Go to start of previous page ("William’s release")
In June, Wilmshurst set out on a significant journey which we have quite a few details about.
Mr. Ebenezer Beaman, William’s brother-in-law, now lived at Tonbridge in Kent. He was a Maltster in Tonbridge but also carried out business in Cranbrook where he had previously been a partner in the Weald of Kent Bank until 1843 when it became the Cranbrook branch of the London and County Bank. His father-in-law, William’s father, had been an owner of Wilmshurst, Hague & Co Bank in Cranbrook which had links with a Bank in nearby Tenterden. Both of these banks had also been bought by the London and County bank.
William Wilmshurst had briefly worked at London and County bank in Cranbrook but hadn’t been in contact with his brother-in-law, Mr Beaman, for 12 or 13 years. There had been an incident where cheques belonging to the bank had gone missing while in Mr Beaman’s possession and he had suspected William while William accused him of mismanaging his father’s estate.
On Thursday 10th June 1858, William set off from London by train heading for Headcorn in Kent, the closest station to Tenterden. When the train stopped at Tonbridge station, William got off the train and posted a letter to a bank in Tenterden in a post box on the platform and got back on the train. When he arrived at Headcorn he enquired at the Railway Hotel and found that the next bus to Tenterden (which would have been a horse drawn vehicle) left at 7pm. He stayed at the Hotel during the afternoon and put his carpet bag in storage when he left. After the 7 mile journey he took a room at the Eight Bells Inn in Tenterden (a 15th century timber-framed building which is now part of a long row of listed building).
The envelope that Wilmshurst had posted contained a letter which read -
“Cranbrook, June, 1858.
To the Manager of the London and County Bank, Tenterden.
Sir,—My father wishes me to enclose you his cheque for payment of
£1,500, for you to place to the credit of Henry Smith, Esq., whom my father
has recommended to keep an account with you. Please acknowledge the
receipt of the same by return of post, and oblige, Sir, yours respectfully, per E.
Beaman, I. Beaman.”
It also contained a London and County Bank cheque for £1,500, payable to “Henry Smith, Esq., or bearer” dated, Tenterden, June 10th, 1858.
The next morning Wilmshust went to the London and County Bank in Tenterden at about 10 o’clock and presented a cheque along with this letter -
“Bull and Mouth, June 10th, 1858.
Sir,—On the other side is a cheque for £457 10s., as requested, addressed to
W. Williams, Esq., Lincoln’s Inn Fields.”
And on the reverse was the cheque -
“June 10th, 1858, Tenterden.
Pay to W. Williams, Esq., or bearer, £457 10s., Henry Smith;”
Here Wilmshurst’s plans started to go wrong. The cashier informed him that they didn’t have an account in the name of Mr Smith which Wilmshurst seemed very surprised about. He asked the cashier to write this on the cheque, presumably so he could show this to Mr Smith, and also asked whether there was another postal delivery that day and, being told that there was one in the afternoon, he said that he would return then. Wilmshurst stayed in the Bank for a few minutes appearing to be thinking and confused and then left and went to the Eight Bells.
Just after Wilmshurst left, the cashier opened that morning’s post which included the letter above from Mr Beeman, asking for an account to be opened in the name of Henry Smith. There was also a separate letter -
To the London and County Bank.
“Bull and Mouth Hotel, London, June 10th, 1858. Gentlemen,—
Mr. Beaman, of Cranbrook, informs me that he has, this day, paid, into your
bank, £1,500, with which, at his recommendation, I request you will open the
account. I am about purchasing an estate near you, upon which I intend to
reside, and shall give you a call in a day or two, when I shall want a cheque
book, &c. I have drawn one cheque for £457 10s., in favour of Mr. Williams,
which is all I shall want at present.
Yours respectfully, Henry Smith.
Please notice over the “i” in my signature two dots, on all my cheques”)
(It seems that people sometimes had a special signature for signing cheques,
presumably to prevent forgery)
The clerk had opened these letters within a couple of minutes of Wilmshurst leaving the bank and could have called him back having seen where he had gone but he suspected there was something wrong from Wilmshurst’s manner, and also from the signature, which wasn’t Mr Beaman’s special signature that he used on cheques. (Oddly he noticed this detail but didn’t mention something that must have been much more obvious, that the cheque was one of the Bank’s cheques but was of a form that hadn’t been used for twelve years (according to Mr Beaman) so stood out as being wrong). Instead of following Mr Wilmshurst he went to the police. The cheque, supposedly from My Beeman, was drawn on an account at the Cranbrook branch, about 8 miles away, so the superintendent of police immediately rode there and found that the cheque was a forgery and on his return made a search for Wilmshurst but he had disappeared.
