. I may have said, "I first knew Mallinson in July, 1910." I should not think I said it. I do not know what I said. If I said I knew Mallinson for the first time in July, 1910, it was grossly untrue. I did know him and still I cannot say I did know him. I have known him by repute. I swear I volunteered everything to the police. I showed them the whole bunch of letters and invoices—let them take what they liked. I cannot say what I have shown them. If they did not look it was. not my fault. They were there for them to see. Absolutely on my oath, every letter received from Mallinson was among those papers. The letters of Mallinson that I lost contained full details of the goods he sold to me in most cases. They did not give the prices he paid for the goods. In some cases he gave the actual prices, but said he bought hem subject to discount. He did not give the manu-facturer's price in every case. I cannot say when Mallinson went out of the jewellery business. I have been a jeweller for a number of years. His system was, take a shop and sell by legal auction. I travelled different markets. We were doing similar business. It did not strike me as strange that Mallinson should be offering me con-siderable quantities of perfect goods at below manufacturer's prices. I think I asked him how he came to change his trade from jeweller to soft goods. I did not ask him where he purchased the goods. He told me called on various manufacturers to buy stuff. I never asked him for the manufacturers' names. It did not concern me where they came from. I wanted to be satisfied the man was an honest bona fide tradesman and went to my bankers 6 October 12. He told me he came across a lot of manufacturers' stuff, some more than 50 per cent. below cost price; I would not give 70 per cent. off. I believe he dropped one invoice out of his pocket in our place. I gave it to the police. That is the only invoice I had. Reichenheim's name was first given to me, probably in July or August, by, I think, Cassella Brothers, Cannon Street, Manchester; it might have been Bacher and Co. or Woolfson. I never got it from Mallinson. I understood Mallinson was getting a profit on everything he sold. He very often sent samples on by post and wrote a letter accompanying them, explaining what sort of goods he had. (The witness was cross-examiend at great length on each invoice sent to Mallinson as to the price at which he offered the goods for sale. The witness contended that his sale price was always above manufacturer's price.) My private mark is Chimney pot." I have had no dealings with Sainsbury. Exhibit 199 shown, to witness. I do not know what the private mark repre-sents. Mallinson told me he would send up a certain quantity of goods and the manufacturer's price would be so and so less discount. Probably while he was ringing on the telephone I made notes of it to compare it when the stuff came. I admit the prices which Mr. Sainsbury said represented the cost prices are the prices I received from Mallinson. I was always under the impression Mallinson bought them either as clearing lines or job stocks. I generally agreed the prices with Mallinson. I did not know what it cost him in many cases. The goods mentioned in Mallinson's letter he explained to me the nature of as far as he could. He said they were accumulated in the place and I said I would have them and give him 5 per cent. on his purchase if they were as represented. I cannot say that £126 represents the full manufacturer's price. I wanted to see the stuff first. I would not have anything he got hold of; I bought stuff that would be saleable for us. As to Kitching's evidence that every consignment of goods from Mallinson except two came to me, has it not been admitted by the police that there has been a lot of goods gone to other people besides me? I understood so from the police themselves. Two lots went to Jacobson, our shareholder. Mallinson has offered me goods in galore that I would not have and returned. He sent one lot at what I thought an exorbitant price and we told him we should send it back and offered him a price which he accepted, and we kept it. As to none of the invoices subsequent to November 1 showing Mallinson was making 5 per cent., it may have been worked out in some other invoice. I never tried to work it out. As he sent me a lot of goods, explaining what they were, if the price was right we passed them through our books as purchased. I cannot answer your question as to whether the arrangement of 5 per cent. on his cost price was carried out in any subsequent transaction. I do not know that I never carried out the arrangement. Up to October I paid him in every case by crossed cheque; then, after getting satisfactory references, I sent him bank drafts. He explained that he must pay cash for most of the things he bought. I did not know that Mallinson never paid a penny for his goods after November. I did not go to Jacob-son to inquire about Mallinson. I never thought that at the time Jacobson knew him. Jacobson must have known him. I was not aware Mallinson was giving Jacobson as a reference. I heard it from the prosecution for the first time. I was friendly with Jacobson. He has not had the run of our place since the company was formed nor have I been in his. He has perhaps lent me £20 since the com-pany was formed. He never told me he was giving references to Mallinson. He would imagine I was one of the customers upon whom Mallinson was calling. I cannot tell you a single firm that Mallinson was doing business with. My letter of September 24 means that if the next lot of goods he comes across is likely to suit us, if it comes to a considerable amount of money, more than we are willing to purchase at a time, then he might make use of a little of ours for £100. We would not give that bill until we received the goods. The object of referring to my bank was not to assure them that the transaction was all in order and that Mallinson was a respectable man. The bank would have discounted the bill of the Manchester Fent Company for £100, although it had issued no balance-sheet. The capital, being only £225, would make no difference. Our £225 company was sounder on the market three months ago than any £200,000 company. The bank has discounted our bills absolutely without guarantee or security. This bill drawn by Loomes was discounted by his bankers. He brought us a cheque in exchange for it. do not think that man has. got £100. We have never tried to discount a bill at our bank. We have never had a cheque returned. The hank would have lent us money; we applied to them and they were willing to give it to us. We did not get it because they wanted a detailed stock list. Our accountant can prove that. The reason why Mallinson's invoices do not disclose the rate of purchase, the quantity of goods, or the marks identifying them, is that we have to depend on the telephone or post in dealing with Mallinson; all the others we call upon. I was satisfied with whatever goods I received from Mallin-son and we agreed to pay, and paid. We took no trouble to check invoices except to see what we bought. I should think we have done £1,000 worth of business with Eli Cohen during the last 12 months.

(Monday, April 3.)

 SAMUEL SUGARMAN (prisoner), re-examined. The prices I paid to Mallinson were good market prices for the class of goods. As to my £50 invested in the company, I paid it in two or three sums at the time the company was formed. I had no banking account then. Of the £225 the only amount paid by cheque was Mrs. Angel's £50. My wife's £50 was paid in cash and went into the bank. Mrs. Angel received a cheque for £100 from the company and then she paid the £50. Nathan Silver is the only man who paid by cash. Jacobson did not pay for his shares, we gave him fully-paid-up shares. Eli Cohen paid cash. He bought his shares when he was in Leeds. With regard to the entry "September 26 cash purchase £225," the exact amount of our capital, the accountant will be able to explain that better than I can. The accountant took it from the cash book. The cash book would show I had £225 in hand, which I did not have, and he put it down as purchases to correspond, I believe. We paid the money we took practically straight away to the bank. We were doing about £120 a week.

---- BROWN, incorporated accountant, Leeds. I have only known prisoner since the beginning of last September. A member of my family asked me to call and see him. I did so. He told me he had no proper system of bookkeeping, and I suggested in order to comply with the Companies Act he should keep proper books and have them written up so that accounts could be prepared at the end of the year. I think he understood bookkeeping in his own way, but not practical bookkeeping. He gave me a book which he called his cash book, his bank pass book, and a ledger in which he had kept accounts by single entry. Other particulars he gave me himself and certain receipts and vouchers. I instructed the lady clerks as to how they were to keep the books in future. (Purchase day book handed to witness.) The entries in this book are mine so far as they appear to be in one handwriting. This memorandum book was on the premises when I entered. I went through this book with prisoner in order to ascertain which were credit and which were debit accounts and then they were transferred into this ledger. Prisoner told me at the time that certain of the accounts he was across with, meaning that he might owe more or less to some of the firms. He told me Which they were and satisfactory evidence was brought forward that that was so, and in the new ledger that was all rectified. In the purchase day book pages 1 to 12, 14 and 15, and 662 to 669 are missing. Those pages were missing when I commenced work. I drew prisoner's attention to the fact. He said it was a book that one of the young ladies in the shop had given or sold to him and the pages had been abstracted before it came into his possession. I had free access to everything. If it had been an ordinary trading firm a balance-sheet would have been prepared at the date I was called in. The entries in the purchase day book on pages 3, 10, and 27 are mine. It is my mistake in posting in the ledger 15 for 23. Prisoner had nothing to do with those figures. I told prisoner two or three times, seeing all his assistants had access to the books I did not think it wise of him to enter up items in his waste book showing his cost price.

 ETHEL SILVERSTONE. 56 A Sheepscar Street, Leeds. I have been for some time in prisoner's employ, two years with Mrs. Angel, and one year with the company. I gave prisoner the book with the missing leaves. It belonged to my father. I tore the leaves out to write, letters on when I ran short of notepaper.

Cross-examined. Prisoner used to travel to Manchester and other places to get orders. He was absent for a number of hours at a time. I could not say he was absent a day frequently, he might be once in two or three months. I never saw him go out with samples. I remember the police coming on December 1. I did not attend to the corre-spondence. Mr. Sugarman opened the letters in the morning. I do not know who attends to them. I posted the letters or whoever was at hand. I never noticed defendant going to post letters. I saw Mallinson a few times. He did not call defendant Sammy. The first time he called he asked if the manager was in and gave me his card to give to the manager. That was last summer. I took the card to pri-soner, who asked me to show him in the office I did not hear them speak. I never saw Mallinson when we were in Wittall Street in 1910. I never heard the name of Sinclair. As far as I could see Mallinson and Sugarman appeared to be strangers in July. I am sister to Nathan Silver. Silverstone is my proper name. Silver is for short. My brother goes by both names. I have not taken the name of Silverstone for the purpose of giving evidence here. My mother goes by that name. I have always gone by the name of Silverstone. Sometimes if anyone asks my name, and I think it is rather a long name, I say Silver.

Verdict, Guilty.

 Detective-sergeant NICHOLLS, recalled. There are no previous convictions. Prisoner is an undischarged bankrupt. He was made bankrupt in 1905 at Bury. He alleged then that he had a burglary. His story was not believed. £700 had been stolen from the safe. When it was examined by the police some of the holes which had been drilled in the back of the sate were rusty and some bright. The inference was that it had been prepared for some time.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE A. T. LAWRENCE. (Thursday, March 30.)

JOHN EDWARD MALLINSON, witness name in trial of ROBERT DUNCAN FORBES, Deception > fraud; ROBERT DUNCAN FORBES, Deception > bankrupcy; CHARLES HARRISON, Deception > fraud; CHARLES HARRISON, Deception > bankrupcy; CHARLES ISAACS, Deception > fraud, 7th November 1911.

FORBES, Robert Duncan (53, broker), HARRISON, Charles (41, broker), and ISAACS, Charles (52, insurance agent), conspiring and agreeing together to defraud those subjects of His Majesty the King as should deal with a firm called Duncan Forbes and Co. in the buying and selling of stocks and shares; conspiring and agreeing together to defraud those subjects of His Majesty the King as should deal with a firm called the Prudential Exchange, in the buying and selling of stocks and shares; all obtaining by false pretences from James Farquharson postal orders for £5, £5, and £10; from John Albert West postal orders for £5 and £15; from William Francis Richman a banker's cheque for £10 and other cheques of the value of £2,640; from Edwin Beare banker's cheques for £5 and £10; from Mortimer Petty a Bank of England note for £100 and a banker's cheque for £30, in each case with intent to defraud; all attempting to obtain by false pretences from John Albert West certain money, with intent to defraud; Forbes and Harrison being undischarged bankrupts unlawfully obtaining credit to the extent of £20 and upwards, to wit, from William Francis Richman to the extent of £2,650, and from Mortimer Petty to the extent of £130, without informing them they were undischarged bankrupts. Mr. Muir, Mr. Stanley Crawford, and Mr. Briggs prosecuted; Mr. Wickham and Mr. A. A. Scanlan defended Forbes; Mr. Huntly Jenkins and Mr. J. H. Myers defended Isaacs.

 JAMES FARQUHARSON, labourer, L. and S.W. Railway. In conesquence of an advertisement I saw in the "Daily Mirror" similar to this (Exhibit 291): "Increase your income. Why rest on content with 5 per cent. interest on your invested capital when you can obtain a handsome fortnightly dividend on sums of £10 and upwards invested in absolute safety and your capital guaranteed against loss and withdrawal at short notice?". On January 27, 1910, I wrote this letter to Duncan Forbes and Co. (94) asking for further particulars. In reply I received circulars similar to these (94, 96, and 96). I filled up the subscription form enclosed and sent five £1 postal orders with a letter dated February 4 (97) and received this receipt (98) signed "Duncan Forbes and Co." headed "Deal, 208," with a letter stating that a cheque for profit would be duly forwarded on the usual Stock Exchange pay day. About the end of the month I received a cheque for 8 1/2 d. with a statement of account (Exhibit 100) showing they had bought De Beers at £105, and sold them at £106 5s., making a profit of £1 5s., but as the result of a loss on their transaction in Koffyfontein shares the net profit was 8 1/2 d. Before receiving that cheque on February 18 I sent another letter enclosing a further £5 in postal orders and received a receipt for it headed "Deal, 210" (102), which says on the back of it: "In consideration of our making no charge unless a profit is made, we reserve to ourselves the absolute control of the transaction as to the opening and closing of the deal, and under which understanding this receipt is given and accepted. A subscription is subject to a three months' notice of withdrawal unless otherwise arranged. I continued receiving small cheques fortnightly till May, 1910, when they began doing two deals monthly and I received cheques once a month. This continued till January. I received about £6 altogether in this way. With each cheque I got a statement of accounts similar to Exhibit 100, but relating to different stocks. Some time in March last year I received a telegram from them in consequence of which I sent them ten £1 postal orders, receiving the receipt (104) headed "Special Deal." Subsequently I received this sold note (105) dated March 22 and on March 25 I got a letter asking me to return it as it contained a clerical error and enclosing a rectified sold not (107). I continued to receive payments to the end of the year. On January 21, 1911, I wrote them Exhibit 108 asking as regards special deal in Norfolk and Westerns whether I was expected to instruct them to close the same. They replied stating that they much regretted they had not been able to close this deal as the markets were in a very unsettled state, but assuring me that as soon as they saw a substantial profit could be made they would close and forward me my capital and profit. I never received any part of that £10 back. On June 17 I received this circular from them (Exhibit 110: "In view of the comments which have been most unjustly made by certain sections of the Press in disparagement of this firm's operations and position, which have most prejudicially affected the immediate realisation of.... investments.... we have thought it desirable under legal advice to temporarily discontinue our active operations for a short period...") In sending my money I believed that Duncan Forbes and Co. were stockbrokers on the Stock Exchange, and that my capital would not be lost because it was guaranteed and I believed the statements contained in the circulars. I believed that the postal orders sent me were profits on stock deals, as shown in the accounts I subsequently received (Exhibits 62 and 62a) relating to the Prudential Exchange. I replied, but I sent no money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. I believed, according to the circulars, that the profits were being made by operating either for a rise or a fall in two different stocks; I am prepared to say they did not cover themselves by this method. I understood the circular. (Exhibit 96.) I do not allege that Duncan Forbes and Co. represented themselves in their circulars as being on the Stock Exchange. I never gave notice of withdrawal according to the notice on the back of Exhibit 102. None of my friends have ever had any transactions with the firm. I know that some of my money was invested in the French Palace Syndicate, but they never mentioned anything about cover running off; I understood it was part of the "Complex Stock Deals." It was not in consequence of Mr. Muir's opening speech at the Police Court, in which he said that these circulars were only sent to ignorant people that I made a complaint. I never knew anything about cover. I knew nothing about the shares going up and down.

