Maidstone Journal and Kentish Advertiser, Monday 21 August 1871.

Fatal Railway Accident.

On Saturday morning last, the gatekeeper at the Aylesford crossing, George Bassett, aged 77 years, was run over by the 8.55 express train from Maidstone, and his body cut to pieces.

At the inquest held at the "George Inn," in the afternoon of the same day, before J. N. Dudley, Esq., it appeared that the first down train was behind its time. This train was probably signalled by Bassett, and he then prepared to cross over the down line with his white flag to signal the up train which was then expected, but at this moment a soldier, who had been speaking to Bassett, saw one of the railway gates swinging across the up line of rails. Bassett also seemed to have noticed this, and he attempted to cross over to fasten the gate, when the train was upon him, cutting him literally to pieces; portions of his body was picked up 50 yards from the spot. The accident, no doubt, occurred in consequence of the deceased not having put the clasp over the head of the gate, which would have prevented it being blown open by the wind. The driver and guard were examined, and stated that they both saw deceased, and attempted to wave him back, but it was too late, the speed of the express at the crossing between 30 and 40 miles per hour. Mr. Raggett the stationmaster at Maidstone, next explained to the jury that the their line was worked on the block system, which does not allow one train to leave a station before an answer has been obtained from the station ahead that all is clear. The deceased had received the signal from Maidstone and had answered back, his distant signal also was set denoting line clear. It is usual for the driver of the express to shut off steam immediately after passing the distance signal (about 600 yards from the crossing), which he did on this occasion, but the speed and weight of train was sufficient to carry the train to Aylesford station without again putting on the steam.

The coroner briefly summed up, and the verdict was returned, "Accidentally killed by a railway engine."

Maidstone and Kentish Journal, 20 April, 1889.

Serious Charge of Forgery.

Charles Stoneham, Miller, of Larkfield, was placed in the dock charged with forgery.

Mr. Turner (from the office of Messrs. Scudamore and Brennan, solicitors, Week Street) appeared to prosecute on behalf of Messr's Wigan Mercer, and Co, bankers.

In stating the case he said he should have to ask for a remand, as he was not in a position to produce all the evidence that day. He would be able to prove in evidence that the prisoner had on several occasions since December up until as recently as the present month forged the name of Mr. Harry Ellis Epps, of "George Hotel," Aylesford. He had signed Mr. Epps' name to cheques upon Messr's. Wigan, Mercer, and Co's. bank, and obtaining money to the amount of £40. The charge was a serious one, and was taken under the 23rd section of the Forgery Act, which if there worships liked he would read.

The Mayor intimated that there was no necessity for that.

Mr. Turner, proceeding, said that Mr. Epps was a licensed victualler living at Aylesford, and he banked with Messrs. Wigan, Mercer, and Co. For some reason he had not looked at his bank book lately, and therefore he had no means of knowing what had been debited to him at the bank. Last week he received an intimation from the bank that is account was overdrawn. Mr. Epps was surprised at this, for he was perfectly aware that he had not drawn on his account to make it in that position. On the receipt of that intimation Mr. Epps examined his bank book and found that six cheques had been cashed at the bank and charged to his account which were not his. The checks were made payable on order to Mr. Stoneham, and every one was endorsed by him and was signed by the name of H. E. Epps. Mr. Turner said he should give them evidence to show that Mr. Stoneham signed those cheques so he should not that day be able to prove the utterance, as the Prisoner was only apprehended yesterday (Monday), but the police were making enquiries. The prisoner have been in pecuniary difficulties and before he became bankrupt he had a small account at Messrs. Wigan, Mercer, and Co's. bank, but he had not got an account now. Mr. Turner then mentioned the new system that the bank had adopted in checking the number of each cheque, and mentioned as another fact that he should call Mr. Hoppe who gave the prisoner, by his request, two blank cheques with two consecutive numbers and the numbers be held corresponded with those cheques. A Mr. Patterson also handed him (the prisoner) a blank cheque by his request. In conclusion Mr. Turner said that he should show that Mr. Epps did keep an account at the bank, and that the latter had been defrauded. Mr. Epps would say that he never did draw those cheques, but they were signed by the prisoner and endorsed by him.
Mr. R. Tadman, clerk at the Kentish Bank, proved that Mr. Epps banked there. Messrs. Wigan, Mercer, and Co., had paid the cheques produced, and charged them to Mr. Epps.

Mr. Epps said he was landlord of the "George Hotel," Aylesford. he banked at Messrs. Wigan, Mercer and Co., but the cheques produced were not his.

The Mayor:- How do you prove that?

They are not in my handwriting.

Further question by the Mayor, witness said that he had been in the habit of giving the prisoner cheques. He knew the prisoners handwriting.

Mr Turner:- And to the best of your belief the cheques are signed by the prisoner.

Witness. Yes.

Mr. Tadman, recalled, said, in reply to questions put by the Mayor, that the payee's name was in the prisoners own writing.

Mr George Patterson proved that the cheque produced he handed to a young man named Pearce for the prisoner.

At this stage of the proceedings, the prisoner was remanded till Thursday Tuesday.

The prisoner applied for bail, but Mr. Turner opposed the application, and it was refused.

The accused also applied that the pocketbook found upon him when apprehended, might be handed over to his wife. This application was also refuse, the Mayor remarking that they could not go from this ordinary rule. Everything found in the possession of a prisoner was kept by the police until the case was finished. Every opportunity would be allowed for the prisoner to prove his innocence, if he was innocent.

Stoneham was then removed to the cells.