The Times – Wednesday, 27 August 1873
ANNOUNCEMENT. – After a prolonged absence on foreign mission Mr POLLAKY has RETURNED, and his offices, at 13, Paddington-green, will be open to the public on and after the 1st September.
1874
This item was reprinted almost word for word on 28 November 1874 by the Otago Witness, New Zealand, showing how stories about Pollaky travelled round the world:
Herald and Planter (Hallettsville, Texas) – Thursday, 8 October 1874
The London Art Journal is responsible for the following story: A somewhat curious circumstance occurred lately, which is strangely illustrative of modern manners. A nobleman passing through a West-End street saw a fine but very dilapidated picture in a broker’s shop. He purchased it, and inquired the painter’s name, but was unable to discover more than the initials. Confident that the picture – a seaside view with a rocky shore – was modern, he was anxious to discover the painter. In vain he tried all the picture dealers. They knew the style and the initials, but were unacquainted with the man. They were confident the painter was alive, but they knew nothing of his home or his haunts. The nobleman piqued at being so balked, determined to find the painter, and at last, in despair, applied to Pollaky, the foreign detective. Pollaky knew nothing about art or artist, but he undertook to find the man. And find him he did, after some trouble, in the midst of the direst poverty, in a little court in Soho. The discovery of the artist was the turning point in his fortunes. The nobleman employed him, and at this moment there is a picture of his in the Academy marked ‘sold.’
From London to Texas to New Zealand – even the most unassuming of Pollaky’s cases seemed to be of interest to the newspaper-reading public. The Otago Witness entitled this piece ‘A Pretty Story’. And indeed it is – of course, that title may have been given with its sarcastic meaning implied – a ‘pretty story’ is a euphemism for a ‘tall tale’ or a lie; either way, the title works.
The Argus, Melbourne – Tuesday, 15 December 1874
RICHARD SPARROW, the son of the late Nathaniel Sparrow, of Wexford, Ireland, now somewhere in Australia or New Zealand, will hear something to his advantage on applying to Mr Pollaky, Private Inquiry Office, 13 Paddington-green, London.
1875
Shields Gazette and Daily Telegraph – Friday, 26 February 1875
RESCUE OF A YOUNG LADY FROM A CONVENT.
The Morning Advertiser states that on Tuesday afternoon the new convent at Windsor was the scene of some strange proceedings. A party of gentlemen applied to the Superioress to hand over to their custody a young lady who had recently disappeared from her home suddenly, and had been traced to the convent. A clergyman appeared on the scene, who was immediately charged with decoying the young lady away. A scuffle ensued, during which several of the party entered the vestibule of the convent, and the young lady immediately came forward and volunteered to return at once to her friends. It appears she is entitled to a large sum of money, and is highly connected with some of the leading families of the county. Legal proceedings have been threatened against the friends of the young lady by the convent authorities, and Mr Pollaky, the private detective, who forcibly entered the institution, is also likely to be proceeded against. There was great excitement in the town on the matter becoming known.
Pollaky – knight in shining armour – rescues damsel in distress! This reads like a scene from Malory’s Morte d’Arthur. We want to know how it all started, and how it ended, but we will probably never find either out.
1877
The Argus, Melbourne – Tuesday, 6 February 1877
The Sydney Morning Herald – Monday, 12 February 1877
MYSTERIOUSLY left his home in Leeds, on Friday, the 24th ultimo, a MARRIED GENTLEMAN, 40 years of age, 5 feet 9 inches in height, dark hair and beard tinged with grey, sallow complexion, small nose: supposed to be in company with a lady (not his wife), about 30, middle stature, very thin face, and red hair worn in plaits; may possibly have gone to Melbourne or Sydney. Information of their present whereabouts to Mr POLLAKY, Private Inquiry Office, 13 Paddington-green, London.
