Paddington' Pollaky, Private Detective

by Bryan Kesselman

  On 13 December 1867 the Middlesex House of Detention, Clerkenwell was bombed in a botched attempt by the Fenians to free an agent of theirs named Richard O’Sullivan-Burke. A huge hole was blown in the prison wall; twelve people were killed and many others injured. Mayne was heavily criticised for ignoring a warning that such an action might happen, and he offered to resign. His resignation was not accepted. The Fenian Movement created great antagonism against themselves by this action from the general public in England, and it did their cause – establishing an independent Ireland – no good. Michael Barrett, charged with causing the explosion, was the last person to be publicly executed in England, being hanged outside Newgate Prison. In the aftermath of this event, some 50,000 Special Constables were enrolled into the Metropolitan Police Force. Pollaky was already a Special Constable by that time, but doesn’t mention this affair in any surviving documents.

  It is impossible to say what Mayne’s reaction would have been had he known of Pollaky’s inclusion as a Special Constable. Sir Richard Mayne KCB died on 26 December 1868; Pollaky continued as a private investigator for another thirteen and a half years.

  10

  The Casebook of Ignatius Pollaky

  ‘Newspapers are the most neglected of historical materials’, writes Patrick Pringle in his introduction to Henry Goddard’s Memoirs of a Bow Street Runner (first published in 1956 but written in the late 1870s). Whether this is still true is open to discussion. In any case, a number of newspaper reports are included in this chapter. Some of them are extraordinary, and many refer to matters still relevant today.

  It should be noted that Pollaky was not a private detective in exactly the same mould as Sherlock Holmes. Not for him the analysing of abstruse clues in order to piece together the solution to a mystery. His method was to go out and watch, to observe what others did, or to employ others to watch for him. He would place advertisements in newspapers in the hope that they would be answered by those with the information he needed, and we can deduce from the success of his practice that such information was often forthcoming.

  He was quick-minded and able to make deductions from his information, and this sharpness, combined with a knowledge of human behaviour gained him many results. He was less successful in understanding behaviour, however, when his own personal interests were concerned, and it is this which gave rise to some of the problems that beset him – his relationships with difficult employers such as Sanford; with those he wanted to impress such as Mayne; and with those who would threaten him including Lomax, who we shall meet in this chapter.

  Between 1862 and 1884 when he retired, Pollaky worked on numerous cases as a self-employed private investigator. Many were reported in the press, or can be deduced from his communications in the ‘Agony Column’ of The Times. The ‘Agony Column’ was the nickname for what was officially called the ‘Second Column’. To avoid confusion, it will be referred to as the ‘Agony Column’ from here on.

  Many different papers from New York to Australia reported Pollaky’s exploits. Australian newspapers in particular had a great hunger for news from London. Pollaky was often mentioned in the national press, and advertisements for his inquiry office appeared on the front page of The Times very frequently. Some of these were in other languages so as to attract foreign clients. In short, Pollaky was soon a household name, admired, mocked, and hated by turn depending on the points of view of individuals and the newspapers they read. On 9 September 1865, the Berkshire Chronicle’s London correspondent wrote of Pollaky’s advertisements for missing young ladies, ‘I don’t of course imply that Mr Pollaky’s are fancy sketches, but I should like to know if I am entitled by law to stop and take into custody on suspicion any young lady I may happen to meet answering at all to that worthy description of the lost one.’ On 7 June 1871, the Western Daily Press referred to ‘Mr Pollaky, of the private detective persuasion’, lending a quasi-religious overtone to its brief report on his warning over one Joan Georges aka. the Bishop of Ourmea aka Lazarus Bar Chuchaga who was collecting money from clergymen all over Europe for the ‘pretended building of a cathedral’. These two reports, written in a somewhat quizzical manner, were comparatively gentle in their approach.

  Pollaky’s use of cryptic and other advertisements in The Times ‘Agony Column’ became notorious. Over the years, he advertised there on numerous occasions for missing persons or those who knew their whereabouts. Advertisements would frequently appear in codes and ciphers, often with the appearance of gibberish to the casual reader.

  In his Handy-Book of Literary Curiosities (1893) William S. Walsh writes of The Times ‘Agony Column’, ‘even ciphers have been found dangerous. There are everywhere certain ingenious busybodies […] that make a study of this column, and, finding a key to the cipher in which a clandestine correspondence is carried on, insert a marplot advertisement, – sometimes for the mere fun of the thing, sometimes to stop an intrigue that is nearly ripe for execution.’ And indeed examples of this can be found: hardly surprising when some of the ciphers used are so disingenuous in their structure. Pollaky’s ciphers, however, when he chose to use them, count among the most difficult to break. Some of them remain unsolved to this day. He found ample opportunity for increasing the mysterious atmosphere that seemed to surround him, unconsciously, though, making himself something of a figure of fun at the same time.

