Folkestone Express 24 December 1881.

Wednesday, December 21st: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Captain Carter, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

The license of the Bouverie Hotel was transferred from Mr. Hammond to Mr. Bryan.

Folkestone Express 3 January 1885.

Saturday, December 28th: Before General Armstrong C.B., Aldermen Banks and Hoad, and F. Boykett Esq.

Anderson Leman, Sidney Wilson, and William Henry Wilson were summoned for being drunk on licenced premises, the Bouverie Hotel, on the 23rd December. The last named defendant did not appear.

Alfred Adams, manager at the house, said the defendants went to the house about two minutes to eleven on the night of the 23rd. At eleven o'clock he told the waiter to clear the house. After a short time he returned and said the defendants refused to go. He went himself and requested them to go, and as they refused he sent for the police. It was twenty five minutes past eleven when they left.

Corroborative evidence was given by the waiter, and by Sergt. Ovenden and a police constable.

The defendants were each fined 10s. and 11s. costs and a warrant was granted for the apprehension of the one who did not answer to the summons.

Folkestone Express 24 January 1885.

Notice.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1883.

In Bankruptcy.

Notice is hereby given that on a petition dated the 23rd day of December, 1884, a receiving order against ELIJAH REDGRAVE the Younger, of the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, Kent, Licensed Victualler, was made by the County Court of Kent, holden at Canterbury, on the 16th day of January, 1885.

The first meeting of creditors will be held at 73, Sandgate Road, Folkestone, on the 29th January, 1885, at 3 o'clock.

Proofs of debt to be used at such meeting must be lodged with me on or before the 27th day of January, 1885. Proxies must be lodged by the 28th day of January, 1885.

The public examination of the debtor is to be held on the 30th day of January, 1885, at 11 o'clock in the forenoon at the Guildhall, Canterbury.

LESLIE CREERY,

Official Receiver.

Folkestone Express 7 February 1885.

District Court of Bankruptcy.

A sitting of this Court was held on Friday at the Guildhall, Canterbury, the Registrar (Walter Furley Esq.) presiding.

Elijah Redgrave, formerly of the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, did not appear.

The Official Receiver stated that the debtor appeared to have absconded. There was no evidence of that on the file, but he had not been seen since the petition was filed. No statement of affairs had been filed, but the bankrupt appeared to owe about £300.

The examination was adjourned sine die. (Without a day.)

Folkestone Express 21 February 1885.

Notice.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1883.

At the County Court of Kent, at Canterbury.

In Bankruptcy No. 35 of 1884.

Re. ELIJAH REDGRAVE the Younger, of the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, Kent, Licensed Victualler.

I, John Banks, of 73, Sandgate Road, Folkestone, Auctioneer, hereby give notice that I have been duly appointed and certified by the Board of Trade as Trustee of the Estate of the above-named bankrupt.

All persons having in their possession any of the effects of the Bankrupt must deliver them up to me, and all debts due to the Bankrupt must be paid to me.

Creditors who have not yet proved their debts must forward their Proofs of Debt to me.

JOHN BANKS.

Dated 17th February, 1885.

Folkestone Express 7 March 1885.

Local News.

A sitting of the District Court of Bankruptcy was held at the Guildhall, Canterbury, on Friday, the Registrar (Mr. Walter Furley) presiding.

The public examination of Elijah Redgrave jun., of the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, was proceeded with. The Official Receiver said the bankrupt did not attend the first meeting of creditors, he having absconded. He was then adjudicated a bankrupt. He again failed to appear at the examination fixed for last week.

Replying to interrogatories, the bankrupt said he came to Folkestone in the latter end of 1883. Prior to that he was engaged in business at Kingston-on-Thames as a fruiterer and greengrocer. He did not appear at the public examination arranged for last week. He arrived at Canterbury too late.

The Official Receiver said the statement of affairs showed unsecured creditors, £1,427 4s. 6d. The assets were – Stock-in-trade at the Bouverie Hotel, estimated to produce £300, book debts £14 4s. 1d., cash at bankers £25 3s. 4d., household furniture &c., estimated to produce £800, making in all £1,139 7s. 4d. Preferential claims amounted to £117 5s. 9d., leaving net assets £1,022 1s. 8d. to pay £1,427 4s. 6d.

The debtor, further examined, said that when he commenced business at the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, he had £700 or £800 of his wife's money. The valuation (£808) was paid out of that, and he gave his wife a note of hand as security. After everything was paid he had about £80 to go on with. He mow owed his wife £889 13s. He was married to her about ten years ago. The money was left to her under her father's will, her mother having a life interest.

The Official Receiver: Can you tell me why you absconded?

The Bankrupt: I was in trouble and difficulties. One of my creditors had issued a writ against me.

The Official Receiver: Where did you go to?

The Bankrupt: I first went to Newmarket.

The Official Receiver: Were you betting there?

The bankrupt replied that he did a little there. He afterwards went to Paris and did some more betting. He lost £300 from just before the time he left Kingston-on-Thames and while at the Bouverie Hotel in betting transactions. He might go to five or six race meetings in a year. He went to Newmarket on the 16th December. He took about £80 with him. He was away five or six weeks and lost £50 or £60 in betting. His bets never exceeded £10.

By the Registrar: During the year 1884 he lost about £200 in betting. It was in Nov., 1884, that he repaid Mr. Horne £40 which he had borrowed for betting purposes. He knew that he could not pay 20s. in the £ when he went away. He drew £70 or £80 out of the bank at that time, and went off with it.

The Registrar: You went away to Paris and enjoyed yourself and spent the money belonging to your creditors.

The Official Receiver: You have been on the drink, I suppose?

The Bankrupt: Yes, I was then, but I have not been since. I have not had the means.

The Registrar: I am not quite satisfied with the case. It may be necessary to keep the thing open for a time, and I shall adjourn the case for a month.

Folkestone Express 4 April 1885.

Local News.

On Friday a sitting of the Canterbury Bankruptcy Court was held at the Guildhall before Mr. Registrar Furley.

Re. Elijah Redgrave Jun.

The bankrupt, late of the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, came up for further consideration. He was questioned at some length as to the loss of £300 in betting transactions, and was ultimately allowed to pass.

Folkestone Express 11 April 1885.

Auction Advertisement.

By Messrs. Banks and Son.

Re. Elijah Redgrave the Younger, a Bankrupt.

The Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, Kent.

Auction Sale of very superior household furniture, capital bedding, two first class cottage pianofortes, carpets, oil paintings, engravings, china, glass, earthenware, first class fixtures, excellent billiard table, utensils, and STOCK IN TRADE OF WINES AND SPIRITS, linen, plated articles, and culinary effects.

Banks and Son will sell by auction on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, April 21st, 22nd and 23rd, 1885 on the above premises, The Bouverie Hotel.

All the furniture and fixtures contained in 15 bedrooms, 3 sitting rooms, bar, billiard room, coffee room, bar parlour and kitchens.

All the capital plated goods, all the linen, all the valuable paintings and engravings, two first class pianofortes, also all the stock in trade:

108 doz. Champagne, port, sherry, claret and other wines, Brandy, Irish and Scotch Whiskeys, and a quantity of liqueurs.

The whole will be described in printed catalogues, and may be had at 1s. each, three days before the days of sale at the Offices of the Auctioneers, 73, Sandgate Road, Folkestone.

On view Monday, the day before the sale, from 10 to 4 o'clock.

Sale to commence each day at 11 o'clock.

N.B. The Wines and Spirits will be sold on Thursday, the 23rd April, the last day of the sale.

Folkestone Express 25 April 1885.

County Court.

Tuesday, April 21st: Before W.L. Selfe Esq.

Re. Elijah Redgrave.

In reply to His Honour as to what had been done in this bankruptcy case, Mr. Minter said unfortunately they could get no-one to take the place, and in consequence, instead of there being enough to pay everybody 20s. in the £, and leave a margin for the wife, there would not be enough to pay the creditors 10s. in the £. They were coming before His Honour with a claim by the wife to sell some of the goods as her private property – picture, furniture &c.

Folkestone Express 5 September 1885.

Saturday, August 29th: Before The Mayor, Capt. Carter, Alderman Caister, J. Fitness, J. Clark and J. Holden Esqs.

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was temporarily transferred to Lucy Aitken.

Folkestone Express 17 October 1885.

Notice.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1883.

IN THE COUNTY COURT OF KENT, HOLDEN AT CANTERBURY.

IN BANKRUPTCY, NO. 35 OF 1884.

RE. ELIJAH REDGRAVE, THE YOUNGER.

A Dividend is intended to be declared in the matter of the estate of Elijah Redgrave, the Younger, late of the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, Kent, Licenced Victualler, a Bankrupt.

All persons who have not proved their debts by the 26th October, 1885, will be excluded.

John Banks, Trustee,
73, Sandgate Road, Folkestone.

Dated this 12th day of October, 1885.

Folkestone Express 4 January 1890.

Saturday, December 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Dunk, and Pledge, J. Fitness and J. Clarke Esqs.

Wm. Henry Mealing was charged with stealing 2s., the property of his master, Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr, of the Bouverie Hotel. Mr. Watts appeared for the prosecutor, and the boy was defended by Mr. Minter.

After the charge had been read, Mr. Minter said: I don't know whether this would be a convenient time to make an application for the case to be adjourned on the ground that the boy has already commenced an action against his master, which will be heard in the County Court next month, and this summons would not have been issued if the action had not been commenced to recover wages and damages for an assault committed by his master upon the defendant in a dispute which arose on the charge. I suggest, of course, that these proceedings are taken with a view to quash the action which is pending. Of course the boy's mouth is closed in a criminal action, but in the County Court he can give his evidence, and it is very unfair that criminal proceedings should be taken after the institution of civil proceedings by the boy, which will be heard on the 14th of January. It would be monstrously unfair that these proceedings should go on, and it is only right that I should ask that they should be adjourned until after the hearing.

The Mayor asked what relation the matter of the sovereign bore to that case.

Mr. Minter: The charge of stealing a sovereign is another charge. I have not the slightest objection to the evidence being taken now on the part of the prosecution. But if I stood by and did not make the application, you might say “You ought to have made it before”. If the Bench say they would rather hear the case, and then consider my application, I have not the slightest objection.

Mr. Watts: I would submit to the Bench –

Mr. Minter: You will see that the summons was not taken out until eleven days after the offence is said to have been committed, and not until after the County Court summons was issued.

Mr. Watts: It was issued as soon as it was discovered that the money had not been paid. The prosecutor did not discover it until the bill came in for the meat. Then he knew the money had not been paid.

The Mayor said the Bench decided to hear the case.

Prosecutor said: I am the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel. The defendant was in my employ. On Tuesday, the twelfth of the present month, between twelve and one, I sent the boy out to make some purchases. He was to buy a beefsteak, and I gave him a 2s. piece to pay for it. I sent him for some vegetables as well. I told him to go for the steak to Mr. Hann's, and to Mrs. Stapley's for the vegetables. I saw him after he came back, and he told me the steak was a shilling. I did not ask him anything about the change.

Mr. Minter (to Mr. Watts): Don't you think it would be as well to ask him what he did say instead of telling him what he did not say?

Prosecutor continued: On Thursday the boy left my house without my permission. I had sent for the police, and I suppose he took the opportunity of running away. Afterwards I received a bill for the shilling for the steak.

Mr. Bradley told the prosecutor he must produce the bill.

Prosecutor: I have the bill at home. But I have a witness to prove that he did not pay. I have since paid it. I have been charged 5d. by Mrs. Stapley for the greengrocery, and I have paid that. The greengrocery was supplied on the same day as the steak.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: What day did you pay for the steak? – Just a week after, I think.

Don't think, please. Tell us. – I did not take any note of it when I went to pay for the steak.

Who was the steak required for? – For a gentleman.

How did you know the steak was required for a gentleman? – A getleman ordered it, and I naturally sent for it.

Did he order it of you? – He did not.

Who came and told you? Wasn't it the boy himself? – Yes.

Where were you? – In the billiard room.

Who were you playing with? – I can't recollect.

Whoever it was, when you took the 2s. piece out of your pocket and gave it to the boy he would have seen it? – No, he would not have seen it. I did not give the 2s. piece in the billiard room. I gave it to him in the bar.

Now, be careful, sir – I am careful. I have a clear conscience.

Never mind your conscience. We shall see about that presently. Didn't the boy come in to the billiard room and say “A gentleman wants a steak, sir. What am I to do?”? – Yes.

Didn't you say “Then get it”? – Fetch it, I said.

Didn't the boy immediately leave the room, and didn't you continue the game of billiards? – No, I left the room immediately after.

Following the boy? – Yes.

Did you see the boy bring the steak back? – No, the steak was bought and the boy told me it was a shilling.

Didn't the boy say “I have got the steak and greens, but they are not paid for”? – No. I gave the boy 2s. I must say –

Don't make any observations, please, but simply answer the question. You say the boy came and told you the steak cost 1s. Why didn't you ask him for the change? – It was neglect on my side, I dare say.

You never did ask him for it, did you? – No.

On the 12th, on Thursday, you say you think you lost a sovereign from the bar? – I am sure.

After enquiry, did you send for the boy, who was in the kitchen having his dinner or something, and ask him where the sovereign was? – The boy was in the billiard room at the time.

Did you send for him and ask him where the sovereign was? – I called him myself.

