ILLUSTRATED POLICE NEWS 1867 to 1879 1 January 12 1867 THE STABBING CASE NEAR BOLTON On Monday afternoon, James Thompson, boatman of Aspwell, was brought before the county magistrates at Bolton, charged with stabbing John Deakin as Aspwell. Jane Robinson, whose husband is also a boatman employed at the Kirkless Hall Colliery Company, stated that on Thursday last the parties were at Tyler's public house, and she saw prisoner jump upon the table and try to punch Deakin, but the latter moved out of the way. Afterwards, they went outside to fight. When they again entered the house, she saw the prisoner strike at Deakin, not, however, noticing that he had anything in his hand, but when he withdrew his hand she saw he had a knife, and it was then covered in blood. She screamed out to Deakin, “You're stabbed”, and he replied, “Aye, wench, I'm done for”. The injured man bled very much from a dreadful gash in his body. He still lies in a dangerous state, and little hopes are entertained of his recovery. The magistrates remanded Thompson to await the result of the wound. 2 January 26 1867 EXTRAORDINARY CASE – A FALSE CHARACTER Mary Ann Moss, a very respectable woman, the wife of a waterman and dwelling at 41 Back Church Lane, Whitechapel, appeared before Mr Partridge on a summons, charged under the Act 32nd George III, cap 56, with unlawfully and falsely personating herself as the mistress of Hannah Briant, and did personally give to her a false character upon her offering herself to be hired as a servant into the service of Isaac Levy of the Kettledrum, in Ratcliff Highway, by which she had incurred a penalty of £20, or imprisonment and hard labour for three months. Mr Stoddart, solicitor, appeared for the defendant, and pleaded not guilty. Mr Levy stated that a girl named Hannah Briant offered her services to him on December 28th, and he sent his barwoman, Sergeant, to inquire. Half an hour later, he took Briant into his service, and after thirteen days he discharged her, because he lost a good deal of property. He did not, however, accuse Briant, but another of his servants, who was convicted and sentenced to four months imprisonment with hard labour. After Briant had been with him seven or eight days, he called on defendant and asked her why she had given Briant a character, adding, “You know the girl has never been in your service”. The defendant said, “The girl has been in my service”. He answered her, “I am in a position to prove that she was in the service of Mr and Mrs Rose at the Standard at the time you gave her nine months' character”. A girl standing by said, “Mother, don't give him any other satisfaction”, and the conversation terminated. In cross-examination by Mr Stoddart, the witness said : Catherine Troy was in my service five or six months. I cannot say that Hannah Briant was a criminal party in the robberies. Sarah Sergeant, barwoman in the service of Mr Levy, said : On the 28th of December last, I went to defendant's house by the directions of my master. I said, “What sort of a character has Hannah Briant?” She replied, “She is a very honest and good girl”. I said, “How long has she been in your service?”, to which she replied, “Nine months”. I said, “How long has she left?” She said, “About a month”. I asked her why she discharged her. She said, “Why, I thought I could do with a smaller girl”. I asked her if she was at all forward or impudent. The defendant said, “No ; if she was, she would have no chance in my house”. That was all that took place. Mrs Ellen Rose, wife of Mr George Rose, who until recently kept two licensed public houses in Whitechapel, said that Hannah Briant, who was between twenty three and twenty four years of age, came into her service in the month of January 1866, and remained with her until the 28th of September. She discharged her only because her services were no longer required, in consequence of leaving the house, the Standard, in Wall Street, Whitechapel. Cross-examined by Mr Stoddart : The character of the girl Hannah Briant was very good. She was very honest and industrious. She would have no objection to give her a character, or to take her into her own service again. The defendant's daughter was in her service five years, and was as good a girl as ever lived. Samuel Fromberg, landlord of a beerhouse in Dock Street, said that Hannah Briant was in his service for five days only, about five weeks ago, and he discharged her for drunkenness. Mr Stoddart : You discharged two servants in one day? Witness : Yes, I did. Mr Stoddart : And you did not take the trouble of going to Mr Rose, your opposite neighbour, for a character? Witness : No, I did not. Mr Stoddart : The girl gave you a reference to Mr Rose? Witness : Yes, she did. Mr Stoddart said that the defendant did not wish to take advantage of any technicalities, and would admit that she had acted wrong, and had most improperly represented herself as the mistress of the girl Hannah Briant. The Act of Parliament was a most salutary one. There was a traffic going on in false characters, which ought to be put down. The girl Hannah Briant was an honest, industrious, civil and attentive servant, and could have obtained an excellent character from Mr and Mrs Rose. She was an orphan, and the defendant, out of kindness to her and to enable her to obtain an honest living, made a false representation concerning her by which no one was injured. The defendant acted as she had done out of kindness and without the slightest knowledge of the Act of Parliament, or that she was acting wrongly. The girl Briant was perfectly honest, and Mr and Mrs Rose would have given her a good character if they had been applied to. The defendant's husband was a respectable man, and he submitted that a small fine would meet the justice of the case. All that had been done by the defendant was from the best of motives. The woman had acted with kindness, humanity and good feeling, and she deeply regretted acting contrary to law. Mr Levy said he should be glad if the defendant was leniently dealt with. Her husband was a respectable man. Mr Partridge said the conduct of the defendant was most abominable, and that he had never heard of a worse case of this kind. The defendant, without rhyme or reason, had made a false statement, and he saw no mitigatory circumstance in the case. If he intended to convict, and had the power of punishing the defendant, he should inflict the full penalty of £20, with the alternative of three months imprisonment. The defendant had falsely represented the girl Hannah Briant to be a good reliable servant. That statement was altogether false. He was of opinion that the defendant had committed an abominable fraud, but the question was had she brought herself within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. He was sorry to say he had no means of punishing the offence. The defendant had not personally or in writing given the girl Hannah Briant a false character. The false representation was made to a third person, the woman Sergeant. The false representation was not made to Mr Levy, or in writing. Mr Partridge then went through the various sections of the Act of Parliament, and said it was quite plain that to constitute the offence, the character must be made in writing or personally. He was compelled to dismiss the summons. If he had the power he would have inflicted the full penalty, because the act of the defendant was disgraceful and unfair. The defendant : Thank you, sir. I am sorry for what I have done. 3 February 23 1867 MANSION HOUSE IMPORTANT DECISION UNDER THE WATERMAN'S ACT A respectable young man named Charles Braden attended before the Lord Mayor to answer a summons issued at the instance of Mr Richard Robert Fairbairn of 5 Upper Stamford Street, licensed lighterman, charging him “for that he on the 7th of February unlawfully did take charge of and navigate on the River Thames a certain barge called the Jane, from White Lion Wharf to (….), without having a licence from the Master, Wardens and Assistants of the Waterman's Company, contrary to the provisions of the 35th bye law of the said company”. The question raised was whether the defendant, who was a journeyman barge builder, had a right to fetch a barge to his master's yard for repair, as a part of his daily work and not for hire or gain, or whether this was an illegal “navigation” of the Thames within the meaning of the Waterman's Act. There was no dispute as to the facts ; and barge builder's men, it was alleged, were in the habit of offending in this way. Mr Carter, the defendant's employer, called attention to one fact, viz, that the barge was “towed” across from Messrs Lockett and Judkins's, and he held that this was not “navigation” within the meaning of the Act. The summons was dismissed. 4 March 2 1867 GREENWICH CAUTION TO THAMES WATERMEN John Allen, waterman of Ratcliffe Cross, was charged, at the instance of Mr Trumble, inspector of the Waterman's Company, with unlawfully working with a boat not truly licensed on the River Thames.