A LONDON MYSTERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XIX, Issue 6566, 2 December 1882, Page 2 (Supplement)

A LONDON MYSTERY.

i A srxocLAP. case of forgery was brought '■ belore the magistrate at the Wership-street ; Police Court in Londou, and adjourned. ! Franz Felix Stumm, master baker, JJo. 136, I Lever-street, St. Luke's, was charged with •■ having forged a. cheque for £76 15s, with ! intent to defraud ; further, with conspiring, i together with one Elizabeth Staneer, to s defraud John George Oisel of the "sum of I £70 15s. .Mr. Poland appeared for the prosecution, instructed by tho Treatury, > ant) Mr. Fillan defeiulec. Mr. Poland said i that the sworn information on wl: tW i warrant was granted showed that in !•.( veni- ' her last a master baker, named Urban i Napoleon Stanger, carrying on business at 13l>, Lever-street, St. Luke's, mysteriously disappeared. He was last seen on the night ' of tho 12th of November, ISSI, when he was '• in a public-liouse in company with the prii soner and another man. "He could be I traced from there to his home, which he was seeu entering at about twelve at night. I From that time all trace ol: him was lost. \ At Dine o'clock on the morning of Sunday, the 13th of November, the prisoner was in > the house of the missing man, having been ' sent for, it was said, to attend to the business, i as Urban Stanger was gone. The prisoner i at that time lived in the immediate neighbourhood with his wife, but without, said Mr. Poland, " mentioning the gossip of the neighbourhood, " it was certain that, ten days after Stanger was missing, the prisoner had left hi 3 wife and lived in the shop in Leverstreet, Mrs. Stanger beiiic; in the house, iit the time Sfcanger " went off," there was a large sum of money standing to his credit in the London and County Bank, and it would be shown that nearly all that money— £414 135—was withdrawn by three cheque?, which were presented and cached after Stanger's disappearance, and, being cashed, were returned in the ordinary way. The cheque which formed the subject of this charge, for £70 15s, was drawn in favour of one Charles Smith, and wai signed "U. Is. Stanger," iu December, but was so irregular that it was twice scut back by the brink. As to that cheque, the evidence of M. Chabot, an expert in handwriting, would show that no part of it was in the handwriting of the missing man Stanger, but that the body of the cheque was in the handwriting of tho prisoner, and tho signature, " U. In. Staisger," an imitation of that of the missing man. Another fact in connection with the case was that on the 20th of November, seven dajs after tho disappearance of St-iiigcr, the prisoner v.'c-nt to a solicitor, who would be called, and gave instructions, for the preparing of a mortgage deed iu favour of one Clarke, to secure—by the lease of the premises in Laver-street— repaymej,'.:-of the sum of £6uO. A singular fact, however, was that he got that deed elated October 5, and took possession of it when it was unexecuted. That deed was now in court, but in a singular condition, with the part where the stamp should hare been burned away. Moreover, it bore an endorsement showiag that on the Ctli of January, 18S2, it v.-v* reassigned, on payment of the £650, from Clarke to Stanger. But all that time Stane r was never seen, and the prisoner, whei. spoken to on the matter, always represented that he was at Kreuzcach, Germany, of which place he was a, native. A nc-nr oliDunt. in- cttiineCticm with the matter, and one still further complicating the case, was that proceedings in bankruptcy were soou afterward instituted against the estate of Stanger, and therein the prisoner claimed for a large sum, nearly £1500. Mr. j John George G-risel, flour factor, Fonthiil fioad, Finsbury Park, said that he was executor under Stangei-'H will in conjunction with William Kvans. The will was executed on the 12th cf July, ISSI. Witness said that he called at Lever-street several times auc saw the prisoner, whom lie knew. When asked after Stangc-r the prisoner used to say h>3 was away at Kreuzuaeh. About the 11th of January this year, the witness received a letter (produced) from Kreuzcach, which was signed "U. N. Stanger." Ac that time he thought the letter wan genuine, but he did not think so now. On the 2-tt'n of April he advertised, offering £50 reward for information rrgardingStangcr. Nothing came of it. Witness, with Mr. Evans, proved Starjser's will in July following. The signatures to the deed produced, as well as the signatures to the cheque, the letter to himself from Kreuznach, and another letter to a Mr. Hoii'mau, dated January, ISS2, he believed not to be in Stanger's handwriting. Cross-examined, the witness said that he was friendly with the prisoner up to the time he found him livirg in the house with Mrs. Stanger after November, but his feelings did not change to revengeful ones. He denied having put about a report in the neighbourhc od that the prisoner had made away with Stanger. Such reports were current, and everybody was talking of the disappearance..