The Sun.
London, England, 1856-11-01 00:00:00

CRIMINAL COURT.—(This Day.)

OLD COURT.
(Before Mr. Justice Erle.)
THE CRYSTAL PALACE FRAUDS.
William fames Robson, was indicted on eight charges
1 for larceny, in stealing a number of Crystal Palace shares,
the property of the directors of the company, and also
with forgery.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, Mr. B.:,dkin, and Mr. Haw-
!' kips were counsel for the prosecution ; Mr. Gifford and
Mr. H. F. Lewis for the prisoner.

~_..

Mr. Gifford said the prisoner wished to retract his
plea of not guilty to the three indictments charging him
with larceny. _ _ .

His. Lordship consented, and the plea of not guilty
was retracted and that of guilty recorded.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine, in stating the case to the
jury, said, although the prisoner now at the bar had
pleaded guilty to three indiotments involving him in
penalties for having committed larceny upon the pro-
perty of his employers, he felt it his duty to state to
them the circumstances of the present charges, with a
view of putting them and the court in possession of the
mode by which the frauds had been committed by the
prisoner. In stating to them the history of these tran-
sactions, it was necessary for him to refer to the general
conduct of the prisoner. It appeared that the prisoner
was a person of great intellect and considerable powers
of mind, and possessed of an education far beyond his
rank in life. He entered the service of the Crystal
Palace Company as a clerk at 11. per week. The prisoner
was .one of those persons who, from the intelli-
gence he possessed, might, by honesty and straight-
forward conduct have risen to the highest position
in this great commercial country. Unhappily, though
possessing these abilities and advantages, and entering
into life which most people would have grasped at with
avidity, he was not content with that, but sought to ob-
tain wealth rapidly, and to obtain those ends which
could only be obtained, in a person like him by honest
industry, by a quick leap. The prisoner now stood before
them a felon on his own confession, and had to undergo
a trial for one of the gravest charges known to our laws.
The prisoner, shortly after he was taken into the service
of the company, was promoted, awl his salary increased
to 1001., and in a few months after he was promoted
higher, to Mr. Fasson's office registrar at a salary of 1501.
per annum. That gentleman suffering from ill-health,
and finding the prisoner to be a man of intelligence and
ability, and believing him also to be a man of integrity
and hoidesty, left a great part of the management of his
office to him, and in that manner he possessed facilities
which he had applied in a manner to the injury of the
comp•.tny and his own ruin. The learned gentlema❑
having stated the facts of the case, called the following
evidence :

Ga,rge Sydney Clements examined by Mr. Bodkin—
I am a stockbroker and know the prisoner, and was in
the :anbit of doing business fur him. In January I sold
100 shares of the Crystal Palace Company, 50 to Mr.

Lowe, and 50 to another person ; this realised 2951. and

a few shillings. I paid the amount to the prisoner.
15Ir. Gifford objected to reception in evidence of the
alle;;ed transfers.

Witness examined—lt was either brought or sent to
one by the prisoner. I can't swear to the writing of the
narae of John Johnson on it. The name of the attesting
witness to the transfer was W. J. Robson, which I

believe to be in the prisoner's handwriting. I delivered
it to the person who represented the buyer.
Mr. George Fasson, registrar of the company—The
prisoner entered the service of the company in the early

part of the year 1853, and continued until September
la ,t:. On 30th June, 1854, he was appointed chief clerk
in /the transfer office, at 1501. per annum. The transfer

hooks were under the custody of the prisoner. For

each proprietor's share there was a certificate issued i❑
the first. instance ; these certificates were accessible to

