The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1878-03-05 00:00:00

HISTON NAHTZLL.

EXTRAORDINARY ACTION FOR MONEY

ALLLt.ED TO HAVE IsEEN STOLEN.

At the bsst Warwick County C tort held at the Shire-
hall. Warwitk. the following singular action was tried
before the judge, Sir FL liarington, Bart.
The plaintiff was Mr. John de Carle Hudson, draper, .of
Warvrickstrests basmintton and the defendant WY
Richard L0.,140.. of Little Hinton, DOlll4, dtllple•
assistant. The claim was for L 36 4., perticulare of which
were as follow.: —"To 4ssb received by the defendant to
and for the uae of the plaintiff, and admitted by the
defendant to have been paid by him to John Timms,
Thomas Lacier, A. Lipplatt. Joseph Jonee,—Hirons, and
other tradesmen for debts coatracted by him to each
found in defendant's purse and admitted to be plaintiff's
property, £l2 10.. &I. ; and to daimue done to one pair id
gloves the property of Um Plaintiff. 3s. 61.. making • total
C3i 44."
Kr. Hugo young. barrister (instructed by Messrs.
Overall and Son). appeared for the plaintiff: and the
defendant wad represented by Mr. Blinker. solicitor. of
Leamington.
Mt. 'Cosa; telefly opened his case by girl's, alummary
of the f!scts detailed in the subjoined stidescs.
-... . . .

Mr. Hl,on, the plaintiff,-wie called, and elated that
he carried on business in Warselekorbmet, Leamington.
The defendant muse into his employ as shopman and
cashier on the frith of August last. Defendant's salary
was oririnally £3.1 • year, with board and lodging. Before
ententic hit service defendant had been with Yr. Tslbot,
of Weymouth, with who.. he had eervc4 his apprentice-
d*. The defendant's salary was raised to 440: and
at Christmas, when be went for • holiday, he pod him £3
on account of his salary. He bad prdieus to this had
occasion to suspect defendant's honesty, but rid nothing
to him en the subject. When defendant left for his
holiday at Christmas, he told him that he need not
come back again, to which defendant replied that he
WU WA surprised, aa he had intended to leave. Defend-
ant returned, however, on the 10th January, and during
his absence he had made enquiries in the towel, which
on the following day Id him to send for • policeman in
plain clotkes. On the morning of the 11th hi called the
defendant Ind his private room, and the policeman
remained in the adjoining apartment. Be said to
defendant "Lovelace. front what I had heard and seen
am diwatisfied with the amount of mousy you have
been spending lately: I eaa trace moneys that you have
spent amounting to 1313 Ns." Defendant said, "It is
impossible" He gave defendant particulars of where the
different sums rad been paid, and be then said. "1
supooes 1 had better codes': [have zed been to honed
as I might have been :I have taken year money but I
will repay you all." Asked defendant what he got from
his last employer, end he said "£lO or .112 as Wary."
Witness then prodded to hiss • letter, when be admitted
that he had only received £3 6.. 9.1. from Yr. Talbot. He
also said he had received .Ll 5 the previous April, on the
aspiration of his apprenticeship, but subsequently
admitted the amount was only ZS Asked defendant with
whose money bills, the particulars of which he had
recited, amounting to CID fie., had beat paid; and
defendant replied "With your mosey, air. On being
asked why he had come bark from his holiday, he said,
"If I had not come hack you would have come after me,
1 wee sure." Asked defendant when he bead them
-practiva, and he said "the first month I was in the
house. Vfitness then called Police-constable Baum into
the room, and said to the officer. "This man has been
robbing me to the amount of 1313 10a." ; and turni to
defendant said, " Icsrelace, is that so r and he replied,
"1 am sorry to say it is. but I will repay you rat" W taws
then asked defendant what money he then had in his
on, sad he said either " • small amount,' or "a
ew chilling. Defendant produced his purse, on being
asked to do so. and lilt he found AD las. 61. Witness
*eked defendant where he got the leder from, and he
replied, "my (Whir save Id some ant I hied the other
from various source*. Re saM to defendant, " Vby do
.reis not speak the troth, Le-welde r Re said, "I suppose
you will consider it your money.' Mad
to defendant, "speak the truth, LAVOIS011; Ats war
and then it was he wid "1 stippeseir
.th .
4 y Rituals Una west a re to .. the
ddaadatire bum. He at Mat rid had not get ay
wilagaffp eforBrW. btail=ges,"ltitteettwartl
sinus lass WON aa

