Quote
CHARGE OF OBTAINING ALE BY FALSE PRETENCES.
—At the Borough Police Court, on Tuesday, Sarah Westwood, a young woman of respectable appearance, was charged with obtaining twelve bottles of ale from Mr. Rayner, of Palmerston-road, by means of false pretences. Mr. Inspector German stated that Detective Poole, who had charge of the case, was in London on important business, and as some additional evidence was to be obtained, he applied that the prisoner might be remanded till Saturday. The prisoner was remanded accordingly.
— West Sussex Gazette, Thursday 20 September 1866 source
Quote
A FEMALE SWINDLER AT SOUTHSEA.
—At this time of the year the lodging-house keepers at Southsea are always glad to have plenty of visitors, but on Saturday last one who did not prove a very profitable one made her appearance, and proceeded to the house of Mrs. Tutton, of No. 5, Dover-terrace, of whom she took a drawing and bed-room, promising to pay her £2 2s. a week, and after a fortnight she was to have the whole house at £3 3s. a week. She gave the name of Miss Douglas, and had no luggage, assigning as a reason for this that her maid had gone back to Brighton, from which place she had come, to get her umbrella and waterproof cloak, and as she had the ticket for the luggage, which had been left in the cloak-room, “my lady” said she was therefore unable to get it. On being asked on the following day why her maid did not return, she said she did not wish her to travel on a Sunday, as her “pa” was a clergyman at Shrewsbury and had two curates. The maid, however, did not arrive on Monday, and she then said she had telegraphed to her not to come till Thursday on which day she said she should want Mrs. Tutton to go to Brighton with her, and bring back her brother’s baby which was eleven months old. On Saturday she went to Mr. J. Rayner’s, wine and spirit merchant, of Palmerston-road, and ordered a bottle of port wine, six bottles of strong ale for an invalid lady, and six bottles of ale not so strong for the maid, giving the name of Douglas. She also ordered a lot of groceries at Mr. Woodward’s, and of Messrs. Mills and Son she ordered some note paper, and told them to send the Standard every day. Before going to bed on Saturday evening she asked Mrs. Tutton to lend her a Bible, as “being a clergyman’s daughter she did not like going to bed without reading the Bible.” When she had been so accommodated she told Mrs. Tutton that a Sir Frederick somebody (Mrs. Tutton does not remember the name) who was the son of a Lady somebody was coming home to marry her, and he was going to settle £1000 a year on her for “pin money.” Sir Frederick’s father was dead, and he was coming home to inherit the estate, which was situated in Scotland, and worth £30,000 a year. On the same evening she gave Mrs. Tutton a letter, directed to an esquire at Shrewsbury, telling her it was for her father to write to Manchester for 1000 yards of brown coburg for the poor to cut up to make dresses with for the winter. On Monday “my lady” was for “coming the grand,” and hired a cab, and having persuaded Mrs. Tutton to accompany her, as she was going “shopping,” she proceeded to Mr. Cruse’s, chemist, in Palmerston-road. Having obtained various articles such as tooth brushes, pomade, and having directed him to make up some prescriptions she had received from Mr. Gould, surgeon, she then proceeded to Messrs. Wink and Co.’s in Queen-street, where she amused herself by ordering a baby’s velvet hat, value 28s., a French merino pelice, value 30s., and several other expensive articles, some of which she said she was going to present to Mrs. Tutton’s baby to wear to Brighton. She then went to Messrs. Taplin and Co.’s, and ordered some mourning for herself, stating she was going in mourning for Sir Frederick’s father, and she was about to order some for the maid, but Mrs. Tutton advised her to wait till the maid came, and let her order it herself. They arrived home after driving about for five hours, and “my lady” then told Mrs. Tutton to go and open the door while she “settled” with the cabman, and after the cabman had gone she remarked to Mrs. Tutton’s father what a cheap ride it was, as she had only paid 5s. 6d. It however appeared that poor “cabby” was swindled, for instead of “settling” with him she told him to come at half-past ten the next morning as she should want him to go to the station, and she would “settle” with him then, but when “cabby” came for her she was already in safe custody at the station. On Monday evening she told Mrs. Tutton that she had a gold watch amongst her luggage which Sir Frederick had given her when she was four years old, and that she remembered burying it in the ground thinking that some young watches would grow, the same as young potatoes. She asked Mrs. Tutton which was the best place to buy a piano, and said she should get a new crumb cloth to put over the drawing-room carpet before Sir Frederick came home. She told Mrs. Tutton she had given Mr. Gould a cheque for £17, and asked her where there was a bank so that she could transfer her money from Shrewsbury. She said if Mr. Gould sent the change over, she would pay Mrs. Tutton a fortnight’s rent in advance. Of course