DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, April, 2022.

Page Updated:- Monday, 18 April, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest Oct 1880

(Name from)

Bouverie Hotel

Latest 1986

(Name to)

25 Bouverie Road East

25 Middleburg Square

Folkestone

Bouverie Hotel 1980

Hotel showing Bob and Joan Lord circa 1969, kindly supplied by Peter Lord.

Bouverie Hotel 1978

Above photograph kindly supplied by Jan Pedersen, 1978.

From an email received 21 May 2016.

Bouverie Hotel 1980

Above photo, 1980, kindly supplied by Mike Dale.

 

Hi,

I find your list of pubs very intriguing and coming across the "Bouverie Hotel" brought back many memories because I lived just around the corner in Bouverie Square - three houses along from the corner [1946 -1958] I must have walked passed this pub many thousands of times on the way to school [St Eanswyths ] or to the shops and cinemas and also Gales Caf seen in the attached picture which I took in 1980. Gales was a meeting place for many of my friends in the few years before we were old enough to go in pubs. I rarely went in the "Bouverie" though but my Dad did when he would "pop round the corner for a quick one."

The arch would have been to accommodate coaches and indeed there were stables behind the pub. They backed on to my back garden and as a kid I would climb up and "talk" to the horses through an open window. The Horses were owned by a milk company that was still delivering by horse and cart early fifties. I believe horse drawn coaches may have terminated there and travellers perhaps stayed in the Hotel. I wonder what those folks would have thought of the bus station built around the corner.

 

Above photo kindly sent by Chris Excell, 5 June 1983.

 

Built and opened in 1867 as the "Albion Tavern" the name changed to the "Bouverie Hotel" in 1880.

Licensee Wilhelm Henri Hoclckenbhn was convicted for allowing billiards to be played after closing time on 7th February 1891 and on 27th February the following year was charged again, this time for selling intoxicating liquor outside of licensing hours, and this time was fined 50s. with 11s. costs.

There appeared to be a huge turnover of licensees in the early years of this establishment till Joseph Percival Lord acquired the premises in 1929, staying there 39 years till handing it over to his son, Robert Lord in 1968. He continued to run the business for another 14 years till 1982.

The premises used to be supplied by Whitbread and had two bars, one public and one saloon.

Four years after Robert Lord relinquished the license to David Bumpstead and Noel Kebbel the name was changed once again, this time to the "Victoria Hotel." Unfortunately the hotel lasted under this name till the year 2000 when it closed in June and was demolished the year after.

 

From an email sent 2 October 2011.

Hallo!

I am Peter Robert Lord, son of Robert Percival Lord and grandson or Joseph Percival Lord. My forbears ran the pub for just over half the 20th Century. My granddad Percy and dad Robert formed a partnership, and were joint landlords (as far as I know) from about 1948, when Percy was 65.

I think the address was 25 Bouverie Road East.

Then it became something Middelburg Square.

I attach some photos, which may be of interest.

Joseph Percy Lord

Above photo shows landlord Joseph Percival Lord and friends at a local shoot circa 1930. The boy is Robert and next to him the tall man on his right is Joseph. Caption by Peter Lord reads:- "Landlord Percy Lord and friends prepare to meet the Tax Inspector." Grandad was always Percy, or the old man, never Joseph.

Robert Percival Lord, 1995

Robert Percival Lord as his happy self, 1995.

Outing from Bouverie Hotel 1950

An outing to London for the darts club at the Bouverie Hotel, 1950. Dad 4th from left. Wilf Armory (later Folkestone FC manager) 10th from right.

Joan Lord at the bar 1979

Getting ready to fill it up! Joan Lord with the Kent Senior Cup at the Bouverie Hotel 1979. Won by Folkestone FC. Caption by Peter Lord:- "Bob Lord asked Father Christmas for A Trophy Wife. But Father Christmas misheard…

Mr Lord and Mrs. Percival

Above photo, (Dad's mother, my grandmother, died when he was 3 months). Miss Osgood, centre, cared for him till her own death when Dad was 4. This must be about 1925. His sisters, Drena and Joyce are in the picture as well.

Bouverie Golden Jubilee celebrations 1979

Bouverie Golden Jubilee celebrations 1979. Wilf Armory is front left, Frank Yeo is front right.

 

Regards

Peter Robert Lord.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 24 December 1881.

Wednesday, December 21st: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, Capt. Carter, Alds. Caister and Sherwood, J. Holden esq., and Mr. Fitness.

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

 

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 News 26 April 1884.

Local News.

An interesting presentation of a cruet stand was made on Thursday evening at the Bouverie Hotel to Mr. Adams, who by his courteous attention and general regard for the comfort of the gentlemen who frequent the billiard room, had merited their appreciation and good wishes.

Note: Who was Mr. Adams? He does not appear on the list of licensees in More Bastions.

 

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 Chronicle 7 March 1885.

Bankrupt.

A sitting of the District Bankruptcy Court was held at the Guildhall on Friday, the Registrar (Mr. Walter Furley) presiding. The public examination of Elijah Redgrave jun., of the Bouverie Hotel, was proceeded with. The Official Receiver said the bankrupt did not attend the first meeting of the 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 as he arrived at Canterbury too late.

The Official Receiver said the statement of affairs showed unsecured creditors, 1,427 4s. 5d. The assets were: Stock in trade at the Bouverie Hotel. Estimated to produce 300, book debts 14 4s. 1d., cash at banker's 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. 5d.

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 now 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?

The Bankrupt: I went first 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 November, 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 had 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 might be necessary to keep the thing open for a time, and I shall adjourn the case for a month.

Mr. R. Mercer (Canterbury) attended to represent the creditors in the case.

 

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 News 1 May 1886.

Wednesday, April 28th:

Transfer was granted as follows: Mrs. Newland, of the Bouverie Hotel.

Note: No mention of Newland in More Bastions.

Holbein's Visitors' List 1 January 1890.

Quarter Sessions.

Of course the invitations were not couched in precisely the words “To meet The Recorder”; legal folk love prolixity and mystification too well for that, but that was what it came to, anyhow, and so at eleven on Monday morning we assembled, from divers and diverse motives, at that grand old abomination, the Town Hall. The cry of “Silence” made whatever is indoors for “the welkin” ring, and then entered the mace-bearer, followed by the learned Recorder.

Henry Herbert Mealing was charged with stealing two shillings, the property of W.H. Molckenbuhr.

Mr. Hume Williams, instructed by Mr. John Minter, appeared for the defence, and asked that the case might be adjourned until the next Quarter Sessions. The defendant had only been committed on Saturday, and as the whole case would depend on the cross-examination of the prosecutor and his witnesses, it had been impossible to prepare the defence properly. Not only so, but there were material witnesses who were unable to be present that day, and he therefore asked that the case might be adjourned and the defendant again admitted to bail.

Mr. Watts, instructed by Mr. A.W. Watts, said that he could not agree to the adjournment.

The Recorder said that as all the parties resided in the borough he thought there had been sufficient time for the case to be prepared, and no sufficient reason had been shown why the trial should not proceed.

Mr. Hume Williams then asked that any other cases might be taken, so that he might have an opportunity to confer with his client, Mr. Minter.

The Recorder assented, but as the Grand Jury had not returned a bill in the third case, the Court sat in idleness for a considerable time.

The trial of Henry Mealing was then proceeded with, and occupied a long time, the witnesses for the prosecution being severely cross-examined by Mr. Hume Williams.

Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr, proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, was the first witness. He said that on the 10th December he gave defendant a florin to get 1 lb. of steak and some vegetables. About a week after he found that the goods had not been paid for. When he came back he said the steak was a shilling. On the 12th he left prosecutor's employment without permission. He had since paid for thje steak and vegetables. In the course of a long and searching examination by Mr. Hume Williams, the prosecutor admitted that he had charged the defendant with stealing a sovereign, had searched him, and had afterwards given him a thrashing. The thrashing was not in consequence of his stealing, but because of the language used by the defendant. He would rather not say what the defendant said to him, but the Recorder remarked that they were not squeamish in that Court, and the exact words must be repeated. In the course of further cross-examination the witness contradicted himself in important parts of his evidence, admitting that the lad was not sent for the vegetables at the same time as the steak, in fact they were sent for earlier in the morning, but he “expected” him to pay for them out of the florin, although he did not tell him to do so. He did not ask the lad for the change when he said the steak was 1/-, or at any subsequent period, in fact he forgot all about it. At great length Mr. Hume Williams took the witness through the whole matter from beginning to end, and several times read from the evidence given before the Magistrates to show that the prosecutor told one story on Saturday and another on Monday. In the course of this examination it was elicited tht County Court summonses had been served on the prosecutor for money due to defendant's mother for washing done, and for damages for wrongful dismissal and assault. These summonses were served before the prosecutor applied to the Magistrates' Clerk for a summons against the defendant for stealing, but he maintained that one was not in consequence of the other. He entirely denied that he had received written characters with the defendant. He had taken him without a character because he knew his parents to be respectable.

Miss Charley, a barmaid in the employ of prosecutor, also gave evidence, and was closely cross-examined by Mr. Hume Williams.

Ernest Vincett, in the employ of Mr. Hann, butcher, and Mrs. Stapley gave evidence to the effect that the goods purchased at their respective shops were not paid for, but both admitted in cross-examination that articles were often purchased for the Bouverie Hotel without payment at the time.

The defence was a total denial of the charge, and the mother of the defendant gave evidence on his behalf. She swore that her son came home on the evening of the 11th Dec. with his mouth and nose bleeding, and he complained of his head. In the morning she went with her son to see prosecutor, and he again struck her son, causing his nose to bleed. On the 17th inst. she asked the prosecutor for her washing bill, but he refused to pay unless she deducted 2/- which he said her son had stolen. She said “Oh, dear, no. I fear nothing, I only ask will you pay me my money”. The prosecutor said “No”, and she then said “Very good. Good morning” and came away. She then took out a County Court summons against the prosecutor.

Mr. Hume Williams made a lengthy and eloquent appeal to the jury on behalf of the defendant, and Mr. Watts having replied, the Recorder summed up, directing the attention of the jury to the discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecutor. The speech of Mr. Hume Williams and the verdict of Not Guilty given by the jury were received with applause in Court.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 January 1890.

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

Albert Henry Mealing, a respectably dressed boy, aged 17, was charged with stealing a sovereign from the Bouverie Hotel, on the 12th of December, the money of his master, Wilhelm Heinrick Molckenbuhr; also with stealing 2s. on the 10th December.

Mr. Watts prosecuted and Mr. Minter defended.

Mr. Minter asked the Bench to adjourn the case. The defendant had taken out a summons against the prosecutor for wages and assault, and it was not until after those summonses had been served that he entered the present charge. He asked that the boy's case in the County Court might be heard first. He would be able to make a statement there, whereas his mouth in that court was closed.

The Bench declined to adjourn the case.

The prosecutor, a German, was then called and examined by Mr. Watts. On the 10th December he sent the defendant, between twelve and one o'clock, to buy a beefsteak at Hann's. He gave him a two shilling piece to pay for it, and to get some vegetables from Stapley's as well, which he naturally expected him to pay for as well. When he returned he said the steak was one shilling, but witness did not say anything about the change. On the following Friday he left his service without permission. He ran away. Hann sent in the bill for the steak, and Mrs. Stapley also charged 5d. for the vegetables.

By Mr. Minter: The steak was required for a gentleman. Witness was playing billiards when the defendant told him. Did not know whether he was playing billiards with Mr. Catterall. Did not know who it was. He sent the boy out. When he returned he did not say “I have got the steak and the greens, but they are not paid for”. He did not ask for the change. It was neglect on witness's part, he supposed. On the 12th he lost a sovereign from the bar. The boy was in the billiard room. Witness asked him where it was. He said he did not know anything about it. Told him he would send for the police, and that he would get imprisonment. He did not search the boy, nor did he punch his head and make his nose bleed. He made him turn his pockets out and made him pull off his boots. Witness had the barmaid in and tried to frighten the defendant. The boy's mother came to his house the next morning and they had an altercation about the sovereign. Did not shake the boy in his mother's presence. He would swear it. The boy's mother came again and he told her he had stolen a two shilling piece. He refused to pay her bill for washing, and she had taken out a County Court summons. He did not refuse on account of the theft. It was for overcharges. The boy had also brought a County Court summons for assault and wages. He had received the County Court summons when he laid the information respecting the present charges. Did not recollect saying anything to anyone that he would not have issued the summons if he had not received the County Court summons. He would not swear it.

The prosecutor gave his evidence in a very guarded manner, and was very reluctant to answer several questions.

Mary Charley said she was barmaid in the employ of the last witness. She saw the prosecutor give the defendant 2s. to buy a steak. The boy left on Thursday evening. He went out without his cap and left the back door open. He ran away because the police were coming. Heard the charge made against him of stealing the sovereign. It was after that that the boy left.

By Mr. Minter: The gentleman asked her for the steak and she sent the boy up for the money. He got the steak and gave it to the servant. She heard him tell the prosecutor that it cost one shilling. She remembered the conversation about the sovereign. Witness placed the coin on the shelf in the bar about seven o'clock in the evening. They always kept the gold there. She missed it between half past seven and eight o'clock. Mr. Molckenbuhr first drew her attention to it. Witness was in the smoking room. There were several gentlemen there. It was close to the bar. She saw the boy turn his pockets out. Did not see the prosecutor strike him, nor did she notice his nose bleeding.

The witness here made a slip, and, in answer to a question by Mr. Minter, said she gave the boy the money herself. The prosecutor was standing near, and spoke one or two words to her by way of correction. Mr. Minter drew the attention of the Bench to the fact that the prosecutor was prompting the witness, and the Magistrates ordered him to stand back in the public gallery. The witness said she wished to correct the statement. She gave the boy one shilling to pay for her boots to be mended. They were tenpence, and she gave him one penny for fetching them.

Earnest Vinsett, a butcher, in the employ of Mr. Hann, butcher, Cheriton Road, said the defendant ordered the steak but did not pay for it.

Mrs. Stapley said the defendant fetched the vegetables at her shop, but did not pay for them. They came to 5d.

The Bench committed the defendant for trial on the charge of stealing the 2s. piece, and then went into the theft of a sovereign.

The evidence was very similar to that given in the last case. In answer to Mr. Minter, the prosecutor added that he was in the smoking room and the defendant was washing up glasses. He saw the defendant “looking at the sovereign”, and when he saw witness looking at him he went on with his work. He did not see the defendant take, nor could he find it when he searched him.

This charge was dismissed.

 

Quarter Sessions

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

A true bill was returned against Herbert Mealing, aged 17, for stealing 2s., the money of his master, W.H. Molckenbuhr, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, a German, on the 12th December.

Mr. Watts (barrister), instructed by Mr. A.R. Watts, prosecuted, and Mr. Hume Williams, instructed by Mr. J. Minter, defended.

Mr. Williams asked the learned Recorder to allow the case to stand adjourned. The defendant was nit convicted until Saturday, and therefore he had had no opportunity of getting up his case. The whole of the defence would have to depend upon the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution.

Mr. Watts said he could not agree with that. He did not consider the adjournment was necessary.

