Unclaimed Estates

ONE of the most hopeless delusions prevalent in the United States, as alluring as the search for the philosopher’s stone of the Middle Ages, and not confined to the illiterate classes, is the belief that there are in Europe estates innumerable, and of unlimited value, awaiting rightful heirs and claimants. In the mean time these estates are supposed to be locked up in Probate or Chancery courts, in the Bank of England and similar institutions, or in the occupancy of fraudulent, or wrongful, if innocent, tenants.

Most of the claimants of these estates are probably ignorant how well founded their claims may be ; the idea of their having any claim having been first suggested to them by the advertisements, catalogues, or circulars of fraudulent and unscrupulous claim agents. The latter sometimes compile a list of names purporting to be those of persons who have been advertised for in proceedings in the Court of Chancery, and otherwise, to claim money and property; also the names of testators in cases in which heirs are not known, and of persons advertised for in respect to unclaimed dividends. The agents also state that on the receipt of one guinea they will search records and documents relating to any name in the list, which in one publication extends over 228 pages, containing four columns of 67 names each, making a grand total of over 60,000 names, after allowing over 1000 for repetitions, which seem to be numerous. Out of this prodigious number of lost estates and heirs, the agents are sure to attract a goodly number of persons who will forward a guinea on the chance, particularly when it is stated that “ if by any chance a name should not be connected with money or property the fees are at once returned.” The unscrupulous agent not only does not waste any time in investigating the claim after the guinea is received, but from time to time sends in a bill of charges for sums professedly expended in searches and legal proceedings, and pleads delays and obstacles of all kinds in getting possession of the estate sought for. It would be interesting to know how many guinea fees are ever returned. There are doubtless some bona fide cases of claims to estates being brought to trial, though no successful ones are known.

Claims of this class, which generally are entirely imaginary and delusive, differ in this respect from the celebrated Tichborne case, which occurred in England in 1874, where there was an actual estate and a really lost heir, and where the claimant was the only fraudulent feature. Whether the idea of personifying the lost Roger Tichborne originated in the claimant’s own brain, or was suggested to him by designing persons who hoped to live on him when he came into possession, will probably never be known. It is stated that the claimant, after serving out his sentence of imprisonment at hard labor, confessed that he was a butcher of the name of Orton, and that his whole claim was fraudulent, as had been conclusively proved at the trial. The costs to the rightful owners were enormous, and hampered the estate for some years, though, fortunately, the affair happened during the minority of the heir. It was astonishing that a large number of intelligent persons could be found to subscribe to the fund in aid of the false claimant. Had he been successful, he would have been the counterpart of Tittlebat Titmouse, the claimant in the well-known story Ten Thousand a Year, which was written many years before the Tichborne case occurred.

The Department of State at Washington and our legations and embassies abroad are inundated with inquiries concerning "unclaimed estates,” indicating in every case that there is a fraudulent estate agent in the background as prime mover in the matter. In reply to the writers, the Department of State has prepared printed circulars, based on the reports of our diplomatic officials in Europe, exposing the designs of claim agents, and indicating the proper methods of searching for estates, though at the same time pointing out the futility of doing so. As far as our officials are aware, after the most careful inquiries, not a single so-called "unclaimed estate ” has ever been found, nor has any occupant of a known estate ever been dispossessed in favor of a new claimant In some cases where the fraud was palpable, our diplomatic agents have taken measures to have legal proceedings instituted, and with success, against several fraudulent agents. These have resulted in the closing of the agencies, and the conviction and punishment of the guilty parties.

Such is the general view of the subject, but a few instances and particulars may be of interest and advantage to the public, and may deter credulous persons from wasting time and good money on fraudulent agents and unfounded claims. It is also well for claim agents and claimants to know at the start that the transmission through the mail of letters containing schemes for the purpose of obtaining money or property under false pretenses is forbidden by law, and that the governments of the United States and Great Britain are in accord to intercept such letters, and bring the senders, if possible, to trial and punishment. The only case in this country which has been prosecuted with the result of convicting and punishing the estate agent was under the provisions of the law against using the mails for the purpose of swindling the public. The English convictions were for obtaining money under false pretenses.

