SIMPLE SIMON.

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

SIMPLE SIMON.

THE THIEF FALLS AMONG THIEVES.

LONDON, December 14,

At Bow-street Police 1 . Court la? Monday, Mr Fenwick commenced th uearing proper of the charge.

against Goudie, of forging cheques for large sums of money, and against Richard Burge and Thomas Frederick Kelly, of uttering forged cheques.

Mr C. F. Gill, K.C., appeared to prosecute for the Bank of Liverpool, and in the course of a speech lasting about 80 minutes, explained how the frauds were carried out. Goudie had been a ledger clerk in the Bank of Liverpool for about five years, and his employers had had every confidence in his honesty.. He was a very clever accountant and book-keeper, and had charge of ledgers concerning all the customers whose name commenced with any letter between H. and K. It was his duty to receive used cheques and enter in customers' bank-books debits and credits. Then he ought to have placed all used cheques on a file, as the bank did not return used cheques to their customers. In this way Goudie became familiar with the signatures of Mr R. W. Hudson, of Liverpool, who often drew cheques for very large sums. Goudie, knowing this, decided to imitate his> signature, and from papers he left "behind him when he absconded on November 21 it was evident that he had practised Mr Hudson's signature until he could forge it with great facility — so well, indeed, that Mr Hudson, when called later, declared t>»at but for the fact that he never signed blank bearer cheques he might have been doubtful as to whether Goudie's forgeries were his own signature or not. By means of a false statement, he obtained one of the bank's cheque books, and the res> was easy. He forged Mr Hudson's name from time to time to cheques representing in the aggregate £169,500. When the cheques were paid into the bank they were handed to Goudie to be dealt with in the usual way, but he destroyed tnem without debiting them to Mr Hudson's account. When arrested, he admitted the forgery, though there was some dispute as to the actual amount he received. It would be proved th.it cheques representing £72,000 went to Kelly and another betting man named William Haines Styles, alias "Stripes."

Mr Gill did not go exhaustively into Goudie's modus operandi in manipulating the account books in his keeping so as to evade discovery at the weekly audits. He was "content to indicate that the manipulations had been carried- out with great skill, and then proceeded to narrate a new version of SIMPLE SIMON AND THE PIEMAN.

The piemen in this case were originally two humble followers of the sport of kings (and knaves) named Kelly and Styles whom Goudie met in a railway carriage on his way from a race meeting. A little game of cards between the trio led to confidences. Kelly, who at the time lived in more or less genteel poverty in a back street in Bradford, and had a few pounds in the bank, became for the purpose of conversation a "commission agent" very much "in the know," and able to put his friends on to "good things," whilst Styles talked glibly of backing horses for thousands of pounds, spicing his conversation with apropos fairy tales of Tioa" he'd pulled in £10,000 over this race, and how he'd missed a fortune when Spayined Jock beat Hurry Up a short head for the Mudlarkers' Handicap. As a matter of fact, Styles was a man who might possibly be worth "a tenner" one day, and be under the unpleasant necessity of "counting his browns" the next. Goudie, for his part, seems to have swallowed telly's and Styles' tales, and to have in turn induced them to believe that he was 'the possessor of money in plenty. At any rate, they conceived him to be a pigeon worth plucking, and began to take a very great interest in him, though not quite the sort of interest Goudie imagined. He., simple fellow, took them for friends who, out of sheer goodness of heart, desired him to share in the "good things" of the turf they picked up. Within five days of their first railway carriage gossip Goudie was writing to Kelly in this strain: — "Dear Mr Kelly,— lt is very good *of you to put me up to these good things during the last day two Without having any money of mine in hand. I think after to-day's investments I shall be in your debt to the extent of about £230. In the event of Saturday or Sunday suiting ycu, you can depend on me bringing with me the £230 I owe you, and £ICOO for further investment. During the rest of the week I shall not ask you to invest anything, seeing you do not hold any money of mine. Wire in the morning. — Yours sincerely, T. P\ Goudie." Goudie was as good as his word. He took £1300- to Kelly, aucl commissioned him to put money on any "good thing" he was acquainted with. He thought genuine bets wt re- made, but, .said Mr Gill, it was net so. . • HOPE DEFERRED.

