Trial Transcript

703. WILLIAM WILMSHURST (38), Feloniously forging and uttering an order for payment of 457l. 10s., with intent to defraud. See Original p1 See original p2

MESSRS. ROBINSON and T. SALTER conducted the Prosecution.

HENRY FITZROY ELDER . I am a clerk in the London and County Bank, at Tenterden; I have been so about five years. On 11th June, about 10 o’clock, the prisoner, whom I did not know before, brought this cheque for 457l. 10s. (produced), and presented it for payment with this letter—(Read: “Bull and Mouth, June 10th, 1858. Sir,—On the other side is a cheque for 457l. 10s., as requested, addressed to W. Williams, Esq., Lincoln’s Inn Fields.”—”Jan. 10th, 1858, Tenterden. Pay to W. Williams, Esq., or bearer, 457l. 10s., Henry Smith;” endorsed, “W. Williams”)—I noticed the endorsement at that time—it had the appearance of having been recently written; it looked fainter than the writing of the body of the cheque, and evidently a piece of blotting paper had been passed over it, directly it was written; it was fainter than it is now—the prisoner’s hand trembled, as he gave me the cheque, and my suspicion was at once aroused—he spoke as he came into the bank; he said, “Good morning”—I told him, that I knew nothing of Mr. Smith; we had no account, in his name, in the bank—he appeared very much surprised, and said that he could not understand it—he said, “Is it not a funny thing for a man to draw a cheque on a bank, when he has no account?”—I told him that it was occasionally done—he asked me, if it would be any good to call again; I told him yes, as there was a second post at half past 2 o’clock—I forget whether I told him the time; but I know I told him that there was a second post—he then asked me to write my answer on the cheque, and I wrote, “No account”—he said, “I received it in Lincoln’s Inn Fields yesterday,” but did not mention any name—he appeared very reluctant to leave the office, and I suppose he remained there four or five minutes—he appeared to be thinking, and seemed confused; he looked on the ground—I saw him again, as I was crossing the road to communicate with the inspector; I had hardly opened the advices—he did not come to the bank again that day, but, about two minutes after he left, I saw him walking towards the Eight Bells—I had opened one letter before he came in; that was the head office letter, from the parent office in London—after he had gone, I opened other letters; this is one of them—(Read: “Cranbrook, June, 1858. Sir,—My father wishes me to enclose you his cheque for payment of 1,500l., 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. To the Manager of the London and County Bank, Tenterden.” A cheque on the London and County Bank was enclosed for 1,500l., payable to Henry Smith, Esq., or bearer, dated, Tenterden, June 10th, 1858.)—The form of that cheque is not like those that we were using at the time; I have never seen a cheque like this during the eight years I have been there—I afterwards opened this other letter—(Read: “Bull and Mouth Hotel, London, June 10th, 1858. Gentlemen,—Mr. Beaman, of Cranbrook, informs me that he has, this day, paid, into your bank, 1,500l., 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 457l. 10s., in favour of Mr. Williams, which is all I shall want at present. Yours respectfully, Henry Smith. To the London and County Bank. Please notice over the “i” in my name two dots, on all my cheques”)—it was after reading those letters that I communicated with the police.

Prisoner. Q. Where did you receive the 1,500l. cheque from? A. The post mark on the envelope is Tunbridge—I am aware that that is Mr. E. Beaman’s place of residence—I am quite sure you did not tell me that you had received the cheque from Messrs. White and Reynolds; you told me you had received it from Lincoln’s Inn Fields.

MR. ROBINSON. Q. In going down from London to Headcorn, would he pass the Tunbridge station? A. Yes; Headcorn is the station for Tenterden—I am not aware whether there is a letter box at the Tunbridge station—I do not know whether the train stopped there; I do not know what train he came by.

COURT. Q. How was it that you had not opened the advice letter? A. I had opened the advice—we never pay upon any other letter than the advice; never from letters of private individuals; we never open an account in that way—I had no particular reason for not opening the other letters when he expressed surprise; I should not have acted upon it, if I did—I could have communicated with the prisoner immediately afterwards, if I had felt disposed to pay—I had read all my letters before he had left the office two minutes; I had opened the letters purporting to come from Mr. Beaman and Mr. Smith, and had them in my hand—I suspected there was something wrong, from the prisoner’s manner, and also from the signature, and that was the reason I did not mention it to him; I expected he would call again—I went to the police, and was prepared to give him in charge when he called again.

