CRIMES COMMITTED FOR CHARITY.

Thames Star, Volume XLIX, Issue 14662, 16 April 1915, Page 3

CRIMES COMMITTED FOR CHARITY.

BENEVOLENT ROGUES. That a man should set himself to embezzle twenty-six thousand pounds live in such a frugal manner that the dined off bread and cheese in a dark corner o f the Exchange, and devote the entire amount to charity, appears at first sight almost incomprehensible. Yet such were the facts recently brought to light at the trial of a London manager of a wealthy New York firm, who was proved to have defrauded his employers of this large sum in order to provide funds for a mission in which he was interested. This was his sole object in perpetrating the fraud. Such instances of crimes committed for charity are by no means so uncommon as people might imagine. One of 'the most remarkable cases was that of Sister Candide, a member of the religious order o f the Sisters of Charity, who was known throughout the whole of Prance for her good works, and was eventually arrested in Paris on a sensational charge. It was alleged that she h a d obtained on credit from a Parisian firm jewels worth £14,000, which she subsequently pawned. Other firms came forward with similar complaints, the total amount .stated to have been obtained in this manner exceeding £100,000. There was no doubt as to the motive width had actuated Sister Candide in obtaining this large sum by dishonest means. She had established two consumptive hospitals,, several free dispensaries, and a number of other charitable institutions, which she had maintained by appeals to the rich. When this source failed her she resorted to actual fraud in order to provide the necessary funds. That not one penny of the money was spent upon herself was proved beyond doubt. Her rooms' were searched by the detectives, but nothing of the slightest value was found, and it was known that she had denied herself everything save the bare necessaries of life. The entire sum had been expended on the upkeep of the charitable institutions she had started. In Paris, also, some eight or tsn years ago, a sensation was caused by the arrest of the cashier of the Faculty of Medicine, who was found to be several hundred pounds short in his accounts. It was proved th a t he had led the simplest of lives, neither gambled nor drank, a nd that his salary was amply sufficient for Ms personal needs. The secret of has downfall was his intensely charitable disposition. He found it impossible ever to resist an appeal. He had quite a number of needy dependents, to whom he had given away every penny of Ms income he could spare, and then stolen to supply their wants. A peculiar case was that of Peter Van Vlissenger, the well-known Chicago philanthropist. From the humble position of a bank messenger he had risen to the head of the concern, land was universally esteemed for his great gifts to charitable institutions and churches. It was an astounding surprise to his fellow citizens when, in September, 1908, he was arrested and charged with the forgery of mortgages to the extent of £220,000. , It was proved that he could have lived in every comfort on his honest earnings, yet he preferred to perpetrate these extensive forgeries in order to pose as a wealthy philanthropist. At his trial he confessed that he had effected the forgeries by means of a powerful electric lamp placed under a glass cover on his liesk. This rendered the documents transparent and enabled him to trace the signatures. Some few years ago certain charitable institutions in York regularly received anonymous donations vary-i ing from five to fifty pounds. There was no due to the mysterious donor and his identity might never have been disclosed had not the secret leaked out in the examination of ■ a man who had unexpectedly become bankrupt. This man had not only given away all he possessed, but actually defrauded his creditors in order to have more money to distribute. The case was unique ; for, as already stated, all his gifts were anonymous. He could not, therefore, have been actuated by a desire for notoriety, which is the cause of many similar offences. It is a well-known fact that notorious criminals frequently distribute a considerable portion of their plunder 'in charity. The occupier of an imposing house in one of the London suburbs, whose name aPPeared at the head of every local subscription list, was proved to be a most daring and successful burglar. Nor does it appear that his charitable donations were merely for the sake of throwing the police off the scent. After his arrest many people came forward to testify to secret acts of benevolence on his part. It was not so long ago that a man was brought before a London magistrate on a charge of begging. The police proved that this was not his first offence, and the man was fined. Afterwards it transpired that this poor, dilapidated creature had onve been a wealthy man, and had given away all he possessed. One gift alone amounted to £5,000, being a donation to 'a church. The most ] singular feature of the case wae that he was still devoting most oi the proceeds of his begging to charity, retaining only enough for tin barest necessities.—"Weekly Telegraph." Law is a bottomless pit.-—Dr. J, Arbuthnot. 1325.