Cambridge Chronicle 2 Jul 1859: Thomas and Elizabeth Winnell charged with fraud

FALSE PRETENCES. —John Hare and Thomas and Elizabeth Winnell were charged with obtaining the sum of £10, by means of a piece of useless paper, purporting to be a bank note for that amount, from William Thomas Palmer, shoemaker, with intent to defraud on the 25th of March. Other counts charged them with attempting to defraud John Hallack, Thomas Wilson, and with conspiring to cheat any of her Majesty’s subjects who would accept the paper as money. — The note was an old draft on the Boston Bank, which has stopped payment since 1815. It was unsigned. The name of Thomas Hare was scrawled on the back. — Mr. D. BROWNE appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. NAYLOR for the Winnells. —The following evidence was called: — Mr. T. F. Wilson, cashier at Messrs. Mortlock’s said, Elizabeth Winnell came into the bank on the 25th of March, and asked for change for the note (produced.) He asked her name and she told him Winnell, and he took the note in to Mr. John Mortlock. Mr M. asked her various questions in reply to which she said the note came from a lodger whose name she did not know. Mr. M. told her to tell the lodger to come himself. He told her the note was not signed, and it was a useless piece of paper. She left the bank with the note. —Cross examined: Did not see the husband outside. The note was not signed. — Mr. John Hallack, cashier to Messrs. Fisher and Johnson, was at the bank the 25th of March. Winnell and his wife came to the bank on that day, and the man asked for change for the note. Mr. Fisher told them it was not signed, and was of no use. — Mr. Palmer: On the above date the Winnell’s came into his shop, and the man asked for and selected a pair of shoes. He bought them, and asked witness to change a £10 bank note. He then produced the note which was the subject of inquiry, and witness sent to Mr. Thurston’s and got it changed, and, after deducting the price of the shoes, paid the money to Winnell. — The last witness’ assistant, who got the note changed at Mr. Thurston’s, wrote his name on the back of the note. — William Wilson, said he was a labourer, of Trumpington. He detailed a conversation he heard between Hare and Winnell at the Red Lion, Trumpington. Heard Hare say, “Drink, Tommy boy, I’ve got a £10 note that never done me any good, and you shall have a part of it, if it will do you any good, and you shall get change for it when you get to Cambridge.” He said he’d get another £10 on the 6th of April, and Winnel should have part of that. He dropped a note on the bricks, and Winnell picked it up, and wished him to put it in his pocket, but Hare told him to keep it and get it changed at Cambridge. Afterwards stayed at Winnell’s 3 days. —Cross-examined: Winnell was to return to the £5, ten shillings at a time to Hare. Hare borrowed 2 or 3 shillings of Winnell. Witness knew that Winnell could not read. — Margaret Dobson, daughter of Mrs. Winnell, gave an account of several conversations between Hare and Winnell about the note. Heard Hare offer to lend Winnell £5, which he was to repay by instalments. Hare said he had annuity of £40 from his son through “Mr. Stanley Chapman,” solicitor, and this note was part of it. Her father-in-law gave the note to his wife, who afterwards questioned Hare about it, expressing a hope that he came by it honestly, that it was a good one and so on. Hare said it was as right as the Bank of England, and then told the story about the annuity. Mrs. Winnell said she hoped it was, and hoped it would not get her into any trouble. She had been out with the note when this conversation took place. She told Winnell what Mr. Mortlock had said, and said if he wanted it changed he must get it changed himself. She told him, Mr. Mortlock had said the note was not “backed” and was not worth a half-penny. Hare heard that, and flew in a rage: and said, “If they want anything I’ll make it all right,” and he jumped up to back the note and witness gave him a pen and ink. She did not see him any more. Her mother and father then went out. —Mr. W.P. Shout, said he was cashier and clerk to Messrs. Staniland and Wrigglesworth, of Boston. The firm was formerly Staniland and Chapman (not “Stanley Chapman.”) The son of Hare was a client of the firm, and he had an estate to which the sum of £8 was chargeable annually for the prisoner. His annuity did not amount to £40 a year, and he had never paid him a note. Witness had been in business 30 years, and had never known such a bank as that mentioned on the note. — Inspector Thompson took Hare into custody. He told witness that Winnell sold the note for £9 10s, and had £5 of the money. He said he knew he had done wrong, and if he had a fortnight allowed him, he would pay up the remainder. — Mr. NAYLOR submitted that there was no evidence against the woman, as she must have acted under the coercion of her husband, —Mr. BROWN quoted a case contra, which he conceived was in point. — The RECORDER was of opinion that the woman acted under her husband’s coercion, and said he should not call upon her for a defence. — Mr. NAYLOR then spoke on behalf of Winnell, contending that he did not know the note was a useless one when he presented it. He could neither read nor write, and would not therefore be likely to discover the important fact that it was not signed: much less so than Mr. Palmer and Mr. Thurston. He had no doubt been deceived in the matter by Hare, who had also borrowed money and obtained food and lodging of Winnell. — Hare’s defence was that he was intoxicated throughout the transaction. — Mr. NAYLOR called a witness named William Johnson, of Norfolk street, who said he was in custody on a charge of drunkenness when the prisoners were brought before the Magistrates. After their examination, he heard then talking about it. Hare said, “It will be a very bad job, this will!” And Winnell asked, “Why will it be a bad job? Where did you get that note from?” Hare said, “I’ve had it more than 12 months, and I knew it was a bad one.” Winnell said, “Why didn’t you tell me so then. I would not have gone a step to get it changed for £100. Now me and my wife have got to lay in gaol 7 days through you. You ought to be hung without a judge or jury.” — Mr. John Wallis gave Winnell a good character, as also did Mr. Eddleston, farmer, of Trumpington. Then Mr. BROWNE replied. The defence had endeavoured to make out that Winnell was too ignorant to know anything about bad notes, but nevertheless, he could not have been so stupid as not to know it was a bad note after he had been told so on the best authority. He had had the best means of knowing the note was worth nothing, and yet he persisted in endeavouring to get it passed. — The RECORDER having called on the Jury to acquit the woman, on the ground of coercion by her husband, carefully repeated the effect of the evidence, and the jury found both the male prisoners guilty. Hare was sentenced to six months’, and Winnell to three months’ imprisonment, and the money that was found in the house of Winnell was ordered to be given to Mr. Palmer, as compensation for his loss.

The proceedings terminated about half-past five o’clock.