Cross-examined by Harrison. The fact that you said you had been in business four years was part of the inducement to me to send money. I understood from you I could withdraw the money I sent for the "Limited Liability Deal" on the same three months' notice as the "Complex Deal," but I did not give that notice. I understood that you were buying the shares outright and handling them.

 ALBERT JOHN WEST, carriage cleaner, Great Eastern Railway Company. From time to time I received circulars from Duncan Forbes and Co and on April 26, 1910, I received this one, relating to "Complex Stock Deals" (Exhibit 68). On April 29 I sent them five £1 postal orders and received a receipt. I subsequently received Exhibit 69, showing transactions in Straits Bertam and Merlimau shares resulting in a profit of 6s., for which they sent a cheque. Between May 27, 1910, and January 27, 1911, I received these accounts (Exhibits 70 to 76), each with small cheques. Amongst the circulars I received was one relating to "Limited Liability Cover Department," and on June 10 I sent this letter (292), enclosing £15 in respect of it. I received a receipt (79). I have had nothing from them in respect of that amount. On June 14 they sent me a contract note showing how the money had been invested (12). Not having received anything in respect of that I wrote them on the following April 2, asking them why, and they replied regretting that the deal had been carried over so long, but that it was due to the heavy slumps in the American markets and asking time in which they could recoup their losses before they closed the deal and send me my profit. The total amount I have received in dividends is £1 18s. 3d., which was in respect of the £5. I believed they were carrying on a genuine business and the statements contained in their circulars were true.

To Mr. Wickham. I understood if they made a false deal and lost the money, the money would nevertheless be returned to me. I did not know that my £15 was invested in the French Palace Syndicate. I first came forward and gave evidence when I heard of the case in the papers, but it was not in consequence of reading Mr. Muir's opening speech. I was not told when my capital would be returned to me and I have never asked for it. I have never had transactions with outside brokers before. I did not understand that if my money was lost through the stock going down, it would be invested in the French Palace scheme; I received a circular about that scheme, but I knew nothing about it. I knew my shares went down, but I did not understand anything about my cover running off.

Re-examined. In no document sent to me in connection with my transactions is there mentioned anything about a French syndicate. (Witness's letter of April 2, 1911, and Duncan Forbes and Co.'s reply thereto, dated April 3, 1911, above referred to, were read, put in, and marked (Exhibits 293 and 294).

Further cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. I understood that if there were a loss the firm held the matter in their control. I did not understand that the title, "Limited Liability Cover Department" meant that there was a cover which might run off.

Rev. JAMES FRANCIS RICHMAN, Vicar of Powerstock, Dorset. Amongst other circulars I received from Duncan Forbes and Co. were two one of which dealt with "Complex Stock Deal" and one with "Limited Liability Cover Department," similar to Exhibits 294 and 295. Exhibit 294 contains a list of previous transactions from July 1, 1909, to May 9, 1910, and Exhibit 295 an account with "J. T. L.," all showing profits. Believing them to be true and that the firm were carrying on a genuine business and had correspondents in all financial centres, as they stated, I sent this cheque for £5 for investment in the "Complex Deal" and received this receipt, dated June 4, 1910, which has an endorsement at the back similar to the one on Exhibit 102. On June 9 I sent a further cheque for the Limited Liability Special Deal and received a receipt which had the same endorsement. Exhibit 130 is the sold note I received, showing how my money was supposed to have been invested. On June 29 I received my first dividend relating to the Complex Deal, with a letter stating that my original capital had been reinvested. On July 11 I sent a further £100 for a special deal. About a fortnight before this I went to their offices and saw Forbes. I talked to him about the circulars I had received and asked him about the profits and he said that they had made profits of about 100 per cent. (Witness detailed the following further investments he had made: July 16, £1,000, Complex stock deal; July 27, £200 Complex stock deal; July 29, £25 Complex stock deal; August 6, £15 special deal; August 19, £40 Complex stock deal; September 3, £30 Complex stock deal; September 17, £1,180 Complex stock deal and Limited Liability deal; October 1, £55 French Palace Syndicate and Complex stock deal, producing the original cheques, the receipts, sold notes, and other documents in connection therewith.) I can identify Exhibit 141 as being the original list of deals with other people, which they sent me on July 26, by the fact that the filing holes on it are the same as my files would produce. I can identify the circular, Exhibits 146 and 147, in the same way, the latter being headed, "Limited Liability Cover Department. How £15 may be invested on this occasion to produce £155 profit or more." I believed all the statements contained therein, (Witness gave details as to the sums he had received which were alleged to be dividends, producing statements of account in connection therewith. July 28, 2s. 9d. and £27 10s., Exhibits 183 to 186; August 12, 16s. 3d., £6 10s., £32 13s. 3d., August 31, £21 15s. 6d., £4 6s., 10s. 10d., £2 4s., Exhibits 193 to 200; September 15, 19s. 6d. and £41 5s., Exhibits 201 to 204. His contract note of July 28, 1910, shows dealings in Grand Trunks to the extent of £150,000, resulting in a profit of £27 10s., for which I received a cheque for £27 10S. (abovementioned). I received this circular, dated September 13, 1910 (Exhibit 158), headed "Special offer," and stating that, having received inside information, which they had verified, concerning a future rise in certain shares, they were prepared to guarantee £10 profit for every £50 invested, though a much higher profit was assured by waiting.) My cheque for £1,180 is Exhibit 159 and the form I sent therewith is Exhibit 160. I received a telegram from the firm asking me to call at London Wall. I went and saw Isaacs. He explained to me that Forbes was out, having waited for me, and I was late in keeping the appointment. We spoke for a few minutes about the French Palace Syndicate and then, referring to the Complex stock deal, he said that they had not done so well with them lately. I then returned to Powerstock. Subsequently, about the end of September, Forbes came and saw me. He spoke of nothing but the French Palace Syndicate. On October 1 I sent him on a cheque for £50 to buy shares in that concern on the terms contained in the booklet he had given me. and a further £5 for the Complex stock deal, the profit to be rendered to me fortnightly thereon, as with the previous cheques. I produce the cheque for £55, the form I sent with the Complex stock deal, and the receipt from them. Before sending this money I had received, on September 29, cheques for £25 2s. 8d. and £28 3s. 4d., being the profits as shown on the statement of account enclosed (205 to 208). On October 14 I received further profits of £67 10s. (210) and the statement of account enclosed therewith (209) shows dealings between October 3 and 8 in Canadian Pacifics to the amount of £491,692, and in Grand Trunk Third Preference £141,450. On that day I received a further dividend of 2s. 9d. (Exhibit 212), and Exhibit 211 is the statement of account.

(Wednesday, November 8.)

Rev. JAMES FRANCIS RICHMAN (recalled). Further examined. On October 15 I sent £25 by cheque (Exhibit 171) and a form of subscription (172) for a Complex stock deal. I received a letter and a formal receipt (173, 174) showing my £5 was so applied. On October 28 I received a further dividend of 2s. 9d. (213) in Complex stock deal No. 244, representing the profit on transactions in Unions and Norfolk and Western. Exhibit 214 is a statement of accounts. On October 27 I received a further dividend of 2s. 9d. and statements (215, 216) relating to the same transactions; on October 28 a dividend of 11s. and statement (217, 218); on same date a dividend of £67 13s. and statement (219, 220). Exhibit 220 relates to dealings in Unions and Norfolk and Western to a total amount of £699,024, the profit being £67 13s. and the commission £9 4s. 6d. Exhibit 209, October 14, relates to Canadian Pacifics and Grand Trunks, the amount being £679 7s. 6d., yet the commission and net profit are the same, £67 13s. On November 3 I sent a further investment of £10 by cheque (175) and form of subscription (176), which was acknowledged by letter (177) enclosing a receipt showing the £10 went to the Complex stock deal. That was the last money I sent. I sent altogether £2,500 for that deal and £150 for the special deals. I continued to receive dividends till February 24, 1911, each accompanied by sold and bought notes and statements of account. I received these documents (221 to 230), the total amount of dividend being £543. I never got any of my capital back again. Exhibits 231 to 254 are the cheques I received in payment of dividends. I never knew Forbes and Harrison were undischarged bankrupts. I believed they were able to fulfil the guarantee to repay giver in their circulars and in parting with my money I relied upon that guarantee. I should not have parted with it if my capital had not been guaranteed. Forbes verbally gave me references to Mr. Lever and Mr. Harper and I received letters from them in reply to mine. [Letters read, dated July 1, 1910.] I believed the dividends I received had been earned by transactions on the Stock Exchange. The bundle of letters (179) is the correspondence between the firm and myself, from July 19, 1910, to May 9, 1911. [Letters of November 8 and 17, January 25 and 30, February 2, 3, 6, 7, 13, and 27, March 1, 6, 8, 9, 29 and 31 were read.]

To Mr. Wickham. I at no time asked for my capital to be returned. The letter of March 31 received from the firm said that all financial arrangements re the French Palace would be completed at the end of April, when I would be repaid, with the guaranteed bonus. I did not see from the newspapers that Mexican Second Preference, which on September 19 stood at 33, were down to 32 on September 23. If that is so I agree the cover had run off. I have had transactions with other outside brokers on many occasions, and understand the cover system in a general way. I did not get a guarantee from the other outside brokers. As to the transaction on October 28, £699,000 in Norfolks, I certainly understood I Was to find 1 per cent.and the firm 99 per cent. I admit I had an interest in the deals for the money I sent. I supposed the French Palace was going on all right until the attacks in the Press. I understood from Mr. Lever that he had been dealing with the firm for a period of four years, and I have no reason to think that is not true. To the best of my recollection Forbes's words to me were, "I," or "we," representing the firm, "have carried on the business successfully for five years." Forbes said the French Palace Syndicate had been underwritten, and that all moneys would be repaid in a month or six weeks. He said one partner attended to the Complex deals through an inside broker. I had no doubt the firm were outside brokers. I thought that actual transactions took place on the Stock Exchange. As to the cheque for £5 sent on June 3, there was nothing definite said about profit, but Forbes said the average profits would be about 100 per cent. I do not think, even at compound interest, it would work out to that. There was some difficulty with the Mexican stock on account of the rebellion in Mexico, but that was after I wrote. I did not watch the stocks in the newspapers and do not know if the cover ran off some of them, but if so, but for the guarantee I should have had no further interest in those stocks, I presume. I do not know that on the question of principal and agent I should have had to indemnify them if I ordered them to buy something by cover. I did not read Law at Oxford. I believed the firm had correspondents in all financial centres and that that was a point likely to work in their favour. Forbes told me they had not been able to make any profit on the Limited Liability and special deals. I recognised from that that they could not have had unvarying successes. I continued to send money for investment after I had been told that some of the deals had not been doing so well. I made inquiries about the French Palace Syndicate and found it was satisfactory. I did not know that owing to the action £23,000 belonging to Duncan Forbes had been lost. I understood they would have had £100,000 if it had been successful and hope everyone would have been paid. I understood Duncan Forbes did not run the French Syndicate but were merely financing it. The guarantee was that of Forbes and Co. and not of the British Government and I must admit it depended necessarily upon the result of the investments. I received the dividends regularly. Early in August I received a subpœna to attend at the Guildhall; I think that was the first intimation I received from the prosecution. I did not make any complaint to the police. I cannot say I think the firm are more to be pitied than blamed. I expected the French Palace would shortly be able to pay everyone until I saw the notice of the bankruptcy on July 12.

Cross-examined by Harrison. I am aware one can deal on the Stock Exchange to thousands of pounds without ever touching a piece of scrip or certificate of shares. I did not suppose the stock entered into my possession. I realised I was entering into speculation, which means losing or gaining.

Cross-examined by Mr. Myers. On one occasion in September when I called to see Forbes I saw Isaacs, and he told me he would report to Forbes. I did not know what position Isaacs held in the firm. I think before seeing Isaacs I was told I could see the manager. None of the letters to me were signed by Isaacs, or by him as manager for Duncan Forbes.

Re-examined. I did not understand when I invested my money that the guarantee was dependent upon the success of the French Syndicate. The point never occurred to me.

