Books




Face of Winifred May Davies
Latest topics
» Why Jesus Is Not God
Mon 17 Apr 2017 - 0:09 by Karen

» The Fourth Reich
Fri 14 Apr 2017 - 14:14 by Karen

» Allah, The Real Serpent of the Garden
Tue 7 Mar 2017 - 11:45 by Karen

» THE INNOCENCE OF JEWS
Sat 4 Mar 2017 - 12:06 by Karen

» Hillary Clinton (Hillroy Was Here)
Fri 28 Oct 2016 - 17:38 by Karen

» Alien on the Moon
Thu 20 Oct 2016 - 21:57 by Karen

» Martian Nonsense Repeats Itself
Thu 20 Oct 2016 - 18:43 by Karen

» Enlil and Enki
Fri 7 Oct 2016 - 17:11 by Karen

» Israel Shoots Down Drone - Peter Kucznir's Threat
Wed 24 Aug 2016 - 22:55 by Karen

» Rome is Babylon
Sun 24 Jul 2016 - 21:27 by Karen

Links












Gallery



Inspector Walter Andrews

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Fri 31 Dec 2010 - 15:16

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDERER.

According to the New York correspondent of a London paper Inspector Andrews, of Scotland-yard, has arrived in New York, from Montreal, and it is believed that he has received orders from England to commence his search there for the Whitechapel murderer. Mr. Andrews is reported to have said that there are half a dozen English detectives, two clerks, and one inspector employed in America in the same chase. The supposed inaction of the Whitechapel murderer for a considerable period, and the fact that a man suspected of knowing a good deal about this series of crimes left England for the other side of the Atlantic three weeks ago, has produced the impression that Jack the Ripper is in America.

Source: The Courier and London & Middlesex Counties Gazette, January 5, 1889, Page 2

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Fri 31 Dec 2010 - 15:31

THE NOTORIOUS JUSTICE.

At the Epsom Police-court on Monday Timothy John Smith (alias "Peel," alias, "Justice Smith") was charged, in connection with the recent prosecution, with being the principal in keeping a betting house at Epsom, known as "Truth's Express Office." The prisoner was apprehended late on Saturday night in Walworth by Detective-Inspector Andrews, whom he kicked and attempted to bite. Upon being placed in the dock Inspector Andrews asked for a remand, as the time between the apprehension and hearing had been too short to enable him to obtain the necessary assistance from the Treasury. Mr. Dennis, of Croydon, who defended the prisoner, did not object, but asked that the money found on the prisoner might be given up for the purpose of his defence. Eventually Smith was remanded in custody till Monday next.

Source: Bell's Life in London, Saturday November 17, 1883, Page 7

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Fri 31 Dec 2010 - 15:53

BREAKING OUT OF PRISON.

Frederick Richardson, a bricklayer, was charged, at the Wandsworth police-court yesterday, with breaking out of Wandsworth gaol while undergoing a term of two years' imprisonment, which would expire in July next. It was stated the prisoner would be further charged with stealing the prison clothes. - Inspector Andrews informed the magistrate that the prisoner would be charged with house-breaking in West Ham, since he escaped from prison. - Alfred Cole, a warder, deposed that on the 20th of December he had the prisoner under his charge. The prisoner was employed as a bricklayer to make a hole in the main wall in one of the wings of the building, for the insertion of a pipe. The fog came on thick and dark, and he missed the prisoner and a ladder. He found the ladder with a rope attached to the top round at the boundary wall. He could not tell how the rope was obtained, as one had not been used in the work. - The chief warder said the height of the wall was about 24 feet. - Lewis Serth, a butcher employed at Stracey-road, Forest-gate, stated that on the morning of the 25th ult. he was awoke and missed his waistcoat, watch and chain from behind the door where he left them on the previous night. There was a half sovereign in the pocket of the waistcoat. He was not disturbed during the night. - Joseph Sandell, also in the same employ, said in the morning he found the front door open and the gas burning. He missed a pair of trousers. - The evidence of the police went to prove that an entrance was effected by breaking a pane of glass near the latch in the back kitchen window. The prisoner was arrested in the Borough-road, and, on being searched, the police found the watch and chain in his pocket. He then told Serjeant Leech that he had given a shilling to a boy to carry the clothes back to the prison. - Inspector Andrews said that day he had the prisoner brought from the cells to be charged with the case of housebreaking. He said, "It is something like a burglary, ain't it?" Witness replied, "Yes." He said, "I think I had better have got over Christmas in prison." - In defence the prisoner accounted for the possession of the watch and chain by stating that he had them from another man. - The witnesses were bound over to prosecute at the Old Bailey, and the prisoner was formally remanded for the production of the warrant of detention in Wandsworth prison.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, February 6, 1887, Page 12

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Fri 31 Dec 2010 - 16:31

ARREST OF M. ROCHEFORT.

