Folkestone Express 16 October 1869.

Transfer of license.

Wednesday, October 13th: Before J. Gambrill, R.W. Boarer, J. Clark and C. Dashwood Esqs.

Clarendon Hotel, from Mr. T. Edwards to Mrs. M. Daniel.

Folkestone Express 24 August 1872.

Tuesday, August 20th: Before The Mayor, T. Caister and J. Tolputt Esqs.

William Mowl, a lodging house keeper, was brought up in custody on a charge of being drunk and riotous on Tuesday morning.

Prisoner, on being asked to plead, said he was not riotous, and was not much worse or better for drink.

P.C. Ovenden said he was on duty in Harbour Street at a quarter to one o'clock that morning when he heard a smashing of glass. He went to the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street and found it was there. His attention was called to prisoner, and he was requested to turn him out of the hotel, which he did. Prisoner was drunk. Shortly afterwards he found prisoner shouting and making a noise in the street, with a crowd of about fifty persons round him. He advised him to go home, but he would not, and he took him into custody. He had cautioned prisoner several times about getting drunk.

Prisoner, who appeared in Court without his coat, his trousers slit from top to bottom, and his hat crushed, said he went into the Clarendon and someone tore his coat off, and the landlord would not let him come out. He ordered a bottle of ginger beer, and brandy was put into it without his orders. He told the landlord his name and address, and said he would pay for the drink. He intended to alter his conduct in future.

Mr. Caister said he had admonished prisoner several times.

Fined 10s and 4s. 6d. costs, or seven days. Taken below, but the money was afterwards paid.

Folkestone Express 24 May 1873.

Notice.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

In the County Court of Kent, holden at Canterbury.

In the matter of proceeding for liquidation by an agreement or composition with creditors instituted by Margaret Daniel, of the Clarendon Hotel, Folkestone, Kent, widow, hotel keeper.

A dividend is intended to be declared in the above matter.

Creditors who have not proved their debts by the 7th day of June, 1873, will be excluded.

JOHN MINTER,

Folkestone,

Creditor for the Trustees.

Folkestone Express 9 August 1873.

The Bankruptcy Act, 1869.

In the County Court of Kent, holden at Canterbury.

A First Dividend of One Shilling and Sixpence in the Pound has been declared in the matter of a special resolution for liquidation by arrangement of the affairs of Margaret Daniel, of the Clarendon hotel, Folkestone, Kent, hotel keeper, and will be paid by me at the offices of Mr. John Minter, Solicitor, Folkestone, on or after the eighth day of August, 1873.

Dated this first day of August, 1873.

JNO. B. TOLPUTT,

Trustee.

Folkestone Express 27 December 1873.

Wednesday, December 24th: Before The Mayor and J. Tolputt Esq.

Ellen Hill was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street.

Prisoner, on being called to plead, said: I was not drunk. I was only skylarking.

P.C. Keeler said he saw prisoner and some men and prostitutes come out of the Clarendon Hotel about twelve o'clock on Tuesday night. They stood talking in the street some time, and he desired them to disperse. Prisoner was drunk and he told her to get away two or three times, and as she refused and made use of bad language he locked her up.

Superintendent Wilshere said he saw the prisoner on the steps of the Eagle public house about a quarter before nine on Wednesday night. She was drunk and had her arms round a sailor's neck and was kissing him. He told her to go away, which she did.

Prisoner said: I was not tight, but only skylarking. I had a glass or two on account of a young friend going to be married next day.

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

As prisoner was being removed she turned to the Bench and said “I wish you a merry Christmas and a happy New Year”.

Folkestone Express 21 February 1874.

Saturday, February 14th: Before R.W. Boarer, J. Hoad and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Michael Hart, Clarendon Hotel, was charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain affidavit made before W. Wightwick Esq., the Commissioner for taking Oaths.

Mr. Minter for the prosecution, and Mr. E. Froggart, Argyle Street, London, for the defence.

Mr. Wightwick deposed: I am a solicitor, practicing in Folkestone, and also a Commissioner for taking oaths in all Courts. The affidavit produced was taken before me by Michael Hart, the defendant, on the 25th October, 1873, and signed by me. I duly administered the oath. The jurat is in my writing.

By Mr. Froggart: I was consulted in September last by Mrs. Levi and Mrs. Johnson, respecting an assault. I believe it was the 24th September.

Mr. Froggart was proceeding to cross-examine Mr. Wightwick, when Mr. Minter said: I submit that any information Mr. Wightwick may have received can have no reference to the case of perjury.

Mr. Froggart: I have a right to bring out any material facts; I have a greater latitude than Mr. Minter.

The Bench, by the advice of the Clerk, allowed the objection.

Mr. Froggart: I want to show that the writ had been served. The writ was issued on September 19th.

Mr. Minter: I am surprised that Mr. Froggart should want to, what I must call, impose, on the Bench. If it is of any importance he should call Mrs. Levi.

Mr. Froggart: I am entitled to show by cross-examination that the writ had come to Goldstein's knowled he, upon what principle the Clerk has decided I do not know. I am proceeding according to all practice. I shall put it in another form.

Cross-examination resumed: I saw two females – I think Mrs. Levi and Mrs. Johnson – and they instructed me with regard to an assault. I believe I took down memoranda in shorthand, but I have not kept them; they may be destroyed. I have not searched for them.

Mr. Froggart: There having been a document which has been destroyed, I have a right to take collateral evidence of the contents of that document.

Mr. Wightwick: I decline to give any information as to the contents of the document.

Mr. Froggart: I should ask the Bench to compel Mr. Wightwick to answer my question, because probably his clients do not object, and Mr. Wightwick is not privileged. Mr Froggart then quoted the law as regards secondary evidence, and contended that he was entitled to prove what were the contents of the document which was said to be lost or destroyed.

Mr. Wightwick: I ought to say for my own protection that it is possible that the document is not destroyed, although it is probable that it is. It was merely a memorandum of the assault.

Mr. Boarer: Our Clerk has decided that the objection must be allowed, and we do not see any reason to differ from him.

The Clerk: I advise that the memoranda would not be admissible.

Cross-examination resumed: I attended on the summons for assault being heard; I think Goldstein and his wife were present. I did not say that proceedings had been taken against them by Jacobson; I heard that there was a dispute and that there were likely to be proceedings. I am in some doubt as to whether they told me that proceedings had been taken.

Mr. Froggart: That is what I wanted to start with.

By Mr. Minter: Mrs. Jacobson said in Court that she had been to Goldstein's to claim the goods belonging to her husband.

Mr. Froggart: The evidence was taken down in writing, and that would be better than parole evidence; it should be read right through.

Mr. Minter: I have not the slightest objection to the notes being read.

Mr. Froggart: I will not trouble you to do so.

All witnesses were ordered out of Court.

Joseph Goldstein deposed: I carry on business at 34, High Street, as jeweller and dealer in curiosities. On the 22nd September last my shop was closed all day, it being the Jewish New Year's Day. Two men were at work in the shop making alterations, which necessitated the removal of the stock from the window. I was not on that day served with a copy of the writ, at the suit of Nathan Wolf Jacobson, by a man named Joseph Slater or any other person. I do not know such a person as Joseph Slater. At that time I was under a summons for an assault on Rose Levi and Mrs. Jacobson, and took out a cross-summons against Rose Levi for assault; also Mrs Jacobson, the summonses to be heard on the 24th September. On Tuesday, 23rd September, I got up a little before 8 o'clock. The workmen were there. After they had done I began to clean the shop and put the china in the window, and was occupied doing so until seven in the evening, when I went upstairs to clean myself, and at 8 o'clock I came up to the Town Hall to a Japanese entertainment, and was there until nearly ten o'clock, when I went home in company with my wife and her sister, and went to bed shortly afterwards. I never called upon Michael Hart, the defendant, and never went to his house in my life. I have never been in the Clarendon Hotel. I did not know such a person as Michael Hart on the 23rd September last. I have never spoken to Michael Hart in my life. I did not say to him on the 23rd September “I have come about that business”. I did not say I was partly related to Jacobson. I never mentioned the assault case and say to him “I am sorry I lost my temper, and am willing to make any recompense”. He did not ask me how much I owed Jacobson. I did not show him a copy of a writ, because I had none. I did not say I would agree to pay £10 or £12 per month. I never spoke to defendant in my life. I never saw him in the Court of Common Pleas.

Mr. Froggart: I object to any evidence of anything which took place anterior to the 23rd September. All Mr. Minter has to do is negative the allegation contained in the affidavit.

Mr. Minter: I am bound to do it by two witnesses, or by circumstances which would corroborate what defendant has sworn, and should use it as corroboration, defendant having sworn prosecutor offered to pay £10 or £12 per month.

Mr. Froggart: I say you have no right to do so. If you are going to give evidence of what took place in the Court of Common Pleas you must produce the whole of the evidence as it was taken down in writing.

Mr. Minter: I will pass over that.

Examination resumed: About the 5th or 6th October last I went on my journey to different towns in England, and whilst at Exeter –

Mr. Froggart: This cannot be evidence against defendant if he was not present.

Mr. Minter: I am not going to ask as to any conversation, but to show that in consequence of a communication, prosecutor came home and found a Sheriff's Officer in possession. I want to show that no writ was served on the 22nd September. It is not likely that prosecutor would have left his business if there had.

Mr. Froggart: I submit that this is not evidence against defendant.

The Clerk: I don't think there can be any objection to it.

Examination resumed: I was at Exeter on the 11th October last when a communication I received induced me to return to Folkestone, and I got home on the 13th and found the Sheriff's Officer in possession of my house.

Cross-examined by Mr. Froggart: I first came to England in November, 1871, from Cologne, where I was traveller for Pater Arnold Moom, wine merchant; I left for a change. I lived at 7, Duke's Place, Aldgate, about two months. I purchase my goods at different houses. I had about 300 thalers when I came to England. I travelled about Portsmouth and Southampton with jewellery, and came to Folkestone in June, 1872. I first lodged at the Chequers, Seagate Street. I went to Brighton, on and off, about six months. I never was a glazier in my life. Was married to Mrs. Rapport on the 24th July, 1873, at the Register Office, Whitechapel, and have got the marriage certificate; am a Jew, and my wife is a Jewess. Never got into difficulties. Was never served with a writ, and don't know what such a thing is, as I never saw one. Never employed a solicitor before Mr. Minter; did not consult a solicitor as to what property Mrs. Rapport had. Did not see Johnson on the 22nd September. I was in the shop; it is about ten feet across to Johnson's. Did not see any goods delivered at Johnson's on the 23rd September; was not out of my wife's sight all day. It would take two or three minutes to go from my house to defendant's; did not know defendant's house before. Had no conversation with Mrs. Jacobson when she was alive before she came into my shop; she never told me who defendant was. Will swear positively I never nodded to defendant when he passed. Mrs. Jacobson and Mrs. Levi annoyed me in my shop. My wife owed money to Jacobson. I did not tell the Sheriff's Officer I would pay £10 or £12 per month; did not tell Alexander Bain so. Was not in Alexander Bain's presence at the Clarendon Hotel on the 23rd September. He and a woman came to my shop to beg about six weeks before that day. Have no ill feeling towards Johnson, although our shops are in opposition. Mr. Rittish, of Dean Street, Soho, came to my shop before the Sheriff's Officer came in, and said he had heard that Jacobson was suing me for money I owed him; he went to Johnson's when he left me. He told me he had heard I had been served with a writ at the instance of Jacobson, and I told him it was not true. It was just before I should have had the writ. He told me I should have an execution in my house; I believe the execution came the week after – about the 12th October. I made a claim on the Bristol and Exeter Railway Company for delay of goods and loss of time; the claim was £18, and I received £7 5s. My wife made a claim of £9 on the South Eastern railway six or eight months ago, but did not get anything. The Company did not refuse to pay because it was a fraudulent claim.

