DOVER KENT ARCHIVES

Sort file:- Folkestone, July, 2022.

Page Updated:- Tuesday, 19 July, 2022.

PUB LIST PUBLIC HOUSES Paul Skelton

Earliest 1893

(Name from)

Clarence Hotel

Latest Sept 1917

25 Dover Road

Folkestone

 

Previous to this the house was named the "New Inn" while under the reign of Henry Gower.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 7 June 1893.

En Passant.

Amongst the many preparations that have been made lately to ensure the comfort and gratification of the expected visitors may be mentioned that well known hostelry, The Clarence Commercial Hotel, Dover Road. This very commodious and central establishment has now put on it's best holiday garb, having been repainted and decorated inside and out, and the genial host, Mr. Gower, is prepared to guarantee the satisfaction of all who may favour him with a call or may desire to occupy apartments at his house. Mackeson's celebrated Hythe ales are always on draught, and the spirits and wines will bear comparison with those sold at any other hotel in the town.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 22 February 1895.

Local News.

On Thursday evening, between four and five o'clock, a man named Riddle, a stranger in the town, took about four shillings in copper from the till of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. He was shortly afterwards arrested in a neighbouring hotel.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 1 March 1895.

Local News.

On Friday last at the Borough Police Court, an ex-soldier, named John Thomas Riddals was convicted of an impudent robbery at the Clarence Hotel.

Evidence was given proving that the prisoner had taken advantage of the barmaid's temporary absence to steal about three shillings in copper out of the till at the above house.

Information was given to the police, and he was shortly afterwards apprehended upon another licensed premises in the neighbourhood.

In consideration of the fact that prisoner is in receipt of a pension, the Magistrates took a merciful view of the offence, and saved the pension to the prisoner by merely imposing upon him a fine of 10s. and costs.

 

Folkestone Express 2 March 1895.

Friday, February 21st: Before J. Fitness Esq., and Aldermen Sherwood and Pledge.

John Thomson Riddell, a discharged soldier, was charged with stealing about three shillings from a till at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, on Thursday afternoon.

Mary Ann Pickerdike, housekeeper to Mr. Gower, landlord of the Clarence Inn, said she saw the prisoner in the bar about half past four on Thursday afternoon. He asked for half a pint of beer, and was served. He said he wanted the beer to “put him straight”. He drank half of the beer, and then laid down on a seat in the bar, and said he had a bad headache. She left the bar and went into the room behind, and while there she heard a chink of money, and in consequence went into the bar and saw prisoner with his right hand in the till. He had passed round from the outside to the inside of the counter. He put his hand up as if to hit her, and she called to Mr. Gower. Prisoner turned to get out of the bar. She tried to prevent him by catching hold of his coat. He got away and shut her arm in the door. She followed him into the street and cried “Stop thief”, but in Peter Street she lost sight of him. She was sure he was the man.

Prisoner: I am almost certain you have made a mistake. I don't remember being in your house yesterday.

Henry Gower, landlord of the Clarence Inn, said he heard his housekeeper call out and ran into the bar, where he saw prisoner trying to get out of the bar. As he went out, witness had a good view of his face. In the evening witness went with Sergeant Dawson to the Railway Tavern in Dover Road, and there saw prisoner sitting with his head in his hands, and he gave prisoner into custody. After prisoner had left the bar he examined the till, and missed about three shillings worth of coppers. He had seen prisoner in the bar on three or four days recently.

Prisoner said he had only been in Folkestone two days.

Sergeant Dawson said when he took prisoner into custody he replied “Sure, you've made a mistake, man”. When charged at the police station, he said “Can the gentleman prove it?” When searched 9d. in bronze was found on him, some army discharge papers, a pawn ticket, and an empty purse. The pawn ticket was dated February, 1895.

Prisoner elected to be dealt with summarily, and after hesitation said “I am Guilty according to the evidence”. He said he was a pensioner, and if convicted it would have a very detrimental effect upon him. He had had sunstroke in India, and had served 18 years. At Margate he was instructor in a college.

The letters were examined by the Magistrates, and after long consideration they said they would be sorry if prisoner were to lose his pension. They therefore fined him 10s. and in default seven days'.

Prisoner said he was very thankful, and that he could get the money.

 

Folkestone Express 1 June 1895.

Wednesday, May 29th: Before W. Wightwick and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

Mr. Gower, of the Clarence Inn, was granted an occasional licence to sell on Whit Monday in the football field.

 

Folkestone Express 3 August 1895.

Wednesday, July 31st: Before Alderman Banks, W. Wightwick, and W.G. Herbert Esqs.

Permission was granted to Mr. Gower, of the Clarence Hotel, to sell on the football field on Bank Holiday.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 27 November 1895.

Kaleidoscope.

It is hardly fair to some of the other licensed houses in the Borough if a certain public house has private communication with some houses to the rear of it, as was alleged at the police court on Saturday morning. And County Alderman Herbert stated that he had complained about it before! Whether the Alderman is right or not, we cannot say, but it is not right if any particular house should have private communication with any dwellings in the vicinity of such house. The Bench are, however, to have a plan of the premises and the adjoining dwellings before them within another week or two.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 29 November 1895.

Local News.

Mr. Warner was granted the temporary transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. Mr. Herbert drew attention that the licensed premises were connected with cottages adjoining. The police were instructed to ascertain full particulars as to this before next transfer day.

 

Folkestone Express 7 December 1895.

Wednesday, December 4th: Before W.G. Herbert, C.J. Pursey, T.J. Vaughan, and R.J. Fynmore Esqs.

Mr. G.W. Haines made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel from Mr. H. Gower to Mr. W.B. Warner.

Superintendent Taylor said with reference to the structural arrangements of the house that there were five rooms let to two separate families, from each of which access could be gained to the two bars.

Mr. Haines said that the owners of the house, Messrs. Mackeson and Co., were quite willing to adopt any suggestion that the Bench might think proper, either by blocking up one door, or giving the tenants notice to quit.

The application was granted, on Mr. Haines' undertaking to see that the occupiers of the rooms were removed immediately, and that the premises were not sub-let again.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 September 1896.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before Messrs. J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, H.D. Stock, and J. Pledge.

Mr. Warner was granted a music licence for the Clarence Hotel.

 

Folkestone Express 26 September 1896.

Wednesday, September 23rd: Before Aldermen Banks and Pledge, General Gwyn, J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, and H. Stock Esqs.

A music licence was granted to the Clarence Inn.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 16 February 1898.

Kaleidoscope.

On Monday morning at the Folkestone Police Court E.W. Prebble and J. Inglis were charged with stealing a quantity of furniture from the residence of the Hon. Ralph P. Nevill, at 2, Clifton Crescent, on various occasions since the month of October last, from which date the tenants have been absent. The case was adjourned until Monday next. It is expected that evidence will then be given of a surprising character.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 19 February 1898.

Monday, February 14th: Before Messrs. J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan.

Ernest Prebble and George Inglis were charged with stealing a large quantity of furniture, bedding, etc., from 2, Clifton Crescent, the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville, over the value of 5, at divers times since October last.

Walter Richford Warner, landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, said he remembered Prebble coming to the house about a fortnight ago. Witness knew him as a customer. He offered a writing table (produced) for sale. Witness saw it outside in charge of Inglis. Prebble asked 12s, for it, but witness declined to buy. On Saturday, January 29th, witness was called into his private bar by his wife about 7 o'clock, and saw the two prisoners there with a man named Welch. Inglis had two blankets under his arm, and offered them for sale for 5s. They said they bought them at a sale. He told them he knew a party who would be glad of them, and recommended them to Mrs. O'Brien.

By Inglis: He could not swear which one said he had been to a sale.

Mrs. Minnie O'Brien, widow, 45, Bournemouth Road, said two men came to her house on February 29th at 7.30 p.m. One of them asked her to buy a pair of blankets, saying Mr. Warner had sent him. He said he was selling them for Prebble, the upholsterer. Witness purchased them for 5s. She handed them to P.S. Lilley on Saturday.

Inglis: I brought the blankets, and said I was selling them for Prebble.

Albert Jenner, 42, Sidney Street, carter, said about seven on the 25th February he saw Inglis near the Globe Hotel on The Bayle. He asked if witness would buy a table, but he declined. Witness saw Prebble in the Globe, and said he was hard up. He saw the table in the garden of the hotel. Witness gave him 5s. for it. Witness gave the table up to P.S. Lilley the previous day.

Mary Lomax, 26, Bradstone Road, said he had been engaged at 2, Clifton Crescent since October. Witness did not live in the house, but went once a week to keep it clean. The house was furnished, and witness missed articles from it almost every week, and informed Mr. Goldsack at Mr. Sherwood's office. She identified the articles produced as those missed. She always got the keys from Mr. Sherwood's and returned them to him. She identified the blankets and the tables produced. The former had the name of Neville on a piece of tape, but it had been cut off. She always found the door locked, but it appeared to her that someone had entered by the back door, as there were marks of feet. She had bolted the back door, but had found it unbolted.

Superintendent Taylor asked for a remand for a week, which was granted, in order that other goods might be traced.

Inglis said he was innocent, and Prebble could clear him if he liked.

Supt. Taylor strongly opposed bail being granted, but the Bench decided to accept two sureties for each prisoner in 25 each, and themselves in 50 each. Failing to get bail, prisoners were remanded in custody.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 19 February 1898.

Monday, February 14th: Before J. Hoad, J. Holden, J. Pledge, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

Ernest William Prebble and George Inglis, two young men, were charged with stealing two birch tables, a pair of blankets, a pair of china figures, one despatch box, and other articles of furniture, &c., the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, from 2, Clifton Crescent. The prisoners pleaded Not Guilty.

Walter Richard Warner said: I am landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. It was about the third week in January that Prebble came as a customer into the private bar, where I was at the time. He asked me if I wanted to buy a writing table. I followed him outside the house, when he showed me a polished writing table which was standing just off the curbstone in front of my house. Inglis was in charge of the table. I looked at it, and Prebble said “That is cheap for 12s.” Inglis said nothing. I remember Saturday evening, the 29th ult. I was called into my private bar by my wife about seven o'clock, when I saw the two prisoners and a man of the name of Welsh. They were apparently accompanying one another. Inglis was carrying two blankets, and offered them for sale at 5s. I asked if the things were all right, and where the prisoners had got them from, and Inglis said they had been to a sale. I said I knew a friend of ours who would be very glad of them, Mrs. O'Bryan, 45, Bournemouth Road. The three men then left, carrying the blankets with them.

By Inglis: I think it was you who said you had been to a sale, but am not quite sure. It was either you or Prebble.

Minnie O'Bryan: I am a widow, living at 45, Bournemouth Road. I remember Saturday, the 24th, about 7.30 p,m. I was called to the front door by a knock. The passage was dark, and I cannot identify the man, but a man came and asked me if I would buy two blankets. He said he came from Mr. Warner, of the Clarence Hotel. I asked him the price, and he said he would sell them for 5s. I bought them for that sum and paid him. I have since handed them to Sergeant Lilley.

Inglis: Did not I say they were all right or I should not have brought them to you?

Witness: I believe you did.

Alfred Jenner, of 42, Sidney Street, said: On Friday, the 28th January, in the evening, I was near the Globe Hotel at The Bayle, when Inglis came and asked me if I would buy a table. He was not carrying anything. I told him a table was of no use to me, and he asked some people who were standing near. I shortly afterwards went into the bar of the hotel, where I saw Prebble, who said he was hard up and wanted money. Before I went to the bar, Inglis had pointed out a birch table to me. Inglis said he was trying to sell for Prebble. Eventually Prebble sold me the table, and I took it away. I have since given it up to the police.

Mary Lomax, wife of Henry Lomax, 26, Bradstone Road, said: I was engaged to look after 2, Clifton Crescent in the absence of the family, and to look after the house once a week, dust it, and keep it aired. I first went there the last week of October. The first week I was there two or three days, and I have continued going there up to the present time. I obtained the keys from Mr. Sherwood. Nearly every time I went I seemed to miss something either from the dining room or the library. The first thing I missed was a rug. That might be in November or later on. I informed Mr. Sherwood's clerk (Mr. Goldsack) when I returned the keys. I missed a large number of things from the house. I identify the blankets and tables produced. I found the back door unbolted on several occasions, but it was always locked with a key. I never found a window open. The back door lock was in bad condition. I always locked the front door. I had no difficulty with it.

Supt. Taylor then asked for a remand.

Inglis asked for bail, and said that Prebble could prove his innocence if he liked to speak out.

Supt. Taylor opposed bail on the ground that Inglis had no settled residence and the robberies had been of a most extensive character.

The prisoners were remanded for seven days, bail being allowed to Inglis, himself in 50, and two sureties in 25 each.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 23 February 1898.

Kaleidoscope.

At the Folkestone Police Court on Monday morning, E.W. Prebble and J. Inglis, who were remanded on the previous Monday, were again brought up on a charge of stealing a quantity of furniture at various times from No. 2, Clifton Crescent, the summer residence of the Hon. Ralph P. Nevill. Further incriminating evidence was given, and the prisoners were committed for trial at the next Quarter Sessions for the Borough, bail being allowed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 26 February 1898.

Monday, February 21st: Before Messrs, J. Hoad, J. Holden, and J. Fitness.

Ernest William Prebble and George Inglis were charged on remand with stealing a large quantity of furniture, bedding, etc., from 2, Clifton Crescent, the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville. Mr. Haines appeared for Inglis.

The evidence of Mr. Warner, given last week, was read over. Mrs. Lomax's evidence was also read, and she was cross-examined by Mr. Haines. He elicited that the articles had been missed since the beginning of November. When she informed Mr. Goldsack, he thought the goods had been taken away for repair.

Francis Poulston, manager, West End Poultry Stores, said he recognised Prebble as the man he bought a table of after Christmas. He asked 10s. for it, and witness gave him 7s. 6d. A week later he purchased a copper stock pot of him. He asked 10s., and said he was very hard up. Witness gave him 6s. for it. He did not know Prebble, and he did not give any name. A few weeks after, Prebble brought a clock, saying he bought it at a sale. Ultimately witness gave him 10s. for it, although he asked 15s. He said he got his living attending sales, in reply to a question of witness's. On Christmas Eve witness purchased a table from a man named Minnis. Prebble said his things came from the same sale.

By Mr. Haines: He believed he gave Minnis 1 for the table.

The Bench declined to admit the evidence as to Minnis as it did not affect Inglis in any way.

Joseph Charles Pettifer, landlord of the Globe Hotel, The Bayle, said he knew both prisoners as customers. He purchased a dilapidated chair from Prebble about January 3rd, and believed he gave 6s. for it. About a week later Prebble offered him a clock. He declined to buy, as he did not know if it kept time. Prebble left it for five or six days, and then witness gave him 15s. for it. Prebble and Inglis came together a few days after. Prebble took no part in the sale. Prebble came later with a table and a stationery case. He was accompanied by a man named Welch, whom witness knew had just left the Royal Artillery. He bought the articles for 15s. Shortly afterwards he bought an armchair from Prebble for 4s. or 6s. He knew Prebble was the son of an upholsterer in the town, and believed the articles belonged to him. He said his father often had good old furniture to sell, and would let witness know when he had any. Witness handed all the articles to the police.

P.S. Lilley said he arrested Prebble at the Globe Hotel on the 12th inst. Inglis and several others were present. He cautioned Prebble, and asked him where he got the things he sold to Miss Beasley in Dover Road. At first he denied selling any, and then said he got them from his own house. He made no reply when charged. On the way to the station, Prebble ran away in Rendezvous Street, but witness caught him. When charged at the police station by Supt. Taylor, prisoner said he sold the articles for a gentleman in London, and had a letter to say he would be down shortly. Witness searched him, and found on him a bunch of small keys and a large door key. Prebble endeavoured to conceal the latter. He said they were his. The large key fitted the lock of the back door of 2, Clifton Crescent, the key of which was missing. About five o'clock on the same day, the prisoner Inglis went to the police station and said “I hear you want me, Sergeant Lilley”. Witness replied “Not just yet”. Pointing to the inkstand, Inglis said “I know something about that, and I can tell you where you can get some of the things. I sold two blankets in Bournemouth Road, and was with Prebble when he sold some things at the Globe, a shop in Bouverie Road, and a shop in Dover Road”. After making inquiries, witness arrested Inglis on the 13th. Both prisoners were charged with being concerned in the thefts. Inglis said “I'm as innocent as an unborn babe”. Prebble said “He knows nothing about it”. Whilst taking Prebble back to the cells, he said he should like to give some information. After being cautioned, he told witness where several articles were, and witness recovered them. Only about half a dozen articles were now missing.

By Mr. Haines: I had searched Inglis's house and had found no stolen property. The information he gave voluntarily was quite correct.

Marion Stockfort, housekeeper at 2, Clifton Crescent, identified all the articles produced as the property of the Hon. Ralph Nevill. She said the family had not occupied the house since September, 1896. From July, 1897 till September 24th Mr. Beddington occupied the house. On Oct. 1st witness went over the house and everything appeared all right. Witness estimated the value of the articles at about 40.

Mr. Haines submitted that there was no evidence of stealing against Inglis. He merely assisted Prebble to carry some heavy articles. Two other men had sold articles for Prebble, but they were not charged. Inglis went to the police as soon as he knew anything was wrong, and gave what information he could.

The Bench committed both prisoners for trial at the Quarter Sessions. They offered Inglis bail – two sureties in 10, and himself in 25.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 9 April 1898.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday, April 6th: Before Theodore Matthew Esq.

Ernest Prebble, 28, French polisher, was charged with breaking and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Nevill and stealing a quantity of furniture, of value 30. Charles Inglis, 32, groom, was similarly charged, and was further charged with receiving the goods, well knowing them to be stolen. Prebble pleaded Guilty, saying “I am guilty, but this man is innocent”. Inglis pleaded Not Guilty. Mr. Mavrogani, instructed by Mr. J. Minter, prosecuted, and Mr. Bowles defended.

Mr. Mavrogani went over the case briefly against Inglis.

Walter Warner, Minnie O'Brien, Robert Jenner, Jos. Pettifer, Mary Lomax, and Mrs. Stockford repeated their evidence given before the magistrates and reported at the time.

P.S. Lilley deposed as to the arrest of Inglis, when he said he was innocent. He had given the police every assistance in tracing the goods.

Mr. Bowles submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury against Inglis as to housebreaking. As to receiving also, there was no evidence to show a guilty knowledge. He merely acted as porter to Prebble, who was the son of a well-known furniture dealer in the town.

Mr. Mavrogani said he should abandon the charge as to housebreaking, but he contended that there was evidence as to receiving, as the goods were sold for such low prices.

Mr. Bowles submitted that that had nothing to do with Inglis, as Prebble did the dealing.

Mr. Matthew said he could not say there was no evidence to go to the jury. It was for them to say if there was a guilty knowledge.

Mr. Mavrogani replied, with a view to showing that Inglis had a guilty knowledge.

Mr. Bowles, at the suggestion of a juryman, produced a business card of the prisoner Prebble, showing he was a dealer.

Mr. Pettifer, re-called, produced a similar card.

Mr. Bowles addressed the jury, denying that the prosecution had produced a tittle of evidence showing that Inglis knew the goods were stolen. He merely carried furniture about for Prebble. Others had done the same, yet they were not charged. If he was guilty, were they not equally so?

In summing up, the Deputy Recorder said the only thing the jury had to consider was whether Inglis knew the goods were stolen. He pointed out some circumstances which might be suspicious in the course of the dealing, and also the weakness of the evidence against him in many ways. If the jury believed Inglis only acted stupidly, then he must be acquitted; but if they thought he acted guiltily he must be convicted. If any doubt existed, he must be given the benefit of it.

The jury considered for a minute, and found Inglis Not Guilty. There was some applause at the verdict.

The Deputy Recorder said he quite concurred in the verdict. He hoped Inglis would not act so stupidly in the future. He was then discharged.

Prebble said it was his first offence,, and, as he had already been in prison two months, he asked to be leniently dealt with.

Mr. Mavrogani said there was nothing previously against Prebble, and his father was a most respectable tradesman in the town.

Mr. Matthew said the offence was a very serious one, but it was prisoner's first. He would be sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour.

The prisoner: Thank you, sir.

The goods were ordered to be given up to the Hon. Ralph Nevill.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 April 1898.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday, April 6th: Before Theodore Matthew Esq.

Ernest William Prebble, described as a French polisher, aged 28, of imperfect education, and George Inglis, a groom, aged 32, and also of imperfect education, the latter surrendering to his bail, were indicted for feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, and stealing therein twelve chairs, seven tables, one stationery case, etc., together value 30, the goods of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, on the 29th January last, at Folkestone. Inglis, and with receiving the same knowing them to have been stolen.

The prisoner Prebble pleaded Guilty, and said “This man (meaning Inglis) is innocent”. Inglis pleaded Not Guilty on each count. Mr. Mavrogani appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bowles for Inglis.

The facts have been already fully reported in the Herald.

Inglis was acquitted; Prebble was sentenced to three months' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 9 April 1898.

Quarter Sessions.

Wednesday, April 6th: Before Mr. Theobald Matthew.

Ernest William Prebble, 28. French polisher, and George Inglis, 32, groom, were charged with feloniously breaking into and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Neville, and stealing therefrom twelve chairs, seven tables, one stationery case, etc., together value 30, the property of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Neville, on the 29th January, and on other dates, at Folkestone. Mr. Mavrogani appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Bowles for the prisoners.

When asked to plead, Prebble said: I am Guilty. This man (Inglis) is innocent.

Inglis: Not Guilty.

Mr. Mavrogani, in stating the case to the jury, said: You have heard the charge against the prisoners of housebreaking and stealing from the house, No. 2, Clifton Crescent, articles of which we have just heard read. Inglis is charged together with Prebble, who has just pleaded Guilty of the same offence. The facts of the case, shortly, are as follows: Prebble and the prisoner Inglis for some time past in the month of January went about stealing furniture, and subsequently it was discovered that this furniture had been taken from an unoccupied house at Clifton Crescent. Prebble, as you have heard, has pleaded Guilty to the offence, and the only question for you to decide is as to whether Inglis is also Guilty. Prebble, I may tell you at once, has said that Inglis is innocent of the charge. As regards Inglis, the case for the prosecution is that about the third week in January, Prebble and he went to Mr. Warner, the landlord of the Clarence Inn, and offered writing table for sale. There was some bargaining about the table, as Mr. Warner did not want it. He asked them where they had got it, and one of them, Inglis, I think, said “We have been to a sale”. He told them with regard to some blankets which they had also been offering him that they might take them to a Mrs. O'Bryan, who perhaps wanted them. Accordingly Inglis took the blankets to Mrs. O'Bryan and sold them to her for 5s. On the 28th January, Inglis went to a Mr. Jenner and asked him if he would buy the table. The only other evidence against Inglis is that he was seen about with Prebble carrying the table, which was sold to a Mr. Pettifer. Gentlemen, the only question for you to decide is whether Inglis, when carrying these goods about, and when assisting Prebble to dispose of them, knew that they were stealing them, although he did not take any part in the transaction, and I may tell you that when Prebble was arrested, Inglis apparently heard of it, and immediately went to the police and said “I hear you want me, Sergeant Lilley”, addressing the sergeant, and the sergeant said “No, I don't want you at present”. So Inglis went to the police before the police had any charge against him, and afterwards, when he was charged, he said “I am as innocent as the babe unborn”, and Prebble said in his presence “Inglis knows nothing about it”. These are the facts that I am going to prove, and when they are proved it will be for you to say whether you think the prisoner is guilty or not.

The following evidence was then called:

Walter Warner said: I am the landlord of the Clarence Inn, Folkestone. In January, the prisoner Inglis came with a writing table. I did not buy it. Shortly afterwards I saw Inglis again. He came with two blankets. Both prisoners were together, and there was another man. I spoke to the three. I told them where to go if they wanted to get rid of the blanket. They went to a Mrs. O'Bryan.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bowles: I saw nothing strange in the fact that Inglis was carrying the table. I could not swear that Inglis said they had been to a sale. When they came again, Prebble did the talking.

Minnie O'Bryan said: I am a widow, living at 45, Bournemouth Road. I remember on the 29th of January a man (Inglis) bringing me some blankets. He came to the door, and told me he was selling them for an upholsterer. He told me to go to the last witness for reference. I did not know that Prebble was a dealer. I bought the blankets, and gave 5s. for them.

By Mr. Matthew: I do not often buy blankets; 5s. was a good price to give for them, because they were second hand.

Mr. Matthew advised the witness to be more careful for the future in buying second hand goods.

Alfred Jenner said: I am a carter, living at 41, Sidney Street. I remember seeing the prisoner Prebble on the 28th January. He asked me to buy a table. Inglis fetched it for me, and I bought it. I gave 5s. for it. I did not know that Prebble was a furniture dealer.

By Mr. Bowles: I thought it was quit a natural transaction. Prebble was not there.

By Mr. Matthew: I do not often buy furniture and know very little about it.

Mr. Matthew: I should advise you not to buy any more.

Joseph Pettifer: I am the landlord of the Globe Inn. I have only known the prisoners a few months. Inglis offered me a table. Prebble brought it, and Inglis carried it for him. Prebble came in with all the things, and they were always carried by Inglis, who brought the table on the 10th January. The clock was brought by Prebble about the 8th or 9th January. There was nobody with him then. Prebble sold the table himself. Inglis was with him.

By Mr. Bowles: The prisoner Inglis looked to me as though he were a hired man, carrying the furniture for Prebble. I did not think there was much wrong with a dealer having a man to carry goods for him.

By Mr. Matthew: I gave 15s. for the clock. I rather objected to take the clock without I had time given to test it, and I got a week's time. I gave 6s, for the chair produced, 16s. for the card table, 12s. for the other table behind and from 4s. to 6s. for the framework of a chair. I do not think I got the goods extra cheap. I bought them as second hand articles. The table was out of repair. I had not the slightest suspicion that the goods had been stolen.

Mrs. Lomax, wife of Henry Lomax, No. 6, Bradstone Road: I used to go to the Hon. Mr. Neville's house at Clifton Crescent to dust. There is a garden to the house, and an iron gate with a lock. When I went to the house I used to unlock the garden gate, and then the door of the house. I have frequently missed things from the house, and identify articles produced. I never left the house without locking or bolting the door.

By Mr. Bowles: I do not identify the prisoner Inglis. I have never seen him near the premises.

By Mr. Matthew: Prebble has been in the habit of visiting the house, but he was not visiting it while the things were missed, to my knowledge.

Marian Stockford: I am housekeeper to the Hon. Mr. Neville. The family left the house in 1897. Last October I went over the house and saw everything in order. The things produced were all missing property.

P.S. Lilley: I am a police sergeant of the Borough. I saw Inglis the day that I apprehended Prebble. I was at the police station about five o'clock on the evening of February 12th, when Inglis came to me and said “I sold some of the articles at a shop on the Dover Road, and another on the Bouverie Road”. Inglis then went away, but was apprehended on the next day. I charged both prisoners together.

