On this page
-
Text (3)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
labour of others was the only one which could raise working men to their proper condition . Mr . Walter Cooper supported the resolution ; and contended that if the land of England were in the hands of the people , it would support three times the population of the country . He knew that Cobden and Bright were always telling them that trade was good , and so it was comparatively ; they said that the people were well employed , but they kept out of
sight the misery that had been inflicted upon the working classes by the reduction of wages through the employment of machinery , and women and children . He advocated labour associations , believing them to be most powerful for raising the position of the people , though he was aware they would have many failures , but every failure would give them experience and greater power to make them ultimately successful .
Mr . Lloyd Jones proposed that cooperative stores being calculated , this equitable arbitration between the consumers and producers , receiving orders and distributing goods , with a view to the interests of both parties , deserves the support of all who desire to put an end to these reckless and fraudulent trad ing practices , through which so many suffer so deeply . The speaker contended , at considerable length , that , through the means of cooperative societies , the workmen would not only get the usual prices of their labour , but also the profits which at present went into the hands of the capitalist and middleman .
Untitled Article
THE BILL-SWINDLERS . Among the numberless fraudulent modes of obtaining a living which have become common of late years the bill-swindling system is probably the most extensive . The ordinary plan of hooking a victim is very simple . An advertisement appears in the Times , "which holds out a prospect of immediate relief to all who are in debt or pecuniary difficulty of any kind .
All they have to do is merely to give sufficient security , and they are promised as much money as they require . Prom a case which came before the Court of Common Pleas on Monday , for a rule nisi in the matter of Sibury v . "VVilkins , the rule being to show cause why an order made to stay proceedings in the action by Mr . Justice Coleridge should not be set aside , we learn a few particulars of the way in which the bill-swindlers go to work .
In the present case it appears that , in April , 1849 , the Reverend Thomas Hodsoll Wilkins , of Ringstead-house , Northamptonshire , received a printed circular from a person who gave his address as * ' Alpha , 57 , Burton-street , Tavistock-square , " and professed his readiness to lend money on security or negotiate bills of exchange . Having at the time some occasion for a loan , he addressed a letter to Alpha , and received in return a communication signed ** J . Gardiner , " but which he had afterwards reason to believe was in the handwriting of the Mr . Sibury above alluded to . After some correspondence
it was agreed that Mr . Wilkins should accept a bill of exchange for £ 150 at three months , receiving , however , only half that sum himself , and being made liable , of course , for that half alone . Accordingly , he accepted a bill in blank for £ 150 , which was dated the 27 th of September , 18-19 , and forwarded the acceptance to Gardiner . Having waited some days in vain for a remittance , Mr . Wilkins despatched successively two letters , stating his uneasiness . In the reply which he at length received , the person writing in the name of Gardiner informed him as
follows : *• You agreed to my proposition ot jointly borrowing £ 150 , to bo divided between us . I am endeavouring to obtain this loan , and shall certainly not relinquish the project until I fail , unless very handsomely paid for it . " Between the date of this reply , viz ., October 5 th , and the 14 th of December , n variety of letters were interchanged , and on the latter day J . Gardiner wrote to the effect that he had procured £ 70 on the bill , which ho had applied as his own share of the loan to pay another bill ; he added tlmt the •' scoundrel" who advanced that
money demanded it back again the clay after it was received , with nil additional £ » ; that , being himself only able to raise £ 25 , he must look to Mr . Wilkins for £ 50 . In another letter he stated that the money must be forthcoming on the 20 th , when the bill became due , or writs would bo out against all parties . Subsequently ho forwarded a worthless promissory note of his own for £ ' 50 , to be negotiated by Mr . \ Vilkins , and the proceeds applied lor the purpose above alleged . By the payment of a small sum it was pretended that the action on the bill was deferred ; but at length , on
the Oth of February , ho intimated that the " fix must come , " and » m the 11 th he wrote to say that the writs were out , and recommended that Mr . William Smith , of IG , Wilmington-square , should be appointed to accept service J ' or Mr . Wilkins , and prevent the opposing attorney sending into the country . The writ of summons was issued on the 15 th , in tho name of Samuel Sibury , by Thomas Pittmun , attorney , of No , IS , Ohurlutto-stivct , Portlitiul-placc , no application having boon made to Mr . Wilkina for payment of his acceptance , cither by Fittmun . or uny other solicitor . Smith hud been
empowered by the defendant to act on his behalf , as Gardiner suggested , and he conducted the case . On the 6 th of April a letter from him was received by Mr . Wilkins , informing him that an arrangement had been effected , by which he ( Mr . Wilkins ) should pay a moiety of the plaintiff ' s costs , amounting to £ 6 , and also the sum of £ 75 by monthly instalments . A judge ' s order to this effect had been procured from Mr . Justice Coleridge . It is with respect to this order , by which proceedings were stayed , that the rule nisi was moved for on Tuesday , the defendant having become convinced that Gardiner , Pittman , and Sibury had been acting in concert with a view to defraud him of his acceptance .