Bertha Goldstein, prosecutor's wife, corroborated, and said she was not served with a copy of a writ on the 22nd September.

In cross-examination she said she received a letter from a person named Davis, saying that her former husband, Rapport, died in Sydney, Australia. On the 2nd September she and her sister went to hear the band play about three in the afternoon, and came home about a quarter past five and found her husband at home. Her husband was not out of her sight all day on the 23rd September. Mr. Rittish told her a fortnight before the execution came that he had received a letter from Johnson stating that they had been served with a writ. Had never seen a writ, and should not know one if she saw it. A claim she made on the South Eastern Railway for £4 10s. was not paid on account of package not being insured. Claimed £4 10s. of Mr. Attwood for china broken by his fowls; received £3.

Esther Hockenstein, sister to prosecutor's wife, corroborated the last two witnesses in several particulars.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Froggart, having addressed the Bench, called Alexander Bain, who said he lived at Belvedere House, Sandgate, and was a professional musician. He was in defendant's bar one evening in September last, and, to the best of his belief, saw prosecutor come in and speak to defendant, who went out of the bar into the hotel passage to him, and they went into the coffee room together, where they remained a few minutes. It was in the early part of the evening.

Witness was cross-examined at some length by Mr. Minter as to his antecedents, and caused some amusement by his manner of answering the questions put to him. He adhered to his statement that he saw prosecutor in the Clarendon Hotel between tea and supper time, and was about three feet from him.

The Court was cleared, and on the re-admission of the public some of the depositions were read over to and signed by the witnesses, it being understood that the case would be sent for trial; but the whole of the proceedings, including a charge against William Johnson and Susan, his wife, were adjourned to the following Saturday, it being stated that the second case would take a very long time.

Folkestone Express 28 February 1874.

Saturday, February 21st: Before R.W. Boarer, J. Hoad, and J. Kelcey Esqs.

The charge against Michael Hart for having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain affidavit made before W. Wightwick Esq., a Commissioner for taking oaths in the Court of Common Pleas and all other Courts, which was adjourned from the previous Saturday, was resumed at this sitting.

Before the commencement of the proceedings, Mr. Minter, who appeared for the prosecutor, stated that he had received a telegram from Mr. Froggart, who was engaged for the defence, stating that he could not arrive in Folkestone before twelve o'clock; under these circumstances the case against Johnson and his wife could go on, and the Bench could give Mr. Froggart an opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses on his arrival, but he (Mr. Minter) would leave the matter entirely in the hands of the Bench.

The charge against Hart was then completed, the depositions being read over, and defendant having been duly cautioned, he said “I say I am not guilty. I do not wish to call any witnesses except Alexander Bain, whose depositions I wish to be sent with the others”.

Defendant was then formally committed for trial at the Assizes, the prosecutor and witnesses being each and severally bound over in the sum of £40 to appear at the Assizes.

Defendant then applied to be admitted to bail, to which Mr. Minter made no objection.

The Bench fixed the amount of bail at £50 for the defendant, and two others in £25 each, or one in £50.

Defendant: As all my worldly goods are in Folkestone, would not my own bail do? I should have to sent to London for bail. There are only those with whom I deal in Folkestone that I could ask, and I should not like to have to do that. Mr. Froggart said my own bail would be taken.

The Clerk: The Bench did not say so.

The Bench said they had considered the question of bail on the previous occasion, and could not alter their decision.

Joseph Johnson, dealer in works of art, 47, High Street, and Susan, his wife, were then charged with having committed wilful and corrupt perjury in a certain affidavit made by them.

Johnson produced a telegram from Mr. Froggart, saying that he could not arrive until twelve o'clock, in which he made no objection to the cases going on.

Mr. Minter remarked that he had also received a telegram from Mr. Froggart to proceed with the cases.

Mr. Kelcey remarked that the defendants could not lose anything by such a course being adopted.

Mr. Minter said he would at once submit to an adjournment if the Bench thought it necessary.

It was then decided to go on with the cases, all witnesses being ordered to leave the Court.

Mr. Minter then opened the case by saying that it was a charge against Joseph Johnson of committing wilful perjury on the 20th October, 1873, in an affidavit made in the case of Jacobson v Rapport and Goldstein. The affidavit was made on the same day and was in reference to the same case as that to which the defendant in the previous case referred, and therefore he did not think it necessary that he should go into all the particular circumstances of the case. The affidavit was made with a view to convince the Judge in the Court of Common Pleas that copies of a writ had been served on Goldstein and his wife; but if the writs had been served, was it likely, he would ask, that Goldstein would have gone away from home immediately afterwards, and have left an execution to be put into his house in his absence? He would reming the Bench that defendant was in the same trade as Goldstein, and he did not hesitate to say that the inference to be drawn was that there was a case of perjury and gross conspiracy in order that a rival in trade might be got rid of, and defendant made a false affidavit, knowing at the time it was false. There was no doubt that a conspiracy was entered into, as he should show that a communication was made by defendant to a London dealer to the effect that Goldstein was in trouble, no doubt with a view to getting him to come down upon him and then bring a crush upon him. The affidavit stated that Johnson knew one John Slater, of 7, Charlotte Place, Good Street, London, in the employ of Jacobson, and that Slater served copies of the writs. The affidavit was to the following effect; that Slater called at defendant's on Saturday, 20th September, and delivered some china, and informed him that he had to deliver a writ on Goldstein, and asked Johnson to point him out, as he did not know him. The affidavit went on to say that Johnson met Slater in High Street on Monday, 22nd September, he (Slater) having at the time the copies of the writs in his hand and that they walked down High Street together; that Johnson saw Goldstein standing at his shop door and he told Slater it was him, and that Goldstein turned round and went into his shop. Slater thn crossed the road and handed to Goldstein, who was just inside his shop door, copies of the writs. The assignment of perjury was that Johnson swore he saw Slater deliver the writs to Goldstein. As to whether Johnson and Slater went down High Street together he did not care; the material point was whether Slater went into Goldstein's shop and delivered copies of the writs to him. The affidavit went on to say that Goldstein took the copies of the writs, looked at them, and then called out “Bertha”, and Slater went away. Mr. Mintr then went on to say that he would call attention to what Slater must have sworn before the judgement against Goldstein was signed in the Court of Common Pleas. He must have sworn that he formally served copies of the writs on Joseph and Bertha Goldstein, and the inference was that he had committed perjury by putting on the files of the Court an affidavit that he had served copies of the writs. It happened, in the interests of justice, that the day on which Slater alleged that he served the writs was a Jewish holiday, and Goldstein's shop was closed, and a carpenter was at work in the shop the whole of the day except the dinner and tea hours, and he should be able to show from his evidence that the affidavit was an entire fabrication when it stated that Johnson saw Slater go into Goldstein's shop and serve him with copies of the writs, and the question of whether Mrs. Goldstein was served or not did not come into the case. He should show by the evidence of Goldstein and Lepper, the carpenter, that no writs were served. No hour was mentioned as to when the writs were served, and the question arose why Slater did not serve the writs on the Saturday, as he was in Folkestone on that day, and why should they have a man all the way from London, when the writs might have been served by a solicitor in Folkestone? In consequence of no hour being named it became necessary to account for every hour of Goldstein's time on the 22nd September, which he could do from seven in the morning to ten at night. Slater had chosen to enter into a communication with Lepper to try to get him to recognise him, but fortunately they would be able to prove that Slater was never at the place. It might be said that Goldstein was an interested witness, and that for his own protection he had taken those proceedings, but that ought not to affect his credibility. He had taken proceedings against a gross conspiracy, and there was no medium course in the matter. If Johnson had simply said that Slater had told him he had served the writs, the case would have been different, but he went beyond that and said “I saw the writs served” and went into details. The writs were issued on the 19th September, and as it was known that the claim would be defended, and that other proceedings would come on, they got a witness to say he saw the writ served. The Bench were asked to believe that Goldstein took the writs, and quietly went away from home soon after and allowed a judgement to go against him. His friend, Mr. Froggart, had made an observation that it was to be hoped that the Borough would not be put to the expense of sending the case to Maidstone, but he was quite sure that such a consideration would not enter into the minds of the Magistrates.

Mr. Henry Hussey, Clerk in the Court of Common Pleas produced the affidavit filed by Slater on the 2nd October; also one filed by defendant on the 20th October.

Mr. Wightwick produced the affidavit sworn before him by defendant on the 20th October, and signed in his presence.

Joseph Goldstein, the prosecutor, was then sworn, and deposed: I am a jeweller and china dealer, carrying on business at 34, High Street, in this town. On Monday, 22nd September last i rose about half past seven. It was the Jewish New Year, and therefore a holiday, and my shop was shut. I had a person named John Hewson Lepper at work in my shop; he came a little after ten in the morning. I went into the shop at eight o'clock, and was there until evening, except when I went upstairs to dinner and tea at twelve and half past five.

(Mr. Froggart came into Court at this stage of the proceedings)

Examination continued: I had to go through a door at the back of the shop to go upstairs, there being only one entrance into the house through the shop. I went upstairs at seven in the evening. My wife and sister-in-law were upstairs. At eight o'clock we all came to the Town Hall to hear the Bell Ringers, and went home a little after ten. I do not know John Slater, and neither he nor any other person served a writ on me on the 22nd September last. I did not come down into my shop on that day and open copies of writs and look at them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Froggart: Lepper came a little after ten and went out at twelve and returned at one; I was upstairs during that time. I shut the shop door when I went upstairs, so that it was closed from twelve to one o'clock, and I had not opened it before Lepper came back. He was making a table and a shelf and altering the window in the kitchen. The shop shutters were up the whole of the time. He worked by the light that came from the door being open. I am not quite sure whether the gas was lighted in the evening. I did not know Jacobson until he brought a clock on the 20th August. My wife paid for it. I never gave him a cheque in my life.

