Quote
Sarah Rose Westwood, alias Edith Harcourt Vernon, pleaded “not guilty” to a charge of obtaining by false pretences some articles of ladies’ dress, the property of Mr. Rapson, draper, of High Street, Margate. Mr. Bridge appeared for the prosecution; the prisoner was undefended, having written to several solicitors, but being unable to get any of them to undertake her case. From the evidence it appeared that the goods in question were obtained under the representation of the prisoner that she wanted some articles of dress, her luggage having been detained on the railway, and that her name was Harcourt Vernon, and that she was of the same family as Mrs. Vernon Harcourt, of Dover. On the strength of this representation the assistant of Mr. Rapson parted with the goods prisoner was charged with stealing. Evidence was given by Mr. W. Sanders, deputy governor of Lewes county prison, and Mr. W. Glenister, the superintendent of the Hastings police force, that the prisoner had gone by the name of Sarah Rose Westwood. Mr. Glenister had also known her by the name of Edith Vernon. That was early in 1863, and in April of the same year he found her again passing as Sarah Rose Westwood. The prisoner denied that she told Mr. Rapson’s assistant that she belonged to the same family as Miss Vernon Harcourt, of Dover, or that she said her name was Harcourt. What she said was that her name was Harcourt Vernon. The jury found the prisoner “guilty.” There was another charge against the prisoner, but it was not sustained. Sentence was postponed till the next Sessions. It transpired that the prisoner had been several times convicted for felony and other offences, and imprisoned in the Lewes county prison, from which she was discharged only in July last. The prisoner said she was really the daughter of a clergyman, and was respectably connected, and this, it seemed from the evidence of the Superintendent of Police at Hastings, appeared to be true.—Sentence was postponed in order that enquiries might be made as to the truth of the account she might give of herself.
— Kentish Gazette, Tuesday 11 October 1864 source
Quote
THE “LADY SWINDLER.”
Edith Harcourt Vernon, alias Sarah Westwood, or Sarah Rose Westwood (24), spinster, pleaded not guilty to an indictment for misdemeanour, in having obtained by false pretences, &c., articles of ladies’ dress, amounting in value to £3 7s.
Mr. Bridge was for the prosecution. The prisoner was undefended; but she stated that she was desirous of having counsel to defend her, and she had written to several solicitors, who, however, had all refused to take her case in hand.
Mary Ann Amos, an assistant in the linen department of the shop of Mr. Rapson, of High Street, Margate, said that on the 30th August the prisoner entered the shop and selected a night dress, an under jacket, and a bonnet, saying that her luggage had not arrived by train. She asked her name, and the prisoner replied “Miss Harcourt Vernon.” She was going to put it down as “Vernon Harcourt,” when the prisoner stopped her. She said she knew there was a family by that name in Dover; and prisoner replied she was of the same family. The articles selected were sent to No. 7, Cecil Square, where the prisoner said she lodged; but the dress and bonnet were returned, the former to be washed and the latter to be altered. This having been done, the articles were again sent to her, and she kept them, calling in afterwards, saying they would do, and having some more goods. The prisoner also said she wanted a jacket for her maid, but she was too much fatigued to look at any then. It was in consequence of the prisoner saying that she was connected with the Harcourt family at Dover that she let her have the goods without paying for them at the time.
George Epps, an errand boy, proved the delivery of the goods at the prisoner’s lodgings.
William Glenister, superintendent of the Hastings police, said he knew the prisoner at the bar in 1859 in the name of Sarah Rose Westwood. He saw her again on the 3rd Feb., 1863, when she gave the name of Edith Vernon. On the 19th of April of the same year she gave the name of Rose Westwood.
Mr. Bridge called
Mr. Edward Knocker, a solicitor, residing at Dover, who produced a medical certificate that Miss Vernon Harcourt was too ill to attend the Court to-day. He acted as solicitor to Miss Vernon Harcourt, and he was acquainted with several other members of the Harcourt family. In his belief the prisoner at the bar was no relation to that family.
Prisoner, in her defence, admitted that she went into the shop of Mr. Rapson and selected the articles, and gave her name and address; but she denied ever having said that she belonged to the Harcourt family at Dover. It was true she told the shopwoman her father was a clergyman; and so he was. When the things were sent to her she was in a position to pay for them, and so she was now. She wished to have a solicitor to consult upon her case, but she had not the means of getting one.
In reply to the Recorder, the Governor of the Gaol said the prisoner had had abundant opportunity of writing to her friends or to a solicitor during the six weeks she had been in custody; but the fact was no solicitor would undertake her case.
The Recorder pointed out that the only material part in the case by which this charge might be substantiated against the prisoner was her representing herself as being one of a certain family at Dover, and it was upon whether this was true or untrue that the verdict of the Jury must depend.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty.
Prisoner was then formally indicted with having feloniously stolen a lady’s leather bag, value 10s. 6d., the property of Isaac De Bock Kennard, at Margate, on the 26th August.
Mr. Bridge, who again prosecuted, said the prisoner appeared to have gone into the prosecutor’s shop on the day in question, and wanted to hire a pianoforte. She asked for a fancy leather bag, which was shewn her, and it was ordered to be taken to her lodgings. The prisoner when in the shop said she was quite a lady, of the celebrated family of Harcourt Vernon of Plymouth, and was the daughter of a clergyman at Torquay, where she had been staying, but as the place was too hot for her, she came by the advice of Dr. Watt, of London, to Margate; adding that she was only 24 years of age, but had lost nine brothers and sisters in six months. In consequence of this statement the bag was sent to the prisoner’s lodgings, and although the errand boy was told not to leave it without the money, the prisoner appeared to have prevailed on him to leave it contrary to his orders, and it was found in pawn a day or two afterwards. The simple circumstances of this case were very little different from the last; but if the Jury believed that false representation had been made in this instance, the prisoner would be equally guilty of the greater offence of larceny, arising out of some technicality in law which it was not so much the province of the Jury as the Recorder to consider. The whole case rested in this, Did the prisoner obtain this article under a false representation, or did she not.