The principal claims brought to the notice of our embassy in England are those against the Jennens, or Jennings, the Hedges, the Bradford, the Hyde, the Horne, and the Townley estates, to say nothing of the many claims to untold sums of money said to be lying in the Bank of England, or in Chancery, or in the public funds of England or India.

The Jennings claimants have become so numerous that a Jennings Claim Association, located at last accounts in Canada, has been formed, with entrance fees and assessments levied annually for the benefit of the unscrupulous managers who pretend to act for the deluded members. Applications to the Department of State by claimants of the Jennings estate had already become so numerous in 1844 that our minister in London at that time, after consulting a firm of wellknown solicitors there, ascertained that the lost estate in question belonged to one John Jennens of Erdington and Birmingham, who died in 1653, and whose estates eventually passed to one William Jennens, who died in 1798, possessed of about £2,000,000 sterling. As he had omitted to sign his will, his estates passed to his heir-at-law, George William Augustus Curzon, and in 1844 belonged to Earl Howe, the head of the Curzon family. Mr. Jennens’s personal property passed to his cousin, and was divided among Earl Beauchamp and others. The claim to the estate has been repeatedly before the courts ; and in November, 1880, Vice-Chancellor Malins, in the case of “ Willis and others vs. Earl Howe and others,” when giving judgment against the claimant, is said to have remarked, “ If such a claim could be allowed after a period of eighty-two years, no one would be safe in the possession of his property.” As regards this estate, it is therefore safe to say that there is not the slightest hope for any claimant, and that the Jennings Claim Association is only a trap to catch credulous persons, any payments by the members of the association being so much lost money put into the pockets of sharpers.

The Hedges estate, funds belonging to which are supposed to be lying in the Bank of England, stands upon nearly the same footing as the Jennings estate. The deputy governor of the Bank of England informed the American legation in London, about two years ago, that no funds could be found standing on their books in the name of Sir Charles Hedges, and that the investigation of a well-known genealogist showed that Sir Charles Hedges’s will had been duly proved by his son William, who inherited his property and left a number of descendants. The Bradford, Hyde, and Horne estates were also described by the same authority as ordinary myths by which many persons had been beguiled. The Bank of England accountants further state that there are no large unclaimed sums on their books. Such sums as there are can be obtained only by identification of the stock or investment by the legal representatives, or by proceedings in the Court of Chancery. The bank is not the custodian of any real estate whatsoever, nor of the property of persons dying intestate, nor of unclaimed dividends in Chancery, and it is useless to inquire of the bank for deposits held for any one’s benefit. All stocks or dividends unclaimed for ten years are transferred to the Commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, who will always refund the same to lawful owners proving title. No lists of unclaimed funds in the Bank of England have been published since 1845, it having been found that such lists were used to deceive credulous persons. A list of unclaimed funds in Chancery, which amount to only about £1,000,000 sterling, is published every three years in the London Gazette ; but the amount in each case is not stated, and the names of the parties to the suit in which such funds have been deposited being ordinarily entirely different from those of the original owners of the property, it would be useless to apply for them merely under the original owners’ names. Prior to the Probate Act of 1858 English wills were filed in local courts, mostly under the jurisdiction of the bishops, and consequently are extremely difficult to find; but since 1858 duplicates have been sent to Somerset House, where copies can be obtained for a small fee.