John Hewson Lepper deposed: I am a carpenter, living at 29, Dover Street. I was in the employ of Mr. John Bowley, builder, on the 23rd September; know th day because the Handbell Ringers were here, and I was ticket collector for them in the evening at the Town Hall. I went to Goldstein's shop in the morning, and continued working there until twelve o'clock, when I went to dinner, and returned at one; left again at half past five and returned at six and worked till seven. Goldstein was in the shop the whole of the time I was there. During the time I was there, no person came into the shop; if there had been anyone I should have seen him. I showed Goldstein, his wife, and a young lady to their seats in the Town Hall at eight in the evening.

By Mr. Froggart: I work for Mr. Saunders now and entered his employ last Monday. I went to work for Mr. Holdem previously. I left Mr. Bowley's service because he wanted me to go with a horse and cart; left on my own accord; he did not discharge me. I was first spoken to about this case on the 18th October when Mr. Minter spoke to me about it. There might have been one shutter down when I was at work; I did not have the gas lit. Goldstein worked with me in the shop; did not notice him going to the door; did not hear him call “Bertha”, but will not swear he did not. I did not go to the door at all.

Re-examined: The shop is a little more than half the size of the Police Court; the door is at one end of the shop. If any stranger had come in I must have seen him. I am sure no person came into the shop during the time I was there. I am quite sure.

Bertha Goldstein, prosecutor's wife, deposed: On Monday, 22nd September, we dined upstairs between twelve and one. A man was working in the shop and my husband came upstairs to dinner. We had tea between five and six o'clock. He came upstairs again a little before eight in the evening, and I and my sister went with him to an entertainment at the Town Hall, and returned home a little after ten, and then went to bed. During the time my husband was in the shop he was not served with any papers or writs.

By Mr. Froggart: I was married to Rapport by the Jewish law in London about eight years ago, and afterwards found that the marriage was illegal, and was married in my maiden name to Goldstein. A man named Davis informed me that Rapport was dead; I do not know his address. On the 22nd September I was in the front room upstairs nearly all day; did not look out of the window; did not see Mr. and Mrs. Johnson that day. Purchased a clock of Jacobson for £12 15s. He came to the shop and I gave him a cheque for the amount in my own name. The cheque was honoured and returned to me. I had then changed my banking account into the name of my husband, but was entitled to writ cheques as well as my husband.

Esther Falkenstein deposed: I live with Goldstein and was on the premises on the 22nd September, and saw him on that day at twelve o'clock, and at tea about half past five. He got up about seven in the morning, or a little after. I saw Lepper leave about twelve and Goldstein went down and fastened the door. He went to the Town Hall about eight and returned a little after ten. During the time Goldstein was in my company he was not served with a writ, or any paper, and no-one came into the shop.

This was the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Froggart, in addressing the Bench for the defence, said the case was different from that of Hart's. He should disprove entirely what the witnesses had sworn. With the exception of Lepper they were three prejudiced witnesses. As for Lepper's evidence, it did not go for very much. He was at work in the shop, and Goldstein might have gone to the door, and might have gone outside. Lepper was attending to his work, so that much reliance could not be placed on his evidence, and nothing would have been easier than for Slater to have given Goldstein the copies of the writs without Lepper seeing him. No doubt Goldstein's object originally was to prevent Johnson from proceeding with the action. He trusted that after the Bench had heard the evidence for the defence they would not put the Borough, defendant, and everybody else to the expense of a trial. Slater would swear that he served copies of the writs, and Michael Hart would swear that Goldstein showed him copies of the writs.

He then called John Slater, who said: I am a foreman cabinet maker, living at 24, Union Street, Middlesex. In the month of September last I had some goods to bring to Johnson from Jacobson; I believe it was on the 20th September. I saw Johnson on that day. I had two writs with me against Joseph Goldstein and Bertha Rapport; did not know Goldstein before then. On the 22nd I saw Johnson at the Prince Albert Inn, and went from there to Goldstein's, which is opposite Johnson's. Goldstein's shutters were up; saw Goldstein just inside the shop door. The witness Lepper was at work there. I saw Goldstein standing there, and said to him “I have two writs at the suit of Jacobson” and gave Goldstein the two writs and he called “Bertha” twice.

By Mr. Minter: I did not wait to see if Mrs. Goldstein came downstairs. Mr. Jacobson gave me the writs to serve. I am in his employ and have been eight years foreman cabinet maker. Jacobson does cabinet making and employs cabinet makers; I also acted as packer in the shop; did some cabinet work about seven months ago. I made an affidavit of the service of the writs; did not serve Goldstein's wife with a writ. He called “Bertha”. The affidavit I made is not false. I saw her go in, but did not give the writ into her hand; it was before five o'clock. I left Dover about four o'clock, and when I got to Folkestone I went to the inn; it might be about a quarter to five. I saw Mrs. Goldstein coming down the street and her sister with her. She was going upstairs when I went in; I saw her go up. I went two or three feet into the shop; did not see her sister at that time; saw Mrs. Goldstein go upstairs as I gave the writs to Goldstein; did not wait till she came back. When I got to the Prince Albert I sent the landlord to fetch Johnson; the landlord came back first; sent for Johnson to recognise Goldstein. He did not point him out on Saturday. Did not serve the writs on Saturday, because it was half past six. The shop was open and I saw Goldstein there; did not see his wife. Johnson told me it was Goldstein. I sent for Johnson because I did not want to see Mrs. Rapport, because the shop was shut, being a holiday. I expected to be biased by Mrs. Rapport; I was afraid she would bias me. (On Mr. Minter asking witness what he meant by being biased, he explained, with some hesitancy, that he thought, as she knew him, she would ask him to intercede with Jacobson for her).

William James Snelling, Prince Albert Inn, said: The last witness, Slater, was stopping at my house on the 20th September, and on the 22nd he was at my house. He came in the afternoon and asked me to send for Johnson, and Johnson came a few minutes after I came back. I heard Slater say he had come down to serve a writ and saw him show the writ to Johnson, and he showed me the writ on Sunday morning. I have no interest in giving evidence.

By Mr. Minter: Johnson asked me if I would come here today if I was wanted. I know it was the 20th September, because it was Dover Election on Monday. There was £390 written on the writ Slater showed me on Sunday.

John Surrey, bill poster, was then called, but before he gave his evidence he said he had been asked to give his evidence on behalf of Goldstein.

Mr. Froggart: I am glad you have said so.

By Mr. Minter: I saw Mrs. Goldstein in West Cliff Gardens when the band was playing on the 22nd September. I cannot say whether it was from two to four or three to five. I was surprised to see Mrs. Goldstein there.

By Mr. Froggart: A young lady was with her. I would not swear I saw Mrs. Goldstein there.

Michael Hart, Clarendon Hotel, deposed: I know Goldstein and his wife by sight; had seen him several times previous to the 23rd September; up to that time we had only nodded. On the 23rd September he came to my house between seven and eight o'clock in the evening and said “I have come about that business of Jacobson's. I am sorry I lost my temper the other day. Don't you think you can arrange matters between Jacobson and me?” Those might not have been his exact words, but they were to that effect. I said “Suppose I do write to Jacobson, what amount are you prepared to offer him?” He replied “I will give £10 or £12 per month, and pay all expenses up to this time”. He then showed me what appeared to be two copies of writs and said “You see these; I don't want to be turned out of my house and home in consequence of these”. In consequence of what he said, I wrote that letter (referring to one in Mr. Froggart's hand)

Mr. Minter objected, and said if any person had received the letter the envelope ought to be produced, or the letter could not be evidence.

Mr. Froggart: It is necessary to prove that Hart wrote the letter, and he is the proper person to prove it. He has the right to swear that he wrote it. It is only a fact.

The Clerk: Are you going to call Jacobson to prove that he received it?

Mr. Froggart: It is addressed to W. Jacobson.

Mr. Minter: I object to such evidence.

The Clerk: It would be premature if you do not prove it has been received. If it was not sent it might be written for a purpose. I advise the Bench to exclude it.

Examination resumed: I did write a letter in consequence of the interview with Goldstein. I was examined in the Court of Common Pleas in the case Jacobson v Goldstein, and swore that Goldstein had promised to pay £10 or £12 a week, which was a mistake on my part, and I was not allowed to correct it. At the time Goldstein called on me there was an assault case to come on next day, but I was too busy to come to hear it. I never spoke to Goldstein before he came to the hotel to me. I am not sure about the hour at which he called, but, to the best of my recollection it was between seven and eight in the evening. I have spoken to Johnson about the case. He may have been in my house twice a week since, and we have talked about the case.

By Mr. Froggart: It is not a farthing or a millionth part of one interest to me, but has been a great amount of worry and trouble to me.

Defendant was then formally committed for trial at the Assizes.

Mr. Froggart asked the Bench to take defendant's own recognisance, but they declined to alter their decision, and required the defendant to be bound in his own recognisance of £50 and two in £25 or one in £50.

The Bench then adjourned to three o'clock, at which hour bail was accepted and the prosecutor and witnesses bound over.

The charge against Mrs. Johnson was withdrawn.

Folkestone Express 14 March 1874.

Assizes.

The charges of perjury against Michael Hart and Joseph Johnson came on for hearing at the Kent Assizes on Thursday.

Mr. Dering appeared for the prosecution, and Mr. Willoughby for the defence.

Having recently published the evidence in these columns it is unnecessary to repeat it. The following additional evidence was given:

Maurice Jacobson, son of Mr. Jacobson, by whom the writ was issued, proved the receipt of a letter from Hart on September 24th. Hart was his mother-in-law's uncle (laughter). The letter was produced, and witness swore it was in the prisoner's handwriting. The envelope was destroyed, but witness said it was directed to his father and opened by him, he having authority to open his father's letters in his absence. It was their practice never to keep envelopes.

Mr. Dering raised an objection to the reception of the letter in evidence, but the learned Judge held that it was admissible.

The letter was accordingly read. It was dated from the Clarendon Hotel, Sept. 23, 1873, signed “Michael Hart”, and addressed to William Jacobson. It's purport was as follows: “Dear Sir, Goldstein, of High Street, has called on me and says he is very sorry for his behaviour to your wife. He says if you are willing to accept £10 per month, he would pay it honourably, and also, if you accept this he will pay all expenses and deal with you as usual. He asked me to use my good offices with you, as I know you”.

His Lordship: What do you say to that letter, Mr. Dering?

Mr. Dering: I had not seen it, my Lord.

His Lordship: That letter confirms the prisoner's affidavit completely. As I understand, when this case was before the Magistrates there seems to have been some notion that the letter was not receivable as evidence, but I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that it is receivable.

Mr. Dering: My Lord, that letter coming at the last moment has taken me by surprise, and we have had no means of testing the genuineness. Of course, assuming it to be genuine, it would be impossible for the jury to return a verdict of Guilty. The natural inference would be that it is genuine. But we are dealing with a question in which the prisoners Johnson, Slater, and others, are alleged to have been guilty of perjury, and it is only consistent that they should fabricate a letter to support it.

His Lordship: The letter, I see, is written on Clarendon Hotel paper.

