1877.]

Frauds on the Artisans' Dwellings Company.

189

eligible purchases both on pecuniary and philanthropic grounds. He attended all the meetings in reference to these matters, and he had not the slightest idea that either Mr. Langley or Mr. Swindlehurst had received any money from Saffery. Mr. Hoskins, another director, also said that he had no knowedge of any money having been paid to the other two defendants by Saffery. Both these witnesses stated that they had not received any money from Saffery or any other person in connection with these purchases. In crossexamination the witnesses said that they still considered the estates were well worth the price that was given for them.

On the close of the case for the prosecution, Sir Henry James argued that the indictment could not be supported against his client and the defendants -the sum paid for the estates having been duly considered and decided upon, he argued there was no deception or misappropriation.

After some discussion Sir H. James proceeded to address the jury on behalf of the defendant Swindlehurst. He admitted most improper proceedings, but denied any conspiracy to defraud, or criminal offence. He called attention to the openness of the proceedings throughout.

Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, on behalf of the defendant Saffery, urged his respectability and high character, and said that the property purchased was well worth the money paid.

Mr. Willis, Q.C., on behalf of Dr. Baxter Langley, dwelt at some length upon the circumstances attending the sale of the various properties, and argued that all the facts showed that Mr. Saffery had acted in a perfectly independent manner, and that the sales to the company afterwards were bona fide sales, and there was no evidence that any previous compact had been entered into between the defendants and Mr. Saffery.

A great many witnesses were called on behalf of the defendants Saffery and Langley, and they stated that they regarded both these defendants as men of the highest honour and integrity. It was also stated that Dr. Langley had taken great interest in the movement for providing better dwellings for the working classes, and had exerted himself greatly in carrying out that object.

Mr. Bowen, in replying upon the whole case, said that the learned counsel for the defendants were in the position of being compelled, as men of honour, to admit that the defendants had offended against morality in accepting these large sums of money, and he submitted to the jury that they had not only offended against morality, but had also offended the law. He went over all the facts, and argued that when so large a sum as 12,000l. and upwards was returned to the defendants out of the money of the company that had been paid for an estate, it was impossible not to come to the conclusion that they must have known there was something wrong and dishonest in the

transaction.

Mr. Commissioner Kerr summed up the case very concisely and clearly, and with regard to the conspiracy counts he said that if the jury believed that at the time the money was received by Saffery a contract had been made that it should be divided afterwards among them, the offence of conspiracy was established. With regard to the other counts of the indictment alleging that the defendants had misappropriated the money of the company, if they should consider this had been established, the point of law relating to it which had been raised by the counsel for the defendants would be reserved for further consideration.

The jury retired at half-past 5 o'clock. They returned at 10 minutes past 6 o'clock, and found all the defendants, generally, Guilty, but strongly recommended Saffery to mercy.

Sentence was deferred till the following morning.

The three defendants were brought up for judgment on October 26. The Attorney-General said that the prosecution had reason to believe that the defendant Saffery had to a great extent been made the dupe of others, and that what he did was to a great extent done under their influence. He also stated that he should not ask for judgment upon those counts upon which a point of law had been raised, but merely upon the counts for conspiracy.

Sir H. James, on behalf of Swindlehurst, urged that he had all his life borne a most honourable character, and stated that a memorial had been signed by nearly 600 persons connected with the Artisans' Company praying for a merciful consideration of the prisoner's case on the ground of his good character and the great services he had rendered to the working classes.

Mr. Langley asked to be allowed to address the court in mitigation of punishment. He earnestly urged the court to pass a lenient sentence, on the ground that a long imprisonment, however much it might be alleviated by the medical officers of the prison, would in his state of health be tantamount to a sentence of death. He said that he had passed a life of intellectual activity, and to shut him up in a prison would entail upon him a far greater amount of suffering than would be felt by a person in other circumstances. He declared that he had never entered into any compact with Saffery or the other defendant in reference to the money he had received, and that he had never held any communication with Saffery. The money was given to him by another person, and he solemnly declared that when he took the money he had not the slightest conception that he was committing a criminal offence. It was not until he had consulted with his legal adviser that he became aware that in taking the money he had been guilty of a criminal offence, and he begged the court to take this fact into consideration, and to pass a lenient sentence upon him. He reminded the court that the law did not punish a person convicted of an offence for the sake of revenge, but in order to deter others, and prevent the repetition of the offence. He concluded by saying that what had now occurred would be a solemn warning to him for the remainder of his existence; and he assured his lordship that when the money was offered to him he was told that the company would not be in any way prejudiced, and that if he did not take the money it would only go back into the pocket of Saffery.

