The Sun.
London, England, 1865-04-26 00:00:00

The Charge of Conspiracy to Defraud
Insurance Companies.

0

Yesterday, again, Messrs. John Geo. Barry and Alfred
Barry, brothers, wharfingers at Meriton's-wharf, Bermond-
sey, and their three servants, Thorne, Arnett, and Sedg-
wick, surrendered to their recognisances, before Mr, Alder-
man Stone, at the Justice-room of the Mansion-house, for
further examination on the charge of conspiring together
to defraud the Royal Exchange and other insurance com-
panies by falsely representing, as is alleged, that certain
quantities of jute and other commodities of great value had
been destroyed in the fires which occurred at their wharf
in June and November last.
Mr. Giffard, Q.C., with whom was Mr. Poland, instructed
by Messrs. Humphreys and Morgan, solicitors, Newgate-
street, again conducted the prosecution; Mr. Sergeant Bal-
lantine and Mr. Metcalfe, instructed by Messrs. Tilleard
Son, Godden, and Holme, of the Old Jewry, defended the
brothers Barry ; and Mr. Moss, solicitor, of Gracechurch-
street, defended Thome.
John Still, a clerk to Messrs. Barry, was recalled. He
said, in reply to Mr. Giffard, that according to the cargo
ledger of his employers, kept by him, 500 hales of jute by
the' ship Jane Porter were warehoused at Meriton's-wharf.
Of those, 10 bales were marked as delivered on the 26th of
October last, 55 on the 30th of December, and 170 on the
same day. That left 270 bales to be accounted for, and they
were entered as destroyed by fire, the entry being in wit-
ness's han.vriting. On the 28th September, 1864, 500
bales of jute, by the City of Canto; were landed at the
wharf. Of those, 10 were entered as delivered on the 10th
of October, 210 on the 31st of January last, leaving 280 to
be accounted for, and those 280 were entered by witness
as having been burnt. On the 17th of October last 1,000
bales by the ship City of Cashmere were landed at the wharf.
Of those, 900 bales were entered in the ledger by witness
as destroyed by fire, and 100 as having been delivered on
the 29th of March last. On the 17th of October, 1863, 350
bags of rapeseed from Calcutta, by the Rambler, were
warehoused at the wharf. Of these, 30 quarters and four
bushels were entered by witness as delivered on the 16th
of May, 1864, and about 148 quarters as having been de-
stroyed by fire on the 7th June last. The whole ship-
ment was thus accounted for. Witnessed explained that
the entries in the ledger as to deliveries would be made
by him from the warehouse report kept by the defendant
Arnett. The warrants sent in by Messrs. Barry to the
fire-offices concerned as to the quantities of the several
shipments above mentioned destroyed by fire were shown
to witness, and he said that the words "Destroyed by
Fire," written across them, were in his handwriting and
that of another clerk, and that the warrants were mostly
signed Mr. Alfred Barry. He added that, in the " Extra
Foreman's Book," kept at the wharf, he found an entry
under the date of the 17th of August, 1864, "Sebastian
Gabot, 164 bales jute, put into own craft, floor No. 1," and
similar entries on the same day as to 48 bales by the
Raleigh, 74 by the William Cole, and 10 by the Alameda,
as having been " put into own craft floor No. 1." Floor
No. 1, he said, was not destroyed at either of the fires In
June or November.
Mr. Sharpe, a clerk to Messrs. Schilizzi and Co., of Fins-
bury-circus, said the two checks produced, both dated the
4th of January, 1865, and one being for £6,310 odd, and the
other for £2,103 odd, were received by him from the Royal
Exchange Insurance Company and the Royal Fire and Life
Insurance Company respectively,in payment of claimsmade
on behalf of his employers, Messrs. Schilizzi, for goods de-
stroyed at Meriton's Wharf. These, with two other checks,
he said, referred to in his former examination, made £18,930
ss. 6d., which was the sum paid in satisfaction of Messrs.
Schilizzi's claim.
Mr. Thos. Bedloe Bateman, from the London Assurance
Company, was called and •shown a policy, which, he said,
was issued by that office. It was dated sth May, 1864,
and was for £5,000 in favour of Messrs. Laing and Meredew,
of 39, Mincing-lane, on merchandise stored at various places,
and, among others, at Meriton's Wharf. It ran from the
26th of April, 1864, to the 26th of October. The check pro-
duced, dated 13th July, 1864, for £1,594 2s. 3d., was issued
by the directors of the London Assurance Company in
favour of Laing and Meredew, and was paid to them on
goods insured by the policy and destroyed at the June fire,
upon the report of Mr. Harding.
Mr. Geo. Henry Whiting was recalled—The policy pro-
duced, he said, was issued by the North British and Mer-
cantile in favour of Laing and Meredew. It was for £3,000
and ran from the 31st January, 1864, for a year. It was a
floating policy, and would cover goods at Meriton's
Wharf. He afterwards settled the claim or declaration of
loss produced by paying £1,275 odd on that policy by a
check to Laing and Meredew. It was paid on the report
of Mr. Harding, who investigated the claim on behalf of
the London Assurance and the North British and Mercan-
tile offices.