Mr. Dering: I am entirely in your Lordship's hands. If your Lordship thinks the case should not go on, I accept your Lordship's view.

His Lordship: I cannot help saying there was a strong case on the part of the prisoner before this letter was produced, but now this letter is convincing.

The Foreman of the Jury: The letter completely upsets the prosecution.

His Lordship: I think it does.

A verdict of Not Guilty was then returned.

Joseph Johnson was next placed at the bar, and the charge of wilful perjury against him formally read over.

His Lordship: I suppose you do not offer any evidence in this case, Mr. Dering?

Mr. Dering: No, my Lord.

A formal verdict of Not Guilty was accordingly returned in this case also.

Folkestone Express 20 March 1875.

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

The license of the Clarendon Hotel was transferred from Michael Hart to Charles Albinus Ross.

Folkestone Express 19 June 1875.

Wednesday, June 16th: Before R.W. Boarer, Col. De Crespigny and J. Tolputt Esq.

The license of the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, was transferred from Michael Hart to Charles Albenos Ross, who, it appeared from his testimonials, had previously been a merchant in Bombay.

Folkestone Express 26 January 1878.

Local News.

On the 18th inst. the new proprietor of the Clarendon Hotel (Mr. Wilton) gave a dinner to his friends, when upwards of twenty gentlemen assembled, and a very agreeable meeting it was. The dinner was excellent, and all passed off with the utmost conviviality. It is satisfactory to see the Clarendon Hotel return to it's original form, one of the most respectable houses in the town, through the able management of the present proprietor.

Folkestone Express 11 October 1879.

Wednesday, October 8th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., General Cannon, Captain Crowe, and M. Bell Esq.

John Newman was charged with being drunk and begging in South Street on October 6th.

P.C. Hogben said on Monday evening he was sent for to the Clarendon Hotel, and from what he was told he went along South Street, and saw the prisoner go into the Victoria and hand his cap round to the people in the bar, and from there he went to the Paris Hotel bar and asked for coppers to pay his lodgings. Witness took him into custody. On the way to the station prisoner was very violent.

He was sentenced to fourteen days' for begging and to a further term of seven days' for being drunk, in default of paying a fine of 5s. and costs.

Folkestone Express 4 June 1881.

Saturday, May 28th: Before The Mayor, Alderman Banks and R.W. Boarer Esq.

The license of the Clarendon Hotel was transferred to Mr. Foster.

Folkestone Express 22 August 1885.

Tuesday, August 18th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Captain Carter, W. Bateman and J. Fitness Esqs.

Bernard Joseph Moran, a waiter, was charged with stealing four decanters, a quantity of wines and spirits, and various other articles, the property of Mr. Joseph Foster, proprietor of the Clarendon Hotel. Mr. Minter prosecuted, and Mr. Ward defended the prisoner.

Mr. Minter briefly explained the facts of the case, and called Mr. Foster, who said: Prisoner, Bernard Moran, had been in my service as a waiter for about a month. I gave him notice yesterday to leave. He wished to go out after and I refused to let him go. Upon that he said he would go at once. On his coming into my service I lent him a box for his clothes, as he hadn't one. He kept the box in his bedroom. He went upstairs and I followed him. I told him he should not go unless he gave me a week's wages. He refused to do that. When we got upstairs I told him to open the box, and he refused. It was locked. I then sent for Supt. Taylor. On his arrival I again requested the prisoner Moran to open the box. He still refused, and I forced it open with a hammer, and there found three decanters, one containing about a pint of brandy, another containing a pint of Irish whiskey, and the third was empty. There was also a bottle containing a small quantity of Burgundy, two empty port wine bottles and a claret bottle. In a small handbag Superintendent Taylor found a plated spoon. The decanters and spoon belong to me. I gave the prisoner into custody. He shook his hand at me, and told me it would do me no good. I have Burgundy, claret and port in my cellar in bottles exactly similar to those produced. I had missed two of the decanters during the week from the pantry and a cupboard in the bar parlour. I made enquiries of the prisoner about them on Sunday. He did not make any reply.

In reply to Mr. Ward, Mr. Foster said he received a character with the prisoner Moran. He was receiving 12s. a week wages. The other prisoner did odd work in the house, but he could not go to the cellar without asking for the key. He had not missed anything from the cellar. The boy may have taken the wine.

Supt. Taylor said he went to the Clarendon Hotel about four o'clock on Monday afternoon. He found the prisoner Moran in a room at the top of the house. Prisoner refused to open a box at prosecutor's request, and prosecutor forced it open. The articles produced were in the box. Prisoner then handed him a key. On the way to the station prisoner said “Foster can't do anything with me, as I bought the stuff from one of the servants”.

Edgar Blanche, a lad, was then charged with stealing a decanter containing port wine, and other things.

Supt. Taylor said in consequence of a statement made to him by the prisoner Moran, he returned to the Clarendon Hotel on Monday afternoon, and there saw the prisoner Blanche. He told him the waiter was in custody on a charge of stealing wines and spirits belonging to Mr. Foster, and that he said he bought them from one of the servants. As he (Blanche) was the only one who had access to the cellar, he wished to ask him some questions. He asked him if at any time he had sold wines or spirits to Moran. He replied “No”. He then asked him if he had at any time fetched any spirits for Moran. He said “Yes”. He had bought half a pint of port and half a pint of whisky at a public house at the end of the alley (pointing in the direction of South Street). At that point he cautioned him and told him he was not obliged to answer his questions. He then asked him the name of the house, so that he might make enquiries. He made no reply to witness, but turned to Mr. Foster and said “I am sorry I took it, sir, but the waiter made me”. Witness then went with prisoner and Mr. Foster to prisoner's bedroom. In a box which was locked he found a decanter containing port wine, a bottle containing shrub, a bottle containing cloves, an empty hock bottle, two soda water bottles, a port wine bottle, some sealing wax, a corkscrew, and a pillowcase marked “Clarendon Hotel 1884”. Mr. Foster gave prisoner into custody. Prisoner then said “The waiter made me take it, and only last Sunday he slipped into me because I wouldn't get him more”. He added that he was very sorry.

Mr. Foster said the prisoner was in his service as boots, and occasionally worked in the cellar. The prisoner occupied a bedroom by himself. He corroborated the evidence of Supt. Taylor, and identified the articles, which were similar to others he had in his cellar.

In reply to the Bench he said the value of the articles was about 50s. The lad Blanche had been in his service about five months.

Mr. Ward, for the defence, said Moran bought the wines of the boy.

Mr. Bradley: You admit that he is the receiver, but not the thief?

Mr. Ward: Yes.

Mr. Minter said Mr. Foster did not wish to press the charge badly against the boy, who he thought had been led away by the elder prisoner.

The lad's father said he left home to go to Mr. Foster, and had always been a very good boy.

Moran was sentenced to three months' hard labour, and Blanche to one month's hard labour.

Folkestone Express 21 November 1885.

Wednesday, November 18th: Before The Mayor, Aldermen Caister and Sherwood, Capt. Carter, J. Holden and J. Fitness Esqs.

Joseph Sanders was charged with assaulting his wife, Elizabeth Sanders. He pleaded Guilty.

Complainant said she was living apart from her husband. He saw her in the street and struck her three times and knocked her down. She had not lived with her husband for nine months.

Defendant said his wife had left him three times and he had taken her back again. He wanted to have nothing at all to do with her, but she was continually molesting him. On Saturday night he was drinking in a public house with two men and he pulled her out. He did not strike her. He was guilty of “insulting” her, but not “assaulting” her.

Complainant was therefore sworn, and gave evidence as to the assault. She said she was at the bottom of High Street, and defendant came behind her and flung her on one side. She walked away and defendant followed her and struck her three times, knocking her down. He had repeatedly threatened her.

Harriett Weatherhead, who was with Mrs. Sanders, said they went together to the Clarendon with two men. Defendant went in, but did not speak to them. When they went out defendant dragged his wife across the road. He accused her of misconduct and followed her, and when near the Congregational Church he knocked her down.

Defendant was ordered to enter into his own recognizances in the sum of £20 to keep the peace for six months, and to pay the costs, 13s.

The defendant, who was evidently the worse for drink, declined to enter into a bond, saying he would rather go to prison. After endeavouring to make the defendant understand his position, but without success, the Magistrates ordered him to be imprisoned for one month.

Folkestone Express 21 January 1888.

Local News.

On Wednesday afternoon a young man named Loach, a waiter at the Clarendon Hotel, fell over the cliff at a point between The Warren and Eagle's Nest. He received some severe cuts and bruises on his head and face and dislocated his ankle. He was taken to the hospital where his injuries were attended to.

Folkestone Express 3 June 1893.

Friday, May 26th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, J. Brooke and C. Pursey Esqs., and Alderman Sherwood.

Michael Cummings and James Wilson, privates in the Somerset Regiment, Provisional Battalion, were charged with breaking a lamp, the property of Joseph Foster, of the Clarendon Hotel, and doing damage to the extent of 10s.

Sergeant Dawson said he was on duty at the bottom of the town, and saw the prisoners coming from Beach Street to Tontine Street. When they got to the Clarendon Hotel they both struck the lamps outside the public entrance and then shuffled away. They had been drinking, but were not drunk. When charged in the hotel they made no reply.

Edward Loach, waiter at the Clarendon Hotel, said he was at the bottom of High Street about twenty minutes to eleven on Thursday night, and saw the two men near the draper's shop at the corner. He saw one of them strike one of Mr. Foster's lamps. He ran after them, but they were in custody before he reached them. Both lamps were broken.

The prisoners said they were drunk and did not know what they were doing. They were each fined 20s., 10s. damage, and 4s. 6d. costs, or 14 days'. The prisoners, who seemed to treat the matter as a good joke, were taken below.

Folkestone Express 12 May 1900.

Wednesday, May 9th: Before J. Fitness and Lieut. Col. Hamilton.

The licence of the Clarendon Hotel was provisionally transferred from Mr. Joseph Foster to Mr. Venner.

Folkestone Express 16 June 1900.

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

The Bench granted the transfer of the licence of the Clarendon Hotel from Mr. Jos. Foster to Mr. Thomas Venner.

Folkestone Express 25 May 1901.

Saturday, May 18th: Before Col. Penfold, Alderman J. Pledge, Colonel Westropp, and T.J. Vaughan, W. Wightwick, and Geo. Peden Esqs.

Mr. P. Venner, the proprietor of the Rose Hotel, submitted plans for the alteration of the Clarendon Hotel, and as no objection was raised they were approved by the Bench.

Folkestone Express 21 December 1901.

Local News.

The Clarendon Hotel.

Great alterations and improvements have been made by the present proprietors – the Folkestone Distillery Company – in this old-established and popular hotel. The whole of the ground floor has been remodelled, and very handsomely fitted bars, with beautifully embossed and silvered windows and every modern fitting and appliance, and the most effective decorations have been introduced. The work has been admirably carried out by the contractor, Mr. Fearon, and the hotel, which will be under the management of Mr. and Mrs. Poole, will be formally opened today (Saturday), and we hope it will continue to increase in public favour.

