REMARKABLE CHARGE OF FRAUD.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VII, Issue 2000, 27 May 1885, Page 2

REMARKABLE CHARGE OF FRAUD.

A aolioifcov named David Grigsby, of Florence-road, Holloway, and Cliarles Howard, of Tottenham-street, Tottenham Court Road, London, were recently charged on remand, at Bow-street Police Court, with obtaining money by means of alleged fraudulent advertisements. Mr Mead, in opening the case, said the prisoners had been arrested on a warrant frr conspiracy to cheat and defraud Thomas Martin Clark, draper, of Ely. Grigsby was a solicitor, carrying on business in Chancery Lane up to the middle of last year, when he removed to Theo-balds-road ; and it was proposed to show that both these places were the seats of numerous frauds. It appeared that the' prosecutor jn the present case saw an advertisement in w-hjqh it was stated that a person named J. H. 0. Clark had bequeathed. £105,000 to persons of the name of Olark. All individuals of that name were invited to communicate with "A.8.C." at an address given. A similar advertisement was inserted., the name of Cooper being substituted. The learned counsel then referred to the nature of the frauds that were alleged to have been' perpetrated under circumstances detailed in evidence. In conclusion he stated that there was reason to, belieye, that numerous persons had. h,eeii defrauded by a gross swindle, and. it wa.3. proposed to show that the prisoners were Intimately connected. Thomas Martin Clark, draper, of Highstreet, Ely, deposed thaf in March last he saw an advertisement in a London newspaper, charging all persons of the name of Clark to communicate with 'A.B.C' solicitors, care of housekeeper, Victoria Chambers, Chancery lane, and they would hear of something to their advantage, Witness replied and received a letter relating to the bequest of £105,000, and in ■which it was stated that as the bequests were intended for thebonefit of persons of small or limited means, it would be well if they (Grigsby and Co.) knew witness's general circumstances, tosavo unnecessary expense or disappointment, as a clause in the will excluded persons of affluence and persons of high position. The amount of the last bequest was £3OOO, and all communications weroto be in writing. Witness r.ep]jed tq thjs, pr] received a lithograph letter in reply, to the effect that the advertisement referred to the will of a Mr James Hill Cooper Clark, who died in March last, in South America, and who by his will bequeathed—subject to certain conditions too elaborate to set forth, in a lettev-the a.uin of SIOOO each to persons of the name, of Qouper and Olark, whose ancestors for seven generations held that name, and his circumstances were required as a proof that the name was not assumed by new progenitors. The matter having been placed officially in their hands (Grigsby & Co,), they could furnish extracts from the will at a cost of 50s, prepaid, in the event of witness becoming an applicant. In that case he could instruct his solicitor, or they (Grigsby amd Co,) would undertake to search on witness's behalf, Witness sent the 60s and received a further letter urging him to be prompt, in order to be one of the first 35 legatees. A postcript was added to the letter to the effect that only one person had applied up to that time, and that witnes would have a good chance of success. Witness next received a copy of extracts from the will, in which the supposed testator said that he had no. near relations living that he cared about except one, and he did not | deserve what was bequeathed to him. Further correspondence took place, in which application was made for.from £2O to £6O to establish his claim. Witness eventually sent a cheque for £5, which was duly acknowledged, and an application was made for a further sum, as witness's ancestors lived in Scotland, He did not send any further remittance, but went to Scotland personally to search for certificates to trace his ancestors for the past seven generations. Voluminous correspondence followed up to the 4th of February, witness giving certificates and information tracing his descent from the year 1674. He heard nothing further from Grigsby & Co,, and was communicated with by the police.—The case was adjourned, the defendant Grigaby being admitted to bail, \