Did you ask him where the sovereign was? – Yes.

Did he say he knew nothing about the sovereign? – Yes.

Did you tell him if he did not give the sovereign up you would send for the police and a lawyer and give him three months imprisonment and ruin his character? – I did not say three months.

What did you say? Did you say you would send for the police, and didn't you say something about three months imprisonment? – I don't know. I might have said he'd get imprisonment.

Did you take hold of the boy and turn his pockets out, and did you punch his head and make his nose bleed? – No, that came later on.

Did you search him? – No.

Did you make him turn his pockets out? – Yes.

Don't you call that searching him? Didn't you have a barmaid in, and did she search him? – No.

Not in your presence? – No.

Did you strike the boy? – Yes, but not for stealing the sovereign.

When you thought the boy had stolen the sovereign, why didn't you ask him for the change out of the 2s.? – I didn't know it had not been paid.

Did the boy's mother come to you next morning? – Yes.

Did you then have an altercation with her about the sovereign? – I told her of it.

Did the boy deny it in his mother's presence, and in yours, that he had anything to do with the sovereign? – I don't know.

That is you answer, is it? – I don't remember. He denied it over and over again when I accused him.

Did you, in his mother's presence, take hold of the boy and again strike him? – No.

You swear that? – I swear it.

This was on the 12th. You did nothing between then and the next time the mother came to you? – I don't think I ever saw her afterwards.

Didn't she come on the 17th with the boy and bring some clothes? – Yes.

Didn't she on the 17th December bring the washing and ask you to examine it and see that you had got your clothes back properly? – She came by herself.

Was the boy outside? – I don't know.

Hadn't she told you so? – Not to my knowledge.

That is all you will say. Didn't you say “Your beautiful son has robbed me of 2s. as well as the sovereign”, and didn't the barmaid say “It wasn't a 2s. piece, it was a shilling I gave him”? – No, that is a lie, whoever said it.

Did you not hear the barmaid say she gave him a shilling, or that she said it was a shilling? – No.

Did you owe the woman something, and refused to pay her? – Yes, and I was entitled to refuse to pay on account of an overcharge.

I believe she has issued a County Court summons for the money? – Yes.

And the boy has brought an action against you in the County Court for assault and for wages? – I don't know that that has anything to do with it.

Mary Charley, barmaid in the service of the prosecutor, said she remembered her employer giving the defendant a 2s. piece to go and fetch some steak.

During the examination by Mr. Watts, Mr. Minter objected several times to statements being put into her mouth. She knew very little about the charge with regard to the 2s.

Ernest Vincent said on Tuesday, the 10th of December, the defendant went to his master's shop for a piece of fillet steak. The ,eat was 1s. He said it was for Mr. Molckenbuhr, at the Bouverie Hotel. He did not pay for it. Witness could not say who paid for it.

Phoebe Stapley, a greengrocer in Cheriton Road, said the defendant went to her shop to buy some greens some time last month. She could not say the date. He bought a quart of apples and two savoys, and the price was 5d. He said they were for his governor at the “Albion”. He did not pay for them. Mr. Molckenbuhr had paid her. Mr. Molckenbuhr was in the habit of sending for little things.

Mr. Minter again asked the Bench to allow the case to stand over until after the hearing of the County Court action. There was a clear admission the summons was not applied for until after the action was brought, and the prosecutor would not say that that he did not say – that the action would not have been taken if the County Court action had not been brought. It would be monstrously unfair to decide a case of a criminal character when a County Court action was pending. It would be an injustice to him in his action which was to be tried to decide the case when his mouth was closed.

Mr. Bradley said it was generally the other way about – for civil actions to be adjourned when criminal actions were pending. The Magistrates considered there was a prima facie case to answer.

Mr. Minter: Then we shall plead Not Guilty, and certainly not allow it to be tried here.

The defendant was committed for trial at the Quarter Sessions.

The second charge of stealing a sovereign was then proceeded with.

Prosecutor said: On Thursday, the 12th, about eight o'clock in the evening, he was in the smoking room leading out of the bar, He saw a sovereign on the shelf in the bar. He sent the defendant into the bar to wash glasses. He was there ten minutes. Nobody else was in the bar during that time. He saw the boy watching the sovereign, staring at the place where the sovereign was. He could not see into the bar without turning round, and he did turn round. When the boy saw him watching the sovereign he turned away. When the boy had finished the glasses he saw him go. About ten minutes to eight he missed the sovereign. He did not think the barmaid had been in the bar. He called the boy from the billiard room into the office, and said “What have you done with the sovereign? You had better give me the sovereign back, or I shall have you imprisoned”. He told the boy to take everything out of his pockets and undo his boots, and he did so. Witness made a search at once after the sovereign was missed. Only 5s. was found in the boy's pockets. Witness had previously given the boy 5s. to give change. He sent for the police, thinking that the boy would confess that he had taken the sovereign. The boy sat in the office for the policeman to come. Witness waited with him for some time, but he was called away for a moment, and the boy ran away out of the back door.

By Mr. Minter: There was nobody in the bar when I called the boy down. There are four entrances to the bar – two lead to the mews, and the others into the street. The barmaid went into the bar as soon as I called her attention to the missing sovereign. I had not sat in the bar on purpose to watch him. He was staring at the sovereign. I thought it was rather peculiar for him to be watching a sovereign. When he saw me he went on with his work. I should have heard the bar door if anyone had come in. I asked the barmaid what had become of the sovereign. The barmaid would sit in the smoking room if there was no-one in the bar. There was nobody in the bar for ten minutes after the boy had left. The bot went from the bar to the kitchen, and from there to the billiard room. When I called the boy I did everything I could to frighten him. I told him he would lose his character and have some time of imprisonment. He said he did not steal it. I did strike him. That has nothing to do with this case. It was for a different offence – handing the 5s. to me with some words so dirty that I don't like to repeat them. Mr. Watts has them in writing.

By Mr. Bradley: The shelf is above the bar – about four feet from the bar. The boy could see the sovereign quite plain. The shelf is 5 ft. or 6 ft, from the doorway. I always put money there for change.

Mary Charley, barmaid at the Bouverie, said on Thursday fortnight she was sitting in the smoking room about eight o'clock. She had previously placed a sovereign on a little shelf where they kept spirits. Defendant was in the bar washing glasses. She could not see him from where she sat. Mr. Molckenbuhr asked her where the sovereign was gone. She looked for it, but could not find it. She was present when Mr. Molckenbuhr accused defendant with stealing the sovereign after he was called from the bar. While the servant was gone for the police, defendant made off, leaving his hat on the kitchen table.

By Mr. Minter: I had left the bar about ten minutes before the boy was sent for to wash glasses. I could not see if anyone came into the bar, but I could hear. There were two or three in the smoking room with Mr. Molckenbuhr. I was sitting there talking. Mr. Molckenbuhr is not married. The people from the Mews use the bar a great deal, and also all the “hangers on”. I heard Mr. Molckenbuhr try to frighten the boy, and saw him turn his pockets out. Afterwards I talked to the boy and told him he had better give the sovereign up. He declared to me he hadn't got it, and hadn't touched it.

By Mr. Bradley: About 20 minutes or half an hour elapsed from the time I put the sovereign up till I missed it.

In reply to Mr. Minter, prosecutor said the defendant had on some occasions found money on the floor and taken it to him.

The Bench considered the case was not proved, and therefore dismissed it.

Mr. Fitness thought it was very wrong to leave money about in that way.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday. December 30th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Thr Grand Jury returned a true bill against Herbert Henry Mealing, who was committed for trial on Saturday, and the particulars of which are reported under the police court news today.

Mr. Hume Williams said he appeared for the defence, and applied to the Recorder to allow the case to stand over until the next sessions. He was instructed that the charge was a most unfounded one, the boy had hitherto borne an irreproachable character, and as his whole future depended upon the issue, he thought the application was a most reasonable one. The solicitor who instructed him was only consulted on Friday, and there were two witnesses for the defence who could not attend.

The Recorder said he could see no ground upon which he ought to allow the case to be postponed.

Mr. Williams urged that there was another charge of stealing a sovereign and that was dismissed, and he should contend that this case was similar in character. The prosecutor would be cross-examined at very great length.

The Recorder said he saw by the depositions that the cross-examination before the Magistrates extended to two pages. He hoped it would not be extended beyond that. He declined to accede to the application.

Mr. Williams then applied for the case to be taken last, in order that he might peruse the depositions, of which he had not obtained a copy, and this was assented to by the Recorder.

Wilhelm Heinrich Molckenbuhr, the prosecutor, repeated the evidence given by him on Saturday.

In answer to Mr. Williams, the prosecutor said he had had the Bouverie Hotel nearly a year. He admitted that he thrashed the boy ten minutes after he accused him of stealing the sovereign, but not for stealing it.

By the Recorder: I thrashed him for a great insult towards me.

By Mr. Williams: I made him turn out his pockets and take off his shoes. I did not tell the boy to “go to h---“. He did not say “You had better take that long journey first”. I don't like to repeat what he said to me.

The Recorder: We are not squeamish here, Mr. Molckenbuhr.

Prosecutor said the prisoner returned him 5s. he had given him to give change, and repeated an indecent expression used by the boy. He continued: I told the boy I would give him in charge of the police, and that his character would be ruined. I made him take off his boots, but did not find the sovereign. I charged the boy before the Magistrates with stealing the sovereign, and the Magistrates dismissed the summons. After I had searched him, accused him, and thrashed him, he ran away. He was afraid of the police. I had done everything I could to frighten him. Next morning he came back with his mother. The mother complained that I struck him, and I told her if he used the same words again I would strike him again. He was ten minutes before he went away with his mother. He was waiting for his clothes. On the 17th the boy's mother came to me and wanted to be paid for washing for the hotel. I did not see the boy then. I did not propose to deduct the 2s. from the bill. I did not then know that he had had it. I refused to pay the bill unless she deducted the overcharge, about 11d. I said that on Saturday. I said I had another proof of the boy's dishonesty, because I found out that the butcher's bill had not been paid.

Mr. Williams read the prisoner's depositions, in which it appeared the prosecutor said he had another proof of the boy's dishonesty in the 2s. piece.

Prosecutor: I did not tell his mother he had stolen the 2s. piece, because I gave it to him. I told his mother I had another proof of his dishonesty. I knew it at that time, but I did not want to deduct the 2s. from the bill. I have not paid the bill on account of an overcharge of, I think, 11d. Two days after that the lady issued a County Court summons against me for the amount of her bill,, and the boy issued a summons against me for wrongful dismissal, the amount of his wages, and for damages for assault. A day or two after, I issued the summons against the boy, charging him with stealing the 2s. piece and the sovereign. I did not think it would be a good thing, as the County Court case would be heard on the 14th January. I did not know it until I took out the summons. I do not know that he had 5s. in his pocket when he was sent for the steak. Bery likely it was earlier in the morning that he fetched the vegetables. I will not swear that the vegetable had not come in, or that some of the apples were at the time being cooked in the kitchen. I gave him the order for the vegetables before I sent him for the steak, no doubt. It had nothing to do with the steak. I expected him to pay for the vegetables out of the 2s. I can't say whether I told him to pay for the vegetables. When I gave him the 2s. I said “Go to Hann and get a steak for one” I charge him with stealing the 2s., and not paying for the steak and the vegetables.

Mr. William read from the depositions “I told him to go and fetch a steak from Hann's the butcher, and gave him a 2s. piece to pay for it. I sent him for some vegetables as well, which, naturally, he had to pay for as well”.

Prosecutor: I had no intention of inducing the Magistrates to believe I sent him for the meat and the vegetables at the same time, and that he was to pay for them out of the 2s. piece. I was not in the kitchen when the boy came back with the meat. I was there soon after. The boy was there, and said the steak had cost 1s. I did not ask him for the change. I had forgotten it, I suppose. I forgot all about it when I charged the boy with stealing a sovereign and turned out his pockets. The boy gave me the 5s. change willingly. I expected him to pay for the vegetables out of the 2s. I never asked him for any change. I had no written character with the boy when I took him.

Written characters were handed to the prosecutor, who said he never saw them.

In re-examination by Mr. Watts, prosecutor said: I have no doubt that I gave the boy the 2s. piece.

Mary Charley, barmaid in the service of the prosecutor, said the prisoner was given a 2s. piece by Mr. Molckenbuhr, to buy some meat for a gentleman. She was not present when he came back. She remembered on Thursday, the 12th, there was some trouble about a sovereign, and the boy ran away.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hume Williams, she said: The boy was searched before he ran away. I did not search him. I had put a sovereign on the shelf, and it disappeared. I was there when the 2s. piece was given to the boy. I have been in the employ of Mr. Molckenbuhr five weeks. I never heard my master ask for the change out of the 2s. The boy gave the steak to the servant in the kitchen, and said it cost a shilling. Between nine and ten in the morning I sent the boy to his master about some apples and vegetables. He did not say he did not like to go because the master would swear at him. He said he didn't like to go when the master was playing billiards. Nothing was said to me about swearing. The boy usually had 5s. given him for change in the billiard room. I saw the boy outside on the 17th, when he came with his mother. I had a conversation with him. I had given him a shilling to pay for some boots being mended. The boots were 10d., and I gave the boy a penny for fetching them.

