Sort file:- Folkestone, August, 2022.

Page Updated:- Monday, 08 August, 2022.


Earliest 1867

Dew Drop Inn

Latest 1875

(Name to)

7-9 Little Fenchurch Street


Postcard picture Dew Drop Inn

Although the picture above shows what is deemed to be the "Dew Drop Inn" in Folkestone, I don't believe this is the actual image of the pub itself, but just a drawing of a traditional pub as one would like to visualise it. The 1936 postcard was kindly sent to me by Make Vernol who was enquiring about whether the pub ever existed. It most certainly did, but only between 1867 and 1875.

I have just been sent this postcard from Michael Coomber, and I think that makes the point.


Graham Butterworth kindly sent me this one as well, dated 1930, so it looks like the company producing them had a central template and just added the relevant pictures relating to the town around it.

Dewdrop postcard 1930 Dover


The first licensee, Joseph Bromley, originally from neighbouring public house the "Bricklayer's Arms" decided to leave that establishment and open the "Dew Drop" just down the road. Opening a new beer-house and coming from the old there was of course a lot of rivalry between the two pubs with fights from the drinkers and bad blood occurring between the two houses till his departure in 1870. The following licensee, John Johnson couldn't do much to remove the reputation the house had acquired and was followed by Thomas Dunn who found the same problem. However, after Dunn had departed in 1875, Godfrey Lepper, originally from the "Raglan" and who was actually forcibly ejected from the premises after he refused to surrender the licence when the pub was put up for sale in February 1867, took the reins in 1867 and changed the name to the "George III" soon after he gained licensee status.


The census of 1871 mention a James Marsh, age 59, addressed at the "Dew Drop Inn," Fancy Street South, and whose occupation was given as a Public Lodging House Keeper.


Folkestone Chronicle 29 August 1868.

Friday August 28th: Before the Mayor and J. Tolputt Esq.

Joseph Bromley, landlord of the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street, was summoned for assaulting P.C. Hills in the execution of his duty. Mr. Minter defended the case.

Complainant deposed that he was on duty in Fancy Street about half past one o'clock on Friday morning in last week, and hearing a disturbance in defendant's house he tried the door, which was immediately opened by defendant, who said there were only lodgers there, although witness saw Peel leave the room. Witness went in to look, and defendant asked what business he had in there, adding “If you're not out, I'll put you out”. He then struck witness on the chest and sent him out into the road. Defendant and his two lodgers were the worse for liquor.

Cross-examined: Defendant followed me down the street, talking about various subjects. For one thing, he was complaining of the conduct of P.C. Smith. I did not attempt to go into a private room. When I got into the house I did not say “Well, Jack, I've got you this time”, and defendant did not reply “Well, hold me tight, then”. I did not stand at the door and say “You won't push me out like you did my mate”. I was on the pavement when he shut the door.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, denied that any assault had been committed. It was very unpleasant to have to call in question the conduct of the police, who had a difficult task, but here the policeman had exceeded his duty. His tale was a strange one – that defendant ordered him out of the house and then, pushing him out, walked down the street quietly talking on various matters with him. Now, according to his instructions complainant went into the house and began to taunt defendant, who, on his going towards a private room, told him he had no business there. Then complainant was leaving the house without finding anything to complain of, for it was a well conducted house, he stood on the door step and dared defendant to push him out. On the part of defendant he denied any intention of committing an assault, and characterised the affair as an attempt to get up a case.

William Pitt and William Wenham, lodgers in the house, who had been out of court, stated distinctly that defendant neither pushed nor struck complainant at all, and the Bench dismissed the case.


Folkestone Express 29 August 1868.

Friday, August 28th: Before The Mayor and Alderman Tolputt.

James Bromley, landlord of the Dew Drop Inn, was charged with an assault on a police constable in the execution of his duty. Mr. Minter appeared for the defendant.

P.C. Hills said he was on duty in Fancy Street on Friday morning last, about half past one o'clock, when he went to the defendant's house and tried the door. Defendant opened it, and he then saw some men inside, and he asked defendant what his little game was, and he answered “These are all lodgers”. Asked him if he had a man named Peel lodging there; he said he had not. Witness then looked in the rooms, but did not see anyone. Defendant then said “You have no business in the house, and if you do not go I will put you out”. Witness then went out, and afterwards came back to the door, when he struck him on the breast, knocking him into the street. He either struck a blow, or gave him a push; should call it a blow himself.

Cross-examined: Defendant walked beside him a part of the way down the street.

Mr. Minter: Then the defendant accompanied you down the street holding a friendly conversation after the alleged assault took place?

Witness: No, he was talking about another constable.

Cross-examined: Did not try to go into a private room. Did not say “Now, Jack, I have got you”, nor that “You will not throw me out, like you did my mate”. There is no mark of the blow.

Mr. Minter said that he was instructed to deny that any assault had been committed, and in the present case it was his duty to pint out that the constable was greatly in error. In fact his own statement would show that, and looking to the position of the place, and the size of the defendant and the police constable, it was an almost impossible issue. He also afterwards follows him, and a very friendly conversation takes place, which did not seem as if they were on unfriendly terms, and he wished to state that the defendant had not the slightest desire to interfere with the duties of the police constable. He would call witnesses:

William Pitt, smith, in the employment of Mr. Francis, who said he was in the bar and saw the constable come in. He afterwards saw them go out. Mr. Bromley then came round the counter and shut the door after him, and he then told them to go to bed. Defendant was standing inside the counter as Hills left the house.

William Wenham, cordwainer, the other lodger corroborated the previous witness.

The Bench said the evidence was very conflicting, and the assault, if committed, was a slight one, therefore the case is dismissed.


Southeastern Gazette 31 August 1868.

Local News.

At the Police Court, on Friday, the Mayor and J. Tolputt, Esq., were occupied for a long time in hearing a charge of assault, preferred by P.C. Hills, against Mr. Bromley, landlord of the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street.

According to the evidence of complainant he visited defendant’s house on the previous Friday morning, when he found defendant and two his lodgers only, and that on his leaving the house, defendant struck him, and knocked him off the door step into the street.

According to the defendant’s story, however, which was supported by his two lodgers, complainant came in taunting defendant, saying he had him, and daring him to push him (complainant) out of his house, as his “chum” had been served a few nights before. Both the lodgers declared that defendant did not touch complainant, and the Bench dismissed the case.


Folkestone Observer 10 October 1868.

Monday, October 5th: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt.

Henry Williams was charged with stealing a shawl, the property of Mr. G.W. Brothers, at Foord, on the 3rd. Inst.

Mary Ann Standing said: I am a laundress and reside at Foord. On Saturday I had a shawl to wash, which had been entrusted to me for that purpose by Mrs. Brothers. It was a woollen shawl, striped with blue, the pattern being a shepherd's plaid. I washed it and hung it out last Saturday evening, between six and seven o'clock, on a line in my front garden, facing the road. I went into the garden for the shawl about nine o'clock, and it was then gone. I do not know the prisoner, and I did not see him about the premises on Saturday. I did not see the shawl again until yesterday when it was shown to me at the police station. The shawl produced is the one I lost from the line, and the value of it is about 1.

John Joseph Bromley said: I am a beerhouse keeper, and reside at the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street. The prisoner came to my house last Saturday evening about half past eight in company with another man. They asked if Mrs. Bromley was at home. I said she was not, but would be in directly, and asked them their business. The would not tell me, but waited until my wife came in. The prisoner's companion, who was the spokesman, then asked her if she wanted to buy a shawl. She declined doing so, but he very much pressed her to see it, and told the prisoner to go and fetch it. Prisoner left the house, and in about three minutes returned with the shawl, which he gave to his companion and then walked into the tap room. The other man showed the shawl to my wife, and asked her to give 7s. 6d. for it. She told him if he only wanted 1s. for it she would not buy it, and while they were talking a policeman came in and went into the tap room, upon which the man immediately threw down the shawl and ran out of the house as fast as he could. I told the policeman about it and he said “Who brought the shawl into the house?” The prisoner did not deny it, and he was taken into custody.

P.C. Burchett said: From information I received I went to the house of last witness on Saturday evening, and saw a man standing at the bar, and on passing into the tap room, saw the prisoner there. A shawl was handed to me by the wife of the last witness, and I asked the prisoner if he knew anything about it. He said he did not. I asked him how he came by it and he again said he knew nothing about it. I then took him in custody and charged him with stealing the shawl, when he again said that he knew nothing about it, but afterwards admitted that he went across to the Bricklayers Arms and fetched a bundle for his mate. I kept the shawl in my possession and brought the prisoner to the police station. The shawl produced is the one that was given to me by the wife of the last witness.

The Supt. Asked for a remand in order to procure the attendance of Mrs. Brothers to identify the shawl, and the Bench accordingly remanded the prisoner till Tuesday.

Tuesday, October 6th: Before Captain Kennicott and Alderman Tolputt.

Henry Williams, on remand, was again placed in the dock, charged with stealing a shawl at Foord.

The evidence previously taken was read over, and Mr. Burrows, who was present, was then asked to give evidence.

Mr. Burrows: What is it you wish me to do?

The Clerk: Simply to identify the shawl produced as your property, if it is so.

Witness: I cannot do that. I believe the shawl to be mine; that is all I can say.

Prisoner was again remanded.

The prisoner was brought up again on Friday, in company with the other man mentioned in the evidence. The latter pleaded Guilty, and they were each sentenced to three months' imprisonment.


Folkestone Express 10 October 1868.

Monday, October 5th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and Alderman Tolputt.

Henry Williams was charged with stealing a shawl.

Mary Ann Standing, a laundress living at Foord, deposed that she washed a shepherd's plaid woolen shawl on Saturday and hung it out in the front garden to dry. This was between six and seven o'clock in the evening; about nine o'clock she missed it. She did not know the prisoner, nor had she seen him about. She saw the shawl on Monday morning at the police station. Mr. Martin showed it to her. The shawl produced is the same one; she knew it by the border. She should think it worth 1.

James Bromley, landlord of the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street, said the prisoner and another man came to his house on Saturday evening at half past eight. They asked if they could see Mrs. Bromley, but he said she was not at home. She afterwards came in, when the prisoner's companion asked her if she wished to buy a shawl. She answered no. He (the other man) told prisoner to go across and fetch it. He went out, and shortly afterwards returned with it. It was offered to witness' wife for 7s. 6d., but she refused to purchase it. P.C. Burchett then came in the front door and looked into the tap room. The man in front of the bar immediately dropped the shawl and ran off. They told the policeman that the man in the tap room had brought the shawl and he immediately took him into custody. The prisoner did not then deny the theft.

P.C. Burchett said he was on duty in Fancy Street on Saturday between eight and nine o'clock in the evening, when he received some information from the landlord of the Dew Drop Inn which induced him to go there. He told him that a man had brought a shawl there for sale. He went into the tap room; he saw the prisoner there and took him into custody. The prisoner denied knowing anything about it. He afterwards owned up to having fetched a bundle from the Bricklayers' Arms for his mate. He then took him to the police station.

Mr. Martin applied for a remand, which was granted.

Tuesday, October 6th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and Alderman Tolputt.

Henry Williams was again brought up.

Mr. Brothers said he believed that the shawl was his property, but he objected to swear to it, as there may be 500 shawls of the same pattern; in fact he did not believe Mrs. Brothers would know it.

The Bench thought it extraordinary that they did not know their own property. They then cautioned the prisoner and asked him if he had anything to say.

