Barnard Morris

8 Downs Park Road

Evidence in an Old Bailey case in 1861 that the prisoner Alfred Morris (son of Samuel) was the nephew of Barnard Morris of the firm Morris and Morris Cigar Makers 23 September 1861 Case 750

1861 Census Household Record Address 8, Downs Park Road Parish St Johns Hackney District Hackney, Hackney Administrative County London, Middlesex Householder 1 Name Barnard Morris Age 65 Estimated Year of Birth 1796 Relationship to Head of Household Head Occupation Cigar Manufacturer Birth Place Germany Allona Birth County

Full transcript of case. 750. ALFRED MORRIS (25) , Embezzling the sums of 2l. 10s., 21l. 0s. 6d., and 17l. 3s. 3d. of Charles Morris and others, his masters. METCALFE conducted the Prosecution. GEORGE MOORE. I am a tobacconist, and live at 23, Sloane-square, Chelsea. I gave the prisoner an order for goods for Messrs. Barnard Morris and Sons. I cannot state positively in what month it was. I received the goods, and paid the prisoner 17l. 3s. 3d..I have the receipt here. I had dealt with Morris and Co. for two years. I paid the prisoner the money on their account. Cross-examined by MR. SLEIGH. Q. I believe you have known the defendant for many years, and know that he always bore the character of a highly honourable young man? A. I have known him about town for some years as a business man. I always understood he bore a good character. MR. METCALFE. Q. On what day was it that you paid the prisoner the money? A. I cannot say. I think it was something like four months after the delivery of the goods. It was last year, or the beginning of this. I will not be positive which. CHARLES HENRY BURGESS. I assist my father, a wine and spirit merchant, 75, Sloane-street, Chelsea. I paid the prisoner 2l. 10s. on 26th February, on account of Barnard Morris and Sons. I had a receipt for it. Cross-examined. Q. Did you know the prisoner before you bought any goods of this firm? A. No; I simply knew him as representing the firm. CHARLES MORRIS. I am one of the firm of Barnard Morris and Sons, Cigar manufacturers, Whitechapel. the prisoner has been employed by us for some years. In 1859, there was a difference made in the arrangement between us. We arranged to settle with him on each transaction as it arose. He was to take orders, and on collecting the money for those orders he was to be paid his commission upon them. He was to account to us immediately upon the receipt of the money for the whole of it, and then he received his commission from us on each transaction. He has not accounted to me for 17l. 3s. 3d. received from Mr. Moore; or for 2l. 10s. received from Mr. Burgess. He should account to me, or any member of the firm. That is my father, Mr. Barnard Morris, and my brother, William Morris, and myself. Cross-examined. Q. The defendant is related to you, I believe? A. He is a first cousin. There was no special arrangement between us previous to 1859, except that was advanced him money upon the score of other business that he had done for us. He was in the habit of selling goods for us. we did not divide the profits, we paid him a commission, but with a view to a settlement at the end of the year. we paid him in advance before he collected the moneys, in anticipation of his doing so; and then, as the commission accrued, there was a debit and credit account. He did not live in the house. we called him a commission traveller. His duty was to go and collect orders of any one that he thought trustworthy; if he did not do so, the only result would he that he would have no commission. I do not know that since 1859 he was employed as a clerk to Godson and Ford, of Covent-garden. I never heard it before to-day. It may be so. I have since heard that at the time he was taken into custody, he was carrying on business on his own account, but I did not know it at the time. It is impossible to tell without reference to the books the amount of the prisoner's transactions for us since 1859. The books are here. It would take a long time to go through them to ascertain that. We have not a separate account in the books as to his orders. We have a separate ledger. We have not any account in the ledger of the commission paid to him, because he was paid it on each transaction since 1859; and there has been nothing of the kind, because we wanted to simplify it, so that there should be no complexity about it. We have no entry since 1859, showing the amount of commission received by him. I cannot undertake to say that goods to the amount of 2,000l. have not been sold by