Ernest Vincent, a butcher in the service of Mr. Hann, who served the steak, in answer to Mr. Williams, said sometimes things for the Bouverie Hotel were paid for and sometimes not.

Mary Stapley repeated the evidence given by her on Saturday. In reply to Mr. Williams, she said it was such a small matter that she did not put it down in the books. She was in the habit of supplying small things to the Bouverie Hotel. She did not send in a bill at once. Mr. Molckenbuhr went into the shop and she told him 5d. was owing.

Emma Flack, the boy's mother, living at Primrose Laundry, said he was her son by her first husband. The boy had been in the employ of Capt, Vesey for six months, and in Mr. Franklin's employ six months. She had endeavoured to get his employers to attend and tell the court what was the boy's character. When the boy went home on the 12th his mouth was bleeding, his face swollen, and his pockets turned inside out. Next morning she went to see Mr. Molckenbuhr, and asked why he had struck her boy. He said he would do it again. She said “Don't hit him – hit me”. He threw his hand over her shoulder and struck the boy and made his nose bleed. On the 17th she went to see the prosecutor with her bill for washing. She asked him to count the things, as he had made so many mistakes before. He took a bill out of his pocket and he said “Your beautiful son has robbed me of 2s”. She said “Oh, indeed. I fear nothing”. He said “I shall stop it out of your washing bill”. She said “Oh, dear, no” and walked away, and had since issued a County Court summons for the washing bill.

Mary Charley was re-called and said when the boy ran away she did not see that his face was bleeding.

Mr. Hume Williams then addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner, Mr. Watts replied briefly, and the Recorder, having lucidly laid the case in all it's bearings before the jury, the jury consulted for a few minutes and returned a verdict of Not Guilty, which was received with applause, immediately suppressed.

Folkestone Express 18 January 1890.

County Court.

Tuesday, January 14th: Before Judge Selfe.

Herbert Henry Mealing v W.H. Molckenbuhr: This was a claim for five weeks' wages at 3s. 6d. and £10 for damages for an assault.

Mr. Minter represented the plaintiff, and Mr. Watts the defendant. The facts in the case were brought out in evidence when the plaintiff was charged by defendant with stealing a 2s. piece and a sovereign. The Magistrates dismissed the latter charge, and in the former the jury at the Quarter Sessions dismissed the boy.

Mr. Minter said the defendant, having thrashed the boy, and done all he could to make him confess he had stolen the sovereign, sent for a policeman, and the boy ran home to his mother. The defendant had admitted on oath that he did thrash the boy, but said he did it because he used a disgusting expression. This the boy would deny. Defendant had paid 12s. 6d. into court, being three weeks and four days' wages, leaving a balance of 5s.

Plaintiff said he was 17. His mother's name was Flack. He was in the employ of defendant at 3s. 6d. a week. On the 11th December defendant called him into the office, after charging him with stealing a sovereign in the bar. He searched him, made him take off his boots, turned his pockets inside out, and said he should fetch a policeman and a lawyer and give him three months, and ruin his character for life. He denied all knowledge of the sovereign. He had 5s. in his pocket belonging to his master, and he said “Here, take this. Perhaps you'll say I stole that”. His master struck him on his nose and mouth with his fist, and banged his head against the linen cupboard. His mouth and nose bled. His master was called out, and being frightened, he ran home to his mother, who saw the state he was in. Next morning he saw Mrs. Wilson, who saw the condition he was in. He went with his mother on the 12th to defendant's house, the Bouverie Hotel, and went into the kitchen with her. Defendant said “If he uses such language again, I will strike him again”, and he did so, striking over his mother's shoulder. Defendant told him to go to ---- and he replied that he had better go that long journey first. From there they went to Mr. Minter's office. On the 17th December he went with his mother when she went to the Bouverie Hotel to take his clothes home. Afterwards summonses were taken out in the County Court.

In cross-examination by Mr. Watts, plaintiff said: Defendant did not give me notice to leave before the assault. I left of my own accord after he had thrashed me. I took off my boots and turned my pockets inside out by defendant's orders. I did not make use of a filthy or rude expression when I turned out the 5s. Defendant had not complained of my being impertinent or lazy. I saw Miss Charley, the barmaid, and the cook before I left that night. I ran all the way home to Cheriton. My nose was bleeding when I got home. Next day I saw the cook. I had my hat on. Mr. Molckenbuhr did not push it off. He struck me on the nose over my mother's shoulder. I did not ask for my wages. I went to know about the sovereign, and I fetched my clothes away. I was in the service of Mr. Franklin, and was dismissed because he was slack. I then went to Mr. Payer's. He discharged me, and I then lived at home till I went to the Bouverie Hotel.

Have you been collecting money for a charity? – That has nothing to do with this case.

His Honour said the question must be answered, and plaintiff said he did collect about 3s., which he gave up to another boy who was also collecting money with a card for a charity.

Emma Flack, mother of the plaintiff, said the boy went home on the 11th at 20 minutes to 10. His appearance was most horrifying. His mouth and face and nose were swollen and bleeding. His hair was all rough, his boots undone, and his clothing disarranged. She washed his face and put him to bed. Mrs. Wilson saw the boy in the morning about a quarter past eight. She took him to Mr. Molckenbuhr and complained to him. He said “What about my sovereign – never mind the boy? I'll do it again”. She said “Don't hit him, hit me”. Defendant struck over her shoulder and made the boy's nose bleed. On the 17th she went again to defendant's house with clothes, and asked for payment of her bill, 18s. 6d. He declined to pay it, and wanted to deduct 2s., which she refused to allow.

In reply to Mr. Watts, witness said she took away the boy's clothes. The cook was not in the kitchen when defendant struck the boy. The cook said she heard the boy's cries. She did not take the boy to the doctor, but gave him some medicine herself. There was no overcharge in her washing bill.

Eliza Wilson, wife of a labourer at Cheriton, said she saw the boy on the 12th. His nose and lips were much swollen, and there was some blood on the corner of his mouth.

Mr. Watts said a most exaggerated account of the matter had been given; mountains had been made out of molehills. They had paid into court a portion of the wages. Defendant did not deny striking the boy, and 99 out of 100 under similar circumstances would have done the same, and he quoted an opinion from Blackstone to justify the assault. In almost all public schools in England boys were constantly flogged for less offences than that. The defendant had received a letter from plaintiff's solicitor, threatening him with an action for malicious prosecution unless he paid the costs of the boy's defence. The Magistrates considered there was a prima facie case, and so did the Grand Jury.

His Honour remarked that the Magistrates dismissed the charge. The second charge of stealing 2s. was not mentioned until five days after the assault.

Mr. Watts said no permanent injury had been sustained by the boy.

Defendant then deposed that the boy was three weeks and two days in his service. He was under notice to leave. He frequently used bad language and was lazy. He left of his own accord, and never offered to return. He did hit the boy for using very bad language, which he repeated. The barmaid was either in the bar or the smoking room, and heard what was said. He did not think he struck the boy more than twice. He did not knock his head against the wall or the table. A few drops of blood came from his nose. He did not black his eyes. He stayed in the room about 20 minutes. Next day he saw him in the kitchen. He spoke indecently and he put his hand against his hat and knocked it off. His face was not swollen. The cook was present at the time.

Cross-examined: After I got the County Court summonses I charged the boy with theft. I never said before I had given the boy notice to quit. I had no reason to.

What do you call a good thrashing? You admitted you have given him a good thrashing. What are you? – A German.

You used your fists and your feet too, didn't you? – No. I never denied that I gave the boy a good thrashing, and I don't deny it now. I never told the boy, to my recollection, to go to ----. I said something to him quite different which he may have misunderstood. I did not strike over the mother's shoulder when I knocked his hat off for using indecent language. I don't recollect the observation he made. I must have had some reason for knocking his hat off. I don't remember what.

By His honour: It was after he had turned his pockets out and taken off his boots that he made use of the indecent expression.

Mary Charley, barmaid at the Bouverie, said she saw the boy a few minutes after the alleged assault and there was no blood on his face, nor was his face swollen. She saw him a week after and there were no marks on his face then.

Cross-examined: I am not the manageress. I am only in the bar. I am over the servants. I had had the sovereign, and it was a question between me and the boy where it had gone. I was very angry about losing the sovereign. The boy went into Mr. Molckenbuhr's office. I could have heard what took place between them, but took no notice. I did not search the boy. His pockets were out when I saw him, and his boots unlaced, but not off his feet. I never heard my master swear at the boy. The boy never said to me “It's no use my going in, he'll only swear at me”.

Mr. Watts: As to the sovereign, Miss Charley. Did you place it on the bar? – Yes.

His Honour: Oh! I can't try the sovereign case over again. The Magistrates disposed of that.

Witness: Mr. Molckenbuhr hit the boy after the expression.

Florence Rendall, cook at the Bouverie Hotel, said there was no blood on the boy's face when he went away, nor was his face swollen. His face had the expression of his having been crying. She saw Mr. Molckenbuhr knock the boy's hat off. He did not hit the boy, nor did his nose bleed.

Mr. Minter submitted there was no answer to the case. Mr. Watts said there was justification, but there was no evidence of it. The defendant admitted that he gave the boy a thrashing to extort a confession from him. He commented strongly on the conduct of the defendant in the matter, and contended that instead of instituting criminal proceedings he should have appeared here that day and defended the action on the ground of his dishonesty.

His Honour said it was not disputed that the defendant gave the boy a thrashing, but it was defended on the ground of justification. He reviewed the facts and said a man had no right to cause another to submit to a search, which was in itself an assault. He had little doubt the boy had had an example of bad language set him by the defendant, and one could not very much wonder if he did use an offensive expression. The provocation was all on the side of the master. He referred also to the evidence as to the boy's condition, and came to the conclusion that he was entitled to damages and to recover his wages, he having been prevented from fulfilling his contract by reasonable apprehension of violence. He gave a verdict for a month's wages and £5 for damages for the assault, with costs of £10.

Folkestone Express 30 August 1890.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Dr. Bateman, Alderman Pledge, J. Clark, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

The Brewster Sessions were held on Wednesday. Most of the old licenses were renewed, but some were objected to by the Superintendent of Police.

In the case of the Bouverie Hotel, the Superintendent of Police said before the licence was granted he wished to call the attention of the Bench to the unsatisfactory manner in which the house was conducted. People were found in the house at two o'clock on the morning of the 22nd of July. One was a resident in the town, and the other claimed to be a lodger in the house. There was not sufficient evidence to warrant the issue of a summons, but he thought it was his duty to bring the matter before the Bench. The general conduct of the house was not satisfactory.

The Bench decided to let the application stand over until the adjourned licensing day.

Folkestone Express 27 September 1890.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, J. Clark, J. Pledge, W.G. Herbert, and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Adjourned Licenses.

This was the adjourned licensing session, and several certificates which had been postponed were applied for.

The Bouverie Hotel.

Mr. Minter appeared in support of the application of Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr for the renewal of his licence.

The Superintendent had served notice that he should oppose on the ground that when the house was visited by the police, four persons were found on the premises.

Sergt. Harman said he visited the house on the 22nd of July at 1.40 and heard a noise inside. He went inside and found four men there – two were lodgers, and two residents. A number of glasses were on the table empty. He told defendant he should report him. Two of the men, Birch and White, were residents, and the landlord said they were invited by the other two, who were lodgers, and entertained as friends.

Mr. Minter did not contest the statement of the police, but said the Sergeant had really given the landlord's answer. He said it was a pity a summons had not been taken out so that the defendant could have called the parties to show that there was no offence under the Licensing Act. He thought he had a right to pray in aid of his client that on the report being made to the Superintendent – he would not do the Superintendent the injustice to suppose he treated a complaint of that sort with no consideration – but he instituted an inquiry, and he (Mr. Minter) had a right to say that that inquiry satisfied him that the statement for the landlord was true, and that it was not a case for prosecution. There was no other ground of complaint about the house.

The Magistrates granted the renewal, but repeated that the police had only done their duty. The defendant had had a narrow escape, and he must be cautious in future. The general idea was that the police did not do their duty.

Mr. W.H. Harrison watched the case in the interest of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, the owners.

Folkestone Express 14 February 1891.

Saturday, February 7th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, Major H.W. Poole, W.G. Herbert and F. Boykett Esqs.

George William Molckenbuhr (sic), landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, was summoned for allowing billiards to be played in his house during prohibited hours on the 31st January.

Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and said he would plead Guilty, with the explanation he would presently give.

Sergeant Harman said on Saturday morning, the 31st January, about a quarter past two, his attention was drawn to the Bouverie Hotel. He saw lights in the billiard room and heard the balls. He went away and fetched two constables, Lemar and Knowles, placing one at each door. He then rapped at the side door for about half an hour, and at the end of that time the defendant came with his servant. He said to defendant “I suspect you have someone in the hotel. I have heard them playing billiards for a long time, and there are lights in the room”. Defendant said “I have no-one in the house; only myself and my servant”. He replied “That won't satisfy me. You show me the front room at the top of the house”. Defendant took him to the other side of the house and to a bedroom, which was all clear. The bed had been turned down, and it was warm. Defendant said that was his servant's room. They went out of the room, and he asked defendant to show him another room. He went in and saw a man lying there, covered up in bed. He had his boots on and they were sticking out. (Laughter) He pulled the clothes off and saw it was George Burch, of Cheriton Road. He pretended to be asleep. Witness said “Wake up, Burch; you must not try to make out that you are asleep, because I don't believe it”. Burch was dressed with the exception of his hat and coat. He asked him how he accounted for being there, and he replied “I don't feel very well”. Witness said “That won't satisfy me”. He said he had engaged a bed for the night, and went back into the room. There was no-one else on the house.