Great excitement was caused in the West-end of London, on Saturday night, by the circulation of the report that M. Rochefort had been arrested in Regent Street for presenting a loaded revolver at M. Pilotell, a caricaturist of considerable repute, and crowds of Frenchmen flocked to Vine Street Police-station to ascertain the facts of the case. The quarrel between these two of the most prominent men in the French colony in London is long-standing. Eighteen or twenty years ago, when the fate of the Imperial House of France had been determined, the two men were working for a common political cause. Though the quondam friends have been so long dissociated, neither the pen of the one nor the pencil of the other has, it is stated, been idle; and the attacks of the journalist are said to have become so pronounced that early in the present year, the artist despatched a challenge to him by registered letter. Two friends were commissioned by him to arrange the preliminaries, but M. Rochefort refused to meet his adversary in a duel. Thus matters stood when he came to London, and as he secured rooms in Ryder Street, St. James's, the prospects of a chance encounter between him and M. Pilotell became by no means remote, and it actually occurred on Saturday evening. Just before 7 o'clock M. Rochefort was strolling down Regent Street in the company of his niece. M. Pilotell, who was in the Cafe Royal, was apprised of the fact, and, hurriedly leaving that establishment, he came up with his fellow countryman at the corner of Glasshouse Street. A wordy warfare ensued, in which the phrase "miserable" was used by the two disputants. M. Pilotell alleges that, on reaching him, he struck M. Rochefort sharply across the face with his folded gloves, with the avowed intention of publicly insulting him. M. Rochefort placed his hand to his breast pocket and drew a revolver, which was enclosed in a soft leather case. By this time a crowd had collected, and upon the police reaching the scene, M. Pilotell gave M. Rochefort into custody. He was at once conveyed to Vine Street Police-station, where the officer on duty, Inspector Andrews, entered a charge of common assault. Although it was ascertained upon inspection that the revolver was loaded in its five chambers, the graver charge of felonious assault was not preferred, as the weapon was never taken from the case. M. Rochefort remained in custody for something like an hour, and was ultimately released upon bail being offered by the proprietress of the hotel in which he is staying. General Boulanger attended at the station, but as he was not a householder the police refused to accept his recognisances.

PROCEEDINGS IN COURT.

At the Marlborough Police-court, on Monday, M. Henri Rochefort was charged with presenting a revolver at M. Pilotell, caricaturist. Mr. A. Newton appeared to prosecute, and Mr. Lewis defended. The court was crowded, but most of the spectators being Frenchmen, but General Boulanger was not present.
Mr. Newton said he appeared on behalf of the plaintiff, M. Georges Pilotell, who had lived in England thirteen or fourteen years, and was well known as an artist. The defendant was practically a stranger in England, and was the editor of L' Intransigeant, a paper which is opposed to all sorts of order.
Mr. Lewis protested against this statement, and held up a caricature of M. Rochefort by the prosecutor.
Mr. Hannay (the magistrate) said he did not think they ought to go into details of that kind. It was not a serious case.
Mr. Newton said M. Rochefort had abused M . Pilotell in a series of articles. M. Pilotell sent a challenge to M. Rochefort, which M. Rochefort declined. M. Rochefort was, on Saturday evening, in Regent Street, close to Glasshouse Street. M. Pilotell met him, and, smarting under recollections of the articles which had appeared in M. Rochefort's paper, he struck him, but it was not a violent blow, with his glove in the face. The defendant said in French, "I have something which I have kept for you a long time," and drew a revolver, in a case, out of his pocket. M. Rochefort could not unbutton his gloves and open the case. M. Pilotell, thinking he was going to be shot, called for the police, and M. Rochefort struck him a violent blow on the arm with the revolver case, when M. Pilotell slipped and fell. M. Rochefort kicked him. M. Rochefort was arrested and taken to the police station, where the revolver was found to have been loaded in five chambers. He (Mr. Newton) asked that M. Rochefort should find substantial sureties for his future good conduct.
M. Georges Pilotell, of 62, York Terrace, Regent's Park, was called. He said he had been acquainted with the defendant for twenty years. There had been quarrels between them. At about 7 o'clock on Saturday night he was walking in Regent Street, and he saw the defendant with a lady. He bowed to M. Rochefort and said, "You miserable flaneur, at last I find you." He took M. Rochefort by the collar and, with his gloves, he struck him on the face. M. Rochefort went back three or four yards and said, "I have something in my pocket I have bought for you. I will kill you like a dog." M. Rochefort then put his hand into his pocket, drew out a case, and attempted to unfasten the little button of his glove. Prosecutor went for a policeman, but could not find one, and returned. He slipped and fell. The defendant kicked him, and struck him with the revolver case.
Several other witnesses having been called, Mr. Lewis said he thought if the positions of the plaintiff and the defendant had been reversed justice would have been done. He could not imagine a more outrageous insult than that offered by the complainant to the defendant. If M. Pilotell had wanted to send him a challenge it would have been perfectly competent for him to send to his hotel. There could be nothing more cowardly than the course he had pursued, and if M. Rochefort had knocked M. Pilotell down and kicked him while on the ground, he had not received more than he deserved. He denied that M. Rochefort used the words attributed to him by M. Pilotell, who had, by his course of conduct, had an opportunity of airing his crotchets, his desire to fight a duel, and of maligning M. Rochefort. M. Pilotell asked M. Rochefort to fight a duel, and therefore he asked the magistrate to bind him over so that he could not fight it. (Laughter.)
Mr. Hannay said the facts were extremely clear. If M. Rochefort had not kicked the prosecutor when he was down he should not have found it necessary to take any steps whatever. As he did he would call on him to find two sureties of 50 pounds or one in 100 pounds to keep the peace for six months. If Mr. Lewis liked he would grant a process against the prosecutor for making the first assault.
Mr. Lewis, having consulted with his client said he would not proceed further in the matter, but treat it with contempt.
The necessary surety having been given the parties left the court.