she had not given Mr. Goold any cheque, and on that gentleman speaking to Mr. Norman, his partner, about her, the latter gentleman recollected a woman of a similar description, but going by the name of Sarah Westwood, having swindled him about three years ago. She had then been lodging at Mrs. Davis’s, in Peel-street, and Mr. Norman having communicated with Mrs. Davis, they repaired to the house of Mrs. Tutton’s father, and Mrs. Tutton having been sent for it was arranged that she should sit in the drawing with “my lady” and leave the door open, and that Mrs. Davis should go upstairs and see if it was the same person who had swindled her. Mrs. Davis discovered that it was, and she then went to Mr. Mason, draper, of Wish-street, who had let her have some goods, for which of course he never got the money, the last time she “honoured” this town with a visit. We may here state that when Mrs. Davis went upstairs “my lady” was very much frightened, and asked who it was, at the same time burning a number of letters of some sort. Mrs. Tutton pacified her by telling her that it was only one of the ladies going to bed. During Mrs. Davis’s absence she went to bed, and on Mrs. Tutton going out directly afterwards, she noticed that the candle was out, so that “my lady,” evidently suspecting that all was not right, had not gone to bed, or at any rate had not undressed herself. Mr. Mason returned to Mrs. Tutton’s with Mrs. Davis, and he remained there while the latter went for P.S. Poole. On the arrival of Poole—about 12 o’clock—it was found that she had locked herself in her bed-room, and she afterwards made a nearly successful attempt to escape, for she had reached the front door before she was secured. Poole then took her into custody, and a cab having been obtained, she was conveyed to the Portsmouth police-station. She had not a farthing about her, but a letter headed “Shrewsbury gaol” was found in her possession. She was brought up at the police-court on the following day, and remanded until this day (Saturday). It is believed that she was convicted for a similar offence at Worthing about twelve months ago.
— Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette, Saturday 22 September 1866 source
Quote
ALLEGED SWINDLING AT SOUTHSEA.
—At the borough police-court on Saturday a respectably-dressed woman, named Sarah Westwood, was brought up on remand before R. W. Ford, Esq., and Captain McCoy, charged with obtaining twelve bottles of ale from Mr. Rayner, wine and spirit merchant, by false pretences.
—Mr. Wallis appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Cousins for the prisoner.
—Mr. Wallis said he was instructed by several tradesmen to prefer various charges against the prisoner, but he was not now prepared to go on with them. The prisoner was taken into custody on Monday, and remanded on Tuesday, but it was not until Friday that Sergeant Poole received information which would render it necessary that he should call witnesses to prove by what name the prisoner had previously been known.
—Sergeant Poole was put into the box, and he stated that he should be able to prove that the prisoner had undergone a term of imprisonment at Lewes gaol in the name of Westwood.
—Mr. Ford wished to know if Mr. Wallis were prepared to go into any part of the case?
—Mr. Wallis said he had several witnesses present, but inasmuch as a most important point in the case was the real name of the prisoner, and he could only prove this by calling a witness from the gaol at Lewes, he was compelled to apply for a remand.
—Mr. Cousins objected to the application, on the ground that the name of the prisoner was at the present time well-known, and that as the prisoner had already been remanded from Tuesday such an application ought only to be granted on the strongest possible ground.
—The magistrates decided on hearing the evidence which Mr. Wallis was now prepared to offer, and then to decide on the application for a remand.
—It appeared that the prosecutor is a wine and spirit merchant carrying on business in Palmerston-road, Southsea. On Monday last the prisoner entered his shop and gave an order to Mrs. Rayner for some strong Burton ale for an invalid lady. She also asked for some mild Burton ale for a maid, and gave an order for half-a-dozen of each. Mrs. Rayner wished to know where they were to be sent, and the prisoner said to “No. 5, Dover-terrace, for Miss Douglas.” Had the prisoner given the name of Westwood, Mrs. Rayner said she should certainly not have parted with the goods, for she knew the name, and it was on the faith of the statement that they were for Miss Douglas that the goods were parted with.
—In cross-examination, Mrs. Rayner said she should have trusted any person except one by the name of Westwood, (for that was well-known), or any other who had got into her debt and run away.
—In re-examination, Mrs. Rayner said she should not certainly have supplied the goods to a person who had been publicly convicted or who had the appearance of a beggar, &c. Dover-terrace was a respectable neighbourhood. The reason why she would not have trusted a person named Westwood was because she had heard that a person named Westwood had been previously convicted.