George Burch was then charged with being found in the house on the same day.

Mr. Minter said he pleaded Guilty to being there, but that he was justified in being there and not in contravention of the Act.

Sergeant Harman repeated his evidence, and said the defendant was a married man living in Cheriton Road, Folkestone.

P.C. Lemar said he watched the house by direction of Sergt. Harman, and saw Mr. Burch leave at a quarter to four in the morning.

Mr. Minter then addressed the Bench on behalf of the defendants. As far as the first summons was concerned, against Molckenbuhr, the charge, as the Bench would observe, was that, holding a victualler's licence, he unlawfully allowed billiards to be played at a time when the premises by law were not allowed to be open for the sale of wines and liquors. The defendant had pleaded Guilty to that, and he would tell them why – because in ignorance of the law he permitted the room to be open. The Superintendent knew the law better, and Mr. Molckenbuhr was summoned for the offence he undoubtedly had committed. But he desired to call the attention of the Bench to this, that he was not charged for having the premises open for the sale of liquor – there was no pretence for saying there was any sale of liquor going on, or that he had his house open for the sale of liquor. As a fact, his friend Burch was a teetotaller. He was a friend of the landlord's, and in the habit of going to the house. If he had simply been in the bar of the house there would have been no offence, if the Magistrates were satisfied he was there as a friend. It was a very peculiar state of the law in regard to billiard rooms. That was the reason he had advised him to plead Guilty, because technically there was no answer to the case. The law had been defined in two cases with regard to billiard rooms, but it was an anomaly. There was the case of Ovenden and Raymond, where the Lord Chief Justice himself said the law was an anomaly, and certainly he did not believe it was the intention of the legislature that it should be so. But there it was, and the law must be obeyed. There was the case of Mr. Ovenden, at Hythe. It was a case before the magistrates. The defendant was the proprietor of the Swan Hotel at Hythe, and the parties playing at billiards were commercial travellers who were staying bona fide in the hotel, and they had played billiards after eleven o'clock. There was a conviction, and it was carried to the Court of Appeal, and the Court held that it was a righteous conviction, and that a licensed house must under all circumstances close it's billiard room at eleven o'clock, not only to lodgers staying in the house, but to friends being entertained by the landlord. So that the law as it at present was that a landlord might have his friends in any room he liked in the house and entertain them with liquor, notwithstanding that the closing hour was passed, except in the billiard room. If it was a beerhouse with a billiard licence, they might continue to play billiards up to one o'clock in the morning. He believed that was the law. Mr. Molckenbuhr was under the impression that he might have his friends playing at billiards up to any hour he liked. But he was afraid, on looking at the law on the subject, that the landlord was bound to have his billiard room closed, and a friend had no right to go into a billiard room to play billiards after eleven o'clock. As to keeping the door closed, Mr. Molckenbuhr was very particular not to allow anyone in his house after hours. People did go sometimes to the side door, but he would not admit them. That accounted for the police being kept standing outside. Had the police gone to the front door they would have been admitted at once.

The Bench considered there had been a breach of the law, and Colonel De Crespigny told Mr. Molckenbuhr that it was no excuse that he did not know the law – he ought to have known it. He would be fined 10s. and 9s. costs, and Burch 1s. and 10s. costs.

Folkestone Express 26 September 1891.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clark, J. Holden, H.W. Poole, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Day.

The Bouverie Hotel.

Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr applied for a renewal of this licence. Mr. Minter appeared for the applicant.

Superintendent Taylor said the defendant was convicted on the 6th February for having the house open after hours and allowing billiards to be played. He was fined 10s. and costs.

Mr. Minter said it was proved to the satisfaction of the Bench that the applicant was playing billiards with a friend. It was a peculiar case, and although he was obliged to admit there had been an infringement of the Act, only small fines were imposed.

The licence was granted.

Folkestone Express 5 March 1892.

Local News.

On Saturday at the Folkestone Petty Sessions, before J. Holden, J. Pledge, J. Fitness, and E.T. Ward Esqs., William H. Molckenbuhr was summoned for having his house, the Bouverie Hotel, open for the sale of liquor during prohibited hours. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant, and Mr. Worsfold Mowll on behalf of Messrs. Nalder and Colyer, the owners. The case was extremely simple and the facts were admitted, but the hearing occupied nearly an hour. Sergeant Swift said he visited the house at 25 minutes past twelve. He had noticed that there were lights in the bar and the room adjoining, and a sound like the shaking of dice. He heard the defendant say “I'll have a look out”, and he unbolted the door leading into the road under the archway. Witness pushed in and saw two men sitting there, one of them having a glass of port wine before him, and the other a tankard of ale.

Mr. Minter addressed the Bench on the defendant's behalf; his explanation was that one of the persons was there on business, and the other had left at 11 o'clock, but had returned, as he said, to get his hat, when, as he was the worse for liquor, the defendant allowed him to remain for a time. Mr. Mowll said Messrs. Nalder and Colyer were most anxious that their house should be conducted in a manner which would meet the approval of the Bench, and the effect of a conviction would be that the defendant would have immediate notice to quit.

The Bench fined the defendant £2 10s. and costs, and did not endorse the licence. A second summons for permitting drunkenness was not proceeded with.

Folkestone Express 9 April 1892.

Wednesday, April 6th: Before H.W. Poole, J. Brooke and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Transfers.

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was transferred to Mr. Collard.

Folkestone Express 23 April 1892.

Wednesday, April 20th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Pledge, Sherwood and Dunk, J. Fitness, J. Holden, Geo. Spurgen and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Transfer.

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was transferred to Mr. Pollard.

Folkestone Express 25 June 1892.

Local News.

On Thursday and Friday, before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams and a common jury, the case of Molckenbuhr v Molckenbuhr was tried. It was a claim by Mrs. Molckenbuhr against her husband for £207, money lent by her to him. Mr. G.H. Condy, instructed by Messrs. Watts and Watts, solicitors, Folkestone appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wedderburn, instructed by Mr. C.A. Rawlings, solicitor, for the defendant.

The plaintiff, formerly a ladies' maid in the service of the Bishop of Truro, became acquainted with the defendant in 1877, and from that time till 1889 they corresponded. In 1889 the defendant was out of employment, and plaintiff provided him with the sums of £105 and £102, with which he took the Bouverie Hotel at Folkestone. A year later they were married, but differences quickly arose between them, and on March 21st, 1892, she left her husband, and at once served him with a writ. By this writ she claimed the above sums of money as money lent. The defendant contended that the money was a gift, and even if it were originally a loan, there was a presumption that she made a gift of it by marriage, and that there was nothing to rebut the presumption.

Mr. Condy having read some correspondence between the parties to support the plaintiff's contention that the money was a loan, Mr. Wedderburn submitted that the marriage raised a presumption in law as well as in fact that the money was a gift, and referred to a case recently decided before Mr. Justice A.L. Smith. His Lordship, however, said he was not prepared to hold so.

The plaintiff, called, said she became engaged to the defendant in 1889, and as he wished to take a business she said she would lend him the money she had in the bank, and she lent him £207. A year later they were married. She had several conversations about the money, and he agreed to return it, and they separated, and the money was never paid. In cross-examination she said she lent the defendant the money because she trusted him, and believed the business he was going to take was a good one, but she never got a receipt for her money, nor did she ever ask for interest on it.

William Henry Molckenbuhr, the defendant, was then called by Mr. Wedderburn, and said that the plaintiff simply asked him to accept the money, and in consequence of that he took the hotel. Nothing was said as to whether it was a gift or a loan; his wife had made no suggestion that it was a loan.

Mr. Wedderburn having addressed the jury for the defendant, and Mr. Condy for the plaintiff, Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams summed up, and left to the jury the questions whether the money was lent or given, and if lent, whether the wife before or after marriage forgave the debt.

The jury found for the plaintiff, and judgement was given accordingly.

Folkestone Express 4 November 1893.

Saturday, October 28th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Dunk and Pledge, J. Fitness and J. Holden Esqs.

Polly Lillian was charged with stealing from the person of James Pinches the sum of 9s. 6d.

Prosecutor, a cabman, who is very deaf, said he was at the Bouverie Hotel on Friday night from half past eight to a quarter to ten. Prisoner and another woman went into the house while he was there, but went into another compartment of the bar. They asked him to treat them, and he treated them to twopennyworth each, changing a half sovereign and receiving 9s. 8d. – a five shilling piece, four shillings, sixpence, and twopence. He put the silver in his left trousers pocket and the twopence in the right. Prisoner left the house half an hour before he did. As he was going home, the prisoner and another rushed at him. He thought they were friends going to see him home, but when they got into Alexandra Gardens the prisoner went in front of him and put her hand in his pocket. He held her hand, but she was too strong and struggled and took it out of his pocket. He held her till a policeman came. She took all the 9s. 6d.

Prisoner: Didn't you ask me to go for a walk with you? – God bless you, no. (Laughter) It didn't take four minutes altogether.

Didn't you give me a 5s. piece? – No.

Prisoner: Didn't you ask me to go round the corner, and say you would give me half a crown? – Good gracious, no. (Laughter) The two women were together. We only just got round the corner before the money was gone.

The prisoner protested that the prosecutor gave her a five shilling piece and she was to give him 2s. 6d. change.

P.C. Nash said on Friday night, about ten minutes to eleven, he was in Bouverie Road Esat. He heard loud talking and went to Alexandra Gardens He saw prisoner there with another woman and the prosecutor. Prosecutor said he wished to give the prisoner in charge for stealing 9s. 6d. from him. Prisoner replied “Don't believe him”. He took her to the station and she was charged by Superintendent Taylor. She said “Ain't I allowed to make a statement?”

Rachael Sharp, female searcher, said she searched the prisoner at the police station. She gave her a 5s. piece, and she found a purse with 4s., two sixpences, and twopence in her pocket.

Superintendent Taylor produced the prisoner's statement. It was “I know prosecutor. I saw him in the Bouverie and asked him to treat me. He treated me and Patty Pain. We came out and I asked him to go for a walk. We went round the corner and he gave me a five shilling piece, and I was supposed to give him the change. When I did not give him the change he called a policeman and gave me in charge, and accused me of robbing him”.

Prisoner pleaded Not Guilty and elicited to be tried summarily. She added that “Mr. Pinches had on many occasions asked her to elope with him. (Laughter) He said he would sell his house and go to London or somewhere else”.

She was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour, and the Bench told the complainant that he was a silly old man.

Folkestone Express 23 October 1897.

Wednesday, October 20th: Before The Mayor, H.D. Stock, and W. Wightwick Esqs.

Mrs. Farmfield was granted a temporary authority to sell at the Bouverie Hotel.

Folkestone Express 16 June 1900.

Wednesday, June 13th: Before J. Fitness, W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey, and J. Pledge Esqs.

The Bench acceded to the provisional transfer of the licence of the Bouverie Hotel from Mrs. Farnfield to Mr. Riddall, who had for some time past acted as manager at this establishment, and had recently married Mrs. Farnfield.

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.

Arthur M. Riddall was granted transfer of the licence of the Bouverie Hotel.

Folkestone Express 4 May 1901.

Saturday, April 27th: Before J. Pledge, T.J. Vaughan, and J. Stainer Esqs., and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Kearns, an out-porter, was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises on April 23rd. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defendant, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergt. Osborne said at 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday, the 23rd, he was passing the Bouverie Hotel and saw defendant come out of the side bar and fall down. He subsequently returned to the bar again. He was very drunk. At 9.45 p.m. witness entered the house and saw defendant leaning over the counter. He called the barmaid's attention to his drunken condition, and she replied “He isn't very bad; he has not had anything in this house”. The landlord went into the bar and said he knew he had been in about 20 minutes, but he had not served him with anything to drink. Witness then ejected the defendant from the premises. He then took hold of a truck outside and staggered from one side of the road to the other.

Questioned by Mr. Haines: He heard loud voices inside. The defendant was not particularly excited, but when he was the worse for liquor he talked very much. The landlord did not ask him to eject the defendant.

By the Chief Constable: Neither the landlord nor barmaid said the defendant was sober.

P.C. Charles Lawrence said on Tuesday night, about 9.50 o'clock, he was in Guildhall Street, and saw the defendant with a truck, very drunk, staggering from one side to the other, muttering something to himself. He let him go on as he was quiet.

P.C. Leonard Johnson said about 7.25 p.m. on the same night he saw the defendant very drunk outside the Bouverie Hotel. He put his truck under the arch. As he was only drunk he did not say anything to him.

Mr. Haines (for the defendant) said he ventured to say without any reflection on the police, who were quite right to bring forward any cases where there was a doubt, that it was one of those cases where a mistake had been made by the police. Defendant was an Irishman, and of an excitable temperament.

Miss Ellen Haddaway, barmaid at the Bouverie Hotel, said the defendant was a regular customer and his wife did the washing. Whilst waiting for the trains, he would put his truck in the archway and have his meals. The defendant was naturally of an excitable temperament. On the night in question, witness had served him at intervals, serving him with two pints of beer. He had not had any beer for quite three quarters of an hour when the Sergeant came in. The Sergeant said to witness “This man is beastly drunk”, and witness replied “I don't think he is, is he?” Witness did not suggest that defendant should be put out, nor did the landlord in her presence. In her opinion the defendant was sober. Had she thought he was drunk she would not have served him at all.

