J. *-' THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE Ex Libris * ISAAC FOOT , motablc Britteb trials Steinie Morrison NOTABLE BRITISH TRIALS SERIES. Madeleine Smith. Edited by A. Duncan Smith. Dr. Pritchard. Edited by William Roughead. The Stauntons. Edited by J. B. Atlay, Barrister-at-Law. Franz Muller. Edited by H. B. Irving. The Annesley Case. Edited by Andrew Lang. Lord Lovat. Edited by David N. Mackay. Captain Porteous. Edited by William Roughead. William Palmer. Edited by Geo. H. Knott, Barrister-at-Law. Mrs. Maybrick. Edited by H. B. Irving. Dr. Lamson. Edited by H. L. Adam. Mary Blandy. Edited by William Roughead. City of Glasgow IBank Directors. Edited by William Wallace, Advocate. Deacon Brodie. Edited by William Roughead. James Stewart. Edited by David N. Mackay. A. J. Monson. Edited by J. W. More, Advocate. Oscar Slater. Edited.by William Roughead. Eugene Marie Chantrelle. Edited by A. Duncan Smith, Advocate. The Douglas Cause. Edited by A. Francis Steuart, Advocate. Mrs. M'Lachlan. Edited by William Roughead. Eugene Aram. Edited by Eric Watson, Barrister-at-Law. J. A. Dickman. Edited by S. 0. Rowan- Hamilton, Barrister-at-Law. The Seddons. Edited by Filson Young. Sir Roger Casement. Edited by Geo. H. Knott, Barrister-at-Law. The Wainwrights. Edited by H. B. Irving. H. H. Crippen. Edited by Filson Young. Thurtell and Hunt. Edited by Eric Watson. Burke and Hare. Edited by William Roughead. Steinie Morrison. Edited by the Hon. H. Fletcher Moulton. IN PREPARATION. George Joseph Smith. Edited by Eric Watson. Mary Queen of Scots. Edited by A. Francis Steuart. Particulars may be had from the Publishers. Wm. Hodge & Co., Ltd., Edinburgh and London. Steinie Morrison. Trial of Steinie Morrison EDITED BY H. Fletcher Moulton, B.A. (Cantab.) OF THE MIDDLE TEMPLE, BARRISTER - AT - LAW LONDON AND EDINBURGH WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY, LIMITED KD PKINTED BY WILLIAM HODGE & COMPANY, LIMITED GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH January, 1922 TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE SIR CHARLES JOHN DARLING THIS VOLUME IS BY KIND PERMISSION RESPECTFULLY DEDICATED BY THE EDITOR STEINIE MORRISON. INTRODUCTION. Year's the ABOUT eight o'clock on the morning of New Day, 1911, a in some body of an elderly man was found by policeman, lying bushes on Clapham Common. Examination showed that the man had been killed by blows on the head, and that he had subsequently been stabbed and his face mutilated with a knife. The most important mutilations consisted of two cuts, each somewhat re- " sembling an S," one on either cheek. It was clear that the man had been murdered on the footpath and then dragged into these bushes, eight or ten yards away. Papers found on the body enabled it to be identified as that of Leon Beron, a Russian Jew, who had been in this country for five years, and was living in Whitechapel. By 6th January the police had sufficient information to issue notices offering a reward for a cabman who had driven two men from the East End to Clapham Common between midnight and 6 a.m. on the 1st January, or had picked up a man on the South Side of Clapham Common or Clapham High Street between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. on that morning. On the 8th January Steinie Morrison an ex-convict was arrested and subsequently charged with murder. The arrest took place at a Jewish restaurant in Fieldgate Street, Whitechapel, where Morrison was breakfasting. The police evidently expected trouble they had ascertained that Morrison was in the habit of carrying a revolver for no less than five policemen took part in it. Morrison, however, made no resistance, but told the police that they had made a great mistake. He was taken to Leman Street Police Station. After being detained there for some hours he sent for Inspector Wensley " and subsequently for Inspector Ward, and said. I understand that I am detained here on a very serious charge murder, I am told." This statement led to one of the most acute controversies in the case. According to the evidence for the prosecution no mention had at this time been made of the charge on which he had been Steinie Morrison. arrested, and stress was laid on the fact that he himself mentioned murder, as showing he must have had knowledge of the crime. Morrison on the other hand declared that he had already been informed of the charge, and this evidence was corroborated by P.C. Greaves a constable on duty at Leman Street that morning. Morrison then made a statement as to his history and recent movements, which seems to have been substantially correct. The next day the prisoner was formally charged with the murder before Mr. de Gray at Leman Street Police