By Mr. Bowles: Inglis made a statement voluntarily I had previously searched his rooms.

This evidence closed the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Bowles (addressing Mr. Matthew) said: I humbly submit that there is no charge whatever against Inglis. As to the charge of housebreaking, there is no evidence whatever to go to a jury. As to the other count of receiving, I again submit that there has been no evidence that Inglis had any guilty knowledge. Inglis was simply working as a porter for a well-known man in the town, who was in business as a furniture dealer, and had parents in the same line of business. He was therefore perfectly entitled to take the position of porter, and to work for Prebble. Nor has it been proved that he had a knowledge whence the furniture came.

Mr. Mavrogani: As to the housebreaking, I do not intend to proceed, but with regard to the count of receiving I submit that there is evidence to go to the jury.

Mr. Matthew (to Mr. Bowles): What do you say as to the evidence on the second count? The goods are proved to have been stolen and sold at an unreasonable price.

Mr. Bowles: As far as the receiving goes, it is Prebble who did the dealing.

Mr. Matthew: If the jury think that, well and good, but I cannot say that there is no evidence to go to a jury.

Mr. Mavrogani then addressed the jury. He said: The only question for you to decide is whether Inglis received these goods knowing them to have been stolen. Did he know these goods were being taken from Clifton Crescent? We have heard that shortly after these things were missed they were being hawked about Folkestone in a way that did not excite any suspicion, because it happened that the father of the prisoner Prebble was a furniture dealer. It is for you to say whether the man that Prebble employed knew that the goods were being taken wrongfully from this house, or whether he thought that they were goods that he had in the shop. With regard to that there is one rather significant point. When the table and the blankets were taken to Mr. Warner, you will remember that there were three men there, the two prisoners and another man, and one of them said “We have been to a sale”. It is entirely a question for your consideration whether that was an explanation of the prisoners outside the inn that the furniture was furniture they had bought. If Inglis told a lie about that furniture, or acquiesced in the telling of a lie by any person, I submit that there is evidence of his knowing where the furniture really came from. Then you have the fact that as soon as he knew Prebble had been arrested, Inglis went to the police station. It may be that Inglis was anxious to give all the information he could. It might also be that he knew his own arrest was merely a matter of time, and that he went there entirely to save trouble.

Mr. Bowles (addressing the jury) said: I shall not keep you very long on the subject. You have heard that the charge of housebreaking has been withdrawn. Therefore the only fact you have to deal with is the fact of receiving goods well knowing them to have been stolen. In order to be successful, the case against Inglis ought to be proved up to the hilt. Has my learned friend brought any evidence to show that there was a guilty knowledge on the part of Inglis as to the place from which the stolen goods came? A furniture dealer in the position of Prebble might be quite justified in engaging an assistant like Inglis to take furniture round. Every tradesman has to employ somebody when moving about furniture. What on Earth was there to prove that Prebble had got the furniture dishonestly? A man taking work from Prebble had reason to believe that he was an honest dealer. Inglis was only working as Prebble's servant. Whenever there is any dealing you will find that Prebble does all the talking. Inglis was never in it in any way whatever so as to incriminate himself. There was nothing incriminating about him. I addressed the Deputy Recorder on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to go before a jury. The Deputy Recorder thought there was, but I repeat that there is nothing to show that Inglis necessarily knew that the things were stolen.

Mr. Matthew, in addressing the jury, said: You have been told quite properly that there is only one matter to be proved, and that is whether the prisoner Inglis received these goods knowing them to have been stolen. Prebble you can dismiss from your minds altogether because he has pleaded guilty, and the learned counsel for the prosecution has not thought it proper to proceed with the more serious charge against Inglis. Gentlemen, you have heard all the witnesses in the case, and I know I have listened to them, but perhaps I may remind you shortly of what it is that they speak, and what their evidence came to. Warner, as far as the prisoner Inglis was concerned, said only this, that Prebble and Inglis came to his place with a writing table. There is no doubt that the writing table had been stolen from the Hon. Mr. Neville's house, and that Inglis was then in possession of it. He was in possession of it in company with Prebble, who we know had stolen it, and they were offering it to Warner at a low price. Warner says he saw Inglis a short time afterwards when Inglis had some blankets with him. That was all that Warner said with regard to Inglis, except this, that one member of the party – whether it was Inglis or Prebble or a third man he did not say – had been to a sale, and had bought the blankets there. Mr. Mavrogani, the counsel for the prosecution, asks you to say that that is evidence against Inglis, evidence of his guilt, because he was giving an untrue account of his possession of the goods. On the other hand it is possible that Inglis did not make that statement. If Prebble said he had been to a sale Inglis may or may not have known that the statement was true, and therefore you must not rely upon that particular piece of evidence as against Inglis. Mr. Bowles says it is quite true that Inglis came with the stolen goods, but he knew that Prebble was a furniture dealer, and that these goods may have been Prebble's honestly. Prebble might have had the goods from his father's premises, and so far as Inglis knew it was quite possible that the thing was fair and square. The principal evidence against Inglis is that the goods were offered and sold at a small price. Now I suppose it is left to you to decide that perhaps Inglis did not know the price was small. Perhaps he was not experienced in furniture dealing, and it was only a matter in which Prebble was concerned, and Inglis only carried the things as a hired man. You will probably consider that Inglis left Warner's place and went to Mrs. O'Bryan and said that he was selling some blankets for Prebble, an upholsterer, and I think we are justified in calling attention to the fact and saying that it is not the sort of thing a guilty man would do – tell a person where the goods came from. I feel quite justified in relying upon that fact as an evidence of innocence. Then came the witness Jenner, and he too said that Prebble and Inglis came together on one occasion with a table, and on another occasion with a clock. Inglis asked if Jenner would buy a table. You have further the evidence of Mr. Pettifer and that of Sergeant Lilley, who said Inglis fairly and honestly came and told the police where the stolen things were to be found. He told the police about the blankets and certain other things, and when the policeman went to Inglis's house he found nothing incriminating. It may be therefore that Inglis acted throughout perfectly honestly. He went about, as far as we know, in the broad daylight. It has not been proved he shared in the profits Prebble made in respect to these transactions. If you think that he only behaved stupidly you will acquit him, but if you think the case against him has been proved you will find him guilty.

A juryman: What was Inglis paid?

Mr. Matthew: We do not know anything about that. We have no evidence.

After a brief consideration of the case the jury returned a verdict of Guilty against Prebble, and Inglis Not Guilty.

Mr. Matthew: Well, Inglis, the jury have done right in acquitting you. You were very stupid in going about with this furniture, and you must be very careful for the future, but I am sure you did not intend to do anything criminal.

Prebble (to the Deputy Recorder): This is the first offence. I hope you will deal leniently with me as I have been already in prison two months.

Mr. Matthew: Is there any previous conviction?

Mr. Mavrogani: Not that I know of.

Prebble then wished to call the Rev. Mr. Dale, but that gentleman did not appear.

Mr. Matthew: I understand this is your first offence, but it is a serious one. You have stolen a deal of property worth a lot of money, and you have led another man into temptation. You have put that man Inglis in very serious danger. However, it is your first offence, and I must remember that in passing sentence. You are sentenced to three months' hard labour.

Superintendent Taylor stated, in answer to Mr. Matthew, that unless he was otherwise instructed, the furniture mentioned in the indictment would be returned to the owner.

 

Folkestone Visitors' List 13 April 1898.

Kaleidoscope.

At the Folkestone Quarter Sessions held at the Town Hall last Thursday, Mr. Theobald Matthew acted as deputy for the Recorder.

The last case was the indictment of Ernest William Prebble and George Inglis for feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house of the Hon. Ralph Pelham Nevill, at Clifton Crescent, Folkestone, and stealing therefrom various articles of furniture. Prebble pleaded Guilty and also stated that Inglis was innocent. Inglis pleaded innocent, and on the evidence given by various witnesses the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. Prebble pleaded that it was his first offence and asked for leniency from the Court as he had already been two months in prison.

The Deputy Recorder, in passing sentence, said that it was a very serious offence, and that the least he could do was to sentence him to three months' imprisonment with hard labour. An order was made for the restitution of the goods stolen to Mr. Nevill, the owner.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 30 April 1898.

Saturday, April 23rd: Before Messrs. J. Pledge, G. Spurgen, and T.J. Vaughan.

John Bryant was charged with being drunk in charge of a horse and cart in Dover Road on April 22nd.

P.C. Burniston said he ejected the prisoner from the Swan Inn. He got up into a cart and drove off, but stopped at the New Inn. Prisoner was further charged with refusing to quit the Swan Inn.

Mr. Brett, manager, said the prisoner was drunk in his house and refused to leave. He did not get drunk in his house.

P.C. Burniston said he ejected the prisoner as he refused to leave. He used very bad language. He had seen him previously at the Red Cow, when he was sober.

He was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs for the first offence, and the second charge was dismissed, the Bench believing he got drunk in the house.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 April 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Saturday last – Alderman Pledge presiding – John Bryan pleaded Guilty to being drunk in charge of a horse and cart.

P.C. Burneston deposed that on the previous night he ejected the defendant from the Swan public house. He drove twice on to the pavement. He was drunk, and unfit to be in charge of a horse and cart.

There was another charge against defendant of refusing to quit licensed premises. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Mr. Brett, manager of the Swan Inn, deposed that defendant came into the Swan. Witness saw him about 4 o'clock. He refused to leave. The constable put him out. Defendant was in a drunken state.

Defendant said he only went in there.

P.C. Burneston deposed that he was called at ten past six to eject prisoner.

Defendant said he had several twos of whisky.

The Bench fined him 5s., 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days' hard labour. They dismissed the second charge of refusing to quit, it being the firm impression of the Chairman that defendant got drunk at this house.

 

Folkestone Up To Date 30 April 1898.

Saturday, April 23rd: Before Ald. Pledge, T.S. Spurgeon, and T.J. Vaughan Esqs.

John Brien, horse dealer, Folkestone, was charged with having been drunk on licensed premises, and refusing to quit, and also in being unfit to take charge of his horse and cart on the 22nd inst.

P.C. Burniston said that about 6.10 on the previous evening he was called into the Swan to eject the prisoner and another man. The prisoner had a horse and cart standing outside, and drove several times on the pavement while proceeding to the New Inn, where he was taken into custody by Burniston.

Mr. Brett, of the Swan, said: The prisoner and his friend came into the Swan Inn last evening, and called for drink. I was not in at the time. I asked the prisoner to leave the house, but he would not do so.

For the first offence the prisoner was fined 5s., and 4s. 6d. costs, and for the second dismissed.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had dealt so lightly with the second offence because they believed that the prisoner got the principal part of his drink at the Swan.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 25 August 1900.

Thursday, August 23rd: Before Mr. J. Fitness, Colonel Hamilton, and Messrs. Pursey, Wightwick, and Herbert.

William Smith was brought up in custody and charged with stealing a drinking glass from the Clarence Inn, Dover Road.

The landlord said the prisoner came to his house the previous evening and asked for a pint of stout. The stout was put into a glass. Its price was 3d., but prisoner wanted to pay 2d., and kept arguing about the price. He afterwards paid for it. Witness went into the saloon bar. His son made him a communication, and he went in search of prisoner. He met him coming down the road with a police constable, and the glass in his hand. The glass was witness's and its value was 6d.

P.C. Allen said that at 11 p.m. he was standing in Dover Road, opposite the Clarence Hotel, and saw prisoner leave the bar with the glass in his hand. He followed up Bellevue Street, and on accosting prisoner found the glass underneath his jacket. Witness took him back towards the house. When charged, prisoner said “For God's sake, do not let my wife know this”. The glass was half full of stout.

Prisoner said he did not intend to steal the glass. He came out of the public house for a purpose, and, being a stranger, wandered up the street in search of that which he required.

The Bench believed the statement, and accused was discharged. It transpired that he is one of the wounded heroes from Elands Laagte.

 

Folkestone Express 25 August 1900.

Thursday, August 23rd: Before J. Fitness, W.G. Herbert, W. Wightwick, and C.J. Pursey esqs., and Colonel Hamilton.

William Smith was charged with stealing from the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, on Wednesday evening, one pint glass, value 6d.

Prisoner went to the house and had a bottle of stout. He was charged 3d. for it, which he thought was a halfpenny too much, and ultimately walked off with the glass.

Prisoner said he had no intention of stealing the glass.

The Bench dismissed the case.

 

Folkestone Express 31 January 1903.

Saturday, January 24th: Before Aldermen Penfold and Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, G. Peden and W.C. Carpenter Esqs.

Timothy Murphy was summoned for obtaining 15s. from William Richard Warner by means of false pretences.

William Richard Warner, landlord of the Clarence Inn, said on Saturday, the 27th December, defendant came to the saloon bar about 10 a.m., and asked witness to lend him 5s., which he did. In the evening he returned and asked witness if he could change a cheque. Witness replied he could only change a small one owing to being short of change. Defendant asked witness to give him 15s., and he would write a cheque for 1, which would make the money right he had borrowed in the morning. Witness gave him 15s., and defendant wrote out a cheque in his presence. He paid the cheque into his account on the 29th December, but it was returned marked “account closed”, together with a letter from the Manager.

Defendant: Did I send a message asking you to keep the cheque? – Yes, but I had sent the cheque to the bank.

Joseph Harrison, a clerk in the Capital and Counties Bank, said defendant was a client of the Bank, and he produced a certified copy of his account. By direction of the manager, witness wrote a letter to defendant on the 12th December asking him to call at the Bank. He did so on the 15th December, and witness informed him that 5s. 7d. was required to clear his account. Defendant paid the money, and that closed the account.

In reply to Mr. Bradley, witness said he did not tell defendant that no further cheques would be honoured.

Defendant: Did I tell you that I expected a sum of money shortly? – Yes.

Mr. Bradley: If a cheque had been presented to the credit of the account you would have taken it? – Quite so.

The letter received by prosecutor from the Bank Manager was then handed to the Bench, and after a short consultation the Chairman said the case had not been made out, and the summons would be dismissed.

 

From the Folkestone, Hythe, Sandgate and Cheriton Herald, Saturday 31 January 1903.

A check transaction.

Thomas Murphy was summoned for obtaining 15s. by false preteces from Walter Warner, landlord of the "Clarence Hotel," Dover Road. Walter Warner stated that he knew defendant, who came into the bar on the 27th of December last, and asked witness to lend him 5s. He said he was going to cash a cheque for 40. He came in later, and asked witness if he would cash a cheque for him. Witness said it must be a small one, as he had not much money in the house. Defendant then wrote a check for 1, and told witness to give him 15s., and as he owed him 5s. that would be alright. Witness paid the check into his bank, and it was later on returned, marked "No account."

Mr. Harrison, cashier of the Capital and Counties Bank, stated that he wrote asking defendant to call at the bank. He did so 2 days later, and witness asked him to pay 5s. 7d., which he owed to the bank. Defendant did so. He did not tell defendant his account was closed.

The Chairman said as Mr. Harrison did not tell defendant his account was closed the case of not being made out, and would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 January 1903.

Saturday, January 24th: Before Alderman Penfold, Alderman Spurgen, Councillor Peden, Lieut. Colonel Westropp, and Mr. Carpenter.

Thomas Murphy was summoned for obtaining 15s. by false pretences from Walter Warner, landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road.

Walter Warner stated that he knew defendant, who came into the bar on the 27th December last, and asked witness to lend him 5s. He said he was going to cash a cheque for 40. He came in later, and asked witness if he could cash a cheque for him. Witness said it must be a small one, as he had not much money in the house. Defendant then wrote a cheque for 1, and told witness to give him 15s., and as he owed him 5s. that would be all right. Witness paid the cheque into the bank, and it was later on returned, marked “No Account”.

Mr. Harrison, cashier at the Capital and Counties Bank, stated that he wrote asking defendant to call at the Bank. He did so two days later, and witness asked him to pay 5s. 7d., which he owed to the Bank. Defendant did so. He did not tell defendant his account was closed.

The Chairman said as Mr. Harrison did not tell defendant his account was closed, the case had not been made out, and would be dismissed.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 4 April 1903.

We Hear.

That the Rev. J.C. Carlile, at the Town Hall on Sunday afternoon, is alleged to have advised the electors not to vote for a publican on the Board of Guardians.

There is only one publican candidate, and that is Mr. Warner, of the Clarence Hotel.

Mr. Warner has written us an indignant and caustic letter on the subject.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 16 January 1904.

Monday, January 11th: Before Mr. W. Wightwick, Mr. C.J. Pursey, and Mr. G.I. Swoffer.

James Charles Hardy, Arthur Frederick Cushings, Wm. Geo. Duddy, soldiers stationed at Shorncliffe Camp, Mabel Louisa Richards, and Margaret Smith, young women, were charged with stealing six glasses, value 3s., the property of Walter Bridgeford Warner, at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, on Saturday. With the exception of Cushings, all pleaded Guilty.

The evidence went to prove that the prisoners were drinking in the bar of the Clarence Hotel on Saturday night, and after they left, just before closing time, the six glasses were missed from the bar counter. On Sunday evening Detective Sergeant Burniston paid a visit to a room at 84A, Marshall Street, and there saw Hardy, Cushings, and the two female prisoners, seated at a table, on which were six glasses, each bearing the name of Warner, Clarence Hotel. The prisoners admitted taking the glasses, and gave the information that there was also a man named Duddy “in it”. The four were arrested and lodged at the police station, and Duddy was arrested the next morning at Shorncliffe, and he admitted having “a slight recollection of having a glass in his pocket”.

The soldiers each bore a good character, according to the reports of officers in attendance, and nothing was known against the girls.

Taking this into consideration, the Justices imposed a fine of 10s. each only, or seven days' hard labour.

The money was forthcoming except in the case of the girl Smith, who went to prison.

 

Folkestone Express 16 January 1904.

Monday, January 11th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Jas. Charles Hardy, Arthur Frederick Cushing, William Geo. Duddy (soldiers), and Margaret Smith and Mabel Richards were brought up in custody charged with being concerned together in stealing six ale glasses from the Clarence Hotel in Dover Road the previous Saturday evening, the property of Walter Warner.

Prosecutor stated that at a quarter to eleven on the night in question the prisoners went into his bar and called for drinks, Cushing paying for three bitters and two stouts. About three minutes from closing time Hardy ordered half a gallon of beer and a pint of stout, which they took away with them. Shortly after the prisoners left he missed six glasses off the counter, and those now produced by the police were his property. Each bore his name and address.

Det. Sergt. Burniston said: From information I received from the prosecutor I made inquiries. At 15 minutes past ten last night I went, in company with P.C. Johnson, to No. 84A, Marshall Street, where in a front room on the first floor I saw the prisoners Hardy, Cushing, Smith, and Richards. They were seated around a table on which were the glasses produced, some containing beer. I examined the glasses, and then informed them that they would be charged together with stealing them. I cautioned them, and Smith said “I took one glass”, and Hardy remarked “We took them between us. There is a man named Duddy in it”. The prisoners were taken to the police station, and when formally charged neither made any reply. At nine o'clock this morning I saw the prisoner Duddy at Shorncliffe Camp, and when I charged him he said “I was present when they took the glasses, and I have a slight recollection of having a glass in my pocket”.

With the exception of Cushing the prisoners pleaded Guilty.

Cushing called the prisoner Richards, who stated she that was a servant, and Cushing did not take any of the glasses from the bar.

The three soldiers were given a good character by the Officers in Court, while Supt. Reeve informed the Bench that there were no previous convictions against any of the prisoners.

The Bench took this into consideration, and ordered each to pay a fine of 10s., or seven days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 January 1904.

Monday, January 11th: Before W. Wightwick, C.J. Pursey and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Bombardier James Charles Hardy, Gunner Arthur Frederick Cushing, Gunner William George Dudley (all of the Royal Field Artillery), Margaret Smith, and Mabel Louisa Richards were charged with being concerned together in stealing six ale glasses from the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road.

William B. Warner, landlord of the Clarence Hotel, stated that on Saturday night about 10.45 p.m. the five prisoners came into the saloon bar of the hotel. Cushing called for three bitters and two stouts. Later on they had a half gallon of beer and a pint of porter, the former in a brown jar and the latter in a pint bottle, the bombardier paying for it. About three minutes to eleven all the prisoners left the house, and immediately after their departure witness missed the glasses from the counter. There was nobody else in the bar when the prisoners left. Information was given to the police. The glasses, produced, witness identified as bearing his name and the sign of the house. They were valued at 3s.

Detective Sergeant Burniston proved arresting four of the prisoners the following night at 84a, Marshall Street, and Duffy that morning was arrested at Shorncliffe Camp.

The prisoners, with the exception of Cushing, pleaded Guilty to the charge.

Prisoner called the prisoner Richards to give evidence in his favour, and she declared that Cushing did not take the glasses.

The Bench fined all the prisoners 10s. without costs. Officers in Court paid the fines of the soldiers, and the two girls were removed below, with a view to their friends being asked to pay the amount of the penalty.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 October 1904.

Local News.

At 7.35 on Thursday evening whilst the junior members of the Fire Brigade were doing drill in the yard, and others were doing fire hydrant inspection in various parts of the town, a call was received that the old wooden buildings in connection with the Clarence Hotel, a few yards from the fire station, and abutting onto Bellevue Street, were on fire. The junior members had a fine opportunity of exhibiting their skill as firemen, and they proved their ability in an unmistakable manner by the way in which they got two jets of water to work on the burning building in a remarkably short time. Fear was felt for some time that the fire would extend to the licensed house at the rear of the ignited premises, there being only a thin wooden door between the living part of the house and the burning material within the room, but by careful attention the fire was extinguished, although not before the door had been actually charred through. However, a man stationed on duty opposite the door prevented the flames passing into the house. Immediately those in attendance at the Clarence yard discovered the fire they promptly removed several horses, vehicles, and harness from the yard to safe custody. The first appearance of the fire was such that it was not for a moment even hoped that the damage would be kept to one room, as proved to be the case. The brigade returned to headquarters at nine o'clock, leaving one man in charge throughout the night, in case of a further outbreak. The cause of the fire is unknown. The premises are owned by Messrs. Mackeson and Co., of Hythe. Unfortunately six prize rabbits which were in their hutches at the time of the outbreak were all killed. The thanks of the brigade are due to the police for the satisfactory manner in which they carried out their duties of keeping the street clear in order that the firemen could get to work.

 

Folkestone Daily News 1 March 1905.

Wednesday, March 1st: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Pursey, and Stainer.

The licence of the Clarence Hotel was transferred to Mr. Frederick George Gray.

 

Folkestone Express 4 March 1905.

Wednesday, March 1st: Before W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer and C.J. Pursey Esqs.

The licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Warner to Mr. F.G. Gray.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 March 1905.

Wednesday, March 1st: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

A temporary transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was granted to Mr. F.J. Grey.

 

Folkestone Daily News 12 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 12th: Before Messrs. Spurgen, Carpenter and Fynmore.

The Clarence Hotel was transferred from Mr. Warner to Mr. Gray.

 

Folkestone Express 15 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 12th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and W.C. Carpenter Esq.

The Bench considered several applications for the transfer of licences, and granted the following: The Clarence from Mr. W.B. Warner to Mr. F.G. Gray.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before Mr. W.C. Carpenter and Councillor R.J. Fynmore.

A special licensing session was held, when the licence of the Clarence was transferred from Mr. Warner to Mr. F.G. Gray.

 

Folkestone Daily News 19 April 1905.

Wednesday, April 19th: Before E.T. Ward, Ald. Penfold, Ald. Vaughan, W.C. Carpenter, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Mr. Warner, of the Clarence Hotel, applied for an occasional, on the occasion of the Fete in Ashley Park, on Bank Holiday, from 12 to 9 p.m.

Inspector Swift objected to the licence being granted to 9 p.m. on the grounds that the sports were over at dusk, and that the licence was unnecessary after that time.

The Magistrates granted the licence till 7 p.m.

 

Folkestone Daily News 31 May 1905.

Wednesday, May 31st: Before Alderman Herbert, J. Stainer and C.J. Pursey.

Proposed alterations at the Clarence Hotel (late New Inn) were approved.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 3 June 1905.

Wednesday, May 31st: Before Alderman W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

The Magistrates confirmed plans which were submitted for alterations to the Clarendon Hotel.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 June 1905.

Wednesday, May 31st: Before Aldermen W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. C.J. Pursey.

Mr. Bromley applied for the approval of plans for alterations at the Clarence Hotel.

 

Folkestone Daily News 11 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before Messrs. E.T. Ward, R.J. Linton, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Mr. T.G. Jenkins applied for the temporary transfer of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, from Mr. Gray. It was granted, it being mentioned that the applicant had held a licence in Gloucestershire.

 

Folkestone Chronicle 14 April 1906.

On Wednesday morning, at the Borough Police Court, Mr. E.T. Ward presiding, the ordinary business was preceded by a special licensing sessions.

The licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Gray to Mr. T.G. Jenkins.

 

Folkestone Express 14 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and R.J. Linton Esq.

The following licence was transferred: The Clarence Inn, from Frederick George Gray to Thomas George Jenkins.

 

Folkestone Herald 14 April 1906.

Wednesday, April 11th: Before The Mayor, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Councillor R.J. Fynmore, Mr. E.T. Ward and Mr. R.J. Linton.

A special session for the transfer of alehouse licences was held. Application was made and granted as follows: The licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, to Thos. Geo. Jenkins.

Thursday, April 12th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, and Councillor R.J. Fynmore.

John Bernard Sherran was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road.

P.C. Sales deposed to seeing the prisoner drunk outside the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. Witness, who was in plain clothes, cautioned the accused, who then was endeavouring to strike the landlord. Sherran used filthy language when requested to go away, and was taken into custody.

Prisoner was fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Daily News 14 April 1906.

Thursday, April 12th: Before Messrs. G. Spurgen, T.J. Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore.

John Bernard Sherran was charged with being drunk and disorderly on the previous evening.

P.C. Sales stated that he was in Dover Road about 10 o'clock the previous evening in plain clothes. He saw the accused outside the Clarence Hotel, challenging the landlord to fight. He was asked to leave, but refused to do so. He struck the landlord a blow in the face. Witness informed him that he was a police officer and advised him to go away, but he still refused to do so. Witness therefore took him into custody, when he became very violent, and it was with the greatest difficulty that he was conveyed to the police station. The help of the military picquet had to be obtained.

Asked by the Magistrates' Clerk what he had to say, the prisoner said the policeman did not give him a chance to get away.

The Chief Constable said the accused had been before the Court before, but it was a long time ago. He got drunk occasionally, and when he did so became very troublesome.

The Chairman said he would be fined 2s. 6d. with 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days' hard labour. He hoped he would not get drunk again.

Sherran asked for a week to pay the money, but the Chief Constable gently insinuated that he would get the money all right, and he was taken below.

It would not greatly surprise us if the erring young man had sufficient on him when arrested to pay for his evening's amusement.

 

Folkestone Express 21 April 1906.

Local News.

On Good Friday Mr. Gray, the late landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was carrying a case of mineral waters up some steps, when he fell down and seriously injured his back.