 EDWIN BEERE, director of a company carrying on a refreshment-room business at Bridge House, Richmond. On August 31, 1910, I received this circular (Exhibit 299), headed "Complex Stock Dealing." I also received these circulars (300 and 3), the latter as to the financial crisis in America, and another similar to Exhibit 4, together with a form of application. (Exhibit 5.) On September 2 I sent a cheque for £5 (6) for an investment in the Complex stock deal. On September 3 I got a receipt (7). On September 15 I received a letter from Messrs. Duncan Forbes (9), saying I had made a profit on deal 238 of 3s. 3d., also a form of account and a cheque for the amount. I also received bought and sold notes. As to other deals, on September 29 and October 28, with profits of 2s. 4d. and 5s. 6d. (12, 13, 14), I had a circular on December 30 (15) apologising for not having carried through a single transaction that month. On January 27 I received a bought and sold note and statement (16, 17), stating I had made a profit of 4s. 4d. and on March 29 a circular of apology similar to Exhibit 15. I understood they dealt in the stocks referred to and that the cheques were for profits on deals. I thought my money had been invested in those stocks. I believed their statement that neither the firm nor one of their clients had ever suffered a reverse and that they had carried on the Complex stock deals for four years. With regard to special deals, I received this circular (19) on September 13, and on September 14 sent in an application form and a cheque for £10 (20, 21) for investment in that special deal, obtaining a receipt (22). There is a note on the back. I did not see that at the time. On September 14 I received a letter (Exhibit 23) and a contract note (24), and wrote acknowledging it (25). I also received a circular on October 26 (26) with an application form and wrote in reply (27). I watched the prices every day and made some memoranda on the back of Exhibit 19. On November 11 the price was 33—34; on November 15 it was 33 1/2 in one paper and 33(—(in another. I wrote on November 15 asking them to close the account and I also called them up on the telephone, the shares having reached 5 points profit. I had no reply. The next I heard was another circular about a special deal, on December 6. I invested no more money. I used their prepaid telegram to ask for a reply to my previous letter. I had no answer. I called upon the firm some time about the middle of December at 49, London Wall. Several times I saw nobody, but on one occasion I saw Isaacs and told him I had heard nothing in reply to my instructtions to close and what was I to understand? He said he would inform Forbes that I had called. We discussed the matter generally and I said I was quite satisfied with the five points profit and did not desire to hold the stock any longer. He said several other people were interested in that stock and it was for Forbes to consider whether he would close the stock to pay me out or not. I said, "There is no necessity to close the stock; you are still offering it. Pay me my profit and capital back." I had not seen Mr. Isaacs before, but subsequently I saw him five or six times. When on the first, occasion I asked for Mr. Forbes and was told he was not in I asked to see someone in authority and they said "Will you see the manager?" I simply looked upon him as the manager. The letter of mine of December 14 was written the same day, when I returned home. I think it necessitated another call, but to that I did get an answer eventually. The circular shown me was the only answer I got. It is a paper entitled "Our Weekly," dated December 13. From then to the middle of January I must have made five or six calls. I saw no one but the clerks. Then I watched the premises outside till I saw Mr. Isaacs go in and followed him upstairs. I asked to see him and was told he was not in. I insisted that he was and eventually saw him. He severely reprimanded the clerk for saying he was not in without making inquiries. He admitted I was entitled to receive my profit and capital, but it was a question of paying the amount. He said he would tell Mr. Forbes, who would probably send me a cheque. On February 15 I received another special deal circular (Exhibit 31), on the strength of which I think I wrote suggesting that, as they would have many applications from other clients, would they take over my ten shares? I either wrote to that effect or told Isaacs. He said he would see Forbes and write to me. 1 got no answer. On April 13 I received a letter (Exhibit 32) and wrote in reply (33). Then I wrote to Harrison's private address (34) and got a reply from the firm on May 6 (35). On the same date I wrote stating that I had told Isaacs I was prepared to accept an immediate payment of £20 in full satisfaction of my claims (Exhibit 303). I received Exhibit 36 and replied by Exhibit 37. I heard nothing further. I wrote again on May 15 and 20 (38, 39), and also on May 20 to Harrison's private address (40), and in reply received Exhibit 41. Immediately after that I went to the police really for information, to know if they knew anything of the standing of the firm. The last communication I had from the firm was a circular dated June 17 (Exhibit 42). I invested £15 altogether and received about 15s. 3d. in dividends from the Complex deal and nothing from the other. I never received my capital back, though I applied for it. I believed the statements in the circular (Exhibit 19) before I parted with my money. I understood by the guarantee that they had such confidence in the way they invested their clients' money that they could afford to guarantee their capital and that they were in a position to do so. I believed their statements that they had made profits by simultaneously opening a bull and bear operation and that they had a correspondent in New York from whom they got advice from time to time.

To Mr. Wickham. It may have been on July 3 I swore the information at the Guildhall. I am well versed in company matters. My company is very small, with only eight shareholders. I sent a cheque for £5 on September 2 and got a receipt with a notice on the back (Exhibit 22). I did not see that notice at all. I received dividends: September 15, 3s. 3d.; September 29, 2s. 2d.; October 28, 5s. 6d.; January 27, 4s. 4d. I have not worked out the percentage of profit. I know the firm would have to pay certain expenses on the Stock Echange. I had one or two communications to the effect that, owing to the markets being stagnant, they were unable to work their business profitably. I thought the circular strange because a lot of money was being made on the Stock Exchange at that time by judicious investors. When I invested the £5 I thought they were principals and brokers—that they both dealt and invested for clients. I believed they invested my £5 in various stocks and themselves gave the balance to make up the £100. In face of the letters I received I believed they carried on the deals without a single reverse. I have had dealings with other outside brokers; I had an account, not the cover system. If a stock had gone down 20 points I should have had to pay £20 on each £100. I do not deny that Mexico Second Pref. which I bought on September 14 at 33 1/2 were down to 32 1/2 on September 21. My cover had not gone, because they guaranteed the capital. There was no connection between the guarantee and the French Palace. On May 6 my letter to Harrison was acknowledged by Duncan Forbes and Co. and they asked me to name the terms of settlement which I had proposed to Harrison. That was after I had threatened to go to the City Police. I thought their correspondents were in possession of reliable information and would guide them. I have no reason to doubt the business had been carried on for four years. I did not doubt there was a branch office in Paris, but I know nothing about it. I heard there were correspondents in Amsterdam and New York. When I wrote claiming immediate fulfilment of the contract I referred to the contract when I sent the cheque for £10.

Cross-examined by Harrison. I swore in the information that I thought the firm were genuine stock and share dealers and brokers. I think you say in your circular you had brought the shares for 26. If they were bought it was a genuine Stock Exchange transaction.

(Harrison here wished to hand to witness a contract showing that 200 shares had been bought that very day, but in answer to the judge said he did not put the document in. It was in at the police court.)

Judge Lumley Smith. To show him a document he knows nothing about will not advance your case. If you want to prove you did buy them it must be shown in some other way.

Cross-examination continued. When I saw Isaacs I did not ask him to produce a contract. I did not see the notice on the back of the receipt which states: "In consequence of the guarantee which we give to repay the capital we reserve to ourselves the right of opening and closing the deal." If I had I should have communicated with you upon it, because it was not part of the contract, which was without any reservations. The document was in my possession for twelve months, but I first saw that notice at the police court. There is no reference on the face of the document to it. There were several papers pinned together. You evidently infer by that notice that you reserve that right. I saw that, in, order to get a return of my capital in the Complex, I had to give three months' notice of withdrawal. I gave verbal notice to withdraw in the Mexicans, but I never pressed for my money in the Complex deal. I think the three months had expired when I went to the police. I claimed the return of the £10 upon the face of the contract I signed, and your circular which said that when five points profit were made you undertook to return the profit and the capital; but if I so chose I could go on until the shares reached some fabulous price, somewhere about 70. The "immediate result" I expected from going to the police was exposure. I thought the money was due to me when I saw Mr. Isaacs, but I lost confidence in your ability to keep your promise.

To Mr. Myers. I sent £15 altogether and offered to settle it for £20 with Isaacs and he said he would suggest my wishes to Forbes; he was only the manager and was not in a position to give me a cheque. As to the occasion when I called after I had seen Isaacs go in and was told he was out, I know there is a separate entrance to his room without going through the clerks' room. The boy maintained he was not in, after I told him he was. Eventually he went away and came back and I was shown in to Isaacs. He reprimanded the boy for being so stupid as to say he was not in when he was.

Re-examined. The letter (Exhibit 36) from the firm said, "We will satisfy your claim of £20." I did not see the notice on the back of the receipt, but even if I had it would have been after I had accepted the offer of the contract and would have made no difference, except that I should have objected to it. I had paid the money on the strength of the circular (19). I received the circular repeatedly, stating that they had had no reverse and I believed it. Isaacs said he thought I was entitled to my claim; he did not say anything about the cover running off. I did not look upon it as cover at all. There is nothing in any circular stating that upon the cover running off the guarantee would take effect in the French Palace. I did not go to the police till May 25 and I have made no claim upon the firm since. I have seen the bought and sold notes and statements of account which came with my cheques and I believe on one occasion I noticed commission was charged. That did not help me to judge as to whether they were principals or brokers.

 WALTER PETTY, schoolmaster, Hull. On March 23, 1911, I received this circular about Complex stock deals (Exhibit 111). As to the statement that the system had been carried on by Duncan Forbes and Co. for five years I had no information to contradict it. I suppose I may say I believed it. I believe they had done so without a single reverse. I believed the account set out of "M. D. H." represented genuine transactions, that the profit had been earned and paid to him. I sent £100 in notes on April 29, together with a letter (Exhibit 112). I suppose believed they could repay the capital they were guaranteeing. I sent in a form of subscription (113). I got a letter and receipt (114, 115), dated May 2, showing my money had been applied to the Complex stock deal. On May 9 I received a telegram (116) and sent them a letter and a cheque for £30 on May 10 (117, 117a). I received a letter and receipt dated May 11 (118, 119) showing that my £30 was applied to Limited Liability special deal. I also got a sold note dated May 11 (120) recording a sale to me of 150 Atchisons at 113(. At the end of the month I wrote twice and wired once, but got no reply. I never got any money back at all. I came to London on June 3 and went to 49, London Wall, the office of the firm. I saw no one except a man who seemed to be waiting about. I fancy he was in charge. But there was nobody there who knew anything about the business, and no furniture. I did not know that the partners in the firm were undischarged bankrupts.

To Mr. Wickham. I did not know on June 3 that there had been attacks in the Press on the firm which had ruined the business. I bought 150 Atchisons on May 11 at 113(. I watched the papers but I cannot remember whether on May 12 they were 112(. I did say at the police court that I attached no importance to the guarantee; it was a personal guarantee, that was all, and therefore if anything went wrong with the firm the guarantee went with it. I agree that when the cover ran off my interest in the stock altogether ceased except for the guarantee of the firm. I said at the police court, "I was not deceived by the circular."

To Mr. Myers. I do not know Isaacs at all, and have had no correspondence with him.

Re-examined. I understood it was merely a personal guarantee and depended entirely on the gentlemen themselves. There was no security at all for the guarantee, and I must trust or leave. If I had known the two men were undischarged bankrupts I should not have accepted their guarantee or sent my money. I took the circular to be bona-fide, but the sequel opens my eyes, and I find that I was deceived.

 JOHN EDWARD MALLINSON, clerk in the General Post Office, produced the original telegram dated May 9, 1911, sent by the firm to Mr. Petty (Exhibit 171).

 JOHN TREVOR, surveyor, 2, Coleman Street. The agreement for the letting of 49, London Wall (Exhibit 92) was executed in my presence by Mr. Duncan Forbes, described as trading as Duncan Forbes and Co., of 325 and 326 Finsbury Pavement House. It is for five years at an annual rental of £170, payable quarterly in advance. I also had the letting of the latter address. At first Duncan Forbes and Co. were the sub-tenants of Mr. Casparis, but afterwards they had the exclusive use of two rooms for £2 per week. I introduced them to Casparis.

To Mr. Wickham. As I let the offices to Duncan Forbes and Co. I knew who they were when they went to London Wall, and what their business was. They moved from one to the other of their own accord.

To Mr. Myers. Mr. Isaacs had nothing to do with the offices being let.

 WILLIAM WAGSTAFF, porter at Finsbury Pavement House. In the autumn of 1909 there was a tenant there named Casparis, who had as sub-tenants Duncan Forbes and Co. from September, 1909, to February, 1910. I knew three gentlemen as members of the firm—as using the rooms.

To Mr. Wickham. Trevor, the agent for letting the offices, did not introduce them to Casparis, so far as I am aware.

To Mr. Myers. I always understood Isaacs to be classed as one of the firm; but I had no grounds for coming to that conclusion.

To the Court. The three defendants used to come there every day. I used to go into the place when they were there perhaps three or four times a week. Isaacs used to give his orders.

 CECIL SMITH, managing clerk to John Trevor. I know Forbes. (Pointing him out in the dock.) I knew him by the name of Rupert Scott. He called at our offices in May of this year in that name and wanted some offices. He called several times, and said he wanted them at once. I prepared an agreement for the letting of 103 and 104, Cheapside (Exhibit 122) for five years at £80, payable quarterly in advance, on May 9. It was executed in my presence by the prisoner, and I saw him sign the name "Rupert Scott" at the end. The rent was paid in advance by cheque drawn "Per pro Harrison."

To Mr. Wickham. I said at the police court, "I knew him as Duncan Forbes and Co. before he signed the agreement." He gave a reference, which I took up; it was a man in King Street, Cheapside. I swear Forbes signed the agreement. I did not sign as a witness because I did not wish to do so. It is the practice for me to witness agreements.

Re-examined. I should say the signatures "Rupert Scott." in the agreement (Exhibit 122) and in Exhibits 62 and 62a are in three distinct handwritings.

Mr. Muir. Exhibit 62 is the letter sent with the circular relating to the Prudential Exchange, which is the address in Cheapside, and 62a is the circular itself. They are lithographed signatures.

 WILLIAM DAVID FILKINS, secretary to William Wilson and Co., Limited, 103 and 104, Cheapside. At the beginning of May, 1911, Forbes came with an order from Mr. Trevor to view some offices in that building. I asked for the name, but he said it was for a friend of his. I saw the agreement (Exhibit 122) afterwards, with the name "Rupert Scott" upon it. No one ever entered into possession of the office or had the keys. A good number of letters came addressed to Rupert Scott and the Prudential Exchange. A messenger called three or four times with a note, "Please give bearer any letters that may have arrived for the Prudential Exchange or Rupert Scott." I produce one such note, signed "R. Scott" and dated May 29, 1911. It ends, "Hope to be up in a day or two." [Put in and marked Exhibit 304.]

