Joseph Willett

Level 174

Iris Dunne on 27th November 2019

Died on Voyage JOSEPH WILLET, Deception > perjury, 5th July 1847. 1614. JOSEPH WILLET was indicted for wilful and corrupt perjury. MESSRS. CLARKSON and PHINN conducted the Prosecution. CHARLES EVANS. I am a boot and shoemaker, and live at Coggleshall, in Essex. I know the defendant—previous to 1844 he was a currier and leather-cutter—I have dealt with him in that business. JOHN DEVEY HALL. I am traveler to Messrs. Hackblock, and was so previous to 1844—the partners are John and William Hackblock, John Clark, and John Meck—I had supplied the defendant with goods at the ware-house—I do not know his writing. On the 14th of June, 1844, he called at the warehouse—we had then a claim on him for goods to the amount of, I believe, 145l.—he paid me, I believe, 50l. in part of that claim that day, and gave a bill for the residue to Mr. Hammer, the clerk. THOMAS GEORGE HAMMER. In June,1844, I received this bill for 103l. from the prisoner—the acceptance is in his writing—I saw him write it—I drew the bill—the signature is Mr. Hackblock's. JOHN HACKBLOCK. I am a partner in the firm of Hackblock, Clark, and Meek—this affidavit is in my writing—I remember filing it at the Court of Bankruptcy on behalf of myself and partners—here is the summons—the signature to the both documents is my writing. Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. Is the summons attached to the affidavit? A. Yes. HENRY HARROW CHRISTMAS. In 1844 I was clerk to an attorney at Coggleshall—I remember serving a summons and affidavit in demand of debt, on Willet some time in Sept., 1844—I do not remember what day it was, it is so long ago—I endorsed on the duplicate the day on which I served it—it was the 24th of Sept., 1844—I subsequently served this summons on him—I do not remember on what day—the demand that I served was the original. Cross-examined. Q. Did you serve them personally, or only at the office? A. Personally. MR. PHINN. Q. When did you serve the summons? A. On the 28th of Sept., 1844—(These documents were admitted, and taken as read) FREDERICK WEST. In 1844, I was managing clerk to Mr. Thomas Lott, of Bow-lane—he was the solicitor of Messrs. Hackblocks, the petitioning creditors. On the 5th of Oct., the day fixed in the summons, I attended at the Court of Bankruptey on the return of this summons—the defendant did not attend on that occasion, nor was any application made on his behalf—I made an affidavit—(produced)—here is a copy which I made myself of the original summons, which was served on the defendant—it was signed by the Commissioner in my presence. JAMES BENNETT TURNER. I am one of the ushers of the Court of Bankruptey—I produce the fiat issued against the defendant. JAMES RIGG BROUGHAM. I am clerk in the office of the Lord Chancellor's Secretary of Bankruptcy. I have the petition on the fiat in Willet's case, the affidavit of debt, and the order of the Lord Chancellor appointing Sir William Horne to issue the fiat/ JOHN HACKBLOCK re-examined. This petition and affidavit of debt made on behalf of myself and partners are both in my writing. JAMES COOPER. I am a messenger of the Court of Bankruptcy. I was in the Court of the late Mr. Commissioner Williams—this adjudication is signed by Mr. Commissioner Williams—I do not know the defendant's writing—I served a duplicate of the adjudication on him on the 15th of Oct. 1844—I went down to take possession of his premises under the fiat, but found he had none—I went to what were formerly his premises, but they warned me off, and told me I was a trespasser—I did not take possession, I only seized a bundle of invoices. ALFRED WILLIAM WALMSLEY. In 1844, I was clerk at the Court of Bankruptcy. I cannot say that I recollect the defendant surrendering himself to the fiat, but I produce hi surrender, which I attested—I saw him sign it while Mr. Commissioner Williams was in Court—he also signed the consent to the adjudication, and I attested it—it was gazetted forthwith. FREDERICK WEST re-examined. I produce the appointment of Mr. Turquand, as official assignee, signed by Mr. Commissioner Williams, and also the "London Gazette," containing the adjudication and the advertisement of the meetings—I purchased it at the Gazette Office—the first meeting is advertised for the 30th of Oct., 1844, at half-past eleven in the forenoon—the prisoner attended that meeting, at which Mr. John Hackblock and Mr. Isaac Emsworth, of the firm of Emsworht and Kebble, were appointed as the creditors' assignees—I produce the appointment, with the signatures of Messrs. Hackblock and Emsworth and the Commissioner—the meeting for the last examination was fixed for the 5th of Dec., 1844—I attended that meeting—it was before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn—the defendant attended that meeting—I have his balance-sheet—it is not signed by him, he not having passed—it was filed—I am not aware whose writing these items are—it is on the proceedings—it was filed ten days previous to the meeting—I should imagine it would be brought by the bankrupt's accountant—that is the course of proceeding—this is the balance-sheet that was used in Court at that meeting, in the defendant's presence, and to which his examination referred—I was present during his examination—this balance-sheet was referred to, and he was examined upon it—he saw it there—I heard him sworn—the oath administered to him was, "You shall true answer make to all questions put to you by the Court, you shall speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"—that was a peculiar oath that was admininstered in Mr. Commissioner William's Court—I have taken it some dozens of times myself—this meeting took place in Mr. Commissioner William's Court, although it was before Mr. Commissioner Goulburn—I took down the defendant's examination in writing—after it was taken down, I read it over to him—Mr. Commissioner Goulburn was very particular—he made me stand up in Court, and read it aloud, and he put this initials to any alterations that were made—the defendant signed it—this is the statement he made. (The examination of the defendant was here read)—"Joseph Willett, of Coggleshall, in the county of Essex, being sworn and examined, says, he denies that he has ever paid Mr. Bickmore the sums named in the account furnished by Mr. Bickmore, and I deny the statement made in the letter of Mr. Bickmore, marked 'A,' signed by me, namely, that I did not hand over to him a sum of 92l. on the eve of the trial; and being asked the question, Do I mean to represent that I did hand over to Mr. Bickmore the sum of 92l. on the eve of my trial? I will swear I did, I gave it him in Court, when I stood at the bar, and I will swear it was 92l. I gave it him after I was convicted by the Jury of the assault; he told me to give it him, as in case I had any money about me, and I took it to prison, it would be taken away from me. I took the money into Court with me when I was tried, and had it in my pocket when I was in the dock. I brought it from home; it was the produce of goods sold by me. I owed when I came from prison debts to the amount of 300l. odd. I think I could furnish the names of the parties to whom I owed it, &c." "The money I handed over to Mr. Bickmore was in a canvass bag." MR. PHINN. Q. Is the signature of Mr. Commissioner Goulburn attached to that? A. It is—I have the adjudication upon that examination—some portion of its is my handwriting and some in the commissioner's—the Commissioner's signature is attached to it—it is merely adjourning the meeting until the 21st of Jan., to produce Mr. Bickmore and Mr. Smoothey, the accounts being unsatisfactory—Mr. Commissioner Holroyd adjudicated upon the 21st of Jan.—I have that adjudication, signed by him—it adjourns the bankrupt's examination sine die—(looking at the "London Gazette" produced by Mr. Watts) I find here another meeting fixed for the 4th of May, 1846—I attended that meeting—if was before Mr. Commissioner Fontblanque—the bankrupt was present, he also appeared by counsel—I produce a declaration signed by the bankrupt on that day—(this being read, was a declaration in substitution for the oath previously administered, made by the defendant to give true answers to all questions proposed to him respecting his property, and to make a full and true disclosure of all that had been done with it)—that was signed in my presence both by the defendant and the Commissioner—witnesses were than called by the bankrupt in support of his statement—a man named Wiltshire was called on that occasion, and the bankrupt himself was examined and cross-examined as to his previous statement—I did not take down in writing what he then said—there was great confusion in Court, and as the statement he made was to the same effect as his other statement, I did not think it necessary to take it down on the proceedings—he was being examined by his counsel as to the transaction, and Mr. Phinn, who then appeared on behalf of the assignees, got up and said, "Then do you still mean to swear that you did hand over the 92l. to Mr. Bickmore?" and he said he did—there was a deal of examination and talking with the bankrupt, but I am quite certain as to that part—I should not like to swear as to the other parts of his statement—I produce the adjudication of Mr. Commissioner Fontblanque upon that occasion, again adjourning the examination sine die, and ordering the bankrupt to pay the costs of the assignees—the examined copy of the record of the defendant's trail at Chelmsford, on the 17th of July, 1843, is in Court—I examined it with the original record—he was convicted of an assault. THOMAS LOTT. I am a solicitor. I was solicitor for the creditor's assignees of the bankrupt—they are the prosecutors of this indictment—I was present at the bankrupt's examination, which has been read—I heard him make the statement with reference to the 92l.—(Mr. Ballantine here admitted the accuracy of the statement)—I was present on the second examination, on the 4th of May, last year—the bankrupt on that occasion produced some witnesses—Wiltshire was one of them, and a man named Johnson—the bankrupt was himself asked some questions with reference to the 92l.—that was not taken down in writing—I have heard Mr. West state what then passed—he has truly stated the whole of it—the bankrupt's balance-sheet was produced and referred to on that occasion. Cross-examined by MR. RYLAND. Q. Do you conduct this prosecution? A. I do—I first received instructions to commence these proceedings some months ago—I cannot speak positively to it—Mr. West was my managing clerk at that time, and he conducted the whole matter—I was present at both examinations, on the 5th of Dec., 1844, and the 4th of May, 1846—I believe Mr. Bickmore was present on the 5th of Dec. 1844—I cannot say that I recollect it—the matter was conducted by Mr. West—he communicated with Mr. Bickmore, and conducted the matter—I did not communicate with Mr. Bickmore personally—I do not think I ever did—my clerk has subpœnaed the witnessees here to-day—Mr. West is now in practice for himself, but he has given me his assistance still in this matter—he subpœnaed some of the witnesses. FREDERICK WEST re-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. I was in communication with Mr. Bickmore before the 5th of Dec., 1844—I have had occasion to write to him since—I think I have subpœnaed three of the witnesses—I have subpœnaed Wiltshire on the part of the prosecution. MR. CLARKSON. Q. Was Wiltshire the man who was called and examined by the bankrupt on his second examination? A. He was, in Jan., 1845; that was the day of the adjourned examination—he had been the bankrupt's servant—I have seen him in the bankrupt's shop, acting for him—both the bankrupt and Wiltshire have sworn to the fact of his being in the bankrupt's service, and that the bankrupt owed him a sum of money for wages. THOMAS LAKE BICKMORE. I am a solicitor, practicing at Kelvedon, in Essex, and was so in 1843. I was employed by the defendant to defend him on an indictment for an assault—Mr. Smoothey was associated with me in the defence—previous to the trial the prisoner paid me 20l. for counsel's fees, and so on—I have here a memorandum in a book, which I made at the time—it was in two payments of 14l. and 6l., on the 18th and 19th of July, 1843—the trial took place on the 20th of July, 1843—I was in Court during the trial, and after the Jury returned their verdict—I was there at the time they returned their verdict—the prisoner was in the dock—I had no communication with him in Court after the verdict—I do not recollect that I had any communication with him whilst the Jury were deliberating—directly after the verdict was returned he beckoned to me—I stood under the dock I think—be merely called to me—there was no conversation—I think he touched me on the shoulder, or beckoned me in some way—I approached him, and he handed me over a little canvass bag—I directly put it into my pocket—I do not think I examined its contents before I put it into my pocket—I examined it as soon as I got back to the inn—that might be an hour and a half after—I then found in it twelve sovereigns—there was nothing else in it—Mr. Smoothey was in the room when I examined the contents of the bag—I cannot say whether he saw me examine the contents—I communicated the amount to him—I made a memorandum of the contents when I got home that day—I have it here—about two months after, I received this letter from the prisoner—it is his handwriting—(read)—"Springfield Gaol, Sept. 6th, 1843.—Friend Bickmore, Sir, I have one favour to ask you, will you oblige in sending me two sovereigns in few day; for when I delivered my purse left me with only few shillings. The reason I ask you this favour, my father intended to send for me with a carriage and four horses, and there is to be twenty men to draw me in Coggleshall, for Mayhew has reported that I shall never come to Coggleshall no more. I do not like to send home for that amount. I hop to pass through Kelvedon between the hours of one and three o'clock on Saturday, the 16th of Sept. If you inclose that money, do not write that way that I have written to you, for this letter is sent out by a friend. Sir, if you think you will be at home about that time, I will call on you, friend Bickmore, and I hope you will oblige me with that little sum. Sir, you know that I wish to make Mayhew ashamed of himself. These few lines leave me middling, according to the situation I am in. I will make all things right when I come home, and long laugh at my enemies. From yours, Joseph Willett." Q. When did you first see Willett next after the trial? A. I should think it was about two months—he was imprisoned for two months, and after the expiration of that period, I have a recollection of seeing him return home from Chelmsford—that was after I received this letter—I think that was the first time I saw him after the trial—perhaps I might have seen him once before—now I come to recollect, I think I saw him in Springfield gaol in the early part of Sept.—I do not think anything passed then as to my account against him, or as to the sum of money that he had handed over to me—I do not think I ever made any demand upon him for my bill after he came out of gaol—he made nodemand upon me for any money given me by him; none whatever, either by letter or by word of mouth—I had a very small balance due to me, taking into account the 32l.—the first I heard of the 92l. was by a communication from the official assignee in Nov., 1844, I think—I answered that—(looking at a letter)—this is the second answer I made to the official assignee—it is dated 4th Dec.—my first answer I think was on 4th Nov., about a month before—I was present on three or four occasions at the Bankruptcy court while the defendant was passing his examination—I think I was present on 5th Dec., 1844, but I am not sure, or whether I was there on 21st Jan., 1845—I was examined there twice, once in May. last year, and once in 1844 or 1845—it must have been in 1845 that I was examined the first time, I think—I do not think I was present at any time when the prisoner was being examined and when I was not examined. Cross-examined by MR. RYLAND. Q. Have you any doubt that you were present on 5th Dec., 1844, the first time that Willett was examined? A. I really cannot swear that I was present that day—I will not swear I was not—I was examined there on two occasions—I heard him state on both occasions, that he had given me the 92l.—I think the first time I heard him state that was in 1844, the second time was in 1846, I think—the bag he gave me contained twelve sovereigns, and nothing else; no memorandum or note—I was not in the dock when he gave it me—I stood under it—I went into the dock afterwards, or to the back of the place where they took him to after his trial—that was after he had given me the bag—he gave me the bag over the dock, as I stood on the floor of the Court—I had made no demand of him for money on that day—I had asked him for money the day before, and the day before that—he had given me the 14l. on the first day, the 18th, and the 6l. on the 19th, according to my book—I put it down at the time—he gave me this 12l. without any request on my part, after the trial—I have no doubt I had had some conversation with him that morning, before he surrendered—I did not tell him he had better hand over to me whatever property he had, to take care of for him—nothing of the sort—he was indicted for felony—I knew that if he was convicted his property would be forfeited—I swear I did not tell him the day before that he had better hand over to me whatever money he had, in case of his being convicted—I said nothing of the sort to him—I talked to him on the morning of the trial about the business, about the indictment, and so forth, and his defence to it—I do not recollect anything particular—I might have talked about property—I cannot recollect what I said, but I distinctly swear I said nothing to him about handing over the money to me—I did not tell him that morning, that if he was convicted his property would be forfeited—it must have been some time before, because he had been advised to make over his property, in case he was convicted—he was so advised by Mr. Smoothey and myself—the conversation I had with him on the morning of the trial was a general conversation—I cannot pin my recollection to anything about it—I do not know what it was—I swear I did not ask him for the 12l. to take care of, nor did I tell him he had better deposit with me any money that he had, in case he was convicted of the felony—I gave him no advice about depositing money with me—Wiltshire was not in the dock when the prisoner gave me the purse—I did not see him, he might have been in Court—Johnson might have been in Court—I do not recollect seeing him about that time—he was not in the dock when Willett handed the purse to me—I do not know where he was—I did not see him at that time, nor Wiltshire—they were about the Court—I examined the contents of the purse as soon as I got away from the bustle of the Court—I cannot say whether it was an hour, an hour and a half, or two hours after I received it—I had been nowhere during that time, only about the Court—I did not see after the money matters much till I got to the inn or the bank—I do not say I was about the Court for two hours, it might have been two hours—I was about there some time—I went and spoke to the defendant, where he was placed after leaving the dock. Q. What did he give you the money for? A. I expect he gave it me to take care of for him, being about to be taken away—I distinctly swear that I had not advised him that morning to give me what he had, to take care of for him—he never applied to me to give an account of the money—his brother, John Willett, has never applied to me about it—I swear that—the first intimation I had of it was more than a year and a quarter after, from the official assignee—I might have gone t