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Sat 1 Jan 2011 - 2:35

THE CHARGE AGAINST DR. HAMMOND.

This afternoon, at BOW-STREET, Sir James Ingham resumed the examination of Dr. Francis J. Hammond, of 101, Drury-lane, charged with having conspired with Ellen Saunders, on two or more occasions, to procure a miscarriage.
Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. Pollard, prosecuted for the Treasury; and Mr. Besley, instructed by Mr. Abrams, again appeared for the defendant.
Inspector Salt, E Division, deposed that, on the 8th of July, he was in charge of Hunter-street Police Station. He now knew the witness, Amy Phillips. She called at the station that evening, but he could not say at what time. It was some time after six. She gave her name and address. She made a complaint with reference to a person of the name of Hammond, a doctor, living at 101, Drury-lane. She requested witness to send the divisional surgeon to see a person named Saunders at 17, Argyle-street. The statement she made was taken down in writing. Witness did not send the surgeon, but gave her certain advice. On the following morning she came to the police-station again, and again requested witness to send the divisional surgeon to 17, Argyle-street. Inspector De Maud also saw her on that occasion. The surgeon was not sent. A report of what had occurred was made to Superintendent Thompson.
Cross-examined by Mr. Besley - Witness had a conversation about the divisional surgeon on the first occasion. He only wrote the name and address of Phillips and the defendant. He wrote nothing else until the next morning. He never saw the prosecutrix, Ellen Saunders. Upon the second occasion he did not write anything in her presence. It was not until after she had left the second time that he wrote anything in connection with the case.
Mr. Poland directed the witness to go in a cab to the police-station for the purpose of procuring his original notes of what had passed between him and Amy Phillips.
Dr. James Wheeker, 25, Argyle-square, was called, and the witness, Amy Phillips, was called into Court, but he could not recognise her as the person who had called on him. He went to see Ellen Saunders. He was fetched by a little girl, and went to Argyle-street. The person he was called to see appeared to be in pain. After knowing the particulars of the case he declined to have anything to do with it. He had been informed that another medical man had been consulted. He did not remain more than five or six minutes.
Cross-examined - Witness understood the young person who had spoken to him to be the sister-in-law or sister of Ellen Saunders. The patient was not in bed, but was sitting in the front room. He had a conversation with her alone for a few minutes. He did not know who she was, nor did he make any inquiries. He strongly advised her to send for the medical man who had attended her the fare part of the day, as the pains had greatly increased. He did not like to interfere with the case of a brother practitioner.
Re-examined - A complaint was made about the use of an instrument.
Dr. Jos. Skelding, 16, Euston-square, deposed that a young woman called on him on Tuesday, 8th July, to the best of his belief. It was about 5 or 6 o'clock. She requested him to go to 17, Argyle-street, to see a person who was ill. Learning that another doctor had charge of the case, he declined to go.
Cross-examined - Witness had never been to the house before. He had never seen the patient. He did not recollect seeing anyone in her condition at 174, Euston-road.
Mr. Besley applied to the Court, before the witnesses were bound over, to fix a later date for the trial than the commencement of the immediately ensuing sessions, if the Court had decided to send the case before a Jury. It would be his duty to call several medical men to establish what he might call the "scientific" defence of his client, but it would be impossible to prepare this defence in time for the Sessions, which began next week. It would be both inconvenient and expensive to have the trial postponed, as it would involve the attendance of the medical men on two occasions instead of one.
Mr. Poland said he could offer no objection to this proposal if it were approved by the Court; but he should stipulate that the medical examination of Ellen Saunders should be made in the presence of Dr. Middlemist, on behalf of the Crown.
At the request of Mr. Poland the witness Amy Phillips was recalled, and identified Dr. Wheeker as the gentleman whom she had called in to see Ellen Saunders.
In reply to Mr. Besley, she said the name written by her last week and handed to Mr. Besley was that of the sender of the telegram. She had never known him by any other name. She had seen him the same night she received the telgram. On leaving the Court, Ellen Saunders had told her she had seen the prisoner's wife. She could not say if Ellen Saunders spent two hours with the defendant's wife. Witness did not accompany her.
