Folkestone Herald 5 October 1895.

Police Court Record.

On Wednesday, Janet Cox, aged 14, was charged with stealing £1 in silver, the property of her master, Mr. Cook, Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street.

Mrs. Cook said the prisoner had been her servant for about three months. On the 18th ult. witness placed £6 in a china vase, and put the vase into a drawer in her bedroom. £5 of the money was in silver. She moved it to another drawer on Monday last. Next day she examined the pocket of a dress in prisoner's bedroom, and found a purse containing 5s. 5½d. She then asked prisoner what she had in her pocket. Prisoner said “It is not your money. I have not stolen it from you”. Witness went to the drawer and counted the money. Finding that £1 in silver was missing, she asked prisoner if she had taken the money or not. Prisoner said her mother had given her the money to buy some coal with. Witness then went to see the mother, who was not at home. After returning she told the girl she had spoken to her mother, which was not a fact. Prisoner then said she had taken the money from the chest of drawers on Saturday. In her pocket witness found, besides the purse, six bangles, a pocket handkerchief, and a pair of kid gloves. In reply to witness, the prisoner said she had bought the articles with the money that was stolen.

P.S. Lilley deposed that from what the last witness's husband told him, he went to the Foresters' Arms. He saw the prisoner and warned her that what she said to him would be told to the Magistrates. Mrs. Cook showed him the vase from which the money was taken. Prisoner then said, in reply to the sergeant, that she took the money from a wooden bowl. She did not know how much, it was in silver. The money in the purse was some of that she had taken.

The prisoner pleaded Guilty.

Mrs. Cook asked the Bench to deal with her leniently, she had been a willing girl. She would not take the girl back into her service again.

In answer to the Magistrates, prisoner said she had passed the 3rd standard of the National Schools, Sandgate.

Mr. Banks, who was in the chair, said as the girl was so young they would give her another chance, and dismiss the case, the prisoner being bound over to come up for judgement when called upon.

Folkestone Herald 23 July 1898.

Felix.

His many friends will hear with more than ordinary regret of the sudden death of Mr. Cook, of the Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street. Deceased had been out for a little excursion into the country, and whilst driving from Ashford in the direction of Cranbrook he complained of feeling unwell. Subsequently he was brought on to Folkestone, and died at his home. Mr. Cook, I understand, suffered from heart affection. He had served his Queen and country in India, and the climate no doubt had told on his health. His death will be generally regretted, and Mrs. Cook has the deep sympathy of a large circle of friends.

Folkestone Herald 6 August 1898.

Police Court Report.

On Wednesday licence was granted to Mrs. Cook, Foresters' Arms.

Folkestone Herald 17 September 1898.

Police Court Record.

On Wednesday transfer was granted to Mrs. Cook, Foresters' Arms.

Folkestone Herald 22 April 1899.

Notes Of The Week.

We have often heard very funny defences raised on behalf of licence holders, when the latter have been proceeded against for selling intoxicants at prohibited hours. We do not refer to Folkestone, but rather to other towns, especially in the north. Nevertheless, we cannot recall to mind any more ludicrous defence than that which was set up in a local case on Wednesday morning. A policeman saw two men admitted into a public house at midnight, he heard the clink of money in the drawer and on the counter, he found two glasses which had recently contained ardent spirits, he saw the two men leave the premises, and he received the landlord's confession that the men had been admitted. These facts were pretty clear; but the defence was that the men had been treated by the landlord, and that the latter had been emptying a musical box of the coppers it had accumulated during the day. Whether the belated men enjoyed a tune to the accompaniment of their toddy is not specified in the evidence, but at all events, the case points a moral to licence holders, that when they are counting up the cash of their musical boxes after closing time, they would do well to exclude any passers-by who might be curious to enter. A mitigated penalty of £2 10s. and costs will suffice to vindicate the law.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday morning last an interesting licensing case was before the Magistrates at the Borough Police Court. The Bench consisted of Messrs. Hoad, Pledge, Holden, Vaughan, and Stainer.

Mr. Edgar Dalton, landlord of the Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street, was summoned for opening his house during prohibited hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors. He pleaded Not Guilty. Superintendent Reeve conducted the case for the prosecution, and Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, appeared for the defence.

P.C. Burniston deposed: At 12 o'clock, midnight, on the 14th inst., I was on duty in Shellons Street. I saw two men come up Grace Hill from the direction of Foord Road. They were William Price and Patrick Harrington. As they passed the public house, Harrington knocked at the door. The two men then walked about five yards up Shellons Street and stopped. The door was then unbolted and opened by the defendant, Dalton, who came out on the pavement. I recognised him. Harrington called out to Dalton “Is it all right?” Dalton replied “Yes, come on”. The two men then walked back to where Dalton stood, Harrington saying “Is there any policeman about?” Dalton looked about and said “No, come on”. The three men went into the bar, the door was closed and bolted again. I went to the door about two minutes afterwards. I listened and heard a noise as if the till pulled open, and then the chink of money. The till was then pushed back again. It made a loud noise, and I heard the chink of money on the bar counter. Dalton said “I will let you out this way”. I knew it was his voice. I went to the private bar door in Shellons treet. The door was being unbolted by someone from the inside before I knocked. I was seen through one of the glass panels of the door, and he left the door. I then knocked at it. I was admitted by Dalton. When I got inside, I heard the rumbling of feet as if the men were trying to make their escape. I said to Dalton “Where are those two men you have got on your premises?” He replied “Somewhere in there”. I looked round the public bar, private bar, and a private room in the rear of the bar, but could not see the men. There were two glasses upon the bar counter. I smelt them. They smelt of spirits. There was nothing in them, but they had recently contained spirits, whiskey, for they smelt strongly. Not being able to see the men inside, I left the bar and went to the back gate on Grace Hill. I then returned to the bar. I did not find anybody; the gate was locked. I saw the two men leaving the premises, just getting on the pavement. I took their names and addresses and told them I should report them for being on licensed premises at prohibited hours. They made no reply. I said to Dalton “I will report you for keeping your house open for the sale of intoxicating liquor”. He replied “I know I served them. They had an Irish whiskey each”. I said to him “I heard the chink of money on the bar counter”. He replied “They did not pay for it. It seems very hard for a poor man like me to be reported. It will ruin me”. I then left the premises.

Cross-examination by Mr. G.W. Haines: Where were you standing at this time? – At a private house opposite, in the doorway. I had business to attend to there.

You say you heard all this conversation? – Yes, sir.

Did you say you heard all of it? – Yes, sir.

They could not have said anything you could not hear? – No, sir.

When they came up and tapped at this door, was there a light there? – Yes, sir. A full light on the bar.

Did you notice any musical box arrangement? – There was a musical box standing on the counter.

Can you say whether it was open? – Yes, it was open.

Now, after this man had gone in, the light was still kept going? Just so. – Yes, sir.

Did the defendant, when you spoke to him about the men being there, mention anything about the musical box to you? – No, sir.

You say you heard the chink of money? – I heard what appeared to be that.

The defendant told you he did not charge these men for what they had? – He said so.

