testimony or the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; but it had been for many years the practice of judges in dealing with accomplices to recommend juries, as he himself would recommend them strongly, not to take for granted such evidence as that of Clara Brown, unless they found there was so much corroboration of her testimony, in some respects, as would induce them to believe that now at last she was telling the truth. There were many crimes which would go altogether unpunished unless the evidence of an accomplice were admitted in courts of justice for the purpose of assisting the jury. It would be for them to say whether they could believe Clara Brown, notwithstanding the fact that on other occasions she had given a different account of the proceedings. Quoting the words of the lost letter, as given by Clara Brown-" I was sorry to see you crying so; it seems as though it never would be. There will be a time when Harriet will be out of the way, and we shall be happy together. Dear Alice, you must know how much I love you. We have been together two years now "-his lordship said if that was a faithful rendering of the contents of the lost letter it showed that an intimacy of a very questionable kind had existed between Alice and Lewis for a considerable period of time. They must consider whether it was a faithful and accurate account of the letter. If they thought that she had invented the story, then they would not, he believed, be inclined to place much reliance upon the remainder of her testimony. As to the finding of the lost letter, his lordship said it was clear that a communication of that sort would be a matter that Alice would be very anxious about, because she would be fearful lest it should fall into the hands of the wife. Now, on the 19th of August it appeared that Alice wrote to Lewis from the Woodlands, where she and the wife were staying at the time, as follows:

"My dear Lewis,-I was extremely thankful to have a letter from you yesterday. You must know it is extremely dull for me here, and baby is very fretful. I have searched high and low for the lost letter and cannot find it. I am sure Harriet has not got it, so where it can be I cannot tell. Come down to me as soon as you can, if only for a few hours. You cannot think how happy it will make me to see your dear old face again. With fondest love, trusting to see you soon, I remain, your affectionate ALICE." The girl Clara Brown had said that she read the letter over several times, and she had pledged her oath to the expressions she had used as a truthful reiteration of its contents. If they believed she made up the letter for the purpose of giving evidence against her relatives in spite or in malice, they would not be inclined to place reliance upon anything she had said as a witness. It was clear that Harriet had an affection for her husband, although it had been stated on the part of Lewis that she was constantly in the habit of irritating him. As a proof of her affection his lordship read a letter which the deceased woman sent to Lewis after she had been at the Woodlands a month ::

"My dear darling,-I write these few lines hoping this will find you well. Well, will you be down on Sunday? If not I shall be disappointed. Hope to see you on Monday; if not, will you let me know which day you will be down. It has been raining all day. Will you bring down a piece of ribbon and frilling for my collar and sleeves. Percy is going back to-night. Tommy (the infant) is quite well. So good night, my dear; God bless you. I have

not had clean flannel for a month. I have been here a month on Saturday, and it is time I should be at home. My boots has worn out."

His lordship next referred to the arrangement which was evidently made for the purpose of keeping the unhappy lady from her home. It was, he said, a strange state of things altogether, The lady was possessed of property amounting altogether to 3,000l., and that, at 5 per cent., would have brought her in an annuity of 150l. if she had remained unmarried. Now, she married the prisoner Lewis, and within eighteen months her home was abandoned and she was placed to lodge with Lewis's brother Patrick at the Woodlands while a new home was provided for Lewis and his mistress, Alice Rhodes.

His lordship proceeded to examine the evidence closely, and to lay the result before the jury in as connected a manner as possible, laying particular stress on Clara Brown's evidence, and as to the treatment by the prisoners of deceased's mother, and their evident desire to keep her from her daughter. In conclusion, the learned judge went on to review the evidence of Lewis Staunton and the circumstances which ultimately led him to separate from his wife owing to her being addicted to excessive drinking, which evidence has already been reported during the trial in some detail, particularly the circumstances which led to the separation of the husband from her, resulting eventually in her death. His lordship next recapitulated the testimony of Elizabeth Ann Staunton, to the effect that the deceased came to her house in a perfect state of health, and remained there up to Monday, the 9th of April, and that she was not a woman of weak intellect. He also dwelt on the circumstances under which Alice Rhodes became identified with the family, and the part she played in the affair. His lordship also remarked upon the suggestion that the child was sent up to the hospital to die; but, he said, the jury must ask themselves whether there was any evidence for the foundation of that, followed, as it was, by the death of the wife within the next three days. The jury would judge for themselves, and would take no heed as to what he, the judge, said, unless what he said was worthy of commendation, and appealed to their common sense. The object of taking Little Grey's Farm was, he said, to pass off Alice Rhodes continually as his wife. The village, said his lordship, would have been in arms if it was his wife who had died, and that he was nothing but an impostor. Those things, said his lordship, were for the jury, and he was happy to say they were not for him. Upon the law of the subject he had addressed the jury; but they might desire that he should tell them once again the state of the law. If, for example, a duty was cast upon a person to provide the necessaries of life for another, it mattered not how that duty arose, it must be performed. Whatever the law imposed, as in the case of a husband and wife, that duty must be performed. It might be a duty imposed by contract, or it might be a duty imposed without any contract at all, as, for instance, if a person undertook to bring into his house and provide for a lunatic or a child of tender years, the law imposed on the person who undertook it the obligation of providing for that child. Again, a duty might be imposed by a wrongful act; as if one man imprisoned another by wrong, he was bound to provide him with the necessaries of life so long as his prisoner remained in his custody, and if he wilfully withheld the necessaries of life and neglected to perform the obligations imposed on him, he would be answerable. If Alice Rhodes had no legal object to fulfil in providing Harriet Staunton with the necessaries of life, the mere omission to do so would not render her guilty;

