Saqui & Lawrence

Lawrence Samuel, Jeweller and Watchmaker, the son of Alfred and Emma (Wolf(f)) Samuel and the grandson of Moses and Harriet (Israel) Samuel, changed his name to Lawrence Lawrence and partnered with John Saqui to form the jewellery company called Saqui & Lawrence & Co. It was eventually taken over by H. Samuel & Co. Initially, Alfred Samuel and John Saqui worked closely together, but it was only with Lawrence that a formal partnership was established. Alfred also changed his name from Alfred Samuel to Alfred Lawrence.

This page contains some newspaper articles describing the progress of the company as well as the various robberies that were visited upon it over the years. Lawrence was also involved in a rather messy divorce which was much reported on in the newspapers at the time.

Lawrence’s partner, John Saqui, married Sarah Wool(f) whose other three sisters had married three of Moses Samuel’s sons, including Albert Samuel who married Emma Wolf(f). Thus Sarah Wolf(f) was Lawrence’s aunt, both by blood and marriage. Saqui formed a company with the son of Alfred Samuel – Lawrence Lawrence. Alfred had married Sarah’s sister Emma Wolf(f). These relationships are displayed on the charts below.

The partnership between John Saqui and Lawrence Lawrence was dissolved in 1908. John’s son Horatio continued the business as just Saqui & Co., whereas Lawrence Lawrence continued the business under the same name – Saqui and Lawrence.

Liverpool Mercury – Wednesday 16 April 1862

LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT.
TUESDAY, APRIL 15. BEFORE JUSTICE E.
AN IMPUDENT ROBBERY

A rough-looking fellow named John Doyle, who had lately undergone three months imprisonment for attempting to break into a shop, was charged with stealing a watch and chain from the shop of Mr. Samuel, jeweller, &c, Manchester-street. On Monday afternoon a lad named Joseph Cavanagh, employed in the prosecutor’s shop, saw the prisoner pick up a large stone and throw it through the shop window, then put his hand through the broken pane, seize a watch and chain, and bolt off at the top of his speed. The lad ran after him, crying “Stop thief!” and the fellow was stopped by Mr. Saqui, who keeps a shop in Manchester-street. This gentleman was standing at his door and saw the prisoner smash the window and steal the watch. When the scamp ran off with the articles Mr. Saqui was ready for him, captured him with the watch and chain in his possession, and handed him over to police constable 751, who conveyed him to bridewell. The facts having been detailed in evidence the prisoner was asked what he had to say to the charge. Prisoner: It was want of employment and necessity that made me do it. – Magistrate: Necessity! necessity made you go and smash a person’s window and steal his property? – Prisoner: Yes; I saw no other way of getting something to eat.- Magistrate: That excuse is perfectly idle, because there is the work house for people who are necessitous. Is this man known? -Bridewell-keeper: Yes, your worship. He has served three months for attempting to break into a shop. – Magistrate, to the prisoner: You will be committed to gaol for six calendar months.  

Liverpool Daily Post – Friday 23 January 1863
IMPUDENCE UNBOUNDED

Mr. John Saqui, 40, has gone to considerable expence in advertising his jewellery establishment. Finding that some neighbours were trying to take advantage of his advertisements, Mr. Saqui issued a caution to the public. Instead of being ashamed into something like trades-mans-like conduct, the offenders have actually copied Mr. Saqui’s caution and display it in large letters outside their premises.

Liverpool Daily Post – Friday 06 November 1863
ADVERTISEMENT

Wedding-rings! “Wedding-rings!! Wedding-rings! – The purest quality Guinea-gold Wedding-rings, Alfred Samuel’s, 48, Manchester-street, Liverpool.

Important Caution. — The justly celebrated and genuine £3 5s Patent Lever Watch can only be obtained of the maker John Saqui. The deservedly high reputation of these noted watches having caused an increasing demand, other shopkeepers in the immediate neighbourhood are unprincipled enough to offer inferior watches, which they represent the article advertised; it is only by having these watches brought back as worthless that Mr. Saqui has been enabled detect the fraud. The public should be careful to mark well the name John Saqui; mark well the number, 40, Manchester street. Note for the benefit of the working classes — weekly payments will be taken. Beware of placard in the street.