Mr. Haines, on the defendant's behalf, said the case was taken under Section 9 of the Licensing Act, 1874, in which there were two offences, for selling liquors during prohibited hours or for keeping the house open for the sale of liquor. There was not the slightest doubt that had the police sufficient evidence to have brought the case within the section of selling liquors, the summonses would have been taken out under the section, or the first part of that section, but owing to the difficulty of proving a sale the summons was taken under the latter part of the section, and that was for keeping open the house. The offence, however, was for opening the house. (Mr. H.B. Bradley, the Clerk to the Justices, said that was altogether a different offence from keeping open.) Mr. Haines, continuing, said it was for the Bench to decide on the evidence whether or not within the meaning of the Act the defendant did open the place for the purpose of a sale. There had been many cases decided with regard to opening or keeping open, amongst which at one time was the question of giving to or treating one's friends. Having called the Bench's attention to two cases in point, Mr. Haines contended that there were cases in which there was a very fine line. The Bench would have to decide whether this man wantonly opened this house at midnight for the express purpose of selling two whiskies, and would prejudice the house, the licence, and his own future. The explanation he was instructed to give to this Court was one, in conjunction with the constable's evidence, which would, he thought, be taken to a certain extent to be not contradictory. He thought that when they heard that, they would see the defendant was worthy of credence, and his statement was not altogether an airy romance. The defendant had a musical box on the counter, and the door where the money portion is was opened. A customer could place a penny in and a tune was played. That night, as they heard, the light was burning in this bar at 12 o'clock. The defendant would have turned out his lights, but he was clearing the money out of the musical box, which had got jammed. The two men came up. They were known to him, but he did not know that they were intimate friends of the defendant. They knocked at the door. They asked him “We should like a drink”. He said “I can't sell you a drink, but I will give you a drink”. They went inside, the lights being left on. There was no attempt at turning out the lights. The money which had been taken out of this box was cleared off the counter and put in the till. That was the money or the sound of money to which the constable referred. The constable came in; it was not of course for the police to judge whether or not it was within the section. He submitted that the defendant had a right if he liked to give liquor to any of his friends, but he would have learnt his lesson, and know that he would have to satisfy the Bench that his intention was not a wilful one to open his house for that purpose. The defendant was a young man, inexperienced, and he might say this was the first house he had had. It was not many weeks since he had been granted the transfer of his licence. His character satisfied the Bench. He believed that the house in question had had a most exemplary character. The brewers, Messrs. Isherwood, were the last persons to have a tenant who would imperil their licence. The defendant might be ignorant altogether of the law. It was hedged in with technicality, and the defendant thought that if he chose to give the men a drink he could do so. This man had started life, and it was not to be believed that for the sake of two whiskies he would imperil his licence. This was not in a back street, but in the centre of the town. He submitted on the facts that the defendant did not intend to open his house for the sale of liquor. There was no proof that it was sold. He asked them to believe the defendant when he said he gave the liquor to these men. He asked that the licence should not be endorsed in any case. As to the two glasses, they might have been not previously cleared away.

Superintendent Reeve said the defendant produced to his predecessor excellent testimonials.

The Bench having consulted, the Chairman said: Edward Dalton, the case is proved satisfactorily to the Bench, and you have rendered yourself liable to a penalty of £10, and also endorsement of the licence. It being the first offence, the Magistrates are of opinion that, taking into consideration that the house has always been of good repute, they will be justified in mitigating it to one fourth.

Fined £2 10s., and 9s. costs, or one month's imprisonment.

Folkestone Herald 29 April 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

William Price, Beach Street, and Patrick Harrington, 3 Bouverie Mews, were charged with being in the Foresters' Arms during prohibited hours.

P.C. Burniston repeated his evidence given last week in the case against the landlord, when the latter was convicted.

One of the defendants said that on the night in question, Friday, 14th, he was at work on the Harbour until 20 to 12. Being thirsty and cold, on passing the Foresters' Arms, he knocked at the door. Hearing the bolt on the door go, he returned, and being a customer, asked for a drink, saying he was very cold. The landlord said that was more than he dare do, serve them with a drink, but “if I would come inside he would give me some”. Mr. Dalton was doing something to a musical box. He put coppers in the till and they drank their drinks. Mr. Dalton said “You can come out of this door”. When they got to the door they could see the policeman, and stood in the passage. They didn't want any bother. The policeman went round to the other door.

The other defendant agreed to this statement.

Fined 5s., and 9s. costs.

On Wednesday last Mr. Edgar Dalton applied for the transfer of the licence of the Foresters' Arms, Shellons Street.

Mr. G.W. Haines, who appeared in support of the application, said that it would be useless for him to ignore the fact that during the past week there was a conviction against the present applicant, who held a temporary licence, for opening his house for the sale of liquor at prohibited hours. Having regard that it was his first offence, the Bench inflicted only a mitigated penalty. The brewers, who always wished that the house should be conducted properly, would accept any suggestion as to the tenancy. The Bench did not then make any suggestion, but they did say that having regard to the previous conduct of the house they would not endorse the licence. Mr. Dalton on that put himself in the hands of the brewers, with whom he had been previously nine years, from whom he had an excellent character, and his testimonials were before the Bench when the temporary authority was granted, being of a very high order. He asked the Bench to take into consideration these facts, and that the brewers themselves, from what they knew of him, were perfectly content that the applicant should come before the Magistrates that day to ask for a transfer of the licence. The applicant was starting his career in this business, and the consequences to him would be most serious if they should refuse his application, because in the business he had elected to go into, if at any time he applied for a licence the result of their refusal would stop him obtaining it. He had been fined, although a mitigated penalty, and he had been punished. He asked the Bench to take into consideration the evidence they would hear as to the applicant's testimonials, the evidence of his employers, the brewers, that even they were quite content to consent to him as a tenant. The applicant had had a lesson, and he quite appreciated the consequences that would ensue should he break the laws.

Mr. J. Minter said he had been requested to appear on behalf of Messrs. Isherwood, the brewers and owners of this house. He perhaps need scarcely tell the Bench that Messrs. Isherwood had a very high character. They always insisted upon their tenants obeying the law. In this case the applicant had committed an indiscretion through ignorance, and they felt it would be, as far as they were concerned, a pity his future should be damned by the refusal of a transfer. They felt that they ought to assist in all cases in seeing that a tenant is a man who will obey the law. They felt that with the punishment which had been given to him he would never for the future break that law, and they thought from their knowledge of his character, which had been so good, and they had the utmost confidence in him, that he never would transgress again, and they were willing to put their property in his hands, running the risk if he did transgress of having the licence endorsed. They had that confidence, and were willing to run the risk. It was always their wish to act in accord with the Bench, to whom they were not in any way seeking to dictate. The applicant was starting in life. The brewers thought the lesson he had received, knowing what he was, his principles, his conduct all the years with them, would prevent him ever offending again, and convert him into a goo law-abiding holder of the licence. The house bore a very high record.

The Bench granted the application.

Folkestone Herald 16 September 1899.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday an application by the landlord of the Foresters' Arms for permission to make a doorway from Copthall Gardens to admit bicycles and mailcarts was refused.

Folkestone Herald 31 March 1900.

