The Curtis Bennett Inquiry

[Robert]

That's a big debt. St John Wontner, when he died, left c £4200.

[John G]

Various reasons Jeff.

1. He lost £900 in trust money that he had placed with a stockbroker in 1883 when the stockbroker went under.

2. He lost an appointment as a Secretary of a hotel shortly afterwards which brought him an income of £300 per annum over and above his civil service salary.

3. His wife became ill (and in fact would die in 1890) and she moved to the south coast of Devonshire to recover, which caused him considerable expense.

4. As a result of all the above he had to borrow money from money lenders - and kept on borrowing - and the interest rates were crippling, building up the debt very quickly once he defaulted.

5. He also, importantly, lived a rather extravagant lifestyle and wasn't good at cutting down his expenditure.

When he declared for bankruptcy he had 57 creditors in total. The actual sum he owed was £3,688.9.3 (I should have said about £3,700, not £3,800).

Incredible. That's over £446000 in today's money: http://inflation.stephenmorley.org

[Elamarna]

Incredible. That's over £446000 in today's money: http://inflation.stephenmorley.org

Makes you wonder does it not.


Steve

[Robert]

It could have been worse for Evans - one of his more prominent creditors, the bank of Coulon, Berthoud & Co, had liabilities of £3 - 4 hundred K when they suspended payment in 1914.

[David Orsam]

Curtis Bennett Report

The below is the full report of Mr Curtis Bennett dated 10 July 1888:

Having now completed a thorough and exhaustive inquiry into the serious allegations made against Mr. Evans in Messrs Wontner’s Report, bearing date April 20th 1888, and forwarded by them to the Chief Commissioner of Police and by him transmitted to the Right Honourable the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I have the honour to report as follows:

It would appear that towards the end of November 1887, in consequence of certain letters received by the Chief Commissioner of Police from a firm of solicitors, Messrs Burns and Burridge, relating to a man named James E. Mooney, Messrs Wontner received instructions from the Chief Commissioner of Police to make inquiries into the matter. For this purpose Messrs Wontner employed a detective, named Moser, and on the 9th December, Moser communicated in writing the result of his inquiries to Messrs Wontner and from a minute on the back of Moser’s report in the handwriting of Mr. Birch (Mr. Wontner’s clerk) the inquiry as directed came to an end.

About this period an unexplained intimacy sprang up between the detective Moser and one Mills, aged about 20, a clerk in the Receiver’s Office, and from time to time interviews took place between them, and Evans’ name was often the subject of conversation. Moser invited Mills to a box at the Gaiety Theatre, and also became surety for him for an amount of £6, borrowed by Mills from the Confidential Loan Office (128 High Holborn) part of which still remains upaid.

I have failed to obtain evidence to show by whose authority Moser continued to make further inquiries relating to Mr. Evans, as the Chief Commissioner denies having given any to Messrs Wontner and Mr. Birch (Messrs Wontner’s clerk), who acted in the matter, does not admit that he was responsible for the same.

As to the suggestion that Evans either wrote or inspired certain articles which appeared in the newspapers reflecting upon the police, either towards the end of last year, or at any other time, not only has not one tittle of evidence been produced before me to sustain such an allegation, but I am convinced after having examined several witnesses including Evans, that he has not at any time been guilty of such breach of confidence or improper conduct.

It is true that Evans on the 22nd April 1882, borrowed on a bill of one month, the sum of £30 from Mr. Cooke (sic) of the firm of Newton and Cooke, who have for 37 years, with the exception of one or two short periods, been contractors to the Receiver of the Metropolitan Police, and that such amount has never been repaid.

Cooke states that he did not consider his a legal debt, but a debt of honour that when he did not receive re-payment he made inquiries and found, to use his own expression “that it would be throwing good money after bad” for him to take legal steps against Evans added to which he thought that, as contractor to the Receiver, he should not have lent a clerk in the office money, and he determined to consider it a bad debt to him personally, also that when Evans filed for Bankruptcy, he did not prove [his debt], as he understood there were no effects, and he had not heard of any of the terms of the arrangement made by Evans with his creditors.

In addition, it would seem that Evans’ father and other members of his family had dealt with Messrs. Newton and Cooke long prior to Evans being connected with the Receiver’s office.