Prisoner said he was not guilty, and he was not in front of the bar, and did not know any of the transactions that were going on. He wished to call Mrs. Bromley as a witness.

The Bench said as she was not present they would have to adjourn the case till Friday.


Folkestone Observer 24 October 1868.

Quarter Sessions.

Monday, October 19th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

Richard Lamb, 32, shoemaker, was indicted for stealing one hammer, one peg knife, two forepart irons, one channel pump iron, and a piece of leather, value 10s., the property of John Bromley, at Folkestone, on the 5th of October.

Pleaded Not Guilty.

John Bromley, shoemaker, said he knew the prisoner at the bar. He was in his employ about three weeks. On the morning of the 5th of Oct. he left him in the shop at work, and on returning the prisoner was gone. The door was locked, and on bursting it open, found the key on the floor of the room, apparently as thrown through a broken pane of glass, and then missed the articles named in the indictment. Prosecutor went to Deal in search of the prisoner, and found him there and gave him in charge. He then denied knowing anything about the tools or leather. He went to the Deal Barracks, where prisoner had obtained work, and there found the missing tools.

By the prisoner: You did not tell me that you were going to seek for better employment. You said before the magistrates that the tools did belong to me and that you took them, but I had got some of yours.

Sergeant John Reynolds said he received the prisoner from the custody of the Supt. at Deal, and charged him with stealing the tools in question. He replied that he did take them, and Bromley had got some of his. He knew nothing about the leather.

The jury, without hesitation, returned a verdict of Guilty.

He was sentenced to three calendar months imprisonment with hard labour.


Folkestone Express 20 March 1869.

Saturday, March 13th: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

William Henry Wenham was charged with being drunk and riotous, and using obscene language.

P.C. Ovenden said: This morning about quarter past twelve I was on duty at the bottom of Seagate Street, standing opposite Mr. Jordan's in company with P.S. Reynolds. The prisoner went to the door of Mr. Jordan's house, the South Foreland, and knocked, but was refused admission. P.S. Reynolds then advised him to go home, and he walked a short distance up the street, and turned round and said “I don't care for you b---- bobbies. If you run you can't catch me”. He then ran away, and we went after him. He was then stopped by P.C. Smith at the bottom of the steps leading to Saffron's Row. He was quite drunk, and when ordered home made a great noise. He could run very well.

P.C. Smith said: I heard prisoner use the language Ovenden has repeated. I was standing at the bottom of Dover Street.

The prisoner said he never made use of such language, and had not been in trouble before. He had resided in the town now eight or nine months, and when he first came here lodged at Mr. Bromley's, the Dew Drop, Fancy Street. He was brought up as a witness when Mr. Bromley was summoned for assaulting a police constable. Since that the police had threatened to lock him up several times. On the night in question he was coming down the street when he saw a policeman talking to a man at the bottom of High Street. This man came to prisoner and asked him for some beer; he accordingly knocked at the door of Mr. Jordan's, but could not get in. He did not know the man, and should not have tried to get the beer, only he was drunk at the time.

The Bench said the prisoner admitted being drunk, and as it was the first time any complaint had been made against him, he must pay a nominal fine of 1s. and 5s. 6d. costs, or seven days' imprisonment. The fine was paid.


Folkestone Chronicle 8 May 1869.

Tuesday May 4th: Before J. Gambrill and J. Tolputt Esqs.

James Seddons was brought up in custody, charged with using abusive language towards John Bromley on the 3rd inst., in Fancy Street, and putting him in fear of his life.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for complainant, said he was landlord of the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street, said that on the previous day, in consequence of a dispute about money between complainant and defendant's mother, the defendant came to his house and made a great disturbance, challenging him to fight, promising to smash his head, and said that the first time he caught him outside he would kill him. In consequence of what had transpired, complainant went in bodily fear of his life, and asked that defendant might be bound over to keep the peace towards him.

He called John Bromley, the complainant, who said: Defendant came to my house yesterday afternoon about a quarter to two, and spoke about an application I made to his mother for a debt. She owes me money for shoes. He threatened to smash mu big head (with an oath). I told him to go out, and a mob of thirty or forty people assembled. He repeated his statement outside. He went away a few yards, and coming back again, said he would do for me. From the threats used I fear he will do me some bodily injury.

Cross-examined: You said I had insulted your mother. You did not say if I did not let your mother alone you would summon me. You did say “I'll smash your head”.

William Cockett said he was in Fancy Street at the time of the disturbance, and corroborated the language used by defendant.

Cornelius O'Leary was called, but not examined.

This was the case.

Prisoner said he did not say he would smash Bromley's head, but he would punch it. He wanted a stop put to the nuisance his mother was subject to every time she passed complainant, who asked for money he said she owed him.

The Bench said if his mother was insulted, he had a remedy in court. He could not be allowed to make a disturbance. The charge of using threatening language was proved, and prisoner would be bound over in his own security of 20 to keep the peace for three months.

Note: More Bastions lists landlord as Joseph Bromley.


Folkestone Observer 8 May 1869.

Tuesday, May 4th: Before J. Tolputt and J. Gambrill Esqs.

James Seddon, on a warrant, was charged with using threatening language to John Bromley on the 3rd instant.

John Bromley, landlord of the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street, said: Prisoner came to his house yesterday about a quarter to two. Witness made a remark about a debt which was due from his mother. He then threatened to smash witness's big head, after which he went out of doors. There was a mob collected around the door. When out of doors prisoner again threatened to smash his head. In consequence of these threats he laid an information against him. Cockett was in the house at the time.

By the prisoner: You did not say “If you don't leave mother alone I shall summons you”. You did say you would smash my head.

William Cockett was in the house of the prosecutor on the day in question. Heard prisoner say “If you insult my mother I will smash your head”.

The prisoner said he would like a stop put to the nuisance of the prosecutor insulting his mother. Every time she passed by his house she was stopped or insulted about some money for shoes.

The Bench said it appeared that prisoner had assaulted Bromley, and he must therefore be bound over in the sum of 20 to keep the peace for three months. The Bench also reminded him that there was a remedy if his mother was insulted.


Folkestone Express 8 May 1869.

Tuesday, May 4th: Before J. Gambrill and J. Tolputt Esqs.

James Seddon was brought up on a warrant, charged with using threatening language. Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and stated the case.

John Bromley said: I keep the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street. The defendant came to my house yesterday afternoon about quarter to one o'clock, and made some remark about an application I had made to his mother for a debt due to me, and he said he would smash my b---- head if I came out of the house. I ordered him out, but he would not go, and a crowd of 30 or 40 people assembled. He then repeated the threat and went away, but came back shortly afterwards and said the first time he saw me out he would give me a thrashing and smash my head. I am afraid he will do me some injury if he would meet me in the streets.

By the defendant: You said when you came to the house I had insulted your mother. You did not say you had come to caution me.

William Cockett was called and said: I heard the defendant say “If you insult my mother, I'll smash your head”, and I also heard him challenge the plaintiff to come outside.

The Bench said they must bind the defendant over in the sum of 20 to keep the peace for three months.


Folkestone Chronicle 15 May 1869.

Tuesday May 11th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Gambrill, and A.M. Leith esqs.

William Peel was summoned for assaulting John Bromley on the 30th April. Pleaded not guilty.

Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, but said the information was taken out without his advice, and as he knew the charge could not be substantiated, so as to bring it home to the defendant, by his (Mr. Minter's) advice the summons would be withdrawn. He would, however, state the case to the Bench, who would probably tell the defendant that he must not allow anything of the kind to be done. Complainant had for many years occupied a room under the Bricklayer's Arms in Fancy Street, as a workshop for shoemaking, and defendant, who keeps the Bricklayer's Arms has lately felt annoyed because complainant has opened an opposition establishment, the Dew Drop Inn, a respectable house a little higher up, on the upper side of the street, and is jealous of the good business done by complainant. Complainant has, for some time, been annoyed at his work, and there was no moral doubt that defendant was the instigator of them. Sometimes chamber utensils were emptied down, so that the water would percolate through into the workshop. Another time a stream of boiling water would pour down onto complainant. It would be impossible to prove that defendant had committed these acts himself; he should ask permission to withdraw the summons, and advise complainant, if the annoyance continued, to sue defendant for damages in the County Court. He might remark that the parties had often been to the court before; complainant, always as complainant, preferring too seek protection from the Bench, rather than take the law into his own hands.

Defendant said he never saw complainant on 30th April. It was only a poor old woman had the misfortune to upset her tea pot.

The Bench told defendant he was undoubtedly the cause of the annoyance, and warned him to be careful.


Folkestone Observer 15 May 1869.

Tuesday, May 11th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Gambrill and A.M. Leith Esqs.

William Peel was charged with assaulting William Bromley on the 30th April.

It appeared that the defendant kept the Bricklayer's Arms, Fancy Street, and the plaintiff hired a room below to carry on his trade as shoemaker. He had also recently opened a public house named the Dew Drop, in rivalry to the Bricklayer's Arms. The complainant said defendant had emptied hot water &c. on the floor above, so that it dropped through into his shop beneath, but he brought forward no evidence.

Defendant said all that was done was the upsetting of a teapot on the fender by his wife.

The Bench dismissed the charge.


Folkestone Express 15 May 1869.

Tuesday, April 11th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., A.M. Leith and J. Gambrill Esqs.

George Peel was charged with assaulting John Bromley on the 30th of April last.

Mr. Minter, who appeared for the complainant, said the summons had been taking out without consulting him, and he found, on looking over the evidence, that they would not be able to bring the charge home to the defendant. It appears that for many years the plaintiff has occupied a room under the Bricklayers' Arms, Fancy Street, which belongs to the defendant. Bromley has thought proper to open a house called The Dew Drop in the same street, and from that some sort of jealousy has existed between them, and there was no moral doubt that the defendant was the instigator, if not the actual perpetrator, of the offence for which he was summoned. While plaintiff has been at work in the said room, the contents of chamber utensils, and at other times hot water, have been poured down on him from the room above. This, no doubt, irritated the plaintiff, and he at once took out the summons. His (Mr. Minter's) advice was to withdraw the summons, leaving it to the discretion of the Bench to tell the defendant that he is not entitled to do this thing himself, or allow others to do it, and he would advise the plaintiff that should the offence be repeated he must issue a summons against him in the County Court.

The defendant: It was only a poor old woman who had the misfortune to upset a teapot.

The Bench cautioned the defendant to be more careful in the future, and dismissed the summons.


From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 28 May, 1869. Price 1d.


An application was made by Police-constable Swain, of the Folkestone police, to remove two prisoners, John Wallace and Sarah Wallace, who had been apprehended at Dover on a charge of having stolen a quantity of clothes and other articles from the "Dew Drop" public-house, Folkestone. The application was granted, and the prisoners were accordingly removed in Swain's custody.


Folkestone Observer 29 May 1869.

Tuesday, May 25th: Before R.W. Boarer and J. Gambrill Esqs.

John and Sarah Wallace, man and wife, were severally charged with stealing a pair of boots, a petticoat, and a pair of sheets, on the 22nd inst.