Inquest.

On Wednesday evening, about 6.30, a tragic event took place at the Foresters' Arms Inn, Grace Hill. A man named George Wm. Hanbury, of 45, Pastoe Road, Lewisham, formerly a railway engine driver but latterly out of employment, met his death under circumstances of peculiar sadness. He had only been married on the previous Monday morning at Lewisham, and he and his wife came down to Folkestone on their wedding trip, putting up at No. 152, Dover Road, the residence of James Hy. Harrison (postman) and his wife, Mrs. Clara Harrison. Hanbury went out between 10 and 11 on Wednesday morning, and she heard nothing of him until the same evening, when she discovered that he had fallen down the steps leading to the entrance of the Foresters' Arms, and that he was unconscious from the injuries he sustained. He was taken to the hospital, but never rallied, and died on Thursday morning.

The inquest was opened on Thursday last, at 2 p.m., by Mr. Coroner Minter, in the Magistrates' Room at the Town Hall, and after the body had been identified by Mrs. Clara Harrison, the evidence then available was taken. The body of the room, open to the public, was filled by a number of spectators. Mr. Chief Constable Reeve watched the case on behalf of the police authorities.

Mrs. Hanbury, the widowed bride, was in attendance, and was led into Court by the Coroner's Officer (Mr. Edwin Chadwick), supported by Mrs. Harrison, who kindly assisted the poor woman throughout the terrible ordeal which she had to undergo, though the learned Coroner did his very utmost to spare her any further anguish by accepting the evidence of the identification which Mrs. Harrison was able to give. By this means the Coroner was able to dispense with the attendance of the widow at the hospital to view the body.

After the widow had been sworn, the Coroner said: Mrs. Hanbury, I should like to ask you on this occasion when it was this affair took place?

Witness, sobbing: Last night, sir.

Mrs. Hanbury, I should like to ask you what time did your husband go out yesterday evening? – He went out in the morning. I last saw him between 10 and 11 yesterday morning.

And at what time did this happen? – About half past six, I hear.

You had not seen him? – No.

You cannot speak as to what condition he was in? – No, sir, only from what I have heard. I hear that he was a little excited, but not the worse for drink.

Had he been in the habit of getting tipsy? – No, sir.

The Coroner: We will dispense with this witness, if Mrs. Harrison can identify the body.

Mrs. Harrison: I can, sir.

Mrs. Harrison was then sworn, and deposed that she knew the deceased, who lodged at her house, 152, Dover Road. (At this stage the Coroner, jurors, and Mrs. Harrison drove over to the hospital and viewed the body. On their return Mrs. Harrison gave formal evidence of identification).

Robert William Gillingham, smith, living at 53, St. John's Street, was the next witness called, and he was examined as follows by the learned Coroner:-

Yesterday you were passing the Foresters' Arms? – Yes, sir.

You were in the bar, were you? – Yes, sir.

At what time? – I should think about a quarter past six in the afternoon.

Which door did you go in? – The one at the steps.

Was the deceased in there when you went in, or did he come in afterwards? – He came in afterwards.

Were you sitting down? – No, I was standing up against the bar.

You were having some beer? – Yes, sir, I called for a half of beer.

How long had you been in before the deceased came in? – A few minutes.

How did he come in? By the same door? – Yes, sir.

Was there anyone with him? – Yes, there was a plasterer or bricklayer, or something of that sort.

Did they come in together? – Yes.

As if they worked together? – Yes.

Do you know the plasterer's name? – No, sir.

Was he a young man or old? – I should say he was 30 or 33, but could not say.

Was he in his working dress? – No, sir, he was dressed respectably.

How do you make out, then, that he was a plasterer or bricklayer? – That was the companion, and he was in working clothes.

And from his clothes you judged what he was? – Yes, sir.

Was the deceased sober or not? – He had had some beer.

Was the man tipsy? – He appeared to have had quite enough.

He did? – Yes.

What about the plasterer? – He was all right.

When the came in, what took place? – Deceased called for a glass for each of them, and the landlord had one as well.

He asked the landlord, Edgar Dalton, to have a glass as well? – Yes, but Edgar Dalton refused it at first.

Yes? – The landlord refused because he said he was going to have his tea, but he was enticed, and after being asked again he had one. He drew himself a glass of stout, or something to that effect.

Yes. What took place then? – The man refused to pay at first.

Yes. Did the plasterer and he drink their beer? – Yes.

What were they doing? – The plasterer and he were talking together.

Did the landlord join in? – No. He was waiting on the other customers.

What did you hear next? – I heard the landlord ask him for the money.

Had the deceased and the plasterer gone out at all? – No, not just then. The plasterer went out and left the deceased in the bar.

Was that before or after the landlord asked deceased for his money? – I don't remember that.

Was the plasterer there when this man went somehow or other down the steps? – No, he had gone home.

What reply did the deceased make when he was asked for the money by the landlord? – He asked how much he owed.

What did the landlord say? – Sixpence.

Yes. What did the deceased say? – He began to feel in his pocket for the money. He never said he would not pay.

Yes? – He did not pay, not then, and went outside for a few minutes.

Did he say anything? – No, he did not say anything.

Had the plasterer gone then? – I don't remember, sir. I believe he went before, but I could not say exactly.

Did he say what he was going outside for when he did go? – For the convenience, I believe, sir.

Did he say so? When a man walks out of a house owing money, the landlord would have thought he was going away altogether? – He came back a few minutes afterwards.

Through the same door? – Yes.

Did he go to the bar? – Yes, sir, and the landlord asked him again for the money.

What did the landlord say to him? What were his words? – I want 6d. off you, sir.

Deceased said what? - I will pay you before I go out.

What did the landlord say? – He said he had not taken any money at all, and the deceased said “I have paid you”.

Yes. Then the landlord came round into the bar to the deceased. Deceased said “ I have paid you”, and the landlord said “I have never had the money”? – Yes.

The landlord came round by the door and got into the bar? – Yes.

Where was the deceased standing when you left the house? Near the door? – About half way. I should think he was between the bar and the door.

Up to this time, when you say the landlord said “I have had no money”, and he left the bar and came to the front, had deceased created any disturbance? – No, he simply enjoyed himself talking about the soldiers, but he was not creating a disturbance, not a great deal, I think.

Now, when the landlord came round, you say he went up to the deceased? – Yes.

What else did he say to him? – He said “I want 6d. off you, sir, if you please, for those drinks”.

Yes? – To which the deceased replied “You will get no 6d. off me”.

Yes? – Deceased had an umbrella in his hand and held it up and threatened the landlord.

In what way? By words or actions? – By the umbrella. He held it up as if to strike him.

Did he say anything? – I will see you b---- before I give you that 6d.

Was the landlord threatening him at all? – No.

Yes? - On which Mr. Dalton's father came up.

Where did he come from? – From the door by which the young man came out.

He came into the bar, did he? – Yes.

How many people were in the bar at this time? – I should say about six or seven.

Do you know any of them? – Only by sight.

Do you know where they live? – No, sir.

Have you been here long? – No, sir.

You would know them if you saw them again? – Two or three I know by sight. One is in Court now, and they call him “Scotty”.

