Kentish Express 14 July 1866

Police Court, Monday: Before R.W. Boarer Esq.

Robert Brand, a labourer, was charged with having assaulted police constable Swain, and resisted him in the execution of his duty on the 7th inst.

Police constable Ingram Swain said: On Saturday night last, at 11.45, I was called into the Fountain Inn by the landlady, Mrs. Morford, to assist her husband in clearing the house and removing some men who were fighting. I went to the back room and saw Mr. Morford, the landlord, and several people, amongst them the prisoner. Morford had stopped the fighting, and was asking the men to leave the room. The prisoner left the room immediately after I went in. I left the house myself, and saw the man with whom prisoner had been fighting go into the front bar. The prisoner, who was in the bar, knocked the man down directly he entered. Mrs. Morford called me in a second time. I went into the passage and pushed the door open which leads into the bar. I put out my hand and said “That will do, Brand; no more of this; knock off.” Prisoner struck me with his right hand over the left eye, and knocked my head against the door. I was partly stunned, and in self-defence I struck at him with my right hand and knocked him down. I cannot tell where I hit him, but it was on the upper part of his body, I think in the face. I attempted to take him into custody, when he struck me again with his right hand across the bridge of my nose, and pulled a handful of my whiskers out. I then knocked him backwards on a cask and held him by the collar of his coat. Some women then caught hold of the hair on the back of my head, and my whiskers, holding my head back, whilst prisoner struck me again in the face with his fist. At the same time I was kicked on my back, and the calf of my right leg, by someone behind me. Mr. Morford came to my assistance and released me, and I was hustled back out of the room by the people in it. I then went out into the street, and wiped the blood off my face, as I could hardly see. Soon after, prisoner was brought out into the street by some of the men, and I took him into custody again, with the assistance of police constable Smith. Four or five people got hold of him, and said I should not take him. Prisoner walked quietly up the street until they got opposite to Woolford's. when he kicked me on the leg and tried to trip me up. The appearance my face presents is the result of his blows. (The constable's face presented a shocking appearance. There was a cut on his forehead, another across the bridge of his nose, and a third on his right cheek. His left eye was bloodshot and nearly closed, and the whole of the upper part of his face fearfully contused and swollen.

In cross-examination by prisoner, witness said: After he kicked me, in High Street, on the way to the station house, I did hit him with my fist. I did not strike you when I came into the bar. The prisoner was drunk.

Mr. and Mrs. Morford gave corroborative evidence.

Prisoner, in defence, said: As soon as the policeman came into the bar he knocked me down over a barrel by a blow from his fist over my nose. The blood flew out and covered my jacket, which is at home. After that I certainly did strike him. Prisoner singled out a man amongst the crowd in court, who, he said, saw all that passed.

This man, whose name was John Marshall said: I was sitting in the back room having a game of cards when the prisoner came in. A row commenced and we left off card playing. Swain came in and ordered us out of the back room. Prisoner was one of the first to go out, and the plasterer followed him. I went into the front bar and called for a pint of beer. While I was drinking it prisoner and the plasterer got scuffling again. Swain came into the bar whilst the scuffle was going on, and the first thing he did was to hit the prisoner right on the nose with his fist and made prisoner's nose bleed. The blow knocked the prisoner down, and Swain was leaning over prisoner and attempting to get his staff out of his pocket, when I said to him “Hold on, policeman, that's enough of that; it's a pity to use a staff on a man.” Swain then went out, and prisoner went out in a short time afterwards and was taken into custody. I saw prisoner hit Swain after Swain had first struck him.

The constable said witness was in such a position as not to be able to see what took place between him and the prisoner, and that several men stood between him and the witness. He adhered to his statement, which he said was the truth.

Mr. Boarer said he believed the statement of the constable, and considered the assault, one of the most frightful that have ever come into court since he had been on the Bench, fully proved. The magistrates were determined to protect the constables in the execution of their duty, and Swain was doing his duty. He regretted that he could not inflict a heavier punishment on prisoner than one month's imprisonment, with hard labour.

Dover Express 20 July 1866

Police Court, Saturday: Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Last Saturday week a man named Brand committed a violent assault on constable Swain at the Fountain Inn. After knocking him nearly senseless some women held the constable's head by his hair and whiskers back on the counter whilst Brand struck him in the face. Brand was taken before the magistrates and got a month's hard labour.

Elizabeth Grace Hall, a married woman who has left her husband and is cohabiting with Brand, was brought up in custody and charged with having assaulted police constable Swain in the execution of his duty on the 7th inst.

