The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-02-09 00:00:00

case.

The defendant Jordan was now called, and, being
examined by Mr. Grain, stated that he was 28 years
of age, and had been for ten years in the service of
the lelington Vestry as a clerk in the surveyor's office.
It was the defendant Clarke who broached certain
subjects to him that suggested how they might get
money by allowing more material to be charged for
than was actually placed on the roads. Clarke said
that the Highway Committee having recommended
his (witness's) increase of salary, and the Vestry not
having sanctioned it, he should help himself. He
ultimately steed to the suggestion, and assisted
Clarke in carrying it out. The frauds, as described,
commenced in July or August last. Witness, in
further examination, identified the different documents
alleged by the prosecution to have been used in carry-
ing on the scheme, and he said the frauds were con-
tinued until he was suspended in November last.
Williamson in all cases received the full amount of the
accounts, and the sum he received over and above the
correct amount for the material delivered was divided
between him (Williamson), Clarke, and witness, in
the proportion of one-third to each, and he generally
handed Clarke's share to him. In cross-examination
by Mr. Montagu Williams, for Clarke, the witness
said that Clarke held the door while he burnt some of
the tickets. It was about twelve months since Clarke
first suggested the fraud. Clarke unfolded the whole
scheme to him, but though he was unwilling at first to
enter into it, the small amount of his salary and the
prospect of making money by other means induced
him to join in it. He remarked to Clarke that he
thought it would be a very risky thing, but he replied
that he could ward off any inquiry if it should
arise. The witness admitted that there was not a
document, with the exception of the initials on the
counterfoil orders, in Clarke's handwriting ; they were
all in witness's. Clarke suggested the stylus, and
wrote an order for it on a piece of black tracing paper.
There was no document to show that he (witness) had
not himself had the whole of the money.

Replying to Mr. Fulton, witness said that many of
the contractors were illiterate men, and he had on
different occasions made out the accouats for them,
which were sent in, and for which they paid him a
small gratuity. He was usable to give any date when
he received money from Williamson. The first
fraudulent account of Williamson was that sent in
last September. He could ot say exactly when he
had any conversation with Williamson about the
matter,
In answer to the recorder, the witness said he had
made a mistake when he spoke of handing money
received from Williamson to Clark& It was only on
two or three occasions.

Mr. Grain having summed up the case for the
prosecution,
Mr. Montagu Williams addressed the jury for the
defendant Clarke, arguing that the case for the prese-
cution rested principally upon the evidence of Jordan,
whose testhnony the jury would have to weigh very
carefully, and to consider whether they would be Pis.
tified in acting upon it unless it was materially cor-
roborated. It had been said that it was impossible
that the frauds could have been carried out without
the knowledge of Clarke ; but if he showed them that
it was possible for them to have been committed
without his cognisance, then Clarke ought certainly
not to be convicted. Clarke's duties were principally
out of doors, and he had very little time to devote to
the interior economy of his office. When he put the
question to one of the vestrymen whether it was
not his (the vestryman's) duty to go through
the books, it was said that the Highway Com-
mittee and the Vestry must trust to somebody. In the
same way, he [waned, Clarke had relied upoa Jordan.
entrusting in his fidelity and believing him to be an
honest man. In point of fact, the whole of the docu-
manta were in the handwriting of Jordan and none in
Clarke's with the exception of his initials. The
learned counsel went on to argue that the documents
might have been manipulated by Jordan for his own
ends, and without the cognizance of Clarke, whose
intitials might have been obtained for correct quanti-
ties, the numbers being afterwards altered by an
Ingenious method by Jordan and without Clarke
being a party to or having any knowledge of it.
After referring to other points in the case, the learned
counsel concluded by submitting that Jordan's state-
ment was utterly improbable and that the jury could
not safely act upon it. With regard to Clarke, who
bore as honest a character as any one in that court, he
had shown a way in which the fraud could ,vo been
committed without Clarke's cognizance or li.d being a
party to it, and he claimed a verdict of acquittal in
favour of his client.

Mr. Forrest Fulton then addrenssed the fury for
Williamson, arguing that his client being an ill.
educated man, had relied upon Jordates honesty and
the accuracy of his figures in making up the accounts.
Jordan's statement, he urged, was altogether incredible.
On the other hand, Williamson's conduct throughout
was consistent with innocence, When brought face
to face with the vestry clerk he produced the accoont
written out by Jordan. He relied implicitly upon the
accuracy of that account.
A number of witnesses were called to speak to the
high character for honesty and Integrity borne by
Clarke and Williamson.

The Recorder then summed up upon the whole case,
pointing out that the question for the jury substan-
tially was whether Jordan had alone committed the
fraud and deceived his superior officer Clarke, as well
as the Vestry, or whether, as it was alleged by the
prosecution, the whole of the defendants had been eon-
cerned together in the matter. The case was un-
doubtedly a serious one, and as long as there remained
a reasonable doubt In the minds of the jury with
regard to Clarke and Williamson they were entitled
to be acquitted. If, however, after hearinq the evi-
dence the jury had no doubt as to the guilt of the
defendants they must return a verdict accordingly.
The jury, without leaving the box, returned a
verdict of guilty against Clarke and Williamson.
Mr. Grain said the frauds were not at all confined to
the eastern district of the parish of St. Mary, Isling:
ton, but were also in respect to the western district;
nor were they confined to the flints, but included other
materials for repairing roads. From the investigations
made by Mr. Dewey, the vestry clerk, it had been
found that the frauds were commenced before or about
July last and were practically enormous.
Mr. Dewey, the vestry clerk, gave the results of his
investigations, stating that some of the books were
found to be missing, but that as far as he could ascer-
tain the frauds in the two districts during the three
meriLlis of July, August and September amounted to
£lOO 13a. 6d. • while in October there was also a con-
siderable deficiency, but the accounts for that month
had not been paid. Jordan did apply for an increase
of salary, but was refused.

Mr. Geoghegan, for Jordan, said that when he entered
the service of the Vestry his salary was 21 7e, per
week, and at the tune of his suspension in November
last ft was £2 N.

Mr. Grain said that Jordan had volunteered to give
evidence, and it was the general desire of the Vestry
that he should recommend him to the merciful con-
sideration of the court.

Mr. Fulton said that the Vestry had in hand a
sufficient sum of money to cover the loss, the October
account of Williamson not having yet been paid.

A strong appeal for mercy on behalf of Clarke was
made by Mr. Stroud, who stated that Clarke's wife
had lost her reason in consequence of the proceedings,
and that his children were unprovided for.
Mr. Geoghegan addressed the Court for Jordan in
mitigation of punishment, urging that he had been
tempted by Clarke.
The Recorder, in passing sentence, observed that the
case wi,s a very bad one. The vestry had been very
seriously defrauded, and upon the acts of the case a
Judge would have had a strong temptation to pass a
sentence of penal servitude upon two of the accused.
He refrained from doing so browse be found that
penal servitude was the highest sentence he could pro-
nounce for the offence. As he could not pass a less
sentence than five years' penal servitude, though in
former times it could have been three years—an unfor-
tunate alteration in the law—he should not pass a
sentence of penal servitude at all, but the alternative
one of imprisonment. He accordingly sentenced Clarke
and Williamson to 18 months, and Jordan to six
months' imprisonment with hard labour.