Liverpool Daily Post – Tuesday 05 July 1864
ADVERTISEMENT

Working men, lose no more quarters buy one of Saqui’s 6s 6d alarm clocks. Unequalled for punctuality. Manchester-street, Liverpool. WHAT’S THE TIME? — This question can only answered correctly by purchasing one of Samuel’s celebrated own make £3 5s Patent Levers. The Public are respectfully cautioned against being led astray by puffing advertisements. A. Samuel being the original and only inventor of the above invaluable article. None are genuine without the undermentioned name and address upon the dial: A Samuel, 10, Manchester (Dale-street end).

Liverpool Daily Post – Tuesday 25 October 1864
ADVERTISMENT

Watches! Watches! 5,000 Solid Silver Jewelled Watches at One Guinea each (large bankrupt stock bought for cash at reduction of 30 per cent, under original cost. — Apply to A. Samuel, 10, Manchester-street (Dale street end)  I say Bill! That seems a tidy ticker of yours; where did you get it? Why at Saqui’s, 40, Manchester-street. Ah! that is the chap’s I meant to go to, but by a confounded mistake dropped into the wrong shop; this thing I bought will only go when it is carried.

Liverpool Mercury – Friday 18 November 1864
ADVERTISEMENT: IMPORTANT CAUTION

The justly celebrated and genuine £8 Patent Lever Watch can only be obtained of the maker, John Saqui. The deservedly high reputation of these noted watches having caused an increasing demand, other shopkeepers in the immediate neighbourhood are unprincipled enough to offer inferior watches, which they represent as the article advertised; it is only by having these watches brought back, as worthless, that Mr. Saqui has been enabled to detect the fraud. The public should be careful to mark well the name John Saqui; mark well the number, 40, Manchester-street. Note: For the benefit of the working classes, weekly payments will be taken. Beware of placards in the street.

Liverpool Mercury – Saturday 10 December 1864
LIVERPOOL POLICE COURT. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 9.
DARING ATTEMPT AT ROBBERY FROM A SHOP

Mary Wilson, a miserably clad girl, was charged with having stolen a case of jewellery from the shop of Mr. John Saqui, jeweller and watchmaker, 40, Manchester-street. About two o’clock on the Thursday afternoon, Campbell, one of the bridewell-keepers, was going along Manchester-street, when he saw the prisoner run out of Mr. Saqui’s shop, followed by the prosecutor. Campbell took up the chase, and came up with the girl at the old Haymarket. He took her back to the shop of Mr. Saqui, one of whose assistants stated that he had seen the prisoner behind the counter, and it was found that a case containing about £9 worth of jewellery had been removed from its position on the counter. The prisoner who pleaded guilty, was remanded for seven days to allow of inquiries being made respecting her.

Liverpool Daily Post – Saturday 10 December 1864
ADVERTISEMENT

I say, Bill! that seems a tidy ticker of yours; where did you get it? Why at Saqui’s, 40, Manchester-street. Ah! that is the chap’s I meant to go to, but by a confounded mistake I dropped into the wrong shop; this thing I bought will only go when it is carried.   OLD FRIENDS – To know correctly what o’clock it is, go to the proper place for the celebrated own-make 3 5s. Patent Lever Watch. Be firm; withstand all alluring puffs, John Saqui is the original and only manufacturer, 40, Manchester-street.   Watches! Watches! Watches! 5,000 Solid Silver Jewelled Watches at One Guinea each (large bankrupt stock bought for cash at a reduction of 30 per cent under original cost — Apply to A. Samuel, 10, Manchester-street (Dale-street end)

Liverpool Mercury – Wednesday 25 October 1865

PUBLIC Notice. —Mr. John Saqui, Watchmaker, 40, Manchester-street, respectfully requests his numerous customers, before entering any shop of the kind in the street, to look well for his name, which will avoid unpleasant mistakes.