To Mr. Wickham. About one-eighth of the letters were letter-packets returned from the Post Office. I should not know whose writing the signature on the agreement was.

 EMIL ADOLPH SCHIDECKER, managing director of the Polyglot Printing Company, Finsbury. I have done printing work for Duncan Forbes and Co from about September, 1909, till the beginning of this year. It was mostly circulars. Exhibit 65 is a file of such circulars, and 64 is the accounts relating to the circulars, and other documents printed. Some were for Finsbury Pavement House and some for London Wall. The total amount was £7,405. All the accounts were duly paid up to the last. I have done work for them this year. £302 is now owing. The circulars when printed were sent to Messrs. Smith and Co., envelope dressers and circular posters. Each of the three gentlemen in the dock gave me orders, and I have had orders from the young ladies in the office, from the office boy, or on the 'phone. Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 15, 18, 19, 26, 28, 31, and 111 were all printed by me for Duncan Forbes and Co.

To the Court. Most of the orders were given to me by Isaacs, I think.

To Mr. Wickham. I took the first order myself, not my partner. Payment was satisfactory until the attacks in the Press. It was after the arrest of Forbes that I was asked to give evidence.

To Harrison. I only took orders once or twice from you. It was when you published "Our Weekly" instead of the circulars. You gave me the "copy" and that was the order. I believe there was a delay between when the order was given and the "copy" given to me. I could not say the order was given by you.

To Mr. Myers. Whoever gave the order, it was put down to the account of Duncan Forbes and Co. I always understood Mr. Isaacs to be a servant of the firm. Sometimes the orders were given by the young lady typists or the office boy.

To the Court. They handed me the "copy." That was the only order I had for all the work. There were five or six young ladies there, a commissionaire, an office boy, and the defendants.

 HARRY CLAYTON, clerk at Messrs. Strakers, Ludgate Hill. On May 22, 1911, this order was brought in to print headings for letter paper (Exhibit 124). It was for the "Prudential Exchange, head office, 103 and 104, Cheapside, secretary, Rupert Scott." Isaacs brought the order. The paper when printed was sent to the Roneo Duplicating Company.

To Mr. Wickham. I did not see the prisoner nearest to me (Forbes). I was asked to give evidence about a fortnight before I did so. I gave evidence on August 2.

 LOUISA ATKINS, manageress of the Roneo Duplicating Company, 29, Queen Victoria Street. Isaacs brought me an order on May 24, 1911, to duplicate some circulars. I did not know his name. Exhibits 62 and 62a are the circulars. He said the headed sheets would come from Messrs. Straker's and we were to do the typing. The order was for 2,000—1,000 four-page and 1,000 two-page.

To Mr. Myers. Isaacs subsequently sent a boy named Gall.

 CYRIL HENRY GALL. I am called "John." I was employed by Duncan Forbes and Co. from February 12, 1910, onwards, as office boy and general clerk. Harrison engaged me. I attended at the offices, 235 and 236, Finsbury Pavement House, and 49, London Wall, daily, down to May, 1911. Forbes, Harrison and Isaacs carried on the business; Forbes and Harrison as partners and Isaacs as manager. In February, 1910, there were on the staff myself and four girls. Arnold, the commissionaire, came afterwards. When persona came to the office who wanted an interview they saw Forbes or Isaacs, never Harrison. Isaacs opened the letters in the morning as a rule, and sometimes Forbes. Harrison ceased to attend the office first, just after Christmas, then Forbes, about March, and Isaacs remained till the middle of May. After they had all ceased to attend I still attended, together with Miss Harling, Miss Underwood, Miss Hopkins, Miss Bull, Miss Cousins, and the commissionaire, until the beginning of June. That was at 49, London Wall. I stayed till the bailiffs took away the furniture on June 12. During that time I used to communicate with Isaacs either on the 'phone or at the corner of London Wall and Coleman Street by appointment. I gave him the names of clients who called, and sometimes he gave me the wages and messages to Miss Harling about the clients, to tell them the firm would write to them. The letters which arrived were given to Miss Harling and she opened them, and if there were any cheques in them she sent them to the bank. They were entered in a pay-book and we used to write and say we had received the cheque, and answer the letters. Neither Isaacs nor any of the defendants ever saw those letters. After June 12 Miss Harling, Miss Constance Underwood, Miss Edie Underwood, and I went to 63, Finsbury Pavement, the office of Harrison. That is about two minutes' walk from 235, Finsbury Pavement House. I had been at 63, Finsbury Pavement during the period between the middle of May and June 12 and had seen Harrison, Forbes, and sometimes Isaacs there. I went to take a letter given me by Miss Harling to take over. I delivered it to one of the three defendants, and sometimes I got an answer to the letter. I only did that two or three times. The staff remained there till a few days before the arrest, the end of June. I never saw either of the defendants there after the staff went there. The last date I saw them there was about the beginning of June. While I was there I communicated with Isaacs, and sometimes with Harrison and Forbes by post and telephone. I used to ring them up at the Coventry Restaurant, Finsbury. Isaacs gave me the key to 63, Finsbury Pavement on the day the bailiffs took the furniture from London Wall. Isaacs sent me to the Roneo Company to get some printed matter. Exhibits 62 and 62a are similar to what I got. We folded them up and sent them off to clients. They are Prudential Exchange circulars. We were using the London Wall office then. We also sent them from 63, Finsbury Pavement, on instructions from Isaacs. The address on the documents is "103 and 104, Cheapside." I never went there. On one occasion at London Wall a man threatened me on the stairs that he would fetch a policeman if I did not tell him where Harrison was. I told Harrison that, and he told me to collect all papers from his desk and take them to J. J. Edwards and Co., solicitors, Sackville Street, which I did. Exhibits 269, 270 and 271 were among the papers I took there. That would be about March. I never saw them again till I saw them at the police court. I deposited a parcel at the cloak room, Broad Street Station, and got this ticket for it (Exhibit 58). It contained the paying-in books. I got them from Harrison's desk and the safe. I had instructions from Isaacs. The ticket is in Harrison's name, and I sent it to him at 28, Victoria Road, Kensington, where he lived.

Mr. Wickham said that the boy had admitted in his corrected depositions that the man who threatened him with the police was an advertising agent and had nothing to do with anything else.

(Friday, November 10.)

 GEORGE THOMAS MALCOLM, clerk, London City and Midland Bank, Coleman Street Branch. Forbes opened an account at our branch on September 18, 1909, in the name of Duncan Forbes and Co. At first he was the only person who signed cheques on that account. Afterwards Harrison signed. That account was closed on October 21, 1911. I produce correct copies of extracts from the books of the bank.

 SAMUEL LANGWORTH, cashier, Barclay's Bank, Lombard Street, E.C. Exhibit 279 is a copy of the ledger account of Burrow Cleveland and Fuller, who were customers of our bank, Forbes was the customer we knew as B. C. Fuller. Exhibit 280 contains particulars extracted from the books of the bank showing bank notes paid into and out of Fuller's account.

 JOHN FRASER YOUNG, clerk, Parr's Bank, Lombard Street. Exhibit 263 is a copy ledger account of our bank with Mrs. Fuller; 262 is a copy of the notes received on that account. I do not know Forbes.

 GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE, messenger, London Bankruptcy Court. I produce the file in the bankruptcy of Charles Suraco, trading as H. Chancellor and Co., 19, Manchester Avenue, E.C. The date of adjudication is February 19, 1895; the petition was filed in 1894. The bankrupt has not been discharged. I produce the file in the bankruptcy of William Humberd, 24, Queen Victoria Street, E.C, stock and share dealer, residing at 7, Ridgmount Gardens, Gower Street. The petition was filed on May 29, 1909, the receiving order was made October 29, 1909, the adjudication was November 26, 1909. The bankrupt has not attended for public examination. I produce the file in the bankruptcy of Burrow Cleveland and Fuller. The adjudication was December 20, 1897. The bankrupt has not been discharged.

 JOHN BROUGHTON KNIGHT, Assistant Official Receiver in Bankruptcy. I have the file in the bankruptcy of Charles Suraco, whom I saw. He is prisoner Harrison.

 WILLIAM HOLLAND, Sergeant at Mace for the Sheriffs of the City of London. On March 17, 1911, I took possession of the effects of Duncan Forbes and Co, at 49, London Wall, under a judgment for £206 4s. That was satisfied on March 27. On March 22, I received a further execution for £31 2s.; that was satisfied on April 15. On April 8 I received a further execution for £34; that was satisfied on May 6. There was a further execution for £26 10s. on April 13, which was satisfied on May 27. Between May 25 and June 11 there were three other executions amounting to £270, which, as far as I know, were not satisfied. After May 27 I had to withdraw in favour of another officer.

 CYRIL GALL recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. The man who stopped me on the stairs and wanted me to make a parcel of some contract notes was an advertising tout. The firm of Edwards and Co., to whom I afterwards took the contract notes, had nothing to do with that. After Harrison left London Wall I did not see him at the offices of the French Palace Syndicate. It was Mr. Isaacs I saw. They could both be found there. I saw a lot of foreign correspondence at London Wall. I knew M. Parent, of Paris, was a correspondent of Duncan Forbes. About 3,000 cheques a fortnight were sent out for dividends. I first heard of the attacks in the Press about August, 1910; I am not certain about the date. I believed the business carried on was bona fide. When I left London Wall there would be 60,000 or 70,000 cheques which had been paid to clients. They show that more than £250 had been paid to clients. Forbes left the offices just after Christmas and went to the offices of the French Palace Syndicate. Instructions were given to Miss Harling in my presence to return all letters with money. I know she did return them. I often telephoned the brokers. In doing so I have told Magniac Williamson and Co. we were Duncan Forbes and Co. When I deposited certain documents at the cloak-room last witness had not been to the office.

To Harrison. The advertising tout threatened me with the police and pinned me in a corner. When I 'phoned you about it next morning you were not frightened. I did not take all the contents of your desk to J. J. Edwards. I found the contract notes in your desk. That is where they were kept. They were not kept in the outer office in a file. I got the key of your desk from you or Miss Harling. I did not get the contracts out of your desk; I got some out of a box file which was kept in the outer office. I did not take anything else up to J. J. Edwards. I have said that you absented yourself from the offices immediately after Christmas. I remember a member of the staff getting married in February. You gave several of us permission to go to the ceremony. When you were not at the office you could be found at the French Palace office up to the very last. I came there and saw you frequently. Clients were always attended to when they came. You always fixed appointments with people in connection with the French Palace business at 63, Finsbury Pavement, the offices of C. Harrison and Co. Miss Harling and Miss Underwood went there for instructions.

To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. I looked upon Forbes and Harrison as the principals in the firm. I was there over a year, up to the arrest. I do not know if Isaacs was a paid servant. I looked upon him as the manager. The staff was paid regularly till within a short time of the arrest by Forbes. I did not see him pay Isaacs. I deposited the parcel at the cloak-room by Isaacs's instructions. That was about May, I think. He told me to send the ticket on to Mr. Harrison. He conveyed to me that it was being done by Harrison's directions.

Re-examined. The instructions to return letters containing cheques were given at Finsbury Pavement after we had left London Wali. Miss Harling only returned one to my knowledge. I would ring up the stockbrokers and say we were Duncan Forbes and Co.; then Harrison would speak. I did not hear him say who he was. No one else spoke after I had rung up to my knowledge. I only rang up Magnac Williamsons, not Howe Newbold and Co.