Any others that you saw? – I believe there were two soldiers there.

Have you seen any of the others since? – I have only seen “Scotty” since.

Well, then, you say that Mr. Henry Dalton came into the bar. When he came into the bar had deceased then got his umbrella up? – Yes.

What took place? – Henry Dalton opened the front door, the door to the steps.

I see the front door is in two parts. Did he open only one part or the two? – Only one part where the steps are.

Yes? – He got hold of the deceased.

How did he get hold of him if deceased was at the bar and Henry Dalton at the front door? – Deceased was near the door.

He had left the counter, then, and come near the front door? – He was against the front door.

Did you see how he got hold of him? – He got hold of him somehow.

Where did Henry Dalton take hold of him? You told my officer this morning. Speak the truth now. – He took hold of him round the waist, I should think.

He took hold of deceased round the waist. With one hand or both? – I could not say (after hesitation) whether he held the door with one hand or not. The door was open.

I know it was, according to what you say. And what did the landlord do? – I don't think the landlord did anything. He was standing there.

That we know. Did Mr. Henry Dalton say anything? – No.

When he went to open the door, did he say anything to the deceased? – No.

Do you say that the landlord never pushed the deceased? – They were all three together. I could not say whether he did or not. I was standing back a little. There was a struggle against the door, and the deceased fell outside down the steps.

You will have to answer the question that I am putting to you. If you told my officer the truth this morning, tell it now. – There was a struggle between Henry Dalton and the deceased, and the last I saw he was on the pavement.

You say that Henry Dalton took hold of the deceased. Just now you said they were all three struggling together? – No, not all three.

It was in answer to my question whether the landlord did anything? – No, I don't think so.

You said they were all three struggling together? – No, sir, I didn't say that. I said Henry Dalton and deceased.

Henry Dalton took hold of the man round the waist? – Yes.

And had the door open? – Yes.

I asked you whether he and deceased said anything? - I did not hear anything.

I asked you did the landlord do anything? – No, sir, I never saw him.

Very well. Now, who were struggling together? – Henry Dalton and deceased.

What was Henry Dalton trying to do? – I should say he was trying to get him outside.

What was deceased trying to do? – To free himself.

He was trying to free himself from Henry Dalton? – Yes.

Well? – Well, directly afterwards the deceased went rolling out at the door.

Backwards or forwards? – I could not say. I could not see out of the door.

Did you see his body lying there? – I ran out the other door.

Did you find him lying on the floor on his head with one leg on the steps? – There were more people then, and someone was trying to sit him up.

Who was that? – I believe it was the landlord.

Now, what do you say? Did he go out backwards or forwards? – I would not answer that, sir.

Why would not you? – Because I was not close enough to the door to see it.

You say when you first got out he was on the pavement? – He was sitting on the steps and the landlord helping him up.

Do you mean to say you did not say he was on his back? I put the question to you, sir. Now, be careful. I put the question to you. When you got outside where was the man, on his face or his back, and you said he was on his back? – I said he was sitting on the steps and the landlord holding him up.

Did you say or not that the man was on his back when you first saw him? – No, sir, he was sitting on the steps.

Now, then, just attend. You recognise my officer, don't you, and he saw you this morning? – Yes, sir.

Did you see him take down what you said? – Yes.

Did you tell him the truth? – Yes, the same as I am telling you now.

You are not telling the same story. I ask you, didn't you tell the officer that deceased was in a fighting attitude towards the landlord, and that the landlord took hold of him and threw him out of the door? – No, sir, not the landlord, but the landlord's father. I did not say that.

What did you tell the officer, that the father threw deceased out into the road? – I heard that it was the father.

Have you been speaking to them since? – No, sir.

Have you seen either the landlord or his father at all? – Only outside, sir.

Have you been speaking to them? – Yes, sir.

About this case? – Yes.

Is it true now that the landlord's father did push this man out? – They were struggling together against the door, and deceased went out into the street in an instant.

And the landlord's father did not? – No.

What caused the deceased to go out? – By struggling together, I should think.

I understand you to say that the landlord's father was trying to get the deceased out? – Yes.

Are you aware that the man's head was hurt on the back? – I did not notice, but I saw a great deal of blood on the pavement.

If he had gone on his face first he would not have hit the back of his head? – No.

Did you see if the deceased, when he went out of the door, fell? – No, sir, I didn't notice.

You saw him go out? – Yes, sir.

And you won't tell the jury whether he went out face first or backwards? – I was too far away; I was standing in the far corner.

What for? – I was drinking my beer. I was not interfering with the affair at all.

I don't suppose you were. Very well. Now, gentlemen, you can judge from the questions I have been putting this witness is not telling the same tale as he told to my officer. Is there any question either of you gentlemen would like to be put?

A juror: Are there two exits to that particular bar? – The Coroner: No.

A juror: The witness said he went out another way. – The Coroner: That was the door at which the father came in.

Chief Constable: I should like to know if the deceased walked out on the first occasion and returned without assistance. – The Coroner (to witness): He went out by himself to relieve nature and came back again by himself without any assistance, so that there would not be much the matter with him? – Witness: He was very talkative.

Could he walk straight? – He did not walk about much in the bar. He walked out at the other door and not down the steps.

Did he come in at the other door? – The same way as he went out.

This man was a stranger in the town, and how did he know where to go? Did he ask? – He went to the urinal outside.

How did he know where to go to it? – I could not say, sir.

Foreman: I have been asked to put a question, whether, before the deceased was put out, he was requested by the landlord or his father to leave? – No, sir, I never heard it.

Coroner: Now, just tell me how did the landlord's father know there was anything going on? – I should think he was close by the bar at the back somewhere.

And could hear what was taking place? – I could not say that, sir.

When he came in by that door did he come up immediately to the deceased and take hold of him? – He was standing back just outside the bar, not near the steps. Immediately the deceased aimed to strike at the landlord the father came in at once and went up and took hold of him.

And you say he did not strike at him? – He aimed at him. He held his umbrella up as if to strike him.

Mrs. Harrison: The landlord told me this morning that the man was far from being the worse for drink, but he was excited abut soldiers, and the landlord said “If you don't keep your temper, I shall have to put you out”.

Thos. Archer's evidence.

What are you and where do you live? – At 30, Pavilion Road, and am coachman to Dr. Chambers.

Were you passing the Foresters' Arms yesterday afternoon? – Yes, sir, walking.

About what time? – Between a quarter and half past six.

In what direction were you going? – I was coming from Foord on the same side as the Foresters' Arms.

What did you see? – When I came to the corner I saw a man fall down the steps head first on to the path. He fell backwards, on the back of his head, on to the pavement.

And his legs were where? – On the steps.

And where did he fall from? – From the top step, sir.

And who did you see, up there, on the tops step? – The landlord and his father came out at the door soon afterwards. The half door was open.

Who was close to him when you saw him falling? – The landlord.

On the top step, was he? – Yes, sir, between the doors.

There would only be room for one man in that half door? – The man was on the ground then.

You say the landlord was standing in the half door when the man fell? – Yes, I only saw the man fall on the pavement, that is all. I saw no pushing.

