In December of 1855 a thirty-five year old man called Charles Sjoguist had a little upstairs workshop attached to the house and shop belonging to local jeweller and watchmaker, Isaac Guttman. These premises were situated on the High Street, Sheffield. However the ‘shop’ consisted of just one workroom in which Charles would clean and repair watches for his landlord and other customers. In order to save money, Mr Guttmann also allowed his assistant called Tudor Redlich to sleep in the same workshop during the night. It was most convenient for Charles who would lock up the workshop at night and leave the key downstairs with his landlord.
Every night Charles would lock all the clocks and watches he was working on in a cupboard in the workshop, an arrangement which suited all concerned. Nevertheless, on the morning of Thursday 28 December everything changed. As usual, Charles collected his keys before going upstairs to his workshop, but within seconds he returned downstairs breathing heavily. He told Mr Guttmann that during the night, the cupboard in his workshop had been broken into and that between thirty to forty watches amounting to around £200 had been stolen. Mr Guttmann advised him to call in the police and Charles ran all the way to the Town Hall in order to report the robbery.
He told one of the officers that there had been around twenty watches left in the cupboard overnight. A police officer went to his workshop, but it was not long before suspicion was raised that the jeweller had robbed himself of the watches entrusted to him for repair. This suspicions was mainly due to the fact that the cupboard was still locked, nor were there any signs that the lock had been forced open. The local police obviously jumped to the conclusion that the jeweller had indeed robbed himself and was charged and brought into custody.
Consequently on Friday 29 December Charles Sjoguist was brought before the Sheffield Magistrates Court charged with robbing his own place of business. However the prisoner was remanded to the following Thursday in order for the police to continue their investigations. Thankfully, by that time the watchmaker had acquired a defence solicitor, Mr Turner. Mr Broadbent prosecuted the case and told the court that police enquiries had clearly established the prisoners guilt. He stated that the Superintendent of police, Mr Raynor had found several local pawnbrokers, where seven or eight of the stolen watches had been pledged by the prisoner himself.
One gold watch was produced in the courtroom which had been identified by its original owner, a Mr Jacobs of Fargate, Sheffield. He stated that he had taken the watch to the workshop for repair around three months previously. However when shown the watch he stated that a gold chain with three gold seals had been attached when he left the watch for repair. These were now missing. But this is where it got tricky. Mr Broadbent stated triumphantly that the prisoner, by removing the chain from the watch itself, had now compounded his own theft. By doing so it had rendered the case to be one of larceny rather than illegal pawning.
The only prosecution witness was a young man called Jacob Jacobs, whose sister was the owner of the watch. He told the court that he assisted his father in his own jeweller’s shop in Fargate. He said that Charles Sjoguist had cleaned and mended watches for them for many years for their business. Jacobs said that on Thursday morning 28 December, he heard that the shop on the High Street had been robbed and he went to enquire about his sisters watch. The prisoner admitted that he had been robbed and that her watch had been taken with all the rest. When it was time for the defence, Mr Turner to make out his clients case, he pointed out that his workshop premises were in a very unique position.
They were situated above the shop of jeweller, Mr Guttmann. Mr Turner stated that consequently anyone entering the building would have access to the jewellers workshop simply by walking up the stairs. The next witness was a man called Henry Chapman whose evidence damned the prisoner’s fate. He told the bench that his father had a pawnbrokers business in Sheffield. Crucially, he identified the same watch as one which the prisoner himself had pledged on 3 November 1855, using the name of Anderson. The pawnbrokers assistant declared that he had given him £2 for the watch even though there were no chain or seals attached to it.
At that point, some legal discussions took place between the bench, the defence and the prosecution. Mr Broadbent admitted that there was a slight technical legal hitch to the proceedings against the prisoner for felony as regards many of the watches. He said that the statute books stated that when goods of any description were entrusted to an outworker, and he sold or disposed of them, he could not be charged with larceny, only be sued for damages for breach of trust. Therefore the watches, being voluntarily entrusted to him to repair, came within this category. However the only exception to this rule was the gold watch which had been produced at the first court appearance belonging to Mr Jacobs.
In that case, Mr Broadbent said that the law states that when a person sold part of the property entrusted to him to repair, that constituted a felony. The prosecution, Mr Broadbent told the court that he needed to take legal advice on this matter, so it was agreed that the prisoner would be remanded until the following Wednesday in order to clarify this legal conundrum. Accordingly on Wednesday 2 January the case was resumed. During that time period police officers had been busy visiting various pawn shops in Sheffield. They were accompanied by Jacob Jacobs who admitted that at the time of the so-called robbery, the prisoner was in possession of three gold watches and a silver one from his father to repair.
Jacobs said that his sister’s name had been engraved on the watch and identified the watch produced in court. He said that it had been on the Saturday night, the day after the prisoner’s first appearance in court that he found and identified the missing watch at the pawnshop belonging to Mr Chapman on Westbar. He indicated his sister’s name which had been engraved inside. However, more legal arguments took place before the magistrates clerk advised Mr Phillips the magistrate that a sufficient case had been made out to send the prisoner for trial. After further discussion the watchmaker was simply remanded again until the following day’
Even then however, the case was not clarified and following yet more legal arguments, it was finally decided to proceed with the charge of illegally pawning a watch. At the end of a very difficult and challenging investigation Charles Sjoguist was found guilty. He was therefore ordered to pay the cost of the watch (£3) and a fine of £8 or to go to prison for three months, which was accordingly paid. I often wonder what happened to the prisoner after the case had ended and he’s paid the fine. Incidents like this would have ruined the watchmakers career and his reputation in the town. Did he leave and go elsewhere? I would love to know!