Mr. Metcalfe called the attention of the Alderman to a
condition appended to the policies, to the effect that within
15 days after a fire the insurer was to furnish such infor-
mation as the nature of the case would admit. That would
partly account for the pressure under which the returns
were made by the Messrs. Barry.
Mr. Sefton Laing (Laing and Meredew, colonial brokers,
in Mincing-lane), deposed that in October, 1863, they re-
ceived 350 bags of rapeseed by the ship Rambler, which
were afterwards warehoused at Meriton's Wharf. Part of
the cargo was subsequently delivered into a vessel called I
the Gem. His firm took out two policies, one for £5,000
in the London Assurance Company, and another for £3,000
in the North British, to cover the rapeseed and other com-

modifies. The warrant produced showed the quantity of
rapeseed by the Rambler at Moriton's Wharf at the time of

the June fire. He learnt that a part of the rapeseed had
been destroyed on that occasion, and his clerks prepared a
claim in respect of the loss, on information supplied by
Barry Brothers. The policies did not fully cover the loss
of £4OO. The claim was afterwards certified by Messrs.
Barry, and witness's firm received a check for £1,594 odd
from the London Assurance Company, and one of £1,275
from the North British and Mercantile. Their firm had
dealt in seed for many years. When seed was warehoused
the sweepings belonged to the merchants, and certainly
not to the wharfinger. There was always a considerable
quantity of sweepings from seed. The seed was often piled
up in bulk, and the sweepings from the different bulks
ought to be returned to the merchant. That was the
practice in the port of London. His firm had sold many
hundreds of quarters of sweepings for merchants during a
year. Ho knew Meriton's Wharf, and he thought 400 quar-
ters of sweepings collected in six months would be too

much.
Mr. Edwin Radmull, clerk to Brown and Roberts, asses-
sors of fire losses, deposed that he found 475 bales of jute by
the Jane Porter at Meriton's Wharf, with certain distinc-
tive marks ; 283 bales by the City of Canton ; and 209 by
City of Cashmere. He found, of tho 475 bales by the Jane
Porter, 255 in the N and S warehouses, and 220 bales ap-
peared to have been delivered before his visit and after the
fire. Of the jute by the City of Canton he found on the

premises 283 bales in the L warehouse, and of those by the
City of Cashmere the whole (209 bales) were found in the

N warehouse.

Mr. Sergeant Ballantine declined to cross-examine the
witness, observing that he did not propose to go into these
matters at all. It was very kind of the insurance com-
panies to investigate questions of sweepings and to look to
small things as well as great.

Mh
arr.
f, T h
St. Wright, manager of the West Kent
W
deposed that thoir business
o ma
Saviour's sW illia m
door,

give rise to sweepings from the floors, which, however,
were of little or no value ; but that whenever anything of
merchantable value was found it was invariably given to
the merchants.
By Mr. Moss—The defendant Thorne, whom he had
known for many years, bore a very high character.

Mr. David Rose, manager of Messrs Lucas and Spencer's
Wharf, Bermondsey-wall, said the practice there was to
account to the merchant for all sweepings.
Mr. Thomas Perry, manager at Messrs. Richardson and
Perry's Wharf at Wapping, gave similar evidence as to ac-
counting for sweepings. Sweepings arose in the ordinary
processes of landing and warehousing. Wharfingers were
accustomed to take sample from the bulk and send it to a
broker. The sweepings were also sampled as well as bulk,
and the samples were sent to the brokers with the view to a
sale of both sweepings and bulk for the merchants. He
believed Messrs. Barry were assayers of seed, and they
would have, as such assayers, more sweepings than ordinary
wharfingers.

Mr. William Daniel Harding was called, and proved that
he investigated the claim of Laing and Meredew on behalf
of the two offices interested, and that it was paid on the
certificate of Messrs. Barry Brothers.
Mr. Samuel Lowell Price, accountant, at 5, Gresham-
street, said he was instructed by the solicitors to the prose-
cution to investigate the books of Messrs. Barry. Ho exa-

mined the cargo and warrant ledger, purporting to contain
an account of the cargo delivered from the ship City of

Dublin. Ho examined it about a month ago. It was not

then in the same condition as now. As it originally stood,
the date, which was now the 4th of April, 1865, and against
which was the mark:" Mutter's van," was "November 26,

864, destroyed by fire." It was written over an erasure.