The Recorder said he saw no grounds for the adjournment.

Mr. Williams remarked that he should have called a couple of witnesses, but he had not had time to do so. Only Sunday intervened, and it was impossible to get the case together.

The Recorder considered there were no substantial grounds why the trial should be postponed, and the case proceeded.

Mr. Watts addressed the Court on behalf of the prosecution, and called the prosecutor, Wilhelm Heinrick Molckenbuhr, who stated that the prisoner was formerly in his employ. On Tuesday, the 10th of Dec. Witness sent him out to fetch a beefsteak from Mr. Hann, butcher, of Cheriton Road, and some vegetables from Mrs. Stapley. He gave him a 2s. piece. He said the steak was 1s. On Thursday, the 12th of Dec. He left without his permission. He had subsequently paid the butcher 1s. for the steak, and Mrs. Stapley 5d. for the greengrocery.

By Mr. Williams: I am a German. I have had the Bouverie about twelve months. The boy left without my permission. I had charged him with stealing a sovereign, and on that occasion I thrashed him.

The Recorder: What did you thrash him for? – For a great insult towards me.

Mr. Williams: Did you make him turn out everything he had to see if he had the sovereign? – Yes.

And made him take off his shoes? – I did.

And thereupon I believe you thrashed him for stealing a sovereign? – No, not for stealing the sovereign.

Did you tell the defendant to go to Hell? – I did not, and I deny that he said to me “You had better make that long journey first”.

Well, what words did the boy use to make you thrash him? – I don't wish to repeat them.

The Recorder: Answer the question.

Witness: I wish Mr. Watts to repeat them; he has them in writing.

The Recorder: You must answer the question.

The witness then repeated the language alleged to have been used by the defendant.

Cross-examination proceeding: I did not thrash him until ten minutes after I had charged him with stealing the sovereign.

You threatened him with criminal proceedings and told him you would ruin his character, did you not? – I told him his character would be ruined.

You did not find the sovereign on him? – No, I did not find it at all.

Last Saturday I believe you charged him with stealing the sovereign before the Magistrates – I did.

And did the Magistrates dismiss the charge? – Yes.

Was anything said about the two shilling piece at that time? – No.

Then after you had searched him and threatened him and thrashed him, I suppose you were not exactly surprised that he left your service – ran away, as you term it – without your permission? – The witness did not answer.

You did everything you could to frighten him, didn't you? – Yes, I did.

And then he “ran away without your permission”? – Yes (Laughter.)

The next morning the boy called on you with his mother? – Yes

She complained to you of striking her boy, and did you not say “And if he uses the same words again I will strike him again”? – No, I did not say so.

Now you be careful. The boy's mother is in Court.

Did you not strike him in the presence of his mother, and make his nose bleed? – No, I did not. He was there about ten minutes altogether, and during that time I sent for his clothes and he went away.

On the 17th – five days after – did the boy's mother go back to you and ask you to pay the washing bill? – Yes. I did not see the boy. He was outside.

Did you then propose to pay the bill after deducting the 2s., which you allege that the boy had stolen? – No, I refused to pay unless she deducted the overcharge. I did not know he had stolen the 2s. then. I did not know until Hann sent in his bill for the steak.

Mr. Williams read the depositions given by the prosecutor on Saturday, which distinctly stated that he told the mother that he had discovered that the boy had stolen 2s.

The prosecutor denied having said so in his evidence.

Mr. Williams said there could be no doubt that he said it, for his evidence was taken word for word by the Clerk, read over to him, and signed by him as correct.

Mr. Williams: Did you pay the bill? – No; two days afterwards the woman issued a County Court summons for the amount. The defendant also issued a summons against me for wrongful dismissal, wages, and damages for assault. It was not until after I had received those summonses that I charged the boy with stealing the sovereign and the 2s.

At the time you allege that the defendant asked you for the money to pay for the steak you were playing billiards, were you not? – Yes; it was between twelve and one o'clock.

What did you say? – I do not know the words I used.

Are you in the habit of leaving the boy with 5s. in his pocket for change? – Yes.

At the time you say you gave him the 2s., had he 5s.? – No.

But he did have when you searched him for the sovereign, because you have told us that he gave it back to you? – Yes, he did.

Did you ask him for the 5s.? – No, he gave it to me without.

Was it not before you sent the boy for the steak that you sent him for the vegetables? – I do not recollect.

Had not the vegetables actually been delivered at the time? – I do not know.

Now, do you not know that they were actually being cooked at the time? – No, I do not know.

If the boy was to pay for the vegetables, why did you not tell him? – I meant him to pay when he fetched the steak.

Did you tell him when he fetched the steak to pay for the vegetables? – I expected him to.

You are fencing my question, sir. Do you understand, or won't you? – I quite understand.

Well then, did you say so? – I do not recollect.

What were the words you used? – I said “Go to Hann, the butcher, and fetch a steak”.

You did not say anything about the vegetables? – No.

I suppose you are pretty accurate as to what occurred on this occasion? – I am.

Is this anything like what you said before the Magistrates on Saturday (reading the depositions): I told him to go and fetch a steak, and gave him 2s. to pay for it. I sent him for some vegetables as well, which naturally he had to pay for as well. I told him to go to Stapley's for the vegetables. – The prosecutor was very reluctant to answer the question. After a great deal of pressing he said he had no wish to speak an untruth.

Mr. Williams pointed out the direct contradiction.

Were you present when the boy came back? – No; I went into the kitchen after it was in the frying pan.

What did the boy say? – He said the steak cost one shilling.

Did you ask him for the change? – No.

Why not? – No particular reason. I forgot, I suppose.

Did you ask him the same day? – No.

Did you forget about it when you made him turn his pockets out for the sovereign? – Yes.

The Recorder: You did not charge him with stealing the two shillings when you accused him of the sovereign? – No.

Mr. Williams: Did you have any written character with the boy when you employed him? – No; I never required them.

Have you ever seen the written character produced? – No; I swear it.

The Recorder declined to have them read as the witness denied ever having seen them.

Re-examined by Mr. Watts: I have no doubt I gave the 2s. to the defendant. I did not strike him a second time. I missed the sovereign in the early part of Tuesday evening.

May Charley, barmaid at the Bouverie, was then examined by Mr. Watts.

By Mr. Williams: There are three different entrances to the bar. I put the sovereign on the shelf in the bar, and it disappeared. I was present when the master gave the two shilling piece to the defendant. I am still in the prosecutor's employment. I have been with him six weeks. I have never heard the prosecutor ask for the change, but I heard the boy tell him the steak cost one shilling.

Did you not order the vegetables between nine and ten? – I told him to go to the master.

And he said he did not like to because he would swear at him? – No; he did not say so. He said he did not like to disturb him when he was playing billiards. I told him he must as they had to be cooked.

Did you see the boy outside when his mother came on the 17th? – Yes; I had a conversation with him. I told him I gave him a shilling for my boots. He paid for them and gave me 2d. change. I gave him a penny.

Before the Magistrates on Saturday you said first that you gave the boy 2s. to get the steak yourself, didn't you? – Yes, but I was muddled.

Muddled! But you are supposed to be accurate. Your master was standing beside you, wasn't he, and he prompted you, and then you corrected yourself? – Yes.

The Magistrates ordered him to stand away, didn't they? – Yes.

Earnest Vinsitt, an assistant to Mr. Hann, butcher, stated that the defendant did not pay for the steak, and in answer to Mr. Williams stated that they had a running account against the prosecutor. The defendant fetched it about one o'clock.

Phoebe Stapley said she sold the vegetables to the defendant. He did not pay for them.

By Mr. Williams: The order was so small that she did not book it. She used to supply the prosecutor with small things. The prosecutor came in for some things and she told him there was five pence owing. She served the defendant with a quart of apples and two cabbages. It was between ten and eleven in the morning.

This was the case for the prosecution, and Mr. Williams called the lad's mother, Emma Flack. Her son had been in the employ of Captain Vesey; also in the employ of Mr. Franklin, but she had been unable to get them there that day as witnesses, as they were away. She had tried to secure their presence. She could produce written characters. She remembered her son coming home on the 11th instant. His mouth was bleeding, his face was swollen, and his pockets were turned inside out. He complained of his head. The next day she went with him to see the prosecutor, and asked him why he had struck her boy. He replied “I will do it again”. Witness said “Hit me; don't hit him”. The prosecutor then stretched his hand over her left shoulder and struck the boy. He hit him on the nose and made it bleed. He said nothing about the 2s. piece then. On the 17th instant witness went to him again with her washing bill. She asked him to count the things while she waited, as he had made so many mistakes before. He counted them. Witness gave him the bill and asked him to pay it. He then pulled out a piece of paper and said “I have discovered that your beautiful boy has robbed me of 2s., and I shall stop it out of your bill”. Witness remarked “I fear nothing”. He wanted to pay the bill and deduct the 2s., but witness would not take it, and left the house. It was then that she took out a County Court summons.

By Mr. Watts: It was not on account of the alteration in the price that the prosecutor refused to pay. He struck the boy in her presence.

Mr. Williams then made a lengthy and eloquent speech for the defence. He contended that the 2s. piece was never given, and put considerable stress upon the several contradictory statements made by the prosecutor and Miss Charley. It was highly improbable, he said, that the defendant, if he intended to have stolen the money, should have gone up to the prosecutor and said “The steak cost one shilling”. He would naturally have avoided any conversation about it all. By the manner in which the prosecutor had given his evidence, and the statements which he had made, the jury could see what kind of a man they had to deal with. The lad had borne an unblemished character, and it would be scandalous to convict him on such a trumped-up charge brought by a German hotel keeper.

Mr. Williams was loudly applauded upon concluding his speech, but it was instantly suppressed.

Mr. Watts then addressed the jury on behalf of the prosecution.

In summing up, the Recorder dealt very closely with the contradictions in the prosecutor's statements. He said it might have been that, as he was a foreigner, he did not quite understand the questions, but of course that would be for the jury to consider.

The jury at once returned a verdict of Not Guilty, and the defendant was discharged amidst much applause in Court.

 

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 News 4 January 1890.

Quarter Sessions.

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

Herbert Henry Mealing, aged 17, was indicted for stealing 2s., the property of his master, Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr.

Mr. Hume Williams, who appeared for the defence, said he had an application to make to the Court. Prisoner, as the learned Recorder could see, was a boy, and the case was only remitted to that Court on Saturday last. He thought he should have to cross-examine the prosecutor at length, and he believed – and he hoped the learned Recorder would agree with him – that a very great deal would depend on the cross-examination of the witnesses for the prosecution. He was instructed that this was a most unfounded charge. The boy had hitherto borne a most unimpeachable character, and he was led to believe that he would still do so at the termination of the hearing of the case. But the application he would make was that the case might be allowed to stand over until the next Sessions. His client had done his utmost, in the short time they had had at their disposal, to lay before him the whole of the facts of the case, but he felt it to be impossible to do justice to the boy in so short a time. He did not think he was saying too much when he said that he believed nearly the boy's whole future depended upon the result of the case, and he thought that under the circumstances the learned Recorder would decide fit to accede to the application.

Mr. Watts, who represented the prosecution, said he agreed with the application, but he could not agree that the case depended upon the cross-examination of the prosecutor. He would leave the application entirely in the hands of the learned Recorder.

Mr. Hume Williams further said that if the case were adjourned he should be able to call two witnesses, whose attendance at present he was unable to obtain.

The Recorder said he saw no ground for acceding to the application. The prosecution were prepared with their case, and he should have thought the solicitor for the defence could have perfectly well prepared counsel for the examination of witnesses in the time at his disposal. He could find in looking through the depositions no ground for asking that the trial should be adjourned. The trial must proceed.

Mr. Hume Williams said he must frankly own up that the witnesses for the defence were not present.

Prisoner was then charged, and pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Watts having made a statement as to the facts of the case to the jury, called Wilhelm Heinrich Molckenbuhr, who stated that he was the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel. The prisoner had been in his service for about three weeks on the 10th December. On that day he sent him out with a 2s. piece to fetch some beef steak from Hann, the butcher, in Cheriton Road. He was also told to get some vegetables from Mrs. Stapley. On the lad's return he said the steak was 1s. On Thursday, the 12th, the prisoner left his employ without permission. Witness subsequently paid the butcher 1s. for the same piece of steak, and Mrs. Stapley 5d. for the greengrocery.

Cross-examined by Mr. Hume Williams: He had had the Bouverie Hotel for nearly a year. He had charged the lad with stealing a sovereign before he left, and on charging him with doing that he took him into the room and threashed him, but not for stealing the sovereign.

By the Recorder: He thrashed the boy for insulting him.

Cross-examination continued: He searched the prisoner to find out if he had the sovereign upon him.He denied the theft. He did not tell the boy to “go to ----“, nor did the boy say he (witness) had better take that long journey first; that was not why he thrashed him. The boy gave him 5s. that he had in his pocket for change, and made use of an indecent expression at the same time. That was about ten minutes after witness had searched him. Witness told prisoner that his character would be ruined, but he did not say he would ruin him. He did not find the sovereign. He charged the lad with stealing the sovereign, and on Saturday the Magistrates dismissed the charge. The boy left his employ because he was afraid of the police. He came back next morning with his mother; witness told the mother in his presence of the theft. She complained of his having struck the boy, and je said he would do it again if he used the same language again. He did not, however, strike the lad so as to make his nose bleed – he did not strike him at all. On the 17th the boy's mother came and asked for payment of a bill for washing. Witness did not see prisoner that time. He did not propose to deduct the 2s. that he alleged the boy had stolen. He refused to pay the bill unless the woman deducted an overcharge of 11d. He said that before the Magistrates on Saturday; he would swear it. Two days after the interview with the boy's mother she issued a County Court summons against him for the amount of the bill, and the boy also summoned him for wrongful dismissal, wages, and assault. A day or two later witness charged the boy with the theft of the 2s. piece and the sovereign. On those summonses it appeared that the case would be heard on the 14th Jan. He had then no idea that his case would come up on Saturday, before the County Court summonses were heard. It did not matter to him when it was heard. When he gave the boy the 2s. piece he did not know that the prisoner had 5s. in his pocket. He used to give the boy some change in the evening. Prisoner did not fetch the vegetables at the same time; he did not quite recollect whether the boy fetched the vegetables earlier in the morning. He did not know that some of the apples he had fetched were at the time he gave him the 2s. piece cooking in the kitchen. The vegetables were for a different purpose altogether. He expected the boy to pay for the vegetables out of the 2s. piece; he could not swear as to whether he told him to do so. Witness went into the kitchen when the steak was on the fire. The boy said it had cost 1s; he did not ask him for the change, he forgot it. He had forgotten it when he charged the boy with stealing a sovereign. He took the boy into his employ without any character; he knew his parents. The written characters (produced) were not shown to him. He never saw them and never enquired after them.

Re-examined by Mr. Watts: He had no doubt that he gave the boy the 2s. piece. When he charged the prisoner he did not know when the case was coming on, nor did he care.

Mary Charley, barmaid at the Bouverie Hotel, deposed that after being charged with stealing a sovereign the boy ran away.