but if she did an act wrongfully which had a tendency to destroy life, but which was not done with that intention, she would be guilty of manslaughter. If the jury believed the case was not made out against any or all of the prisoners, it was their duty to declare it; and if they should arrive at an adverse decision they would pronounce their opinion firmly. With the consequences the jury had nothing to do. He, the judge, was the responsible minister for the day in the administration of the law, and he would say to them let their decision, whatever it might be, arise from a calm consideration of the facts now before them.

The jury returned a verdict of guilty against all the prisoners, recommending Alice Rhodes strongly to mercy.

Sentence of death was then passed.

Extraordinary interest was manifested in the result of this trial. The papers were inundated with letters chiefly from medical men, calling attention to the insufficiency of the medical evidence. Meetings were held, and a committee appointed to urge the commutation of the sentence; and, finally, the trial was so far reviewed that the sentence on the three prisoners Staunton was commuted to penal servitude for life, while Alice Rhodes was set at liberty.

IV.

FRAUDS ON THE ARTISANS' DWELLINGS COMPANY.

THIS trial was commenced on October 23, at the Central Criminal Court, before Mr. Commissioner Kerr, Mr. John Baxter Langley and Mr. Swindlehurst, the former chairman of the Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings Company, and the latter secretary of the company, and Mr. Edward Saffery, an auctioneer and surveyor in the Old Jewry, having surrendered to take their trial on a charge of having conspired together to defraud the company of a large sum of money. Mr. Lowe, another director of the company, was included in the charge, but he did not surrender.

The Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, Mr. C. Bowen, and Mr. Straight prosecuted; Sir H. James, Q. C., Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, Mr. Besley, Mr. Willis, Q.C., Mr. Bush Cooper, and Mr. Horace Avory appeared for the defendants.

The Attorney-General, in opening the case, said that two of the defendants-Swindlehurst and Langley-were charged under a statute passed in the twenty-ninth year of the reign of Queen Victoria, which made it a misdemeanour on the part of the director or manager of any public company to misappropriate or embezzle any moneys belonging to the company. The other defendant (Saffery) was charged with having conspired with the other two defendants to commit the offence. The facts lay in a small compassthe only question that would have to be considered by the jury being whether what was done by each of the defendants or by all of them in combination was done fraudulently, or whether it was done in the bona fide course of business. The Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Company was established in the year 1866, and it was registered in that year, the object of the company being to purchase eligible sites of land in or near the metropolis for the pur

1877.]

Frauds on the Artisans' Dwellings Company.

187

pose of erecting improved dwellings for artisans. The capital at that time was 150,000l., but it was subsequently raised to 250,000l. The defendant Langley was appointed chairman at a salary of 500l. a year, and Swindlehurst was appointed secretary and manager at the same salary. Mr. Lowe, who was included in the charge, but who had not surrendered-and who, he was informed, had absconded—was a member of the finance committee of the company, and all these three no doubt took an active part in the administration of its affairs. The other defendant (Saffery) was an auctioneer, and it was part of his business to look out for property that was eligible for purchase, and he had on several occasions acted in that way for the company, and had introduced to their notice property which Swindlehurst and Langley afterwards purchased on behalf of the company. The charge against the defendants substantially was that Saffery had in some of these instances purchased estates at certain prices and afterwards sold them to the other defendants for much larger sums, the difference being divided among all the defendants, and the company thus defrauded of a very large sum of money. Certain members of the company became dissatisfied with the way in which things were carried on, and, in June of the present year, an inquiry was instituted, which resulted in the present prosecution by the Treasury.

