Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Western Daily Press, Bristol Thursday 27 Nov 1919
Page 7 Column 4
TO DEFEAT JUSTICE.
THE SINGULAR CASE IN BRISTOL
A VERDICT OF GUILTY.
At Bristol Assize yesterday, before the Hon. Sir A. Clavell SALTER the case against Ernest Albert OATEN, for attempting to pervert the due course of justice, by offering William George READ £30 not to surrender to his bail, was proceeded with. The prosecution, Mr. Croome JOHNSON representing the Crown, closed on the previous hearing. Mr T. W. H. INSKIP and Mr F. E. WEATHERLY represented the prisoner.
The prisoner went into the witness-box when the case was resumed, and in the course of his evidence he said he never called upon REED and asked to arrange prices. He gave a total denial to the allegations that he offered either £100 or £30 for REED to clear out. REED, he said, called upon him on the 5th of May and said, “I am in a terrible hole, and I want you to assist me. I want you to lend me £50; I have some papers in my desk at Shirehampton, and if I could get them they would clear me of the charge, and by clearing myself I should clear you.” Witness said “it sounds all right, but, what has that to do with £50,” and REED replied. “I have been doing a bit of betting at Shirehampton with some of the officers and the major, and I owe them money; I cannot go down to get my papers without paying them what I owe.” REED also said he would return the money within a week at the most, as he had more than that amount coming to him from other betting transactions. Witness proceeded to state that REED was lent the £30 on the strength, of what he said, and for no other reason. The visits he paid to REED were in relation to the papers, and also, finding he had been deceived to try and obtain a return of the money or what was left of it. REED, prisoner said, also subsequently endeavoured to obtain a further £10 on the strength of some papers he had in his pocket, but witness refused. He also refused another appeal for £5 saying as REED had not been honest enough to return the £30 he would not lend him a penny. On this occasion REED said, “Well, then lend me £2 to clear out of Bristol.” He also said he should not be in Bristol for the Quarter Session.
Cross-examined: He had had no written communication with REED with regard to forage. He had no idea what the papers were that REED said would clear them.
The Judge: Diy <sic> you not ask what sort of papers they were, so that you might judge for yourself whether they would clear you?
Prisoner: No, sir.
The Judge: Why not.
Prisoner: It did not occur to me.
In further cross-examination, OATEN reiterated his denials of statements made by witnesses for the prosecution.
Mrs OATEN, wife of prisoner, corroborated the statement with regard to the application for a loan by REED of £50, reduced afterwards to £30. REED later came for £10, and her husband refused to let him have it, as he had not paid back a shilling of the £30 which he lent him.
Cross-examined:
Witness did not know REED was going away. He borrowed the money to
pay some betting debts.
Herbert Charles OATEN, brother of the
prisoner, said he let him have £8 on May 6th. Witness never
left the room, and never handed £30 to REED. He did not see
REED until he was brought before the Court.
Cross-examined: Witness knew nothing about the matter between his brother and REED.
OATEN's two daughters both swore that they had never been to REED's house as alleged by the prosecution that one of them did.
Mr INSKIP argued that the case hung on the evidence of REED, a man who was unreliable and false on his own confession, and a man who, in a position of trust, stole a large quantity of that which was entrusted to him. Moreover, he was in monetary difficulties, and acted as agent or tout for bookmakers. He reminded the jury that OATEN, having been acquitted of the other charges brought against him, was entitled to be considered innocent, and asked them to dismiss that case from their minds. He criticised REED's evidence, and said that there was a great deal of improbability in REED's story, but probability in OATEN's story that the money was lent to REED to meet his liabilities, and not to avoid his trial.
Mr Croom JOHNSON, in his address to the jury, urged that it was most improbable that REED, after deliberately coming back to take his trial and punishment, concocted the story which he had related in Court and which had been supported by independent witnesses.
The Judge occupied close upon an hour in summing up, and the jury found the prisoner guilty.
In passing sentence of eight months' imprisonment, the Judge said prisoner had been rightly convicted of an unscrupulous attempt to get REED out of the way.
<NOTES: Ernest Albert OATEN son of Frederick OATEN and Clara HORWOOD, married Emma Jessie CLEMENTS
Herbert Charles OATEN son of Frederick OATEN and Clara HORWOOD, married Maria KNIGHT>