Cases of Abberline's Career

BOW-STREET.

SEIZURE OF PRINTS.

Henry Arwarton, giving an address at 42, Great Coram-street, Brunswick-square, was charged on a warrant with selling indecent prints and books. It appeared that representations had been made to the police in consequence of which Chief-Inspector Abberline and Inspector Jarvis, of Scotland Yard, were instructed to make inquiries as to the sale of indecent publications. As a result they entered into a correspondence with an individual whom the prisoner now admitted to be himself. Interviews ensued, and various books and pictures were shown to the officers, and fabulous prices asked, ranging from 1 pound to 86 pounds. Eventually a seizure was made of 390 books and 879 photographs. For the purpose of the case purchases had been made to the extent of 25 pounds. The prisoner asked Inspector Jarvis whether the letters had been written by him personally from the Grand hotel.
Witness: Yes; and he admitted that it was under an assumed name.
Mr. Vaughan: In cases of this sort artifices would be resorted to, and justifiably, too. The learned magistrate proceeded to say that it had been his misfortune to examine two tin boxes and a Gladstone bag full of what he considered to be the most obscene and filthy productions. He would order their destruction, but would suspend execution until after the trial for the misdemeanour with which prisoner was charged. The accused was committed for trial.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, July 12, 1891, Page 3

THE SEIZURE OF FORGED RUSSIAN NOTES.

On Friday, at Wandsworth police-court, James Houlden, a Russian Pole; Henry Hill, a compositor; and his wife, Mary Ann Hill, were brought up for re-examination on the charge of being in the possession of forged Russian rouble notes; also a printing-press, plates, and water-mark paper sufficient to manufacture 6,000 notes. Inspector Moser, of Scotland-yard, was recalled, and said that after the remand he went with Inspector Abberline to 28, Knox-road, Battersea, where Hill and his wife lived, and made a further search. On the mantelshelf in the room where the press stood he found a copper plate for the manufacture of Russian notes, in a book. He also discovered a small press. In reply to Mr. Haynes, the inspector said he believed the female, said she knew nothing about about the parcel. She seemed astonished when it was opened. Inspector Abberline said he had made inquiries at Messrs. Spottiswoode's, where Hill worked, and was informed that he had been in their employ a number of years, and was a highly respected person. Mr. Paget granted another remand for technical evidence, and liberated the female on bail.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, October 14, 1883, Page 3

THE CHARGE OF ARSON.

At the THAMES Police-court today Henry Holt, a public-house broker and auctioneer, of 148, Finsbury-pavement, was charged on remand before Mr. Lushington with being concerned with Samuel Robert Pether and William Carter in attempting to set fire to the Duke of Wellington public-house, Brook-street, Ratcliff. The house was ostensibly taken in the name of Carter, but he did not appear to have had anything to do with the business, which was managed by Pether and his wife. On the 9th of November, Sergeant Gadd and an Inspector were passing the "Duke of Wellington," and were admitted into the house by Pether, after twenty minutes' delay. They found indisputable signs of preparations having been made to set fire to the place. Pether and Carter were charged at this Court, and, after several adjournments, they were committed for trial. Pether was sentenced to eight years' penal servitude, and Carter to 18 months' imprisonment with hard labour. The Wellington had been insured for 900 pounds, although the property there would not have realised more than 50 pounds. Pether afterwards made a statement to Inspector Abberline, in the presence of a warder at Pentonville Prison, and in consequence of that communication Inspector Abberline apprehended Holt, and he was charged at this Court with conspiring with Pether and Carter to set fire to the Duke of Wellington. Pether, Carter, and other witnesses have already given evidence implicating Holt in the affair, but there was no additional evidence given against him today, and he was again remanded for a week.

Source: The Echo, Thursday February 24, 1881, Page 2

The following murder, which Abberline had in his charge, occurred in Whitechapel about 10 years before the Ripper murders. What caught my eye was the mention of various street names, which featured prominently in the Ripper crimes. Could Abberline have been sent into the East End in the fall of 1888 because of his experience with crimes such as the one detailed below?

THE MYSTERIOUS CHILD MURDER.

Peter Wincey, aged 62, described as a watchman, and living in Goulston-street, Whitechapel, was charged on Wednesday at Worship-street police-court, on suspicion with the murder of a child named Elizabeth Lazarus, aged 19 months. Inspector Abberline stated the facts which would be brought against the prisoner. He had been examined at an inquest held on the body of the child, and a verdict of wilful murder had been returned, but "against some person or persons unknown." It appeared that the child, who, although so young, was very forward and tall, was about to play in the street in which her parents live - New-castle-place, Whitechapel - on Wednesday, the 29th ult. She was missed soon afterwards, and three days later her dead body was found, at one o'clock in the morning, on the doorstep of a house about 30 yards from her father's place. There was then no doubt that the child had been drowned. Its mouth and nostrils were stuffed with sand and its clothes were wet, but not its boots and socks. Inspector Abberline came to the conclusion that it had been drowned in the water where building operations were going on - the sand and lime being in the child's clothes. Some 100 yards distant from the house of the father the Whitechapel Public Baths and Washhouses are situate. These are now under repair, and no other building operations are in the neighbourhood. The prisoner is a watchman at the premises. The child was last seen at six o'clock in the evening about 50 yards from the building, and its body when found had been brought about 60 yards from the building. Large tubs full of water were on the premises, but the workmen left at 5:30, and the prisoner was then on duty until seven the next morning. A police-constable would prove that the body was not on the doorstep a few minutes before it was found there by three men who were passing. Those men approached the spot from three different passages. One of the men saw a person, whom he would speak to as resembling the prisoner, passing from the spot, towards the washhouses. The prisoner, when taken into custody, made a statement to witness, admitting that he had passed the spot at about one o'clock that morning. Further, that he saw something lying on the doorstep, but did not go to see what it was.
Simon Lazarus, tailor, then deposed to the loss of the child and the subsequent bringing home of its body. On the afternoon of the 1st inst., he added, when the child was lying in his room the prisoner came knocking at the door, and witness, thinking he was a parish officer, let him in. He asked to look at the child, and when he saw it he sat down beside the bed and buried his face in his hands. Afterwards he said to witness, "Leave it all to me; I'll see it right." He afterwards sent for witness's name and address.
The prisoner, when asked if he wished to put any questions to the witness entered into an explanation of his going to the house, and said that it was because he had heard of the loss of a child, and being himself the father of nine, he took an interest in it. He denied having made such a statement as the father had alleged, and simply said that the child must have been murdered.
The prisoner appeared an educated man, and said that though he was working as a watchman, he was a "professional" man.
Three young men deposed to the finding of the body on a doorstep in Newcastle-street at about 1:15 on the morning of the 1st inst., and one of the witnesses said that he, turning into Newcastle-street, saw a man, about the height and appearance of the prisoner, going from the spot where the body lay up Castle-alley to the washhouses. Further evidence corroborating that of the father, that the prisoner had made statements wishing the matter left to him, was given, and an adjournment was then taken for medical evidence. The prisoner was admitted to bail.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, June 16, 1878, Page 8