GEORGE RUSSELL (Detective City policeman). On Thursday, 17th June, I saw the prisoner, in Weymouth Terrace, Hackney Road; he went into No. 29—I followed him, and said, “Mr. Wilmshurst, I wish to speak to you; you were at Tenterden last Friday”—I had not known him before—I am sure it was Friday I mentioned, and I said, “You presented a forged cheque at the bank there, for 457l. 10s.; can you give any explanation of this matter?” he said, “I can; I had it from Mr. White”—he afterward gave Mr. White’s address, No. 58, Lincoln’s Inn Fields—he then said, “I will give you the cheque,” and asked his wife to go and fetch the cheque and the letter—his wife produced, in his presence, this envelope, containing a letter and the cheque; these are them—(Read: “No. 58, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, June 14, 1858. Sir, Mr. Williams requests us to inform you, that he wishes the amount due to him, 457l. 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. To H. Smith, Esq.”)—I read the letter, and told him I did not consider it an explanation at all, and I should take him into custody, and search the house—I told him he would be charged with uttering the cheque for 457l. 10s., and another, for 1,500l.; he made no answer—I told him that I must search his house; I only wanted cheques and counterfoils of old cheques; he must let me have all the old cheques and counterfoils he had got; that would do for me—his wife then replied, that they were down stairs, she would go down and get them for me; and I went down with her—she said that she did not believe he had seen them for ten or twelve years—she showed me a number of papers, from which I took some old cheques and old counterfoils, and among them these three (produced).

COURT. Q. Was the prisoner present when you found them? A. No, but I produced them to him up stairs, and he said that he had not seen them, or some remark of that kind—I showed him the whole mass of cheques which I got from his wife, not these three in particular—I would not say that he made any remark.

Prisoner. Q. After you had received the cheque and the letter of Mr. White, did not I wish you to go with me to Mr. White? A. No, you wished me to see Mr. White—you did not offer the slightest obstruction to my searching the house.

EBENEZER BEAMAN . I am a maltster, residing at Tunbridge; I also carry on business at Cranbrook. I have an account with the Cranbrook branch of the London and County Bank, and have done so since 1843, when the bank was established there—the letter produced is not my writing; I never gave any body authority to write it—it is not my son’s writing, nothing like it—I know nothing of the cheque that was enclosed in that letter—I had never seen that cheque before 14th June—I know no person named Henry Smith—years ago I was acquainted with the prisoner’s writing—there is a similarity in this letter to his writing, when I was familiar with it, that is twelve or thirteen years ago; I should say I think it is his writing, I believe it is; his hand might alter a little; it is similar to the writing of twelve or thirteen years ago—it is not in a disguised form, it is a natural form—I believe it is his writing—I received this letter of 14th June, within a day or two of that time—it is addressed to Mr. E. Beaman, Tunbridge Wells; it went there, and then came back to Tunbridge—I can see the post mark of Tunbridge of 15th June—I know nothing whatever of the matters referred to in this letter (Read: “London, June 14, 1858. Sir,—If you do not instantly return me the amount advanced you on the faith of your 1,500l. cheque, paid in by you at the Tunbridge Branch Bank, I shall take legal proceedings against you. My cheque for 457l. 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”)—the London post mark of the 14th is on the face of this letter—there is a letter box at the Tunbridge station, in which passengers can put letters while the train is waiting there.

Prisoner. Q. You said you could not well remember my writing, as you had not seen it for thirteen years; why then do you swear that you fancy the writing produced is mine? A. I do not sweat it; I could not do so much as that—I have my writing here on four cheques, passed through different banks in 1857—(At the request of the prisoner, the witness wrote his name on a sheet of paper)—I have not seen a cheque of a similar colour and character to this for twelve years—the bank use quite a different colour now—I received some of these sort twelve years ago, as a customer—I have not said to Jury that the signature to the 1,500l. cheque resembled mine; I have said, that as far as the letters “man” was concerned it resembled mine—the style of the writing on the cheque is similar to the note; I think it is yours—I do not think that your writing and mine are similar; it is possible you may have imitated the “man”—the “man” is an imitation of mine decidedly—it is not like my writing, and not the style in which I sign cheques—I always sign cheques with my Christian name at full length—the character of the writing is not my style of writing—I gave the threatening letter, signed “Smith,” to Mr. Troughton, the manager of the bank, because he was as much concerned in the matter as myself; I gave it him the first time I met him—I swear I know nothing of Mr. Smith—I have not tried to bring a false accusation against you before.