From the affidavits put in it appeared that these persons had been carrying on a number of similar transactions ; that there were at least eight in the gang , and that they had succeeded in victimizing clergymen and gentlemen to an incredible amount . In the summer of 1849 they addressed circulars to various residents in the country , and also published advertisements in the Times and in some country papers , in which they offered to advance money by way of loan ; the addresses given being in one case that of Thomas Pittman , in another that of James Gardiner , and in another that of Samuel Sibury . Nine gentlemen , of whom seven were clergymen , entered into communication with the reputed lenders ,
and gave promissory notes in blank for various sums to one or other of these parties—one giving five such acceptances , each for £ 1000 . Of the nine two received some very trifling advances , and the remaining seven got no value or consideration whatever . Five of tho number had writs issued against them , on their acceptances becoming due , at the suit either of the three above-mentioned or of one of their confederates . One very remarkable case was that of Augustus Long Phillips , late of Christ ' s College , Cambridge , who figures as the victim . This gentleman had the misfortune , not uncommon with
university men , to leave behind him at the seat of learning some outstanding claims . In order to liquidate these he proposed to himself to raise a sum of money on some reversionary property , and put himself in communication with Pittman . Having waited some time in vain for a loan on the securities offered , ho took a journey to London to accelerate the movements of his agent . Pittman then persuaded him to accept a bill drawn by himself for £ 225 , and introduced to him a person named William Morton as prepared to discount it . Morton said he could not do it at the time , as he had already
discounted that morning a bill for £ 500 , but that he would get a friend to do it . Hereupon Pittman made over the acceptance to Morton , which , however , was never discounted , and which Mr . Phillijjs had great difficulty in recovering . Pittman now offered again to get it discounted at fifteen per cent ., provided a picture of Domenichino ' s was taken as equivalent to £ 60 . Having refused this offer , Mr . Phillips was next induced by Morton to accept bills for £ 100 , for which he got no consideration . One of these bills , which was an acceptance for £ 200 , found its way into the possession of William Langdon , a
saddler in Duke-strcot , Manchester-square , to whose house Morton had removed . Mr . Phillips paid this man £ 70 on account of the note in question ; and , having been sued , at the instance of Thomas Foulkes , on another £ 100 note , he compromised that action by paying £ 50 through Pittman , of which Pittman himself kept half . lie paid to Pittman for his servicesof which the chief was procuring a loan of £ 700 from an insurance society— £ 102 ; and , being told that the charge might have been much higher , further presented him with a ring . He also discounted , at Pittman ' s request , a bill of exchange , produced by
Gardiner , and accepted by another of the niae , a clergyman near Lewes ; as no consideration had been given for the bill it was practically valueless to him . Among the other links in this case by which the connection of the various parties was proved , one was furnished by the afHclavit of an attorney employed by Samuel Sibury on occasion of his bankruptcy , who deposed that tho letters signed " J . Gardiner , " and addressed to Mr . Wilkina , were in the handwriting of Sibury . A second was furnished by the advertizing pages of the Times . The acceptor of the five promissory notes for £ 5000 advertized in that paper to caution any person against dealing in those securities , fraudulently obtained by J . Gardiner . At a
later date an advertisement ^ was inserted , disclaiming all connection with the case in question , by a person signing himself * ' J . Gardiner , Ballymenu , County Antrim . " Subsequently , a letter was addressed to the proprietors of the Times , requesting a second insertion of this advertisement , which on the ground of its fraudulent character they refused . The manuscript of the advertisement so rejected proves to be in the handwriting of a law writer named Willis , who had been employed by Fag } , ' , the clerk of Pittman , to write it . It also appears that Pittman and Morton wore in tho habit of meeting at tho house of Lungdon , in whoso name one of the suits was brought ; and that Lewis , in whose name another was entered , was » i connection of and resident with Smith , being
granted in two cases out of these transactions , so that the whole affair will now be probed to the bottom . The exposure will doubtless have the effect of teach . 1 ing persons who feel inclined to raise money by discount or loan , that security is much better than secrecy , and that they had much better rely on agents whose character they know than on the ambiguous services proffered by such persons as the present trial has brought before the public .