John Bromley, landlord of the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street, said the prisoners had hired a furnished room at his house for some weeks since. On Saturday morning last they left the house before he was up. Did not know they were going to leave. After they were gone he went into the room and found it in confusion, and he then missed a pair of sheets from the bed in which the prisoners slept, also a bundle containing a pair of shoes and a coloured petticoat. This was about nine o'clock in the morning. The petticoat and shoes were in a cupboard in the bar. From what he heard he went to Dover by the 6-30 p.m. train on Saturday, when he saw Mr. Wallace near the station. Asked him if he was not ashamed of himself for leaving as he did, and he (prisoner) said it was all through the drink, but if he (witness) would forgive him he would make it all right. The prisoner then walked with him up Snargate Street, and he gave prisoner into the custody of Supt. Coram, and charged him with stealing the articles. Prisoner said he knew nothing about them. Prisoner did not know that he was going to the police station; he thought he was going to have something to drink. He then went in company with a policeman to the Lord Raglan beershop, Biggin Street, where they found the female prisoner. The policeman charged her with stealing the articles, and she said the sheets were left on the chair, and that the other property never belonged to him. Did not know what she meant by that. The constable took her into custody, and on being again charged at the police station she said she knew nothing about it, and that witness was a wicked man to say such things. He saw the skirt and shoes at Mr. Hart's previous to his going to Dover. They were shown to him by William Hart. He could not swear to the articles as there was no mark on them, but he believed they were his property. He bought the boots and skirt of Mrs. Wallace, and gave her 4s. for them, the reason for selling them being that she wished to send some money home to her mother, who was ill. After he bought the boots he placed them in a cupboard in the bar which was not locked. The lodgers were in the habit of going through the bar to go to their work. When he bought them he told prisoner she might have them at any time on her giving him the money. He valued the articles lost at 10s. Had been in the habit of lending money, as much as 11s.

Cross-examined: The reason he had never acquainted the male prisoner was that he (prisoner) had not previously interfered with his wife's affairs.

William Hart said he was an assistant to Hart and Company. He knew the female prisoner. She came to the shop on the 18th of May to pledge the boots and petticoat, and asked him to lend her 3s. on them, which he did. The articles were pawned in the name of Wallace. Prosecutor came to the shop on Saturday evening and witness showed him the property, which he said was his property.

P.C. Swain said he went to Dover on Monday morning, and received the prisoners from the borough magistrates. On charging them with stealing the articles the male prisoner made no remark, but the female prisoner said she would not say anything then. The property found on them were two pawn tickets relating to the goods produced.

Mary Ann Bromley, wife of the prosecutor, said the prisoners had lodged at their house and left last Saturday morning. Saw Mrs. Wallace on the stairs at about half past seven. She discovered that the prisoners had left the house between twelve and one. At that time her husband called her to the prisoners' room where she discovered the sheets were missing from the bed. She had seen the sheets there the night previous. They had a great many lodgers in the houses that night; they might have had a dozen. (By the Bench: They occupied three houses. The prisoner had a furnished room there. There was no lock on the door, and the other lodgers might get into the room without her knowledge.) Witness sold the female prisoner a skirt a week last Saturday, the price of which was 3s. 7d., the same as was paid for it by witness. Did not know anything about the boots.

Mr. Boarer said it was quite right that the prisoners should be brought there, but as there was a doubt in the matter the prisoners must be discharged.


Folkestone Express 29 May 1869.

Tuesday, April 25th: Before J. Gambrill and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

John Wallis, and Sarah Wallis, his wife, were charged with stealing a pair of sheets, and a bundle containing a pair of boots and a woollen skirt, the property of John Bromley, The Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street.

The prosecutor was called, and said: The prisoners lodged at my house. The male prisoner had been there about seven weeks, and the female prisoner about one month. They left last Saturday morning before I was up. I did not know they were going to leave. I missed the sheets from a bedroom they had slept in. I missed the bundle containing a pair of shoes and a shirt from a cupboard in the bar. I sent a young man down to Mr. Hart's, the pawnbroker, to see if he could find the articles, and from information I received I went to Dover by the 6-20 train to see if I could find Mr. and Mrs. Wallis. I saw Mr. Wallis close against the station, and he began crying and asked if I would forgive him. I told him he ought to be ashamed of himself for leaving me in the way he had. He answered it was through drink, and if I would forgive him he would make things all right. He walked with me up Snargate Street, and I gave him in charge for the robbery. I took him to the station; he thought he was going into a public house to have something to drink. Mr. Coram charged him with the theft, and he said he knew nothing about it. A policeman went with me up to the Lord Raglan, in Biggin Street, to search for the female prisoner; we found her there. The police constable charged her with stealing the sheets, and she said she left the things on a chair in the bedroom. He then charged her with stealing the other things, and asked her where the bundle was. She said they were her own, and never belonged to me. I don't know what she meant by that. In fact, I did not take much notice of what she did say, as she talked “nineteen to the dozen”. The constable took her into custody and took her to the police station. She said I was a very wicked man. I saw the shirt and shoes at Mr. Hart's on the Saturday before. I could not sweat that the things produced are those, but they look like some that did belong to me. I bought them of Mrs. Wallis for 4s. She said she wanted that sum to send to her mother at Brighton; that was on Monday week. I put them in a cupboard in the bar that was not locked. They have to pass through the bar every morning to go to work. I told the woman that I would give her the things back if she gave me the money on the following Saturday night. I value the things at 10s.

The prisoners said they bought the things in the bundle of Mrs. Bromley, and the sheets were left in the bedroom.

William Hart deposed to being an assistant at Mr. Phillip Hart's, pawnbroker. The female prisoner pawned the bundle produced on the 18th of May for 3s.

P.C. Swain said he took them into custody at Dover and charged them with the offence. The male prisoner said “I know nothing about it”, and the female prisoner said “I shall say nothing now”.

Mrs. Mary Ann Bromley said: The last time I saw Mrs. Wallis was at half past seven; she was then going upstairs. I discovered they had left the house about twelve o'clock. My husband called me upstairs. I went into their room and missed a pair of sheets from the bed. I saw them there a day before; nothing else was missed. I know nothing about the bundle. I sold that skirt to Mrs. Wallis. The bedroom could not be locked; it had a fastening on the inside. We have three houses, and we lodge 12 at a time in them. The female prisoner gave me 3s. 7d. for the skirt. I know nothing about the shoes.

The Bench discharged the case as there was not enough evidence to convict the prisoners. If the sheets were found they would be brought up again.


Folkestone Chronicle 17 July 1869.

Quarter Sessions.

Friday July 16th: Before J.J. Lonsdale Esq.

George Beaumont, John M'Donald and Ann Arian, tramps, were charged with stealing on the 15th July, two blue guernseys, two pairs of boots, pair blue cloth trousers, black shawl, pair stays, flannel petticoat, pair of drawers, and a frock, value 1 7s., the property of John Hart, and on another indictment were charged with feloniously receiving the same, knowing them to have been stolen. The woman pleaded guilty of stealing; the men not guilty to both counts.

The prisoners had been committed by the magistrates at an early sitting on the same day.

John Hart, a mariner living in North Street, said: Yesterday morning I left my house at five minutes to six o'clock. The goods produced were then in the front room downstairs. The door was shut, but not locked. I returned to breakfast at eight o'clock, and I then learned that they were missing. I next saw them in the hands of the police.

John Bromley, landlord of the Dew Drop Inn, lodging house and beerhouse in Fancy Street said the male prisoners lodged at his house on Wednesday night. On Thursday morning, about ten o'clock, the woman came into the bar for some drink, and the men spoke to her as though they were not strangers. She went out again, and soon returned with a large bundle, which M'Donald asked witness to take care of. The police afterwards came and took possession of the bundle, and apprehended the prisoners on their return.

Cross-examined by Beaumont: You got up about half past nine o'clock. I don't know that you were in the bar when the bundle was brought in. None of the prisoners looked at the clothes.

P.C. Sharpe deposed to apprehending the woman and Beaumont at the Dew Drop Inn, and M'Donald at the bottom of Fancy Street. M'Donald was playing on a brass instrument, and had a barrow of children's toys, rags bones and boots with him. The boots produced were taken from off the man's feet, and the shawl from the woman.

The statement of the prisoners before the magistrates was read. Arian had nothing to say. M'Donald said they met the woman the day before on the road from Dover, and left her because she was too drunk to come along. She gave him the boots. Beaumont concurred in this statement.

His Honour then summed up decidedly against the prisoners, and the jury returned a verdict against the two male prisoners of Guilty of receiving the goods, knowing them to have been stolen, and the learned Recorder in passing sentence said the two men were a couple of cowards, who very likely had incited the woman to plead guilty in the hope of themselves escaping, but he would punish them more severely than the woman, for he should sentence her to three months' hard labour for stealing, and them to six months each for receiving the goods.


Folkestone Express 21 August 1869.

Tuesday, August 17th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., and J. Clark Esq.

Alfred Millett was charged with maliciously and wilfully destroying a pane of glass at the Dew Drop, Fancy Street, on Monday last.

Mr. John Bromley said: I keep the Dew Drop beerhouse. Prisoner came to my house at half past ten o'clock last night. I was going from the bar to the tap room with a pint of beer. Prisoner rushed after and struck me; I was taken unawares. He then turned round and smashed the windows and pulled the brass rods out, put in to protect the glass. The damage amounted to 6s. 6d., as the glass had some writing on it. I detained him, and gave him into custody. He was not sober.

The prisoner hoped the Bench would be a little lenient with him, as he had never been locked up before in his life.

The Bench ordered him to pay the damage done, and expenses amounting to 11s., or be imprisoned for a fortnight.


Folkestone Chronicle 28 August 1869.

Monday August 23rd: Before S. Eastes, J. Tolputt and J. Clark Esqs.

William Peel, landlord of the Bricklayer's Arms, Fancy Street, was summoned for maliciously injuring certain tools, the property of John Bromley, of the Dew Drop Inn, in the same street. Mr. Minter appeared for the complainant, and Mr. Creery, of Ashford, for the defendant.

Mr. Minter said the injury to the tools was small, but the annoyance, inconvenience, and damage, consequent on the conduct of defendant was considerable, and necessitated this application to the Bench. The facts of the case were that complainant rents, and has for several years past occupied a room under defendant's house as a shoemaker's shop, and as both parties keep similar establishments – lodging houses – with the same class of customers, there was a certain amount of rivalry between them. Plaintiff on going to his work has found the place flooded with water, the tools and work spoiled, and the room altogether uninhabitable, so that his men refused to work any longer, and his business was being destroyed. A few weeks ago defendant was summoned for pouring hot water through on the complainant, and the excuse was that an old woman had upset her teapot. The 51st sect. of the 24th and 25th Vic., cap. 97, rendered defendant liable to three or five years' penal servitude, or not less than two years' imprisonment with hard labour, and the 52nd sect., under which the information was laid, rendered him liable to a penalty of 5, or two months' imprisonment. He would only call sufficient evidence to justify the case, and ask for a remand, and a summons to be issued against James M'Donald, an important witness who had absconded.

Complainant said on the 18th instant he left his shop about nine o'clock in the evening, and on going to it next morning found the place soaked in water, work spoiled, and tools rusted. The expense of putting them right would be about 2s. The same thing had happened before.

Cross-examined: The tools cost about 12s. M'Donald was a tailor who lodged at his house before the 17th instant. He left and went to lodge at defendant's. He had told him that he saw a man named Johnson turn on the tap of the boiler, and defendant said “Scald him out of it”. There were twenty others in the room. He had traced Johnson to Canterbury, and heard that he said he was not coming there to get paid for his time, when he could get pounds to stay away.