Folkestone Express 20 January 1912.

Local News.

The Transfer Sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday morning, when the licence of the Rendezvous Hotel again came before the Bench. The Magistrates were E.T. Ward Esq., Lieut. Col. Fynmore, Major Leggett, Alderman Jenner, and W.G. Herbert Esq.

The Clarendon Hotel was granted an hour's extension on January 17th, on the occasion of the dinner of the Wingate C.C.

Folkestone Express 16 March 1912.

Friday, March 8th: Before Alderman Vaughan and Lieut. Col. Fynmore.

Edward Lane was summoned for wilfully breaking and depositing broken glass on the public street contrary to the bye-law.

P.C. Weller said on February 29th he was in Tontine Street where he saw the defendant standing on the pavement outside the Clarendon Hotel. He threw a beer glass in the roadway, and when it fell it was smashed. When he spoke to the defendant about it, Lane said “All right, I know I did it. I can pay for it”.

Defendant said it was accidentally done. He dropped the glass, and it bounced out into the road.

Fined 5s. and 9s.costs.

Folkestone Express 26 October 1912.

Monday, October 21st: Before Alderman Vaughan, R.G. Wood Esq., Captain Chamier, and Colonel Owen.

George Haynes was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday. Prisoner pleaded Guilty.

P.C. Ashby said about 7 p.m. on Saturday he saw the prisoner, who was having an altercation with another man in Beach Street. He moved away when requested, but went into the Clarendon Hotel, where he was refused drink. When he got outside he commenced to use bad language, and as he was drunk he (witness), with the help of P.C. Cox, took him to the police station.

Prisoner said he was drunk, but he had walked fourteen miles on Saturday, and then got mixed up with some fellows who gave him beer, which overcame him.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner had a bad record, and fourteen convictions against him. It was, however, six years ago since he was there.

The Chairman said the Magistrates had come to the decision that as he had not been there for six years they would discharge him.

The Clerk: keep away for another six.

Prisoner: Thank you, sir.

Folkestone Express 21 June 1913.

Friday, June 13th: Before J. Stainer, R.J. Linton, W.J. Harrison, and A. Stace Esqs.

Horace Hilden was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night. He pleaded Guilty.

Inspector Lawrence said at 10.40 on Saturday night he saw the prisoner being ejected from the Clarendon Hotel. He was bleeding from his mouth and side of the face. Hisden was also very excited, and wanted to fight a soldier who was standing outside the house. After he (witness) had spoken to him he went away into Beach Street, but a minute or so later he returned. He later saw the prisoner in Tontine Street, follow the soldier up to the Brewery Tap, and when opposite that place he threw off his coat and cap and struck the soldier. With the assistance of P.C. Thorn, the prisoner was brought to the police station.

Hilden said he was sorry. He had been steady for three years, and he hoped the Magistrates would be lenient with him. He had a few friends come to see him on Saturday, and they got him to have a drop of beer.

Fined 5s. and 4s. 6d. costs.

Prisoner asked for time, but the Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said if the request was granted he was afraid it would be a bad egg for getting the money.

The request was refused.

Prisoner: I can get the money in an hour.

The Chief Constable: I will send for it.

Folkestone Express 4 April 1914.

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

Sidney Barton was charged with being drunk and disorderly on Saturday night, and further with assaulting the police. The Court was crowded with the general public, as the assault, which was of a somewhat brutal nature, had been well talked about in the town. The prisoner said he was not drunk, but that he was Guilty of assaulting the police.

The Clerk (Mr. Andrew) said there were two charges of assaulting the police against the prisoner, but the Chief Constable only proceeded with one.

P.C. Weller said on Saturday evening, at 9.30, he saw a crowd outside the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street. On going to the spot he saw the prisoner fighting with another man whom he did not know. Prisoner knocked the man down, kicked him on the head, and then ran away. He (witness) gave chase, and the prisoner was stopped by someone in Tontine Street. He took Barton into custody, and charged him with being drunk and disorderly by fighting. On the way to the police station, in High Street, the prisoner became very violent, and kicked and struggled like a madman. P.C. Styles came to his (witness's) assistance, and even then they had some difficulty in getting him up High Street. P.C. Thorne then came along, when the prisoner threw him (witness) to the ground and kicked him in the face and ribs. Barton then threw P.C. Thorne to the ground, and kicked hi in the jaw like kicking a football – in fact worse. They eventually got the prisoner to the police station. Prisoner was under the influence of drink, but not incapable.

P.C. Thorne, whose head and face were practically covered with bandages, said about 9.40 on Saturday night he went to the assistance of P.C. Weller. He got hold of prisoner's left arm, when he threw him (witness) to the ground, and kicked him with his right foot in the face. He (witness) was carried to the police station, where he was seen by the doctor. It was then found he had a severe cut on the jaw, a hole right through his chin, a tooth missing, and several other teeth loosened. The prisoner tripped him up with his left foot.

Douglas Harold Ruff, in the employ of Messrs. Lewis and Hyland, said he was in High Street when he saw P.C. Weller and another constable bringing the prisoner up the street. He saw Weller's helmet knocked off, and also the constable thrown to the ground. P.C. Thorne came up, and he also saw him tripped up and kicked. He considered Barton's kick was most brutal. The officers asked the prisoner to go along quietly, and they gave him every opportunity of doing so. The prisoner was not incapable.

In reply to the prisoner, the witness said every opportunity was given to Barton to go quietly without assistance. A lady went up to him and told him not to make a disturbance, or it would be worse for him.

Prisoner: Did you not hear me cry “Let me go and I will go quietly”?

Witness: No.

Several people at the back of the Court immediately shouted out “Yes”.

Prisoner: Lots of people cried out to the constable to stop knocking me about. I kicked the constable in the struggle. The two constables who came first hurt me so much that the crowd jeered them.

P.S. Burniston said shortly before ten o'clock the prisoner was brought in by four constables. He was drunk, and in a very excited condition.

Prisoner said he kicked the constable in the struggle but it was not done purposely. He was in the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, where a collier “chap” struck him, so he struck back. The landlord pushed them out of the door, and he left his cap inside the place. He grabbed what he thought was his cap, but when he got up Tontine Street he found he had the wrong cap, so he went back. Another man had his cap, and when he asked for it, the first chap came up and wanted to fight. He hit him, so he hit back, and he ran away. He was not drunk. If a gentleman had not stopped him the police constable would not have caught him. P.C. Weller caught hold of his arm and very nigh broke it. He told him if he would leave go he would walk properly, but if they would not give him fair play he would be rough. P.C. Allen then came up and jabbed him in the nose, making it bleed. Then another constable jabbed him at the back of the ear, and he supposed the bruise was there to show that. When P.C. Weller caught hold of him by the neck he nearly choked him.

P.C. Weller said the prisoner walked quietly from Messrs. Durban's shop into High Street, when he began to struggle. He had the prisoner alone until P.C. Styles came to his assistance.

The Chief Constable (Mr. Reeve) said the prisoner was a Folkestone man, and worked for one of the builders of the town. He had never had a charge against him of that kind before. He would like to say he saw Barton in the cell, and he expressed his deep regret for having injured the constable, and was very sorry indeed for what he had done.

The Chairman, after the Magistrates had conferred, said that was rather a serious case. The prisoner could have been sent to prison for six months. The assault was a very bad one indeed, and it could not be overlooked. For that prisoner would be fined £2 and 7/6 costs, or in default one month's hard, and for the other offence he would have to pay a fine of 5/- and 4/6, or £2 17s. in all. It was entirely the prisoner's good character that had saved him from being sent to prison without the option of a fine.

Prisoner was proceeding to make allegations of ill-treatment by the constables, when the Clerk told him if there was any complaint about the action of the police he had the proper place to lay his complaint against them.

There was a good deal of interruption at the back of the Court, and the Chairman threatened, unless there was silence, to have it cleared.

Arising out of the fracas a charge of being drunk and disorderly was preferred against James Manning on Saturday night. He pleaded Guilty.

P.C. H. Johnson said at 9.35 p.m. on Saturday night he was in Tontine Street assisting P.C. Weller with the previous prisoner when Manning pushed his way through the crowd, put himself in a fighting attitude, and used bad language. He refused to go away, so he (witness) let go of Barton, caught hold of prisoner, and brought him to the police station.

A fine of 5/- and 4/6 costs was imposed.

A man in the public portion of the Court, who continually exhorted Manning to tell the Magistrates what he thought, was ordered out of the Court.

Folkestone Express 2 May 1914.

Monday, April 27th: Before E.T. Ward Esq. and Colonel Owen.

James Millen was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street on Saturday night. He pleaded Not Guilty.

P.C. Chayney said at 8.45 p.m. on Saturday night he was called to the Clarendon Hotel, where he saw the prisoner being ejected. Millen commenced to shout about another man, who, he said, ought to be thrown out of the house. Just then a man came out of the hotel, and the prisoner said “That is the man you ought to clear out”. Millen took off his coat and put himself into a fighting attitude. As he refused to desist, and a large crowd of people assembled, he brought Millen to the police station, where he charged him with being drunk and disorderly.

P.S. Sharp said when the prisoner was brought into the police station at 8.55 he was drunk.

Prisoner said in his own mind he was not drunk, for he had only had six glasses of beer during the day. He had been locked up since Saturday night, and if he had given any trouble he was very sorry.

The Chief Constable said there was nothing known against the prisoner, who was a flower seller staying in a lodging house.

Fined 2/6 and 5/6 costs, or seven days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 24 July 1915.

Local News.

A curious story was told at the Folkestone Police Court on Monday (before Mr. E.T. Ward and other Magistrates), when John Wilson, a private in the Canadian Contingent, was charged with stealing, on July 17th, a lady's gold wrist watch and a gold locket, value £2 15s., the property of Mrs. E.M. Garland, of the Clarendon Hotel.

Claude Garland, manager of the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, said prisoner came to the house on Saturday about 12.30, and, in reply to a request, was shown up to the first floor. He did not see him again. About 2.30 a Mr. Walker made a communication to him, in consequence of which he went upstairs to the bedroom (on the second floor) occupied by witness and his wife. He examined a box on the dressing table which had contained some of his wife's jewellery, and missed a gold wrist watch and a little locket. The watch bore the initials “E.M.G.”, and the locket contained portraits of witness and their little boy. He last saw the property safe that morning. On discovering the loss he gave information to the police, and about 5.30 Mr. Walker again came to see him, and witness then went to the end of Tontine Street, and he saw the prisoner standing in Beach Street. He pointed him out to Corporal Stewart, of the Military Police, who brought the accused to him, and he noticed that he had the watch on his wrist. The property he valued at 55/-.

Prisoner (to witness): Did I come to you on Saturday and say “I have a watch here, and it is not mine”?

Witness: No.

