Quote
Cheltenham Police Report
TUESDAY. — Magistrates present: T. Pilkington, R. Bamford, C. J. Barnett, C. L. Harford, C. W. Lovesey, E. J. B. Marriott, H. W. Newman, and W. N. Skillicorne, Esqrs.
A FEMALE SWINDLER.—Mary Westwood, a person of respectable appearance, aged 25, was charged with unlawfully pawning a gold watch, the property of Mr. John D. Vent, jeweller, of 305, High-street.
Mr. C. H. Williams appeared for the prosecution.
Prosecutor deposed that, on the previous Friday afternoon, the prisoner came to his shop to look at a ring and a watch. She asked if he would send them to 16, St. George’s-parade, at six o’clock. Witness said he would bring them down himself, and prisoner then left. Witness went to St. George’s-parade at the time appointed. He saw the prisoner, who, after going out of the room several times, said “a friend” to whom she had been shewing the articles, liked the cheapest watch best. Its price was five guineas. She also said her friend would have the ring, but it was not quite large enough. Witness said he could make the ring the right size if it was too small. Prisoner then asked if he would leave the watch with her a few hours to see whether it would go properly. Witness said he would get the ring done by the following morning, and she could try the watch in the meantime. Next day, at one o’clock, witness went to the house with the ring, which prisoner said would do. She also said the watch would do, and she would keep it. She then asked for the bill, which witness handed to her—five guineas being the charge for the watch, and 15s. for the ring. Prisoner said she was coming out directly, and would call and pay. Witness then left the house, but, as the prisoner did not call as promised, he waited on her again, when the prisoner said she would call on him in half an hour with the money. She, however, did not fulfil her promise, and witness called on her a third time, and stated he should decline to leave the place without the money or the articles. The prisoner said a friend of hers had the watch, and she would go and fetch it. She then left the house and did not return. On Monday morning, witness visited the various pawnbrokers’ shops in the town, and at Mr. Isaac’s, in Winecomb-street, he found the watch, which had been pledged by the prisoner almost immediately after it was left with her on the Friday evening.
Mr. Andrew Michael Isaac proved that the watch produced was pledged at his shop on the previous Friday evening, by the prisoner, for £2. 0s. She gave the name of “Mary Stevens.”
This was the case for the prosecution.
The magistrates ordered the prisoner to pay a fine of £5. for illegal pawning, in addition to £5. the value of the watch; in default to be committed to Gloucester gaol for three months.
— Cheltenham Journal and Gloucestershire Fashionable Weekly Gazette, Saturday 23 May 1857 source
Quote
A LADY SWINDLER.
—On Tuesday Mary Westwood, 25, a person of respectable appearance, lodging at 16 St. George’s-parade, was charged before the magistrates with unlawfully pawning a gold watch.
—Mr. John D. Vent, jeweller, deposed: On Friday afternoon last the prisoner came to my shop to look at a ring and a watch. She asked me if I would send them down to No. 16 St. George’s-parade, at six o’clock. I said I would bring them down, and she left. I took them there at the time appointed. I saw the prisoner. She then said she wanted the ring for a friend of her’s, and asked me to let her go out and show it to her. She went out of the room several times. When she returned she said her friend liked the cheapest watch best. Its price was five guineas. She said also that her friend would have the ring, but it was not quite large enough. I then told her I would make the ring the right size, if it was too small. I took the ring with me to alter it. She then asked me if I would leave the watch with her for a few hours to see if it would go properly. I told her I would get the ring done by the following morning, and she could try the watch in the meantime. On the following morning, at one o’clock, I saw her again, taking the ring with me. I gave her the ring, which she said would do. She asked me for the bill, saying the watch would do, and she would keep it. I handed her the bill—five guineas for the watch, and 15s. for the ring. She did not give me the money, but said she was coming out directly, and would call and pay me. I then left. Finding she did not come, between five and six o’clock I went down again to see her. She then promised to call in half an hour and give me the money. She, however, did not call. I went again to her, and said as she had broken her promise in the morning I should not go away till I had the money or the watch. She said her friend had the watch, and she went out under the pretence of fetching it. I waited there for three hours, but she did not return. On Monday morning I visited the pawnbrokers, and going to Mr. Isaac’s I found that she had pledged the watch on Friday evening, almost immediately after it had been left with her.
