From the Dover Express. 1860.

Shop Lifting.

Matthew Mailer and Frederick Hart, who described themselves as bricklayer's labourers were charged with stealing a purse containing 14s. 6d. in money belonging to a fellow lodger and six new cotton handkerchiefs the property of Mr. Hearn, draper, of 133 Snargate Street.

James Wall examined; I am the landlord of the City of London Tap, Tower Street, and prisoners have been lodging at my house. About a quarter past six o' clock this morning one of the lodgers came down and said he had lost his purse. I went up stairs in consequence and made a search and underneath the mattress of the bed where the prisoners had been sleeping I found a bundle containing the new cotton handkerchiefs produced. They were tied up in the old cotton handkerchief produced that I had previously seen in the possession of the prisoners who are companions.

By the prisoner; seven persons were occupying the room you slept in yourselves and five others. William James Hearn, draper, 133 Snargate Street said the cotton handkerchiefs produced were his property. Two men very much like the prisoners came into his shop on the previous evening and purchased two three-penny pocket-handkerchiefs. They remained about three minutes. The handkerchiefs, which had been produced were hanging over an iron bar in front of the shop window outside secured by two very long needles. He last saw them about four o'clock and he missed them about six. The men came into his shop as nearly as he could recollect about quarter past five.

The handkerchiefs were not sold to anyone. The value of the six was 4s. P.C. James Johnson examined, this morning between seven and eight o'clock in consequence of information I received I took the prisoners into custody at the old buildings in Strond Street, where I found them at work and conveyed them to the Police Station. The landlord had previously handed me the bundle of handkerchiefs produced. On the charge being read over to them the prisoners said they had found the handkerchiefs but could not tell where. On searching them I found a handkerchief corresponding to those in the bundle (five in number) upon the prisoner Mailyer. Prisoners could not have dropped anything on their way to the Station House without my seeing.

On being questioned Mailyer desired that he might be sent to trial but Hart wished to be dealt with at once. Under these circumstances the magistrates exercising their discretion to send them both to the sessions. The charge of stealing the purse was abandoned but the usual; caution was read over with respect to the other officer when both prisoners declared they were not guilty. Hart said he thought it hard that he and his companion should be “nabbed” for this offence when there were seven of them sleeping in the same bedroom together. They picked up the handkerchiefs rolled in a piece of paper on turning a corner not a great way from the General Post Office. Both prisoners were committed for trial.

Information kindly supplied by Joyce Banks.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 21 February, 1863.

INFRINGEMENT OF LICENSE

James Wall, charged with infringing the license of the "City of London Tap," of which he is the proprietor, was cautioned, and dismissed on paying the Court fees.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 8 February, 1867.

CHARGES OF FELONY

James Wall, landlord of the "City of London Tap," Round Tower Street, remanded from Friday on a charge of stealing 11lbs of tobacco, the property of Charles Pearce, 124, Snargate Street, was again brought up. The same prisoner had been committed for trial on a charge of stealing a quantity of pork from the shop of Mr. Mills, of the same street.

The Superintendent of the Police said he was not yet prepared with additional evidence in the case of the tobacco; but there were other charges to be brought against the prisoner, and he was ready with the evidence in one of them.

The prisoner was charged with stealing about twenty yards of calico, the property of Mr. William Streeter, a linen draper carrying on business in Snargate Street. A quantity of dress material, belonging to the same prosecutor, and which, it was believed, had been stolen, was also found at the same time as the calico and was produced.

The calico, it appeared, had been made up into sheets since it had been stolen, and Mr. Streeter, on one of the sheets being handed to him, said; The calico produced is mine. I known it by a plain mark and also by a private mark. I have not sold the calico to my knowledge. I last saw it in my shop on the 24th November. It was then lying in the lobby of the doorway, with other pieces of calico, on a chair. The piece contains about twenty yards. I missed it on the day named, and in consequence I gave information to a police-constable as to the loss. On Friday last I went, in company with a policeman, to the prisoner's house, and I there identified the calico produced as the piece I had lost. the value of the calico is about 10s.

By the Bench: Two pieces of calico were lost at the same time. The other has not yet been traced. The sheets produced make up one piece. I have also missed a piece of dress material like that produced, and I do not remember having sold it. This does not bear any private mark, and I would therefore prefer not to speak positively about it.

The Magistrates' Clerk said that under these circumstances the dress material had better not be included in the charge.