The erased entry implied that the goods were supposed to
have been delivered by Mutter's van, instead of having

been destroyed by fire. The bales said to have been de-

stroyed by fire ran from 501 to 900, and the same erasure
had been made on following pages. There were other cases

of erasure.

By Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—There was an original ac-
count given of the losses by fire, and subsequently an

amended one.

By Mr. Giffard—Witness had seen the original entry not
'urther back than six weeks from this time.

Mr. Giffard said that was the case for the prosecution ;
but he applied to have the defendants remanded to a future

day with a view to the completion of the depositions.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said that boing so he should
defer until that day the observations he should have occa-
sion to make on behalf of the Messrs. Barry.
Mr. Alderman Stone remanded the defendants until the
sth of May, at 10 o'clock, but they were admitted to bail in
the meantime. .

NSPlitI2 OF TEE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

TIMES.—The proverb " Alurder will out" has often
been discredited in our time by the lasting mystery
which has enveloped great crimes, but an event has
now occurred which will recall it to every mind.
The Road Murder, that dark deed which filled the
country with amazement and painful curiosity five
years ago, and the incidents of which were studied
as a dreadfully fascinating problem in every house-
hold, seems now likely to receive a full explanation.
Yesterday Miss Constance Emily Kent, one of the
unfortunate family, and a young lady only 21 years
of age, surrendered at Bow-street, and made a vo-
luntary confession of the crime. She entered into
no details, and as the magistrate had no jurisdiction
except to send the case to be investigated at Wilt-
shire, he made no inquiries save as to the genuineness
and the freedom of the confession. All, therefore,
we know is that Constance Kent, who was the first
object of suspicion on the discovery of the crime,
now declares that she, and she alone, was guilty,
and that the murder of the child Francis Saville
Kent, which brought suspicion on more than one
head, and wrought such misery to an entire house-
hold, was her own unaided work. Although the
circumstances were so long discussed and were ex-
amined with such minuteness at the time, yet as five
years have elapsed a short summary of them may be
acceptable. At Road-house, in Wiltshire, lived Mr.
Kent, an inspector of factories. He had been twice
married. His family by the first wife consisted of
three daughters and a son, the two elder daughters
being grown-up young women, and the third, Con-
stance, a girl of 16 ; the son William was about 15.
By the second wife he had three children; a daugh-
ter five years old ; a son, Francis Saville Kent,
nearly four years old, and another daughter still
younger. On the night of June 29, 1860, the in-
mates of the house were Mr. and Mrs. Kent, the
seven children we have mentioned, and three ser-
vants—a cook, a housemaid, and Eliz. Gough, the
nurse. During that night the child Francis was taken
out of his cot, strangled, stabbed, his throat was cut,
and his body, wrapped in a blanket which had been
drawn out from over him, was thrown down a privy
belonging to the house. From that time until yes-
terdayit has been a profound mystery who committed
the deed. All the skill, perseverance, and acuteness
which justice could employ for the detection of the
crime were baffled completely. So wholly did every
clue which might lead to the truth fail, that the public
was reduced to deal in vague suspicions which it
now seems were most unjust and cruel. But when
the details of the matter are considered, we cannot
wonder either that the popular excitement in the
neighbourhood should have reached almost to frenzy,
or that both the unhappy father and the nurse should
have been the objects of undeserved indignation. It
was impossible to believe but that the murder was
committed by some one in the house. Evidence was,
indeed, given respecting the opening of a drawing-
room window, but what possible inducement could
there be for a stranger to penetrate into a dwelling-
house merely for the sake of destroying an unoffend-
inc, infant ? Of these 12 persons, then, who were in
the house, which was the murderer ? The disposition
of the bed-rooms was as follows : on the first floor
slept Mr. and Mrs. Kent, with the eldest of the in-
fant children ; in an adjoining room, the nurse,
Elizabeth Gough, with Francis and the other child,
Francis being in a cot by himself ; on the second
floor, the two grown-up daughters slept together,
Constance in a room by herself, William in a room
,by himself, and the cook and housemaid together in
another room. The nurse, then, was in the closest
relation with the murdered child during the night ;
but it was possible that any other member of the
family might have entered the room and made away
with him while she slept. Early in the morning the
nurse, according to her own statement, missed the
child, but thought that his mother might have come
in and taken him away to her own room, especially
as he had been unwell and had taken some medicine
the night before. About half-past 7 o'clock she
knocked at her mistress's door and inquired about
the child, and when it appeared that he was not
there the alarm was given and search was made.
As the child was not to be found in the house or the
shrubbery, Mr. Kent drove over to Trowbridge to
give notice to the police, ordering the servants to
continue their search. While he was gone some
people from the village came in to help in the
search, and the end of it was that the child's body,