P.C. Swain said: Last Saturday night I was called into the Fountain Inn, to clear it, about 11.45. While I was there I was assaulted by a man named Brand and by someone else. Several women were standing round me. The prisoner was one of the women. She pulled my whiskers and several others pulled my hair. I believe that more than one woman pulled my hair as I felt three hands holding my head down. The hair produced (as large as the pads used by ladies for their side hair) was pulled out of my head and face, and was picked up in the bar of the Fountain the next morning. The women held my head down on the bar for over half a minute and quite overpowered me. At that time I was attempting to take Brand into custody and had hold of the collar of his coat. When I was released this woman was standing nearest to me.

Mary Ann Morford, wife of Richard Morford, landlord of the Fountain Inn, in High Street, said: I saw police constable Swain in my bar between half past eleven and a quarter to twelve on Saturday night. I saw the prisoner there also. I saw Swain attempting to take a man into custody. The prisoner tried to pull the man away from Swain's hands. In the course of my business I turned round in my bar and when I next saw her she had got hold of Swain's hair and was holding his head down on the counter, in order, she supposed, to prevent Brand from being taken into custody.

Prisoner said she only tried to prevent them from fighting, and did pull his hair.

The Chairman (Mr. Kelcey) told prisoner hers was a very serious case and he was sorry to find that the law did not provide any adequate punishment for her offence. It was most disgraceful for a married woman to be in a public house at 12 o'clock at night, and mixed up in such an affair. The law did not allow them to give her what she deserved, as the limit was one month's hard labour, which she could have.

Kentish Express 21 July 1866

Police Court, Saturday: Before J. Kelcey and R.W. Boarer Esqs.

Last Saturday a man named Brand committed a violent assault on constable Swain at the Fountain Inn. After knocking him nearly senseless some women held the constable's head by his hair and whiskers back on the counter whilst Brand struck him in the face. Brand was taken before the magistrates and got a month's hard labour.

Elizabeth grace Hall, a married woman who has left her husband and is cohabiting with Brand, was brought up in custody and charged with having assaulted police constable Swain in the execution of his duty on the 7th inst.

P.C. Swain said: Last Saturday night I was called into the Fountain Inn, to clear it, about 11.45. While I was there I was assaulted by a man named Brand and someone else. Several women were standing round me. The prisoner was one of the women. She pulled my whiskers and several others pulled my hair. I believe that more than one woman pulled my hair as I felt three hands holding my head down. The hair produced (as large as the pads used by ladies for their side hair) was pulled out of my head and face, and was picked up in the bar of the Fountain the next morning. The women held my head down on the bar for more than half a minute and quite overpowered me. At that time I was attempting to take Brand into custody and had hold of the collar of his coat. When I was released this woman was standing nearest to me.

Mary Ann Morford, wife of Richard Morford, landlord of the Fountain Inn, in High Street, said: I saw police constable Swain in my bar between half past eleven and a quarter to twelve on Saturday night. I saw the prisoner there also. I saw Swain attempting to take a man into custody. The prisoner tried to pull the man away from Swain's hands. In the course of my business I turned round in my bar and when I next saw her she had got hold of Swain's hair and was holding his head down on the counter, in order, she supposed, to prevent Brand from being taken into custody.

Prisoner said she only tried to prevent them from fighting, and did pull his hair.

The Chairman (Mr. Kelcey) told prisoner hers was a very serious case and he was sorry to find that the law did not provide any adequate punishment for her offence. It was most disgraceful for a married woman to be in a public house at 12 o'clock at night, and mixed up in such an affair. The law did not allow them to give her what she deserved, as the limit was one month's hard labour, which she could have.

Hythe Quarter Sessions, Saturday last: Before R.J. Biron Esq.

Louis Francoise was indicted for stealing £5 10s., the many of John Brooks, at Hythe, on the 15th April last. It appeared that both the prisoner and the prosecutor were, in the month of April last, lodging at the Red Lion Inn, Hythe, and occupied the same room though sleeping in separate beds. On the 15th April prosecutor went to bed about ten o'clock, and put his purse containing four sovereigns, two half sovereigns, and some silver under his pillow. He did not see anything of the prisoner that night after he went to bed, at which time he was waiting on some customers in the smoking room. About six o'clock the next morning prosecutor awoke and then found that the purse and its contents were gone. That morning early the prisoner was seen at Folkestone. About half past five o'clock he went into the Railway Tavern with some bad women; they had some drink and the prisoner laid down half a sovereign for it, and received the change. Subsequently he was at the booking office at the railway station and was the worse for liquor and making a great disturbance. He was so drunk that he fell down on the platform and a half sovereign rolled out of his pocket. It was also proved that the prisoner had some beer at the Red Lion Inn on the night of the robbery, with some people in the room, and then said he had no money to pay for it.