Cross-examined: The boy had been thrashed and searched before he left. Witness had put the sovereign on the shelf in the bar. She was the only other one present when the 2s. piece was given to the boy. She had been in Mr. Molckenbuhr's employ about five weeks. She never heard him ask for the change out of the 2s. piece. She heard the boy say that the steak had cost 1s. Before then she had told the boy to go and ask the master for some apples and vegetables; he said he did not like to disturb the master while he was playing billiards. She knew as a fact that the master was in the habit of an evening of giving the boy 5s. change. She never thought of asking him what had become of the change out of the 2s. piece.

Ernest Vincett, in the employ of Mr. Hann, butcher, Cheriton Road, deposed that on the 10th December the prisoner came into the shop and bought a piece of steak for the Bouverie Hotel. It cost 1s. but he did not pay for it.

Cross-examined: Things were constantly being ordered for the Bouverie Hotel, and sometimes they were paid for at the time, and sometimes not.

Phoebe Stapley, greengrocer, Cheriton Road, stated that the prisoner came to her shop and bought some apples and cabbages. He said they were for the Bouverie Hotel, and did not pay for them. It was the only time he had been to the shop. She could not tell what day it was.

Cross-examined: She thought it was last month, but she was not sure. She was in the habit of supplying the Bouverie Hotel with small things. This particular item was not entered in a book. Mr. Molckenbuhr subsequently came into the shop, and she then told him there was 5d. owing, and he paid it forthwith.

Mrs. Flack, the mother of the prisoner, 2, Primrose Laundry, stated that her son had been with Capt. Vezey for six months. He was subsequently in the several employs of Mr. Franklin, Mr. Payer, and Mr. Bartholomew. She had done the best she could to get the gentlemen there in whose employment her son had been, but they could not come. On the night of the 10th December her son came home with his face swollen and bleeding, and his pockets turned out. She took him next day to the Bouverie Hotel, and the prosecutor said he would strike him again, and did so on the nose, making it bleed. On the 17th she took prosecutor's washing home, and asked him to count it, as he had made so many mistakes before. He took the bill out of his pocket and said “Your beautiful son has robbed me of 2s.”, and added that he should stop it out of the amount owing for the washing. As she would not agree to that he refused to pay it, and she therefore issued a County Court summons for that amount.

Cross-examined by Mr. Watts: It was not on account of an alteration of his washing bill that prosecutor refused to pay it. She would swear that the prosecutor struck the boy in her presence.

Miss Charley, re-called, in answer to Mr. Watts, said when the boy left the Bouverie his face was not bleeding. If it had been she should have been able to see it.

Counsel for the defence and prosecution having addressed the jury, the learned Recorder summed up, and after a short interval the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

This finding was received with some applause in Court, which was instantly suppressed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 January 1890.

County Court.

Tuesday, January 14th: Before W.L. Selfe Esq.

Herbert Henry Mealing v William Henri Molckenbuhr: This was a claim for 14s. for a month's wages, the plaintiff having been dismissed from the defendant's services as boy at the Bouverie Hotel, without proper notice. There was also a claim for damages for an assault committed upon the plaintiff by the defendant.

Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A.E. Watts for the defendant.

Mr. Minter having stated the case, the plaintiff was sworn and stated that he was 17 years of age and lived at Cheriton. He was errand boy to the defendant and got 3s. 6d. a week. On December 11th defendant called witness into his office, and, after making a charge against him of stealing a sovereign, searched him and made him take off his boots. He turned witness's pockets out and said he would fetch a policemen and a lawyer and ruin his character for life. Witness denied all knowledge of the sovereign. He gave him back 5s., which he had for change. Witness said “Take this; perhaps you will say I have stolen that”. He struck witness on the nose and knocked his head against the table and a cupboard. Witness's nose bled, and he ran out of the house. He went home to his mother. Mrs. Wilson saw the state he was in. On the 12th he went to the Bouverie Hotel with his mother. The defendant struck him again. He had never used any bad language to the defendant. He went there again on the 17th with his mother to take the washing home.

By Mr. Watts: The defendant had never given him notice to leave. The defendant did not try to push his hat off on the 12th. He deliberately struck him and made his nose bleed.

Emma Flack, plaintiff's mother, said on the 11th of December the boy came home at 20 to 10 in the evening. His mouth and nose were bleeding, his face was swollen, his pockets were inside out, shoes unlaced and his clothes were disarranged. Mrs. Wilson saw him also. Witness went to the defendant to ask for an explanation, and he said “What about my sovereign? Never mind about the boy. I'll do it again”. He then struck over witness's shoulder and hit the boy again, making his nose bleed. When witness took the washing home on the 17th the defendant made some statement about a 2s. piece, and said he would deduct it from her bill, but witness would not allow it.

Mrs. Wilson, wife of a labourer, living at Cheriton, said she saw the boy after the assault. His lips were swollen and there was dry blood at the corner of the mouth.

Mr. Watts having addressed the Court, defendant was called, and said the boy had never asked for his wages. Witness hit him on the night he ran away. It was untrue that he knocked his head against the table. He was sitting on the armchair and he might have boxed his ears once or twice. He saw a few drops of blood come from his nose. Witness did not strike him when he came the next morning.

Mr. Minter cross-examined at some length, but the witness declined to answer most of the questions. He admitted that he gave the boy a thrashing, but refused to say what the thrashing consisted of. He further said that he only knocked off his hat on the 12th, and that was because the boy used indecent language to him.

Mary Charley, in the defendant's employ as barmaid, and Florence Rindell, the cook, also gave evidence.

Mr. Minter having delivered a very able speech, His honour proceeded to sum up. He said the law did not justify the defendant taking the law into his own hands. The assault did not appear to be disputed. The defendant had no right to compel the boy to submit to a search. If the boy did use offensive language to the defendant there could be very little wonder in it, for the provocation appeared to be all on the side of defendant. He was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to 14s. for wages, and 5 damages for the assault. Costs were also allowed.

 

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 News 18 January 1890.

County Court.

Tuesday, January 14th: Before Judge Selfe.

Henry Herbert Mealing v W.H. Molckenbuhr: Claim for wages and for 10 damages for assault. Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Watts represented defendant.

The plaintiff was in the service of defendant, who is proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, and the facts relating to the boy leaving the service of his master, and the assault complained of are well known, as they formed the principal parts of a case for the learned Recorder and a jury to enquire into at the recent Quarter Sessions, when plaintiff was tried for stealing 2s. of defendant and acquitted.

The amount of wages due to plaintiff, less the month claimed in lieu of notice, had been paid into court.

The plaintiff, who said he was 17 years of age, described the assault and said that his master struck him on the nose and mouth with his fist, and banged his head down on the table, and knocked him against the cupboard door. This was on the 11th of December. On the next day he went to the hotel with his mother, when defendant again assaulted him by striking him over the shoulder of his mother, and scratching his nose.

In cross-examination he said he did not use a filthy expression to his master when accused of stealing a sovereign. He had collected 3s. for a charity and handed over the sum to another boy.

His Honour did not see what that had to do with the case.

Mr. Watts said it was important as to the credibility of plaintiff.

Mr. Minter retorted that they had thrashed the boy grossly, and now wished to take away his character, he supposed.

Mrs. Flack, plaintiff's mother, and a neighbour deposed to the condition the boy was in after the assault.

Mr. Watts complained that a most exaggerated account of the assault had been given, and that the defendant did not deny striking the boy when under great provocation caused by plaintiff using a foul expression to him. A threat of an action for malicious prosecution had been made by plaintiff's solicitor, but the boy had been committed by the Bench, who considered there was a prima facie case, and so had the Grand Jury. He hoped His Honour would see it was a case for only small damages under all the circumstances.

Defendant admitted the assault, but said it was for using a filthy expression (repeated by defendant) to him, and he felt justified at the time in acting as he had done.

His Honour, in giving judgement, said he believed the assault complained of by plaintiff was committed, and in addition to that which defendant said he was guilty of, and that the provocation was all on the side of the defendant.

Judgement for a month's wages at 3s. 6d. per week, and 5 damages for the assault, with costs on the scale of 10.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 August 1890.

Annual Licensing Session.

Wednesday, August 27th: Before The Mayor, Major H.W. Poole, Alderman Pledge, Dr. Bateman, and J. Clarke Esq.

Superintendent Taylor complained of the indifferent manner in which Mr. Molckenbuhr conducted the Bouverie Hotel, and stated that on the 22nd of July several people were seen to leave the house as twenty minutes to two in the morning. The evidence, however, was not strong enough to justify him in bringing a summons against him.

The Bench decided to adjourn the licence until the adjourned sessions.

 

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 Chronicle 27 September 1890.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, September 24th: Before The Mayor, Colonel De Crespigny, Major Poole, Alderman Pledge, and J. Clark Esq.

Wilhelm Molckenbuhr, of the Bouverie Hotel, again came up for the renewal of his licence.

Sergeant Harman said on July the 22nd, at 1.40 a.m., he visited the applicant's house. Witness heard noises inside, and upon going into the smoking room he found three men, two of whom were said to be lodgers. He also saw another man, named White, in the passage. There were several glasses about. He told Molckenbuhr that he should report him, and he said he hoped not. He also said two were lodgers, and they had invited the other two.

Mr. Minter defended, and stated that the Sergeant had given his answer to the case. He always tried to conduct his house in a proper manner, and if there were an offence committed on the 22nd of July, why was Molckenbuhr not summoned? No doubt the Superintendent followed up the report of the Sergeant and found that he was unable to make out a case. As Sergeant Harman had told them, two men were lodgers, and the other two were their friends.

The Mayor said they were determined to uphold the police, and the applicant had had a very narrow escape. The general cry was that the police did not do their duty, and when they did they were found fault with. The licence would be granted.

 

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 Chronicle 11 October 1890.

Saturday, October 4th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Sherwood, Pledge and Dunk, Major Penfold, J. Fitness, E.T. Ward and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Charles Nash was summoned for assaulting Charles Chandler at the Bouverie Hotel on the 27th of September, and pleaded Guilty.

Prosecutor, who is an attendant at the Bathing Establishment, stated that he was at the bar of the Bouverie Hotel about ten o'clock on the night of the 27th of September when the defendant came in. Witness called for a drink and laid down sixpence. Shortly afterwards the barmaid said “Why don't you take up your change, Mr. Chandler? Your twopence has been lying there long enough”. Witness told her he thought she had made a mistake, but she said she was positive he had given her a shilling and witness picked it up. The change turned out to belong to Nash, and witness was readily giving it up when Nash struck him in the eye with his fist, having a ring on his finger at the time.

Clara Cole said she was barmaid at the Bouverie. She remembered the night in question. There was a mistake about the change, and Nash struck Chandler in the eye with his fist, the blow knocking him down. The assault was quite unprovoked. Chandler did not strike Nash at all. Chandler went out for a policeman directly after the assault. That was about ten, but Nash did not leave until a little before eleven.

The Bench fined Nash 5s. and 10s. costs. There was a cross-summons for an assault which Nash alleged to have been committed outside of the hotel, but the case was dismissed, Nash having to pay 2s. costs.

 

Holbein's Visitors' List 11 February 1891.

Saturday, February 7th: Before Surgeon General Gilbourne, F. Boykett and H.W. Poole Esqs.

Henri Molckenbuhr, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, was summoned for allowing billiards to be played on his premises during prohibited hours, and Mr. Birch, confectioner, for playing same.

Sergeant Harman said that on Saturday morning, January 31st, about a quarter past two he saw a light in the billiard room of the Bouverie. He went away and returned with two constables. They knocked some time without being able to gain admission, but subsequently defendant appeared, and in reply to questions said there was no-one in the house but himself and servant. On searching the house, however, witness found in one of the rooms a man in bed whom he recognised as the defendant Birch. His feet were sticking out of the bed and he was fully dressed. In reply to witness's question as to what he was doing there, he replied “I don't feel very well”. Defendant Molckenbuhr affected surprise and said “Oh, George, how came you here?”

Mr. Minter appeared for defendants and addressed the Bench at some length. Mr. Molckenbuhr, he pointed out, was not summoned for opening his premises for the sale of liquor, but because in the eye of the law he had permitted his billiard room to be open during prohibited hours, and to that he pleaded Guilty. Mr. Birch was a friend of Mr. Molckenbuhr's and was there as such. Mr. Molckenbuhr was under the impression that he was doing no wrong by having his friend there, and he asked the Bench on that ground to inflict a nominal fine.

Nominal fines inflicted as follows:- Molckenbuhr, 10s. and 9s. costs; Birch 1s. and 10s. costs.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 February 1891.

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

William Molckenbuhr, proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, was summoned for allowing persons to remain on his premises during prohibited hours on the 31st ultimo, and George Burch, confectioner, Cheriton Place, was summoned for being found on the premises at three o'clock in the morning.

Mr. Minter appeared for defendants, and, on behalf of Molckenbuhr, pleaded Not Guilty.

Police Sergeant Harman was called and stated that on Saturday morning, January 31st, about quarter past two, his attention was called to the Bouverie Hotel, where he observed lights in the billiard room. He could hear people playing billiards. He went away, and shortly afterwards returned to the hotel with police constables Le Mar and Knowles. He placed them at the back and front of the house, and then rapped at the door for about half an hour before he could obtain an answer. At quarter to three he went round to the other side of the house, where he saw Molckenbuhr. He said “I suspect you have someone in your house”. He replied that there was no-one but himself and servant. Witness said he must search the house, and asked to be shown into the top bedroom at the rear of the house, where he had seen a light. Defendant did not seem to care about him going into that room, but he insisted upon going. On entering the room he noticed a pair of boots sticking out of the bed, and afterwards discovered that defendant Burch was concealed beneath the clothes. Witness pulled the bedclothes off his head. He pretended to be asleep, and witness said “Now then, Burch, get up. You must not think you are going to make me believe you are asleep”, and pulled him off the side of the bed. Burch got up. He was fully dressed, with the exception of his hat, and said “What do you mean by this?” Witness told him he should report him for being on licensed premises during prohibited hours. He replied “I didn't feel very well, so I thought I would come up and have a lay down”. Witness told him he did not believe it and advised him to put his hat on and go, but afterwards he engaged the bed for the night. He made no complaint of illness.

P.C. Harry Le Mar stated that he saw the defendant leave the house about quarter to four in the morning.

Mr. Minter, in defence, remarked that Molckenbuhr was ignorant of the fact that he had committed an offence. He was not charged with selling liquor, and, as a matter of fact, no liquor was sold because Burch was a teetotaller. Burch was a friend of Mr. Molckenbuhr, and went there to play a game of billiards. Molckenbuhr was ingnorant that he was obliged to close his billiard room when he closed his house. He was perfectly entitled to have his friends there, but they must not play billiards. Mr. Minter then alluded to the appeal case which was heard before Baron Bramwell with reference to a similar matter at the Swan Hotel, Hythe. The Baron held that the decision of the Magistrates was right, but he agreed that it was an anomaly which ought to be altered. Molckenbuhr desired him to say that he was not aware of the law and that he was very sorry if he had committed an offence. Burch, under the circumstances, would plead Guilty to being on the premises.