WHOLESALE ROBBERY FROM MESSRS. MOSES AND SONS.

Isaac Harvey, 18, porter, and John Attwell, 21, baker, were charged, the former with stealing and the latter with receiving six vests and two pairs of trousers, the property of Isaac Moses and others, the well-known tailors. The prisoner Harvey was in their employ as a porter, and he was in the constant habit of surreptitiously, by means of his apron, taking goods from his master's establishment in Oxford-street. These he put in the hands of the other prisoner, who pawned them at various establishments. They were both found "Guilty," and Mr. Besley then stated that, after the detection of Harvey, who, it was supposed, had been led astray by the inducement of the other prisoner, a deficiency in the stock was discovered, amounting to between 120 pounds and 130 pounds. The whole of the property, there was reason to believe, had been pledged, and as the tickets had been destroyed, it was only through the persevering inquiries of Serjeant Abberline and Detective Dalton that any part of it had been recovered. Altogether about 25 pounds worth of property had been so recovered, which comprised 43 waistcoats and three pairs of trousers, and were pledged at 21 different pawnbrokers. Attwell was sentenced to 18 months', and Harvey to 12 months' hard labour.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, February 25, 1872, Page 4

WORSHIP STREET.

A FATAL FIGHT. - COMMITTAL FOR MANSLAUGHTER.

Robert Wright, 20, labourer, living in Philip-street, Kingsland-road, was charged on remand before Mr. Bushby with causing the death of Jeremiah McHawara.
John Osborne, a labourer, said that he was employed on some work at Truman and Hanbury's brewery, Brick-lane, Spitalfields. The deceased and the prisoner were also employed there. Between 12 and half-past on the afternoon of the 5th instant, while on the scaffold, he heard the prisoner and deceased having some words about some cement which had been wrongly mixed. The deceased, who was on the ground, challenged the prisoner, on the scaffold, to go down and fight. The prisoner refused, and the deceased then mounted to the scaffold, and, saying that he would make him fight, struck him a blow. The prisoner picked up a piece of brick and struck the deceased, who was a much bigger and heavier man, on the forehead with it. The deceased fell, and witness, afraid that some accident would result, told both to go down off the scaffold. The deceased went on with his work for a short time, and after that left. Witness saw no more, but was subsequently told that deceased was ill.
Mr. Caleb Richards, surgeon, of Brick-lane, Spitalfields, deposed that on the same day he was called to see the injured man, who was then at his own home. He had a wound and two abrasions of the skin on the forehead, and complained of great pain in the head, especially about that part. He told witness that a man named Wright had struck him on the head with a 7lb hammer. Witness believed that when he made that statement the man thought his life was in danger. At seven o'clock in the evening, when he saw him again, he was much worse, with a rigidity of the muscles of the body and in a semi-comatose state. He swallowed some medicine given him, but was not able to answer any questions. On the following day (Sunday) when witness saw him he was better, but on the Monday morning, on calling, he found that the man had been removed by his friends to the London Hospital. That, witness thought, would be likely to take away the only chance of recovery the man had, carrying him down from the top of the house and jolting him to the hospital.
Mr. John Garratt, one of the house-surgeons of the London Hospital, said that the deceased, when admitted, was suffering from inflammation of the membranes of the brain, the result of a fracture of the skull. There was a wound on the forehead. The deceased rapidly got worse, and died on Tuesday morning at half-past 11. Witness agreed with the expression of opinion of the last witness, that the removal of the man might have made him worse. He had, also, old disease of the lungs, which would have some influence upon his condition.
Detective Doughty, H division, deposed to apprehending the prisoner in the first instance, when the man's condition allowed of the prisoner being admitted to bail. After his state became dangerous the prisoner was re-apprehended by Inspector Abberline, H division, to whom he said that if he had known he was wanted they would not have found him.
The prisoner denied this statement, and denied also the truth of the statement of the deceased to Mr. Richards, that he struck him on the head with a hammer.
Mr. Bushby, in committing the prisoner for trial, administered the usual caution, in reply to which the prisoner, who treated the matter with much levity, only said that he wanted something to eat.
He was fully committed on a charge of manslaughter to the Central Criminal Court.

Source: The Hour, Wednesday April 16, 1873, Page 8

ATTEMPT TO MURDER A MOTHER-IN-LAW.