 MINNIE DAVIDSON HARLING. I was engaged as bookkeeper to Duncan Forbes and Co. In January, 1910, I answered an advertisement and saw Harrison at Finsbury Pavement. I moved with the firm to 49, London Wall, and on June 12 to Finsbury Pavement. I left about the end of June. I received my instructions from Forbes and Harrison, and from Isaacs occasionally. All three attended regularly at London Wall. Harrison and Forbes ceased to attend, as far as I remember, about February, 1911, and Isaacs a little later, April or May. After that date I used to get instructions from Harrison by telephone. Forbes may have telephoned once or twice. As far as I remember that was the only sort of communication I had with Forbes from February to June. I had a letter from Harrison. Letters from Paris came by post. I might have had verbal messages from defendants through Gaul, the office boy. I think the brokers were in possession of the offices at London Wall from March 7 to June 12, when the goods were removed. I then got instructions to go to 63, Finsbury Pavement, through Gaul. I made entries in Exhibit 43 respecting Complex stock deals. There was some writing in it before. Each deal was dated when I entered it and numbered. This entry of deal 206B shows the names and the amounts received by the firm. The earliest entry in the book is October 4; it does not say what year, I think it is 1909. It is in Harrison's writing. The writing at page 262 is Isaacs's. Exhibit 2 is a circular issued by Duncan Forbes, dated August 31, 1910; the third page contains a list of Complex stock deals. The earliest is numbered 195B. That is obviously July, 1909. There are no entries in the ledger handed to me on any of those deals down to 197B, which deal is also in Harrison's handwriting. Exhibit 44 is another Complex deal book which was kept by Miss Hopkins. I instructed her in the method of keeping it. She began making entries in it on May 23, 1910. Some of it is in my writing. The latest date in the book is October 10, 1910. Exhibit 45 is another Complex stock deal book beginning October 17, 1910. That is in Miss Hopkins's writing. Some of it is mine. We also kept a book which had the names of the persons subscribing for the Complex stock deals arranged approximately in alphabetical order. Exhibit 48 contains partly the same particulars as Exhibits 43 and 44. The deals are not shown in Exhibit 48; they are arranged in alphabetic order. I cannot tell by looking at the book what deal I was first engaged in. The subscribers got the same amount of money no matter what deal they were in. Sometimes there were two deals. Then they had different dividends. Page 2 Exhibit 111, which is a circular dealing with Complex stock deals, says, "The following illustration, which is a correct copy of the statement of account, shows the rise and fall of the market and also the particulars of the transaction M. D. H. in account with Duncan Forbes and Co." M. D. H. are my initials. I never had an account with Duncan Forbes and Co. I cannot see those initals in the books or any name with those initials. The book marked "ex register" contains the names and addresses of clients. I cannot find any intials M. D. H. I was never asked to give a reference for Duncan Forbes and Co. I think Harrison gave me instructions to make entries in Exhibit 50. £5,468 6s. had been returned in dividends and £880 capital in Complex stock deals. The figures have only been roughly got out, but subject to accidental error they are correct. Mr. Harrison made the first, entries in Exhibit 45, limited liability deals. The earliest entry made by myself is January, 1910. While I was there a few persons were paid dividends on special deals, perhaps 20. There are no entries in the ledger for Complex stock deals after April, 1910. Mr. Hermann was one who received dividends in limited liability deals. He was the father of a lady clerk in the office. When cheques were first sent out they were in the form of cheques on the bank. Afterwards Duncan Forbes sent out cheques on themselves, which were presented by bank clerks at the office. No other record was kept than the counterfoils of the cheques of dividends sent to clients. A record was kept in a book called the bank book of cheques drawn by Duncan Forbes on themselves and presented for payment by bank clerks. I think they were always crossed. The book (Exhibit 274) records transactions between Harrison and stockbrokers on the Stock Exchange. No record of Mrs. Fuller's dealings were kept in the office. No record was kept of anybody else's dealings at Duncan Forbes's with stockbrokers. Exhibit 45 records the repayments of capital only, not dividends. The latest entry is April, 1911. Repayments in respect of limited liability deals would be found in that book. Such repayments were mostly by cheque; sometimes by money order. Exhibit 24 is a sold note to Mr. Beare, dated September 14, 1910, 50 National Mexico Second Preference, 33? I filled in that note from information supplied by Harrison. That was the usual practice. I have spoken to Magniac Williamson and Co. on the telephone, not to Howe Newbold and Co. that I remember. I used the name of Mr. Harrison. I did not mention Duncan Forbes and Co. I would then call Mr. Harrison. I would give the stockbrokers directions if Harrison instructed me, but not often. I received instructtions from Harrison to return remittances just before I left. This was at Finsbury Pavement. I returned one £10. I did not return any after that; we did not receive any. Exhibits 272 and 273 were cheque-books used for the purpose of returning capital to clients. There was another previous to those. The circular (Exhibit 111) is similar to that sent to Mr. Petty. Exhibit 284 is similar. It has the words in pencil, "Send to clients who have had capital returned." I do not know the handwriting. I heard Harrison say it was his. I never saw a press copy letter book used. I never saw letters to a correspondent in New York, Amsterdam, or Berlin.

To Mr. Wickham. I do not know where Forbes was after he left the offices at London Wall. I knew there was such a place at the French Palace office. I did not know he was there. I do not know whether there were intervals when the brokers were not in possession between March 7 and June 12. I did not have any instructions from Forbes in connection with Exhibit 306. The book (Exhibit 48) is not dated. I have looked up the name of Hatton. It is H. D. Hatton; the H does not look like an M. I think the illustrations given in the circular of January 4 (Exhibit 95) are all genuine transactions as far as I remember. I have identified some of them with the particulars in the book. Clients wrote sometimes asking us not to put their names. Dividends were not paid as late as May 23, 1911. My instructions were to at once return capital when there were complaints. I drew the cheques and they were sent off when signed. I do not recollect Farquharson applying for his money back. The telephone was in the name of Duncan Forbes and Co. Gaul answered the telephone more often than I did. To the best of my recollection we returned capital before 1910. We had perhaps two or three foreign letters a day. Duncan Forbes and Co. had a clerk to attend to foreign correspondence, Miss Cousins. I have seen her trying to make out a letter in a foreign language. She was a French woman. There was no secrecy about anything in the office; everything was perfectly open as far as I remember. The cheques for profit were made out once a fortnight, about 3,000 at a time before the attacks in the Press. I remember on one occasion £60 being sent in postal orders. I do not think there is any record of that. The draft bought and sold notes were kept quite open in the office. Clients in the Complex stock deals had to give three months' notice of withdrawal. Some gave notices which were complied with. About £19,000 was repaid. I understood the reason Duncan Forbes issued their own cheques was that the bank objected to the number of cheques they had to deal with. Duncan Forbes's printing and advertising expenses were very heavy. There was also a loss in connection with Aviation Courses. I know nothing about the Russo-Turkish War Loan except that I kept the book in connection with it. I know nothing about Mount Hecla. If Farquharson or Richman had asked for the return of their money I should have sent it at once under my instructions. I did not see letters from them applying. I do not know anything about the French Palace business. I said at the police court that the principals paid proper attention to the business and that I never had any suspicion as to its bona-fide nature or I should have left at once.

To Harrison. I was the head of the staff and came more in contact with you than any other member of the staff. As far as I remember you absented yourself from the office in February. Miss Hermann was married, I believe, on February 11. You gave me permission to attend. That was not your last appearance at the office. I do not remember your going to France. I will not swear February was the last month you were there. My memory is vague as to that; it might be April. I saw you once or twice afterwards at 63, Finsbury Pavement. We were in constant telephonic communication. Every one of the participants in the Complex stock deal would get exactly the same documents and the same amount as profit if they subscribed the same sum. You would tell me the names of the stocks that were going to be operated in, and when the account day came round you would tell me the prices to fill in so as to calculate the profit. Sometimes you told me the date of closing and I looked them up in the papers myself. One per cent profit on 25 shares is £5 and on 50 shares £10. It is irrespective of the name or price of the shares as long as the quantity dealt in is the same. In the fortnightly account there has been more than one stock deal. Provided they were all £5 subscribers the participators would get the same 5s. 6d. I know the testimonials were true copies of letters received from clients. As to the £880 which I said was the capital returned, that is altogether out of it; it must be more. £1,000 would be a minimum. I have Exhibit 47, limited liability book, before me. On October 17, 1910, he had a cheque for £25 sent him. Maurice had a cheque for £7 0s. 8d. in November; George Wright, February 14, £26 10s. 3d. On May 23 we were still paying dividends. All the contracts with stockbrokers were kept in the office. You handed them to me as you received them in the morning and I kept them in a special file in the clerks' office, and when the fortnightly settlement came round I checked the contents with the statement. Sometimes I found mistakes. I made out a cheque if there was a difference and sent it to Magniac Williamsons. I am sure I was at Finsbury Pavement when you told me to return capital to clients. I frequently transferred accounts from limited liability to Complex deals. Clients would get impatient and ask to be transferred. They then received their dividends on their investments. All letters were duplicated on the typewriter. The duplicates were kept on a file in the outer office.

To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. Isaacs was a servant like myself. I did not know he was getting £3 a week and afterwards £5. I was paid £2 5s. It might have been as late as April that dividends continued to be paid. Isaacs ceased coming to the office about March or April. I do not think his stopping away from the office had anything to do with paying dividends.

 THOMAS CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS, clerk, Ward, Bowie and Co., solicitors King Street, Cheapside. My firm acted for Mr. Thatcher, the petitioning creditor, in the bankruptcy of William Humbert, of Queen Victoria Street. I served the bankruptcy notice on Humbert at 7, Ridgmount Gardens on March 1, 1909. He is prisoner Harrison.

Cross-examined by prisoner Harrison. To the best of my ability you are the man I served the notice upon. It was early in the morning. It was on the first or second floor, I think, on the right hand side of the staircase. I will not be positive whether it was the first or second floor; it was the first, I think. I called two or three times.

(Saturday, November 11.)

 CHARLES LINDSAY NEWBOLD, partner in Howe, Newbold and Co., stockbrokers, 13, Copthall Court. I know Forbes as Fuller. I did some business for Mrs. Fuller. Exhibit 288 are contract notes relating to the transactions; two or three are missing.

To Mr. Scanlan. Mrs. Fuller's account was always paid up; the differences were always met in a prompt way; there was nothing to complain of. The account was closed by Mrs. Fuller's husband. The attacks in the newspapers did not affect my mind at all. The sold note issued by Duncan Forbes indicates that they were dealing as a principal. It is the ordinary form.

 CHARLES ERNEST WOOD, manager, Magniac Williamson and Co., stockbrokers, 33, Old Broad Street. Harrison was a customer of our firm from February to November, 1910. Exhibit 287 is a complete record of our transactions. I knew Forbes as Fuller. He had no connection with Harrison's account with us except that he received commission mission for the introduction of Harrison. I did not know that oither of them was connected with Duncan Forbes and Co. while we were dealing.

To Mr. Scanlan. I am not a member of the House. I am well acquainted with the rules. The account was closed in October, 1910, because we heard Harrison was a partner in Duncan Forbes and Co. It is incorrect to say it was in consequence of the attacks in "Truth." rang up Harrison many times on the telephone. I do not know what my telephone number 1s. We have a big telephone department and we simply get through to the client. Duncan Forbes and Co. never said through the telephone, "We are Duncan Forbes." I have never put the question to our telephone operators. We discontinued dealing with them because the very fact of their advertising in the newspapers, from our knowledge, could not be conducting what we considered a fair business. I do not think we have any outside brokers on our books just now, but we would deal with them if they were honest. There are no deals on the Stock Exchange which can produce the profits they state they can make by complex stock deals. The total turnover, including contangos, is £430,452. The account shows profit for end-March, £540; April 15, £64 3s. 9d; April 29, a loss of £379 9s. 6d.; October 28, £677 3s. 6d. loss; April 1, £540 2s. 9d. profit. The differences were met regularly; once there was a delay of two or three days; that was an amount of £2,000. We were brokers for the Johore Para Company. We recommended Harrison to take shares in that. He took 750 at a little over 20s. They were sold for about 10s.

To Harrison. You told me when you started dealing with us that you were depending upon information you were getting from Amsterdam. That information in some cases was good. Of course, circumstances arise which will cause a big slump and which cannot be foreseen by anybody. I do not remember whether there was any crisis in America in July. There was a big slump undoubtedly. On the day the £2,000 was due from you you sent a cheque for £1,500 and the balance a day or two later.

Detective-Sergeant GARRETT. On Monday night, July 3, I saw Forbes. I said to him, "Is your name Fuller?" He said, "Yes." I said, "You have been trading at 49, London Wall as Duncan Forbes and Co." He said, "Well, I was in the office." I said, "I am an officer of the City of London Police and hold a warrant for your arrest charging you with being concerned with a man named Isaacs and another in obtaining money by false pretences and conspiracy. I took him to the police station at Brighton, where I read the warrant to him. I conveyed him to London next morning. I mentioned to him that he had obtained a sum of money from Mr. Beare. He said, "Who is Beare? I do not know the man." I saw Isaacs in Graham Road, Dalston, as he was leaving his house. I told him who I was and that I held a warrant for his arrest for conspiring with a man named Forbes, who was in custody, and another man, to obtain money by false pretences. He replied, "Me, I have had absolutely nothing to do with the business." I conveyed him to the police-office, Old Jewry, where I read the warrant over to him. In reply he said, "As far as I am concerned it is incorrect." All the papers found at 49, London Wall were taken to the police office at Old Jewry. When I searched Isaacs I. found on him two railway cloak-room tickets for parcels deposited at Moorgate Street Station dated May 11 and 29 and one for a parcel left at North London Railway, Broad Street, June 9, in the name of Harrison. The parcels contained 24 different documents relating to the business of Duncan Forbes.

To Mr. Wickham. Only one of the parcels was deposited in a name; that was Harrison. I found no papers on Forbes which had anything to do with the Prudential Exchange. In regard to the statement in the Information that only £250 had been repaid to clients, I took no part in the Information. 60,000 cheques were part of the documents' found at London Wall. Beare was the only person who swore an Information for a warrant. I did nothing at all in order to ascertain whether his cover had run off. I did not know that a writ was issued by J. J. Edwards and Co. on behalf of Harrison against "Truth."

Detective-constable FRED POTT. On July 4 I received a number of books which were taken from London Wall.

To Mr. Wickham. I do not know where the originals of the letters are. I have made no inquiry. I know nothing about the case previous to the arrest. I knew nothing about the French Palace, Russo-Turkish War Loan, Aviation Courses, or Mount Hecla.

(Monday, November 13.)

Detective-Sergeant GARRATT, recalled, further examined. I produce three documents found at 49, London Wall. One an application form from the Rev. W. Richman, a letter from Mr. Beere and a letter from A. J. West.

To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. I arrested Isaacs in a turning running parallel with Graham Road. He has lived there a considerable time. He did not say to me, "Good morning, I know your face, but cannot quite place you." I think I said, "You must remember seeing me in the City." He did not ask me what brought me there. I do not think I said I had got bad news for him. He did not say, "I have nothing to do with their business. I was simply in their employ." I am trusting to my memory; my opinion is he said, "The business" not "their business." I took two letters from him; they related to insurance business and were posted immediately afterwards. They were nothing to do with Duncan Forbes. I found a large number of documents relating to insurance business at his house. I did not take possession of those.

Inspector MACLEAN. I received a warrant from the Guildhall for the arrest of Harrison on July 3. On July 23 I saw Harrison at No. 77, Rue Charles Duflos, Bois Cologne, near Paris. I was then with two French police officers. I told him I was a police officer from London and that a warrant had been issued for his arrest, charging him with being concerned with Forbes and Isaacs in obtaining money by false pretences and conspiracy. He said, "Yes, very well." I told him that his extradition had been applied for by the British Government. He said, "I shall not contest such extradition." While he was in conversation with the two French officers I heard him tell them he was known at that address by the name of de Riva. I afterwards accompanied him with the French officers to the police depôt, Paris, where he stated that his proper name was Charles Colaco, but he was otherwise known as Harrison. On August 22 I received him into custody and conveyed him to the detective office, Old Jewry, where I read the warrant to him. He made no reply.

