SUICIDE IN CELL

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19887, 16 May 1936, Page 16 (Supplement)

SUICIDE IN CELL

Police Deny Charge of Bullying. Woman and Five Men Accused of Forgery,

Suggestions that a man, who committed suicide In a cell while under arrest was bullied by the police where emphatically denied when two detective officers were cross-examined in a case at Clerkenwell. The officers were called as witnesses when five men and a woman appeared charged with being concerned in forging a cheque for £B6 4s 6d. They were: Florence Ward (41), Joseph Eustace '4l', John Taylor 40) Walter William Lee William John Duckling (21), John Harrison Armstrong (38'. There was a further charge, it was stated, against the six people, of conspiring together and with Albert Adam Armstrong known as Ward), nowdead, and with others unknown, to forge and utter the cheque. Armstrong killed himself in a cell at Caledonian Hoad Police Station after he had been detained with the others. At the inquest DetectiveInspector Greenacre was “cursed” by Ward, who was called as a witness. A seventh prisoner, Dorothy Taylor, 38, leather cutter, was now accused of receiving a postal order valued at £l. “Note* In a Handbag.” Detective-Inspector Greenacre remarked that charges were to be preferred against Eustace and Florence Ward in connection with notes found In the handbag of Florence Ward. One related to a case of alleged forgery at the Midland Bank, Reading, on December 21, 1935, involving £6OO. The other relater to a case of alleged forgery at Barclays Hank, Kenton, Middlesex, In which £llß 15s was obtained on January 18 this year. Mr E. Clayton, prosecuting, dealing with the charges in respect of the cheque for £36 4-s 6d, stated that Duckling entered Lloyds Bank and with a forged letter obtained a cheque-book. The letter purported to have been signed by a customer, Dr. Samuel Sachs, and the next day one of the cheques from the book was cashed at the bank. This cheque purported to be signed by the doctor, but the signature was a forgery. Police officers, while keeping observation, saw Duckling, Lee, and Taylor, the last named being afterwards Joined by “Ward." Taylor and "Ward” went to a post office, where one of them obtained a postal order for 20s, giving one of the £5 notes paid by the bank for the forged cheque. Lee afterwards gave other £5 notes f"r a postal order at a different post office and for purchases at a clothier’s shop. Eventually Lee and Duckling were arrested In a publto-house. I-n the Hat where Florence Ward lived with the man “Ward,” declared Mr Clayton, were all the implements for forging and uttering cheques. The cheque-book obtained at Com-' mercial Bond was there, and In a coat near where Florence Ward was sitting were further £5 notes.

i- “The Evidence is Thin.” ‘‘Concerning Eustace,” Mr Clayton added. “1 will say quite frankly that i n the evidence against him on this particular charge is thin.” His name was found on an insurln ance card in the flat of the dead man, and the police had seen him with Taylor, Lee, and Duckling. There were, however, other charges against > him. 51 ! It was alleged that a letter pur1_ porting to he signed hv a customer j_ named Curtis was handed in at the Holland Park branch of Barclays Bank 1S on February 2, 1925, asking for a hook j_ of cheques. The signature was m forged. vv A hook of cheques was handed over, t 0 and Eustace had been identified as a man who cashed the cheque signed in H the name of Curtis at the bank the , n same day. 10 There would also be a charge against him of attempting to obtain )V £BS. On February 4, 1935, Eustace stopped an unemployed man named ’ r Lamprell in the afreet. ~j He asked Lamprell to take a cheque ■tt from the same book. Which had been made out. for £BS, and gave him 2s for his trouble. Lamprell. being suspicious, took the cheque to the police, but Eustace failed to keep this appointment with . Lamprell and could not. be 'traced. t “ Detective-Sergeant, Keen, re-plying , e to Mr G. L. Hardy, for Florence Ward, stated she had never before been arrested. 1(I He agreed that at the imjuest she e said if Inspector Greenacre had not "kept on” at the man now dead “this” j_‘ would not have happened. Treatment of “Aggressive Man.” " When Detective-Inspector Greenacre was being cross-examined, John Tay- „ lor alleged that when the police went * to arrest him they got him into a state , of collapse. " “That Is all wrong,” replied the ini' speetor. “We showed the greatest , v „ consideration to you and Mrs Taylor.” , Mr Hardy: Taylor’s questions suggest that you dragged In his wife In r , order to drag him In too. That is lrf what “Ward” suggested?—He did not. Mr Hardv: Were “Ward’s” clothes torn?—Yes! , Was he roughly treated?—No. He " was not treated any more roughly than ’ he was entitled to be treated. 1 Magistrate, Mr Brodrlck: What do . you mean by that? — No more than 9 was necessary. a Why was it necessary?—He was aggressive and showed fight. |p Mr Hardy: You know the suggestion as to why “Ward” cut his throat 53 while in custody?—l do not know , any reason. 3 Perhaps I can help you. Was It suggested that the way In which you e and other police officers effected his arrest caused him to cut his throat? — ,fl Something was said at the Inquest by ,f * Florence Ward. 4 Was It also suggested that because Mrs Ward was arrested he cut his w throat o —No.’ All the accused were remanded. Rail was allowed to John Harrison Armstrong and the two women.