The Goddard Case T HE verdicts in the Goddard case will
deal, let us hope, such a blow at the night club business, as it has hitherto been conducted, that this disreputable and tawdry manifestation of London life will be unable to survive. It is said that immediately after the result of the trial was known some of the more notorious night clubs put up their shutters. If that is the end of them so much the better.
For some years the ordinary Londoner, who had in- herited the traditional admiration of Londoners for their police, has been wondering how such a woman as Mrs. Meyrick, who after each conviction for an offence seemed to be able to pursue her old business with impunity, managed to do it. Were the police not doing their duty ? Were they really unaware of flagrant defiances of the law which seemed to be the common knowledge of all other men ? On the other hand, one frequently read in the newspapers about raids on night clubs. So it did seem that the police were doing something, though inexplicably allowing the chief offenders to slip through their fingers. Was this woman, Mrs. Meyrick, a person of such sinister cleverness and resourcefulness that she could outwit the police almost as often as she pleased ? Now we know the truth. The Goddard case has made the salutary revelation that the most notorious examples of law-breaking in night clubs were due to the connivance of Sergeant Goddard. This man, as has been proved up to the hilt, had been accepting large sums of money in return for screening the richer clubs, in particular those conducted by Mrs. Meyrick and an Italian named Ribuffi.
Goddard covered up his tracks very cleverly. Appar- ently he seldom or never met Mrs. Meyrick. There must have been some go-between. He never accepted a cheque. He never went into any transaction which so far as he knew would leave a trace of his guilt. Yet like most offenders against the law, even the most careful and the cleverest, he made a mistake. He accepted his bribes in the form of Bank of England notes which can, of course, be traced after they have been passed through other banks. No doubt Goddard knew that, but he did not protect himself sufficiently even when he locked up his notes in a safe, which he hired under an assumed name. Great credit is due to the indefatigable re- searchers of Scotland Yard who went through all the signatures in the books of safe deposit companies till they discovered a signature which exactly resembled Goddard's writing. This piece of research, however, would not have been possible if Scotland Yard had not been warned by an anonymous letter writer of Goddard's method of safeguarding his hoards. Altogether Goddard had amassed in notes £12,000, and a certain number of these notes had passed through Mrs. Meyriek's banking account. Such evidence as that (and there was more of the same kind) brought crashing down the preposterous stories which Goddard told the Court about the manner in which he had built up his wealth.
He had, he said, made money by fortunate investments, by betting—apparently he never backed a loser—by his share in the sale of a sweetmeat known as Wembley Rock, and by a share in a music publishing business. This line of defence Was inherently feeble in itself because it .required Goddard to incriminate himself in one con- nexion in order to exculpate himself in another ; he freely admitted that he had made bets with street bookmakers—the very people whom it was his duty to arrest and some of whom, it seems, he did arrest.
But, then, Goddard was an astute enough man to throw dust in the eyes of suspicion whenever he possibly could. He would take part in the raid of a night club, but would be careful to give the club sufficient warning.
Even if Scotland Yard had not received anonymous infor- mation a leakage of official secrets by which the night clubs benefited had been obvious for a long time, and Sir William Horwood, the late Chief Commissioner of Police, had been on the look out for an offender and followed up the case against Goddard as soon as his suspicions were reasonably founded. We have no doubt whatever that Lord Byng will make good better. He will not rest till the stigma which Goddard has placed on the Metropolitan Police has been removed.
We are not among those who believe in stories of widespread corruption. All we say is that in a force of men whose training has not always given them such a standard or code as is associated with a higher education, the temptation to derive money from bribery and corruption must be peculiarly strong. That the police have won a great reputation, which is acknowledged all over the world, is one of the wonders of English life. Of course, some of the weaker elements recognizing that the immunity of night club proprietors must have been due to corrupt transactions may have been demoral- ized by the example, even if they did not know the truth about Goddard himself. If so, Lord Byng will continue the cleaning-up. It is said that Goddard sometimes drew £100 a week from Mrs. Meyrick. One can form some estimate from this bribe of the magnitude of Mrs.
Meyrick's profits. If such corruption was even dimly suspected by the police themselves the mere lining of a constable's palm with a few half-crowns must have seemed a very small misdemeanour. Such is the effect of the microbe of corruption when once it j,has obtained entry into an official body.
There is another aspect of this matter which is not relevant to the degree of Goddard's culpability, but is very relevant to the reputation of Londoners. We arc going through a period of great industrial stress. Acute personal misery has invaded innumerable homes. Is this a time when any man or woman who clings to any remnants of decency should take pleasure in buying champagne at six or seven pounds a bottle, or whatever the price may be, and incidentally piling up the labours and the cost of administration in both the Home Office and Scotland Yard ? We sincerely hope that Goddard's trial will mark a notable change in the habits of those people who have money to spend but .no sense of proportion in the spending of it.
Previous page