Thursday, April 19th: Before G. Spurgen Esq., Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Colonel Fynmore.

John Bernard Sherran was charged with being drunk and disorderly the previous night. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Sales said shortly after ten o'clock he was in Dover Road, in plain clothes, when he saw prisoner, who was drunk, standing in the doorway of the Clarence Hotel. He was challenging the landlord, who was about to eject him, to fight, and struck the landlord. Prisoner used very bad language, and, when taken into custody, he became very violent. With assistance witness brought him to the police station.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days'.

 

Folkestone Express 21 March 1908.

Wednesday, March 18th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, and C. Jenner Esq.

Harry Ripley was charged with being drunk and incapable in Dover Road the previous night. He pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Lilley said the previous night just before 11 o'clock, he was informed there was a fight in Dover Road. On going there he saw a crowd of people outside the Clarence Hotel, who dispersed upon seeing him. He saw the prisoner lying on the footpath, and on going to him he appeared to be in a drunken fit. He (witness) found he was too drunk to stand, and he had to obtain a stretcher to get him to the police station. Ripley was bleeding from his nose and mouth.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner was there fifteen months ago for a similar offence.

Prisoner, who appeared to have no idea what took place the previous night, was fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, but in default he went to prison for seven days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 March 1908.

Wednesday, March 18th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Councillors C. Jenner and R.J. Wood.

Harry Riley was charged with being drunk.

Inspector Lilley stated that at about 11 p.m. the previous evening he saw a crowd of people outside the Clarence. The crowd immediately dispersed when he arrived. He saw defendant, who seemed to be in a drunken fit, and looked as if he had been fighting. He brought the accused, with assistance, to the police station. He could not stand properly without help.

The Chief Constable stated that the accused was there eighteen months ago.

A fine of 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days' hard labour, was imposed.

 

Folkestone Herald 8 August 1908.

Saturday, August 1st: Before Alderman G. Spurgen and Councillor C. Jenner.

Robert James Huggett was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road the previous day. He pleaded Not Guilty, saying that he was more excited than drunk.

P.C. Smith deposed that at 6.25 the previous evening he was in Dover Road, near the Fire Station, when he saw the prisoner coming down the road with a crowd following him. He was drunk and waving his arms about. He was without a cap, his braces down, and his shirt was hanging out. Outside the Clarence Hotel he called on a man who was standing there with a barrel organ to come and fight him. Witness took him into custody. On the way to the police station he made use of obscene language, and became so violent that it was necessary to handcuff him. With the assistance of P.C. Sharp, witness brought him to the police station, where he charged him with being drunk and disorderly in Dover Road. He caused a crowd of about 150 people to collect.

Prisoner: Don't you think I was excited?

Witness: Yes, caused through drink.

P.S. Dawson said at 6.35 the previous night he was at the police station when the prisoner was brought in, and at that time he was drunk. He was drunk; witness had no doubt about that.

Prisoner said that he was in Dover Road with a barrel organ the previous day, when a man, who was with him, suddenly knocked him down and hit him on the chin. When witness got up he saw that the man had disappeared. Witness was told that he had gone down to the Clarence Hotel. Witness went to speak to him, but P.C. Smith got hold of him, and would not give him a chance to get away.

P.C. Smith, re-called, said that the prisoner was bleeding from the mouth.

The Chief Constable said that he knew the man well. There were five or six previous convictions against him, and the last one was for a similar offence as the one that day.

Prisoner was fined 10s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' with hard labour. Being unable to pay he was sent to Canterbury for 14 days.

 

Folkestone Daily News 8 February 1909.

Monday, February 8th: Before Messrs. Ward, Vaughan, and Fynmore.

George Weatherhead was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night in Dover Road. He pleaded Not Guilty.

Sergeant Lawrence said he saw the defendant in Dover Road very drunk. He had his coat off, and was surrounded by a large crowd. He was also using very obscene language, and challenged everyone to fight. Witness obtained assistance, as he was very violent, and tried to kick him.

Daniel Jefferson said he was manager of the Clarence Tap. The defendant came into his house at 8 o'clock, and as he was very drunk witness refused to serve him. As he refused to go out witness ejected him and sent for the police.

Defendant, who bore marks of being ill-used in some way, said the police knocked him about after they got him to the police station.

Sergeant Dunster said defendant bore marks on his face when he was brought into the police station, as if he had been fighting.

There was a long list of convictions against him, and he was now fined 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 13 February 1909.

Monday, February 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Alderman Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

George S. Weatherhead appeared, with his left eye bandaged up, on a charge of being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Laurence said at about 8.30on Saturday evening he was in Tontine Street, when he was called to Dover Road, where he saw the defendant, drunk, surrounded by a large crowd. He had his coat off, and offered to fight anyone, using very bad language. One of his companions wanted to help him on with his coat, but the defendant would not let him do so. Witness asked him to go away, but he became very disorderly. He, therefore, took him into custody, when the defendant became very violent. He threw himself down on the ground and commenced to kick.

Defendant (pointing to his eye): Just look what they did for me. I had to go to the hospital, and shall have to go again tomorrow.

Sergt. Laurence, continuing, said the defendant tried to throw him down and kicked him. Witness eventually handcuffed him, and with the assistance of P.C. Smith, brought the defendant to the police station. There was a crowd of 500 or 600 people collected around them.

Daniel Deverson, of the Clarence Tap, said the defendant came to his house on Saturday evening. He told Weatherhead that he had had sufficient, and to go out at once. He immediately wanted to fight witness, and when he got outside he used filthy language. The defendant was drunk, and that was why he refused to serve him.

The Chairman enquired what as wrong with defendant's eye.

Sergt. Laurence said the defendant had evidently been fighting before he got there. He was marked on the face when he first saw him.

The defendant said when they got him in the police station he was hit in the eye with the handcuffs. He denied being drunk, and he had only had two glasses of beer. All the people cried “Shame” on the police.

P.S. Dunster said when the man was brought in he was fighting and making an awful row. He had blood on his face and had apparently been fighting.

Defendant: I never was fighting, because I had no-one to fight with.

The Chief Constable said there were nine previous convictions against the defendant, the last on Dec. 11th, 1908. For wilful damage.

A fine of 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs was inflicted, or in default 14 days' hard labour.

Defendant: Will you allow me a week to find the money?

The Chief Constable: I shall object to any time. The defendant is one of the worst behaved men in the town when he is drunk.

The defendant was taken below.

 

Folkestone Herald 13 February 1909.

Monday, February 8th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Alderman T.J. Vaughan.

George S. Weatherhead, who appeared in court with his head bandaged, was charged with being drunk and disorderly. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Lawrence stated that about 8.30 p.m. on Saturday he was called to Dover Road, where he saw defendant, who had his coat off, and was using very filthy language and threatening to fight anyone. He refused to go away, and declared that he “would not be taken by forty ---- policemen”. He became very violent and kicked and fought, more like a madman than a human being.

Daniel Deverson, manager of the Clarence Tap, said that on Saturday evening prisoner came to his establishment. He had had enough to drink, and was refused because he was drunk. He created a disturbance, and witness sent for a policeman.

The Chairman (to P.S. Lawrence): How did he get those injuries?

P.S. Lawrence: He evidently had been fighting before I got to him.

Prisoner alleged that when he was handcuffed the police punched him in the face. He afterwards had his wounds bathed by P.C. Smith. He was now attending the hospital, and had been told to go there again on Tuesday.

P.S. Dunster deposed that when the prisoner was brought into the police station on Saturday he was drunk and very violent. He had blood on his face, and had been fighting.

The Chief Constable said that there were nine convictions against prisoner, the last in December.

The Bench fined prisoner 10s. and 6s. 6d. costs, or 14 days'.

Prisoner asked for time, but the Chief Constable objected, remarking that prisoner was one of the worst behaved men in the town when he was in drink. Accused was taken below.

 

Folkestone Express 23 October 1909.

Wednesday, October 20th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

George Henry Smith, a seaman, was summoned by his wife for assaulting her. He denied the offence.

Mrs. Smith said she had been married for 21 years. On Oct. 15th, when she went home from work, her husband told her she had not come straight home. He told her he would split her brains open. She went to the Clarence Hotel, and in a short time her husband came in and struck at her with a bottle. She put her hand up and the bottle hit it. She never gave her husband any provocation. Later he assaulted her in the house. He also threatened to settle her and to put a piece of steel through her. She denied striking her husband in the public house.

The prosecutrix called Mrs. Weathehead as a witness, but great amusement was caused by that lady stating that she was there and did not know anything about it.

The defendant explained that he objected to his wife going to the public house. He went out to get something for supper, and when he returned his wife had not come back. He, therefore, went to the Clarence, but he did not strike his wife.

The Bench ordered him to be bound over in the sum of 10 to be of good behaviour for three months, and to pay the costs, 8s. 6d., or one month's hard labour in default.

 

Folkestone Daily News 19 February 1910.

Saturday, February 19th: Before Messrs. Vaughan, Fynmore, and Linton.

Elizabeth Pepin and Annie Elizabeth Harwood were charged with sending a boy under the age of 14 to the Clarence Hotel for beer. Pepin pleaded Guilty and Harwood Not Guilty.

Sergeant Sales deposed to seeing a little boy, just before 11 p.m., go into the Clarence Tap, where he was handed a bottle and jug. Witness followed him to a fried fish shop in St. John's Street, kept by Pepin. Mrs. Pepin said her boy, Reginald Pepin, was 13 years of age. He did not go into the bar, as Mrs. Harwood was to get the beer for him. Witness went to the Clarence bar and saw Mrs. Harwood, who said she handed the beer to the boy, who did not go inside for his mother.

Mrs. Harwood said she went to get her supper beer at ten minutes to eleven, and someone told her she was wanted outside. She went out and saw Mrs. Pepin's little boy, and got the beer and sent him home. She often fetched Mrs. Pepin's supper beer for her. She did not know the age limit.

The Bench, after consulting, dismissed the case against her.

Mrs. Pepin said she lived alone, her husband having gone abroad. She had to get her living by keeping a fried fish shop. The little boy helped her. She never had anything to drink in the day, and wanted half a pint of stout before the public house closed. She should never think of sending her boy to a public house, but had sent him over to ask a neighbour to get the beer for her.

She was fined 5s. and 9s. costs.

(We consider this an extremely hard case. The law strains at a gnat and swallows a camel.)

 

Folkestone Daily News 23 February 1910.

Wednesday, February 23rd: Before Messrs. Herbert, Swoffer, Linton, Hamilton, and Stainer.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied on behalf of the executors of the late landlord of the Clarence Hotel for permission to have the licence temporarily transferred to his widow. He understood from the Chief Constable that the house was hardly one that should be left to a lady to manage, but he (Mr. Haines) mentioned that she would be assisted by a manager, and eventually the licence would be transferred to a man.

The application was granted.

 

Folkestone Express 26 February 1910.

Saturday, February 19th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore and Mr. R.J. Linton.

Elizabeth Anne Pepin was summoned for sending her child, Reginald Pepin, under 14 years of age, to the Clarence Inn, for the purpose of fetching beer in an unsealed vessel, and Annie Elizabeth Harwood was summoned for aiding and abetting the offence. Mrs. Pepin pleaded Guilty, and Mrs. Harwood Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said shortly before eleven o'clock on the night of the 12th inst. he was in Belle Vue Street, in company with another constable, when he saw a boy, apparently under the age of fourteen years, open the door of the Clarence In Tap and look inside. At the same time he was handed a jug and bottle from inside the bar. The boy went away into St. John's Road, and witness followed him. He saw him go into 13, St. John's Road, which was a fried fish shop. Mrs. Pepin lived there. Witness followed him in, and he then saw the defendant, Mrs. Pepin. He asked her if that was her boy who had just gone in, and she replied “Yes”. He asked her how old he was, and she said “Thirteen”. Witness then told her that he had just fetched some beer from the Clarence Inn Tap. Defendant replied “Yes, but he didn't go inside, did he? Mrs. Harwood was going to get it for him”. Witness said it was handed to him by someone inside the bar. He examined the contents of the jug and found it contained beer. The bottle was a quart bottle of ale, and was sealed. Witness took her name and address, and told her he should report her. The boy's name was Reginald Pepin. He afterwards went to the Clarence Inn Tap, to the bar where the jug and bottle were handed to the boy. He then saw Mrs. Harwood, who was called outside. He said to her “You handed some beer to a lad named Pepin a few minutes ago from this bar?” She replied “Yes, for his mother”. Witness told her he was not fourteen years of age. Defendant said she thought he was fourteen, but he did not go inside. Witness took her name and address and told her he should submit a report. Defendant replied “You are surely not going to report it?” Mrs. Harwood did not keep the Clarence Inn Tap. She was a customer.

The Bench dismissed the summons against Mrs. Harwood, and fined Mrs. Pepin 5s. and 9s. costs, or seven days.

Wednesday, February 23rd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, and Messrs. J. Stainer, G.I. Dwoffer, and R.J. Linton.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the Clarence Inn from the executors of the late Mr. Jenkins to the widow. The house was, perhaps, one of which a woman should not have charge, and it might be a difficult one to manage. Mrs. Jenkins had practically been managing the house for some considerable time during her husband's illness, and she had had experience all her life. The executors thought it was better that the licence should be transferred to her during the time she remained there, as she was on the spot and had a practical man managing with her and looking after the premises. Subsequently the licence would be transferred when Mrs. Jenkins had had time to look round. In the meantime he asked them to transfer the licence from the executors to the widow.

The Chief Constable said, as it was only a temporary transfer, he should offer no objection, but he certainly should if Mrs. Jenkins intended to remain there.

The Chairman said it was understood Mrs. Jenkins would seek another house.

Mr. Haines replied in the affirmative and under those circumstances the transfer was granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 26 February 1910.

Saturday, February 19th: Before Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

Elizabeth Pepin and Annie Elizabeth Harwood were summoned for a breach of the Licensing Act (Sale to Children).

The Chief Constable stated that Mrs. Pepin was summoned for sending her boy, under the age of 14 years, to the Clarence for the purpose of getting beer, and Mrs. Elizabeth Harwood was summoned for aiding and abetting the offence.

Sergt. Sales deposed that shortly before 11 o'clock on the night of the 12th inst., he was in Bellevue Street, in company with P.C. Stevens, when he saw a boy, apparently under the age of 14 years, open the door of the Clarence Inn Tap and look inside. The door in question was in St. John's Street. At the same time he was handed a jug and a bottle from inside the door. The boy went away into St. John's Street, and entered a fried fish shop. Witness followed him into the house, where he saw Mrs. Pepin, and said to her “Is that your boy?” She replied “Yes”. He then said “How old is he?” She replied “13”. He then said “He has just fetched some beer from the Clarence Inn”. She replied “Yes, but he didn't go inside, did he? Mrs. Harwood was going to get it for him”. Witness then examined the contents of the jug, and found that it contained beer. The bottle, which was sealed, contained ale. Mrs. Pepin said it was half a pint of stout in the jug. He took her name and address, and said she would be reported for sending the child for beer. She gave her boy's name as Reginald. He afterwards went to the Clarence Inn Tap to the bar, where he had seen the jug and bottle handed from, and saw Mrs. Harwood. She was called outside, and he said to her “You handed some beer to a lad named Reginald Pepin a few minutes ago from the bar?” She replied “Yes, for his mother”. He then said “He is under 14 years of age”. She replied “I thought he was 14. He didn't come inside”. He took her name and address, and said he would report her. She replied “You are surely not going to report it”. Defendant was at the Clarence Inn as a customer.

Mrs. Harwood said when she heard that the boy had not left school she nearly dropped. She went to get her own beer. Someone said “Mrs. Harwood, you are called”. She went to the door, and as the place was packed, being Saturday night, she thought that the boy could not get in. She thought the boy was 14 years of age.

Mrs. Pepin said she sent her boy to get her supper beer, as she could not send anyone else. He did not go on the premises at all.

The Chairman said the charge against Mrs. Harwood would be dismissed, but Mrs. Pepin would be fined 5s. and 9s. costs, or in default 7 days. She should not have sent the boy out at that time.

Mrs. Pepin: My husband is abroad, and he is the only one I could send.

Wednesday, February 23rd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major E.T. Leggett, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer, J. Stainer, and R.J. Linton.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, from the executors to Mrs. Jenkins, the widow of the late Mr. Jenkins. He remarked that the Chief Constable had suggested to him that the house was one, perhaps, that a woman should have charge of. It might be a difficult one to manage, but Mrs. Jenkins had practically been managing the house for some considerable time during her husband's illness, and had had experience all her life. So he did not think there was anything to be anticipated during the time she might remain as tenant. It was thought that instead of the executors, who lived away, continuing to manage it would be better for the widow, who understood the business, who was on the spot, and who had a practical man managing, to manage. He might say that subsequently the licence would be transferred when she had time to look round.

The Chief Constable said that seeing it was only a temporary matter, he would not oppose the application, which was granted.

 

Folkestone Daily News 28 February 1910.

Comment.

On Saturday last two very respectable women were summoned for breaches of the Licensing Act. One, whose husband had to go away in search of work, was left with four children to maintain, aged respectively 3, 9, 11, and 13. He was not successful, and was only able to send a few shillings periodically. She, with great courage, opened a little fried fish shop in a poor neighbourhood, the eldest boy of 13 assisting her. Her earnings are small and hardly enough to keep body and soul together.

On Saturday the 12th, at 12.45 p.m., she sent the boy to ask a neighbour to get half a pint of beer for her at a neighbouring public house. The police sergeant interviewed the boy, with the result that her neighbour was acquitted, and she was fined 14s., being told by the Bench that the boy of 13 ought to have been in bed, to which she replied that he had to assist in getting a living for the family of five. Fourteen shillings to this poor woman meant ruin, it being as difficult for her to get 14s. as it would be for some people to get 1,400. The Chief Constable very kindly allowed her seven days to find the money, which meant if it was not found she must go to Canterbury for seven days. After an anxious week the woman found herself penniless, and was trying to sell a bit of furniture to get the money. She was unable to do so. Only imagine what a Christian country we live in, and how our fanatical laws bear on the poor and increase poverty. But for a little timely help this woman would have been dragged to prison, leaving nothing for the children but the Workhouse. After doing the seven days she would probably have come out, found her business ruined, and had to seek the Workhouse herself. Then the Guardians would have tried to find her husband and convicted him of the pleasant fiction of non-maintenance of his family. Thus a whole family might have been ruined and kept at the expense of ratepayers. While governors and legislators are quibbling over petty things, this is the way in which poverty is increased and the nation being ruined. Fortunately a few gentlemen, on having the case explained to them, found the 14s., which was paid to the Chief Constable this afternoon, and the woman escaped ruin.

 

Folkestone Express 2 April 1910.

Saturday, March 26th: Before The Mayor, and Messrs. W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, and G. Boyd.

John Seddon and Alfred Edward Paul, the latter belonging to the King's Royal Rifles, were summoned for being idle and disorderly persons. Seddon pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Sales said at about 10.25 on the night of the 19th inst. he was called to Belle Vue Street, where he saw the two defendants, who were fighting. Seddon had his coat and hat off, and there was a large crowd of people. With the assistance of the military police he caught hold of Paul. Seddon ran away, but was stopped by P.C. Butcher higher up the street. He obtained his name and address, and also Paul's. Seddon complained that Paul went to his house and insulted or assaulted his wife.

Seddon said he was in the Clarence, when he was told that a soldier had been trying to get into his house. Paul came down the street, and when he got to the bottom he struck Seddon, who struck him back.

Paul explained that he made a mistake with respect to the girl, whom he thought he knew.

Defendants were each bound over in the sum of 5 to be of good behaviour for three months.

 

Folkestone Herald 16 April 1910.

Thursday, April 14th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Elizabeth Marsh was charged with being drunk and disorderly.

P.K. Kennett said that at about 7.45 the previous evening he was in Tontine Street, where he saw the prisoner, who was drunk, and shouting and swearing at the top of her voice. He told her to stop. She then went into Dover Road and entered the Clarence Hotel, and continued to be disorderly. Witness was called in to eject prisoner. He did so, but in the street she continued to use the most filthy language and offered to fight two ladies. Witness then took her into custody.

Prisoner was fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs, or 7 days. She applied for time to pay, which was refused, and she was therefore committed to prison for seven days.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 September 1910.

Friday, September 2nd: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, and Councillor R.G. Wood.

Mark Ripley pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly.

P.C. Prebble said that at about 11.05 o'clock on the previous evening he was in Dover Road, near the Clarence Hotel, when he saw prisoner with his coat off, fighting with four other men, who also had their coats off. Having had occasion to speak to prisoner before, witness took him into custody.

Prisoner said that he was very sorry. He had met two friends who had had a glass or two with him. It was his first offence.

Fined 2s. 6d. and 4s. 6d. costs.

 

Folkestone Express 22 October 1910.

Wednesday, October 19th: Before Aldermen spurge and Vaughan, Lt. Col. Fynmore, and Alderman Jenner.

The licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Mrs. Jenkins to Mr. James Schleselman.

The Chief Constable said he hoped the incoming tenant would do his best to conduct the house in a satisfactory manner. It was used by soldiers and hawkers, and required a great deal of care and attention.

Mr. Schleselman said he would do his best.

 

Folkestone Herald 22 October 1910.

Wednesday, October 19th: Before Aldermen G. Spurgen and T.J. Vaughan, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

The temporary transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, from Mrs. Jenkins, the widow of the late Mr. T.G. Jenkins to Mr. James Schlesselman was sanctioned.

 

Folkestone Daily News 30 November 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Messrs. Herbert, Stainer, Leggett, Fynmore, and Linton.

The licence of the Clarence was transferred from the widow of the late tenant to the present tenant.

 

Folkestone Express 3 December 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel Fynmore, Major Leggett, and J. Stainer and R.J. Linton Esqs.

The following licence was transferred: Channel Inn (sic), Dover Road, from Mrs. Jenkins to Mr. James Schlesschman.

 

Folkestone Herald 3 December 1910.

Wednesday, November 30th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Major Leggett, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and Messrs. R.J. Linton and J. Stainer.

The licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was transferred from Mrs. Jenkins to Mr. James Schleselman.

 

Folkestone Express 21 October 1911.

Tuesday, October 17th: Before Alderman Vaughan, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, and R.G. Wood Esq.

Ernest Edward Williams was summoned for assaulting Robert Henry Charles Dobbs on Oct. 13th.

The witnesses remained outside the court.

Robert Henry Charles Dobbs, a labourer, of 49, Canterbury Road, said on Friday, Oct. 13th, just after eleven o'clock in the evening, he was going home through Queen Street in company with his wife and two friends, when defendant's wife stopped his (witness's) wife and knocked her down. He did not know what for. He went to stop them, and defendant came up and knocked him down. Defendant also bit him through the finger while on the ground.

Defendant: Who did? – You did.

Williams (excitedly): You are a liar.

The Clerk rebuked defendant, who replied that he had a right to question the witness and was going to have justice.

The Clerk (turning to the Magistrates) said if defendant did not behave himself, he would be remanded in custody.

Williams at length became quiet, and the case was resumed.

The complainant, continuing his evidence, said defendant, as he got up from the ground, kicked him on the head and made a wound. Witness got up and asked P.S. Prebble to take defendant into custody, but Williams ran away.

Defendant (cross-examining Dobbs): Where was I when my missus and your missus started rowing? – You were up the street.

What did I do? – You knocked me down.

Did I not pull my missus away from your missus? – I cannot say.

And with that did you not come for me? – No, I did not.

Didn't you fight at all with me? – No.

John William Fidge, of 11, Peter Street, said he was in Queen Street on Friday night, in company with Dobbs and his wife. The first thing he saw was defendant's wife with Dobbs's wife. Dobbs went to separate them, and he saw defendant hit Dobbs and knock him down. After that Williams kicked him in the head and bit his finger. P.S. Prebble came along, and defendant and his wife ran away. Dobbs had no chance to strike, or defend himself.

Williams then called Albert Moore, a carpenter, of 28, Bournemouth Road, who said he left the Clarence Tap at eleven o'clock, in company with defendant and his wife. They went up Peter Street towards Queen Street. He was in conversation with defendant, and the latter's wife was following on behind. They had got about half way up Queen Street when witness heard a disturbance by the Council School. He looked round and saw that Mrs. Williams was not with them. From what he said to defendant, he turned round and ran down the street. He followed him, and saw Mrs. Williams and Dobbs's wife struggling. Williams caught hold of his wife and endeavoured to pull her away. Dobbs then struck at defendant and knocked his cap off. Williams stuck back, and both began to fight. Witness watched them until a policeman came up and stopped them. They were then on the ground rolling over another. Williams got up and ran away. He should say Dobbs got the worst of the fight by his appearance.

The Chairman, addressing defendant, said the Bench had very seriously considered that matter, and they had come to the conclusion that the evidence was so conflicting that they could not convict, and the case was dismissed.

Dobbs was ordered to pay 3s. costs.

 

Folkestone Herald 21 October 1911.

Tuesday, October 17th: Before Alderman T.J. Vaughan, Lieut. R.J. Fynmore, and Councillor R.G. Wood.

Ernest Edward Williams was summoned for assaulting Robert Henry Dobbs. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Complainant, a labourer, of 49, Canterbury Road, stated that on Friday, 3rd inst., just after 11 p.m., he was going home through Queen Street with his wife and two friends. He had not been with the defendant, but saw him just prior to this standing outside the Clarence Tap. Defendant's wife came up and knocked his (complainant's) wife down. Witness went to separate them, whereupon defendant came up and knocked him down, bit him through the finger, and kicked him in the head.

Defendant (heatedly): You are a liar. I want justice, and I am going to have justice.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You behave yourself properly.

Then, turning to the Magistrates, Mr. Andrew said: I think the Court had better remand this man in custody until the next sitting.

Addressing defendant, he remarked: You have not come to conduct this case as you like. Behave yourself. You can put any question you like afterwards.

Defendant: I will ask it now.

The Magistrates' Clerk: You will not. You will find yourself below. You have not come to behave as you like in Court.

Continuing, complainant said that Sergt. Prebble then came up, and he asked him to take defendant into custody. He did not do so, for defendant and his wife ran away.

Cross-examined by defendant, complainant stated that he did not know that Williams tried to pull his wife away from Mrs. Dobbs; he could not say whether that was so. He (complainant) had no chance to defend himself. He did not fight with defendant.

John Wm. Fidge, of 11, Peter Street, stated that he was with complainant. He first saw Williams's wife fighting with Dobbs's wife. Dobbs went in to separate them, whereupon Williams came up and knocked him down. He saw defendant bite Dobbs and kick him on the head. When Sergt. Prebble came up Williams and his wife ran away. Dobbs had no chance to defend himself.