One imagines that the married gentleman who ‘mysteriously left his home’ would probably never be heard of again as he was evidently running away from his wife. Interesting that this gentleman is not named in the advertisement. Was there some element of personal shame on the part of his wife who wished for anonymity? Also interesting to note the description of the mistress, presumably supplied by the wife – ‘very thin face, and red hair worn in plaits’. She could not bring herself to describe her rival in complimentary fashion, and has painted a most unattractive picture of her – and who can blame her?
The Turf Fraud Scandal
From June 1877 to June 1878, Pollaky was out of England. What he was doing during that time is currently unknown, except that in September 1877 he was in Germany, possibly holidaying with his family in the mountainous Taunus region. However, while he was away, his name was being mentioned in connection with the most notorious case of police corruption yet heard at the Old Bailey.
The Trial of the Detectives – or The Turf Fraud Scandal – took place in 1877. Four senior police officers, Inspector John Meiklejohn, Chief Inspector William Palmer, Chief Inspector Nathaniel Druscovich, and Chief Inspector George Clarke together with solicitor Edward Froggatt were indicted on charges involving fraudulent betting and of warning criminals of imminent arrest, thus allowing them to escape. Pollaky did not appear as a witness during this case, he was abroad, but his ears must have burned.
Two men, Harry Benson and William Kurr had defrauded a French lady, Mme de Goncourt, of £30,000 with a confidence trick using horse racing bets and producing a non-existent sporting paper to back up their propositions. They had managed to evade arrest for some time, but were eventually caught.
On 28 July 1877, Sheldrake’s Aldershot Military Gazette reported that Druscovich, while on remand, had attempted suicide in his cell by making a rope out of his bed sheet, tying one end to a bar in the cell window and trying to hang himself, but was discovered, and was cut down and revived by the prison surgeon. This story, which had originally appeared in the Standard had already been refuted by Druscovich’s lawyer, Mr St John Wontner, as a libel upon his client and on the prison service.
On 7 September, at the initial inquiry, Mr Wontner, acting for Druscovich and Froggatt, questioned one Detective Sergeant William Reimers. Reimers had started in the Metropolitan Police as a police constable, had risen to the rank of detective inspector but at the end of 1876 had been demoted to detective sergeant as a result of a complaint made about him by Pollaky to whom he had given some information, and who he had apparently assaulted in October that year. According to the evidence of Superintendent (Dolly) Williamson, Reimers, who was suspended for two months, had been reported eight times in the period April to August, his defaults including disobedience, incivility, drunkenness, as well as the assault on Pollaky. Williamson stated that ‘Reimers was reduced in rank for writing a letter to Mr Pollaky and giving him private information out of the office. It was an improper act. I cannot say that Druscovich had anything to do with it. Pollaky said he had not, and that Druscovich had exerted his utmost to prevent it.’ According to Reimers, he and Pollaky had been on friendly terms at one time:
Mr Wontner: How did you come to be a sergeant?
Reimers: Through a dirty conspiracy on the part of your client and a Mr Pollaky.
Mr Wontner: Now we can understand your reasons.
Reimers: I am very glad you have introduced the subject.
This exchange was reported in The Times the following day. The report of the proceedings in The Times of 15 September 1877 included the following statement from Pollaky who wrote from Falkenstein in Taunus, Germany:
I read in The Times of the 8th inst. that Sergeant W. Reimers, in his sworn evidence, says ‘that he was degraded through a dirty conspiracy between Inspector Druscovich and a Mr Pollaky.’ In justice to Mr Druscovich I feel bou
nd to say that there is no truth whatever in the allegation, which I herewith flatly contradict. Mr Druscovich not only did not urge me in any way pressing my charges against Reimers; but he even interceded with me on behalf of Reimers, in consequence of which I wrote a letter to the Chief Commissioner, Colonel Henderson, asking that Sergeant Reimers should not be dismissed from the force. Said letters must still be in existence.
Meiklejohn, Palmer, Druscovich, Clarke and Froggatt stood trial at the Old Bailey in October 1877 for perverting the course of justice. Damning evidence was given by William Kurr who had been sent to prison earlier that year.
