Charles Sitzler

218

Dianne Jones on 5th November 2023

FOOTNOTE: CERTIFICATE OF FREEDOM -- NUMBER 11001/14 -- issued 12 August, 1876 (Western Australia, Australia, Convict Records, 1846-1930 for C Sitzler; Convict Establishment, Stamp Books; Stamp Books, 1866 - 1883, 1868 - 1870, 1902 - 1903 (S4 - S6)). --000--

218

Dianne Jones on 5th November 2023

From his FREMANTLE JAIL record: SITZLER, Charles; inmate #9874, arrived 10 Jan 1868 per Hougoumont Date of Birth: 1828 Marital Status: Married, 2 children Occupation: Rigger Literacy: Literate Crime: Forgery Sentence Period: 10 years Previous Convictions: Yes Ticket of Leave Date: 18 May 1872 Certificate of Freedom Date: 12 Aug 1876 Comments: Carpenter, shoe maker, self-employed, 1873, 1875 (https://fremantleprison.com.au/history-heritage/research/convict-database/). --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 5th November 2023

IN WA: 1868, 10 January: On arrival, CHARLES SITZLER was listed as convict #9874, 38, married, two children [Note: This is at odds with his Pentonville record], literate, rigger, Protestant; convicted for feloniously having in his possession 13 pieces of paper, having thereon impressions of forged dies resembling those denoting certain stamp duties; 10 years’ penal servitude; family – wife Mary Ann, 17 Baltic Street, London [no names of children given]; behaviour in jail in England “good”; 5’10” tall, brown hair, hazel eyes, square visage, fair complexion, healthy appearance, right hand injured (Western Australia, Australia, Convict Records, 1846-1930; Convict Department, Registers, General Register for Nos 9599-10128 cont. (R16)). --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 5th November 2023

EMBARKATION: 1867, 8 October: He was sent from Portland to board the Hougoumont for transportation to WA (UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951; for Henry Jones; Millbank Prison; Register of Prisoners; 1867-1868). “The hired convict ship Hougoumont, which has been taken up, by the Government for the conveyance of a numerous party of convicts to Freemantle, Western Australia, left the Nore on October 1, and proceeded down Channel, after receiving on board 150 convicts from the establishments at Chatham and Millbank. The convicts from the Chatham establishment, at St. Mary's, embarked from the dockyard on board the paddle-wheel steamer Adder, Mr. W. J. Blakely, and were in charge of a numerous party of convict guards and wardens, all heavily armed. Among the convicts shipped were a party of fifteen Fenians, who were engaged in the late conspiracy in Ireland, together with the officers and crew convicted of scuttling the ship Severn [only two were on the Hougoumont – Thomas Berwick and Lionel Holdsworth, each sentenced to 20 years for fraud], and some others who have achieved notoriety from their crimes. The Fenian convicts, like the remainder of the prisoners, were chained together in gangs, but it was observed that they were kept apart from the other convicts in a portion of the vessel by themselves. The steamer Petrel also took down a number of convicts from the establishment at Millbank, for shipment on board the Hougoumont, in charge of a strong escort and convict guard. On Tuesday, October 8th, the Hougoumont arrived in Portland roads. Shortly before midday ninety convicts were marched down to the Government pier at Portland under a strong escort of the 12th Light Infantry. The party included twenty-three Fenian convicts, among whom it was said, was Moriarty [not the senior Fenian, Captain Moriarty; rather, this was Bartholomew Moriarty, aged 17]. The Government steamer employed in the breakwater service was used for conveying the convicts on board the Hougoumont transport ship. The convicts were chained together on embarking, and on board the steamer a strong guard of marines from her Majesty's ship St. George was formed, and saw the convicts safely placed on board the Hougoumont. The Governor of the penal settlement at Freemantle, Captain Young, is on board the Hougoumont, and returns in that ship to his sphere of duty after paying a visit to his native land.” (Sydney Morning Herald, 19 Dec 1867, p4, at https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/28608271). --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 5th November 2023