Charles Augustus Walker, manager in Messrs. Upton Bros.' china department, Tontine Street, said about two o'clock on Saturday he was crossing Tontine Street and saw the prisoner, who stopped him and put a little gold locket into his hand. He looked at it, and, opening it, he recognised the photograph of the last witness. He said “This looks like the landlord of the Clarendon”, and he advised him to take it back again where he had found it. Prisoner took the locket back and said “On your honour as a gentleman, don't say anything about it”. He then walked away. Later on witness made a communication to Mr. Garland. Subsequently, about 5.30, he was coming through Beach Street and saw the prisoner standing there.

The Clerk: What was his condition?

Witness: He seemed the worse for drink.

Corporal Stewart, of the Military Police, Shorncliffe, said at 5.30 on Saturday night he was on duty in Tontine Street, when Mr. Garland pointed out to him the prisoner. He went to him, and saw that he was wearing the watch (produced) on his wrist. Witness then took him back to Mr. Garland, who identified the watch. Prisoner was next taken to the Guard Room, and afterwards to the police station.

The Clerk: What condition was he in?

Witness: He had been drinking. He seemed to be getting over the effects of drink, but he was not drunk.

Detective Sergt. Johnson said on Saturday he saw the accused at the police station, and showed him the watch, informing him that he would be charged with stealing it; also a gold locket not recovered. He cautioned him, and he replied “I am sorry”.

Mr. Garland, re-called, said the man had been in the house about ten minutes before he directed him upstairs.

The Clerk: Did you yourself serve him? – No.

You saw him served? – Yes, with a bottle of Bass.

So far as your observation goes, that is all he had in the house? – Yes.

What condition was he in? – Perfectly sober.

Prisoner desired to have the case settled by the Magistrates, and said he had no alternative but to plead Guilty, seeing that the watch was found on him. His mind was a blank. He woke up and found the watch and kept it on his wrist. Since he had been in the Battalion as an officer's servant nothing had been missed.

The Clerk: Do you mean you were drunk?

Prisoner: Yes, sir. I got too much liquor.

An officer said the prisoner had an absolutely clean conduct sheet. He had known him since last October. He had been a waiter in the Officers' Mess, and it was true what he had said, that not one of them had missed anything that could be traced to him. As for drunkenness, there was no charge against him.

The Clerk (to prisoner): Have you any information to give as to what has become of the locket?

Prisoner: I am sorry that I cannot. If I could replace it I would, but I will replace the value. I have no idea where the locket is.

The Chairman said the Magistrates would bind him over for three months, and he would have to pay the costs of the hearing, 15/-.

Folkestone Express 1 January 1916.

Local News.

“The Bench are determined to put this sort of thing down”, said Mr. J. Stainer, at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, in sentencing to three months' hard labour Frederick Charles Mullett, who was charged with purchasing, on behalf of a soldier, a bottle of whisky by retail, for consumption off the premises, contrary to the regulations.

A private in the 2nd East Surrey Regiment said on the previous day he was in Tontine Street, when he saw the prisoner leave a public house, cross the road, and give a soldier a bottle. Witness afterwards went to the prisoner, and asked him if he could get him a bottle “of the same”. The accused said “Whisky?”, and witness replied “That's it”. He gave the man some money, and he came back with a bottle of whisky. Then a civil policeman and a military policeman came up and asked witness what he had got. He replied “A bottle of the stuff”, whereupon witness and the prisoner were conducted to the police station.

The Clerk: You wee in uniform?

Witness: Yes.

And you were going to give him something for his trouble? – I was.

Prisoner said that two young men came up to him and begged him to get them some whisky. He was stupid enough to do so. It was the first time he had ever done it, and he would never do it again. If the Bench would let him off, he would go to Hasting – to his mother's place.

The Clerk pointed out that the matter was of grave importance. The competent military authorities had made an Order for the closing of all licensed premises in the borough for the sale, at all hours, of intoxicating liquor, by retail, for consumption off the premises, to any members of H.M. Forces, or for sale on behalf of them. Any person convicted of a breach of the Order could be sentenced to six months' imprisonment with or without hard labour.

The Chief Constable mentioned that the defendant had been before the Court before, the last time being on December 13th.

The prisoner: Let me off, and I will go to Hastings at once.

The Clerk: You said that before.

The prisoner: A policeman can accompany me to the station and see me get the ticket.

The Chairman (Mr. J. Stainer) said the Magistrates regarded this as a case of extreme gravity. The prisoner was perfectly well familiar with the proceedings of the Court.

Sentence was then pronounced as stated above.

Folkestone Express 12 March 1921.

Adjourned Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, March 9th: Before Mr. G.I. Swoffer and other Magistrates.

Plans were submitted for alterations at the Clarendon Hotel for the conversion of some of the premises into a restaurant, and the Magistrates approved of them.

Folkestone Express 9 July 1921.

Local News.

Mr. Venner, late of the Rose Hotel, and proprietor of the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, has entered upon a new venture at the Clarendon Hotel. He has built a spacious dining room at the rear of the premises, where three course lunches are now daily served to visitors and residents.

The opening of the room took place on Thursday.

A specimen lunch was served, consisting of mock turtle soup, roast beef, green peas, and potatoes, cherry pie and custard, and bread and cheese, to which everybody did full justice.

Several toasts were honoured, including “Success to the new undertaking”, and votes of thanks were accorded to the builder and architect, as well as the manager (Mr. Claude Garland) for the manner in which the lunch was served.

There should be a big future for the enterprise, for the splendid lunch is served for 2s. 6d.

Folkestone Express 21 September 1929.

Obituary.

We have to record with deep regret the death of Mrs. Venner, the wife of Alderman P.H. Venner, of Margate, who passed away in a London nursing home on Tuesday, following an operation.

The late Mrs. Venner was well-known in Folkestone, where she resided for a number of years. Mr. Venner, it will be remembered, was the proprietor of the old Rose Hotel, the famous hostelry in Rendezvous Street, and which was demolished two years ago, and also of the Clarendon Hotel in Tontine Street. On leaving Folkestone before the War, Mr. and Mrs. Venner went to Margate to reside, and since their residence there they have most capably filled the office of Mayor and Mayoress. The deepest sympathy will be extended by his many Folkestone friends to Alderman Venner in his great loss.

Folkestone Express 2 January 1932.

Thursday, December 24th: Before The Mayor and Colonel G.P. Owen.

John Lancaster, a private in the 5th Royal Berkshire Regiment, stationed at Shorncliffe, was charged with being drunk and disorderly in Tontine Street at 8.45 p.m. on the previous night. Prisoner pleaded Not Gulity to being drunk and Guilty to being disorderly.

P.C. Whitehead said at 8.40 the previous evening he was at the bottom of High Street in company with Chief inspector Pittock and P.C. Bailey, when he saw the prisoner with eight other soldiers coming down High Street drunk. They were shouting and kicking their hats about in the street. They went to them and told them to be quiet, and prisoner said “Come along boys, take no notice of them”. They proceeded to the Clarendon Hotel where they were refused drink by the landlord. They continued up Tontine Street and prisoner kept shouting “Take no notice of them. They can't touch us”. At the bus stop by Mr. Wood's shop, witness advised the men to get on a bus and eight of them did so. With Chief Inspector Pittock, he took prisoner into custody. He became violent and at the station he was abusive and refused to be searched.

Prisoner: That constable never spoke to me a word.

Witness said he did. Had it not been for the prisoner's conduct, the eight men would have got on a bus at the bottom of High Street and gone away quietly.

Chief Inspector Pittock gave corroborative evidence. He also said prior to those incidents he saw prisoner in Sandgate Road, and he was drunk then. He was taking off other soldiers' hats and kicking them in the street. He told prisoner to try to keep the others quiet, and the prisoner kept saying “Come on, let's enjoy ourselves. He cannot touch us”. It was some years since he had seen such conduct in the streets of Folkestone.

P.C. Bailey also gave corroborative evidence. When at the bottom of High Street he advised the men to get on a bus, and eight of them walked towards the bus standard, when prisoner called out “Come on back, they cannot touch us”. They then went to the Clarendon Hotel.

Defendant said at ten minutes to six he was detailed to be at the Mess for the farewell to the India draft going away that (Thursday) morning. He was there until a quarter to eight. He then changed into civilian clothes and went into the canteen and had one pint and left at ten past eight. He went to Sandgate and had one pint there. Some of the draft then said they were going to Folkestone and he said he would go along with them to see that they did not do any damage. They came down to the Town hall. They were singing but they did not do any damage. Coming down High street, the Chief Inspector slapped one of the fellows. He (prisoner) resented that and he told him they were all right and that they were going away in the morning. He (Chief Inspector Pittock) wanted to split the party, and he (prisoner) said “Come along, we will go away”. They went to get a bus and the police were on one side of the road and they were on the other. The bus came, and he said “Come on, get in”. The Chief Inspector came to get hold of the roughest, and he (prisoner) said “Come on, let me get hold of him”, and the Chief Inspector said “Arrest him”, and they arrested him. Coming up to the police station, one of the constables had hold of his arm and nearly broke it, and he resented it.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You say you were not drunk?

Prisoner: No, sir. I could stand eleven or twelve pints of beer.

An officer of prisoner's regiment said the prisoner was a very good soldier, but he did occasionally do very silly things. About once a year he broke out and did something stupid, but he hda a good character from a civilian point of view. He thought in that case he was trying to do his best in a thorough muddle-headed manner. He did not think he wanted to misbehave in Folkestone. He had six and a half years' service. The others were going on draft and they were having a final fling on their last day in England for five or six years.

The Chairman: Misdirected zeal.

The officer: Probably, sir.

The Chairman said the case had been proved against the prisoner. The civil authorities could not allow a number of soldiers to behave in that way, and they must visit him with some punishment. He would be fined 10s.

Folkestone Express 1 October 1932.

Friday, September 23rd: Before Alderman R.G. Wood, Miss A.M. Hunt, and Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

William Whiting was summoned for using obscene language in Tontine Street. Defendant did not appear when the case opened.

William Alfred James Taylor, licensee of the Clarendon Hotel, said on September 16th, at 10.35 p.m., he was in the bar clearing up. The premises were closed. He heard the front door bell ring. Subsequently he saw two faces peering through the window. He went outside and asked the men to go away. One of the men was Whiting. He used some obscene remarks in a very nasty, aggressive voice. It was on the pavement and women were about and must have heard. A similar incident had occurred many times before. The men were barred from his public house and he had given them a reason.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said the defendant had been before the Court six times before.

Defendant appeared in Court at this juncture.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You were summoned to be here at eleven o'clock.

Defendant: I have been looking for work, sir.

The Clerk: How long have you been looking for work?

Defendant: All the morning, sir.

When charged, defendant pleaded Not Guilty. He denied using the words alleged, and said he could stay in Tontine Street if he wanted to. The trouble arose through some soldiers calling to Mr. Taylor.

William Whitworth, a barman at the Clarendon Hotel, gave corroborative evidence.

