| Name |
William MUZZALL |
| Birth |
Abt 1826 |
| Gender |
Male |
| Conviction |
18 Aug 1851 |
Old Bailey, Central Criminal Court, London, England, United Kingdom  |
| Theft of Mail and Sentenced to 10 Years Transportation |
- Transcript from The Old Bailey:
THOMAS GEORGE YOUNG and WILLIAM MUZZALL , stealing, whilst employed in the Post-office, a letter containing 210l., and and 15l. Bank-notes, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.
MESSRS. CLARKSON and BODKIN conducted the Prosecution.
ROSE ANN PHARAOH . I am the wife of Mr. Peter Pharaoh, and reside at Bitterne, near Southampton. On 13th Sept. I wrote to my husband, who was then at Gravesend, and enclosed in it two 10l. and one 5l. notes—I took down the numbers and dates of the notes at the time in this memorandum-book (produced)—the 10l.-notes were Nos. 79668, and 79669, dated 4th June, 1850; and the 5l.-note was No. 50614, dated 3rd July, 1850—I sealed the letter with those notes in it, and addressed it to Mr. Pharaoh, post-office, Gravesend, Kent—I gave the letter to my son Peter to post—the notes were new, and quite entire.
PETBR PHARAOH, JDN . I received a letter from my mother in Sept last, to put into the post, it was directed to my father, at Gravesend—I put the
letter into the box at the post-office at Bitterne, between six and seven o'clock, in the same state in which I received it.
GEORGE TOUTON . I keep the receiving-house at Bitterne. A letter posted there between six and seven o'clock in the evening of 13th Sept. would leave by the mail at seven for Southampton.
GEORGE FREEMAN . I am a clerk, in the Southampton post-office. The bag from Bitterne would be forwarded to London the same night—I made up the bag on the night of 13th Sept., and forwarded it in the regular way.
— MILLER. I hold a situation in the General Post-office. The mail-bag from Southampton, of 13th Sept. last, arrived at the General Post-office early on the morning of the 14th—I was on duty there—it came sealed, and in its usual state.
Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. Did you receive it personally? A. It was brought into the office by a messenger, for the purpose of being opened—I opened it and took out the letters.
HENRY BICKLEY . I am a clerk in the General Post-office. A letter arriving from Southampton in the morning of 14th Sept. would be forwarded to Gravesend the same morning—I made up the bag for Gravesend that morning, and dispatched it in the usual course.
PETER PHARAOH . On 14th Sept. last, I was on my way to Gravesend—I was there on 16th—I expected a remittance from my wife, and applied at the Gravesend post-office for it on 16th, and again the following day; I received no letter—upon that I made a communication to the Post-office authorities.
THOMAS WALKER . I am assistant to Mr. De Castro, of 65, Piccadilly, he keeps a post receiving-house. In Nov. last, the officer Peak, called on me about a 5l.-note—this is the note he was inquiring about (produced)—I had received it on 15th Nov., which was about a week before Peak called—I gave in exchange for it two or three sheets of postage-stamps, and the difference, which would be two or three sovereigns—the postage-stamps are 1l. a sheet—Young is very much like the person of whom I took the note—I will not swear positively that he is the man—I believe be is—I noticed his dress—I have seen a coat which was produced to me by Peak—it was precisely the kind of coat that the man wore—before I changed the note, I asked him his name and address, which he gave as "J. Pharaoh, Southampton"—I wrote that on the note at the time.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Yon cannot pledge your oath as to Young being the person that changed the note? A. No, I am not positive; but I believe he is the man—this is my writing on the note, by which I know it to be the note—Peak brought the coat to our shop, I believe over his arm, and held it up for me to see—I had' previously given him a description of the coat—he asked me if that was like the coat; it is like it, and the same colour—it is a kind of an olive-brown, I do not know what colour it is termed—there is the colour for you to see—I called it a sort of brown coat—it was about 6 in the evening that the person changed the note—it was not dark in our shop; we had a gas-light—it was in the daytime that Peak brought the coat.