To Mr. Wickham. I found that Duncan Forbes and Co. had had a branch office at 87, Rue de Petit Champs, for about nine months during 1910, which office was closed about September 1, when the furniture in the office was seized for non-payment of taxes. The offices had been taken by a Frenchman named Parent on behalf of a man named Colazo. There was no staff employed there. Parent called occasionally for letters. The rent was paid three months in advance. The amount returned to clients as shown by ledgers is £240. The books have been referred to by Miss Harling as ledgers. I said in the Information, "It was represented to me that the firm had bought a parcel of National Mexico Second Preference shares and they had not done so." I have since heard the stockbroker in the box say that they were bought. At the time I swore it I believed it to be true. I also said in the Information that I could find no entry showing dealings with brokers on the Stock Exchange. I could find no trace of it. There were about 60,000 or 70,000 cheques paid to clients found at London Wall. The warrant was granted by Alderman Hanson, who is a stockbroker. He took no further evidence after the first hearing. I first saw the book showing Stock Exchange transactions at the end of July. I was not aware that Forbes and Harrison were well known by brokers in the House. There were a quantity of evening papers and other documents which would show the prices of different stocks. Mr. Beare had some figures which showed the cover had not run off. I was not aware at the time the Information was sworn the Beare looked upon the matter as a criminal offence and that afterwards he demanded back his money and very large profits. He told us he had been in communication with the firm and offered to settle on certain terms, which they declined to do. All I know about "Truth" is hearsay. I have not been seen personally by them. The papers of Duncan Forbes and Co. were not sent for in consequence of attacks in the Press. I did not investigate cases put before me, and find they were perfectly correct and all the money had been repaid. In one instance out of five money was repaid. There are documents I have not looked at personally. Every document has been looked at by some offier or another. There are letters from Paris. I have not seen any letters from New York myself. If there had been I should have seen them. I will not swear there is not correspondence from Elsberg and Co., Amsterdam. I have not seen any written documents from Berlin. I have found that Duncan Forbes and Co. had paid £10,000 to the London County Council for the option of the site of the French Palace, which option expired on May 1. I made no inquiries about the Russo-Turkish War Loan. Some money I expected from that, but whether it is money due to the persons stated is a matter to be settled. The Hecla Silver Mine is not a genuine affair so far as Duncan Forbes and Co. are concerned. They had the option of purchasing three certificates of 1,000 shares each from a Mr. Crysler at 1s. 3d. a share. They obtained possession of the certificates, but Mr. Crysler has never been paid. The only books found at London Wall were in connection with Duncan Forbes and Co. The Russo-Turkish Loan and the Hecla mine were so far as I know introduced by J. J. Edwards. I know Forbes and Harrison had bills of sale on their property. I do not know that Mrs. Forbe advanced money to the firm when they were in difficulties. I do not know that wagering for differences on the Stock Exchange are gambling transactions and are void in law. I know they have never set up the Gaming Act. I think Harrison and Forbes left London Wall about the same time. That is what Miss Harling said. I could not say whether the signature to the agreement signed Rupert Scott is Forbes's, but there is a striking resemblance to it in one I have compared.

To Harrison. I left London for Paris about June 29 before the warrants were granted. I was informed you left by train from Charing Cross. When you were arrested you gave me every facility. The concierge told me Mr. Parent had taken the offices on behalf of Colazo. He did not speak French. I had a representative from the British Embassy with me. He spoke French and English. I have not seen cheques to the amount of nearly £1,000 in the name of Crysler. While I was making inquiries for months Duncan Forbes and Co.'s offices were still open. I never went there to make inquiry.

To Mr. Huntly Jenkins. There was an enormous number of paid cheques, 20,000 to 30,000 extending from some time in 1909 to early May this year. They covered the whole period that Isaacs was employed there.

Detective-sergeant GARRATT, recalled. I looked among the correspondence during Inspector Maclean's absence abroad. I looked for letters from New York and Amsterdam and saw none.

Detective-constable POTT, recalled. I searched for letters from Amsterdam, Berlin, and New York and found none.

To Mr. Wickham. I did not find the books mentioned in the list of things found. They were brought to the office and I had to look through them. They were taken from London Wall on July 4.

Detective ARTHUR THORPE. I assisted in the search for correspondence from New York, Berlin, and Amsterdam, but found no copy letters to or letters from people at those places. The counterfoil receipt book is a book showing the name of the client and the amount sent. It does not show dealings on the Stock Exchange in National Mexico Second Preference.

To Mr. Wickham. Exhibit 50 shows that £8,000 had been returned to clients. That book was found among the correspondence afterwards and immediately used.

 EDITH MAUD HOPKINS. I entered Duncan Forbes's employment on May 7, 1910, as bookkeeper and shorthand writer. Exhibit 44 is a Complex stock deal book in which I put the clients' names and the amounts received from them. Those names were subsequently transferred into Exhibit 48 in alphabetical order. I was there about a year. I did not see any foreign correspondence.

To Mr. Wickham. I did not keep any French accounts. I entered up the advances made by Duncan Forbes and Co. in connection with the French Palace. That was not in an account book, but on plain paper. The total might be a little more than £17,000. I know nothing about the other enterprises. I had no reason to think the business was not bona-fide. There was no secrecy. Everything was conducted quiety; there were no rows at the office.

To Harrison. I think your attendance ceased at London Wall in February.

 CONSTANCE UNDERWOOD. I was shorthand typist at 49, London Wall, from June, 1910, to May, 1911. Then I went to 63, Finsbury Pavement. I was there about a week. The circulars of the Prudencial Exchange were put up in envelopes by the office boy, my sister and myself. Isaacs and Forbes did some as well. I entered in Exhibit 282 notices of withdrawal for the complex stock deals. I made no entries in No. 281. This is before I came into the office. The handwritings are Forbes and Isaacs'. In a lot of cases capital was repaid.

To Mr. Wickham. I said at the police court that all capital was returned until the attacks in "Truth." That is correct. I believed the business was bona fide or I should not have stopped.

To Harrison. I was with the London and Paris Exchange before I went to Duncan Forbes. There was no prosecution in that case. I could not say I know that business was run on the cover system. Exhibit 50 shows dividend paid £5,568. You were still attending at London Wall when Miss Harman got married; that was in February. I do not remember your going to France. When clients were dissatisfied we returned their money. I do not remember telling you, "You are sending the money back easier than we did at the London and Paris." I was not aware the Finsbury Pavement office was kept for the purpose of interviewing people in connection with the French Palace. When I wanted to find you I used to ring up the French Palace in the Strand. Miss Cousins used to deal with the foreign correspondence, and Miss Janson before her.

 ADA BULL. I was shorthand clerk and typist to Duncan Forbes and Co. from November, 1909. Forbes engaged me. Isaacs was there. Harrison came two or three weeks afterwards. Later on at London Wall I had to do with sending dividends. I got the amounts from Miss Harman or Miss Harling. I did not see any letters going to or coming from abroad.

To Mr. Wickham. I have put a 2(d. stamp on letters to France. I have only seen letters go to France. I have not posted letters to New York, Amsterdam, or Berlin. I said at the police court, "When I first went there capital was always returned when asked for." Everything was perfectly open in the office. But for the attacks in the Press everything would have gone on all right.

 WILLIAM CASH, partner, Cash, Stone and Co., chartered accounttants. I have made an examination of all the books in connection with the business of Duncan Forbes and Co. I find no book showing the exact position of the firm towards any of their customers in total. Speaking as an accountant, there are a number of books and ledgers, some of which show the personal accounts with clients, but there is nothing in the nature of what I should technically describe as a private ledger which would show the profit and loss of the business or the total liability to clients or anything of that sort. I have examined the banking account of Forbes in the name of Fuller and Mrs. Fuller. The total amount received from the public by Duncan Forbes and Co. in connection with their complex stock deals is £30,004 5s., in regard to limited liability deals £41,187 13s., and for other matters £9,735 10s. 11d. The total dividends paid amount to £7,776. The capital repaid from the two accounts of Duncan Forbes is £6,325 16s. 2d. These figures are the best I can do with the material available. I believe them to be substantially correct. They are not seriously at fault. There appears, in addition, to have been £246 paid from Harrison's account. There are 933 limited liability accounts in Exhibit 47. Only 34 of those got anything returned; 24 or 25 received less than they paid. I understand only two brokers were employed, Magniac Williamson and Howe Newbold. I have shown the results of the fortnightly deals on a tabulated statement. The net result of deals with Magniac Williamson from February 21 to December 16, 1910, is a loss of £3,731 10s. 8d., and with Howe Newbold and Co. from April 14, 1910, to June 14, 1911, a loss of £114 14s. 7d. The total amount of stock dealt in was £223,243 with Magniac Williamson and £67,831 with Howe Newbold. The last figure is arrived at after ignoring stocks carried over. My reason for doing that is, if this figure is to be used for the purpose of comparison with the firm's transactions with clients of course a very large proportion of the clients' money was purporting to be employed over and over again in a similar way. (The witness went into details of the transactions.)

(Tuesday, November 14.)

 WILLIAM CASH, recalled. To Mr. Scanlan. I have had experience in Treasury and public prosecutions. I have not audited outside stockbrokers' accounts before. The words on Duncan Forbes and Co.'s contract note are, "We have sold to you this day." If they did not immediately purchase those stocks on the market they are civilly liable to their clients. If you get a contract note from a broker the stock is bought for you and the man is acting as a broker. I cannot say if you demand to know the principal that you are entitled to have it put on the contract note. The jobber is the principal to the broker. He enters into a contract to deliver certain stock at certain prices. When he is a bear he is anticipating a fall. If he contracts to sell 5,000 Great Boulders to a broker and has not got them on his book for delivery he is compelled to purchase them back when delivery is demanded. There would not have been a profit to Duncan Forbes if Achisons had fallen one point, because they guaranteed the client against loss. If a man buys stock on cover and the cover runs off, of course he loses it. He would lose it but for the guarantee. (Witness was cross-examined further on stock market fluctuations of the different deals.) The total amount paid by Duncan Forbes and Co. in connection with the French Palace is £10,539. I should be surprised to hear that it was £17,000. They paid to printers £7,244 and for advertising and circulars £12,601. I have traced paid into Harrison's account £11,474, but as against that there are sums returned by him to Duncan Forbes, mostly in connection with Stock Exchange transactions, £2,371, and other moneys on account of Duncan Forbes, which leave remaining in Harrison's account £4,800. In Forbes's account on the same basis there is £1,979, but that account is complicated by transfers from Harrison's and Mrs. Fuller's account and so on. They paid out in connection with the RussoTurkish War Loan £4,660, Aviation Courses £2,820, of which they returned to clients £864 capital and £216 bonus.

To Harrison. Goodchild's account opened October 17, which was settled, showed a profit of £10 4s. 6d., after deducting the £10 subscribed. There was contango charged, not commission. Mann's deal in July, 1910, resulted in a cheque being sent him for £30 12s. 4d. The dividend paid to Andrews is not stated. Assuming that account was not closed the transaction could have been recorded by opening a separate account. I did not find any fault with that. I find £1,745 returned through solicitors. There is an amount of £207 14s. which has to be added on to repaid capital. (Witness was cross-examined as to market fluctuations.)

 ARTHUR HENRY MOON, clerk to H. W. Smith, auctioneer, 6, Great James Street, Bedford Row. I made an inventory of the furniture and effects of Duncan Forbes and Co. at 49, London Wall. The goods were moved next day to auction rooms at 13, High Holborn. They were sold a few days afterwards on June 16. I have no document by which I can fix the date. The furniture and effects were removed from 49, London Wall, on June 13, 1911.

(Wednesday, November 15.)

 ARTHUR HENRY MOON, recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. I thoroughly inspected the goods. There were no documents in drawers that were open. There was one locker in a safe, which was locked. I believe there were documents in that. My principal took charge of them. I have my idea who has got them now. He has (them or has handed them to the Official Receiver. I was first asked to give evidence yesterday. I was served with a subpœna by an officer. He took a statement from me in writing.

Sergeant GARRETT, recalled. I did not get documents from last witness's principal. I took them from a safe which was removed from 63, Finsbury Pavement, to the sale-room of Benjamin Norman, who acted for the landlord of the premises in the distraint. The safe was in a sale-room at Carter Lane, and I went there with a key supplied to me by Gaul, opened the safe, and took the books from it to the Police Station, Old Jewry. It is the safe spoken of by last witness. There is no other safe that I am aware of.

To Mr. Wickham. I did not say they were Harrison's private papers. I understood last witness to say there were no documents in the safe.

Re-examined. The safe came from 63, Finsbury Pavement. Whether it was transferred from 49, London Wall, I could not say.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Wickham. I said the safe taken from Finsbury Pavement was Harrison's safe and was taken by his landlord in distraint for rent. I cannot say how the furniture could have been taken from London Wall if the business had been transferred to 63, Finsbury Pavement.

Detective-constables FREDERICK BLIGH, JOHN LOAKES and FREDERICK HUTTON spoke to searching the correspondence of Duncan Forbes and Co., and finding no letters from Amsterdam, Berlin, or New York.

Detective-inspector JOHN COLLINSON. On December 30, 1908, I called at some offices in 24, Queen Victoria Street. They were the offices of Humbert Nephew and Co., stock and share dealers. I spoke there to Harrison. I asked his name; he said William Humbert. He told me it was his business and he was the only person in the business.

To Harrison. I swear I saw you there. Sergeant (now Inspector) Thompson was with me.