,he prisoner. On the morning of the 17th September

something occurred between myself, Mr. Grove, and the
prisoner : he was charged with passing transfers through
the books without showing the title of the transferor.
He said it did appear irregular, but he could make them
right. I asked him could he do so then ? He

replied "No ;" the documents were at his private
residence at Kilburn, where he said he would produce
them to me if I would accompany him there. I went

with him, and on arriving at liill;urn he left the room
into which we had been shown two or three times with

a view to his procuring the transfers ; the last time he
did so he did not return. I did not see him again until
in custody at the police-court at Lambeth. I afterwards

made a search in the office occupied by the prisoner at
the Crystal Palace, and a document was found there

bearing the prisoner's signature as witness to a transfer

of A shares by Henry Johnson. There was no Henry
Johnson registered as a shareholder of the A shares in
question. Henry Johnson, of Birmingham, con-
tractor, is not registered in respect of these shares,
numbered 145,052 to 145,101, but he is of others.

When a, person had shares transferred to him, he or his

broker would deposit the deed of transfer at the corn-
pany's offices to have it transferred, and it would be the
duty of the prisoner to see it properly registered in the

books. There was no entry of the date or number of

,his transfer in the books.

Cross-examined-by Mr. Gifford—There was formerly
a " numerical" register, but it had not been entered up,
and bad been in disuse for the last two years. This re-
gister was kept by one of the junior clerks who hap-
pened to be disengaged. At every general meeting a
register of shareholders was presented. Witness looked
to the result of it, but he had made no examination of
the details. The prisoner was appointed chief clerk of
the transfer office towards the end of June, 1854.

Mr. Henry Johnson examined, said—l am a contras-
or and builder residing at Birmingham, and am a rela-

tive of the prisoner's. The signature to the transfer
produced is not mine, and he never gave any person
authority to sign it for me. The attestation was in the
prisoner's handwriting,
Cross-examined by Mr. Gifford—l never had a con•
versation with the prisoner as to taking shares in the
Crystal Palace Company and transferring them to the
prisoner. There bad been some money transactions
between them.

Mr. George Grove, secretary to the company—l am
well acquainted with the prisoner's handwriting. I
believe the name of Johnson. as well as that of Robson

,in the transfer produced to be in the handwriting of the
prisoner.

Sergeant Coppin examined—l apprehended the pri.
goner at Copenhagen on the 7th of October. I told him
I had come to him about the Crystal Palace affair. He
said, "I know I have done wrong, and I must suffer the
law." I asked him if he was willing to go back to
London with me. Ho replied, " Yes, I shall be glad
to get back." On their way home to England I said to
him that I had heard he was 20,0001. deficient. He
replied, " I don't think it is so much as that—l think
it's about 10,0001."

The transfer was put in to be read on evidence.
Mr. Gifford urged a legal objection to its introduction,
because to use it the attesting witness should be called.
Mr. Justice Erie overruled the objection. It was not

,endered as a valid document, but a forged intrument,

and the attestation was the foundation of the charge.
He had taken a note of the objection, if it was found
necessary to raise any objection upon it. The document
was then hereafter put and read.
Mr. Johnson was recalled and examined by Mr. Gif-

ford—The prisoner never said to me, " I don't wish my
name to be used on the Stock Exchange, and might I
use yours ?" I never said to him, "Do as you like."
Nothing was ever paid to that effect or of his taking
shares.

This was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Gifford submitted for the prisoner that the docu-
ment was not a forgery within the indictment. It was
an incomplete document.
After some remarks from his Lordship on the line o
defence,
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said it was not a valid
objection, and sail that to make all right he had sent for
Mr. Lowe, to whom the shares professed to have been
transferred.
His lordship said the learned counsel had better ad-
dress him on some other point in the meantime. He
was extremely clear on the point raised and was against
the objection.
Mr. Gifford said he had no other points to offer on
behalf of the prisoner. He must wait for the evidence.
His lordship said that the document came within one
of the counts, viz,, a forger "of a deed of transfer" of
shaAretst,i,asnrdecin,oletat
odfeed requiring to be under seal of the
company.
recalled. Ile raid I have borrowed ojnc'ebyns:on'aleCtosn:ig4i:
able extent from the prisoner. I can't recollect it. I
saw him in Lombard-street, and something was said
about the repayment of the money. .t.I don't remember
the prisoner saying anything to me about his selling my
shares, with which to repay the money he had borrowed
to advance to me. The last conversation they had about
money matters was not in Lombard-street. Prisoner
never said anything to me about his not liking his name
to appear on the Stock Exchange. I borrowed between
700/. and 8001. of him. I was not aware of his
intention to sell shares. I recollect telegraphing from
London to Birmingham in 1854. Nothing was then
Baia by the prioner about selling or trusierribg bar