HARLES SOLOMON COUVES . I am the postmaster at Gravesend. Young was formerly a clerk in that office; he resigned his situation in Oct. last—he was on duty on 14th Sept. last, when the mail-bag from London arrived—. the letters contained in that bag would in the course of business come into Young's possession; it would be his duty to open the bag, and stamp the letters—we have a box specially for letters addressed to the post-office; are placed alphabetically in pigeon-holes—it would be Young's duty
after stamping such a letter to place it on the counter to be sorted—I should most likely sort them, and put them in the pigeon-holes—on 14th Sept., the prisoner Muzzall was also employed in my house—he was my private clerk—he used to assist in the business of the post-office—when Young resigned, Muzzall was appointed to his situation, and continued in it till he was apprehended on this charge—he was, most likely, assisting in the post-office on 14th Sept., I have no distinct recollection—most likely if any one called for a letter while he was there, he would hand it out—he was employed in writing my private letters, and so on; sometimes in the back-room, and sometimes in the post-office—his employment would give him access to letters that passed through the post-office—he was at the same time employed in the office of a solicitor at Gravesend—I think I first heard of Voller having made a communication to the post-office in July—this letter, dated 9th July (produced), is Muzzall's writing; I received it from him that day or the next—I think it was in June that I first heard that something improper had taken place; and I received this either on the 9th or 10th July—(Letter read—"Gravesend, July 9, 1851. To Mr. Couves. Sir—I beg to tender you my resignation of the appointment I bold, as clerk in the post-office, Gravesend. Wm. Muzzall.")—I remember Mr. Ramsay, one of the superior officers of the Post-office, coming down to Gravesend; I think it was on 21st or 22nd Nov.—my house was searched on the evening of that day.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Young was in the employment of the post-office? A. Yes; he was there seven or eight years; I always thought him a respectable, honest young man; his resignation was voluntary; he complained of being over-worked; and I understood he was about to commence business in London—he resigned on 5th Oct., 1850—there are two clerks employed in the post-office, one besides Young—it was Young's duty to open the morning mail—there are two mails from London; one in the morning, and the other at noon—Young used to open the bag that arrived at 12 in the day, and I opened the other, which arrived at 11 at night—a person named Bond was in my employment at that time—I am not aware that he is now in Maidstone gaol—he has been dismissed from the office for misconduct—he is not in gaol now, he has been, not for crime, for debt—he was very much involved—he was dismissed about a month or six weeks ago—it was in Nov. last when he was in gaol—I had no other clerk at that time but Young, and Bond, and my assistant, Muzzall—the witness, Ellen Voller, has called at the office to see her husband (Muzzall)—she came once or twice, and sat outside the gate, not inside—Young had talked of leaving for more than a year before he left—a person named Carmody was in my service for one week only, in 1849—he was not discharged, we were not in want of hit services—he has not been in the habit of coming backwards and forwards since; he has left the town.
Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. Can you tell me whether Bond was at the office on 14th Sept.? A. Yes; I think he was—he had an opportunity of taking any letter that was there—I have seen him since this inquiry was going on; I think I have seen him in communication with Mr. Peacock, the solicitor—I know Ellen Voller by sight—I do not know that she has been in the society of Bond, I never saw them together—I have seen her in the neighbourhood of my office at the time Bond has been there—I have known Muzzall between three and four years—as far as I have known, his character has been irreproachable; I never heard any imputation on him, except this—he was managing clerk to a respectable solicitor at Gravesend, and I employed him as my clerk in after hours—he was not a servant of the post-office—he
was my private clerk, and assisted me in some assurance business also—I always found him correct, attentive, and respectable—I have no distinct recollection whether he was assisting on 14th Sept.—there were occasions when he was not present—he might, or might not have been present on this occasion.
MR. PARRY. Q. Young did not attend the whole of the day, I believe; did be attend from 5 till 7 o'clock in the morning? A. Yes; then again from 11 till 2, being absent in the interval; and then again from 6 till 10 at night—his salary was 50l. a year.
MR. BODKIN. Q. You have been asked about the conduct of the prisoner; during the time they were employed there, were complaints made of letters being missed? A. Yes; many.
ELLEN VOLLER (examined on the voir dire by MR. PARRY). I have been married to the prisoner Muzzall—we were married on 6th Aug., 1849, at Aldgate Church, London, by a clergyman of the Church of England, by banns. (Upon MR. CLARKSON being about to put a question to the witness. MR. PARRY objected; as the evidence at present stood, the witness was proved to be the prisoner's wife; if it was sought to invalidate the marriage, that must be done by independent testimony, and not by any examination of the witness. MR. JUSTICE ERLE was of opinion that any witness examined to a particular fact might be questioned as to the entire of her knowledge of that fact; in his judgment, even in a case of bigamy, the second wife would be a competent witness to prove the first marriage, if she happened to be present at it. It could not betaken, at present, that the witness was proved to be the prisoner's lawful wife: that was the subject under inquiry.)
MR. CLARKSON. Q. Had you an elder sister, named Caroline? A. Yes; she was Muzzall's wife—she died in Oct., 1848—she lived with Muzzall as his wife for two years—I was present at her marriage—Muzzall quitted me in May last—he was married to my sister at Oving, near Chichester, by licence—it was at a parish Church, and, as far at I know, by a clergyman of the Church of England, a Mr. Langdon—I was a witness to the marriage, and signed my name as such—Muzzall was a National Schoolmaster at that time, and lived' at Midhurst—my father's name was Thomas Voller—the prisoner's father was not present at the marriage—ray sister bad not been married before—I knew Mr. Langdon; he was the vicar of Oving.
MR. PARRY. Q. Are your father and mother alive? A. Yes; my sister was seven years older than me—she was thirty when she was married.
COURT. Q. Were you and your sister Caroline bred up together as sisters by the same parents? A. Yes.