Colonel De Crespigny said there was no excuse for them not knowing the law. Molckenbuhr would be fined 10s. and 9s. costs, and Burch 1s. and 10s. costs.

 

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 Herald 14 February 1891.

Local News.

Mr. W.H. Molckenbuhr, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, was on Saturday last fined 10s. and costs for allowing billiards to be played in his house after eleven o'clock at night.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 August 1891.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before J. Clarke, J. Pledge, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, H.W. Poole and F. Boykett Esqs.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The renewal of the licence of the Bouverie Hotel (Mr. Molckenbuhr) was objected to by Supt. Taylor.

Mr. Hall said he appeared for the defendant. The offence was not a very serious one, and he hoped the Bench would deal with it now. The defendant was only fined 5s.

Supt. Taylor: Put another five on to it.

The Chairman: It is the opinion of the Bench that the case should be adjourned.

The adjourned Sessions will be held on the 23rd of September.

 

Southeastern Gazette 1 September 1891.

Licensing Sessions.

The annual Licensing Sessions were held on Wednesday, when objections were raised against the renewal of the licences for the Globe Hotel, the Bellevue Hotel, The Bouverie Hotel, and the Tramway Tavern. Mr. Rooke appeared on behalf of the council of the Folkestone Temperance Society, and the whole of the cases were eventually adjourned until Sept. 23.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 September 1891.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before J. Clarke Esq., Major Poole, J. Holden, W. Wightwick, F. Boykett and J. Pledge Esqs.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The Bouverie Hotel.

Mr. Molckenbuhr, the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, applied for the renewal of his licence, and was supported by Mr. Minter.

Supt. Taylor said the applicant was fined 10s. and 9s. costs for having his house open after hours.

Mr. Minter said the Bench would recollect that this was a very peculiar case. It was proved that Mr. Birch was a guest, playing a friendly game of billiards. As he pointed out at the time, a landlord might have a friend in the house and supply him with liquor, but he must not play billiards. Birch was fined 1s., but no liquor was supplied as Mr. Birch was a teetotaller.

The licence was granted.

 

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 Herald 18 June 1892.

Local News.

On Thursday, in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court, a case was heard in which Mrs. Harriet Mockenbuhr sued her husband, W.H. Molckenbuhr, the late proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, for 207, which she had advanced to enable him to take the hotel.

Mr. G.H. Candy, instructed by Messrs. Watts and Watts, solicitors, appeared for the plaintiff, and the defendant was represented by counsel instructed by Mr. C.A. Rawlings.

The jury having found a verdict for the plaintiff, judgement was given in her favour for the full amount claimed, with costs.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 22 June 1892.

Kaleidoscope.

A local law case of some notoriety was heard on Friday last before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams and a common jury. Mrs. Molckenbuhr made a claim against her husband, late of the Bouverie Hotel, for 207 money lent 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) appeared for the defendant. The plaintiff, it appears, provided her husband with the money to take the Bouverie previous to their marriage. After marriage, it appears, differences arose between them, and they separated. Plaintiff at once served her husband with a writ, claiming the sum in question as money lent. The defendant, however, claimed the money was a gift. Hence his refusal to pay and the action-at-law. Evidence having been heard and arguments in support of both contentions having been adduced, Mr. Vaughan Williams summed up, leaving it for the jury to decide 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 Chronicle 25 June 1892.

Local News.

The following action was heard before Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams and a Common Jury on Friday. It was a claim by Mrs. Molckenbuhr against her husband for 207, money lent to him. Mr. G.H. Condy, instructed by Messrs. Watts and Watt, solicitors, Folkestone, appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Wedderburn, instructed by Mr. C.A. Railings, solicitor, appeared 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. 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. 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 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 Chronicle 4 November 1893.

Saturday, October 28th: Before The Mayor and Messrs. Fitness, Holden and Dunk.

James Pinches, an old cab driver, who is familiarly known as Ally Sloper, appeared as the prosecutor in a charge of theft from the person preferred against a young woman named Polly Lillian.

Pinches stated that he lived at 3, East Cliff. On Friday night he was in the Bouverie Hotel from 8.30 to 10.15. While he was there the prisoner and another young woman came in, and at their request he treated them. He changed a half sovereign and he received 9s. 8d. in change. He put the 9s. 6d. which he had received in silver into his left hand trousers pocket, and the two coppers into his right pocket. The women left the house half an hour before he did. While he was on his way home they came up to him and walked along one on each side of him. When they got into Alexandra Gardens, one stood in front of him, and the prisoner took the silver (9s. 6d.) out of his pocket. Witness caught hold of her wrist, and managed to hold her until a policeman came up.

In answer to the prisoner, witness said he did not ask her to go for a walk with him.

When asked whether he did not give her the money, he caused some amusement by replying emphatically “Lor' bless you, no!”

P.C. F. Nash said on Friday night about 10 minutes to 11 he was in Bouverie Road East, and he saw the prisoner there with another woman not in custody. The prosecutor said he wished to give the prisoner in charge for stealing 9s. 6d. from him. The prisoner replied “Don't believe him”. Witness took her to the police station.

Superintendent Taylor put in a statement which was made by the prisoner to the effect that the prosecutor treated her and Pattie Pain at the Bouverie. A question arose about some money which he had given prisoner and Pinches gave her into custody on a charge of robbing him.

The prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily and said she was not guilty of taking the money. The prosecutor had asked her on many occasions to elope with her.

She was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour, and the money found on the prisoner was ordered to be returned to the prosecutor.

 

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 Chronicle 26 July 1895.

County Court.

Tuesday, July 23rd: Before Judge Selfe.

Thomas George Atfield v E.W. Dabbs, Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road E.: Amount claimed 8s. 4d. – 5s. for wages and 3s. 4d. for money deducted from wages because of non-payment of billiard table charges to plaintiff when employed as a marker at the hotel.

Atfield is a young man who is employed as a billiard marker at the Bouverie Hotel. He gave notice to leave his situation, and went at the end of the week, instead of on Monday, when his work terminated, in consequence of which the 5s. due to him for five days' work at 7s. per week was not paid to him. A gentleman had played five games at billiards and gone off without paying for them, and Dabbs had deducted this sum from the weekly wages paid to the young marker.

Dabbs said he had told the marker not to play billiards, and not to allow the man who had not paid for his games to play – as he was only a drunken waiter. Atfield's notice did not expire until Monday night, and he left on the Saturday before. He behaved badly during the week. He went out on a two hours' leave to get married, and stayed out eleven hours.

His Honour: Two hours to get married in is not much.

Dabbs: It is enough for a man in his position in life.

His Honour: Two hours is certainly not a long time for a honeymoon. There must be a verdict for the defendant in this case, but I advise you to pay the young fellow the five shillings.

Dabbs: I will give him something.

His Honour: I cannot order you to pay the money, but I advise you to do so.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 23 October 1897.

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

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

 

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 Chronicle 16 June 1900.

Wednesday, June 13th: Before Messrs. Fitness, Pledge, Pursey, Wightwick, Vaughan, and Spurgen.

The landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, Mr. F. Riddle, received the necessary permission to have the licence of the hotel transferred to himself.

The Chief Constable explained that the licence had been granted to Mr. Riddle's wife, who, at the time, was a widow. Since then she had married Mr. Riddle, who naturally wished to hold the licence.

 

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 Herald 16 June 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday last licence was granted to Mr. A.M. Riddal, for the Bouverie Hotel.

 

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 Herald 4 August 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday, the Bouverie Hotel licence was transferred to Mr. Arthur Maxwell Riddell.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 May 1901.

Saturday, April 27th: Before Messrs. Pledge, Vaughan, and Stainer, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Kearns, an out-porter, was charged with being drunk on licensed premises on the evening of the 23rd inst. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was represented by Mr. G. Haines.

Sergt. Osborne said at 9.30 p.m. on the 23rd he was passing the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road, and saw the defendant come out of the side bar door, where he fell down. After a minute or two defendant again went into the bar. He was very drunk. At 9.45 he (sergeant) entered the house, and found defendant hanging over the counter. He called the barmaid's attention to the drunken condition of the man, and she replied “Well, he is not so very bad, but he has not had anything to drink in this house”. The landlord then came into the bar, and the man's condition was pointed out to him. The landlord replied “He has been here 20 minutes, but has not had anything to drink”. He (the sergeant) then ejected defendant from the premises. Going down the road he staggered from one side to the other.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines: He was quite certain the defendant was drunk. Witness said he followed him home, but he did not run into anybody, and, added the officer, as good luck would have it, there was no traffic about.

P.C. Charles Lawrence said on Tuesday night, the 23rd, about 9.50, he was in Guildhall Street, and saw the defendant with a truck. He was very drunk and staggering from one side of the road to the other. Witness let him go as he was going quietly.

P.C. Lennard Johnstone said at 7.45 p.m. on the 23rd he saw the defendant outside the Bouverie Hotel. Defendant was very drunk then.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, previous to calling evidence for the defence, said he thought the police were quite right in bringing a case before the Magistrates when any doubt arose. He did not find fault with the police, but from the evidence he was going to call he would submit that the police had made a bona fide mistake. Defendant was an Irishman of an excitable temperament, and his conduct led up to the mistake. On the evening in question Kearns had only been served with two pints of cold fourpenny, which was familiarly known as “Burst Waistcoat”, which, being interpreted, meant that anyone might drink enough to burst their waistcoat before getting inebriated. Defendant's wife worked at the Bouverie, and he would wait at the house between trains, often eating his bread and cheese on the premises. Regarding the rolling tendency alleged by the police, Mr. Haines held that his client usually, through tender feet, did walk in that way.

Miss Hadaway, the barmaid at the Bouverie Hotel, Charles Hadaway, a fly driver, her father, William Adams, of Vale House, Dover Road, and Alexandra Morgan, a groom, residing in Dover Road, all gave evidence alleging the sobriety of defendant on the night in question.

The Bench retired, and after an absence of five minutes the Chairman said they had given every attention to the ingenious and able defence, but it had failed to convince them. Fined 5s. and 15s. costs, or 14 days'.

Mr. Haines asked for time to pay.

The Chief Constable said he did not wish to be hard, but defendant had found means to secure an advocate.

The Bench left the matter in the hands of the Chief Constable, who, however, did allow a little time to pay.

 

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 Herald 4 May 1901.

Saturday, April 27th: Before Alderman J. Pledge, Messrs. Vaughan and Fitness, and Lieut. Col. Westropp.

Thomas Kearns was charged with being drunk on licensed premises on the 23rd April. Mr. Haines appeared for defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergt. Osborne said at 9.30 p.m. on the 23rd he was passing the Bouverie Hotel when he saw defendant come out of the side bar door and fall down in the road. After a few minutes he went into the bar again. He was very drunk. At 9.45 witness entered the house and found defendant laying over the counter. He called the attention of the barmaid to the man's drunken condition, and she replied “Oh, he is not so very bad, but he has not had anything to drink in this house”. The landlord then came into the bar, and on witness pointing out the man's condition to him, said “I know he has been here about twenty minutes, but I have not served him with anything to drink”. Witness then ejected defendant, who would not go away until he threatened to lock him up. Then he went outside, took his barrow, and went down the road staggering from one side to the other.

By Mr. Haines: He had heard defendant talking loudly in the bar, and saw him fall over when he came out. He had not quite made up his mind that the man was drunk when he went into the house.

P.C. Laurence said at about 9.50 on the 23rd inst. he saw defendant with a truck in Guildhall Street. He was very drunk, and staggering from one side of the road to the other, muttering something to himself. He did not speak to him because he kept going.

P.C. Leonard Johnson also proved seeing defendant in Bouverie Road very drunk at 7.45 on the 23rd inst.

Mr. Haines ventured to say, without any reflection on the police at all, that a bona fide mistake had been made. It was well known that at times defendant got very excited. His wife did the washing at the Bouverie Arms (sic), and he was an out-porter at the Central Station. On the day in question defendant went into the house about 8 o'clock, and had two pints of 4d. beer, which was vulgarly known as “burst waistcoat”, because they could drink and drink and never get drunk. He was very excited at the time. He had not tried wheeling a barrow himself, but he should think, considering the state of the Folkestone roads, they could not always wheel a barrow straight.

Miss Haddaway, barmaid at the Bouverie Arms (sic), said defendant was a regular customer. He was of a very excitable temperament. She never trusted him for what he could not pay for. He came into the house about 8 o'clock on the 23rd, and had two pints of mild fourpenny. It was three quarters of an hour before the sergeant came in that the man had been served with the second pint. He had asked for more, but she did not serve him, as he had no money to pay for it. The sergeant said “This man's beastly drunk”. Defendant was not laying over the counter, but was standing up. She said to the sergeant “I don't think he is drunk”. Witness called the landlord, but neither she not the landlord asked that the man should be put out. In her opinion the man was sober.

By the Chief Constable: Defendant was very serious that morning. She did not tell the sergeant that the man was sober, but she was prepared to swear now that he was perfectly sober.

Charles Haddaway, fly driver, said he was in the Bouverie Arms (sic) at about 8.45 on the same night. He was not in the same bar as defendant, but could see him. From what he saw, defendant was quite sober.

William Adams, a stableman, who was also in the house, said he formed the opinion that the man was perfectly sober.

Alexandra Morgan, groom, also proved that defendant was sober.

The Magistrates retired, and on returning after about ten minutes' deliberation, the Chairman said the defence had been very capably put, but the Magistrates were of opinion that defendant was drunk. He would be fined 5s. and 15s. costs, or fourteen days'.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 June 1904.

Saturday, June 11th: Before Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. W.G. Herbert, and Lieut. Colonel Penfold.

Susan Foster, a respectably dressed young woman, was charged with attempting to commit suicide by taking a quantity of poison.

The accuse woman, who was in a highly nervous condition, repeatedly cried throughout the proceedings, and by her actions created a profound feeling of pity even among those Saturday morning loafers who frequent the Court and complain all the time of the scarcity of work.

The first witness called was Arthur Maxwell Riddall (landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road East). Mr. Riddall said: The prisoner, Susan Foster, is in my employ as housemaid. Last evening, about 9.15, I was called from the billiard room, and from something my wife told me I went to the kitchen, where I found the prisoner sitting upon a chair. My wife was holding the woman's head, and she said to me “You will find a letter on the mantle shelf”. I took the letter (produced) and opened it.

The Clerk (Mr. Andrews) suggested that for obvious reasons the address need not be read. He then read the contents in a low voice to the Magistrates. The only lines which the Press could gather were “When you get this I shall be poisoned. It is all through that filthy hound”.

Witness (continuing): After having read the letter, I communicated with the police and Dr. Fitzgerald. I was afterwards handed a package containing a portion of powder, which I subsequently handed to P.C. Simpson.

Mrs. Harriett May Riddall (wife of last witness) said that about 9.15 on Friday evening she was sitting in the parlour. Prisoner, who appeared to be in a very excited state, came into the room, threw down a letter (produced), a packet of powder, and 6d., at the same time saying “Will you send this off at once? I have taken poison”. Witness said: I took accused into the kitchen, and sent for my husband.

