The Trial of Alfred Boydell Lambe
Alfred Boydell Lambe was charged with theft as reported in The Times on February 19, 1859.1
Two key arguments made in court before the Lord Mayor, which supported the defence, were reported on March 7, 1859:2
...it was contended by the counsel for the defendant that this omission was owing to the neglect of the cellarman, who had been dismissed from his situation for irregulatity in his accounts. It was also contended by the defendant’s counsel, although denied by the prosecutor, that a partnership existed between the parties.
Keeping those facts in mind, the most complete summary of the prosecutor's evidence can be found in The Times of May 13, 1859.3 According to The Times,
The facts, which have already appeared at great length, were upon the present occasion proved to be these:--The prisoner was originally the proprietor of the Royal Exchange wine-vaults, and continued so until 1857, when, in consequence, as it was alleged, of some expensive alterations he had been engaged in, his affairs became in an embarrassed condition, and he came to a compromise with his creditors, and in the November of that year the prosecutor, who was a publican at Chelsea, and had known the prisoner since 1853, took the business of him, paying for it altogether about 1,650l, and with this money the prisoner came to an arrangement with his creditors, and the prisoner entered into an arrangement with the prosecutor to become his clerk. The prosecutor agreed to give him a salary of 4l per week and a clear half of the profits after reaching 500l.
The understanding between the parties was, according to the prosecutor’s statement, that no partnership was to exist between them; and the prosecutor, although treating him with the greatest friendship, was in all matters of the business to be considered as the prisoner’s employer, and all transactions entered in the regular way.
Prisoner entered upon that engagement in January, 1858, and received his salary from the prosecutor, but when the settlement of the accounts for the past year was made the prosecutor’s accountants discovered deficiencies, but did not give the prisoner into custody on account of his connexions wishing to allow him time to explain.
Among the matters which had been discovered were those giving rise to the present indictment. They consisted of some sherry and brandy which the prisoner had taken from the prosecutor’s stock and supplied to some private customers of his own, and hand not made any entry in the books of the prosecutor. The cask had been sent away from the vaults to the docks to have some wines racked into it from some of the prosecutor’s in bond. It did not appear that the spirite, wine, or the cask had been removed in a clandestine manner.
The prosecutor, who had submitted to a very long cross-examination by Mr. SLEIGH, entered into the details of his taking the business of the prisoner, and denied most positively that any partnership existed between them, and had distinctly stated to the prisoner and to the solicitors who had been engaged during the negotiations that he did not intend that anything should be done upon his part that could give rise to such an opinion existing on the part of the prisoner. A draught of an agreement which had been drawn up had, at his particular desire, been submitted to counsel, to ascertain whether it contained anything which could be construed into the terms which could imply a partnership, as he knew the hands the prisoner was in. He had paid the money part down and the rest in two months. He denied that he knew the prisoner had served him with a writ of action for slander, but before he had been taken into custody he had threatened to do so in a letter sent to him a few days before. The prisoner and would have felt pleased to pay him any amount the business realized. He had a the time he engaged the prisoner lent him 100l to clear him of a criminal prosecution, for abstracting some mortgaged warrants. 50l of that was unpaid.
After some further evidence, Mr. SLEIGH, in a brief speech, most ably argued that the prisoner under the circumstances of the arrangements with the prosecutor could not be held guilty of a felonious appropriation of the articles in question.
The final verdict of the jury was "Not Guilty". This verdict must have been a relief after a very stressful episode. It is worth noting that even later in life, Alfred Boydell Lambe represented himself as a wine merchant, so he must have continued his business. Whether he somehow regained control of his business, or whether he built it up again from scratch, is not known.
Footnotes
1"Police", The Times, February 16, 1859, p. 11, col. 5.
2"Police", The Times, March 7, 1859, p. 11, col. 3.
3"Central Criminal Court" The Times, May 13, 1859, p.11, col. 5.
