A GREAT BANK ROBBERY.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue 7372, 25 January 1902, Page 4 (Supplement)

A GREAT BANK ROBBERY.

THE BANK OF LIVERPOOL LOSES

£170,000.

AN EX-OHAMPION PUGILIST INVOLVED.

LONDON, November 29. In the great bank robberies of which the mind retains a record the amount at issue has seldom exceeded the , deHajMUjJ which the Bank of Liverpool is called Cn to face, owing to the dishonesty o Thomas Peter Goudie, one of its book keepers. By an ingenious trick Goudie has left the bank bewailing a possible loss of £170,000. There is only one case in recent times in which that figure has been exceeded. In April. 1860, the Union. Bank of London lost £263,000. In connection with this deficiency a man confessed himself guilty of forgery and fraud, and was sentenced to 20 years- -Imprisonment. Early in the last century the famous forgeries of Fauntleroy, who was subsequently hanged, cost the Bank of England £360,000. In 1883 the London and River Plate Bank was robbed of securities amounting to nearly £116,000, and the thief and an accomplice each got 12 years' penal servitude. The Commercial Bank of London suffered in February, 1861, to the extent of £67,000, but a large part of it was subsequently recovered. The theft, as in the Liverpool case, was the work of one of the clerks Rogers bank was robbed in 1844 of nearly £50,000, but the bank notes were all subsequently returned, resembling to a certain extent the famous Parr's Bank robbery of^two years ago, in which £60,600 was originally taken and more than two-thirds of the amount sent back in time for the chairman to announce the welcome tidings to the shareholders, who were then meeting to hear- the directors' explanation. The "Globe" recalls a case which occurred some years ago at the Old Bailey. The criminal had taken £30,000 from the firm of which he was cashier. He declined to say where the money was. and, with consummate impudence, pointed out to the judge that as it was a first offence he could not pass a severer sentence than five years' penal servitude. This he was Quite prepared to undergo for the sake of th* fortune awaiting him at the end of it. It would be interesting to know the real sequel to this story. The Liverpool frauds perpetrated by Goudie which were discovered on Thursday afternoon COVERED A PERIOD OF TWELVE MONTHSH.

and how it came about that they were not brought to light earlier is a matter upon which the shareholders will probably ask some very pertinent questions. That the man should be able to circumvent the daily check and the weekly audit till he had "done in" the bank for £170,000 seems to suggest either marvellous criminal ingenuity on Goudie's part or considerable laxity on the part of others The forged cheques were paid into a London bank to accounts, it is presumed, of accomplices, and in the ordinary course passed through the London country clearing-house and were sent down to the Bank of Liverpool by the London agent. Being cheques which were drawn on accounts which were solely under his charge, these cheques from the clearing-house came back again to .Goudie In brief, they were sent out by Goudie, and, having traversed their legitimate channel, they were received back by Goudie. All such cheques are entered in a day book,and this duty Goudie seems to have carried out, but never debited the customer's account upon whom the cheques purported to be drawn. It is alleged that it has also been necessary for Goudie to manipulate other books, as the bank balances roughly two or three times a week. The frauds were discovered accidentally. A customer was anxious to know something about his account, or some particulars about a cheque, which caused- a reference to Goudie's books, and the latter was called to explain where a certain cheque had been debited, as it did not appear in the account to which it was thought to .belong. Goudie, cool as a cucumber, expressed regret at the mistake, and insinuated that he must have posted it to the wrong account. He left the room ostensibly to fetch the other ledger. As he did not return as quickly as he might, the official went to look for him , and, finding him not, inquired of Goudie's fellow clerks. Oh, yes, they had seen him. He had just walked out of the bank bareheaded and minus his overcoat. This (under the circumstances) queer procedure on Goudie's part caused the official to communicate with the manager, a hasty investigation was made, and the police called in. Detectives were sent to Goudie's lodgings, policemen and clerks despatched to the railway stations, the landing-stage, and every conceivable spot where a fugitive from justice might possibly make for; but

GOUDIE HAD VANISHED, and so far, in spite of a reward of £250, no trace of him has been found.

A search of his lodgings— homely rooms in an unlovely part of Liverpool—disclosed the fact that Goudie, the "reticent, methodical, zealous servant" of the bank, who was never seen in liquor and always behaved as a man of very moderate means, had had a good deal more to do with backing horses than he should. What exactly the police •discovered is, known only to themselves, but as a re-

J suit of their find the London police authorities became extremely busy, and on Monday morning a detective and assistants repaired to the well-furnished Brixton home of Mr Richard Burge, ex-pedes-trian, ex-champion light-weight pugilist, bookmaker. Richard was in bed, but when confronted with the warrant for his arrest for uttering forged cheques in connection with the Liverpool Bank robbery simply said, "All right,'" dressed himself, and accompanied the officers to- Bowstreet. There he was charged with "having on or about October 25th last, and on divers other days, feloniously uttered, knowing the same to be forged, bankers' cheques for £9000, £7000. £9000, £30,000, and £31,000 with intent to defraud." The proceedings were purely formal, Mr Abrahams, the prosecuting solicitor, only giving sufficient, evidence to justify a remand. He stated that a considerable portion of the proceeds of the forged cheques had been traced to certain parties, and he would be able to prove that large sums of money had been traced to the prisoner's account at one of the London banks,, amounting altogether to £13,589; £15,000 and £813 7/11 had also been deposited in the name of the prisoner's wife. There were other persons associated with the prisoner, who appeared to have received between them £90,000. Of that amount £80,000 had been - traced, £20,000 of which had been traced In Liverpool. At present it appears that the bank may possibly regain possession of a large portion of the £170.000 at issue.