Defendant called Arthur Moore, a gardener, of 28, Bournemouth Road, who stated that he was with Williams and his wife, going up Peter Street, towards Queen Street. When they got about halfway up the street, witness noticed that Mrs. Williams was not with them. He then heard a disturbance down the street, and in consequence of what he (witness) said, Williams instantly turned round and ran down the road. He (witness) followed and saw Mrs. Dobbs and Mrs. Williams struggling. Williams went to separate them, whereupon Dobbs struck at Williams, knocking his cap off. Williams retaliated and struck back. They commenced to fight immediately in the middle of the road. Witness picked Williams's cap up and stood with it in his hand till a policeman came up. At that time Williams and Dobbs were both in the ground struggling, rolling over one another. The policeman had got hold of Dobbs before he could rise. He would say that Dobbs got the worst of it from his appearance.

Defendant said he acted in self-defence, and if complainant started again, he (defendant) would also.

The Chairman said the Bench had very seriously considered the case. The evidence was so conflicting that they discharged the defendant.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 November 1911.

Local News.

Yesterday (Friday) afternoon a Folkestone man named Scamp was passing through the Warren when he was horrified to see the body of a man lying face downwards in a pool.

He endeavoured to get the body to dry land, but was unable to do so. Returning to Folkestone, he reported the matter to the Coroner's Officer (Mr. J. Chadwick). The latter obtained assistance, and proceeded to the spot. When the body was recovered it was found to be that of a well-dressed man, apparently about thirty years of age, and also that there was a large wound in the throat. The corpse was conveyed up to the mortuary.

Up to the time of going to press the deceased had not been identified.

The inquest will probably be held today (Saturday).

 

Folkestone Express 25 November 1911.

Inquest.

A shocking tragedy was enacted in the Warren on Wednesday of last week, when a Belgian, named Casimir Leorant Munton, committed suicide in a most determined manner by cutting his throat, and afterwards his dead body rolled down the cliff into a deep pond, in which he was found floating on Friday afternoon. The circumstances connected with the shocking affair were of a particularly sad nature, by the fact that Munton was staying with his wife in Folkestone on their honeymoon, and thus within three weeks of the wedding day deceased's wife became a widow, while her lot was made the more piteous by the fact that her husband left her absolutely penniless in a strange land and not able to speak a word of the language. From the evidence which was given at the inquest on Saturday evening, conducted at the Town Hall by Mr. G.W. Haines (the Borough Coroner), there was very little doubt that the excessive drinking of absinthe had led the unfortunate man in a fit of frenzy to take his life. Naturally the unfortunate wife was in a pitiable condition following upon her husband's shocking death,, although, through an interpreter, she readily answered the questions put by the Coroner.

Edwin John Chadwick, the Coroner's Officer, said the body viewed by the jury was that morning identified in his presence by Mr. J. Schlesselman as that of Casimir Munton, who had been staying at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, since a week the previous Monday. On Friday afternoon, at three o'clock, he received information that there was the body of a man lying in a pond at the Warren, and it was impossible to get it out, as the water was so deep and the cliffs so steep. He proceeded to the spot with P.C. Bourne. On arrival there, about 500 yards on the Dover side of Little Switzerland tea gardens, he saw the body in a pond full of water about 12ft. or 14ft. deep (about 50 yards across it on the side near the cliff the bank is precipitous), the man floating face downwards. They climbed down the cliff and got the body out. It was that of a man fully clothed, with an overcoat on, serge suit, boots on and properly laced up, but nothing in his hands. There was a very deep wound in the throat, which extended from ear to ear. On getting him to the bank the wound bled considerably. The bak was very steep, and about 3ft. from the pond he found the razor (produced), which was about three parts open, and there were blood stains upon the blade. The body was stiff, and must have been in the water some hours. With P.C. Bourne he examined the cliff, and there were no bloodstains on the bank, nor near the spot where the razor was found. The cliff was of soft chalk and very slippery. For about 20ft. up from the pond the slippery condition continued, and there he found a cap, which was marked inside “Sansier, Calais”. In the water there was an umbrella, which Scamp got out. He conveyed the body to the mortuary, where he undressed the deceased. On searching his clothes he found in the waistcoat pocket a keyless oxydised watch, which had stopped at two o'clock, and a steel chain. In his other pockets he found a purse, quite empty, a card case, quite empty, a pair of new kid gloves, a pipe, and tobacco pouch, but no money. The man was wearing cuffs with links.

George Scamp, of 61, Bridge Street, said he was a greengrocer. About ten minute to three the previous afternoon he was passing the pond, and saw the body of a man floating in the water. He went down to the bank, and seeing it was impossible to get the body out without assistance, he went to the Town Hall and gave information. He was in the Warren on Tuesday.

James Schlesselman, a licensed victualler, said he carried on business at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. He identified the deceased in the presence of Mr. Chadwick as that of Casimir Munton. Deceased came to his house on Tuesday week with his wife, and asked for rooms and board. He paid for two days, and he owed him 6 12s. 7d. for about six days' board and lodgings. The money included the cost of a large quantity of absinthe, which he thought was really the cause of the whole affair. As far as he could see the deceased and his wife agreed. They went out very little. It was not until after the deceased had disappeared on Wednesday that he heard he had threatened his wife. When he first came to witness he understood he had plenty of money. Deceased did not tell him where he came from, although he told him he was a merchant in Belgium, and was there on his honeymoon. He had no letters. On Wednesday deceased and his wife went out at ten o'clock in the morning, and they went up Dover Road, so he was informed by the barmaid. The wife came back, so he was told by his wife, at about a quarter to four, and asked for her husband. Mrs. Munton was in a sober condition, and when she found her husband was not there she appeared to be very distressed. According to her story, her husband left her suddenly on the Leas at half past two, as he said he saw some friends at the bottom of the cliff, and asked her to wait for him while he went down. She waited until she was wet through, and then came home, hoping to find him home before her. He had never seen the razor (produced) before. He had searched the deceased's trunk, but could find no letters. Deceased's wife said she had never seen the razor.

Dr. F.J. Lidderdale said that day he had examined the body of a man then lying at the mortuary. The first thing he noticed was that the throat had been cut right through the hyoid bone, and the cut extended beyond that to the surface of the spine. All the great vessels of the neck had been divided on both sides. On the right side there were four nicks in the skin apart from the main incision, which pointed to the fact that the cut was done by the left hand. On the front of the spine there were four cuts which went down to the actual bone, and which seemed to have been done by the right hand. There was nothing abnormal about the body, except that deceased had suffered from gallstone. There was no evidence of drowning, so that he must have been dead when he went into the water. The cut could have been done by the deceased. It was a case of as determined a suicide as they could possibly think of.

The Coroner: Supposing anyone else had done it from behind, would the cuts have displayed any other symptoms or features?

Dr. Lidderdale: I don't know that anyone could say definitely, except that in a murderous cut you would not get the “nicks”, which was always an evidence of suicide. The person was generally nervous with the first cuts.

The Coroner: Then the wounds might have been self-inflicted?

Dr. Lidderdale said he did not think there was any doubt about it. There were no wounds on the hands and no sign of a struggle.

Madame Munton, who gave her evidence through an interpreter, said she came from Wandre, near Herstael, Liege, Belgium. She was the wife of the deceased, Casimir Leorant Munten, of Herstael, who was employed as the chief clerk in a coal office. He was 30 years of age. They were married on the 26th October that year, and had come to Folkestone for their honeymoon. She had known the deceased two years before she married to him. She could not say whether he was of sober habits, but he did not drink any more in Folkestone than he was in the habit of doing. He had never threatened to take his own life, but on Sunday night previously he had tried to strangle her. On Wednesday, at ten o'clock in the morning, she went out with her husband. They went in the direction where they had to keep climbing.

Mr. Schlesselman, who interpreted the witness's evidence, said that meant the two went up Dover Road way.

The widow, continuing, said her husband left her near a small cafe or house, and said to her he was going down the cliffs for a few minutes. He asked her to wait for him. Deceased gave her an excuse for leaving her. He went straight down the path. It would be about half past two or a quarter to three when he left her. She waited about an hour and then returned home, thinking he had come by another way. She had never seen the razor (produced) before. Her husband always shaved with a safety razor. When they left the house in the morning her husband had 3 or 4 in his pocket. She saw it, for he counted it out and put it into his purse. He did not spend any money that morning. He told her he was expecting about 150 francs from his parents. She had no money in her possession, and her husband gave her none. She told her husband she wanted something, and he said “All right, give me the money and I will buy it”, at the same time taking all the money she had. She was now absolutely penniless. She asked him to pay the hotel bill that morning, and he said he would do so after they came back from their walk.

Dr. Lidderdale, again questioned by the Coroner, said he had no doubt in his mind that the wounds in the throat were self-inflicted.

The Coroner, in summing up, said it was for the jury to say whether the wounds were self-inflicted or done by some other person. In the latter event it would be a case of murder. They, however, had the medical evidence that the cut throat might have been self-inflicted, although it wanted a very powerful and determined man to do it in the manner deceased's throat was cut. There was no doubt that the razor was the weapon with which the throat was cut. He must have been on the bank and have gone into the pond. They had earlier history of the deceased. He had been drinking absinthe in considerable quantities, and the effect of absinthe was that it greatly excited the person taking it. Deceased had attempted to strangle his wife on the previous Sunday, but whether it was with intent to try and kill her, or merely the outcome of frenzy of an alcohol drinker they could not say, but the latter was more than probable. They had in that a clue as to the reason for taking his life. There was no evidence of any signs of a struggle, and generally when an individual's throat was cut by a second party, it was found the hands bore signs of a struggle. There was nothing of the kind at all in that case.

P.C. Bourne, called by the Coroner, said that he saw the purse opened by the Coroner's Officer, and there was nothing in it. There was nothing in the pockets.

The jury returned a verdict of “Suicide whilst of unsound mind, caused through drinking absinthe excessively”.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 November 1911.

Inquest.

At the Town Hall on Saturday an inquest was conducted by Mr. G.W. Haines (the Borough Coroner) on Casimir Leureant Munton, a Belgian, whose body was found, with throat terribly cut, in a pool in the Warren the previous day.

The deceased was only married on October 26th, and was spending his honeymoon in Folkestone.

Mr. Edward James Chadwick (the Coroner's Officer) stated that he identified the deceased as Casimir Leureant Munton, who had been staying at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, since the 8th November. On Friday he was informed by George Scamp that there was a man lying in a pond in the Warren. He, with George Scamp and P.C. Boorn, went to the spot indicated, which was about 400 yards on the Dover side from Little Switzerland. There he saw deceased lying in a pond full of water, about 14 feet deep and 50 yards across. With the assistance of P.C. Boorn he removed the body from the water. It was fully clothed, wearing an overcoat, serge suit, laced boots, cuffs and links. He had nothing in his hands. A deep wound, extending from ear to ear, bled considerably on their carrying the corpse to the top of the cliff. About 3ft. from the water's edge he saw a razor (produced). It was bloodstained, about three parts open, and beginning to go rusty. The body was stiff, and must have been in the water several hours. With P.C. Boorn he examined the cliff. There were no stains on the cliff, or where the razor lay. The soild was of a soft, chalky nature, and very steep and slippery. About 20 feet upwards from the pond he found a cap, with the name of a Calais firm marked in it. There was also an umbrella in the water. The body was conveyed to the mortuary, where he searched it. He removed the clothes, and discovered a keyless watch (which had stopped at 2 o'clock) joined to a steel chain, a purse (empty), a pipe, tobacco pouch, card case (all of which were empty), and a pair of new kid gloves.

Mr. George Scamp, greengrocer, of 61, Bridge Street, stated that he was passing through the Warren on Friday, when he noticed the body of a man floating in the pond. He had last been in the Warren on Tuesday. Being unable to remove the body without assistance, he reported the matter at the Town Hall.

Mr. James Schlesselman, licensee of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, next gave evidence. He said he identified the body with Mr. Chadwick. The deceased came to him on the 8th November for board and lodgings for himself and his wife. For the first day or two he paid his bill at the end of each day, saying he expected to go the next. Presently, however, he let the account run on, and deceased owed him 6 12s. 7d. That was for six days, and most of it was for wines, of which deceased drank a great quantity. His principal drink was absinthe. Mr. and Mrs. Munton seldom went out. When they did they nearly always went up the Dover Road. Mrs. Munton had never said she was afraid of her husband. When he first came to the hotel, he told witness that his name was Casimir Munton, that he was a merchant in Belgium, and was on his honeymoon. He understood that he had some money with him. It was quite usual for visitors for a day or so to give no more information than that. He disappeared on Wednesday, November 15th, at about ten o'clock. Witness's wife had since informed him that deceased's wife had returned to the hotel at about 3.45 and asked for her husband. On hearing that he had not returned she became very much alarmed. Mrs. Munton told him (witness) that she had left him at the top of the cliff, as he said he saw a friend of his at the bottom, and was going down to him. She waited until about 2.30, and then returned to the hotel. They generally dined at 2 o'clock. Witness had since searched deceased's trunk, and found amongst his belongings a safety razor. He had never seen the razor produced in Court before. There were no letters in the trunks, and the couple never received any.

Dr. Francis J. Lidderdale said he had examined the body at the mortuary, and he found that the cut round the neck was much longer than from ear to ear; the wound extended to the surface of the spine. All the great vessels had been severed on both sides. The appearances of the wounds would suggest that, if self-inflicted, they were mostly made with the left hand. There were eight deliberate cuts, and to make thos near the spine, going to the actual bone, the razor must have been changed from the left to the right hand. There was nothing abnormal about the body, except that deceased suffered from gall stone. There was no evidence of drowning.

Mrs. Elizabeth Munton, the widow, who appeared to be in a very weak state, was next called. As she could not speak English, Mr. James Schlesselman acted as interpreter. She said her husband and she lived at Wandre, Henstral, near Liege, Belgium. He was employed at a coal merchant's office, holding the position of chief clerk. He was thirty years of age. She was married to him, and they came to Folkestone to spend their honeymoon. She had known him for two years, but could not say whether he was a great drinker. He had not drunk more than usual since he had been in Folkestone. He had never threatened to take his or her life, but had tried on Sunday to strangle her. On the day of his disappearance he went out with her at ten o'clock. They proceeded up Dover Road towards the hills. He left her when nearly at the top of the hill, saying that he saw a friend at the bottom, in the Warren, and that she was to wait for him. She waited until 2.30, and then returned home, thinking that he had come back another way. She had never seen the razor produced before. Deceased had 2 or 3 with him when he left her, of which 17 francs was here. He had told her he was expecting 150 francs from his parents. He gave her no money on the morning in question, and spent none.

The Coroner said the question for the jury to decide was whether it was suicide or murder. The evidence seemed to point to suicide; there were no signs of a struggle, nor any suggestion of a third person coming into the matter. The evidence differed with regard to the money, there being no money in the purse when the body was discovered, and yet deceased's wife said he had 2 or 3 when he left her. But he (Mr. Haines) did not see that that altered the case.

After a short consultation the jury returned a verdict of “Suicide while in an unsound mind, under the influence of absinthe”.

 

Folkestone Daily News 27 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 27th: Before Justices Herbert and Swoffer.

Charles Smith was charged with stealing a bag from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station. Mr. Myers defended.

G. Shorter, booking clerk, deposed to taking the bag from a gentleman named Hart, and giving a ticket for the same. He went to attend the boat train, leaving the key in the door.

Winifred Elizabeth Schlesselman, wife of the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, deposed that prisoner came to the hotel on Saturday evening and engaged a bed. He brought the portmanteau and bag produced, which were taken into his room. He went out and returned, and retired to his room at 11.45. He came down to the room and had breakfast, and went to Dover at 10 a.m., saying he should return at 2 p.m. He slept in the house on Sunday, and she again saw him at 9 on Monday. He had breakfast, went out, and returned at 6. On Sunday he left the papers now produced on a chair where he was having breakfast, but she gave them to him on Monday.

Detective Johnson deposed to arresting prisoner at 7.45 on Tuesday night at the Clarence Hotel, and charged him with stealing the bag. He replied that he bought it four months since. Witness afterwards found the missing bag, which Shorter identified as the one stolen from the cloakroom. Witness charged prisoner, who made the statement that he came off the boat on Saturday. He met a man and they went into an hotel, where the man left the bag in the corner of the room. He picked it up and took it to the Clarence, where he expected the man was going to sleep.

He was remanded for a week.

 

Folkestone Express 30 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 27th: Before W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer Esqs.

Charles Smith was charged with stealing a handbag from the cloakroom at the Harbour Railway Station. Mr. Myers, solicitor, defended.

Wm. Joseph Shorter, clerk in the cloakroom, Harbour Railway Station, said on Saturday afternoon he was in charge of the cloakroom at the Harbour Station, when the handbag (produced) was brought to him at about 4.30 and deposited in the cloakroom by a gentleman who gave the name of Hake. Witness gave him the usual receipt, numbered 779,025. The same evening witness left the cloakroom at 9.35. he locked the door and left the key in the lock, while he went to attend to the boat train. He returned to the cloakroom at ten o'clock, and a few minutes after Mr. Hake called for his bag. Witness searched for it and found it was missing. He then communicated with the police.

Cross-examined, witness said it was the practice to leave the key in the lock of the cloakroom. A man was stationed about 150 yards from the cloakroom, whose duty it was to look after the room during witness's absence.

Winifred Elizabeth Schlesselman, wife of the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, said she recognised the prisoner, who came to the hotel on Saturday evening about a quarter to ten, and engaged a bedroom from witness for a night. He had with him a portmanteau and the two bags (produced). He took the two bags into his room, and then went out. He returned about eleven o'clock, and retired to his room about a quarter to twelve. Witness called him at nine o'clock the following morning, and he came down and had breakfast. He left the house at ten o'clock, saying he was going to Dover, and should return about two o'clock. Witness next saw prisoner on Monday morning, when he again had breakfast in the house. Later he left the hotel, and returned on Tuesday evening about nine o'clock. Shortly afterwards he was arrested in the house.

Witness was shown a foreign railway guide and some papers, which she said she found in the sitting room on Sunday morning after the prisoner had left for Dover. They were on a chair near where he had been seated. On the following morning witness showed them to the prisoner, and he said they were of no use.

Cross-examined, witness said prisoner had stayed at the hotel once before, twelve or fourteen months ago. When he came on Saturday he did not seem confused or nervous, neither was he nervous when she showed him the papers.

Detective Officer Johnson said at about 7.45 the previous night, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, he was in Dover Road, where he saw the prisoner carrying the bag produced. He followed him into the saloon bar of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. He said to him “We are two police officers making some enquiries respecting a bag missed from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station on Saturday night”. Prisoner said “I bought it in New York about two months ago”. Witness told him he should take him to the police station to make enquiries. He did so, and afterwards returned to the Clarence Hotel, and in the bedroom pointed out to him by the landlord as the one which had been occupied by the prisoner he found the small bag (produced), which had been identified by the witness Shorter. Witness took possession of it, and later charged the prisoner with stealing it from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station on the 23rd inst. He cautioned him, and prisoner made a statement which was taken down in writing in witness's presence. At the station he searched prisoner, and found in his possession the cigar case (produced).

Inspector Swift said he had been instructed to ask for a remand.

Mr. Myers asked that the prisoner might have the money found in his possession, but the request was refused.

Prisoner was then remanded until Wednesday next.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 March 1912.

Wednesday, March 27th: Before Messrs. W.G. Herbert and G.I. Swoffer.

Charles Smith was charged with theft at the Harbour Station. Mr. Myers appeared for prisoner.

The Chief Constable said prisoner was only arrested the previous day, and he had not had time to complete the evidence.

Mr. William Joseph Shorter, clerk at the Harbour Station, said he lived at 9, Bradstone Avenue. On Saturday evening he was in charge of the cloakroom at the Harbour Station. At about 4.30 a gentleman giving the name of Hart deposited a brown brief bag at the cloakroom. He (witness) gave him a receipt, No. 779025, for it. At 9.35 witness left the cloakroom, locked the door, and left the key in the door, while he went to attend to the boat train. He returned to the cloakroom at 10 o'clock. About ten minutes after he had returned, Mr. Hart called for the bag. He searched for it, but was unable to find it. He then communicated with the police by telephone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Myers, witness said it was the usual practice to leave the key in the door when they left the cloakroom. There was a man stationed at the crossing, about 150 yards away, he thought, and it was his duty to look after the cloakroom when witness was absent.

Mrs. Winifred Elizabeth Schlesselman, wife of the proprietor of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, said on Saturday evening, at about 9.45, accused came to the hotel and engaged a bedroom for one night. He had in his possession one portmanteau, and two hand bags (produced). He carried the two hand bags to his room, and then went out. He returned at about 11 p.m., and then retired to rest at about a quarter to 12. She called him the following morning at 9 o'clock, and he came down and had breakfast at 9.30. At 10 o'clock he left, saying that he was going to Dover, and would return about 2. Next day, after breakfast, prisoner went out, and did not retorn until Tuesday evening at about 9 o'clock. She was present when prisoner was arrested shortly afterwards. On the Sunday morning she found a packet containing some letters and a foreign railway guide book in the room in which prisoner had had his breakfast. Witness showed them to him on the following day, and he said that they were no use; he had brought them down to throw away.

Cross-examined, witness stated that prisoner was not at all confused when he took his room. He had stayed at the hotel once before about fourteen months ago for one night. When she showed him the packet he was not confused, and spoke quite ordinarily.

Detective Officer Leonard Johnson stated that on Saturday night last, at 7.45, he went, accompanied by P.C. Butcher, to Dover Road, where they saw prisoner carrying the larger of the bags produced. They followed him into the bar of the Clarence Hotel. Witness said to the accused “We are two police officers, making enquiries respecting a bag which is missing from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station since Saturday evening last”. Witness replied “I bought it in New York about four months ago”. Witness told him that he should take prisoner to the police station. He did so, and afterwards returned to the Clarence Hotel. In prisoner's bedroom he discovered the smaller of the two bags produced. This bag had been identified by the witness Shorter. He took possession of it, and later charged prisoner with stealing it from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station on Saturday. Prisoner then made a statement, which was taken down. At the police station accused was searched, and they found in his possession a leather cigar case and other articles.

Prisoner was remanded until the following Wednesday.

 

Folkestone Express 6 April 1912.

Wednesday, April 3rd: Before W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer and J.J. Giles Esqs., Colonel Owen and Captain Chamier.

Charles Smith was charged on remand with stealing a handbag from the cloakroom of the Harbour Station, value 15s., the property of the S.E. Railway Company's Managing Committee. Mr. F. Fraser appeared on behalf of the S.E. and C. Railway Co., and Mr. Myers defended.

The Chief Constable said as a result of the inquiries which had been made he had a few additional witnesses to call.

Two bags, a large and a small one, were produced in Court.

The evidence given at the previous hearing was read over, and also a statement by the prisoner. It was to the effect that he met a man outside the Harbour Station. They went into a public house to have a drink, and after the other man had gone prisoner found the bag, which he took to his hotel.

Thomas Cornelius Hall, landlord of the Harbour Hotel, Harbour Street, said he was on the premises about 9.20 p.m. on Saturday, 23rd March. He was in the hotel entrance passage, when he saw the prisoner enter the passage. He was a stranger to witness. Prisoner was alone, and carrying two or three brown bags, similar to the two bags produced. He said to witness “Could you get me a man to carry my bags up?” He said he wanted to go up Dover Street. Witness said he would see if he could get a man in the public bar. He spoke to some men in the bar, and obtained the services of a man named Tiddy, who went with witness to the prisoner. He introduced prisoner to Tiddy, who had a drink with him. Each had a glass of ale. They then left together. Witness was in the passage just before prisoner arrived, and there were no bags in the passage or in the bar.

James Tiddy, 17, East Street, a carpenter, said on Saturday, 23rd March he was in the public bar of the Harbour Hotel, between nine and ten in the evening, when the landlord said something to him. He had then been in the hotel about a quarter of an hour. In consequence of what Mr. Hall said he went into the passage, where he saw prisoner, who was alone. Prisoner had the two handbags and the portmanteau produced. He asked prisoner if he was the gentleman who required a porter, and he agreed to carry the bags to a house up Tontine Street. Witness carried the portmanteau and the larger bag. The prisoner carried the other. At the Brewery Tap they each had a drink. Witness then took the portmanteau and prisoner the two bags. When they got to the Clarence Hotel, prisoner said that was the house he wanted. They both went into the saloon bar, taking the bags with them. They had another glass of ale each, and then Mrs. Schlesselman came into the bar and prisoner arranged with her to stay in the house. Mrs. Schlesselman showed prisoner to his room, and the bags were taken upstairs. He returned in a few minutes, and said he was going out for a little run. He did not have the bags with him. During the whole time witness was with prisoner, witness did not see anyone with him, or speak to him. On the way to the Clarence Hotel, prisoner told him he had arrived that evening by the Boulogne boat. He ought to have gone by the Calais boat to Dover, and was going to Dover. He showed him a book of tickets, similar to the one produced, dated March 23rd.

This concluded the case, and Mr. Myers said that Smith would go for trial.

Smith said he did not desire to call any witnesses, not make any statement.

He was then formally committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

Bail was fixed at prisoner in 20, one surety of 20, or two of 10 each.

Mr. Myers said there was a gentleman at Falmouth who was quite willing to be bail for prisoner.

The Clerk said when the proper recognisances had come from Falmouth, Smith would be bailed out at Canterbury.

Smith was allowed to have a small sum of money found in his possession.

 

 

Folkestone Herald 6 April 1912.

Wednesday, April 3rd: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Col. Owen, Capt. Chamier, Messrs. G.I. Swoffer and J.J. Giles.

Charles Smith appeared on remand on a charge of stealing a brief bag from the Harbour Station, the property of the S.E. and C.R. Managing Company. Mr. Fraser, solicitor to the S.E. and C.R. Company, prosecuted, and Mr. H. Myers defended.

The evidence given at the previous hearing was read over and signed, and the Chief Constable said there were two additional witnesses to call.

Thomas Cornelius Hall, proprietor of the Harbour Hotel, said that at about 9.30 p.m. on Saturday, 23rd March, he was in the hotel entrance passage when accused entered and stopped opposite witness. He was carrying some brown bags similar to the two bags produced with him, but witness was not sure how many he had. He said “Could you give me a man to carry these bags up for me?” Witness asked where he wanted to go, and prisoner replied that he was going up Dover Street. Witness eventually obtained the services of a man named Tiddy, who went to the prisoner, who was standing alone in the passage where he had been left. Witness introduced the man Tiddy to prisoner, who asked Tiddy if he would have something to drink. They both had a glass of ale, after which they left.

James Tiddy, a carpenter, of 17, East Street, said in consequence of what the landlord of the Harbour Hotel said to him, he went out of the public bar into the passage of the hotel.

Mr. Myers: Did you see the prisoner there?

Witness (indicating prisoner): I saw him, the man in the birdcage there. (Laughter)

Witness proceeded to say that he was engaged to carry the bags to a house near Tontine Street. He carried the portmanteau and the other large handbag until they got to the Brewery Tap. Prisoner carried the small bag. At the Brewery Tap they had another glass of ale each, and left, witness taking the portmanteau and prisoner the two other bags. They eventually went to the Clarence Hotel in Dover Road. Prisoner said that was the house he wanted, and they both went into the saloon bar, taking the luggage with them. They had another glass of ale each. (Laughter) A lady (Mrs. Schlesselman) came into the bar. Prisoner spoke to the lady, MORE TO COME!!!! he looked at his watch when in the middle of Tontine Street, and it was just 9.40. It would be about 9.35 when they left the Harbour Hotel. When prisoner left the bar in the Clarence he, to the best of witness's knowledge, carried the small bag.