Q. When the notes were abstracted from the bank parcel, brought by you from the London and Westminster Bank, did you not endeavour to fix the stigma of the guilty act upon me? A. Yes, a few days after the notes were stolen, they were returned to the house of one of the partners, tied to the knocker of the door; I took no active steps to prove you guilty of it—we expressed our opinion that you were guilty of it—that is twelve or thirteen years since—you were retained in the London and County Bank for some few weeks afterward; I do not know for how long—nobody proceeded against you—you are half brother to my late wife.

Q. In investigating the affairs of my father’s bank and property, as executor, did I not discover and accuse you and your brother of acting fraudulently in respect of that property? A. I do not know anything about it—I have no recollection of such a thing—I know nothing of any such transaction—you did not charge me with it on any occasion, to the best of my knowledge; you had no occasion to do so—I offered no obstruction to you as executor of the estate—I never interfered with your duties as executor.

Q. Do you mean to say that the property was not absorbed in accommodation bill transaction between your brother, Isaac Beaman, who is now in difficulties in the Borough, and yourself? A. No; no such thing; there were no accommodation bills relating to your father’s estate—your father sent hops to my brother, who is a hop factor, and he drew bills on the hops, nothing beyond that; they were all real transactions.

MR. ROBINSON. Q. Is there the least pretence for saying that the signature to that cheque is yours? A. No, certainly not; I know nothing of Henry Smith, and knew nothing of this transaction till 14th June—it was before 1843 that the notes were abstracted; I was then a partner in the Cranbrook branch of the Weald of Kent Bank; I ceased to be so in 1843—these four cheques were all drawn by me in 1857; that is the form now used by the London and County Bank—I invariably sign my Christian name at full length.

NICOLAS WHITE . I am in partnership with Mr. Reynolds; we carry on business as surveyors at No. 58, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. I know the prisoner; I procured him employment since last May—I never gave him any cheque to receive for me at Tenterden; this letter of 14th June purports to be a copy; it is not my writing, or my partner’s; I know nothing about it—I know nothing about Henry Smith, who is referred to there; it is not at all like my writing—I know nothing of this letter dated 10th June, signed “Henry Smith;” I think it is the prisoner’s writing; I am acquainted with the character of his writing: the signature, Henry Smith, looks very much like his—the body of the letter is not so distinct as the signature; I think it is like his, I am acquainted with his writing—I should know it, I am well acquainted with it—this letter, purporting to come from Mr. Beaman’s son, is the prisoner’s writing; there is no question about it—I have a confident belief that that is his.

Prisoner. Q. Are the directions for the journeys for which you employed me, in your hand writing? A. I have given you written directions at different times for journeys—(Looking at some papers produced by Russel, the officer)—this is my writing—I never had any correspondence with Mr. Smith or Mr. Williams—I was not in town on 12th of June, therefore I could not have sent you to Tenterden; I was at Bristol on that day, and had been for a day or so—I did not, on 14th June, give you a letter acknowledging the cheque.

Q. In a letter of yours addressed to me at Salisbury, you say, “a friend of yours, who does not wish his name, under any circumstances, to be mentioned, has left with me, on your account, 1,000l. in good deeds, and I am offered other deeds in addition, with a view of obtaining your release;” will you explain what you have done with that property? A. I never had the property, therefore I cannot give any explanation—I have no recollection of writing such an extraordinary letter as that.

COURT. Q. Did you ever write a letter to him there? A. It is possible I may have written to him at Salisbury, but I think not. I wrote to Dr. Finch, not about property, but endeavouring to get the prisoner released from a Lunatic Asylum, where he was then in confinement, at Salisbury—I thought at that time he was not a lunatic; that was three or four years ago.—(Russell produced the papers found on the prisoner, but no such letter as that referred to was amongst them.)