P.C. Simpson, sworn, deposed: From information received at 10.40 yesterday evening I went to the Bouverie Hotel. I saw Mr. Riddall, who handed me a letter and a package containing a portion of powder. In consequence of that which Dr. Fitzgerald told me, I went into the kitchen and saw the prisoner, who was sitting down. The woman appeared to be agitated and excited. I said to her “I am a police officer, and in consequence of a communication made to me by the doctor, I shall charge you with attempting to commit suicide by taking oxalic acid”. I cautioned her, and she replied “I have not taken oxalic acid; it is salts of lemon that I took”. With the assistance of Detective Sergeant Burniston I took accused to the station, where she was formally charged. She made no reply, but shortly afterwards she shouted out “I wrote the letter; it is in my handwriting”.

Dr. Edmond Desmond Fitzgerald, M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., said: At 10.45 last evening I was called to the Bouverie Hotel. I saw the accused in the kitchen. She was in an agitated and very excited condition. I asked Mr, Riddall what was the matter, and Mr. Riddall handed me the letter, asking me to read it, which I did. I then asked prisoner what made her think of such a thing. Mr. Riddall told me that she had taken poison, and handed me a packet; a portion of the contents were gone. The packet contained oxalic acid – usually known as salts of lemon.

At this stage prisoner created a painful scene, and had to be removed to the court yard for a few minutes. In supplicating terms she cried to the doctor “Oh, don't! Oh, don't! Oh, God! Do save me – I can't stand it. Oh, God! Don't let me be locked up again”.

The accused having steadied down, she was brought back into Court, and the doctor continued: Prisoner said she had taken the powder dry, without water; she had taken the powder by dipping her finger into it. I came to the conclusion that she had taken only a very small quantity, possibly about 20 grains, which would do no harm whatever. However, to be on the safe side, I administered lime water as an antidote. The woman's general condition and symptoms being then satisfactory, I allowed her to be taken to the police station. Oxalic acid, if taken in quantity, is a deadly poison. Death has been known to follow a dose of 2 drachms of pure oxalic acid, while it is a common thing for as much as an half ounce to be taken. Had the woman have taken the whole of the powder she would have suffered no ill-effect.

John Knight, a chemist, trading at No. 12, Rendezvous Street, said: About 8.30 last evening a woman, of the general appearance of the prisoner, came to my shop and asked for a pennyworth of salts of lemon. I supplied it, and asked the woman what it was for. She replied “Cleaning hats”. The package contained one drachm, or sixty grains. It was not a fatal dose. As a matter of fact, there were only 40 grains in the packet, the remainder being cream of tartar.

Prisoner was remanded until Friday morning. Upon her remand there was another piteous scene, the woman continually calling “Oh, do not lock me up again”.

 

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 Herald 18 June 1904.

Saturday, June 11th: Before Mr. W.C. Carpenter, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Alderman S. Penfold, and Mr. W. Wightwick.

Susan Foster, a domestic servant in the employ of Mr. Riddall, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, was charged with attempting to commit suicide by taking a quantity of a certain deadly poison.

Prisoner, who appeared to be much distressed, was seated in front of the dock.

Arthur Maxwell Riddall, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road East, stated that prisoner had been in his employ as housemaid since Monday week. On the previous evening he was called out from the billiard room about a quarter past nine. He went into the kitchen, and saw prisoner sitting in a chair, his wife holding her head. Mrs. Riddall said to him “You will see a letter on the mantelpiece”. He opened the letter (produced) and read it.

Mr. Andrews (the Deputy Magistrates' Clerk) handed the letter to the Magistrates, and it was decided not to read the address in public. The letter, however, was read. All that could be made out of it was “By the time you get this I shall have poisoned myself”.

Witness, continuing, said he could not say whether the letter was in the prisoner's handwriting. He communicated with the police and Dr. Fitzgerald at once. He afterwards saw a packet of powder (produced) which he handed over to P.C. Simpson.

Harriet Mary Riddall, wife of the last witness, said that at a quarter past nine on Friday evening she was seated in the parlour of the house, when prisoner came into the room in a very excited state, and throwing on the table the letter (produced) and a sixpence, said “Will you send this off at once? I have taken poison”. Witness took her into the kitchen and sent for Mr. Riddall.

P.C. Simpson deposed that at 10.40 p.m. on the 10th inst., from information received, he went to the Bouverie Hotel, where he saw Mr. Riddall, who handed him the letter and a powder. Prisoner was sitting on a chair in the kitchen in an excited condition. He said to her “I am a police officer. In consequence of what the doctor has told me I shall charge you with attempting to commit suicide by taking oxalic acid”. He cautioned her, and she replied “I have not taken oxalic acid; it was salts of lemon I took”. With the assistance of Detective Sergt. Burniston witness brought her to the police station, where she was formally charged, and made no reply. Shortly afterwards she shouted out “I wrote the letter; it is my handwriting”.

Dr. Edward Desmond Fitzgerald stated that about 10.45 on the evening in question he was called to the Bouverie Hotel, where, in the kitchen, he saw the prisoner sitting, in a very agitated and excited condition. She showed no urgent symptoms, and he asked Mr. Riddall what was the matter. He then handed witness the letter, and asked him to read it, which he did. Mr. Riddall gave him the paper containing the powder, which was an impure form of oxalic acid, and usually known as salts of lemon.

At this stage prisoner burst out crying, and several times shrieked “Oh, God, do save me. Don't let me be locked up”. She had to be taken from the Court, but in a few moments returned, and the case was proceeded with.

Continuing, Dr. Fizgerald said prisoner said she had taken the powder dry by dipping her finger into it. He came to the conclusion that she had taken only a very small quantity, possibly some 10 or 20 grains, which could do her no harm whatever. He administered lime water to be on the safe side, and the symptoms being satisfactory, he advised that she be taken to the police station. Oxalic acid in a quantity was a deadly poison. Death had been known to follow after a dose of two drams of pure oxalic acid, but recovery had taken place after half an ounce had been taken. If prisoner had taken the whole powder she would not have suffered any serious effects.

James Knight, chemist, Rendezvous Street, gave evidence as to serving a person of the general appearance of the prisoner with salts of lemon on Friday evening.

The Chairman told the prisoner she would be remanded until Friday morning (yesterday) and during that time she would be well looked after and cared for.

The unfortunate woman again cried out “Oh, sir, don't let me be locked up”, but she was assisted out of the Court.

Friday, June 17th: Before Lieut. Colonel Westropp, Messrs. W. Wightwick, and J. Tainer.

Susan Foster appeared before the Borough Justices charged, on remand, with attempted suicide.

Inspector Swift, as representing the Chief Constable, stated that the police had no further evidence to offer in the case.

The Chairman: The evidence in this case is not sufficient at all. (To prisoner) You will be dismissed.

Mr. Easton (Police Court Missionary) informed the Bench that the woman was willing to enter a home, and arrangements would accordingly be made.

 

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 Daily News 1 November 1905.

Wednesday, November 1st: Before Alderman Spurgen, Alderman Vaughan, Councillor Carpenter, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was temporarily transferred from Mr. Riddall to Mr. Ernest Frederick Alcock.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 18 November 1905.

Local News.

Mr. Alcock, the new proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, comes to Folkestone with exceptional testimonials. He was for many years a sergeant in the Metropolitan Police, and during the past ten years Inspector at Oxford. In his official position he gained the respect and confidence of resident and official alike. Among the testimonials which he proudly brought to Folkestone were grand appreciations from Alderman Sir Walter Gray J.P., Col. The Hon. Holmes a Court (Chief Constable, Oxford Constabulary) the Chief Constables of the Oxford City and Banbury Police, the Magistrates' Clerks of Oxford, Banbury, Bicester and Bullingdon, together with a whole host of excellent testimonials from the leading legal luminaries on the Oxford Circuit.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 December 1905.

Wednesday, December 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Herbert, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Maj. Leggatt, and Mr. Linton.

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was transferred from Mr. A.M. Riddall to Mr. E.F. Allcock.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 December 1905.

Wednesday, December 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Major Leggatt, and Mr. T. Ames.

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, was transferred from Mr. Ernest Frederick Alcock to Mr. Arthur Maxwell Riddall.

 

Folkestone Daily News 23 December 1905.

Saturday, December 23rd: Before The Mayor, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Alderman Spurgen, Alderman Vaughan, and Messrs. J. Stainer, Carpenter, and Ames.

Violet Laslett was charged with stealing a pair of boots, the property of Ernest Frederick Allcock.

The prosecutor stated that he was the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, and the prisoner had been in his employ for about a week. On Thursday he placed a pair of boots in the scullery. He missed them on the following day. He questioned the prisoner, but at different times she denied that she knew anything about them. Witness became suspicious and reported the matter to the police. P.C. Sales came, and in his presence prisoner denied that she knew anything about the boots. Later prisoner said “I took them away last night”. The boots produced were his property, and he valued them at 10s.

P.C. Sales proved arresting the prisoner. Later on he saw the prisoner's husband in Guildhall Street wearing the boots produced. Witness accompanied him to 2, Belle Vue Street, when he handed the boots to the witness.

Prisoner elected to be tried summarily, and admitted she took the boots.

Prosecutor said he had no desire to press the charge.

The Chairman said the Bench had decided to deal leniently with the prisoner, and she would be bound over in the sum of 10 to be of good behaviour for three months.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 December 1905.

Saturday, December 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Spurgen and Vaughan, Councillor Carpenter, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. C. Ames.

Violet Laslett, a neatly-dressed, quiet little woman, described as a cook, pleaded Guilty to stealing a pair of boots, valued at 10s., the property of her employer, Mr. Allcock, landlord of the Bouverie Hotel.

Prosecutor said he engaged accused as cook. He took her without asking for a character, on the recommendation of a manager at a local dairyman's.

A constable proved having a conversation with accused, when she admitted taking the boots and giving them to her husband, who was out of work.

Mr. Allcock informed the Chairman that he did not wish to press the charge.

The Chairman (to prisoner): You have pleaded Guilty to a serious charge. You were placed in a position of confidence, and abused the trust reposed in you. The prosecutor does not wish to press the charge. The Bench will therefore act leniently with you. You will be bound over in your own recognisances in the sum of 10 to come up for judgement if called upon in three months. Let this be a lesson to you.

 

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 Herald 30 December 1905.

Saturday, December 23rd: Before The Mayor, Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, Councillor W.C. Carpenter, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mrs. Ames.

Violet Laslett was charged with stealing a pair of boots.

Ernest Fredk. Allcock, proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road, said that the prisoner had been in his employ as cook for about a week. Two days previously he placed a pair of boots in the scullery, and on the following day they were missing. From what he heard, he questioned the prisoner about the boots. She denied all knowledge of them. Witness told her that they would have to be found. He became suspicious, and reported the matter to the police. P.C. Sales visited witness, and after a conversation with him, witness again asked her where the boots were. She denied all knowledge of them, but when further pressed she said that she took them away the previous night.

P.C. Sales proved proceeding to the Bouverie Hotel and finding the prisoner. He questioned her as to the boots, but she persisted that she knew nothing of them. Shortly afterwards prosecutor said to her “I have had a conversation with you, cook, concerning the loss of my boots. Do you know where they are?” She replied “Yes, I took them away last night, and gave them to my husband”. Witness then took her into custody. Later witness saw the prisoner's husband in Guildhall Street wearing the boots produced. He accompanied him to No. 14, Belle Vue Street, where witness received them.

Prisoner, who elected to be dealt with summarily, pleaded Guilty.

Prosecutor stated that he did not wish to press the case, and as nothing was known against the prisoner, the Bench bound her over in the sum of 10 to be of good behaviour for three months.

 

Folkestone Daily News 9 June 1909.

Wednesday, June 9th: Before Messrs. Ward, Vaughan, Jenner, and Fynmore.

James Miller was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises, namely the Bouverie Hotel, on the 5th June.

Ernest James Alcock, proprietor of the Bouverie Hotel, said about two o'clock on Saturday afternoon the defendant was in his house, where he was using very objectionable language. Witness asked him to leave, whereupon defendant became very abusive and refused to leave the house. Consequently he was ejected.

Defendant: Did you offer to fight me in the smoking room? – No.

Did you eject me? – Yes.

You did not. I walked out.

Defendant went into the witness box, and said that on Saturday afternoon he went into the public bar of the Bouverie Hotel and called for a glass of beer. Before witness had time to drink it he was ordered out by the prosecutor, who came outside after witness had left and challenged to fight him. Shortly afterwards prosecutor followed him and told him and told him he was going to give him in charge for refusing to quit licensed premises. This the prosecutor eventually did.

Prosecutor said if the Magistrates were not satisfied with his statement, he hoped they would adjourn the case till Saturday, when he would produce witnesses.

The Chairman: You should have brought your witnesses here this morning. We have decided to dismiss the case.

 

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 Herald 12 June 1909.

Wednesday, June 9th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel Hamilton, Aldermen T.J. Vaughan and C. Jenner.

James Miller, an out-porter, pleaded Not Guilty to refusing to quit licensed premises.

Ernest Jas. Alcock said that about 2 p.m. on Saturday last defendant was in the public bar of the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road East, drinking. In consequence of his wrangling and abusing the police, he requested him to leave, but he would not do so. After trying to get him to leave for some time, witness took off his coat and put him out. Outside he used bad language, and witness followed him down to the police station and brought him in.

Defendant desired to give evidence, and said that the plaintiff was the aggressor. On the occasion in question he was served with a glass of beer, and then Mr. Alcock told him to get out before he had drunk it. He had given him no provocation whatever. Defendant went out, and outside complainant took off his coat and swore at him. He then jostled and molested defendant, and told him he was going to charge him at the police station, adding that he would “like to burn” all out-porters like him. At the police station complainant struck him, grappled him by the throat, and threw him down.

The Chairman: You haven't summoned him? – No, I have not the money.

The Chairman: When did you go to the house? – About ten minutes to two. He admitted that he had had a glass of beer before.

The Chairman: You had money for beer, then.

Cross-examination by complainant drew the remark from defendant “I ask you to believe me, gentlemen, as a working man against a multitude of money”.

Complainant said he could bring witnesses to prove his case, but the Chairman said that they ought to have been there that morning, and dismissed the charge.

 

Folkestone Daily News 17 June 1913.

Tuesday, June 17th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Linton, Swoffer, Harrison, and Stace.

The licence of the Bouverie Hotel was transferred from Mr. Allcock to Mr. Adams, the latter having formerly held a licence in Folkestone.

 

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 Herald 21 June 1913.

Tuesday, June 17th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor W.J. Harrison, and Councillor A. Stace.

Application was made for the temporary transfer of the licence of the Bouverie Hotel from Mr. E.H. Allcock to Mr. Adams. Granted.

 

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 Herald 12 September 1914.

Tuesday, September 8th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Councillor C. Ed. Mumford, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Alderman C. Jenner, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Councillor A. Stace.

William Andrews was summoned by W.H. Andrews for assault. Mr. J.S. Atkinson appeared for the complainant, and Mr. H.J. Myers defended. Mr. Myers entered a plea of “Guilty under great provocation and justification”.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrews): That is Not Guilty, then.