Prisoner was committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions, bail being allowed, himself in 20, and one surety of 20, or two of 10 each.

 

Folkestone Daily News 15 April 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, April 15th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Charles Smith surrendered to the charge of stealing a brief bag from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station on March 23rd, 1912. Mr. Ronald Gordon, instructed by Mr. Herbert Groves, prosecuted for the S.E. Railway Company. Mr. Ernest Wetton, instructed by Mr. H. Myers, defended.

Mr. Gordon opened the case at great length, and called William Shorter, a cloakroom clerk at the Harbour Station, who deposed to the bag (produced) being left there on the 23rd March by Mr. Hake at 4.30. Witness left the cloakroom at 7.30, leaving the key in the door. He was away five minutes, but did not notice if the bag was there. He went away at 9.30 and returned at 10 p.m. Mr. Hake came for his bag, but it was not there, and witness gave information to the police.

Cross-examined: He was in the habit of leaving the cloakroom unlocked. It was not very conspicuous.

Henry Read, a shunter at the Harbour Station, deposed he was in the cloakroom at 9.30 p.m. on the 23rd, and saw the bag there.

Harry Jordan, a ticket collector at the Harbour Station, deposed that the boat train arrived at 9.40.

Detective Leonard Johnson deposed to seeing prisoner carrying a bag in Dover Road, which he said he bought in New York. He took him to the police station and subsequently returned to the Clarence. He found the bag produced, which was identified by Shorter.

Prisoner stated he met a man who laid the bag down.

T.C. Hall, landlord of the Harbour Hotel, deposed that the prisoner came into the hotel. He was alone, and was carrying several bags. He asked for a man to take the bag up Dover Street. A man named Tiddy was in the bar and went with him. There was no other bag in the bar.

James Tiddy, of East street, deposed that he was in the Harbour bar. Prisoner was there with two bags and a portmanteau, and engaged witness to take the bags. They went to the Brewery Tap and had a drink; they also went to the Clarence and had another drink.

Winifred Schlesselman, wife of the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, deposed that prisoner engaged a bed on March 23rd. She called him about 9o'clock the following morning. He went to Dover, and left some papers bearing the name of Hake in the breakfast room; she gave them to prisoner, who said they were of no consequence and could be thrown away.

Prisoner was sworn to give evidence on his own behalf. He deposed that he was a chauffeur and had a licence. He had previously been in the Army. He had been to Boston and New York, and also to Paris, and returned on the 23rd March. He got his baggage examined and hurried out of the station. He met a fellow with a suitcase and a bag, who was about 30, and wearing a motor coat. They went to the Clarendon Hotel and had two drinks, for which he paid. The man went out and left the bag in the saloon bar. He picked it up and waited five minutes, and went to the Harbour Inn, when Tiddy helped him to the Clarence. On the following morning he took the papers out of the bag. He swore he never stole the bag.

He was cross-examined.

Both counsel addressed the jury.

The Recorder summed up, and the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

 

Folkestone Express 20 April 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, April 15th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Mr. Charles Smith, 26, a traveller, was indicted for stealing a leather brief bag, valued at 15s., the property of the S.E. and C. Railway Company Managing Committee, on March 23rd. Mr. Gordon prosecuted on behalf of the Railway Company, and Mr. A.E. Wetton (instructed by Mr. H.J. Myers) defended.

Smith was on bail, and when his name was called out at the opening of the Court no response was made to it.

Mr. Wetton said he had not the slightest idea where Smith was.

It transpired that Canon Hitching, who was at Falmouth, stood as bail for Smith in the sum of 20.

The Recorder said all he could do was estreat the recognisance.

Mr. Wetton said it was just possible Smith might turn up later.

The Recorder decided to postpone taking any step until lunchtime.

Eventually Smith turned up, and when he answered to his name the Recorder questioned him as to the reason he was late. He replied that he journeyed as far as Hastings the previous night and he thought he had plenty of time to get there that morning. He had to change at Ashford, where he had to wait for over an hour, and he did not arrive until half past eleven.

The Recorder said his recognisances had already been estreated.

Smith pleaded Not Guilty to the charge.

William Joseph Shorter, clerk in the cloakroom at the Harbour Railway Station said on March 23rd a gentleman named Hake left the leather brief bag (produced) with him. He produced the counterfoil of the receipt for it. He placed the bag on the shelf. He left the room about half past seven in the evening and the bag was on the shelf. He turned the key in the door and left it in the keyhole.

The Recorder said that was a most extraordinary thing to do.

Witness, continuing, said he returned in a few minutes. He left the room again about half past nine, locking the door and leaving the key in the door. He went to the pier to attend to the boat, and returned to the room about ten o'clock. Mr. Hake arrived a few minutes afterwards, and the bag was then missed.

Cross-examined, witness said he followed the usual custom in locking the door and leaving the key in it.

Henry Reader, a shunter, of 24, Thanet Gardens, said he saw the bag on the shelf between half past eight and nine o'clock on March 23rd.

Harry Jordan, a ticket collector at the Harbour Station gave evidence as to the boat arriving at 9.40 on the evening of March 23rd.

Detective Johnson said on March 26th he saw the prisoner in Dover Road carrying a large bag. He was with P.C. Butcher, and he told the prisoner that he was making inquiries as to a bag taken from the Harbour Station cloakroom. He took the prisoner to the police station while he made inquiries, and then went to the Clarence Hotel, where he was shown a bedroom which was occupied by the prisoner. He there found the bag (produced), which was later identified by Shorter. When charged, the prisoner made a statement, which was taken down by the Chief Constable, and which was to the effect that as he was coming off the boat he met a man who asked him where he could be put up. Hey then went to the first public house in Tontine Street where they had a drink. He told the man that he was stopping at the Clarence. The man went out and left the bag standing in the corner. After waiting for a time he took the bag with his own bags and went to the Clarence.

Evidence was given by Mr. T.C. Hall, landlord of the Harbour Inn, of the prisoner coming to his house and inquiring if anyone would carry his bags to his lodgings, and James Tiddy, a carpenter, told the Court how he acted as porter for the prisoner. He described how the prisoner asked him if he wanted a drink, and continuing, said “I, of course....”

The Recorder: Refused. (Laughter)

Tiddy: No. Being an Englishman, I had one. (Renewed laughter)

Winifred Schlesselman, the wife of the landlord of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, told the Court how the prisoner came to the house and engaged a bedroom, and also that on Sunday morning he went to Dover. She further stated that after he had gone on Sunday morning she found in the room where the prisoner had breakfast a small brown paper parcel, which contained several documents bearing the name of Hake. A postcard, addressed to William Hake, Harringay Park, Crouch End, was amongst them.

Prisoner gave evidence on his own behalf, and said he had been in the Army. He had since acted as a chauffeur. Last year he went to Boston and New York, returning from there because of the death of his mother. In January he went to stay with some friends at Brighton, and later he went to Paris to learn the language. Living was so dear he could not stay. Canon Hitching was paying for him to be there. He came to Folkestone on the 23rd March, arriving about twenty minutes to ten by the boat. When he landed he simply hurried along to where he was going to stay. He last stayed at the Clarence fifteen months ago. He was just turning the corner near the Pavilion Hotel when a man about thirty years of age, a little taller than himself, stopped him and asked him where he could be put up. He told him he was going to put up at the Clarence Hotel. They went into the Clarendon Hotel to have a drink. The man left the place, and the bag was left in the corner where they had been standing. He waited for a time for the man's return, and as he did not come back he took the bag with him. He went to the Harbour Hotel and got a man to help him with the three bags to the Clarence. On Sunday and Monday he went to Dover in order to get letters which were addressed to him there. The papers came out when he opened the bag, and he did not know they were addressed to Mr. Hake. He expected the man to call for his bag, as he knew where he was going to stay. That was the reason he did not give information to the police.

Mr. Gordon cross-examined the prisoner at some length.

Both counsel addressed the jury, Mr. Wetton, for the defence, stating that the prisoner was the plant of an expert luggage thief, who got rid of the bag in the manner the prisoner had described by giving it to an innocent man.

After the Recorder had summed up, the jury, after a few minutes' consultation, announced that they found the prisoner Not Guilty. The Recorder thereupon told Smith he could go.

 

Folkestone Herald 20 April 1912.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, April 15th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Charles Smith, 26, traveller, was indicted for stealing, on the 23rd March, 1912, at Folkestone, one brief bag, of the value of 15s., the property of the South Eastern and Chatham Railway Company Managing Committee. Mr. R.A. Gordon, instructed by Messrs. H.H. Groves, London, prosecuted on behalf of the S.E. and C.R. Company, and Mr. Ernest Wetton, instructed by Mr. H.J. Myers, appeared for the defence.

Prisoner, who was allowed out on bail on the 9th April, was called but there was no answer.

Mr. Gordon asked that the recognisances be estreated.

The Recorder: Where is he (meaning Smith)?

Mr. Wetton: I do not know, sir. He may be at Brighton.

The Recorder was informed upon inquiry that Canon Hitchin stood bail for the accused before the Justices for 20.

The Recorder: We had better have that 20 from the Canon.

Mr. Gordon said it could only be executed during the sitting of those sessions.

The Recorder: All I can do is to estreat the recognisances. Turning to Mr. Wetton, he asked if the prisoner had been seen, and when he had been seen last.

Mr. Wetton replied that prisoner was seen the previous Tuesday or Wednesday.

The Recorder: We had better postpone taking any steps until the end of the session, until after lunchtime.

The case was therefore adjourned at this juncture.

During the afternoon the accused arrived at the Court, and the case was taken last.

Mr. Gordon, in outlining the case, stated that the prisoner had made the following statement: “I came off the boat on Saturday night, but when I got outside, a few yards away from the station, I came across a fellow standing with some luggage. He asked me if I knew where to put up. We got round as far as the first public house in Tontine Street. We had a drink. I told him I should stay at the Clarence, where I had stayed before. He went over to another hotel facing the station. When he had gone, there was that bag standing in the corner, so I came outside and stood for a quarter of an hour, and then took the bag with me into the Clarence. I put up there, and came and walked down Tontine Street. After having told him where I was going to put up, I naturally thought he would come up there to me”.

William Joseph Shorter, a clerk in the cloakroom at the Harbour Railway Station, deposed that on Saturday, 23rd March, between four and half past, the bag (produced) was brought in and deposited in the name of Hake. He produced a carbon copy of the ticket given to the man. He placed the bag on the shelf. He first left the cloakroom after it had been deposited at about 7.30 for five minutes, locking the door, but leaving the key in the door. He did not notice whether the bag was there or not when he returned. He left the cloakroom next at 9.30, again locking the door and leaving the key in the door. He went to attend the arrival of the boat, returning at about ten o'clock. A few minutes later Mr. Hake returned for his bag. Witness searched for it, but was unable to find it, and communicated with the police.

Cross-examined, witness said it was the usual way in which he left the cloakroom door. The cloakroom was not in a very conspicuous situation.

Henry Reader, a shunter, said he was in the cloakroom on the night in question, when he noticed the bag produced, between half past eight and nine o'clock, on the shelf. He noticed the bag because it was a new one.

Harry Jordan, collector at Folkestone Harbour, deposed that on the night in question, the 23rd March, the Boulogne boat arrived at 9.40 p.m.

Detective Oficer Johnson said that at about 7.45 on the evening of the 26th March he was in Dover Road, where he saw the prisoner carrying a large bag. Witness was accompanied by P.C. Butcher, and followed the prisoner into the saloon bar of the Clarence Hotel. He told the prisoner that he was a police officer engaged on inquiries regarding a bag missing from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station. Accused said “I bought this bag four months ago in New York”. Witness took him to the station, and returned to the Clarence Hotel. He inspected the room occupied by the prisoner, and saw a portmanteau and the brief bag (produced). He took possession of the brief bag and returned to the police station. It was finally identified by witness Shorter. Witness returned and charged prisoner, cautioned him, and he made the statement read out by prosecuting counsel.

Thomas Cornelius Hall, landlord of the Harbour Hotel, Harbour Street, stated that on the evening of the 23rd March, at about half past nine, the prisoner came into the entrance of the hotel leading to the saloon bar, and asked for a man to carry his things up Dover Street. Witness went into the public bar and asked for someone to take the bags, and a man named Tiddy volunteered to do so. Tiddy joined prisoner in the passage entrance to the saloon bar. Witness was certain that there were no bags in the passage before the prisoner arrived.

James Tiddy said he was a carpenter, and remembered the evening of the 23rd March, when the landlord asked for someone to take a gentleman's bags up Dover Street. Witness volunteered to do so, and joined the prisoner in the entrance to the saloon bar. They had a drink before starting. Witness carried one bag and one portmanteau, but the prisoner carried the brief bag himself. They had a drink at the Brewery Tap, halfway up Tontine Street, and another when they arrived at the Clarence. They might be sure that the porter did not pay for the drinks. (Laughter) During the whole time witness was with prisoner there was no other man present.

Mrs. Winifred Elizabeth Sclesselman said that she was wife of the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. Prisoner came to the hotel on Saturday, 23rd March. Witness had seen him before. He had two small bags and a portmanteau with him, which he took upstairs to his room. He went out again, and returned at about 11. The following day he left the house at about ten, and told her he was going to Dover. Witness later saw a small brown paper parcel, containing, amongst other things, a letter and railway guide (produced). There was also a paper with the name of Hake upon it. Witness saw the prisoner on the Monday morning, when she spoke to him about these documents. He said he had brought the parcel down to throw it away.

Cross-examined: Prisoner had stayed at her house about twelve months before.

Prisoner, on oath, said he was 26 years of age. He had been in the Army, and had studied for a chauffeur. He had never been convicted of any crime in his life. On the 23rd March he left Paris at 2.29 for England, and arrived by the Boulogne boat at 9.40. After he arrived he was hurrying along to get to Tontine Street. He had his bag examined by the Customs, and inquired the way out, as he had never been to Folkestone Harbour Station before in his life. When he got out of the station he overtook a fellow with a suitcase and the bag produced. He was about thirty, a little taller than witness, and was wearing a brown covert coat. They went to the Clarendon Hotel, in Tontine Street. They had a conversation, principally over the trip, and had two drinks together, for which witness paid. The man then said something about going to the hotel opposite, and left. After he had gone witness noticed a bag in the corner. He brought it out with his luggage, and stood for some five minutes on the kerb, waiting to see if the man came back. He then wandered down the road, and went into the Harbour Hotel, where he saw Tiddy, whose evidence was quite correct. He did not trouble anything about the bag that night, and did not know what was in it. He opened the bag next morning, but could not say how the papers got out of it. Hey must have got mixed up with some of his own. He did not know what they were. He went to Dover on Sunday morning, because he had his letters addressed to the General Post Office. He returned the same day, and on Monday he again went to Dover. He did not from first to last steal this bag from the cloakroom at the Harbour Station. He had no idea of stealing it.

Cross-examined: The papers got on the dressing table somehow or other; they must have got mixed up with some others. The landlady did point out some documents, and he said that he had brought them down to throw away.

Mr. Gordon argued that the prisoner's story was a concoction from beginning to end, and that he did not come into possession of the bag honestly.

Mr. Wetton submitted that there was no evidence before them to prove that accused did steal the bag, and contended that it had been stolen by a luggage thief, who, finding there was nothing in it of any value, passed it on to the prisoner in the way that he had described.

The jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty and the prisoner was liberated.

 

Folkestone Daily News 25 May 1912.

Friday, May 24th: Before Mr. J. Stainer and Messrs. Swoffer, Linton, Boyd, and Leggett.

The landlord of the Clarence Inn was granted one hour's extension on the occasion of the first annual dinner of the Buffaloes at his house. It transpired that the majority of the Clarence Buffaloes were Hussars, and as they could not put in an appearance until late in the evening the extension was applied for.

 

Folkestone Herald 1 February 1913.

Friday, January 31st: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Major Leggett, Mr. R.J. Linton, and Mr. G. Boyd.

The licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was temporarily transferred from Mr. Schlesselman to Mr. J.M. Moring.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 February 1913.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 12th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Major Leggett, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, and Mr. G. Boyd.

The licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was transferred to Mr. Morley. A provisional transfer was granted recently.

 

Folkestone Express 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

At the annual licensing sessions seven licences were deferred to the adjourned sessions, which were held at the Town Hall on Monday. The Magistrates on the Bench were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Hamilton, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, W.J. Harrison, J.J. Giles, E.T. Morrison and A. Stace Esqs.

The Magistrates agreed to the transfer of the following licence: The Clarence Hotel to Mr. Mooring.

 

Folkestone Herald 15 March 1913.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

The adjourned Annual Folkestone Licensing Sessions were held at the Police Court on Monday, when the licences of the seven houses deferred at the Annual General Sessions came up for hearing. Mr. E.T. Ward was in the chair, and he was supported by Mr. W.G. Herbert, Lieut. Colonel C.J. Hamilton, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Captain Chamier, Mr. J.J. Giles, Councillor W.J. Harrison, Mr. E.T. Morrison and Councillor A. Stace.

The Chief Constable stated that since the Annual Sessions two licences had been transferred, one, the South Foreland, to Mrs. Jordan, widow of the late licensee, and the other, the Clarence Hotel, to Mr. Mooring. The transfers were sanctioned.

 

Folkestone Express 9 August 1913.

Monday, August 4th: Before The Mayor, J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, A Stace, and E.T. Morrison Esqs.

Horace Summers Fitch was charged with begging. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Allen said at 3.45 on Saturday afternoon he saw the prisoner in Tontine Street, accosting foot passengers. He heard him ask a gentleman for a copper, saying he was hard up. The gentleman gave him something, and he went straight into the Clarence Hotel and had a glass of beer. On returning to the street, he commenced to accost other foot passengers, from whom he saw him receive some money. He therefore took him into custody. Prisoner had tenpence in coppers in his possession.

Prisoner said he had done no work for four days, and was making his way to Ashford.

The Mayor said the Magistrates were perfectly satisfied that if the prisoner liked to work he could get work, and was strong enough to do it. He would have to go to prison for twenty one days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Herald 9 August 1913.

Saturday, August 2nd: Before The Mayor, Alderman T.J. Vaughan, and Captain Chamier.

Horace Summers Fitch was charged with placing himself to beg.

P.C. Allen deposed to seeing prisoner accost foot passengers in Tontine Street on Saturday afternoon. Witness heard him ask one gentleman for a copper, saying he was hard up. Witness received something, and went straight over to the Clarence Hotel, where he had a glass of beer. He afterwards returned to the street, where he again began to accost foot passengers. Witness saw him receive money from several of them, and took him into custody.

Prisoner said he had had no work for four days. He was trying to make his way to Ashford.

The Mayor said prisoner could get work if he tried. He was quite strong enough to work. He would be sentenced to 21 days' hard labour.

 

Folkestone Express 1 November 1913.

Monday, October 27th: Before W.G. Herbert, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, and A. Stace Esqs.

Cecil Coward was charged with stealing a sovereign, the property of Mr. Moring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel.

John Melbourne Moring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, said the prisoner was in his employment as potman, entering his service about September 23rd. On October 1st, about half past six in the evening, he handed the prisoner a sovereign and told him to go to Mr. Ross to get a pound's worth of coppers in exchange for it. He left his house at once, as if to go on the errand, but he never returned. He had not seen the prisoner since until that day. He took out a warrant on October 2nd for the prisoner's arrest. He had no knowledge of the prisoner before he took him into his employment. Coward was on the road at the time. He supplied the prisoner with clothing, and paid him 4s. a week and his board and lodgings to start with.

Det. Sergt. Johnson said about four o'clock the previous afternoon he saw the prisoner at the Southampton police station and told him who he was. He asked the prisoner his name, and he replied “Cecil Coward”. He told him he had a warrant for his arrest, and read it over to him. Prisoner replied “Quite right. I did not think they would find me up here”. He brought him to the Folkestone police station, where, on being charged, he made no reply.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said he would like, if the Bench were satisfied with the evidence against the prisoner, to strongly impress upon them the necessity of dealing with the prisoner in a rather different manner to which they did the majority of such cases. As they saw, prisoner was a strong, healthy, and sturdy youth. He had been driven away from home, and for the past two years he had been drifting about the country, staying in lodging houses. He had been convicted of three or four trivial offences, and he (Mr. Reeve) felt most strongly that was a case which should be dealt with by the Borstal treatment. Coward's parents would not have anything to do with him. It seemed to him a very great mistake to give the prisoner a short sentence – a month or six weeks.

The prisoner belonged to Yorkshire, and his father was a respectable working man.

Committed to the Quarter Sessions.


 

Folkestone Herald 1 November 1913.

Monday, October 27th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, and Councillor Harrison.

Cecil Coward was charged with stealing a sovereign, the money of his employer, John Melbourne Mooring.

Mr. Mooring, landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, said that the prisoner was in his employ as potman. He entered witness's service about September 23rd. On October 1st, at about 6.30 p.m., witness gave him a sovereign, and told him to go to Mr. Ross's in Tontine Street, and get a sovereign's worth of coppers. He at once left the house as though to go on the errand, but did not return, and prosecutor had not seen him since until that day. He took out a warrant for his arrest the following day. Prosecutor had no knowledge of prisoner before he employed him. Accused was on the road at the time. Witness supplied him with clothing, and gave him 4s. a week and his board and lodgings.

Det. Sergt. Johnson deposed that about 4 p.m. the previous day he saw prisoner at Southampton police station. He told him he was a detective sergeant of the Folkestone police, and asked him his name. Prisoner said “Cecil Coward”. Witness informed him that he had a warrant for his arrest, and read it over to him. Accused replied “Quite right; I did not think they would find me up here”. When formally charged at Folkestone he made no reply.

The Chief Constable said if the Magistrates were satisfied with the evidence, he wanted to strongly impress upon them the necessity of dealing with the prisoner in a rather different manner from that in which they dealt with similar cases. Prisoner was 19 years of age, a strong, healthy, sturdy fellow, and had been driven from home two years ago. He had since drifted about the country, living in common lodging houses. He had been convicted three or four times for trivial offences in various parts of the country. He (Mr. Reeve) thought it was a case for the Borstal treatment. The lad's parents would have nothing to do with him. He (the Chief Constable) had communicated with them through the local police, and it was impossible to assist prisoner any further. It would be a mistake, he thought, to give the boy a short sentence. He belonged to Yorkshire, his father being a respectable working man.

Prisoner was committed to take his trial at the next Quarter Sessions.

 

Folkestone Express 29 November 1913.

Wednesday, November 26th: Before W.G. Herbert, G. Boyd, E.T. Morrison, G.I. Swoffer and J.J. Giles Esqs.

James Powell, a private in the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, was charged with breaking three panes of glass, valued at 1, at the Clarence Hotel, and with assaulting the landlord. He pleaded Not Guilty to both charges.

John Albert Morley said he was the landlord fo the Clarence Hotel. The previous evening, about 10.50, the prisoner went in with two other soldiers and ordered three beers. He refused to serve him, as he thought he had had enough. Thereupon prisoner became very disorderly, and would not leave the premises. Witness went out to look for a constable, but could not find one. When he returned he saw prisoner deliberately break the glass with his clenched fist, and he then hit witness twice, drawing blood. He then left the bar, leaving his comrades, and witness followed him. When he arrived at Harvey Street he gave him in charge. He had not done anything to defendant to annoy him, and only refused him drink. He valued the glass at 1.

Sidney Morley, son of the last witness, corroborated his statement, and added that prisoner had tried to climb into the bar, but he pushed him back.

P.C. Thorne said about 11.10 the previous evening he was on duty in Harvey Street, when he saw the prisoner being followed by Mr. Morley, who spoke to him, and prisoner ran away. In consequence of what Mr. Morley told him, he gave chase and caught defendant in an alley in Charlotte Street. Prisoner said “I'll come with you”, and on being charged at the police station he said “The landlord did it with a pint” – meaning a measure.

Prisoner said he broke the glass accidentally, for the landlord's son had a ring on his finger, and he struck him, the ring hurting him. He went to hit back, and accidentally put his fist through the glass.

An officer from the regiment said the prisoner's character was bad. There were no previous civil convictions.

The Chairman said the prisoner would have to pay 1 for the damage and 6s. 6d. costs, or 21 days' imprisonment, and for the assault 21 days without the option of a fine.

Prisoner said he could not pay, so he went to prison for six weeks.

 

Folkestone Herald 29 November 1913.

Wednesday, November 26th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.J. Giles, and Mr. E.T. Morrison.

James Powell, a private in the Royal Warwickshire Regiment, was charged with wilfully breaking some glass panes at the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, and with assaulting the proprietor, Mr. John Melbourne Morely (sic). He pleaded Not Guilty on both charges.

Mr. John Melbourne Morely, the proprietor, stated that at about 10.50 the previous evening, prisoner, accompanied by two other soldiers came in and called for “Three beers”. Witness refused to serve him because he was then under the influence of drink. Accused then became very violent, and witness asked him to leave, but he refused. Witness went outside to try and find a constable, but could not, and as it was eleven he returned, and again asked the prisoner to leave. Accused then quite deliberately struck the panes of glass, breaking them. He also struck two other men, and then hit witness twice on the face. Prisoner went out and witness fastened the doors, after which accused tried to get in again, breaking the panels of the door. Witness followed prisoner down the street, and after some time he met a constable, giving Powell into custody.

Mr. Sidney Melbourne Morely, said he was in the bar at the time of the occurrence. After his father had refused prisoner drink, accused asked witness to serve him, but he also refused. Witness saw prisoner deliberately break three panes of glass, and afterwards prisoner tried to get at witness to strike him. He did do so, and it was with difficulty that witness prevented prisoner from coming round behind the bar, where he would have done much damage.

P.C. Thorne deposed to seeing prisoner in Harbour Street at about 11.10, closely followed by the first witness. From what Mr. Morely said to him he followed prisoner, who ran away. Witness caught him at the rear of Charlotte Street. Powell was under the influence of drink, but was not drunk.

Prisoner denied that he was drunk, and said that when he went into the Clarence he asked for three glasses of beer, but was refused. The previous witness said to him “If you don't go outside, I'll knock you outside”, striking him on the chin. Prisoner tried to hit back, and broke the pane of glass.

Mr. Morely said the damage amounted to 1.

An officer said there were no civil convictions against prisoner, but he bore a bad character.

The Chairman said prisoner had really committed two assaults. He would have to pay 1 damages, 10s. fine, and 6s. 6d. costs, or twenty one days' for breaking the glass, and would go to prison for twenty one days without the option of a fine for the assault. If he did not pay the fine, the sentences would run consecutively.