Prisoner. Q. Have you not received a letter of credit for 1,200 thalers on the bank of Frankfort-on-the-Maine, from a gentleman at Maidstone? A. I received a letter of credit on your account from somebody at Maidstone; I do not know the name now—you asked me one day if I would take possession of a document which you had, as you did not consider it was in safe hands—you told me it was in the hands of the chief of the police of Kent—I said I should have no objection, and a day or two afterwards a letter came, signed by somebody upon stamped official paper, which I took possession of, and locked up for you—when I read in the paper the account of your apprehension, I believe I spoke to the solicitor about it on the same day, and handed it to the officer.—(Russell stated that this document was in the possession of the police at Maidstone, where it was the subject of some inquiry.)—I did not say that I was corresponding with a house in New York, with whom papers had been lodged as security, in connection with that letter of credit—I did not say that, in case the 457l. 10s. was paid, I should be able to pay you something on account of the property deposited with me by you—I got you employment, indirectly, through Messrs. Fletcher and Co.—it is wrong to say that Fletcher and Co. have suddenly retired, and are not to be found—one of the parties is to be found; I allude to Mr. Millson—he is not also a partner of mine—I am on very intimate terms with him—I am aware that he is a returned convict; I was told that fact somewhere about three years back; I did not know it previously—I have no doubt there is such a person as Mr. Fletcher; I cannot give his address—I know Millson’s address—when I said I induced Fletcher and Co. to give you employment, I meant the partner—they carried on business as civil engineers and surveyors—I never knew Fletcher personally; my acquaintance was with Millson—they gave you 30s. a week as clerk—I do not know that you resigned your appointment with them in consequence of their fraudulent transactions—you did not resign, you were dismissed—it is not the fact that they absconded and went away; Mr. Millson is there now—I believe some arrangement was made with you that you should have the offices, and I believe you had them for a week or two, but when you were arrested the partner went back again, and is there now—I cannot form any opinion whether his object is to get you out of the way—I know Mr. Millson’s private address—my own private address is at Burham Terrace, Camberwell—my partner, Mr. Reynold’s is abroad, and has been for a month past or more; he is on pleasure—we are house and land surveyors; that is the only business I have—I have not had access to all your papers relating to your case while you were in the Asylum—I knew nothing of the case except what I was told—I did not tell the Lord Mayor that I had known you for fifteen years; that was a newspaper report; I said for years—I first became acquainted with you about four years ago—I have reason to be sure that you have an enmity against me, from what took place at the Mansion House—you were treated with every kindness and consideration by us, and you have made a very bad return for it.

MR. T. SALTER. Q. Do you know that Millson was pardoned, and that he returned to this country under that pardon? A. I do; he has since then maintained a respectable position up to this time—it is not true that I have now in my hands any property belonging to the prisoner, and I never had, except that singular document which he asked me to take care of—this letter is a very good imitation of my writing; the paper the prisoner has produced is my writing, this is not—this “as” has been practised upon; I did not see that before; it has evidently been altered—the letter produced from the prisoner’s possession, purporting to be signed White and Reynolds, is not my writing; it is a clever imitation of it; there are two or three words in it which are clumsy imitations; it is dated 14th June—I was not at Bristol on the 14th; I was on the 12th.

COURT. Q. When did the prisoner come out of the Lunatic Asylum at Salisbury? A. I do not know the date. I have only known him out since May last, or a short time earlier—since he has been out he has been in full possession of his senses—I have not observed any incapacity of mind about him.

ELLIS JOHN TROUGHTON . I am manager of the Cranbrook branch of the London and County Bank, and live at Cranbrook. I know Mr. Ebenezer Beaman, and have done so for fifteen years; he has kept an account at our bank for that period—I am acquainted with his signature—this cheque for 1,500l. is not in his writing, nor is the letter which accompanied the cheque in his son’s writing—we have no cheques in use now of the form on which this 1,500l. is written; we have ceased to use that form for these ten years—I cannot say whether this 1,500l. cheque came from the same book as these three others; these are not numbered—in 1846, the prisoner had an account at our bank—he had a cheque book, as a customer, and he drew cheques on the bank; the form he used was similar to this—he ceased to be a customer in 1846—I recollect his handwriting; I cannot say that the letter signed “Beaman” is the same, or the cheque for 457l.—I have an opinion about it.

Prisoner. Q. Were not similar cheque books given to Mr. Beaman and other customers at that time? A. Yes; all our customers had the same sort of books—the signature to the 1,500l. cheque is something like Mr. Beaman’s—Mr. Beaman gave me the letter signed “Henry Smith,” because I asked him for it; I thought it might assist in the case—he made no remark about it, except that he knew nothing about it—you were a clerk with me for about six weeks—I never knew anything against you while you were with me—I think, if the bank had believed you guilty of abstracting the notes that have been referred to, they certainly would not have continued to employ you.

MR. T. SALTER. Q. You say, you think the name of “Beaman,” on that cheque, is something like Mr. Beaman’s signature? A. It is—as a signature to a cheque, it is quite dissimilar; he always signs his name at full length—the character of the writing is something like his; I think it is not his—I would not have paid it, if it had been presented to me; I should not have thought it was his, even from the character of the writing.

WILLIAM WESTON . I keep the Railway Hotel, at Headcorn, which is nine miles from Tenterden; it is the nearest station to Tenterden, on the down line; in coming there from London, you pass Tumbridge. The prisoner came to my house, on Thursday, 10th June; he came by the mid-day train, which arrived at Headcorn at 12.4—he asked if there was a [horse drawn] bus to Tenterden; I said, not till about 7 o’clock in the evening—he left my house about 7 o’clock, by that [horse drawn] bus, for Tenterden—he gave me a carpet bag to take care of during his absence (it is the carpet bag produced by Russell [Rustell])—he returned the following day, between 12 and 1 o’clock.

Prisoner. Q. Did I appear afraid or alarmed, while I was with you? A. Not a bit; you were as familiar and pleasant as I ever saw a gentleman—you did not look like a person running away from justice.

SARAH FOSTER . I am barmaid at the Eight Bells, at Tenterden. The prisoner came to that house, on Thursday night, 10th June—after breakfast, in the morning, he asked me for a pen and ink, and took it into the smoking room—I think it was a quill pen, I am not certain about it; it was black ink—I do not know what he did with the pen; he went in there alone—he was there for five or ten minutes—when he came out, he went in the direction of the bank—he had no blotting paper, that I know of—he had a pocket book; when I went into the room once or twice, I saw the pocket book—I did not notice what he was doing when I went in; he was not writing—I never saw him writing—he returned in about a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes—a gentleman named Collins came into the bar, and said “Good morning” to him, and the prisoner said “Good morning” to Mr. Collins—Mr. Collins said, “I think I know your face, Sir;” the prisoner said, “I do not know that I know you, Sir, but I come from Lincoln’s Inn Fields”—the prisoner left the house about ten minutes or a quarter of an hour afterwards; that was the last I saw of him—before leaving, he asked at what time the market commenced; I told him, and he said he should return by the afternoon market—his bag was left at our place until Russell had it.

Prisoner. Q. When people settle their accounts at inns, do they generally return? A. Sometimes they do, and sometimes not; we thought you would return, as you left your carpet bag—you seemed confused when Mr. Collins said he thought he knew you—I am quite sure you said you should return to our house in the afternoon.

WILLIAM TIMMS . I am head porter at the Queen’s Hotel, St. Martin’s-le-grand; it was formerly the Bull and Mouth. There is no other Bull and Mouth in London, that I know of—it is my duty to take the names of all the persons that come to the house—we had no such name as Henry Smith entered on our books, as stopping at the house, on 9th, 10th, or 11th of June

Prisoner. Q. Are the names of all the persons who come to your hotel entered in a book? A. Yes; all that come with any luggage we always ask their names, as a general rule; if any person left directions with us to receive letters for them, it would be done, without their names being entered.

The prisoner read a long defence, in which he stated that he received the cheque for 457l. 10s. from Mr. White, on 11th June, and by his directions went to Tenterden, and presented it; that on his return, Mr. While 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 457l. 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.

NICHOLAS WHITE re-examined. Some of these are my writing—I had no account at the London and County Bank in 1843, and never had—I did not know Mr. Beaman; I never saw him until we met at the prisoner’s house. (At the request of the Jury, the witness made a copy of one of the letters produced.)

ISAAC BEAMAN . This letter, signed I. Beaman, is not my writing; I never saw that letter until to-day, or this cheque either.

Cross-examined. Q. How came you not to come here as a witness in the first instance? A. I was not summoned; I had no other reason—I know nothing about a Mr. Henry Smith, or Mr. Williams.

GUILTY.—Strongly recommended to mercy by the Jury, believing him to be the dupe of others. — Ten Years Penal Servitude.

(Russell, the officer, stated that the prisoner had been previously convicted of forgery upon the London and County Bank, and sentenced to be transported for life.)

Go to Table of Contents