—Ellen Trotton, of 5, Dover-terrace, stated that between six and seven o’clock on Saturday evening the prisoner called and asked what apartments witness had to let, and the price. Witness asked 2l. 2s. for a sitting room and two bedrooms, which the prisoner thought very reasonable, and took them for a week. She stated that her maid would be here on Monday, and that the reason she had no luggage was because she had lost her waterproof cloak and two umbrellas strapped together. She gave the name of Miss Douglas, and stated that her father lived at Shrewsbury. A Mrs. Brown, of Winchester, was in the house, but there was no invalid lady there. The prisoner did state she was under Mr. Gould. The bottles of beer came from Mr. Rayner’s, and the prisoner made use of the strong herself, leaving the mild for the maid. The maid, however, had not yet arrived. On Monday evening, after Mr. Gould called, witness went round in a cab to several tradesmen’s shops with the prisoner. After they came back, Mr. Mason called, and asked the prisoner if she did not go by the name of Westbrook. She said “No,” at first. Mr. Mason said, “I know you of old, because you have been to my shop and got a dress worth 3l. 3s., and never paid for it, and I’ve followed you in this town three hours before.” The prisoner said, “I don’t choose to answer such an impertinent person as you are.”
Mr. Mason asked her to pay witness, as she was a poor woman with a large family. The prisoner said she would pay on the following morning, and a week in advance. In half-an-hour Sergeant Poole called, Mr. Mason being still there. He (Sergeant Poole) pulled her full up, and said, “Miss Westbrook.”
—In cross-examination the witness said the prisoner appeared as if she were in a delicate state of health.
—Mr. George Mason, draper, of Wish-street, said he went to the house of Mrs. Trotton on Monday night, and saw the prisoner there. He said, “You know me, Miss Westwood.” She said, “I never saw you before. My name is not Westwood.” He said he had seen her before under the name of Westwood. She said, “I will take my oath I never have seen you. I never was in the town before. I once passed through it.” He said, “It is false.” She then said she would not say anything more to so impertinent a man. Witness had known her in this town as Westwood — on the 8th of November, 1862. She was then here three weeks.
— Sergeant Poole stated that on Monday night he went to the house of Mrs. Trotton, and saw the prisoner. He asked her to turn her pockets out, which she did. He found no money or valuables on her, but a child’s toy was in a sock, which rattled as if it were money. He charged her with obtaining goods by false pretences, to which she replied, “I have committed no offence here.” Two sheets of paper were found on her, and on one of these was “Miss Anderson, County Gaol, Lewes, Sussex.”
—This being the whole of the evidence to be offered at the present time, Mr. Wallis again formally applied for a remand.
—Mr. Cousins contended that as Mr. Mason had sworn that he knew the prisoner as Westwood, — and he (Mr. Cousins) did not deny that that was her name, — the production of a witness from Lewes to prove such a fact was not sufficient ground for a remand under such circumstances. The prisoner had a perfect right to change her name if she chose, as Mr. Joshua Bugg had done. As to the other charges, it was admitted that this was the principal case, and that the prosecution was not now prepared to go on with the others. He (Mr. Cousins) had a satisfactory answer to the case, and he contended that the magistrates ought to dispose of it forthwith.
—Mr. Ford asked if more charges were to be preferred?
—Mr. Wallis said he was instructed that there were other cases into which it would be necessary to enquire, but he could not distinctly say what form those charges would assume.
—After a most patient investigation, extending over several hours, Mr. Ford said the magistrates were of opinion that the ends of justice would be best met by remanding the prisoner.
—She was accordingly remanded until Thursday.
— Hampshire Telegraph, Wednesday 26 September 1866 source
Quote
THE NOTORIOUS MISS WESTWOOD.
On Thursday week the notorious Sarah Westwood, so well-known in Sussex, was charged on remand before the Portsmouth magistrates with obtaining by false pretences twelve bottles of beer, from Mr. Rayner, wine merchant.
—The evidence previously taken having been read, Mr. John Sanders, recently Governor of the Sussex County Prison, at Lewes, was called. He said he knew the prisoner well. She had been four times in his custody under different names. In November, 1859, she was in custody in the name of Sarah Rose Edith Westwood. In February, 1863, she was there again in the name of Edith Vernon. On the 8th of July, 1863, she was in custody as Sarah Rose Westwood. In January, 1865, she was in custody as Sarah Rose Edith Westwood. In March, 1865, she was given into his custody for 18 months, which term expired on Saturday week.
—Mr. Henry Burford Norman, surgeon, stated that the prisoner had applied to him professionally, stating that she was the daughter of a clergyman living in Shropshire.
—Mr. Wallis argued at some length that the case came within the law relating to “cheats and frauds.” Here they had a woman discharged from Lewes Gaol on the Saturday coming to Southsea on the Monday, consulting one of the leading medical men there, and taking lodgings in a respectable neighbourhood under a false name, and thereby deceiving the tradesmen to whom she applied. That this was an offence he thought there could be no doubt, and he would leave the magistrates to determine whether the prisoner should be committed for obtaining goods under false pretences, or for larceny.