 

Folkestone Daily News 5 January 1914.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 5th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Cecil Coward, 19, described as a seaman, pleaded Guilty to an indictment charging him with stealing a sovereign on October 1st from his master, John Melbourne Mooring.

Mr. Wardley represented the Crown, and called the Chief Constable, who said that in the present case prisoner was very kindly taken in and clothed by the prosecutor. In a few days prisoner absconded with a sovereign. Eventually he was arrested in a common lodging house at Southampton. His parents, very respectable people of Doncaster, could do nothing with him. In 1906 he was sent to a training ship; in 1911 he was charged with stealing old iron, and bound over; in June, 1912, he was given 14 days' for stealing boots at Doncaster; in June, 1913, at Morpeth, he obtained a situation with a fishmonger, and upon being sent out with a load of fish, sold one barrel of fish, absconded with the money, and turned the horse and cart loose into a field.

Major King gave reasons why accused should be dealt with under the Borstal system.

The Recorder addressed some kindly words of advice to the accused, and in sentencing him to three years' detention under the Borstal system, said that what he was doing was in the lad's own interest.

 

Folkestone Express 10 January 1914.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 5th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Cecil Coward, 19, seaman, pleaded Guilty to feloniously stealing 1, the property of John Melbourne Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, on October 1st.

Mr. J.A.L. Wardley prosecuted on behalf of the Crown, and stated Coward went to the Clarence Hotel at the end of September, and Mr. Mooring took him on as a potman. On Oct. 1st Mr. Mooring told him to take a sovereign to Mr. Rozzi's and get change for it. He did not come back, and the prosecutor had neither the sovereign, nor the change. When arrested at Southampton, prisoner said “All right. I did not think you would find me up here”. The prisoner had no character with him when Mr. Mooring took him in his employ.

Mr. Reeve, the Chief Constable, said the prisoner was 19 years of age, and for some time had been tramping the country. He came to Folkestone and obtained employment with Mr. Mooring, who provided him with clothing and gave him a good start. He made enquiries after the prisoner had absconded, and for some time was unable to find any trace of him, until he was found in a lodging house at Southampton. He ascertained that prisoner's father was a very respectable working man employed by the Great Northern Railway at Doncaster. For some time his parents had had nothing to do with him owing to his conduct. In 1906 he was taken before the Doncaster Borough Justices by his parents as being beyond their control, and he was sent to a training ship until he was 18 years of age. At 16 a situation was found for him, from which, however, he absconded. He returned home, and his parents placed him in a Sailors' Home at Newcastle-on-Tyne. He, however, ran away, and was knocking about the country for some time. He was eventually found sleeping out at Doncaster. On that occasion, when before the Magistrates, he was discharged with a caution. He went off again on tramp, and on December 27th, 1911, he was charged at Liverpool with stealing a quantity of old iron. He was bound over and handed over to the probation officer, who sent him back to Doncaster. On January 4th, 1912, he was charged with stealing a pair of boots at Doncaster, and sentenced to 14 days' hard labour. On 18th June, 1913, after tramping the country for some time, he turned up at Morpeth, and obtained a situation with a fishmonger, who sent him one day with a cart load of fish to an adjacent village. The prisoner sold one barrel of fish, turned the horse and cart loose in a field, and absconded with the money. For that he was sentenced to seven days' hard labour. He the appeared to have gone on tramp, and was next heard of in Folkestone.

Major Knox, the Governor of Canterbury Prison, was called, and said he had made enquiries in that case. He had a little additional information to that given them by the Chief Constable. The prisoner had told him that in between those periods when he was on tramp, he once did three month's work in a colliery. His father had written to say that he was very sorry to say his son would not reform, for he had tried him many times. The prisoner was 19 years old on June 2nd, 1913.

The Recorder: I suppose the longer period in Borstal is the better?

Major Knox said that would be the better course for the prisoner, who, if he did all right, could get out sooner. It was not necessary for him to be there the full period.

The Recorder said he had heard from several judges that three years was a much better period than two years.

Major Knox: That is so.

Prisoner had nothing to say.

The Recorder said he regretted that one bearing such an honoured name as his own should stand in the dock before him, and that he should have to sentence him. The prisoner had pleaded Guilty to felony. What he (the Recorder) was going to do was in his (the prisoner's) best interests. He might not think so, but possibly a year hence, when he had time for reflection, that it was the best thing he could do. They wanted to save him, to make him lead an honourable life again, and hold his head up as a good citizen. He was going to send him to Borstal, where he would be detained for a period of three years. It might seem a long time to him, but it would pass pleasantly if he tried to lead a new life, and tried to become a good citizen, and learned the trades that would be taught him. If the Governors of Borstal prison were of opinion that he had earned his liberty, and was fit to become a good citizen, he would be released in a much shorter period.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 January 1914.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, January 5th: Before J.C. Lewis Coward Esq.

Cecil Coward, 19, seaman, was indicted for, on 1st October, 1913, then being a servant to John Melbourn Mooring, stealing one sovereign, the property of his master. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mr. Wardley, prosecuting for the Crown, said prisoner was employed as potman by Mr. Mooring, landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road. On the 1st October, Mr. Mooring told accused to take 1, and go to Mr. Ross's, in Tontine Street, and get change for it. The accused did not come back, and the prosecutor had not seen the sovereign or the change since. He believed the Chief Constable knew something about the prisoner's antecedents. When he was arrested at Southampton accused said “All right. I did not think you would find me out here”.

The Chief Constable said the prisoner for some time had been tramping the country. He came to Folkestone and obtained employment with the prosecutor. Mr. Mooring provided him with clothing and gave him a good start. Witness made inquiries after the accused absconded, and for some time was unable to find any address. Eventually he was discovered in a lodging house in Southampton. He (the Chief Constable) had ascertained that his father was a very respectable working man employed by the Great Northern Railway at Doncaster. For some time his parents had had nothing to do with him owing to his conduct. In 1906 he was taken before the Borough Justices at Doncaster by his parents as being beyond their control, and he was sent to a training ship. At 16 a situation was found for him, but he absconded. He returned home, and his parents placed him in a sailors' home in Newcastle-on-Tyne, but he ran away. He then knocked about the country for some time. On the 29th December, 1911, he was charged at Liverpool with stealing a quantity of old iron. He was bound over and handed to the Probation Officer, who sent him back home to Doncaster. On the 4th January, 1912, he was charged with stealing a pair of boots, for which he was sentenced to 14 days' hard labour. On the 18th June, 1913, after tramping the country for some time, he turned up at Morpeth, and obtained a situation with a fishmonger, who sent him one day to an adjoining village. The prisoner sold one barrel of fish, then turned the horse and cart loose in a field, and absconded with the money. (Laughter)

The learned Recorder: It is nothing to laugh about. You need no laugh.

The Chief Constable, continuing, said that prisoner was sentenced to seven days' hard labour for that offence. He then appeared to have gone on tramping, and came on to Folkestone. He (Mr. Reeve) understood that the Governor of the gaol recommended the accused for the Borstal treatment.

Major J.S. Knox (Canterbury Gaol) confirmed all that the Chief Constable had said. His father had said “I am very sorry. He will not reform. I have tried him very many times”.

In answer to the Recorder, witness agreed that the longer period in Borstal the better, and thought that three years would be better than two.

The Recorder said he regretted to see one bearing his honoured name standing before him. He was going to put him away for a long time, and it was in his (the prisoner's) best interests, though he might not think so now. They wanted to save him, to make him lead an honourable life again, to hold up his head as a good citizen of the Kingdom. The sentence was that he should be detained for a period of three years in a Borstal prison. He should try to become a good citizen, and learn the trades that would be taught him. It might seem a long time, but it would pass pleasantly if he tried to lead a new life, and if within a shorter period the Governors of the Borstal prison were of opinion that he had earned his liberty, he would be released.

 

Folkestone Herald 31 January 1914.

Friday, January 30th: Before Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. G. Boyd, Councillor W.J. Harrison, and Mr. E.T. Morrison.

John Tappenden was summoned for being drunk on licensed premises.

P.C. Fox stated that on the 24th inst. he was called to the Clarence Hotel, where he saw defendant, who was drunk and staggering about in the bar. The barman said “Three times this man has been thrown out of this bar”. Witness ejected him twice.

Mr. Morley (sic), the landlord, corroborated.

Chief Constable Reeve said that there were 14 convictions against defendant since 1896.

Fined 10s. and 10s. costs, or fourteen days, and ordered to be bound over to be of good behaviour for six months in his own recognisance of 5 and one surety of 5, or in default one month's imprisonment. He was allowed until the next day to pay and find the surety.

 

Folkestone Express 7 February 1914.

Friday, January 30th: Before W.G. Herbert, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison Esqs.

John Tappenden was summoned for being drunk on the licensed premises of the Clarence Hotel. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Fox said at about 10.30 on the 24th he was called to the Clarence Hotel and in the public bar he saw the defendant, who was drunk, staggering about. The landlord told him that the defendant had been turned out of the house three times, but had come back again. He (witness) advised the defendant to go out, but he refused, so he assisted in his ejection. A man took the defendant home. A few minutes later he saw Tappenden go into the same bar. He (witness) heard the landlord request him to leave, but as he would not go he ejected the man. A woman came up and took Tappenden away.

Defendant said he owned he had had a few drinks.

Mr. Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, said the defendant came into the public bar drunk, and asked to be served. Seeing he was the worse for drink he would not serve the defendant, whom he requested to leave, He refused, and it took three quarters of an hour before they got defendant into the street. Defendant returned twice after, so he sent for the police.

The Chief Constable said there were 14 convictions recorded against the defendant since 1896. The last was in October, 1913, and there were three altogether last year. Tappenden was a local man, and was a good workman when he liked to work. When he was drunk he was a perfect fool. He (Mr. Reeve) had had numerous complaints from licence holders about the man refusing to leave their premises when he was in drink.

The Chairman said the defendant had a very bad record. By his action he put the licence holders in jeopardy, when they had a very serious and difficult duty to perform. Men like the defendant gave them a lot of trouble, and also put them in danger of being punished. They were going to give the defendant a salutary lesson. He would be fined 10/- and 10/- costs, or 14 days' hard labour, and he would also be bound over in the sum of 5 himself, and one surety of 5 to be of good behaviour for six months. In default of finding a surety, he would have to go to prison for one month, the sentences to run consecutively. Defendant would be allowed until the following day to get the money and find the surety.

Addressing Mr. Mooring, the Chairman said the Bench thought he had behaved very well in taking the action he did, and also for not serving him. He thought they could safely say the Bench did their best to assist the licence holders.

 

Folkestone Express 4 April 1914.

Monday, 30th March: Before Aldermen Vaughan, Spurger and Jenner, and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Louise Elgar (on bail) was charged with being drunk in charge of two children under the age of seven years on Saturday night in Dover Road.

Inspector Lawrence said on Saturday night he was near the Clarence Hotel in Dover Road when he saw a perambulator standing near the kerb in front of the hotel. Two children were in it and were crying. He went to the door of the bar of the hotel, and on opening it he saw Mrs. Elgar standing there. He asked her if she was in charge of the children, and she said she was. She came out of the house, and was very abusive to him. He then found she was drunk, and not fit to take charge of the children. With the assistance of P.C. Smoker he brought her to the police station. The ages of the children were two years and nine months.

Defendant: Had the Inspector any right to wrench the perambulator out of my hand and stand it in the kerb?

P.S. Burniston said when the prisoner was brought into the police station she was drunk.

Inspector Lawrence, re-called, said the woman could walk without assistance, but she was unfit to take charge of the children.

Defendant had nothing to say.

The Chairman characterised it as a very sad case, and said the defendant would have to pay a fine of 5/- and 5/6 costs.

 

Folkestone Express 3 April 1915.

Monday, March 29th: Before Lieut. Col. Fynmore and Colonel Owen.

Andrew Whitehouse, a private in the South Staffordshire Regiment, was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday evening. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Johnson said at 7.45 on Saturday evening he was in Dover Road, when he was called to the Clarence Hotel, where he found the prisoner drunk and fighting with another soldier. Whitehouse was ejected by some other soldiers, but when outside he continued to fight and make use of obscene language.

Prisoner said he was very sorry. It was the first crime he had against him, and it was the first time he had ever been in a police court.

Mr. Mooring, the landlord, said on Saturday evening his barmaid called him into the bar, as there was likely to be a fight between some soldiers. He went there, and noticed the prisoner amongst the men. He saw there was a squabble, and he tried to persuade the prisoner to go out. He would not go out, so he (witness) went to see if he could find a policeman. His barmaid refused to serve Whitehouse.

The Chairman said the Magistrates were very glad to hear that the man had been refused drink.

An officer from the regiment said that was the first time they had had the slightest trouble from Whitehouse. There was probably some misunderstanding, and it was very unfortunate that the prisoner got a little too much drink.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said that was the first case from the regiment.

The Magistrates discharged Whitehouse with a caution to behave better in future.

 

Folkestone Express 17 April 1915.

Tuesday, April 13th: Before R.J. Linton, A. Stace, G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison Esqs., and Rev. Epworth Thompson.

John M. Mooring was charged with allowing children under 14 years of age to be on his premises at the Clarence Hotel during the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The Magistrates' Clerk said that Mr. Haines was defending, and as he was engaged at the Quarter Sessions, he asked for an adjournment till Friday.

The case was adjourned till Friday.

Angelina Sutton and Mary Ann Bradford were summoned for allowing their children, under 14, to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors. They pleaded Guilty.

P.S. Sales said about 6.35 p.m. on April 5th he was on duty in Dover Road with P.C. Kennett, when he saw two empty perambulators outside the Clarence Hotel. He went into the hotel, and there, in a room at the back, he saw the two defendants with their children, with a glass of stout each. There were several soldiers in the room. He asked them what they were doing there with the children, and they said “We were asked in by the barmaid”. He told them that he would report them.

Defendants said they were asked in out of the rain by the barmaid.

The Chairman said it was a serious offence, but they were going to deal leniently with them. They would be fined 5/- each, and allowed a week to pay.

 

Folkestone Herald 17 April 1915.

Tuesday, April 13th: Before Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor A. Stace, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and Rev. Epworth Thompson.

John M. Mooring was summoned for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew) said he understood that Mr. G.W. Haines was appearing for defendant, but he was at present at the Quarter Sessions. He understood Mr. Mooring would like an adjournment.

The case was postponed till Friday.

Angelina Sutton was summoned for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors. She pleaded Guilty.

Sergt. Stiles said that about 6.35 p.m. on the 5th inst. he was in Dover Road in company with P.C. Kennett. He noticed two empty perambulators standing outside the Clarence Hotel. In company with P.C. Kennett he went in, and in a room at the back of the bar he saw the defendant and two other women with two children. He asked defendant what she was doing in there, and she replied that she was asked in there by the barmaid. He took her name and address, and told her he would report her for a summons. There was a number of soldiers also in the room at the time. He knew that the room was used as a bar. He would call it a private bar. The barmaid left the room as he came in. The women had three glasses of stout before them. The age of one child was 3 years, and the other seven months.

Defendant said she went in and asked for an umbrella. She was told she had not got one, and asked for two glasses of stout. The barmaid told her to go into a room at the back. She would not have gone into the room, only she was told. There was no-one in the room when she went in.

Mary Ann Bradford was summoned for a similar offence, and pleaded Guilty.

Sergt. Stiles gave similar evidence. When he saw defendant she had a glass of stout in front of her. She said she had been told to go in there by the barmaid.

Defendant said she went in there to ask for two umbrellas, as it was raining. As it was raining the barmaid asked us to go into the room at the back.

Sergt. Stiles, re-called, said the room was used exclusively for the sale of intoxicating liquors.

The Chairman said the defendants knew they had done something they should not have done. They should not have taken the children in. The Magistrates were going to be lenient with them. Defendants would be both fined 5s. each without costs, and allowed a week for payment.

Friday, April 16th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

John Melburn Mooring, the licensee of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, appeared in answer to an adjourned summons for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises during the sale of intoxicating liquors. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for the defence.

Sergt. Stiles repeated his evidence given in the case against the parents of the children on Tuesday. He now added that he had a conversation with Mrs. Sutton, and sent for the landlord (defendant). The landlord came into the room, and he said to him “What are these children doing in here, landlord?” He replied “They have no business in here”. He said to defendant that the women told him they were invited in there by the barmaid. He said “I am sure they were not; she knows her business better than that”. The barmaid later came into the room, and he said to the barmaid, in the presence of the landlord “These women say you invited them into the room”. She said “I asked them into the passage”. The passage was on the right and the bar was on the left. The room mentioned was mainly used for the purpose of the sale of intoxicating drinks. He would call it a tap room. He had visited it on a good many occasions, and generally found a good number of persons in there.

Cross-examined, witness said it was raining, and he was sure there were three women in the room. There were four bars attached to the premises. There were three drinking bars in the Dover Road.

John Melburn Mooring, the defendant, said he knew the provisions of the Children's Act. He kept a barman, a barmaid, and a potman to assist. The servant girl, Lillian Wooston, assisted in the bar sometimes when they were busy. He had seen that the Act was carried out, and the notice produced was exhibited in the room. He had got a similar notice up in the other bars. On the day in question he was visiting his various bars. He was at the top bar when someone came and told him the police sergeant wanted to speak to him. He had heard what the last witness had said, and it was correct. It was done quite without his knowledge, and if he had been there he would not have let them in. He had instructed his assistants with regard to the act. It was the barmaid's duty to look after the bar. His servant, Lillian Wooston, helped on this occasion. His barmaid had been with him for 18 months, and she had been serving for 8 months. It would be possible for a woman to get a drink at the wicket without the barmaid knowing that children were in the room.

Louisa Brook said she was barmaid at the Clarence Hotel, and had been there for eight months. At the time the servant was with her washing glasses. She had received instructions from defendant about not allowing children under 14 on licensed premises. There was no bell in the tap room, and people often came and fetched their drink. She could not see from the hatchway into the tap room. Mr. Mooring generally fetched away the glasses. On the evening in question she remembered two women coming in. They did not have any children with them. They asked for the servant Wooston. She did not serve any drinks from the hatchway, and she did not hear anyone ask for a drink. Wooston was washing glasses, and they were fairly busy at the time. A woman might come to her bar, and she might supply her without knowing that she had any children in the room. On this occasion Mr. Mooring was in the top bar.

Lillian Wooston, the servant, said that at any time she assisted at the bar. On Easter Monday she went into the Dover Road bar. She was washing up dirty glasses. She had no instructions for serving people; only when they were busy. She knew Mrs. Sutton, who was her cousin. On Easter Monday she came into the passage of the Clarence. She asked for an umbrella. Witness replied that she had not one, and then Mrs. Sutton asked for two stouts. She did not see any children. About five minutes later she came back from the kitchen, and said it would not do any harm to bring the children into the passage. Five minutes after she found the police and Mr. Mooring there.

Mr. Haines addressed the Bench for the defence. He said that the master of the house was not liable for any acts done by his servants.

The Chairman said the Bench considered the case was proved, and defendant would be fined 1.

 

Folkestone Express 24 April 1915.

Friday, April 16th: Before G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton. G. Boyd, and E.T. Morrison Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

James Milburn Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, was charged with permitting a child under 14 years of age to be on licensed premises.

P.S. Sales said at 6.35 p.m. on the 5th inst. he was in Dover Road when he saw two empty perambulators on the roadway near the Clarence Hotel. He, with P.C. Kennett, visited a room at the Clarence Hotel, and saw three women and four children. He saw Mrs. Sutton in charge of her child, named Angelina, who was apparently about three years of age. As he went into the room he saw the barmaid leave it. He had a conversation with Mrs. Sutton, and he sent for the landlord (the defendant), who came into the room. He asked him what the children were doing there, and he replied “They have no right in here”. He then told the defendant that the woman had informed him that the barmaid had asked them in, and he replied “I am sure she did not; she knows her business better than that”. The barmaid came into the room, and he said to her “These women say you asked them into this room”, and she replied “I asked them into the passage”. He told the landlord he should report him, and he replied “I did not know they were in here”. A passage from the Belle Vue Street entrance separated the room from the bar, and he should describe the room as a tap room. He had visited the room on a number of occasions, and he had always found people in it drinking.

Cross-examined, witness said the day was Easter Monday, and it was raining. There were four bars in the house, three of them being on the Dover Road side of the house.

Defendant went into the box. He said he knew the provisions of the Children's Act. He kept a barmaid, barman and potman and his wife and himself also helped, in addition to the servant, Lilian Wooston. In the room was the notice (produced) intimating that no child under the age of 14 was allowed in it. A similar notice was exhibited in all the rooms. On Easter Monday he was visiting the various rooms, and he saw P.S. Sales in the room. What he said was correct. What was done on that occasion was without his knowledge, and if he had known the child was there he should have ordered it out of the house. The barmaid was behind the bar. There was no-one in charge of the room that evening. It was the barmaid's duty to attend to the room, and a servant was there to wash up and collect the glasses. He had given the barmaid instructions not to allow children on the premises. For anyone in the room to get served with drink they would have to come out into the passage and knock at the wicket. It would be possible for a woman to get a drink at the wicket without the barmaid knowing who was in the room.

Louisa Brookes, the barmaid, said she had received instructions not to allow children on licensed premises, and had always acted up to those instructions. People in the particular room had to come to the wicket in the passage to get served. On the evening in question she remembered the two women coming in, but there were no children with them. They were friends of Lilian Wooston, for whom they asked. Wooston was washing glasses at the time. She did not serve anyone in the bar from the room. Mr. Mooring at the time had just gone up to the Peter Street bar, and was visiting all the rooms in the house.

Lilian Wooston said she was a domestic at the Clarence Hotel. On Easter Monday she was washing up in the bar. She had instructions to serve when they were busy. At half past six Mrs Sutton, who was a relative, came into the passage and asked her if she could lend her an umbrella or a Mackintosh, as it was raining, and her child was outside. She said she had not an umbrella or a Mackintosh, and just afterwards went down into the kitchen. Five minutes later she saw the two women with the children, and she told them to bring the children into the private passage, as it was pouring hard. Previous to that she served the women with a glass of stout each. She left the women and children in the private passage.

Mr. Haines contended that it must be proved that the defendant had knowledge that the children were there, and such knowledge had not been brought home to him. He submitted that the master was not responsible for the acts of his servant if done outside of the scope of their authority and against his distinct instructions.

The Chairman said the Bench were unanimously of opinion that the defendant had committed an offence, and he would be fined 1, or in default 14 days'.

Mr. Haines asked the Magistrates to state a case, as the defendant would probably appeal.

 

Folkestone Herald 19 June 1915.

Friday, June 18th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Alderman W. Dunk, Councillor C. Ed. Mumford, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

John Tappenden was summoned for refusing to quit licensed premises. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. J.M. Mooring, the licensee of the Clarence Inn, said that on Monday, about 1 o'clock, defendant was in the bar. He was very noisy, and he wanted some drink. Witness told his barmaid not to serve him. He asked defendant to leave the premises, but as he would not leave the barmaid put him out. He came in again, however, and witness sent for the police. In the meantime defendant left the premises. The police required him to lay information for the good name of his house.

Miss Louisa Brooks, the barmaid, gave corroborative evidence, and said that defendant was the worse for drink. Defendant had been in the bar previously in the morning, between 9.30 and 10 o'clock.

Defendant said he was sorry. He had a drop of drink, as he had a toothache.

Inspector Simpson (acting Chief Constable) said defendant had been there a good many times before. The last time he was before the Bench was in January last year.

The Bench fined defendant 1, or 14 days' imprisonment.

 

Folkestone Express 26 June 1915.

Friday, June 18th: Before J. Stainer Esq., and other Magistrates.

John Tappenden was summoned for refusing to quit the Clarence Hotel when requested to do so. He pleaded Guilty.

Mr. J.M. Mooring, the licensee of the Clarence Inn, said on Monday the defendant came into the house. He was very noisy, and wanted some drink. He told the barmaid not to serve him, and he also asked him to leave the premises. He would not do so. The barmaid then pushed the defendant out of the house, but he returned, so he (complainant) sent for the police. Tappenden left the house before the police arrived. He considered the defendant had had enough to drink.

Louisa Brooks, barmaid in the employ of Mr. Mooring, said she was in charge of the bar on Monday when the defendant came in the worse for drink. She asked him to leave the bar, but he asked for a drink. She refused to serve him, He got noisy, so she pushed him out of the bar and bolted the door. He, however, struck the glass panel in the door and broke it. Defendant had been in the house about half past nine in the morning, but he only had one drink then.

Tappenden said he was very sorry. He had the toothache and took one more drink that he thought to have done.

Inspector Simpson said the defendant had been there several times, but the last occasion was in January, 1914, when he was fined 10s. and bound over in the sum of 5 to be of good behaviour for six months. That was for being drunk on licensed premises.

The Magistrates imposed a fine of 10, or 14 days' hard labour, the Chairman remarking that they were determined to protect the licensed victuallers.

 

Folkestone Herald 25 September 1915.

Friday, September 24th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. H.C. Kirke, and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

John Melburn Mooring, the landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, was summoned for allowing intoxicating drink to be consumed on his premises after eight o'clock at night. Mr. G.W. Haines appeared for defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Burniston stated that on Thursday, 16th September, about 9.45, in consequence of what Corporal Russell, of the C.M.P., told him, he went to the side entrance of the Clarence, in Bellevue Street, with the corporal. The door was locked. Upon his ringing the bell, Mr. Mooring opened the door. Witness said “This officer has informed me that six soldiers and one woman have been on your premises since eight o'clock”. Defendant replied “Not to my knowledge. See my wife”. Mrs. Mooring came into the passage, and he repeated the same words to her. She said “I have taken in three soldiers who are on pass, and they have gone to bed”. Defendant heard this. Witness said he would make a search, and they all four, the defendant, Mrs. Mooring, the corporal, and himself, went upstairs to the top floor. On this landing there were four or five bedrooms, and each was numbered. He went into bedroom No. 12, accompanied by the others. There were two beds in the room, and he there found two Canadian soldiers, Pte. A. Baker and Pte. W. Sophie, of the C.M.R., stationed at Shorncliffe. They were lying on the beds; one was awake, and the other asleep. They had their tunics land puttees off. Corporal Russell asked if they were on pass, and they replied they were not. He looked round the room, and found under one of the beds a quart bottle, containing fresh ale. There were two glasses on the washstand, each containing a small quantity of fresh ale, with fresh froth adhering, as if recently drunk from. Mr. Mooring, when he discovered these men, said, “When these men entered the room they said they were on pass”. Witness then went to bedroom No. 11, and found the door locked. The door was opened by a woman named Bennett, who was in her nightdress. She was a prostitute. They all four entered the room, and under the bed Corporal Russell found Lance Corporal Clement Tyler. He was not dressed. His uniform was between the sheets. On the dressing table he found a bottle of fresh ale. There were also two glasses close by, and they appeared to have been recently used. There was also a bottle on the washstand, containing whisky. Whilst he was in this room Mrs. Mooring said “This woman has been with me for nine weeks as a visitor, occupying this room, and she must have smuggled this soldier here”. Defendant did not make any explanation. Witness then went to another bedroom, No. 13. He found there a Canadian soldier, who was on pass, he having four days' leave. The two in bedroom No. 12, and the man in No. 11 were arrested by the Military Police. The corporal had a drink from each bottle. Witness said to defendant and Mrs. Mooring: "This is fresh ale, and the liquor in the glasses is fresh. How do you account for it being up here?" Mrs. Mooring said: “It must have been left there by the people who occupied the bedroom No. 12 last night”. Witness’s question and Mrs. Mooring's answer referred to bedroom No. 12 only. There was no reference made to the liquor found in the woman’s room. Defendant at no time offered any explanation as to the drink being found up there. Witness then took possession of the bottles. He tasted the ale in both, and it was quite fresh.