MR. CLARKSON proposing to examine the witness generally, MR. PARRY submitted that, as the prisoner's wife, her evidence was not receivable. He admitted that if it was clearly established that she was the sister of the prisoner's first wife, that would invalidate her marriage, and so admit her testimony; but he contended that that was not shown to be the case; her mere statement that she called her "sister" was not enough; nor would the reputation of relationship apply in a criminal case: the best evidence was that of the parents, in the absence of which he contended the evidence should be excluded. MR. BALLANTINE urged the same objection: the principle upon which such testimony was rejected was, that from the connection existing between man and wife, the ends of justice were not likely to be assisted by its reception. This principle was recognised in Campbell v. Trendhw, 1st Price; and, to get rid of that principle, the strictest possible evidence was required. MR. JUSTICE ERLE was of opinion that the evidence was admissible; it was perfectly clear that if a person
was questioned on the voir dire with a view to raise an objection to her competency as a witness, she might also be examined, to remove that primd facie ground of objection, of being the prisoner's wife, by showing that her marriage was void, and did not create the relation of wife to the prisoner: that being so, the competency of the witness was established to show that the prisoner had been before married. Then came the question, was she competent to prove that she was sister to the former wife? In his opinion, although seven years younger, she was competent to prove that relationship: there was no rule of law requiring that it should be established by that which would be demonstration, namely, by the testimony of persons present at the birth. The witness was then sworn, and examined as follows:—The prisoner Muzzall left me in May last—he stayed away from me a week—at the end of the week he returned—in consequence of what passed between us, I then went into the service of Mr. Thomas Varden—I am in his service now—whilst I was living with Muzzall, he was in the service of a person of the name of Sharland, an attorney, at Gravesend; he was also in the employ of the postmaster at Gravesend—in Sept. last, Muzzall brought two 10l.-notes to me, and asked me to change them—I asked why he did not change them himself—he said he had his reasons for it—I said I would not change them—about a week after, he again asked me to go to London and change them—I asked why he did not do it himself—he said they were Tom Young's, and he did not like to—I told him there was something wrong, or else Tom Young would have changed them himself—he asked me if I would change them if he told me where he got them from—I said, "Yes"—he said, "You don't mean it"—I said, "Yes, I do"—he then said that Tom Young had taken them out of a letter that was posted at Bitterne, near Southampton, and that it was directed to the Gravesend post-office till called for—I asked him what there was in the letter—he said, two tens and a five—I told him I would not change them, and told him to take them to Tom Young, and tell him to send them back to the person they belonged to—he said he should not be such a fool as that—I afterwards saw the notes in his waistcoat pocket in the bedroom; that was about a week before the postmaster's house was searched—he was then at the office—they were two 10l.-notes—I looked at them—they were dated June, 1850—I think Muzzall came home about 7 o'clock that night; I do not know—it was in the evening—he came home to dinner—I told him what I had seen, and where; and when he came home at night he told me to put them away—that was the night that the postmaster's house was searched; he told me to put them away, as they might come and search his—I asked what I was to do with them; if I was to burn them—he said no, he wanted Tom Young to have them, and he told me to take them to Tom Young in London—next morning I went to London, and took the two 10l.-notes with me—I took them to a house at Shepherd's-bush—I found Young there, and gave him the notes—he said, "All right"—I then returned to Gravesend—I have since been to the house at Shepherd's-bush with Peak—I pointed out the house to him—it was in Cambridge-terrace—I cannot recollect the number—a short time after I had taken the notes to Young, I saw Muzzall with two sheets of postage-stamps—I asked him where he got them—he said Tom Young had changed the 5l.-note, and brought him 2l.-worth of stamps, and kept the remaining 3l. himself.
Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. When was it that you first saw these notes? A. As near as I can tell, somewhere at the latter part of Sept.—I cannot tell how long it was after that when I saw them in his waistcoat pocket—it was a month, and more too—it was the waistcoat he
usually wore—it was in the morning after he was gone to the office—I was putting the waistcoat away—I found it lying on the bed—I felt in the pockets—I did not expect to find the notes there—it did not surprise me—there was nothing else in the pockets—they were not wrapped up, they were loose—I had not seen them between the time he first spoke to me about them, and my seeing them in his waistcoat pocket—I did not take the numbers of the notes—I looked at the date, because he had told me they were quite new—the date was June, 1850—I do not know the day—the 6th, as near as I can tell—it was about a week after that I heard the postmaster's house was searched—I did not know what it was searched for—I thought there was something improper in my husband's giving me the notes to take to Young—I believed at that time they were stolen property—I have lived with Muzzall rather more than twelve months—I have had one child by him—that was born ten months after we were married—it is not now living—that is the only child I have had by Muzzall—I have not been married before—I have had one child before—that is six years ago—I know Bond—I saw him last when we were at the hearing at Bow-street—I talked to him—I have not seen him here today—I did not see him at all in communication with Peak—I have known him about two years—I knew him at Gravesend; he was a clerk in the post-office—I have never been to see him there—I have been to the post-office—I have seen him there on duty—I have never spoken to him there—I have seen him after post-office hours—I have not walked about with him—I have seen him about the streets—I have not spoken to him on those occasions—I have not had any talk with him about this matter until the bearing—I did not give the information—I first gave information to Mr. Phillips—he came to Brunswick-place to me—he is an officer in the post-office—I had given information to my brother a fortnight before.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Was it in Sept. that you had this conversation with your husband, Muzzall? A. Yes; it was not then that he told me that Young had changed the 5l.-note; it was afterwards, when Young was in London—I had not seen any account in the newspaper before I gave information to my brother—my brother is at home now ill—he was at the post-office as a clerk—he was not living in the same house with Bond—I have not frequently seen him with Bond—I saw him once with him before I left Gravesend—he came to see him at my house—my brother is not now in the post-office—he was dismissed about a fortnight ago, since this inquiry has been set on foot—he is twenty-three years old—I have not seen him and Bond together more than once—they spoke together in my presence then; they left the house together—that was in the afternoon—it was about a fortnight before I left Gravesend, at the beginning of May—my brother then lived with me and Muzzall.