James Neale, a cordwainer who worked for complainant, deposed to the state of the workshop through the water that was continually running through from the room above, so that he refused to work any longer.

Mr. Minter then applied for an adjournment for a week, so as to procure M'Donald's attendance. It would have been no use to call any of the others that were in the room, for they were strangers, and some of them were fined by the Bench the other day for annoying complainant.

The adjournment was granted, the question of costs being reserved.


Southeastern Gazette 30 August 1869.

Local News.

William Peel, the landlord of the Bricklayers’ Arms, was summoned on Monday last by John Bromley, the landlord of the Dewdrop Inn, both houses being situated in Fancy Street. Mr. Minter appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. Creery for the defendant.

It appeared from the evidence that the plaintiff hired a room of the defendant to carry on his business as a shoemaker The room was let on a lease, but since the plaintiff had opened a beerhouse in opposition to the defendant, the latter had instituted a series of petty annoyances, such as pouring water down on the plaintiff from the room above. Plaintiff could not bring the charge home to the defendant, but got a lodger of his, named McDonald, to go and lodge at defendant’s house and watch what was going on. This lodger informed the plaintiff that Mr. Peel instigated a man to turn a tap on when the defendant was at work, hence the present proceedings.

It was now stated that the important witness to prove the case, McDonald, had kept out of the way, and it was surmised that he had been bribed to do so by the defendant or his friends. Mr. Minter applied for an adjournment on these grounds. Mr. Creery opposed, as he said it was a trumped-up charge, and if Mr. Bromley had intended to persevere he could have called other witnesses who were in the room at the time.

The magistrates, however, decided to grant an adjournment for a week.


Folkestone Observer 11 September 1869.

Wednesday, September 8th: Before Capt. Kennicott R.N., James Tolputt, A.M. Leith and W. Bateman Esqs.

William Peel, on remand, was again charged with doing damage to Mr. Bromley's property.

The complainant applied for another adjournment as he had met with a severe accident and had been unable to procure the witness Johnson.

Mr. Towne, Margate, opposed the adjournment as he said the accident spoken of was caused by plaintiff's own misconduct, and the accident had nothing to do with the case.

The Bench, after a consultation, said when a case was brought before them the means of proving the case must be procured. They now declined to adjourn and dismissed the case.


Folkestone Chronicle 11 September 1869.

Police: During the week there have been some cases before the Bench, chiefly arising from the rivalry between the Dew Drop Inn and the Bricklayer's Arms.


Folkestone Observer 11 September 1869.

Thursday, September 9th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and James Tolputt Esq.

Thomas Drew was charged with using threatening language to George Bromley on the 8th instant.

George Bromley said he lived at Dover, and was at his son's house dining on Wednesday. When in the private room prisoner came in and said “What do you think about it now?”. His son said “I have nothing to say to you. The best thing for you to do is to leave the house”. He said he would not for his son or witness, and used most filthy language. When in the street he said he would knock witness's brains out. On witness saying he would send for the police he used most filthy language. From these threats he went in bodily fear of prisoner. There was nothing said about a handkerchief. He did not know the man at all.

John Bromley, son of the last witness, gave corroborative evidence, adding that a man came across from Peel's and threw a pint pot at his head some days ago. He put up his hand and cut his thumb frightfully.

The Bench said the offence was of so serious a nature that they must bind prisoner over to keep the peace in the sum of 5, and a householder in the sum of 5 for 3 months.


Folkestone Express 11 September 1869.

Thursday, September 9th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and James Tolputt Esq.

Thomas Drew, hatter, was charged with using threatening language towards Mr. George Bromley senr.

The prisoner said he was only charged with this out of spite.

Mr. Minter appeared for the prosecutor and detailed the circumstances of the case. It appeared that the prisoner had been lodging at Mr. Bromley's, the Dew Drop, Fancy Street, and going home after the case had been heard on the previous day, the man went to Mr. Peel's. He then came into Bromley's while they were at dinner and used the language the witnesses would describe. There was no spite on Mr. Bromley's part, as he was quite prepared to hear the decision of the court the previous day.

He called George Bromley senr., who said he lived at Dover, and was dining at his son's house yesterday, when the prisoner came in and said “What do you think of it now?”. His son answered “I want nothing to say to you. The best thing you can do is to go out of my house”. He used most filthy language, and said he would not. He then went into the street, and said to witness he would knock his b---- brains out. He repeated this threat, and witness sent for a policeman. Not a word was said about a handkerchief. Witness did not know the man.

John Bromley was then sworn and deposed to the truth of the above statement. A man came from Mr. Peel's house and threw a pot at his head a week ago. He warded it off with his hand and it cut his thumb in a very dangerous manner.

The Bench bound the prisoner over to keep the peace, himself in 5, and a householder in 5, for three months.


Folkestone Chronicle 11 December 1869.

Wednesday, December 8th: Before R.W. Boarer, J. Clark, and C.H. Dashwood Esqs.

Joseph Smith and William Smith, two tramps, were charged with being drunk and riotous in Little Fancy Street: pleaded not guilty: being further charged with resisting P.C. Sutton in the execution of his duty, they pleaded not guilty.

P.C. Sutton said from information received he went to the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street, about nine o'clock last evening. He found Bromley putting prisoners, who were very drunk, outside the house. They laid down in the yard and witness desired them to go home. They went away and returned immediately, and tried to get into the house again, and made a great noise, shouting and using all sorts of bad language. Witness, with the assistance of the landlord, succeeded in getting them away to the station. William Smith resisted very violently.

Joseph said he couldn't remember seeing a policeman. They couldn't be very drunk, for they only had four pots of beer among four of 'em, but they had no beer lately, and it got over them.

William said he remembered seeing the policeman in the house when they went back for the money they paid for lodgings. He was sorry he had given this trouble. As for resisting the police, he couldn't walk down the street, for it was so steep and stoney, and the constable dragged him down.

Joseph was fined 5s. and 3s. 6d. costs and allowed a week to pay – in default, seven days.

William was sent for seven days without hard labour for being drunk and riotous, and fourteen days additional, with hard labour, for resisting the police.


Folkestone Express 11 December 1869.

Wednesday, December 8th: Before R.W. Boarer, C. Dashwood and J. Clark Esqs.

Joseph Smith and William Smith were charged with being drunk and riotous, and the latter prisoner with assaulting the police.

P.C. Sutton deposed that he went to the Dew Drop Inn, in Fancy Street, and kept by Mr. Bromley, on Tuesday evening, and turned the prisoners out of the house. William Smith went as far as the bottom of the street, but afterwards turned and commenced abusing Mr. Bromley. As they would not go away, he took them into custody, and with the assistance of Bromley, brought them to the police station. The prisoner William Smith laid down in the road and kicked.

William Smith made a rambling defence, in which he alleged that the police constable was in the bar drinking when he came in, and that the landlord of the house had challenged them to fight for half a crown, all of them being drunk together.

Joseph Smith said he had earned 1s. 6d. carrying coal, and he supposed a drop of beer was too much for him, not being used to it.

After a short consultation, the Bench fined Joseph 5s. and 3s.6d. costs, to be paid in one week, or seven days' imprisonment; William Smith was sentenced to seven days' imprisonment for being drunk and riotous, and fourteen days' hard labour for assaulting the police.

William Smith (despondingly): That's 21 days altogether. That will put Christmas out.


Southeastern Gazette 13 December 1869.

Local News.

On Thursday two men named Joseph and William Smith were brought before the magistrates, charged with being drunk and riotous, and the latter prisoner with assaulting the police.

P.C.Sutton said : I went to the Dewdrop Inn on Thursday evening, and found the prisoners were then outside. William Smith went as far as the bottom of Fancy Street, and then returned and commenced to abuse Mr. Bromley. The other prisoner joined them, and I was obliged to take them into custody, and with the assistance of Mr. Bromley I succeeded in bringing both to the police station. William Smith struck me and kicked as he was lying down on the ground, and I had great difficulty in locking him up.

The prisoners, in defence, charged the policeman with drinking beer at the bar, and the landlord of the house with inciting them to fight.

The bench fined Joseph Smith 5s., and 3s. 6d. costs, to be paid in a week, and William Smith was sent to gaol for twenty-one days with hard labour.


Folkestone Chronicle 5 February 1870.

Friday, February 4th: Before the Mayor, J. Gambrill, and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

William Cox was brought up in custody charged with feloniously making away with four pairs of boots, value 18s. 6d., the property of John Bromley, on the 2nd instant.

John Bromley, shoemaker and keeper of the Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street, deposed he knew the prisoner, whom he had employed to sell shoes for some months past. On the 2nd inst. he gave prisoner four pairs of shoes - one pair to take to Mr. Ford and another to a sailor on board one of the colliers. He was to return at 12 o'clock, but I saw him no more and in consequence witness went to a second hand shop in Dover Street, kept by Mr. Evans, and found three pairs there, which had been sold by the prisoner, and witness procured a warrant. The four pairs produced were the boots entrusted to prisoner. The shoes are old ones which I buy to “translate” and sell. The value of them is, altogether, 18s 6d. Prisoner was paid 6d. per pair for what he sold, and a small commission also was given.

Cross-examined: You did not come back on Wednesday at 5 and offer me 9s. I never gave you liberty to sell boots for what you could get.

Elizabeth Evans, keeper of a second hand shop in Dover Street, deposed that prisoner came to her shop on Wednesday last and offered the three pairs of boots produced, for which she gave him 7s. She had several times before bought boots of him.

Samuel Sweetlove, a fish seller of Mill Bay, deposed that on Wednesday afternoon between 4 and 5 o'clock, prisoner met him opposite Mr. Hart's pawn shop, and offered a pair of boots for sale at 2s., and after trying one on, witness bought them.

P.C. Hills deposed that he apprehended the prisoner last evening between 8 and 9 o'clock, and on charging him with stealing four pairs of boots he said “I know all about it. The boots belonged to Bromley. He owed me money and 'twas an outstanding job. I did not steal them, they were given me to sell”. On the way up he wanted to see the warrant, and on it's being read he went on quietly. Witness afterwards went to Mr. Evans's shop and got the three pairs, and to Sweetlove's, where he got the other pair produced, all of which were identified by prosecutor as his property.

Edward Ford, labourer, of Queen Street, stated that about a week ago he told prisoner to bring him a pair of shoes and that on Wednesday the prisoner brought them to the Crown and Anchor, but as witness had no money he could not take them.

Prisoner was then formally charged and cautioned. He elected to be tried under the Criminal Justice Act, and pleading guilty was sentenced to two months' imprisonment with hard labour.


Folkestone Observer 17 February 1870.

County Court.

Monday, February 14th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

J. Bromley v Hatton: This was an action brought to recover 20 11s. 5d., money lent and interest. Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Knocker, of Dover, for defendant.

Mr. Minter said the plaintiff, Mr. John Bromley, carried on business in Fancy Street; the defendant formerly resided in Folkestone, and when the debt was contracted was supposed to be an independent gentleman living upon an income, but it turned out that he was in needy circumstances. The action was brought to recover the sum of 20 11s. 5d., and the small sum of 8s. 8d. had been paid into court. The items of the bill were four in number, and were as follows - 3 5s., 12, 2 10s., and 1 7s. He (Mr. Minter) understood that it was a case in which His Honour would have to decide which was speaking the truth, as the plaintiff would swear that he advanced several sums of money, and the defendant would deny it.