Messrs Bartholomew have also supplied a bedroom suite to Evans (about December 1886) for which they have not been paid. They instructed solicitors to proceed against Evans for the amount but then heard of the bankruptcy and, as I am informed, they have since proved [their debt] in Evans’ bankruptcy for the amount, viz: £20.

It would seem that a reduction in the price was made by Messrs Bartholomew as Bartholomew and his then salesman thought that by doing so they would get their accounts passed more quickly but this was not communicated to Evans, and no precedence has been given to the passing of their accounts in the Receiver’s Office which have been taken in their ordinary turn.

Messrs Anderson, Anderson and Anderson and Messrs Anderson and Abbott severally state that Evans has at no time been a customer of theirs. Mr Lee (Messrs Atkinson & Co) stated that Evans had dealt with their firm, that he was charged the ordinary prices, and that he had paid them for the goods supplied.

I find no evidence that Evans has ever demanded or ever suggested any money or other payment, or has received any present even of the most trifling character, from any single contractor to the Receiver of Police.

I have further examined Evans with reference to his retirement from the Secretaryship of the Throat Hospital, Golden Square, and I am quite satisfied that he voluntarily relinquished the post, and the best proof that there was nothing against his character is the fact that General Fielding, who was the chairman of that Hospital, also left at the same time and obtained for Evans a similar post to another institution.

It would appear that Evans employed a detective named Butcher to make certain inquiries for a married woman in preference to her husband. About two years afterwards Butcher called upon Evans and obtained from him a Bill at 2 or 3 months for the amount of the debt. This has never been paid, and when Butcher called upon Evans at the Receiver’s office some time ago , although Evans said he intended to repay him, Butcher told him he did not believe him. Evans states that he further told him to prove his debt in the Bankruptcy and that there is nothing to prevent his doing so now. Evans explains that this sum was inadvertently omitted from the lists of amounts due to creditors.

I further find no evidence that Evans ever repudiated the debt above referred to.

I have been informed during the inquiry that during the 24 years Evans has been in the Receiver’s Office he has ever performed all the duties of his office with zeal, ability and diligence but that there has arisen from time to time friction between the Receiver and Executive Office in consequence of Evans discovering certain mistakes in the estimates, and that this was especially the case when Harris occupied the post now held by Supt. Cutbush.

I must mention that Messrs. Wontner’s report, dated April 20th 1888, was based solely upon reports made to them by Moser, and that Moser, when examined by me, refused to disclose the name of his informant, saying that all had been told him by one person and he promised to see that person and ask him to allow his name to be mentioned. The same evening Moser sent a messenger to young Mills, the Clerk at the Receiver’s Office, to meet him at the Strand Restaurant. Mills did so, and the fact of Moser having given evidence before me was discussed. Mills admits he would not have given Moser authority to give up his name, even had he been asked, and further that Moser promised him that he (Moser) would not mention his name as having spoken about Evans, as he (Mills) supposes, referring to the debt due to Cooke, which he admits having spoken to Moser about.

The statement made by Mills was such that not the smallest credence can be placed on any uncorroborated portion of it.

Mills had complained about Evans having kept him late in the office from time to time to complete his work, and also having reported him to the Receiver, and clearly was not friendlily disposed towards Evans.

Mills was only a weekly servant to the Receiver, and was dismissed at the end of last week.

It would appear that the matter of Mr. Evans has been much discussed amongst officials connected with the Receiver’s and Executive’s Department and, in justice to him, the same publicity should be given to the fact that I have entirely exonerated him from any of the suggested allegations.

I have further examined into the question of the contractors generally, and can trace no improper conduct on the part of themselves, or of anyone connected with the Receiver’s or the Executive’s Departments of Police. Only trifling presents, such as a couple of Russian ox-tongues, value 4 shillings, a turkey, or some other small present, have been given to some subordinate officers by some of the contractors at Christmas time, or some few officials have occasionally purchased small articles at about contract prices, but these neither have nor could have in any way influenced the contracts entered into by the Receiver.

