Paddington' Pollaky, Private Detective

by Bryan Kesselman

  Pollaky’s solicitors, Lewis and Lewis, were a highly respected firm. Mr Lewis, junior, George Henry Lewis (1833–1911), who spoke for him in this matter would later become well known for his cross-examinations in a number of high-profile cases such as the Bravo case of 1876. (The still unsolved case of Charles Bravo who was poisoned with antimony.) Lewis was knighted in 1893, and nine years later became a baronet. At the time of this matter, he was yet to make a name for himself. The ‘Lewis and Lewis’ of the firm refer to his father and his uncle.

  1865

  The Morpeth Herald, (Northumberland) of Saturday, 29 April 1865 reported that two foreigners, Edmund Renard, 16, and Nicholas Lion Pruvot, 27, had been ‘charged with stealing a watch and ten silver spoons’. Renard was ‘very respectably connected’ and had been ‘enticed away from his friends’ by Pruvot. Pollaky had been asked by Renard’s friends to find him. He did so, and took him ‘under his own care at his residence’, after which he was ‘placed to board at the house of Mr Bucknell, in Martin’s-court, Cannon Street’. Unfortunately, while Mr Bucknell was out, Renard left his house with the above mentioned watch and spoons. The two men were caught and fined £20 each.

  Mystery of mysteries. The following advertisement has never been decoded. We can deduce that Pollaky was again abroad, but he must have wanted to keep his whereabouts a deep secret. There is not enough information to decipher the lines and dots, but it forms an amusing challenge, and is just one of the ciphers he used – others involved rows of numbers, sometimes intermingled with foreign and invented words. It is, perhaps, of little wonder that his motives might be doubted by some:

  The Times – Tuesday, 16 May 1865

  Of all criticisms of Pollaky, the following (which arises out of the previous extract) is one of the most vituperative. It does, however, give cause to wonder about the style of his dress.

  Cardiff Times – Friday, 19 May 1865

  OUR LONDON CORRESPONDENT

  […] I confess to […] doubts when I look in an advertisement in the second column of the Times of Tuesday. Not that I doubt the existence of ‘Pollaky,’ for I have seen him in the flesh, and very common flesh it is, though adorned with all the flashy jewellery that bad taste can heap upon it. But I doubt the existence of any meaning to those lines and dots which form so conspicuous a feature in the advertisement. They may mean something of course, but I much doubt whether they do; and I have a shrewd suspicion that the only notion is that out of the many thousands of readers who peruse that advertisement the majority may think, ‘Bless my soul, what a wonderfully clever and artful man that private-inquiry man, Pollaky, must be.’ But some equally clever reader of this may exclaim, ‘Ah! but I thought the Times always insisted on being told the meaning of these mysterious advertisements.’ So they may; but still nothing can be easier than to affix an imaginary meaning to it before insertion.

  The London Correspondent of the Cardiff Times was in favour of abolishing all private inquiry offices, not just Pollaky’s. On 13 April 1866 he made this plain, referring to Pollaky in passing as ‘the usurper of Paddington-green’.

  There are a number of series of advertisements in The Times in which one can almost follow a story from start to finish. One involved messages to the mysterious Heart of Stone. The first appeared on 9 September 1859, though Pollaky’s name was not attached to it. They do not make happy reading. Pollaky’s name appears involved, apparently not for the first time, in the following advertisement of October 1865, one of the series of four which appeared that month:

  The Times – Tuesday, 3 October 1865

  THE HEART OF STONE – Why torture the victim longer? Bright prospects shine if you meet at once. Present conduct very suspicious to him who knows all; indicates also desire to delude, and exhibits all the past professions to have been for the same purpose. The ‘Martyr’ can no longer endure such ungenerous, petty insult; it out-Herods all. Address, as before, under cover, to Mr Pollaky, Private Inquiry-office, 13, Paddington-green, W.