George French, 33, described as a costermonger, living in Red Lion-square, Borough, was brought up on a warrant charged with having, in the month of September last, attempted to murder Mrs. Eliza Matthews, his mother-in-law, by shooting at her with a pistol and beating her with a shoemaker's last. The prosecutrix said that on the evening of the 11th of September last she was at her lodgings in Finch-street, Brick-lane, Spitalfields, when somebody ran in and seized her by the throat. She could not see who it was, but when he spoke she knew it was the prisoner. He said, "I've got you now, and I'll have your life." He dragged her into the middle of the room and fired a pistol at her twice. She escaped from the room and he fired again. On her reaching the passage he gave her several kicks and blows, and beat her on the head with something. She bled a good deal, and her head, arm, and hand were injured. She was taken to the hospital, and having been attended to, was able to return home. In reply to Mr. Hannay, the prosecutrix said the prisoner held her between the times he fired at her in the room. She could not say if the pistol went off or only the percussion cap; but she saw fire come from it. Inspector Abberline produced the pistol, which had a small stone in the barrel and did not appear to have been discharged. The prosecutrix said that the pistol was afterwards found on the stairs by a little girl. The prisoner, she added, had married her daughter, who had been compelled to prosecute him. Frederick Orton, a bootmaker, living in the same house, said that on the evening of the 11th of September, while at work, he heard cries of "Murder," and the prosecutrix knocked at his door and begged to be let in. He at once opened the door, and she rushed in. The prisoner followed immediately with a hatchet in his hand. Witness took it away, when the prisoner snatched up a knife and rushed at the prosecutrix. Witness struggled with the prisoner and got the knife from him, but after that was too exhausted to do any more. The prisoner got the prosecutrix down in a corner of the room, and beat her about the head with a boot last. Some one dragged her from him, and she reached the passage. Witness caught hold of the prisoner to prevent his going out, but several persons rushed in and rescued him. Witness received a severe kick. The hatchet and last were produced, the latter having blood upon it. Police-constable 808 City, deposed that on Tuesday the prisoner's wife called his attention to the prisoner, who was wheeling a barrow laden with fruit over London-bridge. On seeing her the prisoner left his barrow and ran off. When caught he said, "All right; I wonder you didn't have me before." Mr. Hannay remanded the prisoner.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, February 8, 1874, Page 4

Curious Story.

At the Thames Police court on October 17, Nicholas G. Nicolare, Antonio Freings, and Zean P. Fayne, natives of Greece, were charged with the unlawful possession of statue of "the God of War," and some other statuary of the supposed value of about 15,000 pounds. Detective-inspector Abberline, of the X Division, said that on Thursday afternoon he was in company with some other officers in Walden-street, Mile End, when he saw the prisoners in possession of some cases in a cab. He asked what the cases contained, and they said statuary, and Nicolare said that one of the pieces was worth 15,000 pounds, and that another, which he pointed to, was worth 200 pounds. He also said that the other two men were farmers, and had found the things buried in a marble coffin while tilling the ground in Greece. Mr. Abberline said that he was now in communication about the matter with the Greek Government, and would ask for a remand for a week. Mr. Saunders remanded the prisoners for a week on bail.

On October 24, the prisoners were again brought up. The Greek authorities in London were communicated with, and the Greek consul and another gentleman were in court to watch the proceedings, but there was no additional evidence. The law of Greece is, it was stated, entirely different to that of England with regard to persons finding relics of bygone ages, so that even if it were true that the prisoners had found the statues they were not entitled to them, as they were the property of the Greek Government. There is, however, no extradition treaty between this country and Greece. Mr. Saunders suggested that as it was a case of some importance, a competent legal gentleman should be engaged to conduct the prosecution, and he allowed the prisoners out on their own recognizances for a week.

Source: The Pottery Gazette, November 1, 1884, Page 1246

AN EXTRAORDINARY AFFAIR.

In London, at the Thames Police-court, on Friday in last week, Antonia Freyings, 34, farmer; Zea P. Frange, 36, farmer; and Nicholas G. Nicolasi, pilot, all natives of Greece, were placed in the dock charged with the unlawful possession of quantity of statuary, supposed to belong to the Greek Government.
Detective-inspector Frederick Abberline, of the H division, said that that afternoon the prisoners came out of a house in Walden-street, Stepney, and were about to place some packing cases in a cab. The prisoners Frange and Freyings came out first, and witness asked them what they had in the cases. They did not appear to understand what was said to them, but at that moment the other prisoner Nicolasi came up, and witness asked him what the cases contained, and he replied in English that it was valuable statuary, and that the other two prisoners, who were farmers, had found it in a marble coffin whilst they were engaged in tilling their land; he added that one of the pieces, which represented the God of War, was estimated to be worth 15,000 pounds, and that a head that was there was worth about 200 pounds. Witness then told the prisoners that he should have to take them to the station, which he did with the assistance of some other officers. The cases were also taken possession of, and were now produced.
Mr. Abberline added that he and Inspector Greenham were awaiting instructions from the Home Office, which was in communication with the Greek Government about the matter, and he should therefore now have to ask for a remand.
Mr. Saunders therefore remanded the prisoners for a week, and, as the police did not object, said that he would take one surety in 20 pounds for each of them. His worship also inspected some of the statuary which was produced in court. It appears that the two men Freyings and Frange found the statuary in Greece, not far from the capital. They kept it hidden away for some little time before they tried to remove it, and then, after difficulties innumerable, they managed to get it as far as Smyrna, where they ultimately shipped it on board the steamship Ardmellie, belonging to Aberdeen, where they represented it to be personal effects, and they themselves shipped as passengers. They got safely to London with their booty, but had no sooner arrived than telegrams were received at Scotland-yard from the Greek Government asking that the men might be watched and arrested if they tried to dispose of the things, but not without, as there was no desire to deal harshly with them. They have therefore been constantly under police supervision at some lodgings both in Exmouth-street and Walden-street, Stepney, and were duly arrested because it was believed they were about to remove the statuary and try to sell it.