with its nightgown on and wrapped in a blanket,
was found in the soil of the privy. There were,
according to the subsequent evidence, marks of
strangulation, there was a stab in the side, a wound
in the breast, and the throat was cut from ear to ear.
A piece of paper, bloody as if a knife had been
wiped upon it, was found, but no knife or other
weapon. Suspicion at first fell on the young lady
who has now confessed. The circumstance that the
child had been taken up, wrapped in the blanket
which was between the quilt and the sheet, and that
the clothes were afterwards arranged, seemed to in-
dicate that a woman's hand had been concerned in
the work. The nurse gave her evidence with calm-
ness and apparent truth, describing how she had
placed the child's bedclothes the night before, giving
her reasons for not alarming the household when
she first missed him, and declaring that she had
heard and seen nothing from the time of going to
bed till about 5 in the morning, when she awoke
and found the cot empty. From the appearance of
the body, it was probable that the child had been
killed about 3 o'clOck in the morning. The evidence
of the other members of the family was entirely ne-
gative. They had seen and heard nothing, and
were unable to give any clue to the mystery. As
there was an outcry against Constance and William
mainly on account of some supposed dislike of these
young people to their infant half-brother, the inves-
tigations of the detective Whicher were mainly
directed against them. William was soon absolved,
but Whicher thought that he had discovered an
important piece of evidence against Constance.
The laundress asserted that one of this young
lady's nightdresses was missing ; that a day or
two after the murder she had received it with
the rest of the linen for the wash ; that she
had put it into the basket, that Constance had sent
her out of the way for a moment, and • that when
she got home with the basket the nightdress was
missing. This story was in itself a lame one, for
the laundress said she remembered seeing the gar-
ment, and that there was nothing unusual about it
—a circumstance which, if true, would take away
from Constance any motive for concealing it, since
the only reason for concealment would be that it was
stained with blood. But on this statement Inspector
Whicher applied for a warrant to apprehend Con-
stance, and publicly charged her with the murder.
There is no need to recapitulate the subsequent in-
quiries. It is enough to say that nothing at all was
substantiated against Constance Kent, who was
shortly released. Suspicion then fell on the nurse,
and there were not wanting those who set up a
theory which involved even the father of the .child
in the guilt of the murder. The Coroner's inquest
did not satisfy the public, and the Coroner was
loudly blamed. The charge against Constance fell
to the ground, and the detective was scarcely less
censured for the recklessness of his proceedings.
The third investigation was equally futile. Much
was said of the impossibility of the child being taken
from the room without the knowledge of the nurse,
and of the coliduct of that woman in not giving an
earlier alarm. The driving of Mr. Kent to Trow-
bridge while the search was going on was also dwelt
upon, as if it had given him the opportunity of
secreting some murderous weapon. But these were
evidently circumstances which could give rise
to no more than vague suspicions, and the inquiry
terminated without any more light having been cast
on the deed. Slowly the public curiosity subsided,
but not without that feeling of disappointment which
follows the unsuccessful attempt to penetrate a mys-
tery. The Kent family broke up their establishment,
and quitted the neighbourhood. The Road Murder
remained one of the strangest among the romances of
crime. Few thought that the secret would ever be di-
vulged. It might figure 100 years hence as a story
unequalled for ghastly attractiveness, and exercise
the ingenuity of our great-grandchildren, as it did
our own. But now, unless an incident even more
strange has taken place, we know the murderess.
Miss Constance Kent some two years ago joined a
society of religious ladies at Brighton, and has
made a voluntary statement to Mr. Arthur Wagner,
the well-known clergyman of that place. Mr.
Wagner declares that he used no such influence as
the receivers of auricular confessions are sometimes

accused of exercising on their female devotees. In
such a case, indeed, we may presume that the un-
burdening of her mind by this lady was a free and
spontaneous act. At any rate her statements yes-
terday before Sir Thomas Henry were deliberate,
and made after repeated cautions. The manner of
the deed we have yet to learn, but it is not too soon
to expiesb thankfulness that the dreadful story is
now likely to be truly told, and the weight of a
horrible suspicion taken of the guiltless members of
the Kent family.
POST.-Mr. Childers introduced into the House
of Commons last evening the lone-promised bill for
the reform of the administration of Greenwich Hos-
pital. Under a constitution which admitsthegreatest
latitude for criticism, and which permits the press to
be for all practical purposes absolutely free, it is not
surprising that those to whom the management of
our great public institutions has from time to time
been entrusted should but seldom have escaped

censure. But it must be confesssed that amongst
the many instances with which our history
has made us familiar., of the misappropria-
tion of public funds and of their diversion from the
objects for which they were originally established,
none was ever more flagrant than that afforded by
the gradual changes effected in the administration
of Greenwich Hospital during the century or a