1867, 21 May: Charles Sitzler was sent to Portland Prison, Grove Road, Portland; listed as inmate #6129 (UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951 for Charles Sitzler; Pentonville Prison; Register of Prisoners; 1866-1869). Portland, Portsmouth, Chatham and Spike Island in Ireland were listed public works stations and the second stage in the penal process. After separate confinement, prisoners were “placed on work parties at various locations, most commonly naval stations, where maintenance of facilities was vital for the effective protection of Britain’s far flung commercial and military influences around the world. While there, attitude and behaviour were monitored closely. In theory, only after consistently positive reports was a prisoner moved on to the third stage of his incarceration—transportation.” (Edgar, p40) --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 5th November 2023

1866, 10 September: He was admitted to Pentonville Prison, Caledonian Road, north London, and listed as inmate #3967. Details as above for Newgate; behaviour “good”. Note: On this record, he is listed as single and semi-literate (UK, Criminal Records, 1780-1871 for Charles Sitzler; Prison Registers and Statistical Returns; 1864-1871; HO 24/18). “After a sentence of transportation was handed down, the prisoner entered into a separate stage where he was placed into an individual cell, isolated from others, apart from brief periods of exercise and attendance at chapel. However, no communication of any kind with other prisoners was permitted at any time. The philosophy behind this penal methodology had its provenances in the religious, monastic traditions; i.e., that in the isolation of his cell the malefactor would be able to contemplate the errors of his way, unadulterated by the negative influences of former contemporaries, and be reformed.” (Edgar, 2018, pp39-40) When first put into practice, the mandated period of separate confinement was 18 months. By the late 1840s, authorities had conceded that such conditions of imprisonment were “injurious to many prisoners’ mental health” and the stint was reduced to 12 months. Periods of separate confinement were reduced further “as a prisoner displayed good behaviour tendencies” (Edgar, p40). Pentonville, Millbank, Wakefield and Mountjoy in Ireland were the “Probation” or “Separate” prisons, as were some local jails. --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 5th November 2023

JAILS: 1866, 29 June: Charles Sitzler, 38, labourer of Little Dunning, Lincoln, was admitted to Newgate Prison, London, following his committal at Clerkenwell for having forged stamps in his possession; originally sent to trial on 9 July on an indictment for felony, he was remanded to the next sessions of the Old Bailey on 14 August (England & Wales, Criminal Registers, 1791-1892 for Charles Sitzler; England; Middlesex; 1866; and UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951 for Charles Sitzler; Newgate Prison; Registers of Prisoners; 1863). --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 5th November 2023

NEWSPAPER REPORT OF TRIAL: From the Sun (London) - Tuesday 14 August 1866, p7: “FELONIOUS POSSESSION OF FORGED STAMPS. Charles Sitzler, was indicted for having in his possession a quantity of forged stamps. It appeared that a short time ago advertisements appeared in the Manchester papers offering to lend trust money out at interest. An application was made by a person named Alker to the address stated, and in return he received an answer, signed H. Canton, informing him his terms, and also informing him that he would be required to send £6 for the first year's interest and 1s. for the stamp, and, from circumstances that transpired, it was believed that the whole proceeding was an ingenious contrivance to procure the advance of the interest without the slightest intention of the parties advertising transmitting the amount of the loan. Letters afterwards appeared in the London papers of a similar nature, the address given being Charles-street, Hatton-garden, and about 80 letters were taken to that address. Three letters miscarried, and on being opened at the Post-office it was discovered the promissory notes they contained had forged stamps upon them. The three letters were taken to Charles-street, and the prisoner signed the receipt for them in the name of ‘H. Canton’. The detective officers then went in and the prisoner denied that his name was Canton, but that he was authorised by that person to sign his name. When he was formally charged with having the forged stamps in his possession he denied all knowledge of the matter. He did not in any way attempt to account for the possession of the forged stamps, and no explanation as to how he got possession of them was given by the prisoner. Evidence having been adduced, Mr. Sleigh contended that there was no case to go to the jury. Mr. Poland contended that there was. The Recorder thought there was evidence sufficient to go to the jury. Mr. Poland then replied on the case, and The Recorder summed up the case to the jury, and said the question they had to determine was whether the prisoner was in possession of the forged stamps, knowing them to be counterfeit. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. Mr. Lewis then informed the Court that the prisoner had previously been convicted for attempting to obtain money by false pretences from a loan office, and on that occasion he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment with hard labour. The Recorder told the prisoner he had been found guilty of a very serious offence, and, to deter others from a repetition of it, he should sentence him to ten years' penal servitude. (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0002194/18660814/123/0007) --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 4th November 2023