Liverpool Mercury – Tuesday 05 January 1875
ADVERTISEMENT

On the approach of the happiest day in your lives, old friends, don’t forget John Saqui, whose motto like his number, XL. — 40, Manchester-street, and at 82, Lord-street. Electro-plate and cutlery great variety usual.

The Times 23 November 1888
COLE V. SAQUI AND LAWRENCE.
BEFORE LORDS JUSTICES COTTON, LINDLEY, AND FRY.

This was an appeal from the decision of Mr. Justice Kekewich. His Lordship had granted an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing a patent taken out by the plaintiff for a mechanical toy – namely, a dancing doll, where the effect is produced by the spinning of a top. The ground of the appeal was that the invention which was sought to be patented was not of sufficient merit, because it did not involve inventive thought so as to support a patent. The plaintiff’s toy consists of a doll with dangling legs suspended by a resilient wire somewhat in the form of gallows fixed to a frame on which there is a small cup. On the cup a top is spun, supporting a disc or platform with slight inequalities on it, placed immediately below the feet of the doll. When the disc revolves by the spinning of the top its inequalities knock against the feet of the doll, and cause the appearance of dancing. There were in evidence two other toys worked by a top alleged by the defendants to be practically dependent on the same principles as the plaintiff’s toy. One was a flying butterfly, the other a toy in which a doll was hit by a revolving top as it went round. The great difference between this latter toy and the plaintiff’s was that the top was moved by an attached string which was allowed by the person spinning it proper freedom of play, so that it wound itself, and continuity of motion could be obtained for any length of time. Whereas the plaintiff relied to keep his top spinning on the smoothness and smallness of his cup.

Mr. Moulton, Q.C., Mr. Ralph Neville, Q.C., and Mr. Chadwyk Healey appeared in support of the appeal Mr. Aston Q.C., Mr. Warmington, Q.C., and Mr. E. S. Ford for the plaintiff, the present respondent. After hearing the arguments all the Lords Justices concurred in thinking that the plaintiff’s so called invention did not involve sufficient ingenuity or mental device to support a patent, and they reversed the decision of the Court below.

Penny Illustrated Paper – Saturday 09 January 1892
BURGLARY AT SAQUI AND LAWRENCE

The City police who have a most capable and energetic chief, may well plume themselves upon the smart capture of burglars in Fleet Street near mid-night on Saturday last. A P.I.P. Artist sketches the rook on which two of the accused sought refuge, and portrays the prisoners J. Goldsmith, 28, agent; Thomas Lester, 32, musician; James King, 40 printer; James Harrison, 33, porter, and Robert Samson, 21, porter – who were charged before Mr Alderman Cotton, at the Mansion House, on Monday, with being concerned together in breaking and entering No. 97, Fleet Street, occupied by Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, Jewellers. In remanding them, Mr. Alderman Cotton paid a well-merited tribute to Detective Palmer: “I must say that the manner in which you laid your plans and succeeded in capturing all these men about the premises is entitled to the highest commendation.”