In his defence the prisoner now said that he had been travelling with a box which he sold for 37s., and that was how he came by so much money.

The Recorder summed up the evidence, pointing out the fact that he had no money on Saturday night, and that he was found very early next morning with gold and silver, at Folkestone. The only way in which he accounted for having so much at that time they had heard, and it was for them to say whether they believed his statement or not.

The jury retired, and after a short deliberation found the prisoner guilty. He was sentenced to six calendar months imprisonment, with hard labour.

Kentish Express 25 August 1866

Wednesday being the day for renewing spirit licenses and granting new ones, the town hall was crowded with publicans and others interested. The magistrates on the bench were Captain Kennicott R.N., J. Tolputt and A.M. Leith Esqs. All the old licenses were renewed.

The Bench cautioned Mr. Morford, landlord of the Fountain, in High Street, in consequence of a report from Supt. Martin that disorderly proceedings were carried on there.

Kentish Express 15 September 1866

Police Court, Thursday: Before The Mayor (C. Doridant Esq.) and J. Kelcey Esq.

George Boorn, a butcher, was brought up in custody, and charged with having stolen one shirt and two bed valences, value 4s., the property of Mr. John Stainer, in High Street, on the 12th inst.

Eliza Gold said: I am a domestic servant in the employ of Mr. Stainer, bookseller, High Street. About ten minutes after five last evening I was coming downstairs when I met the prisoner and a soldier at the bottom in the passage. I asked them what they wanted there, when prisoner said “This is the Fountain, is it not?” I said “No, it's next door.” Prisoner said “I beg pardon; there's no damage done,” and went out again by the back door. I noticed that the prisoner had a black bag in his hand, and as he was a suspicious looking character, I went into the kitchen, and on looking round I missed a shirt and two dimity bed hangings from the top of some drawers where I had seen them safe not five minutes before. The prisoner and the soldier had passed through the kitchen and into a little passage at the side when I met them. I went into the Fountain to look for the men, and found the black bag which I had seen in prisoner's hand in the little back parlour. Prisoner had left the room and gone into the bar to look at some conjuring tricks which were going on there, and in his absence I opened the bag and found in it the shirt and the two valences which I had missed. I took the bag and the things to the prisoner, who was still in the bar, and accused him of having stolen them. Prisoner said he had taken them for a drunken lark. I detained him and sent for a policeman. Constable Swain came and I gave the prisoner into custody on a charge of stealing the things. Their value is 4s. I can positively swear to the shirt by the button holes, which wanted repairing, and to the valences because they were rather ragged at the corners.

P.C. Swain said: I went to the Fountain, in High Street, about half past five o'clock last night, and found the prisoner standing in the bar, where he was detained by the last witness and the landlady. I received the shirt and valences produced from last witness, who said she had found them in a black bag which she had seen in prisoner's hand in Mr. Stainer's house. The prisoner is a boot closer by trade, and in the bag I found some work to make up. I charged the prisoner with stealing the things, and he said he took them in a drunken lark. Prisoner was not then drunk. He said he was very sorry for having taken them, and also that the soldier knew nothing about them, and did not know he had taken them. On searching him I found five shillings on him.

Prisoner pleaded guilty, and said he was sorry for what he had done; it was the first time he had ever been before any magistrates.

A shoemaker named Spodger, who was in court, here said that he had known the prisoner for thirty years and never knew him to be guilty of a dishonest action before. Prisoner was born in Canterbury, and had been respectably brought up; he had known him from childhood, and really believed, as prisoner had stated, that he took the things for a drunken lark, as he often did strange things under the influence of drink.

The Mayor told the prisoner they had the power to send him to prison for three months, with hard labour, but as he had pleaded guilty he would be sent to prison for one month, with hard labour.