—Mr. Isaac, pawnbroker, Winchcomb-street, deposed: The prisoner was in my shop on Friday evening, between the hours of six and seven. She produced a watch, and asked for the loan of 2l. 10s., which was given to her. She gave the name of Mary Stevens.
—Mr. James Barker, 16 St. George’s-parade, butler and lodging-house keeper, deposed: The prisoner engaged lodgings at my house on Monday week. She had no one else staying with her. I was at the house on Saturday when Mr. Vent called. She hadn’t any one with her. Fined 5l., with the value of the watch, 5l. 5s.; in default, three months’ imprisonment.
— Gloucestershire Chronicle, Saturday 23 May 1857 source
Quote
A Lady Swindler.
Yesterday morning, at our police court, a female of respectable appearance, named Mary Westwood, and described on the charge sheet as lodging at No. 16, St. George’s Parade, was placed in the dock on a charge of illegally pawning a gold watch, the property of Mr. J. D. Vent, jeweller. The particulars of the case will be learnt from the report in our police intelligence, with the punishment inflicted on the prisoner; but the “doings” of this “lady” are not confined simply to the case prosecuted by Mr. Vent, since a few others in the town have been made the dupes of her well-planned schemes of swindling. That she is a practised cheat there seems to be little or no doubt; her present detention, therefore, may be deemed a fortunate circumstance. Previous to entering upon lodgings in St. George’s Parade, the prisoner occupied apartments at the Belle Vue Hotel, where she remained three weeks, paying, it must be remarked, for everything she had, and leaving her rooms with no debt upon her. Nevertheless, there are suspicious circumstances attached to this very honourable conduct, the next incident in her career being altogether so very dissimilar, dishonourable, and dishonest to the former. At the Belle Vue she paid for everything; in St. George’s Parade, nothing, either for lodgings or keep during a week. In addition to Mr. Vent’s valuables, the prisoner was desirous of forming an acquaintance with some equally attractive objects in the shop of Mr. T. Waite, jeweller, High-street, but, as we hear, she did not succeed. The most to be regretted of her swindling transactions in the town, however, is that practiced on Miss Robinson, a young person who has only very recently commenced business at a children’s drapery and hosiery establishment, in Cambray, and of whom she succeeded in getting the sum of £3 as a loan, at the same time giving an order for a quantity of ready-made linen. Fortunately, the order was not attended to; the three sovereigns are, of course, lost to the lender, no trifling amount to one who is just making a start in a hazardous enterprise. Mr. Newbold, stationer, High-street, is another of the victims this “lady’s” patronage, and has been mulcted in the sum of £1 and a number of books. Others, no doubt, there are, but at present the above are all we have heard of. The prisoner belongs to Shrewsbury, and has in her possession a number of papers and deeds relating to property. Of their particular nature we are not aware, neither will our readers be anxious to hear. It is enough — at least for public protection during the next three months — to know that the prisoner has exchanged her apartments at the Belle Vue, and 16, St. George’s Parade, for a single room at the County Prison, where, it is to be hoped, she may learn a salutary and repentant lesson.
— Cheltenham Examiner, Wednesday 20 May 1857 source
Quote
FASHIONABLE SWINDLING.
Mary Westwood, aged 25, was charged with unlawfully pawning a gold watch, the property of Mr John D. Vent, jeweller.
It appeared from the evidence, that the prisoner requested the watch and a gold ring to be sent to her lodgings, 16, St George’s parade, on Friday last, which request was complied with. Mr Vent took the articles himself, and she further requested that the ring might be altered, and the watch left on approval until the following day, to which proposal no objection was offered. In the meantime she took the opportunity of pawning the watch for £2 10s., within a quarter of an hour of receiving it. The prisoner, in the first instance, had taken lodgings at the Belle Vue Hotel, where she was most punctual in her payments, and produced a favourable impression upon Mrs Thomas; she then made use of her name to obtain goods from various tradesmen, who appeared in court, and, in some instances, under various pretexts, she succeeded in borrowing sums varying from £1 to £6 from traders, by showing cheques which she said she had been too late to get cashed. As soon as the real character of the prisoner was made apparent to Mrs Thomas, she insisted upon her quitting the house.
Only one charge against her was now gone into, for which she was ordered to pay a fine of £5, in addition to £5 the value of the watch, and in default of payment was committed to Gloucester for three months with hard labour.
— Cheltenham Mercury, Saturday 23 May 1857 source