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



Detective Sergeant Robert Outram

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Detective Sergeant Robert Outram

Post by Karen on Tue 24 Jul 2012 - 19:03

MANSION HOUSE.
STEALING POSTAL ORDERS.

Frank Lee, lately in the employ of Messrs. Keith, Prowse, and Co., music-sellers, of Cheapside, was charged with stealing postal orders belonging to his employers. - Outram, a City detective, said that on Friday afternoon he arrested prisoner, and told him he would be charged with stealing a postal order, and he showed him the letter in which it had been sent, and which had been opened. For some time postal orders had been missed, and the prisoner appeared to have been in the habit of opening the letters sent to the firm and taking out the postal orders that were sent in them. As he was being taken to the station he admitted that he had stolen several orders and said he could not tell what had prompted him to do it. - He was remanded.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, September 8, 1889, 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: Detective Sergeant Robert Outram

Post by Karen on Sat 4 Aug 2012 - 0:48

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. BRADLAUGH.

Mr. Charles Bradlaugh, of No. 10, Portland-place, St. John's-wood, publisher, and Mrs. Annie Besant, of Oaklands, Mortimer-road, St. John's-wood, journalist, surrendered to their bail before Alderman Figgins, at Guildhall, to answer the charge of publishing an obscene book.
Mr. Straight and Mr. Mead, instructed by the City Solicitor, prosecuted; and Mr. Bradlaugh defended himself and Mrs. Besant.
Long before the time arrived for commencing proceedings a crowd of people assembled in Guildhall-yard, and as many as the public gallery and the body of the court could hold were admitted. Amongst them were about a dozen ladies. Many were unable to gain admission.
Besides Alderman Figgins there were on the Bench Sir Robert W. Carden, Sir Benjamin Phillips, and Alderman Allen.
Mr. Straight said that he was instructed by the City Solicitor to put the case in such a form as would enable the Bench to send it to the Central Criminal Court. The question was of considerable public importance, for, while free discussion was claimed, and it was desirable that it should be allowed, in all questions of political and social interest to the public, it was equally desirable that the publication of those discussions should be kept within the limits of the law in order to guard against their being injurious to the social state of the community. He was not here to import any acrimonious feeling into the prosecution, but simply to discharge a duty which had devolved upon the City authorities of preventing the publication of a work of an obscene character, but the contention of the parties was that it was published for the benefit of the public and for a good purpose, and that that would purge it of its obscene character.
Mr. Bradlaugh said that he went far beyond that, for if that were an obscene work, the object, however good, could not purge it of its character; but he should contend that it was not obscene, and that it was for the advantage of the public that it should be published.
Mr. Straight said that he would show that the book was indecent and unbecoming, and that would constitute the charge that the book was obscene. He admitted that medical works might be published without coming within the scope of indecent works; but looking at what was taking place in the Divorce Court, the publication in full of these proceedings could not have anything but a prejudicial effect on the public mind.
Alderman Figgins said that it was a question with his brother magistrates and himself whether ladies should be allowed to remain.
Mr. Bradlaugh said that some ladies were present, and if the matter was unfit for them to hear it was unfit for the lady who was a defendant with him. Two of his daughters were present, and all the ladies claimed their right as citizens to be present and hear the evidence.
Mr. Straight said that if the ladies were to be called as witnesses, and had no objection to hear the evidence, he had no objection to their remaining.
Alderman Figgins said he was sorry that, after what he had said, the women still remained; but if they did not feel the propriety of leaving, he could not turn them out. He certainly should not allow any extracts from the book to be read.
Mr. Straight continued, and said that no matter how good the intention of the parties who published the work might be, if it were obscene they would have committed the offence imputed to them. He then described the nature of the work as showing how the increase of the population might be controlled, and said that after leaving the publisher's hands he lost all control over it, and there was no knowing into whose hands it might fall, and what mischief it might do. The learned counsel then quoted the case of the "Queen v. Hickling" which settled the question as to what was obscene, and this came precisely under that category.
Mr. Martin asked him to point out the objectionable parts.
Mr. Straight said they were in pages 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, and the whole of chapters 3 and 4.
The evidence previously given was then read over and re-sworn to.
Robert Outram, detective-sergeant, cross-examined by Mr. Bradlaugh - On the 9th of April he received the letter produced from Mr. Bradlaugh. The letter enclosed a second edition of the work with notes. The letter stated that he sent him the copy to say that he and Mrs. Besant would be at the office to sell the work, for the purpose of proving the publication of it, and pointing out that there were some corrections in it which were not material. He further stated that the sale over the counter had been stopped.
James Keniston, detective constable, said he was present at the Central Criminal Court on the 8th of February when Mr. Watts was tried before the Recorder for the publication, and Mr. Bradlaugh was present. Mr. Watts pleaded guilty.
Mr. Bradlaugh said he would admit that the two books were practically identical.
Cross-examined: The Recorder said that he had not read the book.
