Folkestone Express 19 September 1868.

Monday, September 14th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and Alderman Tolputt.

Mary Beedell, a respectably dressed female, was charged with an assault. She seemed to feel her position when brought before the Bench, and was allowed a seat during the examination. Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Creery, of Ashford, assisted by Mr. Lewis, of Dover, defended.

Mr. C.W. Spurrier, proprietor of the Alexandra Hotel, Folkestone, deposed that defendant had been stopping at his hotel for about a week. On Sunday the 6th inst., at three o'clock in the afternoon, a young man called and asked for the defendant, and went upstairs. She showed him into a private room, to which witness objected and asked them to withdraw to the dining room or coffee room downstairs. The defendant objected, but afterwards went downstairs into the coffee room with the young man. After being there for about half an hour she left him and went upstairs to her bedroom. A servant shortly afterwards came to witness, and in consequence of what she said he went upstairs to the dining room and opened the door. The defendant, who was in the room sitting at a table near the door, rose from her seat and took a large table-knife, stepped back towards the window, called him by very opprobrious epithet, and said she would stab him to the heart. She then threw the knife at his head; it passed within 8 inches of it and struck a picture frame about 6 feet from the ground. He then left the room and sent for Mr. Martin, the Superintendent of the police. This was about half past four o'clock.

Cross-examined: She always paid her bills. He objected to the young man going into the room, but she showed him in. Did see something to complain of; the defendant was on the couch in an unladylike position. They were in the sitting room three minutes. She had spent about £3 during the time she stayed at the hotel. There were two gentlemen in the dining room when the assault took place; the servant was also present. Defendant had dined in that room. The knife bruised the frame. On the same evening witness took defendant and pushed her out of the house. Do not know the position defendant was in. She attends schools teaching some artistic work.

Re-examined: He went into the room in consequence of what the servant said. It was half past eight at night when they turned her out. During the intervening time she had hysterics and was raving mad.

Sarah Wright said she was in the employment of Mr. Spurrier as chamber maid and waitress. On the day mentioned she had to wait on two gentlemen who were dining in the dining room. The defendant was there and swore at her. In consequence of this she went downstairs and complained of her to Mr. Spurrier. He went up to the dining room and witness followed. Defendant took up a knife and threw it at him.

Cross-examined: She was standing just behind Mr. Spurrier. Defendant was having her dessert, and did not throw the dessert off the table, but she knocked the glasses down. Did not see her throw the knife off a plate. The picture was at the side of the door. Defendant swore at witness, and that was not the first time; she swore because she did not take her dessert up. Mr. Spurrier did not say anything to her. The gentlemen said they would not stop in the room if defendant remained there; she sometimes got “tight”.

By the Bench: She had drank half a pint of sherry and a glass of bitters previous to the dessert.

Mr. Creery said he had seldom met with such an extraordinary case as this, and was surprised that she was charged with assaulting the landlord of this hotel. She is placed in a most unfortunate position, as her mouth is shut, and it was only through him that she could represent her case to the Bench. Defendant is employed in giving lessons in artistic work, and she has been so employed in Folkestone for some time. She is now somewhat excited, but not more than any young lady would be who was locked up since Saturday. Your Worships will see there must have been some provocation. She must have had a cause, and if this is not so she must have been in a state of madness. Mr. Spurrier and this lady had no previous disturbance. According to what the last witness says she does not wait for Mr. Spurrier to say anything, but takes up a knife and throws it at his head. This lady, after spending the money, was entitled to be treated with respect by the servant. He did not impute to Mr. Spurrier or his witness perjury, but the evidence was exaggerated. Defendant took up a dessert plate and threw the knife off the plate. If there was an assault, he hoped the smallest fine would be inflicted. There was something peculiar in this case. Why did not Mr. Spurrier call the two gentlemen as witnesses?

Mr. Minter: I should be happy to adjourn the case to allow Mr. Creery to call them.

Mr. Creery: The case could have been heard here on Monday morning, and then those gentlemen could have been called. Mr. Spurrier did not say a word about the assault till he got the lawyer's letter, and he thinks he will have the first pull, and he has got it. On another occasion they may bring it before the Bench again. Why were the police not called in? The first man on the spot is the Superintendent and why is he not called, and why did Mr. Spurrier not give her into custody.

Mr. Minter: You cannot do so.

Mr. Creery would have done so himself.

The Court was then cleared; the defendant had interrupted the proceeding several times and was very much excited. After a short deliberation the doors were thrown open.

The Bench said they were sorry to see defendant here under such a charge, and had Mr. Spurrier taken steps at once the fine would have been very heavy. They had decided to fine her 10s. and 17s. 6d. costs, or seven days' imprisonment. The fine was paid.

Folkestone Express 17 October 1868.

County Court.

Monday, October 12th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

Ramsden & Co. v Spurrier: This was an action to recover £15 14s. 4d. for goods supplied to the defendant, who is landlord of the Alexandra Hotel.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

A traveller, in the employ of the plaintiffs, deposed that he took the order for the goods from the defendant, and that he forwarded the particulars in the usual course, and the goods were sent in April of this year.

Mr. Minter, for the defendant, admitted that an order had been given by defendant as to £1 19s., for which he had been always ready to pay, but as to the remainder, the defendant would distinctly deny having given the order, and the traveller in his anxiety to do business, had no doubt caused the goods to be sent in the hopes that defendant would accept them. He, however, had declined to do so, and had called on the firm in London and explained the matter, and they had agreed that their traveller should on his next journey take back the goods.

Defendant was called and examined, and having supported his solicitor's statement, His Honour decided that he was liable for £1 19s. only.

Folkestone Express 28 November 1868.

Suicide Of A Gentleman.

On Wednesday morning, as a lady was walking along the footpath between the Lower Sandgate Road and the beach, she was horrified at seeing the lifeless body of a middle-aged gentleman lying close to the sea, without his hat and coat. She informed a man that was walking towards Folkestone of the circumstance, who at once went to the Coastguard Station and gave the alarm. The deceased lay on his face and had evidently been thrown up by the waves. Dr. Eastes was called to see the body and he pronounced him to have been dead more than an hour. The body was conceyed to Willis's waiting room and searched, but the only articles found in the pockets of the deceased person were a pair of spectacles and a railway pass. The clothes, being examined, were marked “J.V. Gibbs”. A son-in-law of the deceased identified the body on Wednesday evening, and a hat, coat, and gloves found by a labourer on one of the seats were identified as the missing clothes of the deceased person.

The inquest was held on Thursday afternoon at the Alexandra Hotel before the Coroner, J. Minter Esq. A jury was sworn and proceeded to the beach to view the body.

Dr. Eastes was then sworn. He said: Yesterday I was called by Williams and a Coastguardsman to go to the Lower Sandgate Road to see the body just found on the beach, and which is the body the jury has now viewed. I went down and saw the body lying on the beach opposite the new Bathing Establishment, and only a few yards from the water's edge. It appeared to be a middle-aged gentleman, and was dressed, with the exception of having no coat or hat. I examined the deceased, and found one or two superficial cuts on the right temple, and several abrasions of the skin on the nose and forehead, as though the body had knocked against the rocks. The body presented the usual appearances of death by drowning, and I thought he must have been dead a few hours, as rigidity was only just come on. The shirt and Guernsey was marked. The police searched the body while I was there, and found an eye-glass in the waistcoat pocket.

William Williams, tailor, of Hythe, was next sworn. He said: As I was walking into Folkestone at half past eleven o'clock, along the Lower Sandgate Road, when, opposite the Bathing Establishment, a lady attracted my attention. I thought first she was calling someone else, but I went towards the beach when she pointed, and I saw the deceased lying there. The water had just left him. This was opposite the last opening before I came to the new Bathing Establishment. Deceased was lying on his face, and the water was ebbing at that time. The lady told me to make haste and find a police constable, and as I could not see one I went to the Coastguard, and afterwards to the police station. The lady said she had seen him some time before she had seen me. He had no hat or coat on. There are two rocks just below the place where he was found, and not far from the body.

Thomas Hunter, labourer, of South Street, said: I am the occupier of a garden in the Lower Sandgate Road, and I went there about ten o'clock on Wednesday. I went along the footpath, as my garden lies between the road and the beach. I turned into the path at the first opening the other side of the Bathing Establishment. About forty or fifty yards before I came to my garden I found a hat, coat, and a pair of gloves laying on a seat. I should say that the seat is nearly in a line with the Royal Terrace, on the Leas. I searched the pockets, and there found a first class railway pass of the London and South-Western Railway Company between Waterloo and Putney. It was inscribed with the name of J.V. Gibbs Esq., from January 31st, 1868 to February 2nd, 1869, contract 175. I took the things and left them in the garden. As soon as I had dinner I took them to the police station, as I heard that a body had been found without a coat or hat. I did not see anyone on the beach. I did not look particularly, as people sometimes leave their things on the seats. The tide was ebbing. It was high water, I should say, at nine o'clock.

Alfred Stone, a porter at the Paris Hotel, said: I saw deceased on Tuesday at half past four at the Paris Hotel; I received him at the door. He asked for something to eat. He had some cold meat, and then he asked to write a letter. I do not think he wrote one then. He had half a pint of sherry and a glass of ale with the meat. He then went into the coffee room and had a cigar and a port wine negus, and he asked me to bring another envelope, stamp, and writing paper. I did so, and he wrote a letter which he asked me to post. This was about nine o'clock. It was addressed to Mrs. or Mr. Gibbs. I do not know which, as I did not notice the address particularly. I think that London was the town it was directed to, but I am not certain. The deceased slept at the hotel; he went to bed at ten. I posted the letter about half past ten. He appeared rather dull, but did not make any observation. He asked to be called at eight o'clock, but he got up at half past seven. His bill amounted to 5s., and he gave me 6d. Mr. Pointer's cook noticed him go round the clock-house. She thought it rather singular that he should go to the beach at that time in the morning.

One of the jury: How came you to notice he was in a desponding state?

Witness: Because he laid his head on his hand and was looking as if in trouble.

P.C. Hobday said: From information I received about a quarter to twelve o'clock, from a coastguardsman and the witness Williams, who came to the police station while I was on duty and requested me to go to the beach, as a man was lying dead there. I sent for a doctor and went to the beach with P.C. Smith. We took the stretcher. We found the deceased lying near the stone groyne on the beach, about five yards from the water's edge. I took possession of the body and searched it, but I only found an eye-glass in his waistcoat pocket. He had no money or anything else. J.V. Gibbs was marked on his flannel shirt. Superintendent Martin came down and ordered the body to be removed to the bathing waiting room; this was about twelve o'clock. His son-in-law came to the station and identified the hat. He did not see the eye-glass.

Elizabeth Kennett, general servant at the Paris Hotel, said: The deceased paid me on Wednesday morning at twenty minutes to eight. He asked for his boots and I took them to him. He then asked “How much have I to pay?” I then got his bill and took it to him; it amounted to 3s 6d. He gave me two half crowns and told me to keep the change for myself and the porter. He then went out of the door, and I watched him go round by the clock-house, and I never saw more of him. He took the money out of his pocket; I saw no purse. I saw him the previous evening as I took the candle to him when he went to bed. He came downstairs in the morning with an overcoat on his arm and a pair of gloves in his hand. I could not tell if he had a coat on at the time or whether he was in his shirt sleeves. He had no coat on his arm when he went out.

John Lewis Rattley, gentleman, living at West Hill, Surrey, was next called. He said: The name of the deceased is Joseph Vines Gibbs. He was a wholesale tea dealer at 20, Pall Mall, London, and is my father-in-law. I should think he was about 55 years of age, or perhaps a little older. The letter he wrote was not addressed to me, and it has passed out of my possession, but if the enquiry was adjourned for a day or so some other witnesses could be produced.

The Coroner consulted the jury, and an adjournment was agreed till Monday next, at three o'clock. The body was ordered to be given up to the friends of the deceased.

Folkestone Express 5 November 1870.

Inquest.

On Saturday morning last the body of an infant was picked up by a butcher in the Lower Sandgate Road, about 100 yards to the west of the Bathing Establishment. The body was wrapped in a newspaper, and a piece if brown paper which was tied with twine. Information having been given to the police, they conveyed the parcel to the old police station, High Street.

An inquest was held at the Alexandra Hotel, Harbour Street, on Tuesday morning, before the coroner, J. Minter Esq. and a jury.

The first witness was William Stewart, who said: I am a butcher, living at Sandgate, in the employ of Mr. Woodman. On Saturday last, about 11 o'clock in the morning, I was going to Sandgate, along the Lower Road, when I saw a parcel lying on the side of the road, and on examination I found it contained the body of a child, wrapped in a newspaper and then covered with a piece of brown paper and tied with a string. I asked a man passing to inform the police.

P.C. Sharpe deposed to receiving the child from the last witness. The newspaper was a copy of The Times, dated the 3rd of October, 1870.

Mr. W. Bateman, surgeon, said he was called to see the child. It was a newly-born male child and of full size. There were no marks of violence about it to account for death. He had made a post mortem examination and found the lungs were fully inflated; no doubt it had breathed, and there was no appearance to account for death. It was his opinion the child was born alive, but it was impossible to say if it had a separate existence. Supposing it to have been born alive it would die of neglect.

Mr. Martin, superintendent of the police, said the police had made every enquiry, but so far were unsuccessful.

The Coroner summed up the evidence, when the jury returned an open verdict of Found Dead.

Folkestone Express 9 May 1874.

Monday, May 4th: Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.
Margaret Clark, who said she was a laundress, surrendered on bail on a charge of being drunk and using obscene language.

Prisoner said: I was not drunk. If I had used obscene language, it was requisite. I had been at work all day, and had been taking clothes home.

P.C. Ovenden said: I was sent for on Saturday night about half past eleven, to go to the Alexandra Hotel. When I got there I found prisoner and a crowd of people in front of the hotel. Mr. Spurrier requested me to remove her from the front of his house, having previously ejected her. I advised her to go away quietly. Making use of bad language, she refused to do so. I then took hold of her and forcibly removed her. She then made use of very bad language. She was drunk; there is no doubt of that. She was not staggering drunk, but no-one would have used the language she did if sober. She knew what she was about. I procured assistance and locked her up. She had her bonnet off and her sleeves tucked up above the elbow.

Prisoner: That is how I get my living.

Witness continued: I merely caught hold of her arm, and she resisted me and struck me. My hat warded the blow off, so I did not think it proper to press the charge of assault.

Prisoner said: I was working very hard all day till ten o'clock at night, when I went with another woman to take some clothes home. When we had done so we went to have a glass of beer at the Aleandra. Three people were sitting under the window, who, of course, were picked parties. Mr. Spurrier came out mad drunk and handled me very roughly.

The Bench to Ovenden: Was Mr. Spurrier drunk?

Ovenden: No, he was quite sober.Prisoner continued: The three persons made some observations which were not proper, and no doubt I retaliated. Ovenden had no business to handle me as he did. Mrs. Spurrier said to her husband “Charlie, don't you interfere with the woman”.

Prisoner was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs for using bad language. The amount was paid.

Folkestone Express 30 January 1875.

Quarter Sessions.

Thursday, January 28th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Jane Pellett, 16, domestic servant, imperfectly educated, was indicted for having obtained by false pretences 1¼ lbs. of cheese, 2 lbs. of prunes, and 2 ozs. of candied peel, value 1s. 8½d., the property of George Daniels, on the 19th and 23rd December.

A second count charged her with obtaining by false pretences 12 oranges, 1 quart of chestnuts and 1 lb. lump sugar, value 1s 2½d., the property of James Reeves Spinks, on the 24th December.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to both charges, and in reply to the Recorder said she had no witnesses to speak to her character.

Superintendent Wilshere stated, in answer to the Recorder, that he had received information of 12 or 13 similar charges against prisoner, who had been identified in several cases.

Mr. Edward Simmons, the Governor of the Dover Gaol, said prisoner had been well behaved when in gaol, and appeared to feel her position acutely. If she continued to conduct herself aright during her term of imprisonment he hoped, with the help of the Chaplain, to get her some employment after it's expiry.

The Recorder said taking into consideration prisoner's youth he should sentence her to a light term. She would be sentenced to two calendar months' imprisonment for the false pretences to Mr. Spinks, and two similar sentences in each of the other cases of fraud upon Mr. Daniels, making in all six months' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 6 February 1875.

Inquest.

An inquest was held at the Alexandra Hotel on Thursday evening before John Minter Esq., Borough Coroner, upon the body of Ellen Herridge, wife of a clerk at Messrs. Pickford's office, The Stade, Radnor Street, who died in consequence of injuries received under the circumstances detailed below. It will be remembered that the facts of the accident were fully reported at the time.

Mrs. Hall, nurse, of Radnor Street, said: I recognise the body as that of Ellen, the wife of Frederick Herridge, agent for Messrs. Pickford. Deceased was 39 years of age. While nursing her witness heard deceased say that the heel of her foot caught the plank when going from the coal hulk when going on board a Belgian steamboat lying in the harbour. She said she was going to call her little boy from on board. Witness was sensible to the last, and died at a quarter past six that (Thursday) morning.

Mr. Richard Mercer, surgeon, stated that on Thursday the 21st ult., he saw deceased about seven o'clock p.m. He found her suffering from a very severe injury to the spine, and on subsequent examination discovered a fracture about the sixth or seventh bone from the top of the column. There was complete paralysis both of motion and sensation below the seat of the injury. The sternum or chest bone was also fractured. Witness did not think she could last two hours, but she rallied under the use of stimulants, and to his astonishment survived to that morning. On the Thursday evening deceased was incoherent in speech and did not know she had had a fall. When witness saw her deceased was sober. On a subsequent occasion, when sensible, deceased said she slipped when crossing a plank. The injuries were such as would result from a fall. There was no hope from the first. Death was only a question of time.

John Henry Marsh, a baker's boy, aged 14, said on Thursday week, about four in the afternoon, he was near the harbour. He saw Mrs. Herridge on the hulk, looking at the steamboat. She put one foot on the plank, when she fell over on to the ground. A Belgian sailor was standing about a foot off Mrs. Herridge when she fell over. He seemed to be waiting to follow her across the plank. Directly she fell, he helloed to the men below scraping the ship, which was on the gridiron. Witness could not understand what the man said.

A Juror: The man probably spoke Flemish.

To another Juror: I was on the bridge, near the hulk. I don't know why Mrs. Herridge fell, except she might be “swimmy-headed”.

Robert Hall, fisherman's son, 13, said he was under the railway close to the hulk on Thursday afternoon week. He heard a noise, and turning round, saw Mrs. Herridge close by on the ground. Witness then ran away. (Laughter) He afterwards saw some men pick her up.

The son was proffered to show why his mother was going on board, but the jury said they did not need to hear further evidence.

The Jury returned a verdict of Accidental Death.

Folkestone Express 20 March 1875.

Wednesday, March 17th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, R.W. Boarer, J. Tolputt and W. Bateman Esqs.

Hobson Wright Le Butt, of the Royal George Hotel, was charged with wilfully and maliciously damaging a ladder, the property of Charles William Spurrier, of the Alexandra Hotel on the 18th inst. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Prosecutor deposed that at half past six p.m. on Saturday evening he was in his bedroom at the back of the house, and heard someone moving some casks. He saw it was Mr. Le Butt, and thinking that he was moving his own casks took no further notice of it. On Sunday morning he missed a ladder which lay partly on his own ground and partly on that belonging to the Royal George. He afterwards found a broken piece of the ladder by the back door of the Royal George; the other part he had seen in the back premises of the same hotel. The value of the ladder was 15s.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I believe defendant is landlord of the Royal George. Had not been unfortunate with his ladder; had often lent it to defendant. Had had no dispute with Mr. Groves, the late landlord. Had not asked defendant for the ladder on account of his state; he considered he would not have done it if he had been sober. He considered he was a dangerous man.

Mr. Minter: And therefore you want to get rid of him.

The Bench dismissed the case without calling on Mr. Minter for his defence.

Mr. Minter: You ought to be obliged to us for taking care of your ladder. You can have it on application.

Mr. Spurrier: Very well, my next action will be in the county court.

Mr. Minter applied for a certificate of dismissal to bar further proceedings, but as the charge was not one of felony, the Magistrates did not grant it.

The same defendant was next charged with stealing a cask and pair of trousers, value 21s., at the same time from the same prosecutor. Mr. Minter again defended.

Mr. Spurrier said on Saturday he had a 36 gallon cask, belonging to Messrs. Truman, Hanbury and Co., standing on ground at the back of his house. He saw it at 5 p.m. At 6.30 he saw defendant moving some casks, and at seven o'clock he found the cask in question was gone. He saw the cask on Sunday in Mr. Le Butt's back building. Prosecutor also lost a pair of trousers hanging on a line on defendant's land, and he also found these in this building. He could identify them.

By Mr. Minter: I laid the information and knew that I was swearing that defendant feloniously took these. I did not, as a neighbour and hotel keeper, think it well to ask him for it. The cask stood on the right of way, but on one side, so that defendant could have passed.

The trousers – a very small pair of knickerbockers – were produced by Mr. Le Butt, to the amusement of the Court.

Mr. Minter addressed the Court for the defence, saying he was sorry Mr. Spurrier had allowed his temper to get the better of him and bring forward this charge. He saw that he had not taken the usual course of apprehending the supposed thief under a warrant, but had summoned Mr. Le Butt to answer this trumpery charge. The fact was Mr. Le Butt had suffered depredations on a fowl house, and locked up all the loose property in the yard.

The Mayor said the Magistrates had unanimously decided to dismiss the case.

Applause was expressed in Court at the decision, but this was instantly suppressed.

The parties then left the Court. Miss Spurrier took up the offending pair of breeks left by Mr. Le Butt, and retired with her father.

Folkestone Express 5 June 1875.

Inquest.

Early on Tuesday morning the body of an unknown man was found between tides on the beach, just beyond the toll-house on the Lower Sandgate Road, by a coastguardsman and a gardener. The body was fully dressed (with the exception of a hat) in good clothes, but had but three halfpence in the pockets. The corpse was taken to the tan house at the back of the fishmarket pending identification. While it lay there several persons who saw it recognised in it the body of a man named George Hopley, who at one time was a porter at the London and Paris Hotel, and more recently a railway ticket collector at Dover. A messenger was sent to Dover to break the intelligence to the young man's friends, but returned bringing with him the supposed drowned man that he might lend his assistance in identifying it. Even then the resemblance was so great that those standing by remarked that if Hopley was not then present they should still consider it his body. In consequence of the false scent on which persons were thus put, a travelling copy of “Uncle Tom's Cabin”, in which was pencilled the name Harry Frenshaw, Deane Street, Lincoln, was overlooked till late in the day. A gentleman living not a hundred yards from the Manor Road was also recognised in the body, but, like the ticket collector, he proved still to be alive and able to speak for himself. It was surmised that deceased was a betting man and that he had committed suicide, possibly in consequence of losses at the Derby, by making into the sea at high tide on Monday night, but these suppositions had necessarily no solid foundation to rest upon.

An inquest was held on the body at six o'clock on Tuesday evening at the Alexandra Hotel before Mr. J. Minter, Coroner for the Borough, and a jury.

John Sharp, gardener, said: I live in the Bayle, lodging at the Red Lion public house. This morning about half past four o'clock I was walking on the cliff, and when near the half way toll gate saw something near the edge of the beach. I drew the attention of a coastguardsman named John Fitzgibbon to it, and we went down and found it was the body of an unknown man – the one that has just been viewed by the jury.

John Fitzgibbon, a coastguardsman stationed at Folkestone, deposed: Just before five o'clock I was coming from my house at Sandgate to perform my duties at Folkestone, and when near the toll house on the Lower Sandgate Road, the last witness called me from the top of the cliff. I walked down the beach in the direction Sharp pointed and saw the body just seen by the jury. It was quite cold and lying on it's back, with the head towards the eastward (the harbour) about fifteen yards below the last high water mark. He was fully dressed, except that he had no hat. The tide was high between seven and eight last night, and between eleven and twelve that night it would have receded to where the body lay. There were rocks to seaward, but none ashore of the body. I commenced the motions for restoring animation, but the state of the body showed me the man was quite dead. With the help of the last witness I drew the body above high water mark, and searched the pockets. We found in them the articles produced – a copy of “Uncle Tom's Cabin” containing the name twice written in pencil, Harry Frenshaw, Deane Street, Lincoln, a bunch of keys, a handkerchief, a penny, and two halfpence, which I delivered to the police. From the appearance of the body and the “little dock” that had been made in the beach by the rolling it received from the waves, I believe the body had not been moved after it was dead, not had it been in the water very long before we found it.

Mr. W. Bateman, surgeon, said he saw the body of the deceased at the tan house between seven and eight o'clock. He examined the body externally, but found no marks of violence. From the air bubbles on the mouth and nostrils and the pinched appearance of the features, death appeared to have arisen from drowning. He believed that the body had only been in the water a few hours. The body appeared to be that of a young man of about two or three-and-twenty.

In reply to a juror: The body could not have floated over any rocks that lie to seaward. The “little dock” described by the last witness would indicate that the man had not been far in the water when he was drowned.

Superintendent Wilshere produced some gold-plated sleeve links and studs removed from deceased's shirts. The body was dressed in a tweed suit of olive green. There was no mark upon the clothing by which identification could be established. Witness had had the body photographed.

In answer to a juror, witness said he had not telegraphed to the address in the book because till within a short time of the inquest he had been on a wrong scent as to the identity.

The Coroner asked whether the jury considered they had sufficient evidence as to the cause of death, or would they adjourn for further evidence? It was almost certain from the doctor's evidence that the deceased met with his death by drowning, but they could not tell whether he fell into the sea during a fit, whether he drowned himself, or if he was pushed in. Even if they met another day and evidence was adduced as to who he was, and even supposing it was stated that he left home in an unsound state of mind, that would not render the cause of death absolutely certain.

After a brief consultation the jury returned an open verdict of Found Drowned.

Folkestone Express 10 July 1875.

Local News.

There can no longer be any doubt as to the fate of the four young men and young ladies employed as shop assistants, and of the boatman who left Dover harbour in the pleasure boat Vivid on the evening of the 16th June. It will be remembered that great alarm was created in that town by the non-return of the party, and that the suspense deepened to almost certainty when the empty and rudderless boat washed ashore next morning. During the week all the bodies of the missing persons have been seen, and four out of the five recovered, and inquests duly held thereon.

The first instance of recovery was that of Miss Laney. The facts brought out at the inquest on the body will be found recorded in our sixth page amongst the Dover news. The body of Frank Hogben was towed into Hythe on Monday, and an inquest was held on it before Mr. William Smith, coroner for the borough, when a verdict of “found drowned” was returned. On the same evening, the body of Ladd, the boatman, was picked up off Dover and brought into the port. On Sunday some fishermen from Folkestone saw the body of Miss Coleman, the second young lady, but were not successful in grappling with it. On Wednesday it was again seen, somewhat nearer Dungeness, but a rope could not be thrown on it.

On Thursday morning the last and fifth body, that of Edward Hogben, the younger brother of the other young man who perished by this accident, was seen floating off the Folkestone Harbour, about a mile from the shore. It was brought ashore by the boatmen who observed it, who were just in the act of taking provisions to a ship, and after four hours' towing was got within the piers, and removed to the tan house on the East Quay. It was in an advanced state of decomposition from the length of time it had laid in the water.

An inquest was held before John Minter Esq., Coroner for the Borough, on the body, at the Alexandra Hotel on Thursday evening.

Mr. Edward Hogben, landlord of the Ship Hotel, Faversham, identified the body lying at this house as that of his son, Edward, aged eighteen. Deceased was employed at Messrs. Killick and Back's, Market Place, Dover. Witness recognised a watch, bunch of keys, and other articles, which had been shown to him by P.S. Reynolds as those that had belonged to his son, Edward.

John Davidson, boatman, North Street, found the body when in a hovelling boat, about a mile and a quarter off Folkestone. He picked it up, and towed it into the harbour, and put it in the tan house. They saw it about half past ten a.m. that morning.

Police Sergeant Reynolds deposed to searching the body at the tan house, and to finding upon it a watch (which had stopped at half past nine). Two bunches of keys, a purse of money, tobacco pipe, case and pouch, a knife, and handkerchief marked Hogben, which he had shown to deceased's father.

The jury returned a verdict of Found Drowned.

Folkestone Express 12 August 1876.

Wednesday, August 9th: Before The Mayor, General Cannon, Alderman Caister, J. Tolputt, J. Clark, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Transfer of License:

Temporary authority to sell was granted to Mrs. Spurrier of the Alexandra Hotel.

Folkestone Express 19 January 1878.

Friday, 11th January: Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs., General Armstrong, and Captain Fletcher.

Edward Attwood, a tramp, who had arrived in the town from Dover, was charged on his own confession with stealing a half crown and a florin, the property of Mrs. Caroline Spurrier, of the Alexandra Hotel. Mrs. Spurrier declined to prosecute and prisoner was therefore discharged.

Folkestone Express 14 September 1878.

Saturday, August 7th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, and Captain Carter.

Philmon Tyas appeared to a summons charging him with assaulting Esther Caroline Dickson.

Complainant, the wife of John Dickson, of Woodin Street, Cornwall Road, Lambeth, said defendant was her brother. On Wednesday, the 4th September, she was in Folkestone, and saw her brother in the Alexandra Hotel, in the private bar. She was having a glass of ale with her sister.Defendant came to the door, and drank a glass of ale which her sister handed to him. He then asked her when she was going home, and she replied “By the excursion train”. He afterwards called her a liar because she knew nothing of some woman he wanted to find, and struck her a severe blow on the forehead, and knocked her down in the road, blacking her eye. When she got up he struck her again.

P.C. Keeler said he saw what took place. The last witness was beating the defendant on the back with her umbrella. She was helloing and drunk. She slapped defendant's face several times, and rushed at him as he was going away. He was going to take her into custody, but her sister took her away. He reported the case to the Sergeant.

Annie Weatherhead, sister of the complainant, said she was with her sister at the Alexandra Hotel. Her brother and sister went to the door and talked together. She saw her sister on the ground, and pucked her up, but she did not know if she was knocked down or whether she fell. The complainant was not drunk, and she told her defendant knocked her down.

In reply to defendant, Mrs. Weatherhead said she did not ask him to go and fetch complainant out of the Paris Hotel before tea. She saw het take a Mr. Franks into the hotel and treat him.

The Bench considered the assault proved, and as there were several previous convictions against him, the defendant was fined 40s. and 11s. costs, or one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 23 November 1878.

Wednesday, November 20th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Capt. Carter, W.J. Jeffreason, J. Clark, and James Kelcey Esqs.

Caroline Spurrier, of the Alexandra Hotel, was summoned for keeping her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours on Friday the 15th inst. Mr. Mowll, of Dover, appeared for the defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Supt. Wilshere deposed: At ten minutes past twelve in the early morning of the 15th of November I saw a light in the public parlour at the Alexandra Hotel. I knocked four or five times, and after waiting about three minutes I was admitted. The place was then in darkness. I called for a light and someone lit the gas in the passage. Then I saw there were some people in the room sitting at the table, and there were a number of glasses on a centre table, some of which contained liquor. I told defendant I should report the case and apply for a summons against her. She replied “Don't do that, they are all good friends to you”.