Complainant stated that he was a master tailor. He had been in the Army for fourteen years, and had volunteered for service in the present war, but his services were declined because the unit he applied to join was filled up. On Friday he went into the Bouverie Hotel about one o'clock for a glass of lager beer and some cheese. He had had nothing to drink before that day, and was not accustomed to take much. He had a friend with him, and the landlord came in afterwards. Conversation began and turned on the War. Complainant said “Things look very black for the old country”. He did not get heated, but he was emphatic. The landlord (Mr. Adams) told him that his name was good enough for him, that he was no Englishman, but a d--- German spy. He replied “You have made a great mistake; my name is a good English name, and I have served my King and country”. Mr. Adams called him a liar, and he (complainant) went across to the landlord and said he would not dare say things like that to me except on his own premises. Defendant, who had entered shortly before, now broke in, and wanted to fight witness. He told defendant it had nothing to do with him. Complainant was sitting down. Defendant struck him with his fist in the eye, and he jumped up and called him a coward, but did not strike him or touch him in any way. Complainant had said nothing that was unpatriotic, and he never said such things.

Cross-examined, complainant denied that he was excitable. He did not say “The Germans will be here in a fortnight”, nor that our troops were no good, or our Navy deficient. Mr. Adams indicated that he considered complainant's remarks unpatriotic, but witness did not challenge him to fight.

George Boyd Jordan, a master tailor, said he was in partnership with the complainant, and accompanied him to the Bouverie Hotel on Friday. He corroborated complainant's evidence, and said he was in no way objectionable or aggressive. He did nothing to incite defendant to fight him, and the blow was entirely unprovoked.

Cross-examined, witness said he did not see complainant standing over Mr. Adams in a threatening attitude.

By the Magistrates' Clerk: The blow complainant received was very severe, and blood streamed down his face. Defendant was excited.

Defendant, in the witness box, said he was a motor engineer. It was the first time any charge had been brought against him. He had volunteered for active service, and had also volunteered his service as a motor engineer free of charge to the Red Cross Society, and his offer had been accepted. The work would keep him engaged all day. On going into the Bouverie Hotel on Friday he saw the complainant, who was addressing very unpatriotic remarks to Mr. Adams. Defendant had had nothing to drink before on that day. He had met complainant before. He had no personal feeling against him. After entering the bar witness sat down, and complainant carried on his conversation with the landlord. Complainant, in the course of his statements, said the British Army was no good, the Navy was deficient, and the Germans would be here in a fortnight. Mr. Adams called him a liar, and complainant got more excited, and, going over to Mr. Adams, said “You come outside and I will fight you”. Mr. Adams sat down and told him to go away. Defendant went across the bar and said to complainant “No, you don't strike an older man than you. I'll take you on”. Witness had been annoyed at Stevens's previous remarks, but had taken no notice. When defendant went over to him and spoke, complainant said “It's nothing to do with you”. Defendant pushed him across the bar, and he sat down. He would not get up, and defendant said “If you don't get up, I shall strike you sitting down”, which he did. He regretted the blow as soon as he had given it.

The Magistrates' Clerk: In plain English, you lost your temper.

The Magistrates consulted together, and the Magistrates' Clerk announced that after the admission made by defendant, the Bench had no alternative but to inflict a fine.

In reply to Mr. Myers, Mr. Andrew said the Bench had taken all things into consideration.

Mr. Myers obtained permission to call Mr. Adams, the landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, who supported defendant's testimony. He said complainant was very argumentative and quarrelsome.

Cross-examined, witness said complainant's remarks about the British forces were very annoying. He put everything down as rotten. He said “The Germans will be here in a fortnight, and thank God they will”. Witness denied swearing at complainant.

The Clerk asked witness why he did not take steps to get complainant out of the house, if he regarded him as quarrelsome.

Witness said he told him to get out.

Mr. Myers addressed the Court, and asked for the summons to be dismissed on the ground of provocation and justification.

The Chairman said the Bench were still of the opinion they had previously expressed. Defendant seemed to have taken the law into his own hands in striking the complainant, and he would be fined 5s. and the costs (12s.).

 

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 Herald 15 January 1916.

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

An application was also made for the transfer of the licence of the Bouverie Hotel from Mr. A. Adams to Mr. Charles Stokesby (sic).

The Chief Constable said he had no objection at all.

Mr. Stokesby said he had not had previous experience.

The Chairman said there were many difficulties in the trade at the present moment. He was rather inexperienced, and he must not forget to be careful. The application was granted.

 

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 Herald 18 December 1920.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions yesterday, the Bouverie Hotel was granted an extension for one hour on Saturday night for a dinner.

 

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 Herald 3 February 1923.

Local News.

The Folkestone Bench temporarily transferred the licence of the Bouverie Hotel on Tuesday from Mr. C. Stotesbury 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 Herald 4 August 1928.

Saturday, July 28th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Omar Macklam was charged with being drunk and incapable the previous night. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Prisoner's only eye was very bruised and swollen and completely closed. He had to be led about the Court by policemen. Over his eye was a large plaster dressing.

P.C. Kennett said that at about 9.30 the previous evening, in consequence of a telephone message received at the police station, he went to Bouverie Road East, where he saw the prisoner lying on the pavement outside the Bouverie Hotel. He assisted him to his feet, and found him to be helplessly drunk. Accused was bleeding from the nose and from a wound over the right eye. In consequence of that, witness conveyed him to the Hospital on the ambulance. At the Hospital he was attended by Dr. Barrett, and in consequence of what the doctor told him he conveyed prisoner back to the police station and charged him with being drunk and incapable.

Sergeant Fox said that prisoner was lying on the pavement in a semi-conscious condition in a pool of blood. In his opinion he was drunk.

P.C. Kennett (re-called) was asked by prisoner whether the doctor did not turn to one of the nurses and say “The man is suffering more from being knocked out than from drink”.

P.C. Kennett said the doctor did not say that.

Prisoner said that he entered the Bouverie Hotel about 9.15 or 9.20 and all that he had to drink was a pint of bitter and a bottle of Bass. He was drinking when a man, a perfect stranger, came up to him, called him by his name, and asked him to lend him 1. He said he did not lend money to strangers, and the man made a remark he resented and struck him. They knocked a chair or two over, and the man picked up a chair and swung it at him. That was the last he remembered. He left home only half an hour before and had only had two drinks.

The Chief Constable said there were no previous convictions.

The Chairman: There is no doubt about it. The case is proved against you, and there is no doubt that you were drunk. You will be fined 5s.

 

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 Herald 11 August 1928.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Monday (before Alderman G. Spurgen and other Magistrates) Samuel Wilson was charged with being drunk and incapable in Bouverie Road East on Saturday night. He pleaded Guilty. He was further charged with being found drunk on licensed premises at the same time, and he pleaded Guilty. The first charge was withdrawn, and the Chief Constable said that he would proceed only with the second.

Inspector Pittock stated that at 10.15 p.m. on Saturday last he visited the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road East, in company with Sergeant Fox. Witness was in plain clothes, and Sergeant Fox was in uniform. He entered the smoking room bar and saw the defendant sitting on a seat just inside the door, in a drowsy condition. Witness told him that he was a police inspector, and asked him to stand up. After some hesitation he did so, and staggered to his feet. Witness then told him that he was drunk, and in a muddled way Wilson said “Am I?” and sat down again. Witness then requested the landlord to eject defendant from the premises, and the landlord ordered him out. He staggered to his feet, and Sergeant Fox assisted him to the door. On reaching the outside he leaned against the wall. Seeing that he was totally incapable of taking care of himself, witness brought him to the police station and charged him.

The Chairman: Had he been served in the Bouverie Hotel?

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

The Chief Constable said there were no previous convictions.

Defendant was fined 5s.

 

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, Michael Ivory, licensee of the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road East, was summoned for permitting drunkenness on his licensed premises on July 28th. There was a further summons alleging that he was himself drunk on licensed premises. Mr. Rutley Mowll, of Dover, appeared for the defendant.

The Magistrates were Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. A. Stace, Mr. J.H. Blamey, Colonel P. Broome-Giles, and Alderman W.H. Moncrieff.

Defendant pleaded Not Guilty to both summonses.

All witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Inspector Pittock said part of his duties were the visiting and supervision of licensed premises. At 10.15 p.m. on the 28th ult., in company with Sergeant Fox, he went to the Bouverie Hotel, of which defendant was the landlord. He went to the smoke room bar, which was under the archway leading from Bouverie Road East, and was entered by the second door on the right under the archway. A view could not be obtained from behind the counter 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 bar, opposite the door. There were two women sitting next to him, and some other men on the left. There were about a dozen people all told. As soon as he entered he noticed that Wilson appeared to be drowsy. He formed the opinion that he was drunk. He at once went to the bar and ordered the barman to fetch Mr. Ivory, the licensee. The barman was behind the bar when witness entered. There was some little delay before Mr. Ivory appeared. He saw Mr. Ivory passing outside the premises. Sergeant Fox called him four times before he came in. He supported himself, continued witness, by the door posts, and I said to him “This man, Mr. Ivory, is drunk on your licensed premises”, indicating the man Wilson. He said “Arrest him. Arrest him”. I said “It is your business to get him off your premises, and if you require any assistance we will assist you”. Defendant then shouted to the man Wilson “Get out. Get out”. Wilson staggered to his feet and lurched forward, and was assisted to the door by Sergeant Fox, who was in uniform. In getting outside, Wilson collapsed against the wall. I arrested him and brought him to the police station. Before leaving the yard with Wilson I had formed the opinion that Mr. Ivory himself was drunk. I had formed that opinion immediately Mr. Ivory came into the smoke room. I formed the opinion because he supported himself by the two door posts, his eyes were staring, his speech incoherent, and his general demeanour as to that of a drunken man. Before leaving with Wilson I 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 station accompanied by a man named Carter. I said to him “Well, Mr. Ivory, what do you want now?” He said “You accuse me of being drunk?” I said “Yes, I do”. He said “Well, I have come down here to see about it, and I will make it ---- hot for you. I will see my doctor!” I said “Perhaps I can assist you. Would you like to see Dr. Barrett, the police doctor?” He said “Yes, I will”. Dr. Barrett was then telephoned for. In the meantime I took a statement from Carter. Dr. Barrett arrived about 10.38. I told the doctor in the presence of Mr. Ivory that I was reporting him for being drunk on his own licensed premises. Dr. Barrett had a conversation with defendant, and he refused to undergo the usual tests.

By the Clerk: The doctor also saw Wilson and as a result of that report proceedings were taken against Wilson, who was charged with being drunk on licensed premises.

By Mr. Mowll: It was a Saturday evening and the hotel was busy. He was not informed that the same evening Wilson had been turned out of the house. Defendant was rather resentful of the charge of being drunk. Defendant did not say he would report him to Mr. Beesley (the Chief constable). Apparently defendant walked from his hotel to the police station. It was a five minute walk. It would include going down some steps. At the police station defendant strenuously denied the charge again. He accused him (witness) of being drunk. Defendant himself suggested having a doctor. So far as he knew defendant walked back to his house.

By the Clerk: The barman was in the serving bar.

Dr. W.C. Barrett, Police Surgeon, said he was asked to come to the police station about 10.30 p.m. on July 30th. He saw the last witness and defendant. He said to Ivory “What are you here for?” He said “This man Pittock says I am drunk, but I know far more about it than a ---- ignorant man like Pittock”. I then said to him “Will you go through the usual tests? You know them”. He said “No, I am not drunk”. I felt his pulse and then I said “If you will not go through the usual tests there is not much for me to do”. I had him under observation for five minutes. He was excited; his voice was loud, far louder than I thought was necessary; he was blustering; his pupils were slightly dilated – there was nothing remarkable about them; his pulse was about 100 (the normal was 80). On turning round to leave the room he seemed to lose his balance and banged into the door. I heard Inspector Pittock say to him “Mind the door, Mr. Avory”. I followed him and watched him go up the steps outside the station. He commenced going up the steps in the middle, but before he had got to the top he had gone into the left hand side three times. He was not in any way unsteady, but he went into the wall. From my observation I gave a certificate. I considered he was drunk.

By Mr. Mowll: Police tests for drunkenness are considered by many as very unfair. Three times in five minutes defendant said he was not drunk.

Inspector Pittock, re-called, said he took a statement from Carter.

The Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) then read the statement to the Magistrates. The witness Carter said the barman refused on two occasions to serve Wilson, and when Inspector Pittock accused Mr. Ivory of being drunk, he (Carter) considered he was not.

Cross-examined by Mr. Mowll, Inspector Pittock said Carter came to the police station with defendant. He said he had come down in defendant's interests. Carter said Ivory was not drunk and he also said Wilson had been refused drinks in the house.

Sergt. Fox gave corroborative evidence. He saw defendant staggering about in the yard. He smelt strongly of spirits.

Sergt. Thorne, who was station officer on the night of July 28th, said defendant came in and he was under his observation about 12 minutes. He was drunk. He had got hiccoughs; his eyelids were puffed; he was loud in his speech.

Mr. Mowll said there was hardly any case more difficult than a case in which there was a denial of drunkenness to police evidence. But it was only fair to his client that he should present his side of the case. Defendant had had a fine career in the Army – 25 to 26 years' service – and the result of that case meant everything to him.

Mrs. L. Ivory, the wife of the defendant, said on the night in question she came downstairs from the hotel part of the premises at about 8.30 p.m. She saw Wilson, and told the barman not to serve him, because she thought he had had enough to drink. She also told the barman to tell him to go out, and he was ejected. She did not know he had got back again into the house until the police arrived. After the polie left her husband insisted on going to the police station. He had been working behind the saloon bar all the evening. She was there too. Her husband was perfectly sober.

Cross-examined, witness said unless one went into the smoke room one could not see if anyone there was drunk. From time to time her husband went into the bars to see if everything was all right. Mrs. Ivory said on a previous occasion Wilson had been ejected by her husband.

Cecil Cloke, barman at the Bouverie Hotel, said he saw Wilson once on the night of July 28th, about 9.20. Mrs. Ivory told him not to serve him because he was shouting about. He refused to serve him. Mrs. Ivory also told him to see Wilson outside, and he did so. He could not say when Wilson came back, and he was not aware of his presence in the house when the police arrived. Mr. Ivory was perfectly sober all the evening.

By the Chief Constable: It was very difficult to keep observation in the smoke room bar.

Albert George Powell, of Dawn Hedge, Willingdon, near Eastbourne, a retired removal contractor, said on the day in question he was staying at the hotel. He went out, and returned about 10.15. He saw Mr. Ivory about three quarters of an hour later. He did not notice anything wrong with him.

Henry Hopper, 36, Morehall Avenue, a master baker, stated that on the 28th ultimo he was in the saloon bar about 9.45. He saw Mr. Ivory there serving. Defendant's speech was quite clear, and there was nothing to indicate that he was the worse for liquor.

Henry George Hopper, of 99, Chart Road, said he was at the Bouverie Hotel at 9.40 p.m. on the 28th ultimo. Defendant was quite sober.

