Quote
A LADY SWINDLER.
—On Wednesday, a person calling herself Edith Florence Howard, but who is also known as Sarah Westwood, was charged before Mr. J. J. Farquharson, jun., with obtaining, by false pretences, a quantity of drapery, of the value of 5l. or 6l., from Messrs. Lock and Marshall, with intent to defraud them of the same. The hearing of the case was strictly private, so that the evidence against the prisoner was not obtainable. Mr. Farquharson thought the evidence sufficient to send the case for trial, and the prisoner was fully committed.
— Salisbury and Winchester Journal, Saturday 25 September 1869 source
Mysterious.
Quote
BLANDFORD.
A LADY SWINDLER.
—A few of the tradesmen of this town have been victimised by a woman who represented herself as a clergyman’s daughter. She gave her name as Edith Florence Howard, but received letters at the post office in the name of Sarah Westwood. On Saturday, the 18th, she was taken in custody by the police, and on Wednesday last she was taken before Mr. J. J. Farquharson, jun., on a charge preferred against her by Messrs. Lock and Marshall, for obtaining from them by false pretences a quantity of drapery goods of the value of £6 5s 6d, with intent to defraud them of the same. The preliminary examination was conducted privately, so that the evidence could not be obtained. Mr. Farquharson appeared to be satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to send the case for trial, and the prisoner was consequently committed.
— Taunton Courier and Western Advertiser, Wednesday 06 October 1869 source
Quote
DORSET MICHAELMAS SESSIONS.
These sessions were opened at the Shire Hall, Dorchester, on Tuesday afternoon. Lord Portman presided. There was an unusually large attendance of magistrates.
WEDNESDAY.
Edith Florence Howard, was charged with obtaining a quantity of drapery goods, to the value of £6 5s 6d, from Messrs. Lock and Marshall, drapers, Blandford, with intent to defraud them of the same. Mr. Ffooks appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Collins for the defence. The hearing of the case, which excited considerable interest, occupied the court over three hours. The facts, as detailed by the various witnesses, were as follow:
—At the beginning of September, prisoner arrived in Blandford, and took up her abode at Mr. G. Kales’, Prospect House, Albert Place. A few days afterwards (on the 11th) she paid a visit to Messrs. Lock and Marshall’s shop, and, representing to Mrs. Dibben, an attendant in the shop, that she was a clergyman’s daughter, and was possessed of property in her own right, she was supplied with a quantity of drapery goods, to the amount of £6 5s 6d, which she stated she required for a young person she had engaged as lady’s maid. A few days afterwards, some suspicion being entertained as to the truth of prisoner’s story, the police were communicated with and the prisoner was apprehended; when it was found that her proper name was Sarah Westwood, and that her father, who was not alive, had been a farmer, living at Brierly, Shropshire. When about four years old, she was taken by an uncle and adopted; her uncle was a clergyman, but had been dead for 32 years. Mr. Collins, for the defence, contended there was no attempt whatever at fraud by his client, and urged that, if prisoner had been granted time, she would have paid for the goods, as was her intention; and he denounced the treatment the prisoner had received as a gross piece of injustice and hardship. The jury returned a verdict of “Guilty.” The learned Chairman, before sentencing the accused, said that there were good grounds for believing that prisoner had been carrying on these practices in different parts of the country; and intimated that, if these had been proved in evidence she would have gone into penal servitude. A sentence of twelve months’ imprisonment was passed.
— Wiltshire County Mirror, Wednesday 27 October 1869 source
This is the true one. I’ve been looking for this for weeks. All the other stories make sense when viewed through this lens. She was adopted by her uncle at age four. That’s why sometimes her father is a clergyman, and sometimes her uncle. And it’s why her “aunt” settled property on her: she was her de facto mother.
But it gets better. The reason the court knows this is that they deposed her sister.
Quote
THURSDAY.
(Before J. FLOYER, Esq., deputy-chairman)
SWINDLING AT BLANDFORD.
A woman of very ordinary appearance, assuming the aristocratic name of EDITH FLORENCE HOWARD, aged 26, was charged with obtaining by false pretences from Messrs. Lock and Marshall, drapers, articles of clothing to the value of upwards of £5, with intent to defraud, on September 11th. Mr. W. Ffooks prosecuted, and Mr. Collins defended. Prisoner asked to be allowed to sit, and was given a chair.
In opening the case, Mr. Ffooks said that prisoner went to the shop of Messrs. Lock and Marshall, and obtained goods to the amount of £6 5s. 6d., by representing that she was the daughter of a clergyman with a large living and keeping two curates. She had been to Brighton for the benefit of her health, but had left that town because the small-pox was raging, and her doctor would not let her bring her clothes for fear of infection. She had written home to Shrewsbury for more, the Blandford station-master had telegraphed and found they were at Basingstoke, and she would be sure to get them in a day or two. It turned out she is the daughter of Joseph Westwood, a farmer, at Brierly, Leominster, and her sister would be called to prove it. Her representation was false, and therefore the goods were fraudulently obtained.