Mr. Mowll said he considered he had no case to answer. It had not been proved that the house was open, and it had been held by Justice Mellor that the Magistrates must be satisfied that the house was open for the purpose of sale, of which there was no evidence in that case.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. Bradley) said there had been three or four decisions to show that it was not necessary for a door to be opened after closing time in order to obtain a conviction.

Mr. Mowll said the Act of Parliament specially provided for that because it contained a clause which expressly stated “for the purposes of sale” – either an actual sale must be proved, or the house must be open for the purpose of sale. There was nothing in the Act of Parliament which said that at eleven o'clock a landlord should close his house, and it was perfectly competent for persons to remain in his house so long as he did not supply them with any liquor whatever, and there must be some special circumstances in order to justify the Bench in deciding that there was a sale after eleven o'clock. He quoted a case stated by the Magistrates of Maidstone for the opinion of the Court of Queen's Bench to decide whether in certain circumstances the Magistrates were justified in convicting. A policeman had entered this house in the Boxley Road at half past eleven on Sunday. There were two lodgers in the parlour, and on going to a closet at the rear of the house the policeman found two men who lived in the neighbourhood, one of them having in his hand a pot of freshly drawn beer. There was evidence of beer having been recently drawn, and the Court decided that it was a proper conviction. But in this case there was not any evidence of sale, and there was nothing for him to address the Bench upon.

The Magistrates retired for a short time, and on their return Colonel De Crespigny said they were of opinion that there was a case to answer.

Mr. Mowll then said he should call Mrs. Spurrier as a witness, as he was entitled to do under the provisions of the Act. She would tell them that these persons were in the house long before eleven o'clock, and that there was no sale of any liquor of any description whatever after that hour, and upon the evidence and upon the merits of the case he should confidently ask the Bench to dismiss it. The Superintendent said there were seven or eight glasses on the table, but there were only three persons in the room. He did not pretend to carry his case further than that, or to say that there was any beer, any wine, or other refreshment sold after eleven.

He called Mrs. Caroline Spurrier, who said: I am proprietress of the Alexandra Hotel. On the night in question the house was locked up when the Superintendent called. In my coffee room there were three gentlemen. They came in about half past eight. I closed the house at eleven. I did not supply the gentlemen with any liquor after eleven.

Mr. Bradley: Why did you put out the lights? – I did not do it. I had no idea the lights were out. It must have been done by one of those in the room.

Colonel De Crespigny said the Bench had come to the conclusion to dismiss the case.

Summonses had also been issued against the persons who were found in the house.

Mr. Mowll, in asking the Bench not to deal with these cases, said he had advised his client that whether she was acting legally or not in allowing persons to remain in her house, she was acting indiscreetly. He knew that the spirit of the Licensing Act must be carried out, and that when eleven o'clock came all the people in the house must leave. He could give the Bench Mrs. Spurrier's assurance that henceforth the Bench would not again be troubled by a summons of that description. He did not think, after the evidence which had been given by one of the persons that the Bench would convict them, because they would one and all say that no liquor was drawn after eleven.

The Magistrates' Clerk said the Bench had no power in the matter, but the Superintendent could withdraw the summonses.

The Superintendent said as far as he was concerned he would comply with Mr. Mowll's request, but he was sure it would not meet with the approbation of the authorities from whom he received his instructions.

Mr. Mowll said an intimation from the Bench would justify the Superintendent in withdrawing.

The Bench thought he might do so if he felt disposed.

The Superintendent said he could not do so without first communicating with the Watch Committee.

Mr. Mowll: Have you received instruction from the Watch Committee to prosecute?

The Superintendent: I have received general instructions to prosecute in cases where houses are found open after hours.

Mr. Jeffreason: The Bench think there will be no impropriety, but they do not advise the Superintendent at all.

Mr. Mowll then said he should ask the Bench to adjourn the case, but immediately afterwards determined to let it go on.

Superintendent Wilshere gave similar evidence to that in the last case, and the Bench considered that there was no doubt the defendants had contravened the Act, and rendered themselves liable to fines of 40s., but they reduced the penalty to 2s. 6d. each and costs.

Folkestone Express 11 January 1879.

Saturday, January 4th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, General Armstrong, R.W. Boarer and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Richard Spearpoint, charged with being found drunk at the Alexandra Hotel at a quarter to twelve on New Year's Eve, pleaded Guilty, and was fined 1s. and 8s. costs, or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 20 January 1883.

Saturday, January 13th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, and J. Holden Esq.

The license of the Alexandra Hotel was transferred from Mr. Satchell to Mrs. Spurrier.

Note: No mention of Satchell in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 16 June 1883.

Saturday, June 9th: Before Captain Carter, Alderman Caister, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Caroline Spurrier, landlady of the Alexandra Hotel, was summoned for keeping her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours, and John Baker, Wm. Ross, Arthur Tolputt, Henry Beer, Wm. Gosling, Albert Latham and William Bird for being on the premises during prohibited hours on Sunday morning, the 3rd inst. Mr. Minter appeared for all the defendants.

A medical certificate was put in that Mrs. Spurrier was suffering from a broken ankle, had been in bed for five weeks, and was unable to appear. Mr. Minter wished the case to be heard in her absence.

Sergeant Ovenden said: On Sunday morning, the 3rd inst., at 20 minutes past 12, I visited the Alexandra Hotel in company with Sergeant Pay. We entered the hotel by the back door, which was opened by Master Spurrier. On going into the passage, close by the back door, John Baker and Henry Beer and two females were standing. I asked them what they were doing there on licensed premises. They replied “We have just come ashore”. I took their names and addresses, and while I was doing so the females left by the front door. I then went into the back room, where I found the defendant Arthur Tolputt. I asked him why he was there during prohibited hours. He replied “I am going to stop here tonight”. On the table there was a jug and two glasses of malt liquor. I told him I should report it. I then went into the front parlour where Sergeant Pay had previously gone. I spoke to Pay in the presence of Latham, Gosling, Ross and Bird. I asked him whether he had taken the names of the defendants. He said he had. There was a jug on the table, and a small quantity of malt liquor in some glasses. I did not look into the jug. In reply to something that was said, I said we had our duty to perform, and must do it. I know all the defendants, except Mr. Ross, as residents of the town.

Cross-examined: I did not ask the four I have mentioned why they were there. Baker and Beer did not look as if they had just come ashore. Mr. Tolputt had not his shoes off. I do not know that Mr. Ross lives at the Alexandra. I found him there when I served the summons, and I have been told that he is living there now.

By the Bench: Ross gave his address as on board the steamship Eborall.

By Mr. Minter: He said he belonged to the steamship Eborall.

Sergeant Pay said at 10 minutes past 12 he saw the defendants Baker and Beer and two females go into the passage towards the back door of the Alexandra Hotel. He corroborated Sergeant Ovenden's statement as to subsequently visiting the house. He asked Latham, Ross, Gosling and Bird to account for being on licensed premises. Mr. Bird replied that he had stayed to supper; the others made no reply.

Mr. Minter said on behalf of Mrs. Spurrier he would deal first with the two men, Baker and Beer, because if the Bench held that their presence there was an opening of the house for the sale of intoxicating liquors which would justify the Bench in convicting Mrs. Spurrier, then he should contend that it was an offence which would be met by a very small fine indeed. They had heard that Mrs. Spurrier had been in bed five weeks, but still, of course, she was responsible for her servants, but he asked the Bench to take into consideration the position in which she was placed. Baker and Beer were customers, and had been to the house during the day, or the day before, and taken away with them some beer in cans, and taken it to sea with them, and on their return on Saturday night they merely called at the house and left the cans. They had nothing to drink, and therefore he did not think that could be considered an opening of the house for the sale of liquor. Then, with regard to Ross, he was a permanent lodger, and although he was a seaman, he was perfectly entitled to take up his abode at an hotel if he chose. He was actually served with the summons whilst having his breakfast in the hotel. As to the other four defendants, they were there by invitation by Mrs. Spurrier, through her son-in-law, who had brought down a salmon from London, which they had been asked to partake of for supper. That, of course, there was nothing in the law to prevent. He thought, looking at all the circumstances, the Bench would dismiss the whole of the summonses.

He called Harry Spurrier, who said Baker and Beer had brought back a stone bottle and a can. They had no liquor of any kind. Mr. Ross was a lodger, and had been staying at the hotel for three months.

Captain Carter: You say Baker and Beer came to return cans belonging to the house. What induced you to let them come into the house?

Witness: The back door was not locked, and they walked in. I took the cans and they were just going out again when Sergt. Ovenden and Sergt. Pay walked in. I had shut the back door but not locked it.

William E. Bailey, who affirmed instead of taking the usual oath, said he was a merchant, carrying on business at 13, King Street, Snowhill, and 54 and 55, Blackfriars Road, London, and was son-in-law of the defendant Mrs. Spurrier. His wife came down to Folkestone to wait upon her mother when she met with an accident four or five weeks since, and he had been almost constantly with her the last fortnight. On aturday afternoon he brought a salmon down from London and invited the five defendants as Mrs. Spurrier's guests to partake of it. Mr. Ross was a permanent lodger, and slept there that night.

Captain Carter: You say you came down from London on Saturday afternoon. Where did you find the five defendants to invite them to supper?

Witness: They all came “straggling” in at different times. There was no formal invitation sent. I invited them as they dropped in.

Captain Carter: Mr. Minter gave us to understand there was a formal invitation.

Mr. Minter: No “cards”, sir. (Laughter) It is not usual in the position of life in which the defendants are. It is different in some circles, Captain Carter.

Witness replied indignantly that he considered his position in life quite equal to that of any of the magistrates.

Captain carter, in announcing the decision of the Bench, said, with regard to Mrs. Spurrier, they found the case was proved against her. They could not do otherwise, although unfortunately she was not able to look after the house. Still, she was the responsible person, and the Bench would fine her £2 10s. and 12s. costs, levyable by distress, and in default, one month's imprisonment. With regard to the ther defendants, excepting Ross (his case being dismissed, it having been proved that he was a lodger), the Bench considered they were Guilty of the offence with which they were charged, and they would be fined 5s., and 8s. costs, or seven days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 8 December 1883.

Wednesday, December 5th: Before General Armstrong, Captain Fletcher, Captain Crowe, and F. Boykett Esq.

Caroline Spurrier, landlady of the Alexanrda Hotel, Harbour Street, was summoned for selling intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours on the 25th November, and Walter Richard Green, Henry Moody, John Henry Trevenan, and Captain Ross were summoned for being on licensed premises at the same time and place.

Mr. Minter appeared for Mrs. Spurrier and Messrs. Green, Moody and Trevenan, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Captain Ross, who was undefended, pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Harman said that about 12.30 a.m. on Sunday morning, November 25th, he was on duty in Harbour Street with Sergeant Pay. They went to the back of the Alexandra Hotel and heard some people inside talking. Whilst they were there a man went and rapped on the door. Mrs. Spurrier opened the door about half way, and he went forward to get into the house. He had some difficulty to get in, in consequence of Mrs. Spurrier pushing the door, but when inside he went into a small room, and there saw Messrs. Moody, Green, Ross and Trevenan sitting round a table. There were four glasses on the table, some containing intoxicating liquor. Sergeant Pay asked if the could account for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. None of them replied except Trevenan, who said he had engaged No. 12 Bedroom for that night, in consequence of his having lost the latch key of his lodgings. He told Mrs. Spurrier that she would be reported for keeping her house open, and she said they were all her friends.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I have seen passengers come from the station from the late trains and the night boats and go into the house. The man named Kennedy, who knocked at the door, keeps a fried fish shop in the same street. He said “It's me, Mrs. Spurrier. I want you to lend me some coals in the morning”. When I got inside there were no lights except in the little room. Mr. Trevenan did not tell me that he slept there the previous night, at least I did not understand him to say so. I did not watch to see if he did stay there that night.

P.S. Pay corroborated the last witness.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: I know the room where defendants were to be Mrs. Spurrier's private sitting room. She did not open the door for the purpose of admitting Kennedy.

By the Bench: I have seen people drinking in this room before this occasion.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench, and called for the defence William Spree, boots at the Alexandra Hotel, who said he knew Mr. Trevenan, who had slept at the hotel on the 24th, 25th and 26th.

John Henry Trevenan said he slept at the Alexandra Hotel on the 24th, 25th and 26th November. He paid for his bed.

Henry Monro Moody said he had been doing work for Mrs. Spurrier at her house and cottage, and on the evening in question he went to see her on business, and invited Green to go with him. On their arrival they were invited into Mrs. Spurrier's room. They were there as private guests. Trevenan came in whilst they were sitting in the room.

By the Bench: We went there about half past ten and had some drink, which we paid for. The drink we had after that we did not pay for.

The Bench consulted for some time, and then the Chairman announced that they considered the case proved. Mrs. Spurrier would be fined £3 and 12s. costs, or one month's imprisonment. There could be no doubt that Mr. Moody and Mr. Green were present, but the Bench had endeavoured to attach as little importance to their guilt as possible. They would be fined 5s. and 8s. costs. Mr. Trevenan they acquitted, and Captain Ross was fined 10s. and 8s. costs.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1884.

The annual licensing meeting was held on Wednesday. The magistrates present were The Mayor, Captain Carter, J. Clark Esq., and Alderman Caister.

All the old licences were renewed, with the exception of that of the Alexandra Hotel, with regard to which Superintendent Taylor called attention to the fact that there were several convictions against the house. On the 9th January, 1883, the landlady was fined 50s. and costs, and on the 5th December, 1883, £3 and costs.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk as to the mode in which the house was conducted now, the Superintendent said it was very indifferent. He had not given Mrs. Spurrier any notice because he thought she would attend, and that a caution from the Bench would have the effect of making her more careful. The granting of the licence was adjourned.

Folkestone Express 27 September 1884.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Caister, Dr. Bateman, Captain Carter, J. Holden, J. Clark and J. Fitness Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Meeting.

Mrs. Spurrier appeared in support of the renewal of her licence for the Alexandra Hotel.

The Mayor said that the Bench, after consideration, had decided to renew the licence, but at the same time advised the applicant to look well after her house in the future.

Folkestone Express 30 May 1885.

Saturday, April 23rd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Hoad and General Armstrong C.B.

Thomas Seaby was charged with having stolen a watch and guard, value £20, the property of Nicholas White.

Prosecutor, living in Pavilion Road, Folkestone, said: On the 2nd March last I was at the Alexandra Hotel in the evening. I don't remember what time I left. When I went in the house I had my watch and chain with me. Next morning I missed it.

Daniel Purcell, police constable in the Southampton Borough Police Force, said: In consequence of information received from Supt. Taylor of Folkestone I went on board the brigantine Impetuous, of Guernsey, lying at the Phoenix Wharf. That was on Thursday, the 21st. I found the prisoner on board the ship, working as a seaman. I asked him if his name was “Cockney Tom”. He said “Yes”. I said “I have got a warrant for your apprehension, and I want you to go to your berth”. I followed him to his berth, and told him I had a warrant for his apprehension for stealing a watch at Folkestone. I said nothing about the chain. He made no reply. As I was in the act of searching the berth the captain came down into the forecastle. The captain said “I am very sorry to lose him. I would as soon lose myself”. He said “I have got a gold watch belonging to him. He gave it to me to keep for him. I don't believe that's the one for he's had it some time”. In answer to that prisoner said You are vey kind, captain. No doubt I got the blame, but I didn't have all to do with it”. The captain said “It appears you know something about it”. The captain then left the forecastle, and the prisoner tied up his clothes and went on deck. The captain brought up the watch from his cabin, and was going to hand it to me, but I told him to hand it to the prisoner. He handed it to prisoner, who said he hadn't got a pocket to put it in, and handed it to me. I asked him if it was his, and he said it was. I then took him to the police station, and he was charged by the sergeant on duty in my presence. He made no reply. The watch produced is the one prisoner gave to me. Prisoner was afterwards given into the custody of Sergt. Harman, of Folkestone.

Mr. White identified the watch as his property. He had had it for six months. He did not know the number, but the first figure was a “2”. It was an “improved chronograph”. There was a gold Albert attached to the watch – long links connected by three short ones, 18 carat gold.

Sergt. Harman said he received the prisoner in custody at Southampton on Friday. Prisoner was charged by Supt. Tailor, and he replied “Correct”.

Nicholas Hodge, a seaman employed at Folkestone Harbour, produced a log book of the vessels entering and leaving. The Impetuous, of Guernsey, entered the harbour on the 19th February, and sailed on the 16th March.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty, and said the watch was not lost at the Alexandra Hotel. He appeared reluctant to make any further statement, but on being asked i he wished to say anything which might induce the Bench to mitigate the punishment he said: On the night of the 1st March, about half past twelve o'clock, I was coming down Tontine Street, and met Mr. White. He said to me “Are you a mason?” I said “No”. He said “I believe you are a mason”. He had been drinking, and had a stick with him. He asked me if I would accompany him home. I went with him, and carried his stick and assisted him home. When we got there he drew me inside and asked if I would have a liquor with him. I said I didn't mind. He produced a bottle of rum and we drank it. By that time he had fallen asleep, drunk, and I was not very far from being drunk. I saw the watch; it was a great temptation, and I took it. Half an hour after I would have been glad to return it.

The Mayor: Do you wish to say anything about the chain?

Prisoner: The chain is at Middlesboro.

Supt. Taylor said they knew all about the chain.

The Mayor said the Bench, taking into consideration the good character the captain of the vessel gave him, and also the behaviour of the prosecutor in inducing him to go home with him and making him intoxicated, and the temptation that was placed in his way, for which the prosecutor was very much to blame, would only sentence the prisoner to one month's hard labour, and the Bench hoped he would be careful not to get into similar trouble again.

Folkestone Express 18 September 1886.

Local News.

The landlady of the Alexandra Hotel had her cashbox stolen on Saturday evening. It contained upwards of £50 in gold, silver and notes, and a number of articles of jewellery, and was kept in a cupboard. Suspicion attaches to two men who had been staying at the hotel for two or three days, and who disappeared simultaneously with the cashbox, which has since been found in a hedge on the Dover Road, thus intimating that the thieves went to Dover with their booty, and probably got across to Calais by the night boat. Information was at once given to the police, and telegrams were despatched to various places giving descriptions of the two men, but they appear to have got safely away.

Folkestone Express 25 September 1886.

Saturday, September 18th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sherwood, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Henry Vye and Henry Toms were charged with causing a breach of the peace in Harbour Street on the previous Saturday evening.

Sergeant Harman said he saw a crowd of people at about 11.30 in front of the Alexandra Hotel. Vye took of his coat, and Toms and he commenced fighting. Vye was knocked down. The street was in an uproar for a quarter of an hour.

The Bench ordered both defendants to enter into recognisances to keep the peace for three months, and to pay the costs, 7s. 6d. each. Toms declined to be bound over.

Folkestone Express 26 November 1887.

Saturday, November 19th: Before Capt. Carter, Alderman Sherwood, J. Holden, S. Penfold and J. Hoad Esqs.

Caroline Spurrier was summoned for having her house open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours.

An application was made for adjournment for a week, and it was granted.

Folkestone Express 3 December 1887.

Saturday, November 26th: Before H.W. Poole Esq., Surgeon General Gilbourne, and W. Wightwick Esq.

Caroline Spurrier of the Alexandra Hotel was summoned for having her house open during prohibited hours on the 12th November, and also with permitting drunkenness in the house on the same day.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Dawson said: About two o'clock on the 12th November I was on duty with P.C. Lilley at the bottom of High Street, and heard voices in the direction of the Alexandra Hotel. We went to the hotel. We found a youth, 15 or 16 years of age, outside. He was very drunk, and vomiting. He could not stand. We tried the front door of the hotel. It was not locked. I went inside, and in a room on the right I found two strange gentlemen, Mr. Arthur Tolputt and Mr. Wilson, and Mrs. Spurrier. There were five or six glasses on the table. Two of them contained liquor, and Mr. Tolputt was in the act of drinking when I went in. I spoke to the two strangers and asked who was in charge of the boy outside. One of them said “I am”. I told him he had better go outside and take charge of him, or I should be obliged to do so. I asked him if they had tickets, as I understood them to be travellers. He produced two from London to Paris. The other gentleman also produced a ticket. I was turning to Tolputt and Wilson, and Mrs. Spurrier said “They are stopping here”. I said “I see they are at present”. I saw Mrs. Spurrier's daughter at the door. I remained outside until twenty five minutes to three, when Tolputt and Wilson left. I was talking to Sergt. Butcher when they left. They went up High Street. I afterwards returned to the front of the Alexandra, and remained there until all lights were out at five minutes to three.

Cross-examined: I have heard that Mrs. Spurrier keeps her house open for travellers coming down and going over by the night boat. The last train down that night came down between twelve and half past.The boat left at 5.30. I have no doubt that the two gentlemen and the boy were travellers. They did not tell me the boy was sick in consequence of having tried to smoke a cigar. Nothing of the sort was said. I left the boy in charge of Lilley. I did not know Mrs. Spurrier's daughter was married. Mr. Tolputt had not got his shoes off. Wilson was on the other side of the table. I am sure Tolputt's boots were on. I do not know that Tolputt has a room at the Alexandra. I had only been on that beat once before. Wilson and Tolputt had the appearance of having been drinking, but they were not drunk.

By the Clerk: They had the appearance of having been drinking. Mr. Wilson, I understand, lives at Clifton Gardens. Mr. Tolputt, I believe, resides at the East Kent Arms.

P.C. Lilley gave corroborative evidence.

Cross-examined: The boy was taken into the house. They did not tell me he had been smoking a cigar, and got sick. I have been several times on this beat. I did not know that Mr. Tolputt had a room at the Alexandra. About two years ago I saw him there at two o'clock in the morning. I knew he was living there then.

Sergeant Butcher said he served the summons upon Tolputt in the street.

Cross-examined. I know he used to lodge at the Alexandra. I saw him with Wilson on this particular night.

The Bench decided that there was no evidence to support the charge of permitting drunkenness.

Mr. Minter said he did not wish to conceal the fact that Mrs. Spurrier had been twice convicted of a similar offence, but he appealed to the Bench to dismiss that knowledge from their minds in dealing with that case. He referred to the pitfalls and difficulties which beset publicans, no matter how carefully they conducted the business, and went on to say that Mrs. Spurrier had been in the habit of keeping open for passengers for the night boats for 20 years. He contended that the case of the boy was only introduced by the police to give colour and bolster up the case. He supposed the Superintendent had been spurred into a little activity by what he had seen in the paper with regard to his not having done his duty. They had, he said, had pretty good examples all over the county of police evidence. He admitted that the Superintendent was an excellent officer, and believed that he did do his duty. With regard to Mr. Tolputt, he urged that he was living at the Alexandra and had a perfect right to do so, and to have a friend there to see him.

He called Arthur Tolputt, who said he had had a room at Mrs. Spurrier's permanently for about three years. Two years ago he exclusively lived there. Since then he had moved from place to place, but still kept his room. Sidney Wilson was a companion of his, and frequently slept with him. He invited him there on the 12th November. Within the last three months he and Wilson had slept there two or three times a week. He still kept the room, and had slept there twice since the 12th inst. On the 12th November they went in about ten minutes to eleven. He took off his boots upstairs, and partly undressed. Wilson went upstairs with him, and they were going to bed. Hearing the people come in, they went downstairs again, and had a long talk with them. They were jockeys. The boy had nothing to drink in the house that he saw. He gave him a cigar. He and Wilson did not go to bed again. The men left about a quarter to three. He and Wilson went out. Before going out he asked Mrs. Spurrier for the key of the front door. She refused to let him have it, and said if they went out they should not come in again. Before he went to bed, he told the boots to go to his lodgings and get a clean shirt and necktie for the morning. They did not go to the boat.

By the Bench: I pay rent for the room all year round. I pay by the week.

By Mr. Bradley: I have lodgings at 10, Gloucester Terrace. The men left at a quarter past three. The boat started about half past five. They were going to wait at the harbour.

Sidney Wilson said he knew that Tolputt had a room at the Alexandra. On the 12th he went there with the purpose of staying the night with him. It was a fact that they took off their boots to go to bed, but altered their minds and came down again.

By the Clerk: We both put our boots on again before we came down.

Frank Rogers, boots at the Alexandra, said when he left at a quarter past eleven both Tolputt and Wilson had their boots off. Tolputt told him to go to 10, Gloucester Terrace and get him a clean shirt for the morning. Mr. Tolputt had slept there three or four times a week sometimes.

Ada Helmore, daughter of Mrs. Spurrier, said she was staying at the Alexandra Hotel on the 12th November. She knew Mr. Tolputt had a room there and that he came there on the 12th with Wilson to sleep. She lit the candle. They took off their boots before they went upstairs. When the travellers came in Wilson and Tolputt came down again.

The defendant then gave evidence. She said Mr. Tolputt had had a room at her house for more than three years. Wilson very often stayed with him. On the 12th November he went there for the purpose of staying. They took off their boots and went up to bed. They were quite sober – never more so. (Laughter) She always sat up for travellers by the late train. The police knew it was her custom. The boy had not been drinking. Mr. Tolputt gave him a cigar and it made him sick. She sent him to the front door with her daughter.

By the Clerk: Tolputt pays me 6s. a week. He generally pays every Saturday.

The Chairman (Mr. Poole) said: The Bench are unanimously of opinion that you are Guilty of the offence with which you are charged – of keeping your house open during prohibited hours. We shall on this occasion fine you £5 and 14s. costs, levyable by distress, or a month's imprisonment. I should also add that we have very seriously considered whether it was not our duty to endorse your licence, but we thought this time we would not. Of course, you will perfectly understand that if you appear again before the magistrates your licence will be endorsed, and I do not need to tell you what the consequence of that will be.

Mr. Minter, having consulted with his client, said, with great respect to the Bench, he should appeal against the decision, and asked the Bench whether they would state the exact ground on which they had based their decision.

The Magistrates declined to do this, telling Mr. Minter he must take whatever course of action he thought fit.

Arthur Tolputt and Sidney Wilson were charged with being on licensed premises, the Alexandra Hotel, not being either lodgers or bona fide travellers, during prohibited hours.

Mr. Minter, before the case was gone into, again addressed the Bench. He said it was something very serious to find the Bench, if he was correct in his opinion, determining to disregard the evidence of five witnesses against whose respectability he knew nothing. Were they going to convict Mrs. Spurrier, those two young men, and Mrs. Spurrier's daughter of having deliberately conspired together to commit perjury? If they were not prepared to say that, they must dismiss the case. He pointed out that if the did convict the defendants, to be consistent they must do the same next week, and warned the Superintendent that Mr. Tolputt would be at the Alexandra that night with Mr. Wilson, and he must summon them, and the Bench must go on convicting them ad infinitum. Surely they had no right to say a man should not live where he liked.

The evidence having been read over, the Chairman said the Bench, with regard to Mr. Tolputt, had doubts whether or not he was evading the law or whether he was a bona fide lodger, and, as they always did in cases of that kind, they gave the defendant the benefit of the doubt, and dismissed him. With regard to Wilson, they had not the slightest doubt that he was Guilty, and he would be fined 20s., and 12s. costs.

Folkestone Express 14 June 1890.

Auction Notice.

Preliminary. Folkestone.

To Brewers, Licensed Victuallers, and Others.

Messrs. John Hart Bridges and Sons are favoured with instructions from the owner to Sell by Auction.

At the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, on Tuesday, July 8th, 1890, at Three o'clock prompt, that Important Freehold Wine and Spirit Establishment

Known as The Alexandra Hotel, prominently placed in close proximity to the Harbour, Pier, and Station (with possession on completion of purchase)

Further particulars will appear next week.

Auction Offices: 20, Hart Street, Bloomsbury Square.

Folkestone Express 21 June 1890.

Auction Advertisement.

Folkestone. To Brewers and Hotel Proprietors.

Improving Freehold Investment in Fully-licensed Premises, with possession on completion of purchase.

John Hart Bridges & Sons will sell by Auction at the Rose Hotel, Folkestone, on Tuesday, July 8th, 1890, at Three o'clock prompt, the exceedingly valuable Freehold Property, known as the Alexandra Hotel.

Situate at the approach to the beach, and having a commanding frontage at the corner of Harbour Street and Beach Street, at close proximity to the junction of several important thoroughfares, and immediately facing the Harbour, Quay and Station, now and for many years past in the occupation of Mrs. Campbell.

N.B. The Auctioneers beg to draw attention to this genuine property. It's position for business is quite unique, and to Brewers it affords an opportunity of securing a beer trade of importance, in addition to an adequate rental, whilst to an intending proprietor it offers the now rare chance of acquiring a compact Free hotel with an exceptionally profitable counter trade.

Particulars and Conditions of Sale may be had of H.B. Bradley Esq., Solicitor, Folkestone; at the Alexandra Hotel and place of Sale; and at the Auctioneers, 20, Hart Street, Bloomsbury Square, W.C.

Note: Who was Mrs. Campbell?

Folkestone Express 12 July 1890.

Local News.

Sale of the Alexandra Hotel: This well known hotel was offered for sale on Tuesday afternoon by Messrs. John Hart Bridges and Sons, at the Rose Hotel. The first bid was £1,500, and the property was knocked down to a Mr. Spurrier at £2,000.

Folkestone Express 23 August 1890.

Saturday, August 16th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Aldermen Pledge and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Clark, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Stephen Barton was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on the 10th of August.

P.C. Dunster said the defendant, with several others, was near the Alexandra Hotel, very drunk. He asked defendant to go away, but he declined, and asked his companions to go to the back of the Alexandra to get a drink. He used bad language and refused to go away with his companions. He told witness he had been in public houses many a night playing nap with the Superintendent and the Sergeants.

Defendant replied that this was “a pack of lies”. He told Dunster he was drunk in the Granville, and Dunster replied that he was a “----fop”. He denied that he was drunk; the constable was more drunk than he was.

Sergeant Butcher said he saw the defendant in Tontine Street at ten minutes to eleven, being led home drunk by two young men. Defendant pushed one of the men against him.

Defendant conducted himself in a most unseemly manner, accused the police of misconduct and card playing.

There were two recent convictions against the defendant, and he was fined 10s. and 10s. costs. The Bench refused to allow time for payment, and he was removed to the cells.

Folkestone Express 28 May 1892.

Wednesday, May 25th: Before The Mayor, W.G. Herbert and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Temporary authority was granted to Mr. J.C. Brice, late of Peckham, to sell at the Alexandra Hotel.

Folkestone Express 20 August 1892.

Saturday, August 13th: Before Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk and Pledge, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

John Chidwell Brice, landlord of the Alexandra Hotel, was summoned for having his house open during prohibited hours on Sunday. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Haines appeared for the defendant, and said it was admitted there were three persons in the house. There were several excursionists about, and he asked most of them whether they were bona fide travellers, but unfortunately did not ask the three. There was no concealment, and when the police went in he at once admitted that he served the men. The defendant had a 21 years' lease of the house, and a conviction would be a most serious matter.

