SINGULAR DISCLOSURES.

West Coast Times, Issue 199, 9 May 1866, Page 3

SINGULAR DISCLOSURES.

" WALKER V. MILNER AND ANOTHER." This was an action for a breach of warranty with reference to a safe> viz., that it was sufficiently strong to resist httempts oii it by thieves, whereas it had been broken open by burglars, &c. The defendant pleaded a variety of pleas, and among others that the safe at the time was sufficiently strong, and that the cause of action did not accrue within six years. The plaintiff is the well known jeweller of Cornhill, and tho defendant is the proprietor of the Phoenix Works, Liverpool, carrying on business in Moorgate street, and he was well known as an eminent safe manufacturer. On the 15th of May, 1858, the plaintiff purchased a safe of the defendant for 40 guineas, which the latter warranted, as the plaintiff alleged, sufficiently strong to resist any amount of violence. The safe was fixed in the plaintiff's premises, and nothing occurred until Saturday night, the 4th February, 1865, when the extraordinary burglary which excited great sensation at the time, took place, and property valued at L6OOO was stolen. Eminent engineers (said the plaintiff's counsel) would be called to prove that the safe could bo opened by the instruments used by tho burglars. A smaller safe of the same class was afterwards forced open by an ordinary blacksmith in nineteen minutes. Although the safe might have been fire-proof, it was urged that it was not of sufficient strength to resist the daring and determined attacks of burglars. The plaintiff claimed about L 2500. Some of the burglars, it may be remembered, were convicted, and one of them was present in court to testify how easily he effected his crime, and how useless was the protection afforded by the safe; He listened with much interest to the proceedings, and now and then his features relaxed into a smile. , Evidonco was given of the circumstances of the burglary, which need not be repeated, having been published, at the time of the perpetration of the act, The convict Casely was then called and examined. He is an intelligent young man, who gave his evidence with remarkable clearness, and the most amusing coolness. He stated that he had, been sentenced to 14 years' penal servitude, and now came from Millbank to give evidence. He stated :—: — Qn.the night of Saturday, the 4th of February, 1865, he and four others went to the shop of plaintiff, and two of them beside himself went into the house by the -side door* under tho archway in Sun-court. It "was ten minutes past six o'clock in the evening. Tho three first' went into the second floor — the one above the floor over the shop, and they.' remained there until twenty minutes, ,to eight o'clock, when they received a signal that the foreman had gone. ' (A laugh.) ' They ' then went down into the next floor — Sir Charles Crossley's — the one just over the shop. Th.ere they opened the safe. (A laugh.) For 'some hours afterwards they remained quiet and did nothing. They remained there until about twelve o'clock at night. At twenty minutes past^ twelve they began work, and first got into J the 'tailor's shop, and were in it the I ' whole of Sunday morning. At five minutes to three, on the afternoon of Sunday, they got into Mr. Walker's shbp. They first got' into the back shop from the tailor's room, by cutting away the ceiling and the flooring. One of the men went with witness into Mr. Walker's shop — taking sundry tools, crowbars, and other things. They had to go out again, however, directly, for they received a signal that the police ■were coming round. Afterwards they had another signal to go back into the shop: They then tested the safe to see whether they could break it open " under the disadvantages under which we we*'© laboring." (Much laughter.) ''Testing" it meant trying it with a little wedge to see if it would be likely tptjaive way. They found that it held flfipvedge — whereas, if it was able to remit pressure the wedgo. would fly off, and so they 1 * found it would answer. They found that they must kneel down in .order not to bo seen by the police, who were round every nine minutes. "They did their duty," said the witness ; "no blamo attaches to them. Every time they came round I had a signal, and had to kneel down to avoid being seen by the police, and had to sfiop our work. At last wo

found tho safo 'give/ which we were rather surprised at, as a good safe ought not to have yielded so soon. We then know that we could get tho 6afe open, and not long after we had it open. It did not take above 35 minutes, and out of that time several minutes should be deducted for the time wo lost when the police came rouild. .At a quarter to four we were tip in Sir Charles Crossley'g office washing our hands. (Much laughter.) We had had pnly id u'ste two instruments, tlidugh he W others' with 1 usi W& thought it one of Tann's safes; they are easier than Milner's, and Griffiths' are easier than Tann's. (Roars of laughter.) We wero miles away at twenty minutes to five."