The defendant Swindlehurst also addressed the Court. He said that for fifty years he had devoted his whole mind and attention to improving the condition of the working classes, and providing proper accommodation for them. He was the projector of the company, and he had only received a salary of 401. a year during the ten years it had been in existence. An arrangement was made that he should be paid 5 per cent. on the amount of the share capital, and he considered the company owed him 15,000l. at the present moment. He asked for mercy on account of these facts, and the serious blow that had been inflicted upon his family by these proceedings.

Mr. Commissioner Kerr said that the defendants had been convicted substantially of obtaining the sum of 23,912l. by fraud upon the company with which they were connected, and the jury upon the evidence could not have

come to any other conclusion than the one they had arrived at, that they were guilty of this offence. The matters they had urged in mitigation were always urged by persons in their position, and of course it was impossible not to feel great pain at seeing persons like the defendants Langley and Swindlehurst, who, no doubt, had greatly exerted themselves in the interest of the working classes, standing in such a position; but the court had a duty to perform in the interest of the public, and that duty must be performed with firmness. The court knew perfectly well the serious consequences that must result to the defendants themselves and to their families, but it was bound to regard the character of the offence, and to take care that a sentence was passed that was likely to deter others. He then sentenced Mr. Baxter Langley and Mr. Swindlehurst to eighteen months' imprisonment, and Mr. Saffery to twelve months' imprisonment.

V.

THE DETECTIVES' CASE.

In the early part of the year certain persons were tried and convicted for frauds committed on a French lady, Madame de Goncourt, and from statements made to them by the convicts in this case, the Treasury authorities were led to institute proceedings against four detectives and a solicitor, and this trial, which may fairly be called the cause célèbre of the year, was commenced after a long preliminary inquiry on October 24, at the Old Bailey, before Baron Pollock. It continued for the first five days in each week until November 20, when the jury pronounced a verdict of guilty against four of the five prisoners, but acquitted Clarke.

The persons against whom the charge was brought were four detective inspectors, Meiklejohn, Druscovich, Palmer, and Clarke, and Edward Froggatt, a solicitor. They were indicted for unlawfully conspiring together to commit divers offences and frauds, and to prevent the discovery of such offences and frauds. The defendants, under the advice of their connsel, declined to plead. The Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, with whom were Mr. Gorst, Q.C., Mr. Bowen, and Mr. Cowie, represented the Crown; Mr. Montagu Williams and Mr. Walter Ballantine appeared as counsel for Meiklejohn; Mr. Douglas Straight for Druscovich; Mr. Besley and Mr. Grain for Palmer; Mr. Collins, Q.C., Mr. Kisch, and Mr. Avory for Froggatt; and Mr. Edward Clarke and Mr. Charles Matthews for Clarke.

The Attorney-General, addressing the jury on behalf of the Crown, after recounting the early frauds of Kurr and Benson, narrated the facts on which the indictment rested to the following effect :-In 1872 Kurr became acquainted with Meiklejohn, who, for services in connection with a fraudulent company, Phillip Gardiner and Co.,' received 100l., and afterwards a smaller sum for special services to Kurr. In 1874 Kurr, in connection with Benson, started frauds under the name of 'Archer and Co.,' but they were stopped by Druscovich in London, and transferred to Scotland. During this fraud Meiklejohn wrote the two following letters to Kurr, dated respectively the 16th and 17th November, 1874:

"Dear Bill-I should like to see you to-morrow at my place before 9 p.m. I have a letter from Glasgow. I now go on duty from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. Wire a line if may expect you.' "Dear Bill-Rather important news from the North. Tell H. S. and the young one to keep themselves quiet. In the event of a smell stronger than now they must be ready to scamper out of the way. I should like to see you as early as possible. Bring this note with you. In any circumstances the brief' (warrant) is out. If not, it will be so, so you must keep a sharp look-out."

For services in connection with this fraud Meiklejohn received 500l., with which he purchased the house he lodged in, 202 South Lambeth Road. At the end of 1875 Kurr, Benson, Walters, and Murray started a "Society for Insurance against Losses on the Turf." Suspicion being aroused Walters and Murray were arrested, but they absconded from bail. Meiklejohn was already in the power of these conspirators, who wanted to obtain a hold also on Clarke, the senior chief-inspector at Scotland Yard. Clarke had, in April 1874, written a letter to Walters, which, he says, was perfectly innocent, and related to a burglary in Essex, and which he ultimately gave up to Superintendent Williamson. Twelve months afterwards Benson got into communication with Clarke through a Mr. Andrews, who told him that Mr. Yonge (Benson) had information to give with respect to the Walters and Murray frauds. Clarke not then being aware of the identity of Yonge and Benson, accordingly went to Shanklin and had two interviews with Benson, who endeavoured to get him into his power by means of the Walters letter, and attempted unsuccessfully to bribe him with money. On his return Clarke reported the visit to the Commissioner, and said he had come to the conclusion that Yonge was a scoundrel. There was an arrangement between Clarke and Benson for a correspondence, and the letters would be produced. Benson's letters were copied by his housekeeper, Mrs. Avis, who, after a time, suspecting something wrong, kept Benson's drafts. A letter of Benson's, dated June 15, invited a visit, and said he had important information to give concerning "the letter." Two days afterwards he wrote again, saying he was anxious to pay his debt to Mrs. Clarke," and that Clarke would "be satisfied with some information he had to give about the letter." On June 22 Clarke again went down to Shanklin and had an interview with Benson, who says he gave him 501. In a letter two days after this Benson requested a meeting when he went to London, so that he might pay the "balance due” (501.)