On 2 November Reimers was cross-examined by Mr Straight, defending Druscovich. The exchange was again published the following day in The Times:
Mr Straight: Have you ever been charged with an assault before a magistrate?
Reimers: Yes, when you prosecuted and failed to get a conviction. (Laughter.)
Mr Straight: Did the magistrate on that occasion reprimand you for your conduct and say that you had shown great want of discretion?
Reimers: No.
Mr Straight: You were at one time an inspector, I believe?
Reimers: Yes, I was reduced to the position of a sergeant on the 24th of December, 1876. I was not first of all called upon to resign by the Commissioners of Police. It was alleged by Mr Pollaky, who was investigated by Druscovich, that I had furnished him with a rough draught [sic] of my Bremerhaven report.
Mr. Straight: Was it not alleged that you gave information to Pollaky who is a private inquiry agent?
Reimers: It was alleged.
Mr. Straight: Were you at one time friendly with this man Pollaky?
Reimers: Yes.
Mr Straight: And in December last, for some reasons between yourselves, had you quarrelled?
Reimers: No; we were good friends.
Mr Straight: Then your story is that Druscovich set Pollaky to inform against you?
Reimers: That is it.
Mr Straight: And that, in consequence of Druscovich, Pollaky gave information to Scotland-yard about information which you had given him?
Reimers: That is it. The matter was investigated by Colonel Henderson and afterwards by the Home Secretary. I was suspended while the proceedings were going on, and then I was reduced. I allege that there was a conspiracy between Pollaky and Druscovich to ruin me and I have proof of it.
Reimers, whose part in the case was knowledge of some of Druscovich’s actions, and who, it seems was aware of the turf swindle, was not asked to produce his proofs of the conspiracy he alleged had been made against him. It is hard to see at this distance in time why it was necessary for Pollaky’s name to be mentioned at all in this case; it would seem that the defending counsels were trying to discredit him and the damaging testimony he gave against the defendants. Reimers was evidently using an opportunity to try to revenge himself on Pollaky by getting him into trouble. This was not the first time that Pollaky had caused resentment against himself. The examples of Whicher, Mayne, and Lomax have already been seen. Doubtless there were others, and it seems likely that this must have caused him some anxiety over the years. Michael Abrahams of Abrahams and Roffey, Mme de Goncourt’s solicitor, had hired private investigators as he felt the police were dragging their feet over the investigation, but there seems to be no record of which firm he hired.
All the defendants but Clarke were found guilty, and sentenced to two years in prison. Meiklejohn, Palmer and Druscovich had accepted bribes from Kurr to give him warning that he might be arrested for his fraudulent dealings. Clarke, it seems, had not been involved.
1878
In June 1878, the announcement of Pollaky’s return to London appeared in The Times:
The Times – Wednesday, 5 June 1878
POLLAKY’S PRIVATE INQUIRY OFFICE.
Mr Pollaky can be personally consulted daily, before 11 a.m. and after 3.p.m. – 13, Paddington-green, W.
CORRESPONDENTS who have communicated with my office during my absence from England, from June 1877 to the present day are requested in their own interest to ADDRESS me without delay in case of urgency. – I.Pollaky, 13, Paddington-green, June 1st, 1878.
1879
The Times – Tuesday, 8 April 1879
VAMPYR, not for me! – Pollaky.
Pollaky, an indefatigable writer of letters, wrote to The Times more than once in 1879 recommending that greater protection would be given to both servants and their employers if an act of parliament were passed making it a requirement for all servants to have a record of employment. This would follow a system already in use in Germany and other countries where the record book was known as a Dienstbuch. All references would be entered into this book, which the servant would take from employment to employment. Pollaky described it as a ‘servant’s license’, and while aware of the difficulties in policing such a system, he felt that fraudulent references would be thus eliminated. Pollaky was, though, unaware of the problems that often beset this system in Germany, where employers had been known to confiscate these books so as to prevent servants from leaving, resulting in acrimonious court cases as the servants tried to retrieve their references.