like him an attorney . Wo arc glad to sec that the rule nisi has been
Untitled Article
THE BURGLARIES OF THE WEEK . The four prisoners , John Mitchell , William Dyson , James Mahon , alias Hollindale , and William Robinson , charged with the burglary at James Holford ' s , Esq ., Holford-house , Regent ' s-park , -were brought up and conveyed to the lock-up rooms in the outer office , on Monday , as was also George Rouse , who had been remanded from Monday last , upon another case of burglary , and cutting and wounding : a constable . The prisoner Mitchell , who was so severely
wounded by one of Mr . Holford ' s servants , still looked exceedingly ill . His left arm was , as upon a former occasion , in a sling , and he was faint and dejected in the extreme . At ten minutes past three , Mitchell , Dyson , Mahon , and Robinson were , by direction of Mr . Broughton , brought in by the gaoler and placed at the bar . Mitchell , who was unable to stand without suffering pain , was told that he might sit down , for which ho expressed his thanks . The court was crowded to excess , and on the bench were many persons of distinction .
Mr . Wontner addressed the magistrate at some length on the part of Robinson , and contended that no evidence whatever had been adduced to show that the latter was in or near Mr . Holford ' s premises at the time of the burglary being committed , and it would be proved by satisfactory witnesses that he was elsewhere when the said burglary was effected . If he should establish that fact , he should , of course , press for his client ' s immediate release from custody , more especially as only four persons had been seen on tho premises , and one of the officers had intimated that another party was suspected of being concerned in the transaction . Mr . Wontner then , in order to prove an alibi , called several witnesses , two of whom , Charles Robinson and Ann his -wife—the former brother of
William Robinson—swore that the prisoner was at their house in Canton-terrace , Iloxton , from between twelve and one on Sunday , the lihli ultimo , and that he went to bed and did not quit until twelve at noon the next day . The other witnesses' evidence merely went to the extent of their having seen him at the Union public-house in Union-street , Kingslandroad , until the premises were closed on the night ot * Sunday , at twelve o ' clock . The officers were further questioned ; and it was stated that the George publichouse , Lombard-street , in the Borough , was tho constant resort of thieves and other well-known bad characters , and that all the prisoners had frequently been seen there together . Since the first examination the prisoner Robinson had been missed . On the night of the 13 th ultimo he was there .
Mr . Broughton said he had listened attentively to all that had transpired , and was ready to admit that the evidence against Robinson was comparatively slight ; but he hud very properly been taken into custody by the police ; and it had been clearly shown that he had been a suspected character for a considerable time ; and the question was whether ho ( the magistrate ) should not detain him longer , or again send him to prison . The plan , as originally i > rojocted , was , no doubt , that the whole of the party , whoever they might bo , should meet at the public-house , Battle-bride , and after that go singly , and in different
directions , to Mr . Holford ' s house . From the numerous burglaries recently perpetrated , the public hud become much alarmed with reg : ird to their own personal safety and the security of their property ; and as to the alibi which had been set up , it was supported entirely by the evidence of a brother and sister—the rest of the witnesses examined could only speak as to their having been in the prisoner Robinson ' s company until a short time after the publichouse was closed on Sunday night . Taking all the circumstances of the case into consideration , he had made up his mind to remand Robinson , with tho rest of tho prisoners , until Monday next , but if good and substantial bail to a considerable amount could bo
procured , he might perhaps feel disposed to take it . — Mr . Wontner remarked that he should no doubt bo able to bring forward security . George Rouse , who was charged with a burglary at the house of Mr . Seaton , the LUiblin Castlo , Parkstreet , Camdon-town , and stealing from thence about £ 2 G in . gold , silver , and copper monies , and also with inflicting several wounds with a knife upon Godwin , by whom ho was secured with the stolen property in his possession , was brought up for final examination on Monday . The only additional evidence now was that of Mr . Collins , the surgeon , who states that Godwin , tho officer , had had a very narrow escape of his life . The prisoner , who had nothing to &uy , was 1 ' ullv committed to Newgate for trial .
The two men , George Roberts and Charles Do wo , charged with breaking- into the West Surrey Branch Bank , on the night of Thursday last , were brought
Untitled Article
774 tfffie & £ && £ *? [ Saturday ,
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Nov. 9, 1850, page 774, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1858/page/6/
-