Cross-examined, witness said the two soldiers in bedroom No. 11 did not say they had not had any beer. He appreciated the importance of the froth on the glasses. One bottle of ale was taken out from under the bed, and another bottle from the washstand. He did not know the two soldiers had paid for their room. The public bars of the hotel were in darkness.

In answer to the Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve), witness said that in bedroom No. 12 the bottle had not got the stopper in. The Corporal of the Military Police picked it up.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. J. Andrew), witness said the lance-corporal in the woman's room did not make any assertion that he had taken the loom for the night.

Corporal W. Russell, of the C.M.P., said on September 16th he saw that the bars of the Clarence Hotel, in Dover Road, were shut up at 8 p.m. About 8.10 p.m. he saw two soldiers go to the side door in Bellevue Street. One of them rang the bell, and about a minute later the light was switched on, and they were admitted. When they got inside, the light was put out, and the door locked. He continued his observation, and about 15 or 20 minutes later he saw the soldier and a woman go to the side door in Bellevue Street. The light was switched on, and they were admitted. The light was put out, and the door locked. He continued his observation, and next he saw the lights in two rooms over the side door were switched on and off at different intervals. He thought they were the same rooms which he visited later with P. S. Burniston. About twenty minutes later three soldiers went to the same door. The lights were switched on, and the three soldiers went in. The light was then switched off, and the door locked. Altogether after closing hour, he, saw six soldiers and one woman enter by that side door.

Witness corroborated P.S. Burniston's evidence, and added that Mr. Mooring said he had had trouble with the woman Bennett bringing soldiers there before. The woman had apologised and said she would bring no more. He could not see who opened the door.

P.C. Taylor deposed to seeing two soldiers leave the Clarence by a side door about 9.50 p.m. on September 16th. They were hurrying A few minutes before this he had seen P.S. Burniston an the street. He had left just a few minutes before.

Cross-examined, witness said the night was not particularly dark. He had been standing at the corner about five minutes.

Pte. Clement Tyler, of the 48th Highlanders (Canada), until recently lance-corporal, said he was stationed at Sandling. On Thursday, September 16th, he was in the Clarence Hotel, where he met a woman named Bennett. This was about 7.30. After having two drinks each, they left the front bar together about ten minutes afterwards. Later he accompanied the lady to the side door. The woman opened the door with a key, and they went up to a bedroom. When they reached the bedroom the woman left the room and returned about two minutes afterwards with a small bottle of whisky and two bottles of beer. They drank some of the beer, which was fresh. He only opened one bottle, and he did not think the second bottle was opened. Just before P.S. Burniston came in there was a knock at the door. The woman opened the door and picked up a tray with some food pn it. It was a woman's voice at the other side of the door. There was no drink on the tray. That took place about a quarter of an hour before the police arrived.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, witness said when he left the bar he was not sober. He had met this woman in the bar two nights before, but did not on that occasion accompany her to any other part of the house. He gave the woman no money at all.

Cross-examined, witness said when the food came up on the tray there was only one plate with one knife and fork. He was positive he went upstairs before eight o'clock. The bottles of beer were full. He was quite sure the woman brought two bottles, not one. He got under the bed because the woman told him to.

In reply to Mr. Andrew, witness said his meeting with the woman in the bar was accidental. He had not intended to stay at the Clarence Hotel all night till he had the conversation with Bennett. He did not ask the defendant or anyone acting for him for a bedroom for the night.

Mr. Haines said the case was a serious one, and needed careful handling. Considerable evidence had been given that morning which he knew nothing about. In the event of a conviction, his client might want to appeal at the Quarter Sessions. As they knew, the Quarter Sessions were on Monday, and he would like to have longer to consider his case than that. He asked them to adjourn the case to that day next week after the Quarter Sessions.

The Chairman said the case would be adjourned to Wednesday next.

 

Folkestone Express 2 October 1915.

Friday, September 24th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Col. Owen, H.C. Kirke Esq., and Alderman Pepper.

John Milburn Mooring was summoned for a breach of the Licensing Order, ordering the closing of licensed premises at eight o'clock, inasmuch as he permitted intoxicating drink to be consumed on his licensed premises after eight o'clock p.m. on September 16th. Mr. Haines, who appeared for the defendant, pleaded Not Guilty.

All witnesses in the case were ordered out of Court.

Police Sergeant Burniston said on Thursday evening, the 16th of September, about 9.45, he saw outside the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, Corporal Russell, of the Canadian Military Police. Defendant was the licensee of the Clarence. In consequence of something Corporal Russell told him, he went to the side entrance of the Clarence, in Bellevue Street. The door was locked, so he rang the bell, and the door was opened by Mr. Mooring. He said to him “This officer (meaning Corporal Russell) informs me that six soldiers and one woman have entered your premises since eight o'clock”. Corporal Russell was standing near at the time. Mr. Mooring replied “Not to my knowledge. See my wife”. Mrs. Mooring came into the passage, and he repeated to her what he had said previously. She said “I have taken in three soldiers who are on pass, and they have gone to bed”. He then said “We are going to make a search”. The Corporal, Mr. and Mrs. Mooring and he went upstairs, and on the second floor they went into bedroom No. 12, and found lying on two beds Pte. Alfred Baker and Pte. William Scobay, of the Canadian Mounted Rifles. The only clothing they had off was their tunics and boots. Corporal Russell asked them if they were on pass, and they said they had not one. He looked round the room and found a quart bottle which was half full of fresh ale. It was under the bed. There were also two glasses, which were standing on the washstand in the room, and each contained fresh froth of beer, indicating that they had been drunk out of. Mrs. Mooring told him that when the soldiers engaged the room they told her they were on pass. He had no doubt that the bottle and the glasses contained fresh ale. He went to No. 11 bedroom, the door of which was locked. He knocked at the door, which was opened by a woman named Bennett, a prostitute, in her nightdress. They entered the room, and under the bed, which had apparently been occupied, they found a Canadian Scot, named Lce. Corpl. Clement Tyler, who was in his shirt. Between the sheets of the bed he found the man's uniform. On the dressing table he found the bottle (produced), which contained a quantity of fresh ale. There were two glasses nearby, and he should say from the froth on them that they had recently been drank from. There was also a small bottle containing whiskey on the table. Whilst in the room, Mrs. Mooring said “This woman (meaning Bennett) has been occupying the room for nine weeks as a visitor, and she must have smuggled this soldier here”. Mr. Mooring made no comment. They proceeded to No. 13 bedroom, and found a Canadian soldier on pass. The three men without a pass were arrested by the military police for being absentees. The Corporal tasted the contents of each bottle, and he (witness) said to Mr. and Mrs. Mooring when on the landing “This ale is fresh, and the liquor found in the glasses is fresh. How do you account for it?” <rs. Mooring said “It must have been left there by the people who occupied the bedroom (No. 12) last night”. No reference was made to the drink found in the other rooms. He took possession of the bottles of drink. He did the same as the Corporal with regard to the tasting of the ale, which was quite fresh.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said the two men did not give any explanation of the drink being in the room. He did not know the two soldiers had paid for the room. The public bars of the hotel were in darkness, and he should say business was not going on in them.

Questioned by the Clerk, Sergt. Burniston said the soldier in the room No. 13 made no assertion that he had taken the room for the night.

Corporal William Russell, Canadian Military Police, said on Thursday, September 16th, he saw the bars of the hotel closed at eight o'clock. About ten minutes past eight he saw two soldiers go to the side door of the hotel in Bellevue Street. One of them rang the bell, and a minute later the door was opened and they were admitted. Afterwards the lights were switched off and the door was locked. About fifteen or twenty minutes after, a soldier and a woman went to the side door and rang the bell. They were admitted and the door was locked after them. The next thing he saw was the lights in the two rooms above the side door were switched on and off several times. He could not swear whether those were the same rooms he visited later with Sergt. Burniston. Twenty minutes after the woman and soldier entered, three more soldiers went to the door and were admitted. Altogether he saw six soldiers and one woman enter the house after closing time. At a quarter to ten, until which time he kept observation on the house, he saw Sergt. Burniston, with whom he went to the house. Witness then corroborated the Sergeant's evidence. He further stated that in the course of the conversation Mr. Mooring said that they had had trouble with the woman bringing a soldier there before, and she had apologised for doing so, and said it would not occur again. He did not know who opened the side door when the soldiers went there.

P,C, aylor said on Thursday evening, September 16th, at about 9.50, he was standing in Bellevue Street, opposite the Upper Clarence Tap, where there was a public bar, when he saw the door opened to two soldiers dressed in khaki come out and hurry towards the Dover Road. A few minutes previously he had left Sergt. Burniston in Bellevue Street.

Cross-examined, witness said he had no idea Sergt. Burniston was going to search the premises.

Clement Tyler, a private in the 48th Battalion, said until recently he was lance-corporal. On Thursday, September 16th, he was in teh Clarence Hotel, where he met a woman named Bennett in the bar about half past seven. They probably had two drinks. They left the front bar together ten minutes later, and went to the side entrance. The woman opened the door, and they went upstairs to a bedroom. Directly after they got into the room the woman went out, and was away about two minutes, returning with a small bottle of whiskey, similar to the one produced, and two quart bottles of beer. He drank some whiskey and beer, and the latter was fresh. He only opened one bottle of beer, and he did not think the other one was opened. Before the police came someone knocked at the door, and he heard a woman's voice. The woman Bennett got out of bed and opened the door, and she then brought a tray containing some meat and tomatoes and bread, which she consumed. There was no drink on the tray. That was about a quarter of an hour before the police came.

In reply to the Clerk, witness said when he left the bar he was the worse for drink. Two nights before he met the woman in the house, but he did not go to any other part of the house. He left the bar with the woman before closing time. He gave the woman no money at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Haines, witness said that only one plate was put on the tray, and only one knife and fork. He was positive that he did not mistake one bottle for two, although he was not sober. (Laughter)

The Clerk: What made you get under the bed?

Witness: The woman told me to.

Had you any intention to stay for the night in the hotel until you met the woman? – No.

Answering further questions, witness said he saw Mr. Mooring in the bar, but he did not ask him if he could have a bed there for the night.

Mr. G.W. Haines said that was a most serious case to his client, and it might involve, if the Magistrates convicted, some legal points being considered so that the defendant could appeal. The Quarter Sessions were fixed for Monday, which would only allow a few days. Therefore he asked the Magistrates to adjourn the case until after the Quarter Sessions.

The case was then adjourned until Wednesday.

On Wednesday, E.T. Ward Esq. and other Magistrates sat for over two hours hearing the evidence for the defence.

Mr. Mooring was the first witness called. He said he knew of the Suspension Order, by which a licence holder was not allowed to sell intoxicating liquors or allow the consumption of them after eight o'clock. He had given all his employees instructions not to sell or serve anyone after eight o'clock, and he always closed his premises at that hour. On September 16th his son, his wife and himself were working in the lower bar, and his barman was engaged in the upper bar in Bellevue Street. His wife managed the hotel portion of his business. There were seven bedrooms altogether for letting. He closed the doors on September 16th at eight o'clock. Shortly after eight o'clock he answered the door, he believed, to a soldier, who had arranged with his wife to have a room in the house. He let the man go upstairs by himself. He believed that was the only time he answered the door that night. After eight o'clock he supplied no-one in the house with any intoxicating liquor of any kind. He supplied beer in half pint, pint and quart bottles, but on that particular night he did not do so, for he had ran short, and he was sold out of bottled beer of every description.

In reply to the Clerk, the defendant said the bottles produced were Messrs. Mackeson's, but there was nothing on them to show whether they were from his stock.

Defendant further stated that the woman Bennett had occupied a room in the house for about seven or eight weeks. She had no occupation. She left on September 17th. She had occupied the room in which she was found for six or seven weeks. She said she was the wife of an invalided soldier, and she had only occupied the room one night with a man, who, he understood, was her husband. She paid 14/- a week for the room, and paid in addition for her breakfast and supper, which she had on the premises. He was in the bar from six o'clock on September 16th. The woman Bennett came in between seven and seven thirty, but he could not say with whom she was sitting. He did not notice Private Tyler there at all. He did not see Bennett leave the bar, so he could not say what time she left. Tyler was not the woman's husband, and not the man who had occupied the room with her on a previous occasion. His barmaid did not serve any drink that evening. Dinners were supplied in the hotel, but there was not a separate hotel bar to the place. He did not admit more than one soldier, and he was not quite sure whether he had admitted him. After closing time he was down in the cellar for about half an hour. After the washing up was done he did his accounts in a little room nearer Ramell's. He heard the bell at the side door ring between eight and nine once or twice. He did not go to the door to answer the ring. He did not think he let Sergt. Burniston or Corporal Russell into the house. He did not know that the woman Bennett was in the house before the arrival of the police. He did not think anyone could get any drink from the bar without him knowing it after eight o'clock, because he locked the door. His wife and son could not have served any drink before nine o'clock.

Cross-examined by the Chief Constable, defendant said the barman locked the door of the upper bar in Bellevue Street at about twenty minutes past eight. There was access from the landing where the bedrooms were to the upper bar without going downstairs at all. Therefore, if he (defendant) was downstairs he would not know what was going on upstairs. He did not give the officers any explanation of the two bottles of beer found in the bedrooms, and he could give no explanation that day.

Re-examined, defendant said the rooms were frequently let, and the house was very often full up.

Replying to the Chairman, Mr. Mooring said he kept no account or register of his lodgers. In addition to the people mentioned in the house they had a lady friend staying with them. Two of the rooms were double-bedded.

Mrs. Amy Mooring, the wife of the defendant, said she mostly attended to the hotel part of the business. She had good cause to remember September 16th. In the morning two cyclists, one of whom was a middle-aged man, and the other a young man, came into the hotel between ten and eleven. They said they had come from somewhere near London, and asked if they could have a bedroom, as they were going to stay the night. The elderly man expressed himself as being overdone, and wanted a rest. He thereupon went up to his bedroom, which was the room where the two soldiers were found. It was in the front of the house, and was known as the blue room because of the blue carpet. The younger man went out and bought some postcards, returning sometime in the afternoon. He then asked for a bottle of beer, and she gave him a quart bottle of Mackeson's. He also had two glasses, and she thought perhaps he took it upstairs to his friend. Later the younger man said his friend felt much better and they would go on to Dymchurch instead of staying the night. They left between six and seven o'clock. She did not go into the bedroom afterwards. The barmaid, who assisted her in the housework, did not go into the room, for it was her afternoon out. Her only suggestion for the bottle and the two glasses being found in the room was that they were left there by the two cyclists. She served no-one with drink after eight o'clock on the 16th. The side door was generally locked, or they would have soldiers walking in. Mrs. Bennett nor anyone else had a key. After eight o'clock she was engaged in washing up and answering the door. There were two rooms over the side door, one of which was the room in which they lived. She went in and out of that room, and switched the light on and off several times after eight o'clock. A little after eight o'clock she heard the bell ring, so she went to the door. She then saw the two soldiers who were found in the room. They asked her if she could put them up for the night. She said she could, and they paid her 4/- in advance. They then asked her where they could get supper, and she directed them to Tontine Street. They then went out of the house again within three minutes. They might have been gone an hour before they returned. She answered the bell again. They asked her if they could have some cigarettes, and she got them from the bar. She asked them if they were on pass, and one of them said “Would you like to see it?”, and put his hand up to his pocket. She replied “I have not my glasses, but I will trust to your honesty”. She thought he had a pass. She did not show them to their room, because they said they had been there before, and that it was the room with two beds in. She thought they were going into the back bedroom. Later, she answered the door to a soldier with a red cross on his arm. She opened the door to the soldiers, and her husband had nothing to do with it. The last soldier had a pass. He asked if she had a room to let, and she eventually showed him to the room. It was not until then that she found the other soldiers were in the front room. She also let a woman in who was helping her to do the work, but she did not remember the time exactly. She only had three soldiers come in the house, and two of them went out and returned again. With regard to Mrs. Bennett, she called out and asked her if she could have some supper, so she took it up to her. That was about half past eight. Mrs. Bennett generally occupied the next door to the blue room, and they generally called it the white room. Mrs. Bennett generally came in about nine o'clock, but when she had her supper it all depended on the time she came in. She did not see Mrs. Bennett on that particular night for she called over the banisters to know if she could have some supper.

Mr. Haines: Did she say for how many?

Mrs. Mooring: I took it up for one. I did not expect there was anyone else there.

What did she say when you went upstairs with her supper? – When I knocked at the door, she shouted “It's all right; put it down”, so I put it down.

Where did you put it? – On the mat outside.

How long after that did the police arrive? – About half an hour.

Did you sell or serve any intoxicants that night after eight o'clock? – No-one asked for it.

The Chairman: Did you let Mrs. Bennett in that night?

Witness: No, I did not.

Answering the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she had not seen Bennett or Lance Corpl. Tyler in the bar before closing time. Mrs. Bennett very seldom had anything to drink with her supper. She did not open the door of the room when she took the supper up to her. She had no knowledge whatever that there was anyone in the room with Mrs. Bennett. She did not know that Bennett was in the house until she called for her supper. The door of the bar was locked by Mr. Mooring, who had the key. When she got the cigarettes for the soldiers the key was in the door. There was no-one else in the house in addition to Mr. Mooring and herself. The barman left the house about a quarter past eight. He returned about half past nine or ten. She did not know whether he was in the house when the police arrived. Her son went out about ten minutes past eight, and returned about ten o'clock. She knew nothing about the two bottles of Mackeson's ale.

Can you account for one of them being found in Bennett's bedroom? – She had one sometimes in the morning.

What about the bottle of whiskey? – I do not know anything about that at all.

Replying to further questions by the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she used the words to the Sergeant “She (Bennett) must have smuggled the soldier in”.

Cross-examined by Mr. Reeve, witness said sometimes Mrs. Bennett had a pint bottle, but at others had a quart bottle of ale. She thought she had last served Bennett with a quart bottle on the morning of the 16th. Mrs. Bennett always paid for her drink on delivery. She always paid for her lodgings a week in advance. She paid for her supper when she had breakfast next morning. She simply paid 14/- a week for her bedroom. She never had dinner or tea in the house. She did not know Bennett was in the house till she called her for supper. She was sure she was in before closing time, because she could not have got in without her (witness) seeing her, as the door was locked and she had no key. The last time she had seen Mrs. Bennett that day was when she served her with the bottle of beer. The reason she had a quart bottle that day was because they had no pints in stock. She could not say when the woman took the bottle of beer up to her room. She swore that Bennett and the soldier that night were not let in by the door after closing time, for no-one answered the door but herself that night. Mrs. Bennett could have got out from her room to the bar in Bellevue Street without witness knowing it. She did admit a woman – Mrs. Blakey – who was helping her to do the work. That woman had been staying in the house from the previous Wednesday, the 15th. She was a woman about 50 years old, and could not very well be mistaken for Mrs. Bennett. Before the police came she also admitted a French madame, who was lodging with them. She did not know the madame's name, for she never gave it to her. She had been staying with witness several weeks, and she stayed in the house on the 16th. When the woman came to the house first she asked her to fill up the usual form, but madame replied that she had been up to the Town Hall, and it was not necessary for her to fill up the form as they knew where she was coming. Gefore she left she gave her the form to fill up, and she said she would, but she went away without doing so. The woman was about 33 years of age. That woman had room No. 10, and it looked into Bellevue Street. She entered the house between eight and nine. The two cyclists were strangers to her. She showed them up to their bedroom. The bottle of beer was taken upstairs about five or half past, and the man left the house between six and seven.

The Chief Constable: Are you certain the younger man took the bottle upstairs?

Witness: I am not sure about it.

Proceeding to reply to the Chief Constable, witness said she saw a glass in Mrs. Bennett's room. She was not quite whether she picked it up and emptied the contents in the wash bowl. She saw the glasses in the blue room, and froth was adhering to them. Froth sometimes hung around glass for a long time. She told the police that the beer and glasses must have been left in the room by some cyclists who came for the night. She was positive she told the police officer about the cyclists being in that room.

Questioned by the Clerk, Mrs. Mooring said she did not think they had a bottle like the small whiskey bottle like the small whiskey bottle, which was not one of theirs. Mrs. Bennett drank whiskey, and she (witness) had often sold her whiskey in a bottle, but not of the shape like that. Mrs. Bennett told her she had the whiskey because she did not feel well in the night. She was absolutely certain she did not sell her any whiskey that day.

Mr. Haines argued that the prosecution had not proved their case. The onus was on them to prove that the defendant had sold the drink, and that it was consumed after eight o'clock. He contended strongly they had not done so.

The Magistrates retired, and on their return the Chairman said the Bench had very carefully considered the case, which was one of some difficulty, but they thought there must be a conviction.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the defendant was summoned on April 16th for allowing a child to be on licensed premises, and was fined 1.

The Chairman said in that case the penalty would be 10, leviable by distress, or a month's imprisonment.


 

Folkestone Herald 2 October 1915.

Wednesday, September 29th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Colonel G.P. Owen, Mr. H.C. Kirke, the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson, and Alderman A.E. Pepper.

John Melburn Mooring, of the Clarence Hotel, again appeared to answer a summons for allowing intoxicating liquors to be consumed on his premises after 8 o'clock. The Court was full, a large number of local publicans being present. Defendant, who pleaded Not Guilty, was defended by Mr. G.W. Haines.

Mr. Mooring now gave evidence. He said he had given all his employees instructions not to sell or serve anything after 8 o'clock. He always shut his premises at 8 o'clock. On Thursday night, September 16th, his son and his wife were working with him. His son was engaged in the lower bar, and the barman was serving in the upper bar. His wife managed the hotel portion of the business. He did a considerable amount of letting. He had seven bedrooms. He remained in the lower bar and did not go up to see if the Bellevue Street entrance was closed. He himself answered the side door after 8 o'clock. He thought it was a soldier, but he was not sure. His wife then came on the scene. He did not make any arrangements with regard to the letting. The soldier said he had already taken a bed for the night. He did not want to know the number of his room, as his (defendant's) wife had shown him into it previously in the day. That was the only soldier he let in. The man did not ask for any intoxicants. After 8 o'clock he did not serve anyone in his house with intoxicating liquor. The house belonged to Mackeson and Co., of Hythe. He did not have a single bottle of beer of any description in the house on Thursday night after 7 o'clock. He had sold right out, and had to refuse several customers.

In reply to the Magistrates' Clerk, witness said there was nothing to show the bottles found in his rooms came from his stock. The woman Bennett had occupied a room in his house for seven or eight weeks. To his knowledge she was there on the 16th, but she left on the morning of the 17th. She always occupied the same bedroom, except in the first week. She had a lady visitor, and her husband came to see her one night. She was a married woman. She [described herself as the wife of an invalid soldier at one of the camps. He had not seen this soldier on any other night.

The Bench: Is this a residential hotel?

The Magistrates' Clerk said it was not. There were only seven bedrooms there.

In further reply to Mr. Andrew, witness said Bennett paid 14s. a week for her room. She had her breakfast there. She had been in the bar between 7 and 7.30 on September 16th. He did not know whether there was anybody with her. He did not notice Tyler in the bar. Tyler was not the woman's husband. He had not occupied a room with her on a previous occasion. Besides himself and his wife, there was only his son who could have served drink that night. After 8 o'clock he did not serve drink to anyone.

The Magistrates' Clerk: Your house is described as the Clarence Hotel. It was formerly the Clarence Inn. What constitutes your house an hotel?

Defendant: We take in lodgers.

The Magistrates’ Clerk: You do not claim it is a residential hotel? Do you supply dinner?

Defendant said they did supply dinners. He had a separate room apart for his lodgers. He had not got an hotel bar. He did not see Bennett downstairs before the police arrived. During the period mentioned, from 8 to 9, if any lodger had called for drink he would have supplied it. About 8.30 or 9 he locked the bar door. His wife or son could not have served the drink. The bar was locked as soon as they finished washing up the glasses. The barman locked the bar in Bellevue Street. There was access from that bar to the upper storey without having to come downstairs at all. He was downstairs in the lower bar; he did not know what was going on upstairs.

The Chief Constable: What explanation can you give for the two bottles of beer being upstairs?

The witness said at the time he could not give an explanation, and he had no explanation to offer then.

In reply to Mr. Haines, witness said the barman's name was Price. The bedrooms were let nearly every night.

Mr. Haines: Are you full up every night? – Nearly every night.

Have you accommodation for cyclists? – Yes.

Mr. Andrew asked defendant how many lodgers he had in the house on the night of the 16th.

Defendant said there were five and a lady friend. The number included the four soldiers.

In reply to the Chairman, defendant said he did not keep a register of his visitors. He was unable to tell them how many lodgers they had every night.

Mrs. Amy Mooring, wife of defendant, said she attended to the hotel part of the business. On the 16th September, in the morning, she remembered two cyclists called at the hotel, a middle-aged gentleman and a young man. They arrived about 11 o'clock. They were both tired, and told the defendant that they had come some distance. They wanted to know whether she could let them a bedroom. They said they were going to stay for the night. The middle-aged one, who said he felt very tired, went upstairs to rest. She showed him to a bedroom. She put them in Room 2. Later the two soldiers were found in that same room. The younger one went out to buy some postcards and he did not return till the afternoon. When he came back he asked for a bottle of beer, and she gave him a quart bottle of Mackeson's. He had two glasses, and he appeared to take it up to Room 2. Later the younger one said that, as his companion was feeling much better, they had decided to go on to Dymchurch. They left somewhere between 6 and; 7 o'clock the same evening. Witness did not go into their bedroom after they had gone. She remembered how the bottle of beer was found there later in the evening by the police, and that was how she suggested it got there. She herself often served in the bar. On the night in question she did not serve anything on the premises after 8 o'clock, except two packets of cigarettes to two soldiers. She locked the side door so that soldiers could not get in. The woman Bennett did not have a key. After 8 o'clock that night she washed up and answered the door. There were two windows over the side door, and one was her husband's and her living room. There was electric light in it, and when she went in and out she switched the light on an doff, so as to save light. A little after 8 o'clock p.m. there was a ring at the door, and she answered it. There were two soldiers there, and they were the two who were found in the room together. They said “Can you out us up for the night?” She replied “Yes”. They said “Shall we pay now?”, and witness again replied "Yes” .They gave her a 10s. note and she went into the bar to get change.

