The Freshwater Spectacle Fraud

An extract from the County Press of 1906

At the Hants Quarter Sessions on Wednesday morning before Mr W H Holding and other magistrates, Patrick Shay, 62, described as an optician, was indicted for obtaining by false pretences the sum of 14s from Mrs Jane Reason of Freshwater, with intent to cheat and defraud on October 6th. There were two other indictments against the prisoner in respect of items of 10s and 5s alleged to have been obtained from two other women named Gould and Porter. To all these indictments the prisoner pleaded not guilty. Mr. Barnes appeared to prosecute, and the prisoner was defended byMr. S. H. Emanuel, LL.D.

The facts of the case were that on the date in question, October 6th last, prisoner caused circulars to be distributed in Freshwater announcing his 30^th annual visit as an optician. He called for the circulars, and, it was alleged, told the woman that he was a physician sent by the Southampton Free Eye and Ear Hospital to inquire into and test cases of defective eyesight among the working class and the poor who were unable to go to Southampton to attend the Eye Hospital.

Prisoner offered to test their eyesight free, and then having made such statements that they were developing cataracts or cancer or that they would go mad in time, said their only relief would be by their wearing glasses. Believing his representations that he was a physician from Southampton Hospital, they bought his spectacles, and after wearing them they were found to be doing their eyesight more harm than good. Accordingly they communicated with the Hospital, then with the police, and Inspector Cass interviewed the prisoner at Newport, where prisoner said he would be residing for six months. The day after the interview, however, he found that the prisoner had left the Island and he was subsequently arrested by Salisbury police.

In addition to the evidence of the three women, testimony was called to show that the retail value of the spectacles sold to them was 1s 6d, allowing then for a good margin of profit – Dr Buller, surgeon at the Eye Hospital in Southampton, stated that they could be bought at 23s a gross (laughter). Prisoner elected to give evidence on his own behalf and stated that had been 40 years in business and was an optician and oculist. He absolutely denied the statement that he had represented himself to be a physician from Southampton Eye Hospital. What he had said was that he came from Southampton, which was true. The reference names he gave on his circular were genuine, and Deputy Chief Constable Sillence of the Hants Constabulary (whose name appeared on his circular) had told him how pleased he was with the spectacles he had supplied.  – At this point Supt Sillence rose in court and gave the statement an emphatic denial. – The prisoner went on to affirm that his business was legitimate and that it required no diploma to be an oculist.

In summing up the prisoners case Dr Emanuel asked the jury to remember that he was not charged with selling spectacles at a fictitious value. He also argued that the women had talked the matter over to such an extend that they had considerably enlarged upon the prisoner’s statement when he had said that he had come from Southampton. In the circumstances he asked the jury to say that there was a doubt in the case and to give the prisoner the benefit of it.

The jury without any hesitation found the prisoner guilty, and previous convictions for similar offences were proved at Chester and Portsmouth. At Portsmouth Quarter Sessions he received a sentence of six months imprisonment – The Chairman, in passing sentence, said it was necessary that credulous poor should be protected from the prisoners machinations. It was clear that he had used his ability to defraud poor people, and the sentence of the court would be that he be imprisoned for 12 calendar months. – Mr Barnes on behalf of the prosecution, desired that it should be known through the press that hospitals never send out representatives to test eyesight of the poor or anything else, and if that was known a system of fraud that was not infrequently frequently practiced might, he thought, be prevented.

Freshwater

 2 February 2006