The Attorney-General then gave an account of the Montgomery or De Goncourt scheme of fraud in 1876, for their share in which the convict-witnesses Kurr and Benson are now, with others, under sentences of penal servitude. This was the scheme by which the swindlers succeeded in getting hold of about 10,000l. from Madame de Goncourt, a French countess, whom they persuaded to send moneys over to England to be "invested" in betting speculations. It was for the purpose of these frauds that Benson concocted a sham newspaper, copies of which were printed in Edinburgh-complete in all respects with racing news, advertisements, leading articles-favourable notices of "Mr. Montgomery," and his mode of betting investments. These sham newspapers and other documents were then distributed by post in France, and in the French Directory, which the police found at Benson's lodgings, it appeared from his marks or notes that the swindlers had got no farther than two departments in their selections of addresses to which to send their communications. The other departments were about to be

"worked" when they were stopped by Madame de Goncourt communicating with Scotland Yard. It was in connection with this scheme that the gravest charge against the detectives was made, Meiklejohn being charged with being accessory before the fact to the swindlers' operations. It was necessary for them to come into communication with the post-office, and prevent their letters from being stopped; and this they did through Meiklejohn, who was put in possession of the whole affair, at a dinner given by Benson at Mrs. Ethel's, where he lodged, in August 1876.

Earlier in the year, said the Attorney-General, the conspirators had wished to get Druscovich into their power, and Kurr had lent him 607. : and there was a discussion at the dinner as to how he should be "squared." By means of Meiklejohn, Kurr and Druscovich met at the Swan Hotel, Clapham Road, and the latter, after hearing something of their fraudulent plans, received 251. The gang then took offices in Northumberland Street, in the Strand; and, at the trial of some of them in April last, when it was important to consider whether Kurr was there on August 31 last year, Clarke gave evidence favourable to the convict. About that time (August 1876) Kurr says he went to Clarke's house by appointment and, explaining to him generally about the Montgomery or De Goncourt scheme, arranged for a correspondence, and gave him 501. One day, about September 25, Druscovich, seeing Kurr near Scotland Yard, told him that he had been asked by Meiklejohn to say that a big job had just come over from Paris, which he must have suspected was the Goncourt fraud. When Kurr got home he received a letter addressed in his own handwriting, containing a small piece of blotting-paper. Knowing what this meant, he had a conversation with Clarke, who, he says, put him on his guard. On the 28th Kurr had a meeting beneath Charing Cross Station with Druscovich, who said to him, “Well, now, I have given you the tip, and you must look after yourselves." Druscovich had got the numbers of some notes which had been sent to the fraudulent company by Madame de Goncourt, from Reinhardt, at whose office they had been changed, but neglected for some time to make them known. Kurr went down to Derby, and said to Meiklejohn, who was then inspector on the Midland Railway, "If you don't come to London, Druscovich will make a mess of it." They telegraphed to Druscovich to meet them at St. Pancras, which he did. Meiklejohn having obtained information about the stopped notes from Druscovich, communicated it to Kurr.

Warrants having been issued against the conspirators (continued the learned counsel), Meiklejohn, Kurr, and Druscovich met at Kentish Town Station, and, in consequence, the conspirators, three days after, took to Meiklejohn 2001. in gold for Druscovich. The next day the latter officer and Clarke both knew that some of the notes obtained from Mr. Reinhardt had come into the Bank of England from the Clydesdale Bank, Glasgow, but, instead of a telegram, they sent only a letter to the Glasgow police, which gave the confederates time to decamp. Kurr said that on arriving in London he gave Clarke a bag containing 150l. in gold. A reward had been offered for the man who drove Benson from the Midland Station, and Kurr saw Clarke about it, who agreed to send Von Tornow to make inquiries, to whom Kurr gave 10l. or 15l. On October 19, about a fortnight after, Meiklejohn saw Kurr and Benson at the Castle and Falcon, in Aldersgate Street, and received 5001. for what he had done and was going to do; this he got in Clydesdale notes, two of which he changed at Manchester and Leeds. About

N