The Lawrence Townley, or Chase, estate in England seems to be singled out by swindlers for their special efforts, and, fortunately, is the one in which these false agents, under many aliases, have been brought to bay and punished. This estate, claimed by many persons of the name of Lawrence and Chase, was represented to consist of $800,000,000, more or less, lying in the Bank of England awaiting distribution. As a fact, there is no money in that bank belonging to any Townley, Lawrence Townley, or Chase estate. One excuse for the claims was an act of Parliament passed in August, 1884, which was supposed to distribute this property. The Townley estate, which is situated in the counties of Lancashire and Yorkshire, has been for a very long time in the possession of its rightful owners, and there are no unknown or American heirs to any portion of it. The act of Parliament in question was merely to arrange some equities arising under successive marriage settlements and conveyances executed at various times, and to carry out a decree of the Court of Chancery in an amicable suit brought for that purpose. The American claimants of this estate were advertised for and encouraged by a person calling himself Colonel James F. Jacquess, with a confederate named Howell Thomas. These two swindlers were finally stopped in their career by the London police. Thomas was convicted of swindling Jacquess, and sentenced to five years’ penal servitude. Jacquess was tried later for conspiring with Thomas to obtain money under false pretenses, was convicted, and sentenced at the Old Bailey, November 29, 1894, to twenty months’ imprisonment at hard labor. The trial and conviction in the United States of William Lord Moore, a swindler of the same class, will be narrated later on. Doubtless these will not be the last cases of this kind of imposture, as almost incredibly large gains are made by such nefarious proceedings.

Colonel Jacquess, at the preliminary hearing in the police court in July, 1894, confessed that he had received from his dupes in America about £10,000 between 1876 and 1885, and that between 1885 and 1894 he had received at least £22,000. Like most adventurers of this class, he had, according to his own account, had a great variety of occupations. He had been a teacher in a ladies’ school, a preacher, a private in the ranks as well as colonel and general in our civil war, and an official in our general post-office ; had engaged in commercial pursuits; had started an employment bureau for emancipated negroes; and finally was called to the bar, but never practiced. At the second examination of Jacquess, October 3, 1894, William E. French, one of the American witnesses, of the firm of William French & Co., of Evansville, Indiana, and a business partner of Jonathan Jacquess, a brother of the colonel, deposed that Colonel Jacquess and an attorney named Karr had told him that two brothers named Lawrence, living in America, were the rightful heirs to the Townley estate, and that these two Lawrences, not having sufficient money to prosecute their claims to it, were raising money on bonds. The witness agreed to buy bonds of the face value of $25,000, paying $500 for them. On the bonds was printed a statement that the Lawrences were the true heirs, and on the back was the following: “ The Court of Chancery of England, ordered by the House of Commons, February 23, 1865, decided that the Lawrence Townley estate remains unsettled, and is yet subject to a claimant, and marked in the Chancery book ‘ Heirs gone to America.’ ” The court also issued the following decree : “ that the heirs of Mary Townley, who married a Lawrence and settled in America, are the legal heirs of the estate.’’ Witness said that he had purchased subsequently more of the bonds, at a total face value of $100,000. Since then he had dined with Colonel Jacquess, who said that proceedings with regard to the estate were progressing favorably.

The prosecuting attorney did not consider that this testimony was sufficient to establish the charge of obtaining money under false pretenses, nor was that the question then at issue. This suit, in fact, was brought by Jacquess against Thomas, whom he had employed as his solicitor in getting claims through the courts, to force him to account for the sums he had received from his American victims, and was decided in favor of Jacquess, Thomas being sentenced to imprisonment. It was in consequence of the evidence brought out at this trial that Jacquess and Thomas were jointly tried on the charge of obtaining money under false pretenses. It must be said to the credit of Thomas that, when acting for Jacquess, he had really done his best to get the claim to the Townley estate through the courts, beginning with the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. Here it was referred to a judge in Chambers, who in his turn referred it to the Divisional Court, which struck out the statement of claim as being frivolous and vexatious, and dismissed the action. Another action brought in the Chancery Division was likewise dismissed. The case was then taken up to the Court of Appeal, where it was dismissed as being vexatious and oppressive. Thomas next carried it before the House of Lords, which confirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal, and settled the question finally. After all this litigation, it is not astonishing that there was no money left to turn over to Jacquess. All the papers in the case were then sent to the public prosecutor, and criminal proceedings were taken against Thomas to force him to account to Jacquess, with the result that Thomas was sent to prison. It was, however, a case of a thief catching a thief, as was proved in the subsequent trial of the two together, when Thomas pleaded guilty, and Jacquess was convicted by the verdict of the jury. The judge, in passing sentence, remarked that he should have been glad to impose a heavy fine to deprive Thomas and Jacquess of their ill-gotten gains; but as it appeared that they were both without means, he could only sentence them to imprisonment for as foul a conspiracy as men could well concoct. Jacquess was seventy-four years old, and Thomas forty-three.