The Attorney-General then proceeded to state the facts on which the charges were founded, being chiefly proceedings as to the purchase of estates in which, it was alleged, the defendants had defrauded the company by charging them with larger amounts than were actually paid for such estates, and fraudulently possessing themselves of the difference. The first occasion when Saffery became connected with the other defendants was, he said, on the purchase on behalf of the company of the Shaftesbury estate, by which transaction Saffery made a profit of 3000l. The next occasion was in the purchase by the company of certain lots of an estate near Harrow, belonging to All Souls College, Oxford, for a sum of 45,4217., on which purchase Saffery netted a sum of 93121., of which sum, the Attorney-General alleged and was prepared to show, 6800l. passed into the hands of the defendants, and it was for the jury, the Attorney-General said, to say whether that money was not paid as a reward for having influenced the company to make the purchase. Other similar transactions, notably as to the purchase of the Cann Hall estate, were set forth by the Attorney-General, who, in conclusion addressing the jury, said he had now detailed to them the facts of this case, and it would be for them to say whether Langley and Swindlehurst, who ought to have protected the interests of the company, and guarded its property, conspired together to defraud it, and not only conspired together, but conspired with Saffery, for that purpose. He would ask the jury to bring their common sense to bear upon it, and to answer this question-unless it had been intended by Saffery that the other defendants who were in a position of responsibility should betray their trust, and should induce the company by fraud-because it came to that to enter into these contracts, which had resulted in such large profits, how was his conduct to be accounted for? On the part of the Crown he maintained that there had been fraud on the part of all three defendants-fraud of a most disgraceful nature-perpetrated by men who ought to have protected the interests of the company of which they were the trustees, but who had, in fact, betrayed them.

Various witnesses were called and examined.

Mr. Driver, auctioneer, gave evidence as to the sale of the Harrow estate,

of which the lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 were sold for 32,000l., and lot 1 for 8000l., the Artisans' Dwellings Company being in each case the real purchasers through Saffery.

Mr. C. N. Longcroft, solicitor of the company, was examined at great length as to the purchases and the sums paid and received in respect of them. On examination by Mr. Serjeant Ballantine, witness said he held no retainer from the Company; neither had he any salary from it. He was paid in the ordinary way. He was not in the habit of attending the meetings of the board of directors, but he had attended some. That he did by desire expressed to him. He certainly had not supposed that in the transactions which he was conducting Saffery was acting for nothing; but with regard to the profit which might accrue to him he was unaware what it was likely to be. He never asked any of the directors a question on that subject, nor was he ever interrogated by any of them in regard to it. While advising the company generally, he did not necessarily advise its directors as to the value of an estate. He had heard since the transactions which had been mentioned that a person named Spence was mixed up in them. He thought it was the case that Swindlehurst said he had arranged with Spence as to the purchase of Shaftesbury Park, but he did not remember that person's name being mentioned in connection with the Queen's Park estate. Did not know that Spence was now being sued on behalf of the company. A large portion of the Queen's Park estate had now been built upon. There were several hundred houses.

Mr. Walton deposed that he was formerly a director of the Artisans' and Labourers' Dwellings Company. In the month of May 1876, an envelope was left at his residence at Wandsworth, which contained 6501. in bank notes. Upon the flap of the envelope was written in an unknown hand, "A present from a friend." He deposited 600l. with his bankers, stating at the time there was a mystery about it and the truth might be ascertained some day, He never had the slightest knowledge that any money had been paid to the defendants or to Mr. Saffery in relation to any purchases of property by the Company.

By Sir H. James.-The purchase of the Shaftesbury Park and the Queen's Park estate was very carefully considered, and he was a party to the purchase of all the estates, and he considered 800l. an acre was a fair price for the Cann Hall estate, and that the purchase of that estate and the Queen's Park estate was a very good purchase. The defendants and all the directors took very great pains to ascertain the value of any property before they purchased it. He considered that the company had paid a very reasonable price for the Cann Hall estate, and that it was a good purchase. Witness supposed that Saffery was employed by some one to sell the property and that he was acting for some other person as agent. The defendants took very great interest in the company, and had assisted it very much when it was first established. He was aware that a Committee of Investigation, of which Mr. Evelyn Ashley and other members of Parliament were members, had been appointed, and the directors had offered to give every explanation they required, but they refused to hear any evidence except what they obtained themselves.

Mr. John Ruffell, a former director of the company, stated that the directors considered very attentively the subject of the purchase of the Shaftesbury Park and the Cann Hall estates, and he considered they were most