  The next example reads like an extract from a melodrama, showing, we imagine, a young lady who wears her heart on her sleeve. This was published for all to read, and it is therefore no wonder that with such material as this, The Times ‘Second Column’ was as popular as it was, and that it continued to be on the front page for many years, nor that Sherlock Holmes should find it a source of so much to interest him.

  The Times – Monday, 13 November 1865

  GASTON. I have seen you at last; but alas! too late, for I am now the wife of another, and from henceforth, should we ever chance to meet, it must be as strangers. Let me implore you to return my letters under cover to Mr Pollaky, private inquiry office, 13, Paddington-green; and my last prayer is, that you leave England at once, and in other climes endeavour to forget that ‘Rosebud’ ever existed. – Farewell.

  Some were in doubt as to the genuineness of this advertisement and others like it:

  The Worcester Journal quoted the Pall Mall Gazette’s opinion of the ‘Gaston’ advertisement under the heading: ‘MR. POLLAKY RIGGING THE MARKET’. In the view of that paper:

  Worcester Journal – Sunday, 25 November 1865

  Much as we wish to believe in the reality of that little bit of romance, we cannot do so. Reason rebukes the desire, and we feel bound to make known the suspicion that the letter sprang from a brain fertile but unfeminine, and probably quite unromantic: namely that of Mr Pollaky himself. We doubt whether a real ‘Rosebud’ advertises her real agony: we question whether Mr Pollaky does not simply advertise his utterly abominable and most mischievous business.

  This description of Pollaky’s business, ‘abominable and most mischievous’, feels like an echo from the anonymous comments made on the back of the letter of 16 June 1862 about his abortive attempt at naturalisation. That he left himself open to this criticism must be put down to his need to push himself forward in a way that would irritate others: unconsciously on his part no doubt.

  1866

  Meanwhile, the advertisements continued:

  The Times – Friday, 9 February 1866

  ANONYMOUS LETER. – Whereas, some evil-disposed person did maliciously write and send an anonymous letter, bearing the London post mark, February 24, W. district, to a lady in Bayswater. A proper REWARD will be given to whoever shall furnish INFORMATION to enable the law being put in force against the person so offending. – Pollaky’s private inquiry office, No.13, Paddington-green, W.

  The Times – Monday, 2 April 1866

  G. – Having prolonged my stay in Austria longer than expected, will you MAKE a SECOND APPOINTMENT for one day next week? – Pollaky, 13, Paddington-green, W.

  The Times – Saturday, 21 April 1866

  CLANDESTINELY LEFT her HOME, a YOUNG LADY, 15 years of age; has light brown hair, large brown eyes, a cicatrice over the right temple, regular features and is of remarkably pale complexion; speaks French, but very little English; was dressed in a black and white striped silk dress, short black velvet mantle, and white straw bonnet; linen marked, ‘F.H’. INFORMATION to Mr Pollaky. Private Inquiry-office, 13, Paddington-green, W. [cicatrice: a small scar or pockmark]

  Pollaky reacted strongly when he felt others were taking advantage of his good nature, as can be seen from his method of dealing with a trifling, but highly irritating matter:

  The Times – Friday, 8 June 1866

  A.B. – Mine is not a receiving office, where letters can be left at call; nor do I hold myself answerable if any person or persons, unauthorised and without my sanction, choose to make my office the medium of their correspondence. All such letters go into the waste paper basket, and from thence into the fire. – POLLAKY, Private Inquiry-office, 13, Paddington-green.

  The next item includes the only example of an actual report as made by Pollaky. According to this, he discovered that reported cases of abduction in Hull were unfounded:

  The Times – Thursday, 4 October 1866

  There has recently been going the rounds of the newspapers a paragraph st
ating that at Hull a most nefarious traffic in abducting young girls from their homes and conveying them to Germany for immoral purposes was being carried on. In consequence of that statement the London Society for the Protection of Young Women took the matter up and placed it in the hands of Mr Pollaky to investigate, and the following is an official report of the facts upon which the rumour was founded:– ‘I have examined the occurrence-book respecting young girls reported missing from their homes or situations, and have ascertained that six were reported missing between the 19th and 24th of September last, three of them from home and three from situations. Three of them were of the age of 14 years, one 15, one 17, and one 18 years. Two of them returned home, having been to some relatives; one was found at Cottingham with her relatives; one at Beverley with her friends, one was found by Police-constable Clay among some prostitutes in Manor-street and taken home, and the other has been heard of at Grimsby, and her mother is going there in search of her. The above was the only account they had of girls missing during the month of September.” Mr. Pollaky produced a letter from the Mayor of Hull expressing his surprise at such a report having gained publicity, and requesting him to get the published statement contradicted.’