John Bromley, the plaintiff, said: I have known the defendant for years; he has been in the habit of using my house, and we were on friendly terms until the action was brought. On January 11th, 1869, I lent him 3 5s. to go to Deal with, as he said he was going to settle some business with his brother, who had had some property left him. Up to that time I had not known he was in rather pinched circumstances. At the latter part of September he asked me to lend him 12 to help him through the Bankruptcy Court. I lent him 12 on February 2nd to go to Mr. Minter to prepare himself for bankruptcy. On October 23rd I advanced defendant 2 10s. as he stated he did not wish to break into the 12 I had previously lent him. Mr. Hatton afterwards left Folkestone, and on January 3rd I went to his house at Dover and asked him if he could settle my account. I had been in communication with him, and he had told me that I must tell his creditors at Folkestone that unless they took a very small percentage they would get nothing. When at Dover we agreed to go to the Cherry Tree, where I again spoke to him in reference to my account. Defendant said that someone was going to pay him a cheque for 20 that day, and if I would meet him at three o'clock that afternoon he would “square up” with me. I met him accordingly at the Red Cow, and defendant then stated that he had seen the party, but the gentleman was having an interview with someone else, and if I would go to the Golden Cross, in St. James's Street, on the following day at eleven o'clock, he would settle with me. I went there at the time appointed, and defendant then said “Mr. Judge will be here presently, when we will square our accounts”. Upon Mr. Judge arriving, Mr. Hatton said “John Bromley has been one of my best friends, and wants some money, and he must have some”. Mr. Judge replied that the only thing he could do was to apply at a loan office. Mr. Hatton then brought up something about a life policy of my wife's. After Mr. Judge had left, I said to the defendant “This is a pretty affair; I thought you said Judge had a cheque of yours for 30?”. Defendant said “Yes, so he has, but has paid it away”. He added that that did not matter, and I should have my money. After some further conversation we went into Castle Street, where we met Judge, and the defendant said “Well, John, what is to be done?”. Judge burst out laughing, and we afterwards went into the office of a Mr. Knocker, where Judge gave me a paper, saying “See if that will satisfy you”. (Paper produced) On the paper was written “C. Freshfield Esq., member for the borough”. (Mr. Minter: No doubt a fit place for the destitute. (Laughter)) I asked Judge if he thought I was a fool, and told him he would have an opportunity of seeing me again. I also told him I had been nicely humbugged. I had a chest of drawers belonging to defendant in my house which he attempted to sell in part payment of my debt. Hatton also made up a bundle of linen for the pawn shop, and requested that as much as possible should be procured on it. The bundle was not taken in at the pawn shop. In consequence of a letter I called upon a person named Nazer, at Hythe. Mr. Hatton was there, and Nazer attempted to negotiate with me. We were locked in a room. Hatton did not then deny the debt, but offered me 10 in settlement, which I declined to accept.

Cross-examined by Mr. Knocker: When I lent Hatton money I put the amount on a piece of paper. I had an old book that I entered some of the loans in, but I burnt it. I kept some furniture belonging to defendant until December, and I gave it up then on receiving a notice from the defendant stating that he had come into some property. There was 30 or 40 worth of property in my house. I received a letter from Mr. Nazer, whom I saw on the Monday, and again on the Thursday and Friday. Mr. Nazer brought up Hatton's name about the 1859 election. I did not think I was going to meet Mr. Hatton there. Nazer offered me 10.

By Mr. Minter: I was not in want of money at the time of applying for it, but wished the account settled. I was not pressed by any creditors then, and am now capable of paying 20s. in the . I saw Mr. Nazer in Mr. Hatton's presence, and he offered me 10. I had a witness with me, but Nazer would not allow him in the house. I did not go to Mr. Knocker for the address of the member of parliament.

Stephen Newing, a furniture buyer, said: I went to Mr. Bromley's house to buy some furniture. There were two chests of drawers, for which 5 was required by the defendant. I told him I could not give so much, and he said he was very sorry, as he required it for “John”.

Timoth Sullivan, a pensioner, said: I lodge with Mr. Bromley in October last. Mr. Hatton on one occasion asked to take a bundle to Mr. Hart's, in High Street, containing blankets, sheets, and counterpanes. Hatton said “Get as much as you can, as I wish to pay him (Bromley) some money I owe him”. I took the bundle to the pawn shop, and gave Mr. Hatton's name, but they would not take them in as the clothes were moth-eaten.

Mary Ann Bromley, wife of the plaintiff, said: My husband's money is kept in the bedroom, and on one occasion, when defendant was at the house, my husband asked me to give him the keys. I gave him the keys and saw him go upstairs and come down again.

By Mr. Knocker: Defendant sometimes came three or four times a day to our house. I do not always keep the keys; plaintiff keeps them sometimes. I think my husband lent defendant 3 5s. some time ago.

This was the plaintiff's case.

Mr. Knocker said it was perfectly true that this was a most unfortunate case – the testimony of the plaintiff and defendant being entirely contradictory. It was to be regretted that the action had been brought, as the defendant had been attempting to settle with his creditors, and he (the defendant) would tell the court the whole claim was a fabrication, and he would rather come there that day and give a statement of his affairs than lose his money. It was perfectly true that Bromley had advanced him small sums of money, varying from about ten shillings, but defendant would, when called, state that he always paid the same back, and that until the letter was received by him he (defendant) knew nothing of the plaintiff's claim against him.

Thomas Hatton said: I reside at Dover, but until November last I resided at Folkestone, and have been living on some small sums of money of my own. I have known the plaintiff since he was a boy. I have been in the habit of calling upon him. I have borrowed money of plaintiff – 10s. perhaps –but I have always paid him back. I have never borrowed any larger amounts. Two or three days before I went to Dover Bromley asked me to lend him half a sovereign, which I did, and I considered it payment of a bill I owed him to that amount for repairs to shoes and refreshments. Nothing was said about me owing him money or a balance of an account. During last year I was in debt, and my brother lent me some money. I then went to Mr. Knocker's and he drew up a composition with my creditors. On October 2nd plaintiff did not advance me 12, nor did I ask him to lend me the money to go through the bankruptcy court. On the several dates mentioned I did not borrow the money alleged from the plaintiff. Bromley had a chest of drawers and some other few articles to avoid their being seized by my creditors. Nothing was said about the furniture being a security for money lent me. On January 3rd plaintiff came to Dover. He said he was in difficulties. We went to the Cherry Tree and the plaintiff then said he had got his brewer and leather cutter to pay, and asked me if I knew of a loan office. I told him I did not and advised him to go to his father. Plaintiff said he would not go to him. We talked over matters, and Bromley said he would come to Dover on the morrow. He came down, and I met him in St. James's Street. Before Mr. Judge came up there was nothing said about my keeping anything from him. When Judge came up, Bromley said “I want some money”. Judge asked him what security he had got and Bromley said “A life policy of my wife's”. Judge said that would not do, but he knew of an agent to a loan office, named Pain, where he could get the money on a note of hand, and two sureties. I declined to be his surety, as also did Mr. Judge for me. Major Dickson's and Mr. Freshfield's names were then mentioned, but we could not see Dickson, as he was away, and Bromley then said he would go to Freshfield. I then left him, and went to my dinner. A fortnight after, I received a letter from him claiming 20. I did not send a reply to that letter, although I had one written. The next I heard of the affair was by receiving the summons.

By His Honour: The reason I did not answer the letter was because I treated it with contempt.

Examination continued: I was written to by a Mr. Nazer to go to Hythe. (Letter produced) I had not written to Nazer before receiving that letter. I had no knowledge that the plaintiff would be there. I saw the plaintiff with Mr. Nazer – he had an interview first. When I wanted to sell the drawers I did not say I wanted to give Mr. Bromley the money. I have seen Sullivan at Bromley's house, but I did not ask him to take a bundle to Mr. Hart's, High Street, for me. I have never sent an article to a pawn shop in my life.

By Mr. Minter: I have heard Newing's statement, and say that the part wherein he states that I asked 5 for the furniture is false, and it is also untrue that I gave the goods to be taken to Mr. Hart's. I had been friendly with the plaintiff until the claim was made against me, when I was very indignant with him and called him “a rogue”. The reason I went to Hythe was to prevent, if possible, the plaintiff from perjuring himself. When I received the letter from Hythe, I answered it by return of post, and received another on the 9th Jan. I had consented to see Bromley there, as Nazer wished me to do so. The furniture was put in Bromley's house; it was supposed to be out of the way of my creditors. I left part of my furniture at the next house to my own. When I left Folkestone I owed about 100. I do not know that Bromley was in comfortable circumstances at that time. Bromley had never supplied me with household necessities. I did not know the address of Mr. Freshfield. My father in law died in November last. I had put forward a compromise to my creditors previous to my father in law's death. I showed the letter I was going to send to the plaintiff in answer to his claim to his mother, who thought it was rather too severe in tone, and I said I would send another, but I did not do so. When I suggested a loan office to Bromley he did not say “Do you think I am a ---- fool?”. I know Bromley's father is in good circumstances, and could no doubt let him have the money he required. Plaintiff was not the only son. The furniture was moved in September. The rent of my house in Folkestone was 15 per annum. I have never been a trouble to my landlord in my life.

By Mr. Knocker: I had no other reason for going to Nazer but those I have stated. My brother offered 5s. in the to my creditors, but they would not take less than 7s. 6d.

John Judge said: I am clerk to Mr. Knocker, solicitor, Dover. On the day of Dover Races defendant's brother came to the office and asked me to draw up a composition offering 5s. in the pound to his creditors. On the 4th January, Mr. Hatton, the defendant, called, and I went to an interview between Mr. Bromley and the defendant. Plaintiff said he wanted to procure a loan of 25, and asked me if I knew anyone who would advance him that sum. I told him I did not unless he had security to offer. Plaintiff said he had none beyond a life policy belonging to his wife for 100. I told him that was valueless. The plaintiff then asked me to be directed to a loan office, and I said “I know of one where a note of hand would be required, and two sureties”. He said he had no sureties unless John Hatton stood for him. I told him I could not allow him to do so in the condition he was then in. Subsequently Major Dickson's and Mr. Freshfield's names were brought up. I afterwards went to Castle Street, where Bromley asked me for Mr. Freshfield's address, and I gave it him at the office of Mr. Knocker. Not a word was spoken about money being owing.

Mr. Minter: When, as you allege, Mr. Bromley asked you to give him Mr. Freshfield's address, did you go and write it and give it to him?

Witness: I did.

Mr. Minter: Look at that piece of paper. (Paper produced) Is that your handwriting?

Witness: No. I am wrong in saying I wrote the direction; I mean I had it written.

This was the defence.

Mr. Minter, in reply, said Mr. Knocker had stated that the case for the plaintiff was a mere fabrication, and if he (Mr. Minter) used the same form with respect to the evidence adduced by the defendant it would suit it well. The evidence of the plaintiff was corroborated by Newing and Sullivan, who were both highly respected witnesses. Newing swore that Hatton bargained with him about the price of the drawers: that was denied point blank by Hatton, and if the man would deny one thing, he would another. Mr. Minter, after some further remarks upon the quality and credibility of the evidence for the defence, asked His Honour for a verdict for the plaintiff.