You say the landlord's father was behind him? – Yes, sir.

Do you mean that the man, in falling from the top step, did not touch the intermediate steps? – Yes.

In falling, where were his arms? Up or down? – I did not take that particular notice. He fell like a man falling down dead and he never moved afterwards.

But you would not say what caused him to come out of the door in that way? – No, sir.

Did you see the last witness come? – No, sir, I never noticed him at all.

When the man fell down so close to you what did you do? – I helped to get him on the step. The landlord took him round the waist and helped to put him on the step.

Did you hear the landlord say anything about how it happened? – There was not a word spoken either by the man or the landlord.

No, the man was unconscious, poor fellow. Is there any question that either of you, gentlemen, would like to ask?

A juror: I should like to know whether he is talking of the landlord or the landlord's father. – The landlord. It was the landlord who picked him up. The landlord's father went into the bar for something.

The Coroner: I understand he went for some brandy. That really confirms the statement that Gillingham made to my officer this morning, though he has altered it now, for what motive remains to be seen.

Chief Constable: Gillingham says he believed it was the landlord who was trying to sit him up after he fell, and that is what this witness means.

The Coroner: I don't know what you gentlemen think at this stage. Six or seven persons were said to be in the bar at the time this happened, but information has come so recently that we have not been able to find them. It appears to me that this is a case in which they ought to be found. Without prejudging it in any way at all, there is the fact that this is a case where they ought to be found. Without prejudging it in any way at all, there is the fact that this man is dead, and there is the evidence of the last witness, who is a respectable man, that in passing he said he saw this man coming from the top step backwards and fall on the back of his head. The doctor will tell you presently that the deceased sustained a fracture at the back of the head, and our common sense tells us that a man does not do that of his own motion, and looking to what Gillingham says, it is a very grave question of the landlord's father, in putting this man out, if he did put him out, and the evidence of some of those who were there should, if possible, be obtained. To my mind, it is a serious case, and one that requires inquiry, and if you are of that opinion we had better adjourn the case now.

The Foreman: The jury are of the same opinion, sir, that the case requires the strictest inquiry, and that it is desirable, if possible, to get some of those other witnesses.

The Coroner: I can give the certificate for the burial today, and we can adjourn to some day next week which will be convenient to you all.

Adjourned to Wednesday next at 3 p.m. The witnesses, including the landlord and his father, were bound over in £40 to appear at the adjourned hearing.

Folkestone Herald 7 April 1900.

Editorial.

We report elsewhere in this issue the result of the inquest held by our Borough Coroner as to the lamentable death of the man Hanbury, cause by falling from the top of the steps leading into the Foresters' Arms from the pathway in Grace Hill. The great local excitement to which this case gave rise renders it highly expedient to remind licensed victuallers of the grave responsibilities attaching to them with regard to the ejecting of unruly customers. In the present case the jury have delivered a verdict the righteousness of which cannot be challenged. They have weighed the evidence in a judicial and impartial spirit, and their findings will have the complete assent of all who study the evidence with a dispassionate mind. The summing-up of the learned Coroner was a model of clearness, and we have never had a more concise and yet comprehensive exposition of the law than he placed before the jury. With a view, therefore, to giving the utmost publicity in our power to that instructive utterance, we present the full text to our readers. In addressing the jury at the close of the evidence the learned Coroner said “The landlord of a public house is justified in putting a customer out of his house if he is drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly, using only such force as is necessary for that purpose. He may do that by himself or his servants or his agents, and he may call in a police constable to help and assist him in doing so. It is not necessary that he should order the person out of the house before doing that, but if a man is to be brought before the Magistrates to be fined, it is necessary to order him to leave the house, and if a man disobeys the order he is not only liable to be put out by force, using such force as is necessary for the purpose, but he is also liable to be fined for refusing to leave the house after being ordered to do so. Now, upon the evidence of all the witnesses except Henry and Edgar Dalton, they would have you believe that Henry Dalton was endeavouring to eject this man from the house. That is their statement, that he was endeavouring to eject and that this man was resisting. Well, you will have to determine whether you believe that statement or not, and if so, you will have also to say whether he was in a condition which the Act of Parliament requires to justify the landlord in ejecting him, because if he was not in that condition, Henry Dalton would be committing an illegal act in attempting to put him out, and not justified, and thereby committing an illegal act, and if the man fell in consequence of being pushed, undoubtedly it would be a case of manslaughter against Henry Dalton. But if the man was in a condition that they were justified in putting him out, then the question would arise whether more force was used than was necessary for the purpose of putting him out, and whether proper care and precaution was taken by Henry Dalton in putting him out, so as to prevent there being any probability of any injury arising to the man in consequence of so being put out. Now, you have viewed the premises yourselves, and I think you are all agreed that the steps are most dangerous steps to be an entrance to a public house, and that even sober persons coming down them in the ordinary way would have to take great care and caution to prevent themselves from falling. Therefore, suppose you come to the conclusion that they were justified in putting him out of the house, and that Henry Dalton was actually putting him out of the house in the way some of the witnesses have described, you will have to say whether proper care and caution had been used by Henry Dalton in pushing a man on such dangerous steps as those steps and give him such a violent push as he was caused to fall. If you come to the conclusion that proper care and caution was not used, it would be an act of such carelessness that it would undoubtedly render him liable to a similar charge of manslaughter.”

After reading the evidence, the Coroner went on to say “Now, you have, as I have said, got to decide which of the witnesses' statements you believe. If you believe the statements of Henry Dalton and Edgar Dalton there cane be no question that it was a pure accident, although it lamentably ended in the death of this man. If, on the other hand, you disbelieve them entirely and believe the evidence of the other witnesses, one of whose depositions I have not read, because you intimated that you don't believe a word he said, but if you believe that this deceased was deliberately pushed out of the door by Henry Dalton, then of course arises the question was he justified in turning him out, because he could not be justified in pushing him down the steps in the manner in which the poor fellow fell. If you are of opinion that the man was violent, drunken, noisy, or disorderly, then Henry Dalton had a right to put him out, but using no more force than was necessary for the purpose, and taking care also to use proper precautions that no injury arose to the man in so putting him out, you will have to say was there any excessive violence in so doing, and looking at the dangerous position of the steps, which Henry Dalton must have known of, did he take proper precautions in so attempting to put this man out as to prevent any injury arising to him? If, on the other hand, you say that the man was not drunk, riotous, quarrelsome, or disorderly, then there will be no justification in putting him out, and if under such circumstances in putting him out death arose, Henry Dalton would undoubtedly be guilty of manslaughter.”

On the conclusion of this summing-up the coroner submitted for the finding of the jury the questions which appear in our ordinary report of the case, and the verdict resulted in the complete exoneration of both the landlord and his father, a decision which is just and righteous.

Inquest.

The adjourned inquest touching the death of George William Hanbury, reported in our last issue, was resumed at 3 o'clock in the Council Chamber, Town Hall, before Mr. Minter, the Borough Coroner. Mr. Frederic Hall, solicitor, attended on behalf of Mrs. Hanbury, the widow; and Mr. G.W. Haines, solicitor, was in attendance to watch the case on behalf of the Messrs. Dalton (landlord and his father).