That was the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Bradlaugh said that he was very much obliged to the City authorities and the legal gentlemen conducting the case for the manner in which it had been opened, for it would save him from referring to medical works of great eminence and which could not be questioned. He next alluded to leading articles which had been published in some of the largest papers urging, even while the case was sub judice, that the magistrates should send the defendants to prison with hard labour, and stating that if it did not come within the meaning of the Act the writer hoped it would come within it. He mentioned this to show the difference between the journals he had referred to and the moderate tone adopted by the City in their opening statement. He maintained that, if the work were of an obscene character, however good the object might be, it would not secure him from the consequences of the publication. The learned Counsel had said that the book dealt with population. That was a subject of great public interest, and although it was admitted by him that the work was innocuous in itself, there was no knowing into whose hands it might fall after it left the publisher's hands, and what mischief it might do. He contended that if the work in itself were innocuous he would not be responsible for the use made of it after it had left his hands. If a razor were made use of to cut throats they would never think of prosecuting the cutler for the crime of the murderer. He then quoted from the definition of Lord Campbell of what constituted an indecent work. It was a work published exclusively with the intention of debauching and corrupting the minds of youth. There was nothing in the book in question which could come under that definition. He then referred to various medical works to show that the language used was grosser than anything in the "Fruits of Philosophy," and subjects dealt with of a more indelicate character. Further, he argued, that the subject of population was a most important question, and he quoted from Mr. John Stuart Mill, and Professor Fawcett and Mr. Montague Cookson recommended the use of prudent checks after marriage, and not before. It had been said that the price at which the book was sold was an element of the offence, but he maintained that the book was intended for the poor, for they were the people who suffered. It was not the rich who suffered, but the poor, who were unable to maintain their offspring, and for whose guidance the book was intended. He then at great length referred to pages in his own pamphlet, and to certain parts in other works, but did not read them.
Mr. Martin said the difficulty Mr. Bradlaugh was in, in not being able to quote from the works he referred to, arose from the ladies persisting in remaining.
Mr. Bradlaugh said the case might be adjourned, and on the next occasion, after the expression of opinion from the Bench, they would not be present. He then indicated the various medical works he intended to rely on, and the pages where he said the language and subject matter were grosser than in his own book.
The Court here adjourned for luncheon.
On the Court resuming, Mr. Bradlaugh put in a number of other medical works, and drew the Alderman's attention to certain parts without reading them, as ladies were still present, and also referred him to certain parts of Dr. Knowlton's work, "Fruits of Philosophy," that he might see the similarity between them.
Alderman Figgins admitted that they were very similar.
Mr. Bradlaugh called attention to the fact that Messrs. Churchill advertised their books as being of an exceedingly chaste character, and referred to some pages in the work of Dr. Carpenter.
Mr. Straight objected to Mr. Bradlaugh making any reference to an advertisement, which referred to their works generally.
Mr. Bradlaugh contended that he had a right, in his speech, not only to refer to the advertisement of the publisher, but to read any extracts from those works.
Mr. Straight contended that it was not an advertisement referring to the book of Dr. Carpenter specifically, but a general advertisement, and therefore could not be introduced.
Mr. Bradlaugh said that that advertisement appeared in all their books, and there was nothing in it to say that it did not apply to the book in which it appeared. However, if Mr. Straight objected to it he would withdraw the chasteness of Messrs. Churchill. (Great laughter.) He proceeded to refer to numerous other medical works, pointing out where they dealt with the same subjects that Dr. Knowlton had discussed, and asked him to notice how very delicately Dr. Knowlton had treated them.
After going through a long list of medical references, he closed with Dr. Grailey Hewitt, and drew attention to the general remarks he had made on the pamphlet of Dr. Knowlton. Compared with that gentleman's work, Dr. Hewitt's was the more indecent and obscene. There was not a single line in Dr. Knowlton's pamphlet that had not been written by other authors in a more gross character than he had done it, and yet they were never prosecuted. He also contended that it was published for a moral and useful purpose, and that it was not until he had gone through the whole of his case that he could justify himself from the stand-point he had taken up.
Mr. Straight said that he thought it would be too great a strain on the defendant to ask him to go any further with his case at present, and if the Court would accede to it he would suggest an adjournment.
Alderman Figgins said he would adjourn the case; but after the defence that had been set up he should take the defendants' own recognisances to appear.
Mr. Bradlaugh said he was glad of that for it would relieve him of the necessity of troubling his friends. He would on the next occasion, if a long adjournment were granted, furnish the City Solicitor with a list of his medical references, but that would take him four days to make out.
After some discussion the case was adjourned till Thursday.

Source: The Echo, Tuesday April 17, 1877, 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

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

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