Kentish Gazette, 14 November, 1804.

DEATH.

Tuesday died, Mr. Love, at the "Canteen," in the King’s Barracks, near this city.

From the Kentish Gazette, 8 May 1838.

DEATH.

May 5, Mr. Daniel Pearson, landlord of the "Canteen."
 

Kentish Gazette, 10 March 1857.

Charge of Pot Stealing.

William Tucker was charged with having stolen a pewter pint pot, the property of Wm. Beck, at the "Canterbury Canteen." It appeared by the evidence of G. Loyd Seath, regimental sergeant major, that on Monday afternoon, when some of the troops were preparing for departure from the barracks, the prisoner and others were there, under the pretence of buying cast off garments, and when he entered the quarters, prisoner took from a bag the pot in question. The prosecutor identified it as his property, stating that he had from time to time missed several pots.

The prisoner's defence was, that when buying cast off things, some of the men threw two pots into his bag, and that he was in the act of taking out one, when the serjeant major approached and accused him of attempting to steal it. This was the last of his thoughts; and in proof that - poor as he was, and having suffered severely from adversity — he would scorn to descend to such a thing, said he could appeal to the whole town for a character, he called upon Mr. Wyver, who happened to be present, who gave him a strict character for honesty as long as he had known him, which was as long as he had known himself; and another witness, named Solomons, who was in Court, gave semblance to the defence by stating that the I men wanted him the same day to buy some pots, and but I for the circumstance of one of them having been found robbing a comrade, he (the witness) would have been detained, as he was at first accused. The men robbed one another, and would sell anything at such times. Another witness named May, who was at the barracks the same day, gave testimony to the effect that he saw the men throw the pots into the prisoner's bag — which he was in the act of ejecting when the sergeant major entered and accused him of attempting to steal.

The reply to the Bench, the sergeant major stated that it was usual for the men to sell overalls and other cast off articles previous to marching; but these dealers were a constant nuisance, and he repeatedly ordered them out of barracks, but they contrived to scale the walls.

The prisoner was discharged.

South Eastern Gazette, 31 January, 1860.

Robbery at the Infantry Canteen.

On. Wednesday last, a woman named Bridget Marsh was charged before the city justices with having stolen a quart pewter pot, value 2s., the property of Adolphus Bigg, landlord of the "Infantry Canteen."

P. C. Holloway said he was at the shop of a person named Duly, in Artillery-street, on the previous day, when prisoner offered the pot for sale. He looked at the pot, and told her he should detain it, as he believed it was stolen property. Witness then searched for the owner, and the pot was claimed by the prosecutor.

Mr. Bigg identified the pot as his property. Although the name and sign had been partly obliterated, he could still trace sufficient to induce him to swear to the pot.

The prisoner denied the charge, and stated that she received the pot with some other articles from a man in the barracks.

The case was remanded till Monday.

South Eastern Gazette, 27 November, 1860.

CANTERBURY COUNTY COURT.

The ordinary monthly sitting of this court was held at the Guildhall on Friday last, by Charles Harwood, Esq., the Judge. Although upwards of 100 summonses had been issued, independent of 8 judgment summonses, the business disposed of was devoid of public interest, with the exception of one case, of which we give the particulars.

Terry v. Beck.

Both parties reside in Canterbury, the defendant being a "Canteen" keeper in the Cavalry barracks, and the plaintiff had formerly been in his service. The present action was brought to recover the sum of £17 19a. 6., under the following circumstances, as stated by Mr. Towne, who appeared for the plaintiff, a youth about 16 or 17 years of age. In September and October, 1859, the plaintiff was in the defendant’s service, and some suspicion having been created of the want of honesty on the part of the former, he was watched, and detected in stealing some cigars and money. He was consequently prosecuted, and a conviction followed, a sentence of imprisonment being passed upon him by the Recorder. On searching the plaintiff’s box, the police found a bag containing £17 19s. 6d. This was produced in court, but no order made with respect to its disposal. The defendant, however, took possession of the money, and asserted his decided belief that the boy had been in the habit of regularly robbing the till, and that the money in question was the produce of such robbery. He also identified one of the pieces of money in the bag as his property. Mr. Towne now contended that the defendant had no right to the money, and argued at considerable length that the present action could be sustained against the defendant, for the recovery of the money he had so taken from the plaintiff. Forfeiture of property (Mr. Towne said) did not follow a conviction for simple larceny, which was the charge upon which his client had been convicted. Besides the money had been taken possession of before the plaintiff’s conviction, and therefore before any forfeiture could have taken place. The right of action then possessed by the plaintiff had not been affected by his subsequent conviction. Again, if any forfeiture had been incurred, it was to the crown and not to the defendant, who clearly had no legal right to the money. Mr. Towne then explained how the plaintiff became possessed of the money. His brother, on returning from Australia some years since, made him a present of £5, and he had £2 of his own saved up at the time. From that period the plaintiff had been in the habit of saving every sixpence he earned, and as fast as it accumulated, he turned the silver into gold.

Mr. Delasaux, for the defendant, resisted the claim, and informed the court that he should be able to prove that one of the coins found in the bag was the property of the defendant.

His Honour:— But supposing you are in a position to show that, that will not justify the conclusion that all the money in the bag belonged to the same party. I will, however, take time to consider the points raised by Mr. Towne, and give my judgment at the next court.