Police-sergeant George Thomas Stevens said the prisoner was taken into custody on another charge on the previous Thursday. On searching the house he found amongst other things the calico sheets he now produced. He took Mr. Streeter to the house, and he there identified the sheets as having formed a piece of calico which had been stolen, and which was his property. The sheets were found upstairs in a chest of drawers in a lumber room. On one of the sheets were the traces of a mark, which had been partially washed out.

The usual caution having been read over, the prisoner said the calico was brought to his house by a woman named Emms. He asked her where she had got it, and she said she had found it in the street, coming down Snargate Street. She asked him whether he would buy it. He told her at first that he did not want it, and remarked that perhaps she had stolen it. She said no, she had done no such thing; she had found it. She asked him what he would give her for it, when he told her again that he did not want to buy it, as, if anybody owned it, he should get himself blamed. He ultimately gave her ten shillings for it - if this was the same calico.

The prisoner was then committed to take his trial on this charge at the next Quarter Sessions.

The prisoner was then charged with stealing from the yacht Talisman, in Dover harbour, a coat.

Sergeant Stevens: The coat produced answers the description of a coat stolen in September last from the yacht Talisman, the property of Mr. Fowler. I found it in a chest with several other coats of a similar description at the prisoner's house. I have reason to believe that if the prisoner is remanded I shall be able to obtain evidence in support of the charge.

The prisoner, who said it was all a "trap", was then remanded till Friday.

The charge of stealing the tobacco was also remanded till Friday. Richard Rowe, charged with being concerned in this offence, was likewise remanded till the same day.

The Magistrates declined to accept bail at this stage of the proceedings.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 19 April, 1867.

ALLEGED WHOLESALE ROBBERY

James Wall, 48, licensed victualler, was charged on several indictments with stealing various articles found in his house, the "City of London Tap."

Mr. Barrow was for the prosecution, and Mr. Ribton, with Mr. Bridger, were for the defence.

The first charge proceeded with was one of stealing thirty-nine yards of linen, the property of William Griffiths, of Charlton, Dover; but the period since which the alleged robbery was committed being over sixth months, and the evidence of identification being uncertain, the learned Recorder directed a verdict of acquittal.

In the second case a similar objection presented itself, and the evidence for the prosecution was still further weakened by the absence of the prosecutor, who was called upon his recognizances, but he did not answer. In this case, therefore, a verdict of acquittal was directed.

The prisoner was then charged with stealing twenty yards of calico, the property of Mr. William Streeter, draper, of Snargate Street, and the calico having been missed as recently as November last, no such difficulty as that encountered in the previous cases presented itself.

Police-sergeant Stevens spoke to discovering the calico, made up into sheets, in the prisoner's lumber room, and Mr. Streeter deposed to its having been in his shop, and to his having missed it. He identified it by certain marks upon the calico, - a red mark in his own handwriting and a pencil mark in his predecessor's.

The prosecutor was cross-examined by Mr. Ribton as to the marks of his predecessor, which were nearly obliterated. The cross-examination of Mr. Ribton as to these mysterious hieroglyphics caused roars of laughter in the Court, and the learned Recorder threatened to have the gallery cleared if a greater degree of order was not preserved. In further reply to the learned Counsel he said he did not sell the calico himself. He had one assistant - a lady, and she was not present.

The learned Recorder directed that the assistant should be sent for, but she was not examined.

In re-examination by Mr. Barrow the prosecutor said the calico had been washed.

A gentleman of the Jury suggested a question, and the prosecutor in reply said the piece of calico produced was the only piece of the same mark which he had in his shop at the time it was missed. He missed two pieces of calico, but the other was of a different quality and different marks. That had not been discovered. He saw the present piece safe, and in an hour afterwards it was missed.

Mr. Ribton submitted that there was no case in law; but the learned recorder decided that it aught to go to the Jury.

The Jury, however, thought it unnecessary to hear counsel for the defence, and immediately found a verdict of not guilty.

The next indictment against the prisoner was for stealing three joints of pork, the property of Mr. John Mills, on the 28th January.

Police sergeant Stevens said he went to the house of the prisoner on the 31st January, in the evening. He found a pan containing seven pieces of pork, making three points, on a shelf in the beer cellar. He asked the prisoner how he had become possessed of it, and he said he had bought it off a country butcher and had given seven pence a pound for it. He said he did not know the man. On looking at the pork witness had an impression that it was French and not English pork, and he then sent for Mr. Mills, who said he believed it to be the same he had lost. The prisoner then said that his wife purchased the pork.

