The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1883-04-28 00:00:00

LONG FIRM FRAUDS BY A CRADLEY
HEATH MAN,

At the Stafford Assizes on Wednesday, before Mr.
Justice Stephen, Francis Jones (30), writing clerk,
formerly in business at Cradley Heath, was indicted
for obtaining goods by false pretences on the 2nd
December, 1882. Mr Darling prosecuted.
The prosecutors in this case were Messrs Holt
and Willetts, chainmakers, carrying on business at
Cradley Heath. On the day mentioned they re-
ceived ,a telegram, purporting to come from "J.
Brown, Angel Hotel, Liverpool," asking for two
tons of chain to b 2 sent to Wat9rloo St ition, on ac—
count of Brown Brothers, of South Shields, wl:o
were customers of theirs. A subsequent telegram
asked for the goods to be invoisedlo "J. Brown,"
at the above address. The chain was ultimately
consigned to Waterloo Station, for Brown Brothers,
to the order of "J. Brown." On its arrivai at
Waterloo the chain was.taken to Messrs. Griffiths
and Williams's, by a carter named Thomas James,
Prisoner was there, and together with Mr. Griffiths
inspected the ch and then ordered the man to
take it to the Coburg Dock and have it weighed.
This was done, after which James took the chain to
Messrs. Griffiths and Williams's warehouse, at
Duke's Dock. The chain was worth .229 5s 4d.
Mr. Henry E. Griffiths. of the firm of Griffiths
and Williams, chain merchants, Liverpool, deposed
to prisoner calling on him on the 12th December,
saying that he represented Eli Preece, chainmaker,
of Staffordshire. Prisoner told him he had a
quantity cf chain lying at the station, which he
wished to dispose of, it being a misshipment.
Witness at first declined to purchase it, but ulti-
mately did so, at 10s per' cwt., and paid
.prisoner
tha snm of £l9 18s 6d. In reply to prisoner, wit-
ness said that the market value of the chain was
11 s6d per cwt. He bought it under market value
because he did not want it.

Mr. John J. Brown, of Brown Brothers, Hind
1) ck, said the t«-ilegrams produced were not sent by
him nor by his firm.

Several witnesses were called to prove the tele-
grams to be in prisoners handwriting.
Prisoner then essayed to read a written defence
to the jury, but was unable to proceed.
Prisoner was then arraigned on a charge of
forgery. From the evidence it appeared that on
the 14th Februiry last Messrs. Parkes and Son,
nailmakers, of Old Hid, received a letter asking for
a ton of nails to los sent to Manchester, the commu-
nication being signed, "William Pennington and
Co. J.K." Prisoner had previously been in the
employ of prosecutor, and his handwriting being
recognised the goocls were not sent.
George Henry Taylor, carrying on buriness as
Wm. Pennington and Co., Liverpool, said the
letter produced was not in his handwriting, nor was
it written by his direction. When prisoner was
arrested by Inspector Walters, a draft of the letter
was found in his pocket-book. Evidence as to the
handwriting having been given,, prisoner was found
guilty.
His Lords+;ip, in pas-ing sentence, said that pris-
oner was a bad very character and an artful thief.
He woulil be sent to penal servitude for five years
on each iiidictment. The terms, however, would
be concurrent. Dal ing the hearing of the case his
Lordship referred to the practice of attaching
original doctunents to the depositions which was
prevaleut in this county, and said it wis very.; in-
c:invenient, and made the judge partly responsible
for their safe custody. 4,1 e recalled a case where a
man got off through a document being lost in that
way. The magistrates' clerks were the proper
persons to hive charge of such documents. His
Lordship said he should consider the question of
costs in a future case when the same sort of• thing
occurred,