Source: The Centaur, Saturday October 25, 1884

GREAT ROBBERY OF BOOTS.

George Kaufman, 51, shoemaker, was indicted for breaking and entering the warehouse of Thomas Brownhill, Shipton-street, Bethnal Green, and stealing therein 191 pairs of boots and other articles, value 110 pounds, his property. A second count charged him with receiving the property, well knowing it to have been stolen. The jury found the prisoner "Guilty," and Joseph Smith, late warder at Coldbath-fields prison, proved a previous conviction of eight months in March, 1877. Inspector Abberline said he had known the prisoner by repute as a receiver of stolen goods, and Mr. Serjeant Cox sentenced him to 18 months' hard labour and four years' subsequent police supervision.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, January 5, 1879, Page 7

WORSHIP-STREET.

GREAT RAID ON A BETTING-HOUSE.

Daniel Gallard, of 17, Goulston-street, Spitalfields; Henry Hannan, of Clement's-place, Pentonville; Woolf Cohen, of 4 Cox's-square; Samuel Black, of 30, Tenter-street, Spitalfields; Henry Hart, of Wilmot's lodging-house, Thrawl-street; Isaac Green, of Castigny-place, St. Luke's; Henry Heynemann, of Goulston-street; James Mendoza, 10, Wellclose-square; Jacob Franks, Bell-lane; Louis Duits, 4, Bell-lane; Myer Levy Potecas, 14, Dorset-street; and Michael Nathan, of 2, Umberston-street, Bethnal-green, were charged with Gallard with keeping a place for the purposes of gaming, and with permitting gaming to be carried on there; and the other prisoners with being found in the house while gaming was being carried on.
Superintendent Thomas Arnold said: I produce a warrant granted me by the Commissioner of Police of the metropolis, by virtue of which I entered the house 17, Goulston-street, Spitalfields. I was with Inspector Abberline and several constables. The street door was open, and we proceeded to the second-floor. It was locked, and after knocking and receiving no answer, we forced the door open. We found the whole of the prisoners there and on the table were playing cards, and 2d in bronze.
Mr. Hannay - Only 2d?
Witness - That was all, sir. There was a scuffle directly we entered and the money was swept off. I asked Gallard if he was the owner of the room. He said yes: I told him why I was there. We searched the place. I found 138 playing cards in a drawer. On Gallard I found 12s. 6d. in silver and coppers, and two keys. One key he handed me as opening a drawer in an adjoining room in his occupation. I there found 839 playing cards and some dominoes. Under the bed I found 12s. 6d. In the drawer I found 30s. in gold, and some bronze money. Gallard's wife entered the room, and she gave to me 109 more playing cards. The prisoners were searched, and on Nathan was found 5 pounds 0s. 10d., on Mendoza 4d., on Potecas, 2s. 9d. in silver and 8 1/2d. in bronze, on Green 10d., on Black 6d. The other prisoners had nothing on them. Gallard at the station on having the charge read over to him said that they did not gamble but only assembled there for a game. Nathan said he did not gamble, but only looked on. The other prisoners did not say anything.
Davis Hymans said that he was a tailor, living in Harrow-alley. He went to the house on Friday week, and saw playing for money going on. He saw Gallard receive one penny for each game played. Each game took about five minutes to play. The prisoner Natham wished to ask the witness Hymans a question, which, he said, would show what character he was. He said his brother kept a gambling house where he lived, and because it was shut up he was jealous of prisoner Gallard. The prisoners generally addressed the magistrates pleading that they were not gambling. Mr. Hannay said he thought the case quite clear. He fined Gallard 5 pounds or six weeks' imprisonment. The other prisoners he ordered to pay fines of 20s. each, or to suffer 14 days' imprisonment. The prisoners were led out to the cells.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, November 22, 1874, Page 12

On Monday afternoon it was rumoured that an important application was to be made to Mr. Vaughan, at Bow-street, London, in connection with the alleged society scandals. Up to five o'clock when the officials of the Court left nothing had been done publicly. At that time, however, Mr. Vaughan was engaged in his private room with Sir A.K. Stevenson, the Treasury Solicitor, the Hon. A. Cuffe, Mr. Angus Lewis, and others connected with the Law Department of the Treasury. Inspector Abberline, of Scotland-yard, and officers from the Post Office were present, accompanied by several boys, who were understood to have been witnesses in the recent trial at the Old Bailey in connection with the now notorious house in Cleveland-street.

Source: The Courier and London & Middlesex Counties Gazette, December 20, 1889

THEFT OF GUNS.

Two respectable-looking men, giving the names of Davis and Williams, and an address at Eagling-road, Bow, were brought up on remand on Wednesday, charged with stealing four guns, value 60 pounds, from a shop at Newcastle-street, Whitechapel. Inspector Abberline conducted the case, and produced evidence showing that the guns were missed on the 19th December and the 7th January, on both of which occasions the prisoners were in the shop for the purpose of making purchases, and were left alone for some few minutes. The prisoners being suspected of stealing the guns, Police-detective East followed them to shooting matches at various places near London, and found them using one of the guns. They were arrested, and inquiries made resulted in the discovery that the prisoners, at a shooting match near Bristol at Christmas last, sold the three other missing guns to a dealer living at Bristol. Detective-inspector Short, of the Bristol police proved that the two prisoners were brothers, and their proper names were John and James Bacon, and they belonged to Bedminster. The man calling himself Williams had been twice convicted - at Bristol in 1865, and at Gloucester in 1872, when he received two years' imprisonment. "Davis" had been several times convicted - once in 1868 at Bristol, when he was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for housebreaking; and also in 1881, when he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Mr. Hannay committed them for trial at the Middlesex Sessions.