P.C. Lawrence said he visited the defendant's house at twenty minutes past ten and saw a man drinking. The front door was open, and he went in. The man, whom he knew as a resident in Folkestone, made for the back door. There were two other Folkestone men there drinking. Defendant told him the men said they were travellers.

The Bench took a lenient view of the case and fined defendant 50s. and 9s. costs.

Folkestone Express 27 August 1892.

Wednesday, August 24th: Before J. Clark, Alderman Pledge, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, and F. Boykett Esqs.

Annual Licensing Day.

Mr. A.H. Gardner said he had been instructed by the Church of England Temperance Society, presided over by the Vicar of Folkestone, to appear before the justices. He did not do so in any spirit of dictation to the Bench, but that they might see the views of the Society upon the subject, and he would put in a resolution passed the other day at a meeting held in the vestry, asking the justices not to grant any new licenses, except to private hotels or restaurants. It also particularly urged that grocer's licenses were peculiarly fraught with mischief as giving great facilities to women. They also thought that the number of licenses, of which there were 82, should be reduced, especially where there had been convictions for violation of the law. They did not specially single out any particular houses, but they thought when there had been recent convictions, they might refuse the renewal of licenses to such houses. Further they especially called attention to the preponderance in the number of houses at the lower end of the town – there were 79 east of Alexandra Gardens, while there were only three on the west. Mr. Gardner also referred to the fact that the magistrates last year refused to renew in English counties 117 licenses, and in boroughs as many as 101.

Adjourned Applications.

The applications in respect of the Folkestone Cutter, the Alexandra, the Wheatsheaf, the Warren, the Wonder, and the Cinque Ports Arms, where there had been convictions for breaches of the law, were ordered to stand over until the adjourned licensing day, Wednesday the 28th of September.

Folkestone Express 1 October 1892.

Wednesday, September 28th: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole, and J. Pledge Esqs.

This was the adjourned licensing day, and Mr. J. Clark said: Before the business commences I want to make an announcement. It has been done in other places, and we consider the same should be done here. It is the unanimous opinion of the licensing committee that there are far too many licensed houses in Folkestone, and they would suggest to the owners of houses that they should talk it over amongst themselves and agree as to which houses it would be best to drop. If nothing is done between now and next licensing day, the magistrates will be obliged to suppress some of the houses in the town. So if the owners would talk it over among themselves which houses it would be best to drop, it would save us great difficulty.

The Alexandra Hotel.

Mr. Brice applied for a renewal of the licence of this house. Mr. Minter supported the application, and Martin Mowll opposed.

Mr. Mowll said there were two grounds for opposition; one that the holder of the licence had been convicted for selling beer on Sunday, and the second, that the licensed premises were not required for the accommodation of the public. He said there were no less than half a dozen notices of opposition which the Superintendent had served, and it was a lamentable circumstance that in five out of six of them the tenants of the houses had been convicted for the same offence, namely, Sunday trading.

Mr. Minter objected to Mr. Mowll putting on the back of his client something about somebody else.

Mr. Mowll said he did not, but it was necessary for him to say it then, in order that he might not have to keep on repeating himself. As to the second ground of opposition, he said there were within 85 paces no less than 13 other licensed houses. That fact spoke for itself without any observation from him. He then proceeded to call evidence.

Mr. Minter admitted the conviction, the formal register being put in of the fine of 50s. and costs.

P.C. Lawrence put in a list of the various distances of the public houses from the Alexandra Hotel.

Mr. Wightwick: Is that inches? (Laughter) – No, yards.

Mr. Minter submitted that there were no grounds for refusing to renew the licence. The house was known to the Bench and was of very considerable size. Mr. Brice took a lease in April, at £130 a year, for 21 years. He was formerly a draper, and at the time of his conviction he had been there three months, so that he was a stranger, and at Bank Holiday time three men called, who he thought were strangers, and they were served with a pint of beer each. The Bench thought the fine of 50s. was sufficient. It was, he thought, a piece of presumption on the pat of the Superintendent, because if the Bench had thought the case merited it, they would have endorsed the licence.

Mr. Mowll referred Mr. Minter to the notice on the objection, “By direction of the justices”. (Laughter)

Mr. Holden: Not this committee.

Mr. Bradley: In all these cases notices of opposition were directed to be served.

Mr. Minter said the applicant had been convicted and fined, and he was sure the Bench would not stultify themselves by saying the man was not entitled to a renewal of his licence. Every right thinking man would cordially agree with what had fallen from the chairman as to the reduction of licenses, and he hoped the owners would voluntarily agree to a reduction in order that some might be taken away to the benefit of those that remained. It might be that some of those other houses within so many inches of the Alexandra were not required, but it was clear that the Alexandra was required by the fact that the trade had considerably increased. The house was conducted admirably in every aspect, and he was instructed to challenge any statement to the contrary.

The Bench decided to renew the licence, but said it would rest with him in future to see that the house was properly conducted.

Folkestone Express 8 June 1895.

Wednesday, June 5th: Before C.J. Pursey and W. Wightwick Esqs.

The licence of the Alexandra Hotel was transferred to Mr. B. Hartslet.

Folkestone Express 5 September 1896.

Thursday, September 3rd: Before J. Fitness, J. Pledge, and R.J. Fynmore Esqs.

Edmund Charles Cranston was charged with obtaining £8 by means of false pretences from Mr. Hertslet, of the Alexandra Hotel.

Prosecutor said he was in business with his brother. Prisoner, who he knew as a customer for six weeks, went to the bar of the hotel about half past seven in the evening on August 21st, and asked witness to change a cheque for him. He said he was staying with Mr. Kemp, who would have cashed it, but he had not a banking account. Witness then cashed the cheque, which prisoner drew, and it was endorsed by witness's brother, E.C. Hertslet. He gave prisoner £6 10s. – all the change he had at the time, and the balance on Sunday, the 23rd, when he said the cheque was all right. It was paid into his brother's account at the National Provincial Bank, and returned and handed to witness by his brother on the 26th, endorsed “Account Closed”. On the 24th August, before the cheque was returned, prisoner went to the hotel and asked witness to cash another cheque, but he declined, as the other one had not gone through. He knew prisoner was lodging at 17, Dover Street.

Remanded till Wednesday.

Folkestone Express 12 September 1896.

Wednesday, September 9th: Before J. Fitness, J.R. Davy, T.J. Vaughan, J. Pledge, R.J. Fynmore, and W. Salter Esqs.

Edmund Charles Cranston was charged on remand with obtaining £8 from Mr. Hertslet by false pretences.

Gerald Spencer Hertslet's evidence, given on the last occasion, was read over. It will be remembered that it was to the effect that he cashed a cheque for prisoner for £8, which was returned marked “Account Closed”. He added that the money he gave prisoner included two or three postal notes, a bank cheque for 10s., and the balance in gold.

George Edward Chandos Davis, cashier at the National Provincial Bank, said Mr. Bernard Carr Hertslet, a customer at the bank, paid the cheque produced into his account on the 22nd August, and it was passed through the Clearing House in the usual way. On the 26th it was returned endorsed “Account Closed”.

Henry Phillips Jordan, landlord of the South Foreland, Seagate Street, said he had known prisoner since last season as a customer. On the 21st August he went to the house about three o'clock in the afternoon, and asked if he would cash a cheque for £5. He said he would if it was all right, and he (prisoner) had money enough to meet it. Prisoner said “Oh, that's all right – you need not be afraid of that”. He asked for pen and ink and took out a cheque book and filled up the cheque produced for £5. (This cheque was on a bank at Huntingdon.) Witness endorsed it, and paid it away to Salmon and Gluckstein, in the town, in the evening. It was returned to Salmon and Gluckstein, who took it back to him. It was marked “Account Closed”. He paid the £5, and afterwards saw prisoner, whome he asked what he meant by giving him a cheque when he had no money to meet it. Prisoner replied “That'll be all right, Mr. Jordan; you need not trouble about that. My sister has got plenty of money. She keeps an hotel, and I'll wire to her”. They went together to the telegraph office, and prisoner wired to his sister. The money had not been paid. He parted with his money believing the cheque was good for the amount for which it was written.

Sam Elliott Armstrong, clerk in the bank of Messrs. Vesey and Co., Huntingdon, said the bank had once had a customer named Edward Charles Cranston, and he recognised prisoner as the man. He produced a copy of the prisoner's account in the Bank books. The account was opened May 5th, 1894, and £414 10s. was paid in. A book of 30 cheques was issued to him. The account was closed May 25th, 1895. He could not say positively whether notice was given to prisoner of its being closed, but undoubtedly it was given. Thirty eight cheques had been drawn. He did not think a second cheque book was issued to prisoner. (The cheques produced were not taken from the book first issued to him.) Witness said the cheques were taken from a book issued to prisoner's sister, who had an account at the Bank.

Harry Frederick Carpenter, cashier in Lloyd's Bank, said the cheque produced was paid into the Bank by Salmon and Gluckstein on the 22nd of August, and it was returned on the 26th marked “Account Closed”

Prisoner was then formally charged with obtaining money by false pretences both from Mr. Hertslet and Mr. Jordan, and in answer said he had nothing to say.

He was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 17 October 1896.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 12th: Before John Charles Lewis Coward Esq.

dmund Charles Cranston, 25, was indicted for obtaining by false pretences from Gerald Spencer Hertslet a banker's cheque, value 10s., and three postal money orders for the payment of 20s. each, and the sum of £4 10s. in money, the money and goods of the said Gerald Spencer Hertslet and another, with intent to defraud, on 21st August, 1896, at Folkestone. He was further indicted for obtaining by false pretences the sum of £5 in money from Henry Phillips Jordan with intent to defraud, on the day, year and place last before written. He pleaded Guilty.

It will be remembered that the prisoner induced the prosecutors to cash cheques for him, and when they were presented it was discovered that the account was closed, and had been for a long time.

Superintendent Taylor, in answer to the Recorder, said the prisoner was connected with some very respectable people in St. Neots. His mother formerly kept a large hotel there. Prisoner had been apprenticed to a trade, but was lazy, and would not follow it, and his mother sent him to America, but when he came back he was just the same as ever. He was then employed as a coach trimmer. At the death of his mother about £400 came to him, with which he opened an account at the Bank. He appeared to have lived on that money ever since. He was down at Folkestone twelve months ago, and that was how he came to know the Alexandra and Mr. Jordan's house.

The Recorder: Is he quite right in his mind?

Superintendent Taylor: I think so. He is in very bad health, I must say.

The Recorder: Any relatives here?

Superintendent Taylor: No, sir. They will not have anything to do with him. They are people in good positions, but he has tired their patience out.

The Recorder, in addressing the prisoner, said he had pleaded Guilty to an offence which the law regarded as a serious one for a man 25 years of age. If he did not pull himself up short, he would find himself in a very awkward place at some time or other in his life. He appeared to have had a good chance, which he had thrown away. His Bank book showed that less than two years ago he had over £400, and on the 25th of May last his account was balanced, and he drew out £2 4s. 9d. – the very last farthing, and he knew perfectly well there was not a farthing left. Yet he defrauded those tradesmen by drawing cheques while he had not a penny piece to meet them. The sentence of the Court was that he be imprisoned for three months with hard labour – the sentences not to run concurrently – that would be six months hard labour.

The Court then rose, the proceedings having lasted just an hour.

Folkestone Express 25 February 1899.

Saturday, February 18th: Before The Mayor, J. Holden, T.J. Vaughan, G. Spurgen, and J. Hoad Esqs.

Mr. Arthur Thorp applied for temporary authority at the Alexandra Hotel, which was granted.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1899.

Wednesday, March 8th: Before J. Fitness and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The licence of the Alexandra Hotel was transferred to Mr. Arthur Thorp from Mr. Trapnell.

Folkestone Express 20 January 1900.

Local News.

On Thursday morning, about six o'clock, a fire was discovered in the bar of the Alexandra Hotel. The alarm was given to the fireman on duty, and the firemen were summoned by maroon signal, which probably startled a good many people. In a remarkably short space of time the brigade were on the spot, and the blaze was extinguished by means of chemicals before much damage was done, the counter being considerably burnt.

Folkestone Express 4 August 1900.

Wednesday, August 1st: Before Capt. Carter, W. Wightwick, J. Fitness, J. Pledge, C.J. Pursey and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for Mr. Walter Barns and applied for a temporary authority for the Alexandra Hotel. Granted.

Folkestone Express 15 September 1900.

Wednesday, September 12th: Before J. Fitness, J. Pledge, W. Wightwick, and J. Stainer Esqs.

A transfer of licence of the Alexandra Hotel was granted to Walter Barnes, who was represented by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Folkestone Express 17 October 1903.

Wednesday, October 14th: Before Lieut. Col. Hamilton, W. Wightwick, G.I. Swoffer and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: - The Alexandra Hotel, from Walter Barnes to John Edward Barber.

Folkestone Express 8 July 1905.

Monday, July 3rd: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Frederick Holmes was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Harbour Street on Saturday night.

P.C. Leonard Johnson said about 9.30 on Saturday night he was called to the Alexandra Hotel in Harbour Street, where he saw the prisoner being ejected from the hotel. He was drunk and very excitable. He requested him to go away quietly, but he refused, and caught hold of witness by the shoulder and said he wanted his number. He continued to use obscene language, and a large crowd of people assembled. Witness eventually took him into custody.

P.S. Osborne said when the prisoner was brought into the station he was drunk, and used very bad language.

The Chief Constable said there were three or four convictions against the prisoner, the last being in August of last year.

Fined 5s. and 5s. 6d. costs or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 2 November 1907.

Monday, October 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore and R.G. Wood Esq.

Charles Cullen pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening in Harbour Street.

P.C. Sharpe said about 6.50 on Saturday evening he was at the bottom of High Street, when he saw the prisoner, drunk. He was flourishing a bottle (produced) in his right hand. He (witness) requested him to go away, but he went into the Alexandra Hotel. He was, however, ejected from there, and when in the street again he used very bad language. He therefore took him into custody.

Prisoner said he had been in the army 156 days, and when in South Africa he was shot close to the brain, and in support of his statement he held his head down so that the Magistrates could see a hole at the top of it. He denied using bad language.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was an army pensioner.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had decided to deal leniently with the prisoner, and he would be fined 3s. 6d. and the costs would be remitted.

Folkestone Express 13 June 1908.

Monday, June 8th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and Messrs. T. Ames and C. Jenner.

George Herbert Rycroft was charged with wilfully breaking a plate glass window at the Alexandra Hotel, the property of John Edwards Barber.

Florence Kosh, barmaid at the Alexandra Hotel, said at about a quarter past seven on Saturday evening she was standing at the hotel entrance when she noticed the prisoner pass. He had a piece of stone in his right hand. She saw him raise his hand and throw the stone produced at the saloon bar window, which was broken. A boy picked up the stone and handed it to her. Mr. Barber, the landlord, came out and caught the prisoner.

John Edwards Barber, the landlord of the hotel, said he was on the premises on Saturday evening. He was sitting in the saloon bar, and on hearing the smash of glass and seeing the window broken he ran out and caught the prisoner. He took Rycroft into the hotel. The damage done amounted to between £7 and £8. The glass was five sixteenths of an inch in thickness, and the window was about 6 ft. high and 5 ft. broad.

P.C. Watson said at five minutes past seven he was called to the Alexandra Hotel, where he saw Mr. Barber, who told him in the prisoner's presence that he (Rycroft) had broken the window, and he wished to give him into custody. He brought him to the police station, and on charging him he replied “I should not have done it, only I felt hungry”.

Prisoner, who appeared to be rather strange in his manner, had nothing to say, and he was committed to the Quarter Sessions, bail being offered, himself in £20 and one surety of £20.

Folkestone Express 11 July 1908.

Quarter Sessions.

Saturday, July 4th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

George Herbert Rycroft, a porter, was charged with breaking a plate glass window in the Alexandra Hotel, the property of Mr. John Edwards Barber, and doing damage to the extent of £7 8s. 6d. on June 6th. When asked to plead he said it was done by accident – a plea on Not Guilty. Mr. Dickens prosecuted.

The evidence of Miss Kosh, a barmaid in the employ of Mr. Barber, showed that the man deliberately stood on the pavement and threw a stone through the window.

Mr. Barber stated that he was sitting in the hotel directly under the window when he heard the smash of a window. He ran out of the hotel and arrested him while walking sharply away from the hotel. It required considerable force to break the window. He had heard the man had been asking for food. If he had come to his place he would have got it.

The Recorder: A very good advertisement. I shall know where to come.

Mr. Dickens: Can we all come?

Mr. Barber: Yes.

The Recorder: I will bear it in mind. Gentlemen of the jury, I hope you won't forget what he says.

P.C. Watson gave evidence of arrest.

The prisoner said he did not throw the stone with the intention of breaking the window. He meant to throw it to the top of the roof.

The Chief Constable said since 1906 the prisoner had been convicted at Worthing, Romsey, Chichester, and Hunts. Assizes for felony, and at Boston for an assault on a woman.

The Recorder warned the prisoner as to his future behaviour, and advised him not to come before that Court again. He would have to go to prison for three months' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 1 August 1908.

Local News.

One of the prisoners sentenced at the recent Quarter Sessions – George Herbert Rycroft, for breaking a window at the Alexandra Hotel – applied for leave to appeal against his sentence of three months' hard labour, but the higher court this week has decided not to grant an appeal in the case, so the sentence remains.

Folkestone Express 28 November 1908.

Friday, November 20th: Before Alderman Banks, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Vaughan, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, and T. Ames.

Ernest J.S.S. Fazan was charged with stealing, whilst a bailee, a pair of field glasses in a leather case. Mr. De Wet prosecuted.

John Edward Barber, the landlord of the Alexandra Hotel, Harbour Street, said he knew the prisoner, who went by the name of Fazan. On July 18th prisoner was at his hotel, and remained there for a few days. He returned about July 30th. Two or three days after he came he asked prosecutor to lend him his field glasses, which he invariably kept behind the bar in a case. He gave him permission to have them, but told him he was to return them each day he came into the hotel. On August 5th the prisoner left the hotel, owing him some money, and later he missed the glasses. He had given witness no notice that he was going to leave. In consequence of police enquiries at Dover a few days after, witness went to see Mr. Wood, a pawnbroker there, who showed him the glasses and case produced, which he identified as his property. He valued the field glasses and case at £4.

Florence Kosh, a barmaid in the employ of Mr. Barber, said she knew the prisoner. On August 5th she remembered seeing Fazan in the office behind the bar. She asked him what he wanted, and he replied “I want the glasses”. She asked him if Mr. Barber had given him permission to have them, and he said “Oh, yes”. She gave him the field glasses in the case.

Robert Wood, pawnbroker, of 10, Snargate Street, Dover, said on August 6th the field glasses and leather case were pledged with him by the prisoner, and the counterfoil corresponded with the ticket produced. His wife advanced 7s. 6d. for the glasses.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said at 9 a.m. the previous day he arrested the prisoner at Canterbury, charging him with stealing the glasses in the case whilst bailee. After reading the warrant over to him, the prisoner replied “I am very sorry. I did not take them with a felonious intent”. Later he brought him to Folkestone police station, where he was formally charged and made no reply. In his possession was found the pawnticket produced, which corresponded with the counterfoil produced by Mr. Wood.

Mr. De Wet asked the Magistrates to deal with the prisoner summarily, subject to his plea.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, and further said that before the charge was preferred against him he wrote a letter to Mr. John Barber, telling him the predicament he was in, and he asked the Magistrates to read the letter. He had also made a declaration on his behalf to the Chairman and other gentlemen on the Bench, and which he wrote the previous day. He wished the Magistrates to see a letter he had received from his parents.

The letters were read by the Clerk to the Magistrates, but he said they were irrelevant to the charge.

The Magistrates, as the prisoner pleaded Not Guilty, had no course open to them but to send him for trial at the next Quarter Sessions, and bail was offered, himself in £20, and two sureties of £20 each.

Folkestone Express 9 January 1909.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 4th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Ernest James Seymour Slater Fagan, described as a seaman, was indicted for that he, being the bailee of a certain leather case containing field glasses of the value of £4, the property of John Edwards Barber, converting them to his own use and stole them, on August 5th. Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty.

Mt. T. Matthew (instructed by Mr. De Wet) prosecuted, and in opening the case said that prisoner did not deny taking the glasses, but contended that he took them honestly.

John Barber, the landlord of the Alexandra Hotel, said he knew the prisoner and he had stayed at his hotel for a few days from July 18th last. He went away and returned on July 30th, and during his stay he was in the habit of borrowing witness's field glasses, which were presented to him by his commanding officer when he went to South Africa. The instruction given to the prisoner was to hand the glasses back each day to the young lady behind the bar. On August 5th the prisoner left the house and took the glasses with him. He, at that time, owed him 17/6 for his lodgings. As he did not return in a few days, he gave information to the police, with whom he went to Dover a few days later, and saw the field glasses at Mr. Wood's the pawnbroker.

Florence Kosh, a barmaid in the last witness's employ, gave evidence of handing the glasses to the prisoner.

Robert Wood, pawnbroker, of 10, Snargate Street, Dover, said on August 6th the glasses were pledged by the prisoner with him. He valued the glasses at £1 1s. and the case at 3s.

Mrs. Wood said she effected the transaction with the prisoner, to whom she gave 7/6 for the glasses and counterfoil of the ticket. The man told her that the glasses were his property.

Detective Sergeant Burniston deposed to arresting prisoner on a warrant at Canterbury.

A letter was read by the prisoner, which he sent to Mr. Barber when in prison, stating that he would get the glasses when he came out again, and he further said that he did not know at that time there was a warrant out for his arrest.

Prisoner went into the box, and said if he had any guilty intention he would not have used his own name. He ran short of money, and thought he was pledging the glasses only for a day, as he expected he could get money from his people. It was his intention to redeem the glasses when he came out of prison.

During cross-examination by Mr. Matthew, the prisoner said he had borrowed money from the Chief Constable of Deal, which he had repaid.

The Recorder: That is very high testimony to the police.

In a written statement, the prisoner repeated what he had said in the witness box. He also asked the jury to take into consideration the fact that he had been in prison six weeks awaiting trial, and appealed to them to instruct the Police Court Missionary to assist him, as he had very little money.

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty, which was received with loud applause from the public portion of the Court.

Fagan was therefore discharged.

The Recorder ordered that on payment of 3/9 to the pawnbroker Mr. Barber could have his glasses back.

Folkestone Express 2 March 1912.

Wednesday, February 28th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd Esqs., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Major Leggett.

Charles Brown was charged with being drunk and disorderly. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Kennett said at 4.30 the previous day he was asked by the landlord to eject the prisoner from the Alexandra Hotel. After some difficulty he did so, but when outside the prisoner wanted to fight, and started to shout and swear, causing a large crowd of people to assemble. With the assistance of P.C. Sales witness brought him to the police station.

Brown said he was very sorry.

The Chief Constable said there were eight convictions for drunkenness against prisoner, three being in last year. He appeared very often, and by his conduct he was likely to injure the licensed premises in which he had been misbehaving himself. Publicans had enough to do to keep order without being troubled by such men as him. He would be fined 40s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 12 July 1913.

Tuesday, July 8th: Before J. Stainer Esq., Major Leggett, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, and E.T. Morrison Esqs.

Jane Golding Dunn was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night in South Street. She pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Weller said at 10.15 p.m. he was in South Street, where he saw the prisoner. She was drunk and shouting. She refused to go away, and caused a crowd to assemble, so he took her into custody.

Prisoner said she went to see her husband, who was staying at his sister's in South Street. She had been in the workhouse for a month, and only came out that day. She found her husband in the Alexandra public bar.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said there were ten previous convictions against the prisoner, the last being in September, 1911.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, and in default of payment she went down for seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 21 August 1915.

Wednesday, August 18th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Jenner, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and H.C. Kirke Esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied on behalf of Mrs. Barber, the widow of the late Mr. J.E. Barber, for temporary authority to sell at the Alexandra Hotel, the licence of which was held by her husband.

The application was granted.

Folkestone Express 2 November 1918.

Local News.

The Magistrates on Tuesday temporarily transferred the licence of the Alexandra Hotel from Mrs. Barber, the widow of Councillor Barber, to Mr. Stiff, of Dover.

Folkestone Express 16 November 1918.

Local News.

At a special licensing sessions at the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The Alexandra, from Mrs. Barber to Mr. F.E. Steff.

Folkestone Express 24 July 1920.

Local News.

The Borough Magistrates on Tuesday sanctioned the following temporary transfer of licence: Alexandra Hotel, from Mr. Step (sic) to Mr. W.R. Taylor.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1920.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before Councillor Boyd, Councillor Harrison, Rev. Epworth Thompson, Col. Owen, Mr. W.R. Boughton, and Mr. Blamey.

The following transfer of licence was granted: The Alexandra Hotel, from Mr. Steff to Mr. W.R. Taylor.

Folkestone Express 9 October 1920.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday morning a summons against William Robert Taylor, the landlord of the Alexandra Hotel, Beach Street, for allowing consumption on the premises after ten p.m. was adjourned until today (Friday) on the application f Mr. Mowll (Dover), who will appear for Mr. Taylor.

Folkestone Express 16 October 1920.

Friday, October 8th: Before Colonel Owen, Alderman Jenner, the Rev. Epworth Thompson, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, and Capt. Griffin.

William Robert Taylor, the licensee of the Alexandra Hotel, Beach Street, was summoned for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on his premises at 12.45 a.m. on the 28th September. Mr. A.K. Mowll (Canterbury) appeared for defendant, and pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Sales said at 12.45 on the morning of the 28th September he was in Harbour Street, in company with P.C. Butler, when he heard singing, and a piano being played in the Alexandra Hotel. He rang the bell and the door was opened by Mr. Taylor. He said to the landlord “Who have you on your premises?” and he replied “A few friends”. Witness said “Are they staying in the hotel?” and Mr. Taylor said “No, not all of them. I am just giving a little private party to a friend who is leaving the town tomorrow”. Witness asked him if he had notified the police, and he replied “No; is it necessary?” Witness said “I will see your friends”. In a room upstairs he saw eleven men and a number of women. On a table there was a number of beer and several spirit bottles, some containing liquor, and a number of glasses, some of those also containing liquor. He said to those present “Are you gentlemen all staying in the hotel?”, and some replied “No, not all of us”, and one said “We are guests of the landlord, invited here to a party”. He was taking their names when one of those present drank beer from a tankard, at the same time wishing him good health. (Laughter) He took the names and left the room with the landlord, to whom he said “You don't deny liquor is being consumed?”, and he said “That is what they are here for, and they also have sandwiches”. He told Taylor he would have to submit a report and he replied “I am very very sorry if anything is wrong. I am giving a farewell party to a friend who is leaving tomorrow”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Usually the Chief Constable was notified and proper police advice was given.

Mr. Mowll addressed the Magistrates, and said the defendant had pleaded Guilty to the summons because, in his view, however technical the offence may be, he had committed an offence under D.O.R.A. He was wrongly under the impression that he was entitled, as he was entitled under the licensing laws, to have this party, and that the regulations did not apply in this case. Everything was done perfectly above board. Music was heard, and the police were welcomed in. There was no shuffling of glasses to get rid the beer, and even one of the guests drank the health of the inspector, and wished him good luck whilst they were there, and the police seized upon that unfortunate man, who was the person who had landed the licensee there that day. What they had to consider was whether it was not a case where a bona fide mistake had been made on the part of the licensee. He did not know it was necessary to communicate with the Chief Constable on the matter. He asked the Magistrates to dismiss the case on the payment of costs. He had only held this licence for nine weeks.

Defendant said he had held a licence in London for nine years.

The Chairman said defendant should have known the Liquor Control Orders were still in force. He would be fined £10.

Mr. Mowll: You don't think it ought to affect his licence?

The Chairman: I cannot say that. In the opinion of the Bench it is a very serious matter.

Mr. Mowll: You don't know whether the regulations are still in force or not.

Folkestone Express 5 February 1921.

Local News.

On Tuesday morning at the Police Court the following temporary transfer was granted: Alexandra Hotel, Beach Street, to Mr. C.N. Tapsall, Sandwich.

Folkestone Express 12 February 1921.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Sir S. Penfold, Alderman Pepper, Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, Councillor Miss I. Weston, Miss Hunt, Councillor Boyd, Mr. Swoffer, Mr. Blamey, Councillor Boughton, Councillor Hollands, Councillor Stace, and Colonel Owen.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) presented his annual report as follows:- I have the honour to report that there are at present within your jurisdiction 114 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz.: Full licences 71, beer on 7, beer off 6, beer and spirit dealers 15, grocers etc. off 6, confectioners wine on 3, and chemists wine off 6. This is an increase of one full licence compared with the return submitted last year, a licence having been granted to the Grand Hotel at the adjourned licensing meeting held on 10th March last. This gives an average according to the Census of 1911 of one licence to every 293 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons. Thirteen of the licences have been transferred during the past year. Three occasional licences have been granted to licence holders to sell drink on special occasions elsewhere than on their licensed premises, and 36 extensions of hours have been granted to licence holders when dinners, etc., were being held on their licensed premises. Two licence holders have been convicted during the year, viz.: The licensee of the Prince Albert Hotel was fined £10 and costs on 28th August for selling beer at a price exceeding the maximum price under the Beer (Prices and Descriptions) Order. The licensee of the Alexandra Hotel was fined £10 on 5th October for allowing the consumption of intoxicating liquor on his licensed premises after 10 p.m., contrary to the Order of the Liquor Control Board. During the year ended 31st December last 37 persons (28 males and 9 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness; 27 were convicted and 10 were discharged after being cautioned by the Bench In the preceding year 46 persons were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 34 were convicted and 12 discharged. Twelve clubs where intoxicating liquor is supplied are registered under the Act. This is an increase of one since last year's report. Proceedings have been taken against the steward of one of the registered clubs for allowing consumption of intoxicating liquor after 10 p.m., but the case was dismissed on the payment of costs. There are 24 premises licensed for music and dancing, one for music only, and two for public billiard playing. As a result of the reports received from my officers, who have made numerous visits at irregular intervals to the licensed premises and places of entertainment, I am able to report that the houses generally have been conducted in a satisfactory manner.

The Mayor said it was a great source of satisfaction to the Bench that Mr. Reeve had been able to make a report so favourable as the one he had submitted, especially in respect to the last paragraph. It was also a great source of satisfaction to the Bench to know that the charges for drunkenness were less during 1920 than during 1919. Forty six persons were proceeded against in 1919, and 37 in 1920, showing a decrease of 9. The Magistrates had reason to believe from the report that the licensed houses during the past year, in the main, had been well conducted.

Mr. Reeve: Yes, sir.

