Albert Edward Bradley arrested on 'a British court warrant was charged for that he did not the 16th day of July 1906, at 1 am. on the! jessfield Road, outside the Jessfield Ton assault one Alice Sherwood and did steal and take and carry away from her person a certain sam of money.
Insp. Matheson appeared for the lice.
Sergeant Brown deposed that he arrested the accused at 3.30 pin. the previous day on Bubbling Well Rosd. Witness saw accused in a Hefinge and remenibering that a war-fant had been issued for accused's arrest about two years' ago he stopped Mrenved and asked hin what was his wene, Accused replied Edwards." Witgess said that be had reason to Dalgene that accased's name was Bradley.
Witness then asked accused to acriy him to the Central Police Srugen where he received the warrant (prodneegutioned the accused and ati ed) from Det.-Lnwp. Armstrong. Witness "The only pat op j on duty in the complainant. He told her that a man named Bradley had been arrested and that her presence would be required at the Court next rooming.
Alice Sherwood deposed: Ido not remember ever having seen the accused. It is two years and I cannot remember him. [remember laying information against Bradley. The assault happened at night and [had never seen the man before. I was told at that time by some people connected with the Jessfield Inn that the man's name was Bradley. I believe that those people are not here now and I do not know what their names are. I have no' reason for not wishing to proceed with this charge—I cannot truthfully say' that this is the man. I was in a carriage the night of the occurrence. I had two mafoos with me at the time, but do net know where the mafoos are now. No foreigner was present whea the assault took place. In reply to accused the witness stated that when the assault took place she was hurt, but not seriously.
In reply to the Court Insp. Matheson said that Insp. McDowell who originally had the case in hand might able to give material evidence. He therefore would ask that the case be remanded until 2 p.m.
Accused said that he was suffering serious loss by his imprisonment and he thought that he ought not to be the sufferer. The police had failed in their case and he thought that no remand ought to be given.
His Worship said that the police had not had much time to get their evidence and the Court desired to know why the warrant had not been served originally. It was good work on the arresting Sergeant's part to recognise the accused after two years as he had done.
Accused said that he had had a case at the Mixed Court three di fter the warrant was issued and so far as he knew there was no reason why the warrant should not have been issued at the time.
His Worship said that he would remand the case until 2.30 p.m. Accwsed would be liberated on bail, on hin own recognise nee of $100 and one surety of the same amount.
Upon resining at 2.30 p.m.
Det.-Inxp. McDowell deposed that in July 1906, he remembered accompanying the complainant to H. Consulate, In consequence of her statement warrant was issued for the arrest of A, E. Bradley. The warrant was handed to witness, and accompanied by Det.-Sgt. Brown he endeavoured to clfect the arrest of the accused, They failed to find him. That morning at 9.30 as witness was going into his quarters Bradley was in custody near the door of the cell, Accused called litness and made a statement to the effect that he would lis stood his ground only that Biddle advised him to clear out lest Biddle should lose his licence, because he was running a roulette wheel at the Jessfield Inn, which belonged to Biddle at that time, Accused said that did not steal any money or assault the women at all, The fact was that two woman who lost a lot of money tried to take away $700 from him by force. They took action against him because he was seen going into the police station shortly afterwards and they thought he was going to prefer 'a charge against ther.
Witness had reason to believe that accused was staying at the Hanbury Institute under an assum name, Witness did not know that it was usual for men in the show business to use a professional name.
William Frederick Dearn, who took complainant's report at the Bubbling Well Police Station on July 16, 1906, was called and identified the report entered in the occurrence book.
Insp: Matheson brought evidence to show that the accused had a case at the Mixed Court on July 17, 1906 and that the warrant was only issued the following day.
His Worship said that it was a suspicious occurrence that the accused had disappeared at that time, The police were greatly hampered by the fact that two years had elapsed and several material witness had gone away. He would, therefore, discharge the accused and if any material evidence could be adduced Inter on it could be brought forward.
Origi nal fi
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.