Court. It is not necessary to refer in detail to the evidence at these proceedings, which was for the most part the same as that given at the trial. There were, however, unusual incidents in that two witnesses for the prosecution gave evidence which they afterwards retracted. The first case was that of a girl Eva Flitterman who testi- fied to having seen the prisoner on the 1st January wearing a five-guinea or five-pound piece on his watch chain. As a five- guinea piece had been one of Leon Beron's ornaments this evidence, if true, would have been most material, though it is difficult to believe that Morrison, who, according to the evidence for the prosecution, had successfully disposed of the rest of the deceased's jewellery, would have flaunted such a damning object on the very day of the crime. Eva Flitterman identified the coin as a five- guinea piece by its similarity to one worn by her father. The witness on the next occasion said that she had since found from her mother that the coin her father had worn was a two-guinea piece, and therefore her former evidence had been wrong. As the coin worn by Morrison seems to have been a Kruger half-sovereign this witness's power of observation would appear to have been of a somewhat low character. This recantation led to a somewhat dramatic application by the Defence for a committal for perjury, and on this being refused by the Magistrate a letter was written to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking that he should prosecute the witness for perjury. This Sir Charles Matthews refused to do. There can be little doubt that this refusal was right. Most people reading the whole of this witness's evidence would come to the conclusion that she had made a genuine mistake, and her subsequent course of action in immediately informing the police and the solicitors for the defence of this mistake strongly corroborates this view. But it is a matter of surprise that more care was not taken to test the evidence of such a witness before she was put into the box on behalf of the prosecution. The second witness was a youth named Rosen who, after Introduction. swearing to seeing the prisoner in the streets at half-past one a.m. on 1st January, and also to having seen him with a revolver, retracted the statement as to the time, and said that he had never seen the prisoner with a revolver. He also alleged that he had been threatened by the deceased's brother that harm would happen to him if he retracted his previous evidence. Naturally neither witness was called at the trial. Steinie Morrison reserved his defence and was in due course committed for trial. Meantime the Coroner's inquest had been proceeding and had resulted in a verdict of wilful murder against Morrison. On 27th February four men were charged at the Lambeth Police Court with assaulting Alfred Stephens a witness for the prosecution. The evidence of Stephens was of the utmost importance to the case for the Crown since he was alleged to have picked up Morrison near Clapham Common just after the murder. Stephens stated that he had been threatened as early as 15th January because he was assisting the police in the Clapham Common case, and that on 20th January he had been attacked in the street by the defendants with such violence that he had to be taken to hospital. The principal defendant Rappolt admitted the assault, but said it was because Stephens had kissed Rappolt' s wife. Three of the men were committed for trial, and on 3rd March were convicted and sentenced by Mr. Justice Darling to terms of hard labour. There was no evidence beyond that of Stephens to connect them with Morrison, and they all denied that they were acquainted with him in any way. Three days later the trial of Morrison was opened before the same Judge, Mr. R. D. Muir, leading for the Crown, and Mr. Abinger for the defence. The case for the prosecution was simple. Morrison was well acquainted with the deceased, had been with him all the evening of the 31st December, had driven with him to Clapham Common in the early morning of the 1st January, and had been seen leaving Clapham Common shortly after the time when the murder had been committed. Added to this Morrison had left his lodgings the next morning, and had not returned to them; had appeared with a large sum of money, and had also on revolver as if the same day (1st January) pawned his anticipating possible arrest. The principal witness for the Defence was the prisoner himself, who denied that he was a close acquaintance of Beron or had been with him at all on the night in question. He stated that he had been at a music-hall from nine till eleven and witnesses some of whose had gone to bed at midnight, and he called Steinie Morrison.