The Mayor said the Bench recognised that the licensees had a difficult task to perform. There were many Acts of Parliament and Orders from different Boards which they had to adhere to and carry out. Speaking personally, he preferred to see himself the Continental cafe system, which would be a much easier system to carry out than their public house system, and he did not know why it had not been tried in this country. He hoped some day someone would make the experiment. At the Continental cafes they saw any amount of people having a pleasant time and social intercourse, and taking their wines or coffee, and spending a very happy time. They had to deal with the English system, but he hoped that some day the Continental system would be tried, and that it would be a success on this side. He hoped that during the coming year the licensees would exercise the same caution and vigilance as they had during the past, and that cases of drunkenness would continue to decrease annually. All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the Prince Albert. The licence of the Alexandra Hotel had passed into fresh hands since the conviction, and that would be renewed from that day. The Prince Albert would be referred back to the adjourned meeting.

The adjourned sessions were fixed for the 9th March.

Folkestone Express 25 November 1922.

Local News.

The following transfer of licence was granted at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday morning: The Alexandra Hotel, from Mr. C.H. Tapsall to Mr. John Edmund Fortune, of Ramsgate.

Note: This is at variance with More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 13 January 1923.

Local News.

At the Police Court on Wednesday the following licence was transferred: The Alexandra Hotel, from Mr. C.H. Tapsell to Mr. J.E. Fortune.

Folkestone Express 20 July 1929.

Local News.

On Wednesday at the Folkestone Police Court several applications were made for music and dancing licences. The magistrates on the Bench wore Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. J.T. Blamey, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mr. F Seager, and Mr. W. Smith.

Mr. Cork, of the George the Third, Fenchurch Street, and Mr Fortune, of the Alexandra Hotel, both applied for a music licence in respect of their premises. They said they intended to have portable wireless receiving sets and they desired to use them at times during the hours of opening.

The Chairman said the licences would be granted.

Folkestone Express 11 October 1930.

Wednesday 8th October: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Miss A.M. Hunt, Mr. F. Seager, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. W. Smith.

Stanley Arthur Bishop made application for the transfer of the licence of the Alexandra Hotel, Beach Street, from John Edmund Fortune.

The Magistrates' Clerk said a protection order had been granted to Mr. Bishop and he now asked for the transfer.

Chief Inspector Pittock said the police in London knew of no reason why the licence should not be granted. The applicant was a man of good character. He had been a builder.

Applicant said he had been in the building trade at Woolwich and Romford. He had been living in Brentford and working at Romford.

The Bench granted the application.

A licence for a wireless installation was also granted.

Folkestone Express 14 March 1931.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

On Wednesday, at the Folkestone Adjourned Licensing Sessions, the music and dancing licences were again granted, after the question had been adjourned for a month, it being explained by Alderman Wood that the conditions of the licences allowed vocal and instrumental music to be given during certain hours on Sunday.

The Magistrates on the Bench were Alderman R.G. Wood, The Mayor, Col. G.P. Owen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. F. Seager, Alderman A.E. Pepper, Mr. W. Griffin, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, Alderman A. Castle, and Miss A.M. Hunt.

The licences of the Bouverie Arms and Alexandra Hotel were transferred to new tenants.

Folkestone Express 11 March 1933.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 8th: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Miss A.M. Hunt, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mr. W. Smith, Eng. Read Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Mr. S.B. Corser.

The licence of the Alexandra Hotel was transferred to Mr. F.J.E. May.

Folkestone Express 19 May 1934.

Inquest.

On Wednesday Mr. G.W. Haines, the Folkestone Coroner, investigated at an inquest at the Folkestone Town Hall the circumstances of the death of Mrs. B.M. May, the wife of the licensee of the Alexandra Hotel, Harbour Street, and who died early on Monday morning at the Royal Victoria Hospital, where she had been taken some days after falling downstairs on March 2nd with a broken kneecap. She was treated at home by herself and her husband, but it was not until Dr. Dodgson was called in that she became an in-patient of the Hospital. An operation was performed on the leg, and at the beginning of this month septicaemia set in, and this ultimately resulted in her leg having to be amputated. She, however, became worse and died.

Mr. Francis Joseph Edwin May, the licence holder of the Alexandra Hotel, Harbour Street, said his wife was 42 years of age. They had been at the hotel just over twelve months. On March 2nd his wife brought a cup of tea down to him from the kitchen at about 7.30 a.m. She went upstairs and he got up and went down into the bar. He came upstairs about 8.30 a.m., and she was then sitting on the steps leading to the kitchen. He asked her what was the matter, and she replied “I have come a cropper” or words to that effect. He helped her downstairs to her bedroom and persuaded her to get into bed. She said “I have hurt my leg”. He looked at it to see if there were any bones broken, and it hurt her when she bent it. She got into bed and he placed hot fomentations on it and she said it eased it. They continued that treatment for a fortnight and painted the leg with iodine. The leg was swollen at the start, but the swelling gradually went down. He ultimately called in Dr. Dodgson, who came to see her and said it was a hospital case. His wife was removed by the ambulance to the Hospital. She told him at the time of the accident that she tripped on the stairs, and he noticed that one of the wooden stair rods was out of place.

Dr. A.C. Saunders, resident House Surgeon at the Royal Victoria Hospital, said deceased was admitted on March 19th. She was X rayed, and it was found that there was a transverse fracture of the left kneecap. She was operated on the next day. On March 25th they noticed the wound was infected. The knee was not swollen much, but on opening it there was an old blood clot and some fluid. The infection became rapidly worse, and ultimately she died on May 14th. She developed septicaemia at the beginning of May, and on May 11th, following a blood transfusion, they amputated her leg. Her condition, which was such that a blood transfusion was necessary, remained satisfactory for the next two days, and then on the evening of May 13th she became worse, and died at 4 a.m. the following morning from septicaemia. She was not of robust health, but generally poor health would leave her more open to that infection. She told him she fell downstairs.

The Coroner returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence.

Folkestone Express 12 January 1935.

Local News.

Richard Thomas Sibley, of 4, St. John's Church Road, came before the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, summoned for consuming intoxicating liquor at the Alexandra Hotel, Folkestone, at 11.15 p.m. on December 22nd, and Francis J.E. May, the licensee, was summoned for aiding and abetting. Mr. B.H. Bonniface appeared for both the defendants, and pleaded Not Guilty.

On that day, the Saturday before Christmas, there was an extension of hours until 11 p.m., which had been granted by the Magistrates.

The Magistrates present were Mr. R.G. Wood, Judge H. Terrell, Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens, and Alderman W. Hollands.

After a lengthy hearing the Bench dismissed the case.

Inspector Rowe said he was on duty outside the Alexandra Hotel at 11.15 p.m. with P.S. Butcher, and looking through the window he saw a number of persons in the saloon bar. He tried the door, which was locked. He then shook the door, and the licensee's son appeared, unfastened and opened the door, which was either locked or bolted. With P.S. Butcher, he went into the saloon and saw four persons. The defendant Sibley was sitting on a chair with his back to the entrance to the saloon bar. His wife, Mrs. Sibley, was alongside him. The licensee was standing with his back towards the serving counter on the public side, and there was a fourth person present, Mrs. Kay, the housekeeper to the licensee. On the counter by Sibley was a pint glass half full of ale, which witness could tell by the colour, and near the defendant May was also a pint glass half full of ale. He did not taste what was in the glass, but he was satisfied it was ale, usually called bitter. As he entered the door he saw Sibley take a drink from the glass he had alongside him. He had not observed the witness at that time as he had his back to him. He (witness) said to the licensee “Who are these people here?” and he explained that Sibley was employed to play the piano and wash glasses. His wife was with him, and the other lady was the housekeeper. Witness told him the time was 11.15 p.m., checking the time with P.S. Butcher before going into the house. He told Sibley he would be reported for consuming intoxicating liquor after permitted hours, and Sibley replied “I hope you make a case of it”. He did not deny there was beer in the glass. He (witness) told the licensee he would be reported, and he said “All right”. Sibley then said he had been at the piano for half an hour; they could not expect him to play and drink too. He (the Inspector) was of opinion that May was under the influence of drink, if not drunk, and the defendant Sibley also had had enough to drink.

Mr. Bonniface objected to the form of the last question put to the witness, and said the matter should be restricted to the defence which was in front of them. Those questions could be nothing but prejudiced.

Answering Mr. Bonniface, defending, Inspector Rowe said there was a fire burning in the saloon bar, but he did not notice a kettle on the fire. Besides the two glasses he saw there were also a number of glasses which had been washed up and turned upside down. He did not know that the person described as the licensee's son was employed in the business, but he knew Mrs. Kay was also employed as a barmaid. There were three bars.

Apparently, said Mr. Bonniface, the licensee and his employees had just finished work. Everything was washed up at 11.15?

Witness: Yes. The bar was not fully lighted; in fact, bar keepers usually dropped their lights immediately the people went out.

P.S. Butcher said that on December 22nd he and Inspector Rowe were outside the Alexandra Hotel. He noticed some people in the saloon bar through two of the blinds of the windows. The bar was not exceptionally well lit. The Inspector went to the entrance of the hotel, pushed the bell-push, and tried the door, which did not yield. After the Inspector had shaken the door, someone came. Witness went in with the Inspector, and the nearest person to them as they entered was Sibley, seated with his back half-turned to them. His wife was standing adjacent to him, and the housekeeper was sitting on a table at the far side of the bar. The licensee was on the public side of the bar, facing them. As they entered the bar Sibley took a drink from a glass which was on the counter containing bitter. He noticed another glass containing bitter adjacent to where the landlord was standing. He also noticed another glass to the left of Sibley which was a quarter full of stout. He heard the Inspector speak to the licensee and the explanation given by him, and also Sibley, who said “I hope you make a case of it”. Sibley later said “I have been playing the piano all the evening; the drink has been standing there. I cannot drink and play too”. He heard what the Inspector said to the licensee, who said “All right”.

Mr. Bonniface: You could see the figures in the bar. How long do you think it was between the time you first knocked at the door and when you were let in?

Witness: About a minute.

People had time to have drunk their beer if they wanted to hide anything? – Yes.

You agree the licensee told you Sibley was employed there? – Yes.

Mr. Bonniface said that summons was taken out under Section Four of the Licensing Act. People who were not customers, under Section Five of the Act, were allowed intoxicating liquors at certain hours as private friends, and this man (Sibley) was an employee, who came under the same provisions as private friends.

Sibley said he had been working in the bar from 7 p.m., having been collecting glasses and putting them on the counter. There was a lot of glasses and they soon got broken. He had been doing this for six months, on Fridays and Saturdays when they were busy. Witness was paid a shilling a day, with a drink and supper. On that particular evening he also played the piano when the work eased off a bit. He watched points and kept an eye on things. He remembered the licensee call time at ten minutes to eleven, and he went to the door with the idea of getting the troops out. There were a lot of soldiers there that night. Everybody was off the premises by 11. Witness came round and collected the glasses and went behind the counter and washed them. Eddie, who was Mrs. Kay's son, and Mrs. Kay were also working there. At ten minutes to eleven the licensee told witness to go up and get the shilling and have his drink. The kettle was on, and there were generally some sandwiches left which he had for his supper, but they were all gone and the “governor” was going to send out for some fish and chips. The reason his wife was there was that she forgot about the extension and came down to see where witness was. She had a drink in the first part of the evening. He was paid his 1s. that night, and worked after the customers had gone, clearing glasses.

In answer to the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), the defendant said he had no regular employment and he had been paid 2s. a week by the licensee for the last six months. The place was packed between 7 and 10 on Friday and Saturday nights, full enough to be uncomfortable. Mrs. Kay, her son Eddie, and the licensee were continually serving between 7 and 10 p.m. Witness had no National Health Insurance book or unemployment card. His employer did not buy anything for him. He got a supper there when he wanted it. He got no dole, but was a pensioner getting £2 a week.

Francis J. May, the licensee, said he employed Sibley to keep an eye on the glasses passed up to the counter and if necessary give help in washing them up. Sibley was an ex-serviceman and he liked to put something in his way, so he gave him a shilling and supper, and rather than see sandwiches wasted he gave them to him. After 11 on the night in question Sibley cleared away the tables and washed glasses up. At a quarter to eleven witness said “Go up and get your drink now and get fixed up as I am going to call time by ten to eleven”, as he wanted to clear the house, which was full. He thought it was necessary to employ Sibley, as he had lost several things. “One week”, he said, “I lost nine wine glasses and five ash trays”, and he had had him for six months at weekends.

The Chief Constable: Are there some Saturdays in the last six months when you have not paid him?

May: I have no recollection of not having paid him.

Proceeding, he said that evening the sandwiches were all eaten and he was sending a boy out to get some fish and chips when the officers arrived. A busy evening was when they got forty or fifty in and for the sake of a shilling he thought he would get somebody in to help – a man who would be glad to earn it.

The Chief Constable told Mr. May that on Saturday, November 17th, he had 56 people in his house at 8.20 p.m., and on June 23rd, a Saturday, he had 35 at 9.35. Did it require four people to handle them?

Defendant said there was no hard and fast rule for Sibley; he came in when he liked.

The Bench dismissed the case, as stated.

Folkestone Express 4 June 1938.

Local News.

Where did Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22 years, the Folkestone woman found strangled not far from Holy Well in a small coppice at the foot of the hills on Thursday night in last week, stay on the Monday and Tuesday nights previous to her murder? That is a point upon which the Folkestone Police desire to have information from anyone who can assist them. Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, last night said: It is of the utmost importance that people knowing where Mrs. Spiers stayed on either of these nights should communicate with us immediately, without them waiting for the Police to call on them. It certainly would he assisting the interests of justice if anyone with information of use to the Police would get into touch with them immediately.

The body of Mrs. Spiers, a married woman separated from her husband, and a foster child of Mrs. Minter, who formerly lived at a lodging house in Radnor Street, was first discovered by Kenneth George Andrews, a sixteen year old youth residing with his parents in Ethelbert Road. He was looking for birds’ nests at the time, when he saw what appeared to be a bundle. Looking closer, he saw that a portion of a woman’s head and leg were showing. He immediately proceeded to his home and informed his father, who at once found the constable on the beat, and particulars of the discovery were telephoned to Police headquarters.

Mr. Beesley, the Chief Constable, was immediately informed and he, accompanied by Chief Inspector Hollands, Dr. W.C.P. Barrett and Det. Constable Bates, the Coroner's Officer, were speedily at the scene. They found amongst the bushes the body of a woman completely covered with her blue coat, lying on her back with her head down the sloping ground.

Dr. Barrett made an examination, and gave it as his opinion that the woman had been strangled by her green scarf which had been knotted tightly round her throat.

The body was subsequently removed to the mortuary, where a long and careful examination was made by the Chief Constable, who took charge of the case, and the Police Surgeon.

The C.I. Department worked throughout the night trying to establish her identity and making numerous other enquiries. It was clear from the first examination by Dr. Barrett that the woman had been lying where she was found at least 24 hours. Before it was taken away photographs were taken of it and the surrounding land. An intensive search for possible clues was at once commenced by detectives of the Folkestone Force.

Early on Friday morning the Chief Con stable decided to seek the assistance of Scotland Yard, and a few hours later Det. Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon, from the Yard, arrived and began investigations in conjunction with the Chief Constable and his officers. There were no signs of a struggle at the place where the body was found, and thf fact that the clothing was very wet showed that it was there on the Wednesday night when there was heavy rain.

The Chief Constable, Det. Inspector Parker, and numerous officers have ceaselessly and energetically carried out investigations from the time they began them. As a result it has been established that the murder occurred about fifty feet distant from the place where Mrs. Spiers’ body was found. She had been passing in the name of Butcher for some time in Folkestone, where she had been employed at hotels and cafes.

On the Saturday previous to her death she went to a house in Garden Road, where she engaged a room, telling the landlady that her name was Minter, and that she had come from Tooting to take up a position as a waitress at a cafe on the lower sea front. She brought no luggage with her, and slept at the house on Saturday and Sunday nights. On Monday morning she left the house, apparently to go to her work, after arranging with the landlady to meet her so that she could take her to the pictures. The landlady kept the appointment, but Mrs. Spiers did not, and she did not see her again. When the landlady returned to her home she noticed that a "man without a hat and wearing a light mackintosh was apparently waiting outside. On Monday morning Mrs. Spiers walked along the Marine Promenade, for she had her photograph taken as she was doing so. From that time there seems to be no connected story of her movements. It is stated that she was seen on Tuesday night with a tall man wearing a mackintosh. So far as is known she was last seen alive on Wednesday at about a quarter to twelve in a Sandgate Road shop, and therefore the probable time of her death was between noon and three o’clock on Wednesday in last week.

The enquiries of the Police have been of a very extensive character, and have extended over a wide area of the country. Mrs. Spiers attended many dances in the district, and was known to many men, not only in Folkestone, but in the military camps at Shorncliffe and the R.A.F. at Hawkinge. Over sixty men have been interrogated by the Police, and the processes of elimination is still proceeding. The men include soldiers, airmen and civilians.

On Saturday night, a report was received from the Sandwich district that a man who had been stopped in a country lane by a Kent County police officer and questioned had stated that he had come from Folkestone and that he admitted he was responsible for the murder of Mrs. Spiers. Mr. Beesley and Det.Insp. Parker, and other officers without delay motored over to Sandwich, but on questioning the man they quickly came to the conclusion that he had had nothing to do with the crime.

A section of the Force had arranged to visit Epsom to see the Derby, but in view of the crime the immediately cancelled the arrangements.

Under Inspector Heastie a number of officers, in plain clothes, have made a house-to-house visit in the Cheriton, Morehall, Foord and the surrounding streets and roads, and the East Cliff districts, and have shown a photograph of Mrs. Spiers to the occupiers. They have also asked if she was known or had stayed there. Mr. Beesley, asked last (Thursday) night if that had brought any results, replied “It has brought some crumbs of useful information”.

On Wednesday, Dr. Bernard Spilsbury, who has assisted in the unravelling of many murders, came to Folkestone at the request of the Chief Constable, and he, in company with Dr. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, and the Chief Constable, conducted a long examination of the body of the murdered woman at the mortuary. A large number of exhibits which have been collected in the investigations have ai.so been seat to London for examination by Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert.

It was at one time thought that the theft of a Harley Davidson motor cycle from a Folkestone garage during Tuesday night or Wednesday morning had some connection with the crime, and the police of the whole of the country were asked to try and trace it, but that has now been ruled out by the officers engaged in the case.

The cause of Mrs. Spiers’ death was not by asphyxiation, but the scarf having been tied so tightly the flow of blood through the carotid artery was snapped, and so her death must have been instantaneous.

The inquest was opened on Monday afternoon at the Folkestone Town Hall. Mr. G.W. Haines, the Borough Coroner, sat with a jury of ten. There was a large attendance of the public. Only three witnesses gave evidence, and the enquiry was then adjourned to July 8th.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) was the first witness. He said at 7.15 p.m. on Thursday he was called to a spot in a small coppice or wood, and was accompanied by the Coroner’s Officer. At the foot of the hill to the north of Folkestone between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill he saw a woman lying on her back covered pretty well from head to foot with a woman’s blue coat. The photograph produced was as she was found.

This photograph was handed to the members of the jury to examine.

The Chief Constable, continuing, said the woman was lying on a slight decline with the head downwards. The lower portions of both legs were exposed from a point about half-way below the knee. She had no stockings, but she wore a pair of low-heeled shoes. Her face and head were covered, but a portion of her back hair, which was flaxen in colour, was exposed, and was lying straight out behind the body. “I moved the coat”, Mr. Beesley continued, “and exposed the face and felt it. The face was quite cold, but soft to the touch. It was of good colour and in fact quite natural. I formed the opinion she was dead. Her nose was swollen and discoloured and blood was oozing from the left nostril. I completely removed the coat and found she was she was lying on her back with her arms and legs flexed, her knees drawn. She was wearing a pair of panties, which just covered her thighs. They were in good condition, but badly torn, especially at the back. Her green frock was pulled or dragged right up, back and front, level to her breasts, leaving the whole of the breasts and body bare. Very extensive bleeding scratches led from her legs right up to the thighs. They were especially numerous on the front. There were deep indentations on the lower part of the body made by pressure of the earth and dry pieces of twig and briar upon which she was lying. All clothing was saturated with rain, except the back of the dress, which was dry. The photographs put in were taken at once”.

The jury were also handed these photographs to examine.

Dr. W.C.P. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, said he saw the body in the coppice where it was found. The woman was dead. He had since made a post mortem examination. There was a long bruise measuring four inches on the left arm. There were two large spots, dark in colour, on the chest. There were scratches on the left collar bone and there were multiple scratches on the lowerr limbs right up to the groin, but mainly on the front, but with quite a few on the back. There was a deep indentation right around the neck, front and back. The stomach contained ten small lumps of potato and brownish fluid resembling soup. The bruises and scratches were definitely ante-mortem. Death was due to strangulation caused by pressure on the main arteries to the head. Rigor mortis had set in and the limbs were rigid. The face was of a natural colour. His opinion was that she had not been dead longer than two days. Death might have occurred under that time. There was no sign of putrification.

The Coroner: There must have been considerable pressure to stop the flow of blood?

Witness: No. I tried it on myself last night and it is surprising how little pressure is needed to make you feel faint.

Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Road. Bexhill-on-Sea, said he was 27 years of age and was a milk roundsman. He was formerly in the Army, stationed at Shorncliffe. When in the Army he became acquainted with the deceased and knew her as Phyllis Minter. They were married on April 11th, 1932, at the Folkestone Register Office. On January 25th, 1933, his wife gave birth to a daughter, who was in his custody. He returned to Bexhill and got work there. On April 13th, 1934, his wife left him with the baby, following a quarrel over a letter she had received. He tried to patch it up once or twice. He last saw her alive three years and ten months ago at Hastings. In November last he applied for a Poor Persons divorce. He did not know where she was living. His application for divorce was based on desertion. She was 16 years and five months old when he married her. He visited the Folkestone mortuary on Friday afternoon and identified the body as that of his wife. He could not say whether she followed any occupation.

The Coroner said he did not propose to take any further evidence.

The Chief Constable: My application is that you should adjourn the enquiry for at least a month.

The Coroner: I will adjourn the inquest until 8th July at 2.30 p.m. The police have many enquiries to make, and the jury will have to come again.

Folkestone Express 11 June 1938.

Local News.

The murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, a Folkestone woman living apart from her husband, is still unsolved, but the police are not relaxing in their efforts to find the person responsible for her death by strangulation on Wednesday, May 25th.

It will be remembered that her dead body was found not far from Holy Well at the foot of Caesar's Camp on the evening of Thursday, May 26th, and since then the police have prosecuted their enquiries unceasingly and vigorously.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, from the time the dead woman was found, took control immediately of the case, and Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon from Scotland Yard arrived the following day, and have had a big share of the investigations which have been carried on since it was evident that Mrs. Spiers had been murdered.

The appeal made by the Chief Constable last week for anyone who could give information concerning the dead woman resulted in a number of people coming forward, and some of the details which they supplied were undoubtedly of assistance to the officers engaged in the case. Chief Inspector Parker and the C.I.D. staff of the Folkestone Police Force working under him have interviewed quite a number of people every day. On Tuesday Chief Inspector Parker visited Scotland Yard in order to report progress to headquarters there, and he also saw Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert, with whom he conferred as to the result of his analysis of certain exhibits forwarded to him last week.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, has issued the following appeal to people to assist the Police: At about 6.10 p.m. on 26th May, 1938, a girl known as Phyllis Spiers, alias Butcher, Osborn and Wall, aged 22 years, 5ft. 5ins., eyes blue, hair bleached, medium build; Dress: full length belted blue overcoat, green frock, blue leather shoes, no hat or stockings, was found murdered at a spot known as Caesar’s Camp, Hill Road, Folkestone. It is earnestly desired to trace a woman who was in her company shortly before 12 noon on Wednesday, 25th May, 1938, at Woolworth’s Stores, Sandgate Road, Folkestone. The woman is known to have purchased a packet of grease-proof paper. It is of the utmost importance that this woman should communicate with the Chief Constable, the Town Hall, Folkestone, or with any Police Station at the earliest possible moment.

It is clear that the movements of the dead woman prior to noon on the day she met her death should be known as fully as possible, and if it is possible for any person to shed any light upon them it is their duty to get into communications with the police at once. Another direction in which great assistance can be rendered to the police is in supplying any information regarding Mrs. Spiers' whereabouts on the Monday and Tuesday nights before the day on which she was murdered. That she was in Folkestone on those two nights is known, and it is hoped that information as to where she slept then will be forthcoming.

The police, it is thought, have now decided that the theft of the Harley Davidson motorcycle from a Folkestone garage, and which they asked the police in all parts of the country to assist them tracing, had no connection with the crime.

The appeal of the Chief Constable published on Wednesday resulted in some people coming forward, as a result of which a few fresh facts came to the knowledge of the police.

Folkestone Express 18 June 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone Police, assisted by Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scarsdon, of Scotland Yard, are actively pursuing enquiries concerning the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, the Folkestone woman who was found strangled at the foot of Caesar's Camp on the evening of May 26th. They have interviewed a number of people who came forward as a result of the appeal made by Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, last week, and several fresh facts regarding the mystery have come to light.

Folkestone Express 25 June 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone Police, with the assistance of Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scardon, of Scotland Yard, are still proceeding with their enquiries concerning the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, the 22 year old Folkestone married woman found strangled on May 26th near Caesar's Camp.

On Friday in last week Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Scardon were at Scotland Yard, where they were in consultation with Dr. Roche Lynch, the Home Office expert, and other officers at the Yard. Returning to Folkestone, they have since been actively engaged on the case, and no efforts are being spared by the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), the Scotland Yard officers, and the C.I.D. staff of the Folkestone Police to solve the mystery of Mrs. Spiers' death.

Folkestone Express 2 July 1938.

Local News.

On Saturday, just over a month after the body of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, a Folkestone woman, had been found at the foot of Caesar’s Camp, to the north of Folkestone, Mr. A. S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, charged a Folkestone labourer, William Whiting, aged 38, giving as his address a lodging-house in Dover Street, with the wilful murder of the woman.

The dead woman was found amongst some bushes, and she had a green scarf tied round her neck, on the evening of May 26th. Since that day the Chief Constable, Chief Inspector Parker, and Det.Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, and the Folkestone Police, have been carrying out Investigations concerning the woman’s death. The accused man is a widower, and has three children. He is particularly well known in the east area of Folkestone. The Chief Constable saw him in his office on Saturday and charged him. Later he was again charged in the Police Station and then placed in the cells.

Whiting was placed in the dock at the Police Court on Monday. He was charged that on or about 23rd May of this year at Folkestone he feloniously and with malice aforethought wilfully murdered Phyllis May Spiers.

The Court was crowded to its utmost extent, and the doors had to be closed, many people being unable to gain admission.

The magistrates were Councillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Judge H. Terrell, K.C., Mrs. A.M. Saunders and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

At the Court officials’ table, in addition to the Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) and the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley), there were also seated Chief Inspector Parker and Det.-Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, who had been conducting investigations into the case.

The Chief Constable said it was a case in which, as the magistrates were aware, the assistance of the Director of Public Prosecutions was to be sought, therefore that morning he proposed only to give evidence of arrest, and then ask for a remand until Tuesday. It was a formal remand, because he was sure that the Director would not be ready by that time. They would need, he was afraid, a further remand.

The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You have, of course, made many enquiries?

The Chief Constable: There are a very large number of witnesses to be called before you.

The Chief Constable, giving evidence, said at 12.34 p.m. on June 25th he saw the prisoner in his office. He said to him “You know who I am? I am the Chief Constable of Folkestone”. Whiting replied “Yes, sir”. Proceeding, he said: “I said ‘William Whiting, I am going to arrest and formally charge you with the murder of Phyllis May Spiers on or about Monday, 23rd May, 1938, and you will be taken before the Court on that charge. I must caution you that you need not say anything unless you wish, but whatever you say will be taken down in writing and may be given in evidence. Have you anything to say?’ Whiting replied 'I do not wish to say anything. I am not guilty’”. At 1.20 p.m. the same day, continued Mr. Beesley, Whiting was formally charged by the Station officer, P.S. Butcher, with the offence. He was cautioned, and replied “I have nothing to say”. Whiting was then searched and taken to the cells.

The Clerk: Nothing was found upon him to which you wish to refer?

The Chief Constable: No.

Whiting said he did not wish to ask the Chief Constable any questions.

The Chairman said they would appoint somebody to conduct Whiting’s defence.

The Clerk: A solicitor will be assigned to conduct your defence.

The Chairman (to Whiting): You are remanded in custody until tomorrow week (Tuesday).

The prisoner was then hurried out of the dock, and without looking at the people in the Court Whiting proceeded to the Police Station below.

Folkestone Express 9 July 1938.

Local News.

When William Whiting (38), a labours, of Dover Street, Folkestone. charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, appeared before the Folkestone magistrates on Tuesday, he was represented by Mr. Lloyd Bunco, a Folkestone solicitor. Whiting had been remanded eight days before, and the short time he was before the magistrates on Tuesday was taken up with formalities. He was ultimately remanded in custody until next Monday, when it is possible that the case might be opened and some evidence taken.

The public portion of the Court was crowded, many people having waited since 9 a.m. in the rain. There was a large crowd outside the Town Hall half- an-hour before the case was due to commence. One of the women who occupied leading places in the queue fainted, and was taken into the Town Hall, where she received attention.

The Magistrates were Courcillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G. . Collins, Mrs. Saunders and Alderman J.W. Stainer.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he was asking for another remand. He understood the Director of Public Prosecutions would be ready on Wednesday in next week.

The Magistrates’ Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he did not think that was the most convenient day. He thought it would be bettor perhaps to remand the prisoner until Tuesday, unless the Director could commence on Monday. Continuing, he said he thought it would be better perhaps to commence the case the week commencing 18th July, and then it could be taken from day to day if so desired. They had to consider the justices available - the justices who started the case had to be available.

The Chairman, in reply to a query by Mr. Bunce, said the justices had decided that counsel should defend the prisoner.

The Chairman said Whiting would be.

The Chairman, in reply to a query by Mr. Bunce, said the Justices had decided that counsel should defend the prisoner.

The Chairman said Whiting would be remanded until Monday.

Whiting: I have an application to make. Can I have my letters and photos in possession of the police?

The Clerk: I do not think the magistrates have any power over that.

The Chief Constable said they were personal to Whiting, and he thought he would have no difficulty in complying with the request.

Folkestone Express 16 July 1938.

Local News.

When the case against William Whiting, aged 38, a labourer, of Dover Street, charged with the wilful murder on or about May 23rd of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, a Folkestone, woman, was opened the Folkestone Police Court on Monday, Mr. B.H. Waddy prosecuting on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, said “The motive, to put it in one word, was revenge”. Mrs. Spiers was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on the 26th May, her body being almost completely covered by her coat.

Whiting had been twice formally remanded, and the whole of Monday was occupied in hearing Mr. Waddy’s opening, and five witnesses, two of whom were Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch. The Magistrates, after a sitting of close upon five hours, again remanded Whiting until Monday next when the case will be continued on the following days until all the evidence is heard.