Mary Ann Gibbins, assistant to Messrs. Lock and Marshall, drapers, said: On Saturday, September 11, I was at the door of the shop about two o’clock, when the prisoner came up. She asked if we kept ready-made dress-skirts. I told her we did not. She said that she was a clergyman’s daughter, and was sent from Brighton on account of the small-pox raging there, and her medical man would not allow her to bring her clothes, for fear of infection. She had sent to her home at Shrewsbury to have other things sent, but they had not arrived. She had inquired at the station, and the station-master had told her he had telegraphed, and her things were at Basingstoke, and he thought she would be sure to receive them on the following Monday. I then asked her to walk into the shop, and I told her that I would see if I could get a skirt made up for her. Previous to my showing her any materials she resumed speaking of herself. She repeated that she was a clergyman’s daughter, and that her father had a very large living and kept two curates. She had to work very hard amongst the poor in her father’s district, and had gone to Brighton for rest. I had sent for the errand boy, he came, and I sent him to several dressmakers to see if the skirt could be made up, and at last succeeded in getting one to do it. Prisoner chose the materials for the skirt. I sent a piece of drogé, of 30 or 40 yards, marking it at 10 yards, for the dressmaker to make a skirt from according to prisoner’s request. The boy went off with it to the dressmaker, prisoner with him. In about 10 minutes she came back, and told me the dressmaker had taken the length, and she wished me to send necessary linings. She then asked we if I could recommend her to a place where she could get ready-made underclothing. I told her we sold it, and she selected some. She stayed talking with me quite an hour. I supplied her on that day with 7½ yards of drogé at 2s. 2d. a yard, 1½ yards of flannel at 1s. 8½d., making 18s. 0½d. On that day materials to the amount of £1 19s. were delivered, but the whole value of the things she had was £6 5s. 6d.
—Mr. Ffooks: What induced you to let her have the goods?
—Witness: I believed her to be a lady, and in very peculiar circumstances, from he saying she was the daughter of a clergyman, with a large living and keeping two curates. I asked her to walk into the shop because I thought she was a lady, and I thought she was a lady because she represented herself to be the daughter of a clergyman. I would not have asked her to walk in or have shown her materials unless I had believed she was the daughter of a clergyman. I would not have supplied the materials to her, unless I had thought she was going to pay for them at once, but for her representation.
The witnesses were here ordered out of court.
On the 14th a young woman named Agnes Samways brought me a note, which ran thus “Miss Howard will thank Messrs. Lock and Marshall to give the bearer what she requires. Prospect Villa, Alexandra-road. Monday.” That Monday was a Tuesday. I supplied her with various materials in consequence of the note. The same influence was operating on my mind then as before.
—Cross-examined: Supposing she was the daughter of a barrister, I might have asked her in. It would have depended on circumstances. When she had selected her skirts she said she had a little private property of her own, and I then believed her more fully to be capable of paying. I did not think anything of her being able to pay for the goods, but only let her have because she said she was the daughter of a clergyman and in necessity. Her saying that she had left all her clothes at Brighton did not induce me to let her have the goods. I expected her to pay for them, and considered she was a lady. If any person who said she was the daughter of a clergyman had asked me, I should have supplied her, if I believed her statements. I sent her some shawls, and she chose the cheapest. One of the shawls was about 16s. 6d., another about 19s. 6d., and she chose one about 14s. 6d. The gloves were cheap—1s. 3d. Supposing she had wanted the best kid gloves, I would have supplied her. These were cheap woollen gloves. She might have chosen expensive things, fit for the daughter of a clergyman, and I would have supplied them. Some of these were bought for her servant. She said she could not endure a maid about her, without she was in deep mourning, for she had recently buried her lover, on the day she ought to have been married to him. This excited my sympathy.
—Mr. Collins: It would have excited mine greatly. I should have let her have the things directly—(laughter).
—I supplied her with the goods, because she said she was a clergyman’s daughter, and I thought she was a lady and would have paid for them.
Agnes Samways spoke to receiving the note from Miss Howard, taking it to Miss Gibbins, and receiving some goods for her. Prisoner engaged her to go with her as servant on the 20th, but she was apprehended on the 17th.
John Sharp spoke to taking parcels to her from Messrs. Lock and Marshall’s.
P.C. Hazzard deposed to apprehending her.
Mary Ann Nephew, a widow, said prisoner was her sister, and her name was Sarah Westwood. Their father was a farmer at Brierly, but had been dead 20 years.
—Cross-examined: Prisoner was adopted by their uncle, Rector of Badger, Shropshire, when four years old. He died in 1837. He did not keep two curates.
Mr. Collins submitted that in law there was no case to go to the jury, but the Bench overruled.
Mr. Collins then addressed the jury, urging that there really was no false pretence as prisoner was the adopted daughter of a clergyman.
After five minutes’ consultation, the jury found her guilty.
The Chairman said the Court had reasons for thinking prisoner was a person of far from good character; indeed, that she had been tried for similar offences. Had these been proved, she would have been sent to penal servitude for a long period. As it was she was sentenced to 12 months’ hard labour.
— Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette, Tuesday 26 October 1869 source
This is the document that 100% proves I’ve got the birth of Sarah Westwood. Mary Ann is still in the house of her father on the 1841, and here she is claiming Sarah as her sister.
Mary Ann Gibbins was seriously coached.
Now we’ve got “Badger, Shropshire” we can find William Smith, rector, d. 1837