Detective Palmer’s Story

was as good as any to be found in Charles Dickens’s detective tales. He said that at 11.30 on Saturday night he saw Lester the side door of 97, Fleet Street, in Bride Lane. He afterwards left the door and went towards the Punch Tavern, where witness saw him joined by Goldsmith. They faced each other, and appeared to be speaking. Goldsmith came to the end of the lane towards Fleet Street. Lester went back to the side door of the shop. The time Lester stayed at the shop Goldsmith kept raising his hat from his head. Witness gave instructions to a constable, and went to Bride Lane, towards Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence’s doorway, where Lester and Goldsmith were standing. At the same time a young man named Cuthbert, in the employ of Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, appeared to be going to the side-door. When Witness got there he heard him say: “Someone is breaking into the shop. Witness said to him “All right,” and at the same time he grasped Goldsmith and Lester by the necks. They exclaimed: “What are you doing?” Witness called two constables, and said: “Take these two men to the station.” They said: “What for?” Witness said: “I will tell you later on.” Witness then entered the premises with Cuthbert, and saw an iron door, which shut off the entrance to the other half of the premises. The iron door was partly bent from the top, with the head of a broom wedged halfway through, and two parts of a broomstick broken were also in the door. Three screws were forced out of the collar holding the iron bar. Some of the woodwork was splintered. Witness got possession of the keys, opened the door, went on to the top of the building, and found the trapdoor was open leading to the roof. Between the ceiling and the tiles, he found a man’s black felt hat and a large sack. He examined the premises, and found on the third floor, in a lumber room, marks of water. He then returned to the police station, where he saw King, Harrison, and Samson, all three black and dirty, King being without a hat. All five prisoners were then charged with breaking and entering 97, Fleet Street. Goldsmith said he could not be charged with the others, and he was told that he would be charged as being concerned with the others. Witness afterwards examined the roof of 95, Fleet Street, which was two doors from Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence’s, and found that entrance had been effected by a window at the top of the premises from outside. He examined 89, Fleet Street, and found that the entrance had been effected by breaking a trap-door open. On Sunday morning he found in St. Bride’s Churchyard, a few doors from Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence’s premises, two jimmies, a chisel, and gimlet. George Diver’s Narrative also deserves to be given, as he behaved with signal smartness. George Diver is a carpenter and builder, of 84, Fleet Street. When it Avas suspected that the burglars were trying to escape over the roofs of the houses, he, armed with an iron bar, and accompanied Inspector Palmer, got through the trap-door at Saqui’s, and then saw two men making their way over the tiles, and followed them till they disappeared down the trap-door at Pooley’s. A perilous feat over such roofs, as our Artist’s sketch indicates! [See below]

Jewish Chronicle   27 July 1894
DEATH NOTICE

MR. ISAAC WOOLF returns THANKS for kind visits, cards, and letters of condolence received on the occasion of the death of his late lamented sister, Mrs. John Saqui. — 109, Bedford-street, south, Liverpool.
[Mrs. John Saqui was Sarah Wolf(f) who married John Saqui and whose three sisters married three Samuel brothers]

Daily Telegraph   7 April 1896
SAQUI & LAWRENCE: A DARING DAYLIGHT ROBBERY

A daring daylight robbery was committed at 97, Fleet-street, on Sunday morning. The premises on the ground floor are occupied by Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, who carry on business as jewellers and watchmakers. The fastenings of the doors were found perfectly secure at ten minutes to nine o clock on Sunday morning by the policeman on the beat. On passing the side entrance in Bride-lane at nine o’clock however, the same constable noticed that the padlock with which the door had been fastened was missing. He immediately proceeded into the house, but after a careful search was unable to discover the thief or thieves. He found that the inside door had been forced and the iron gate communicating with the shop was also smashed. In all four locks been destroyed and three doors broken open. The thieves were evidently disturbed in their work, as the large iron safe, although showing signs of having been tampered with, was not much damaged. The shop, which contains a large quantity of real and imitation jewellery, was practically untouched, but the room at the rear was much disturbed.

The Times   23 January 1899
POLICE: AT MANSION HOUSE

WILLIAM FAULKNER, 61, described as a riveter, was charged before Mr. Alderman Truscott with wilfully damaging a plate-glass window in the shop of Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, jewellers, Fleet-street. On Friday evening a police constable on duty in Fleet-street heard the smashing of glass, and, proceeding in the direction from which the sound came, saw that a window in the shop of Messrs Saqui and Lawrence was broken. There was a block of wood lying inside the window. The prisoner was standing on the footway with a number of other people, facing the window. The constable inquired who had done it. The prisoner replied that he had. The constable took him to the police-station, where he said that he did it from spite, but not from spite of that particular shop. The prisoner was quite sober. The damage done to the window amounted to £4. Messrs Saqui and Lawrence did not know the prisoner. Replying to Mr. Alderman Truscott, the prisoner said he had nothing at all to say. He denied that he stated that he did it from spite. He did not know why he did it. Mr. Alderman Truscott said that this class of offence was becoming very frequent. He regretted that be could not order the prisoner to have a flogging, and unfortunately it was not in his power to send him to prison for more than two months. He sentenced the prisoner to two months’ hard labour.

Derbyshire Courier – Tuesday 11 April 1905
DARING BURGLARY.