The Recorder inquired if anyone was present from Plymouth to prove that the prisoner’s representation about her family connection there was false.
Mr. Bridge replied in the negative.
The Recorder thought there would therefore be some difficulty in making out a false pretence.
Mr. Bridge acquiesced, and decided not to proceed with this charge.
The Recorder observed these distinctions were very fine; but it seemed to him that if a person goes into a shop and chooses to say her name is Miss Harcourt Vernon, tradespeople if they take it for granted that she is a respectable person and trust her, must take the consequences. But when she did, as in the last case, that which was calculated to throw them off their guard by saying she was connected with a certain family at Dover, then that brought her within the pale of this Act of Parliament. He did not think enough had been shewn to bring the charge of false pretences home to the prisoner in the second case; and therefore it would be the duty of the Jury to return a verdict of not guilty.
The Jury accordingly acquitted the prisoner upon the second indictment.
The Recorder inquired of the prisoner whether she was in a condition to give the Court an opportunity of inquiring who she really was, because there were some circumstances which tended to show that she had been practising this kind of swindling for a number of years?
Prisoner replied she could tell the Court who she was; but she had not been practising this as stated.
Mr. Saunders, deputy governor of Lewes gaol, swore that on the 24th November, 1859, the prisoner was convicted at Hastings for stealing a pocket handkerchief and pair of scissors, the property of Ann Edgar; on the 26th Feb. 1863, she was sent to prison for a month under the Vagrancy Act, she having obtained goods under false pretences of tradesmen in a similar manner to the present instances; and on the 8th July, 1863, she was again committed for stealing a flannel waistcoat; in fact, she had only been out of Lewes prison since the 7th July, 1864.
Superintendent Glenister, of the Hastings police, said when the prisoner was convicted in Feb., 1863, it was proved she had taken apartments at a large lodging-house in St. Leonards, and she was given into custody for stealing a post letter containing a £5 note, but as that charge failed, she was committed for vagrancy. On the 8th July of the same year, she was sent to prison for twelvemonths for stealing a flannel waistcoat from the house where she had taken lodgings. He believed the prisoner was the daughter of a clergyman, deceased, and was of a respectable family in Shrewsbury. She had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum; and she had been convicted as far back as 1857.
The prisoner, who had up to this moment maintained composure, here burst into a fit of crying.
The Recorder inquired how long it was since she was in a lunatic asylum.
Supt. Glenister replied that was in 1859, when she was discharged on trial, she then assuming the name of Westwood.
The Recorder asked the prisoner what was her real name.
Prisoner answered Vernon.
The Recorder said he should abstain from passing sentence until the next Sessions; and what would then be done would depend much upon the result of the inquiries which might be made. He should, therefore, recommend the prisoner to tell the truth as to her real position.
— Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 15 October 1864 source
Quote
Sarah Rosa Westwood, alias Sophia Edith Harcourt Vernon (24) spinster, convicted at the last sessions of misdemeanour in obtaining goods by false pretences at Margate, was brought up for judgment.
The Recorder said that although the charge was clearly made out at the last sessions, there were some circumstances in the case which he thought required further investigation; therefore, he postponed passing sentence. He had since had rather a long correspondence with some persons acquainted with the prisoner’s previous character, and, upon the whole, without enlarging upon the circumstances, it was evident that she was the object of compassion. For it appeared that she had been in a state of destitution whenever she had committed these offences, and he also learned that she had been an inmate of a lunatic asylum. These circumstances combined might have induced her to the commission of the offences. He, therefore, did not think it necessary to prolong her imprisonment; and he only hoped she would at once proceed to Shrewsbury, and apply to the person who had in his hands some money with which he might assist her, as, from the tenor of his letters to him, he thought she would find him disposed to act liberally with her. The learned judge then enquired if the prisoner had any means of travelling?
Prisoner replied in the negative.
The Governor of the Gaol said he had been empowered to advance £1 to the prisoner.
The Recorder said the prisoner would not be actually discharged; but she must enter into her own recognizances in the sum of £20 to come up for judgment when called upon. If she conducted herself properly, she would hear no more of this charge.
The prisoner was then discharged.
— Dover Telegraph and Cinque Ports General Advertiser, Saturday 31 December 1864 source
| First name(s) | Sarah Rosa Or Sophia Edith |
|---|---|
| Last name | Westwood |
| Year | 1864 |
| Session date | 10 Oct 1864 |
| Court | Dovor |
| Archive | The National Archives |
| Source | Home Office: Criminal Registers, England And Wales, 1805-1892 |
| Series | HO 27 |
| Documents | Records created or inherited by the Home Office, Ministry of Home Security, and related bodies |
| Piece | 137 |
| Piece scope | Beds. - Kent. |
| Record set | England & Wales, Crime, Prisons & Punishment, 1770-1935 |
| Category | Institutions & organisations |
| Subcategory | Prison Registers |
| Collections from | England, Great Britain, Wales |
| Archive reference | HO 27/137 |