John Mills, a pork butcher, living in Snargate Street, said he lost three joints of pork from his shop on the 28th January. It was French pork. He lost the joints between five and six o'clock. He had seen them safe at five o'clock. He was absent from the shop from half-an-hour to an hour, and when he returned the pork was gone. Two necks and a loin were the joints missing. On the 31st he was sent for to the house of the prisoner, and he there saw the pork which he identified as his. The joint of pork produced (which had been kept in pickle) corresponded with the part still left in his shop from which it was cut.

By Mr. Ribton: The piece with which the joint found in the possession of the prisoner corresponded has been in the possession of the police. It was first compared before the Magistrates. He previously identified the pork from its general appearance. He could distinguish the flesh of an English pig from a French pig. There was difference in length of nose and legs (a laugh), also in grain and rind. There was more grain in a French pig than an English pig, and the rind of a French pig was thicker than an English pig's. He could distinguish these differences after the pork had been in pickle.

The pieces of pork were then shown to the Jury, in order that it might be seen where the bones joined.

Mr. Ribden addressed the Jury for the defence in a clever and ingenious speech, and called Mr. John Peirce, Mr. Thomas Boulter, Mr. Edward Scarlett, and other witnesses, to speak to the prisoner's previous character.

The learner Recorder summed up, and the Jury found the prisoner not guilty.

The prisoner was then indicted on the fifth and last charge against him in the calendar for having stolen eleven pounds of tobacco, the property of Charles Pearce, on the 29th January, at Dover.

Mr. Barrow, having briefly detailed the facts, called the prosecutor, who said he was a tobacconist living at 124, Snargate Street. On Tuesday evening, the 29th January, he had in his shop some Irish rolled tobacco. It was in one large roll, and weighed between 11lbs and 12lbs. It was in the corner of the window on the right hand side entering the door. He last saw it safe in the window at two o'clock in the afternoon, and missed it about five. He believed the tobacco was of a different quality to any other sold in the town. The tobacco produced answered to the quality of his tobacco, and he believed it was part of the same. He had a piece of his own in his possession, and that produced corresponded with it. It was not cut up when it was in his shop. It was worth 4s. a pound.

By Mr. Ribton: I pay 3s. 6d. a pound for it. A great deal of Irish tobacco is sold in the town, but none of the same quality. There are a number of tobacconists in the town, but at that time there was no other tobacconist who sold tobacco of that sort. The traveller of the house supplying me with that did not supply any other house in the town. It was sold in great quantities at the canteen in the Western Heights. I have seen the traveller in Dover this morning.

Thomas Craddock, landlord of the "Odd Fellows Arms," in Beach Street, said he saw the prisoner on the Saturday morning following the date of the robbery, when the prisoner asked him if he would buy a pound of tobacco. He bought a pound and gave 2s. for it. That produced was the same. His little girl cut it for the purpose of selling it to his customers. He had not seen any tobacco of the same sort before.

A police constable proved the finding of the tobacco and the apprehension of the prisoner, who said, in reply to the charge, that he knew nothing about it, and police-constable Sabin said he saw the prisoner on the 29th of January in his house, in the "City of London Tap," in reference to the tobacco. Witness asked him whether he had had any person round offering to sell tobacco. He said he had not.

In this case Mr. Barrow summed up the evidence - a right which he had not exercised in the previous cases. He commented upon the fact that the tobacco was of an unusual description, born out of the circumstance that Mr. Craddock, though a publican, had never seen any tobacco of the same kind before. It was true that it was sold at the canteens, but not in pounds at the time. It was said that these places cut up in small quantities, to the soldiers, and not in large quantities, uncut, as sold by the prisoner to Mr. Craddock. It was impossible therefore that the tobacco could have been got at the canteens by the prisoner, and the evidence, he submitted, aught to satisfy the jury, that at the time there was no other place but the prosecutor's shop, - except at the canteens, - where tobacco of this nature might be procured. He made reference to the very low price at which the tobacco was sold. There was no imputation on Mr. Craddock, who had seen no tobacco of that kind before, but it was not a singular circumstance that the prisoner, being presumed to have dealt in the tobacco, should sell for 2s. a pound tobacco the wholesale price of which was 3s. 6d., and the retail price is 4s.

Mr. Ribton then addressed the jury for the prisoner, contending that the evidence as to the identity of the tobacco was ludicrously weak. It was preposterous to ask the Jury to believe that there was no other tobacco of as good a quality as the prosecutor's sold in any other tobacconist's shop in Dover.