Source: The Hackney Mercury and North London Herald, Saturday April 10, 1886, Page 3

THE FIRE AT WHITELEY'S.

Dr. Danford Thomas resumed the inquiry at the Westbourne-park institute, Porchester-road, on Monday, into the deaths of John Hampden Gill, painter; Robert Hyde, dealer in works of art; Harry Mongridge, assistant foreman; and James Jones, carman, who were killed by the fire at the premises of Mr. William Whiteley, in Douglas-place, Queen's-road, on the night of Saturday, Aug. 6. The inquest had been adjourned for a long period in the hope that the reward of 2,000 pounds by Mr. Whiteley, and 1,000 pounds by his buyers, travellers, and other chief employees, would lead to the discovery of positive evidence as to the origin of the fire.
Detective-inspector F. Abberline stated that he had, with other officers, been investigating this matter, but could not find an atom of evidence that would throw any light on the cause of the fire.
Mr. C.R. Walker, C.E., who had examined the premises in consequence of a communication from the Home Secretary, said he found that the premises had been strongly built, some of the floors being of fireproof flooring and some being of wood. There were iron girders and columns in the building. He gave it as his opinion that the fall of the wall was owing to the expansion of the ironwork, due to the intense heat caused by the fire. The girders were not put into pockets, but into the brickwork. Had they been put into pockets they would not have expanded and brought the wall down.
Mr. W.B. Lewis, M.I.C.E., stated that the building was constructed in a proper manner. He did not agree with Mr. Walker that the expansion of the girders was the cause of the wall falling. It was his opinion that the heat caused the brickwork itself to become weakened and fall of its own accord.
Mr. F. Shields, C.E., believed that the expansion of the girders had nothing whatever to do with the fall of the wall. There was no doubt that the intense heat, being inside, caused the walls to expand outwards and to fall.
Captain Shaw, Chief officer of the Metropolitan Fire brigade, stated that he was present at the fire, but not till after the wall in question had fallen. In his judgment where there were iron girders the walls gave way sooner than where only wood was used.
The jury, after half-an-hour's consideration in private, returned the following verdict: "That the deceased were found dead and did die from the effects of fractures of the skull and other injuries arising from the falling of a wall at a time when there was a fire at Mr. William Whiteley's. Although there is not sufficient evidence to show how the fire originated, yet they are of opinion that it was the work of an incendiary or incendiaries." The added the following riders: "1. That the present state of the law in regard to fires is most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it would have allowed the fire at Mr. Whiteley's premises to have passed without any official inquiry but for the deaths resulting therefrom. 2. That provision should be made by law for an official inquiry into the origin and circumstances of all fires. 3. That such an inquiry would tend to diminish the frequency of fires by making felony more easy of detection, and by bringing public censure, if not punishment, on persons responsible for fires arising from carelessness or want of precaution. 4. That the information and statistics which would result from fire inquiries would expose faulty and inferior work, and thus lead to improvement in building constructions. 5. That the serious danger which may result from unscientific construction where ironwork is largely used calls for immediate attention, with a view to such an amendment of the Building act as will secure the requisite supervision."

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, October 30, 1887, Page 8

THE TRAGEDY IN THE EAST-END.

EVIDENCE OF MRS. RUSSELL.

The first hearing of evidence against Henry Alt, 37, a German baker, for the wilful murder of Mrs. Russell, was now gone into at the Thames Police-court. The prisoner had had to be remanded, week after week, owing to Mrs. Russell being unable to attend to give evidence. Mr. Lewis prosecuted on behalf of the Treasury, and Inspector Abberline watched the case on behalf of the Criminal Investigation Department. Mr. Leopold Goldberg, instructed by the German Consul, defended the prisoner. Mrs. Ann Eliza Russell said she formerly lived at 25, Rutland-street, Mile-end Old Town. Her late husband had been a police-constable. She had known Charles Howard, the deceased man, for some time, but only to speak to him about a fortnight before his death. She had known the prisoner for about twelve months, and used to live in his cousin's house. During the time she had known Howard he was paying her marked attention: but previous to that the prisoner had asked her to marry him, desert her children, and go abroad with him. She refused. She had actually accepted Howard as her intended husband. On the night of the 1st April she was going home in company with Howard, when Alt came up and said, "You have promised to be my wife." It was then getting on for twelve o'clock. One of the men asked the other to have a drink, and they all went into a public-house. It was the White Hart, in Turner-street, and they partook of some drink. Howard and Alt had a second glass, and they then left the house. They were all perfectly sober, and the prisoner and Howard appeared to be on good terms with one another. They then walked up to where she was living. The accused then asked her to be his wife in the presence of Howard. She replied, "I will not, as I have told you before." The prisoner then went up to Howard and stabbed him two or three times, but she could not say how many times for certain. She turned her head away. The weapon used was a dagger, and made of bright steel. She knew the dagger well, as on one occasion she had taken it away from Alt. After the prisoner stabbed Howard he turned on witness and stabbed her several times in the neck and back. She had nine wounds. Witness afterwards saw Howard standing in the roadway, and he threw up his two arms, and commenced staggering. She then went indoors, and saw nothing more of the two men. In cross-examination the witness said, prior to living in Rutland-street, she had been living at 107, Commercial-road. That house was kept by Alt's cousin. The reason for leaving the house was on account of the rent being too high. The landlord complained about her and the accused, as he thought they were engaged. They both left the house at the same time, and he afterwards went with her to engage the rooms in Rutland-street. He took interest in her as he thought to get hold of her to be his wife. He had paid some of her rent because she had taken care of his box for him. The prisoner was again remanded.

Source: The Echo, Wednesday May 6, 1885, Page 3

THE EAST-END TRAGEDY.