ANN SUSANNAH COUVES . I am the wife of the postmaster at Gravesend. Our house was searched on 21st Nov.—Muzzall came to the office that evening about 7 o'clock—I opened the door to him—he generally came to his duty about that time—I said to him, "Oh dear! Mr. Muzzall we are in great trouble, there is a letter missing; do you know anything about it?"—he said, "I must go home for a little time; I shall be back in a quarter of an hour"—he went away, and was gone as near as I recollect about half an hour—I do hot know where he lived.
Gross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. He had been home on other occasions, I suppose, had he not? A. Yes; I thought his going home rather unusual, on account of his having been absent from duty during the day, and I was on duty in the office waiting for his return—I made no complaint about it.
JURY to ELLEN VOLLER. Q. Was your brother allowed to enter the bed-room of Muzzall? A. No; he used to go into my bedroom occasionally—he was not at the post-office at the time this robbery was committed—he had access to my room at all times after he was at Gravesend, while he was at my house—I do not know when he went to the post-office.
CHARLES SOLOMON COUVES re-examined. Voller's brother came to the post-office on 13th Oct.—he resigned his situation three or four weeks since—he resigned voluntarily—I understood him that he expected a situation on the railway—I think he would very likely have been dismissed if he had not resigned, on account of having a new clerk—he was not appointed officially, only as an assistant.
CHARLOTTE QUINTON . I live at 3, Cambridge-terrace, Shepberd's-bush, Peak, the officer, came to my house—I recognize the prisoner, Young, as a person having lived next door to us; I think from Oct. last year till the beginning of Jan. this year.
MATTHEW PEAK . I am a constable, stationed at the Post-office. On 8th July I received a warrant from Bow-street, and took Muzzall into custody at the post-office, Gravesend—I told him I took him into custody for stealing a letter posted at Bitterne, near Southampton, on 13th Sept. last, containing two 10l.-notes, and a 5l.-note, and that it had been stated that the 5l.-note was changed by Young, and he purchased two or three sheets of stamps—he said it was true Young bad sent him such stamps, which he said were for a debt—he afterwards said that Young brought them to him, and gave them to him personally—I searched Muzzall, and found a letter in his pocket which he stated he had received from Young that morning—I asked for the envelope, and he said he had destroyed it—(letter read—"5, Mount Pleasant Dear Bill, I got yours late last night, and have sent to Frank S—to settle the County Court. Let me know how the case goes on directly it is over. You must remit me six bob to come up in the steamer. I hope nothing is the matter; Mrs. S—will be up on Monday, or Wednesday. I wish you would send me the particulars of what I proposed about the M. P. Does he know that I am here? Yours truly, GEORGE. Suppose I come op on Satarday next?")—on the following day I went down to Ramsgate, to No. 5, Mount Pleasant, the address on the letter—I found Young there, and took him into custody—I told him it was for stealing a letter posted at Bitterne, near Southampton, containing two 10l.-notes, and a 5l.-note, and that it had been stated that he had changed the 5l.-note, and bought two or three sheets of postage stamps, which stamps he gave to Muzzall, and that Muzzall had stated he had brought him some postage stamps—he said, "Does Muzzall say that?"—I said, "Yes, he did"—he said, "That is your friends"—the superintendent of Ramsgate, who was with me, asked him whether he did so—he said he should not answer that question—next day I brought him from Ramsgate to London—on our road, I asked him if he ever lived at No. 4, Cambridge-terrace, Shepherd's-bush—he said, "Yes; he did"—I said, "I know you did"—he said, "Have you been there?"—I said, "Yes; I went there with Mrs. Muzzall"—when he came to the post-office he was asked again, if he had ever lived at Shepherd's-bush—he said, "Yes"—he was asked if Mrs. Muzzall visited him there at any time—he said, she did—he was asked for what purpose—he said he declined answering the question—I had previously been with Ellen Voller to Shepherd's-bush—she pointed out to me the house, No. 4, Cam bridge-terrace, Shepherd's-bush—I got this 5l.-note from the Bank of England, about 21st Nov.—I traced it from hand to hand till I traced it to Mr. De Castro, of Piccadilly—the 10l.
note, No. 79668, I obtained from the Bank on 28th Jane, and the other 10l.-note on 12th July—I traced one of them to a traveller who could not tell me from whom he had received it, and the other to a tradesman at Portsmouth, and he could not tell me from whom he received it—I asked Young, when I took him into custody, if he had got a brown coat—I had before that received a description of a coat, from Mr. Walker—I got possession of this coat.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Did Young say that there were some accounts between him and Muzzall? A. I do not recollect it; he might have said it.
RICHARD ADYE BAILEY . I produce the three notes from the Bank of England—the 5l.-note, No. 50644, dated 3rd July, 1850, came into the Bank on 18th Nov., 1850; the 10l.-note, No. 79668, dated 4th June, 1850, came in on 24th June, 1851; and die other 10l.-note, 79669, dated 4th June, 1851, came in on 8th July last—there is only one note of the same number and date in circulation at the same time.
YOUNG— GUILTY of Stealing. Aged 22.—Transported for Ten Years.
MUZZALL— GUILTY of Receiving. Aged 25.— Transported for Twelve Years.
