Quote
THURSDAY.—Present J. H. Cooksey, S. M. Emanuel, Alfred Pegler, W. H. Rogers, and G. P. Perkins, Esqs.
THE NOTORIOUS “SALLY RABBITS” AGAIN.
—Sarah Edith Westwood, alias “Sally Rabbits,” who was dressed in deep mourning, a well-known character, was charged upon remand, under the Prevention of Crimes Act, with neglecting to report herself, she being on ticket-of-leave, to the superintendent of police of Southampton, within a prescribed time of her arrival in the town.
—P.S. Apsey, of the Weymouth police, said he knew prisoner by the name of Elizabeth Florence Howard, alias Westwood. She was convicted in April, 1871, at the Dorchester Sessions; he was not, however, present at her conviction. This evidence not being sufficient to prove a previous conviction, Mr. Superintendent Breary said he would proceed with the cases against the prisoner as far as possible, and then ask for a remand. Henrietta Harvell, residing at 14, Weymouth-terrace, said prisoner came to her house on Saturday night, the 3rd of October, at ten o’clock, and asked for apartments. She said she had just come from Bath, and the train was late, as a portion of it had caught fire and delayed them two hours. She represented herself as a clergyman’s daughter, and took a bedroom and sitting-room downstairs at 10s a week, saying she couldn’t afford much as she was reduced in circumstances. She afterwards took a fancy to the upstairs bow-window room, and witness was induced to purchase a new bed and mattress of a different kind for her, as she said she would retain her lodgings until April next. Prisoner said she was keeping company with Colonel Vernon, and was going to Mr. Harfield’s, the solicitor’s, to get her will made out. She also said that after Christmas she would engage witness’s three rooms, as she was going to have her lady’s maid, Fanny Price, there. Prisoner, upon seeing her tea-things, said, “Oh, dear, what a pretty set of china. I should like that so much. Will you sell it to me?” but witness replied that she could not, as she had only just bought it for herself. On the Monday after she came prisoner paid her 2s. 2d., but witness had kept her ever since without payment, and her bill now amounted to £1 odd. Prisoner had only a black jacket with her as “luggage” when she engaged the apartment. The following Saturday prisoner said she had to go to the Post-office to change an order, and she went out, and witness had not seen her since.
—Mr. Cooksey: Then you didn’t see the Colonel? (laughter.)
—Witness: No, nor anyone else, nor luggage or anything.
—Prisoner: I told you Colonel Vernon was dead. I paid you 1s. 6d. for lemonade. I begged you not to get another bedstead for me, as the other one would do. The police say I have no visible means of subsistence, but I have my income: I have property.
—Mr. Breary: Yes; she has £13 a year—that’s all.
—Prisoner: Oh my; dear, dear.
—Mrs. Miriam Culley, of 11, Waterloo-place, stated that prisoner came to her house last Sunday week just after church time, as though she had come from St. Paul’s Church. She said she had come to town late, and the night before she lodged at an hotel. She asked what apartments witness had, and she named them, and told her she had better call another time, as the lady then occupying them did not leave until Thursday. On the following Thursday she came again, and said, “Your apartments are vacant, I think?” Witness replied that they were, and they together discussed terms. Witness asked prisoner her address, and she gave her Bacon’s Hotel. She, however, afterwards told her husband, who immediately said, “Oh, Bacon’s was shut up long since.” Although witness had no idea whatever of letting her apartments to such a person as the prisoner from the first, she told her, for she seemed anxious to enter the apartments at once, that she could not possibly have her there until late the following evening. She meant in the meantime to make enquiries, and her husband did go down, and ascertained that the hotel named was shut up. Prisoner said something about her means, but witness couldn’t say exactly what. She told her she had lost her purse. That would have aroused witness’s suspicions if nothing else, because if prisoner had been a lady she would not at a first interview have told her that. Witness merely said to her, “Of course you have made enquiries about it,” but nothing arose from this conversation, as it wasn’t likely witness would have offered her anything to make up temporarily her loss.