Kentish Express 3 November 1866

The dead body of a man was found on the shore at Seabrook on Friday night last by some young men who were rowing from Folkestone towards Hythe on a fishing expedition. They immediately gave the alarm at the police station, and with the assistance of the coastguard and other persons they got the body on shore. It was at once taken to the Fountain inn almost opposite which it was picked up. It was first thought that the deceased came from Hastings, and Supt. English sent the following description of his parson and clothing to that town: About 30 to 40 years of age, 5ft. 5in. high, stout built, dark brown beard and moustache, fresh complexion, high forehead, of respectable appearance dressed in dark coat, dark overcoat and vest, grey tweed trousers, cotton shirt with pink spots, blue and black striped necktie, plated sleeve links in shirt, new spring-side boots (French make), white socks marked O.L. in red cotton, cambric handkerchief marked the same; all the clothing appears nearly new; had in his possession a silver Geneva watch, No. 17642-6.981, platinum Albert chain, a large latch key, several pieces of French and English money, some in a purse and some loose in his pocket,; supposed to be a Frenchman, or had recently travelled in France, as he had several French railway time tables with him.

When the deceased was picked up the body was still warm. There were bruises on each of his temples, and also on the bridge of his nose, and they were quite fresh and bleeding.

An inquest was held at the Fountain on Saturday afternoon, before the county coroner. Not the slightest evidence could be procured as to who he was or where he came from; but the landlady of a beer-house of ill-fame in Sandgate identified him as having been drinking in her house on Thursday evening, in company with two prostitutes and a man supposed to be an officer's servant. He left the beer-house with the same companions, and it has transpired that they then proceeded to a public house together. At nine o'clock deceased left the public house. He was then in liquor, although he was not decidedly drunk, and from the public house he cannot be traced alive. At half past ten o'clock his body was found, lying on the face, half in the sea and half in the shore, by the persons before mentioned. The spot where it was found is about half a mile west of Sandgate. The beach curving southward at the spot, and the wind blowing north east, each time the upper part of the body was raised by the waves the wind sent him shoreward about equal to the advance of the tide.

It was a very moonlight night, the tide had just begun to flow, and a gang of men had been working on the spot down to 9.30 p.m.; a coastguardsman was stationed about a hundred yards off, and a county police station and barracks were barely 250 yards off the spot, the highway running between them; yet either a brutal murder was committed on that slightly sloping beach without observation, and the body dragged down the beach to the water's edge without any notice, or the deceased had lost his way in his intoxicated state, damaged his face by falling about, and ultimately reeled to the water's edge and tumbled down, where, as he was unable to rise, the waves choked him. Additional strength is given to the supposition that the deceased's death was accidental from the fact of his watch and money being found on him. The evidence at the inquest went to show that drowning was the cause of death. The surgeon stated that the blows or cuts on the temples or nose might be produced by the body coming into contact with the stones on the beach, but they must have been given, in his opinion, before death. The jury accordingly returned a verdict of “Found drowned.”

On Monday Supt. English succeeded in discovering more particulars respecting the deceased. He brought over to Seabrook the proprietor of the Alexandra Hotel at Folkestone, who immediately identified the body as that of a gentleman, a stranger to the district, who put up at the Alexandra Hotel on Thursday evening, carrying a travelling bag, just after the arrival of the South Eastern Company's steamer Napoleon III, from Boulogne. He slept at the hotel that night, and next morning paid his bill, left his bag in his room, and proceeded on foot to Shorncliffe Camp, remarking, in broken English, that he should return to dinner, but he never came back. The landlord was quite positive as to the identity of the deceased, and also as to the time he was at his house. There is, therefore, a discrepancy as to time between his statement and that of the Sandgate beer-shop keeper, which tends to increase the mystery by which the case is surrounded. A draft letter in French on family matters was found on the body (the signature as nearly as it can be deciphered “Gabriel”), but giving to strangers not the slightest clue to his connections.

We understand the police are making a searching investigation of the matter, and that several persons have been arrested on suspicion.

Kentish Express 17 November 1866

Police Court, Thursday: Before W. Bateman Esq., Capt. Kennicott R.N., and J. Tolputt Esq.

Margaret Corfield was charged with stealing a spirit measure from the Alexandra Hotel..

Charles William Spurrier, proprietor of the hotel, identified the pewter mug as his property.

P.C. Ovenden stated that he was on duty in High Street at 3 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, and from information received he went in pursuit of prisoner, whom he found in the Dolphin Inn, Kingsbridge Street, and took her into custody, charged with stealing a measure from the Fountain Inn. He took her to the police station, and as she was going into Broad Street she let fall the measure produced from under her clothes. Some person picked it up and gave it to him. Mrs. Morford, at the Fountain, said it was not her measure, and he afterwards found it belonged to Mr. Spurrier.

Elizabeth Jacobs, barmaid at the Alexandra, stated that the prisoner came into the bar of the hotel between 2 and 3 o'clock an Wednesday afternoon and had a glass of ale. The measures sometimes stood on the counter while in use, but she could not say whether the measure in question did, or when she had seen it last.