A daring burglary was effected at King’s Cross Station, London, during Sunday. The thieves gained admittance to Messrs. Spiers and Pond’s refreshment rooms, and then bored a large hole through the wall to Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence’s jewellery establishment adjoining. The burglars were able to get together a good haul of jewellery and make off unnoticed. The loss is considerable, but the jewellers are unable to state the exact amount.

Below, Saqui and Lawrence below the Schweppes Ginger Beer sign in Piccadilly Circus, London.

Morning Leader – Thursday 11 January 1906
A JEWELLRY SALE.

While the general public is used to the large drapery sales, there are many people who would like to purchase jewelry on the same advantageous terms. Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, the well-known jewellers in the City and Kings-cross, are now holding a stocktaking sale, at which they are offering 4s. in the pound reduction and which they intend to make an annual custom. “Like drapers,” the manager explains, “jewellers have now so many newly-manufactured articles that we must clear our stocks in order to make room for novelties.”

Daily Mail 18 October 1907
SAQUI & LAWRENCE

Daily Mail   7 November 1907
Burglars’ Winter Season; Saqui and Lawrence

The Daily Telegraph   5 October 1908
JEWELLERS’ WINDOW SMASHED

Considerable excitement was caused in Piccadilly circus when crowded with people shortly before eight o’clock, on Saturday night, by a man suddenly hurling a brick through one of the large plate-glass windows of the jewellery establishment of Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, at the corner of Shaftesbury-avenue. The man made no attempt to grab anything, but stood perfectly still, surveying the wreck he had caused until a policeman rushed forward and took him into custody. Only a single ring fell through the aperture in the glass onto the pavement, and this was promptly recovered. Numerous constables surrounded the premises within the space of a minute, and those in charge at once lowered the folding shutters. The loss was fortunately confined to the plate-glass window, which was insured. The man in custody was conveyed to Vine-street Police Station, and he will be brought before the magistrate at Marlborough-street. He is of middle age, and his actions indicated that his object was to get locked up and not commit a robbery.

The London Gazette, November 27 1908, Issue 28200, Page 9125
DISSOLUTION OF A PARTNERSHIP

IN consequence of a dissolution of partnership, and pursuant to an Order of the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, made in an action LAWRENCE v. SAQUI (1908, L, No. 1752), tenders are invited for the purchase, in one lot, as a going concern, of the business of Jewellers, Watch and Clock Makers, Gold and Silversmiths, and Diamond Merchants, for 27 years carried on by the parties to this action, under the names or styles of “Saqui and Lawrence,” and “The St. Paul’s Wholesale Jewellery Company,” at the undermentioned positions in leading thoroughfares of London (including the goodwill of the said business), together with the beneficial interests of the parties to the said action, in the leasehold shops and premises situate and being:—The shop, No. 276, Pentonville-road, King’s Cross; the shop, No. 277, Pentonville-road; the upper floor of Nos. 275, 277, 279, and 281, Pentonville-road ; the shops, Nos. 28, 29, and 30, Liverpool-street, E.C.; the shop and premises, No. 97, Fleet-street, E C.; the shop and premises, Nos. 1 and 3, Shaftesbury-avenue, Piccadilly, W.; the shop and premises, No. 54, Strand, W.C.; and the shop and premises, No. 63, St. Paul’s-churchyard, E.C.; upon which the said business is carried on, also the trade and other fixtures, fittings and utensils, used in connection with the said business, together with the stock of jewellery, watches, clocks, &c., belonging to the said parties, with the benefit, of the trading as from the 29^th September, 1908.

Evening Standard · Monday, 18 October 1909
MESSRS SAQUI AND COMPANY

Bolton Evening News – Tuesday 07 December 1909
SAQUI AND LAWRENCE

Shortly after nine o’clock Monday night, the window of Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, jewellers, Fleet-street, was smashed by a stone thrown by a man, who is said to have made off with a tray rings. A young man who saw the incident caught the alleged thief in Bride-lane and handed him over to the police.

Daily Mail 24 January 1910
POLICE COURTS STRAND JEWEL ROBBERY.
STATEMENT OF AN ALLEGED BURGLARS’ PLOT.

