The Armstrong perjury case – or Robert Bendle Moore and the naughty client
An extraordinary letter was read out in court in April 1858, written by a solicitor to a client.
But then the Armstrong perjury case it related to was headlined at the time as just that: extraordinary.
The Armstrong perjury case
In April 1858, William Henry Marshall, attorney’s clerk, appeared before Penrith magistrates. He was accused of perjury, by making and filing a affidavit that he saw solicitor Robert Bendle Moore serve Jane Armstrong with a writ.
Jane Armstrong later filed an affidavit that she had not been served with a writ. If true, Marshall’s sworn affidavit would be false, and therefore perjury.
The people
In 1858, Robert Bendle Moore, aged 39/40, was a solicitor living and practising in Carlisle. He had a wife and a stepdaughter. And an office staff including clerk called John Dixon and William Marshall.
Jane Armstrong was a widow, who had been living in Hartlepool but was now in Penrith. Her son James was also in Penrith, his draper’s business in Hartlepool having gone bankrupt in 1856.
The background
Jane Armstrong, aged 47/48 was a friend of the Moores (she’d known them about five years, and Moore had occasionally acted for her in matters such as investments).
In February 1857, she spent a night at Moores’ house. Before taking the train, with her trunk, to Penrith.
Before then, the defence said, she had gone to Moore’s office for professional advice: the Union Bank of Berwick was claiming £1,458 from her and she didn’t have it.
At the end, she was served with a writ for £163 (reduced later to £100) for the legal services.
Moore and his clerks swore she had been in the office between about noon and 2pm – and had accepted the writ.
Moore later said he’d not have exectuted the writ after, but he heard in March that Jane and her son were intending to leave for Canada. And the man who served it at her house, William Marshall had told her lies, and been sacked for it.
He wrote to Jane:
“He is a drunken, dissipated, infamous blackguard.”
Jane Armstrong’s denials
Jane was to swear she’d gone straight from the Moores’ house to the station, leaving the house about 1pm. And her brother-in-law John Graham, of Baldhow Farm, had met her at Penrith to take her back there.
He thought he’d picked her up between 1pm-2pm.*
She was denying having employed Moore professionally and was refusing to pay the £100. (But the £63 had been paid, by Jane’s other son, Robert Armstrong).
And Jane not only denied being the office and accepting the writ: she also accused the trio of lying. And landed William Marshall in court for perjury.
*an independent witness said he’d caught the 14:10 from Carlisle, and saw Mrs Armstrong at Penrith station at 14:50.
Collateral damage
William Marshall found himself arrested and brought before Penrith magistrates. He was at least given bail.
A warrant was issued for Moore as well, but he wasn’t in the office, and it was later agreed to determine William Marshall’s case first.
There was also a warrant for the second clerk, John Dixon, but he had moved to Manchester.
He was later to write to the Penrith Observer, fully endorsing Marshall and Moore.
It’s not so much the details of the case, as Robert Bendle Moore’s own statements to the court – and a letter – that make it worth revisiting today.
“I call myself to the stand…”
Robert Bendle Moore initially wanted to conduct Marshall’s case in court, despite being part of it. Had this been allowed, he would have had to call himself as a witness – and examine himself.
On being advised by the bench this would not be wise, he agreed. Before starting to say: “A more iniquitous proceeding was never…” At which he was cut off by one of the magistrates.
He then pointed it it was one oath (Jane Armstrong’s) against three (his, Marshall’s and Dixon’s)” “A more monstrous procedings was never devised.”
Thomas Gibson Cant took over as defence solicitor.
“A question of life and death”
Robert Bendle Moore then said the issue ‘ought to be probed to the bottom’ because:
“it is a question of life and death to myself.”
The office boy
Robert Dixon, who’d just started working for Samuel Boustead, butcher, had been an errand boy at Mr Moore’s and knew Jane Armstrong:
“She is a little woman. She is about as high as myself.”
His vague evidence was was deemed ‘good for nothing’ by one of the magistrates. But he was hit with a lot of questions by the clerk of the court, Edward Bleaymire.
This led to Mr Cant objecting:
“The prosecution is conducted by an advocate out of Messrs’ Bleaymires’ office, and Mr Bleaymire is acting as if he were the prosecuting advocate.”
At a related hearing in August, Edward was to say that he had tried, but had not been able to find anyone else to do the role that day.
The letter
Dated February 25, 1857, it was sent to Baldhow Farm and starts with a perfectly professional paragraph about Jane Armstrong’s goods at West Hartlepool.
“I hope that you are not fretting and annoying yourself with your son’s affairs or your own. Rest assured from me that all is going on satisfactorily for your and their interest.”
However, it continues:
“It will tend, much to their comfort, your not fidgetting yourself. I feel confident James is now a happier young man than ever he has been since his disastrous and fatal connection with Mrs. Smith.”
What this was, I don’t know, but the letter does end:
“I send Mrs. Graham a Carlisle paper, containing an account of the trial for murder at the assizes; the prisoner was found guilty of manslaughter.”
The extraordinary bit
It’s the middle of the letter that is bizarre.
“Sleep sound and make yourself easy, happy, and comfortable, as I am sure Mr, and Mrs. Graham and Miss Dixon do all in their power to make you comfortable, and quiet that uneasy, restless disposition of yours.
“If you had been younger, I should have been disposed occasionally to give you a little whipping for being so fretful and naughty; but you see your age protects you from such castigations.”
The counter case
The Armstrong perjury case was dismissed by Penrith magistrates: there was insufficient evidence to send it to crown court for trial.
In August 1858, it was James Armstrong and Jane Armstrong who faced charges of perjury, brought by Robert Bendle Moore (now of Liverpool).
But as Moore hadn’t turned up at the court that day, the case was dismissed.
And after…
By 1861, James Armstrong was a law student. But that’s perhaps another story!