  A selection of the many reports involving Pollaky’s cases and advertisements is given here to provide a flavour of his activities in the years 1861 to 1884. Though some of them are more exciting than others, taken as a whole, if the image of a busy and alert man should appear before our eyes we should not be surprised. He had his finger in so many pies one might wonder at his ability to keep track of everything. This may be the closest we can come to a case note diary. Many items appeared a number of times. The reports, some quoted in full, show the various opinions of their authors, some critical, some approving, and some overtly hostile. Some of them may cause a smile; others show examples of humanity at its very worst.

  The Old Bailey, otherwise known as the Central Criminal Court, was the scene of some of the most celebrated and notorious trials in London. Pollaky’s name first appears in the records of the trial of Edward Segers in 1861, which went to court shortly before his employment by Sanford to watch Confederate activities. Pollaky’s involvement would be criticised by both police and judge.

  Edward (or Edouard) Segers was born near Ghent, Belgium in 1825. Describing himself as either merchant or gentleman, he travelled between Belgium and England probably on business, first arriving in Dover in 1847, and then making a number of trips to and fro.

  He was arrested in early 1861 and appeared at the Guildhall Magistrates’ Court in early April. According to The Times of 6 April, he was charged, together with one Elizabeth Smith and a cab proprietor called Gilbert, with ‘conspiring together, and with other persons not yet in custody, to obtain goods by means of false pretences to a very considerable amount, with intent to cheat and defraud a number of foreign firms in almost every branch of trade and manufacture’. The report described Segers as appearing to trade ‘for nefarious purposes’, and mentioned a letter given as evidence by the wonderfully named Mr John Ulric Meili, an importer of foreign goods.

  Pollaky then gave evidence (as reported in the same article):

  I am acquainted with the handwriting of the prisoner Segers. I have known him by that name for the last 18 months. He formerly had an office at 38, St. Mary Axe, where he carried on business under the name of Edward Segers and Co., as general merchants and importers, but I never saw any signs of business going on upon any of the occasions that I have been there. Since then I received a communication from him addressed from Lime-street. The letter produced by the last witness, dated the 28th of January, is in the handwriting of the prisoner Segers, and the purport of it is that he was in the receipt of a letter from M. P. Tory-Cadet, dated the 24th of January, and considered the prices for certain goods named were too high, but that i
f Mr. Tory-Cadet would accept the terms he (Segers) proposed, subject to a discount of 10 per cent., he would take a quantity equal to the value of 116l[£]. The letter also urged expedition in the execution of the order, as trade was too dull to admit of doing a brilliant business, and that any unnecessary delay in forwarding the goods might lose him a good market. The letter produced dated the 9th of February is in English, and in the prisoner Segers’s handwriting; it is the order for delivery of the goods by Messrs. Horne and Co., of Moorgate-street, to Charles Reil and Co.’s agent. I believe that since Segers has been in London he has obtained goods of various foreign houses to the amount of not less than 20,000l.; and had it not been for the information and assistance derived from Stubbs’s Trade Protection Institution, the prisoner Segers would not have been arrested, as he was, for claims amounting to nearly 1,000l., and consequently would not have been forthcoming to answer the criminal charges which are about to be provided against him

  When, a day later, on 7 April 1861 the census was taken in England, Segers was listed as a ‘General Merchant’, married, aged 36, and a resident of Newgate Gaol. When arrested he had among his papers (available at the National Archives, Kew) an advertisement for strongboxes.

  On 8 April, Pollaky placed the following advertisement:

  The Times – Monday, 8 April 1861

  NOTICE. – Whereas, Edward Segers, formerly in the Queen’s Bench Prison, now under remand for Friday next. 12th inst. at the Guildhall Police Court, stands CHARGED with CONSPIRING with others, to CHEAT and DEFRAUD numerous CONTINENTAL MERCHANTS, all parties who have been so defrauded are requested to call on Mr. Pollaky, Superintendent, Private Inquiry-office. 20, Devereux-court, Temple, W.C.

  This together with the recognition of Segers’s handwriting would become a bone of contention.

  On 21 April, Segers was brought before the Guildhall Magistrates’ Court again. The charge was more defined this time: ‘Obtaining goods under false pretences to the value of 70l. of Mr Cozzi of Paris; 120l. of Mr Tory Cadet of Nice; and 500l. of Mr Bernstein of Hamburg.’

  At the conclusion, Inspector Knight produced Pollaky’s advertisement of 8 April, in order to draw it to the attention of the magistrate as he considered it, ‘a most unjustifiable interference with the police and the regularly-constituted authorities’.

  The Times, which had printed the advertisement, continued with the rest of Inspector Knight’s complaint. He described Pollaky’s method as:

  … a very irregular mode of conducting or getting up prosecutions, and one very much calculated to divert important information from the regular course, and defeat the ends of justice, by which means the recognised police, if the objectionable system were not checked, would be entirely superseded by a dangerous, secret, and irresponsible institution, for the properly constituted authorities had not the slightest control over the private inquiry offices. Foreigners were often led into the mistake that such offices were connected with the regular police, and it was therefore most desirable that they and the public generally should be protected from such an erroneous impression.

  The magistrate, Sir F.G. Moon, evidently agreed saying that he ‘had noticed the advertisement, and he thought Inspector Knight’s observations were very proper, as it was quite clear that advantage was taken of this case to advertise a private inquiry office, instituted exclusively for private purposes’.