Prisoner stated that she stole the measure from the bar of the Fountain Inn, but pleaded guilty for the purpose of being tried by the Bench, and was committed for two months hard labour.

Dover Express 8 November 1867, Kentish Express 9 November 1867

Police Court, Monday: Before Captain Kennicott R.N., and J. Tolputt Esq.

George Mercer was summoned for assaulting William Cocket, on 31st October. Pleaded not guilty. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Prosecutor said: I am a furniture dealer, and live at 30, North Street. On the 30th October, between 9 and 10 o’clock in the evening, I was in the Fountain Inn, and was insulted by four or five persons who were in the bar. I was in the passage. I was called a bankrupt and thief, but I took no notice. As I was leaving the house the defendant came out and struck me in the face with his fist twice. They have constantly insulted me during the past twelve months. I have given no provocation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter: James Mullett, George Mullett, and William Mullett were with defendant in the bar. I did go to Mullett’s house afterwards, but not to Mercer’s. I did not call defendant a thief or a monkey on a stick. Defendant did not ask me why I called him a thief. He did not strike me because I did so. I have never been turned out of public houses for insulting persons there. I did not fight defendant after he came outside the house.

Complainant called no witnesses.

Mr. Minter, for the defence, did not deny that defendant struck complainant, but the blow was richly deserved because complainant provoked the assault and called defendant a thief. It was not proper to take the law into his own hands, but under the circumstances a small fine would meet the justice of the case.

He called George Mullett, who was at the Fountain at the time of the disturbance complained of. Complainant called defendant a thief, a monkey upon a stick, and tried to provoke everyone in the room, and then struck him.

William Adams, landlord of the Fountain, deposed that complainant said “You’re a thief.” Defendant said “Do you mean me?” and complainant said “Yes, I do.” Then the blow was struck.

Defendant (sic) said he had no question to ask, for it was a conspiracy on the part of all, and he had no witnesses to call.

The Bench said the provocation was great, but defendant had no business to take the law in his own hands, and they must therefore fine him 5s. and costs 12s. The fine was paid.

Dover Express, Friday 8 November 1867.

Assault.

George Mercer was summoned for assaulting William Cockett, on 31st October. Pleaded not guilty. Mr. Minter appeared for defendant.

Prosecutors said:- I am a furniture dealer, and live at 30, North Street. On the 30th October, between 9 and 10 o'clock in the evening, I was at the "Fountain Inn," and was assaulted by 4 or 5 persons who were in the bar. I was in the passage. I was called a bankrupt and thief, but I took no notice. As I was leaving the house the defendant came out and struck me in the face with his fist twice. They have constantly insulted me during the last 12 months. I have given no provocation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Minter:- James Mullet, George Mullet and William Mullet were with defendant in the bar. I did go to Mullet's house afterwards, but not to Mercer's. I did not call defendant "a thief," or "a monkey on a stick." Defendant did not ask me why I called him a thief. He did not strike me because I did so. I have never been turned out of a public house for insulting persons there. I did not fight defendant after he came outside the house.

Complainant called no witnesses.

Mr. Mintor, for the defence, did not deny that defendant struck complainant, but said that the blow was richly deserved because the
complainant provoked the assault and called defendant a thief. It was not proper for a person to take the law into his own hands, but under the circumstances a small fine would meet the justice of the case.

He called George Mullet who was at the "Fountain" at the time for the disturbance complained of. Complainant called defendant a thief, a monkey upon a stick, and tried to provoke everyone in the room, and then struck him.

William Adams, landlord of the "Fountain," deposed that complainant said "You're a thief." Defendant said "Do you mean me," and complainant said "Yes I do." Then the blow was struck.
Defendant said he had no question to ask, for it was a conspiracy on the part of all who come forward and he had no witnesses to call.

The Bench said the provocation was great, but defendant had no business to take the law into his own hands, and they must therefore fine him 5s. and costs 12s.

The fine was paid.

From the Dover Express and East Kent Intelligencer, 21 February, 1868.

SUDDEN DEATH

Mrs. Morford, who for some time kept the "Fountain Inn," High Street, but was compelled to give it up through illness, was on Wednesday morning found dead in her bed, having retired in her usual health, which however was far from good.

Folkestone Express 20 June 1868.

Tuesday, June 16th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott, R.N., Alderman Boarer and A.M. Leith Esq.

Patrick Farlan, a private of the 3rd Buffs, stationed at the Camp, was brought up and charged on suspicion with being concerned in a robbery at the Fountain public house in High Street.