Mr. Collier resumed his adjourned inquest on Wednesday at the London hospital, respecting the death of Charles Howard, a furrier, who was murdered by a man named Henry Alt, on the 1st ult. Mr. Frank Trapman, house surgeon of the London hospital, said the injured woman, Mrs. Russell, who was also stabbed by Alt at the same time and place, was unable to appear that day and give evidence. She was progressing favourably, but it would be at least a fortnight before she could give evidence, and perhaps not then. The coroner said he proposed to adjourn the case for another week, when arrangements would be made for taking Mrs. Russell's evidence in the ward in which she was now lying. Inspector Abberline informed the coroner that the prisoner Alt had made a statement to Detective H. Payne, incriminating himself, and also giving an account of the whole of the case. The inquiry was then adjourned.
Later in the day Alt was brought before Mr. Saunders, at the Thames police-court, but no evidence was taken, and the prisoner was again remanded.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, April 5, 1885, Page 4

WORSHIP-STREET.

HOUSEBREAKING.

George Kofman, 51, described as a slipper-maker, was charged with having been concerned with others, not in custody, in breaking and entering the warehouse, 34, Shipton-street, Bethnal-green, and stealing therefrom property valued at 120 pounds. The prisoner was also charged with feloniously possessing the property. The evidence given by the witnesses showed that the warehouse in question, in the occupation of a Mr. Brownville, was broken into during Sunday, the 1st inst., and kid skins (the prosecutor being a boot manufacturer) worth 120 pounds were stolen. Information was given to the police, but there was nothing whereby to trace the housebreakers. On the 2nd inst., however, Detective-serjeant Thick, H division, was in Burdett-road, Bow, and saw prisoner with a horse and cart. Prisoner was known to the police, and the officer asked him what he had got in the cart. The prisoner said, "Some skins," adding that they had been brought to him by a man whom he did not know. The officer took him to the station, where to Inspector Abberline the prisoner made a statement that he had got the skins which had been found in his cart from a man named Brand, who was to meet him at a public-house for the money he, the prisoner, was to get for them. Inspector Abberline took the prisoner to the public-house and to a lodging where Brand was said to live. No trace of such a person, however, was found. Joseph Smith, an ex-warder of Coldbath-fields prison, proved several previous convictions against the prisoner. The prisoner was committed for trial, it being stated that he would be indicted for the housebreaking.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, December 29, 1878, Page 4

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MARYLEBONE.

THREE GIRLS DRESSED AS SAILORS.

Elizabeth Sullivan, aged 18, living at 8, Crown-place, Kentish-town; Maria Sullivan, aged 15, of the same address, sisters; and Jane Adams, aged 13, of 5, Crown-place, all described on the charge-sheet as of no occupation, were charged with disorderly conduct and being dressed in male attire in the Kentish-town-road, supposed for an unlawful purpose. The defendants were all dressed in the ordinary sailor costume, and their clothes seemed to fit them to a nicety. The elder defendant wore a large straw hat, whilst her sister wore a cap with the name of her Majesty's ship Implacable on it. Detective-serjeant Abberline stated that on Wednesday morning, about one o'clock, he, in company with Detective-constable Dalton, were in the Kentish-town-road, when they saw the defendants and a disorderly crowd turned out of the Assembly-house tavern. Defendants crossed on to the opposite side of the road, and the crowd followed, and seemed to be very excited. The defendants were shouting, and rushed behind two or three women and pulled up their clothes. As they were making a disturbance, he took them into custody . In answer to the magistrate, the defendants said they were very sorry, and if allowed to go home they would not offend again.
Mr. Mansfield: Who dressed you?
Elizabeth Sullivan: We dressed ourselves, sir. My two brothers are sailors, and we took their clothes for fun.
Serjeant Abberline said he had made inquiries, and found they had given their correct addresses, and nothing was known against them. The mother of the Sullivans said they only put the clothing on for a joke, and did not intend to do any harm. Mr. Mansfield said it was exceedingly imprudent, and the defendants might be sent to jail for some months. If it was again repeated they would be severely dealt with, but on this occasion they would be discharged.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, August 11, 1872, Page 4

WORSHIP-STREET.

A LUCKY ESCAPE.

Esther Harris, 32, and Sophia Barrett, 19, were charged on remand with stealing a gold chain and a silver watch from the person. The facts of the case were singular, it appearing from the evidence of Inspector Frederick Abberline, H division, that on the night of the 23rd of October the prisoners were charged at the Church-street police-station with stealing some turnips. While that charge was being entered Inspector Abberline heard a rattling noise, and looking across to the prisoners he saw Barrett with her leg up as if tying up her stocking. As the rattle continued, however, he went across and saw hanging from the prisoner something bright. He caught hold of it and pulled the watch and chain from her hand, she saying that she was about to put it into her boot for safety. Harris said that Barrett and herself had been with an old gentleman, who had taken liberties with them, and that he had given them the watch and chain instead of money. They were charged with the unlawful possession of the property, which was valued at about 25 pounds. During the night, however, it transpired that the watch and chain were claimed by a person at Leman-street station, detained there on a charge of drunkenness. This person, a short, elderly man, having the appearance of a clergyman, but describing himself as an agent, was, after being charged at the Thames police-court, sent by Mr. Paget in custody of the constable to this court, where he preferred the charge against the prisoners. He gave his name as John Williams, of 10, Prospect-cottages, Thornhill-road, Barnsbury. He identified the watch and chain as his property, and said that he did not know where he lost them. He admitted being drunk on the previous night, the 23rd, and that he remembered being accosted by some women, from whom he escaped as soon as he could. Sidney Pastor, City police-constable 730, said that while on duty in the Minories, on the night of the 23rd, he saw the prosecutor in a drunken state there, and saw the prisoners roll against him designedly. They afterwards caught hold of him by the arms and he went with them, witness thought willingly, down a court there. Presently the prisoners came running back without him, and witness having called a brother officer, followed and stopped them. They were obliged, however, to let them go, as the prosecutor could not be found. Mr. Hannay complimented the constable on the manner in which he had acted. With regard to the prisoners he thought it useless to send them for trial. The prosecutor did not remember giving them the watch, but he was drunk. The prisoners were then discharged.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, November 1, 1874, Page 12

MYSTERIOUS DEATH.