been wavy sad all,"Cles wan mtlegiei le Mar
the otloo I Mao. non 12Wele were wltiteree
Pore the stamp of "RUINS nod Russ," and wirrega
3s. t5l. He then took UM fidendant down stairs to
Constable Lund, to whom withers had previous') paw
on the matter. Mr. Lund said to the defendant. "I az°
the chief.constable of this horough, awl it is my dute to
tell you that you must consider yourself in custody on •
charge of embezzling • large amount of money front your
employer." Defenitaut rad. "I egyy eery wry Mr.
Hudson has given me into custod own I have robbed
him, but niy father will pay all. Defendant was A f,er-
ward. pretreated before the magistrates for 'infer:ling
.228 4i. This was mad* up of tir items forming the
' particulars of the preeent actin' end the" wan' the
whole of the moneys he bail been able to fix the
defenilsnt with. Warn In the police-court when the
magistrates disposed of the car, and beard all that
passed.
His Honour : And they dismisael the case.
Witness: Yee.
Mr. Young: At the end of the case did the defendant's
solicitor take the objection that the evidence of the
confession of the defendant could not be received, on the
ground that it had been made alter • promise en your
pert of forgiveness?
Witness: Yes.
Mr. Young: Did they declare that this was the reason
they dismissed the case /
Witness: They did.
Mr. Hudson added that, after the case had been
disinfested defendant and his father came to witnerta's
shop, and demanded defendant's wages and oxen Be at
first said that he must see his solicitor, but did not then '
do so. Mr. William Andrews, draper, of Leamington,
and • very old friend of wither, WU ;resent at that time.
Mr. Andrews said to wittier —the defendant was not then
present, he believed—" I have been talking to Mr. Love-
lace about the serious lose you have sustained by his sone
oneconduct, and he says that If you will pay him his
wages be will handsomely remunerate you for all your
Irises" He asked what Mr. Lovelace meant by hand-
somely remunerating him and he said "Trust to my
honour." Said to Mr. Lovelace, "Why not put down in
your mind what you intend dries me, deduct the wages
from that and then give me the balance.. He replied,
"No, I would rather consult my solicitor." Witness then
wrote • cheque for the defendant's wages for £ll 10.., the
balance due from the Slfith October to the 28tb December.
He then said to Mr. Lovelarn "Your son admits having
taken Ls 6 1e.." and Mr. Lioace replied, in the presence
of Cr defendant, "All right, I am very sorry, but you
shall I me nothing by It; directly I get trek to Dorset.
shire, I will send you • post °else order for a sovereign" (a
Mush).
His Honour: At this time defendant was present !
Witness: Yes.
He said to Mr. Lovelace. "Do nothing of the kind ; it
will only be adding insult to lniury." Defendant sites
We came to take leave of him, and he then said to the
defendant, "Lovelace, you are tearing: but before you go
I shall be glad if you will explain to me how you have
been treasectrie this burner. so I with to put an extra
check on my system of taking money.' Defendant said,
by war of illustration. "I have sold • customer goods to
the amount of £5: I put Lilt. my pocket and filed the
duplicate check of my own, and in your absence destroyed
Li vrorth of checks of other wristants in the shop. I alas
took customers' quarterly account., and destroyed dupli-
cates in the seme way, so as to make the cash balance at
night" After thie he instructed hie thin:rote to 0001011•11C1
the present action.
In croes-examination„ Mr. Hudson said that after defen-
dant had been in his employ for • month, he gave notice
to leave, but he raised hie weges £lO to induce him to
stay. In answer to another question, Mr. Hudson in-
dignantly denied that the defendant was the only paid
servant he had, and the only one he could not get rid of ;
he kept hell a dozen paid servants. Defendant did not
say, when sake,) to explain hoer he had committed the
frauds that he had not committed any at all and ref used
; to give any explanation.
' Police-constable Baum, of the Leamington borough
police force, gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. John Lund, chief constable of the borough of
Leamington, deposed that, on the morning of the 12th of
January. be warn at Mr. Hudson's house, and the plaintiff
brought defendant into hr presence. He told the defen-
tent that he was the chief constable of the borough, and
that he was sorry it woo his duty to take him into custody
for stealing • large sum of money, and he believed he
mentioned the amount of 222 les. Defendant did not
make any reply, and witness then told him that he would
have to go with him to the town hall. Defendant said.
'1 superior I shall return here to sleep," and witness
replied "no, you will hereto remelts at the town hall." ,
Defendant then said. "I am sorry Yr. Hudson has given ;
we into custody: be promised to forgive me if I would '
tell the truth about it, and I have done an" Writer
turned to plaintiff and mid, "ii that so Mr. Hudson r
Plaintiff replied, "not exactly, but I did tell him he
had better tell the whole truth and I would do the best
I could for him." Defendant was then taken to the Well t
hall, and witness received the purse containing the
£1210.. 61, The magistrates dismissed the case.
His Honour observed that, on the evidence he had heard,
he was surprised the magistrates took the course that
they did; but he did not see how this could effect the •
question whether the present defendant had received
money for the use of the plaintiff.
Mr. W. Atoirews, draper, of the Parade, Leamington,
also gave corroborative evidence.
Mr. Young intimated that this was his case, and • lone
argument ensued between his I Honour and the learned
counsel as ti whether • case baring been dismisaed by
the magistrates entitled tin action of the present nature
to be instituted Ilia Honour laid stress Lintel the fact ,
that the decision of the magistrates was not final, as the
plaintiff might, without going before any maghitrate at
at all, prefer an inilactusent before the grand jury at
Quarter Serious or Assizes. The judge intimated that 1
he should not stop the case on this point, but would hear i
the defeuilent's evidence, and if it should turn out that
the latter was entitled to the verdict, there would be an ;
end of the matter. On the other band, !Mould he in of
opinion that his judgment should be for the plaintiff, he
should defer doing so, until he had consideral the impoe-
taut point involved in this case. His Honour incidentally
e premed surprise that the Leamington magistrates should
have taken upon themselves to driers the case, in pre-
ference to allowing it to be decided by the Court of
Quarter Sessions or Assizes, the evnienco of what peered
in the presence of Police-constable Baum would have been
rejected No doubt it would have been rejected, but
there waa besides very strong evidence of a confession •
made sinteccient to that ie the presence of Ileum but
It was possible a jury might have disbelieved the plaintiff
—especially ae be was contradicted by Baum as to what
period when the latter was present—that he had not pre-
vioualy also made any promise not to prosecute.
Mr. Blither briefly addressed the Court tor the defence.
He urged that the priecthal evidence in support of the
claim appeared to be, that the defeadant seemed to have
admitted having taken some money, and it was then
assumed that all the bills he had paid had been settled
with tutor so obtained. There was no positive proof that i
the defendant had lost a single penny. He considered •
the strongest proof would be with reference to the
£l2 its, found in the defendant's puree.
Honour intrusted that in his opinion this was the
weakest part of the case. The evidence was much stronger
as to the .223 it.., with which certain bills hat been purl.
Mbar,' Lovelace, the defendant, was placed in the
box by Mr. }Baker, and in the course of his examination,
he said that be admitted to Ur. Hudson that he had not
been so honest as he ought to have been; but he did not
confess that he had taken £23 10s.. and said the amount ,
could not possibly be so much. Ile did not admit that
the £1210., found in his purse was Mr. Hudson's money.
Mr. Blaker was proceeding to ask the defendant as to
his set-oft of £lO 10z lid,; but ids Honour asked him if
he thought it was worth while doing so after the defend-
ant had admitted he had not been so honest as he ought
to have been
Mr. maker said he would not, after this, oak the
defendant anything further on the point.
The def. ndaut was sharply cross-examined by Ur.
Young as to the sources from which ho could have had
money to pay the bills amounting to .223 1t.., and to have
still had £l2 Its, left. He stated that he received
£2 21. from • former employer at Weymouth, and £5
as a present, on completing his apprenticeship: £5 was
lent to him by • cousin, Mr. Denning. He had only spent
about ZS of his money when he reached Leamington, and ,
wondered be had then about .212.