By Supt. Reeve: The defendant was exceptionally serious that morning. On the evening in question, he asked for more liquor after the two pints, but she did not serve him because he had not any money. She was quite sure the defendant was sober, and she had never known the police to eject a sober man.

Charles Haddaway, a flyman, said on the evening in question he went to see his daughter, the last witness. He saw the defendant when the Sergeant went in. His condition was excitable, but he went out quite quietly.

By the Chief Constable: He saw the defendant after the Sergeant had ejected him, and he was sober. He thought it was strange that the police should eject a sober man.

Wm. Adams, a stableman, and who resides in Dover Road, said he saw the defendant, and he was not creating a disturbance more than he usually did.

Alexander Morgan, 23, Dover Road, said he heard no noise whatever. There was nothing in his conduct which made him think he was drunk.

By the Chief Constable: The defendant had not to his knowledge been drunk, but was very excitable by nature.

The Bench retired, and after a lengthy deliberation they returned into Court, and said the defendant had been ably defended by Mr. Haines, but he had failed to convince the Magistrates that the police were wrong in their estimation, and the Bench were unanimous that defendant was drunk, and they imposed a fine of 5s. and 15s. costs, or in default 14 days' imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 18 June 1904.

Saturday, June 11th: Before W.C. Carpenter, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs., and Lieut. Colonel Penfold.

Susan Foster, a young woman, employed as housemaid at the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road East, was charged with attempting to commit suicide by taking poison the previous evening.

Mr. Arthur M. Riddall, the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, said the prisoner had been in his employ since May 30th. The previous evening he was in the billiard room at about a quarter past nine, when he was called to the kitchen, where he saw the prisoner sitting on a chair. Prisoner said to him “You will find a letter on the mantelpiece”. He opened the letter and read the contents. In the letter it stated that by the time the addressee, whose name did not come out in evidence, received the letter she would have poisoned herself. Witness communicated with the police and Dr. Fitzgerald at once. He was afterwards handed a packet containing a portion of a powder, which he handed to P.C. Simpson.

Mrs. Riddall said she was sitting in the parlour the previous evening, when prisoner came into the room in a very excited state and threw upon the table the letter, the packet of powder, and sixpence. Prisoner asked her to send the letter off, because she had taken poison. Witness took her into the kitchen and sent for Mr. Riddall.

P.C. Simpson said at 10.40 the previous night he went to the Bouverie Hotel. He saw Mr. Riddall, who handed him the letter and the portion of powder. Dr. Fitzgerald was present, and prisoner was sitting on a chair. She appeared to be in an excited and agitated condition. He told her he was a police officer, and in consequence of what the doctor had told him he should charge her with attempting to commit suicide by taking oxalic acid. She replied “I have not taken oxalic acid, but salts of lemon”. With the assistance of Detective Sergeant Burniston he took her to the police station, where he formally charged her.

Dr. Fitzgerald said about 10.45 he was called to the Bouverie Hotel, where he saw the prisoner in an agitated and excited condition. She showed no urgent symptoms, so he asked Mr. Riddall what was the matter, and he was then handed the letter. She said she had taken poison. Mr. Riddall also handed him a packet containing oxalic acid, usually known as salts of lemon.

Prisoner here appeared as though about to faint. Water was obtained, but she refused to touch it. She cried out “Oh, God, save me. Don't let me be locked up”. She appeared to be in a hysterical condition, and her cries became so loud that she had to be taken from the Court. Dr. Fitzgerald went out to attend to her on the Chairman's suggestion, and in a few minutes they returned, prisoner appearing to be all right again.

Dr. Fitzgerald, continuing, said prisoner told him she had taken the powder by dipping her finger into it. By all appearances she had only taken a very small quantity, possibly ten or twenty grains, which could not have done her any harm whatever. To be on the safe side, however, he administered lime water as an antidote. Considering her general condition to be satisfactory, he allowed prisoner to be taken to the police station. Oxalic acid was a deadly poison if taken in a quantity, and death had been known to follow after two drams had been taken. He considered that prisoner would not have suffered any serious ill-effects if she had taken the whole of the powder.

Mr. Knight, chemist, 12, Rendezvous Street, said about half past eight the previous evening he was serving in the shop, when a woman of the general appearance of prisoner came in and asked for an ounce of salts of lemon. He asked her what it was for, and she replied “To clean a hat”. The powder he gave her had only 40 grains of real poison in it. There was, however, a sufficient dose to cause death for an adult.

Prisoner was remanded until next Friday morning.

She pleaded to the Magistrates not to let her go, and as she was taken from the Court she cried out “Oh, sir, don't lock me up again. Oh, don't. I am very sorry. Oh, my God, save me. Don't let me be locked up”.

Folkestone Express 25 June 1904.

Friday, June 17th: Before Lieut. Colonel Westropp, W. Wightwick, and J. Stainer Esqs.

Susan Foster, a housemaid at the Bouverie Hotel, was brought up on remand, charged with attempting to commit suicide by taking poison on June 9th.

Inspector Swift said there was no further evidence to be given.

The Chairman said the Magistrates considered that there was not sufficient evidence to induce them to go further with the charge.

Mr. Easton, the Police Court Missionary, said the young woman had consented to go into a home, and she was discharged.

Folkestone Express 30 December 1905.

Saturday, December 23rd: Before The Mayor, Alderman Spurgen, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggatt, W.C. Carpenter and J. Stainer Esqs.

Violet Laslett, a cook, was charged with stealing a pair of boots, value 10s.

Ernest Frederick Allcock, proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, said prisoner was in his emply as cook, and had been so for about a week. On Thursday, about ten o'clock, he placed a pair of boots in the scullery. The next day he missed them. He questioned prisoner about them on Friday. She denied having seen the boots. He told her they would have to be found, and she said somebody must have come in and taken them when the scullery door was open. He reported the matter to the police, and P.C. Sales went to the house, and subsequently witness again questioned the prisoner about the boots. She denied all knowledge of them. He then said to her “Supposing they are found at your house? This is only a supposition of mine. But, supposing they were there, how did they get there?” She still denied all knowledge of the boots, but afterwards admitted that she took them away. He identified the boots produced as his property, and said their value was 10s.

P.C. Sales proved arresting the prisoner, and said when he was sent for by the prosecutor he put several questions to her about the boots, and also said he heard Mr. Allcock ask prisoner if she knew where the boots were, when she admitted that she took them away. He charged her at the police station with stealing the boots, and she replied “Shall I have to stay here all night?” Later he saw the prisoner's husband in Guildhall Street, and he was wearing the boots. He went with Laslett to No. 14 Belle Vue Street, where he handed the boots to him.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

The prosecutor said he had no desire to press the case. The husband was out of work. He took her on the recommendation of the manager of a dairy.

Supt. Reeve said nothing was known against the woman or her husband. They had been in Folkestone for some time.

The Bench decided to bind the prisoner over in the sum of £10 to be of good behaviour for three months.

Folkestone Express 12 June 1909.

Wednesday, June 9th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Vaughan, Alderman Jenner, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

James Miller, and out-porter, was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises when requested to do so.

Ernest Frederick Alcock, the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, said on Saturday afternoon the defendant was in the public bar. He was using abusive language respecting Det. Sergt. Burniston and other officers, so witness requested him to leave the house. He refused to do so, and commenced to use threatening language to witness. He again told him to clear off the premises, and he said he should go when he liked. He refused several times, so witness went to eject him from the public bar. In the meantime he sent for a constable. He asked him again quietly to leave, but he became very disorderly, so he ejected him. They both eventually went to the police station. The defendant had been a perfect pest for some time.

Defendant went into the witness box. He said he went into the Bouverie Hotel just before two on Saturday afternoon, and called for a glass of beer. The landlord served him, and then told him to get out before he could drink the beer. He replied “All right. Don't worry. I won't be a minute”. He then drank the beer and went out. He gave the landlord no provocation whatever. When he got outside, Mr. Alcock called out “Come in here (the smoke room) and I will show you what I will do with you”. He simply laughed at him. He was perfectly sober at the time he came out of the hotel. Mr. Alcock jostled him and molested him, and threw him about. He walked with Mr. Allcock to the police station, and on the way there he said to him (defendant) “I would like to burn such people as you out-porters”. When going down the steps to the police station, Mr. Alcock struck him in the face, caught hold of his throat and threw him on his back.

The Chairman: You have not thought of taking out a summons against him.

Miller: I have not the money to spare.

The Chairman: You had money for beer.

Defendant, in conclusion, asked the Magistrates to believe him, a poor working man, against a multitude of money.

The prosecutor, at this point, said he could bring four witnesses forward if they would adjourn the case until Saturday.

The Clerk: You should have brought them this morning.

The Chairman said the prosecutor ought to have had his witnesses there that day. The Magistrates had decided to dismiss the case.

Folkestone Express 21 June 1913.

Local News.

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was temporarily transferred at the police court on Tuesday from Mr. Allcock to Mr. Adams.

Folkestone Express 12 September 1914.

Tuesday, September 8th: Before J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G.I. Swoffer, W.J. Harrison, G. Boyd, A. Stace, E.T. Morrison, and C.E. Momford Esqs.

James Andrews was summoned for assaulting William Hector Stevens. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. J.S. Atkinson represented the complainant, and Mr. H.J. Myers appeared for the defendant.

Complainant said he was a master tailor, and had been in the Army for 14 years. He had volunteered for service abroad, but his application had been refused owing to the fact that his corps had been filled up. On Friday, about one o'clock, he went into the Bouverie Hotel with a friend and asked for a little bit of cheese and a lager beer. He had not had any drink before that. He was not accustomed to take much. There was only himself and a friend present in the bar, except the proprietor and his servants. The conversation turned on to the war, and he said to Mr. Adams, the landlord, that things looked pretty black for the old country. A conversation then ensued, and Mr. Adams got very heated. He (complainant) was very emphatic, and Mr. Andrews then came in, and must have heard Mr. Adams say that he (complainant) was not an Englishman, but was a ---- German. He also believed he called him a spy. He (complainant) replied “You have made a mistake. My name is Stevens, and it is a good English name”. Mr. Adams retorted “You are a ---- liar”. He went across to the landlord and challenged him to come outside and repeat what he had said in the bar, where he had him at a great disadvantage. Mr. Andrews then joined in the conversation and said “Come out and fight me”. He (complainant) replied “It has nothing to do with you”. At that time he was sitting down. The defendant, who had a massive gold ring on his finger, came across to him and let him have the nicest “plonk” in the eye that he had ever had in his life. He jumped up and called the defendant an arrant coward. He did not strike or touch Andrews in any way. He then went out to try and find a policeman. The discolouration of his eye was caused by the blow. He did not say anything that would tend to lead the defendant to think he was anything but a patriotic Englishman.

Cross-examined by Mr. Myers, complainant said he was not of an excitable temperament. He had not occasionally gone into the bar and laid down the law about the war. He had never been requested to leave the White Lion at Cheriton. He was not of an excitable nature. He denied that he said the Germans would be in England in a fortnight, and that the British troops were no good and their Navy was deficient. When Mr. Andrews joined in he did not know whether he held a brief for Mr. Adams or not. He had spoken to the defendant before. On that occasion he had only been in the bar about a minute or so when Andrews came. He had had no quarrel with him previously.

George Boyd Jordan, of 67, Ashley Avenue, Cheriton, said he was a master tailor in partnership with the complainant. They went up to the Bouverie Hotel together on Friday in order to have some refreshment. Mr. Stevens was not in any way aggressive or objectionable. He entered into the conversation about the war. When the conversation got somewhat excited the complainant did not threaten anyone, either Mr. Adams or the defendant. After complainant had challenged the landlord to make his assertion outside, Mr. Andrews then said “I will take it up”. Stevens was sitting down at the time and the defendant struck him a blow in the eye. The assault was entirely unprovoked on the part of the complainant, who did not return the blow.

Cross-examined, witness said Stevens did not challenge Mr. Adams to fight, and he did not make use of unpatriotic remarks. The blow given by Andrews was a very severe one, and blood ran down the complainant's face from his eye. Stevens staggered from the bar, but before doing so, told Andrews he should not have done it.

Defendant went into the witness box and gave evidence. He said he was a motor engineer. He had volunteered for service as a motorist, and he had volunteered to assist the Red Cross Society, which had accepted his services. He was in the habit of using the Bouverie Hotel, and went there on Friday at about half past one. When he got into the saloon bar he saw Stevens, who was making unpatriotic remarks about the Army. He had met the complainant once before, and had heard him quarrelling about the same subject. He had no personal feeling against Stevens, who was excited. During the course of his statements Stevens said the Army was no good, the Navy was deficient, and the Germans would be in England in a fortnight. Complainant rushed up to Mr. Adams because he called him a liar, and said to him “Come outside and I will fight you”. Mr. Adams told him to sit down or go away. The landlord was a little excited. He (defendant) eventually went across the bar and said to Stevens “You shall not hit an older man than you. I will take you on”. He (defendant) was annoyed at the remarks Stevens had made, but he took no notice of them because it was not his argument. He, however, regarded the remarks as very unpatriotic. When he told the complainant he would take him on, Stevens said “It has nothing to do with you”. He (witness) pushed him across the bar, and then, when he had sat down, told him to get up. He would not get up, so he said “If you can't get up I shall strike you sitting down”. Complainant did not get up, so he struck him. Mr. Adams and the young lady laid hold of him to prevent him striking the complainant again. It was a regrettable blow as soon as he had made it.

