The Patsy and the Blind Beak

Today's case, a relatively simple one involving gambling, provides an interesting historical angle since one of the men mentioned is Sir John Fielding, the half brother of Henry Fielding. Sir John was blinded in a navy accident at 19, then went on to study law and become one of the men who formed the Bow Street Runners.

Cool!

But on to the case, in which John Jones is charged with "fraudulently cozening and cheating" John Davis out of two guineas, one half guinea, and nine shillings.

John Davis was walking toward Holbourn when Jones met him and asked him if he "wanted a place," which I assume from later testimony means a job. Lo and behold, Davis does, so Jones says, "I just happen know a guy who broke his leg and needs some help. Come on and I'll introduce you."

So off they go to a tavern. There's no man with a broken leg there, but along comes Jones's supposed relative James Gawl, who suggests some "tossing up" (gambling). Jones is all for it, and they play a game called "hide in the hat." To be honest, I don't quite get the way this worked according to the testimony. Maybe you'll have better luck: "they tossed for a guinea. They put a halfpenny under a hat, and tossed at what they call the best two in three. The prisoner won the guinea;"

Was it a matter of heads and tails for the coin under the hat, or what? I have no idea.

Anyway, after Gawl goes out, Jones makes a proposal to Davis: "the prisoner wanted me to go his halves; I said, I have no money to sport with: he said, it was only venturing, there was no danger but that I should get money; so I agreed, that if he lost, I was to give him 6 d. and if he won, he was to give me 6 d."

Now, maybe I'm just not sharp enough today, or Davis isn't the best at describing this plan, but this makes Davis sound rather dim. It certainly sounds as if he could lose money if he has to give Jones 6 d. if Jones loses.

Fortunately, Jones wins, but "the prisoner won, and gave me 6 d: they tossed up two or three times more; the prisoner won every time, but gave me only one 6 d."

So Davis didn't get what he thought he was owed.

But it gets worse: "I would not go any more than a shilling; he put his hand upon mine, and said, this is the very thing; he took my money out of my hand, and said, go my halves: I said, I would not go all that, it is all the money I have: he said, you will be sure to get as much more. The man came in again, but I did not consent to it: they tossed up; then the prisoner said, it is all gone, I have lost 10 l. he would not give me my money; the other man took the money up."

So Jones took his money, gambled with it and lost it.

The hapless Davis continues: "Then the landlord came in, and said, I understand you are gambling, I would have you get out of my house; the kinsman paid for the wine, and paid something over the reckoning. I was frightened, and did not know what to do; it was all done in an instant; they went away, and I soon lost sight of them when they got into the street."

Another witness testifies that this isn't the first time Davis has been arrested for cheating.

Jones's defence? He claims the man who previously accused him was out to get him. He also says Davis offered to drop the case for a guinea, but he -- Jones -- refused, since he didn't do anything wrong. He also claims Davis had a chance to get his money back, but got greedy: "Whether you was not offered twenty five shillings in a cellar in the Strand, by the man that had won your money, and you said, take it back again; if you can give twenty-five shillings, you can give me fifty."

To which Davis replies: "One of Justice Fielding's men, named Wright, took me to meet a friend of the prisoner's, to make it up; he said, I should have all the money again, and I must come before Justice Fielding, and say I was satisfied, and I would not say so; then he said I might go about my business."

The accused replies: "This young man, named Wright, belonging to Sir John Fielding's office, came to me, and said, I hear there is a warrant out against you, and rather than you shall come to any trouble, I will make any satisfaction. He went over to the prosecutor*, who had given the man that took me up, orders to make it up, if he could have any reasonable satisfaction: the man that won the money, offered him twenty-five shillings, and he said, take it back; if you can give that, you can give fifty."

(* This refers to Davis, not an attorney for the crown.)

The jury believed Davis, because the verdict was guilty. Jones was ordered imprisoned a year in Newgate, had to pay a fine of 5 l. and find security for his good behaviour for a year afterwards.

So it seems that we have a con man with a partner who cheats people and when cornered, claims the victims are really out to extort money from him.

Now, there's no explanation for why Davis's walking to Holbourn, or why he needs a job. Davis sounds young to me because he seems naive and easily frightened, but he could be an older guy who falls afoul of skilled con artists who can also be intimidating.

I note that Davis is persistent and determined to see Jones punished, so he could very well be an older man. A younger one might be too embarrassed or afraid to persist.

So there are three characters I think Davis could be: the sibling of a hero or heroine, the father of a hero or heroine, or the hero. If he's the hero, I'd make him too young to know better and perhaps from a very small community where he's known everyone all his life; otherwise he'd seem a bit lacking in brain power, and I like my heroes intelligent.

If Jones is a con man, he could either be a smarmy villain who eventually faces justice, or a hero who's in need of redemption who regrets ripping people off (although he felt, at least in the beginning, it was necessary), or a villain with hero potential.

If he's a villain in one book but the hero of another, he needs a major epiphany somewhere along the way -- but if I'm writing it, the seeds for change have to be planted before he even meets the heroine. He has to have a conscience, the knowledge that what he's doing is wrong, but for some reason, he isn't yet willing or able to stop. Loving the heroine is what gives him that will, and makes him able to do what he must to live a better life.

If I were to use this as a story seedling, I'd be very tempted to have Sir John Fielding, who was called the Blind Beak and could supposedly recognize over 3,000 criminals just by the sound of his or her voice, a secondary character. I mean, can't you see this guy in a courtroom? Law and Order: the Blind Beak.

The other little seedling I find in this is the part of Jones's punishment involving a surety: "Convicts were sometimes required to find sureties. These were men of property who posted a bond to guarantee the convict's future good behaviour. The bond could be for a substantial sum of money, hundreds or thousands of pounds. If the condition of the defendants discharge was violated, the money was forfeited to the king."

It doesn't say how much money was involved in this case, or who, or even if, Davis was successful with this portion of his sentence. But what if you had a character who posted the bond and who then lost all the money because the convicted person ran off or perpetrated another crime?

What if that character was a parent? Brother? Sister? What if the loss of the money was a serious hardship? What might the bond-holder have to do to live? If it's a female, that opens up a whole host of interesting possibilities. What might the bond-holder do in retaliation if they meet/find the criminal responsible?

I suspect that, if I wanted to take a couple of hours, I could come up with a fairly decent synopsis based on some of these ideas. The reason I probably won't? Sir John died in 1780, which puts him in a time period that doesn't really float my boat.