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.

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 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 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 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.

FELONY AT FOLKESTONE

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 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 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 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 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.

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 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.

Folkestone Express 14 June 1873.

Inquest.

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.

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.