TRIAL TRANSCRIPT: 1866, 13 August -- Old Bailey, London: 674. CHARLES SITZLER, alias HENRY CANTON (38), was indicted (under 3 & 4 Wm. IV., c. 97) for feloniously having in his possession thirteen pieces of paper, having thereon the impression of forged dies resembling those issued by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. MESSRS. POLAND, LEWIS, and the HON. DUDLEY CAMPBELL conducted the Prosecution, MESSRS. SLEIGH and PATER the Defence. JOSEPH ALKER . I reside at Bury Street, Salford—I saw an advertisement in the Manchester paper—this (produced) is it—in consequence of seeing that, I wrote a letter to the address which appears there, "H. Canton, 9, St. Thomas's Road, London, N.E." (notice to produce this letter was proved; it was not produced)—I applied for a loan of 100l.—I afterwards received these two letters—the second enclosed a promissory note—there was also an envelope stamped and addressed, "H. Canton, Esq., 9, St. Thomas's Road, London, N.E."—I signed that promissory note and sent it to H. Canton, as directed in the envelope—at the same time I sent a Post Office order for 6l.1s. GEORGE MANNERS . I am a detective police officer—on the 8th June, about half-past ten in the morning, from some information, I went to 4, Charles Street, Hatton Garden—it is a small bonnet shop—I was in plain clothes—the prisoner arrived there about a quarter to eleven—he went into the bonnet shop, in front of the counter—almost immediately afterwards I saw Gardiner, the postman, in the street, not a minute afterwards: I saw him go into the shop and deliver a packet of letters to the prisoner—the prisoner took them—I saw the postman also hand him a smaller packet—I then saw the prisoner write upon some papers—the postman came out, and the prisoner then retired to the back of the shop—I followed him immediately, accompanied by Sergeant Beard—the prisoner was at the back of a little screen, and the large packet of letters was then undone—it was tied round with string—Beard asked him if his name was Canton—he said, "No"—Beard said, "Then why did you sign your name 'H. Canton?'" He said, "Because I had Mr. Canton's authority to do so"—upon that I told the prisoner that I suspected he had forged stamps about him, and that I should take him into custody—he said nothing—I then took him to the station and took charge of all the letters, eighty-five in number—when I got to the station I opened them—I produce them. MR. SLEIGH. Q. Was the packet opened by you? A. No—I opened the letters singly—the 85 letters were bound together with a piece of string when the postman delivered them to the prisoner—the letters were sealed or fastened in the ordinary way, and I opened each of them. MR. POLAND. Q. Did you open the three registered letters at the station? A. I did—each contained a promissory note—I produce them—the letters were addressed, "Mr. H. Canton, 9, St. Thomas's Road," and re-directed by the Post Office to the senders—I opened the other letters—amongst them I found the letter that Mr. Alker has seen containing the promissory note—I also produce nine other letters, each containing a promissory note—the prisoner was present when some of them were opened—some of them were opened at the police-court in his presence—he said nothing—he gave the name of Sitzler at the station. Cross-examined. Q. Did you ask him to take you to Mr. Canton? A. I did not. WILLIAM CHARLES GARDNER . I am a letter-carrier in the employment of the General Post Office—on 8th June I went to 4, Charles Street, Hatton Garden—I took a bundle of letters there addressed to Mr. Henry Canton, 9, St. Thomas's Road, the outside one of which had been redirected, 4, Charles Street, Hatton Garden—I saw the prisoner there, and delivered to him the bundle of letters, with the three registered letters—he said he had been waiting for me, I was just the man he wanted—I gave him the receipts and he signed them, "H. Canton," and I gave him the letters. Cross-examined. Q. Did not the prisoner when he signed for the letters hand you two shillings? A. Yes—he did not say, "I have been desired by Mr. Canton to give you this for the extra trouble you have had;" he put it into my hand, and said, "That's right; see after them." CHARLES CHABOT . I live at 25, Southampton Row, Russell Square—I have made handwriting my study for several years, and am constantly employed in that occupation—I have looked at the three receipts signed "H. Canton"—I have before me the promissory note signed by Alker, and a printed form, signed "H. Canton"—I have compared them, and have no doubt that is in the same handwriting as the three receipts—I have confined my examination to the signatures, but I have no doubt, looking casually, that the body of the promissory note is in the same handwriting—it bears the same character—I speak with confidence to the "H. Canton"—I have not examined the envelope addressed "H. Canton, 