English Chess Forum

The chess editor of the Sunday Times, Louis van Vliet once got himself into a spot of bother...
Olimpiu Urcan wrote a piece about this in 2005 on the sadly defunct ChessCafe site, with the title, 'Louis van Vliet: Master or Mugger?'

https://web.archive.org/web/20061027204 ... les251.pdf

He assumed that van Vliet was found guilty saying...

Several witnesses as to character gave evidence, but the prisoner was committed for trial. Mr. Vaughan offered to accept two sureties of £25 or one in £50.

The fine he paid was a handsome sum and van Vliet would have been better off if he had won some first prizes at Simpson’s Divan prior to his arrest. Not that this happened frequently; van Vliet scored the occasional victory over some of his higher rated opponents.

...perhaps not understanding the meaning of 'sureties'.

However van Vliet was found not guilty.
and
But perhaps the motive for his odd behaviour wasn't theft, but something rather worse?

"But perhaps the motive for his odd behaviour wasn't theft, but something rather worse?"

At the time, I expect that theft (then known as larceny) was considered to be worse than indecent assault.

"At the time, I expect that theft (then known as larceny) was considered to be worse than indecent assault."

as it was for the next 100 years or so...

An interesting detail is that van Vliet was arrested under what became known as the 'Sus Law'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sus_law

https://youtu.be/RESoUM91RiQ