His Honour said that in all cases where the verdict had to rest on the credibility of the evidence he always made it a rule to nonsuit the parties, but in the present case there were circumstances which would not permit him to take that course, He would have preferred that the case had been tried by a jury as it would have been simply for them to find either for plaintiff or defendant, but when left to the Judge he could not do that. After considering the evidence of the plaintiff he might say that it was fairly given and not contradicted. He (the plaintiff) had made a statement and adhered to it throughout, and it appeared to be true. It was confirmed also by the two witnesses, Newing and Sullivan, who both swore to an interview between Bromley and the defendant, and Sullivan swore positively that the defendant told him to get as much money as he could as “he wished to pay John”. The defendant's evidence was not nearly so clear as that of the plaintiff, and the fact of his putting his furniture out of his own house to prevent a seizure being made went against him. The witness Judge did not corroborate anything the plaintiff stated, and it was not likely he would, as Bromley had stated that defendant wished the transaction in Dover to be kept in the dark from him. If Bromley was in want of money, which he positively said he was not, it was quite improbable that he would go to Hatton, when he had a father with whom he was on good terms, and who could lend him the money. Under these circumstances he should say, although he did so with great reluctance, that the evidence of the defendant was not true, and he should give a verdict for plaintiff, with costs.


Folkestone Chronicle 19 February 1870.

County Court.

Monday, February 14th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

John Bromley v Thomas Hatton: Mr. Minter for plaintiff said defendant had long resided in Folkestone, and was supposed to be possessed of independent means, but it turned out not to be the case. The claim was for 20 0s. 9d., and 8s. 8d. had been paid into Court. The chief items in the bill were for cash borrowed: 3 5s. on the 1st Jan; 12 on the 2nd Oct; 2 10s on the 22nd Oct; and 1 7s. on the 1st Nov. He believed the rest of the bill, 18s 8d., would not be disputed. This would be a case in which His Honour would have to decide who was speaking the truth, for plaintiff would swear the money had been lent, and the defendant would deny that he had it, and one of them must be swearing falsely.

John Bromley, the plaintiff, deposed that he had been on friendly terms with defendant ever since he was a boy. Defendant was in the habit of using his house in Fancy Street. The first item of cash lent was on the occasion of defendant going to Deal on family business. In September, being in difficulties, defendant asked for a loan of 12 to give Mr. Minter to enable defendant to go through the Bankruptcy Court. The money was kepot upstairs in a drawer in his bedroom, his wife keeping the keys. The third sum was lent defendant to pay a few little bills with, and the last to help pay a quarter's rent. On the 1st Nov. defendant went to Dover. On the 3rd Jan. plaintiff went over to Dover for a settlement. Defendant and he had some ale at the Cherry Tree, when defendant said if he would meet him at the Red Cow at four o'clock he should have the money. At the Red Cow, defendant asked witness to go over next morning and meet him at the Golden Cross, for a friend of his would pay him a 30 cheque. At the Golden Cross he met defendant, who said Mr. Judge would be there directly, and all would be settled, but he asked plaintiff not to let Mr. Judge know all the business. When Mr. Judge arrived, defendant said to him “Bromley wants money, and money he must have”. Mr. Judge suggested a loan office, and defendant brought up something about a policy on plaintiff's wife's life, but plaintiff told him he did not want a loan. They then went to Messrs. Knocker's office, defendant going home, and Mr. Judge there gave plaintiff Mr. Freshfield's address. When defendant left Folkestone he deposited some furniture with plaintiff as security for the money, and defendant made up a bundle of linen for the pawn shop, but it was so moth-eaten Mr. Hart would not receive it. In consequence of a letter, plaintiff went to Hythe to a Mr. Nazer's, where he met defendant, who did not dispute owing the money, but offered 10 to settle the case.

In cross-examination plaintiff said he kept books. The entries in the one produced were copied from an old book which he destroyed because it was so dirty no-one could understand it. The sums of money lent were not put down in the old book, but on a sheet of paper. The bill produced, 18s. 8 3/4d., wasd given to Hatton just after the 12 was lent him; 10s. of it had not been repaid. Plaintiff kept the furniture deposited (which was worth 30 or 40) till December, when defendant sent for it, and as he heard defendant had come into some property, he let the security go. When he went to Dover on the 3rd Jan. he was not pressed for money, and did not go to borrow. In a letter defendant sent plaintiff, asking him to make a composition with his creditors for him, defendant did not mention owing the money to plaintiff. He could swear these advances were not a fabrication.

Stephen Newing deposed that defendant offered to sell him two chests of drawers for 5, as he wanted the money to give John (Bromley).

Timothy Sullivan, pensioner, living at the Dew Drop Inn, said defendant asked him to take some clothes to the pawn shop, and get as much as he could on them, for he wanted to pay Bromley.

Mary Ann Bromley remembered Hatton coming in October to borrow money. He was in the habit of coming into the house frequently.

Mr. Knocker, for defendant, said the testimony of plaintiff would be distinctly contradicted by defendant, and it would be necessary, therefore, to look at the corroborative evidence. It was true Bromley had at times advanced Hatton a few shillings, and sometimes the accommodation had been reversed, but such sums had always been repaid. In Oct. at the time Hatton was stated to have borrowed 12 to place in Mr. Minter's hands to enable him to pass the Court, arrangements were absolutely being made in Mr. Knocker's office to effect a composition with his creditors. Then, the book produced by Bromley was commenced in 1865, and yet this debt, said to be contracted last year, was copied from some other old book. Then, as to the furniture, it was unpleasant to have to swear that furniture was removed for the purpose of fraud, but Hatton would swear it was deposited with Bromley to avoid a distraint, and not as security.

He called Thos. Hatton, the defendant, who stated that on four or five occasions he had borrowed money of the plaintiff to the extent of a few shillings – never more – and that it had always been repaid. In Sept. he was in difficulties, and his brother lent him 30 to make an arrangement with his creditors, and he placed his affairs in Messrs. Knocker's hands. He did pay his rent on the 1st Nov., but the money he received from Mr. Olivier for some furniture sold to him. Bromley concealed some of his furniture, and the people next door secreted some, because his (defendant's) wife was afraid it would be taken. As to the interview with Mr. Judge, he said Bromley came over and told defendant he was in difficulties with his brewer, and wanted to get some money. Defendant suggested Bromley's father, but Bromley declined to ask, and as Hatton knew no other way he promised to ask Mr. Judge. He did not ask plaintiff beforehand not to let Judge know all the business – not to tell him he (defendant) owed the money. Mr. Judge recommended Pay's loan office, but as Bromley could not get securities, he asked for Mr. Freshfield's address and Mr. Judge gave it him. A fortnight after he received a claim for this amount, and was so indignant that he wrote a letter to plaintiff remonstrating with him, but on showing it to Mrs. Bromley she advised him not to send it to her son, and the next thing that he knew was that a County Court summons had been issued. Witness went down to Hythe in answer to a letter from Mr. Nazer, not expecting to see Bromley. He refused to have anything to say to him for some time, and only consented because he thought Bromley wanted to compromise the matter and not go into the witness box to commit perjury. Witness denied owing the money, and 10 was never mentioned. He did not tell Newing he wanted money for John, nor did he tell Sullivan anything about the bundle. In cross-examination witness said he felt so indignant at the claim that he took no notice of it. He called Bromley a rogue. As witness removed his furniture to defraud his creditors, it would not be unfair to call him a rogue. Some of the furniture was removed to the next door, and some to Bromley's. He owed about 100 in Folkestone. Bromley never supplied him with necessaries – coals or candles. Did not know Bromley was in easy circumstances. Witness's father-in-law died in Nov., and it was not after that he placed his affairs in Messrs. Knocker's hands.

John Judge, clerk to Messrs. Knocker, said defendant placed his affairs in their hands in August last. With regard to Bromley's visit to Dover, he deposed that Bromley said he wanted a loan of 25, and as he could not find security, he wanted to apply to Major Dickson or Mr. Freshfield. Major Dickson being abroad, he asked for Mr. Freshfield's address, and witness gave it to him.

Mr. Minter having commented on the evidence given, His Honour delivered judgement. In all cases of doubt he would enter a non-suit, but could not in this case, although he should have preferred to have a jury. The evidence of the plaintiff was well and fairly given, not shaken by cross-examination, and had been confirmed to some extent by two independent witnesses. Defendant did not come into Court with clean hands. He entirely denied the charge, but his defence was not corroborated. Mr. Judge's evidence might be perfectly true, and yet not contradict that of plaintiff, who stated that before Mr. Judge came in, defendant asked him not to let him know all the case. No doubt if plaintiff had wanted the money he would have gone to his father for it instead of to Hatton, who he knew was in difficulties. The weight of evidence and probability was in favour of plaintiff, and the judgement would be for plaintiff with costs.


Folkestone Express 19 February 1870.

County Court.

Monday, February 14th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

John Bromley v Thomas Hatton: This action was to recover sums borrowed at different times by the defendant, amounting to 20 11s. Mr. Minter appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Knocker, of Dover, for the defendant.

Mr. Minter said the plaintiff was a publican, residing in Fancy Street, Folkestone, and he always supposed the defendant to be a man possessed of some means, but that turned out, unfortunately, not to be the case, he proving to be a person in needy circumstances. He stated that the small sum of 8s. 8d. had been paid into Court, but the amount still due could be classed as follows:3 5s. borrowed on Jan. 12, 1869, 12 on Oct. 2nd, 1869, 2 12s. on Oct. 22nd, 1869, and 1 7s. on 1st November last. The smaller sum was for work done and refreshments supplied. From what he could understand, it was a case in which His Honour would have to decide who was speaking the truth, as defendant will deny having borrowed any money. Looking at the recent dates he did not see how it was possible that any great variation could exist in the evidence.

John Bromley said: I know Mr. Thomas Hatton. He has resided here for some years as an independent gentleman. I have been acquainted with him ever since I was a little boy. He has been in the frequent habit of using my house, and I have been on very friendly terms with him. I lent him 3 5s. on January 12th, 1869; he said he had to settle some business with his brother about some law affair. From that time up to October 2nd I did not know he was pinched in circumstances. About that time he came to me and asked me to advance him some money to take him through the Bankruptcy Court. I asked him what it would cost him. He said he had been given to understand it would be about 12. I advanced that sum for him to go to Mr. Minter's office and get himself declared a bankrupt. I kept my money in a drawer upstairs; my wife had the key, and I had to ask her for it. I afterwards advanced him 2 12s. He said he did not want to break into the 12, as he intended to go to Mr. Minter's in the course of a few days. I then advanced him 1 7s. on the 1st of November to help him pay his quarter's rent. Defendant then left Folkestone for Dover. On the 3rd of January this year I went over to ask him to settle his little account. I had previously been in communication with him. He was in debt all over the town, and he had instructed me to go round and try to make a settlement with his creditors. I saw him at Dover. We went to the Cherry Tree and had some ale together. He said if I met him at four o'clock at the Red Lion he would square with me, as he expected a party there with a cheque for 30. I went there. When the defendant came he said “I have not seen that party, as he was having an interview with a gentleman. If you come down by the first train tomorrow and meet me at the Golden Cross, St. James's Street, I will settle with you, John”. I went there and met defendant. He said “Mr. Judge will be here presently, and we shall square our account all right. Don't let Judge know anything. He's an old hand.” Mr. Judge came shortly after. Defendant then said to him “Now, John, Mr. Bromley is one of my best friends through all. He wants money, man, and he must have it.” Judge said: “You are not in a position to let him have money.” Defendant replied “I know I ain't.” Judge then said “The only thing I can recommend is to go to Mr. Pay's loan office.” I said “I will not have anything to do with a loan office. If Mr. Hatton likes to have it, he can.” He then said something about a life policy. Judge then looked up and said “I must be off.” He then left. I then said to defendant “This is a curious affair. I thought Judge had a 30 cheque.” He replied “So he had, John. He paid it away, and some of the money is at his own house, and some at mine. That will be all right presently.” We then went to Mr. Knocker's office, but did not meet Judge till some time afterwards in Castle Street. Defendant said to him “John, what is to be done?” Judge burst out laughing and said “Let us see. Something must be done.” I then went to Mr. Knocker's office, and Judge went to a desk and spoke to a clerk. He then gave me a piece of paper and said “Perhaps this will be of use to you”. I looked at him, and asked him if he thought I was a fool. The paper had the address of C.K. Freshfield Esq. on it. We walked, talking, to the street door, and I said “Perhaps you don't know how me and Mr. Hatton stand.” He replied “I know all.” I had two chests of drawers of defendant's and he attempted to sell them in part payment. He also tried to pawn some linen to pay me. I went to Hythe to see a person named Nason, and in one of the rooms he offered me 10 to settle the action. I was offered 10 last Friday night.