By Mr. Poland - She believed that the prisoner's wife sent for Ellen Saunders, and asked her to visit her. Inspector Andrews was present when the request came.
Inspector Salt here produced the notes he had taken when Amy Phillips called on him.
Edward Thomas, chemist, 44, Drury-lane, deposed that the bottle labelled "Liq Secale" was in his handwriting. He had seen the defendant at his shop on the occasion of getting the preparations. It was late one night about four months ago. The medicine would only be supplied to a medical man. The witness's son was in the shop, and filled a bottle of sal volatile for the defendant. He took both bottles away with him.
Cross-examined - Witness had no entry of the transaction. He was not such a " as not to charge anything for it. (Laughter.) He did not often prescribe.
Percy Thomas, son of last witness, could not remember where he had seen the defendant, but remembered filling a bottle of sal volatile for someone about four months ago late one night, when his father had filled a bottle of "liq. secale" for the same person.
Dr. Duprez, Professor of Chemistry at the Westminster Hospital, permanently employed by the Home Office, deposed to having examined the medicines submitted to him, and the purposes for which they were often used.
Cross-examined - Four of the bottles contained ordinary medicine, strengthening or soporific.
Inspector Andrews proved that he found the medicines in the room occupied by Ellen Saunders.
Mrs. Smith, of Wellington-street, Strand, was recalled at the request of Mr. Besley, to state that Ellen Saunders was ill two or three days before she left her lodgings. The defendant did not say to her, "It is impossible it can be a miscarriage. She must be pregnant first." She never heard him say anything of the kind. Her washerwoman was a Mrs. Dickenson, of Camberwell.
Ellen Saunders appeared in the witness-box for cross-examination, still looking very pale and unwell. She consented to write the name of one of the gentlemen who had called on her, mentioned by Amy Phillips, but declined to give the name of the other. The address was in Coleman-street. The name written by Amy Phillips was recognised by witness, but was not the name of the person she declined to give. She had given the name of the father of her child. She declined, by the wish of the gentleman, to give her name. She had seen him twice since the 7th July, but only in the presence of her solicitor. She declined to say when they had met, or to write the name of the solicitor. On Friday evening, the 10th July, she saw the defendant soon after one. He came to her lodgings. Amy Phillips was there, and an elderly gentleman named Myers was with her. He had called to bring her a letter. Witness was in bed when the defendant saw her. She did not tell him that she was much better, or beg him to come to her. She did not suggest that he should leave the bag or what was in it. She did request Amy Phillips to go to the police. She did not know that she had gone until after she had returned. She had told witness that she had been on two occasions to the police-station. On the Thursday, 10th July, defendant called. Witness did not say anything about Amy Phillips going to the police-station. The bag was not left at all, and she never suggested it should be left. An instrument was left on the Tuesday. The gentleman whose name she declined to give was providing funds for her.
Re-examined by Mr. Poland - Her sister's reason for going was that she thought witness would die, and that she would be prosecuted. She heard that medical aid was refused at the police station. Other medical men were sent for. Amy Phillips begged her not to tell defendant.
Mr. Poland said this concluded his case.
Mr. Besley made an urgent appeal to the Court to admit Dr. Hammond to bail. It was quite certain that a man in his position would not fail to surrender. It was his interest and his desire to meet the charge; but another month's incarceration would be very serious to him, and would materially obstruct his defence.
On being appealed to by the Court, Mr. Poland said he always left the question of bail to the superior discretion of the Magistrate.
Sir James Ingham, after some inquiry as to the means of the defendant, ultimately agreed to accept two sureties in 500 pounds each, besides his own personal recognisances in 1,000 pounds; the usual notice of bail being given to the Crown.
The defendant, in answer to the formal question put to him, said, "I am not guilty."
The witnesses were then bound over to attend the trial of the defendant at the September sessions of the Central Criminal Court.

Source: The Echo, Thursday July 31, 1879, Page 4

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Sat 1 Jan 2011 - 3:09

IMPORTANT THEATRICAL CASE.