At the Eight Bells, Wilmshurst had been greeted by someone who claimed to recognise him. Wilmshurst said he was visiting from London and didn’t know the man but the bar maid remembered him seeming confused by this meeting. After 10 minutes Wilmshurst left, leaving a bag there, and saying he would return for it in the afternoon but he wasn’t seen again in Tenterden.
He returned to Headcorn and picked up his carpet bag and continued back to London. He was remembered as seeming to be very relaxed and pleasant and “not like a person running away from justice” though I guess he was unhappy at the failure of his plan.
The next week Mr Beeman received the following letter, posted on the Monday, 3 days after the attempted fraud -
“London, June 14, 1858. Sir,—If you do not instantly return me the
amount advanced you on the faith of your £1,500 cheque, paid in by you at the
Tunbridge Branch Bank, I shall take legal proceedings against you. My cheque
for £457 10s. is returned unpaid, and I am threatened to be arrested through you;
you know where to find me, and what to do. Yours, &c., Henry Smith”
Mr Beeman said he had no idea what the letter was talking about and passed it on to the manager of the bank at Tenterden.
Three days later, a week after Wilmshurst had set out from London, George Russell, a detective with the City Police followed Wilmshurst along Weymouth Terrace, just off the Hackney Road, Shoreditch to his home at number 29. He questioned Wilmshurst who claimed to have received the cheque from Mr White and had a copy of a letter from Mr White to back this up. He asked his wife to get the letter and the cheque which she produced. It read -
“No. 58, Lincoln’s Inn Fields,
June 14, 1858.
To H. Smith, Esq.
Sir, Mr. Williams requests us to inform you, that he wishes the amount due to
him, £457 10s., to be paid, without delay, by you to us, on his account; the only
certain time to see one of us is between 12 and 1 o’clock.
Yours respectfully,
White and Reynolds.”
The detective didn’t accept this explanation and took Wilmshurst into custody. Wilmshurst wanted him to visit Mr White which the detective declined to do.
Before leaving, the detective wanted all cheques and counterfoils of old cheques he had got in the house as evidence. Wilmshurst’s wife went to get them from downstairs — she said that she did not believe that Mr Wilmshurst had seen them for ten or twelve years— [I don’t know whether this was because she was trying to help his claim of innocence or because she was the brains behind his activities as she knew where all the stuff was]. Wilmshurst said that he had not seen these documents before.
At the trial that all this information came from, Wilmshurst was allowed to question witnesses as part of his defence. He raised the previous disputes with his brother-in-law to show that Mr Beaman had a motivation for setting him up in this situation, also mentioning that Mr Beaman’s brother who had had business dealings with his father, John Wilmshust, had been in financial difficulty which might also be a motivating factor.
He also questioned Mr White, who had helped with his release and found him work in London. Wilmshurst questioned him about a letter of credit (bank cheque) for a large amount of German money which Wilmshurst had deposited with Mr White. Wilmshurst claimed that the cheque for £457 10s was issued on the basis of this letter of credit but White denied this and it was pointed out that the letter of credit was now with the Maidstone police as part of an investigation that they were carrying out. (Another attempted fraud?).
On further questioning Mr White said that he had never known Mr Beaman until they met at the prisoner’s house. This seems a very odd event - since both of these men had fallen out with William Wilmshurst why would either of them be visiting his house and why would they meet up there? This presumably took place after Wilmshurst had been arrested so could both of them be showing a concern for the welfare of Anne? And, if so, what were there motives? It would be an odd coincidence if they met there by chance so why would they have arranged to meet. It is one of the few things that I have seen that might possibly point to some conspiracy but unfortunately it just remains a comment made in the trial that wasn’t pursued any further so remains another mystery.
Wilmshurst read a long defence, in which he stated that he received the cheque for £457 10s. from Mr. White, on 11th June, and by his directions went to Tenterden, and presented it; that on his return, Mr. White was from home, but on seeing him on the 14th, and letting him know payment was refused, he treated it very lightly, and told him not to be uneasy; but that on refusing to leave the office, without satisfying his mind on the subject, Mr. White handed him the letter signed “Henry Smith,” professing to explain it; still not feeling satisfied, Mr. White assured him that Williams was an agent of his, and he then wrote a copy of the letter requesting payment of the £457 10s., which he gave to his wife to keep; he further stated that he could have no motive for committing the offence, whereas Mr. White had every motive for getting rid of him, that he might retain possession of his property and prevent his giving any account of the fraudulent proceedings of their firm. The prisoner handed in various papers to the Jury, some in his own, and some in Mr. White’s writing, and requested them to compare them with the documents produced.
Verdict: The jury found him guilty but strongly recommended mercy, believing him to be the dupe of someone else’s plot (similar to William’s claim about his first trial).. This doesn’t seem to have had any effect as he was sentenced to ten years penal servitude (imprisonment with hard labour).
Go to Table of Contents Go to next page ("What was going on? - The puzzling trial")