Mr. Wickham submitted (1) that on counts 13 and 14 (Beare's case) the case should be withdrawn from the jury. On October 18 last tie Recorder under precisely similar circumstances, as the jury were going to stop a case in connection with a taxi-driver, withdrew the case from them. (Cited R. v. Smith, C.C.C. Sess. P., CLV., 710.) On May 1 there was no doubt Beare was under the impression that the firm had acted in a criminal way in regard to his investment. On May 9 he wrote, "I am prepared to accept £20 in full satisfaction." On May 25 he went to the police again. (2) With regard to counts 1 to 14, the money was obtained through the medium of the contract which Farquharson, West, Richman, Petty, and Beare had all broken, for no notice, as was required, has been given, and a charge of false pretences cannot be maintained. (3) No false pretence as to existing facts, as prisoners alleged, not that they had 284 per cent, or even 100 per cent, in hand, but that they would make it in future. (4) To constitute an offence of obtaining money by false pretences there must, as in larceny, be an intention to deprive the owner wholly of his property. In no single case has there been any intention shown, neither has the owner been wholly deprived of his property. (5) That the prisoners were carrying on a genuine business was proved by Mr. Newbold, who said that by their sold notes they constituted themselves principals, as they were not bound to purchase such stocks as they were short of as options, but they were bound to purchase stock to get stock enough. (6) On the bankruptcy charges counsel cited the case of R. v. Coombes (C.C.C. Sess. P., CLV., 705). Prisoner was an undischarged bankrupt who gambled in differences with stockbrokers. He was unable to meet those differences, which exceeded £20, and was prosecuted and convicted for obtaining credit as an undischarged bankrupt. If that was a good conviction, the converse would hold good; for instance, the brokers who carried on the business in connection with differences, if they were undischarged bankrupts, could not have been prosecuted, because they were selling. (Cited R. v. Bancroft, 3 Cr. App. R., 16; R. v. Crab. 11 Cox, 85; R. v. Williamson, 11 Cox, 328; R. v. Watson, Dears, and B., 348; R. v. Ragg, 29 L.J.M.C., 86; R. v. Codrington, 1 C. and P., 661; Dears and B., 348; Thacker v. Hardy, 4 Q.B. Court of Appeal, p. 684, R. v. Kilham, 11 Cox, 561. R. v. Bryan, Dears, and B., 348; Lovell v. Beauchamp, 1894 A.C., 607.) (Objections overruled.)

(Defence.)

 ROBERT DUNCAN FORBES (prisoner, on oath). My name is Fuller. I have never gone by any other name except for business purposes. Before I joined Harrison I was in business, as a mortgage broker and commission agent on my own. I met Harrison by accident in the Haymarket in 1909. I had not seen him prior to that for nine or 10 years. He asked me to call at his flat, where he was doing, I believe, a stock and share business. He told me he intended to transfer his business to offices in the City in combination with mortgage broking and financial agency. He said he had settled on the name of Duncan Forbes and Co. and asked if I would join him. I declined at first; I told him I did not know anything about stockbroking. He said he would undertake that part of the business if I looked after the other part, the office. He arranged to find all the money necessary. I had money of my own, at least, my wife's. He guaranteed to give me £500 a year. Harrison could not go up to the City at the time and I had to arrange about the offices, bank, printing, advertising, and to facilitate matters I was to assume the name of Duncan Forbes. As far as I undersand, the difference between an inside and an outside broker is that an inside broker is simply an agent who buys from the jobber. I opened an account with Howe, Newbold and Co. in the name of my wife. I had two reasons: one reason was if I had opened it in my own name I should have had to disclose the fact that I was an undischarged bankrupt; the second reason was I should not have got the 40 or 50 per cent, commission for introducing a client. I did not keep the commission myself; on two occasions I gave the cheques to Isaacs and they were realised for the benefit of Duncan Forbes and Co. On other occasions I showed the cheques to Harrison and paid them into my account and gave him his half back. I have never applied for my discharge in bankruptcy; I could clear it all off; it is not a very large sum. I disclosed the fact of my bankruptcy to a partner of the printing company when I was arranging the affairs of Duncan Forbes and Co. With regard to the different enterprises we were interested in inquiries were made in every case, with the exception of the Aviation Courses, which was introduced by Mr. Williams, of J. J. Edwards and Co., solicitors, Sackville Street, W. I had nothing whatever to do with the stockbroking or financial part of the business beyond signing cheques for dividends and returned capital and introducing Harrison to Magniac Williamson and Co. and opening the account with Howe, Newbold and Co., and buying stocks and shares under instructions from Harrison. All dealings with Newbold were in my wife's name. I do not suppose I saw a dozen clients while the business existed. I did not tell persons I had been carrying on business personally for four years. The letters received amounted to 100 to 700 daily, the latter being the largest number. I used to read and classify them. I used to reply to letters relating to limited liability deals towards the end when Harrison was much pressed for time in regard to the French Palace. People were continually writing and I simply wrote and put them off until I could get him to attend to it, as I did not understand it myself. I ceased attendance at London Wall in April last. Isaacs was left in charge. I did not know anything of Mr. Petty. That came as a surprise to me when he appeared at the Guildhall. After I left London Wall it was understood all money was to be returned for the complex or limited liability deals. The business was not removed from London Wall until the brokers removed all the furniture, which was somewhere about June 12. I first became acquainted with Mr. Lever's name when the offices were in Finsbury Pavement House. He was an old client of Mr. Harrison's. The cause of our taking offices at Finsbury Pavement was our being attacked by the Press. We wanted to disconnect any fresh business that was introduced to us from Duncan Forbes and Co. I attended at Finsbury Pavement House every day, till nearly the end of June, and the French Palace office, and the solicitors. I communicated with the staff by telephone when I had occasion. Isaacs was there. I borrowed £355 from my wife to pay the staff, etc., in 1911. I did not sign the agreement in connection with Rupert Scott. I was not present when it was signed. I did not go with an order to view. I went to look at the offices and said I came from Mr. Trevor. After looking over the place I was asked for my name and I said, "It is nothing to do with me." Isaacs was introduced to me by Harrison. Isaacs said he met me years back, but I do not remember him. There was an idea of carrying on Duncan Forbes and Co. as the Prudential Exchange. I took no active part in it. The object of that was to save us from attack. The London and Paris Exchange did the same thing. I knew of no reason why it should not be done. We anticipated the French Palace scheme would be through in July. The Coronation stopped it, otherwise it would have been through in June. I did not read the circulars that went out. In the French Palace we were to have £26,000 capital we advanced and £80,000 in cash and shares, and the option of all the side shows for 99 years. Crysler's statement to Inspector Maclean about the Hecla silver mine is absolutely incorrect. We expected to get the return of our money and £800 besides from Aviation Courses. I went five times to Doncaster and Burton-on-Trent. The cause of the failure of that was that the managing director and the judge he nominated and steward were drunk all the time; they did not appear on the course till six or seven o'clock in the evening after keeping people waiting all day long; there were no barriers put up and all the three-card-trick men and that kind of thing were there. The French Palace was introduced to us by Mr. Gerard about February, 1910. A £100,000 syndicate was to be formed to promote a company of over a million. The solicitors were J. J. Edwards and Co.; the chairman was a K.C., who is now dead. Gerard had the option of the site for 99 years from the L.C.C. The option was twice renewed, £5,000 being paid each time. They hold at the present moment £10,000. The total amount paid in connection with that is £18,738. It had the patronage of a member of the Royal Family. £300,000 was underwritten by one firm in London and £200,000 by a bank in France. There were also promises to underwrite. It being delayed by the Coronation, we expected to get it out by October. It is now being financed by a group at Havre. As to the Russo-Turkish War Loan, I have information from Mr. Davis that the Ottoman Court have arranged with some Paris bankers to pay the whole amount, £26,000. With regard to the sample deals on the circulars, we did not propose to sell shares equal to them, not similar shares. I am speaking for myself. Harrison found all the money required. I could have found it if necessary. At the beginning of the business we could have easily fulfilled the guarantee between the two of us. In the majority of instances I believe the cover ran off. It would have been lost with us but for the guarantee. The cover run off was advanced to the various enterprises. Dividends were paid on the stock under the guarantee. I never heard of such an arrangement as Mr. Richman has said, that he found I per cent. and we were to pay the other 99 per cent. We were always in a position to guarantee the money sent; it is invested. We believe we could return the money. Mr. Richman asked me in 1911 what I anticipated as regards profit per £5 share per fortnight; I said 8s. I told him business had been carried on between four and five years. It was not a new business because it was transferred from Harrison. I suppose by the statement that we had not had a single reverse Harrison meant that not a single person had lost their money. No letter left the office to my knowledge, saying the cover had run off and the money was gone. The capital stands to their credit. It has never been written off. Sir Charles Euan Smith was connected with the Russo-Turkish War Loan, notwithstanding the disclaimer in "Truth." He had a claim of £2,000; whether it was paid or not I cannot say. I had a conversation with an officer after my arrest. I told him I knew the papers had been sent up, that pressure had been brought to bear on the City Solicitor by the solicitors of "Truth," and that he had sent down to Old Jewry for all papers or complaints against Duncan Forbes and Co., and there were five complaints. They were instructed to write to the police of the districts where those complaints came from. There was no private ledger at Duncan Forbes and Co.; everything was open. I saw letters that came from a relative of Harrison's at Amsterdam; he called him Loo; he is a member of the firm of Elsberg and Co., stockbrokers. The French office was open in May when I wrote to Harrison and it was open when he arrived there in June; the furniture was there and everything else. Harrison had a correspondent in New York, a Mr. Whiting.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I had not seen Harrison between 1900 and of June, 1909. I do not know if he had an office then; I only saw his at his flat, Redgemount Gardens. He did not tell me very much about his business; he simply said he was carrying on stock and share business, in the name of Harrison, at his flat. This was in August, 1909. He said he had been carrying it on for two or three years. The only books he showed me were the four registers that went to Finsbury Pavement House. They were at 49, London Wall when I left. I have not seen them here. They are in the hands of the police. They are registers of names and addresses of clients. I never saw any other books of Harrison's. I took the offices in the name of Forbes. I have never heard the name of Duncan Forbes till Harrison mentioned to me that that was the name he was going to use when he transferred his business. I put "Robert" on. I opened the banking account in the name of Duncan Forbes and Co. I did not tell the bank I was trading alone. I said nothing about a partner that I know of. (Book handed.) I think that is one of Harrison's, and there is another there. I was in the office about two weeks before Harrison arrived. He continued coming to the office till November. Miss Bull has made a mistake. I never heard the name of William Humbert. I did not know he had carried on business in that name at Queen Victoria Street. The first I heard of his having a receiving order made against him in October, 1909, was here. I cannot tell you when he first had authority to sign cheques on the account of Duncan Forbes and Co. It was his business. He provided the money. I gave the first orders to the printers. Harrison drafted the circulars at his flat. I never read them before they were printed. I suppose the list of deals set out are Harrison's deals. They were before Duncan Forbes and Co. started business. I gave the draft of this circular to the printers on September 27 or 29. I have not the faintest idea whether the profits mentioned therein were made. I had nothing whatever to do with the Stock Exchange part of the business. It was entirely Harrison's circular. I know they were sent out to the public. Commission was paid to Mr. Lever and one other man. I do not know his name. With regard to the cheque for £99 sent to Lever I believe those profits were made. I have not got any of Harrison's letters. He has read letters to me from Amsterdam. He did not show me any letter from New York about Mexico Second Preference shares. He told me he had information they were going up. Only two persons that I know of gave references for Duncan Forbes and Co. They were paid commission. I did not know of the books being deposited at the cloak-rooms: I was away at that time. They were moved because the brokers were going to take the furniture. My wife has a small income. She had no banking account till this business started. I forget when she opened it. It would be about the same time I opened with Howe, Newbold and Co. She had about £1,500 saved up at the time. We intended going out to Australia until I met Harrison. I had a portion of the £250 which was raised on the bill of sale. I borrowed £300 besides from her. She drew it from Barclay's Bank in March or April, 1911. The reason of her mortgaging her furniture and houses was that we expected this French Palace to go through and I wanted to do my utmost. There was a rush on Duncan Forbes and Co. and I wanted to pay them off. I ceased to attend 49, London Wall the second week in April. Then I divided my time between 63, Finsbury Pavement and the French offices in the Strand. Harrison did the same. I think Isaacs ceased attending the office a day or two before the furniture was taken. I did not know he was meetin the office boy at street corners. Harrison or I handed the money to pay the staff to Isaacs when we had it. Isaacs told me he was being badgered by callers, the brokers and one thing and another. I did not give him any orders what to do. I cannot answer for what Harrison may have said. I never saw the circular of March 23. It was sent out but I never looked at it. It was sent from the printers straight to the people who sent it off. I cannot say if money came in in response to circulars in March or April. No one was more astonished than I when Mr. Petty said he sent money in April. When I left the office the instructions were that money was to be returned to senders immediately. I understood £10 was all that came. I do not know that Petty's £100 went into the banking account. I knew nothing about it. This original telegram is in one of the clerk's writing. It is not mine, Isaac's, or Harrison's; neither is the receipt for £30. I did not sign the name of Rupert Scott on the agreement. I put it on a slip of paper because they would not give up letters without an authority at 40, King Street. I wrote it on the spur of the moment. I think Isaacs told me there would be letters there and asked me to call for them. The handwriting on the counterfoil of the payfing-in book is Isaacs's. It shows £5 gold and £130 notes paid into the bank on May 1. The business of Rupert Scott was a transfer of Duncan Forbes's. Nothing was decided in regard to the matter. I was not present when the agreement was signed and could not swear who signed it.

(Thursday, November 16.)