Ida Hughes, a waitress at defendant's hotel, said at 9.45 Mr. Ivory asked her for two sandwiches. He was then perfectly sober. Just after 10 o'clock defendant got his snack dishes out, and he took them through two doors, which he had to open himself.

Gladys Archer, a housemaid at the Bouverie Hotel, said defendant opened the door to her at 11.10. He was perfectly sober.

Geo. Albert Whiting, 3, Alexandra Gardens, a carpenter, said he saw defendant at two minutes to ten and he was perfectly sober.

George Dolton, 25, Watkin Road, wholesale newsvendor, said he was at the Bouverie Hotel from 9.10 to 9.25. He saw defendant, who asked him to let him have all the coppers he had got. He gave him 15s. worth of coppers, defendant assisting to count them. He was quit sober.

Frederick Geo. Salter, 8, Oxford Terrace, a former decorator, said he was at the Bouverie Hotel from 9.15 to 10.30. He saw defendant counting up the coppers and serving customers.

Mr. Mowll said he had several other witnesses of the same type, but if the witnesses the Magistrates had already heard did not convince them no more could.

The Magistrates retired, and upon their return the Chairman announced that the Bench found defendant Guilty on the charge of permitting drunkenness, and he would be fined 2. The second charge would be dismissed on account of the conflict of evidence.

 

Folkestone Herald 28 September 1929.

Local News.

At the Folkestone Petty Sessions on Tuesday, Joseph Percival Lord, of 284, Cheriton Road, was granted a protection order pending the full transfer of the licence of the Bouverie Hotel to him from Mr. M. Ivory at the next licensing sessions.

 

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 Herald 12 October 1929.

Local News.

The transfer of several licences was approved by the Folkestone Magistrates at the Folkestone transfer sessions on Wednesday. The Magistrates approved the transfer of the licence of the Bouverie Hotel from Mr. M. Ivory to Mr. J.P. Lord, a protection order in respect of which was granted a fortnight ago.

 

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 Herald 28 June 1930.

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

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

Chief Inspector Pittock said that at 9.45 the previous evening he went into the smoke bar of the Bouverie Hotel, in company with Detective Sergeant Rowe, in plain clothes. In the smoke bar they saw Whitley, and witness formed the opinion that he was drunk. They went into the saloon bar and got into communication with the landlord. Almost immediately Whitley came into the saloon bar and witness told him that he was a police inspector, and in his opinion, he (prisoner) was drunk. Witness told him to leave the premises, but he refused to go. The landlord got hold of one of Whitley's arms, and witness got hold of the other, and they ejected him. When outside, witness requested Whitley to go home several times, but he refused to, and used bad language. Witness took him into custody, and had difficulty in getting him to the police station.

Prisoner said he was sorry for what had happened.

Chief Inspector Pittock said Whitley had been in the town for about four years, and was an electrician by occupation. He was an excellent workman, but was addicted to drink. He had had difficulty recently with his wife.

The Magistrates fined Whitley 5s., and dealt with the case leniently because of his being out of work. They told him that if he kept 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 14 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 Herald 28 January 1939.

Local News.

A suggestion that a man had been “incited” to commit a burglary after being plied with drinks was made by counsel at Folkestone Quarter Sessions on Saturday, when Ely John Michael Ivory, of Alexandra Gardens, Folkestone, a boarding-house manager, pleaded guilty to a charge of burglary. Ivory admitted breaking and entering 29, Grimston Avenue, the residence of Mrs. Florence Murial King, with intent to steal, on the night of December 19th. Brinley Dobbs, 35, of Grace Hill, Folkestone, a waiter, was found guilty of aiding and abetting Ivory.

The Recorder (Mr. Tristram Beresford, K.C) sentenced Ivory to six months’ imprisonment, and postponed sentence on Dobbs to the next sessions.

Mr. B.H. Waddy prosecuted, Mr. Norman Parkes represented Ivory and Mr. H.J. Baxter appeared for Dobbs.

After Ivory had pleaded guilty, a jury was empanelled to hear the case against Dobbs, who pleaded not guilty to “being present and aiding and abetting and assisting Ivory to commit such crime”.

Opening the case, Mr. Waddy said while Ivory was breaking into this house, 29, Grimston Avenue, with intent to steal, the prosecution alleged that Dobbs was outside doing what j schoolboys called “keeping cavey”. The house had for some little time been left unoccupied at night, but the owner had been there during the day (December 19th) and everything was to order when she left at 6.30 p.m. Shortly after 9 o’clock a young man named Bedford, who was employed next door and was leaving for home, saw two men. He would tell them that he was perfectly certain Ivory and Dobbs were the two men, and he heard one say to the other “This is the house”, and the other replied “No, this is the one”.

Counsel, continuing, said later a police officer arrived and Dobbs, who had been seen outside the house for some time, was detained.

William J.H. Miller, 30, Millfield, Folkestone, a handyman employed by Mrs. King at 29, Grimston Avenue, said the house was not occupied at night on December 19th but he had been there during the day. Witness and Mrs. King left at 6.30 p.m. and the house was secure.

Robert M. Bedford, 225, Dover Road, Folkestone, a chef employed at 31, Grimston Avenue, next door to No. 29, said on Monday, December 19th, he started to go home about 9.10 p.m. He left by the drive; it was snowing and the wind was howling. As he came out of No. 31 he saw two men passing the first gate of No. 31. One man was Dobbs and the other was Ivory. He heard one say “This is the house”, and the other said “No it isn’t, this is the one”. They passed the gate and stopped by No. 29. Witness got on his bicycle to ride away, but on turning round he noticed that Ivory was no longer there. Dobbs, however, was outside, walking up and down between Nos. 27 and 29. Witness rode as far as Bouverie Road West, about 200 to 250 yards away, and then stopped at the corner. Looking back he could see Dobbs, who was still walking up and down. Witness got on his bicycle, rode into Grimston Gardens by way of Earl's Avenue and eventually got back to Grimston Avenue, opposite Nos. 29 and 31. Dobbs was then outside No. 29. As he crossed the road he heard the splintering of glass coming from the back of No. 29. Witness attempted to telephone from No. 31, but the phone was out of order and he sent a message from No. 33. When he came out he saw Dobbs walking across Grimston Avenue to Grimston Gardens. Dobbs then stood beside a tree for a few seconds. P.C. McNaughton arrived and witness spoke to him. Dobbs had then gone. P.C. McNaughton went to the back entrance of No. 29, and then to the front door. As he went to the rear of the house detectives arrived in a car.

Mr. Baxter: As far as you know, you had never seen Dobbs before that night?

Witness: No.

And it was a very dark, snowy night? - It was.

When you were coming out of the drive of No. 31 the men whom you saw had passed the gate? - Yes.

You never saw their faces? - Yes, there is a lamp post outside our house.

From the time you heard the men speaking to the time the police arrived, how long do you think it was? – About 11 minutes.

Replying to further questions, witness said Dobbs was wearing the same coat on that night as he was that day.

The Recorder: The man whom you saw and identified was Dobbs, apart from the heavy coat he had on, can you describe him to the jury?

Witness: He was short and fat.

How near did you pass these two men? - I passed behind them.

Replying to a further question by the Recorder, witness said he could see the men quite distinctly by the street lamp outside No. 31.

P.C. McNaughton said on December 19th at 8.55 p.m. he inspected 29, Grimston Avenue and found everything correct. He returned to Grimston Avenue shortly after and saw two men there. He knew one of them as Dodds: the other was Bedford. When witness came back to Grimston Avenue Dobbs was practically opposite No. 29. Bedford spoke to him and, making an inspection of No. 29, Grimston Avenue, he found that two panes of glass of the kitchen had been broken. Returning to the front of the house he met two detective officers. Withes spoke to them and then went after Dobbs. He found him between Nos. 7 and 9, Grimston Gardens. He said to him: “Dobbs, I want you''. He asked what for and witness replied “I have seen you coning away from 29, Grimston Avenue, which has been entered and I shall detain you for enquiries”. Dobbs made no reply. He took Dobbs back to No. 29, where the police van was; after getting back there, witness saw Ivory in company of the two detectives. While waiting outside No. 29, he did not hear Dobbs ask why he was being detained.

Mr. Baxter: Didn’t you say to Dobbs when he asked what he was wanted for, “I will tell you later?”

Witness: No.

The Recorder: The first time you saw Dobbs that night he was in Grlmston Avenue or Grimston Gardens?

Witness: Grimston Avenue.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said at 9.33 p.m. on December 19th he went with Det. Const. Bates to 29, Grimston Avenue in consequence of a telephone message. On the way, when going through Grimtston Gardens, he saw Dobbs. Witness went to No. 29 and found a casement window in the scullery been broken. He entered the premises and searching the kitchen he found Ivory hiding behind an armchair. In his possession were a screwdriver, an electric torch and a table knife. He was wearing gloves. When Ivory was brought out of the house P.C. McNaughton and other officers were there with Dobbs. As Dobbs was about to be put into the police van he made a remark about what he was being taken in for, and witness replied something like “If you don’t know now you soon will”. The defendants were charged at 11.20 p.m. Ivory replied “I saw Dobbs earlier in the evening but he had nothing to do with this”. Dobbs replied “I was not near the house. I was fetched to the house by the policeman”.

Inspector J. Rowe, who also gave evidence, was asked by counsel: “This man has a perfectly good character?” and he replied: “I believe he has”.

Dobbs, giving evidence, said at the time of his arrest he was employed at the School of Education, Shorncliffe Camp. He had joined the Army when he was 14 and had to be turned down when his age was discovered. Later he joined the Army and was discharged with an exemplary character. He had been employed as a night watchman at the Astoria Cinema, Folkestone, for nearly three years before being discharged owing to a reduction in the number of the staff. He had been at the School of Education since May, 1938. On Monday, December 19th, he went to the Circle Club, Sandgate Road, arriving there at 8.40 p.m. after leaving home at 8.20 p.m. He had one glass of beer there. While there Ivory came into the club and he said “Good evening” to him. Ivory went before he (Dobbs) left. Dobbs said he left the club at 9.10 p.m., walked up Sandgate Road as far as the Metropole. He turned right into Grimston Avenue and turned again into Grimston Gardens towards his home. He was at no time in Grimston Avenue with Ivory. He denied walking up and down outside the house; or any other house in that district. P.C. McNaughton came up and said “Eh, Dobbs, I want you”. He said “What do you want?” McNaughton replied “You will soon find out”. Later he asked Sergt Johnson what he was being taken in for. He said: “Haven’t they told you yet?” He (Dobbs) said “No” and the detective then said “You will soon find out”.

Mr. Waddy: Do you know Ivory?

Dobbs: I know him as a casual acquaintance.

Was Ivory at the club that evening? - He came in while I was there.

What time did he leave? - A few minutes before me.

Did you know where he was going? – No.

Mr. Waddy: It was quite a coincidence that you and he both went up to Grimston Avenue, wasn’t it?

Addressing the jury, Mr. Waddy said in his submission the case against Dobbs had been proved up to the hilt.

The jury were absent only a few minutes before they returned and announced a verdict of Guilty.

Mr. Waddy said when Ivory was discovered in the house he said “All right. I expected you would catch me sooner or later”.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said Ivory's father was the licensee of a hotel the town. His mother was the proprietress of a boarding house. Ivory was educated at a local school until he was 16. On leaving he was apprenticed to a local firm of motor engineers, remaining there for two years. Then for three years from 1926 to 1929 he assisted his lather in the bar of his hotel. Ivory later went to Germany as a teacher of English, remaining there for 18 months, but seeing no prospects of bettering himself he returned to England and was unemployed until January, 1932. He then went to Jamaica to find work but as there was nothing doing there he returned to Folkestone in June of that year. His mother had opened a boarding house and since then he had assisted his mother in the running of that establishment. Ivory was married on Mat 21st last year. “Ivory has long been suspected of being concerned with breaking offences committed in this borough and has been interrogated respecting some on more than one occasion”, added the officer. “He has been closely associated with two men who have recently been convicted and sentenced to imnrisonment for burglary and other offences. It is also known that he is associated with well-known members of the criminal fraternity in London. He is a heavy drinker and spends most of the time in clubs and public house bars. There are no previous convictions recorded against him”.

With regard to Dobbs, continued the police officer, he was born in Wales and his parents were dead. He joined the Royal Corps of Signals, serving with that unit from 1920 to 1924. He rejoined the Army in 1925 and served until 1932. He was again unemployed until the opening of the Astoria Cinema, Folkestone, in 1934, where he had been employed until 12 months ago as a night watchman. He was discharged owing to a reduction in the staff. At the time of his arrest he was a civilian waiter at the School of Education, Shorncliffe. He had an exemplary character on leaving the Army and he had never been in trouble with the police.

Mr. Parkes, questioning Det. Sergt. Johnson, asked “Is it right that the suspicions which you entertained about Ivory’s previous conduct are based largely on his association with undesirable persons?”

Det. Sergt. Johnson: Yes, tgether with statements he has made to us at different times.

Mr. Parkes: At any rate, neither his statements nor his association with other persons have ever led the police to be in a position to place any evidence before a jury except in regard to this case?

Det. Sergt. Johnson: That is true.

Mr. Parkes: He has never been charged before? - That is a fact.

On the night of the burglary did police officers visit his mother’s house and search the premises? - I did.

Mr. Parkes: He was under arrest from the time of being found in the house until well after you had visited his home? -Yes.

Doubtlessly you made a thorough search but nothing was found there about which complaint could be made? - No.

Addressing the Recorder on behalf of Ivory, Mr. Parkes said defendant desired him in the first place to express his very sincere regret for having committed that serious crime, the seriousness of which he now fully appreciated, more so as his arrest had brought considerable trouble on himself and his mother. As the Recorder, had heard, Ivory was a married man who had been living with his mother, a respectable lady carrying on a good class boarding house business in Folkestone. Added to the natural anxiety of his mother to find her son in that position, one could quite understand the harm a charge of that kind must do to her business. But more than that, defendant’s wife, whom he had married only last year, had left him as a result of his arrest. He (Mr. Parkes) urged upon the Recorder in asking him to deal as leniently as he could with defendant, that if he did so there might be some hope of his wife returning to him. The police had said that Ivory for some time had been suspected of breakings in the borough. He asked the Recorder to ignore that suggestion completely. It arose from his association with undesirable persons, and that defendant had associated with undesirable persons to some extent Ivory admitted, but he denied that he had ever before taken part in any adventure of that kind. Counsel referred to the statement Ivory made when caught and said that defendant wished him to put forward the following explanation. As they had heard, through associations with undesirable persons he had been frequently interrogated by the police and that fact caused some resentment in his mind against the police, rightly or wrongly, and that expression he used arose from that resentment. Ivory had told him that on the day he committed this burglary he was approached by a certain man, whose name he (counsel) had written down together with his occupation. That man had a motor car and he called for Ivory on that evening and took him to Hythe. There he plied Ivory with drinks and on the way back to Folkestone while Ivory was under the influence of the drink he had had, the man suggested to him that he should break into this house, giving him information as regards it being unoccupied. Having made the suggestion which rather appealed to defendant in his condition, they went to the Circle Club and from there to the Queen’s Hotel bar, where Ivory was plied with more drinks by this man. He had a witness who would tell them that it was a fact that this man was there and Ivory was being given drinks. Further, when Ivory left the hotel just after 9 o’clock he was definitely showing the effect of all the drinks he had had.