By Mr. Knocker: I keep a book (book produced); that is it. My old one was in a very dirty state, and I copied my accounts into that before last Christmas.

The witness was then subjected to a long cross-examination as to the nature of his transactions with the defendant, which went to show that defendant had sent property to plaintiff's house as a security for the money, but hearing Mr. Hatton had come into some property he allowed him to have the furniture away, never doubting but what the money would be paid. Plaintiff never had any reason to borrow money. He had never been in any difficulty, and was always in a position to pay 20s. in the pound.

Stephen Newing, a furniture broker, was examined. He said: I met Mr. Hatton. He took me into Mr. Bromley's house and showed me two chests of drawers. He said “I want to sell them for 5.” I told him I could not give him so much money. He replied “I am sorry for it, as I wanted to give the money to John”. I supposed that was Mr. Bromley. That was at the latter part of October.

Timothy Sullivan, a pensioner lodging at Mr. Bromley's, said: I saw Mr. Hatton at Bromley's house on several occasions. He asked me to take a bundle to Mr. Hart's, the pawnbroker, in High Street. It was a large bundle containing sheets, blankets, and counterpanes. He said “Get as much as possible on them. I want it to pay Mr. Bromley some money I owe him”. When I took the goods I gave Mr. Hatton's address, No. 2, Cambridge Terrace. They were all moth-eaten, and Mr. Hart would not take them.

By Mr. Knocker: This was the last week in October.

Mrs. Mary Ann Bromley then deposed to her husband coming to her for the key.

Mr. Knocker then addressed His Honour for the defence, alleging that Bromley had prevaricated; that he went to Dover for the purpose of borrowing money. Having a knowledge of the fact that defendant had concealed his furniture, apprehending a distress, he had taken advantage and trumped up this account.

Thomas Hatton (the defendant) was called. He said: I was residing in Folkestone until November last, and I now live in Dover. I have been living on small means of my own. I have been acquainted with plaintiff's father; he is a respectable and independent man. I have borrowed half a sovereign from plaintiff sometimes; at no time more than that amount. When he sent to me I did not owe him a penny piece. I have a brother living at Deal. I took steps for compromising with my creditors last year. My brother advanced me the sum of 50. Plaintiff never advanced me any money; he secured my furniture for me. When he came to Dover on the 3rd of January he said he was in difficulties with his brewer and leather cutter. I said to him “Why don't you ask your father?”. He said “I owe him 45 now”. I said “If I had it in my power I would lend you 25”. Some conversation then took place about a loan office. I said “I will enquire of a friend of mine if he knows an office”. We met Mr. Judge in St. James's Street; nothing transpired before we saw him. Not a single word was said about keeping anything back from Mr. Judge. Plaintiff said to Mr. Judge “I want 25”. Mr. Judge said “If you can get security I can get it”. Plaintiff then spoke of his wife's life policy; that was not considered sufficient. Bromley then proposed to go to Mr. Freshfield, and asked for the address. We met Judge in Castle Street and asked for the address. He said “I can't recollect it” and Bromley left me to go and get it. I was astounded to receive a fortnight after a letter for 20 money lent. I had a reply written to that letter but did not send it; I treated it with contempt. Plaintiff's mother advised me not to send it, as it was too strong. I afterwards wanted plaintiff to compromise the affair as I did not wish him to get into the witness box and perjure himself. Not one word was said about 10, nor any amount at all. I met Newing in the street and asked him the value of the drawers. He said they are worth so and so. Did not say I wanted the money to give to Mr. Bromley. I saw Sullivan in Bromley's house but never asked him to take a bundle to the pawn shop. I never sent an article to such a place in my life.

By Mr. Minter: What Mr. Newing said was an untruth. Both Mr. Bromley and Mr. Newing have sworn to what is untrue. When I got the letter I thought Bromley a great rogue. (Mr. Minter here read a letter from Mr. Nason to the defendant. It said “If you like to come direct to me, I can get you out of all your troubles”) He then examined the witness on it, and also as to his monetary affairs. The witness still persisted in saying he only desired to keep Bromley from perjuring himself.

John Judge was then called, and deposed to the interview with Bromley. He thought he required a loan of 25, but as Bromley had no security he said he would see Mr. Freshfield, and consequently he took Bromley to the office and gave him the address.

Mr. Minter then addressed His Honour in reply, and contended that the defendant's testimony was totally unreliable, while the plaintiff's evidence was perfectly trustworthy, being confirmed by several witnesses, one a tradesman of long standing in the town. He also alluded to the conduct of the defendant in removing his furniture to evade it's being seized by his creditors, a circumstance of itself sufficient to impeach his veracity. As for Mr. Judge, it was planned at defendant's suggestion that he should know nothing of the affair.

His Honour said the general rule he adopted in cases of this kind, where there was a great deal of cross-swearing, was to nonsuit the plaintiff, and he regretted in this case that one side or the other had not employed the services of a jury. He should simply say that he found for the plaintiff or defendant after reviewing some few facts of the case. Plaintiff's evidence was fairly given, and his statements bore the impress of truth; it was also confirmed to a great extent by the witnesses he called. The corroboration of defendant's evidence is simply nothing at all. Judge's evidence is in the main true, but the plaintiff does not differ from Judge. If plaintiff was in want of money it was utterly improbable that he would go to defendant, who he knew for certain was in very needy circumstances. On the whole, the weight of the probabilities and evidence is in favour of the plaintiff, and he was sorry to come to the conclusion that defendant's evidence was untrue. Verdict for plaintiff, with costs.


Folkestone Chronicle 19 March 1870.


To Let, With Immediate Possession.

A Free Beerhouse and Lodging House, doing a good business. Satisfactory reasons given for leaving.

Apply to Mr. Bromley, Dew Drop Inn, Fancy Street, Folkestone.


Southeastern Gazette 7 November 1871.

Local News.

Early on Saturday morning week a fire broke out at the Dewdrop Inn, Fancy Street, and was not extinguished before a quantity of bedding was destroyed. As the fire occurred in a closely populated neighbourhood it created considerable alarm. It was caused by a lodger putting a lighted pipe under his pillow.


Folkestone Chronicle 30 December 1871.

Friday, December 29th: Before The Mayor, J. Tolputt and T. Caister Esqs.

John Lewis, a tramp, was charged with stealing a medal of the value of 4s., from Michael Green, belonging to the 67th Regiment.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to the charge.

The prosecutor went to the Dew Drop public house on Tuesday evening last. He slept in the room with the prisoner and two other men. He had his medal when he went in the house, but in the morning it was gone, and he gave information of the robbery to the police.

P.C. Keeler said that he went to Mr. Johnson, jeweller, High Street, who he found had bought the medal of prisoner.

He was sentenced to two months' imprisonment.


Folkestone Express 13 January 1872.

Transfer of License.

Wednesday, January 10th: Before The Mayor and R.W. Boarer Esq.

The license of the Dew Drop was transferred from James Marshall to John Johnson. Supt. Martin said the house had been conducted very well lately. Mrs. Johnson produced two testimonials from persons in London.

Note: No mention of Marshall in More Bastions, and Johnson is listed from 1870.


Southeastern Gazette 10 June 1873.

Local News.

On Saturday an inquest was held on the body of Thomas Campion, a shoemaker, aged 41, lodging at 27, Charlotte Street, who was killed by falling into the harbour.

Dr. Eastes stated he was called to attend the deceased at about two o’clock on Wednesday morning last; he had all the symptoms of a person suffering from concussion of the brain, but the only visible external injury was a lacerated wound on the scalp. He died on Thursday afternoon, having remained insensible during the whole of that time.

Wm. Henry Forbes, late of Hastings, stated that he lived at the Dewdrop Inn, Fancy Street. Had known the deceased about six years. On Tuesday last he was in witness’s company all the evening, and at about eleven o’clock he asked him to have a ramble. They were both perfectly sober. They went down to the harbour, to the lower landing, where the people fish. Deceased went past and witness followed. It was very dark there. All at once witness missed deceased, and cried out “Tom where are you?” There was no answer, and on looking over the harbour, the tide being out, witness fancied he saw deceased lying on the rocks. He jumped down and found him on his back insensible. He must have slipped and fallen six or seven feet. Having obtained assistance he was conveyed home. They had no particular motive in going to the lower landing, they were on the best of terms, and had not quarrelled.

John Kelway, a Custom-house officer, confirmed the evidence of this witness.

The jury returned a verdict of “Accidental death.”


Folkestone Express 14 June 1873.


In our last impression we briefly recorded the fact that a man named Thomas Campion fell among the rocks under the lighthouse at the end of the quay at the harbour, and died from the effects of injuries received. An inquest was held on Saturday at the Harvey Hotel, before John Minter Esq., and a jury. After viewing the body the following evidence was taken:

S. Eastes Esq., M.R.C.S. deposed to being called to see deceased at 27, Charlotte Terrace at two o'clock on Wednesday morning. He found him in bed, the only visible injury being a wound behind the right ear. Endeavoured to raise him from his state of insensibility without effect. Deceased had all the symptoms of severe concussion of the brain. Gave directions as to what should be done and called again early in the morning; found patient still insensible. Saw him five or six times during the day and used the proper remedies. Deceased continued in the same state until three o'clock the following morning, when his breathing became difficult and he was no longer able to swallow, and gradually sank and died at half past two in the afternoon from concussion – not compression – of the brain, most probably caused by a fall which witness had been informed deceased had had.

Elizabeth Impett, 27, Charlotte Street, said deceased had lodged at her house about seven years, was 48 years of age. Knew nothing of his friends. Deceased left home between eight and nine on Tuesday morning; passed him between eight and nine in Dover Street, when he appeared sober. He was generally a sober man, but sometimes he got out a bit. Two policemen and Forbes brought deceased home insensible about one o'clock on Wednesday morning.

William Henry Forbes said he lived at the Dew Drop, Fancy Street. Had known deceased about six years. On Tuesday evening deceased had tea with him, had a game of draughts after tea, had four pints of half-and-half among three of them, went to the harbour and down the lower landing along the jetty leading under the lighthouse. Deceased was eight or ten paces ahead of him, and he missed him. Called out “Tom, where are you?”, and receiving no answer went in search of him. Found him lying among the rocks under the lighthouse. Both of them were sober. Thought the deceased, in trying to step upon the transoms, missed his footing. It was dark, and low water.