I have to report that all the persons summoned to attend before me have made a full, complete, and thorough statement on the matters enquired into by me, except that Moser and Superintendent Cutbush did not, in my opinion, give as open and candid a statement as they might have done, and further Supt. Cutbush’s manner was not, to say the least, respectful.

I annex a copy of an order which has been issued by the Receiver of Police and I, in conclusion, have to express my thanks to him for the great assistance he has rendered to me during the inquiry.

H. Curtis Bennett
July 10th 1888

[David Orsam]

Annexure

Contractors

With the view of overriding any possible suspicion of improper dealings it is to be noted that no member of the staff including those in the Surveyors’ Department and the Store Department are under any circumstances to procure articles for their own use from contractors or to have any transactions of a financial nature with any person holding a police contract and under no circumstances is any present of any sort to be received from a contractor. In case any gentleman is ever dealing with a firm and that firm hereafter obtains a police contract, he should bring the fact to the notice of the Receiver and obtain permission to continue dealing with the firm.

20 June 1888. Signed A.R. Pennefather

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

Nice work. Thank you.

"Moser . . . did not, in my opinion, give as open and candid a statement as [he] might have done."

This story keeps getting better and better.

Fancy Wontner & Sons, solicitors to the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office and the Treasury, employing Maurice Moser, of all people, to investigate possible corruption at the Receiver's Office. He had recently returned from America, where he was snapping up evidence on behalf of The Times.

Parnell Commission, Fiftieth Day [14th February 1889]—

“All payments in connection with this investigation passed through Mr. Soames’s [the Times' solicitor] hands . . . A detective named Moser received between one and two thousand pounds for his services in America.”

Regards,

Simon

[David Orsam]

Thanks Simon. I don't see a connection myself between Moser's activities on behalf of the Times in the United States and his employment by Wontners on this investigation, other than that both employers probably wanted to make use of an experienced Scotland Yard detective.

[Simon Wood]

Hi David,

No, I don't see a connection either, just a rich sense of irony.

The Pinkertons didn't mince their words about Moser's activities in America, but were generous in funding his return voyage to England.

Regards,

Simon

[Robert]

Thanks for that, David. Evans comes out of it quite well.

[jerryd]

Hi David,

Nice work. Thank you.

"Moser . . . did not, in my opinion, give as open and candid a statement as [he] might have done."

This story keeps getting better and better.

Fancy Wontner & Sons, solicitors to the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office and the Treasury, employing Maurice Moser, of all people, to investigate possible corruption at the Receiver's Office. He had recently returned from America, where he was snapping up evidence on behalf of The Times.

Parnell Commission, Fiftieth Day [14th February 1889]—

“All payments in connection with this investigation passed through Mr. Soames’s [the Times' solicitor] hands . . . A detective named Moser received between one and two thousand pounds for his services in America.”

Regards,

Simon

Hi Simon,

According to the, Boston Sunday Globe, September 11,1887, Moser was in New York on behalf of the London Times to procure letters from the Invinsibles, Tynan and Sheridan, and from Rossa and Short that would implicate Parnell and Dillon in the Phoenix Park murders and the dynamite outrages which had been perpetrated in England.

"About July 20 Walters told Jackson that he had succeeded in locating Tynan, or "Number 1", at 17 Silver Place, Washington Heights, and that he knew him well, as he had shadowed him after the Phoenix Park murders through London to Paris and over the European Continent. He desired Jackson to meet Tynan and have a talk with him about the letters in his possession, and to ascertain for what sum of money he would part with them."

"Jackson was to carefully conceal the purpose for which the letters were to be used, and to tell Tynan that he represented a confidential agent of Mr. Parnell, who desired to get in his possession any letter which Tynan, Sheridan, Rossa or Short might have coming from Quinn, Healy or Dillon."


Initially, Tynan agreed to $500 for the letters. To make a long story short, Moser requested wires for $1500 and $1700 from London (which were in fact wired to him in belief that was the asking price for the letters from Tynan) but only paid $1,000 to Tynan for the letters. The remainder was to be split between Moser and Jackson.

If that isn't good enough, a New York World reporter decided to shadow Walters (Moser) and Jackson after this transaction and found they were paying visits to Inspector Byrnes two or three times subsequently in his office. When questioned in regard to the visits, Inspector Byrnes declined to comment.