  The Times of Saturday, 8 December reported of a mission undertaken to Basle, Switzerland by Sergeant Webb accompanied by Pollaky in order to affect the arrest of one Lionel Holdsworth who had plotted to defraud various insurance companies by destroying the British ship Severn, while it was on the high seas. Holdsworth had been detained by the Swiss authorities and had ‘expressed his willingness to proceed to England to answer the charge against him’. Sergeant Webb and Pollaky, ‘in their search for him had not been in bed for seven consecutive nights, to have one day’s rest’. Pollaky is described in the article as an ‘officer’, though he would not become a Special Constable attached to Division X until the following year.

  1867

  The Argus, Melbourne – Wednesday, 18 October 1867

  ARTHUR TOMS. – Should this meet the eye of ARTHUR TOMS, son of the Rev. William Toms, a native of Devonshire, who left England November, 1863, and was last heard of at Adelaide, South Australia, he is requested to communicate immediately with Mr Pollaky, Private Inquiry Office, 13 Paddington-green, London, where a communication of vast importance is awaiting him.’

  The Lomax Affair – Part 1

  The Lomax Affair was thoroughly horrific – a case of appalling child abuse. It caused Pollaky a considerable amount of trouble and personal anxiety, even though he seems to have had no part in the matter except as an observer during the court proceedings:

  Blackburn Standard – Wednesday, 23 October 1867

  REVOLTING CRUELTY TO A CHILD. A case in which a mother was charged with gross cruelty to her daughter has been heard before the magistrates at Margate. The defendant was Adelaide Lomax, wife of John Lomax, of East Cliff Villa; and it was alleged that she assaulted Agnes Lomax otherwise Agnes Bailey. Mary Ann Petley, a servant, who had lived in the employment of Mrs Lomax from the 9th of February to the 20th of July last, described the treatment to which the child had been subject. She said – About a month after I went there one of the children, named Agnes Lomax, was placed in the sink by Mrs. Lomax, who threw several jugs of cold water over her for being dirty. She is between six and seven years of age. Since then she has always had her hands tied behind or in front of her with string, and rice and mustard have been rubbed in her.

  The report continues with the servant’s description of Mrs Lomax’s inhumane and brutal treatment of her daughter. Rebecca Kennedy, another domestic who had also been employed by Mrs Lomax confirmed the testimony of Mary Ann Petley, adding that Mrs Lomax had told her that the reason for her ill-treatment of Agnes, ‘was because she was afraid Mr Lomax would die, and leave her [Agnes] more than she [Mrs Lomax] would wish him to do’. The beatings she had given her daughter had caused at one time or another, bleeding from her fingernails, toenails and tongue. The case was adjourned. Other papers also reported the matter:

  South Eastern Gazette – Tuesday, 29 October 1867

  ALLEGED CRUELTY TO A CHILD. – At the Borough Police Court, on Wednesday last, Adelaide Lomax was placed at the bar, charged on remand with cruelly assaulting and beating her child, Agnes Lomax. [...] The court was densely crowded during the whole of the hearing, and considerable manifestations of approval and disapproval were made by the public.[...] Mr Pollaky watched the case on behalf of the London Society for the Protection of Young Females.