Cross-examined by Mr Webster.-— Where were' you theni-I can't say exactly. Somewhere on tho Guildford roadt

You havo had some" experience in opening safes ? — Yes, unhappily, I have. We have experimented on Milner's safes before. It took several hours before it gave at all, and we then tried what we call " unlawful" means — that is, tools which we could not uso in a burglary. (Great laiigiitcr.) Another took six hours to open. Two of us purchased two of Milner's safes to experimentalise upon, and we succeeded upon ono after seven hours, and then by unlawful means— that is, with tools which could not be used without detection, as they made a noise. They were bars which had to be knocked in! That was l returning back to old means ; quite tho " old style." (Laughter.) The other safe was opened in six hours, with the best sort of "lawful burglars' tools," including an iron bar sft. long, jointed in several pieces so as td bo carried in a small case. That was the only thing which could open one of Milner's best safes. The safo 'could hot bo opened I with a wedge, which was only used for testing. A good safe would send, a wedge out ; a bad ono lot it remain in, and that showed it- could bo opened, The wedge remained in this safe (tho ono in question), and they then saw it could be opened when the wedgo held, then a bar was put in to release the wedge, and then another wedgo, a little larger to release the bar, and then another and larger bar to release the •wedge. These bars, however, would not open the safe ; they were only used to get what we call the " alderman" in. (Roars of laughter.) That is a " headbar," which would open any safe. The smaller bars wore oalled " citizens." (Laughter.) These names were used to avoid tho real words ; it would not do to be heard in the streets talking of crowbars. (Laughter.) In this 'case tho wedges only went in two or three times, the bars eight or nine times. In tho other instances the " alderfnan" was used, which was able to open any safe made, unless there was a slight alteration. But to this safe tho '• alderman" was not used; it was not required. While he -worked. one of his mates was sitting up stairs in Sir Charles Crossley's armchair to give signals by a string, corresponding with tho two n»en outside. One was to sec if either Mr Walker or any of his people came back. The other gave notice when the polico were coming by walking past tho shop. The other of the two men with him was half way through the hole in tho floor handing him tools. I did tho work. (A laugh). I know tho whole family of tho Walkers ; I had been looking after them sevon weeks, night and morning. (Laughter.) I had been in Sir Charles Crossley s office several times before, and opened his safe and found L2B in it, which we would not take, as wo did not want to rob Sir Charles. We did so on the night of this burglary, lest he should laugh at us — (laughter) — and so wo took tho tailor's clothes for the same reason, not for the value of them. (Roars of laughter.) Some of tho men with me were mere "interlopers" — men called in on an emergency. (Much laughter.)

Re-examined — The witness said if this safe had been as good as tho other safes of Milner's, they could never have opened it without being discovered. They were agreeably surprised to find he safe so easy to open ; they did not xpeet it. They concocted' the burlary because they knew that all through ko month of January tho poUce did not ook through the shutter Moles; but on this night the policemanf did do his duty, and the result was tnat he had to work kneeling. The jposture of kneeling and the constant interruptions from the police made it, of course, more difficult, yet it was all over in about half an hour. He could undertake, without interruption and standing up, to open this safo in a quarter of an hour. The " alderman" would do it at once.

In answer to the Lord Chief Justice, tho witness said he had been brought up as a sign painter, not as a mechanio ; but he conld make a better safe, he said, than any safe now made, and he could open any safe that was made.

The Lork Chief Justice — It is a pity you did not turn your talents to better account.

The convict (with great quickness) — It is a pity the police did.not let me. It is impossible to convey an idea of the readiness, quickness, clearness, and coolness of the man's replies. His examination was listened to by a crowded axidience, and a large number of the bar, with tho deopeet interest, and tho sentiment universally oxpressed was, " What a pity such a man should havo been a thief? He could havo attained success in fany walk in life." He was evidently a man of superior abilities, and, originally, ono would say, with good qualitiss of character. He left the witness box in tho custody of the warder. Several civil engineers then gavo scientific evidence

ns tA oio construction of the safo, and stated tliat in their opinion it was not sufficiently strong to r'cSiftt fb'e flttack 0% thieves, and that it could bo 6peii6# by" a skilful mechanio within half an hour or an hour by means of wedges and a crowbar. This closed the case for tho plaintiff. Mr James jthen rose for the d jfence. He said the issue tho jury had to try was whether there had been such warranty as was laid in tho declaration, that at all times and under all circumstances the safe was impregnable against thioveg, and tmjt being So lie woitld not call evidence atf to the cdnstrucfton of the safe. Witnesses wore called {o provo that there was no warranty of tho safe. The jury found a verdict for tho defendants, on the ground that there was no warranty.