On Tuesday Mr. Humphreys concluded an inquiry at the Weaver's Arms, Baker's-row, Whitechapel, relative to the death of a woman known as "Curly Kate," who was found with her skull fearfully fractured in the coal cellar of a house at 8, Lower Keate-street, Spitalfields. The deceased, it appeared, got a livelihood by selling birds, and at two o'clock on the morning of the 14th ult. was seen sleeping in a cart about two yards from the house where she was afterwards found dead. A witness named Hugh Smith gave evidence to the effect that on the night of the 13th ult. he saw the deceased lying on the pavement in Lower Keate-street, and a man pouring water over her face. He subsequently saw the man in question dragging the deceased along the ground, and in reply to witness, who asked what he was about, he said that he would give anything to bring her to. She was then insensible. Inspector Abberline stated that the police had failed to trace the man who was in the company of the deceased. The jury returned a verdict that the deceased died from the effects of a fractured skull, how caused there was no evidence to show.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, June 4, 1876, Page 4

THEFT.

At the Middlesex sessions on Wednesday morning, Charles King, Thomas Johnson, George Brown, and John Hollis were indicted, Brown for feloniously stealing a quantity of cream of tartar, tartaric acid, and powdered charcoal, value 150 pounds, and, with the other three prisoners, he was indicted for feloniously receiving a part of the said property. The jury returned a verdict of "Not guilty" as regarded King and Hollis, and found the others "Guilty." Johnson was sentenced to 20 months' and Brown 15 months' hard labour. Mr. Burnie drew the attention of the Court to the conduct of the police. Mr. Fletcher said (after consultation with the other magistrates on the Bench) their conduct worthy of high consideration by the prosecutors, and it was essential that the Commissioners of Police should recognise the services of Inspector Abberline and Serjeants Foster, B. Fordham, and Patrick Enwright, as they had acted with a great deal of skill and attention in the case.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, October 28, 1883, Page 12

A STRUGGLE WITH COINERS.

At the Thames Police-court, on Sept. 10, James Cranley, Mary Cranley, Margaret Collett, and Michael Collett, dwelling at the time of their apprehension in Old Church Road, Stepney, were charged, James Cranley with uttering a counterfeit shilling, and all of them with being in the unlawful possession of a quantity of bad money and certain articles used in the manufacture of such coin. The Treasury prosecuted. It appeared that about a month ago James Cranley engaged apartments in Old Church Road for himself and his wife, and gave the name of Thompson. On Sept. 2, Abberline, an inspector, and William Thick, a sergeant of police, went to 29 Church Road and forced open a door which led into a small room. The two Colletts and Mary Cranley were seated round a table, on which was a quantity of counterfeit coins and other articles. Each of them was holding a file, and on catching sight of the police all the articles on the table were swept into the lap of Margaret Collett, and they all rushed towards the back kitchen. The inspector took hold of the two Colletts, and the sergeant secured Mary Cranley, who was very violent, scratched his face, threatened to "do for him," and attempted to reach over the table to get a knife. He was obliged to throw her down for self-protection, and detain her there until two constables arrived and the prisoners were given into custody. On searching the place the inspector and sergeant found a quantity of counterfeit coins, some being still hot, while others were finished and unfinished, and the usual articles used in the manufacture of base coin were there. On Aug. 29, James Cranley entered the Red Lion, Balam Street, Plaistow, and called for half a pint of ale. He was served by a young woman, and tendered in payment a coin which she handed to the prosecutor, who at once detected it as a bad shilling, and gave the prisoner into custody. He was brought up at the Stratford Police-court, and on the application of Sergeant Smith was discharged, and brought to this court. Previous convictions for uttering counterfeit coin were proved against James Cranley and Margaret Collett, and Mr. Lushington committed the prisoners for trial.

Source: The Week's News, September 14, 1878, Page 1175

CHARGE OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY.

William Garnham, a draper and general dealer in Hoxton-street, who surrendered to his bail, was charged on remand with having feloniously received, with guilty knowledge, a large quantity of looking glasses, the property of Andrew Angioloni, manufacturer, of Clerkenwell. The prisoner was apprehended by Inspectors Peel and Abberline, of the Criminal Investigation department, who had obtained a warrant to search his premises. They found a large quantity of looking-glasses, which it was now proved had been stolen while in transit between the prosecutor's warehouse and the East India-dock by the vans of a carman and contractor named Tripp. The van containing the cases was left by the carman in charge for a short time and was stolen, the van and horses being subsequently found, but the vehicle emptied of its contents. This took place on the 28th of September last, and men in connection with the robbery were apprehended, and are now suffering a term of penal servitude. The prisoner, when the officers entered his place in Hoxton-street, said he had some glasses at his private house at Woodford, but before the inspectors left to go there the prisoner said that he had ordered the glasses to be brought up to the shop that day, because he was having his house done up. Very soon afterwards a van did arrive at the shop, and in Garnham's presence 10 glasses were unloaded, he admitting that they had been brought by his order from his house at Woodford. Mr. Angioloni, who was in company with the officers, identified them as having been in one of the five cases stolen from the van, and valued them at about 18 pounds. In reply to questions as to where he had got the glasses the prisoner said he could not remember, but had had them some nine months. Mr. Fulton cross-examined to show that the prisoner was in the habit of purchasing at sales and auctions, and Inspector Abberline admitted that he had heard such to be the prisoner's business. It further appeared that after the prisoner had been remanded the police discovered that there were some additional premises at the rear of his shop, and rented by him, and though he at first denied having any more, several glasses were there found and identified by the prosecutor. The evidence being now complete, Mr. Wontner asked for the prisoner's committal to the Central Criminal court, a request that was opposed by Mr. Fulton. Mr. Wontner, however, explained that the record of the conviction of the men for the robbery would be before that court, and Mr. Hannay decided to send the prisoner for trial there. He was then fully committed, but allowed bail in 400 pounds - two sureties of 100 pounds each and himself in 200 pounds.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, December 11, 1881, Page 4

WORSHIP-STREET.