Mr. Adams, the landlord of the house in question, deposed that on Tuesday evening, the 2nd June, he lost property to the value of £12, and consisting of a silver Geneva watch, gold chain, 3 silk scarves, 3 gold scarf pins, 2 gold shirt studs, a pair of gold ear drops, a silver drinking cup, and 2s. in money, all of which had been taken from his bedroom, with the exception of the earrings and money, which had been taken from the adjoining room. He first discovered that the things had been stolen about half past nine o'clock the same night. The prisoner at the bar was in his house on the night in question between six and seven with three others, who were playing at bagatelle in a room situate on the first floor, the room from which the things were stolen being on the second floor. The doors were not locked, and anyone disposed to enter had easy access. The soldiers remained in the house about an hour. He was not present himself, but his wife served them. He had not seen the missing things since the 2nd June.

The prisoner said he knew nothing about it.

James Baker, an employee on board one of the S.E.R. steam packets, also testified to the prisoner and his companions being present on the night the robbery was committed.

Eliza Mackenzie and Eliza Smith, both lodging at the Prince Of Wales, at Sandgate, gave evidence to the effect that about ten days ago the prisoner was in their company at the Prince Of Wales and produced a pair of earrings from his pocket, asking them what they thought they were worth, as he would take 3s. for them, and from the description given by the prisoner of the earrings it would appear that they corresponded with the description given by the prosecutor of those stolen.

Mr. Adams, being re-called, said he could swear to everything stolen, with the exception of the earrings.

Superintendent Martin said that in the absence of a material witness whom he expected to be present he had to ask for a remand till Thursday, which was granted.

Thursday, June 18th: Before The Mayor, Captain Kennicott R.N., Aldermen Tolputt and Boarer, and A.M. Leith Esq.

Patrick Farlan was again brought up, and discharged, the case not being proved.

Folkestone Express 21 November 1868.

County Court.

Monday, November 16th: Before W.C. Scott Esq.

William Adams v Charles Dickenson: This was a claim for £10.

Mr. Creery appeared for the plaintiff, who he stated was the proprietor of the Fountain, High Street, and the defendant agreed to give him the above sum to leave his house, and wrote out a cheque for the amount, but on his presenting it at the bank for payment plaintiff found there was a wrong date on the cheque, and consequently it was useless. He took it back to Mr. Dickenson, who kept possession of the cheque, and refused to give him another, therefore these proceedings were instituted. The agreement was produced.

The defendant did not appear, and judgement was given for the full amount with costs.

Folkestone Express 10 July 1869.

Wednesday, July 7th: Before Captain Kennicott R.N. and J. Tolputt Esq.

An application from John Whittingham Boorn for a transfer of the license of the Fountain, High Street, was granted.

Folkestone Express 25 February 1871.

County Court.

Saturday, February 18th: Before R.T. Brockman Esq.

Alfred Leney & Co. v John W. Boorn: £4 10s. due for goods supplied. Ordered to be paid in one month. 10s. costs allowed plaintiff.

Folkestone Express 8 July 1871.

Transfer Of License.

At the Petty Sessions on Wednesday morning the license of the Fountain was transferred from John Boorn to Jas. Vainal.

Note: According to More Bastions Vainal does not appear on the list of licensees at the Fountain.

Folkestone Express 11 October 1873.

Wednesday, October 8th: Before R.W. Boarer Esq., and Col. De Crespigny.

Mary Fisher, of the Eagle Tavern, High Street, was summoned for assaulting George Marshall Tutt of the Fountain Inn in the same street.

Mr. Minter appeared for complainant and briefly opened the case.

Complainant said: Defendant lives at the Eagle Tavern, nearly opposite to my house. At seven o'clock in the evening on the 2nd October I was standing in my passage, just behind my front door. Defendant came in and said “Can I speak to you?” I replied “Certainly you can”. She then said “Will you step across to my house?” I said “Certainly not. You must speak to me here”. She then came into my passage, past my wife, and said “You have a girl here nursing your baby”. I said “What of that?” She replied “Did you tell her mother not to let her come to my house?” I said “Certainly not. I don't want to have any words with you. I would rather we should be good friends”, and asked her to leave my premises. She said she should go when she liked. I put my hand on her shoulder and told her I did not want anything to do with her. She called me names which I cannot repeat, which caused me to put my hand on her shoulder. She turned round and said “Don't you meddle with me”, and struck me twice on the mouth with both her hands, and kicked me twice on the knees. I then pushed her out of the door, using only necessary force to do so. She flew at me again and missed my face, and knocked my hat across the road. Her language was awful. Her mother came and took her away. I have received annoyance from her for some time, and complained to the police several times. I am fearful that she will do me some injury.