I can't give any idea of what passed between us on that
occasion. I was never aware until now of my name
being registered in the Crystal Palace Company's register,
or of my being treated as a shareholder. When I sent
the telegraphic message at the telegraph office, Lombard-
street, I asked the prisoner to lend me 1001. He said
he would endeavour to obtain it. I can't recollect if I
went with him to 3, Adelaide place, London-bridge. I
tni..fht have done so. I afterwards obtained the money

from the prisoner at the telegraph office in Cornhiil. He
left me whilst he got the money.
By Mr. Sergeant Ballantine—l have never claimed
interest on any shares in the Crystal Palace Company,
nor am I aware that any dividend had been paid on my
behalf. lam brother-in-law of the prisoner.
Mr. Gifford then proceeded to address the jury for
the prisoner. He asked them to try this case, as far as
they could, on the evidence before them, and not with
reference to any other case. That the prisoner
had been guilty of an offence against his em-
ployers could net be denied, and for which
he must receive punishment all well knew.
His learned friend on the other side had produced much
evidence, but whether for the purpose of raising the
character of the Crystal Palace Company on the
Stock Exchange, or of enhancing the punishment
of the prisoner, he could not say ; but he asked
the jury not to come to a hasty conclusion of guilt
against the prisoner on a charge which he had
always denied, and to which he now pleaded not
guilty. He had no desire to impute anything like a
shadow of participation in any fraud by Mr. Johnson;
but he put it to the jury whether, considering the con-
nection between the prisoner and Johnson, it did
not lead to the belief that the prisoner considered he
might use Johnson's name on the Stock Exchange with-
out injury to any party.
The learned Judge having summed up,

The jury found the prisoner guilty of forgery, and
also with uttering the same, knowing it to have been

forged.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said he had no intention of
proceeding with the other indictments without his lord.
ship wished it. One of the indictments charged the
prisoner with forging a dividend warrant, which was of
a nature different from the general class of forgeries. If
his lordship thought he had heard sufficient from the last
case to form an opinion of the prisoner's conduct, he
(Mr. Sergeant Ballantine) had no desire to proceed fur •
ther.

Mr. Justice Erie said he thought sufficient had been
done. He could not see how forging a dividend war-
rant could be different from forging any other document.
Mr. Sergeant Ballantine said that with that intima-
tion from his lordship he would not proceed with the
other cases. He thought it right, however, to state
that the prisoner's statement that his deficiencies
amounted to 10,0001. was overstated. There was every
reason to believe it was under that sum.

Mr. Justice Erle, in sentencing the prisoner, said—
You stand convicted of felony, and the inquiry on this
occasion shows to me that you have practised crime for
a considerable period of time. You have practised it in
a breach of that trust which was placed in you by your
employers. You have practised it so as to throw doubt
and uncertainty on important mercantile instruments,
and you have obtained large sums of money by the
course of crime you have so pursued. It is my duty to
give a warning, by the sentence I shall pass on you,
that the apparent course of prosperity derived from
crime in reality leads to misery and destruction. For
the forgery of which you stand convicted I order you to
be transported for 20 years, and in respect to the larceny,
of which you have pleaded, I sentence you to be trans-
ported for 14 years, concurrent with the first sentence I
have mentioned.

The prisoner listened attentively to the learned Judge
during the delivery of the sentence. His face was slightly
suffused. He drew himself up to his full height, mo-
mentarily surveyed the court with a slight scornful smile,
and then walked from the dock.