1880
The ex-policemen found guilty of the ‘Turf Fraud’ were released in 1879. Nathaniel Druscovich turned to a new career and this announcement soon appeared:
Shields Daily Gazette and Shipping Telegraph – Friday, 9 January 1880
Druscovich, one of the recently released ex-detectives, has opened a private inquiry office in Lambeth Road.
Druscovich born in England to an English mother and a Romanian father, had spent some of his youth in Romania and was a good linguist although his English was not perfect. He became yet another rival in the private investigation business. According to the Shields Daily Gazette and Shipping Telegraph, these firms all seemed to be doing well: ‘chiefly, in the opinion of Pollaky, through advertising’, stated the article. (Pollaky evidently overlooked the fact of his own advertisements.) Somewhat shamelessly, considering his disgrace, Druscovich advertised his business in The Times, making use of his experience as a police inspector:
The Times – Friday, 20 August 1880
DRUSCOVICH’S PRIVATE INQUIRY OFFICE, British and Foreign. Conducted exclusively by Mr. N. Druscovich, late Chief Inspector of the Metropolitan Detective Police, No. 64, South Lambeth-road, N.W.
Druscovich’s practice as an inquiry agent was short-lived. He died in 1881, aged 39.
1881
Pollaky’s communications to The Times included a letter to the editor, published on 24 March, expressing his concern at the apparent disappearance of another correspondent. ‘Warhawk’ was the pen-name of an anonymous correspondent who wrote letters about political and terrorist events, and who had claimed in 1876 to have been, ‘for the last 10 years initiated into the mysteries of the most important secret societies.’ Pollaky claimed to know him personally, but worried that nothing had been heard of him since 1877. He should have been relieved, therefore, when, on 27 April, a letter from the missing Warhawk was published. Another, written at the end of May, followed on 6 June, with information on the political situation in Turkey where he had been living since his disappearance. However, the same edition of The Times carried a report on a Mr Palmer, otherwise known as ‘Warhawk’ who had been arrested, the day after writing his letter, in Constantinople, Turkey, on suspicion of being the chief conspirator in a plot to blow up the Turkish fleet. Palmer, however, claimed to have been engaged in secret missions on behalf of Turkey, and denied the accusation.
According to The Times of 5 November 1866, Hugh P.F. Palmer was by profession a marine engineer, who called himself ‘captain’ and owned a yacht called Warhawk. He claimed to have been instrumental in exposing the ‘Bremerhaven Plot’. On 11 December 1875, a bomb had exploded on the dock at Bremerhaven, Germany, killing eighty people. This was apparently part of an insurance scam that went wrong. The man responsible, Alexander Keith Jnr, who had a chequered background, committ
ed suicide when he heard of the number of deaths; the bomb had exploded earlier than he had intended.
The Times – Monday, 29 August 1881
MISSING, since Wednesday, August the 17th, at 11 p.m., from her situation in Durham-terrace, Westbourne-park, a YOUNG ENGLISH COUNTRY GIRL, supposed to have been decoyed away for the purpose of being taken to the Continent. Description – age 18, middle stature, very good looking, neat figure; wore black dress and jacket, cream-coloured plush hat, carried a blue waterproof. Was last seen in Westbourne-grove in company of a middle-aged gentlemanly-dressed man wearing an eyeglass, tall hat, and black coat. The man bought a new black Gladstone bag. INFORMATION of their whereabouts to be given to Mr Pollaky, 13 Paddington-green, W.
The Times – Saturday, 17 September 1881
CLANDESTINELY LEFT their HOMES, in Staffordshire, on the 8th instant, a LADY (single) and a GENTLEMAN (married), in company with a lad seven years old, not their child, with the intention of sailing to America, having, however, their luggage labelled for the Cape. Description of gentleman: – 33 years, 5ft. 8–9 inches, complexion dark, hair black, slightly waved on forehead, narrow face, clean shaven, nose particularly well shaped. INFORMATION of their present whereabouts will be rewarded by Mr Pollaky, 13 Paddington-green, W.
Paddington' Pollaky, Private Detective Page 20