At Bow-street police-court, on Wednesday, a gentlemanly-looking man, giving the name of Wm. Whyte Maitland, and who is known by the following aliases: - W.W. Walton, 38, Albany-street, Regent's-park; Walton and Co., 10, Boulevard des Italiens, Paris; Wright and Co., Turf Commission agents, London; D.S. Wright and Co., Theatrical Musical agents, 33, Leicester-square; Theatrical, Musical and General agency, 33 Leicester-square; The Garrick Dramatic association, 6, Salisbury-street, Strand; Messrs. Davenport, Wright, and Co., Dramatic agents, same address; and Colonel Cordova, 29, Leicester-square, was brought up on a warrant and charged with perjury.
Inspector Andrews deposed to the arrest of the prisoner, at 38, Albany-street, Regent's-park, where he was living in the name of W.W. Walton, and was carrying on the business of a so-called theatrical agent. He had been advertising in the papers recently, and had had his letters addressed to a baker's shop in the neighbourhood. In the prisoner's room witness found a lady, who stated that she had come to consult prisoner about a theatrical engagement. Witness told her his business, and arranged to see her again. He then handed the warrant to prisoner, who replied, "I have not committed perjury." Witness told him that possibly charges of fraud and forgery might be preferred against him. He thought this could not be. A betting-book, some letters, cards, and the names of W.W. Maitland and Walton and Co., some advertisements from newspapers, and some indecent cards were found on the prisoner. Witness stated that he had known the prisoner for some years as a so-called theatrical agent and a betting-man. He had known he was transacting business as Wright and Co., and under other names mentioned among the prisoner's aliases.
Mr. William Doveton Smyth, for the prisoner, objected to the history of his client being gone into, submitting that it could not be relevant to the charge of perjury, and might prejudice the magistrate upon the question of bail.
Mr. Vaughan overruled the objection, but decided that no further evidence should be taken until the next occasion.
Mr. Smyth asked for bail, and Mr. Vaughan expressed his inclination to accept substantial bail, if there were no other charges of a definite character.
Mr. Birch said that charges of fraud would be preferred, it being alleged that the prisoner had inserted advertisements in papers representing that he could procure engagements with a first-class London company on payment of a premium. It was proposed to show that in several cases the money had been paid without the engagement being secured.
The offence with which the prisoner stands charged was alleged to have been committed in an affidavit sworn in civil proceedings, where the prisoner had sworn that he was manager for Wright and Co., of Leicester-square, whereas it was alleged that he alone constituted that firm.
After some conversation Mr. Vaughan decided to admit prisoner to bail in two sureties of 100 pounds each.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, January 29, 1882, Page 4

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Mon 3 Jan 2011 - 1:35

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

BOW-STREET.

BETTING PROSECUTIONS. - John Bennett, 38, shipwright, 9, Acland-street, Burdett-road, Limehouse; George Mansfield, 23, clerk, 121, St. Paul's-road, Bow; and Edward Jones, tobacconist and linendraper, 36, Broad-street, Bloomsbury, were charged with keeping and using No. 9, Acland-street, for the purposes of betting. - Mr. Vaughan fined Jones 100 pounds and 5 pounds 5s. costs. The other defendants would be discharged.
A second case was then proceeded with, against W. Coles, publisher, 1, Thomas-street, Horsely-down, and Richard du Bochet, 3, Berwick-square, Borough, his clerk. - The case against the prisoners was that they published a paper called the Sporting Prophet. Subscribers were promised telegrams and advertisements in the daily papers which, by a previously arranged code, would give them information as to the horses that the defendants would advise them to back for certain races. Inspector Andrews again gave evidence, but from this it appeared that the money he deposited with the defendants was left to them to "invest at their discretion." - Mr. Vaughan thought that the act required more specific evidence than this. He adjourned the case in order that Mr. Straight might further argue the point, the defendant du Bochet being discharged, and the other defendant released on his own recognisances.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, September 8, 1878, Page 4

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Mon 3 Jan 2011 - 8:52

In this article can also be found a mention of Inspector Abelin, which may actually be Inspector Abberline.

THIS DAY'S NEWS.
THE EXTRAORDINARY CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.

At the Central Criminal Court, today, before Mr. Justice Hawkins, the trial of Edward Lawrence Levy, 58, clerk; Daniel Levy, 28, Henry Levy, 26, his sons, clerks; John Brown, 38, cab-driver; and Frederick Kingwell, 35, coachmaker, for conspiring together to defeat the ends of justice by procuring witnesses to commit perjury in a trial at the Guildford Assizes, was continued.
Mr. Geoghegan addressed the Jury on behalf of the prisoner Brown. He argued that there was no evidence to show that when Brown invited the witness Mariner to go to Levy's office he was aware that Mariner had not seen the accident, and that, from what took place, he might have been under the impression that this witness really had seen the accident. He merely asked him to go to the solicitor's office, and state what he knew of the transaction.
Mr. Justice Hawkins then summed up the case to the Jury, and in the course of his remarks called attention to the evidence given by the witnesses Hill, Palmer, and Mariner, and to the admissions that had been made that they represented themselves to be willing to state upon their oaths that which they knew to be false, and it would be an important question for the consideration of the jury with regard to the elder Levy, whether the evidence made out to their satisfaction that he was aware they were not speaking truly, and encouraged them to make the false statement. With regard to the testimony of these witnesses, however, he said that they certainly stood in the position of accomplices, and, as such, the Jury ought not to act upon their testimony unless they were corroborated. In the course of his further observations his lordship said that he considered that the Railway Company had not done anything censurable in taking the witnesses down to Ashford and keeping them there for several days, and treating them in the way described, because it was obvious with witnesses of this description that if they had been allowed to go about their ordinary occupation, they would have been liable to have been tampered with by the parties against whom the charge was intended to be made, and might have been induced to unsay all that they had previously said.
The Jury retired shortly after two o'clock to deliberate upon their verdict. In about twenty minutes they returned into Court, and found Edward Levy, Brown, and Kingwell Guilty on all the counts of the indictment, and Henry and Daniel Guilty on the conspiracy counts, and recommended the two latter to mercy on the ground that they had acted under the influence of their father.
Inspector Abelin said that Kingwell had been convicted of wounding a witness who had given evidence in a trial in which he was convicted and sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour. This was in October, 1870. Kingwell was also proved to have been convicted in 1869 of obtaining money by falsely pretending that he was an inspector of police.
Inspector Andrews proved that Edward Lawrence Levy was convicted in this Court in May, 1879, and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment for forgery. At this time there were numerous other charges against him. Sentence was deferred.

Source: The Echo, Friday December 8, 1882

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Mon 3 Jan 2011 - 9:09

THE BETTING PROSECUTION.

At BOW-STREET today, James Cecil Waller, of 38, Wilmington-square, Clerkenwell, surrendered before Mr. Vaughan, to answer the charge of keeping a betting-house, &c. - Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. Thomas and the Treasury, prosecuted. - The evidence of Inspector Andrews and the police went to show that betting transactions were carried on in the name of "Wells and Anderson," chiefly through the medium of advertisements and correspondence, but the defendant pleaded ignorance of the facts, while admitting that letters were received at the house, addressed to such a firm, and were delivered to a person who had been lodging there. He denied all complicity in the acts of his lodger, or that he had ever "aided and abetted" any one in using the house for betting purposes. The defendant was eventually liberated on his own recognisances, and Mr. Thomas applied to the Court for a summons against Frederick H. Garnier, the lodger referred to. - Inspector Andrews said that he served the summons at the address of Garnier, 336, Fulham-road, where his wife received it, and stated that her husband was then living at Ostend. Mr. W.D. Smith, who now attended for Garnier, applied to the Court to postpone the hearing for a week, when his client would be able to attend personally. - Mr. Poland had no wish to oppose the application, but he reminded the Court that a letter read by him at the last examination, and signed "Wells and Anderson," contained a statement to the effect that the writer was apprehending the interference of the police, and that the address in future would be Ostend instead of Wilmington-square. The witnesses for the prosecution were now in attendance if the Court desired to proceed with the case, and then adjourn the inquiry as requested. But Mr. Vaughan thought it would be better to adjourn the case for another week. The other defendant, Waller, would be again liberated on his own personal recognisances.

Source: The Echo, Wednesday June 18, 1879, Page 3

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Mon 3 Jan 2011 - 9:27

THE BETTING FRAUDS AT EPSOM.

On Monday, at the Epsom Petty Sessions, before Lord Egmont (chairman) and a full bench of magistrates, Timothy John Smith (alias "Justice," alias C.W. Peel) was brought up on remand, charged with illegally keeping a betting house and other offences connected with a swindling agency at two houses at Epsom. It will be remembered that Smith's son, Thomas, and Herbert James Clark had been previously sentenced to six months' imprisonment, with hard labour, for being concerned in the same offences, but the elder Smith had for some months eluded all attempts to capture him. On Saturday, Nov. 10, however, Inspector Andrews succeeded in arresting him at Walworth, after some resistance on his part. Mr. Mead appeared for the Treasury, and Mr. Hodson (instructed by Mr. Fry, of Exeter) defended the prisoner. Lord Egmont gave Smith the choice between having the case decided at once or its going to the Surrey Sessions, whereupon Smith pleaded guilty to the charge of illegally keeping a betting house. Mr. Mead addressed the bench, and went through the circumstances made public in the cases of the younger Smith and Clark. Mr. Mead referred particularly to the fact of the prisoner having been previously convicted, and asked that the full penalty of six months' hard labour should be passed. Smith not only conducted an illegal business, but had defrauded even the persons who had backed winners with him. Mr. Hodson, for the defence, denied that Smith was the principal in these transactions, and pleaded that prisoner was old and ill and had been deceived by his son and Clark. Though he could not deny keeping a betting house he was not cognisant of any dishonesty, and the warnings he had received would effectually deter him from again engaging in betting. The Chairman, in delivering sentence, said the bench thought that Smith, son, was the prime mover in these transactions, and committed him to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. The prisoner, who had maintained the greatest self possession throughout, and frequently interrupted the proceedings, was then removed in custody.