Robert William Gillingham, re-called, further deposed: The deceased was standing in the bar on the left hand side looking outwards, close to the door. The left hand part of the door was open. Henry alton stood close to the door where it opened. I did not notice with which hand he opened the door. The deceased was standing face to Henry Dalton, when he took hold of him. The landlord, Edgar Dalton, was standing between the deceased and Henry Dalton. At the time Henry Dalton took hold of deceased round the waist they were all three together. The deceased was standing nearer the window than Edgar Dalton was. Both Edgar and Henry Dalton came into the bar through the same door. I was standing in the corner near the door through which they came into the public bar.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: The door could be opened without touching the deceased.

Thomas Salmon deposed: I live at 14, Radnor Street, and am an out porter in Castle Hill Avenue. I was in the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday, 28th ult., between six and seven. I went into the public bar by the front door up the steps. Edgar Dalton was behind the bar. Edgar Dalton and the deceased were arguing about three twopenn'oths. The deceased said “No” – he had paid. The deceased was standing close to the division door in the public bar. He asked for another glass and the landlord refused, and said “Pay for what you have had”. The deceased said that he had paid somebody. He called the barmaid in, and asked her if he had paid her. She said “No”. The landlord then came into the public bar. I was standing about two feet from the counter nearly opposite the front door. The deceased was close to my right hand side. I had my back to the door. Edgar Dalton came up to the deceased and said “Are you going to pay?” Deceased said “No” and raised his umbrella as if to smash the glasses. I moved my glass in consequence. (Laughter) He then raised his umbrella as if to strike the landlord. The landlord stepped back and went into the private bar through a doorway. He returned with Henry Dalton. When they came in, the deceased was standing close to me. Henry Dalton asked the deceased if he was going to pay. The deceased replied “No”. Henry Dalton opened the door with one hand and pushed the deceased out with the other. I saw the deceased fall and heard the thud. The deceased had not time to do anything; it was done in an instant. The deceased was about two feet from the door when Henry Dalton pushed him out. Edgar Dalton did not do anything. Henry Dalton placed his hand on the chest of deceased. He opened the left hand door as you go out. Henry Dalton opened the door with his right hand and pushed the deceased out with his left. Whichever hand was used, I am certain Henry Dalton pushed deceased out of the front door, and he fell backwards on the pavement. I saw the deceased on the steps being assisted by Edgar Dalton and Henry Dalton. At the time when asked if he was going to pay, the umbrella was more by his side. The deceased was not doing anything at the time Henry Dalton came in, and all he said was that he did not mean to pay. He used no threats. He had no time; out he went. I can give no reason for the deceased being pushed out, except that he would not pay. The deceased was not really drunk, but still he had had quite enough.

Cross-examined by Mr. F. Hall: The landlord and deceased were arguing. Dalton said he had not paid. Deceased said he had. It was a rational argument, but rather high in the voice. Edgar Dalton said that he had had quite enough, and he would not let the deceased have another glass until he paid for what he had had.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: The opening of the door and pushing out was done at once, one push. The deceased was a fine, smart man. The push sent the deceased off his legs. He did not put his arms round the deceased's waist. He reckoned that the steps were the most dangerous in Folkestone for anyone coming out of the house. Henry Dalton had not his hand on the door at all when he pushed the deceased out. The deceased went right out.

John Jones deposed: I live at 24, Dover Road, Folkestone, and am a draper's assistant. On Wednesday last I went into the Foresters' Arms about 6.30 for a glass of ale. I saw the deceased and heard him talking to Edgar Dalton. They were opposite the front door. I saw the deceased lift his umbrella as if to strike Mr. Dalton. He then changed his umbrella into his left hand and lifted up his fist as if to strike him, but he did not strike him. I saw Henry Dalton come round to the deceased. He took hold of him round the waist and they struggled. Henry Dalton took him to the door, and when he got deceased there he seemed to release his hold, to me. From where I was standing, behind the door, I could not see what became of the deceased. I saw him put the deceased to the door. I told the officer who summoned me that I saw Henry Dalton put deceased out of the door. I have had a conversation with Mr. Edgar Dalton since the 28th March. I went to the Foresters' Arms on Friday evening last.

By Mr. F. Hall: I am in the habit of going in the Foresters' Arms. I did not hear anything that was said between the landlord and the deceased. There was nothing in the conversation to call my attention. The struggle between Henry Dalton and the deceased lasted two minutes. The landlord did not interfere. I did not hear anyone say anything. The struggle first began opposite the front door, about two feet from the counter, and went on until they got to the door. The deceased resisted and tried to release himself. It was a struggle to the door. I cannot say who opened the door. I was watching the struggle. I saw Henry Dalton push the deceased to the door. The deceased had his face to the door when Henry Dalton pushed him. The deceased fell out of the door face first. I did not see the deceased fall out; I only thought so. I came back at nine o'clock to the Foresters' Arms, and I heard them talking about the accident. I did not say that I saw the occurrence. Mr. Edgar Dalton sent for me on Saturday morning and said he wanted me about this case. He said “Don't favour me or the man. Speak the truth”.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: I did not notice whether the front door was open when the struggle commenced. Henry Dalton had both arms round the deceased and pushed him. He was struggling to relieve himself. Henry Dalton was nearest the counter when he took hold of the deceased with both arms round the waist. The deceased was back to Dalton while being pushed to the door. Dalton pushed the deceased close to the front door steps.

Ethel Caroline Smith deposed: I am barmaid at the Foresters' Arms in the service of Mr. Edgar Dalton. I was behind the bar on Wednesday serving. I was called in by Mr. Dalton and asked whether the deceased had paid me for the beer. I replied “No”. I heard the matter being argued between deceased and Mr. Dalton. They were arguing about 6d. for drinks. I did not hear any more because I went to attend at the private bar. I did not hear how they settled. I saw nothing of it.

William Brisley deposed: I live at 5, Bradstone Road, Folkestone, and am a bricklayer. I went to the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday night with the deceased. He called for beer and ale for himself and me. The landlord had a glass, but he refused at first. He had it afterwards, and that made the amount come to 6d. We stood talking for a few minutes, and I shook hands with him. He claimed my acquaintance, but I said that he had the advantage of me. The landlord asked for the 6d. I said “That is quite right”. The deceased placed the money on the counter. I did not observe what money was placed on the counter. I drank my beer and left. The deceased had had quite sufficient, but he was just a little lively.

By Mr. F. Hall: The deceased was well behaved at the Foresters' Arms.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: There were several in the bar. I did not see the landlord take the money up.

William stokes deposed: I live at 69, Black Bull Road, and am a tailor. I was at the Foresters' Arms on Wednesday 28th, between six and seven in the public bar. I heard the part of the argument for 6d. He said that he had paid it. I could not catch what he said. Deceased raised his umbrella and went as if he was going to clear the whole place. The landlord fetched his father. I went to the right-hand corner of the bar, taking my glass. I thought that there was going to be a row about his not leaving the premises when asked to by the landlord when he was at the side door. I could not catch the words, but I heard the landlord ask him to leave – if he would not pay the sixpence. I was talking to a soldier, who said that the chap was out through the door. I heard no struggle, nor did I see the man go out of the door.

