My gt grandfather was head porter at East Brixton station. According to his service record, he was dismissed 14.03.1902 for embezzling eccess fares, and procecuted, oh dear! . He soon found employment locally as a porter with the post office. The alleged crime occured in the borough of Wandsworth, he lived in Southwark. I assume there was a court hearing, but where would this have been, Wandsworth or Southwark. I imagine if found guilty he would have received a custodial sentence? but it must have been short if so. He had only been married two weeks at the time. Well I'd like to follow this up, but where to start. I know newspapers will be one source, but I'm wondering whether procecution cases in Surrey were held locally in the borough they were alleged to have occured or in the accused borough of residence, or maybe centrally at a Surrey session hearing, if there was such an authority.
A report of the offence appeared in the London Daily News on 17th March 1902. It is a bit lengthy, but begins - CRM, 29, railway porter, in the service of the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Co., was charged, before Mr Francis at the Lambeth Police Court Saturday, with embezzling money received him on account his employers. The prisoner was in a weak state of health, the result, it was said, of an attack influenza. Mr Austin, from the Solicitors’ Department of the Company, said the prisoner had been employed as head porter at the company’s East Brixton station. He entered their service two and a half years ago, but from November, 1899 until the December, 1900, he was serving in South Africa as a reservist, and during that period the company paid half of his pay to his mother, who was dependent upon him. and ends Mr Francis remarked that without any hesitation he came the conclusion that the case had been made out, and the only difficulty he had was to know how best to deal with a man who had punished himself far more than could punish him by losing his character and his situation. Taking that into consideration, and having regard for the smallness of the amount, he would treat this a fineable offence, and fine the prisoner £5, or 21 days. I will send you a 'conversation' Ann
Oh my good grief! Thanks Ann for finding this! I'm lost for words, there I was thinking it was all a mistake, or if not, then a not guilty finding would result. I look forward to the 'conversation'
Thank you Sis, I could rummage through the old papers all day long and yet I haven't read a 'modern' paper (except for the local one) for years Ann