- Role: Co-Defendant
|
| Conviction |
18 Aug 1851 |
Old Bailey, Central Criminal Court, London, England, United Kingdom |
| Theft of Mail and Sentenced to 12 Years Transportation, which was Communted to Imprisonment |
- Transcript from The Old Bailey:
THOMAS GEORGE YOUNG and WILLIAM MUZZALL , stealing, whilst employed in the Post-office, a letter containing 210l., and and 15l. Bank-notes, the property of Her Majesty's Postmaster-General.
MESSRS. CLARKSON and BODKIN conducted the Prosecution.
ROSE ANN PHARAOH . I am the wife of Mr. Peter Pharaoh, and reside at Bitterne, near Southampton. On 13th Sept. I wrote to my husband, who was then at Gravesend, and enclosed in it two 10l. and one 5l. notes—I took down the numbers and dates of the notes at the time in this memorandum-book (produced)—the 10l.-notes were Nos. 79668, and 79669, dated 4th June, 1850; and the 5l.-note was No. 50614, dated 3rd July, 1850—I sealed the letter with those notes in it, and addressed it to Mr. Pharaoh, post-office, Gravesend, Kent—I gave the letter to my son Peter to post—the notes were new, and quite entire.
PETBR PHARAOH, JDN . I received a letter from my mother in Sept last, to put into the post, it was directed to my father, at Gravesend—I put the
letter into the box at the post-office at Bitterne, between six and seven o'clock, in the same state in which I received it.
GEORGE TOUTON . I keep the receiving-house at Bitterne. A letter posted there between six and seven o'clock in the evening of 13th Sept. would leave by the mail at seven for Southampton.
GEORGE FREEMAN . I am a clerk, in the Southampton post-office. The bag from Bitterne would be forwarded to London the same night—I made up the bag on the night of 13th Sept., and forwarded it in the regular way.
— MILLER. I hold a situation in the General Post-office. The mail-bag from Southampton, of 13th Sept. last, arrived at the General Post-office early on the morning of the 14th—I was on duty there—it came sealed, and in its usual state.
Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. Did you receive it personally? A. It was brought into the office by a messenger, for the purpose of being opened—I opened it and took out the letters.
HENRY BICKLEY . I am a clerk in the General Post-office. A letter arriving from Southampton in the morning of 14th Sept. would be forwarded to Gravesend the same morning—I made up the bag for Gravesend that morning, and dispatched it in the usual course.
PETER PHARAOH . On 14th Sept. last, I was on my way to Gravesend—I was there on 16th—I expected a remittance from my wife, and applied at the Gravesend post-office for it on 16th, and again the following day; I received no letter—upon that I made a communication to the Post-office authorities.
THOMAS WALKER . I am assistant to Mr. De Castro, of 65, Piccadilly, he keeps a post receiving-house. In Nov. last, the officer Peak, called on me about a 5l.-note—this is the note he was inquiring about (produced)—I had received it on 15th Nov., which was about a week before Peak called—I gave in exchange for it two or three sheets of postage-stamps, and the difference, which would be two or three sovereigns—the postage-stamps are 1l. a sheet—Young is very much like the person of whom I took the note—I will not swear positively that he is the man—I believe be is—I noticed his dress—I have seen a coat which was produced to me by Peak—it was precisely the kind of coat that the man wore—before I changed the note, I asked him his name and address, which he gave as "J. Pharaoh, Southampton"—I wrote that on the note at the time.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Yon cannot pledge your oath as to Young being the person that changed the note? A. No, I am not positive; but I believe he is the man—this is my writing on the note, by which I know it to be the note—Peak brought the coat to our shop, I believe over his arm, and held it up for me to see—I had' previously given him a description of the coat—he asked me if that was like the coat; it is like it, and the same colour—it is a kind of an olive-brown, I do not know what colour it is termed—there is the colour for you to see—I called it a sort of brown coat—it was about 6 in the evening that the person changed the note—it was not dark in our shop; we had a gas-light—it was in the daytime that Peak brought the coat.
HARLES SOLOMON COUVES . I am the postmaster at Gravesend. Young was formerly a clerk in that office; he resigned his situation in Oct. last—he was on duty on 14th Sept. last, when the mail-bag from London arrived—. the letters contained in that bag would in the course of business come into Young's possession; it would be his duty to open the bag, and stamp the letters—we have a box specially for letters addressed to the post-office; are placed alphabetically in pigeon-holes—it would be Young's duty
after stamping such a letter to place it on the counter to be sorted—I should most likely sort them, and put them in the pigeon-holes—on 14th Sept., the prisoner Muzzall was also employed in my house—he was my private clerk—he used to assist in the business of the post-office—when Young resigned, Muzzall was appointed to his situation, and continued in it till he was apprehended on this charge—he was, most likely, assisting in the post-office on 14th Sept., I have no distinct recollection—most likely if any one called for a letter while he was there, he would hand it out—he was employed in writing my private letters, and so on; sometimes in the back-room, and sometimes in the post-office—his employment would give him access to letters that passed through the post-office—he was at the same time employed in the office of a solicitor at Gravesend—I think I first heard of Voller having made a communication to the post-office in July—this letter, dated 9th July (produced), is Muzzall's writing; I received it from him that day or the next—I think it was in June that I first heard that something improper had taken place; and I received this either on the 9th or 10th July—(Letter read—"Gravesend, July 9, 1851. To Mr. Couves. Sir—I beg to tender you my resignation of the appointment I bold, as clerk in the post-office, Gravesend. Wm. Muzzall.")—I remember Mr. Ramsay, one of the superior officers of the Post-office, coming down to Gravesend; I think it was on 21st or 22nd Nov.—my house was searched on the evening of that day.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Young was in the employment of the post-office? A. Yes; he was there seven or eight years; I always thought him a respectable, honest young man; his resignation was voluntary; he complained of being over-worked; and I understood he was about to commence business in London—he resigned on 5th Oct., 1850—there are two clerks employed in the post-office, one besides Young—it was Young's duty to open the morning mail—there are two mails from London; one in the morning, and the other at noon—Young used to open the bag that arrived at 12 in the day, and I opened the other, which arrived at 11 at night—a person named Bond was in my employment at that time—I am not aware that he is now in Maidstone gaol—he has been dismissed from the office for misconduct—he is not in gaol now, he has been, not for crime, for debt—he was very much involved—he was dismissed about a month or six weeks ago—it was in Nov. last when he was in gaol—I had no other clerk at that time but Young, and Bond, and my assistant, Muzzall—the witness, Ellen Voller, has called at the office to see her husband (Muzzall)—she came once or twice, and sat outside the gate, not inside—Young had talked of leaving for more than a year before he left—a person named Carmody was in my service for one week only, in 1849—he was not discharged, we were not in want of hit services—he has not been in the habit of coming backwards and forwards since; he has left the town.
Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. Can you tell me whether Bond was at the office on 14th Sept.? A. Yes; I think he was—he had an opportunity of taking any letter that was there—I have seen him since this inquiry was going on; I think I have seen him in communication with Mr. Peacock, the solicitor—I know Ellen Voller by sight—I do not know that she has been in the society of Bond, I never saw them together—I have seen her in the neighbourhood of my office at the time Bond has been there—I have known Muzzall between three and four years—as far as I have known, his character has been irreproachable; I never heard any imputation on him, except this—he was managing clerk to a respectable solicitor at Gravesend, and I employed him as my clerk in after hours—he was not a servant of the post-office—he
was my private clerk, and assisted me in some assurance business also—I always found him correct, attentive, and respectable—I have no distinct recollection whether he was assisting on 14th Sept.—there were occasions when he was not present—he might, or might not have been present on this occasion.
MR. PARRY. Q. Young did not attend the whole of the day, I believe; did be attend from 5 till 7 o'clock in the morning? A. Yes; then again from 11 till 2, being absent in the interval; and then again from 6 till 10 at night—his salary was 50l. a year.
MR. BODKIN. Q. You have been asked about the conduct of the prisoner; during the time they were employed there, were complaints made of letters being missed? A. Yes; many.
ELLEN VOLLER (examined on the voir dire by MR. PARRY). I have been married to the prisoner Muzzall—we were married on 6th Aug., 1849, at Aldgate Church, London, by a clergyman of the Church of England, by banns. (Upon MR. CLARKSON being about to put a question to the witness. MR. PARRY objected; as the evidence at present stood, the witness was proved to be the prisoner's wife; if it was sought to invalidate the marriage, that must be done by independent testimony, and not by any examination of the witness. MR. JUSTICE ERLE was of opinion that any witness examined to a particular fact might be questioned as to the entire of her knowledge of that fact; in his judgment, even in a case of bigamy, the second wife would be a competent witness to prove the first marriage, if she happened to be present at it. It could not betaken, at present, that the witness was proved to be the prisoner's lawful wife: that was the subject under inquiry.)
MR. CLARKSON. Q. Had you an elder sister, named Caroline? A. Yes; she was Muzzall's wife—she died in Oct., 1848—she lived with Muzzall as his wife for two years—I was present at her marriage—Muzzall quitted me in May last—he was married to my sister at Oving, near Chichester, by licence—it was at a parish Church, and, as far at I know, by a clergyman of the Church of England, a Mr. Langdon—I was a witness to the marriage, and signed my name as such—Muzzall was a National Schoolmaster at that time, and lived' at Midhurst—my father's name was Thomas Voller—the prisoner's father was not present at the marriage—ray sister bad not been married before—I knew Mr. Langdon; he was the vicar of Oving.
MR. PARRY. Q. Are your father and mother alive? A. Yes; my sister was seven years older than me—she was thirty when she was married.
COURT. Q. Were you and your sister Caroline bred up together as sisters by the same parents? A. Yes.