9, St. Thomas's Road"—I will not say without examination whether that is in the same handwriting, I do not see that it is—the filling up, "H. Canton," in each of these promissory notes contained in these three letters is, I have no doubt, in the same handwriting—the signature, "H. Canton," at the bottom of those letters, is also decidedly in the same writing, not the name in the body of the letters—I cannot say that the signature to the letters to Alker is in the same writing, the signature of H. Canton to these other two registered letters, Nos. 451 and 456, is in the same writing—here is a third, which I believe not to be in the same writing—these nine letters and the filling up of the nine promissory notes contained in them are in the same writing, the same as that to the receipts—I have no doubt whatever about it. Cross-examined. Q. How many of the signatures, "H. Canton," that have been shown to you do you say are in the same handwriting as the receipts? A. I think there are two that I will not undertake to speak to—the whole of the filling up of this promissory note of Alker's is in the same writing, signature and all—I do not think the envelope enclosed in the letter is in the same writing, and I can't say that the signature to the letter is his—there are two distinct handwritings in this correspondence—in the promissory notes, for instance, the filling up and the signature are different—I don't think I have observed two handwritings in the filling up of the promissory notes—I believe it all to be in one handwriting—I had all these documents in my hands for two or three hours, I would not give an opinion until I had—this memorandum of agreement on the flysheet appears, on this short examination, to be in a different handwriting to the others—I think it is the same as the first signature on the other papers, "pro H. Canton." THOMAS CRANE . I live at 2, Paradise Row, Hackney—in June last I lived at 8, St. Thomas's Terrace, Hackney—that is the same as St. Thomas's Road—the prisoner lived next door, at No. 9—I have seen him there—I have seen him go into the house twice—he took possession about three weeks after the March quarter, and left about three weeks before the June quarter—I left on the 24th—I saw him go away with some furniture—I never saw any other man in the house—I don't know where he moved to. Cross-examined. Q. How long did you reside there? A. Three years—the landlord of No. 9 is not my landlord—Mr. Spencer is the landlord of No. 9. EDWARD CUMMING . I am a letter-carrier in the Hackney district—I know No. 9, St. Thomas's Terrace, St. Thomas's Road—there is no other St. Thomas's Road—a person of the name of Canton lived at No. 9—I have been in the habit of delivering letters there addressed to Mr. Canton, 9, St. Thomas's Road—there was a letter-box to put them in—I never saw the prisoner there—I delivered letters there in that name, from about the beginning of May, for about a month. JOSEPH TOWNSEND . I am the senior superintendent of the stamping department—I have examined the stamps upon these thirteen promissory notes—they are all counterfeit. Cross-examined. Q. And very good counterfeits, I think? A. Yes. MR. SLEIGH submitted that there was no case to go to the jury that the prisoner was ever in possession of the stamps in question within the meaning of the statute. The case most analogous to this was the possession of government stores marked with the broad arrow, but it had been decided that the possession in such cases must not only be an actual one, but a possession with a guilty knowledge. MR. POLAND not disputing this, MR. SLEIGH proceeded to contend that there was no evidence of the prisoner's knowledge that the stamps were counterfeit; they had passed undetected by the authorities of the Post Office, and the evidence showed that they were remarkably well executed. The RECORDER desired to hear MR. POLAND upon the point whether it was necessary the prisoner should know them to be forged, and whether there was evidence of that knowledge. MR. POLAND conceded that it was necessary for the jury to find that the prisoner knew the stamp to be counterfeit, but that knowledge could only be proved by the circumstances of the case, which were for the jury to consider. True, those circumstances might point to the fraudulent obtaining of the money, but the uttering of the forged stamp was a part of that fraud, and the mode in which it was used was a matter for the jury to decide upon. The RECODER considered there was some evidence, the sufficiency of which was for the jury. GUILTY. Ten Years' Penal Servitude (https://www.oldbaileyonline.org). --00--

218

Dianne Jones on 4th November 2023

OCCUPATION: Charles SITZLER was a rigger, a person who set the rigging on ships (https://www.familyresearcher.co.uk/glossary/Dictionary-of-Old-Occupations). This occupation isn't in the list of options, so sailor was selected. --00--