Counsel said he could not put that forward as any excuse for the crime, but he asked the Recorder to take it into consideration. At the suggestion of another man, an older man, Ivory gave way to the temptation. He (counsel) was instructed that Ivory was driven away by this man, presumably in the direction of the house which was entered. Continuing, counsel said at the time of his arrest Ivory was found in the possession of certain articles. He (Ivory) instructed him that the screwdriver was given to him by this man and the pocket torch he had borrowed some little time before. That Ivory was not a professional housebreaker was rather supported by the way in which the burglary was carried out. The first thing which must strike one was the very amateurish way in which dependants discussed the burglary outside the house. It was the conduct of persons who were not experienced housebreakers or who were not sober. Counsel said the man to whom he had referred was not Dobbs. The name of the man he proposed to hand up on a piece of paper, together with such particulars as were necessary to identify him.

Mr. Parkes then handed to the Recorder the paper, which was afterwards shown to the police.

Aubrey McElroy, a salesman, gave evidence that on the evening of December 19th he saw Ivory in the Queen's Hotel at about eight minutes to 9. He was very drunk. He was with two other persons.

Counsel handed to witness the piece of paper bearing the name of the man already referred to and asked him if that was one of the men he saw with Ivory.

Witness said it was. The man in question was talking to Ivory, and when witness went outside he saw them standing by a saloon car. That was four or five minutes after 9.

Cross-examined by Mr. Waddy, witness said he had known Ivory for about two years. He spoke to Ivory on this night at the Queen's Hotel, but he did not recognise him at first.

Mr. Waddy: Were they serving a very drunk man with more drink?

Witness: I did not actually see him being served.

Mr. Waddy: Is it on your information that my friend says Ivory was being plied with drinks? – I don't know. He was very drunk.

Mr. Waddy: Able to walk steadily? - No.

Do you think he could have climbed through a broken window as we know be did? - I should not have thought so.

Do you think that by 9.30 he was likely to be sober as the police officers say he was? - The shock of being found by the police officers might have sobered him.

The Recorder: Do you agree with what the police have said, that he is a very heavy drinker?

Witness: I should not think so.

The Recorder: Have you seen him as intoxicated before as he was on this night? - Not quite.

The Recorder: Was it obvious to everyone that this man was drunk? - I should have thought so.

Mrs. Lilian J. Ivory, mother of defendant, said that for a very considerable time her son had been managing her boarding house business for her. In spite of what had occurred she was prepared to let him continue to reside with her; he was her right hand.

Replying to the Recorder, Mrs. Ivory said her son and his wife had lived at a flat but she got him to come to reside with her because the flat was damp. Her son's wife left him on Christmas Eve.

The Recorder: Did they appear to get on well together before?

Mrs. Ivory: Very well.

Mr. Baxter said Dobbs wished him to say that he had never been out before with Ivory and he was quite unable to give any explanation as to why he went with Ivory on this particular evening. Dobbs also wanted to say he would not commit any offence of that kind again. He had been in custody five weeks and it had been a lesson to him. He (Mr. Baxter) was informed that Dobbs might be able to return to his work, but it would be a matter for a higher authority to decide.

The Recorder, addressing Ivory said he had pleaded Guilty to a very serious offence, one for which, as long as he was Recorder of the borough, would meet with no encouragement from him. He had listened to counsel’s very eloquent and able speech on his behalf, but he did not find himself in a position to be able to take the lenient view suggested.

His (Ivory’s) character was not good, but he was not sentencing him on his character; he was sentencing him for the offence he had committed. Whether he was an amateur or a professional, he had, apart from the screwdriver and torch, a most useful weapon in the knife found in his possession. He (the Recorder) did not think he would be doing his duty if he passed on him a less sentence than six months’ imprisonment.

Addressing Dobbs, the Recorder said he had been found guilty of aiding and abetting Ivory. It might not seem such a serious offence. It was not a very meritorious part “keeping cave” but it was a necessary part if the burglary had been successful. Bearing in mind, so far as Dobbs' was concerned, that he had a good character and it might be possible for him to be taken back into employment again, he was going to remand him in custody until the next sessions. He would have enquiries made to whether he could be taken back into his former job.

 

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/-.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 April 1940.

Local News.

For permitting lights to show during black-out, defendants were fined at Folkestone Police Court on Tuesday, including:

Ivy Sherwood, Bouverie Hotel, 10s.

 

Folkestone Herald 7 July 1951.

Local News.

Seven Folkestone public houses were granted an extension of licence on weekdays until 11 p.m. and on Sundays to 10.30 p.m. until September 30th at Folkestone Magistrates’ Court yesterday.

Mr. W.J. Mason, appearing for the applicants, said a similar application had been granted to a number of hotels for the summer season and Festival of Britain. At Eastbourne 44 applications of the same kind had been granted and 115 at Hastings. The extension had been granted to all those who desired it in the other two towns.

The application was granted in respect of the Star Inn, Bouverie Hotel, Shakespeare Hotel, Guildhall Hotel, Prince Albert Hotel, Globe Inn, and George Inn.

 

Folkestone Gazette 1 May 1968.

Obituary.

Folkestone's oldest licensee, Mr. Percy Lord, who had been at the Bouverie Hotel, Bouverie Road East, since 1929, died on Monday. He was 85.

Born at Sugworth Manor, Radley, near Oxford, he entered the licensed trade in 1909, when he became landlord of the Prince Alfred, at Sydenham. Subsequently he took the licence of the Queen's Head, Green Street Green, near Orpington, where he remained until 1929. Mr. Lord was an enthusiastic sportsman. In his early days he played football and cricket. During his many years in Folkestone he will be remembered as an excellent shot and a very fine snooker and billiards player. He was a member of the Hythe Club and the old Folkestone Club. He served in the Army during the First World War, and was a member of the Civil Defence Corps in the last war.

Mr. Ward, a widower – his wife died in 1921 – leaves a son, Mr. Bob Lord, and two daughters, Mrs. Drena Vickery and Mrs. Joyce Jackson.

The funeral at Folkestone Parish Church at 11.50 a.m. tomorrow will be followed by cremation at Barham.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 January 1969.

Local News.

Mr. Joseph Percival Lord, of The Bouvene Hotel, Bouverie Road East, Folkestone, former licensed victualler, who died on April 29, left 14,212 16s. gross, 13,874 8s. net, Duty 1,121. He left his property variously to his issue. Probate has been granted to his son Robert P. Lord and son-in-law Thomas Vickery, both of the Bouverie Hotel, and Frederick J. Goulding, chartered accountant, of 22 Cheriton Gardens, Folkestone.

 

Folkestone Gazette 25 April 1973.

Local News.

Hooligans smashed six windows in Folkestone and Hythe over the bank holiday.

A temporary bus stop sign was thrown through a window of the Bouverie Hotel in Bouverie Road East. Landlord Mr. R.P. Lord estimated the cost of replacing the glass at about 100.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 April 1978.

Local News.

Thieves with an eye for a quick profit escaped with 26 from a Folkestone town centre pub at the weekend. They did it by conning a fruit machine. It happened at the Bouverie Hotel where the tricksters achieved an astonishing 500 per cent profit by feeding 10 pence pieces into the machine’s 50 pence change slot. For every 10 pence spent they got five in return.

A spokesman at the Hotel said this week “The police say that people doing this pick one town at a time. However vigilant local landlords are there are times when we get busy and these people can get away with it”.

Chairman of the local Licensed Victuallers Association, Mr. John Mees, said he had not received any complaints about the fruit machine fiddlers. But, he said, he was thinking of raising the matter at a meeting of the LVA.

 

South Kent Gazette 3 October 1979.

Local News.

Bob Lord had an open heart operation earlier this year which saved his life. And thanks to the staff at the National Heart Operation Hospital in London he celebrated his family’s 50th year at the Bouverie Hotel, Folkestone, last week. Family, friends and relatives from Britain and Holland gathered to toast the special golden jubilee. And nurses at the London hospital telephoned to congratulate them.

On September 24, 1929, Bob’s father Percy took over as landlord of the hotel. When he died in 1968 Bob carried on the business with his wife Joan. Over the years the couple have seen many changes in the town but the hotel has remained the same. It still has its five original bars — lounge saloon, bottle and jug, public and smoke room.

One of the oldest and most regular customers, Mr Ely Ivory, who was landlord before the Lord family took over, was also at the hotel to join in the festivities. Other regulars, including members of the Regents football team, of which Mr Lord is president, gave the couple gifts and thanked them for their hospitality over the years. The Lord children, Peter, aged 29, and Penny, aged 26, came down from London for the jubilee. Peter, a former Harvey Grammar School head boy, is now a director of a computer business, Penny is a stewardess on Concorde.

Bob has traced the history of the hotel back to 1853 when it was a coach inn. He still remembers the last horse leaving the premises in 1949.

At one time there used to be stables for more than 30 horses here”, he said.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 September 1982.

Local News.

Landlord Bob Lord put the towels over the beer pumps at Folkestone's Bouverie Hotel for the last time on Monday. Ill health has forced Mr. Lord to leave the pub after 36 years and retire with his wife Joan to a new home in Seabrook.

On Saturday friends and regulars gathered at the pub, which was run by Mr. Lord's father before him, to bid the popular couple farewell. The Bouverie Hotel is being taken over by a private hotel company from Essex.

The licensing trade runs in Mr. Lord's family. He was born in a pub at Green St. Green in 1921, where his father Percy was landlord. Mr. Lord went to the Morehall and Harvey Grammar Schools, and for a brief period went into farming. He met his wife in the early days of World War II while working at Dover Casualty Hospital. The couple took over the hotel in 1946, but Mr. Lord remembers the days when a circus elephant used to pop in for a pint, and Sir Alec Rose, the round-the-world yachtsman, was a regular visitor while in the market garden business in Thanet.

 

South Kent Gazette 15 June 1983.

Local News.

Cockney comedian Arthur Mullard helped to open the new-look Bouverie Hotel in Folkestone. He was the star attraction to launch a new era at the hotel, which includes selling real ale brewed in Kent.

The hotel, in Shellons Street, Middelburg Square, has been taken over by partners Mr. David Bumpstead and Mr. Ian Hilton. It will be managed by Mr. Tom Riley. They already have a nightclub in Hornchurch, Essex, a hotel in Brentwood, Essex, and a hotel on the pier at Gravesend which brews its own beer. And that’s where the beer at the Bouverie Hotel comes from. Known as Hilton real ale, the beer has some amazing names, including Clipper, Gravedigger, Buccaneer and Lifebuoy.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 June 1986.

Local News.

A secretary and several company managers landed in the swim last week when they decided to celebrate their firm’s bi-centenary in style.

But it was not so much a dip in the ocean they took, more a twenty-nine and half mile dive. For a team of six proudly heralded the name of their company, Lovell Construction and Property Development of Gerrards Cross, Buckinghamshire, and waded into the icy blue Channel off Dover in a brave attempt to swim to France.

Unfortunately, just four miles off Cap Griz-Nez in France, the freezing water got the better of the relay team, who were taking it in one hour swimming stints, and had to be pulled in. But their disappointment was short-lived for they managed to warm the cockles of the hearts of residents at the Bouverie Hotel, Middleburg Square, Folkestone. A party was thrown to boost funds by hotel managers Bill and Heather McFarlane and they went home with 78 to add to their collection for the Spinal Injuries Unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital.

A spokesman for Y. J. Lovell said “We were very impressed with the hospitality and generosity we received from the Bouverie Hotel. Their donations helped towards our target of 15,000 for our charity and we have every confidence that we’ll beat it”.

 

From www.thisiskent.co.uk Friday, April 29, 2011

Family mourning for hotel boss Bob

By Eleanor Jones

TRIBUTES have been paid to the former landlord of the Bouverie Hotel, who died last week at the age of 89.

Bob Lord was involved with the pub, with his father then on his own, for 53 years and, according to his son, "knew everybody".

The hotel, which stood where Bouverie Place is now, had five bars, more than any other in Kent at the time, and offered traditional pursuits such as shove ha'penny, as well as a billiards room.

Former Harvey Grammar pupil Mr Lord, who served with the RAF in Africa during the Second World War, ran the hotel first with his father Percy, then with his wife Joan.

His son Peter said: "He was always friendly and ready for a chat and he knew everybody.

"Sooner or later, everyone went into the Bouverie Hotel and whenever you went down the street with him, he'd point people out – he'd make some comment about all of them."

Mr Lord moved to Twiss Grove, Hythe, when he retired in 1982. He underwent heart bypass surgery in 1978, and again in 1993, but died of pneumonia. His son said: "I think he must have been one of the longest-surviving patients ever – his heart was fine.

"I think he just missed my mother too much. They were married for 59 years but she died a couple of years ago and he faded away after that. He was always very keen on sport though, right to the end. His best friend was Wilf Armory, who managed Folkestone Invicta after the war, but he also followed Kent County Cricket Club all his life.

"He supported charities, especially for blind children, and he was always very good at what he knew. He was a generous and sociable person and I think a lot of people out there would remember him."

Mr Lord is also survived by his daughter, Penny Weir, and three grandchildren.

His funeral was due to take place yesterday (Wednesday).

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

Last pub licensee had ALLEN William Dec 1879-July/80

HAMMOND William 1880-81 Bastions

BRION Henry Temple Brion 1881-83 BastionsPost Office Directory 1882

REDGRAVE Elijah 1883-85 Bastions

Last pub licensee had AITKEN Lucy 1885-86 Bastions

NEWLAND Mrs1886

Last pub licensee had PRESSLAND Daniel 1886-88 Bastions

MULLER Salis 1888-89 Bastions

MOLEKENBUHR Wilhelm Henry 1889-92 (age 35 in 1891Census) Post Office Directory 1891Bastions

POLLARD Albert 1892-93 Next pub licensee had Bastions

DABBS Edward 1893-95 Bastions

GUY George 1895-97 Bastions

FARFIELD & RIDDALL 1899+ Kelly's 1899

FARNFIELD Harriet 1897-1900 Bastions

RIDDALL Arthur M 1900-05 (age 29 in 1901Census) Bastions

ALLCOCK Ernest 1905-13 (age 47 in 1911Census) Bastions

Last pub licensee had ADAMS Andrew 1913-16 Bastions

STOTESBURY Charles 1916-23 Bastions

IVORY Michael 1923-29 Bastions

LORD Joseph Percival 1929-68 Post Office Directory 1938Bastions

LORD Robert 1968-82 Bastions

BUMPSTEAD David Next pub licensee had & KEBBLE Noel 1982-86 Bastions

Renamed "Victoria Hotel."

 

Post Office Directory 1882From the Post Office Directory 1882

Post Office Directory 1891From the Post Office Directory 1891

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1938From the Post Office Directory 1938

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

CensusCensus

 

If anyone should have any further information, or indeed any pictures or photographs of the above licensed premises, please email:-

TOP Valid CSS Valid XTHML

 

LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room