By Mr. Wightwick, who appeared for defendant: I have kept the Fountain about fifteen months, and previously kept a public house at Dover about eleven months. A week ago defendant sent a prostitute to annoy me; I heard her do so. I don't know that complainant has complained of my putting about scandalous reports concerning her during the last fortnight. I have not made reports about her house. She kicked me with her right leg on my left knee first, and then with her left leg on my right knee. I did not strike her.

Re-examined: Defendant has been continually helloing after me and my wife in the streets. I told Superintendent Wilshere of her conduct and he told me if it occurred again to summon her, and to turn her out of my house.

By Mr. Wightwick: She called after me “Who stole the clock?”

Thomas Bailey corroborated complainant's evidence.

Mr. Wightwick said the Bench would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that it was a paltry case. Complainant and defendant kept two public houses and possibly there was a little jealousy between them. Defendant had kept the Eagle four years and has never had a complaint before the Magistrates. If there was a disturbance in a public house, which was open to the world, it was the landlord's duty to call the police, and complainant had really committed an assault by pushing defendant out of his house. If it had been a private house he would have been justified in doing so. Defendant, being a woman, was quite justified on striking complainant in her own defence.

The Bench said they had no doubt an assault had been committed, and complainant was justified in putting defendant out of his house, notwithstanding what Mr. Wightwick had said to the contrary. Defendant must pay a fine of £1 and 9s. 6d. costs.

Mr. Wightwick said he could produce a case in support of what he had stated.

Mrs. Fisher paid the money, and said she went to complainant about a report he had circulated with reference to an illness she had.

Note: Dates for both parties' tenure at their houses is at variance with information in More Bastions.

Folkestone Express 21 March 1874.

Tuesday, March 17th: Before The Mayor, Col. De Crespigny, and J. Tolputt Esq.

Thomas Welch was charged with being drunk and disorderly, and assaulting P.C. Keeler.

Prisoner pleaded Guilty to being drunk, and Not Guilty of assaulting the police.

P.C. Keeler deposed: At twenty minutes past twelve last night I heard a great noise in High Street. On going to the place I saw prisoner opposite the Fountain fighting with a man. I advised him to go home several times, but he refused to do so, and I was obliged to take him into custody. He was very violent, and I had to call P.C. Hill to my assistance. We put him into the old station until we got the street cleared. When we got him to the door he turned round and struck me with his fist, and swore he would not go into the cell. About half past two we brought him to the Police Station. He struck me under the jaw bone with his closed fist.

By prisoner: You struck the man first.

By the Mayor: He was fighting with a man named Tice. I had several complaints of prisoner assaulting people that night. He came along quietly from the old station.

Prisoner said he was very sorry and would be “extremely obliged” if the Bench would let him off.

The Mayor: The other man must have been as bad as this one. Why was he not brought here as well?

P.C. Keeler: Tice went away as soon as I told him. Prisoner refused to give his name when I asked him.

Fined 5s. for each offence and 8s. costs, or seven days' hard labour in default in each case.

Prisoner asked to be allowed to pay the 18s. by weekly instalments of 5s., but was told he must pay it in the course of the day, and was removed in custody.

Lucy Welch, prisoner's wife, was charged with resisting the police in the execution of their duty.

P.C. Keeler said prisoner got hold of her husband and said he should not be locked up. Witness told her to go away, but she refused to do so. He did not know at the time she was Welch's wife. She was sober.

Prisoner was discharged.

Folkestone Express 29 August 1874.

Annual Licensing Sessions.

Wednesday, August 26th: Before The Mayor, W. Bateman and J. Tolputt Esqs.

The seventy four licensed victuallers, twelve beershop keepers and twenty three grocers and wine merchants had their licenses renewed, with the exception of those named.

The Fountain: Supt. Wilshere opposed the renewal of the license to George Marshall Tutt on the ground that the house was the habitual resort of prostitutes. There was a girl living in the house, but he believed she had gone.

Mr. Minter appeared for applicant, and said his client was not aware at the time he took the girl into his services of her character. The girl wished to reform, but the would-be-dictator, the Inspector under the Contagious Diseases Act, refused to take her name off the Register, and his client, rather than come into collision with the Inspector, dismissed the girl, who had no doubt gone back to her old life. It was very much to be regretted that the object of such men was to keep up their employment and keep the Act in force.