His Honour LW 6.. &I.
The defendant alleged that out of 61. per week that he
MU allowed during his apprenticeship, he saved souse.
thing, and the day before he came to Leamington received
£2 10.. from • brother. On being asked ditanctly by the
judge how much he embezzled, be said that he could not
tell exactly, "so be never kept an account" It was not
no much as CM 10s. lie had not, in addition to the bills
named as having been paid. incurred any expetuse for
toiacco, or for spirits. Had smoked, but only two ounces
of tobacco be brought with him from Weymouth. Had
drunk spirits in his bedroom, but not frequently. Did not
think altogether he could have spent more than „C 8
besides the bill of £93 during the time that he was
In Leamington.
The Judge, on the evidence for the defence being
completed, said he wee golly to see the defendant
treating this matter with levity, after 61mittIng
that he had not been so honest as he ought to have
been. According to his own confession, insteed of
being in that Court as • witness in a civil action,
he ihould have been undergoing imprisonment in the
county pot. There could be 10 doubt, so far es the issue
to be tried was concerned, that the plsintid must succeed.
The only question he still had a doubt about woe that to
which he had referred—as to whether criminal justice
should be defeated by his doting the matter by giving a
verdict for the plaintiff. lie should take time to consider
this point, but if judgment were finally entered for the
plaintiff it would be for .C 23 101. He melt have a ve7
strong suspicion that the £lllO.. found In the defendants
puree was Yr. Hudson's money, but he had no evidence
on which he could find a verdict for the plaintiff for that
part of his claim. The defendant. however, had admitted
that bills amounting to .133 10e. had been paid with Mr.
Hudson's money, and he could have no doubt that be had
embezzled that amount. If a rerairt was entered at all
In the case it would be for the plaintiff for 1110 10t. : but,
as be had intimated, be should take time to consider the
matter, before he gave any decision.