OVERTAKEN AT LAST 323 



should be able to pay the fine. We then hear of him 

 decamping from La Marche, ' after winning a race valued 

 1,300 fr. and several thousands of francs in bets, with his 

 horses, not forgetting, however, to collect all moneys due 

 to him, but taking good care not to pass near Chantilly, to 

 settle the debts he had incurred there.' Even at that time 

 he was carrying on the old Discretionary Investment game 

 in Scotland under new aliases. In May 1875, at the 

 Central Criminal Court, an application was made to Mr. 

 Justice Archibald to admit to bail until next sessions the 

 two prisoners, William Henry Walter and Edward Murray, 

 charged with conspiring together, with others not in 

 custody, to obtain large sums of money from persons 

 residing abroad by means of alleged assurances against 

 Turf losses. Bail was granted, Walter 4,000/., his own 

 recognisances and two sureties of 1,000/. each or four of 

 500/. each ; Murray 500/., his own recognisances of 300/. 

 and two sureties of 100/ each. On June 9, at the next 

 ensuing sessions, the two prisoners were called upon but 

 failed to appear. Their recognisances were estreated, and 

 a Bench warrant granted for their apprehension. After 

 evading the police for no less than five years, Walter was 

 arrested on another charge, under the name of Lewis, and 

 tried by Mr. Justice Den man. He was described as 

 William Henry Walter, ' labourer,' well dressed, and 29 

 years of age, and was charged with forging, altering, and 

 uttering a cheque for 905/., with forging and uttering other 

 cheques for smaller sums, and money orders. Mr. Justice 

 Denman, in passing sentence, addressed the prisoner at 

 great length, and stated that the facts disclosed a deliberate 

 and long-continued system of accomplished and wholesale 

 fraud. Walter was sentenced to penal servitude for a term 

 of twenty years. 



THE LIBEL ON SIR JOSEPH HAWLEY 



From the libel, or rather ' the head and front ' of it, 

 since more than one attack on the Baronet in Dr. Short- 

 house's journal was embodied in the charge, a few illus- 

 trative extracts may be given, if only to show the riotous 

 ferocity of the attack. It stands forth a curiosity in 

 journalism, and inasmuch as during the period which has 

 elapsed since it was written, nearly twenty-seven years, 



Y 2 