Level 346

Maureen Withey on 17th November 2019

At the Central Criminal Court, on Wednesday week, Joseph Willett, of Coggeshall, leather cutter and currier, a bankrupt, pleaded not guilty to an endictment, containing six counts, charging him with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury, on the 5th of December, and 4th of May, 1846, in the Court of Bankruptcy. The jury, after consulting together for five minutes, returned a verdict of Guilty, and the defendant was sentenced to one month's imprisonment and seven years' transportation Norfolk News 17 July 1847

Level 44

A. Follower on 17th November 2019

"A weakly minded man, who had been to me from time to time, complaining of the tediousness of the voyage, and tired of his daily rations. A change to Hospital diet was frequently given him, but there did not appear any bodily infirmity, nor indeed did he complain of any. Latterly there appeared a wavering of intellect and a determination on his part to die, and accordingly made his Will, and nominated an hour that he should cease to exist in defiance of all moral reasoning and persuasion that the Religious Instructor could impart to him, as well as myself, altho he did not die at the special hour he mentioned, but 24 hours later. From the history given me by Prisoners who had known him for years past, that this was his character at the Millbank [Prison, London], as well as the hulks [Convict Hulk Warrior, Woolwich], that he was excluded doing work from the circumstance. It is said, illegal conviction and loss of property had thus prey'd so much upon a weak mind."