A little later Goudie, whose bets ippear to have been uniformly unlucky, wrote: "Dear Mr Kelly, — We .vere rather unfortunate to-day, but letter luck next time. Let me know vho your bankers are and I will place G3OOO to your credit." That money vas duly sent. In another letter loudie wrote: "I will send you' a Iraft for £50." Mr GiU explained hat this really meant £2500, as it lad been arranged that all sums nentioned in letters should be multiplied by fifty. Goudie evidently be-

; lieved that Kelly made genuine bets, as in one letter he wrote: "You have forgotten in your account to deduct I commission." Eventually Kelly did so well that he bought a horse which was called "Force." This animal won a race when the odds against it were 8 to 1. Goudie, in referring to this race, complained that his letters ' to Kelly respecting this horse had met with no response. The letter i commenced "Dear Sir," instead of j "Dear Mr Kelly," and it was evident ! that even the confiding Goudie was j becoming suspicious. The explana- ■ tion was simple. When a horse won j Goudie was not "on." When it lost he was "on." It would have been ■ ■ very inconvenient to Kelly if Goudie j had invested £3000 on the 8 to 1 I chance, which came off. Consequentj ly he did not reply to Goudie's letters 1 and telegrams when "Force" was likely to win. This was 'the. first friction which occurred between the ' parties. From first to last Kelly obi tamed £72,000 from Goudie, and he I seems to have equally shared that j amount with Styles (who unfortunately was not in Court), that being the agreement between them. Then Dick Burge and another betting man named James Mances heard of what | was going on, and determined that , the plucking of Goudie should not be 1 left entirely in the hands of Kelly and , Styles. THE OTHER PARTICIPATORS. Mances, therefore, saw Goudie at I/iverpool and arranged with him to bet with a man named Lawrence , Marks, who had an- office at Adelphi , Terrace, London. From October 24 to November 14 Goudie sent to Marks j cheques representing £91,000 for the , purpose of backing horses. Burge , and Mances were allowed to have the ' control of Mark's office and to open j telegrams. So soon as the money ' was received it was "cut up," no beta being made. Burge received one half of the money, Mances one third, and Marks one sixth. Marks is said to have committed suicide and Mancea is not yet found, but he has left behind him at the Credit Lyonnais £10,000 on deposit and £20,000 invested in Consols. So far as the Burge-cum-Mances-cum-Marks alliance is concerned Mr ; Gill produced evidence of a nature j which amply justified Mr iFenwick's ' decision not to allow Burge out on bail at present. 1 Morris Woolgar, a former clerk in the employ of Marks, told the Court that his whilom employer carried on a betting business at 3, Adelphi Terj race, up to the time of his disappear- ' ace. The ordinary books were kept — debit and credit books, a day book, i and a settling book. Witness had j seen Burge at the office for a period jof three or four weeks prior to J Marks' disappearance. He also saw James Mances at the same time. I Marks introduced them both to witj ness, and told him that they had authority to open all telegrams. After that they visited the office daily and opened telegrams. On one occasion Witness opened a telegram which was signed "Scott" (this was Goud- • ies betting norn de plume J, ' and he had also addressied a telegram to "Scott, 15, North John-street, Liverpool," stating "Commissions executed." After telegrams were opened they were usually handed to the entry clerk, but some* times Burge or Mances retained them, saying- they were their wires. Witness , identified some of Marks' books which were produced. They contained no record of any betting transactions "with Scott. The witness stated that Marks' average bets were about a sovereign, and a great many of them were only for 5/ or half a crown. The total takings on an ordinary day were about £20 Up to the time Marks went away witness knew of no customer of his named Goudie or Scott, and, in fact, .the name Goudie was never mentioned in his hearing.