Source: Bell's Life in London, Saturday November 24, 1883, Page 3

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Mon 3 Jan 2011 - 9:42

BOW-STREET.
ALLEGED FRAUDULENT AGENTS.

Edward Lawrence Levy, 28, Leicester-square, was charged, on remand, with having converted to his own use a valuable security for 111 pounds 9s. 10d., which had been intrusted to him by Jules Riviere and another. The prosecution is instituted by order of the Home Secretary, and Mr. Wontner stated that, besides the specific charge upon which the prisoner was arrested, several other cases, in which it is alleged he forged the names of Riviere and Hawkes, Fletcher, Vaughan and Co., and M. Worth, the celebrated dressmaker of Paris, would be brought against him. It appeared that the prisoner, who, being a solicitor, was some years since struck off the Rolls, has recently been engaged in carrying on a solicitor's business, under the style of Fisher and Co., at 28, Leicester-square. That house belonged to Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes, music publishers, who sublet part of it to Messrs. Fletcher, Vaughan, and Co., wine merchants, who in their turn let part of their premises to Messrs. Fisher and Co. M. Riviere became acquainted with the prisoner, who subsequently was intrusted by the firm of Riviere and Hawkes with the collection of debts. Amounts were received, but the money was never accounted for. When arrested the prisoner Levy told Inspector Andrews that the money went to the firm of Fisher and Co., but he simply acted as clerk. After hearing the evidence of bank clerks and others, Mr. Flowers adjourned the case, declining to accept bail.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, September 28, 1878, Page 4

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Mon 3 Jan 2011 - 21:34

At Westminster, Henry Smart Marshall, late assistant-clerk to the Curates' Augmentation Fund, was finally examined on Monday on the charge of embezzling large sums of money, amounting to nearly 7,000 pounds, the moneys of the trustees of the fund. Mr. Poland, instructed by Mr. St. John Wontner, prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; Mr. Michael defended; but, after the admissions of the prisoner, there was virtually no defence. The evidence detailed before was (says the Times) merely to show that the prisoner had admitted embezzling more than 3,000 pounds, and had signed a document to the effect that he had defrauded the fund for some time. Mr. Poland having briefly opened the proceedings, as he understood the prisoner wished to plead guilty, several persons deposed to having paid certain sums to the prisoner and taken receipts from him. In reply to the magistrate, Mr. Poland stated that there was a finance committee; but he feared they had placed too great faith and reliance in the prisoner and the auditors, or, probably, the frauds would have been discovered sooner. Mr. Minton, jun., the auditor, deposed that the cashbook purported to be made up to December last, but was really only made up to the preceding June; some of the counterfoils in the receipt-book were misdated and some not dated at all. The witness here detailed the deficiencies: - In 1873 they were 693 pounds 14s. 6d.; in 1874, 1,046 pounds 4s. 10d.; in 1875, 963 pounds 11s.; in 1876, 1,382 pounds 5s. 2d.; in 1877, 1,813 pounds 5s. 3d.; and this year 1,073 pounds 1s. 3d. - making a total of 6,972 pounds 2s. The system of deception carried on with the counterfoils by the prisoner had enabled him to make the accounts appear correct with the audit in each year, and it could be easily done, seeing that the audit did not take place at the commencement of each year. In the course of a rather lengthy cross-examination, the witness said since he had had the audit the same system had been carried on with the counterfoils. Not only were the individual counterfoils wrongly dated, but it frequently occurred that the dates at the tops of the pages were wrong, and by that means also one would be deceived, and take it for granted that one date was correct for all receipts till another was arrived at. He was so far satisfied with the system on which the counterfoils were kept that he certified yearly to the correctness of the accounts. Great confidence was reposed in the prisoner. Mr. James Butler, a clerk in the office of the fund, proved that by the orders of the prisoner he had not entered the dates of the counterfoils. In answer to the magistrate, he stated that the finance committee, which was constituted of seven gentlemen, had not met for some time. Mr. George Bolton, cashier at Coutts' Bank, proved that no money had been paid in since the 19th of July last to the account of the fund. The Rev. Henry Vincent de Bathe proved the duties of the prisoner as to receiving and paying money; his salary was 250 pounds a year. The prisoner came to him on the 23rd of September and confessed that the accounts were wrong, and subsequently, before the council, he admitted that the defalcations were over 3,000 pounds, and signed a confession. He said he had spent the money in "fast living." Mr. Robert Preston, one of the clerks, having proved the discovery of the deficiencies, Inspector Andrews, of Scotland-yard, proved the apprehension of the prisoner. He asked him what he had to say, and the prisoner said, "It's true; I've nothing to say." The Magistrate (Mr. Woolrych) said it was very wrong to interrogate a prisoner when in custody. The prisoner reserved his defence, and was fully committed for trial at the Old Bailey.

