Edgware Petty Sessions: Fraud and Theft Cases – 1882

APRIL 26, 1882.

Before A. R. Johnstone, Esq. (in the chair), E. F. Noel, and W. A. Tooke, Esq.

ALLEGED FRAUD. — John George Murray, of Roe-green, Kingsbury, was charged on a warrant with uttering a false cheque for £8 on J. Smart and Sons, of Hendon, with intent to defraud, on the 8th of April. — Mr. Hodson appeared for the defendant. — Ebenezer Smart said: On the 8th of April I received a cheque for £8 on the Bank of Scotland to be cashed. The cheque was brought by a servant girl and I cashed it. In consequence of information I received I told my agent to stop the cheque at once. On the 11th inst. the cheque was returned marked “insufficient funds.” On the 12th inst. I called upon the defendant and informed him that his cheque had been dishonoured, and he pointed to the cheque and said it should have been the Union Bank of Scotland instead of the Bank of Scotland. Defendant said he was going to his agent in London, and that he would forward the amount of my account together with the £8 for the dishonoured cheque that evening. The money was not sent. On the 13th inst. I received another letter, which stated that the defendant had not seen his agent, as he was detained in court until late. On the 14th inst. I again applied for the amount of my cheque, upon seeing the defendant at his gate, when he said that it had just been sent over to the shop, but upon returning I found the money had not been sent. I then applied for a warrant for his apprehension. — Cross-examined by Mr. Hodson: The defendant was apprehended on the 17th inst., previous to which I gave him no intimation that I intended to take proceedings against him. The money was sent to the shop on the morning of the arrest, but was not received. The sending of the money would lead one to suppose that the defendant had no intention of defrauding. — By Mr. Tootell: I heard that the money had been returned at 3 o’clock on the 17th. It was at the shop at 9 o’clock a.m., and I believe the arrest took place at 8.45 a.m. on that day. He told me when arrested that he had sent the money. — William Barker, draper, of Brent-street, Hendon, said: I took the dishonoured cheque to the defendant’s house on the 14th inst. Defendant told me that he had made a mistake in the bank; it should have been on the Union Bank of Scotland. Defendant said Mr. Smart should have the money at 2 o’clock that day. — Detective Alexander said: I received a warrant to apprehend the defendant on the 17th inst. I went, in company with Mr. E. Smart, to Roe Green, Kingsbury, to the defendant’s house. He was in the stable-yard. I heard him ask Mr. Smart if he had met a man upon horseback, as he had the money. I told the defendant I was a detective officer, and I then read the warrant to him. — Alexander Macbeth, agent to the Union Bank of Scotland, produced a certified copy of the defendant’s account as it stood on the 21st of April, showing that he had a small sum at the Bank. He also stated that the defendant’s pass-book had not been sent in since the account was opened. — The Bench thought there was no intention on the part of the defendant to defraud the prosecutor, and dismissed the case, the defendant having paid costs.

ALLEGED ROBBERY. — Martha Morris, of no fixed home, formerly a domestic servant, was charged with stealing on the 16th of April, from a bedroom at 4, Castle-cottages, Child’s Hill, one sovereign, one pair of trousers, one night shirt, the property of her employer, G. Fever, valued at £1 9s. The prosecutor did not appear, and the Bench consequently dismissed the case, as it was stated that the prosecutor was going to take the defendant back into his service.

Explanation and Context

Legal Aspects and Types of Crimes in the Article

1. Fraud:
   • John George Murray was accused of issuing a false cheque, which is an offence under fraud laws of the time, potentially leading to imprisonment or fines.
   • The case revolved around whether the cheque was issued with intent to deceive or was a genuine mistake.
2. Robbery/Theft:
   • Martha Morris was charged with theft of personal items and cash from her employer’s house.
   • However, the case was dismissed due to the employer not appearing in court.

Consequences of Such Crimes in 1882

• Fraud was taken seriously in Victorian Britain, and punishments could include imprisonment, fines, or even hard labour for repeated offences.
• Theft, particularly from an employer, was seen as a serious breach of trust and could lead to loss of employment and social disgrace.

Life in 1882

• In 1882, London and surrounding areas were undergoing rapid social and economic change, with a growing middle class and increasing use of banking services, which sometimes led to financial disputes such as those seen in the article.
• Domestic service was one of the most common occupations for women, and many workers lived in their employers’ homes, making accusations of theft relatively common.
• Petty Sessions courts dealt with minor offences and civil disputes, playing an important role in maintaining order in local communities.

Use in Family History Research

• Articles such as this provide invaluable insights for genealogists researching family members who may have been involved in legal disputes, employed in domestic service, or running businesses during the Victorian period.
• Names, addresses, and occupations mentioned can help trace ancestors and understand their social standing.