 CHARLES ISAACS (prisoner, on oath), 136, Graham Road, Dalston. I have been there six years and pay £36 a year rent. I have never gone by any other name. I have never been bankrupt and this is the first time any charge has been made against me. I have known Forbes since 1909 and Harrison several years. Before entering their employ I was an insurance broker and general commission agent. On October 11, 1909, I received a letter from Duncan Forbes and Co. (Exhibit 51) and I went round and saw them. I saw Forbes first and Harrison later. They had a scheme whereby they wanted me to cover certain risks; I applied to several insurance companies, but failed. Finding that the business was a growing one they asked me if I would assist them in taking charge of the sending out of the circulars. I started at £3 a week, and I was given permission to use their office and telephone for my own business. I was not really the manager. Harrison drafted the circulars and I attended to the printing and distributing. In February, 1910, the business was removed from Finsbury Pavement to London Wall, one reason being that the business had increased to such an extent. My duties were the same. I never had authority to sign cheques; I signed one cheque in the presence of the bank clerk because both Harrison and Forbes were away and the money was wanted in the office. I paid into the bank very often and I would sometimes fill in the paying-in slips with others members of the staff, just as it was convenient. In the absence of Forbes and Harrison, if Miss Harling could not deal with callers she would refer them to me. Very few made complaints. I would take down what they said and tell them I would report to Forbes or Harrison when they came in. I complained that the time I was putting in was not sufficiently remunerated, and this led to the letter of April 10, 1911, in which they admitted that this was so, but asking me to keep on and do my best and when the French Palace scheme was completed he would put insurance business in my way which would be worth my while; I stayed on with that hope and continued to attend the office regularly. In February, 1910, my salary had been increased to £5 a week. In March this year they wrote me saying that the business having fallen off they must contract their expenses, that I was to consider myself free in a week's time and that if business subsequently improved they would be only too glad to have me back again. From that time I kept in touch with the firm by going to the office at London Wall or Finsbury Pavement almost daily; the reason for my doing so was the insurance in the French Palace Syndicate, of which I had been promised. Harrison during my time did all Stock Exchange transactions; I know nothing of them except what I occasionally overheard; I was never consulted by either Forbes or Harrison as to them. The cloak-room tickets came into my possession in this way: the bailiffs were in possession and the partners thought it advisable to remove a few of the papers concerning the RussoTurkish loan and other matters to the nearest station cloak-room, with a view to their being sent to the solicitors afterwards to prevent them being sold up. The reason I met Gall outside the Wool Exchange on two or three occasions was this: The staff had to be paid and I met Harrison at the Strand Office; I 'phoned through to Gall to meet me there; he did so, and I handed him the money for the staff which I got from Harrison and Forbes. I did not know who "Rupert Scott" was. I gave instructions to Straker's to print 5,000 sheets with the heading because Forbes and Harrison asked me to do so. The unpresented cheques found on me were used in the course of the firm's business and I had to take them with the other papers found in my house to M. Davies, the solicitor. My salary was always paid to me weekly in cash or notes. The only cheques that were drawn made payable to me was one of £50 in January, 1910, which was given me as a sort of bonus to help meet the expenses of my daughter's marriage, and there was also a cheque that I had to pick up in money which was dishonoured through another bank. When arrested for being concerned with Duncan Forbes and Co. I said, "What—me? I have nothing to do with their business," not "I have had absolutely nothing to do with the firm." I had not the slightest knowledge that the business was a fraudulent one, if it were fraudulent.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I first knew Harrison when he came from Holland in 1891, but the only business I did with him previous to this was in 1908, when he gave me an introduction in connection with some insurance business. I knew him in 1908 as "Charles Samuel Charles"; he had no office of his own then; he used the office of the National Cab Company in Poultry. I did not know he was carrying on business in the name of Humbert; I heard the name for the first time in this Court. I think there is a firm named "Humbert, Son and Nephew," in Queen Victoria Street, but I did not know Harrison in connection with it, nor did I have any connection with that firm myself. This is the first time I have seen this cheque and this slip of paper (Exhibit 321). If found at my house, they must have been among Harrison's papers I had to deliver to Mr. Davies. I see the cheque is drawn by Humbert, Nephew and Co.; Harrison probably filled it in; I do not know in whose handwriting the slip of paper 1s. I have never been to 17, Abchurch Lane, 79, Queen Victoria Street, Wardrobe Chambers, or No. 9, Poultry; I do not know whether this latter is the office of the National Cab Company; Humbert and Co. do not have offices in the building. I do not know that Harrison was carrying on that business. As "Charles and Co." he was carrying on the business of the National Cab Company in 1908. I do not know what he was doing in 1906. I do not know the name of "Bradshaw and Co." Harrison introduced Forbes to me as "Fuller." I looked upon "Duncan Forbes and Co." as a trade name. I first knew Harrison by the name of Harrison a little before they started the business of Duncan Forbes and Co.; I do not know why he adopted the name. I did not think it was my business to ask. His right name, I believe, is "Seruco." I did not start in the employment of the firm to be of any use until October or November, 1909. It is not true that I was carrying on the business with Forbes before Harrison came in. The French Palace scheme was first thought of in February, 1910; it was certainly not as late as April. I knew very little with regard to the payment made by Forbes and Harrison in connection with the option, but I know the £10,000 was paid to the L.C.C. I occasionally read the circulars sent out, but I never discussed them with Forbes or Harrison. I do not know that they were undischarged bankrupts or I should certainly have had nothing to do with them, because, as regards guaranteeing the capital, I should have thought they would be taking credit when they had no right to. I agree that the guarantee would be worthless if they had no capital, but I did not inquire what their capital was; I never looked into the business so deeply. I ceased to be in their employ on March 31, but I continued working for them in April and some time in May, but I was not paid. I popped into the office at London Wall. I only 'phoned to Gall to meet me outside the Wool Exchange because it saved me going round to London Wall. Gall's evidence referred to May. I did not pay any wages in April. Forbes and Harrison, whilst at the Strand offices, asked me, as I was going to the City, to meet the boy and give him the money which they gave me. It is true that there are entries dated May, 1911, in the paying in book (Exhibit 320) in my writing; after I left on March 31 Forbes and Harrison asked me to call in and give a hand to Miss Harling. (Witness was taken through a large number of items in the paying-in book ending on May 8, 1911, which he admitted to be in his hand-writing; the counterfoil receipt books for "Complex Stock Deals" and "Limited Liability Deals," Exhibits 323 and 324, showing the source of such payments in.) I do not recognise the handwriting in Exhibit 122 and Exhibits 62 and 62a as being Forbes's or Harrison's. I assisted in sending out the circulars on May 24 as a friend. Gall took the papers to the cloakroom to safeguard them against the bailiffs, in accordance with the arrangement made by Forbes and Harrison. I did not go through the parcels; they were put together by Forbes or Harrison. I do not remember anything about the things to which the cloakroom ticket relates (Exhibit 57); I have no doubt they were sent to the Broad Street Station. I knew nothing of the contents of the tin box to which Exhibit 59 relates. It is true the cloakroom tickets, Exhibits 57, 58, 59, were found in my possession; they were given to me about the end of June with the bundle of papers to take to Mr. Davies. I called at his office and he was on the Continent; I did not leave them as I wanted to give them to him personally. Harrison simply requested me to take them to the solicitor; I do not know why.

Re-examined. When Harrison gave me the tickets and the papers he contemplated going to Paris to see Mr. Davies there in connection with the Russo-Turkish matter. The reason that the items in the paying-in book are in my writing is because they did not want me to beat off entirely from going to London Wall, and they asked me to call in and give a hand to Miss Harling.

To the Court. I used to know what the balance at the bank was as I was requested very often to find out.

 GATSCHELL ISAACS (Minister, Hackney Synagogue), and JAMES SHUTTLE WORTH (common lodging-house keeper) gave evidence as to character of prisoner Isaacs.

(Friday, November 17.)

 CHARLES HARRISON (prisoner, not on oath). He contended that there was no justification for the severe criticism of the way the firm's books were kept since Miss Harling had been able from a glance to state how a client stood with the firm. He submitted also that the fact Mr. Richman's two cheques of £67 were as regards different stocks did not show that the accounts were fictitious, this submission being borne out by Mr. Newbold. He stated that the man who had threatened the boy on the staircase was merely a loafer touting for business in connection with the French syndicate, and this incident had nothing to do with his giving orders for certain papers to be cleared away on the following day. He stated that from the £4,800 which Mr. Cash had stated had gone into his own pocket must be deducted sums which had been wrongly allocated to his private expenditure, which should really be allocated to the French Palace and other matters. With regard to the guarantee all the witnesses had admitted that there was no limitation of time mentioned for repayment of capital; this was necessarily so since the money had to be invested in other concerns to make a profit. If the whole of the money had been invested in the Stock Exchange, it would have a worse gamble than the French Palace or the Russo-Turkish war loan, and great loss would have resulted. He stated that it was true that he had financial correspondents abroad. In Amsterdam his cousin had sent admittedly reliable information; his letters containing family matters were not kept. The letters from a friend of his in Berlin and from Mr. J. W. White from New York, giving official information, were kept in a pigeon hole in his private desk and he did not know what had become of them. In no circular had he stated that transactions would be done on the Stock Exchange with the exception of "Our Weekly," but this had not reached the witnesses who had given evidence. Unlike other outside brokers who had been prosecuted, they had paid larger sums in profits and had in no instance pleaded the Gaming Act. To Mr. Cash's figure of £16,000 paid as dividends must be added the sums paid by postal orders and into the county courts, which he had not included, these bringing the total to over £20,000. Even if they had been compelled to buy all the shares which had been sold to their clients, it would have been an impossibility to buy such large numbers, but he contended they were in the same position as jobbers and not compelled so to do. He stated that, in spite of the slump in the American market, but for which they would have had no liabilities, they had forwarded dividends on, when asked, returned capital, which showed the value of the guarantee, and that the circulars they had sent out with reference to this slump were based on fact. He submitted that it had been proved that the money had not been applied for their own purpose and therefore there was no question of fraud; they had invested it in concerns from which they had a reasonable hope of making a profit. He went into details as to the formation of the French Palace Syndicate and stated they had made themselves responsible for £5,000 paid to the L.C.C. for the option on the Strand site; they had paid further sums and had generally financed the scheme and were anticipating to make £80,000, out of which all their clients would be paid, but owing to these proceedings the Syndicate was wound up and the interests transferred to another syndicate which was now in existence. If the scheme now went through the syndicate would release the £20,000 paid by his firm and take over their shares and nobody could know what would come to the Official Receiver in their bankruptcy as a result. It was true M. Gerard, the architect, who had been sent over by the French Government to put the scheme on foot, had become a bankrupt just recently, but that was because his resources had been exhausted during the past five years in negotiations in connection with the scheme for which he was not remunerated. As regards the Russo-Turkish Indemnity Loan, they had advanced £6,000 to a certain Turkish gentleman, whose name he gave, for use in expediting the payment owing to him by the Turkish Government of an enormous sum, and they received a charge of £26,000 for so doing. He had gone to see Mr. Davies in Paris in reference to this very matter. Since then an offer has been made to the Trustee in Bankruptcy of £20,000 in respect of this matter, and it was impossible to say whether and to what extent the creditors would eventually be losers. As regards the Hecla Silver Mines it had been proved that £880 had been paid for shares. They also felt justified, owing to the success which had attended the Blackpool and Doncaster meetings, in spite of the adverse circumstances, in laying out about £3,000 for a few months, as they were told a profit of £8,000 would be made. Owing, however, to the bad management of others they lost their money. During the time the firm was being attacked by the Press, which resulted in a large number of people withdrawing their money, their bankers and brokers closing their accounts with them, and their solicitor, Mr. Edwards, stating thai he was reluctantly compelled to cease from acting any more for them. Sandwichmen paraded London Wall with placards stating "Exposure of a Swindling Bucket Shop"; overtures were made to them by certain papers offering to cease this nuisance, but these they would not entertain. In spite of the huge number of writs and summonses with which they were served they stood their ground and endeavoured to make terms wherever possible, in no case pleading the Gaming Act. Eventually an execution was put in, the amount was too large to pay, and the furniture removed and the offices closed. There was not the slightest doubt that but for the attacks in the Press the business never would have been closed. If they had only listened to overtures made to them for the advertisements in certain papers, the attacks would have ceased, but these they would not listen to. So large were the withdrawals that the firm failed. He denied being Humbert, on whom a bankruptcy notice was served in Ridgemount Gardens, and stated that he had never seen Humbert in his life. He submitted the bankruptcy proceedings against him, which happend 16 years ago, did not apply to this case. He contended if they were principals they had sold stock to their clients for which they had received part payment, and no question of credit was involved. He pointed out that Mr. Farquharson and Mr. Richman had never asked for a return of their capital and neither of them had complained to the police until after his arrest; and that Mr. Beere had ignored altogether the notice that his capital was subject to three months' notice of withdrawal. In conclusion he stated that he was not penniless at the time the firm was started, there being the rent of the office and the expenses of sending out circulars to meet, but that now after all his hard work and anxiety in connection with his different schemes, which none could foresee would be failures, he was now a beggar.

Verdict, "We find Forbes and Harrison Guilty on all counts and Isaacs guilty of conspiracy as a servant."

Upon Mr. Huntly Jenkins pointing out that there was no count in the indictment charging Isaacs with conspiracy "as a servant," the foreman of the jury said, "We delete those words; we find him Guilty of conspiracy."

It was stated that Isaacs bore a good character. Harrison's character, so far as this class of fraud was concerned, was as bad as it could possibly be. He was convicted at this Court in 1901 and sentenced to four years' penal servitude for obtaining money by false pretences. The names were mentioned of "bucket-shop" businesses with which Harrison had been connected. In the management of one of them he was associated with two persons, one of whom had since been sentenced to six months' imprisonment for "bucket-shop" frauds and the other to three and a half years' penal servitude on a charge in respect to a slate-quarry company. Forbes was in 1901 convicted and sentenced to two consecutive terms of three years' penal servitude on charges in relation to a cab company. This offence of keeping fraudulent outside brokers' businesses was rampant in the City of London. There were at the present time complaints as to no fewer than 20 such businesses being actually carried on at this moment, and the police were more or less helpless. Private individuals could not prosecute, the expense rendering it impossible, and they were unwilling to come forward because they felt that they had made fools of themselves and did not want to be gibbeted before the public as such. It was not until an office was closed and the public began to clamour for the profits promised them that the police got to know anything about the matter.

Sentences: Forbes and Harrison, Five years' penal servitude each on the charge of obtaining money by false pretences. (Judge Lumley Smith stated that he deferred the sentences with regard to the other counts so as to avoid the inconvenience of having concurrent sentences of imprisonment and penal servitude. He would recommend that Harrison be deported at the expiration of his sentence.) Isaacs was released on his own recognisances and those of Abraham Moss (brother-in-law of prisoner) in £500 to come up for judgment if called upon.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM.

(Wednesday, November 8.)