MR. CLARKSON proposing to examine the witness generally, MR. PARRY submitted that, as the prisoner's wife, her evidence was not receivable. He admitted that if it was clearly established that she was the sister of the prisoner's first wife, that would invalidate her marriage, and so admit her testimony; but he contended that that was not shown to be the case; her mere statement that she called her "sister" was not enough; nor would the reputation of relationship apply in a criminal case: the best evidence was that of the parents, in the absence of which he contended the evidence should be excluded. MR. BALLANTINE urged the same objection: the principle upon which such testimony was rejected was, that from the connection existing between man and wife, the ends of justice were not likely to be assisted by its reception. This principle was recognised in Campbell v. Trendhw, 1st Price; and, to get rid of that principle, the strictest possible evidence was required. MR. JUSTICE ERLE was of opinion that the evidence was admissible; it was perfectly clear that if a person
was questioned on the voir dire with a view to raise an objection to her competency as a witness, she might also be examined, to remove that primd facie ground of objection, of being the prisoner's wife, by showing that her marriage was void, and did not create the relation of wife to the prisoner: that being so, the competency of the witness was established to show that the prisoner had been before married. Then came the question, was she competent to prove that she was sister to the former wife? In his opinion, although seven years younger, she was competent to prove that relationship: there was no rule of law requiring that it should be established by that which would be demonstration, namely, by the testimony of persons present at the birth. The witness was then sworn, and examined as follows:—The prisoner Muzzall left me in May last—he stayed away from me a week—at the end of the week he returned—in consequence of what passed between us, I then went into the service of Mr. Thomas Varden—I am in his service now—whilst I was living with Muzzall, he was in the service of a person of the name of Sharland, an attorney, at Gravesend; he was also in the employ of the postmaster at Gravesend—in Sept. last, Muzzall brought two 10l.-notes to me, and asked me to change them—I asked why he did not change them himself—he said he had his reasons for it—I said I would not change them—about a week after, he again asked me to go to London and change them—I asked why he did not do it himself—he said they were Tom Young's, and he did not like to—I told him there was something wrong, or else Tom Young would have changed them himself—he asked me if I would change them if he told me where he got them from—I said, "Yes"—he said, "You don't mean it"—I said, "Yes, I do"—he then said that Tom Young had taken them out of a letter that was posted at Bitterne, near Southampton, and that it was directed to the Gravesend post-office till called for—I asked him what there was in the letter—he said, two tens and a five—I told him I would not change them, and told him to take them to Tom Young, and tell him to send them back to the person they belonged to—he said he should not be such a fool as that—I afterwards saw the notes in his waistcoat pocket in the bedroom; that was about a week before the postmaster's house was searched—he was then at the office—they were two 10l.-notes—I looked at them—they were dated June, 1850—I think Muzzall came home about 7 o'clock that night; I do not know—it was in the evening—he came home to dinner—I told him what I had seen, and where; and when he came home at night he told me to put them away—that was the night that the postmaster's house was searched; he told me to put them away, as they might come and search his—I asked what I was to do with them; if I was to burn them—he said no, he wanted Tom Young to have them, and he told me to take them to Tom Young in London—next morning I went to London, and took the two 10l.-notes with me—I took them to a house at Shepherd's-bush—I found Young there, and gave him the notes—he said, "All right"—I then returned to Gravesend—I have since been to the house at Shepherd's-bush with Peak—I pointed out the house to him—it was in Cambridge-terrace—I cannot recollect the number—a short time after I had taken the notes to Young, I saw Muzzall with two sheets of postage-stamps—I asked him where he got them—he said Tom Young had changed the 5l.-note, and brought him 2l.-worth of stamps, and kept the remaining 3l. himself.
Cross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. When was it that you first saw these notes? A. As near as I can tell, somewhere at the latter part of Sept.—I cannot tell how long it was after that when I saw them in his waistcoat pocket—it was a month, and more too—it was the waistcoat he
usually wore—it was in the morning after he was gone to the office—I was putting the waistcoat away—I found it lying on the bed—I felt in the pockets—I did not expect to find the notes there—it did not surprise me—there was nothing else in the pockets—they were not wrapped up, they were loose—I had not seen them between the time he first spoke to me about them, and my seeing them in his waistcoat pocket—I did not take the numbers of the notes—I looked at the date, because he had told me they were quite new—the date was June, 1850—I do not know the day—the 6th, as near as I can tell—it was about a week after that I heard the postmaster's house was searched—I did not know what it was searched for—I thought there was something improper in my husband's giving me the notes to take to Young—I believed at that time they were stolen property—I have lived with Muzzall rather more than twelve months—I have had one child by him—that was born ten months after we were married—it is not now living—that is the only child I have had by Muzzall—I have not been married before—I have had one child before—that is six years ago—I know Bond—I saw him last when we were at the hearing at Bow-street—I talked to him—I have not seen him here today—I did not see him at all in communication with Peak—I have known him about two years—I knew him at Gravesend; he was a clerk in the post-office—I have never been to see him there—I have been to the post-office—I have seen him there on duty—I have never spoken to him there—I have seen him after post-office hours—I have not walked about with him—I have seen him about the streets—I have not spoken to him on those occasions—I have not had any talk with him about this matter until the bearing—I did not give the information—I first gave information to Mr. Phillips—he came to Brunswick-place to me—he is an officer in the post-office—I had given information to my brother a fortnight before.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Was it in Sept. that you had this conversation with your husband, Muzzall? A. Yes; it was not then that he told me that Young had changed the 5l.-note; it was afterwards, when Young was in London—I had not seen any account in the newspaper before I gave information to my brother—my brother is at home now ill—he was at the post-office as a clerk—he was not living in the same house with Bond—I have not frequently seen him with Bond—I saw him once with him before I left Gravesend—he came to see him at my house—my brother is not now in the post-office—he was dismissed about a fortnight ago, since this inquiry has been set on foot—he is twenty-three years old—I have not seen him and Bond together more than once—they spoke together in my presence then; they left the house together—that was in the afternoon—it was about a fortnight before I left Gravesend, at the beginning of May—my brother then lived with me and Muzzall.
