Crompton-Roberts, Charles Henry | Day 16

In 1880, he stood as the Conservative candidate in the by-election against the Liberal candidate, Sir Julian Goldsmid, and won the election by 1145 votes to 705.

He and his household stayed in Stanley House, Beach Street during the election. His horses were stabled at the Royal Hotel.

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/image-share/a7c7c33a-7d94-4103-98dc-b39d1b68c804

Witness Type: Candidate / MP

Party: Conservative

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 17 | Day 20

Witness Testimony:

  • 18177.

    It had nothing to do with the election either directly or indirectly ? — No.

  • 18178.

    And none of the proceeds were appropriated in any way to the election ? — No.

  • 18179.

    Then the next cheque is “Hoare 600L,” was that sent up to your partner to get cashed ? — No, the 600L is what I thought was all I could spare at the time from the bank, and that was handed to Mr. Hughes.

  • 18180.

    You drew a cheque upon Mr. Hoare ? — No, I drew a cheque with the name Hoare upon it.

  • 18181.

    You drew a cheque payable to “Hoare” and handed it to Mr. Hughes for 600L. ? — Yes.

  • 18182.

    When was that handed to Mr. Hughes ? — Mr. Hughes will know better than I do, but I have an idea in my head that it was handed to him in the train. I was going over to Sandwich to canvass by the five minutes past 8, or five minutes to 8 train, and I will not be sure whether I saw Mr. Hughes at my house just as I was starting to the train, or whether I gave it to him in the train, but what is firmly fixed in my mind is that after I got out at the station at Sandwich Mr. Hughes said, “If this should not be enough pencil me a note to your partner so that if I want more money he can put it straight,” or “he can find it,” I forget the exact words.

  • 18183.

    Are you sure that took place in reference to this cheque for 600L. ? — That conversation took place certainly within half an hour of the time of giving the cheque, or it might have been two minutes. The cheque for 600L. was made out as being for the largest sum my account would stand at that particular date, because I do not keep the account myself, and I did not know what money was there, and I wanted to go up to London to see.

  • 18184.

    You either gave the cheque at your house, where you were staying at Deal, or else you gave it to Mr. Hughes in the train when going to Sandwich ? — Yes.

  • 18185.

    I understand that you handed that cheque to Mr. Hughes yourself ? — Yes, certainly.

  • 18186.

    With respect to that 600L did you know what use was made of it, or what was done with it ? — No, I have not the slightest idea.

  • 18187.

    Then I think you say you gave a pencil note to Mr. Hughes upon a piece of paper ? — Yes, a piece torn off a newspaper.

  • 18188.

    What was the purport of that pencil note ? — “Should Mr. Hughes send to you requiring more money” (it was put much shorter than that) “let him have it,” or something of that sort.

  • 18189.

    That was addressed to your partner ? — Yes.

  • 18190.

    The purport of it, whatever the precise language may have been, a request to your partner to let Mr. Hughes have any further money he might require ? — Yes. Let me say here that this cheque for 600L. was made payable to my partner because I did not know what funds I had in the bank, and my reason for giving this order as it were upon my partner was until I knew what money was there I could not keep on giving cheques.

  • 18191.

    (Mr. Jeune.) That does not quite explain why the cheque should have been drawn to Mr. Hoare and not to Mr. Hughes ? — The impression left upon my mind is this, I thought that if I had overdrawn the account my partner, who is a ready money man, would make my account square as far as the 600L. goes, and they would cash it without any difficulty, my partner would say, “If Mr. Crompton Roberts’ account is overdrawn I will make it up.”

  • 18192.

    The cheque was given to Mr. Hughes ? — I do not know whether Mr. Hughes presented it.

  • 18193.

    Was it an “order” cheque, or “bearer” cheque ? — I cannot say, all my cheques are made out to bearer, but as you know by running a line through it makes it to order.

  • 18194.

    If it were a mere bearer cheque in the hands of Mr. Hughes, the credit of Mr. Hoare, however good it might be, would not influence the bank ? — No, but if Mr. Hoare took the cheque and said, “Here is my partner wants cash, and if he is short of funds let me know, and I will square his account.”

  • 18195.

    But you had given it to Mr. Hughes ? — Mr. Hughes took it along with the pencil note from me to Mr. Hoare.

  • 18196.

    The intention was that Mr. Hughes should, either himself or by some agent, send the cheque to Mr. Hoare, and get the money from or through him ? — Yes, quite so.

  • 18197.

    At the same time you gave Mr. Hughes a note to get further moneys if he required it ? — Yes.

  • 18198.

    Do you know how that money was received by Mr. Hoare or paid to Mr. Hughes ? — No.

  • 18199.

    Do you know whether Mr. Hughes required the 600L or one of his clerks ? — I do not.

  • 18200.

    Of course you do not know how it was transmitted, whether in gold, notes, or how ? — No, I know nothing about it.

  • 18201.

    Then the next cheque is dated, 15th May, made payable to Mr. Hughes, 500L. ? — Yes.

  • 18202.

    Was that cheque given to him at Deal or Sandwich ? — At Deal.

  • 18203.

    What was done with that ; I presume you do not know ? — No.

  • 18204.

    Then, upon the 18th, I see “Hughes 1,000L.,” and upon the 19th, again “Hughes 1,000L.” ? — Yes.

  • 18205.

    Those were both cheques given to Mr. Hughes at Deal or Sandwich ? — Yes, at Deal.

  • 18206.

    One upon the day of the election, and one the day after ? — Yes.