George Hazel, thirty-one, John Wiltshire thirty-two, and Edward Lucy, twenty-eighty were charged at Bow-street on Saturday with stealing sixty bracelets, 140 rings, 100 bangles, and other articles of jewellery, of the total value of £1,200, the property of Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, jewellers, of the Strand.

   Mr. Arthur Newton, who was for the prosecution, said the premises were locked up as usual on the afternoon of Saturday, January 8, and on Monday morning the property was discovered to have been stolen. Hazel had been employed at the shop as a porter for about seven years; Lucy and Wiltshire were strangers.

   Detective-Inspector Gough gave in evidence, a statement he said, had been made voluntarily to him by Hazel, but was not signed. The statement was to the effect that about three weeks before Christmas Wiltshire, whom he had known, introduced him to Lucy and another man named Michael. The last named said to him, “I have been watching the place where you work, and I mean to do it in.” Michael then asked him how the electric alarm bells were situated, also how men could gain access to the shop, if they could secrete themselves in the basement. He gave him a plan of the shop.

   The next time he saw the men (the statement continued) was soon after Christmas. Lucy questioned him, and he told Lucy that the painted notice on a door at the rear. ” Danger beware of the electric wires ” was only subterfuge. There were no wires. He further suggested to the men that they should cut a hole through the basement ceiling, which would give them access to the back office, and so enable them to work on the back of the safe, which usually contained £4,000 or £5,000 worth of jewellery and about £70 in cash.

   On the evening of January 8 (the statement further alleged) Hazel admitted Michael, who concealed himself in the coal cellar. He afterwards met Lucy, who said to him, “I’ll go and get the tools and come back and get in”.  

   After the robbery (the statement continued) he-was informed that the men had been unable to open the safe, but they cleared all they could from the shop. Michael afterwards told him that he had “sold the stuff” for £130. Out of that sum he (Hazel) received £25.

   Lucy, when the statement him was read to him, said, “A nice little story. He can say what he likes. Anyone can make a statement. It is a question of proof. No one can prove that I committed the crime. It will have to be tested.” The accused were remanded.

Globe – Thursday 17 February 1910
STRAND JEWEL ROBBERY.
TRIAL AT THE OLD BAILEY. DETECTIVE’S GRAPHIC STORY.

At the Old Bailey, to-day, before Judge Rentoul, the case against John Wiltshire (32), labourer of 90, Aldenham-street, Somers Town; George Hasel (31), porter, 7, William-street, Hampstead-road; and Edward Lucy (28), fruitier, 100 Judd-street, King’s-cross, was resumed. Prisoners were charged with having broken into the shop of Edgar Samuel Edgar, trading as Saqui and Lawrence, jewellers, 54, Strand, and stealing jewellery valued at £1,200. Hasel pleaded guilty, but Lucy and Wiltshire denied the charge. Percy Taylor, manager Saqui and Lawrence, said that Hasel had been employed with the firm for seven years as porter, and witness had entire confidence in him. Witness said he locked up his shop on Saturday, January 8th, in the usual way. Before leaving he took some jewellery from the window and placed it in the safe, together with £70 in money. On the Monday following, witness found an inside door had been forced open, and on investigation of the premises discovered that a quantity of jewellery had been stolen from the window. The back of the safe had been partly ripped up. The value of the property in the safe was between £5,000 and £7,000. The stolen property was worth £1,200.

St. Pancras Guardian and Camden and Kentish Towns Reporter – Friday 18 February 1910
LOCAL MEN IN A STRAND ROBBERY.