"The World man had learned all he wanted to know at the time. Inspector Byrnes, however, owes it to the public to explain the visits of Moser and Jackson to his office and what took place there. If it was in reference to money, the public will be interested, and if in reference to the forged letters will be still more concerned."

[David Orsam]

Evidence about Moser's visit to US

From the Times of 15 February 1889:

Joseph Soames, solicitor for the Times at the Parnell Commission Inquiry being questioned by the Attorney General (for the Times):

Q. In the summer of 1887 did you send Mr Moser to America? A. I did.

Q. Was that with reference to certain documents you believed to be in existence? A. It was, that I knew to be in existence.

Q. Did Mr Moser send over to you certain papers? – A. Subsequently.

Q. Before they arrived did he send to you a communication? He sent originally two. I think his communication came subsequently.

Q. Did he send a communication with reference to the documents before you had replied to him? No, I replied to him by cable.

Later (under cross-x by Sir Charles Russell) he says Moser was paid a thousand pounds.

Being questioned by Sir Charles Russell (for Parnell):

Q. When you received those documents did you form any opinion about them? A. I knew they were fraudulent.

Q Did Moser also make the same communication to you as to their being fraudulent? A He obtained the documents in two batches. Two first, more subsequently. He sent me a cablegram directly to tell me they were fraudulent.

QYou formed your own opinion on the view of them that they were fraudulent A. I did.

Q. Did you ever make use of them? A. Never.

[Mayerling]

Various reasons Jeff.

1. He lost £900 in trust money that he had placed with a stockbroker in 1883 when the stockbroker went under.

Interesting about that large failure in 1883. Except that you said it was a stockbroker firm, it sounds like something I heard connected to someone else about that time. But I may be wrong.

Sir Arthur Sullivan lost most of his savings in a bank collapse in 1882 I believe - it was about the time he and Gilbert put on their latest collaboration, "Iolanthe". The firm involved was "Cooper, Hall, and Co." "Iolanthe's success helped restore Sullivan's financial situation.

Of course bank and stockbrokerage failures were (and somewhat still are) frequent (think back to 2008 in the U.S.), so there may be no connection at all, but I wonder if there was.

Jeff

[Simon Wood]

Thanks, Jerry,

The Press [New York], 8th February 1889—

“William A. Pinkerton most emphatically denies that his agency had ever been in the employ of the London Times on the Parnell case. During July 1887, he said, Maurice Moser, a Scotland Yard detective, called on Robert Pinkerton in New York, saying he was in search of evidence that would implicate Parnell and others in the Phoenix Park murders . . . He solicited the help of the agency, and Robert Pinkerton told Moser the agency would not undertake such work.

“Moser then came to Chicago, called on William Pinkerton and made some proposals, which were again refused . . . He then returned to New York and fell in with one Roberts, an alleged detective who bled him out of considerable money . . . Roberts then sold his story to a New York newspaper, which exposed Moser thoroughly. Moser was given $50 by Pinkerton to return home, having been completely ruined.”

Regards,

Simon

[jerryd]

Thanks, Jerry,

The Press [New York], 8th February 1889—

“William A. Pinkerton most emphatically denies that his agency had ever been in the employ of the London Times on the Parnell case. During July 1887, he said, Maurice Moser, a Scotland Yard detective, called on Robert Pinkerton in New York, saying he was in search of evidence that would implicate Parnell and others in the Phoenix Park murders . . . He solicited the help of the agency, and Robert Pinkerton told Moser the agency would not undertake such work.

“Moser then came to Chicago, called on William Pinkerton and made some proposals, which were again refused . . . He then returned to New York and fell in with one Roberts, an alleged detective who bled him out of considerable money . . . Roberts then sold his story to a New York newspaper, which exposed Moser thoroughly. Moser was given $50 by Pinkerton to return home, having been completely ruined.”

Regards,

Simon

Thank you, Simon,

I know Jackson was a fictitious name made up by the World reporter. Must have been this Roberts guy, you mention.

Any chance H.L. Walters (Moser) returned to England and became Charles Legrand's sidekick known as, J.H. Batchelor? Legrand claimed to have known/worked for Soames and we know Moser actually did work for Soames.