By Chief Constable Reeve: The soldier was a stranger to me. He had an infantry uniform, and was wearing a big coat.

Henry Dalton, after being cautioned, elected to give evidence. He deposed: I am the father of the landlord of the Foresters' Arms in Folkestone. I am a retired Superintendent of Police, and was in the police force nearly 26 years. I live at Maidstone, but am at present staying at the Foresters' Arms with my son. I was there just after six o'clock in the evening on the 28th March last. I was in the private bar with several of the Maidstone football team, and I heard some noise in the public bar. My son came to me and said “Dad, I wish you would come round into the public bar. I think I have got some trouble”. I went through into the public bar in about half a minute. I heard my son say to the deceased something about sending for the police. At the same time the deceased had got his umbrella up in his hand in a striking attitude. I then went to the front door and opened the left hand half, going to the door for the purpose of going for the police. Just as I opened the door, the deceased changed his umbrella from his right hand to his left, and raised his right hand with clenched fist. He was in the act of striking my son. I stepped in between them. They were a foot or a foot and a half from the counter. I caught the deceased round the arms and just above the elbow. When I took hold of deceased we were face to face. I turned him round to prevent him striking my son, and he came with his back to the open door. I let go of him, and he took a step backwards away from me, falling out of the open door backwards. My son and I went out and took him up, got a pail of water, got a fly, and took him to the hospital. I did not know that deceased had refused to pay 6d. My son did not tell me what trouble he expected. I thought it was in consequence of the noise deceased was making. He was talking very loudly. It is not true that I was trying to put the deceased out of the house when I had hold of the deceased. He would have been perfectly safe had he not stepped back and fallen out of the door. I should not think it took half a minute.

By Mr. F. Hall: I could not tell what the deceased was saying. I did not expect any trouble when I got in the public bar. I never said a word to deceased. I did not open the door to put the deceased out. When I got hold of the deceased I turned him round towards the open door. I swung deceased round to the right. He struggled. It did not strike me there was any danger. I am not a hot-tempered man. I did not push the deceased; I swung him round. He was six inches inside the door when I left hold of him. I cannot say why he wanted to get away from me.

By Mr. G.W. Haines: The other half of the front door was bolted. If I had intended to put the deceased out, I should have opened both doors. There are two other doors out of which the deceased could have been put.

By the jury: There was no possibility of my catching hold of the man to prevent his falling; he was gone so quickly.

Edgar Dalton elected to give evidence, and deposed: I am landlord of the Foresters' Arms in Folkestone. I was behind the public bar on Wednesday, 28th March, between six and seven in the afternoon. I supplied the deceased with some beer, and a friend. On the deceased's invitation I had a glass. Deceased did not pay the sixpence. When he came from the convenience I again asked for sixpence. He used bad language and said he should not pay. The deceased was talking to two or three soldiers, and got very excited. He used bad language, and I cautioned him, but he continued. I went to the private bar, where my father was, and said “Would you mind coming round. I'm afraid I have some trouble”. I then went into the bar and said to the deceased “What are you going to do about the sixpence?” He replied “You will get no sixpence off me”. I told him about using bad language, and that I should fetch a policeman. He said “Where is the policeman?” He raised his umbrella, and lifted his right hand clenched as if to strike me. The next I saw was that father came from the front door to get hold of deceased and swung him round. I saw the deceased fall backwards out of the door. The deceased's left hand was on the left half-door, which swung him to the left on his falling, because he lay on the pavement on his back opposite the left hand door. I cannot say what caused the deceased to fall out of the door.

By Mr. F. Hall: The deceased was orderly and well behaved when he came in. He was not drunk when he came. His excitement was caused, I believe, by talking about soldiers, not about the sixpence. I did not see the deceased raise his umbrella twice. I went to my father because te deceased was abusive and refused to pay for his drinks. It is not true that deceased and my father struggled for two minutes. There was a slight struggle between my father and the deceased. I believe my father had let go of the deceased before he fell out the door. He was not pushed out.

Dr. Francis Clifford Fosbery deposed: I am house surgeon at the Victoria Hospital. The deceased was brought to the hospital by two men at ten minutes to seven last Wednesday evening, the 28th. He continued unconscious until the time of his death, which took place at seven the following morning. I found the deceased suffering from a fractured skull. There was a contused wound, star shaped, on the left side and back of the scalp, such as would be caused by the fall described. I made a post mortem examination, and the cause of death was haemorrhage on to the brain from a rupture of a vein immediately below.

After a short adjournment, Mr. Haines addressed the jury at 8.30, dwelling chiefly upon the conflicting statements made by the witnesses, and assuring them that no-one regretted the fatal accident more sincerely than did the landlord and his father.

The Coroner, having summed up the points of law, and also having analysed the evidence, left three questions to the jury:-

1) Did the deceased accidentally fall without being pushed by any person?

2) Did either of the Daltons, or both, or which of them, push deceased out of the door of the Foresters' Arms, and if so, was more force used in ejecting the deceased than was required for the purpose; and was such degree of caution used as to make it improbable that no danger or injury would arise from such ejection?

3) Was the deceased drunken, violent, quarrelsome, or disorderly?

The jury retired at 9.30, and returned into Court at 9.50. They returned as their unanimous belief the verdict that deceased accidentally fell without being pushed by anyone. The foreman intimated that his colleagues were of opinion that the steps ought to be immediately altered, and also conveyed to the widow the sympathy of the jurors.

Folkestone Herald 4 August 1900.

Folkestone Police Court.

On Wednesday, the licence of the Foresters' Arms was transferred from Mr. Edgar Dalton to Mr. Albert James Austin.

Folkestone Herald 12 January 1907.

Felix.

Mr. and Mrs. Austen, who so well conduct the Foresters Arms, follow a little hobby, and this takes the form of reminding one and all of their customers of their duty to the Victoria Hospital. I understand this worthy pair have just opened their box, with the result that the noble institution on the north side of Radnor Park has benefitted to the extent of £6 7s. 8d. in six months, making a total of £12 16s. 8d. for the year. In a period of three years Mr. and Mrs. Austed have collected for the Hospital no less than £35 16s. 8d. This is greatly to the credit of themselves and their customers, and is an example that might be imitated in more pretentious establishments. The Victoria Hospital has many friends, but none more constant than the Host and Hostess of the old hostelry at the bottom of Shellons Street.

Folkestone Herald 5 October 1912.

Wednesday, October 2nd: Before Mr. E.T. Ward, Mr. W.G. Herbert, Mr. G.I. Swoffer, and Mr. R.J. Linton.

The Bench granted the temporary transfer of licence as follows: Foresters Arms, from Mr. Austin to Mr. Chas. Ovenden.

Folkestone Herald 3 October 1931.

Local News.

The Folkestone Magistrates on Tuesday granted a protection order to Mrs. Elers, who is taking over the Foresters Arms, Shellons Street, from Mr. C. Ovenden.

Folkestone Herald 31 October 1931.

Obituary.