ANN SUSANNAH COUVES . I am the wife of the postmaster at Gravesend. Our house was searched on 21st Nov.—Muzzall came to the office that evening about 7 o'clock—I opened the door to him—he generally came to his duty about that time—I said to him, "Oh dear! Mr. Muzzall we are in great trouble, there is a letter missing; do you know anything about it?"—he said, "I must go home for a little time; I shall be back in a quarter of an hour"—he went away, and was gone as near as I recollect about half an hour—I do hot know where he lived.
Gross-examined by MR. BALLANTINE. Q. He had been home on other occasions, I suppose, had he not? A. Yes; I thought his going home rather unusual, on account of his having been absent from duty during the day, and I was on duty in the office waiting for his return—I made no complaint about it.
JURY to ELLEN VOLLER. Q. Was your brother allowed to enter the bed-room of Muzzall? A. No; he used to go into my bedroom occasionally—he was not at the post-office at the time this robbery was committed—he had access to my room at all times after he was at Gravesend, while he was at my house—I do not know when he went to the post-office.
CHARLES SOLOMON COUVES re-examined. Voller's brother came to the post-office on 13th Oct.—he resigned his situation three or four weeks since—he resigned voluntarily—I understood him that he expected a situation on the railway—I think he would very likely have been dismissed if he had not resigned, on account of having a new clerk—he was not appointed officially, only as an assistant.
CHARLOTTE QUINTON . I live at 3, Cambridge-terrace, Shepberd's-bush, Peak, the officer, came to my house—I recognize the prisoner, Young, as a person having lived next door to us; I think from Oct. last year till the beginning of Jan. this year.
MATTHEW PEAK . I am a constable, stationed at the Post-office. On 8th July I received a warrant from Bow-street, and took Muzzall into custody at the post-office, Gravesend—I told him I took him into custody for stealing a letter posted at Bitterne, near Southampton, on 13th Sept. last, containing two 10l.-notes, and a 5l.-note, and that it had been stated that the 5l.-note was changed by Young, and he purchased two or three sheets of stamps—he said it was true Young bad sent him such stamps, which he said were for a debt—he afterwards said that Young brought them to him, and gave them to him personally—I searched Muzzall, and found a letter in his pocket which he stated he had received from Young that morning—I asked for the envelope, and he said he had destroyed it—(letter read—"5, Mount Pleasant Dear Bill, I got yours late last night, and have sent to Frank S—to settle the County Court. Let me know how the case goes on directly it is over. You must remit me six bob to come up in the steamer. I hope nothing is the matter; Mrs. S—will be up on Monday, or Wednesday. I wish you would send me the particulars of what I proposed about the M. P. Does he know that I am here? Yours truly, GEORGE. Suppose I come op on Satarday next?")—on the following day I went down to Ramsgate, to No. 5, Mount Pleasant, the address on the letter—I found Young there, and took him into custody—I told him it was for stealing a letter posted at Bitterne, near Southampton, containing two 10l.-notes, and a 5l.-note, and that it had been stated that he had changed the 5l.-note, and bought two or three sheets of postage stamps, which stamps he gave to Muzzall, and that Muzzall had stated he had brought him some postage stamps—he said, "Does Muzzall say that?"—I said, "Yes, he did"—he said, "That is your friends"—the superintendent of Ramsgate, who was with me, asked him whether he did so—he said he should not answer that question—next day I brought him from Ramsgate to London—on our road, I asked him if he ever lived at No. 4, Cambridge-terrace, Shepherd's-bush—he said, "Yes; he did"—I said, "I know you did"—he said, "Have you been there?"—I said, "Yes; I went there with Mrs. Muzzall"—when he came to the post-office he was asked again, if he had ever lived at Shepherd's-bush—he said, "Yes"—he was asked if Mrs. Muzzall visited him there at any time—he said, she did—he was asked for what purpose—he said he declined answering the question—I had previously been with Ellen Voller to Shepherd's-bush—she pointed out to me the house, No. 4, Cam bridge-terrace, Shepherd's-bush—I got this 5l.-note from the Bank of England, about 21st Nov.—I traced it from hand to hand till I traced it to Mr. De Castro, of Piccadilly—the 10l.
note, No. 79668, I obtained from the Bank on 28th Jane, and the other 10l.-note on 12th July—I traced one of them to a traveller who could not tell me from whom he had received it, and the other to a tradesman at Portsmouth, and he could not tell me from whom he received it—I asked Young, when I took him into custody, if he had got a brown coat—I had before that received a description of a coat, from Mr. Walker—I got possession of this coat.
Cross-examined by MR. PARRY. Q. Did Young say that there were some accounts between him and Muzzall? A. I do not recollect it; he might have said it.
RICHARD ADYE BAILEY . I produce the three notes from the Bank of England—the 5l.-note, No. 50644, dated 3rd July, 1850, came into the Bank on 18th Nov., 1850; the 10l.-note, No. 79668, dated 4th June, 1850, came in on 24th June, 1851; and die other 10l.-note, 79669, dated 4th June, 1851, came in on 8th July last—there is only one note of the same number and date in circulation at the same time.
YOUNG— GUILTY of Stealing. Aged 22.—Transported for Ten Years.
MUZZALL— GUILTY of Receiving. Aged 25.— Transported for Twelve Years.
|
| Death |
Yes, date unknown |
| Person ID |
I2970 |
Australian Convict Ship Project |
| Last Modified |
19 Feb 2025 |
Australian Convict Ship Project
Abt 1826 - Yes, date unknown