The Clerk: In plain English you lost your temper.

The defendant: Yes.

The Clerk at this point said the Bench were of opinion that there was no alternative but to inflict a fine, but they had taken all the language used into consideration.

Mr. Myers, however, persisted in calling his other evidence.

Mr. Adams, the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, said he did not regard Mr. Andrews as a quarrelsome man. He had seen the complainant, who was of a very argumentative, quarrelsome and excitable nature, on three occasions. All the time he was in the house he was talking about the war, and the assertions he made were: “Our Army is not good, the Navy is of no account, our guns are bad, and the Germans are superior in everything. They would be here in a fortnight, and thank God they would be”. Complainant also put down everything on the British side as rotten. Complainant's conduct went on for ten minutes.

The Clerk: Why did you not take steps to get him out of your house?

Witness: I asked him to go out.

Mr. Myers urged in his address to the Magistrates that Andrews only did what a patriotic and chivalrous Englishman would have done.

The Chairman said the defendant had no right to take the law into his own hands. They had decided to fine him 5/- and 12/- costs.

Mr. Atkinson asked the Magistrates to allow the complainant solicitor's costs, but the Bench refused the application.

Folkestone Express 15 January 1916.

Wednesday, January 12th: Before E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, R.G. Wood, E.T. Morrison and J.J. Giles Esqs.

Mr. C. Stokesbury, who comes from Lewisham, applied to have the licence of the Bouverie Hotel transferred to himself from Mr. A. Adams.

The application was granted, but the Chairman told the new tenant that there were a great many difficulties in the trade at the present moment. He (Mr. Stokesbury) was rather inexperienced, and he must be careful.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1920.

Friday, August 20th: Before Col. Owen, Mr. L.G.A. Collins, Rev. Epworth Thompson, Alderman Jenner, Councillor Hollands, Mr. Blamey, and Capt. Griffin.

Mr. Stonebridge, Bouverie Hotel, applied for a temporary licence for a marquee on Sandgate Plain on the occasion of the fete held on Wednesday last from 2.30 to 10 p.m. Mr. Seager supported the application, and pointed out that the fete was organised by a Society known as the Cheerful Sparrows, an organisation which had been in existence in London for 21 years, and the Society in Folkestone was the first to be formed outside London. The Society was formed to do some good from a charitable point of view, and also for the town. The application was granted.

Folkestone Express 3 February 1923.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday morning the licence of the Bouverie Hotel was transferred from Mr. Stokesbury to Mr. M. Ivory.

Folkestone Express 4 August 1928.

Saturday, July 28th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, W.W. Nuttall, Col. Broome-Giles, and Mr. R.J. Stokes.

Omar Macklem was charged with, having been drunk and incapable in Bouverie Road on the previous evening. Defendant pleaded not guilty.

P.C Kennett said that about 9-30 p.m. on the previous evening, in consequence of a telephone message received at the Police Station, he went to Bouverie Road, where he saw defendant lying on the ground outside the Bouverie Hotel. He was bleeding from the nose and had a wound over the eye. He was under the influence of drink. He conveyed him to the Hospital by ambulance, where his wound was dressed. In consequence of what them doctor said he brought him to the Police Station.

P.S. Fox said that about 9-30 p.m. on the previous evening he was called to Bouverie Road East, where he saw defendant lying on the ground in a semi-conscious condition. He helped to convey him to the Hospital and back to the Police Station- Defendant did not recover consciousness until two hours after.

P.C Kennett. who was recalled, said, in his answer to the defendant, that the doctor did to not say to the nurse that he was not drunk.

Defendant said that he entered the Bouverie at about 9-15 p.m. on the previous evening, but there only had a pint of bitter and one bottle of Base. While he was sitting there a man, whom he did not know, stepped up to him and asked him if he did not knew him, and if he would lend him £1. He said that he did not know him, and as he did not, he would not lend him the money. The man started fighting, and some chairs and tables were thrown over. The man then picked up a chair and swung it at him, and that was the last he (defendant) knew about it.

The Bench considered the case proved, and fined the defendant 5s.

Monday, July 30th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Mr. W. Griffin, and Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

Samuel Wilson, a carpenter, was charged with being drunk and incapable in Bouverie Road East on Saturday night. He was also charged with being drunk on the licensed premises of the Bouverie Hotel. Defendant pleaded Guilty to both charges.

Mr. A.S. Beesley, the Chief Constable, said he would only proceed against the defendant on the charge of being drunk on licensed premises, and would withdraw the other charge.

Inspector Pittock said that at 10.15 p.m. on the Saturday he visited the Bouverie Hotel, in company with P.S. Fox. He (witness) was in plain clothes, but P.S. Fox was in uniform. On entering the smoke room bar he saw the defendant sitting on a seat just inside the door. He noticed he was in a drowsy condition. He (witness) told him he was a police inspector and asked him to stand up. After some hesitation he staggered to his feet. He (witness) told him that t was drunk and in a muddled way. He said “Am I?” and then sat down again. He requested the landlord, Mr. Ivory, to eject him. The defendant staggered to his feet, and P.S. Fox assisted him to the door. On reaching outside the defendant collapsed against a wall. Seeing that he was totally incapable of taking care of himself, he (witness) brought him to the Police Station, where he charged him.

The Chairman: Had he been served?

Inspector Pittock: I am not in a position to say.

The Chief Constable said that there were no previous convictions against the defendant.

Wilson said that he had nothing to say. He worked in the town.

A fine of 5s. was imposed.

Folkestone Express 11 August 1928.

Tuesday, August 7th: Before Col. Owen, Mr. A. Stace, Col. Broome-Giles, Alderman W.H. Moncrieff, and Mr. J. H. Blamey.

Michael Ivory was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises, the Bouverie Hotel, on the 28th July. Mr. Rutley Mowll (Dover) defended, and pleaded Not Guilty. There was a further summons for being drunk himself on his licensed premises on the same occasion. Mr. Rutley Mowll pleaded Not Guilty.

At the Chief Constable’s request all witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Inspector Pittock said part of his duties were the supervision and visiting of public houses in order to see that the requirements of the law were being carried out. At 10.15 p.m. on July 28th, in company with P.S. Fox, he went to the Bouverie Hotel, of which defendant was the landlord. He did not visit all the bars. He went into the smoke-room. A view could not be obtained from the serving bar of all the persons in the smoke-room bar. On entering the bar he saw a man named Samuel Wilson sitting on a seat near the door. There were two women sitting next to him, and some men on his left. There would be about a dozen people there altogether. As soon as he entered he saw Wilson, who appeared very drowsy, and he formed the opinion that he a he was drunk. He at once went to the bar and ordered the barman to fetch Mr. Ivory. There was some delay before Mr. Ivory appeared, and on looking through the door he saw Mr. Ivory pass in his shirt sleeves in the yard. He asked P.S. Fox to call him, and he called him four times before he came. Defendant supported himself by the door-post, and he Jeon (witness) said to him “This man, Mr. him Ivory, is drunk on your licensed premises”, indicating the man Wilson. Mr. Ivory said “Arrest him, arrest him”. He said to Mr. Ivory “It is your business to get him off your premises, and if you require any assistance we will assist you”. Mr. Ivory then shouted to the man Wilson “Get out, get out”. Wilson staggered to his feet, and lurched forward, and he was assisted to the door by P.S. Fox. On getting outside he saw Wilson collapse against the wall. With the assistance of P.S. Fox he took Wilson to the Police Station. Before leaving the yard he had formed the opinion that Mr. Ivory himself was drunk. He formed that opinion immediately Mr. Ivory went to the smoke-room. He supported himself by the two door-posts as he stood in the bar, his eyes were staring, and his speech was incoherent, and his general demeanour was that of a drunken man. Before leaving with Wilson he said to Mr. Ivory “I shall report you for permitting drunkenness on your licensed premises, and also for being drunk yourself on your licensed premises”. He replied “I can do what I like on my own premises, it is nothing to do with you”. About ten minutes after arriving at the station, Mr. Ivory arrived at the Police Station, accompanied by a Mr. Carter. He said to Mr. Iivory “Well, what do you want now?”, and he said “Do you accuse me of being drunk?”, and he replied “Yes I do.” Mr. Ivory said “Well, I have come down here to see about it, I will make it ---- hot for you. I will see my doctor.” He (witness) replied “Perhaps I can assist you; would you like to see Dr. Barrett, the police doctor?”, and he said “Yes, I will”. Dr. Barrett was then telephoned for. He asked Carter what he wanted, and he made a statement and signed it. Dr. Barrett arrived at 10.38. He told the doctor he was reporting defendant for being drunk on his licensed premises, and he asked him to examine Mr. Ivory, and Dr. Barrett had a conversation with him, but Mr. Ivory refused to undergo the usual tests.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: It was a Saturday evening, and they were fairly busy in the bar. He was not informed that the same evening the man Wilson had been turned out of the house. Mr. Ivory was rather resentful of the charge of drunkenness. Defendant said he would report him to Mr. Beesley. He thought defendant walked to the Police Station, which was five minutes’ walk. It included going down some steps leading to the Police Station. He would not say they were dangerous. At the Station Mr. Ivory’s indignation was with regard to the charge of being drunk himself, and said “You are more drunk than I am”. He (witness) suggested the police doctor.

By the Clerk: During the time he was there the barman was in the serving bar.

Dr. Barrett, the police surgeon, said he was called to the Police Station at 10.30, and be was asked to go quickly. He got there as soon as he could. He saw Inspector Pittock and the defendant, and Mr. Pittock told him he was charging defendant with being drunk, and he said to defendant “What are you here for?”, and he said “ This man Pittock says I am drunk, but I know more about it than a ---- ignorant man like Pittock.” He then asked him to go through the usual tests, but he refused, saying “No, I am not drunk”. He felt defendant’s pulse, and then said “If you will not go through the usual tests there is not much for me to do”. Defendant had something to say to Inspector Pittock, and then went off. Defendant was excited, his voice was loud, far louder than he thought was necessary, and he was rather blustering, as evidenced by his remark about Inspector Pittock in front of everyone in the station. His pupils were slightly dilated, but there was nothing remarkable about them, his pulse rate was about a hundred, but he did not actually count that. On turning round to leave the room defendant seemed to lose his balance, and banged into the door-post. He heard Inspector Pittock say to him “Mind the door, Mr. Ivory”. He followed Mr. Ivory and watched him go up the steps outside the station, and he commenced going up the steps in the middle, but before he got to the top he had gone into the wall on the left-hand side three times, and he pushed himself away three times. He was not unsteady. He gave a certificate. He considered the defendant was drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: He knew a very large number of people considered the Police steps to test drunkenness were unfair. One did the tests because it was generally expected of one, but he formed his opinion on general observation.

Inspector Pittock was re-called by the Chief Constable. He produced the statement made by Mr. Carter.

The Clerk read the statement of William Sidney Carter, who said that about 9.15 p.m. he went to the Bouverie Hotel smoke-room, and there saw “Sam”, and he asked him to have a drink. He had a half a beer, and Sam asked him to have a drink. He (Sam) went to the bar, and called for two drinks, and the barman refused to serve him on two occasions. The barman told him he had had enough. He sat beside Sam, and remained there until Inspector Pittock went in. He went outside, and saw Inspector Pittock in conversation with Mr. Ivory, who told him he was drunk. He (witness) considered Mr. Ivory was not drunk.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll: Carter went in with Mr. Ivory, and he took the statement from Carter, who said he had gone down with Mr. Ivory in his interests. Carter maintained that Ivory was not drunk, and said that Sam (meaning Wilson) had been refused drink in the house.

P.S. Fox said he saw defendant staggering about in the yard. Mr. Ivory smelt strongly of spirits and he came to the conclusion he was drunk.

P.S. Thorne said he was station officer at 10.30 on the 28th July, and defendant went in. Defendant was under his observation for twelve minutes. Defendant was drunk. He had got a hiccough, his eyelids were puffed, and his voice was very loud, different to his usual tone of voice. Defendant collided with the door post when lie left the office.

The Chief Constable said that was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Mowll, addressing the magistrates, said there was hardly any case more difficult to present than a case of denial of drunkenness in the face of Police evidence. Police officers were very straightforward and true men, and he felt the difficulty he was placed in, but it was only fair to his client in exercising his undoubted right that he should present his side of the case to the Magistrates, and that was what he was about to do. Mr. Ivory had a total service in the Army of between 25 and 26 years, and he had been licensee of the house just on six years. It meant everything to him, that was all he wanted to say, if they convicted him of this charge.