The Coroner remarked that it was a curious thing for witness and deceased to go to such a place at that hour of night. What were they going to do?

Witness said they went for a ramble. Jumped down to deceased and found he had fallen six or seven feet and was lying on his back unconscious. Went immediately for assistance. Deceased was perfectly sober, and they were not larking or spreeing, and were on good terms and smoking their pipes.

John Kelway, an extra man in Her Majesty's Customs said he was watchman at the harbour on the night in question, and corroborated the last witness. Went to his assistance and found deceased jammed in a hole between two rocks. Procured further assistance and deceased was got up and sent home. Deceased and Forbes were perfectly sober, and appeared to be on good terms.

Wilson Willis, the Company's night-watchman corroborated.

Verdict “Accidental Death”.


Folkestone Express 20 December 1873.

Monday, December 15th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer and J. Kelcey Esqs.

Catherine Harrington, wife of John Harrington, who was fetched from Cork and charged last week with leaving his wife and family chargeable to the parish was placed in the dock on a charge of being drunk and disorderly.

From the evidence of P.C. Keeler it seems that he was fetched by the landlord of the Dew Drop, Fenchirch Street, about a quarter before twelve on Saturday night to turn prisoner out of his house as she was making a disturbance. He got her out of the house, when she laid down upon the ground, took off her shoes and stockings, and in expressive Hibernian language asserted her determination to stay there all night, and he was compelled to obtain a stretcher to convey her to the lock up.

Dunn, the landlord of the Dew Drop was called and said prisoner had lodged at his house with her three children three nights, and on the night in question her husband paid a shilling for her lodgings. She went to bed with her children, but shortly after commenced making a disturbance and her husband dared not go to her. She was drunk, and as she would not be quiet he sent for a policeman to turn her out. She did not have any drink in his house.

Prisoner made a long and rambling statement, in the course of which she said she had a pint of porter, which affected her head very much after being in the Union.

The Mayor said Dunn was not justified in turning prisoner out. If she were drunk, bed was the best place for her and she was lodging in his house, therefore he had no right to turn her out. If he took such lodgers he must put up with their conduct.

Prisoner was discharged.


Southeastern Gazette 23 December 1873.

Local News.

Catherine Harrington, the wife of a man who was last week brought from Ireland to answer a charge of deserting his wife and family, and who contrived to get off scot free, was charged with being drunk and disorderly at midnight on Saturday.

Harrington had paid for lodgings for his wife and children at the Dew Drop beerhouse, and the lady got drunk and went to bed, but shortly after became so violent that even her husband dare not go to her.

P.C. Keeler was sent for and the woman was turned out, when she pulled off her shoes and stockings, vowing she would sleep on the pavement, but the constable got a stretcher and conveyed her to more comfortable quarters at the lock-up.

Her plea was that a pint of porter after the light beverages of Elham Union “affected her head.”

She was discharged, the Bench remarking that the landlord was not justified in turning her out of doors.


Folkestone Express 14 February 1874.

Monday, February 9th: Before The Mayor, J. Kelcey, J. Hoad and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Catherine Wood, alias Kate Murray (23), whose career appears to be one of delinquency, having been three years in a reformatory, and against whom was registered some half-score convictions, was brought up on remand from Saturday, charged with stealing sundry books of the value of 1s. 6d., from the shop of Mr. Edward Dale, bookseller, Dover Street.

Annie Dale, prosecutor's daughter, deposed: I was in my father's shop on Wednesday afternoon, when prisoner came in and asked for a ticket for the Servants' Home. I told her to go to Mr. Birch's. She then left the shop and came back in a quarter of an hour and said she had been to Mr. Birch's and found she was too old to go into a Servants' Home. I then told her to go to Mr. Pope's and she went away. She had a bonnet or shawl on.

Prisoner to witness: I told you I could not find Mr. Birch's.

Elizabeth Dale, prosecutor's wife, deposed: Prisoner came to our shop on Wednesday evening between seven and eight o'clock, and said she wanted to get into the Servants' Home. I told her my husband had no means of getting her into such an institution and that it was of no use her calling again. She left the shop, and after she was gone I looked round and missed about a dozen “Churchman's Almanack” and “Dover and Deal Guide”s. The books now produced correspond with those I missed.

Hannah Carter, wife of John Carter, Oddfellows Arms, Radnor Street, said: Prisoner has lodged at my house. She came on Wednesday and called for a glass of beer and porter and paid a penny for it. She had a yellow covered book in her hand and asked if I liked reading, and I replied that I could not read and she then gave the book to my little girl. Prisoner went out after she had drank her beer. I gave the book to P.C. Keeler.

Harriett Hall, wife of William Hall, fishmonger, said: I saw prisoner come out of the fishmarket about half past three on Wednesday afternoon. She went through the arch in front of the Royal George, and was tossing up a number of books. She said “I am going to put these up for a pint of beer”. I said “You may as well give me one for my little girl”, and she gave me one and then went away.

Charlotte, wife of William Bourne, Hope, Fancy Street said prisoner came into her house in company with a tall man on Wednesday, and he paid for a pint of beer. Prisoner had several books in her hand and offered to give witness them, and as she said she did not want them, she gave her a “Churchman's Almanack”, and said if she kept the books she would only make away with them. Witness threw the book prisoner gave her on the tap room fire.

P.C. Keeler said: On Thursday morning, from information received, I went to the Oddfellows Arms and received the book I now produce from Mrs. Carter. I then went in search of prisoner and apprehended her in Tontine Street about noon. After being cautioned she said she was drunk and went into a shop, but she would not have done it if it had not been for a young man who was standing outside, and she gave him a portion of the books. She said she did not know his name, but they called him “Charlie”. Prisoner was searched by the female searcher, but nothing was found upon her. I have been to Dover and Hythe in search of the man, but could not find him.

Prisoner, after being duly cautioned, said: I came to Folkestone on Monday with a young man named Mackson, whose father keeps a farm. We went to the Dew Drop and got a bed there; we went into the tap room and had a pot of beer. I had just come out of prison and got a little beer, which upset me. If you will be so kind as to forgive me I will go into a Home: I could go in one today. I have lost my mother. I will go down on my hands and knees if you will forgive me. I don't want to go to prison again.

The Mayor said the Bench had no alternative but to commit prisoner for trial, and she was accordingly committed to the Quarter Sessions.


Folkestone Express 28 March 1874.

Wednesday, March 25th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, J. Clark, W. Bateman, and J. Tolputt Esqs.

George Brooks, alias Poole, pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly, and committing wilful damage by breaking a window, the property of the Executors of the late Charles Edward Jordan, South Foreland Inn.

Mr. H. Jordan said prisoner went to the South Foreland and asked for some beer, but as he was drunk he refused to serve him, and he became so abusive he was obliged to put him out, when he went to a private compartment and kicked at him through the window and broke it, doing damage to the amount of 5s.

Supt. Wilshere said the police were called to the Royal George, the Dew Drop, and the Victoria to turn prisoner out.

Mr. H.W. Le Butt, Royal George Hotel, said prisoner threatened him because he would not serve him with beer, and took up a pewter pot which he thought he was going to throw at him, and he sent for the police. Prisoner had been the terror of the neighbourhood for three days.

A previous conviction for assaulting the police in September, 1872, was proved.

Fined 1s. for the wilful damage, 5s. the cost of the window, 5s. for being drunk, and 7s. costs, or 21 days' in default.


Folkestone Express 28 June 1879.

Wednesday, June 25th: Before Captain Crowe, Alderman Hoad, M.J. Bell and W.J. Jeffreason Esqs.

Robert Huntley was brought up on a warrant, charged with being drunk in the Dew Drop on the 10th May, 1874, and also with being in the same house during prohibited hours on the same day.

P.C. Knowles said he was on duty in the police station about four o'clock on Sunday the 10th May, 1874, and was sent for to go to the Dew Drop (now called the George The Third) in Fenchurch Street. He went there and found the prisoner very drunk. His face was cut and bleeding. He advised him to leave the house, and he at once did so.

It seems that on the following Thursday a summons was served upon the prisoner, who absconded, and has only just returned. He told the Magistrates that a day or two after the occurrence he broke his leg and was three months in hospital, but P.C. Hogben, who served the summons, said the prisoner was all right on the 14th of May.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to being found on the premises, but not to being drunk. He was an old inhabitant, but he had never been in similar trouble before. Notwithstanding the lapse of time, the Bench convicted the prisoner on both charges, fining him 2.s 6d., and 11s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days' for being drunk, and 2s. 6d. and 9s. 6d. costs, or fourteen days' for being found on the premises during prohibited hours.


Southeastern Gazette 30 June 1879.

Local News.

At Wednesday’s Police Court Robert Huntley was brought up on a warrant, charged, with being drunk in the Dew Drop on the 10th May, 1874, and also with being in the same house during prohibited hours on the same day.

The facts of the case were deposed to by P.C. Knowles, and it seems that on the Thursday following the commission of the offence, the accused absconded after the serving of the summons upon him, and had only just returned.

He pleaded guilty to being found on the premises, but not to being drunk. He was, he said, an old inhabitant, but he had never been in similar trouble before.

Notwithstanding the lapse of time, the Bench convicted him on both charges, fining him 2s. 6d., costs 11s. 6d., or fourteen days’ for being drunk, and 2s. 6d., costs 9s. 6d., or fourteen days’ for being found on the premises during prohibited hours.


From an email received 19 July 2015.


I am writing to you in connection with a website we are currently hosting which follows the lives of the Armstrong family from Moyaliffe Castle, County Tipperary, during the First World War through weekly posts of letters, diary extracts and photographs. The material forms part of the Armstrong Collection which we hold here in the library, but we also include relevant material from external sources. You can visit the website at

Mrs Armstrong lived in Folkestone during to war with her three daughters in order to be geographically as close as possible to her son who was fighting in France. Her middle daughter, Winona ‘Jess' Armstrong, worked in the "Dew Drop Inn" in 1916, and now you probably guess why I'm writing to you! As you note on your website, there was a pub by that name in Folkestone in the latter half of the nineteenth century. What you may not know is that in 1916, four Canadian woman opened a ‘new' "Dew Drop Inn" on Bouverie Road West. It wasn't so much of a pub as a tea room and all the proceeds were devoted to wartime charities. Whether it still exists I couldn't tell you but somehow I doubt it.

I was wondering if you would grant us permission to use the postcard of the "Dew Drop Inn" you have on your website to illustrate Week 95 (17-23 April 1916) of our ‘story'. As you say, the picture may not be a faithful representation of the actual premises but it is such a lovely, whimsical card that we would love to use it with one of Jess's diary entries. The image will be fully accredited to you and/ or the original donor, whichever way you would prefer.

Many thanks in advance for considering this request, and I shall look forward to hearing from you!

Kind regards,

Anna-Maria Hajab.



Last pub licensee had BROMLEY Joseph 1867-70 Bastions

JOHNSON John 1870-73 Next pub licensee had Bastions

Last pub licensee had DUNN Thomas 1873-75 Bastions

Last pub licensee had LEPPER Godfrey 1875 Next pub licensee had

Changed name to "George III."


BastionsFrom More Bastions of the Bar by Easdown and Rooney


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

TOP Valid CSS Valid CSS


LINK to Even More Tales From The Tap Room