Jump to: navigation, search

1848 - Proceedings of the Old Bailey (1)

Date 1848
Topic Robin Hood in Skinner Street mentioned during case involving deception and fraud
Loading map...
Great Windmill Street, where the Robin Hood was located.

By Henrik Thiil Nielsen, 2018-06-20. Revised by Henrik Thiil Nielsen, 2018-07-28.


[28 Feb. 1848:]
Q. Do not you know that the prisoner drew that bill contrary to the ordinary practice of the society, because they knew at that time that you were spending the society's money? A. I never spent the society's money—I do not know that anything of that kind was alleged—it was not alleged that Wadsworth drew the bill to take the drawing of it out of my hands—it was two or three months after I had drawn the bill that Ballard came and took possession of the documents—I was formerly treasurer to the Tailors' Society—I was not discharged—I am not treasurer now—I do not know a man named Dallas (a person named Dallas was here called in)—I have no knowledge of him—I cannot say that I ever saw him—he may know me—the house at which the Tailors' Society was held was the Robin Hood, in Great Windmill-street, and after that at the White Horse, in Carnaby-market—I dare say I might have had 150l. of the society's in my possession at one time—I placed that money you allude to in the bank of Marsh, Fontleroy, and Co., which failed—I was asked to refund it—the Society did not ask me for my vouchers for the deposits, only for my own book—I did not say that I had put it under my bed, and that the rats had eaten it—I produced the book—I have paid the society 12s. 6d. in the pound—I was a member as well—when I went with Barrett to Mr. Pritchard's office this bill was shown to me—I did not, in Mr. Pritchard's presence, say, "Beyond all question that acceptance is Barrett's writing"—all I said was, "Why, friend Barrett, you owe the money, and of course you will pay it," but as to that bill I do not know it—I never said it was Barrett's writing, not anything of the kind, I was never asked the question—I did not turn round to Barrett and say, "You do not mean to be such a rascal as to deny your own handwriting?"—I have been several times applied to by the society for the use of my name to conduct actions against parties that owed money to the society, advanced while I was treasurer—I refused to give such authority—I knew this bill to be a forgery as soon as I saw it—I did not go before a Magistrate; I went before the Grand Jury—I was subpœnaed to go—I came here by myself—Mr. Stones went, I believe, and Mr. Burnell—it was never intimated by Burnell to me, or to Barrett, in my hearing, to trump up this charge of forgery—I do not know who proposed going before the Grand Jury—I was only a witness—these figures, 637, on this bill, are not my writing—I swear that—I cannot swear to Barrett's writing—I have seen him write—I will not swear that this acceptance is his writing—I could not from a belief upon a man's writing—I do not feel myself qualified to do so—I have not seen Barrett write often—he gave me two, or three, or four bills, while I was treasurer—he superintended the building of the house, and furnished me with weekly accounts as he went on, but they had nothing to do with his writing—they were vouchers given by other persons—he was paid every week—he is a journeyman carpenter—he did not give receipts for the money the received—if he did not draw the money it was placed to his account—if he did, he would have no occasion to write—it would be put down as paid to him on account in the book I have here—he sometimes signed it—I cannot say that this acceptance is Barrett's writing—I cannot tell anything about any person's writing—I would not say a word about any person's writing—I could not do it.[1]

Source notes

IRHB has silently regularized the use of spaces before punctuation marks in the quotation and corrected the HTML text at Proceedings of the Old Bailey from the PDF of the original printed edition.



Also see