The learned Recorder summed up with great care; after which the Jury returned for the purpose of considering their verdict.

The Jury, after an absence of three quarters of an hour, returned into Court with a verdict of Not Guilty., the foreman stating that they had given the case their best consideration, and finding a doubt to exist had given the prisoner the benefit of it.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 23 October, 1868.

CHARGE OF ASSAULT.

James Wall was charged on the information of Hugh Nolan with assaulting him on the 15th October.

The prosecutor said he was a carpenter, and had lodged in the house of the defendant, the "City of London Tap," for the past four weeks. On Thursday evening, between 7 and 8 o'clock, he was in the kitchen, when the defendant asked him the reason he did not obtain work. He told him he could not, when the defendant picked a quarrel with him without any reason, and knocked him off a form upon which he was sitting, giving him two black eyes, and injuring him in other respects. Witness knew no cause for the defendant's conduct.

The defendant declared that Nolan was mad drunk, and that he used highly improper language in reference to the police and the Magistrates. He was going on with his "recitation," when he (the defendant) called upon him to desist. The complainant, instead of desisting, resisted and fell down, thereby getting the injuries he presented to the view of the Bench. In the course of his defence, Wall said that, although Nolan was insanely drunk, he (Wall) was perfectly sober; and he made the remarkable statement that, though he kept a public-house, he had been a teetotaller for more than seven years.

John Smith, a man lodging in the "City of London Tap," corroborated the defendant's story.

William Jackson, who lives in Round Tower Street, also gave confirmatory evidence. The complainant, he said, came home drunk, and behaved in the way which had been described. If the defendant had been the complainant's own father, "from Heaven," he could not have acted more kindly or considerately towards him.

The Magistrates dismissed the case.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday 15 January, 1869.

A DISHONEST SERVANT

Judia Alberta, a young German female, who spoke English very imperfectly, was charged with stealing a pencil-case, a brooch, a pin, and other articles, the property of a former mistress.

Mrs. Ada Manser said that the person lived with her as a domestic servant for about three months, but was now filling another situation. After the prisoner had left she missed the articles which formed the subject of the present charge, and on tracing the prisoner she acknowledged that she saw guilty of the theft. She gave up the missing articles and begged the prosecutrix not to tell her (the prisoner's) present employer of the circumstance. She consequently availed herself of an opportunity to search the prisoner's boxes, when she found in them other property which belonged to her. The value of the stolen things was about £2.

In reply to questions from the Magistratesmrs. Mancer said the prisoner was in her employ as a general servant. The prisoner had previously lived as servant at the "London Hotel."

On the magistrates enquiring whether the prisoner was known, Superintendent Coram said that previous to her living at the "London" she had lived in a house at Liverpool Street. She was there accused of felony, and the stolen articles were traced to her, but she was not prosecuted. A pair of boots, part of the missing property, had been sent by the prisoner to some friends and were recovered; but a watch, which was also missing at the time, had never been recovered.

The prisoner desired that she might be summarily dealt with and pleaded guilty. She begged hard for mercy; but the Magistrates considered it a bad case, and sent her to the House of Correction with hard labour, for six weeks.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 16 September, 1870. Price 1d.

THE ANNUAL LICENSING DAY

FRESH APPLICATIONS

The applications of William Wall, for a house in Round Tower Street was refused.

From the Dover Express and East Kent News, Friday, 6 September, 1874. Price 1d.

ANNUAL LICENSING MEETING

James Wall, the occupier, applied for license to sell beer off the premises at this place.

Mr. Mowll: I am instructed to oppose this application. I am aware that under ordinary circumstances your Worships could not refuse to grant it, but there are certain requirements as to the character of the application. If the application be persisted in I shall have to put some questions as to Mr. Wall's character. I don't know whether, after that intimation, he will continue to make application or not.

Dr. Astley: Do you still make your application?

Wall: Yes.

Mr. Mowll; Is this the first time you have been in this hall?

Wall: No.

Mr. Mowll: Were you not committed to take your trial on fifteen different charges of receiving stolen goods?

Wall: If I was, I was innocent.

Mr. Mowll: You were acquitted?

Wall: Yes.

Mr. Mowll: But you were committed to take your trial, and you took your trial here?

Wall: Yes, but I could get fifty superior men to give me a character in any shape or form.

Applicant, however, had no testimonials, and the Bench told him he must attend with them at the adjourned meeting at Broadstairs.

Wall: I shan't take the trouble to go; no fear of that. (Laughter.)