Defendant said he had been to the pictures and had then had a fish and chip supper. Some soldiers were outside the Clarendon calling to defendant and then ran away. He would not run away and Mr. Taylor came out and said “Hello, you lazy vagabond, you want to move on”. He told him he had a perfect right to stand there. Taylor was three parts drunk, and he (defendant) had not had a drink.

The Chief Constable said defendant's was not a very savoury record.

A fine of 10s. was imposed, leviable by distress, or seven days' imprisonment. A week was allowed in which to pay.

Folkestone Express 30 September 1933

Monday, September 25rh: Before R.G. Wood Esq., and Eng. Rear Admiral L.J. Stephens.

A disturbance in Tontine Street on Saturday night was the subject of Police Court proceedings on Monday, when two well-known Folkestone men, William Whiting and Alfred Butler, both from the fishing quarter, were charged with being drunk and disorderly. The case against each prisoner was dealt with separately, Whiting appearing in the dock first.

P.S. Thorne said at 9.25 p.m. on Saturday he was in Harbour Street, when the landlord of the Clarendon Hotel made a complaint, and in consequence of what he said he went into Tontine Street. Outside the Clarendon Hotel he saw the prisoner with another man, both drunk. They each had a rabbit in their hand, and were standing about on the path and preventing foot passengers getting free passage. They were also speaking in loud voices. Witness advised them to go away, and Whiting said “Look here, why can't we go in here?” and pointed to the Clarendon Hotel. Witness gave him three chances to go away, and prisoner refused to do so. He then brought him to the police station and charged him, and he replied “All right”.

P.C. Fry said at 9.25 on Saturday evening last he was on duty in Harbour Street with P.S. Thorne, when the landlord of the Clarendon Hotel came and made a complaint about two men making a disturbance outside his house. He accompanied P.S. Thorne to the premises, and on three occasions the Sergeant asked the men to desist, and they refused. The Sergeant then arrested Whiting.

Mr. William A. James Taylor, licensee of the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, said he knew Whiting, because he had had occasion to bar him the house. Whiting came there on Saturday night and made use of obscene expressions to him for no reason at all. He (witness) was standing outside his house at the time, as he frequently did, and on that particular occasion the prisoner made use of obscene language to him, which he had done several times before. Prisoner was under the influence of drink and his actions were disorderly. He made a complaint to the police.

Whiting, addressing the Bench, said he went out on Saturday evening at half past seven and had a few drinks. He had about four pints, and went and bought a rabbit. He was going by Mr. Taylor's place at the Clarendon when his mate stopped and talked to two chaps. Mr. Taylor said “Go on, home you go, Whiting”. He said “What right have you to tell people to go home, you big stiff? You don't own Tontine Street”. With that, Mr. Taylor said “I will get you put up top”, and he turned round and ran and got a policeman, otherwise they would have gone home.

The Chairman: That does not alter the case that you were drunk and disorderly.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes): You have not said anything about what happened when the Sergeant came along.

Whiting: The Sergeant said he advised me to go home, but I never had a chance to go home. He grabbed me and brought me up here.

The Chairman: He says he gave you three chances.

Whiting: I don't think he did, but you can take his word for it.

The Chairman: This man has been here before, I think. What have you to say about it, Chief?

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said that if the Bench had decided that Whiting was Guilty, he would like them to hear the other case before dealing with the prisoner.

Butler was then placed in the dock and charged, and he pleaded Not Guilty.

P.S. Thorne said at 9.25 p.m. on Saturday he was in Harbour Street, when the landlord of the Clarendon Hotel made a complaint, and in consequence of what he was told he went to the Clarendon. On the pavement he saw Butler, together with the last prisoner. They were stopping free passage on the footpath, and were speaking in rather loud voices, flourishing a rabbit about.

The Chairman: Each one?

Witness: Yes, sir.

Proceeding, witness said he advised the prisoner to go away, telling him to do so three times. Prisoner said “I can stand here, and no-one can shift me. I can stand here as long as I like”. He then took the last prisoner into custody, and P.C. Fry took Butler.

P.C. Fry, giving corroborative evidence, said that on the way to the police station Butler became very violent and threw him to the ground twice. With assistance, prisoner was brought to the station, where he charged him with being drunk and disorderly, and he replied “All right”.

In reply to the prisoner, witness said he was not standing in front of Stevenson's, but in front of the Clarendon.

Butler: You started pushing me and told me to go home, and I said “No”.

Witness: I did not push you.

Replying to the Clerk, witness said the prisoner was able to stand up straight, but he was drunk. He was standing in front of the Hotel, flourishing a rabbit about.

Mr. Taylor gave evidence that he had also barred Butler from the Clarendon Hotel. On Saturday night he was outside the house when Butler came along and flourished a rabbit in his face. Prisoner, who was in company with the last prisoner, did not say anything.

The Clerk: Any questions?

Butler: No, Sir. That's right.

Prisoner said on Saturday night he called for Whiting and asked him if he was going to get a drink. They went into the True Briton and had three drinks and a game of darts. They were then going home, but on the way Whiting started talking to Mr. Taylor at the Clarendon, and had a row. He walked on, because he did not want to get into it. He was by Stevenson's the tobacconist's, when they came and brought him up to the police station, and he had been there since Saturday night.

The Chairman: It would have been better for you to go away, and take the advice of the police.

Prisoner: I did not want to cause any trouble. I have been in trouble before, and I am old enough to know now.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A.S. Beesley) said Butler had been before that Court, as no doubt the Bench were well aware, over and over again, and considerable leniency had been exercised by the Bench, and also, he might say, by the police. As recently as the 25th May last year at that Court he was fined 10s. for being drunk and disorderly, and previous to that he had twelve separate convictions, some for larceny, and one or two for being drunk and disorderly. The man was a nuisance. Both prisoners were, in fact, a nuisance when they got a little drink in them, and in particular they were a nuisance to that particular licensee, who had done what other licensees would have to do, barred them from the house. What he had said with regard to Butler, applied also to Whiting. He was before that Court with Butler, charged with being drunk and disorderly in May last year, and on that occasion he was discharged. There were some felony charges against him and two or three cases of drunk and disorderly. He had had eight convictions, and Butler had had fifteen.

The Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said the last conviction recorded against Whiting was in 1921.

The Chairman, addressing the prisoners, said they had been there several times, both of them, and they were giving a lot of trouble to people down in Tontine Street. Leniency had been shown to them, both by the Bench and the police, and the last time Butler was fined there was difficulty in getting the money. They would be sent to prison for one month with hard labour.

Folkestone Express 20 January 1934.

Tuesday, January 16th: Before Alderman G. Spurgen, Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Mrs. E. Gore, and Mr. W. Hollands.

James Gallagher, of the Royal Artillery, stationed at Ross Barracks, Shorncliffe, was summoned for committing wilful damage by breaking the glass of a show case, value 4s., the property of Miss Fitch, Rendezvous Street, Folkestone.

Gunner Thomas J. Munnions, of the Royal Artillery, stationed at Ross Barracks, Shorncliffe, said on Friday evening between eight and half past he met defendant in Sandgate, when accompanied by another man. They came to Folkestone and went to the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, staying there until ten o'clock. They then went to the supper bar for supper, and then came up Tontine Street. Gallagher's behaviour was all right and he was not drunk. The third man went away and Gallagher was with him (witness). They came together up Dover Road to Rendezvous Street, and at the top he was ahead of him. He (witness) saw a young lady, to whom he spoke, Gallagher being some distance behind. He heard a smash and Gallagher then came up to them and said he was catching a bus home. He then went away. A constable came and spoke to him. Eventually he made a statement at the police station.

Frederick George Hastings, 15 Saffron's Place, Folkestone, said on Friday evening he was going down Rendezvous Street at twenty minutes to eleven, near the Prince Albert, and he saw two fellows, one trying to pull the other back. The men were in civilian clothes. The shorter of the two got away, and struck the window in the “Value Shop” with his fist, breaking it. The other man walked away up the street and talked to a young lady. He recognised the last witness as the other man, but not the defendant.

Miss D.O. Fitch, proprietress of the “Value Shop”, 44, Rendezvous Street, said at eight o'clock on Friday evening the shop was all right. About twelve o'clock she was called to the shop and found that the glass of a show case had been broken and the damage amounted to 4s.

P.C. Fry said at 10.50 p.m. on Friday he proceeded to Rendezvous Street, where he saw Gunner Munnions. He later proceeded with P.C. Spain to Ross Barracks, Shorncliffe, where he saw the prisoner, whom he asked whether he knew anything about the glass of a show case being broken in Rendezvous Street. He said he did not. They brought the defendant to the police station in order that further enquiries could be made.

In reply to the defendant, witness said he searched the defendant and found nothing on him.

Det. Con. Duke said at 1.45 a.m. on Saturday he saw the defendant detained at the Police Office, and told him he was making enquiries about a show case which had been damaged. He was cautioned, and he replied “I know nothing about it”. He then examined a pair of gloves the defendant was wearing, and on examining the right hand glove he found several slight cut marks. There were also three slight cuts, apparently new, on the left shoe. The cuts could have been caused by the broken glass. In consequence of certain enquiries, he charged the defendant at 12.45 p.m. that day with the offence.

P.C. Nicholls said he saw Munnions at 11.25 p.m. on Friday, and he freely gave a statement, which he took down word for word. Munnions read the statement over and made no complaint about, eventually signing it.

Gunner Munnions, re-called, said he gave the statement to P.C. Nicholls. He could not say he was quite sober. He only read a portion of the statement afterwards, but signed it.

Defendant, giving evidence, said he went to Harry's Restaurant for supper, and after that his memory was all a blur until two constables came to the Barracks. He told the officers it was perfectly ridiculous what they said about him breaking the glass, for he knew nothing about it.

An officer said the defendant had 15 months' service and he had a clean sheet.

The Magistrates fined the defendant £1 and 5s. costs and ordered him to pay 4s., the damage.

Folkestone Express 7 December 1935.

Local News.

William Milton, a fisherman, was bound over to be of good behaviour and ordered to pay 4/- costs at the Folkestone Police Court on Friday, when he was summoned by Mrs. Elvie Flynn, of 24, Tontine Street, for assault. The complainant alleged that Milton threw the contents of a glass of beer at her when they were in the Clarendon Hotel. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty.

Complainant said on the previous Sunday evening she went into the Clarendon Hotel and the defendant was there. He said “Good evening” to her and then added something insulting to her. She walked round to the other side. He ran after her to hit her and he threw some beer at her, but she ran and the beer went all over the back of her head and the wall. She heard no crash of glass. She called a police officer, who asked the defendant whether he had thrown it, and he said “Yes, I did”. She knew the defendant but had never spoken to him before.

P.C. Brittain said at 8.30 p.m. on November 24th he saw the complainant, and her hair behind the right ear was saturated with beer. He saw the defendant and told him of the complaint and he said “I don't deny or admit it”.