Source: The Guardian, October 16, 1878, Page 1435

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Karen on Mon 3 Jan 2011 - 23:10

The following incident places Inspector Andrews and Chief-Inspector Shore working together on the same case of fraud and forgery.

FRAUD AND FORGERY. - Edward Lawrence Levy, of Leicester Square, was charged before Mr. Flowers with having converted to his own use a valuable security for 111 pounds 10s. 9., that had been intrusted to him by one Jules Riviere and another. Mr. St. John Wontner prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury; Mr. George Lewis, jun., appeared for the prisoner. In opening the case Mr. Wontner said the specific charge upon which the prisoner was arrested was one of having misappropriated a draft for 111 pounds odd, which had been entrusted to him as an agent by Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes, music publishers, of Leicester Square. The prosecution had been instituted by the Home Secretary, as, in addition to that charge, there would be several others of a more serious character - charges of forgery - preferred against the accused. The prisoner was some years since a solicitor, and latterly he had been assisting to carry on the business of a solicitor, under the style of Fisher and Co., at the same address as Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes. The premises were those of Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes, who underlet a part to Messrs. Fletcher, Vaughan, and Co., wine merchants, who, in turn, let part of their premises to the firm of Fisher and Co. Being thus in the same house, M. Riviere became acquainted with the prisoner, and, believing him to be a solicitor, entrusted him with business, and subsequently gave him debts to collect. They had perfect faith in Mr. Levy, and, as he always told them he had been unable to get any of these moneys in, the firm allowed matters to go on until one day they themselves applied to a person who, they believed, owed them an account, and they then found that the amount had been paid. It had been paid into the county court to the credit of Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes, and they discovered that the prisoner had withdrawn that money by means of forging the name of the firm. This put them on the scent. Some months before they had entrusted the prisoner with the collecting of an account that was due from a gentleman named Castletown, who had gone to Port Elizabeth, and they found that Levy had misappropriated the amount of that debt - some 111 pounds odd. On being applied to, Castletown had at once forwarded a draft for 111 pounds 10s. 9d. on the Oriental Bank Corporation of Port Elizabeth, drawn on the head office in London. The draft was drawn for the amount of the debt only, and did not allow anything for costs. The prisoner told Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes that they could not accept that, for then they would have to pay their own costs. He advised them to get it accepted and then lodged in court to await the issue. Accepting the prisoner's advice, Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes endorsed the draft, and it was handed to the prisoner to pay into the credit of the case in the Court of Exchequer. He was afterwards asked for the receipt, and he then said that the Court would not receive the draft, and he had got it cashed by his bankers and had paid notes into the court. He looked through a number of papers, and then said that his son had the receipt with him, and he could not then produce it. It was after this that Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes discovered what had been done by the prisoner in the other case in the county court, and they then went to the Court of Exchequer, and from the inquiries they made, and from what they heard, they found that the draft had been cashed, and the money had been paid into the London and County Bank to the account of Fisher and Co., and had been drawn out of the bank by cheques of the said Fisher and Co. When arrested, the prisoner told Inspector Andrews that the money went to the firm of Fisher and Co., and that he was simply a clerk to that firm. Besides the cases in which Riviere and Hawkes were concerned, there would also be charges against the prisoner for similar misappropriation of moneys belonging to Messrs. Fletcher, Vaughan, and Co., and M. Worth, the dressmaker, of Paris, who was a loser of some 800 pounds or 900 pounds. Mr. Wontner then proceeded with the first case, the charge of misappropriating the draft for 111 pounds 10s 9d. Mr. Robert W. Barrett, clerk to Messrs. Riviere and Hawkes, gave evidence bearing out Mr. Wontner's opening statement; and Messrs. Hawkes and Riviere also adduced testimony. Walter Andrews, inspector, of Scotland Yard, said, together with Chief Inspector Shore, he went to 28, Leicester Square. He saw the prisoner, and asked him if he was Mr. Levy. The prisoner replied, "I don't know; it depends what your business is. What is your name?" Witness said, "My name is Andrews, and I want to see the Mr. Levy who is solicitor to a prisoner named Block. Are you that Mr. Edward Levy?" He said he was not. Witness then called up Shore, and the warrant was read to the prisoner, who took two rings from his fingers and endeavoured to secrete them. Witness secured the rings. The prisoner said he acknowledged that he had received the money, but he never put it to his own use. It went into the firm. He was not the firm; he was simply their clerk. When searched some address cards were found on him in the name of "Fisher and Co." Mr. Flowers adjourned the case.

Source: The Week's News, September 28, 1878, Page 1231

***************************************
Karen Trenouth
Author of: "Epiphany of the Whitechapel Murders"
Author of: "Jack the Ripper: The Satanic Team"
avatar
Karen
Admin

Posts : 4907

View user profile http://victorianripper.niceboard.org

Back to top Go down

Re: Inspector Walter Andrews

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum