Kentish Gazette, 27 October, 1779.

John Eldridge, (late servants to the Rev. Mr. Sandys) having taken the "Golden Lion" alehouse, near King's Bridge, in the parish of Canterbury, informs his friends and the public in general that he has fitted up the said house with good accommodation, and has laid in a fresh assortment of liquors. He therefore hopes for their encouragement, and that their continued support shall be gratefully acknowledged by their most humble servant.

Kentish Gazette, Saturday 3 May 1783.

Henry Pot, begs to inform the public, that he intends setting out from the "Golden Lion," near Kingsbridge, Canterbury on Monday next, for Deal, and returns the same day, and on Thursday and Saturday, with a light caravan fit for passengers and parcels of any kind, and on the most reasonable terms.

Parcels taken in, for the above caravan, at the "Golden Lion," and at the "Fleece," in Canterbury, and at the "Three Compasses" at Deal.

Those who please to favour him with their commands may depend upon the general care and punctuality, and a grateful acknowledgement.

By their humble servant, Henry Pott. The above caravan stops at the "Anchor," Littlebourne; the "Dog," Wingham; and the "Bell," at Sandwich.

From the Kentish Gazette, Friday 29 July 1791.

JOHN BLUNDEN.

Takes this opportunity of returning his sincere thanks to his numerous friends and customers in general, for their kind support while at the "Golden Lion," Canterbury; begs to inform them, that he has now taken the "Bell Alehouse," near the "Old Castle," which is fitted up in a neat manner for the reception of Company; where, by attention to business, and keeping the best of beer and spirits which was always his study, he hopes to meet with their future favours, which will be gratefully received by their humble servant.

A good Ordinary provided every Quarter Session's day.

Kentish Gazette, 1 April, 1806.

Lost.

On Monday, March 24, from Broad Oak, in the parish of Sturry.

A red and white, rough-haired SPANIEL BITCH, answers to the name of Judy; long ears, large eyes, white streak down the face, and a short tail.

Whoever brings the said Dog to the "Golden Lion," Broad Oak, shall receive Half-a-Guinea reward.

Kentish Gazette, 11 April 1820.

DEATH.

April 6, in Ivy-lane, Canterbury, Mrs. Upton, widow, formerly of the "Golden Lion," public-house.

Kentish Gazette, 6 July, 1821.

DEATH.

July 2, John, youngest son of Mr. King, of the "Golden Lion," King's Bridge, Canterbury.

Kent Gazette, 16 August 1836.

Inquest taken before Mr. T. T. Delasaux.

On Saturday last, at the "Golden Lion," in this city, on the body of an aged man name Burton, who the same morning fell down on King's Bridge, and almost instantly expired.

The jury returned a verdict of "Died by the visitation of God."

Kentish Gazette, 21 May 1844.

TO BREWERS, PUBLICANS, & OTHERS. TO BE LET BY TENDER,

On Lease for 21 Years, from the 29th day of September, 1844, ALL that old-established and FREE PUBLIC HOUSE, called or known by the name of the "Golden Lion," with a Messuage or Tenement, Stable, Yard, and Premises thereunto belonging, situated in the several parishes of All Saints and Saint Peter, in CANTERBURY, now in the tenure or occupation of — Brigg and others, belonging to the Warden and Poor of Jesus Hospital, Canterbury.

For further particulars and conditions of letting, apply (if by letter, pre-paid), addressed to the Warden of Jesus Hospital, Northgate, Canterbury, to whom all Tenders are to be delivered by the 24th day of June.

N.B.— The Warden and Poor do not bind themselves to accept the highest Tender, but only such as seems to them most desirable.
May 20, 1844.

Kentish Gazette, 2 October 1849.

Coroner’s Inquest.

An inquest was held on Tuesday last, at the "Golden Lion," Saint Peter’s-street, on the body of Elizabeth Skinner, aged 66, who had died after a few hours’ illness, at her residence in Best-lane, in this city. It was stated that deceased had appeared in her usual health up to Monday, when she was seized with violent pains and vomiting, with other symptoms of the prevailing epidemic. Medical aid was called in, but she sank under the malady during the night. Mr. Rigden, who had been called in to attend her, was examined as to the cause of death; and he stated that the supply of water from a pump used by deceased and others in the neighbourhood was in a very impure state, arising, most probably, from the well lying close to a privy vault. He, Mr. Rigden, had analysed a portion of the water alluded to, and had found it very much impregnated with deleterious matter, and likely to produce the disorder of which deceased had died. The jury returned a verdict of "Natural Death," and the police officer in attendance was directed to apply to the authorities respecting the water in question, in order that the existing dangerous use of it should be prevented, and the evil complained of remedied.

Kentish Gazette, 19 August 1851.

Petty Sessions. Home Division of St Augustine's. Thursday.

(Before G. M. Taswell, Esq.)

On Thursday, Stephen Payn, labourer, age 26; Samuel Brown, sawyer, 34, and a young woman named Chittenden, age 22, were charged with having stolen a quantity of wearing apparel.

From the evidence it appeared that at an early hour on Wednesday morning, the washhouse of Mrs. Young, laundress, at Harbledown, was forcibly entered, and a quantity of wearing apparel, which had been washed, was stolen. Mrs. Young father came downstairs at 1 o'clock in the morning, when the house was safe, but on rising to go to his work, he found the wash house had been entered.

The things were trace, by Inspector Sprat, to the possession of the prisoners, at the "Golden Lion" lodging house, where they had hung out some to dry, and other portions have been pawned or sold by them. The parties to whom the things belonged fully identified them, and the connexion of the prisoners in the disposal of them was also ascertained, and they were fully committed to the assizes for trial.

A second charge was afterwards investigated, in which property that have been stolen a week previous of Mrs. Faulkner, laundress, of the same place, was traced to the possession of Brown and Chittenden. They were committed for trial on this charge.

There can be little doubt that the same parties have been concerned in the various robberies which have lately taken place about here.

From the Faversham Gazette, 5 September 1857.

Saturday. (Before David Matthews, Esq.)

Esther Inglis, wife of John Inglis, hawker, living as servant with Mr. Bigg, of the "Golden Lion," was charged with attempting to commit self-destruction.

Edward Bigg deposed that last night, about ten o’clock, from information he received, he went down the garden and saw the prisoner struggling in the river. He pulled her out and caused her to be conveyed into the tap-room. Site was in a state of delirium, and so violent that it required several men to hold her. He gave her in charge that she might be kept in safety.

In reply to the bench, Mr. Bigg said the prisoner had been with him 2 years. He had known her 16 years. She was a good servant, and generally well conducted. He did not know whether she was in liquor last night. She was not so at eight o’clock, Her husband had deserted her, and he (Mr. Bigg) believed that had preyed very much on her mind.

The poor woman who seemed much distressed, said she was vary sorry for what had happened.

It appeared to the bench that she was not fit to be at large in her present state of mind, and therefore she was ordered to find three sureties for her good behaviour, and in default was committed to gaol till the next sessions. The sureties will, however, probably be found, Mr. Bigg and another gentleman having offered themselves for the purpose.

From the Kentish Gazette, 1 September 1857.

Saturday. (Before David Matthews, Esq.)

Esther Inglis, wife of John Inglis, hawker, living as servant with Mr. Bigg, of the "Golden Lion," was charged with attempting to commit self-destruction.

Edward Bigg deposed that last night, about ten o’clock, from information he received, he went down the garden and saw the prisoner struggling in the river. He pulled her out and caused her to be conveyed into the tap-room. She was in a state of delirium, and so violent that it required several men to hold her. He gave her in charge that she might be kept in safety.

In reply to the bench, Mr. Bigg said the prisoner had been with him 2 years, he had known her 15 years. She was a good servant and generally well conducted. He did not know whether she was in liquor last night. She was not so at eight o’clock. Her husband had deserted her, and he (Mr. Bigg) believed that had preyed very much on her mind.

The poor woman who seemed much distressed, said she was very sorry for what had happened.

It appeared to the bench that she was not fit to be at large in her present state of mind, and therefore she was ordered to find three sureties for her good behaviour, and in default was committed to gaol till the next sessions. The sureties will, however, probably be found, Mr. Bigg and another gentleman having offered themselves for the purpose.

From the Kentish Gazette, 25 May 1862.

Brutal Assault on a Publican by a Soldier.

David Fraser, a private in the 70th Regiment of Foot, stationed at Canterbury, was charged with an assault on George Goulden, landlord of the "Golden Lion," on King’s Bridge.

The complainant said:- I keep a public-house called the "Golden Lion," on King’s Bridge. Last night, about ten o’clock, there was a great disturbance in my front room, caused by the defendant and a civilian fighting. I had heard them quarrelling before I went into the room, and asked the defendant to be quiet, and as soon as I had done so he knocked me down. I had not touched him. While I was on the ground I was kicked in the face, but I cannot say by whom. The defendant bit my arm. When I went to the station-house to prefer the charge against him, he caught me by the throat and hurt me.

The Superintendent:- I had great difficulty, your worships to get his hands away, they were clenched so tightly.

The prisoner was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment with hard labour.

From the Kentish Gazette, 3 January 1865.

Transfer of License.

Mr. E. Bateman applied, on behalf of Henry Andrews, landlord of the "Golden Lion," King's Bridge, who is in custody for receiving stolen sheep, to transfer the license to David Simpson, general dealer. Mr. Fielding appeared on behalf of Simpson to support the application. It appeared that Simpson was convicted in 1852 of keeping a gaming table at Chartham fair, and more recently for using indecent language in Dover-lane. The application was adjourned for the production of evidence as to the general character.

From the Kentish Gazette, 3 January 1865.

St. Augustines' Petty Sessions. Wednesday. (Before William Delmar, Esq., Captain Hilton, Wm. Plummer, Esq., and G. T. Tomlin, Esq.)

The Sheep Stealing Cask.

Henry Hulgrave, George Cook, and Henry Reeve, were charged, on remand from the previous Friday, with stealing five sheep, value £12 10s the property of Robert Lake, Esq., of Milton Chapel, and Henry Andrews was charged with receiving the sheep knowing them to have been stolen. Wm. Steer, who had been summoned to the Court as a witness, was also ordered to the bar and charged with being an accessory alter the fact.

As stated in our report on the previous examination the prisoners Hulgrave, Cook, and Reeve belong to Canterbury. Andrews has also been residing in Canterbury, and kept the "Golden Lion" public house for some time; but he has been working at Dover for the prisoner Steer, who is subcontractor for supplying meat to the Dover garrison. Steer also holds a contract to supply meat to the Walmer Garrison.

Mr. Delasaux appeared for the prisoners Cook and Reeve, and Mr. Fielding for Andrews. The other prisoners were undefended.

The evidence taken at the previous examination having been read over, Super-intendent Walker further deposed:- On Sunday last Andrews told me he had only had one dealing with Hulgrave before, and that was with a cart. He said Hulgrave owed him between two and three pounds. On Thursday last I saw Steer at Mr. Farley's. I told him that Mr. Lake of Milton Chapel, had had five Kent ewe sheep stolen by two men in a horse and cart, on Monday night, and that I had traced them to his slaughter-house at Dover. He said that Andrews called him about five or half-past on Tuesday morning and told him he had had some sheep brought in, and that he had been up all night. Steer said he replied that if Andrews had called him he would have got up and helped him. He then told me there were only four sheep.

I replied that it was possible Mr. Lake had made a mistake.

I then asked him where Andrews was and he said he did not know, and that he would go and look for him. He was gone some time, and came back and said he could not find him. I told him I had traced the sheep to him and should hold him responsible, and that he had better go and find Andrews. He then said some person had just told him where Andrews was. He went out, and came back shortly after with Andrews. Steer again said, "There were only four sheep;" but Andrews said "There were five." I asked Hulgrave’s Christian name, and Andrews said he believed it was Henry, but there was a cart on the premises, with his name on it. Andrews told me Steer was going to pay for the sheep on Saturday. On Saturday last I saw Steer, and he told me he had only had dealings with four sheep, but previous to this he had told me that he was going to pay for them on Saturday, and that he was going to give £3 10s. for them.

I think he said £3 10s. At any rate it was over £3, because the sheep were bruised. He said he was going to pay at Canterbury.

I said, "Where are you going to pay for them; at whose house?

He replied that he was not going to any house, but was to pay for them in the Market.

I asked him who he was going to pay, and he replied that he did not know, but he was going to pay tor them on Saturday.

I asked him how he was to know the man, and he replied that the man was to call on him for the money.

I said, "Then you would pay any man who asked you for the money?

P.S. Bailey, of the Dover police force, said:- On Tuesday week, about one o’clock, I went to see Andrews at the slaughter-house in Dover. I asked him if he had bought or had any Kent ewe sheep offered him for sale, marked on the shoulder "R. L." I told him there had been some stolen, and that they had some into Dover, and I should imagine they came in early on Tuesday morning, as they were seen on the road. He told me he had bought nothing, neither had any been offered him for sale; but if he should have he would let us know at once. I did not examine the place.

I recollect Andrews being brought into the station-house on Thursday. He said to me, "As soon as you left I said to Mr Farley, "Good God, I hope those are not the sheep I bought." And we then turned the skins over, but could not find any marks on any of them."

Police-constable Corrie, of the Dover police, said that he was on duty in Dover during Monday night week. On Tuesday morning, about a quarter to one, he saw a horse and cart drive into Dover. It came as if it had come from Canterbury. The cart was covered with a sailcloth, and the two men were sitting on the front of the cart, he saw the same horse and cart go out of Dover about five o’clock on Tuesday morning. He had since seen a horse and cart, and he believed them to be the same. When it went into Dover he thought it was a market cart, but seeing it come out again so soon, he thought something was wrong, and so he looked particularly at the cart, and it was peculiarly marked.

The prisoners being asked if they had any questions to ask the witness, Hulgrave said:— He says he saw us go into Dover at a quarter to one. It was twenty to two when we passed the turnpike.

Sergeant Pope, K.C.C., said:- From information I received I went to Mr. Farley’s on Wednesday morning. I saw Andrews there and asked him if he had heard anything about five Kent ewe sheep having been stolen, he said the Dover police had called on him on Tuesday, and told him there had been some stolen. I asked if he had any sheep skins in the slaughter-house? He said "Yes," and that might look at them if I pleased. There were three skins and I examined them, but they were not marked. There were twenty live sheep and I examined them, but found none marked so as to correspond with those missing. I asked him if he had bought any sheep since Monday evening, and he said "No." I asked him it he had sent away any skills, and he said he had not since Monday. He also told me that they had two mutton days in the week, Wednesday and Friday.

Sub-sergeant Chard corroborated what Superintendent Walker stated as to the conversation with Andrews. While in the slaughter-house he heard some of the men quarrelling and one of them said, "They are going to lock us all up" master, for stealing those sheep," when Andrews replied, "Well, if they do, I know nothing about them."

This morning as he was bringing the prisoner Reeve from St. Augustine’s to the Court, he said "I have been led into this; but I went with Hulgrave to Dover merely for company. We knocked Andrews up. When he came down he said "Look out for the bobbies." We backed the cart into the premises, and we stopped while Andrews dressed the sheep. He said to us "When you bring any more sheep don’t spoil them like this, as they are nearly all dead." He also told us which way to come when we brought any more.

William Stokes, a pork butcher, living in Wincheap, sand that on the 20th Dec. he was at the Ashford Market, and saw Steer there. In the course of conversation, Steer said to witness that Andrews called him up that morning and on his going down he found four or live sheep; that he did not buy them, but left that to the man Andrews. He further said, "Have you heard of any sheep being stolen near Canterbury?" Witness replied in the negative, and Steer told him he had heard while in Ashford that Mr. Robert Lake had missed some.

A man named Hart, who was with the last witness, corroborated his evidence, with the exception of the sentence; about his hearing Steer say that Mr. Lake had lost some sheep.

When called on to plead, none of the prisoners said anything except Steer, who said he knew nothing about the sheep till Superintendent Walker called on him, and he thought it hard to be summoned as a witness, and then placed at the bar and charged as an accomplice.

The Bench committed the whole of the prisoners for trial at the East Kent Quarter Sessions, but admitted Steer to bail, himself in £50, an two sureties of £25 each.

From the Kentish Gazette, 10 January 1865

Stealing Sheep at Milton-Chapel, Canterbury.

Henry Hulgrave, 16, labourer, Henry Reeve, 22, groom, and George Cook, 20, groom, all described as imperfectly educated, were indicted for stealing five ewe sheep, the property of Robert Lake, at Milton-next-Canterbury, on the 19th December last, and Henry Andrews, 39, butcher, and Wm. Steer, butcher, were indicted for receiving the sheep knowing them to have been stolen. The grand jury having returned true bills against all the prisoners, Mr. Kemp, who appeared for Steer, applied for a postponement of the trial until next session on the ground that as Steer had only been committed on the previous Wednesday, there had not been sufficient time to prepare his defence; that he was not committed on the charge then preferred against him; and that copies of the depositions were not obtained till the previous Saturday. Mr. Russell, who held the brief for the prosecution, did not oppose the application, but stated that the prisoner’s solicitor might have had copies of the depositions on the previous Thursday, and that the charge had been the same throughout.

Mr. Kemp said that in the calendar Steer was charged with "harbouring and concealing the said Henry Hulgrave and others," &c., and he (Mr. Kemp) was astonished when, after entering the Court, he was told that Steer was charged with receiving the sheep, with a guilty knowledge.

Mr. Barrow, who appeared for Cook and Reeve, applied that, in the event of the trial of Steer being postponed the case would be postponed in its entirety, and Mr. Francis, who appeared for Andrews, joined in the application.

After consulting for a short time the Court decided, in order that there might be no pretence for saying that sufficient time had not been allowed for the prisoners to prepare for their defence, the trial should be postponed till the intermediate sessions.

The question of admitting the prisoners to bail was referred to the committing magistrates.

From the Kentish Gazette, 7 March 1865

KENT INTERMEDIATE SESSION.

This Session was commenced at the Court-house, Maidstone, on Thursday, before Sir B. Bridges, Bart. M.P.

SHEEP STEALING AT MILTON CHAPEL.

Henry Hulgrave, 16, labourer, Henry Reeve, 22, groom, George Cook, 20, groom, Henry Andrews, 39, butcher and William Steer, 30, butcher, were indicted as follows:—

Hulgrave, Reeve, and Cook, for stealing five ewe sheep, the property of Robert Lake, at Milton Chapel, on the 12th December; and Andrews and Steer for receiving the same, well knowing them to have been stolen. Steer was also charged with feloniously receiving, harbouring, and maintaining Henry Hulgrave and others, well knowing them to have committed certain felonies.

Hulgrave pleaded "guilty."

Several of the gentlemen summoned on the jury were challenged by the learned counsel for the defence.

Mr. Russell was for the prosecution; Steer was defended by Mr. Ribton, Andrews by Mr. Francis, and Cook and Reeve by Mr. Barrow.

Mr. Russell, in stating the case for the prosecution, explained that the prosecutor was a farmer and estate agent at Milton Chapel, about two miles from Canterbury; Steer was the sub-contractor for supplying meat to the garison at Dover; Andrews was a person in the latter’s employ; Cook and Reeve were stablemen; and Hulgrave was the owner of a horse and cart. The case would be that Hulgrave, Cook, and Reeve had stolen the sheep, and Steer and Andrews had aided and abetted in the offence, as receivers. The learned counsel then stated the facts of the case, and called the following witnesses:—

Mr. R. Lake, the prosecutor, deposed:- I have a farm at Milton Chapel, near Canterbury. On the evening of Monday, the 19th December, I had five ewes in a field near the turnpike-road. Nest morning, at about half-past ten, I found they were missing. I noticed the marks of a cart in and out of the meadow. The sheep were marked "R.L." in pitch. They were worth £12 10s. altogether.

By Mr. Francis:- These five sheep were the only ones in the field. They were marked, perhaps, three months previously.

By Mr. Russell:- I should think the marks were fresh. Wm. Correy deposed:- I am a policeman, at Dover. I was on duty on the night of the 19th December. I noticed a horse and cart coming into Dover on that night. There were two men with the cart, which was covered with a sail-cloth. It was shortly before one o’clock. I saw the same cart returning from Dover towards Canterbury at about four o’clock; it was then empty. I was afterwards shown a horse and cart by the police at Canterbury, which I believe to be the same.

— Stokes, a pork butcher at Canterbury, said:- I was at Ashford market on the 20th December. Steer was also there. Steer said he was disturbed early in the morning by Andrews, who said there were some sheep come in from Wingham, and asked him to get up. When he got down he found four or five sheep lying there with their throats cut. He said something about sheep being lost, but I won’t be positive that he mentioned Mr. Lake’s name.

By Mr. Ribton:- I lent Steer a sovereign to pay for three sheep he had bought of Mr. Hart. I have known Steer for the last sixteen years, and have dealt with him several times. I know nothing against him.

By Mr. Russell:- I understood Steer to say he had not bought the sheep brought to him in the morning.

Robert Hart was next called, but was not examined.

Robert Bailey deposed:- I am a sergeant of police at Dover. On the 20th December I went to the slaughterhouse hired by Steer of a person named Farley. I asked Andrews if he had bought five sheep, marked "R.L." on the shoulder, as five had been stolen near Canterbury. He told me he had bought none, nor had any been offered for sale; but if he should he would let us know at once.

By Mr. Francis:- On the Thursday following he was handed over to my charge by Superintendent Walker. He said, "As soon as you were gone I said to Farley, 'Good God! they were never the five sheep I bought.'" He also said that he and Farley had overhauled the skins, but found no marks upon them.

Charles Worsell deposed:- I was at Steer’s slaughter house on the morning of the 20th December. There were four or five sheep hanging up in the slaughter-house. It was then about eleven o’clock. Steer said, "They are nice sheep, Worsell." I said, "Yes, they are." He then said, "They were brought here about two o’clock this morning, and I have got to give the man what I like for them, in regard to a fair price." Then he said, "I can’t give him less than a sovereign each for them." I replied, "No, if you get them for that you may do yourself some good." Two of them were much bruised. I am not positive whether I saw him next day.

Sergeant Hope, K.C.C., said:- On Wednesday, the 21st December, I went to Steer’s slaughter-house. I saw Andrews, and asked if any one had been there making enquiries about five sheep stolen on Monday night, near Canterbury. He said one of the police from Dover had been there. I then asked him if ne had any objection to my examining the skins he had. He said "No," and I examined the skins there, but found none with "R. L." on them. I asked him if he had bought or received any sheep since Monday. He said "No, only those he received from the governor (meaning Mr. Marten, of London); that he had only two mutton days — Wednesday and Fridays." He also told me, in answer to my questions that they sent the skins to Alderman Challiss, of London, but none had been sent since the 19th.

By Mr. Francis: ne said that sometimes the skins were sent away every day. He made no objection to my examining the premises or the skins.

Supt. walker, K.C.C., deposed:- On Thursday the 22nd of December, I went to Dover, and saw Andrews at the Citadel Barracks, serving out meat. I told him that five Kent ewe sheep belonging to Mr. Robert Lake, of Milton Chapel, had been stolen on the previous Monday night. I told him they were marked " R.L." and asked him whether he had received any. He replied " No." I told him I had traced the cart from Canterbury to a meadow, and thence down to Dover, and that I was told he was called up about two in the morning, and received the sheep. He denied this, and repeated the denial several times. I asked him if any skins had been sent away on the Tuesday, and he said some went to Mr. Challiss’s. He said Steer had gone to London but would be home at a certain time. About nine o’clock I saw Steer at the slaughter-house. I told him five sheep had been stolen, and that I had traced them to his slaughter-house. He said, "Did they come from Wingham way?" I said "No, they came from Mr. Lake’s, at Milton Chapel." He then said Andrews came to him about half-past five, on the Tuesday morning, and said, "I have had some sheep come in, and have been up all night." He (Steer) said, "Why did you not call me, and I would have got up and helped you." He said he then went to the slaughter-house, and saw four sheep in a bad state; that he thought about giving £3 10s. for the four of them, and was to pay for them in Canterbury, on Saturday. I told him I wanted to see Andrews, and he said ho would go and find him. After some time he came back and said he could not find Andrews. I told him I had traced the sheep to his place, and should hold him responsible. He then spoke to a female, went away again, and returned with Andrews. The latter then told me he had had five sheep brought in on the night in question by Hulgrave and another man he did not know; that all of the sheep were dead but one, which was in distress. He stated that the men asked 40s. each for the sheep, but he said he would leave it to Steer. Steer then said to him, "No, Walker says there were five; there where only four." Andrews said, "No, there were five." Andrews afterwards said ho would have told me about it before only he wanted to see Steer first. He also told me some skins were sent to Kelly’s on the Tuesday; that he had made a mistake in saying it was Chaliss’s. I then took Andrews into custody. When at the station, seeing Hulgrave, Andrews said, "That was the man I had the sheep of." Reeve and Cook were afterwards brought in custody to Canterbury, and on being charged with the offence, they admitted having helped to catch the sheep. On the Friday following I again saw Steer. He had told me previously he was going to pay for them at Canterbury, on Saturday. I asked him at what house, and he said he was going to pay for them in the market. I said, "Who are yon going to pay?" He said "A man." I asked him the name or the man. He said he did not know; that the man was to come to him to the market, and receive the money.

By Mr. Barrow:- Steer had three horses.

By Mr. Francis:- Andrews never said he "did not recollect being called up, as he was so often called," till they got down to Farley’s house, but he did say that then.

By Mr. Ribton:- Had known Steer for the last 13 or 14 years. Was not aware that he had thanked Steer for the information he had given in regard to this case. He said he would tell the magistrates he (Steer) had informed him that he had received four sheep. He seemed to make no reserve in what he told witness. He offered to go to Canterbury without a summons. A summons, however, was served on him. When he appeared at Canterbury this charge was brought against him.

Sub-sergeant Chard, K.C.C., deposed to having gone to Dover with Superintendent Walker, and confirmed what that witness had stated as to what passed between him and Andrews, adding that he went to bed at ten o’clock on Monday night, and did not get up till between five and six next morning.

Witness added:- On the 28th December I was taking Reeve to Canterbury. He said to his employer, named Godsmark, "I have been led into this affair; Hulgrave wanted me to go to Dover to keep him company. When we got to Dover we called Andrews up; and when he came down he said, ‘Look out for the bobbies.’ We then backed the cart in, and stopped while Andrews dressed them. Andrews said, ‘When you bring any more don’t serve them like this; they are nearly all dead. Keep them up on their hind parts.’ Andrews also showed us which way to come next time, and said Steer would pay us for them next Saturday, at Canterbury." I found some skins at the fellmonger’s, but they were in process of tanning, and none could be identified.

By Mr. Barrow:- I made a note of the conversation on the day it occurred. The expression Reeve used was that "Andrews said Steer would pay us for them" - not that he would pay for them at Canterbury.

Sergeant Hayward, Canterbury police, deposed:- I apprehended Reeve on the 23rd, at Mr. Godsmark’s stables, where he was employed as ostler. Told him the charge, when he paused for some time, and then said, "It’s no use telling a lie about it; I did go and help Hulgrave catch the sheep." I afterwards apprehended Cook at Mr. Godden’s stables. On charging him with the offence, he said, "Hulgrave asked me to go and help to catch them, and I went; it’s a cold job, I’m afraid.

This being the case for the prosecution, Mr. Ribton submitted that there was no case against Steer, but the Chairman decided that it must go to the jury.

Mr. Barrow addressed the jury on behalf of Cook and Reeve, and said he was sure, that with regard to Cook there was no evidence to show that he more than went to help catch the sheep, at the request of Hulgrave, and was not to receive any part of the proceeds. Now would they believe that any man would go and help to steal five sheep without receiving some portion of the plunder? Hulgrave told Cook that he had bought the sheep, and asked him to go and help to catch them for him, which he did. With respect to Reeve the evidence was certainly a little stronger, if the statement of the police constable Chard was to be believed; but the most remarkable part of that witness's evidence was that the statement made by Reeve was in the presence of Superintendent Walker, and yet Mr. Walker had said not one word about it; and Chard had admitted himself that his memory was so treacherous that he was obliged to carry notes in his pocket to refer to; now it would be for the jury to say whether they believed the testimony of that witness in so serious a matter as this. He should call a witness to Cook’s character, and he was sorry that as the Case had been removed from Canterbury it had prevented him from being able to call witnesses to the character of Reeve.

Mr. Francis addressed the jury on behalf of Andrews, who was charged with receiving the sheep, knowing them to have been stolen. He said he was sure that the jury would never come to the conclusion that Andrews, or in fact, any man in his right senses, would run the risk of a heavy and severe punishment for no possible purpose whatever. He was shown to be the servant of Steer and would not possibly receive the smallest amount of benefit from the transaction. The only point against Andrews was the statement made by the prisoner Reeve, and it was laid down by law, and he thought also by common sense, that the evidence of an accomplice, shall not be relied on. Again, a deal is made of his prevarication with Superintendant Walker, but it was only with the view of seeing his master first, which I think is a very reasonable act. When the question was put:- Did you buy any sheep marked "R.L.," he replied no; nor as there been a title of evidence to show that any sheep so marked had been received by him. This prevarication on which so much depends was brought about by the repeated questions of Superintendent Walker, which he (Mr. Francis) considered was very improper, and unjustifiable, a police-officer had no right to cross-examine a man who is charged with an offence. The moment Andrews had seen his master he disclosed everything, thus showing that the only desire he had was not to divulge his master’s business until he had seen him, and he (Mr. Francis) felt sure that they (the jury) would not convict him of felony for having done that. He had only acted the part of a faithful servant. Now with regard to his taking the sheep in at Steer's slaughter-house at one in the morning, why that was nothing; every farmer in the county knew well that if they had anything that wanted killing, or perhaps that had been accidentally killed, or had suddenly fallen ill, the first impulse was to send it to a butcher’s and make what they could of it, no matter at what hour in the night, and from some cause or other, the military contractor was generally sought out. He (Mr. Francis) knew not why, unless it was thought that these rare bits were of more service to the military than any one else. (Laughter.) However, it is a well known fact that there are numberless animals taken to a contractor's slaughter-house, in a very peculiar state and about which it would be unwise always to make the strictest investigation, and surely when this was well known to be the case it would be cruel to punish a servant, for taking in animals which were in a dying state, from some cause, and which were afterwards discovered to have been stolen. What would Steer have thought, what would any man think who is a contractor, if his slaughterman was always ready at the first question to divulge what sort of animals he had received into his premises? Why he would discharge him and everybody would say it served him right. He could not believe that twelve sensible men would for one moment ever think of finding a man guilty of felony, because he had endeavoured to serve his master honestly and faithfully.

Mr. Ribton, on behalf of Steer, said he was sorry to have to inflict upon the jury another oration, in the first place because they had been so bountifully and beautifully supplied by the learned gentlemen who had preceded him, and secondly, because he could not see what charge he had to answer. He was utterly at a loss to understand why Steer was there at all, and if the jury could see why, he must confess that they were much more clear-headed than he was. Why, in one count he was actually charged with stealing the sheep, when it was well known he was not within 20 miles of the place. The next count charged him with receiving them knowing them to have been stolen. Now how does the prosecution endeavour to prove this guilty knowledge? Why, by showing to you that when the sheep were brought, poor Steer was fast asleep. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Ribton) was not surprised that a dozen sober-minded men should laugh, for he never heard of so ludicrous a charge in the whole of his experience, and if the jury felt, as he thought they must feel, he expected every moment to be stopped, and Steer to be sent about his business. When Steer got up in the morning, he found that some patients had been brought in the night.

No uncommon thing at an army contractor’s; and that, as the case was an urgent one, Andrews had very properly attended to them at once. (Laughter.) When Worsley came into the slaughterhouse Steer showed them to him, and asked his opinion on them. Did this look like a guilty knowledge? When the police came he gave every information, without reserve. It was no crime for a man to buy a stolen article in ignorance. A great deal had been said about this not being mutton-day, but mutton-day or no mutton-day, these sheep wanted seeing to, three were dead and the other two were about to depart. (Laughter.) All this was going on while Steer was comfortable in bed, no doubt happy in the knowledge that he had got a good servant in Andrews, while unfortunate Andrews, no doubt, thought he was properly and diligently serving his master by killing these sheep to save their lives. (Laughter.) But, the worst is to come. For this imaginary offence here is poor Steer, arraigned like a felon. It was the most absurd charge he had ever heard of, and the dignitary, in whom the idea of arraigning Steer originated, will be looked upon as a luminary. Andrews had been represented to have said, "If you bring any more, set them up on their beam ends." What of that? Suppose you were to drive a cart-load of barristers to this court all huddled up, don’t you think it would be kind for some one to say, if you bring any more set them up on their beam ends! (Laughter.)

If Steer had known that these sheep had been stolen, do you think he would have gone to Ashford market the next day and talked about it. With regard to the price that he was to pay for them, why it was a well-known fact that, butchers expected animals in such a state at their own price. He (Mr. Ribton) had no hesitation in saying again and again, that Steer had no business to have been at that bar at all. He was sorry to see him there as he had always been a respectable young tradesman. He hoped the jury would excuse him for occupying so much of their time; and trusted that they would show their appreciation of justice by returning a verdict of "not guilty" against his client.

Mr. Barrow called Mr. Godden, Cook’s master, who gave a him an excellent character, and said that Mr. Godsmark, Keeve's employer, was prevented by illness from attending for a similar purpose.

The Chairman having summed up the case, the jury retired, and after an absence of about a quarter of an hour returned a verdict of "guilty" against all the prisoners, but recommended Cook to mercy.

The Court, having also retired to deliberate, the Chairman said the jury had given much attention to the case, and he thought every person who had heard it must agree that they had come to a right conclusion. The offence was a most serious one, and the sentence, therefore, would be as follows:— Cook, nine months’ hard labour; Hulgrave and Reeve, each two years’ hard labour; Andrews, five years' penal servitude; Steer, seven years’ penal servitude.

Steer, who seemed perfectly astounded at the sentence, wished to address the Court, protesting his innocence of the charge, but was told that the case had been decided upon.

From the Kentish Gazette, 16 May 1865

Charge of Obtaining Money Under False Pretences.

At the City Police Court on Saturday, a man named Sydney Hammon, a general dealer, was charged with obtaining £1 from Wm. Lummis under false pretences.

The prosecutor is a gunmaker, of King Street, and from evidence adduced by him, it appeared that on the Saturday after Easter day both men were drinking in the "Golden Lion" public house, St Peter’s, when the prisoner offered to sell a watch to prosecutor for a gun that he had with him and for 30s., representing the watch was silver and worth £3. The prosecutor had not the money with him, and the prisoner assented to him bringing it on the following Monday, and in the interim the watch was left in the care of the landlady. On the Monday the prosecutor offered to take it from the landlady on condition that the money be returned to him if a watchmaker said it was not worth the amount. The landlady refused and the prisoner came forward but would not accompany prosecutor to a watchmaker to see the value of the watch, stating that he had no licence for hawking goods. He offered to take £1 from the prosecutor, and await his return from the watchmaker with the watch for he remaining 10s. The prosecutor then gave him £1, and took it to a watchmaker, who said it was only worth 9s. 6d. He informed the prisoner of the value of the watch, and applied to him three times for the return of his money. The prisoner refused to give him the money, and said he might do what he liked in the case. The prisoner called several witnesses in defence, one of whom stated that the prosecutor first offered to buy the watch, and asked the prisoner what he wanted for it. Nothing was said of the value of the watch, or that it was made of silver. The Bench thought there was a doubt in the case, and dismissed the prisoner.

From the Kentish Gazette, 1 August 1865.

Transfer of Public House Licenses.

Yesterday, at the City Police Court, licenses were endorsed as follows:— The Golden Lion, King’s Bridge, from John Boughton to Edward Gardener, whitesmith, who has lately resided at Brabourne.

Kentish Gazette, 18 January, 1870.

Savage Assault.

A little, half-famished, elderly man named James Johnson. was charged with violently assaulting a man named Watson, landlord of the "Golden Lion," St. Peter's.

Complainant did not personally appear, his injuries being so serious as to render him incapable of leaving home.

The defendant, with his wife, had been lodging at the "Golden Lion," and had been given to quarrelling with his wife and otherwise creating disturbances. On Wednesday night he returned to his lodgings, and, on beginning his usual violent conduct, he was told by complainant that unless be behaved himself better he would have to leave the house. Upon this he became more abusive than ever, knocked complainant down, and while lying stunned upon the floor, kicked him so violently in the face that he fractured his nose in several places, completely pushing it to the right side of his face, and otherwise severely injuring him.

Mr. Alfred Andrews, surgeon, gave evidence as to the nature of complainant’s injuries, and certified the inability of complainant to attend the Court at present owing to the severe maltreatment to which he had been subjected. He did not apprehend any serious result from complainant's injuries as they at present appeared, but of course there was no saying with certainty that dangerous symptoms might not intervene.

The Mayor strongly condemned defendant's offence as barbarous and brutal.

Defendant expressed his own astonishment that a man so weak and ill as he himself was should have been able to knock down a man like the complainant; he couldn't understand it.

The Mayor said, whether he could understand it or not, it was evident on his own admission, that he had done so.

Defendant was then remanded to await the recovery of the complainant, and for the completion of the evidence.