Mrs. Lilian Ivory, wife of the defendant, said that on Saturday, July 28th she came down from the dining-room about 8.30 p.m., and she saw Wilson there. She gave instructions to the barman not to serve him, as she thought he had had enough to drink. She told the barman to tell him to go out, and he was, in fact, at that time ejected. She did not know he had got hack into the house until the Police arrived. After the police left her husband insisted on going to the Police Station, and he asked her Io lock up. She did so. He had been working behind the saloon bar and the adjoining bar all the evening. She was here from 8-30. Her husband was perfectly sober - she was quite sure of that.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: Unless they walked into the saloon bar hey could not see if anyone was drunk. She was surprised Wilson was there. When Mr. Ivory was called, George Cloke, the barman, was in charge of that particular bar. Wilson rarely went into the bar, and she did riot think he had been there for three months.

Cecil Cloke, the barman of the Bouverie Hotel, said he had been there for nearly four years. He knew Wilson, and saw him about 9.20 on the night of the 28th. He was then behind the bar. Mrs. Ivory went along, and told him not to serve him, because he was shouting about. He refused to serve him. Mrs. Ivory told him to see him outside, arid he saw Wilson to the door. He did not know when Wilson went back, and he was quite ignorant of the fact that he was in the house. In his view defendant was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable: It was very difficult to keep observation on the saloon bar from the serving bar.

Albert George Powell, Dawn Edge, Willingdon, Sussex, a retired removal contractor, said that on the day in question he was staying in the hotel part of the Bouverie. H went out about eight o’clock in the evening, and returned about 10.15. He was sitting in the office three-quarters of an hour or an hour before he saw Mr. Ivory, who gave him his receipt for his account. He was with Mr. Ivory for some time, and he did not notice anything wrong with him at all. As far as he could judge he was I quite all right. He did not hear anything had happened until the Monday.

Mr. Henry Hopper, master baker, 36, Morehall Avenue, said that on the 28th uly he was in the saloon bar about 9.45, land saw Mr. Ivory behind the bar serving. He was standing. He (witness) called for a drink, and defendant asked him if he would have a tankard or a glass. Mr. Ivory asked him if he was busier now, and he replied that he looked like having a busy week-end, and Mr. Ivory said “That's right, we have not many weeks to do it in”. His speech was quite clear, and there was nothing to indicate Mr. Ivory was the worse for liquor.

Mr. Henry George Hopper, 99, Chart Road, a taxi proprietor, said he visited the Bouverie Hotel on the 28th, at about 9.40 p.m. He entered the small bar on the counter, and Mr. Ivory went through. Mr. Ivory spoke to him, and Mr. Ivory was sober then at a quarter to ten. He was normal in every way.

Miss Ida Hughes, waitress at the Bouverie Hotel, said that on the night of e the 28th July Mr. Ivory asked her for two sandwiches about five minutes to ten, and he appeared to her to be perfectly sober. Mr. Ivory took the sandwiches into the bar. Just after ten Mr. Ivory brought the snack covers out. They were difficult to carry, and he carried them through all right, and put them on the table. He had to open two doors.

Miss Gladys Archer, housemaid at, the Bouverie Hotel, said she had the evening out on the 28th July, and she returned at 11.10. The house was looked up, and she had to ring the bell. Mr. Ivory went to the door and let her in. He was at that time perfectly sober.

George Albert Whiting, 36, Alexandra Gardens, carpenter, said he was in the saloon bar at ten minutes to ten, and left at 10.15. He saw Mr. Ivory, and he had no hesitation in saying he was then perfectly sober.

George Dolton. 25, Watkin Road, wholesale newsvendor, who was in the Bouverie Hotel from 9.10 to 9.25 p m., said Mr. Ivory asked him to let him have all the coppers he had, and he assisted him in counting up 15s. worth of coppers. Mr. Ivory was perfectly sober, and was very busy.

Frederick George Salter. 8. Oxford Terrace, foreman decorator, said he was in the Bouverie Hotel from 9.15 to 10.30 p.m. He was in the saloon bar, and he aw Mr. Ivory count the coppers out. He was positive Mr. Ivory was perfectly sober.

Mr. Mowll said he had other witnesses of the same type. He could not carry the case any further, and if those witnesses did not convince the Magistrates, no end of other witnesses could.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Magistrates found defendant was guilty of permitting drunkenness, and he would be fined £2. The second summons would be dismissed on account of the conflict of evidence.

Folkestone Express 12 October 1929.

Local News.

A special transfer sessions was held at the Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday, when transfers in connection with several well-known licensed houses were made.

The following full licence was transferred: The Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road East, from Mr. Ivory to Mr. Joseph P. Lord.

Folkestone Express 28 June 1930.

Saturday, June 21st: Before Alderman C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. W. Smith, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Alderman T.S. Franks, Mrs. E. Gore, and Mr. R.J. Stokes.

Albert Henry Whitley, an electrician, was charged with being drunk on licensed premises on the previous evening, at the Bouverie Hotel, and refusing to quit on the request of the landlord. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Pittock said at 9.45 p.m. on the previous day, in consequence of what he was told, he went to the Bouverie Hotel in company with Detective Sergeant Rowe. On entering the smoke room bar he saw the prisoner and he formed the opinion that he was drunk. He went round to the landlord and made a communication to him and he went to the smoke room bar. Prisoner came out almost immediately and went round to the saloon bar. He followed him in there and told him that he was a police inspector (he was in plain clothes) and said that he was of the opinion that he had had enough to drink and should go. Prisoner refused to go outside, and the licensee then went into the saloon bar and said to the prisoner “I told you to go out of the other bar. How is it you are here?” Prisoner still refused to leave, and the landlord came to the public side of the bar. He took him by the arm and witness took the other and they put him outside the premises. Witness requested prisoner several times to go away and gave him every opportunity to go home, but he used bad language and would not go, so he took him into custody. They had some difficulty in getting him to the police station.

Prisoner said he was afraid he had nothing to say, but he was sorry for what had happened.

Inspector Pittock said the prisoner had been in the town about four years, and was an electrician by occupation. He understood he was an excellent workman, but he was addicted to drink. He believed he had had some trouble recently with his wife.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said it was no prejudice against the prisoner to say that his wife had applied for a maintenance order and separation against him.

Prisoner: I did not know that.

The Chairman said that the Magistrates wished to remind the prisoner that not only had he acted wrongly, but he had, through his conduct, endangered the licence of the licensee of the hotel. They wanted to say that they knew very well that he had home troubles, but that might be his own fault. He had not been up there before, and they were taking into consideration that at the present time he was out of work, but whatever he did, he must not try to do that again. He would be fined 5s. If he could keep away from drink he would be a useful citizen.

Folkestone Express 28 January 1939.

Quarter Sessions.

Allegations that a man, whose name was not disclosed, plied Ely John Michael Ivory (30), described as a manager, of Alexandra Gardens, Folkestone, with drink and then suggested that he should break into a house in the west end of Folkestone were made by Ivory’s defending counsel at the Folkestone Quarter Sessions on Saturday, when Ivory was sentenced to six months’ hard labour for breaking and entering the house No. 27, Grimston Avenue, with intent to steal. Mr. Norman Parkes, who represented Ivory, said the suggestion rather appealed to the prisoner in his condition.

Brinley Dobbs (35), of Grace Hill, Folkestone, described as a waiter, was found guilty of aiding, abetting and assisting Ivory and was remanded in custody until the next Sessions, when the Recorder stated he would make known his decision.

When the prisoners were placed in the dock together Ivory pleaded guilty, but Dobbs pleaded not guilty. The charge against Dobbs was therefore heard by a jury.

Mr. B H. Waddy (instructed by Mr. B.H. Bonniface) prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and Mr. H.J. Baxter (instructed by Mr. J.E. Chapple, Hythe) defended. Mr. Norman Parkes (instructed by Mr. M.J. Attle) appeared on behalf of Ivory.

Mr. Waddy said one prisoner had pleaded guilty to a burglary at the house, and Dobbs was charged with aiding and abetting him. Evidence would be called to show that Dobbs was walking up and down outside the house, as schoolboys said “Keeping cave” for ivory, and if the jury were satisfied on the evidence then he would be Guilty of the charge against him.

Mr. W.J.H. Miller said he was a handyman employed by Mrs. F.M. King, of 29, Grimston Avenue. The house was furnished but it was not occupied on the night of December 19th. Mrs. King and he went to the house during that day. They both left at half past six, the house being secure, and there were no broken windows in the kitchen or scullery. On the following morning he found the glass door in the butler's pantry had been broken.

Mr. R.M. Bedford, of 205, Dover Road, Folkestone, said he was a chef employed at No. 31, Grimston Avenue, which was next door to the house broken into. On Monday evening, December 19th, he started to go home from his work about ten minutes past nine. At the time it was snowing and the wind was howling. As he was going out of the drive pushing his cycle he saw two men passing the gate, going towards Sandgate Road. One was Dobbs and the other Ivory. He was quite certain about Dobbs. One of the men said “This is the house”, and the other replied “No, this is the one”. The men passed the gate of No. 31, but stopped by No. 29. He got on his bicycle and rode up towards Bouverie Road West, but as he did so he turned round and saw Dobbs, but Ivory had disappeared. Dobbs was walking up and down in front of Nos. 27 and 29. He knew at the time that Mrs. King was not staying in No. 29 at nights. When he got to the corner of Bouverie Road West he stood at the corner and Dobbs was still walking up and down, there was no sign of Ivory. He rode down Bouverie Road West into Earl’s Avenue and went into Grimston Gardens, coming out of the gardens by the gate in order to get into Grimston Avenue. He then saw Dobbs outside No. 29 and as he (witness) crossed the road he heard a sound of splintering glass from the back of No. 29. He went to No. 31 in order to telephone to the police, but the telephone was out of order. He therefore went to No. 33 and left a message there to be telephoned. When he came out of there he saw Dobbs walk across the road and turn from Grimston Avenue into Grimston Gardens. He stood by the side of a tree for a few seconds. Immediately after P.C. McNaughton came along on his bicycle and he spoke to him. Dobbs, by that time, had disappeared. He saw P.C. McNaughton go to the back entrance of No. 29, Grimston Avenue, and later he saw detective officers arrive in a car.

Cross-examined, witness said he had never, so far as he knew, seen Dobbs previous to that night. He was positive Dobbs was the man outside No. 29. About a quarter of an hour or ten minutes elapsed from the first time he saw the two men to the detective officers arriving. Later he saw some people standing near the two police cars, but he did not recognise Dobbs as one of them because he did not take particular notice of them.

Mr. Baxter: You never saw the man whom you had seen outside the house from the moment the police officer arrived until you attended at the Police Court next morning?

Witness: No, sir.

In reply to the Recorder witness said the man whom he saw walking up and down was short and fat. When he passed, behind the two men as he came out of No. 31, Grimston Avenue they were quite close to a street lamp. Proceeding, witness said as he came out of No. 33, after leaving a message to be telephoned, Dobbs was standing under a tree and remained there until P.C. McNaughton arrived.

P.C. McNaughton said he inspected the furnished and unoccupied house, No. 29, Grimston Avenue on December 19th at 8.55 p.m. It was then all correct. He went round Grimston Gardens on his cycle and he returned into Grimston Avenue, where he saw two men, one of whom was Dobbs. The other, whom he learned subsequently, was the witness, Bedford. Dobbs was practically opposite No. 25 and was walking towards Grimston Gardens, and was going away from No. 29. In consequence of what Bedford said he made an inspection of No. 29 and he found two panes of glass had been broken in the kitchen.

Shortly after lie met two detective officers with whom he had a conversation, and he immediately went after Dobbs whom he saw in Grimston Gardens walking towards Earls Avenue. He said to him “Dobbs, I want you”. Dobbs replied “What for?” He then said “I have seen you coming away from the direction of a house that has been entered and I shall detain you for enquiries”. Dobbs made no reply to that. He took him back to the house, where he saw Ivory in the company of the two detectives. Dobbs waited outside the house with him for five or seven minutes before being taken away in the police car.

Det. Sgt. Johnson said that at 9.33 p.m. on December 19th he went with Det. Constable Bates in a police car to No. 28, Grimston Avenue in consequence of a telephone message received. As the car was going along Grimston Gardens he saw Dobbs walking along on the garden side. He (witness) proceeded in the car into Grimston Avenue where he saw P.C. McNaughton, to whom he gave certain instructions. He went to No. 29 and examined the rear of the premises. He found that a window in the scullery and another window had been broken. Det. Constable Bates, and he entered the premises and found Ivory hiding behind an armchair in the kitchen. They searched him and in his possession were found a torch, a screwdriver and a table knife, while he was also wearing gloves. When he got outside with Ivory, P. C. McNaughton and two other officers were there with Dobbs. As Dobbs was about to be put into the police van he made a remark as to what he was being taken in for and he (witness) believed his reply was “If you do not know, you soon will”. He did not then explain anything to him. Dobbs and Ivory were taken to the Police Station and at about 11.20 they were formally charged and cautioned. Ivory replied in Dobbs’ presence “I saw Dobbs earlier in the evening, but he had nothing to do with it”. Dobbs said “I was not near the house. I was fetched to the house by a policeman”.

Inspector Rowe gave evidence that he was in charge of the Police Station when Ivory and Dobbs were brought in, and they were cautioned and charged.

Cross-examined, witness said he believed Dobbs had a perfectly good character.

Mr. Waddy: I can tell Mr. Baxter Dobbs has a perfectly clean record.

The Recorder intimated to Mr. Baxter that there was certainly a case for him to meet.

