Emmerson, Richard Joynes | Day 1

James Barber Edwards testified that he received £1300 from Charles Ross Foord of Rochester who had brought £1500 in gold sovereigns to Sandwich by train. Emmerson met him with James Barber Edwards and they split the money between them. £1300 went to Mr Edwards and £200 to Mr Emmerson. Mr Emerson received two further amounts of £210 and £350. The latter was paid by Messrs Lewis and Lewis.

Witness Type: Briber, Freeman, Treater

Party: Liberal

Other Days The Witness Was Called On: Day 2 | Day 14

Witness Testimony:

  • 567.

    And perhaps you will be good enough to ascertain when it was that Mr. Edwards came and received the 1,300L. and you received the 200L. ? – Yes, I will furnish you with those dates.

  • 568.

    Have you any copy of your note ? – I am not certain of that.

  • 569.

    When did you pay the returning officer the 100L ? – I think it was upon the morning of the nomination. I recollect writing a cheque then.

  • 570.

    What date would that be ? – Saturday the 15th.

  • 571.

    I thought you said you got this cheque from Sir Julian Goldsmid, and 200L. from Mr. Foord, upon the Wednesday or the Thursday ? – I must have had it later than that. I was under the impression that the cheque for 200L. was to reimburse me the 100L. I had paid to the returning officer.

  • 572.

    (Mr. Jeune.) You see it could not have been so if you got it upon Wednesday or Thursday ? – No, I will refer to the dates and no doubt I shall be able to clear it up.

  • 573.

    (Mr. Holl.) There are two accounts before me, and one is the account of claims in respect of Sir Julian Goldsmid’s election at Sandwich, and my attention is called to this ; how was it that when. Messrs. Lewis & Lewis wrote to you stating that you had received 210L. on account, and say that the balance was 383L., that you did not write back and say that you had received 200L. more ? – I cannot explain it. I thought they knew it.

  • 574.

    They say in their letter specifically that you have received 210L. on account, leaving a balance of so and so ? – Yes, it is so.

  • 575.

    The account of claims handed in at the time of the election petition was 593L. 17s. 8d. – they had got that before them, because they write and say that you have received 210L. on account, leaving a balance of 383L. Deducting the 210L. from the 593L. 17s. 8d it leaves that exact amount, so that would draw your attention to the fact that they supposed that out of this 593L. 17s. 8d. you had only received the 210L. ? – I had given no account whatever to Messrs. Lewis & Lewis in regard to the receipt of money.

  • 576.

    Then they go on to say, “We regret to say that we cannot pass the account in its entirety, but beg to enclose a cheque for 350L on account, receipt of which be good enough to acknowledge.” So you see all they knew of any claim was for 593L. 17s, 8d, ; how was it you did not allude to the fact of your having received this 200L. from Mr. Foord ? – I cannot explain it I am sure.

  • 577.

    Was it because Foord’s 200L. you knew had been spent for illegitimate and improper purposes ? – No, I do not think that was it

  • 578.

    I do not see any account of the 40L. and 50L. that you gave to Coleman in this statement of claims ? – No, it is in that which was handed in to the judges.

  • 579.

    Therefore that 90L. would be, in point of fact, money that does not appear here ? – Precisely so. There is another account that has been furnished since which has been handed in to the agent for election expenses.

  • 580.

    I want to see why it was you did not make any mention of this 200L.; was it not because it had been spent in a manner which you knew was illegitimate ? – I think very probably that may have actuated me, Messrs. Lewis & Lewis’ letter did not call for a reply, and I might have been so engaged that I did not reply to it

  • 581.

    90L. of this 200L. apparently you gave to Coleman, what became of the 110L. ? – It has not been spent out the moneys I received. I have now got a considerable balance.

  • 582.

    Do you mean out of the 200L. apart from what is claimed here is in hand unexpended ? – Yes, that money was intended to be expended in the payment of the 89L 12s. 6d. That 350L. which was sent by Messrs. Lewis & Lewis was to go in payment of expenses, but when the account was made up to lay before the election agent he objected to these public-houses, and that money remains in my hands.

  • 583.

    Supposing the whole amount of 593L. 17s. 8d. had been allowed, the 560L. which Messrs. Lewis & Lewis sent to you would only leave a balance of 337L 17s. 8d. ; you had 200L. From Foord, of which 90L you gave to Coleman, leaving 110L. in your hands so that you would have after receiving the cheques from Messrs. Lewis & Lewis, 110L. out of which to pay the 33L. 17s. 8d. supposing everything in the claims account was paid ? – Yes.

  • 584.

    Do I understand you to say that no part of that 110L was expended at all in any improper manner beyond that which you have told us ? – No.

  • 585.

    With regard to this first claim of 89L. 12s. 6d, that has not been paid ? – No, and the particulars of that you have in the account that has been handed in to day.

  • 586.

    It is all for refreshments ? – Yes.

  • 587.

    None for the hire of rooms ? – No.

  • 588.

    Were those refreshments supplied so far as you know upon the election day ? – I think they must have been the evening before the election and upon the election day to the best of my belief.

  • 589.

    Do I understand you to say that you were unaware of those bills being incurred until they were sent in ? – Yes.

  • 590.

    By whose authority were those refreshments supplied – Coleman’s ? – Yes, although he does not admit he gave any specific directions for them – he will tell you he did not ; but, however, if any one gave directions it must have been Coleman.

  • 591.

    Then the next item is “Bell” hotel, Mrs. Hunter, and other houses ; that has been paid ? – Yes.

  • 592.

    That consists of the 28L. for the seven houses, and 17L. for the “Bell” hotel ? – Yes.

  • 593.

    Was the “Bell” hotel the central committee room ? – Yes, that was at the “Bell” Hotel.

  • 594.

    How long was that occupied ? – 17 days. I went to the hotel and took the house for the election, telling the landlord we should have a room there at the rate of 1L per day, which would secure the house.

  • 595.

    And you did not use the committee room ? – Yes, but not so much as Mrs. Hunter’s.

  • 596.

    How often was the “Bell” hotel committee room used ? – It may have been used half a dozen times ; it was a room that we could have at any time, and run in and out of at any time.