  And that is the only mention of Pollaky’s connection with this case. These dreadful events were described in this paper as being ‘of the more revolting character’. Among other abuses, Little Agnes had been tied up to some hat pegs in the hall of her parents’ house, with her hands tied behind her all night long. She was wearing a ‘chemise’, but no shoes or socks. Robert Lewis Wardell, aged 14, who with his brother was lodging in the Lomax house, as they went to school nearby, gave evidence that Mr and Mrs Lomax were both in the house at the time. Mr Sicklemore (one of the magistrates) commented, ‘The way in which the child was tied prevented it from lying down.’ A dozen witnesses for the defence gave evidence that they had never seen the mother treat the child cruelly, but that the child had been bruised when her parents were away in Brussels, during which time she had been left in the charge of the servant, Rebecca Kennedy. The report continues:

  One witness for the defence deposed that during their [the Lomaxes’] absence he found the girl naked and tied to the kitchen doorpost by a rope that was fastened round her waist. [...] Other acts of cruelty were proved against this servant, and the excuse she made was that she had been told to do so by her mistress [...] to prevent it [the child] getting into trouble.

  In a very full report on the trial, which took place at the Dover Sessions on 30 December 1867, the Whitstable Times and Herne Bay Herald of 4 January 1868 gave further details. Adelaide Lomax had pleaded not guilty. Mary Ann Petley had deposed that Agnes had been compelled on many occasions to eat bread with mustard or cayenne pepper spread on it; the audience had hissed at this revelation, and hissed again when told of how blood had flowed from the child’s fingernails. A neighbour had heard, ‘lamentable cries of a child issuing from the defendant’s house’. According to Rebecca Kennedy, Mr and Mrs Lomax called all their servants ‘Ann’, and Agnes had been told to tell the Wardell brothers, who had discovered her tied up, that ‘Ann’ had tied her. Rebecca left her employment because Mr Lomax struck her, and had heard him say to his wife, ‘If you are not careful, Adelaide, we shall be served the same here as in Boulogne’. Robert Wardell confirmed that when asked who had tied her up in the hall passage, Agnes replied, ‘Ann’. Mr Lomax had tried to put it about that it was the servants who had abused his daughter, and the counsel for the defence made it plain that he felt that the servants had grudges against the Lomaxes as they had been dismissed, saying that they had conspired ‘to take away the fair fame of, and consign this woman to imprisonment’. Defendants at that time were not allowed to give evidence, neither were their spouses allowed to do so, and the counsel for the defence hoped that the law would be reformed so as to allow accused parties to give evidence in future cases.

  The outcome on 30 December 1867 was that Adelaide Lomax was found guilty and sentenced at the Dover Quarter Session of the Peace, to twelve months imprisonment with hard labour for assault. And that should have been the end of the matter, at least as far as Pollaky was concerned. Meanwhile, he had plenty of other work to occupy him.

  1868

  The next advertisement (one of a number of identical ones placed over a few days) was placed at the request of the agents for the Tichborne family. Pollaky had been asked to find witnesses to the last sightings of Sir Roger Tichborne who disappeared in 1854 after the ship Bella sank near Rio de Janeiro. The notorious case of the Tichborne Claimant, which finally came to court in the 1870s, resulted in the jailing of the claimant, Arthur Orton, who claimed to be Roger Tichborne, heir to the Tichborne baronetcy
and fortune. He first came forward in 1866, and was recognised as the missing man, despite the difference in physical appearance, by Roger Tichborne’s mother. The other members of the family were not convinced and sought to disprove the Claimant’s identity. Pollaky was engaged by the family to find the necessary proof that Roger Tichborne had not survived:

  The Times – Thursday, 23 January 1868

  BELLA. – Any of the CREW SAVED from the ship BELLA, lost off Rio in 1854, are requested to COMMUNICATE with Mr. Pollaky, Private Inquiry-office, 13, Paddington-green.

  Dr Edward Kenealy, the claimant’s defending counsel at his trial for perjury in 1874, wrote in his account of the trial, ‘It affords matter for curious speculation whether, if any of the crew had turned up, Mr Pollaky would have sent them to the claimant or his advisors.’ Kenealy’s book presents a very biased picture of the claimant.