It may be serviceable to those claiming, or planning to claim, estates in England to know, on the authority of the American embassy in London, that under recent statutes known as the Personal Property Act, the Real Property Limitation Act, and the Intestate Act, any attempt to recover real estate from the Crown or individuals after a lapse of twelve years, which may be extended to thirty under certain circumstances, and personal property after a lapse of twenty years after the time at which the right to bring an action or suit for the recovery thereof shall have first accrued to the person making the claim, however valid the claim to the property may have been originally, is certain to end in failure.

Holland is another country where it is supposed by many Americans that vast estates, from the value of twelve million dollars down, have been lying unclaimed for the last two hundred years, and that nothing is necessary but to demand them at some probate office. For the last seventeen years the American legation at the Hague has notified claimants, either directly or through the Department of State, that there are no probate courts in Holland, and that wills are generally deposited in the care of the notary who draws them up. He makes a duplicate copy, and enters the title and subject matter under a number in his register, which is examined and verified by the registrar once a month. It is evident, where names, dates, and localities are lacking, as is generally the case in the communications of claimants, that, after the lapse of one or two generations, estates can be found only, if at all, by extensive advertising. In 1852 the Dutch Parliament established a state commission for the settlement of claims on the estates of deceased persons, as well as those against the government. This commission gave notice that all claims to property then in their hands must be sent in within five years and six months, after which time such estates would escheat to the state. The great estate sought for in Holland is that of a General Metzgar, who died about two hundred years ago. leaving, as is currently supposed, some twelve millions of dollars. One of the claimants admitted to our minister at the Hague that if ordinary interest were added to the principal of this claim all the European governments together would be unable to pay it, but that she was willing to wait for the interest. Being discouraged by her reception at the legation, she presented her claim — which had been beguilingly drawn up by a French attorney in the shape of a large pamphlet — in person to the king, at the door of his palace. In due time she received a reply from the finance minister that the whole matter had been several times examined by the courts, and decided adversely to the claimants. In most of the Dutch claims the family name alone of the testator is given, but neither the name, the place of death, nor the location of the estate is supplied to assist in tracking it. No official notice of unclaimed Dutch estates is ever inserted in foreign newspapers, and therefore the lists of unclaimed estates published by agents are not from official sources, as asserted by them.

Our embassy in Paris does not give the names of any claimants of estates, but says that the number of inquiries is large, and that in no case has the existence of the supposed estate or of the unclaimed fortune been verified. The legislation of France is such as to dispose effectually, and without appeal, of all claims, even if inherently just and founded on an actual and known heritage, which were not presented and proven within the period prescribed by the French statute of limitations. Under French law, the liquidation of estates is ordinarily in the hands of a notary, and in searching for an estate the usual method is to address a circular letter to every notary in the city and department where the estate is likely to be, giving the name and date of death of the original owner. When there is no landed estate, the heirs-at-law can divide the property among themselves without legal proceedings. If nobody claims an estate, the state takes it in trust, and the Department of Justice inserts notices of the fact in the official journal. The period of proscription as regards unclaimed estates is thirty years from the date of decease, after which all claims are barred, unless some irregularity in the liquidation can be proven.

In Germany there is likewise a statute of limitations, and there too not a case is known to our embassy where the existence of an unclaimed estate has been verified. As a rule, the data furnished by claimants are insufficient to substantiate any claim, or to identify the locality of a single estate, even when the statute of limitations does not apply to great periods of time elapsing since the testator’s death. One great drawback for the claimants is the absence of all probate machinery, and the fact that estates are usually divided amicably among the heirs without resort to any court, transfers of landed estate being made on the land register of the locality, in the presence of the grantor and grantee. Wills have to be deposited in a court during the lifetime of the testator, except in the Rhine provinces, where a will entirely holographic is valid. Wills are opened by the court for interested parties when they produce a certificate of death, or at any rate six weeks after the testator’s known death. After fifty-six years have elapsed since deposit of the will without information of the testator’s death, the supposed heirs are summoned by advertisement to appear. If in six months no one comes forward, the will is opened, to ascertain whether charitable institutions are mentioned in it. If this be the case, such beneficiaries are called upon to prove the death of the testator. The will is then closed again. When the fact of death is established, the will is opened once more, and published. A certificate of heirship is issued by the court on adequate proof. If the proof is inadequate, or no heirs come forward, a further notice of three months is given in the official gazette ; and should this receive no response, the state regards the property as derelict, and takes possession of it. Even then, if a rightful heir appears within thirty years, his title is acknowledged under certain restrictions. Continued possession by the state for these thirty years gives a valid title, if not disputed in the mean time, in which case it is temporarily in the custody of a special official. As there are several hundred courts thus holding estates, it is essential that claimants should ascertain accurately which court holds the estate in trust. As far as can be learned by the embassy, after careful inquiry, there is not at present any large estate that for more than thirty years has been awaiting distribution, and every effort to discover alleged unclaimed estates has been fruitless. The consuls have permission to investigate claims to estates when their official duties permit, and if remuneration for their services be guaranteed.

The above gives the history of unclaimed estates in Europe; there are no large or important ones; and yet, in spite of the wide circulation of the facts by our Department of State, and by our embassies and legations abroad, for the past fifty years, and of the detection, conviction, and punishment of several claim agents, the imposture, as it offers such large returns, still goes on, and as many moths as ever singe themselves in the flame of alluring advertisements and circulars of unscrupulous agents.

One of the most daring and successful of these swindlers was William Lord Moore, of 5 Ingersol Road, London, England, with a connection in New York styled the European Claims Agency, E. Ross, Manager. Moore’s real name was Howard, and as his trial is the first one of the kind that has occurred in this country, it may be interesting to know the history of the man, and his system of procedure as developed at his trial. That this is the only instance of one of this class of swindlers being brought to bay and convicted in this country is not owing to there being no other persons equally guilty, but to the fact that in frauds of this kind, extending as they do all over the United States, and relating to estates situated in foreign countries, it is difficult for any one victim to bring a suit, or for the numerous dupes to combine against the swindlers. It was not until the numerous complaints to the police in New York and other cities, and to our embassy in London, against Howard, obliged the United States government to take some steps for the protection of its citizens that anything was done to check these systematic frauds. In May, 1892, letters inquiring about Moore in London and Howard in the United States having poured in to the embassy, Mr. Lincoln, our minister at that time, wrote to the British Postmaster-General, calling his attention to Moore’s correspondence, and suggesting that the British post-office should stop the delivery to Moore of letters coming from the United States, and return to the writers any valuable inclosures found therein. Otherwise it seemed impossible to put a stop to the scheme in England, as the persons imposed upon in the United States were not of a class that could afford a journey to England to give the necessary testimony in an ordinary criminal prosecution. The Postmaster-General, in reply, regretted that he could not meet the minister’s wishes in regard to the detention of Moore’s letters, as he did not consider the facts in the case sufficient to warrant him in intercepting letters, but suggested that if it seemed necessary for the protection of its citizens, the American government should detain at New York registered letters addressed to Moore in England. He would send to the legation, however, any letters of inquiry in regard to Moore which might come from the United States. Mr. Lincoln at once wrote to the Department of State at Washington, inclosing the correspondence, and stating that, with the assistance of the London police, he had found Moore, who had confessed his swindles, and promised to discontinue them, but that letters were being constantly received at the legation which indicated that the business was being still successfully carried on, in spite of warnings sent out to America through the Associated Press. Mr. Lincoln also called the Secretary’s attention to the act of Congress of September 19, 1890, allowing the Postmaster-General, on sufficient evidence of fraud, to stop registered letters and return them to the writers. This correspondence was printed by the Department of State as a circular to be sent in answer to letters of inquiry from victims, and the prosecution of Howard shows that Mr. Lincoln’s suggestions were adopted.

At the time of his arrest, in 1893, at Jackson, Tennessee, George Frederic Burgoyne Howard had been known for some years as a preacher and prominent member of the Central Fairview Association of the Baptist Church, whence he derived the prefix “ Rev.” or “ Dr.” He also edited a religious periodical in New York, entitled The Fairview Advocate, previously The True Baptist, in which he advertised the fraudulent foreign-estate scheme of which he was convicted. But he appears first to have come into prominence by a suit for fifty thousand dollars damages brought by him against well-known citizens and newspapers of the city of Jackson and the State of Tennessee for defamation of character. This suit, lasting for months, during which his history was traced through more than one of the States and to Europe, resulted in a verdict of one cent damages for the plaintiff. The doctor had then, and still has, a host of faithful friends, convinced of his honesty and innocence. After the termination of the damage suit, which practically amounted to a defeat, he returned to his pastoral duties for a while, and then, in 1890, moved to New York, nominally to practice law ; returning to Jackson from time to time to pay up the expenses of his lawsuit. In New York he opened an office at 227 Grand Street, under the name of E. Ross, as a European claims agent. Here he succeeded in deceiving hundreds of simple-minded persons and in avoiding legal proceedings. When officers went to arrest him, he had left for foreign parts. In 1891 he appeared at 5 Ingersol Road, Shepherds Bush, London, as William Lord Moore, and continued his dishonest career by correspondence with persons in the United States, in much the same manner as the abovementioned Jacquess in his Townley estate fraud, but does not seem to have confined his deceptions to any particular estate. The American embassy in London having, with the aid of the police, found Howard, alias Ross, alias Moore, and obliged him to confess his guilt, he returned to New York, and recommenced, or rather continued, operations under the name of Joseph Ledger, “ American agent for the Supreme Court of Chancery, London ; ” going so far as to furnish mock documents and false seals purporting to emanate from the High Court of Chancery. Then, when he found it was becoming too dangerous for him in New York, he returned to Jackson, Tennessee, called himself the president of the Gulf and Tennessee Railroad, a purely imaginary corporation, and announced that he made a specialty of collecting claims in all parts of the United States and Europe, and that he visited Europe once a year for that purpose. After a while complaints and evidences of Howard’s fraudulent practices poured in to the postal and police authorities so abundantly that a warrant was issued for his arrest, and his office was searched and his desk broken open for incriminating documents. Howard had fled from Jackson when the warrant was issued, but was arrested by telegram in Chicago. By satisfactory explanations he managed to effect his release, and left for Canada. But the government offered a considerable reward for his capture, and soon he returned to Jackson, gave himself up, and was placed under heavy bonds. A true bill was found against him by the grand jury, and his trial was begun in the federal court in Jackson on the 4th of November, 1893, he having the privilege of conducting his own defense with the aid of other counsel. There were eight indictments against him, which, after much argument and opposition on the part of his counsel, Mr. L. T. M. Canada, were ordered by the court to be recorded for trial under one heading as a consolidated case. A plea in abatement, on the ground of irregular proceedings on the part of the attorney-general, was then argued for a whole day, and decided by the jury in favor of the government.

The defendant took part in his own defense, and is described as presenting his usual nonchalant appearance, and as even being eloquent. He compared the attorney-general to “ a sleuth-hound from whom there was no escape, whether upon the rugged mountain side, in the valley beneath, or upon the bosom of the ocean,” and himself to “ a pursued man and a victim, who would, however, he protected, from having found the thread of gold, the truth, that would serve him.” After the verdict, the attorney-general asked to have Howard sentenced, but the court decided to let the trial go on, and a new jury was impaneled. The attorney-general stated in his argument that Howard’s scheme was, by making people believe that they were heirs to vast estates in Europe, to lead them to pay him small sums of money for expenses incurred in getting the information. Thousands of his letters had been sent out for the purpose of opening up a correspondence with credulous persons. He proposed to show that letters had been sent from New York by E. Ross and Joseph Ledger, and from London by William Lord Moore, all of whom were one and the same Dr. G. B. Howard. Subsequently to the operations of Moore in London and Ledger in New York, postal cards were sent out by Howard, as the president of the Gulf and Tennessee Railroad in Jackson, to the same persons addressed from the other agencies. Upon Dr. Howard’s office being searched, letters and accounts were found, already prepared and only awaiting his signature, for the amounts collected from his correspondents, and a number of clerks were busy sending out circulars to his dupes. Numbers of witnesses from all parts of the United States were called, who testified to the receipt of letters from Moore, Ross, Ledger, and Howard, asking for remittances, to be used in looking up estates. Postmen from New York testified to the identity of Howard, Ross, and Ledger, to whom they had delivered letters in New York at an average rate of two hundred a day, and also to the fact that Howard had opened a Dominion employment bureau in New York, under the name of G. W. Harris. He was fully identified as having been in New York under all these different names, by lodging-house keepers, elevator men, and others. The London police inspector who, at the request of the American legation, had found Moore in London came over to testify to his identity with the defendant. This officer stated that there was no Supreme Court of Chancery or tax assessor, as appeared on Howard’s fraudulent certificates. Experts in chirography testified to the handwriting of the letters from Moore, Howard, Ross, and Ledger being one and the same. Strange to say, the trial resulted in a disagreement of the jury, which was therefore discharged, and a new one was impaneled.

On the 6th of December the case was tried all over again. The government now had the additional advantage of the testimony of Mr. New, who had been consul-general at London when Howard was there, and of Mr. Lincoln, who was minister at the same time, as well as of Mr Hodson, the messenger of the legation, who had interviewed Howard in London in company with the police inspector. The inspector’s identity and statements were fully vouched for, and the cross-examination of Hodson by the doctor was very damaging to the defendant. Mr. Hodson testified that in the archives of the legation was the deposition of one Julian Howlett that the defendant, Howard, was his son, and that his name was Frederick Howlett, thus adding one more to his numerous aliases. The defendant made a sorry argument in his own behalf, almost entirely of a sentimental, and even of a blasphemous tone when he compared his treatment to that of his Lord and Master. The attorney-general easily shattered the slight attempt that Howard had made to disprove his identity with Moore, Ross, and Ledger, which was what the first jury had disagreed on, and also the flimsy fabric of the Gulf and Tennessee Railroad, which no one but the doctor himself had ever heard of. The judge, in his charge to the jury, simplified the case very much by telling them that it was immaterial how many aliases or how many places of business the defendant had, it being sufficient to prove his fraudulent intentions and acts in one only. On the first ballot, the jury found a unanimous verdict of guilty, and the court, after having overruled the motion for a new trial, and refuted the arguments against a continuous sentence, passed sentence of fine and imprisonment on each of the eight counts ; making in all nine years and one month imprisonment and twelve hundred dollars fine, besides the costs of the suit, amounting to about twenty-three thousand dollars, which were taxed to the defendant. Howard’s name was stricken from the rolls as a practicing attorney in the district court and the circuit federal court. Four of the witnesses for the defense were then arrested for perjury, and sent to jail to await their trial before the grand jury.

So ended this tedious case, in which the second trial alone had occupied twenty-five days, one hundred witnesses had been heard, a cartload of letters and documents had been read, and the counsel on both sides had argued thirty-five hours. The testimony of some of Howard’s victims was really touching in its manifestation of the innocence and confidence with which they had paid their hard-earned little sums to him, and trustingly accepted all his procrastinating and lying statements and his false documents. Even to the last some refused to give up their faith in him, and said that their business was still in his hands. His position in the church appeared to have a charm for them, and to make a martyr of him. There seems to be no limit to the credulity of those who are the heaviest sufferers from this species of fraud.

H. Sidney Eoerett.