There was a large number of exhibits in connection with the case, and they included framed portions of a tree and a rough fence which had attached to it barbed wire. The large framed exhibit was placed on the side of the magisterial bench.

The Magistrates were Mr. R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

Mr. B. H. Waddy and Mr. F. Donal-Barry, barristers, appeared to prosecute on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions, and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel (instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce) represented Whiting. Seated at the table with the officials were Chief Inspector Parker, and Det. Sergt. Skardon, of Scotland Yard, who have been engaged with the Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) and the Folkestone Police in the inquiries in connection with the case.

There was another large attendance of the public in the Court, but not so large as on Whiting’s two previous appearances.

Whiting was provided with a chair in the dock, but at first he said he did not require it, and stood during the opening statement by the prosecuting counsel and the hearing of the earlier evidence

Mr. Waddy said he was instructed to prosecute. Before he opened the facts of the case he wanted to say he had in Court two gentlemen who would be witnesses, Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon. Chief Inspector Parker was in charge of the case, and it was absolutely necessary that he should be there to instruct him. With regard to Det. Sergt. Skardon he would be most useful to him in handling and producing the numerous exhibits he would have to put in. He suggested that he should remain in Court except when Chief Inspector Parker was giving evidence. No other witnesses were in Court.

Mr. Stuart Daniel said he did not object to that.

Mr. Waddy said on Thursday, the 26th May, somewhere about six o'clock in the afternoon, a Folkestone youth was birds’ nesting in a coppice at the foot of Castle Hill near Caesar’s Camp. Hidden in the undergrowth in that coppice he found the dead body of Phyllis May Spiers. He would call before them a body of medical evidence and other witnesses, who would tell them what was the condition and what was found in the immediate locality, and the evidence would, he thought, lead them to the conclusion that this girl met her death on May 23rd, which was a Monday, and that she met her death in this wav. She was rendered unconscious by blows in the fact and she was strangled bv hands, manual strangulation, that after her death there was put round her throat and tied tightly a green scarf with white spots on it twice round her neck, pulled tight and knotted. There were one or two possible reasons for tying that green scarf round the girl’s throat. One possibly was that the person who did it desired to make assurance doubly sure and make quite sure she died. The other possibility, which was one which would have to be considered, was that that scarf was put round her throat in the hopes that it might lead to the belief that the girl committed suicide by tying it round her throat herself. If the girl’s death, which in the view of the prosecution, took place in a little clearing in the coppice, which was visible up the hill, her body was dragged by the feet for some thirty feet or ten yards to the place where it was ultimately found. It was dragged down hill; it is quite steep, and through a barrier or an obstruction which existed between the place between the little clearing where, in the view of the prosecution, she died and the place where the body was found, that obstruction was a very rough obstruction and consisted of dead branches which were roughly fastened to a leaning post by means of barbed wire. Eventually it would appear that it was probably there to guard a bog which was at the foot of the hill to which cattle might possibly get. A great deal of importance might attach to that obstruction. That barrier had a gap in it through which it was possible for anyone to go. The obstruction was by the side of the side of the Court, and the Magistrates would see it had been framed. “You will see”,-Mr. Waddy proceeded, “there is a stout post leaning to the left and there are a number of branches, and you can see upon them some pieces of rusted barbed wire. As you look at that you will imagine that the ground you are on is a little higher and that from the other side it goes down hill. Again, the case for the prosecution is that the body of this girl was dragged by the murderer feet first through the gap, the murderer coming backwards on hands and knees. There will be given in evidence, certain evidence of a comb, certain hairs, and so on, but what is of great importance as far as that gap is concerned is that there is a piece of barbed wire to the right-hand side, which, if you were coming through the gap backwards on your hands and knees, would be about where your left shoulder would come. We are right in thinking that, if the murderer dragged the body through on his hands and knees there would be every likelihood that the point of that barbed wire would probably catch in the clothing which covered his left shoulder. Some ten yards below that point where the body was found, and opposite the body, was the girl’s handbag. In the girl’s handbag was a torn piece of a black and white scarf, quite different to the scarf knotted round her neck. The rest of that scarf had vanished. That piece of scarf was a portion of the scarf which we shall prove was given to her by a man friend, and she was wearing it on the morning she met her death. It would appear probable after her death her assailant tied her own scarf round her neck and in pulling it tight possibly ripped the end off. He then probably put the green scarf round her neck and put her own scarf in her handbag. Having put it in position he was minded to get rid of the torn scarf and took it out of the handbag again, but left behind the little bit, which he may not have noticed. Another feature of the handbag was that there was riot found in it a little green purse which, it would be proved to the magistrates, was owned and carried by her. It would appear probable the assailant, in taking out the major portion of the torn scarf, took out the green purse as well, and might have put them in his pocket”. Those were the deductions that he (Mr. Waddy) thought might be drawn from the evidence which would be called before them.

As to what was found at the site of the murder one had got to see in what way that evidence pointed to the accused as being the man who commuted the murder. “The first pointer”, he continued, “which points to the accused as having committed the murder is the evidence that on the afternoon of May 23rd he walked with this girl from somewhere in the centre of the town up over the golf links and right across it. There is a road from the right leading to the scene of the crime. So far I am in a position to say that the accused has made a statement in which his own story is that on the afternoon of May 23rd he walked with this girl over the golf course.The next pointer is that on May 31st they came into possession of everything he had on him. He was wearing a jacket. That jacket just over the left shoulder has a right angle tear, torn upwards. The evidence will be that the tear is exactly the type of tear that would he made by the barbed wire in that obstruction if he were going through the obstruction backwards. A police officer went through that gap later, and his jacket was torn in exactly the same spot. In one of the accused’s jacket pockets there were certain hairs, and I am calling evidence to show that those hairs were exactly the same as those which came from the head of the dead girl. In addition to a comb there was found in his possession a lady’s little green zip-fastener purse which was similar to one the dead girl carried in her bag. That is really another pointer. The third pointer which is perhaps more important than any of the others is the scarf which was tied round the girl’s neck. It is a very distinctive scarf. It is a green one with white spots upon it. According to what the prisoner told the police he has never had one like it and that it is not his”.

He (Mr. Waddy) thought he might call before them a host of witnesses of every kind who would tell them that they had seen Whiting wearing this green scarf with the white spots, and that he was wearing it as recently as May 20th. If that scarf is his, how came it tied tightly round the neck of the dead girl? In public houses the accused, in unguarded moments, had made remarks which were only consistent with an admission that he had strangled a blonde girl, and that the dead girl was a girl who had had her hair bleached. They would hear not one, hut several witnesses, who would speak to similar remarks. As the Bench were aware, there was no burden upon the Crown to prove motive for a crime like this, but, of course, if the Crown is in possession of evidence which points to a motive for such a crime the Crown lays such evidence before the Court. In this case they are in possession of evidence which would be laid before the Court pointing to the motive for this man murdering this girl. The motive, in a word, is revenge. Whiting knew and was for some time associated with a young woman named Rose Woodbridge. They lived together for a period, and parted shortly before Christmas last. She left him. There could be no doubt that he was not only, and was still, infatuated with Rose Woodbridge, but his mind was filled with an obsession of resentment against the person who came between him and Rose Woodbridge and caused that separation. Evidence will be called before the Court to show what his feelings were with regard to Rose Woodbridge arid what his feelings were towards the person, whoever it might have been, who caused him to lose Rose Woodbridge”. There would also be evidence before them, both from witnesses, and again on his own statement, to show that he firmly believed that Phyllis May Spiers, the girl who was murdered, was the person who had caused his separation from Rose Woodbridge.“The prosecution say”, Mr. Wadcly, continuing, said “that here is a man who hated Phyllis for what she had done, or what he thought she had done, in parting him from the woman with whom he was in love”. The only other matter he had to mention was that the accused was arrested on June 26th, and that when he was arrested and charged he said “I am not guilty”.

Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, a milk roundsman, said he was shown the dead body of a woman at the mortuary. That woman was his wife, Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22 years. His wife was the woman on the left of the photograph produced. He also recognised his wife in the second and third photographs produced. He was married to his wife on the 11th April, 1932. Her name then was Phyllis May Minter. They lived together for some time, parting on the 13th April, 1934. He last saw her alive about four years ago at Hastings, after she had left him. He had recently commenced divorce proceedings against her.

Kenneth George Andrews, 23, Ethelbert Road. Folkestone, a roundsman said on Thursday, 26th May, after he had finished work he went up to Caesar’s Camp and into a coppice at the foot of the hill to get birds’ eggs. He started hunting for eggs and while there he saw something that looked like a bundle. He thought that that was approximately about six o’clock in the evening. He looked at the bundle and saw that it was a woman laying there, covered over with what looked like a dark green coat. He could just see the hair and part of the naked leg sticking out. He shouted, thinking there might be someone asleep, and touched the bundle with a stick. He then realised that it was riot a sleeping person. He went, away from the place and a little later spoke to a police officer. Some little time after tie was taken in a car back to the place with Chief Inspector Hollands and Det. Con. Bates and took them to the spot. The body was in the same position.

Chief Inspector Hollands said at about 6.20 p.m. on the 26th May he received a telephone message and in consequence went with the last witness and Det. Con. Bates to the foot of the hills between Caesar’s Camp and Sugar Loaf Hill. The lad took them to a spot where a body was lying. The first photograph in the book showed a view of the coppice looking towards Sugar Loaf Hill. The second showed a view of the coppice from the hill above. About the centre of the picture there was a clearing. He found the body near the foot of a big tree shown in the picture. Picture No 12 in the book showed the body as he first saw it. The last photograph in the book showed where the body was found after it ha been removed. The branches-of trees ear the spot to some extent overhung, but did not completely cover it overhead. Later on the same evening the coat was removed from the body and photograph No. 13 showed the position of the body with the coat off. The next photograph showed the appearance of the body from the other side after the coat had been removed. Photograph 14 also showed a lady’s handbag. When he first went there he lifted the coat from off the face and smelt putrifaction. She was quite cold, her arms were stiff, slightly bent, her fingers were half clenched; nothing in the hands and they were stiff. The legs were covered in scratches going in all directions, and these were fresh and unhealed. He noticed her hair was drawn out straight from beyond the head. Her head was pointing towards the field and was slightly downhill. Her face was quite a normal colour and her tongue was slightly protruding between her teeth. Blood issued from the left nostril when he moved her head. The coat that was over the body was sodden wet. There was heavy rain on Wednesday, 25th, and on Tuesday it rained a little between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. It was fine in the morning on Wednesday, the rain being in the afternoon, and Monday was fine. He noticed that there was a little dirt splashed on the hands of the body, as though from heavy rain. The handbag showed rain, marks and the ground all round showed signs of heavy rain. Her frock was pulled up above the level of the breasts in front and right up to the shoulder blades at the back. Dry brumbies and leaves were in the clothing at the back and they were quite dry. She was wearing a pair of knickers, which were torn badly, and appeared to be a new pair. In all the clothing were brambles and leaves, which were also dry. He noticed the girl’s shoes, which were damp, but had no mud on them, and there was not any mud on her clothing. The body and clothing gave every appearance of the body having been dragged along by the feet while lying on the back. The ground underneath the body was dry when it was turned over. In the glade where she was lying there was no sign of a struggle and near where she was lying there was a rough footpath, rising sharply from her head towards Caesar’s Camp. The ground of the path was chalky and it was slightly damp. At the top of the footpath there was a barrier across it. The branches (produced) was the barrier. Round the neck of the body was a green spotted scarf (produced). The scarf was twisted round the neck twice and knotted as in the exhibit. The knot was on the right of the windpipe and was very tight indeed.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

Mr. Waddy, on resuming, said he wished to ask that Dr. Barrett, the Police Surgeon, should be present in Court when Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch gave evidence.

Mr. Stuart Daniel said he objected to that. Dr. Barrett made the first examination and it seemed that the opinion of the cause of death might have been changed since then.

The Chairman said the magistrates did not see why Dr. Barrett should not remain in Court.

Sir Bernard Henry Spilsbury. hon. pathologist to the Home Office, said that on the afternoon of Wednesday, 1st June, he made a post mortem examination at tie Folkestone mortuary on the body of a woman. She was a well nourished woman, about 5ft. 4½ins. in height. Death stiffening was absent. There was no lividity in the face or lips and no tiny haemmorhages on the eyes or the skin of the face. He saw the mark of the ligature which encircled the neck at the level of the larynx. It was pale and there was no injury of the skin beneath it. It was about one and a quarter inches broad in front, three quarters of an inch broad at the side and slightly more than an inch broad at the back. Sir Bernard Spilsbury then described a number of external bruises he found on the face, including the jaw. Along the left collar bone, immediately above the inner end of the right collar bone, on the outer side of the right upper arm, on the inner side of the same limb, on the inner side of the right forearm, on the front of the left shoulder, on the upper part of the front of the arm, on the outer side of the right hip and on the thigh.

There were many scratches in the skin, distributed widely, through the right hip and on both thighs and legs, and others on the back of the trunk up to the lower part of the shoulders. There were also scratches on the back of the right forearm, one on the front of the left forearm one across the knuckles of the left hand. In addition he also found the following bruises, which were not visible on the surface, but were visible on cutting through the skin. There was considerable area of bruising of the spine in the lower dorsal region and a bruise one inch in diameter at the same level and one and a half inches to the right. There was a bruise one inch in diameter to the right of the spine in the upper dorsal region. On internal examination there was a small bruise on the upper part of the back of the neck and another on the left side of the forehead. The skull and the brain, with its covering and blood vessels, were healthy and free from injury. On dissecting the neck there was bruising of the left sterno mastoid muscle at its lower end. There was also slight bruising of the corresponding muscle on the right side at the lower end and bruising of the left muscle higher up at the level of the lower jaw. There was a bruise at the upper side of the left main cartilage of the larynx and bruising on either side of that cartilage at the same level. There was slight bruising behind the larynx and there was bruising along the upper edge of the same cartilage which extended upwards. The bone was free from injury. The inner surface of the larynx and trachea was reddened. The tonsils and the glands in the upper part of the neck were very congested, and other organs in the body generally were congested but healthy, and the blood throughout the body was fluid and dark in colour. The mark of the ligature which he found was consistent with the scarf (produced) having been tied tightly round the neck. The deceased was a perfectly healthy woman. The general changes of death from asphyxia were present, namely, the congested organs and the dark fluid condition of the blood. The asphyxia was not produced by the scarf which was found tied tightly round the neck when the body was found.

Mr. Waddy: If it had been tied tightly round the neck during life what would have been the condition?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: The face would have been very livid and there would have been tiny haemorrhages in the whites of the eyes and the skin of the face. The face must have been livid after death as long as the ligature remained in position.

What conclusion do you come to as to when the ligature was applied? - It was applied after death.

The bruising, he continued, on the left side at the back of the larynx indicated that death was due to strangulation by the hand. The absence of bruising and abrasions on the skin of the neck suggested that deceased had been rendered unconscious before she was strangled. If a woman was conscious while being strangled she would be likely to struggle violently. The number and distribution of the bruises over the body indicated that the deceased received a number of blows and some of these bruises, and especially those on the face, might have rendered her unconscious. Some of the smaller bruises on the arms might have been produced by forcible restraint and others on the back of the neck and front by her being pressed firmly on rough ground during the course of the struggle. The bruises were all recent and of the same age and were produced shortly before death.

Mr. Waddy: Will you speak as to the possibility of death having been produced by suicide?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: It is quite out of the question. Proceeding, he said with regard to the scratches on the body they were consistent with the body having been dragged over and through brambles. Assuming that the body was found in a coppice on May 26th and which was not fully exposed to the sun and assuming that there was an odour of putrifaction when the body was found and that rigor mortis was passing off, it was a strong presumption that death occurred not less than three days before she was found. It would be consistent with her meeting her death on the afternoon of May 23rd.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stuart Daniel, Sir Bernard Spilsbury said the absence of putrifaction might mean that the woman had been dead anything short of three or four days. The death from the stopping of an artery would not account for all the signs he found.

Dr. G. Roche Lynch, official analyst to the Home Office, said that he received the jacket (produced) from Chief Inspector Parker and examined it. At the back of the garment, eight inches from the top seam and three inches from the left side seam, then was a tear. The two parts of the tear formed a right angle, the point of which was directed down and towards the right. The fabric of the garment had been torn and not cut. In his opinion, the tear had been produced by some rigid, round, sharp-pointed article perforating the fabric and whilst in that position the jacket had been moved obliquely downward and to the right, so that one part of the tear was directed upwards and the other to the left away from the point of entrance. The tear was in the cloth of the jacket only, the lining being undamaged. A tear of that type was almost invariably produced when such a garment was caught in barbed wire, but, of course, a similar sharp-pointed article, if firmly pressed, could cause similar damage. In the photograph (produced) of a man with a coat which was torn, the coat was torn in the same position as the enlarged photograph of the tear (produced). Looking at the point of the barbed wire in the lower part of the exhibit (produced), if a man went through the gap backwards the point of the barb could produce the tear which he found. He received from Chief Inspector Parker two tubes of semi-liquid material, which appeared to be the stomach contents, which, with the exception of small lumps of fat, showed almost complete digestion. Assuming that those stomach contents were taken from the deceased the condition of them would indicate that some hours had elapsed since the taking of the last meal. On the 8th July he received from Det. Sergt. Skardon a packet of a certain butter. The tow kinds of fat that were found in the stomach and the butter showed a general similarity. He had examined the green spotted scarf (produced) and observed from one end of the scarf signs of wear. At one end, in places, there appeared to be impressions in the fabric. There was a very slight sign of wear in the other side and three small holes. He saw the pair of braces (produced) and the marks on one end of the scarf could have been made by the teeth of the clip of the braces if the end of the scarf had been pushed in between the clip and the brace material. If a man wore the scarf round his neck the tails of the scarf would have reached to the clip of the braces. The marks could not have been caused by a second pair of braces (produced), which also belonged to the prisoner. He had received some hairs from Chief Inspector Parker. The hairs bearing certain numbers closely resembled the hairs in slide No. 124. He thought that they were probably from the same head. Two of the hairs came from the inside pocket of the jacket and closely resembled those in the slide, No. 124.

The Chairman announced that Whiting would be remanded until Monday.

Folkestone Express 23 July 1938.

Local News.

Two days of this week, so far, have been occupied at the Folkestone Police Court in hearing the evidence against William Whiting, 38, a Folkestone labourer, charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, the Folkestone woman, on or about May 23rd last.

Last week, when Whiting appeared before the Court, Mr. B.H. Waddy, who appeared together with Mr. J. Donal-Barry, for the Director of Public Prosecutions, opened the case, a number of witnesses, including Sir Bernard Spilsbury and Dr. Roche Lynch, were called.

Whiting appeared in the dock on Monday, and the chief evidence was that given by Chief Inspector Parker, who presented two statements alleged to have been made by the accused. One was of exceptional length, and it was stated that it occupied 2¾ hours to make. The second was only very short, and in the course of it Whiting was alleged to have said that Mrs Sniers had told him that she was going to do herself in, and when he asked her how she was going to do it said “Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck”. The statement also mentioned that she was wearing a green scarf round her neck. The hearing proceeded on Tuesday, and when the case was re-opened, Mr. Waddy first told the Court that one of the witnesses he proposed to call was in Hospital, unconscious and dangerously ill. When all the other witnesses had been heard, Mr. Waddy said that he understood the witness, whose name was Wanstall, would be well enough to attend the Court on Friday, when the case for the prosecution could be concluded. The magistrates thereupon remanded Whiting until to-day (Friday).

The Magistrates were Councillor R.G. Wood, Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Alderman J.W. Stainer and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

The Court was held in the large hall of the Town Hall, and when the hearing of the evidence was resumed on Monday the balcony was crowded with the general public.

Whiting was provided with a chair in the dock, but for the major portion of the clay be remained standing, and it was very rare that he spoke to his counsel, Mr. J. Stuart Daniel, who was instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett, Police Surgeon, said on Thursday, 26th May, he went to the coppice near the foot of Caesar’s Camp, where he saw the dead body of a woman. He saw a green scarf with white spots (produced) around the woman’s neck. It was round the neck twice and tied tightly with the knot pressing on the right side of the neck. It was close under the chin and above the larynx. He saw it cut and removed from the neck. The colour of the woman's face was natural, and the expression on it was peaceful. There was no blueness of the face, and the tongue was just between the teeth. It was not injured. The nose was bruised and there was blood exuding from both nostrils. It was consistent with a blow on the nose shortly before death. Rigor mortis was definitely present. He did not make a thorough examination in the coppice. The lower jaw and the fingers were stiff. When they turned the body over there were scratches on the left shoulder blade, and the position of the hair and clothing gave the impression that the body bad be on dragged by the feet. Dr. Barrett, proceeding, said later in the evening he conducted a post-mortem examination in the Folkestone mortuary. On examining the body he noticed a smell of putrifaction. All the joints were affected by rigor mortis. The head, shoulders and the hips were stiff, but they were movable. This he attributed to the body having been moved to the glade. Rigor mortis was usually complete in from ten to eighteen hours after death. The usual time was ten to twelve hours. Rigor mortis usually lasted for 48 to 72 hours. The length of rigor mortis depended on climatic conditions. Under cool conditions it lasted longer and was slower in its onset. Continuing, Dr. Barrett said there was a bruise on the lower jaw, three on the forehead, three on the inside of the right arm, one three inches in length on the inner side of the left arm, and two immediately below the collar bone. There were other bruises not evident at the time. During the post-mortem examination he found two collections of fly eggs on the body. Fly eggs were laid as soon as the body putrified. At a temperature of about 50 degrees Fahr. such eggs would take about three days to hatch. At about 8 p.m. on May 27th he saw the body again. He found, by testing, that rigor mortis had disappeared, and the body was limp. He also took the contents of the stomach at that examination. Witness said he showed the body to Sir Bernard Spilsbury on June 1st, and was present when he made his examination.

Mr. Waddy: What is your opinion as to the cause of death?

Dr. Barrett: Strangulation caused by compression of the carotid arteries, causing immediate death.

Having regard to the dissection of the neck, what is your present opinion? - Having regard to what I have seen since I think death was due to pressure on the arteries rather than obstruction of the air passages.

In all the circumstances, what do you say about how long before the time that you saw the body on the evening of May 26th do you think death took place? - At least two, or probably three, days.

Witness was cross-examined about the evidence he gave at the inquest and the opinion he expressed then as to the length of time the woman had been dead.

Mr. Stuart Daniel, referring to the evidence given at the inquest, read: "The deceased had, in my opinion, been dead not longer than two days” - you said that on oath?

Witness: Yes.

Later, witness said he could not remember what he said, but if counsel had it in writing he would admit it. Continuing, witness said the scratch on the left shoulder blade was caused after death.

Mr. Daniel: Were all the others, in your opinion, incurred before death?

Witness: Quite definitely.

As to the cause of death, do you disagree with Sir Bernard Spilsbury? - I do disagree with Bernard Spilsbury. In my opinion it was caused by the tightening of the ligature.

Mr. Stanley Seymour Harrison, a photographer, of Tontine Street, Folkestone, gave evidence of the photographs he had taken of the body in the coppice and also of others taken when a tailor’s dummy was used in connection with the obstruction, consisting of branches of trees and a portion of the fence.

Mr. Bertram Harry Bonniface, Deputy Borough Coroner, said he had in his possession a report made by Dr. Barrett to the Coroner of the post-mortem examination on a woman unknown and put in at the inquest.

Dr. Barrett, re-called by Mr. Waddy for re-examination, said the report produced was the report he made to the Coroner.

Det. Inspector James O’Brien, of New Scotland Yard, gave evidence of taking photographs of a green scarf, a pair of braces, and a handkerchief. One of the photographs showed holes in the green scarf made by the clip of the braces.

Mr. Robert Henry Bird, a photographer employed by a firm known as Holiday Snaps, said the photograph of Mrs. Spiers produced was taken on the promenade near the Royal Victoria Pier at approximately 11 a.m. on Saturday, May 21st.

Mr. Alfred James Carter, of Ramsgate, a photographer employed by the same firm, said lie took the photographs produced near the Zig-Zag Cafe on Saturday, 21st May. It was a photograph of Mrs. Spiers. The other photograph of Mrs. Spiers was taken on Monday, 23rd May, at about 11.30 to 12 a.m., judging by the shadows. He noticed that she was wearing a scarf - it might have been a lined or spotted scarf.

Mr. Geoffrey Poole, Borough Surveyor’s assistant at Folkestone, produced a plan of the coppice where the body of Mrs. Spiers was found.

Mr. Douglas S. Moncrieff, 23, Guildhall Street, Folkestone, in charge of the meteorological department of Folkestone, said on 23rd May the maximum temperature was 64 degrees Fahr. and the minimum 42 degrees Fahr. The minimum grass temperature was 36 degrees. There was no rainfall. On Tuesday, 24th May, the maximum temperature was 63 degrees, and the minimum 44. There was no rainfall recorded at 10 a.m., but at 6 p.m. there was 0.01 inches recorded. On Wednesday, 25th May, the maximum temperature was 59 degrees Fahr. and the minimum 48 degrees. There was a fall of rain of less than .005 inches at 10 a.m., and at 6 p.m. .3 inches of rain. On Thursday, May 26th, the maximum ternoerature was 61 degrees, and the minimum 46 degrees. The rainfall at 10 a.m. was .02 inches, and at 6 p.m. nil.

Cross-examined by Mr. Stuart Daniel, witness said there was no rainfall on Sunday, May 22nd.

At this stage the Court adjourned for lunch.

When the case was resumed, Mr. Stuart Daniel said he had a short application to make on behalf of the prisoner, who complained that he had not been given anything to drink since breakfast time.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said he did not know whether it was intoxicating liquor, but if it was anything else it could be prepared for him.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: He is asking for a pint of beer.

The Clerk said that was not possible as it was intoxicating drink.

The Chairman said it was not really a matter for them to deal with.

Det. Con. Bates, the Coroner’s Officer, said he went to the coppice at the foot of Caesar’s Camp, where be saw the body of the dead woman. There was a smell of putrifaction. He saw the fly eggs, and collected them in a glass tube, which be placed in a drawer at the Police Station. He examined it from time to time, and on Sunday, 29th, at 9.30 a.m. be found that the eggs had hatched, and the grubs were crawling. The approximate temperature of the office was 50 degrees Fahr. Continuing, witness said he showed the body of the woman to Mr. Spiers, to a Mr. Santer and Mr. Wanstall. On 31st May, in the evening, he took the prisoner to an outfitter in Folkestone and purchased him a complete change of clothing. He changed into the new clothing at the Police Station, and witness took possession of all the clothing he had been wearing.

He was wearing a trilby hat, trousers and braces, and a jacket with a tear. These he produced. The green zip-fastener purse (produced) was found in the left-hand pocket of the jacket.

Mr. Waddy pointed out that was the pocket from which Dr. Roche Lynch had said he had taken certain hairs.

Mrs. Bernice Katherine Hegarty, 18, Mead Road, Folkestone, said she had known Mrs. Spiers as “Phyllis Minter” for about 3½ years. She recognised the handbag which she knew belonged to the murdered woman. She had a green purse which was something like the one produced. Witness could not say whether it was the same one. She remembered the murdered woman wearing a scarf, a plaid sort of thing with a white and black fringe. The piece of material produced was exactly like the scarf the murdered woman used to wear. She had never seen Phyllis wearing a green spotted scarf like the one produced.

Mr. Daniel: When was the last time you saw Phyllis?

Witness: On the Saturday before she was found.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said that on the evening of the 26th May he went to the coppice at the base of Caesar’s Camp. He took possession of the handbag (produced). He examined the contents of the bag, and found the piece of scarf (produced) in the bag. On the 27th May he made a search round the site and found a comb with one end broken off. He examined the ground between the spot where he found the comb and the barrier. The ground had the appearance of having had a heavy object dragged over it in the direction of the barrier. Near the spot where he found the comb he found a long hair, which he put in an envelope. One hair was taken from inside the collar of the coat covering the body. Another hair was taken from under the left lapel of the coat, and another from the right lapel of the coat. He also found a hair on the bramble over the body. He took a hair off the fence post which formed part of an exhibit. In another envelope he placed three hairs from the prisoner’s hat. He took some hairs from the head of the deceased woman at the mortuary and placed them in an envelope. On the 11th July last, in the presence of prisoner’s solicitor, he took four hairs from the prisoner’s head. On the 31st May he went to the common lodging-house at 50, Dover Street. He then obtained from the deputy a suitcase full of property. He showed them to the prisoner. Amongst the things were some photographs which prisoner intimated he would like. He found a blue and white pair of braces in the case. There was no scarf at all. He handed all the property to Chief Inspector Parker. On the 7th July he purchased half a pound of a certain make of butter and sent it to Chief Inspector Parker.

Robert John Read, 50, Dover Street, Folkestone, said he was the deputy of the lodging-house in Dover Street. He had known Whiting well for six to eight years. Prisoner had stayed at the house and was in and out of the house about two months ago. He kept a daily record of the men who stayed in the lodging- house. On the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th of May Whiting was booked to stay the night. He was occupying bed No. 25. He had a suitcase under his bed, which he handed to a police officer. He could not remember the date, but it was about the end of the week. There was an old bus driver’s coat over the bed.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: Were there any braces lying about?

Witness: I don’t remember any.

There was a certain amount of stuff lying about belonging to various people? - Yes, various articles.

If you find things lying about, and you do not know to whom they belong, do you put them in his suitcase? - Yes, I do if the man has one.

I suppose things sometimes get into a muddle? Yes, they pretty often get into a muddle.

Chief Inspector W. Parker, New Scotland Yard, said on May 27th he went to the coppice with Det. Sergt. Skardon. They went again the following morning and examined the clearing. From the state of the ground it was quite clear that some heavy object had been dragged to the obstruction in the pathway. He saw the prisoner at the Folkestone Police Station on May 30th. He was accompanied by Det. Sergt. Skardon. He said “We are police officers from London making enquiries concerning Phyllis May Spiers who was found dead on May 26th at Caesar’s Camp. I believe you knew her.” He replied “Yes.” Witness then said “I desire you to tell me all you know about this woman and your association with her”. Whiting replied “I will tell you what I know”.

Mr. Daniel questioned Det. Inspector Parker about the circumstances and the conditions when a statement was taken from Whiting.

Mr. Daniel: What was the time when you first came in contact with him?

Det.-Inspector Parker: About ten o’clock at night.

Do you know how long he had been in the Police Station then? - No, I do not.

Would you be surprised to know that he had been there since 7.30? - No, I should not be surprised.

What time did he leave that evening? - I finished with him somewhere about two o’clock in the morning, but, of course, there were interruptions in between. I had to see other people, and he had his storv to tell me, and his statement was taken after.

Are you sure it was not later than that? - No.

It was exactly two o’clock? - Yes.

Did you make him strip at this interview?

The Magistrates’ Clerk: At what stage, in the course of making the statement?

Witness: After the statement had been taken from him in writing.

Mr. Daniel: At what time between ten and two was the statement taken?

Det.-Inspector Parker: He commenced to tell me his story about ten o’clock or shortly after, and I should think the statement was commenced round about eleven o’clock.

How long did it take to get it down? - About 2¾ hours. It was written down carefully and very slowly.

Did he sign it immediately? - After the statement had been read over to him.

Whiting: You never read it over to me.

Mr. Daniel: Are you sure it was read over to him?

Det. Inspector Parker: I am positive.

Did you say “Now sign here and walk out a free man.”? - No, I certainly did not.

Did you say anything of that sort? - No.

Was anything of that sort said to the prisoner in your presence? - No.

Did he have anything to drink during this time? - Whilst I was there, no.

You were there all the time? - During the time I have mentioned.

Whiting, in his statement, said: “I am a widower, my wife died on 3rd May, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. My wife left me in 1935.” Later, went on the statement, he lived in Dover with a Mrs. Woodbridge. She left him in November, 1937, after her mother received a letter from a landlord in Folkestone saying that her daughter was drinking in public houses. While he was living with Mrs. Woodbridge a young girl, who Mrs. Woodbridge said was named Phyllis Minter, came to see her. In his statement Whiting said he met the murdered woman on Monday, May 23rd at about 12.30 p.m., and they went to the Globe public house on The Bayle. They stayed for about ten minutes. While they were there she said she could get married again. “I said ‘Can you?’” continued Whiting’s statement, “and read the divorce papers. She said ‘Why don’t you marry me and let’s go back to Dover?’” The statement then went on to describe how Whiting and the girl went to the golf links. “We sat down on the grass”, it continued, “when she pulled out something wrapped in brown paper. Some stitches and a ring, a little bone ring. She said they were stitches which had been taken out of her operation. We were both thinking. I don't know what was the matter with her that day. She was not cheerful. She did not speak much. I believe there was something worrying her. I have seen her like it at Dover when she came in staring at me. I cannot say what was on her mind. Perhaps it was because she was down and out. I said nothing to upset her”. Continuing, the statement described how they made their way to Cherry Garden Lane and into Cheriton Road, after crossing the golf links. “I told her that I worshipped Rose”, it continued. “I said 'If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again'. I did not see Phyllis at all on Tuesday. Phyllis and I did not discuss living together before last Monday”.

Continuing his evidence, Chief Inspector Parker said he examined the prisoner's body, and there were no scratches on it. He was wearing a blue cloth jacket. At the back of the jacket, at the point of the left shoulder blade, there was a right angle tear. Witness asked him where he tore his jacket, and he replied “I don't know where or when I did it”. He showed him the green scarf and asked him if he recognised it. He replied “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that”. At about 11.15 p.m. on June 1st he, together with Det. Sergt. Skardon. saw ihe prisoner and went through the statement up to the point where he referred to sitting on the grass on the golf course on May 23rd. Whiting then made a statement which witness immediately instructed Sergt. Skardon to write down. Witness said to the prisoner after the statement had been taken “Would you care for this statement which you have just made to be taken down in writing?” He replied “Yes, it is quite true”. The prisoner was taken to the Chief Constable’s office, where he was cautioned, and the statement was read to him from Det. Sergt. Skardon’s notebook. The statement was as follows: “When we went on to the golf course on the Monday, the day I have already told you about, I mean when I was with Phyllis and when we were sitting on the grass, she was very quiet, and I said ‘What is the matter?’ She said ‘I am fed up and I am going to do myself in’. I said ‘How are you going to do it?’ and she said ‘Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck’. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. After we got up and walked across the golf links. She was very quiet and kept saying she was fed up. I have not seen her since that Monday, 22nd May, 1938.” “I might tell you that she was partly the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving me”, the statement concluded. Describing how the last sentence of the statement came out, witness said before Whiting made the last part of the statement there was some delay. He was very quiet and he appeared to be thinking very deeply.

The case was at this stage adjourned until the following day.

Before the evidence for the prosecution was continued on Tuesday Mr. Waddy referred to a witness who was unconscious and in Hospital. He said one of the witnesses he proposed to call that day was in Hospital dangerously ill. An officer was waiting to see if he regained consciousness, and if he did it might be necessary to take an examination of the witness at the Hospital, which was permissible under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1867. It was important, he continued, that if a witness was ill and not likely to recover that it should be done. The Court would adjourn to the Hospital.

The Chairman of the Magistrates: It is very unfortunate.

Mr. Wadcly: I understand it was only this morning that the witness was admitted to the Hospital unconscious.

When the day’s proceedings were brought to a close, Mr. Waddy said he could have completed all the evidence had it not been for the unfortunate illness of the witness, Wanstall, who was still in Hospital. He was told that Wanstall was expected to be there to give evidence on Friday.

It is understood that a man named Frederick Wanstall, of Invicta Road, an employee of the Folkestone Golf Club, was found unconscious at the edge of a pond on the golf links on Tuesday morning. His clothing was wet, and he was taken to the Royal Victoria Hospital, where he was detained.

Chief Inspector Parker went into the box for the purpose of Mr. Stuart Daniel continuing his cross-examination.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: Why did you read through his statement?

Witness: I was endeavouring to test the accuracy of his statement.

During the interview was it you that first mentioned suicide? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon, New Scotland Yard, said on the afternoon of 27th May, 1938, he went with Chief Inspector Parker to a coppice near Caesar’s Camp. It was raining heavily at the time. He noticed a clearing to the west of the barrier which was an exhibit. There were signs as if some heavy object had been dragged towards the barrier from a spot about ten to fifteen feet away. He was present when the statement was made by Whiting. Prisoner was wearing a blue jacket which had a right-angle tear. Chief Inspector Parker said “Where did you tear your jacket?” and be replied "I don’t know where or when I did it”. He saw Chief Inspector Pinker produce the scarf and said “Do you recognise the scarf?” Whiting said “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that”. On the 1st June he was present throughout the interview in which the second statement was made. On the fourth June he posed for the photograph (produced). On the 8th June he posed for a second photograph. He went through the barrier backwards, the only practical way, wearing a blue tunic. He tore his tunic on the barb of wire which he saw in the exhibit. He tore it on the left shoulder blade. That tear was quite accidental though he Knew there was a barb there and there was a chance of tearing it.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: You have seen both these tears, have you?

Witness: Yes.

They are quite a different shape? - 'Yes, they are different materials.

The weave in the two coats runs at the same angle from the shoulder? - Yes.

Was it not you or Inspector Parker who first suggested suicide? - No.

Did you say to the prisoner “He is trying to help you”? - No.

Pte. Harold Wall, of the 1st Bn. Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe, said that he recognised a girl in the photograph (produced) as Phyllis Butcher. He met her first about last March. He became friendly with her, and they lived together as man and wife from about 15th to the 19th May in Sandgate. In the photograph he saw that Phyllis was wearing a scarf. It was his scarf. The piece of scarf (produced) was part of his scarf. On two sides it was plain and on the other two a sort of fringe. He had the fringe cut off and the ends bound over. One side of the material produced showed where it had been bound over. He last saw her on the 19th May, and he left the scarf behind him. He went to Aldershot. He had never seen the green scarf (produced) in Phyllis’ possession.

Mr. John Joseph Hearst, 100, Joyes Road, Folkestone, manager of Messrs. Hepworth’s, Folkestone, said they stocked a similar scarf to the one produced. They stocked them from October, 1936, to November, 1937. He might have had them in stock after that date, but could not say definitely. They were definitely again in stock from October, 1937, to February or March, 1938.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: It’s a very common type of scarf isn’t it?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Joseph Charles Kember, 4, Shakespeare Road, Dover, employed at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he knew the prisoner by sight, and had interviewed him in connection with his duties. He last sent him to work on the 19th April to the Esplanade Hotel. He noticed he was wearing round his neck a scarf or neckerchief. It was dark green with white spots. The green scarf (produced) was very similar to the one he wore. It was tied at the left-hand side of the throat. He would think that it was wound twice round the neck and then tied. It appeared to be in a reef knot. He saw him wearing the scarf on the 21st April. On the 16th to 20th May, to the best of his recollection, Whiting was wearing the scarf. That was the last time he saw him wearing the scarf. He next saw him on the 30th May, but he could not say whether he was wearing a scarf at all.

P.C. Pearce, Dover Borough Police, said on the 9th April last the prisoner was in his charge at Dover for about three-quarters of an hour. He noticed that he was wearing a bottle green scarf with dirty white spots around his neck. The green scarf (produced) was very similar to the one that lie saw. The scarf was wound round prisoner's neck twice and tied in a small knot on the left-hand side of his neck.

Mr. Stuart Daniel: I want to get it quite clear it was not in connection with any criminal offence that he was in your charge?

Witness: No.

Mr. John McKinnon Taylor, 24, Walton Gardens, Folkestone, a clerk in the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said that he knew the prisoner by sight. He went on leave on the 21st May and returned on the 30th May. He last saw the accused on Friday, the 20th May, before he went on leave. On that occasion Whiting was wearing a green scarf with white spots round his neck quite similar to the one produced. He had frequently seen him wearing the green scarf. He saw the prisoner on the 30th May, and he was not wearing any scarf then, and he had never seen him wearing a scarf since that date.

Mrs. A.M. Wright, of 9, Garden Road, Folkestone, said she recognised Mrs. Spiers in the photograph. She came to her house on Saturday, 21st May, and witness let her a room in the name of Phyllis Minter, She stayed in the house on Saturday night, and on the Sunday night, and witness took her bread and butter and tea into her room on Monday morning. She used a certain kind of butter. On Monday morning witness went out with Phyllis, and they walked into the town. They did some shopping and left each other at 10.25 a.m., when witness caught a bus in Sandgate Road. She had not seen Mrs. Spiers since, but she had an appointment to meet her at the Lido at 7.45 p.m. on the Monday. Witness kept the appointment, but Mrs. Spiers did not arrive. Witness went home and waited for Mrs. Spiers. The comb produced belonged to Mrs. Spiers. She saw it on the chest of drawers by the side of her bed. As far as she could see Phyllis did not have a green scarf similar to the one produced.

Mr. Hubert Pynaert, a waiter at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, said he first saw Mrs. Spiers at the hotel, where she was working, about a year ago. He had only seen her once this year, on May 23rd, at 9.40 a.m., and he was with her until 12.30 p.m. During that time they walked by the beach. She was wearing a dark scarf with light lines in it. The piece of material produced was similar to the scarf.

Mr. Charles Leonard Varrier, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, said he knew the prisoner and Mrs. Spiers. He knew her as the “Minter girl”. He last saw her on May 23rd at about 1.30 p.m. or 1.40 p.m. on the corner of New Street. He saw Whiting come out of a shop and go over to her. They both turned the corner of Bradstone Road together.

Mrs. Lilian Maude Varrier, wife of the previous witness, said she knew the prisoner. She saw him on Monday, May 23rd. He went to the corner of Bradstone Road and New Street, where he met a girl wearing a long blue coat.

Mrs. Norah Laws, of 68, Foord Road, said she knew the dead woman as Mrs. Butcher. She came to her house on a Thursday in May and took a room. She stayed for two nights, Thursday and Friday nights. She left without paying witness. Continuing, witness said she saw Mrs. Spiers the following Monday at dinner time. She was with a man. Mrs. Spiers ran after her and spoke to her. She saw Mrs. Spiers and the man cross over by the Foord baths. That was the last she saw of her.

Mr. William David Marsh, of 18, Clarence Street, Folkestone, a Folkestone Corporation employee, said he had to do some repair work to paving stones in Radnor Park Avenue, opposite the Peter Pan Pool. On Monday, May 23rd, he saw Whiting and a woman pass, going in the direction of the golf links. He did not know the woman.

William J. Harbird, of 23. Allendale Street, Folkestone, a gardener, employed at 7, Julian Road, said he saw Whiting in Radnor Park Avenue either on May 23rd or 24th with a woman. They were going towards the golf links. The woman was wearing a blue coat and was hatless. He recognised the young lady in the photograph produced.

Mr. Harry James Santer, of 5, Pavilion Road, Folkestone, a groundsman employed by the Folkestone Golf Club, said on June 1st he was shown the dead body of a young woman. He had seen her before on May 23rd at about 1.20 p.m. on the beach road at the Folkestone golf links. Whiting was with her. He saw the girl sit down on the bank and Whiting standing about nine feet away from her. He noticed that the girl was very red under the eyes, and it appeared to him as if she had been crying.

Mr. Waddy said the next witness he wanted to call was the one in the Hospital.

Mrs. Florence Thompson, of 19, Hamilton Road, Dover, said she knew the dead woman, Phyllis, and Whiting. She had noticed that the prisoner wore a green scarf similar to the one produced. She had seen him wearing the scarf at Dover on several occasions. Once, when she came over to Folkestone she saw Whiting at the Guildhall Hotel a day or two before May 30th. She went to various places, and eventually to the South Foreland public house with Whiting. Witness mentioned she knew a girl called Rose. Whiting told her that he thought a lot of Rose, and he did not know the reason why she left him. Witness said she happened to mention Phyllis' name in Jordan's public house, and Whiting said “If you don't keep your mouth shut I will put you on the spot”. Witness said it was a shame Phyllis was murdered, as she was a decent girl. Whiting asked her how she would like a scarf round her neck. “He said 'You can do a murder without finding the print marks or the foot marks'”, continued witness. “I said 'No, it would not pay you to'”, added witness.

Mr. Robert William Weatherhead, of 35, Darlington Street, Folkestone, said he knew Whiting well. He remembered a “noisy” evening at the Guildhall public house on a Friday about 23rd or 24th June. Whiting was in the saloon bar and came round to the public bar and played a game of darts with witness as his partner. Whiting was abusive to the landlord, and witness tried to pacify him. Whiting tucked up his sleeves and rushed towards the counter. Witness tried to pull him back, and he said “You ----. I will serve you the same as I served the blondie”.

Mr. Daniel: I think I will have an objection to this evidence.

Mr. Waddy: How can there be any objection?

Witness said that Whiting had had one or two drinks.

Mr. Daniel said he did object to the evidence. It was not admissible against him unless it amounted to a confession or admission of facts which tended to prove that he committed the crime. Taken at its worst, the evidence amounted to nothing more than the admission of a violent act on an unspecified person.

The Chairman of the Magistrates said they did not find any grounds on which they could object to the evidence going in.

Mr. William W.H. Hall, of 16, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said he had seen Whiting with Rose Milton (Mrs. Woodbridge) at the Elham Institution. Whiting stayed with witness in March for about two weeks. He said he wished he was back with Rose, and if she ever wanted to, he was willing to start a home. Witness knew they had been living together. Whiting used to talk about her a lot. Whiting wore a green scarf with white spots on it. He wore it twice round his neck and tucked inside his jersey.

Mrs. Daisy E.C. Hall, wife of the last witness, said Whiting seemed very upset that Rose had left him, and blamed the girl’s mother. She did the prisoner’s washing, and she remembered that he had a green scarf with white spots on it.

Cross-examined, witness agreed that Whiting had only one pair of braces.

Mrs. Elvey Flynn, of 21, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Minter. She also knew Rose Milton, Whiting and Mr. and Mrs. Hall.

Whiting asked her on one occasion if she had seen Rose. She replied she had not seen her since the time she came out of the pictures. He said “Have you said anything to her?” and she replied “No”. He then asked her if she knew anyone who had, and did she think Phyllis had said anything? He said if he did find out anybody who did tell her anything he would strangle them. Witness noted that the prisoner wore a green scarf with white spots on it. The scarf produced was the scarf. She had seen him put it on. He knotted it in front and twisted each end round his braces.

Mrs. Rose Cathleen Woodbridge, of the Eight Bells lodging house, King Street, Canterbury, said she knew a man named Milton, and for a time lived with him as his wife. While she was living with Milton she got to know a girl named Phyllis Minter. On 4th September, 1935, she married Mr. Woodbridge and lived with him for nearly a year. After she had separated from him she lived with the prisoner. At that time she had known Whiting for just over a year. She lived with him until a fortnight before Christmas, when she went home. She had been to the Alexandra public house, Folkestone, with Phyllis while she was living with Whiting. When she got home she told Whiting about two fellows who had asked her and Phyllis to go away with them. Whiting started to get a bit rough over it. He said “If you don't stop going about with Phyllis I shall do something wrong”. He said he would try to strangle her (Phyllis), and witness told him to be careful as walls might have ears. Later on her (witness’) mother came and took her home, and Whiting was quite upset. She had not seen him since she left him.

While Whiting lived with her he wore a green scarf with white spots round his neck. It was similar to the scarf produced. She had worn the scarf which he had said he had purchased from Hepburn’s near the Savoy Picture Theatre.

Mrs. Woodbridge, accompanied by Mr. Lloyd Bunce and Det. Segrt. Skardon, was taken out to identify the shop. When she returned she said it was Lewis and Hyland's.

Cross-examined, witness said Whiting had only one pair of braces.

Alfred James Moore, of 10, Dale Street, Chiswick, said in the early part of the year he was employed as a clerk in the Public Assistance Department at Folkestone. He had seen the prisoner on several occasions in the middle of March and he noticed that he was wearing a green scarf with white spots.

Mr. Waddy said had it not been for the unfortunate illness of an important witness he could easily have finished. He was unable to call a man named Wanstall, who was in Hospital. He was told that they expected to have Wanstall there to give evidence by Friday. It was just possible that in calling him he might have to call one more witness to fix a certain place and date.

Whiting was remanded in custody until today (Friday).

Folkestone Express 30 July 1938.

Local News.

The evidence for the prosecution in the case known as the green scarf murder case was completed at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, when William Whiting (38), a labourer, of Dover Street, Folkestone, charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, who was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on May 26th, was committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court.

The case would have been completed earlier in the week, but Mr. B H. Waddy, for the prosecution, was unable to call Frederick Wanstall, an important witness, who was stated to be unconscious in the Hoyal Victoria Hospital.

First of all on Friday Mr. Waddy recalled Mr. J.C. Kember, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, who corrected a date he gave in evidence at the previous hearing. He said he sent Whiting for a job on March 19th, and not April 19th.

Frederick Wanstall, 17, Invicta Road, Folkestone, a groundsman employed by the Folkestone Golf Club, said at the beginning of June he was taken to the mortuary and shown the dead body of a girl. He saw the girl on Monday, 23rd May, at about 2.30 p.m. Witness was cutting the 16th tee on the golf course, which was close to the road known as Cherry Garden Avenue or the New Road. The girl was accompanied by Whiting, and they passed within four or five yards of him going towards Caesar’s Camp. He went on with his work and saw the couple going up Waterworks Hill. He saw them up to the bend, when they disappeared from view.

Beyond the bend there was a stile, and by getting over it a person could follow a cow track round the foot of Caesar’s Camp to Sugar Loaf Hill and into the New Road again.

Mr. Waddy said that was the evidence he called for the prosecution, and upon that evidence he would ask the magistrates to commit the prisoner for trial at the next session at the Central Criminal Court. There was no Kent Assizes for many months. There would he a session of the Central Criminal Court in the early part of September.

The prisoner reserved his defence, and said he would call witnesses at his trial.

The Chairman (Councillor R. G. Wood) said Whiting would be committed for trial at the Central Criminal Court.

Folkestone Express 6 August 1938.

Local News.

We understand that Mr. St. John Hutchinson, K.C., has been retained as leading counsel to defend William Whiting, the Folkestone man charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, on his trial at the Central Criminal Court, in September.

Folkestone Express 10 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder charge will open at the Old Bailey, London, on Monday, that day having been fixed after the opening of the Sessions on Tuesday. The case will, it is expected, last for at least two days.

William Whiting, a Folkestone 38 year old widower, is charged with the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, who was found dead at the foot of Caesar’s Camp with a green scarf round her neck. It was stated at the Police Court proceedings in July that she had been strangled.

Amongst the witnesses for the prosecution will be Sir Bernard Spilsbury, Dr. Roche Lynch, Chief Inspector Parker and Det. Sergt. Skardon, two officers sent down by Scotland Yard, to carry out the investigations into the crime.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., the Recorder of Folkestone, will appear for the prosecution, and Mr. St. J. Hutchinson, K.C., will be the leading counsel for the defence.

Folkestone Express 17 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder trial at the Old Bailey has occupied three days this week, and last (Thursday) evening, when the Court rose shortly before six o’clock, all the evidence for the prosecution and defence and the counsels’ closing speeches bad been heard. Mr. Justice Wrottesley, before whom the case is being heard, will give his summing up this (Friday) morning, and it is expected that the jury, of whom three are women, will give their verdict today.

The large number of exhibits were displayed in the Court, and the branches of a tree in a frame were placed in front of the dock. This was closely inspected by the jury on Wednesday when the Court rose for luncheon. It was alleged by the prosecution that the accused man came through the branches backwards, dragging the body of the murdered woman, and that a barb in a portion of the wire fence tore his coat on the shoulder.

The case was fixed to start on Monday, but owing to another case, which was not finished last week, occupying the greater portion of the day, it was decided that a start should not be made until the following day.

When Mrs. Rose Woodbridge was giving evidence on Wednesday the accused man cried in the dock.

The trial opened on Tuesday, when William Whiting, aged 38, a well-known Folkestone labourer, was placed in the dock on the charge of the wilful murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, aged 22, of Folkestone, on or about May 23rd, near Caesar’s Camp. She was found lying dead, covered with a coat, having apparently been strangled, on the evening of May 26th. When the charge was put to him Whiting pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., the Recorder of Folkestone, and Mr. B.H. Waddy were for the prosecution, and Mr. St. J. Hutchinson, K.C., and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel appeared on Whiting’s behalf.

Mr. Roland Oliver said the object of his opening speech was to try to place the story before the jury so that they could have the general case of the prosecution. The best way, he said, was to put before the jury plans. At the top of one they would see marked three hills, forming the prominent feature of the landscape. A dotted line marked a line of thickets expanding the whole length of the foot of the hills. In places the thicket was extremely thick. Continuing, he said one way of getting to the thickets would be to go through various streets of the town. When they arrived at the golf course they walked to the left, which brought them into a road called Cherry Garden Avenue. When they got to Cherry Garden Avenue they turned to their right and went up towards Castle Hill. There was a stile which they could get over, and in that way walk along the hill side of the thicket. It was a very solitary place, and a very secluded place. The body was found some three-quarters of a mile round the thicket in the neighbourhood of Sugar Loaf Hill. She, and presumably her murderer, must have walked along that track to the secluded spot where she was murdered. It was a rough walk, and the jury would probably come to the conclusion that a man and woman would not go to such a place as that on a mere pleasure walk. Several reasons might occur to them. From that point of view it was right that they should know something about the woman. Mrs. Spiers was 22, and was married before she was 17. She lived with her husband for two years, until 1934, and then they parted, and her husband had never seen her again. “I am afraid there is no doubt that she was a young woman who was of an extremely immoral character’,’ continued Mr. Oliver. “She had affairs with a great many men, and was, therefore, a young woman who might have gone to that place with almost any type of man, certainly a good many. The prisoner knew her quite well”. Mrs. Spiers, he said, was practically destitute. She made a practice of staying a night or two at lodgings, without any luggage, and invariably disappeared without paying. The manner of her murder, explained Mr. Oliver, was apparently plainly written on the scene of the crime and on her body. She had obviously been violently attacked, probably with fists, and beaten into a state of unconsciousness before she was actually murdered. After that she had been dragged further into the thicket, because the place where she was first attacked could be seen from part of one of the hills that overlooked the thicket. The body was dragged by the murderer deeper into the thicket to a place where it could not be seen unless somebody went right into the thing. “Our case is that, the body lay there from May 23rd to the 26th”, he added. A blue coat was thrown over the body, and round the neck, tied twice and tightly knotted, was a green scarf which was one of the salient pieces of evidence in the case. Whether the scarf was tied round after or before death did not matter. Whether the scarf murdered her or bare hands, it did not matter. The murderer had to drag the body, and he, presumably, walked backwards, dragging the body by the feet. He had to go past a piece of barbed wire in an obstruction, and the jury would see that someone walking backwards dragging a body must run a considerable chance of damaging his clothing in the spikes of barbed wire. It was clear that the woman’s body had been dragged. The whole of her clothing had been torn up and filled with twigs and brambles. Her hair was pulled right out behind her head as it had been dragged along the ground. Round the woman’s neck was tied the scarf, and the members of the jury would be asked by the prosecution to say whether or not they were satisfied that the green scarf belonged to the man who murdered her. They had a quantity of evidence that she never had such a scarf herself. She was, by a curious coincidence, snap-shotted on that very day of her death, walking with another man in Folkestone, and the scarf that the photograph depicted her wearing was quite obviously nothing like the green scarf. In her handbag, when the body was discovered, was found a piece of the scarf she was wearing. Most of it had disappeared, but a little piece had been pushed in her handbag. There was conclusive evidence that she was wearing that scarf on that day, and that the green scarf was not hers, but the murderer’s. The prosecution said the murder took place on May 23rd sometime after 2.30 p.m. He was aware that there were witnesses who were coming to say that she was alive after May 23rd. The jury would have to consider very carefully their evidence when they came. They would be glad to hear that those witnesses were found by the police. So far as they could tell, he went on, the people who knew her best, people who were habitually seeing her, said that was the last day they ever saw her. They had been unable to find any place where she stopped after May 23rd. They would have in evidence that when the body was discovered there was a smell of decomposition. If she had died on May 25th or 26th that would be very unlikely. The last known meal the woman had was breakfast consisting of bread find butter on Monday, May 23rd at about nine o’clock. On the Sunday morning she bad deposited her luggage at the offices of the East Kent Road Car Company in Sandgate Road. If May 23rd was accepted as the day on which the young woman was murdered the last person she was seen alive with was the prisoner, walking in the direction of the stile that led to the scene of the crime. Mr. Oliver said Whiting had associated with a woman named Rose Woodbridge, a married woman, who left her husband in September, 1936, and went to live with the prisoner at Dover. She lived with him until somewhere about November last. Phyllis Spiers was a very close friend of Rose Woodbridge, and saw a lot of her and the prisoner at the time. Whiting did not approve of Phyllis' association with Rose. One evening Rose came home and told him she had been out with Phyllis and had met a couple of men who had asked the two of them to go and live with them. Whiting told Rose that if she did not stop sroing about with Phyllis he would do something wrong. Then he threatened he would strangle Phyllis. "Beware of Rose Woodbridge. You may not think her a very reliable sort of witness, but that does not mean she cannot tell the truth. It is for you to determine the value of these things”, added Mr. Oliver. “It was quite clear the prisoner was very fond of her. Whiting and Mrs. Woodbridge separated - her mother, I think, took her away - and this made him very jealous. He was anxious to find out who had brought about the separation. He was desperately in love with her. In a statement to the police he said he worshipped her, and in his mind Phyllis was the person really responsible for coming between them”. Concerning the green scarf, Mr. Oliver said it was probably the most reliable piece of evidence in that case Whiting had denied not only that it was not his scarf, but that he had never had a scarf like it. He has asserted that he was not wearing a scarf on the day of the murder. The prosecution had evidence that right up to the day of the murder he was wearing a similar green scarf, but that on the day of the murder he was not. Another piece of evidence, found on a post in the thicket, was a hair similar to Whiting's. On July 1st Whiting made a long statement to the police in which he said that he and Phyllis walked to the golf course and sat on the grass. Phyllis was very quiet. “I said, ‘What is the matter?' the statement proceeded She said 'I am fed up, and am going to do myself in.’ I said 'How are you going to do it?’ and she said, 'Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck.’ She was wearing a green spotted scarf.” He contended that Mrs. Spiers could not have strangled herself.

Kenneth George Andrews (16), of 23, Ethelbert Road, Folkestone, a grocer’s roundsman, said on Thursday, 26th May, fee went to a coppice at the foot of Caesar’s Camp bird-nesting. At about 6 p.m. he saw what appeared to be a bundle, but, looking closer, he saw it was a body of a woman covered with a coat. He shouted, and touched the head with & stick. He realised the woman was not sleeping, and later spoke to a police officer. He saw the body again, and it had not been interfered with.

Mr. Geoffrey Poole, an assistant in the Borough Surveyor’s office, produced a street plan of Folkestone. He said he went to the scene and took measurements of the gap and checked the position of the gap after it was framed. It was the same as it was when growing.

Cross-examined, witness said standing on the sixteenth tee of the golf course it was possible to see up Castle Hill. There was a hut connected with the Kent Agricultural Show and some trees on the corner, but it was possible to see past them.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett, said Stanley Seymour Harrison, a photographer, was a patient of his, and was so ill as not to be able to travel.

Mr. Roland Oliver read the deposition of Mr. Harrison’s evidence given at the Police Court proceedings.

Mr. Arthur Charles Spiers, 29, Sidney Street, Bexhill-on-Sea, a milk roundsman, said on May 27th he identified the body Of his wife, aged 22 years. In the photographs produced he recognised his wife as the young woman wearing a dark coat. They were married on April 11th, 1932, ad parted on April 13th, 1934. He last saw his wife alive in August, 1934, at Hastings. Before her death he had commenced divorce proceedings against her.

Chief Inspector Hollands said he went with the witness Andrews and the Coroner’s Officer to the coppice, where the body was found, and caused the book of photographs to be taken. The body had apparently been dragged to the place through the gap framed in Court. When he raised the coat from the body he noticed a strong smell of putrefaction. On Monday, 23rrd, it was a fine day, but on Tuesday it rained from 1.30 to 2.30 p.m. On Wednesday it rained all the afternoon. On the day when the body was found it was fine. The coat over the body was damp, and there were rain marks on the handbag. There were little pitmarks on the ground, and there were dirt marks on the woman’s hand and arms where the rain had splashed up. The ground under the body was dry. In the place where he found the body there was no sign of a struggle. Round the woman’s neck was tied the green-spotted scarf. It was twisted round twice very tightly, and knotted.

Mr. Hutchinson: Whoever it was who pulled this body through all these brambles, you would expect their coat to be very much scratched with brambles?

Witness: No.

How can you push through these sort of brambles without any mark, tear, scratch, or any result on your coat? - I went through them, and my coat did not get scratched with brambles.

Dealing with the question of the tear In the prisoner’s coat, Mr. Hutchinson asked: When the man made the experiment he knew there was a tear in the left-hand shoulder of the defendant’s coat?

Chief Inspector Hollands: Yes.

Did you think that was very much use as an experiment? When you went through you did not tear yours? - When I felt it tearing I went down and wriggled through.

Did you smell putrefaction? - Yes.

Did you see any signs of putrefaction? - No.

One man confessed he had done the murder? - Not to me.

He confessed, and police enquired into it, but took no further steps? - I do not know.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said on the evening of May 26th he saw the body at the coppice. He took possession of the handbag produced and examined its contents. He found the piece of material (produced) in the handbag. If it had been torn from a large piece he could find no trace of the larger piece. The following day he made a search of the place and found a broken comb. He examined the ground from the spot where he found the comb to the barrier, and it had the appearance of having had a heavy object dragged over it. He also found a long hair.

Mr. Roland Oliver said they had eliminated a great deal of evidence about the hairs, and they were dealing with only one or two.

Continuing, witness said he found another hair on the back of the post which formed part of the barrier. He also took three hairs from a hat, and other hairs from the head of the dead woman. On July 11th he obtained four hairs from the head of the prisoner. He handed the hairs to Chief Inspector Parker. Continuing, Det. Sergt. Johnson said he went to a common lodging-house in Dover Street on May 31st and obtained a suitcase of property from the man in charge. He found the pair of braces (produced) in the suitcase. On July 7th he purchased half a pound of butter.

Mr. Hutchinson: After you get through the gap, how far was it, to the other gap where the body was found?

Det. Sergt. Johnson: Ten or eleven yards.

It is a very low tunnel? - Not when you get through the tunnel.

Bits would catch your coat? - Possibly.

Mr. Hutchinson suggested it was impossible that the hair found on the post of the barrier had anything to do with the murder. He submitted it was a wild deduction, because anyone going through the barrier backwards could not have got into such a position to leave a hair in that spot.

Mr. Roland Oliver; It has been suggested that his head could not have touched that post. Do you agree that it could or could not have touched it?

Witness: I say it could have touched it.

Mr. Roland Oliver said he had had an opportunity of getting information from Sir Bernard Spilsbury and there was no point in the fly eggs at all and he was not calling any evidence about it.

The Coroner’s Officer, Det. Con. Bates, said at 6.30 p.m. on May 26th he went to the coppice and saw the body. There was a smell of putrefaction. He later showed the body to a Mr. Spiers, Mr. Santer and Mr. Wanstall. On May 31st he purchased a complete change of clothing for the prisoner and took possession of all the clothing Whiting was wearing. The hat, trousers, braces and jacket with the tear produced all belonged to the prisoner. A small green zip fastener purse was found in the left hand pocket of the jacket.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you notice any signs of putrefaction?

Witness: No, but the smell was very strong.

He was not arrested until June 25th? - I think that was the date.

You will agree that the tear you have pointed out might have been caused by anything? - The tear was on the jacket when I took it from the prisoner.

You do not suggest it could only be done by barbed wire? - No.

Mr. Douglas Scott Moncrieff, in charge of the Meteorological Department at Folkestone, said on May 23rd the maximum temperature was 60 deg. F. and the minimum 42 deg. F. The minimum grass temperature was 36 deg. There was no rainfall. On the Tuesday the maximum temperature was 63 deg. F. and the minimum grass temperature was 38. There was no rainfall at 10 a.m., but at 6 p.m. there was .01 inch recorded. On the Wednesday the maximum temperature was 59 deg. and the minimum 48. There was a fair amount of rain, less than .005 inches at 10 a.m., and at 6 p.rn, .3 inch. On the Thursday the rainfall at 10 a.m. was .02 inches, and at 6 p.m. nil.

Robert John Reid, the deputy of a lodging house in Dover Street, Folkestone, said he had known the prisoner for about 19 to 20 years. He had stayed at his house for about three months. On May 23rd the prisoner spent the night at the lodging-house. He remained there until May 26th. He handed the prisoner’s suitcase to a police officer.

Mr. Hutchinson: How many men are there in the same room?

Witness: Five.

It would be quite fair to say that people’s properly gets mixed up sometimes? - Yes.

Dr. William Claude Percy Barrett said on May 26th at 7.30 p.m. he went to the coppice and saw the body. The position was consistent with the body having been dragged on its back. He did not notice any smell from the body, which was covered. At 9.10 p.m. the same night he saw the body in the mortuary, and there was a definite smell of putrefaction. He would not expect any smell from a body under the conditions present for at least three days. He would expect rigor mortis to set in after 12 to 18 hours and last from 48 to 72 hours. Of that body in those circumstances it would be 72 hours. When he saw the body in the thicket there was rigor mortis. At 8.30 p.m. on Friday, May 27th, the rigor mortis had completely gone. There were several bruises on the face and front of the body. The nose had been flattened by a violent blow. He was present when Sir Bernard Spilsbury made his examination, which revealed bruises in the neck. Dr. Barrett said he considered that the bruises were due to the ligature and death, in his view, was by garrotting with the scarf.

Mr. Oliver: How long before you saw the body do you think it likely that the woman met her death?

Witness: Forty-eight to seventy-two hours.

Mr. Hutchinson questioned witness about his report of the post-mortem examination to the Coroner.

Did you say the stomach contained ten lumps of potatoes?

Dr. Barrett: I did.

Is that correct? - Apparently no, when the lumps were put under the microscope.

And the brownish fluid? - There was a brownish fund in the stomach.

At the inquest, when you were on oath, you said “The deceased, in my opinion, had been dead not longer than two days”; what did you mean by that?

Witness: I rather expected the Coroner to take the question further, to tell you the truth.

Why did you tell him that; it must have been what you thought? – Why? Because I had heard rumours that she had been seen shopping. It seemed rattier absurd to certify somebody dead if she had been seen shopping.

Because of the chit-chat you heard you altered your opinion? - Put it that way if you like.

Are you changing your opinion because Sir Bernard Spilsbury has said anything different? - No.

You were the only one who gave evidence about this matter to the Coroner, and you said “The deceased, in my opinion, had been dead not longer than two days”, and you now tell us you did not honestly say that. Do you deny saying that? - No, I do not. I cannot swear to saying that.

Did you tell the Coroner something that is not your honest opinion on the chance of the Coroner asking you something more? - No.

Do you think that the woman was more likely to have been killed on the 24th than the 23rd? - I still think it was 23rd.

You agree that it is a matter of opinion? - Absolutely a matter of opinion.

She certainly may have been living on the 24th? - It is possible, but I do not think it is at all likely.

Supposing twelve witnesses come here and say so, would that make you think she was probably alive on the 24th? - No.

You say she died from garrotting? - I consider it so.

You know Sir Bernard Spilsbury does not agree? - I know.

You thought the scratches were caused before death, and Sir Bernard after death? - The scratches on the legs.

You agree that all these questions are matters of grave difficulty where people may honestly make a mistake? - Yes. I agree that Sir Bernard Spilsbury’s experience must be greater than mine. I have only had two cases of murder.

Sir Bernard Spilbury said he made a post-mortem examination with Dr. Barrett. He found the body was that of a well-nourished young woman. He saw the mark of the ligature round the neck and a number of external injuries on the face and body. He examined the tissues of the neck and found bruising, just such as would be caused by the grip of the hand in manual strangulation. Strangulation in some form caused her death, and in his view it was manual strangulation. He would not have expected her to have been dead for three days, but he could not say definitely within 24 hours.

Mr. Roland Oliver: Is it, in your opinion, possible that this young woman, in the circumstances in which you saw her, had committed suicide by strangling herself with the scarf?

Witness: Quite out of the question.

Mr. Hutchinson: Supposing she had had a long walk, little food, and a terrible struggle, would that bring on rigor mortis very quickly?

Sir Bernard Spilsbury: Much more quickly.

Is not putrefaction caused or stimulated by the passing of rigor mortis? - It happens to be coincidal.

Supposing rigor mortis was accelerated, would that accelerate putrefaction? - Not necessarily.

Would you go as far as to say it was impossible for her to be alive on the 24th? - I hardly think it is possible.

Dr. Roche Lynch, Senior Official Analyst to the Home Office, described the tear on the prisoner’s coat. At the apex of the tear, he said, there was a tiny round hole as though a round sharp pointed object had gone through the fabric before it had been torn. The tear must have been downwards and to the right. When the tear was made the coat would be on a man who was going backwards. Witness said he had looked at the barrier (produced), and part of the barbed wire could have made a similar tear as the one in the coat. Continuing, he said the woman’s stomach contained butter fat. The last meal was taken at least three hours before death. He was shown the green scarf. The ends of it showed signs of wear, and there were marks which could have been accounted for by the ends of the scarf being made fast in the braces produced. He compared the hairs from the girl’s head with the hair found near the comb, and they closely resembled each other. Both were bleached. The accused’s hair and the hair from the post on the barrier closely resembled each other. The hair on the post could have come from anybody who had similar hair.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you examine the coat by any chance to see if there were any scratches? - The tear was the only item of note. Dealing with the braces Mr. Hutchinson said the braces which could have made the marks on the scarf might have been a new pair. There were no signs of them being used.

Dr. Roche Lynch said there were signs that they had been used.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am suggesting that they might be a new pair, and in any case have hardly been used at all?

Witness: They have had some wear.

People who go to common lodging-houses do not have a couple of pairs of braces? - I bow to your superior knowledge.

To leave the marks that you found, or some of the marks, it must have been worn very often in that way? - If holes had been produced in the way I mentioned they must have been worn several times, but the linear marks could be produced in twenty minutes.

Robert Henry Rird, of Margate, and Alfred James Carter, of Ramsgate, employed by a firm of holiday snaps, gave evidence of taking photographs of the murdered woman.

Bernice C. Hegarty, of Mead Road, Folkestone, said she recognised one of the women in the holiday snaps (produced) as Phyllis Minter, whom she had known for 3½ years. She spoke to Phyllis at 9.45 a.m. on Monday, and recognised the handbag (produced) as her’s. The green zip fastener purse (produced) was very like the dead woman’s purse. Continuing she said the deceased had a dark check scarf similar to the piece of material (produced), but she had never seen her wearing a green spotted scarf.

Cross-examined, witness said the purse was something like the one Phyllis had.

Mr. Hutchinson: About the scarf, you say there was a fringe on it? - There was.

When was it you last saw Phyllis? - Monday morning at about a quarter to ten.

Mr. Hutchinson pointed out that the witness said she had last seen the murdered woman on Saturday morning.

The witness then explained that she had seen her on both days.

Pte. Harold Wall, of the Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Shomcliffe, said he lived with the murdered woman from May 15th to the 19th, at Sandgate. He first saw her in February or the beginning of March, and gave her the scarf somewhere about April. Originally, it had a fringe on it, hut he cut it off before he gave it to her. The piece of material produced was part of the scarf he gave to Phyllis. He had never seen her wearing the green spotted scarf. Continuing, witness said some of the letters in the suitcase (produced) were written by him to the murdered woman.

Mr. Hutchinson: What sort of place did you stay with her at?

Pte. Wall: It was a one room affair.

id either of you have any luggage? - I was living at the camp. She had no luggage.

How many days were you there? - Four days.

Mr. Hutchinson went on to question the witness about statements that were taken from him.

Was it found that you had scratches? - One on the arm.

Did not the police discover that a car had been taken from Aldershot and taken back that night, the 23rd or 24th? - I heard something about it.

You do not know the distance shown on that car was exactly the distance from Aldershot to Folkestone? - No.

Mr. Hutchinson said he was not suggesting the witness committed the murder, but he did suggest that there was just as much evidence in some ways against others as against the prisoner.

The witness said he had nothing to do with taking the car from Aldershot, and the scratches on his arm happened while he was carrying meat.

Mr. Roland Oliver: Did you leave Aldershot at all between May 19th and the date of the discovery of the body?

Pte. Wall: No.

At this stage the Court rose until the following day.

The case was resumed at 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday.

Mr. Harold Henry Parker, 73, Dover Rood, Folkestone, a Press photographer, said the previous day he took a photograph from the sixteenth tee on Folkestone golf course. It was possible to see the junction of Cherry Garden Avenue and Cherry Garden Lane and to see people going towards Caesar’s Camp over the hedge. After a fleeting glance of people walking along Cherry Garden Avenue, a person on the sixteenth tee would see them when they reached the junction of the two roads.

It was decided by both defence and prosecution to have witnesses make observations from the sixteenth tee.

Chief Inspector Hollands, re-called, said the suitcase produced he got from the East Kent Road Car Company’s office at Folkestone on June 1st. He made a list of the contents, which included a packet of letters, all addressed to Miss P. Butcher.

Mr. Ernest Edward Curtis an Inspector employed by the East Kent Road Car Company, said the blue case produced was like a case he saw on May 22nd or 23rd. On that occasion a young lady asked the next through bus to Margate and then left the office. After she had gone he noticed a dark bag there.

Pte. Harold Wall, re-called, said three of the letters produced were written by him to the murdered woman. They were addressed to Miss Phyllis Butcher, the name he knew her by.

Cross-examined, witness said he wrote the letters before May 19th, when she was in hospital. After he left her in May she gave him “G.P.O., Folkestone”, as her address.

Chief Inspector W. Parker, New Scotland Yard, said on the afternoon of May 27th, he went to the coppice near Caesar’s Camp. He supervised the framing of the barrier produced in the Court. On the side of the coppice nearer Folkestone there was an agricultural field. On May 30th, with Det. Sgt. Skardon, he interviewed the prisoner at Folkestone Police Station. He admitted that he knew the murdered woman. He said he would tell them what he knew and he made a long statement, which he made willingly. Witness said he was endeavouring to find out the prisoner’s movements for several days. The statement was read and during the course of it Whiting stated: “I am a widower, my wife died on 3rd May, 1936. She was strangled by George Arthur Bryant, who was afterwards executed at Wandsworth. I was at the time of her death living apart from my wife. I had three children by her. . . My wife left me in 1935”. Later, went on the statement, he lived in Dover with a Mrs. Woodbridge. She left him in November, 1937, after her mother received a letter from a landlord in Folkestone saying that her daughter was drinking in public houses. While he was living with Mrs. Woodbridge a young girl, who Mrs. Woodbridge said was named Phyllis Minter, came to see her. In his statement Whiting said he met the murdered woman on Monday, May 23rd, at about 12.30 p.m., and they went to the Globe public house on The Bayle. They stayed for about ten minutes. While they were there she said she could get married again. "I said ‘Can you?’”, continued Whiting’s statement, “and read the divorce papers. She said ‘Why don’t you marry me and let’s go back to Dover?' ” The statement then went on to describe how Whiting and the girl went to the golf links. “We sat down on the grass”, it continued, when she pulled out something wrapped in brown paper Some stitches and a ring, a little bone ring She said they were stitches which had been taken out of her operation. We were both thinking. I don’t know what was the matter with her that day. She was not cheerful. She did not speak much. I believe there was something worrying her. I have seen her like it at Dover when she came in staring at me. I cannot say what was on her mind. Perhaps it was because she was down and out. I said nothing to upset her”. Continuing, the statement described how they made their way to Cherry Garden Lane and into Cheriton Road, after crossing the golf links. "I told her that I worshipped Rose”, it continued, “I said ‘If Rose does not come back I shall never settle down again’. ... I did not see Phyllis at all on Tuesday. . . Phyllis and I did not discuss living together before last Monday”. Continuing, witness said after the statement had been taken the matter of the jacket was mentioned. He noticed there was a tear in the prisoner’s jacket on the left shoulder. He said “I don’t know where or when I did it." He was asked about the green spotted scarf, and be said “I have never seen it before. I have not worn a scarf myself for a long while, and I have never had one like that.” Whiting made another statement on June 1st, in which he said: “When we went on to the golf course on the Monday, thee day I have already told you about, I mean when I was with Phyllis and when we were sitting on ihe grass, she was very quiet, and I said ‘What is the matter?’ She said 'I am fed up and I am going to do myself in’. I said 'How are you going to do it?’ and she said ‘Strangle myself with a scarf round my neck’. She was wearing a green spotted scarf. After we got up and walked across the golf links. She was very quiet, and kept saying she was fed up. I have not seen her since that Monday, 23rd May, 1938. . . . I might tell you that she was partly the cause of Rose Woodbridge leaving me.” Continuing, witness said he showed the contents of the suit-case to the prisoner. The suitcase was taken from the lodging-house in Dover Street, and Whiting said the articles in the case belonged to him.

Mr. Oliver: Did you endeavour to find out in Folkestone any house at which Phyllis had slept after May 23rrd?

Witness: Yes.

Were you unsuccessful? - Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: This man is a very uneducated man?

Witness Yes.

Why was it necessary to take a statement from him, you a trained police officer, from ten o’clock at night as you say, and I say later, until 2 in the morning? - I wanted to get as much detail on this man as possible.

Do you think that it is a usual time to take a statement fairly? - It was the most convenient time at that stage of the enquiry.

He was arrested on June 25th? - Yes.

Do you mean to say that you were in such a hurry that it had to be taken from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m.? - Yes.

"Why? - There were quite a number of people waiting at the Police Station to be seen on that particular evening.

Do you think it fair? Have you not heard of it being done in third degree in other countries? - I was endeavouring to discover who perpetrated this crime.

Surely it was not necessary to take a man at 10 at night and cross-examine him till 2 a.m. Did he get into a muddle? - No.

Did not he get ready to agree to any thing you put to him? - No.

Did you ask whether he had had any food? - Yes.

Had he? - I was told he had been given refreshment.

You examined him very severely? - Yes. I asked him numerous questions.

Is not that third degree?

Judge Wrottesley: I do not know strictly what third degree means.

Mr. Hutchinson (to Chief Inspector Parker): Do you know what it means when people say third degree?

Witness: I have heard of the term, but I do not know what it means.

Chief Inspector Parker said neither he nor Det. Sergt. Skardon suggested it was a case of suicide and that if it was it would let the prisoner out.

Mr. Hutchinson: What happened was on 27th or 28th he had an interview with the Chief Constable? - Yes.

Then he had this long sojourn at the Police Station on the 30th, leaving round about three, I am suggesting, in the morning, and the next day he was taken again and his clothes were taken away from him, and the next day he was sent for again? - Yes.

Witness said there were no scratches on the prisoner’s body, and none, beyond the tear, on his coat. Continuing, witness said there were a whole lot of brambles around the branches produced.

The two nights preceding the murder she was with Mrs. Wright?

Witness: Yes.

Had you in your possession on May 30th anything like the whole of the evidence that has been called in this case? - No.

Det. Sergt. Skardon said he was present when the two statements wore taken from prisoner, and actually wrote them down. The suggestion of suicide came from the prisoner.

Mr. Oliver: Did you or Chief Inspector Parker ever put the suggestion into the prisoner’s mind about suicide?

Witness: No.

Continuing, witness said he went through the gap backwards and tore his jacket. He knew the barb of wire was there. Apart from the tear in his jacket he did not tear his clothes with the brambles as he walked about.

Cross-examined, witness said the brambles pulled at the fabric of his clothes. The tear in his coat was not very like the tear in the other coat.

Mr. Hutchinson: There were, of course a good many brambles about?

Witness: Yes.

Anyone going where you did would get their clothes, not torn, but scratched? - Possibly, it would depend on the material.

Witness said when he went through the barrier he knew the barb was there, and that the prisoner was supposed to have torn his coat. He (witness) could not have gone through the barrier, pulling the dummy, without tearing his coat.

Mr. Hutchinson: I am suggesting that the suggestion was made to him that this might have been suicide, and that would clear him?

Witness: It was not made.

You are sure? -Quite positive.

Neither directly nor indirectly? - Neither.

Neither by hint nor suggestion? - No.

Are you quite certain of that? - Quite certain.

John Joseph Hurst, of Joyes Road, Folkestone, manager of Messrs. Hepworth. Ltd., of Folkestone, said he stocked scarves similar to the one produced from October, 1936, to February, 1937, and again from October, 1937, to February or March, 1938.

Cross-examined, witness admitted it was quite a popular scarf.

In reply to Mr. Oliver, witness said all the scarves were not green. They were in four different shades.

Mr. Joseph Charles Kember, an employment clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he had interviewed the prisoner in connection with his duty. He last sent the prisoner on a job of work on March 19th. At the time he was wearing a green scarf with white spots. The scarf produced was similar to the scarf the prisoner was wearing. Witness said he saw the prisoner again March 21st and between the 16th and 19th May. He wore the scarf knotted on the left-hand side of the neck, and it appeared to be wound twice round his neck.

Cross-examined, witness said he could see the ends of the scarf.

P.C. Pearce, Dover Borough Police said on April 9th the accused was in his charge at Dover for something like three-quarters of an hour. He was wearing a green scarf with dirty white spots. It was wound twice round the neck and knotted on the left-hand side.

Mr. John McKinnon Taylor, 24, Walton Gardens, a clerk at the Folkestone Employment Exchange, said he went on leave on May 23rd to the following Saturday. Before he went on leave he saw the prisoner on May 20th, and he was wearing a green scarf tied with a double knot on one side. After returning from his leave he saw the prisoner on May 30th, and he was not wearing the scarf. He had not seen him wearing the scarf since. The one produced was similar to the scarf the prisoner was wearing on May 20th.

Det. Sergt. Johnson, re-called, said lie made a list of the contents of the handbag found beside the body Among the articles in the bag was a piece of a cigarette packet with the name “H. Pyneart,” printed on it in pencil.

Cross-examined, witness said there were a great many statements taken before 30th May.

Mrs. Adelaide Maude Wright, a widow, of 9, Garden Road, Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Minter. She let her a room on May 21st. On Monday, the 23rd, the woman had bread and butter and a cup of tea for breakfast. The woman had nothing more than what she stood up in. On May 23rd she went into the town with Phyllis. They went into Woolworth’s at about 10 a.m., and witness bought a roll of white paper. Phyllis was wearing a blue coat and a grey coloured scarf. She had never seen her wearing a green scarf. Phyllis had a brown comb with a piece broken off the end. She was able to pick out the girl who served in Woolworth’s.

Cross-examined, witness said Phyllis told her that she came from Tooting, and that she had a job at The Lido. She said she had left her luggage with friends, and witness was surprised when she did not return on the Monday. When witness arrived home on Monday night she saw a man without a hat and wearing a mackintosh waiting outside her house.

When the proceedings were continued in the afternoon the jury wished to know whether the barbed wire on the barrier was the same height from the ground as it was from the floor of the Court. The jury had examined the barrier during the luncheon adjournment.

Det. Sergt. Skardon said the heights were the same. According to the theory of the prosecution the murderer dragged the body downhill through the gap. The gradient was one in four.

Mr. Hubert Pyneart, a waiter employed at the Royal Pavilion Hotel, Folkestone, said he knew Mrs. Spiers by sight. A year ago she worked at the hotel. He met her on the morning of May 23rd at about 10.40 and walked with her round Folkestone. He was with her until 12.30 p.m., and during the morning walked with her in Sandgate Road. He had never walked with her before in the morning. While he was with her he wrote his name on a piece of card and gave it. to the murdered woman. Witness said the scarf Mrs. Spiers was wearing was of a dark colour, very similar to the piece of material produced.

Mr. Charles Leonard Varner, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, said he knew the accused and also the murdered woman. He knew her as Minter, and he last saw her on the Monday before her body was found. She was at the corner of New Street. He saw prisoner enter Philpott’s shop and then go over to the girl and give her a cigarette. They both went up Bradstone Road.

Cross-examined, witness said Weatherhead had not asked him to say anything about Longley.

Mrs. Lilian Maude Varrier the wife of the last witness, said on Monday, May 23rd, she saw the prisoner in Philpott’s shop at about 1.20 p.m. She saw him leave the shop and meet the murdered woman. They went together towards Bradstone Road.

Mrs. Laura Laws, of 68, Foord Road Folkestone, said she knew the murdered woman as Phyllis Butcher. She let her a room on May 18th. She stayed there on Thursday and Friday, and left without paying. Witness saw the deceased on the following Monday in Bradstone Avenue. There was a man with her, but she ran after and spoke to witness. Afterwards the deceased went back to the man, and they walked towards the Public Baths.

Cross-examined, witness said the deceased told her that she was a maid at the Longford Hotel. She had no luggage, but she said she came from London.

Mr. William David Marsh, of Clarence Road, Folkestone, a pavior employed by the Folkestone Corporation, said on Monday, May 23rd, he was working in Radnor Park Avenue, and saw the prisoner pass with a young woman. They were walking in the direction of the golf course.

Mr. William John Harbird said he saw the prisoner with a young woman by the Peter Pan’s Pool on May 23rd.

Mr. Hutchinson: At the Police Court you said it was the 23rd or 24th.

Witness: I was wrong on the dates.

Are you still certain it was not the 24th? - Yes, now.

Mr. Harry James Santer, of 5, Pavilion Road, a groundsman employed at the Folkestone golf course, said on Monday, May 23rd, at 1.35 p.m., he saw the murdered woman with the prisoner walking along the road across the golf course. The woman looked as though she had been crying.

Frederick Wanstall, of Invicta Road, Folkestone, a gardener at the Folkestone golf course, said he saw the body of a girl at the mortuary. He saw her on Monday, May 23rd, with the prisoner. When he saw them, he was cutting the 16th tee near Cherry Garden Avenue. The prisoner and the girl were walking towards Caesar’s Camp. He saw them as far as the point where the road they were walking on joined Cherry Garden Lane. The time was somewhere about two, or just after.

Mr. Hutchinson: You were not certain about the date?

Witness: Yes.

Mr. Hutchinson: What you mean is that you saw this man with some girl. You saw him walking along this lane on some day that you are not really certain. Is that what it comes to? Has it weighed on your mind very much, this case? - It has.

You did try to kill yourself because of it? - No. I do not think it was because of that. It was because I had left my wife because she had treated me unfairly.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, Chief Constable of Folkestone, said on June 25th, when he cautioned the prisoner, he said he was not guilty.

Mr. Hutchinson: On 4th June you were trying to find where Mrs. Spiers stayed on Tuesday?

Witness: Yes.

Florence Thompson, of 19, Hamilton Road, Dover, said she had a conversation with the prisoner about Phyllis. She told him that it was a shame that Phyllis was murdered. The prisoner asked her if she would like a scarf round her neck. He told her that if she did not keep her mouth shut about Phyllis he would put her on the spot. He said “You can do a murder without leaving finger prints and foot marks”. They went to three public-houses together.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not have a great deal to drink. She never got drunk.

Mr. Hutchinson : I am suggesting that this man never said this to you at all. Did he?

Witness: He did.

There was nothing to call forth this man’s anger in what you said? - I do not know.

Did he really say “You can murder without leaving linger prints or loot marks”? - Yes.

You are not a friend of his? - No.

Hardly know him? - Only by sight.

Robert William Weatherhead, of 35, Darlington Street, Folkestone, said he remembered a day when there was a row at the Guildhall public house. It must have been after May 31st. Witness took the prisoner as a partner at darts. Whiting was abusive to the landlord, who came round to put him out. The prisoner said to the landlord “I will serve you as I served the blondie”. Whiting had had enough drink to make him talk.

Mr. Hutchinson: I suggest he did not say that?

Witness: I say he did.

Percy Ernest Wootton, licensee of the Guildhall Hotel, Folkestone, said on Friday, 3rd June, there was a row, arid he had occasion to caution the prisoner, who begged him to let him stay, and he did so. He did not hear the prisoner say anything else.

Mr. William Hall, of 16, Great, Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said he knew the murdered woman, Rose Woodbridge and the prisoner.

In March the prisoner stayed at his house for two weeks. While he was there he said if Rose was willing to come back to him he was willing to make a home for her. He said he worshipped her. In fact he often mentioned her.

Mrs. Daisy Emily Hall, wife of the previous witness, said in March the prisoner lived at her house for a time. While he was there he said he was sorry Rose had left him. He often spoke of her.

Cross-examined, witness said the prisoner did not like Mrs. Flynn, and she did not like him. She never saw the prisoner with two pairs of braces while he was at her house.

In reply to Mr. Oliver witness said Mrs. Flynn came to see her “now and again”.

Mrs. Elvey Flynn, of 21, Great Fenchurch Street, Folkestone, said she knew Rose and the prisoner. She went sometimes to Mr. and Mrs. Hall's place, and remembered the time when the prisoner was staying there. When she went there the prisoner asked her if she knew any body who told Rose Woodbridge anything about him. He said when he found out anyone who had told Rose Wood bridge anything about him he would strangle them.

Cross-examined, witness said on one occasion the prisoner jumped up and ran upstairs when she went into the house, but on another occasion he spoke to her.

Mrs. Rose Woodbridge, Eight Bells lodging-house, King Street, Canterbury said she was married on September 4th, 1935. She lived with her husband for a month or two, and after leaving him she lived with Whiting for a year, and left him a fortnight before last Christmas.
Phyllis was a great friend of hers. Whiting told her that she must stop going about with Phyllis when she told him about two fellows arranging to take them to London. Whiting said if she did not keep away from Phyllis he would do something wrong. She told him that walls had ears.

The prisoner was present when her mother took her away.

This concluded the case for the Crown.

Mr. St. John Hutchinson, in opening the case for the defence, said one of the essential points of the prosecution was that the woman was killed on May 23rd. The accused was walking with the deceased, and was seen by many people with her on that day. If the jury thought the evidence was so strong that she was undoubtedly killed on the 23rd, they would probably find Whiting guilty. Would it be possible for them to honestly say to themselves “I have no reasonable doubt that the day this woman was killed was on the 23rd May and not on the 24th”? This is a case of circumstantial evidence. Sometimes a case of circumstantial evidence could be the strongest they could have, and sometimes it could be the weakest. They could imagine sometimes it might be one of the most difficult to have to decide. He suggested that that case would be very difficult for the jury to decide. Dealing with the green scarf, Mr. Hutchinson said Whiting lied when he told the police he had never had a green scarf and that he knew nothing about it. The fact that he has told such a lie showed in no way that he was a guilty man. It was only by the help of the State that the prisoner could be defended. He was a man of no position and no education. He was taken to the Police Station. The murder was well known in Folkestone, and the jury could realise that it caused a tremendous sensation. The scarf, which he knew was his, he knew J was found on the dead woman. Was it, therefore, extraordinary for a man like that to deny the scarf was his? It was not very extraordinary for him to think if he admitted the scarf was his he was "done for”. “Looking at it from a common-sense point of view”, Mr. St. J. Hutchinson continued, “did they really think any murderer was such a fool when this woman has a scarf of her own, to deliberately take away that scarf, for that is what he must have done, and substitute it with his own scarf - leave one of his visiting cards, as it were, upon the corpse - after strangling her with his own hands deliberately take his own scarf and bind it round her throat for no apparent reason unless than for the reason to make people think she had committed suicide? He tied it like that, and no one out of Bedlam would think she had committed suicide. The prisoner was going to tell them that he gave her the green scarf. Whiting was a man who was in a desperate position, who was literally fighting for his life. What they had to ask themselves was, was the evidence of the prosecution true; were they reasonably convinced of the truth of the evidence? That was what they had to say before they acted upon the evidence of the prosecution. With regard to the evidence for the defence they had to ask themselves whether it was reasonably true. “There might he many with a motive against this unhappy girl on the flotsam and jetsam of life”, he said. “Supposing she was killed by someone else on May 24th or 25th, that she was wearing a green scarf, then the murderer would probably leave it tied round her neck. That is much more likely than that this man would”. He did not know whether the jury noticed the prisoner crying when Rose Woodbridge gave evidence and also when he (Mr. Hutchinson) was cross-examining her. His affection for her was real; perhaps a decent thing. His affection for her was now being used as evidence of motive. Of course it was not necessary to prove any motive at all, but most juries did look for some motive. The prisoner might have been annoyed with this woman, but what a gulf lay between annoyance and murder. With regard to the taking of the statements, he said, was he exaggerating when he said that that was as near third degree as they were ever likely to get in that country? The police, of course, at that time were trying to find a murderer, and they had tried to find a motive. He asked the jury if they were really going to act on that statement. They would hear from the defendant that he had nothing to do with it. People who knew her well would say they saw her on the 24th. Some would say they saw her on the 25th. Was that not going to raise a reasonable doubt in their minds? One witness was going to say she saw her with a green scarf on May 25th.

Whiting then went into the witness box, and Mr. Hutchinson’s first question to him was “Did you murder this girl?”

Whiting: No, sir.

You had lived with Mrs. Woodbridge? - Yes.

You were very fond of her? - Yes.

Are you still desperately fond of her? - Yes.

She left you, did she not? - Yes.

She was taken away by her mother? - Yes.

How much did you know Phyllis? - I did not know her hardly at all.

Had she been over to see you when you and Rose lived together? - She used to come and see Rose now and again.

When did you see Phyllis at Folkestone? - On the Friday.

The Friday before the Monday when you saw her again? – Yes.

Tell us what happened on that Friday? - I came out of the Guildhall at about ten past ten in the evening I was walking towards home, and I saw Phyllis on the corner. Continuing, Whiting said Phyllis said “Hello, Bill, do you miss Flo much?” He said “Yes, and I would like to have her back.” She told him that she was down and out and hungry. He gave her half-a-crown, for she said she had had some trouble with the Labour Exchange.

The scarf produced was his property, and he was wearing it on the Friday, when he gave it to Phyllis. She had an open-necked blouse, and she had just come out of the Savoy Picture Palace. She was cold, and asked for his scarf, which he took off and gave to her. She thanked him for it. He had no idea that Phyllis tried to take Rose from him. She was a good little soul. He next saw Phyllis on the Monday, May 23rd, at about 12.30 p.m. She was looking at some postcards in South Street. He had seen her before with the Belgian at 10.30 a.m. before going up Sandgate Road. When he saw her in South Street she asked if he was going to treat her. She said “Let’s go up to the Globe”, a public house on The Bayle. When they got to the Globe she had a brown ale, and he had a pint of beer. She then showed him some divorce papers in her handbag. She said “Why don’t you get married, Bill?” He said “I will do, but I have got to get a job first”. She said ’’Let’s go to Dover and live, and got married afterwards.” He was not in love with Phyllis, but he was alone, and wanted a home. He also wanted his daughter and eldest boy home. He told her that he would marry her, but he had to have a job first. She was not wearing his green scarf that day. From the Globe they went to the Public Library, and then into New Street, where he bought a box of matches at Philpott’s. Going along Sussex Road Phyllis met Mrs. Laws and spoke to her. When she returned he asked her where she was going, and she said “Home”. He asked her where her home was, and she said "89, Ashley Avenue”. They went along and stopped opposite the Baths to look at the pictures. She said she was going to the pictures that evening with her landlady. She then said "Come on, let’s go home”. Continuing, prisoner said they went up St. John’s Church Road and past the Hospital. She pointed to a room in the Hospital and she said she would show him something. They went along to the golf links and sat on a bank. She kept talking about getting married, and showed him some stitches and a bone ring. She said the stitches were from her operation. They then got up and walked across the golf links and got into Cherry Garden Avenue. They crossed the road and went round to the left into Cherry Garden Lane, and then into Cherry Garden Avenue again. They turned right into Cheriton Road, but she did not want him to go where she lived. A fellow went past on a motor bike, and she waved to him and he to her. She said he was one of her boys. She asked him not to come any further with her, as she did not want her landlady to see him. She kissed him and walked on. That was the last he saw of her.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you take her up to Caesar’s Camp and along there and strangle her?

Whiting: No.

A few clays afterwards he went along to the Chief Constable. He was kept at the Police Station all that day and next night.

n May 30th he was told that Inspector Hollands wished to see him He went to the Police Station at about six o’clock. He was not given any food. Chief Inspector Parker commenced taking the statement at about eight o’clock. Before that he was kept in a room for about two hours. They then took him upstairs, where he saw Mr. Skardon, who said “Come into the torture chamber”.

Mr. Hutchinson: He was being funny?

Witness: I suppose he was?

Continuing, witness said he was asked to sit down by Chief Inspector Parker, who had entered the room with him. He made a statement, and they kept putting questions to him. They took a statement and then put him below again for about half-an-hour, and then took him back into the room. Chief Inspector Parker, Det. Sergt. Skardon and Chief Inspector Hollands were there, and they kept questioning him until about a quarter or half-past two. They never read anything out to him, but said “Just sign here and walk out a free man”. He had been at the Police Station since six o’clock, examined verbally for four hours, and then stripped and examined physically.

Mr. Hutchinson: What was in your mind at 2.20 m the morning? How were you feeling?

Whiting: I was beat.

Whiting further said he did not think that Phyllis wanted to take Rose away from him, and he had no reason to think that Phyllis was the cause of the trouble between him and Rose. He denied that the scarf was his because he had read in the paper that she was strangled with a green scarf.

With regard to the second statement, when he went into the room Chief Inspector Parker asked him to sit down. He took hold of the scarf, tied it twice round his neck and knotted it. Chief Inspector Parker said suicide could easily be done. Witness replied “No, it was not suicide. Whoever done that was the murderer”.

Continuing, Whiting said Chief Inspector Parker kept leaving the room and going into the Chief Constable’s office. When he came back he asked him whether he had made his mind up. In the intervals Det. Sergt. Skardon said “Come on, Bill, tell him. Don’t be a damn fool; he is trying to help you. You won’t have any more trouble. You will walk out a free man. We can go back to London, and our case is settled”.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you think you would be able to walk out a free man?

Whiting: Yes.

Prisoner said Chief Inspector Parker said “You don’t know what I am. I don’t want to be rough. I am going to help you”. Det.-Sergt. Skardon kept saying “Go on, tell him. Tell him it is a case of suicide. We want our case cleared up. You were the last man seen with her; we don’t want to charge you with minder”. He handed prisoner his hat and said “Sign this and walk out”.

Mr. Hutchinson: You did sign it and walk out.

Judge Wrottesly: You had nothing to do with the wording of the statement?

Whiting: I simply said “Yes”.

They invented the story and you signed it? - Yes.

With regard to the incident in the Guildhall public house, he was singing, and the landlord caught hold of him. He (prisoner) said “I will handle you the same as you handle me outside.” He denied saying he would serve him as he served the blondie. Whiting admitted that he hated the sight of Mrs. Thompson. He denied saying he would put her on the spot, but said he told her that he loved Mrs. Woodbridge. He bought the green purse at Dover Woolworth’s before Christmas.

Mr. Hutchinson: Had you any feeling of hatred or revenge against Phyllis at all?

Whiting: No. She was a good little soul.

This concluded the examination of the prisoner, and the Court rose at twenty minutes to seven.

When the hearing was resumed yesterday (Thursday) Whiting was cross- examined by Mr. Roland Oliver.

Mr. Oliver: Will you look at the scarf - look at it carefully - is that actually your scarf?

Whiting: Yes.

When did you tell anybody that the scarf round this murdered woman’s neck was yours? - I told my counsel.

When? - Two or three days ago.

Mr. Hutchinson said he had been told before Wednesday morning.

Mr. Oliver: Two or three days ago you told your counsel that it was your scarf. You did not tell anybody before then?

Whiting: Yes.

You see the ends of your scarf are frayed as if they had been in contact with some hard object? - Yes.

Can you tell the jury how that happened to your scarf? - It was never there when I had that scarf.

You mean those frayed marks were not there at all? - They were not there.

Since you gave it to her that came about - Yes.

Did you ever put the ends of your scarf in the clip of any braces to hold it? - No.

You say you gave her that scarf on Friday, May 20th? - Yes.

You heard a landlady say she had never seen any such scarf? - Yes.

You last saw her with it when she put It round, her neck on Friday? - Yes.

You never saw that scarf again, did you, according to your case? – No.

She did not wear it on the Monday when you went for a walk with her? – No.

She was wearing a different scarf? – I did not notice.

You are a Folkestone man, aren't you? – Yes.

You know these three beehive-looking hills? – Yes.

Did you know there was a thicket along the bottom of them? - No, I never go up there.

You have never been up there in your life? - No.

Have you ever been up as far as the stile along the road called Castle Hill? - I came down that road last August, past that stile.

This girl Phyllis was a loose sort of girl? - According to what some people say.

She would have gone to a place like that with a good number of men if they had asked her, according to your knowledge of her? - Yes, she would.

You knew she would have gone with you if you had asked her? - I do not think she would.

In reply to other questions, Whiting said he loved Rose Woodbridge and he was sorry when she left him.

You thought some interfering person brought about Rose Woodbridge leaving you? - Something about a letter the landlord sent to her mother.

Were you anxious to find out who made that mischief? - No.

You never tried to find out who had done that? - No.

Would you have been angry with the person who had done that? - I would have asked them what they had done it for, that is all.

Can you tell the jury at all when your jacket got torn? It was the only jacket you wore on every day? - I never noticed it.

That purse which was in your pocket, you said you bought that before Christmas and had had it for months and months? - Yes.

A good many people might have seen you with it if it was yours? - I expect so.

Replying to a question by Mr. Justice Wrottesley, the prisoner said when he was in London he kept cigarette ends and papers in the purse. He also used it for money.

Mr. Oliver: You know Elvey Flynn?

Whiting: Yes.

Did you have any conversation with her about Rose Woodbridge? - I would not speak to her at all.

Why would you not speak to her? - Because I don’t like her. She is mischief making and always has been.

Did you never ask her if she knew anything about Rose Woodbridge, or whether anybody had made mischief about Rose Woodbridge? - No.

You said you hated and detested Florence Thompson. Is that right? - Yes.

Were you with her one afternoon in the Guildhall? - She came in there.

Were you afterwards with her in Jordan’s? - Yes.

Did you talk to her? - Yes. She asked me if I would treat her to a dinner in the South Foreland.

Did Mrs. Thompson say to you “It is a shame Phyllis has been murdered”? - She did not say anything like that.

Did you say “If you don’t keep your mouth shut about Phyllis I will put you on the spot? - No.

It is sheer invention? - Yes.

Did you say “How would you like a scarf round your neck?” - Pure invention.

Weatherhead is a friend of yours? - No friend of mine.

Is that an invention of his? - Absolutely

You never said you would serve anyone like you served the blondie? - No. There were other people in the bar.

Mr. Oliver then questioned Whiting about the long statement he had made.

Mr. Oliver; Do you say that the police wrote down things you did not say?

Whiting: Yes.

They invented things, and then you say they wrote them down, and you never said them at all? - Yes.

You gave them, no doubt, in answer to questions getting a detailed account of your movements with Phyllis on 23rd May? - Yes.

Is that part of the statement right? Did you tell them those things? - Yes.

They have written down a lot of things you have said about Mrs. Woodbridge. Did you say anything about Mrs. Woodbridge? - They put it to me that I had been living with Mrs. Woodbridge and I told them I had been living with her. They said “When you were there did a young girl named Phyllis Minter come there?” and I said “Yes”. They said “You say Phyllis was the cause of Mrs. Woodbridge leaving you?” They kept on putting that to me and I suppose I must have said “Yes”. Continuing, Whiting said he did not hear that she had been in hospital.

Can you think why the police should talk about her being in hospital? Are you sure you did not say that? - I am sure I did not.

Continuing, Whiting said he did say that he would be annoyed with anyone who led Rose astray. The police kept putting it to him and he said “Yes”. He did not say he thought Phyllis was the cause of the trouble between Rose and him.

Mr. Oliver: What the police have done, according to you, is to write down a lot you did say and put in little bits they invented themselves? - Yes.

If you wanted to get Phyllis to that thicket for immoral purposes you may have talked about marrying her and living with her? - It never entered my mind.

After saying you would marry her on the afternoon of Monday. May 23rd, and knowing where you thought she lived, 89, Ashley Avenue, did you make any attempt to see her again after that Monday? - No.

You were lonely and wanted to marry; you had arranged to marry this woman. She had told you her address where you thought she lived. How came it you never tried to find her until her body was discovered? - She said she would see me next day in the Library. She never turned up and I forgot all about her.

Did you say to the police “I am always worried since Mrs. Woodbridge left me”? - Yes.

Whiting said the statement was not read over to him and the statement “This statement has been read over to me and is true”, was put in after his signature was put on it. With regard to the second statement dealing with the question of suicide, Whiting said he did not see Phyllis wearing the green scarf on the Monday evening.

Mr. Oliver: Every word in that is a lie invented by the police?

Whiting: They kept saying it themselves.

Mr. Oliver asked Whiting to look at the scarf and said “Was that how it was when the police showed it to you?”

Whiting: Yes.

Mr. Oliver then reminded Whiting what he had said the previous day about Chief Inspector Parker tying the scarf twice round his neck, knotting it and saying “Look Bill, easy”. “You show the jury what Chief Inspector Parker did with that scarf”, added Mr. Oliver.

Whiting took the scarf, wound it twice round his neck and knotted it in the front.

Mr. Hutchinson: In this statement the police nut questions to you?

Whiting: Yes.

You say it is the answers to these questions that they put down in some instances wrong? - Yes.

Mr. Henry Allen, of 4, Margaret Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he made a statement to the police on June 2nd. He had known the murdered woman well by sight for about eight years. He saw her on May 24th at 9.30 p.m. in Margaret Street smoking a cigarette.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw Phyllis practically every day.

Mr. John Brookes, of 4, Margaret Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he made a statement to the police on June 2nd. He knew the murdered woman by sight and saw her on May 24th between 9.30 p.m. and 9.45 p.m. in Margaret Street, when he was with the previous witness.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw the murdered woman practically every weekend in a public-house. He did not see her every day.

Mrs. Ella Hall, of Station Cottages, Folkestone, said the police sent for her and she told them she went to Sainsbury’s on the 24th or 25th of May at about 10 a.m. She got off the bus at West Cliff Gardens and saw the murdered woman talking to two men. She said “Hello” to her.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not see Phyllis very often. She was not sure whether it was the 24th or 25th, but she knew it would not be the Monday.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley: Are you sure it was not the 17th or 18th that you saw Phyllis?

Witness: It was not as far back as that.

Miss Hilda Miller, of 28, Harvey Street Folkestone, a shop assistant at the Folkestone Woolworth’s, said the police sent for her on May 28th. She knew Phyllis by sight and last saw her on May 25th between 11.30 and 12 noon in the store. She was with another woman, who bought a roll of greaseproof paper. Phyllis was wearing a navy blue coat and a green scarf similar to the one produced. She had seen the murdered woman the day before and she was wearing the same coat. She was able to fix the dates because it was the same week the woman was murdered.

Cross-examined, witness said she did not remember the murdered woman coming with Mrs. Wright to the shop on Monday. She first knew that the murdered woman had a green scarf tied round her neck when she heard the other girls talking about it. Witness said she was serving on a counter where paper was sold.

Mr. Hutchinson: Did you notice anything about Phyllis? What drew your attention to her?

Witness: I looked at her hair.

What did you notice about her hair? - It had been dyed.

Mrs. Wright, re-called, said she recognised Miss Miller as the young lady from whom she made her purchase on the Monday at Woolworth’s.

Mr. Edward Marwood, a newsvendor, of 29. Tontine Street, Folkestone, said he was sent for by the police on May 29th. During the week previous, on the Wednesday morning, at about 9.50, he saw the murdered woman near Milky Way. She had a book in her hand. He was able to fix the time because he was going to the Labour Exchange to sign on. He had seen the girl on Monday at about 10.50 a.m. or 11 a.m. outside Wood’s, in Tontine Street. She was then talking to a big, stout lady. He had also seen her on the Sunday morning, when she asked him where the East Kent booking office was. She had a case in her hand and said she was going to Margate.

Cross-examined, witness said he saw Phyllis a good many times during a week.

Mr. Hutchinson: Are you certain after you had seen her on Sunday that you saw her on two days after?

Witness: On Monday and Wednesday.

Mr. John Henry Turner, of 8, Mill Bay, Folkestone, a newsvendor, said on May 29th he gave a statement to the police. He knew Phyllis Minter by sight and saw her on Wednesday, May 25th. He was locking the “Star” office up at about 7.45 a.m., when Phyllis said “Good morning” to him. He walked with her as far as the Shakespeare public house. He saw her again at 8.20 a.m. and she said she was waiting for her pal.

Miss Lucille Godden, of 43, Bridge Street, Folkestone, a waitress, said she was sent for by the police. She had known the murdered woman all her life. On May 22nd she saw Phyllis in the Alexandra Hotel. Phyllis said she had had a phone call from somebody and did not know who it was. She next saw Phyllis again on the Wednesday evening in Dover Road, between 10.30 and 11 at night. She saw Phyllis coming up the road on the pillion seat of a motor cycle. She was wearing a navy blue coat and green scarf, but no hat. A medium aged man was driving the motor cycle. He was wearing a light raincoat, but no hat. She was able to fix the date because on the Monday and Tuesday she went to a dance arid did not leave until 12 o’clock.

Mr. Oliver: I am going to suggest you are quite mistaken that you saw Phyllis between 10.30 p.m. and 11 p.m. on Wednesday.

Mr. Oliver: You are able to say she was dressed in a blue coat?

Witness: Yes.

And a green scarf? - Yes.

When did you first remember seeing her wearing a green scarf? - Different times I saw she was wearing a green scarf.

How long before this Wednesday had you seen her with a green scarf? - On Sunday.

Did you ever see her before with that green scarf? - I cannot remember what day.

A week before? - About that.

Did the police ask you how this woman was dressed? - Yes.

Why did you not tell them amongst other things she had a green scarf? - I thought I told them she had a green scarf on.

Has not your imagination been getting to work? - No.

In reply to a question by Mr. Justice Wrottesley, witness said she thought the scarf Phyllis was wearing was darker than the one produced.

Miss Lilian Beasley, of 37, Marshall Street, Folkestone, said she was with Miss Godden on the Wednesday when they saw Phyllis on the back of a motor cycle in Dover Road. She only saw the back of the murdered girl, but knew her because of her coat and hair.

Cross-examined, witness said she would not have seen Phyllis unless Miss Godden had said “There is Phyllis Minter”.

Mr. Charles Butler, of 23, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, a fisherman, said he had known the girl known as Phyllis Minter since she was three or four years of age. On May 27th he saw a newspaper photograph of the murdered girl. He had seen her on Wednesday, May 25th at the Dover bus stop at the top of Tontine Street. Witness said it was the 24th or the 25th when he saw the girl. She was talking to a man about six feet tall, who looked like a soldier. They appeared to be quarrelling and Phyllis looked to be on the point of crying.

Cross-examined, witness said he came ashore at about 10.05 p.m. and saw Phyllis at 10.35 p.m.

Mr. Oliver: You had just come from the sea every evening that week, including Monday?

Witness: Yes.

After the luncheon adjournment, Mr. Justice Wrottesley said that he had received a note from the jury. “If I thought it possible to do whatt is asked in accordance with the administration of justice in this country”, he said, “I would do so, but it is quite impossible. I can only say ‘No'”.

The contents of the note were not made public.

Mr. Richard Brazier, of 23, St. John’s Street, Folkestone, a platelayer, said he lodged with Butler. He had known Phyllis Minter by sight for six months at the most. Looking at the photograph (produced) witness said he could not say he knew either of the girls depicted, but he knew Rose Woodbridge. On the Tuesday he met Mr. Butler at the bottom of Tontine Street. They passed the Congregational Church and he saw a woman and man standing on the kerb having a row. The man was tall and wore a light raincoat.

Mr. Hutchinson: You would not give the defence a statement?

Witness: I have been away working for the last 16 weeks.

Did you tell everything you could remember to the police – Yes.

Did you tell them more than you could remember? - No.

Mr. Hutchinson asked leave to treat Brazier as a hostile witness and asked Mr. Justice Wrottesley to read the statement given by the witness to the police.

Mr. Justice Wrottesley said he could see no signs of hostility.

In reply to his lordship, witness said he did not recognise the man or woman ho saw at the bus stop.

Mr. Hutchinson: How do you know they were having a row?

Witness: They were arguing.

Cross-examined, witness said the incident happened on the Tuesday. He never went out on the Wednesday. He had only seen Phyllis once before.

Mr. Oliver: Is your memory a rather weak one?

Witness: No.

Mr. George Neville, of Dudley Road, Folkestone, said he had known the murdered girl for seven or eight years. He heard about her death on May 26th. He last saw her on May 25th at the bottom of Tontine Street at about 11.15 a.m. She was with two other women, and was wearing a blue coat with white spots on it and had no stockings on. He had no doubt at all that the girl was Phyllis.

Cross-examined, witness said the blue coat produced was not the coat he saw Phyllis wearing.

Mr. William Alfred Richards, of 60, Dover Street, Folkestone, a mechanic, said he had known the murdered woman ever since she was quite a small girl. On May 22nd he bought a rowing boat at Dover and on the Tuesday he rowed it from Dover to Folkestone. He reached Folkestone at 5.30 p.m. and he worked on it until about 9 p.m. The next day, Wednesday, he went to his father’s house in Foord Road, and on the way passed Phyllis by Messrs. Rye's stores at about 10.15 a.m. He had no doubt at all that the girl was Phyllis Minter.

Mr. William Knott, of 13, New Street, Folkestone, a labourer, said he knew Whiting and Weatherhead. On the Friday night, when there was a row in the Guildhall, he was in the public bar. The landlord told Whiting that if he did not keep quiet he would put him out. He heard no threats.

Cross-examined, witness said there was not a great deal of noise, although it was a bit “jangley”.

Miss Iris Horton, of 114, Buckland Avenue, Dover, employed by Messrs. Woolworth’s, at Dover, said she had been in charge of the leather counter since before September, 1937. They sold many purses like the green purse produced.

Cross-examined, witness said that it was very rare they sold such a purse to a man.

Closing the case for the defence, Mr. Hutchinson, addressing the jury, said it was a very terrible murder. A young girl on the threshold of life had been done to death very brutally. “My submission is going to be”, he continued, “that throughout this case there is not enough evidence here for you to say that the prosecution have done what they are bound to do. That is to prove to you beyond all reasonable doubt the guilt of the prisoner”. There was one point for them, he said, in that case. Had it been proved to them beyond all reasonable doubt that the girl was killed on May 23rd? If they thought the evidence was so overwhelming as to be safe to act upon, that the woman was killed on May 23rd, they would get a very long way towards proving the guilt of the prisoner. Twelve reputable people had all given evidence that they had seen the woman alive after May 23rd. If they found that those twelve people must have been mistaken, they need not attend to any other part of the case at all. Continuing, he said the prisoner denied it-was his scarf, but he was lying. There was no doubt about that. Were they surprised that he told lies about it? It was wrong for him to tell lies. It would be dangerous if people were convicted merely because they told untruths to themselves out of trouble. Dealing with the statement about suicide, Mr. Hutchinson said it was one of the most extraordinary parts of the case. They knew the prisoner made a statement to the Chief Constable, but he never made any suggestion that the murdered woman was depressed or likely to commit suicide. He then made a statement of four hours, and he never breathed that she was going to commit suicide; in fact, he said he was going to marry her. Did it not seem extraordinary that he next suddenly evolved that theory? Were not four hours taken up by this wretched man being cross-examined by a clever police officer? “Really, I do protest as strongly as I can against that form of statement”, he added. Continuing, Mr. Hutchinson said why not let the man write it himself; there was plenty of time? They kept him in the Police Station for four or five hours without food before they asked him a single question. Next day the man’s clothes were taken from him, and he was given others. The next night he was sent for again, and at 11.15 he was cross-examined again. Why on earth did that man, out of the blue, suddenly make that suggestion of suicide?

Mr. Oliver, addressing the jury, said it was the prosecution’s case that the woman was murdered on Monday, May 23rd. Since then no one could be found at whose house she had slept or in whose presence she had eaten. One suggestion came from a witness that she might have slept out. Did the jury think it at all likely that she would leave her belongings at the bus office unclaimed? When the body was found on May 26th at six o’clock it was smelling of decomposition. Did they require scientists to tell them that the girl was not living at ten o’clock the previous evening as some of those reliable witnesses say? Were they impressed by Sir Bernard Spilsbury when he said could not be alive on Wednesday? It was possible that she was alive on Tuesday, but riot probable. That she died on May 23rd was consistent with her disappearing from any house where she lived.

Folkestone Express 24 September 1938.

Local News.

The Folkestone murder trial at the Old Bailey, occupying four days last week, ended on Friday with the jury returning a verdict of “Not Guilty’’ against William Whiting (38), the Folkestone labourer, who was charged with the murder of Mrs. Phyllis May Spiers, (22), a Folkestone woman. Mrs. Spiers was found strangled at the foot of Caesar’s Camp on May 26th, and the prosecution alleged that the crime had been committed on May 23rd.

All the evidence and the closing Speeches of counsel had been given by the time the Court rose on Thursday evening, and this only left the summing up of Mr. Justice Wrottesley, who had heard the case, and the consideration by the jury of their verdict on Friday. The summing up occupied nearly two hours, and the jury were absent for about two hours and twenty minutes in arriving at their decision. When the foreman announced that their verdict was “Not Guilty”, there was applause in the Court, but it was immediately subdued, and after Whiting had been discharged and left the dock, some of the women witnesses kissed him, while some of the men congratulated him and shook him by the hand.

Mr. Roland Oliver, K.C., and Mr. B.H Waddy appeared on behalf of the Crown to prosecute, and Mr. St. J. Hutchison, K.C., and Mr. J. Stuart Daniel (instructed by Mr. Lloyd Bunce, of Folkestone) were tor the defence.

The Judge, in the course of his summing up, said certain facts had not been disputed, and these formed an admitted background over which the jury need not concern themselves. Phyllis Spiers was undoubtedly first battered, possibly into insensibility, and then strangled. It was clear that this happened near the place where the body was found. It was also clear that she was dragged to a comparatively open glade through the gap in the hedge into some bushes. She met her death sometime between the early afternoon of May 23rd and May 26th, when her body was found. How long before May 26th was in dispute. It was clear that she was alive in the company of the accused man on May 23rd, and that they were going in the direction of the place of the murder. How came those two together? Was there anything in the relationship of the dead woman and the accused which might explain the murder? They knew he had lived with Rose Woodbridge until November, 1937, that he was very much attached to her and that when she left him it was to his great sorrow. If the jury accepted his signed statements - and these were challenged by the defence - he said he disapproved of Rose meeting Phyllis at one time, and that Phyllis was the cause of trouble between him and Rose. Accused now denied that, arid he said in the witness box that that statement was put in his mouth by the police. They had heard the evidence of Sir Bernard Spilsbury, probably the most experienced man in these matters in the country, and he was of opinion that she had been dead approximately for three days when she was found. It was fair to sum up his opinion, said the Judge, by saying that Sir Bernard thought three days the most probable date; four days the next probable, and then two days in order of probability, and he thought they could rule out the probability of one day. If the case rested merely on suspicion that Whiting had the opportunity of murdering the girl, it would be far from enough, but it led them to look into the matter further, and the other evidence. If Whiting murdered the girl on the afternoon of May 23rd, the jury might well ask themselves whether anything of his was found near the body. First and foremost there was the green scarf found tied tightly round her neck. Where did it come from? At one stage of the trial it seemed to be suggested it was not Whiting’s property at all. He told the police he had never seen it before. Two or three days ago he decided to abandon that denial, and admit that the scarf was his. He now said that he had given it to the girl an May 20th. A purse was found in WliitingTs pocket and this, the Judge said, resembled one which Mrs. Spiers had had. Mr. Justice Wrottesley then proceeded to refer to the difficulty which the murderer would have in dragging the body through the gap, and said in the urgency of the moment he would probably not notice some barbed wire. He might well tear his coat in doing so, and Whiting’s coat was torn. Whiting said he had done it while mushrooming. By itself the tear in his coat was not of much, value. But it was a remarkable coincidence, and things were accumulating. There was the green scarf, the purse and a tear-mark, which would correspond with the crime as it was reconstructed. Another coincidence was the finding of a human hair resembling that of Whiting's on a post in the gap. Science had not yet reached the pitch when it could be said with certainty that a hair found “is my hair”. The most that could be said was that “It is similar to my hair or your hair”. The Judge then commented upon the evidence given by Mrs. Thompson, Weatherhead and Mrs. Flynn. With regard to that of Weatherhead, he suggested that the jury would not attach too much importance to it when he said that Whiting had said to him “I will serve you the same as the blondie was served”, although it had been said that truth sometimes did come out when a man was in his cups. Regarding the questions of the defending counsel concerning “Third degree”, Mr, Justice Wrottesley said “'Third degree ‘ is rather a dangerous word to use. We have probably read something about prisoners being locked up, hurt and damaged, and woke up in the middle of the night. That is not the kind of thing suggested here. What is said is that the first statement took a very long time, from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. That is recorded on the statement. A statement may take a long time when you have not a clever man to deal with, but because it takes a long time it does not follow that it is untruthful”. The judge, continuing, said what was most strongly relied on hy the defence was the evidence of the witnesses who said they had seen Mrs. Spiers after the time the Crown said she was killed. After being in Whiting’s company on May 23rd she disappeared. No one could say where she slept or bought any food afterwards. The jury must remember that she had no settled home. She was a bird of passage, here today and gone tomorrow. They must also remember that these witnesses were found by the police themselves and honestly believed what they saw. The Crown said it was the case of people making a mistake, as people did when asked to recall when they last saw a person they did not know very well. But if the jury thought only one of these witnesses was not making a mistake, and that the girl was seen alive after May 23rd, they had no choice but to find Whiting not guilty. He had prepared a time-table showing the days and times when those witnesses said they saw the girl. In some cases their evidence might be open to criticism on the ground that they had made a mistake in identity; in other cases that they had got the wrong date.

The jury would not attach too much importance, he was sure, to the accused’s alleged statements, but they would give their attention to more serious and weighty questions. At the same time they had got to remember that if in any way they fell short of satisfying themselves beyond reasonable doubt that this man committed the murder on Monday they had to find him not guilty at that stage. If they did not accept the story that he gave this young woman that scarf there was serious material there which might lead them to bring in a verdict of guilty, putting aside, for the moment, the other evidence. Concerning the bulk of the evidence of the people who said they saw Phyllis Minter on the Tuesday and Wednesday, the evidence that the young woman was seen on Tuesday would probably occur to the jury as being more likely than the evidence of the two young women who said they saw her as late as 10.30 p.m. on Wednesday.

If the jury accepted the evidence of even one of those persons who said they saw her on Tuesday or Wednesday there would he a doubt which should lead them to find the man not guilty, because it was tantamount to destroying the whole fabric of the case. It was not necessary for the defence to establish to their satisfaction that the accused did not do it.

The jury returned the verdict of “Not guilty ’’ as stated earlier.