We regret to record the death of Mr. Charles Parks Ovenden on Wednesday at his residence, 29, Joyes Road.

The deceased, who was until quite recently the licensee of the Foresters Arms, was 59 years of age and had been in poor health for some time.

He was the third son of the late Mr. Stephen Parks Ovenden and for a number of years was an assistant in the Town Clerk's Office. For twenty years he was a member of the choir at the Parish Church, and in his youth played for the Folkestone Football Club as goalkeeper.

The deceased leaves a widow and two sons.

The funeral will take place on Monday afternoon at the Folkestone Cemetery at Hawkinge.

Folkestone Herald 1 June 1940.

Inquest.

Alarmist statements on the war were said at an inquest at the Town Hall on Tuesday afternoon to have been responsible for the death of Mr. Charles Baker, a retired marine store dealer of the Forester’s Arms, Shellons Street, who was found hanged the previous afternoon.

The Coroner, returning a verdict that the deceased hanged himself whilst the balance of-his mind was temporarily disturbed, said “I have no doubt that if those people he had been talking to had, instead of having an alarmist conversation, had a conversation of a rather happier type, the deceased would not have done what he did”.

Mrs. Mary Elizabeth Emma Baker, wife of the deceased, said her husband’s health had not been good lately and he had been attended by Dr. E.E. Claxton for some time He was 64 years of age. During the last two months he had been very worried with regard to the war.

The Coroner: When you say he had been worried principally about the war, what do you mean?

Witness: Yesterday he went out before lunch. When he came back he said he had been talking on the Leas to somebody and the idea played on his mind that we had lost the war.

Do you mean he seemed to be worried by what people had been saying to him? -Yes, definitely.

Has he at any time threatened to take his life? - Never. He is the last man I should ever have thought would have done such a thing.

Continuing, witness said she talked to her husband after lunch and then interviewed a visitor regarding a young evacuee. Later she went upstairs to dress. She went into the bathroom where she saw a chair in the middle of the room. She went to close the window and on glancing round saw her husband’s feet m the bath; he was in an upright sitting position. She went out to fetch her son-in-law and went back to the bathroom with him. She then noticed there was a rope round her husband's neck, fastened to a water pipe over the bath. Her son-in-law untied the rope and took her husband down. Her husband was depressed about the last war. Yesterday he seemed more depressed than ever.

William Edwin Creasey, licensee of the Forester’s Arms, said he was Mr. Baker’s son-in-law. The deceased had been living with them for about nine years. His health had not been good for the last two years and he had not been himself. He used to sit about taking no notice of anything but thinking deeply. Yesterday he was more depressed than ever. He told witness that someone on the Leas had been talking to him about the war. He said they had told him that the Germans had rubber boats and could land thousands of men in England. For some time he had been very pessimistic about this country’s chances of winning the war. About 5 o'clock yesterday afternoon witness heard two screams, one apparently from his mother-in-law and another from his wife. He rushed indoors and his mother said “Quick, father is in the bath”. He rushed upstairs and found his father-in- law sprawled in the bath. A rope suspended from the water pipe was round his neck. Witness unfastened the knot as quickly as possible and attempted to revive the deceased. A chair, usually by the wash hand basin, was beside the bath.

The water pipe was about eight feet six inches from the floor. The deceased must therefore have got on something to tie the rope round the pipe.

Dr. E.E. Claxton of Manor Road, Folkestone, said he had attended Mr. Baker for about two and a half years. During the last six months he had been going to see deceased each week. He had been suffering from chronic bronchitis and cardiac failure. Witness had got to know the deceased very well; they always used to discuss the news. Mr. Baker used to ask him what he thought of it and he used to try to give an optimistic slant to it. “He always took what one said very seriously and you could either leave him very cheerful or very despondent”, witness added.

Coroner: I take it he was the sort of man one should always put the brighter side to, never the darker.

Witness: Undoubtedly.

So he would be considerably affected by someone who might tell him we had lost the war and the Germans were going to land thousands here in rubber boats? - It would distress him intensely. It would also cloud his judgment.

Continuing, witness said he was called to deceased’s house yesterday at about 5.30 p.m. Mr. Baker was lying on the floor and a policeman was applying artificial respiration. Mr. Baker was already dead. There was a mark on his neck suggesting strangulation. The face was also suffused. The cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. Referring again to the conversation which deceased had had in the morning, Dr. Claxton said "If a wicked person said such things he would take it to heart and would not be clear in his judgment”.

The Coroner: It would be liable to upset his mental balance?

Witness: Absolutely.

The Coroner said it seemed a very great pity that people should make such remarks when they were particularly asked not to make them and there was no occasion that they should be made. He returned a verdict as stated.

Folkestone Herald 24 April 1943.

Local News.

At Folkestone Police Court on Wednesday music licences for radio installations were granted in respect of the Foresters’ Arms and the Star and Garter.

Alderman R.G. Wood presided with Alderman J.W. Stainer, Mr. P. Fuller and Mr. P.V. Gurr.

Folkestone Herald 15 February 1964.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Transfer of licence was granted for the following application: Foresters Arms, from Mr. W.E. Creasey to Mr. Alfred W. Hammond

Note: This does not appear in More Bastions.

Folkestone Herald 24 June 1983.

Advertising Feature.

Anyone walking into the Red Cow pub in Foord Road after a few months' absence could be forgiven for wondering if they were in the right place For what before Christmas was a basic spit 'n' sawdust local has been transformed into an attractive and elegant hostelry set to compete with some of the smartest places in town. The original public and saloon bars have been knocked into one and a special eating area has been set aside. In fact the whole pub has been modernised and improved, but with the installation of false beams and the carefully selected decor, the atmosphere is very much one of bygone days.

Landlord and landlady Geoff and Joan Biggs are delighted as are their regulars and an ever increasing number of new customers. But for them the virtual overnight transformation of the Red Cow marks the end of a long, long wait. Fourteen years ago the couple, who have been in the licensed trade since 1938, ran the old Foresters Arms in Shellons Street, Folkestone. It was a thriving business, regularly packed and serving umpteen lunches every day. But their success was short-lived. A compulsory purchase order forced them to move and they took over the Red Cow with high hopes of improving it. They made repeated requests to the brewery but it was 13 years before they got the go-ahead for their new-look pub. “People have to pay a lot of money for drinks these days. It is only right that they get something a little bit special in return”, says Geoff.

Folkestone Herald 9 September 1983.

Local News.

A pub landlord has died after a lifetime in the licensed trade. Mr. Geoffrey Biggs, landlord at the Red Cow in Folkestone's Foord Road, died in the early hours of last Thursday, apparently from a heart attack. His death at the age of 63 came as a shock to his wife Joan, son Stephen, daughter Vicky and many friends. He had been a publican in the town for nearly 20 years. Mr. Biggs had been landlord at the Red Cow for 15 years. Before taking over he was at the Foresters Arms in Shellons Street, Folkestone. He and his wife have wanted to improve the Red Cow since they first moved there and in June their dreams came true when modernisation work was completed. Well-known in the town, Mr. Biggs was heavily involved in the darts leagues. A funeral service takes place today at Hawkinge.