Dobbs, giving evidence, said in December he was employed at the School of Education at Shorncliffe. He had never been charged with any offence before. He joined the Army when he was 14½ years of age and had to be discharged because he was under age. He later joined the Army and after serving ten years he was discharged with exemplary character. He was employed as a night watchman at the Astoria Theatre for two and a quarter years and left there because of a reduction in the staff, being given a good reference. He obtained his present employment in May last year. On December 19th he went to the Circle Club in Sandgate Road at about twenty minutes past eight, leaving there about twenty minutes later. He had a drink in the Club and during the time he was there Ivory came into the Club. He had a conversation with him, but he did not leave the Club with Ivory. When he left he walked up Sandgate Road as far as the Metropole Hotel and he was going on to the Leas, but owing to the weather he turned into Grimston Avenue and then turned along Grimston Gardens towards his home. He was not with Ivory in Grimston Avenue at any time that night, neither did he walk up and down outside No. 29, or any other house in Grimston Avenue that evening. P.C. McNaughton came up to him in Grimston Gardens and said “Dobbs, I want you”. He replied “What do you want me for?” and the constable said “You will soon find out”. He therefore went back with him to the police car, which was standing outside No. 29. He talked to one of the drivers of the two cars there and said “What is wrong?” and he replied he did not know. He agreed that Det. Sgt. Johnson when he spoke to him as to why they wanted him, said “You will soon find out”.

Cross-examined, witness said Ivory left the Circle Club a few minutes before him, but he did not know where he was going. It was quite wrong for Det. Sgt. Johnson to say he saw him walking on the gardens side of Grimston Gardens. He did not see the police car pass him. It was not the truth to say that he knew Ivory was going to break into the house and that he was waiting outside in case he was disturbed.

The jury were absent about seven minutes considering their verdict and when they returned to the Court the foreman announced that they found Dobbs Guilty.

Ivory was then placed in the dock with Dobbs.

Det. Sgt. Johnson said Ivory was born at Folkestone. His father was the licensee of the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone. The defendant’s mother was now the proprietress of a boarding house. Ivory attended school until the age of 16 years and on leaving was apprenticed to motor engineers at Folkestone for two years. From 1926 to 1929 he assisted his father in his business at the Bouverie Hotel. When the family left the hotel, Ivory went to Germany as a teacher of English, being employed with the Berlitz Schools at three different towns for eighteen months. He returned to England as he saw no prospects of advancement and was out of employment until January, 1932, when he went to Jamaica to try and find employment. Being unable to find employment he returned to England in June, 1932. In November of that year his mother opened the boarding house and since then Ivory had lived there and assisted in the business. He was married on the 21st May last year. “Ivory has long been suspected of being concerned in breaking offences”, continued Det. Sgt. Johnson, “in this borough and has been interrogated respecting the same on more than one occasion. He has been closely associated with two men who have recently been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for burglary and other offences with two other men. It is also known that he has associated with well- known members of the criminal fraternity in London. He is a heavy drinker and spends most of his time in clubs and public house bars. There are no previous convictions recorded against him”.

Witness, proceeding, said Dobbs was born at Llanharran, Glamorgan, and both his parents were dead. His father was a colliery fireman. Prisoner attended the Llanwood School, Pontypridd, until 14 years of age. He was then employed as an engine driver in the Great Western Colliery, Pontypridd, for three years. In July, 1920, he joined the Royal Corps of Signals and served in Sierra Leone, West Africa, and Ireland until 1924. He was then unemployed for a year, when he again enlisted into the Dragoon Guards, being discharged time expired in 1932. He was then unemployed until April 15th, 1935, when he obtained employment as night watchman and cleaner at the Astoria Cinema, Folkestone. He lost the situation on December 4th, 1937, when the staff was reduced. He was again unemployed until May, 1938, when he obtained a situation as waiter in the Warrant Officers and Sergeants’ Mess at the Army School of Education. He was in that situation at the time of his arrest. His Army character was exemplary. He was a single man. There were no previous convictions recorded against him.

Mr. Parkes said he would like to ask the witness if it was right that the aspersions he had made about Ivory’s previous conduct was largely based upon his association with certain men together with statements he had made. At any rate, neither his associations nor his associations with other men had led the police to place any evidence before a jury?

Det. Sgt. Johnson: That is so.

He has never been charged before? - Never.

After this burglary, to which he has pleaded guilty, did a police officer visit his mother’s house and search the premises? - I did.

Doubtless you make a thorough search and it is right to say nothing could be found there of which complaint could be made? - That is so.

Mr. Parkes said Ivory desired him to express his very sincere regret for having committed that serious crime, the seriousness of which he now fully appreciated and more so that his arrest had brought considerable trouble upon himself and his mother, a very respectable woman, who carried on a good class boarding house business in Folkestone. Added to the natural anxiety of a mother finding her son in that situation, one could understand the harm a charge of that kind must do to her business. More than that, Ivory’s wife, to whom he was married a short time ago, had left him as a result of his arrest. He did urge upon the Recorder that one of his reasons for asking him to deal as leniently as he could with Ivory it might be that if dealt with leniently, his wife would be the more ready to return to him, the other alternative being the possibility if they were apart for a time the estrangment between them might be permanent. The police had told the Court that Ivory had been suspected for some time of having been connected with house breaking in that borough. He (Mr. Parkes) asked the Recorder to ignore that suggestion completely. It arose through his association with undesirable persons. The prisoner admitted he had associated with undesirable persons, but he denied quite definitely ever before taking part in any adventure of this kind. Ivory when arrested said “I expected you would get me sooner or later”. The explanation he desired him (Mr. Parkes) to put forward for that was that as they had heard through his associations he had been frequently interrogated by the police. It was the fact of the numerous frequent interrogations caused some resentment in his mind against the police, whether it was right or not, and the expression he used arose from that resentment. “The prisoner tells me”, (Mr. Parkes proceeded, “on the evening on the day on which he committed this burglary he was approached by a certain man. I do not think it would be right for me to mention this unless I gave the name of the man and where to find him. I have written it down and written down his occupation, and I should be glad to hand it up to the Recorder or if the police would like to know it it is here for them. The prisoner was approached by this man in a motor car; he called to him at his home and took him to Hythe and there he plied him wit drink and then brought him back to Folkestone. On the way back, Ivory being under the influence of drink he had taken, this man suggested to him he should break into this house and gave him the information in regard to it being empty and so forth. Having made that suggestion, which in his confused condition rather appealed to the prisoner, they went to the Circle Club, as you have heard.” Mr. Parkes, continuing, said after leaving the Club they went to an hotel, where the prisoner was again plied with drink by that man. He had a witness whom he would call to tell the Court that that particular man was there and that the prisoner was being supplied with drink, and just after nine he was definitely showing the result of the drinks he had taken. He (Mr. Parkes) could not put forward, as they knew, that he was drunk as any excuse for the course the prisoner took, but be did ask the Recorder to take into consideration that there was a man of good character, who had had more drink than was good for him and who, at the suggestion of another man, an older man, took part in that crime. When they left the hotel he was instructed that Ivory was driven off in a car by a man, presumably in the direction of this house. He (Mr. Parkes) appreciated at the time of his arrest Ivory was found in possession of certain articles of which the Court might desire some explanation. He instructed him to say the screwdriver was given him by that man and the torch was given to him for the purpose of returning it to a man from whom it was borrowed some time ago. “That it is not the work of a professional housebreaker”, Mr. Parkes continued, “is supported by the way in which it was carried out. If one had listened to the evidence in the case the first thing that would strike one is the very amateurish way these two men set about their project. These two men set about their project by discussing on the public footpath the house they were going to enter. That is obviously the conduct of persons who were neither experienced housebreakers nor persons who, at the time they committed the crime, were really wholly responsible for their actions as they would be if they were sober”. He proposed to call two witnesses, and having heard that evidence he would ask the Recorder to treat that case as leniently as possible with Ivory, who had committed that crime at the instigation of someone else and committed at a time when he had visited public house after public house and was definitely suffering from drink. His learned friend, Mr. Baxter, asked him to make it clear that the other man of whom he had spoken was not the prisoner Dobbs. He wished to add that it would be foolish for him, on behalf of the prisoner, to make those suggestions about another man unless he was prepared to give his name and such particulars as were necessary to identify him.

Mr. Aubrey McElroy, 75, Shornclifle Crescent, Folkestone, said on December 19th he went into the Queen’s Hotel, where he saw Ivory at eight minutes to nine. He would say he was very drunk. He was with another man and they left together eventually. He saw them at about four or five minutes past nine standing by a saloon car outside tile hotel. He had known Ivory for two years and was one of his great friends. He spoke to Ivory and tried to persuade him not to have any more drink. He could not say that Ivory was plied with drinks because he was not there sufficiently long enough.

Cross-examined, witness said he did say they were serving Ivory with drink, but he had a glass by the side of him.

Mr. Waddy: Did you see him drink?

Witness: I really only noticed a glass by the side of him.

Is it your opinion that he was, as my friend talks about, being plied with drink at that hotel? - I should not think so.

In answer to further questions, witness said in view of Ivory’s condition he did not think he could have climbed through a broken window.

Mr. Waddy: Do you think he would be likely at half past nine to be in the condition as described by the police officer?

Witness: I suppose the shock of seeing the police officers might have sobered him.

He was found not only with a screwdriver, a torch and a table knife, but he was wearing gloves? You know gloves are things to prevent finger prints being left? - Yes, but they are also for wearing in cold weather.

Questioned by the Recorder, witness said he did not think Ivory would drink a terrific amount. He had seen him before as intoxicated as he was on December 19th. He should think it was obvious to everyone that he was drunk. He did not know if he was refused, but merely noticed a glass by the side of him.

Mrs. E.J. Ivory, the mother of the prisoner, said she kept a boarding house and he had been living with her for two months. In spite of that case she would provide him with a home, for he was her right hand. If the Recorder found it possible to let him go on certain conditions, with someone looking after him, she would be prepared to co-operate with that particular person.

Questioned by the Recorder, Mrs. Ivory said her son was married in May and his wife lived with him until Christmas Eve. Her son and his wife lived at a flat first and later they came to live in the boarding house with her. They appeared to get on well together.

Mr. Baxter, on behalf of Dobbs, said that he had had not merely a good character, but an excellent character, which his Army discharge papers showed as exemplary. He had many testimonials from officers under whom he had served, and when he left the Astoria in December, 1937, the management stated he was excellent in every way. At the School of Education his services had been perfectly satisfactory. It was difficult under those circumstances to understand why he had committed the offence with which he had been found guilty. He had had a conversation with him since the finish of the case against him and he assured him he had never been out with Ivory before and that he was completely unable to give any explanation why he went with Ivory on that occasion. He, however, assured him he would not commit any offence of that kind again. He had been already in custody for five weeks, and the Recorder might think that that fulfilled the function which he might think was necessary. He had had his lesson. He (Mr. Baxter) said he was instructed to say from an officer of the School of Education that if a certain course was taken it would permit the matter of his employment being referred to a higher Authority. If he was sentenced he would lose his position.

The Recorder, addressing Ivory, said he had pleaded guilty to burglary. Very few burglars would meet with but little encouragement in that Court. He had listened to the very eloquent and able speech on his behalf by Mr. Norman Parkes, but he did not find himself in the position to be able to take the lenient view which he was asked to do. Ivory’s character was not good, but he was not sentencing him on the character he might have been given, but sentencing him for the offence he had committed. He noted when considering the matter whether he be an amateur or professional burglar, he had in his equipment a torch and a screwdriver. He also had a most useful weapon, a knife which could easily be slipped between the sash of a double window. Whether he was proposing to use that in that way he did not know. He (the Recorder) did not think he would be doing his duty towards the community if he did not impose a sentence upon him, and he did not think he would be doing justice if he sentenced him to a term of less than six months' imprisonment.

Concerning Dobbs, he had been found guilty, and he thought very properly so, of aiding and abetting Ivory. It might seem to Dobbs not quite so serious an offence, as Mr. Waddy said, to fill the part, of “keeping cave”, but it was a very necessary part if a burglary was to be successful. He would have been surprised if the jury had come to any other decision, having regard to the very clear evidence of the young chef, who would not say anything without thought and evident deliberation. He (the Recorder) bore in mind that he had a good character and that it might be possible for him to be taken into his employment again if a certain course was adopted. He was not going so far as that, but he proposed to remand him and he would have enquiries directed to that department of the Army. If, when he came up for Judgment at the next Sessions, he would be able to be taken into employment he would be in no worse position than being bound over. He therefore passed no sentence upon him, but remanded him in custody until the next Quarter Sessions.

Folkestone Express 13 April 1940.

Lighting Order.

A further batch of summonses were heard by the Mayor (Alderman G.A. Gurr) and Dr. F. Wolverson on Tuesday.

Miss Ivy Sherwood, a barmaid at the Bouverie Hotel, was summoned in respect of a display light.

War Reserve Police Constable Stockham said at 2.15 a.m. he observed an illuminated sign in the hotel. It was one word “Open”, and the place was closed. He rang the bell and an upstairs window was opened, and a young man, who said he was the son of the licensee, replied.

In reply to the Clerk, the witness said the light would be permissible while the hotel was open. It was used for business purposes.

The defendant said the hotel was really open all night if anyone called. It had keen left on until midnight previously, and no exception taken to it.

A letter was read from Mr. Lord pointing out that I they took people into the hotel at all times.

Fined 10/-.