  Segers was kept on remand, and his case came to trial on Monday, 6 May 1861 at the Old Bailey (the original record incorrectly records it as the 5 May which was a Sunday), where he was charged with, ‘Feloniously forging and uttering an order for the delivery of 60 bonnets, with intent to defraud’. Pollaky (who appears on the Old Bailey records in this case as Ignatius Polaki) was among those who appeared as witnesses. A transcript of part of the trial can be found at Old Bailey Online:

  MESSRS. KEMP and PATER conducted the Prosecution.

  IGNATIUS POLAKI. I am superintendent of the office of Mr. Field, the detective, and live at 20, Devereux – court, Temple – I have known the prisoner about eighteen months – the signature to this letter (produced) looks like his writing, but it is “Ryle and Co.,” and not “Segers and Co.,” that I am accustomed to see – I swore before under the impression that I had, but I will not now swear positively, that it is the prisoner’s writing – I have seen so many persons writing that I would not swear to any one’s.

  COURT. Have you corresponded with him?

  IGNATIUS POLAKI. Yes – I saw him write on one occasion – I have received five or six letters from him, and have acquired a knowledge of his writing – I am able to form a judgment whether writing is his or not, when I look at it – the name signed to this letter may be his, but I will not swear it – it seems to be all in one writing; the signature and all – I believe it to be the prisoner’s writing, but I should not, like to swear to it positively – I have received letters from him very much like this; so like this that I believe this to be his writing.

  MR KEMP. Now look at this other letter.

  IGNATIUS POLAKI. I can form no opinion of the writing by the signature, but I can form an opinion by the body of the letter in extensor – here are only three lines of writings and I should not like to swear to them – my belief can only be formed on experience, and three lines might be forged – it looks much like the prisoner’s writing – it might be his and it might not.

  Cross-examined by MR METCALFE.

  MR METCALFE. Have you had sufficient opportunity of seeing the prisoner write to enable you to say with any degree of certainty whether any of the letters are his?

  IGNATIUS POLAKI. The only time I ever saw him write was his signature, “Edward Seagers” [sic] – I believe the first letter to be his writing, because, if I look at each letter independently, there is a great similarity – the prisoner carried on business as a general merchant in St. Mary Axe some time ago.

  MR PATER. Did you know him when he carried on business at St. Mary Axe?

  IGNATIUS POLAKI. Yes; because I had a civil suit against him, under the name of Seagers and Co. – we had no business transactions with him, except what our clients instructed us – we have had written communications with him subsequently – none of the letters were addressed to me, but I have received many communications from him – according to my belief, this letter is in his writing, but I should not like to swear to it.

  MR KEMP. Looking at the second document, do you not believe that it is in the same writing as the first.

  IGNATIUS POLAKI. Yes.

  COURT. Are you the same Ignatius Polaki that was examined before the Magistrate?

  IGNATIUS POLAKI. Yes; this is my signature (Looking at his deposition) – the answer that I there made referred to the second letter – I now believe that the second letter is in the handwriting of the prisoner.

  Segers was found guilty and sentenced to 18 months’ hard labour. The jury gave their opinion that Monsieur Tory-Cadet had behaved very incautiously. The report of the trial in The Times gave a few more details with regard to Pollaky, pointing out that it was only when pressed by the judge that he had overcome the doubts he had begun to have over the identification of Segers’s handwriting. The judge himself had commented on this:

  The Times – Wednesday, 8 May 1861

  The learned judge, in passing sentence, observed that the charge had been clearly established, and the only difficulty presented in it was in consequence of the witness Pollaky declining, when he was now examined, to give the same evidence he did before the magistrate, as to the handwriting of the prisoner.

  The following advertisements were placed when Pollaky was on the cusp of leaving Field’s employment and officially opening his own office. They are included here, as they play a part later on in this chapter.

  1861

  The Times – Thursday, 5 December 1861

  05100. – Moribond. – 3rd Dec. 1861. Abruzzi, 13. – Hotel des Ambassadeurs. – Ig. Pollaky

  The Times – Tuesday, 10 December 1861

  0
5100. – Moribond. – Abruzzi, 9th December, 1861. Tempora mutantur, et nos mutamur in illis. Ab uno disce omnes. – IGNATIUS POLLAKY

  (Translation of the Latin: Times are changing, and we change with them. From one learn all.)

  There were a number of advertisements addressed to Moribond. After that Pollaky used The Times as a frequent method of communication, although there does remain the question as to whether this was just a good publicity stunt to drum up business and keep the public aware of his office. We will return to the Moribond series later. After setting up for himself, his advertisements became far more frequent. Some aroused suspicion or were made fun of, and there were a number of imitations and burlesques. Indeed, Pollaky’s use of the ‘Agony Column’ was well known enough to be burlesqued as early as the 1860s. Although he was not the only person to insert cryptic messages for all to read.

  1862

  January 1862 was an important month. He was featured on the front page of The Times in a new capacity. Firstly, Field’s advertisement, and then that of Pollaky which appeared immediately below: