Just like today, crime sells newspapers. The 1848 thefts from Druce and Co. and the subsequent trials were covered in numerous newspapers. I know, I have pieced together the story after going through many of them as well as the records of the trials at the Old Bailey.
It was the younger Thomas who first brought the Arments to the attention of the law in the case that the press dubbed an "Extensive System of Plunder". Cst. Cobley was in the Whitechapel Road when he saw young Thomas with 28 yards of yellow damask that he was trying to sell. Something in this appeared odd to the constable so he questioned Arment about the origins of the material. Getting no satisfactory answers, Cobley placed Arment under arrest. Cobley's further investigation at various upholsterers led to the apprehension of another trader of the material, George Wall.
The elderly Wall appears to have been a reputable character who was known as a dealer. He was released on his own recognizance while young Thomas Arment languished in goal. We already know which way this went don't we? Wall came to be accepted as a witness. It was his testimony that brought the elder Thomas Arment into the case as Wall stated he received a commission for selling several parcels of damask for the Arments, father and son.
If the Arments had a reputable agent to distance them from the sale of the goods why was young Thomas out flogging the material that fateful day in December? Was there just too much damask to be sold for the one agent to do it all or did the Arments want to save on the commission? Retaining a known dealer seemed like a good idea until Wall's testimony dragged the elder Thomas into the case.
It really boiled down to the fact that the quantity of ill-gotten goods was too large to dispose of discreetly. It was also too large an amount for Druce and Co. to ignore. They launched their own investigation. Mr. W. Cumming was tasked with investigating the losses at Druce and Co. His remit was to find the thieves and the remaining unrecovered stolen property. Cumming questioned all the employees of Druce and Co. He returned again to question Henry Samuel Chester, who had been employed by Druce and Co. for three months. During that time company property had gone missing including 100 yards of damask. Chester finally admitted that he knew the Arments.
Chester was arrested on January 3rd, 1849. As seen in the previous post, he admitted stealing from Druce and Co. According to the London Daily News of January 4, 1849, he broke down when Cumming took him into custody and said that the Arments and Fain had pressured him to take more and more items from his employer.
Poor beleaguered Chester, or was he? Mean nasty pressuring Thomas Arment senior, Thomas Arment junior and Abraham Greaves Fain, or were they? We already know that Fain was found not guilty. What about the Arments, father and son?
Story to be continued next week
A fragment of damask
Sources:
Findmypast newspapers: http://www.findmypast.com (subscription site)
The Proceedings of the Old Bailey 1674-1913 https://www.oldbaileyonline.org/
Images:
Druce & Co. - This file is from the Mechanical
Curator collection, a set of over 1 million images scanned from
out-of-copyright books and released to Flickr Commons by the British
Library.View image on FlickrView all images from bookView catalogue entry for
book., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=37397861
Damask - This file was donated to Wikimedia Commons by as part of a project by the Metropolitan Museum of Art. See the Image and Data Resources Open Access Policy, CCO, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=60186201
No comments:
Post a Comment