They asked her if she could give supper, and she replied "No”. They then went down to a house in Tontine Street where they got some fish and chips. They were not in the house three minutes. They came back in about an hour's time, and she let them in. They did not ask for any intoxicating drink. When they first came in witness asked them if they were on pass. They both put their hands to their tunics as if to take out the passes. She then said, as she had not got any glasses to read, she would trust to their honesty. When they put their hands to their tunics she thought that they had passes. She did not show them up to the room, as they said that they had been there before. She did not mean them to go into the room where the two cyclists had been, but into a back room. On all occasions when she opened the door her husband was not with her. He had nothing to do with the proceedings. Later another soldier came, and she asked him if he had got a pass, and he said he was on three or four days' leave. She let no other soldiers in that night. The woman Bennett called out during the evening, asking for some supper. When she took up Bennett's supper she had no idea anyone was with her. She did not know Bennett was in till she called out for her supper. Her husband had the key of the bar, and when she went to get the cigarettes the key was in the lock. The barmaid was out, and did not come home till after the police had arrived. The barman Price went out about 8.15. He returned about 9.30, but she did not know if he was in the house when the police arrived.

The Chief Constable: You say Mrs. Bennett has a bottle of beer in the morning. Does she have a quart bottle at a time?

Witness said that generally she did. The last time she had a bottle was on the morning of the 16th.

In reply to the Chief Constable, witness said she did not know the name of the two cyclists.

Mr. Haines, addressing the Bench, said there had been a great deal of asphyxiating gas and side issues. The licensing order said that drink was not to be served after 8 o'clock at night and not before 11 o'clock the next day. There was, however nothing to prevent a soldier walking in. The prosecution had got to prove the actual sale. The beer was found in those rooms, but the prosecution had to prove that they sold it to them. There was nothing at all before them that the beer had been bought at his client's house. The police had said they had seen six soldiers go in, but it was evident that they had seen two go in twice. With regard to the soldier with Bennett, they must be thoroughly satisfied that Bennett bought the beer at his client's house. There was no evidence that the beer had been consumed that night except by the froth. He, however, gave the sergeant' fullest credit for looking at the froth. (Laughter) The beer might possibly have been left by the cyclists. They could not convict his client on the evidence of Tyler alone. It must be proved that between 8 and 11 o'clock that beer was not only drunk, but purchased, and that there was a wilful endeavour to evade the Act.

The Bench, after a short deliberation returned. The Chairman said they had carefully considered the case, which was one of some difficulty, and they felt there must be a conviction.

The Chief Constable said that on the 16th April defendant was fined 1 for allowing a child under fourteen to be on the premises.

The Magistrates now fined defendant 10.

 

Folkestone Herald 4 December 1915.

Tuesday, November 30th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. G.W. Haines applied, on behalf of Mr. H.J. Hindley, for the temporary transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, from Mr. Mooring to Mr. Hindley.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he could offer do objection. The house was now out of bounds to the military. The bar at the other end of the street had been closed for some time.

The application was granted.

 

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. G.W. Haines applied for the transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel to Mr. W.J. Hindley from Mr. Mooring. He stated that temporary authority had been granted by the Magistrates to Mr. Hindley.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said he had no objection to the transfer, but he must remind Mr, Haines that he was not tying himself down to any action which might be taken at the annual licensing meeting.

The Chairman, addressing Mr. Hindley: You were warned when you obtained the temporary authority, and you take it at your own risk.

Mr. Hindley: Yes.

The transfer was then granted.

 

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.

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of Mr. Mooring, made an application for the transfer of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, from Mr. Mooring to Mr. W.J. Hindley. Mr. Haines said there was no objection.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) said he had no objection, but he was not binding himself down.

The Magistrates granted the application.

 

Folkestone Express 12 February 1916.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton and G. Boyd Esqs., and Colonel Owen.

The Chief Constable read his report as follows: I have the honour to report that there are at present 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz., Full licences, 71, beer on, 7, beer off, 6, beer and spirit dealers, 15, grocers etc. off, 7, confectioners wine on 3, chemists wine off, 6. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons.

During the past year 13 of the licences have been transferred. For the year ended 31st December last, 174 persons (109 males and 65 females) were proceeded against for drunkenness, of whom 129 were convicted and 49 discharged. Of the persons proceeded against, 57 were residents of the borough, 30 members of the naval and military forces, 66 persons of no abode, and 21 residents of other districts. In the preceding year 96 persons (64 males and 32 females) were proceeded against, of whom 64 were convicted and 21 discharged.

During the past year two convictions have been recorded against the licensee of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, viz.: 5th April, fined 1 for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be in the bar of his licensed premises; 16th September, fined 10 for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on his licensed premises during prohibited hours. A conviction has also been recorded against the licensee of the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street, who was fined 5 on the 6th January for selling a bottle of whisky to a person acting as an agent to a soldier contrary to an Order made by the competent military authority for this district on the 11th December last. The licensee of the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane, was also convicted on the 4th inst., and fined 10 for supplying intoxicating liquor during prohibited hours, contrary to the Order made by the Liquor Control Board. Three other licence holders were proceeded against, but the cases were dismissed. One unlicensed person was proceeded against, and fined 25 for selling intoxicating liquor without a licence.

Nine clubs where intoxicating liquor is sold are registered under the Act. There are 16 places licensed for music and dancing, 7 for music only, and 1 for public billiard playing.

At a special meeting of the Borough Justices held on 17th July last, the Order made by them on the 8th September, 1914, closing the licensed premises and registered clubs at 9 p.m. was revoked, and a new Order closing the premises at 8 p.m. every day, and from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. every Saturday was made, and approved by the Secretary of State on 30th July. An Order made by the Liquor Control Board closing licensed premises and clubs, except between 12 and 2.30 p.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. every weekday, and between 12.30 and 2.30 p.m. and 6 and 8 p.m. on Sunday, came into operation on the 10th January.

I ask that the renewal of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road; the Mechanics Arms, St. John Street; and the Railway Hotel, Coolinge Lane be withheld until the adjourned licensing meeting. With few exceptions, the houses generally have been well conducted.

The chairman said they were sorry that the report was not so satisfactory as usual. Drunkenness had increased. There had been 129 convictions last year as against 65 in the corresponding period of 1914. There had also been four convictions against licensees. They were glad to see, however, that with a few exceptions the houses had been well conducted. The Bench looked to the licensees to continue that state of affairs, and to do all that they could to prevent drunkenness. With regard to the three houses that had had convictions against them, they would be adjourned to the adjourned licensing sessions. With regard to the Clarence Hotel, the Chief Constable had mentioned he would oppose the renewal of the licence on the grounds of misconduct, and they would instruct him also to oppose it on the grounds of redundancy. All the other licences would be renewed.

The Justices fixed March 6th as the date of the adjourned licensing sessions.

 

Folkestone Herald 12 February 1916.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 9th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Colonel R.J. Fynmore, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, and Colonel G.P. Owen.

The Chief Constable (Mr. H. Reeve) submitted his report (for details see Folkestone Express).

The Chairman said they were sorry that the report was not so satisfactory as it generally was. The drunkenness had increased, as they saw. There had been 129 convictions last year, as against 65 in 1914. There had been four convictions against licensees. They were glad to see, however, that, with a few exceptions, the houses had been well-conducted. The Bench looked to the licensees to continue this, and so prevent drunkenness. With regard to the four houses which had convictions against them, the renewal of the licences would be deferred to the adjourned licensing sessions. With reference to the licence of the Clarence Hotel,, as the Chief Constable had mentioned. He would oppose the renewal of the licence on the grounds of misconduct, and they would instruct him also to oppose it on the grounds of redundancy.

The Magistrates fixed the adjourned licensing meeting for Monday, March 6th.

 

Folkestone Express 11 March 1916.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, J. Stainer, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd and H.C. Kirke Esqs., Alderman Jenner and Colonel Owen.

Mr. G.W. Haines, on behalf of the owners (Messrs. Mackeson and Co.) and the occupier (Mr. J.W. Hindley) made a formal application for the renewal of the Clarence Hotel, it having been adjourned from the annual licensing sessions.

The Chief Constable said in that case the Justices would remember at the annual licensing sessions he told them that he intended to serve a notice of objection to the renewal of the licence on the ground of misconduct. They then instructed him to oppose the licence on the ground of redundancy. Both notices had been served, and he had given very careful consideration to the matter. He had interviewed Mr. Haines with regard to it, and with the permission of the Bench he proposed to proceed on the grounds of redundancy, withdrawing the notice of misconduct.

Mr. Haines said there was going to be no active opposition to the application on the grounds of redundancy.

Mr. Reeve said the house was situate on the main Dover Road, and at the corner of Bellevue Street. It had a frontage in Dover Road and the side frontage extended from Dover Road to St. Peter Street. The present licensee was Mr. W.J. Hindley, who obtained the transfer on January 12th that year. On that occasion the licensee admitted he knew the whole of the circumstances connected with the house, and was prepared to take over the responsibility. That was the sixth tenant in eleven years. The registered owners were Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Hythe. The Hotel and premises were rated at 75 10s. The accommodation for the public consisted of two public bars, one facing Dover Road, and the other facing St. Peter Street. It had a frontage of 31ft. 6in. in Dover Road, 21ft. in Peter Street, and about 126ft. in Bellevue Street. There were three entrances from Dover Road, one into the saloon bar, which is about 13ft. 6in. by 9ft., one into a private bar 8 ft. square, and one at the corner of Dover Road and Bellevue Street, which opened into a public bar running parallel with Bellevue Street about 21ft. 6in. long by about 7ft. wide. In Bellevue Street there was a door leading to a passage which led into the back yard. There were doors in the passage leading into a public bar and a smoke room, both of which were about 12ft. square. At the corner of Bellevue Street and St. Peter Street a door opened into a bar about 21ft. long, and another door in St. Peter Street opened into an adjoining bar 15 ft. long. Those two bars were divided by a partition about 7ft. 6in. high. At the rear of the first bar there was a small smoke room about 11ft. 6 in. square. At the rear of the two bars on the same level there was a long club room running parallel to Bellevue Street, extending over some stabling and also the archway leading from Bellevue Street into the back-way. The club room was about 42ft. 6in. long and 15ft. wide. At the Dover Road end of the premises there were seven bedrooms and a sitting room. At the St. Peter Street end of the premises there were four bedrooms. Owing to the peculiar construction of the premises it was, in his opinion, most difficult for the licensee to give the necessary supervision to both parts of the premises, and also rendered them difficult to proper police supervision. For seven years the house had been largely used by soldiers in the evening. On October 14th last an Order was made by the competent military authority under the Defence of the Realm Regulations closing the premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor to members of H.M. Forces. That Order still remained in force. The next house in the Dover Road to the east of the Clarence was the Harvey Hotel, 120 yards away. The rateable value of that house was 84. In the opposite direction the nearest house was the Imperial Brewery Tap, belonging to Messrs. Mackeson, 190 yards away, and the rateable value was 64. Both those houses had large public bars and were doing a similar class of trade to the Clarence. In addition there were about 100 yards from the Clarence Hotel off the main road three other on-licensed houses, the Honest Lawyer, a beerhouse, the Mechanics Arms and the Belle Vue in St. John's Street. In his opinion the licence of the Clarence was unnecessary for the needs and requirements of the neighbourhood, and the other houses he had already named provided ample accommodation for the legitimate needs of the locality. In his judgement the premises, even without the licence, owing to their situation and frontage, would be a valuable asset. There were two convictions recorded last year, one on April 5th for allowing a child under 14 years of age to be on the premises, the then licensee being fined 1, and on December 15th for allowing intoxicating liquor to be consumed on the premises after hours, the licensee, Mr. Mooring, then being fined 10.

Mr. Haines said he would like to point out that a number of the entrances to which the Chief Constable had referred were blocked up.

The Chairman said the licence would be referred to the Compensation Authority for consideration.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 March 1916.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Monday, March 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Lieut. Col. R.J. Fynmore, Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Councillor G. Boyd, Alderman C. Jenner, Col. G.P. Owen, and Mr. H. Kirke.

In the case of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, Mr. G.W. Haines, appearing for the licensee (Mr. Hindley), and the registered owners (Messrs. Mackeson, of Hythe), formally applied for the renewal.

The Chief Constable said they would remember at the general annual licensing sessions he said he intended to serve a notice on the ground of misconduct. The Bench also instructed him to oppose the licence on the ground of redundancy. Both notices had been served, and he had given the matter very careful consideration, and had had an interview with Mr. Haines. With the permission of the Bench he would withdraw the notice with regard to misconduct and proceed only on the grounds of redundancy.

The Bench agreed this course.

Mr. Haines said he had been into the matter, and they had come to a certain conclusion. They did not object on the grounds of redundancy.

The Chief Constable, on oath, said the house was situated on the left hand side of Dover Road at the corner of Bellevue Street. There were frontages to Dover Road, Bellevue Road and Peter Street. At the transfer sessions on January 12th, 1916 the licence was transferred to Mr. J.W. Hindley, who then admitted he knew the circumstances of the case, and said he was prepared to take the responsibility. He was the sixth tenant in eleven years. The total assessment was 75 10s. The house had an old on licence within the meaning of the Act of 1910. There were two public bars, one facing Dover Road, and the other facing St. Peter Street. There were three entrances from the Dover Road, by one door into a saloon bar, another door opened into a private bar, while the other door, which was at the corner of Dover Road and Bellevue Street, opened into the public bar, which ran parallel to Bellevue Street. This was the main entrance. In Bellevue Street there was a door which opened into the passage, leading through the back yard and private portion of the premises. In this passage there was a door on the left hand side opening into the public bar. There was another door in the passage on the right hand side, opening in a small room, which had a door at the opposite end opening into an archway to Bellevue Street, leading into a back yard. At the corner of Bellevue Street there was a door which opened into a bar, and there was another door in Peter Street which opened into a bar. These two bars were compartments divided by a partition. At the rear of the first bar there was a small smoking room, which looked into Bellevue Street. Neither of these two bars nor the smoking room had been used by the public for some time, and a quantity of furniture was stored in them. At the rear of these two bars and on the same level there was a long cloakroom, which, running parallel to Bellevue Street, extends over some stabling. This cloakroom is about 42ft. 6ins. long and 15ft. wide. At the Dover Road end of the cloakroom there was a small sitting room and also a flight of stairs leading down to the rear of the Dover Road end bars. There was also a small sitting room at the rear of the Dover Road end bars. Upstairs at the Dover Road end of the premises there were 7 bedrooms and a sitting room. At the Peter Street end there were four bedrooms upstairs. The kitchen and scullery were in the basement of the Dover Road end. At the rear was a yard, with stabling and loft. A portion of the stabling was let out to weekly tenants. The only means of access from the Dover Road end bar to the Peter Street end bar was by ascending a flight of stairs and passing through the long cloakroom. This was owing to the public bars at the Peter Street end being on a higher level than the bars on the Dover Road end. Owing to the construction of the premises it was most difficult for the licensee to give the necessary supervision to both bars on the premises, and it also rendered the bars difficult for proper police supervision. For several years the house had been largely used by soldiers in the evening. On the 14th October, 1915, an Order was made by the Competent Military Authority under the Defence of the Realm Act closing the premises for the sale of intoxicating liquor to members of His Majesty's Forces, and that Order still remained in force. The next licensed house to the east of the Clarence Hotel in Dover Road was the Harvey Hotel, 120 yards away, which had a rateable value of 84. In the opposite direction was the Imperial Brewery Tap, in Tontine Street, belonging to the same owners. It was 190 yards away, and had a rateable value of 64. Both of these houses had large public bars, and did the same kind of business as was done at the Clarence. Within 100 yards of the Clarence, lying off the main road, were three licensed houses, the Honest Lawyer, a beerhouse, in Bellevue Street, the Mechanics Arms, and the Bellevue Inn, in St. John's Street. In his opinion the licence of the Clarence was not necessary for the means and requirements of the neighbourhood, as the houses he had already named provided ample accommodation for the legitimate needs of the locality. In his judgement these premises without a licence, owing to their situation and stabling, would be a valuable asset. There were two convictions against the house. On the 5th April, 1915, Mr Mooring, the landlord was fined 1 for allowing a child under 14 years to be on the premises, and on September 16th he was again fined 10 for allowing the consumption of liquor during prohibited hours.

The Chairman said the licence would be referred to the Compensation Authority, a provisional licence being granted meanwhile.

 

Folkestone Express 30 September 1916.

Wednesday, September 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq., Councillor Morrison, Councillor G. Boyd, G.I. Swoffer Esq., J. Stainer Esq., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.


The licence of the Clarence was transferred from the licensee to his wife, the licensee having been called up under the Military Service Act. It was stated that arrangements had been made for a man to be on the premises between the hours of 6 and 8.

 

Folkestone Herald 30 September 1916.

Wednesday, September 27th: Before Mr. J. Stainer, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Mr. E.T. Morrison, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The licence of the Clarence Hotel was transferred from Mr. W. Hindley, who has been called up for military service, to his wife.

 

Folkestone Express 18 November 1916.

East Kent Licensing.

A meeting of the East Kent Licensing Compensation Committee was held at Canterbury on Monday, Lord Harris presiding, for the purpose of settling shares in connection with the compensation for scheduled houses.

No agreement could be arrived at in the case of the Clarence, Dover Road, Folkestone, of which the brewers are Messrs. Mackeson and Co., Ltd., Hythe, and the tenant, Mr. William Joseph Hindley.

Mr. W. Cobay, of Hythe, on behalf of the brewers, said he was sorry he could not come to an agreement with Mr. Cobb. He was quite willing to agree if Mr. Cobb would open his purse strings a little, but he could not entertain his present figures.

Lord Harris: You are really out for War values?

Mr. Cobay said he maintained they were entitled to some War value, over and above the ordinary compensation. He had based his figures on the Hardy case, and had taken the years 1913-14-15, which was a year and a half before the War and a year and a half of War.

Lord Harris: Will you submit a figure?

Mr. Cobay said he would submit 5,000 without prejudice.

Lord Harris (to Mr. Cobb): Are you prepared to amend your figures, Mr. Cobb?

Mr. Cobb: Not to that figure, or anything like it, my Lord.

Lord Harris: Then the matter must go to Somerset House for settlement.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 November 1916.

East Kent Licensing.

The question of compensation in the case of the licence of the Clarence Hotel, Dover Road, Folkestone, came before a supplemental meeting of the East Kent Justices at Canterbury on Monday. Lord Harris was in the chair.

The brewers owning the Clarence are Messrs. Mackeson and Co., of Hythe, the tenant being Mr. William Joseph Hindley.

Mr. W. Mark Cobay, of Hythe, on behalf of Messrs. Mackeson and Co., said he was sorry he could not come to an agreement with Mr. Cobb. He aws quite willing to agree, if Mr. Cobb would open his purse strings a little, but he could not entertain his present figures.

Lord Harris: You are really out for War values?

Mr. Cobay contended that his clients were entitled to some War value, over and above the ordinary compensation. He had based his figures on the Hardy case, and had taken the years 1913-14-15, which was a year and a half before the War and a year and a half of War.

Lord Harris: Will you submit a figure?

Mr. Cobay said he would submit 5,000 without prejudice.

Lord Harris (to Mr. Cobb): Are you prepared to amend your figures, Mr. Cobb?

Mr. Cobb: Not to that figure, or anything like it, my Lord.

It was decided to refer the case to Somerset House for settlement.

 

Folkestone Express 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, February 7th: Before E.T. Ward, G.I. Swoffer, R.J. Linton, G. Boyd, H. Kirke, and J.J. Giles Esqs., and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mr. H. Reeve read his annual report as follows: Gentlemen, I have the honour to report that there are within your jurisdiction 115 places licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor by retail, viz; Full licences 71, Beer on 7. Beer off 5, Beer and spirit dealers 15, Grocers etc., off 7, Confectioners, wine, on 3. Chemists, wine, off 6, Total 115. This gives an average, according to the census of 1911, of one licence to every 291 persons, or one on licence to every 429 persons. This is the same number of licensed premises as were in existence last year.

At the adjourned licensing meeting, held on 6th March last, the licence of the Clarence Inn, Dover Road, was referred to the Compensation Committee on the ground of redundancy, and at the principal meeting of that Committee held at Canterbury on 21st June, the renewal of the licence was refused. The question as to the amount of compensation to be paid was referred to the Inland Revenue Authorities, and has not at present been determined, consequently a provisional renewal of the licence will be applied for. During the past year five of the licences have been transferred.

The Chairman said with regard to the report the number of convictions was very satisfactory. Mr. Reeve said in his opinion that was due to the restricted hours. He (Mr. Ward) was sorry to see so many convictions of publicans – seven – which was a greater number than he remembered in any year. There was no doubt that publicans were faced with very great difficulties with so many restrictions placed upon them. He urged upon them the necessity of being very careful not to serve any wounded soldiers, or any soldiers waiting embarkation. There were very heavy penalties laid down for offences of such a nature – imprisonment for six weeks or 100 fine. He hoped all of them would be very careful. All the licences would be renewed with the exception of the seven against which convictions had been recorded, but those seven licences would be granted until the adjourned sessions in a month's time.

Mr. Haines mentioned the case of the Clarence Inn, the amount of compensation for which had not yet been fixed. He asked for the renewal of the licence until the amount was decided.

The Chairman said the licence would be renewed until that time.

 

Folkestone Herald 10 February 1917.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

The Clarence.

Wednesday, February 6th: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Mr. R.J. Linton, Mr. G. Boyd, Mr. J.J. Giles, Mr. H. Kirke, and the Rev. H. Epworth Thompson.

The question of compensation not having been settled in regard to these premises, a licence was asked for and granted.

 

Folkestone Herald 11 August 1917.

Local News.

Amy Hindley, of the Clarence Hotel, was summoned for a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations by serving an overseas soldier with drink on August 4th.

P.C. Thoms said he saw the man drinking a glass of beer in the hotel bar. He called for defendant, who said she was the licensee, and asked if she knew the man was an overseas man. She said she had not served that particular man. She always asked every soldier for his pass. The soldier said he had not been asked for his pass; he had no pass on him, only a pay book.

By the Clerk: There were about four people serving behind the bar. He heard defendant say to two soldiers that she could not serve them. The man served was with them, and dressed exactly like the other two. The soldier pointed out one of the barmaids as the one who had served him, but the girl denied it. He told the soldier he had better drink no more of the beer, to which he replied “What, after paying for it?”

By the Defendant: Scotch Canadians had ribbons on their caps. These men had no ribbons, and wore khaki aprons, covering the whole of their kilts.

Sergt. Major John James Pilgrim stated that the last witness identified the soldier in his presence. The man was an overseas man, of the Highland Light Infantry.

Defendant said the constable came to the house about 7.50. A civilian said a Canadian soldier gave the liquor to the overseas man, but as this civilian was a munition worker he could not attend the Court that day. There were a large number of Scotch Canadians in the bar at the time. She asked for an adjournment for the man to attend.

The case was adjourned till Monday.

 

Folkestone Express 18 August 1917.

Friday, August 10th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer, Councillor G. Boyd, Councillor Stace, and the Rev. Epworth Thompson.

Mrs. Amy Hindley, of the Clarence Hotel, was summoned under the Defence of the Realm Regulations for serving an Overseas soldier with intoxicating drink.

The police evidence showed that a Highland soldier was in the bar on the 4th inst. with a glass of beer in his hand. When spoken to, defendant said she asked all the soldiers if they had passes and stated that she did not serve the man. The soldier said no-one had asked him for a pass; in fact he had not got one. Other soldiers were refused by the defendant. The constable said to the soldier “You had better not drink any more of that beer”, and he replied “What! After paying for it?”

Evidence was also given as to the identity of the soldier in question.

Defendant stated that a Canadian soldier gave the Highlander a pint of beer, and she could call evidence as to this if the case was adjourned.

The case was adjourned until Monday.

Monday, August 13th: Before G.I. Swoffer and G. Boyd Esqs.

Amy Hindley, the licensee of the Clarence Hotel, again appeared before the Magistrates on a summons for serving an overseas soldier with intoxicating drink. The case was adjourned from Friday.

A Corporal of the C.M.P. said he accompanied P.C. Fox to the Clarence Hotel, and saw the Scotch soldier there with a pint glass containing beer. He did not see the soldier drink any of it. He corroborated P.C. Fox's evidence as to the conversation he had with the soldier and Mrs. Hindley.

Defendant said she did not serve the soldier, who said that the other woman (her mother) had served him. She, however, denied that she had served him. She (defendant) had told several overseas soldiers that they could not be served, and there was a notice up in the bar to that effect.

Mrs. Foulkes said she resided with her daughter. When the man said she served him she told him that she asked him for his pass. She did not remember seeing the man's face before, but she would not swear that she did not serve him or that she did serve him. She had supplied some Scotch Canadians.

Charles Gilham, a mariner, said on Saturday night week he was in the Clarence Hotel bar. He heard the landlady refuse five Scotsmen, and when another one came in a Canadian Scotsman handed him a pint of beer. He told the constable and the military police what had occurred when they got out.

The Chairman said they thought the defendant did not take sufficient care. There was no doubt she had refused several soldiers, and owing to that fact the fine would not be so heavy. She would have to pay a fine of 2.

 

Folkestone Herald 18 August 1917.

Monday, August 13th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and Councillor G. Boyd.

Amy Hindley, licensee of the Clarence Hotel, again appeared to answer to a summons for serving an overseas soldier with intoxicating liquor, contrary to the Defence of the Realm Act, on August 4th.

A Corporal of the C.M.P. stated that he accompanied P.C. Fox to the Clarence, where he saw a Scotch soldier with a half pint glass of beer in his hand. The soldier told the police officer he was an overseas man and had been served by one of the barmaids. He also said he had not been asked for a pass, and had not got one.

Defendant said the soldier pointed to her mother and said she had served him. The mother denied that. She had had overseas men in and out all the evening, and had had “one continual worry” of refusing to serve them.

Alice Spikes, mother of the defendant, said she told the man she would not have served him without a pass. She did not remember whether she served this man or not. She had served Scottish Canadians during the evening.

Charles Gilburn, a sailor, stated that he was in the Clarence on the night in question. Three Scotchmen came in, and later two more, and all were refused drink. One Scotchman then came in and asked for nothing at all. A Canadian soldier bought a glass of beer and handed it to the Scotchman. When the policeman came the Canadian went out.

The Chairman said the Magistrates thought defendant had not taken sufficient care. She would be fined 2.

 

 

LICENSEE LIST

Last pub licensee had GOWER Henry 1893-95 Bastions

WARNER Walter R 1895-1905 Kelly's 1899Bastions

GRAY Frederick 1905-06 Bastions

JENKINS Thomas 1906-10 Bastions

JENKINS Beatrice 1910 Bastions

SCHLESHMAN James 1910-13 Bastions

MOORING J M Mooring 1913-15 Post Office Directory 1913Bastions

HINDLEY Mr 1915-16 Bastions

HINDLEY Amy 1916-17 Bastions

 

Kelly's 1899From the Kelly's Directory 1899

Post Office Directory 1913From the Post Office Directory 1913

BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney

 

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