The Mayor said the Bench would renew the license, as the girl had gone away, and they did not think a public house was the best place for a girl to reform in.

Folkestone Express 19 December 1874.

License Transfer.

Wednesday, December 16th: Before The Mayor, R.W. Boarer Esq. and Col. De Crespigny.

This was one of the days appointed for the transfer of licenses. The following application was heard:

That of the Fountain Inn, High Street, from George Marshall Tutt to John T. Brownutt.

Folkestone Express 28 August 1880.

Annual Licensing Day.

Wednesday, August 25th: Before The Mayor, Captain Crowe, and Aldermen Caister and Hoad.

The existing licenses were all renewed, the only feature of note being that the landlord of the Fountain Inn, High Street, was cautioned against allowing his house to be a nuisance to the neighbours.

Folkestone Express 4 June 1881.

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

William Hankard pleaded Guilty to being drunk and disorderly in High Street on the 20th May. He was also charged with refusing to quit the Fountain Inn when requested to do so by the landlord.

Prosecutor said the defendant went to the house about 8.30 in the evening. He was then in drink, but prosecutor was not aware of it. He was supplied with a pot of beer at the bar, and then went upstairs and cause a disturbance by fighting with a soldier. He refused to leave the house, and continued fighting for about 10 minutes. Prosecutor therefore called in a police constable, but defendant still refused to go, and was then ejected.

Defendant was fined 10s. and 18s. costs, or 14 days' hard labour.

Folkestone Express 24 November 1883.

Tuesday, November 20th: Before The Mayor and Colonel De Crespigny.

Rose Cullen, 16. Was charged with stealing 14s., the property of Mr. Bird, her employer.

Mr. Bird, prosecutor, landlord of the Fountain Inn, said prisoner had been in his employ up to the previous day. On Saturday she was left in charge of the bar, and told to ask the landlady if she wanted any change. There was about a pound's worth of silver in the till. Later on prisoner told him the till had been robbed by a stranger whilst she was temporarily absent. Witness found that about 15s. was missing and gave information to the police, together with a description of the person whom prisoner said had stolen the money. From what came to his knowledge he accused prisoner of stealing it, and told her if she would tell the truth he would forgive her. She admitted having taken 5s.; she had bought a jacket with the money, and had left it at a shop in Tontine Street. He went with her to the shop, and the proprietor returned the 5s. He told her if she had taken the 5s., she had taken the other.

Sergeant Ovenden said he apprehended the prisoner and charged her with stealing 14s. or 15s., the property of her employer. She said “I did not take more than five shillings”.

Prisoner was fined £1 and 12s. 6d. costs, or in default a fortnight's imprisonment.

Folkestone Express 13 November 1886.

Advertisement.

Fountain Inn, High Street, Folkestone, TO LET, to which a new bar is now being added, making it the most attractive house in the High Street. Also Belle Vue Inn, Belle Vue Street. Apply Hythe Brewery.

Folkestone Express 17 December 1887.

Wednesday, December 14th: Before Capt. Carter, J. Hoad, J. Fitness and E.R. Ward Esqs.

Folkestone Express 29 November 1890.

Advertisement.

Fountain Inn, High Street, TO LET; Rent and ingoing moderate. Apply Hythe Brewery.

Folkestone Express 14 February 1891.

Advertisement.

FOUNTAIN INN, High Street, Folkestone, TO LET; Rent and ingoing moderate. Apply Hythe Brewery.

Folkestone Express 7 March 1891.

Transfers.

Wednesday, March 4th: Before Colonel De Crespigny, W. Wightwick, W.G. Herbert, H.W. Poole and J. Brooke Esqs.

The licence of the Fountain Inn was transferred to Charles Thomas Nash.

Folkestone Express 27 February 1892.

Advertisement.

To Let: The Fountain Inn, High Street, Folkestone, rent £20. For other particulars, apply Hythe Brewery.

Folkestone Express 29 April 1893.

Advertisement.

Fountain Inn, High Street, Folkestone, TO LET. Ingoing and rent moderate; extensive alterations contemplated. Apply Hythe Brewery.

Folkestone Express 3 February 1894.

Advertisement.

Fountain Inn, Folkestone, TO LET, from middle February; now being converted, at great expense, into a first class restaurant, new bar being added. Apply Hythe Brewery.

Folkestone Express 4 August 1894.

Transfer of Licence.

Wednesday, August 1st: Before J. Holden, J. Fitness and J. Pledge Esqs.

The licence of the Fountain was transferred to Mr. Holland.