Defendant, on oath, said he was in the Clarendon when the complainant came in. He said “You here again, you whelp?” He told her to keep at arm's length and in doing so the beer he had in a glass went over her.

Roland Noble, 2, Seagate Street, said he went into the Clarendon with the defendant. She came up to him and he put out his arm. He had a glass of beer in his hand and the complainant knocked his arm and the beer went over her.

Folkestone Express 27 June 1936.

Local News.

On Saturday William Fraser, a man of no fixed address, was sent to prison for six weeks on a charge of attempting to assault Mr. A. J. Taylor, the licensee of the Clarendon Hotel.

The magistrates were Dr. W.W. Nuttall (in the chair) and Eng. Rear Admiral L. J. Stephens.

Mr. Taylor said at ten o’clock the previous night the defendant came into the saloon bar and tried to sell heather. He approached him and said to him “I do not allow that sort of thing here”. He then asked him to go out and the defendant became abusive and attempted to hit him in the face, but missed. He (complainant) pushed him to the door and when outside the defendant again attempted to hit him but fortunately he dodged to miss the blow. He told him he was sending for the Police and the defendant said “If you get me 28 days I will shoot you when I get out of gaol”. He repeated that several times after the police constable arrived.

Eng. Rear-Admiral Stephens (a magistrate): Did he actually hit you?

Mr. Taylor: No.

In reply to questions by the defendant, Mr. Taylor said he should say Fraser was absolutely sober. He denied that he did anything to provoke the defendant to assault him.

Defendant: You came up to me in an hostile manner.

Mr. Taylor said he certainly pushed him to get him out of the house.

P.C. Austin said at 10.05 p.m. he went to the Clarendon Hotel and saw the defendant standing in the roadway. He was talking very loudly, and he (witness) heard him use a very obscene expression to Mr. Taylor. He also attempted to strike Mr. Taylor and he then took him into custody and brought him lo the Police Station. He only hung back a little as he came to the Police Station.

The Chief Constable (Mr. A. S. Beesley) said fortunately the defendant did not often come to Folkestone, but he was a nuisance when he did come. The last time he was there he was sentenced to 21 days’ for begging. There were ten previous convictions against him for larceny and other offences, two of them in New York, from which he was deported in 1933. They did not want him in Folkestone.

Fraser: I don’t know what that has to do with this case at all.

The Chairman to the prisoner: You are a general nuisance. You are a man who will not take advice when you receive it. You will go to prison for six weeks’ hard labour.

Folkestone Express 7 November 1936.

Local News.

Alexander Harris, a restaurant proprietor, of 6/8, Harbour Street, Folkestone, appeared before the Folkestone magistrates on Tuesday on two summonses of selling beer without a licence to do so. He pleaded guilty. Miss Vivien Potter, a waitress, was also summoned in respect of the same offences, but they were withdrawn when her employer pleaded guilty.

The magistrates were Dr. W.W. Nuttall, Dr. F. Wolverson and Mr. R.J. Stokes.

Mr. D J. Willson, prosecuting for the Commissioners of Customs arid Excise, said although the defendant was sending out for the beer for his customers he was making a profit on it. The Customs officers went to the restaurant on August 24th and asked the waitress for lunch and two light ales, and gave her 2/6. Ten minutes later she brought in the two light ales and 1/6 change. They had paid 6d. each for the bottles of beer. They left the premises at 1.30 p.m. On this occasion observation was kept out side, and no one was seen to leave the premises to obtain the beer. There were two other sales on the same day. Two officers asked for two bottles of beer and paid their 2/6 to the waitress and she brought them 1/6 change and two bottles of beer. Two officers, keeping observation outside, saw a man leave the premises and return carrying two bottles of beer. The following day at lunch time officers went to the premises again and asked for lunch and two bottles of beer and paid 2/6. On this occasion when the waitress brought the beer she did not bring the change until ten minutes afterwards. The officers entered the restaurant at 12.15 p.m. They ordered the beer at 12.30 p.m. and some time subsequently the cashier handed them their change. Two officers were keeping watch outside the premises at 12.25 p.m. when a man left and was followed to the Clarendon Hotel, and going into the saloon lounge handed a piece of paper over to the barman, and on this was “Two Watneys 2/6” with an initial and figure. He obtained the beer and returned to the restaurant, and later a man was seen leaving the premises with three empty bottles. He went to the saloon lounge of the Clarendon Hotel and was handed 6d. back on the bottles. Later the same day the two officers keeping observation saw the defendant, who made a statement. He said his instructions to the staff were that beer should be supplied to customers at cost price, fivepence for the beer plus twopence on the bottle. In such a case the customer would be charged 5d. If thev had been charged 6d. it was a mistake of the waitress. A price list in the restaurant showed the price of the various beers, and Watney was given at 6d. According to Harris the price list was out of date. The officer interviewed the waitress, and she said as far as she knew they were the prices. The kitchen help was sent to the hotel to obtain the beer, and he had been charged 7d., 5d. for the beer and 2d. on the bottle. He came back with the 1/4 change, and the empty bottles were sent down to the kitchen, and the help went to the Clarendon and obtained 6d. on three bottles. Fourpence was sent up to the restaurant in respect of the two Watney bottles, and the cashier took 2d. of that, and the remaining 2d. was paid to the customers. In other words the other 2d. was the profit the defendant was making on each bottle. He was making Id. on each bottle of Watney and ½d. on Bass, Guinness and Worthington. If a man in the defendant’s position, not holding a licence, supplied beer to his customers and made a profit on it he was retailing beer as if he had a large stock and was selling it at full prices.

Mr. John Pesgard, officer of the Customs and Excise Special Enquiry Staff, said he went to the defendant’s restaurant on August 24th with another officer. They ordered two bottles of Watney beer with their lunch. The same evening they went back again and ordered two more bottles. On August 25th they had lunch and again ordered two bottles of beer.

Mr. Graham J.E. Reid, officer of the Special Enquiry Staff, said ho kept observation outside the premises on August 24th at lunch, and did not see anyone come out to get the beer, The next day at lunch time a man was seen to leave the premises. He followed him to the Clarendon Hotel. He was carrying three empty beer bottles, for which he was given 6d. at the public house.

Mr. George Binks, another officer, said about 7.40 p.m. he was outside the premises and just before 8 p.m. he saw a man leaving the premises. He saw him coming back carrying two bottles of beer.

Mr. Willson said the deposit the customer paid on the bottle gave the defendant his profit.

Harris said lie was not in the restaurant at the time the offence was committed. He had given the waitresses instructions what to do. When they went out for the beer they had to pay 2d. on the bottle, which they received back when they returned the bottles. There was never any intention of making a profit on the beer. He had been there for ten years, and had never been in trouble before. His waitresses had told him that it was a mistake, although he had not given it a thought. He did not know that drinks were being sent out for in the evening. They only obliged customers by sending out for the drinks.

The Chairman said the defendant would be fined £1 on each summons, £2 in all.

An application by Mr. Willson for costs was refused.

Folkestone Express 16 September 1939.

Local News.

The first summonses for breaches of the wartime lighting regulations in Folkestone were heard at the Police Court on Friday, and in each case a fine of not exceeding 10/- was imposed.

The Magistrates' Clerk (Mr. C. Rootes) said he thought he should tell the Magistrates that it was provided that no person should, during the hours of darkness, cause or permit any light to be displayed unless the light was so obscured at to prevent illumination from the front being visible from outside. They would have summonses before them against persons permitting, and others might be persons summoned for causing it. The householder was responsible for his house unless he was absent. There would always be somebody responsible.

Frederick W. Humphreys, licensee of the Clarendon Hotel, Tontine Street, was fined 10/-.

P.C. Alexander said at 10.15 p.m. on September 4th he was on duty in Tontine Street, where he saw light being emitted in two places from plate glass windows 15 feet square and three glass-panelled doors. The windows and doors were covered by bright yellow blinds, through which light could be seen. He noticed that when the doors were opened to let people in and out there was insufficient screening inside to prevent the light being shown. He pointed it out to the defendant, and he said “I did not think such a state of emergency existed”. The defendant switched all the lights off except one, but the light still showed.

The defendant told the Court that he had endeavoured to get proper blackout cloth, but he had been forced to use any old blind he could get hold of. The officer told him in his opinion it was not effective with all the lights but one extinguished. He asked the officer if he should shut the house completely and he said he thought it would not be a bad idea.

P.C. Alexander said the premises had since been completely blacked-out.

The Mayor (Alderman G.A. Gurr), who presided on the Bench, said “We wish to make it perfectly clear that the Lighting Order must be obeyed. Very heavy penalties can be inflicted for these offences and the Bench wish me to state that they will support the police in carrying out this Lighting Order. People who fail to obscure lights are not only a danger to themselves, but a danger to the general public. If breaches continue the penalties will increase”.

The Clerk said the penalties for breaches of the lighting regulations were a term of imprisonment not exceeding three months, or a fine not exceeding £100, or both, on summary conviction. On indictment the penalties were a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or a fine not exceeding £500, or both.

Folkestone Express 25 November 1939.

Local News.

The Folkestone licensing transfer sessions were held at the Police Court on Wednesday. The Mayor (Alderman G.A. Gurr) was in the chair and also sitting were Councillor R.G. Wood, Dr. F. Wolverson and Alderman Mrs. E. Gore.

James R. Muddiman applied for the transfer in respect of the licence of the Clarendon Hotel, previously held by Mr. Frederick Humphreys, and the magistrates acceded to the request.

Folkestone Express 24 February 1940.

Lighting Order.

On Tuesday there were more summonses, when the Mayor (Alderman G.A. Gurr) presided on the Bench, and the oilier magistrates were Alderman Mrs. E. Gore, Mr. P. Fuller and Mrs. A.M. Saunders.

Mrs. Florence Sutton, Clarendon Hotel, said she had no idea the light was shining out.

Police War Reserve Harris said at 11 p.m. he was in Dover Street when he saw a very bright light shining from an upper room window at the rear of the Clarendon Hotel. A gap in the curtains allowed a beam of light to be ejected on the wall of the houses opposite. He saw the defendant and told her she would be reported. The colour of the curtains was distinctly red, which assisted in the light being more pronounced. He saw the owner of the premises and later the defendant, a maid at the hotel, and she admitted it was her room.

The defendant said the curtains, which were bright, were given to her by the proprietress. She had the light screened as much as she could. She had been at the hotel since November.

The Clerk: There are no black curtains?

The defendant: No, but we have had them put up since.

A fine of 10/- was imposed.

Folkestone Express 15 June 1940.

Lighting Order.

Mr. Richard Muddiman, Clarendon Hotel, explained, when summoned in respect of a light showing at the back of the house at 10.25 on June 1st, that at the hotel there were seven rooms unoccupied, and he could not understand how the light came to be on in one of the rooms until he made enquiries, and then ascertained his boy had been up to the room to gt a book, and had left the light on till he took the book back.

Fined £1.