—The magistrates, after deliberating nearly an hour and an half, committed prisoner for trial. The prisoner was further charged with obtaining by false pretences a number of articles of Mr. Thomas Harris Cruse, chemist, in Southsea. The prosecutor stated that on the evening of Monday week the prisoner called at his shop, and wished to know who could attend her, for she did not wish to see Mr. Norman. She called again in the evening, and brought a prescription from Mr. Gould. She also stated that she wanted a great number of things, which were to be sent round with the medicine. She then selected a smelling-bottle, a bottle of eau de Cologne, a bottle of tooth powder and two tooth brushes, a bottle of pomade, a bottle of lavender water, a pot of cold cream, a pair of nail scissors, a bottle of powdered ginger, and she also had a bottle of medicine made up from the prescription of Mr. Gould. The prisoner said to him, “You see my name on the prescription—Miss Douglas. I have taken lodgings at No. 5, Dover-terrace, for four months.” He (the prosecutor) parted with the articles on the representation that she was Miss Douglas. Had he known that her name was Westwood, and that she had been convicted of offences, he should not have parted with the goods.
—In reply to Mr. Ford, the prosecutor said he now believed the only statement which was false was that her name was Douglas. He should have supplied the goods to any person who said she lived at 5, Dover-terrace.
—Mrs. Dutton, of 5, Dover-terrace, Southsea, proved that the prisoner took the lodgings for a week. Before she went to Mr. Cruse’s the prisoner had spoken to witness about taking the house for four months.
—This was the whole of the evidence in the second case, but the magistrates thought the circumstances were very different to those of the last, and that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant them in committing the prisoner for trial.
—The third case was for obtaining by false pretences a prescription from Mr. Horatio P. Gould, surgeon, of Southsea. The prosecution was withdrawn in this instance, prisoner being committed on one charge only.
— Eastbourne Chronicle, Saturday 06 October 1866 source
Quote
A woman named Sarah Westwood, who is said to be the daughter of a clergyman, was charged with obtaining a dozen bottles of Burton ale at Southsea, under false pretences. She had represented that her name was Douglas, whereas in truth it was Westwood, and she had on the same day been discharged from Lewes gaol. The prisoner’s counsel, however, took a technical objection to the indictment, which was quashed by the Deputy-Recorder, although the learned gentleman told the prisoner there was no doubt that she had been guilty of a moral fraud.
— Hampshire Telegraph, Wednesday 24 October 1866 source
Quote
THE NOTORIOUS MISS WESTWOOD AT LARGE AGAIN.
—Sarah Westwood, 29, was charged with unlawfully obtaining, by means of a false pretence, one dozen bottles of Burton ale, the property of John Rayner, with intent to defraud, on Sept. 17th. This case was fully reported in our columns at the time of the committal of the prisoner. No evidence was now offered, the counsel for the defence suggesting that there was no proof of the intention to defraud. Prisoner was thereupon discharged.
— West Sussex Gazette, Thursday 25 October 1866 source
Quote
ALLEGED SWINDLING AT SOUTHSEA.
Sarah Westwood, 29, was charged with obtaining by means of a false pretence, one dozen bottles of Burton ale, the property of John Rayner, with intent to defraud, on the 17th of September.
Mr. Bullen (instructed by Mr. Wallis), appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bowen (instructed by Mr. Cousins), for the prisoner.
Before the prisoner was called upon to plead, Mr. Bowen took a technical objection to the form of the indictment—that it did not charge a representation of a fact either past or present.
Mr. Bullen argued that the indictment was good.
The Deputy-Recorder remarked that he had seen from the commencement that no indictment could be drawn on the facts of this case. He was bound to quash the indictment.
Mr. Bullen asked for a case.
The Deputy-Recorder said he must decline to grant one, as he had no doubt whatever on the point.
On the application of Mr. Bowen the prisoner was discharged,
The Deputy-Recorder telling her there could be no doubt she had been guilty of a moral fraud.
— Portsmouth Times and Naval Gazette, Saturday 27 October 1866 source
| First name(s) | Sarah |
|---|---|
| Last name | Westwood |
| Year | 1866 |
| Session date | 22 Oct 1866 |
| Court | Portsmouth |
| 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 | 145 |
| Piece scope | Salop. - Yorks and Welsh counties |
| Record set | England & Wales, Crime, Prisons & Punishment, 1770-1935 |
| Category | Institutions & organisations |
| Subcategory | Prison Registers |
| Collections from | England, Great Britain, Wales |
| Archive reference | HO 27/145 |
