The Proceedings of the Old Bailey make for interesting
reading. A long running project has
resulted in the published proceeding being uploaded and therefore easily
available. The reports of criminal trials at the country’s
most famous court are invaluable to historians.
They largely consist of the accounts taken down by shorthand
writers. They only ever include snippets
of the evidence and many names etc, are recorded as they were heard by the
shorthand taker (an issue that will appear in a later blog based on the
proceedings). They are therefore an imperfect
record of what said but they represent a rare chance to hear the voices of our
forebears.
The TRENDALL (and related) families make occasional appearances
in these records. One such case was
heard in 1851. Thomas TRENDALL
(1820-1878), my Great Great Grandfather, was running a Grocers together with
his brother in law, Frederick BENHAM (described as Bennett in by the shorthand
writer), at 59 Farringdon Street which was just in the City of London. Trendall and Benham had an apprentice, George
PERRY. He had been apprenticed to them in
1850 by the London Orphan Asylum (later to be called the London Orphan Home). It sounds like PERRY had quite a tough time
as an apprentice but it could, given other contemporary accounts, have been
worse in other trades.
The evidence given by Thomas TRENDALL and others was very
simple:
THOMAS TRENDALL . I am in partnership with
Frederick Bennet. The prisoner was our apprentice—on 21st Feb. I gave him leave
to go out—it was the anniversary dinner of the London Orphan Asylum, where he
had been educated—I saw two parties waiting for him outside—he went to dress—I
went to his room, and saw a parcel lying on his box, and said, "Whose
parcel is this?"—he said, "It is mine"—I asked what it was—he
said it was books—I said, "We will open it, and see what it is"—as I
was going to open it, he said, "Oh, Sir, they are grocery," and I
found this grocery (produced)—it is 1 1/2 lb. of currants, 2lbs. of sugar, 1
1/2 lb. of cocoa, 3/4 lb. of citron, 1 1/2 lb. of muscatels, 1/2 lb. of
almonds, 5oz. of Spanish juice, and 5oz. of sugar-candy—I said, "This is a
strange game you are carrying on"—he said he meant to pay for them—I said,
"How could you pay for them when they are odd quantities?"—he made no
answer—I gave him into custody—they are odd weights.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. What do
they amount to? A. 4s., the trade price; he was apprenticed to us on
9th July, 1850—here are the indentures: I brought them because I thought you
might ask the question—he was to serve us five years—we received 20l. with
him—I do not know whether I shall have to return the premium if he is convicted
and the indentures cancelled—I was to pay him no wages, but he boarded and
lodged with me—I do not know whether the youth and the young lady who were
waiting for him were connected with the Orphan School—he may have had goods for
his friends twenty times, but I always weighed them myself—I will not swear I
have not received more than 5l. of him—
he may have worked half a dozen times, about Christmas
time, till two or three o'clock in the morning—we do not work, but we have
taken stock once on Sunday—we usually work till ten.
MARY WARREN . I am in Mr. Trendall's service. On the
evening of 21st Feb., while the prisoner was dressing, I went to call him,
because I wanted to make the beds, and saw a brown-paper parcel on his box—two
or three Sundays before that I saw him in the shop, with the scales in his
hand—I said, "George, what are you about?"—he said, "He knows
what I have got; I am going to take it to a friend's house"—he said
Mr. Trendall knew it—I did not see what he had.
EDWARD COTT (City policeman, 285.) I was sent
for—I saw the prisoner come down-stairs, took him into custody, and asked him
how he came to do it—he said he did not know—I asked who he was going to give
it to—he said he did not know—I said, "Is it possible you are going to
give this to anybody you know nothing about?"—he said he would give it to
anybody.
The disjointed nature of the speech is due to the fact that
the shorthand writer could catch only part of the proceedings. The suggestion was, as is often the case in
workplace theft, that the detected incident is only one of many. This is probably why Thomas thought it
necessary to involve the police. However
the court could only consider the case as charged.
The evidence is quite straightforward but the policeman was
rebuked by defence counsel for interviewing the youth without any form of
caution:
Cross-examined. Q. Do you know that in examining the
prisoner in that way, you did that which no Magistrate or his Lordship dared to
have done? A. No; I have been thirteen years in the police, and am
thirty-six years old.
(The prisoner received a good character.)
We do not know who provided the character evidence for
George PERRY. This was the second time
the case appeared in an indictment. In
the same session it became clear that the indictment was faulty as the name of
the victim had been misprinted as FRENDALL.
This had to be corrected and the case started again. Despite the weight of evidence, and possibly
because of how the police officer dealt with it PERRY was found NOT GUILTY.
Within a couple of weeks Trendall and Benham had a new
apprentice with a similar sounding name – Thomas PARRY. We lose sight of George PERRY. A common name at the time. We do not know if this was to be his only experience
of a criminal trial.
The witness Mary WARREN remained in service with the
Trendalls, for a short while at least.
Thomas TRENDALL’s partnership with BENHAM was later dissolved and Thomas
became bankrupt. He died in 1878.
Philip Trendall December 2023
With thanks to the Proceedings of the Old Bailey Project and website.
.JPG)
No comments:
Post a Comment