him. I really have not the remotest idea whether it is 1,000l., 2,000l., or 500l. I will not swear it was 5 not 2,000l., his commission was 5 per cent. We have no book which would show the amount of money paid to him since January, 1859. There is a petty cash-book in which his commission was put down as it was paid, that would show the amount. That book has been destroyed. All those books are destroyed, they being of no importance in our business. The petty cash-book of 1859 was destroyed long ago, and the one for 1860 also. They are of no earthly use to us. We sometimes keep our petty cash on a little piece of waste paper. I have no book here in which the prisoner's commission, with regard to these particular amounts, is entered. The ledger does not contain any account between ourselves and the prisoner after 1859. There is no book that contains any such account since 1859. MR. METCALFE. Q. Did the petty cash-book contain merely entries of petty cash? A. Yes; such entries as ink and postage stamps, and things of that sort; it was in that book we entered small transactions with the prisoner. Of course we had no notion of anything of this sort, therefore we did not keep them. We do not destroy other books. One of our reasons for making the alteration after 1859 was, that there should be no account between us; but that the commission should be handed over at once. The ledger contains entries of the goods sent out to Mr. Moore and Mr. Burgess. We gave the bill to the prisoner to give to Mr. Moore. I cannot say whether I gave it him myself, but we always give the bill three months after the goods have been delivered. That account would have been given to him in February. There is no pretence for saying that we divided profits with the prisoner prior to 1859. We advanced him money in consequence of his necessities. COURT. Q. You say it was his duty to receive money? A. Yes; it was in the course of his employment to have bills placed in his hands to collect. It was his duty to deliver the bills and receive the money. WILLIAM MORRIS . I am one of the firm of Barnard Morris and Sons. The prisoner has not accounted to me for 2l. 10s. received from Mr. Burgess in January, or for 17l. 3s. 3d. received from Mr. Moore. Cross-examined. Q. Have you much to do with the business? A. Yes; I know of no case of the prisoner's being allowed to charge 24s. or 25s. a pound, and our charging him 20s., and his putting the difference in his pocket, or any excess. I never heard of it. I mean to say we have not does so in any instance. I believe there were one or two instances where he was permitted to charge a shilling or two more, which he was allowed to put in his pocket. MR. METCALFE. Q. Under what circumstances was that? A. I believe it was to a small customer, a friend of his; that was at his own request. He charged a shilling extra per pound on the invoice price. He has been with us three or four years. I think it was prior to 59 that he was allowed to do that. I do not know of any instance of it since 1859.I never gave him permission in any case. BARNARD MORRIS . I am one of the firm of Barnard Morris & Sons. I take scarcely any part in the business. I have not received 2l. 10s. paid by Mr. Burgess to the prisoner, or 17l. 3s. 3d. received from Mr. Moore. The prisoner has never accounted to me for either of those sums. Cross-examined. Q. I believe you are the prisoner's uncle? A. Yes. MR. METCALFE. Q. Are you allowing his father an annuity? A. Yes; merely as a poor relation. PORTER WILLIAM DUNNAWAY (Policeman, H 129). On 1st July I took the prisoner into custody at 248, High-street, Wapping. I told him he was charged with embezzling various sums of money from his employers; one was from Mr. Moore, in Sloane-square, and one from Mr. Burgees, and there were others. He said, "Yes, it is quite right; I had the money". He then said, "I shan't say anything more about it till I have seen my solicitor; I shall let the case go for trial. I had previously told him who and what I was. MR. SLEIGH submitted that this case did not come within the statute, that the primer was a mere commission agent, and not a clerk or servant, and according to recent cases (Reg. v. Map and Reg. v. Carr) there must be a power of control by the matter, which clearly did not exist in the present case. The RECORDER was of opinion that there was abundant evidence to satisfy the requirements of the statute; it being part of the prisoner's duty to deliver bills and collect money. The prisoner received a good character.. NOT GUILTY .