ROBBERY OF SILK.

Henry Roweike, 23, described as a salesman, was charged with robbing his employers, a firm of drapers, in High-street, Whitechapel. The prisoner, it appeared, was engaged in the silk department, and for some time past "dress lengths" of silk had been missed. The prosecutors' manager, failing to find out the thief, called in the assistance of the police. Detective-inspector Abberline, H division, on Friday went to the warehouse, and, by his advice, the assistants were called together and asked if they would allow their boxes to be searched - they residing in the house. All agreed; and a movement was made to the bedrooms, but on the way the prisoner stopped, and said, "You needn't search; I am the thief." He gave up his keys; and in two portmanteaus were found seven dress lengths of silk. He also gave up 19 pawnbrokers' duplicates relating to silk, which he said he had stolen and pledged. The value of the silk exceeded 100 pounds and he had raised 42 pounds on that pledged. Inspector Abberline asked for a remand, which was granted.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, March 9, 1879, Page 3

ALLEGED INSURANCE SWINDLE.

James Burnard and James Monteith were charged, on remand, at Bow-street police-court, yesterday, with being concerned in obtaining money by means of a bogus insurance company.
Mr. Dillon Lewis, in opening the case, said it was one of fraudulent conspiracy, which would have to be developed by evidence of a lengthy character. He would show that it was of a very widespread nature, affecting many thousands of persons who had paid insurance premiums to the prisoners. It was possible others might be placed in the dock and charged with the prisoners on a future occasion. The prisoners would probably, before the case closed, be connected with as many as 15 swindling companies, started under various names. The modus operandi of the prisoners had been to avail themselves of the facilities of registration afforded by Companies' Act, which enabled them upon the payment of a fee of 2 pounds to obtain a certificate of incorporation. For the purposes of the prosecution at present he proposed to commence with March last year, when the prisoner Burnard took an office in Queen Victoria-street, on the fourth floor, at 35 pounds a year. He was then associated with Monteith, and the offices were retained until August, and during all that time they were issuing policies under the title of the Capital and Counties Insurance company. In August they were being pressed for the rent of the premises, and a distress was put in, which realised 2 pounds 0s. 3d., the balance remaining due to this hour. That event seemed to have brought the Capital and Counties Insurance company to a close, but not so the career of the two prisoners, because they at once found other premises and other printers, and recommenced business under a new title. On the 11th of November last year they started what they called the City and Counties Insurance company, the objects of which were stated in their prospectus as follows: - "The carrying on in the United Kingdom, Great Britain, and Ireland, and in any part of the world, of the business of fire, marine, land transport, and inland navigation accident, employers' liability, guarantee, plate-glass, hail storms, cattle, steam boilers, and carriage insurance; the applying for, obtaining, and accepting of any Act of Parliament concessions, or privileges, for any of the purposes of the company."
Mr. Bridge: It is only in this world I suppose (laughter).
Mr Lewis said that at present the operations had been so far limited (loud laughter). From such a programme as that published by the prisoners, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that they would have had a capital of about a million, but it appeared that their nominal capital was only 2,000 pounds, an amount which enabled them to register for a 2 pound fee; but nothing whatever had been called up, so that in point of fact the prisoners had been issuing policies for a number of thousands without a penny of capital to meet claims. The offices of the company, which were the subject of the present charge, were in Southampton-buildings, Chancery-lane. Mr. Brownleigh, the prosecutor, was a wholesale clothier in Hoxton, and he had been induced to insure in the Capital and Counties company by Monteith. No fire happened while that policy was running, and subsequently when the Capital and Counties ceased he was led to transfer his policy to the City and Counties. In the early part of last month a fire occurred, when a considerable amount of property was destroyed. After the fire Mr. Brownleigh put himself in the hands of Mr. James Lewis, of Southampton-buildings, the well-known assessor of fire claims for the principal offices. He at once expressed a doubt as to the office in which the policy had been taken out, and inquiry was at once instituted. It was then found that the offices were shut. The premium paid was equal to that which would be charged by any of the first-class offices, viz., 3s. 6d. per cent. It appeared that after closing the offices in Southampton-buildings the prisoners went into Holborn, and when arrested by Inspector Abberline and Serjeant Nearn, of Scotland-yard, were engaged in promoting another company, to be called "The Wood-Cutters' Fire Insurance company."
Mr. Dillon Lewis called Henry Herbert, a lad aged 13, who deposed that about three months ago he was engaged at the offices of the City and Counties Insurance company by the prisoner Burnard. No clerk or other person was engaged. Burnard attended daily, sometimes for a few minutes and sometimes for hours. There was only one room furnished and two others were marked "private." They were both empty rooms. The business was carried on in one room. People came to complain, and witness remembered Mr. Sellor particularly. He saw Burnard twice. Agents came but no insurance business was done. Policies were wrote out. Witness made some out under Burnard's instructions.
Formal evidence having been called to show the non-payment of rent and the account for printing, the prisoners were remanded.

Source: Lloyd's Weekly London Newspaper, June 3, 1888, Page 12