A MYSTERIOUS “AUSTRALIAN MILLIONAIRE.”

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1686, 22 June 1904, Page 75 (Supplement)

A MYSTERIOUS “AUSTRALIAN MILLIONAIRE.”

(From Our Own Correspondent.) LONDON, April 29. Tlie so-palled "English Humbert Case 1 ’ has, like the much-discussed case of La pit’ande Therese, fizzled out in most unromantic fashion, and the ex-army officer, Captain _ Short, the principal in the swindle, is now contemplating the delights of five yeaiV free board and lodging at an ungrateful country's expense. He deserved twice that sentence* for a more pitiful attempt to copy the methods of Madame Humbert could not be imagined. She, it will be remembered, managed her affairs with so much address that not only did she play her game successfully for many years, but ■when brought to book successfully hoodwinked the Court and the public for many a long day before finally throwing up the sponge. Short’s career was very brief, and when his tale, came to be examined by a judge and jury at the Old Bailey it proved so ludicrously inadequate that one can only suppose his principal victim, at the time lie was swindled, was suffering from a bad attack' of 'excessive credulity. Short obtained J6500© from a gentleman whose profession was that of® a mining engineer (!) on the strength of a statement that he was to curie into w£20,000 under the will) pf ''Mr Baring" whom he variously represented as a member of the great Baring family and an Australian millionaire.; When, tackled in Court as to the identity and whereabouts of his mysterious benefactor Shost could tell the jury nothing about "Baring,"and his wife, who said Baring was her godfather, declined to enlighten the Court beyond stating that the missing millionaire was- in Sheffield, that the name he had gene by for 60 years was William •James Baring Robinson, that he had made Ills fortune in Australia and had left that country sixteen years ago. In vain did the judge'plead with her to bring forth some, verification of the existence of "Baring.” She could not produce even a scrap of paper with his writing upon it, and was pressed to- give the Court some particulars as to his place of residence at Hastings or h s present whereabouts in Sheffield took ) w fuge in a story r te the effect that "Burin/' had declined to be mixed up in the p oceeclings against her husband. She cot id, she said, find him through liis solicitors 1 and ask him to give her leave to tell the Court what the judge and jury wanted to know if there was an adjournment, brie as she refused to give the name or address of the solicitors, or indeed afford any information which might suggest that her evidence was not a mass of perjury the judge naturally declined to be played with any longer. It was not only concerning Baring that the lady was reticent. She was equally obstinate where other people who might possibly be able to give verisimilitude to her very bald and unconvincing tale were concerned. There was a man named Pollock, alleged to be an executor under “Baring’s” will by which her husband was to benefit., He had "gone to the Cape” and had requested her to "give no information about him.” Then she mentioned a relative of "Baring’s” named Marshall, but beyond stating that he lived at Eastbourne, Mrs Short preserved the silence of the grave concerning this individual also. . .......

When sentenced. Short asked the judge whether if “Baring” turned up that would effect his sentence. "If he does ” said Justice. Darling with an inflection that betrayed more than ordinary in-c-rcdulLt.y, ‘‘you must apply to- the Home Secretary.”