—P.C. Hansford said hearing the prisoner was in town without reporting herself to the superintendent, he went in search of her in plain clothes, and met her last Saturday, in Above Bar-street. He asked her if her name was Wood (the name she had given to Mrs. Culley). She said “No.” Witness said “Is it Westwood?” She replied “No; not Westwood. If you want to know anything about me you must go to Mr. Harfield, my solicitor: he will tell you my name” (laughter). He told her she would have to go to the police-station, and upon her asking what for, he said for not reporting herself to the superintendent of police, according to the terms of her license. Prisoner said “I have very good reasons for not reporting myself, for I don’t want the police to know my whereabouts.” He brought her to the police station. She had no money upon her; only a purse with a few duplicates1. When the magistrates in court this morning were asking the officer from Weymouth about her conviction he overheard her correcting him as to the date and the period of imprisonment she had served before she was liberated on ticket of leave.
—Prisoner asked the magistrates to look at the letters in the possession of the superintendent of police, and the bills which she had brought from Bath, and which must prove that she was not going about without the means of living. There were all her bills receipted.
—Mr. Breary said he found there were a few letters and some receipted bills, but some of the bills were not paid.
—Prisoner: There is a bill for £1 15s. paid.
—Mr. Breary: But there’s one for £10 not paid.
—Prisoner: That may be, but it has been “all arranged.”
—Mr. Breary said it seemed that prisoner was in Bath last May. A letter from the central police-office there informed him that Elizabeth Florence Howard, alias Westwood, on the 22nd of May, gave as her address, “14, Philip-street, Bath,” and the letter added, “We shall keep an eye on our friend, and let you know when she leaves again for your district” (laughter).
—Prisoner said she reported herself also in June.
—Mr. Cooksey: I see there’s a bill for £16 odd not receipted—that’s an awkward bill, isn’t it? (laughter).
—Prisoner: But that person is willing to wait for a little time. I admit having been to Dorchester and Weymouth, but I owe no money there.
—Mr. Breary said prisoner appeared from the bills to have paid her way for some six weeks.
—Prisoner said she admitted she ought to have reported herself, but there were two gentlemen at Bristol who would come and tell the magistrates that when she reported herself there, immediately afterwards everybody in the town knew it, and she was turned out of her lodgings. It was so everywhere. She was paying for her lodgings and everything she had. It was true she had a few amounts owing, but these would be settled when she had her next instalment. She told the woman who had given evidence that she was in mourning for Colonel Vernon, and she unfortunately was in mourning for him, as could be proved.
—Mr. Cooksey: In widow’s weeds?
—Prisoner: I didn’t tell her that.
—The Bench said that the offence prisoner was now charged with was not reporting herself as a returned convict. There was no evidence before them that she was really convicted, and they must remand her until Wednesday to procure it from Dorchester.
—Prisoner said she had not been allowed to live under the ticket-of-leave, and people turned her out of her lodgings for no other reason.
—Mr. Cooksey: That is one of the penalties of your previous conduct.
—Mr. Breary: She had her own way for a week, and you see what use she has made of the liberty.
—Prisoner was then removed in custody.
— Hampshire Independent, Saturday 17 October 1874 source
Todo
Much plainer version of the above story: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000495/18741017/029/0006
Quote
SINGULAR CAREER OF A LADY.—At the Southampton Police-court, on Friday, Sarah Edith Westwood alias Edith Florence Westwood, alias Sally Rabbits a female swindler, well known in Bath, Bristol, Weymouth, Dorchester, Southampton, and other places, was charged under the Prevention of Crimes Act with failing to notify to the Superintendent of Police her arrival in the town within forty eight hours. The evidence showed that the defendant had been liberated on a ticket-of-leave, and that she had been levying black mail on lodging-house keepers. Her conviction and sentence to five years’ penal servitude was proved by the deputy governor of the Dorset County Prison, and Miss Westwood was then remanded, with the view of her being handed over to the proper authorities to complete her term. She is of good connections and education, being a clergyman’s daughter.
— Monmouthshire Merlin, Friday 30 October 1874 source
This paragraph is repeated verbatim in many newspapers. The Weston Mercury tacks on the following:
Quote
Only three weeks since, the “young lady” took up her quarters in Richmond-street, in this town, and her retiring appearance enabled her to contract a few small debts, but, hearing that the police were on her track, one fine morning she was missing.
— Weston Mercury, Saturday 31 October 1874 source
Blackmail has never been Sarah’s MO, and there are no more detailed reports. Did something get lost in translation? Is it a “technical” definition of blackmail I’m not aware of?
Todo
I need the report of the second session at the Southampton Police Court on the Friday.
Footnotes
-
Pawn tickets ↩