One of the prisoners in the Strand jewel shop theft went into the box at the Old Bailey yesterday, and told the story of the conspiracy. The witness, George Hasel, 31, of William-street, Hampstead-road, who had been a “porter on the premises for seven years”, gave evidence against John Wiltshire, 32, a labourer, of Aldenham street, Somers Town, and Edward Lucy, 28, a fruitier, of Judd-street, King’s Cross, who pleaded not guilty to breaking into the premises of Mr. Edgar Samuel Edgar, jeweller, trading as Saqui and Lawrence — Hasel pleaded guilty to complicity in the robbery. All three men were convicted. The value of the stolen jewels was £1,200. An unsuccessful attempt was made to open a safe containing jewellery worth between £5,000 and £6,000. The jury found Wiltshire and Lucy guilty, and Hasel was recommended to mercy by the prosecution. Warder Tuckey, of Wormwood Scrubbs, proved a previous conviction against Lucy, after many other convictions for various offences. Detective Inspector Gough said Wiltshire worked for a man known as “The Dutchman,” who made burglars’ implements. Lucy since his release had been a professional burglar. The judge sent Lucy to four years’ penal servitude, and Hasel and Wiltshire each to three months’ in the second division.

St. Pancras Guardian and Camden and Kentish Towns Reporter – Friday 25 February 1910
THE STRAND JEWELLERY CASE.

George Hasel, 31, who the previous day was sentenced to three months in the second division for his share in the Strand jewellery robbery, when owing to his assistance the thieves were able to make off with £1,200 worth of jewellery, the property of Mr. Edgar Samuel Edgar, trading as Saqui and Lawrence, was again placed in the dock on Friday. — Judge Rentoul said he was informed that a situation would be found the accused if he released him, and having regard to the recommendation of the jury and that of the prosecution he would reverse his sentence of the previous day and bind the accused over in the sum of £10 to come up for sentence if called upon. He could not forget, however, that it was entirely owing to the prisoner that the thieves were able to secure such a large amount of booty. and but for the recommendations made he should have felt it his duty to pass a sentence of penal servitude.

The Jewish Chronicle   23 June 1911
DEATH NOTICE

LAWRENCE. — In loving memory of my dear father, Alfred Lawrence, who passed away June 22nd, 1907, May his soul rest in everlasting peace. — Lawrence Lawrence.

[Alfred Lawrence was Alfred Samuel (1831- 1907) the son of Moses and Harriet (Israel) Samuel. He married Emma Wolf(f). His son Lawrence Lawrence merged his father’s Jewellry company with that of John Jacob Saqui’s to form the firm Saqui and Lawrence. Lawrence’s divorce from his wife caused a sensation in the papers.]

West London Observer – Friday 28 July 1911
SAQUI AND LAWRENCE ADVERTISEMENT

Daily Mail 18 February 1921
Saqui & Lawrence

The Guardian · Saturday, 3 May 1924
SAQUI & COMPANY

Gloucester Citizen – Tuesday 04 October 1938
DETECTIVE BEHIND COUNTER: LISTENS TO £14,000 JEWEL CONVERSATION

Samuel W. Schubert (SG), described as a company director, of Abercorn-place, St. John’s Wood, London, was at Bow-street, London, to-day, remanded for a week charged with attempting to obtain precious stones, valued at £14,000, by means of false pretences from Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence, Shaftsbury-avenue, yesterday. Bail refused. Detective Sergeant Percy Burgess said that he saw Schubert at Messrs. Saqui and Lawrence’s premises last evening. He was standing at the counter with the manager, Mr. Strange, examining a number of diamonds and emeralds. The officer said that he stood behind the counter listening to the conversation. Schubert selected a number of stones, said that he would pay for them with bills for £14,400. He would take the stones and a cheque for £400. He produced the bills from one of his socks. The officer then presented himself. After being cautioned Schubert said, “Of course there is money to meet them. They are genuine. Major Moore told me that I could get them discounted now.” Later, in answer to the charge, Schubert said, “All right.” Detective Sergeant Burgess, opposing bail, said that Schubert was already under a Home Office order of expulsion, and there was a possibility that he would leave the country. Schubert said that had been away from Germany nearly 18 years, and that he was not under an order of expulsion now. Mr. McKenna (magistrate): Have you been told to go? — Yes. Mr. McKenna: I do not think this is a case for bail.

The Daily Telegraph   17 June 1963
Saqui and Lawrence

Illustrated London News – Saturday 21 May 1966
ADVERTISEMENT

John Jacob Saqui’s brother Abraham was a musician who was sometimes quoted in the newspapers as being a ‘choir master’ .